Misleading reports about autism data - Page 16 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
#451 of 586 Old 04-25-2012, 06:41 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The point was made that the rates were lower in countries with fewer vaccines. Just pointing out that that's not true.

Norway? Also not that different than ours.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110228090611.htm
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#452 of 586 Old 04-25-2012, 06:41 PM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

Quote:
And the only thing worse than seeing vaccine-induced seizure/encephalopathy in a 2-month-old is seeing/hearing statements like yours.

My sympathy for your troubles and your son's condition, Taximom.  I'm talking about vaccines and autism, not vaccines and seizures.  

Super~Single~Mama likes this.
stik is offline  
#453 of 586 Old 04-25-2012, 06:52 PM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

banghead.gif We are going around in circles again. At some point you are going to have to accept that there IS disagreement over this.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

Taximom, for years people CLEARLY SAW WITH THEIR EYES that the sun revolved around the earth.  Every day!  How could you argue that they had it wrong?  How can you deny that the sun appeared over one side of the planet in the morning and disappeared over the other side at night?  How could you explain the way they CLEARLY SAW AND RECORDED WITH MANY, MANY PICTURES that they meticulously drew and checked and compared with other people's meticulous drawings if the sun and stars were not, in fact, revolving around the earth?  Those people were not stupid.  But they were misled.  By their eyes.  

 

No video can show what is happening inside a child.  Videos do not record structures in the brain or physical and/or biochemical mechanisms affecting those structures (or the structures in the gut, for that matter).  They do not record the child's DNA and the genes that DNA codes for or how the genetic make-up of that child interacts with the environment to produce the biochemical and neural stimuli that control behavior.  

 

All a video of an autistic child shows is an autistic child.  I do not have an explanation.  More research needs to be done to find an explanation.  There is no evidence that the cause is vaccines.  That means we need more research on other possible causes.  Asking me (or anyone else) to explain WHAT THE HECK IT IS IF IT'S NOT VACCINES!!!!! is not the answer.  There are dozens of studies on vaccines that have yielded no evidence.  After dozens of studies on the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism . . . we don't know what causes autism.  

dozens of studies with problems that are not sufficient in closing the case here

 

Back in the day, children got fewer vaccines, but more antigens.

more vaccines = more adjuvants and other special ingredients

 

 The quantities of adjuvants and antigens involved in vaccines are smaller than the quantities children encounter in ordinary daily life.

Vax antigens and adjuvants enter body bypassing all immune protection mechanisms. When is my kid going to come across ethyl mercurcy in ordinary daily life? formaldehyde? dna from a fetus aborted decades ago? Where is the safety guideline for how much mercury or aluminum  my child can safely be exposed to... and a number for fetus/infants/children, not adults?

 

Even if you continue to feel that vaccines are suspect, the methods we have available have yielded no evidence of that.  If it was as simple as looking at a video of a kid with autism - well, there's a lot of that video around and few ethical issues with making more.   The reason videos of autistic children haven't answered the question is because evidence of autistic behavior is not evidence of the cause of autism.  It's time to look at something else.

Who are you talking to? random people on the internet? I really, really doubt any of us are significantly threatening the vax program, you need not worry. We saw there is no large amount of your tax payer money going to this? I'm sorry Stik, I don't think you are exactly going to change minds here. You may have to accept that some people are going to disagree with you and continue to state that they believe there is a possibility of a vax/autism link. I don't think there is much you can do about it.

 

 

thegoodearth likes this.
Slmommy is offline  
#454 of 586 Old 04-25-2012, 07:20 PM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

Taximom, for years people CLEARLY SAW WITH THEIR EYES that the sun revolved around the earth.  Every day!  How could you argue that they had it wrong?  How can you deny that the sun appeared over one side of the planet in the morning and disappeared over the other side at night?  How could you explain the way they CLEARLY SAW AND RECORDED WITH MANY, MANY PICTURES that they meticulously drew and checked and compared with other people's meticulous drawings if the sun and stars were not, in fact, revolving around the earth?  Those people were not stupid.  But they were misled.  By their eyes.  

 

You keep saying this. For years people also followed the advice of physicians, science, the medicine of the day. People thought bloodletting was a great idea. That God/Devil, odors, or that body's humours out of balance was cause of Bubonic plague. 

That certain drugs and practices were totally a-ok/necessary: twilight birth, DES, Thalidomide, routine tonsillectomies, circumcision. Breastfeeding bad and solids as soon as possible for baby. Cigarettes? Those people were not stupid. But they were misled... by the science of their time.

Slmommy is offline  
#455 of 586 Old 04-25-2012, 07:43 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Earlier someone posted a study comparing vaccinated on schedule vs delayed children and the rate and age of onset for autism was the same. 

 

Nitpicking - but this is not strictly true.

 

The study was about 1000 people, so if autism was in 1% of the population, we are looking at about 10 people.  I sort of agree with you that small studies can sometimes have valuable results, but 10 is really small.

 

Moreover the test did not look at autism, per se, but other neurological developments.  General knowledge, cognitive abilities tests, etc.

 

There is more - but I will leave it at that.  Suffice to say, in my opinion,  the study does not prove that the age for onset of autism (which the study did not even mention) is the same in delayed versus on schedule.  I will admit, my look at the study was somewhat cursory. Interested parties can decide for themselves, of course.  

 

Here is the study in question:  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/6/1134/T1.expansion.html

 

 

 

Slmommy likes this.
purslaine is offline  
#456 of 586 Old 04-25-2012, 07:58 PM
 
nukuspot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I just wanted to add that I am in the middle of reading the book "Emperor of Maladies" which is about the history of cancer.  I am up to the chapter about the 1950-1970s when all leading doctors, surgeons, oncologists, and even the surgeon generals of the time said without hesitation that smoking does NOT have any link to lung cancer.  It was the little doctors, the medical students and interns, as well as concerned public who kept bringing the link back to public attention and asking for more and better quality research.  Fast forward to today and we KNOW without a doubt that the link is definitive.

 

It really made me think about this debate going on (vaccines linked to autism) so I wanted to post.  I don't personally feel strongly either way (vaccines do or don't cause autism) but I feel there is enough question on the subject that (among other reasons) I chose to hold off vaccinating my daughter because of the frank uncertainty.


Midwife mama bellycast.gif to DD1 bouncy.gif (4.5) and DD2 h20homebirth.gif (1.5)
nukuspot is offline  
#457 of 586 Old 04-25-2012, 08:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

 

 

My sympathy for your troubles and your son's condition, Taximom.  I'm talking about vaccines and autism, not vaccines and seizures.  

 

There is a significant subset of autistic children who had seizure reactions to vaccines, BEFORE their descent into autism. This is the subset you pretend does not exist, the subset who should be studied for a vaccine/autism link.  This is also the subset whose parents were told (as I originally was) that vaccines do not cause seizures, let alone autism, that their child would have had a seizure that day anyway, even if they'd never had one before or since.

BeckyBird likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#458 of 586 Old 04-25-2012, 08:29 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

Taximom, for years people CLEARLY SAW WITH THEIR EYES that the sun revolved around the earth.  Every day!  How could you argue that they had it wrong?  How can you deny that the sun appeared over one side of the planet in the morning and disappeared over the other side at night?  How could you explain the way they CLEARLY SAW AND RECORDED WITH MANY, MANY PICTURES that they meticulously drew and checked and compared with other people's meticulous drawings if the sun and stars were not, in fact, revolving around the earth?  Those people were not stupid.  But they were misled.  By their eyes.  

 

This is insulting.  What people thought they saw in terms of planetary rotation 400 years ago "with their eyes" has nothing to do with video evidence of a child before and after vaccines. Shame on you for belittling the parents who do have video evidence.

 

No video can show what is happening inside a child.  Videos do not record structures in the brain or physical and/or biochemical mechanisms affecting those structures (or the structures in the gut, for that matter).  They do not record the child's DNA and the genes that DNA codes for or how the genetic make-up of that child interacts with the environment to produce the biochemical and neural stimuli that control behavior.  

 

All a video of an autistic child shows is an autistic child.  I do not have an explanation.  More research needs to be done to find an explanation.  There is no evidence that the cause is vaccines.  That means we need more research on other possible causes.  Asking me (or anyone else) to explain WHAT THE HECK IT IS IF IT'S NOT VACCINES!!!!! is not the answer.  There are dozens of studies on vaccines that have yielded no evidence.  After dozens of studies on the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism . . . we don't know what causes autism.

 

Wrong.  Video of a normally developing child the day before vaccines, and the same child, clearly autistic, with severe neurodevelopmental problems the day after vaccines is similar to video of a healthy child before eating a peanut, and the same child covered in hives with throat swelling within a minute of eating the peanut.

 

Back in the day, children got fewer vaccines, but more antigens.  The quantities of adjuvants and antigens involved in vaccines are smaller than the quantities children encounter in ordinary daily life. Even if you continue to feel that vaccines are suspect, the methods we have available have yielded no evidence of that.  If it was as simple as looking at a video of a kid with autism - well, there's a lot of that video around and few ethical issues with making more.   The reason videos of autistic children haven't answered the question is because evidence of autistic behavior is not evidence of the cause of autism.  It's time to look at something else.  

 

You keep repeating the same strawman argument, but you've convinced nobody, because your logic is so obviously flawed.  It is very poor science indeed to compare an ingested ingredient with an injected one. 

 

The reason videos of autistic children haven't answered "the question" is that you and most of the scientific community are asking the wrong question.  Instead of looking for "the cause" of autism, we should be looking for the CAUSES of autism, as they relate to different subsets.

 

Just because one group of autistic children had no reactions to vaccines does not prove that vaccines didn't cause autism in the group who did have reactions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BeckyBird likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#459 of 586 Old 04-25-2012, 09:34 PM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

wrong thread...sorry

AbbyGrant is offline  
#460 of 586 Old 04-25-2012, 11:59 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
It is really not poor science to compare injected and ingested ingredients. The body handles both fairly well. I always hear that, but it isn't true and no one can explain to me what the alleged difference is.

The digestive system is not the only way the body has of dealing with foreign substances. Children accumulate FAR more aluminum, for example, through ingested sources than they do from injected ones. Aluminum levels in their blood are predominantly from ingested aluminum not injected aluminum. There is no measurable increase in aluminum in plasma after and injection with an adjuvant.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#461 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 12:10 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
And 1000 is really a substantial sample size for most studies. The sample size is 1000, not 10. I am not am expert on autism but I am an expert on statistics. Take any freshman statistics class at any university in the country and you will learn the same thing. I'm not sure what you would consider a large sample size, but tens of thousands really isn't necessary to get some
Legitimate results.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#462 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 12:12 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
This Is why the issue will never be settled, no matter how many studies show there's no link people will always insist there's some small subset they just didn't detect. Im curious what proportion of autism cases you think might be caused by vaccines. 5%? 10%? 50%?
Super~Single~Mama likes this.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#463 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 04:36 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

This Is why the issue will never be settled, no matter how many studies show there's no link people will always insist there's some small subset they just didn't detect. Im curious what proportion of autism cases you think might be caused by vaccines. 5%? 10%? 50%?

If you're an expert on statistics, you should know that studies can't "show there's no link." However, they can fail to show a link--which is very different. And they can purposely be set up to not show a link--one can easily find 1000 cancer-free heavy smokers; that doesn't show no link between smoking and cancer.

I think vaccines are just one causative factor in many cases of autism, combined with genetic and other environmental predispositions.

It's a foolish mistake to be looking for one magic bullet where there was a firing squad, but that's exactly what the studies do, and those studies are tweaked and twisted, anyway. "Look! We ruled out thimerosal in our study (by suppressing some of the evidence), therefore thimerosal causes NO HARM AT ALL! It's even good for you! Like broccoli!" "Look! We found that 90% of autistic twins are BOTH autistic, therefore autism is GENETIC!" (Never mind the likelihood of identical environment, including vaccines, combined with genetic predisposition, because we're only looking for ONE cause!). "Look! Japan removed MMR from their vaccine schedule and autism increased! That proves no link between vaccines and autism!" (Never mind that at the same time, they added other vaccines to the schedule."

If you are an expert on statistics, you should see the major flaws in the studies that purport to show safety; you should also see the conflict of interest in the industry, and the many instances of attempts to hide evidence of harm by the industry.

To fail to admit this, while posting reams of pro-vaccine propaganda, calls your motivation into question, be it professional (are you a paid Pharma-shill? Former pharmaceutical execs admit that this is standard.) or personal (do you have psychological reasons why you cannot admit a single flaw in the industry? Do your own beliefs, decisions, responsibilities, etc, come under attack here?).

You claim that parents alter the truth in their mind based on what they want to believe. It goes both ways. Parents who desperately believe in vaccines as a way to protect their child from "dread diseases" like flu, and doctors who blithely give vaccines to at-risk children who have reactions--they, too, may be altering the truth in their minds.

BeckyBird and Bokonon like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#464 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 04:41 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

Serenbat, I just really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Other stuff is wrong so don't bother?

Wrong thread AbbyGrant smile.gif

 

Rrrrrachel, we have already addressed the things you brought up *again* in your last posts. You can keep saying them if you want. Saying adjuvants are safe does not make them so. Lack of knowledge, reserach and  data does not gaurantee safety. Sorry, I don't think you are convincing anyone. would you like to go 10 more pages of "does not!" "does too!" posts? 

 

As for your last question about what percentage we feel perhaps vax has to do with autism... you really think anyone is feeling safe enough in this thread to put forth their personal ideas? You don't recognize the possibility, what's the point? What difference does it make if I think is 2% or 90%, or a small part in a huge combination of other factors? you believe it impossible. 

 

CrazyCatLady likes this.
Slmommy is offline  
#465 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 05:04 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I didn't say I believe it's impossible, I said there's no science to support it. I was just curious.

I understand that you don't feel sufficient research has been done on adjuvant safety, but what I said is still objectively true.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#466 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 05:15 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Ah, Beckybird…they are poo-pooing your suggestion.

 

They also did not like "let's study vaxxed versus non vaxxed populations"  or "lets delay vaccines to see if the autism rate changes".

 

I find it really surprising that the pro-vax community expect people to vaccinate when they will not give a little or look with an open mind on issues to parents.

 

 

The bolded is not at all what the pro-vax community has stated (I vax, but don't really give a damn if you or anyone else does - so I don't really know if that makes me "pro-vax" or just "vaxing").

 

What we keep saying is that studying non-vax vs. vax populations makes it too hard to control for too many variables. And a randomized double blind study is unethical. The "retrospective" studies that have been done so far don't tell us much, and certainly don't point to a connection. Could there BE a connection? There could be - but studying monkeys isn't going to get us there, and studies that are random and double blind are unethical, and retrospective studies have told us almost nothing so far.

 

I personally think looking for other causes would be a better use of time/resources. There are known risk factors for vax reaction, and further research into something else may show an indirect connection (if _____, combined with vax (under specific circumstances = autism sometimes. It's possible right? But by not studying other things, and beating the vax=autism horse we get nowhere) And if a parent self identifies their children as high risk for autism, they can selectively/delay vax, or not vax, if they think that will make a difference. My son is very very low risk for autism, so we don't worry about it, and so far he has no health issues (minor colds here and there, one incident of febrile seizures almost 2 years ago from a virus he caught at school, but nothing serious and he's well ahead of his peers developmentally). Other parents may choose something different - and that is their prerogative.

 

Nevermind the fact that no matter WHAT studies are done, and no matter WHAT they find (unless they find that vax=autism), the anti-vax community will not accept them, and will still try and state that they rigged it to make sure they found no link.

AbbyGrant likes this.
Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#467 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 05:18 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I haven't claimed that parents alter truth in their mind.

I don't think the industry is perfect, but I do believe in reviewing the entire body of evidence, the bulk of which seems to be pointing in one direction.

Various studies have actually rejected the link between various ingredients and autism, not just failed to find a connection but rejected that there is a connection. This is not a statistical conclusion, true, statistics can tell you theres no evidence in the data but not that evidence doesnt exist, but is sometimes the result of research. Usually because they combine the statistical findings with our theoretical knowledge of science and find a conclusion not biologically plausible.

I'm not sure why you keep consistently trying to make this conversation about me instead of the facts. I'm not that interesting.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#468 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 05:50 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

wrong thread...sorry

AbbyGrant is offline  
#469 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 05:57 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Wrong thread AbbyGrant smile.gif

 

 Sorry.  Thanks for letting me know.

AbbyGrant is offline  
#470 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 05:58 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

okay something really weird is going in with my computer folks so I'm sorry for all the misposting

AbbyGrant is offline  
#471 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 07:05 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

And 1000 is really a substantial sample size for most studies. The sample size is 1000, not 10. I am not am expert on autism but I am an expert on statistics. Take any freshman statistics class at any university in the country and you will learn the same thing. I'm not sure what you would consider a large sample size, but tens of thousands really isn't necessary to get some
Legitimate results.

 

The study did not look at autism.  It did not mention autism at all.  Have you read it?  Moreover, while the base of the study was 1000 people, only about 10 of them would be expected to have autism.  Any freshman class would consider studying 10 autistic people too small a number to draw conclusions from.  

 

I have other issues with the study, but none of them relate to autism, so I will leave it at that.

 

Moreover, way back at the beginning of this thread, a few pro-vaxxers suggested that the population of non vaxxers (1/100) was too small to study.  I believe you said it as well.  1/100 out of millions of children is too small - but a study that realistically would only have about 10 autistics kids in it is a fine sample size? You cannot have it both ways. 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#472 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 07:21 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 There are known risk factors for vax reaction, and further research into something else may show an indirect connection (if _____, combined with vax (under specific circumstances = autism sometimes.

 

I agree with this.

 

 

 

Side note....I know this was pages ago, but when I suggested comparing the unvaccinated with the vaccinated, I was referring to the animals in the experiment. Just wanted to clear that up!


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#473 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 07:26 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 There are known risk factors for vax reaction, and further research into something else may show an indirect connection (if _____, combined with vax (under specific circumstances = autism sometimes.

 

I agree with this.

 

 

 

Side note....I know this was pages ago, but when I suggested comparing the unvaccinated with the vaccinated, I was referring to the animals in the experiment. Just wanted to clear that up!

 

I got that. The problem is, primate brains are different than human brains - in a significant way. There is no reason to believe that primates reacting to something in a vax (be it adjuvant or anti-gen) would be the same as humans.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#474 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 07:38 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)

Then pick whatever animal would be the closest. I'm interested how the injected ingredients affect the entire mammalian body. Does it cause autoimmune disorders, difference in brain development, or any other significant differences?  We test shampoo on animals, but not injected vaccine ingredients?

 

This is how we've learned about the dangers of genetically modified foods--from animals. People noticed their animals were not doing well on GM feed. Once the feed was switched, the animals recovered. (GMOs were not safety tested before they were added to our food supply, by the way.)  Humans are having health problems, some of which could be a result of GM food. How can we study the dangers of GMO? By testing on humans? Of course not, we test on animals. Animals are not humans, but if there was evidence that GMOs harmed animals, would you want to feed them to your own child?

 

If vaccine ingredients caused major problems in the test animals, I would not think they would be safe for my child or yours.

Bokonon likes this.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#475 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 07:42 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

 

 

 

What we keep saying is that studying non-vax vs. vax populations makes it too hard to control for too many variables. And a randomized double blind study is unethical. The "retrospective" studies that have been done so far don't tell us much, and certainly don't point to a connection. Could there BE a connection? There could be - but studying monkeys isn't going to get us there, and studies that are random and double blind are unethical, and retrospective studies have told us almost nothing so far.

 

You put it in nicer words, but the result is the same:  The pro vax community throwing up obstacles to exploration.

 

 

 

Nevermind the fact that no matter WHAT studies are done, and no matter WHAT they find (unless they find that vax=autism), the anti-vax community will not accept them, and will still try and state that they rigged it to make sure they found no link.

 

Maybe? 

 

I suspect there are non-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers who are so entrenched in their position that they will not move.  There is a lot at stake, a lot of frustration, distrust, etc on both sides.  

 

So…this generation of people might be a lost cause when it comes to vaccine/autism discussion.

 

Time changes things, however.  A 100 years from now people will not be sitting around discussing this.  The answer will either be solved, or people will have moved on.  

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#476 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 07:45 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Kathy, you're no studying ten people, though, you're studying theatre of autism in all 1000 people. I thought there was a study posted that looked at the rate of autism, too, but maybe I am mistaken and it only looked at other cognitive disorders. I did not double check before I made the comment.

I think animal studies for other things vs. animal studies for autism are a little different. Animals have some things that are similar to humans, vascular systems, skin, etc, but autism is a neurological disorder (I assume) and a lot of it is about social skills, isn't it? I think our brains are the ingest way we're different from animals, so it would be extra challenging. I'm kind of talking out of my butt, though, maybe someone else knows more. Personally I think we may be able to learn something from an animal study, and vaccines have certainly been studied using animals before and we've learned useful things, with the usual caveat that someone has to have the money and the inclination to do it. If scientists don't think it will yield legitimate results for a variety of reasons about human vs animal physiology that are above my pay grade they're not going to do it.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#477 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 07:50 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Looks like they didn't look at autism specifically but they did look at a variety of autism related symptoms (tics, speech and language, behavior regulation, etc). Certainly not a perfect study (what study is) but I do think it has some relevance.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#478 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 08:06 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I know that people think autism is caused by different things for different people, so I'm not posting this study to prove anything, just because I think it was interesting.  It talks about how brains develop during the second trimester and how they think they might be developing a "time zone" for when autism develops in the womb (for some people, at least).

 

http://autismsciencefoundation.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/finding-the-time-zone-for-autism/

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#479 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 08:06 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Tics were found to be higher in males in the not delayed group.  Tics are neurological is base, so that might have implications for an autism/vax discussion.

 

I don't know if that is relevant though - because, really, how many came down with tics?  It might be too small to look at.

 

OT:  but seeing as you read the study:

 

My other issues were with design.  

 

Overall, the kids vaxxed on schedule seemed to do very slightly better on cognitive tests than kids not vaxxed on schedule.

 

However, the not-on-schedule group were slightly poorer, had slightly less educated parents, had more single parents, and their delays in schedule were more caused by parents not getting around to getting the shots done - versus parents who deliberately chose to delay.

 

I do not doubt the on schedule group performed slightly better on cognitive tests overall, but I doubt it was due to vax staus, lol.

 

Back to your regularly scheduled program….

 

 

 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#480 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 08:25 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Yeah, I don't think anyone is trying to claim from that study that vaxxed kids do better cognitively.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off