Misleading reports about autism data - Page 19 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-28-2012, 07:54 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Also, I'm curious why boys would be so much more affected than girls if it's ethyl mercury or aluminum or thimerosal or even other vaccine ingredients. In the US, the rate of autism for boys is 1 in 54 but 1 in 252 for girls. To me this suggests genetics and/or perhaps something in utero, but I'm interested to hear how it could be due to ingredients in vaccines given in infancy and early childhood. 
 

AbbyGrant is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-28-2012, 08:14 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There's literally no evidence delaying vaccines is safer.

That's not true.

Several of us have posted study after study indicating serious problems with earlier vaccination, especially regarding the birth dose of hep B. You've either ignored those studies or come up with criticisms of those studies WITHOUT criticizing far more serious flaws in the studies that purport to show safety. Indeed, your only response to criticisms of the industry-provided studies was that they were posted on anti-vaccination sites. Oh, and you took time to try to pick apart the qualifications of the researchers rather than admit the possibility that their research might show something that others--either funded by or trapped by industry--that others either missed or hid.

And when we've pointed out that the industry has a proven track record of hiding evidence of harm--you've been very quiet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think the original schedule is safe.

If you're referring to the current schedule, we've already posted evidence of harm.

It's possible to debate whether that harm is more widespread than the risk of complications from vaccine-preventable diseases, but you simply said that you think it's safe (i.e., no harm).

It's not.

And we've also posted arguments that the complications from vaccine-preventable diseases is misrepresented as being a significant risk in developed countries, when it's not.

You dismiss those arguments, too, with no proof to the contrary.

Basically, your position seems to be that CHOP and the vaccine manufacturers can do no wrong, and that every scientist and doctor who disagrees is either unqualified or wrong.

There is a large enough number of us whose children prove Offit and CHOP wrong, and enough studies showing the harm vaccines can and do cause that there is a growing numbered parents (including more and more doctors and nurses) who don't want to risk their children experiencing the harm that they are seeing more of, each year.

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 04-28-2012, 08:22 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

Also, I'm curious why boys would be so much more affected than girls if it's ethyl mercury or aluminum or thimerosal or even other vaccine ingredients. In the US, the rate of autism for boys is 1 in 54 but 1 in 252 for girls. To me this suggests genetics and/or perhaps something in utero, but I'm interested to hear how it could be due to ingredients in vaccines given in infancy and early childhood. 
 


http://www.greenhealthwatch.com/newsstories/newslatest/latest0701/mums-fillings.html


"Whereas the female hormone oestrogen decreases thimerosal’s toxic effects, the male hormone testosterone greatly increases its toxicity. Exposing neurons to even a tiny concentration of either thimerosal or testosterone alone killed 5% in three hours. Three hours exposure to the same concentration of thimerosal with just one nanomolar of testosterone added killed all 100%. This may explain the four-to-one ratio of boys to girls that become autistic and the fact that boys represent the vast majority of the severe cases of autism."

http://www.ewg.org/node/8504

"Males are much more likely to be diagnosed with autism or learning and behavioral disorders, possibly due to a reduced capacity to combat oxidative stress. Interestingly, males are also more sensitive to early life mercury exposure than females. Human epidemiological studies find boys to be more susceptible to the cardiac effects of mercury. Dr. Philippe Grandjean reported effects on blood pressure and heart rate variability in Faroese boys with mercury concentrations between one and 10 µg/L (Sorensen 1999). EPA's 'safe' dose of mercury translates to approximately 5.8 µg/L. Studies of mass mercury poisoning in Minamata, Japan report a skewed birth ratio due to increased fetal death for males (Sakamoto 2001). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that boys had higher concentrations of mercury in hair than girls, but these differences were not statistically significant (McDowell 2004). These findings are mirrored in laboratory animals (Vahter citing Gimenez-Llort 2001)."

I would add here that concentration of mercury in hair doesn't show how much mercury crossed the blood-brain barrier and remained behind, which is what causes the neurological damage. So it would seem to me that they're barking up the wrong tree by looking at hair in the first place, unless it's just to confirm mercury exposure.

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 04-28-2012, 08:30 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

       Quote:

 

It's the Dept. of Ophthamology study again. This thread really is getting long. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the researchers state:

 

"Clearly, we cannot draw definite conclusions regarding the link between Al adjuvants and autism based on an ecological study such as the present one and hence the validity of our results remains to be confirmed. A case control study with detailed examination of vaccination records and Al body burden measurements (i.e., hair, urine, blood) in autistic and a control group of children would be one step toward this goal. Nonetheless, given that the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed, it would seem ill advised to exclude pediatric vaccinations as a possible cause of adverse long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, including those associated with autism. We have thus provided a hypothesis which we hope will encourage future research into this area in order to resolve the issue of whether or not vaccines might be responsible in some part for the growing prevalence of autism in the developed world. Such future research should consider the following: (i) the postnatal period represents a very sensitive phase in development during which the physiology of the nervous as well as the immune system can be influenced and sometimes permanently changed."

 

So at best, the answer from this study would be we don't know. 

(edited: bolding Taximom's)
.

No, at best, the answer from this study is exactly as they state: "Nonetheless, given that the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed, it would seem ill advised to exclude pediatric vaccinations as a possible cause of adverse long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, including those associated with autism. "

Let's make sure not to ignore, as you did, that it is a given that "the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed."
Taximom5 is online now  
Old 04-28-2012, 08:36 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
We have a very different interpretation of what's gone on in this thread, taxi mom. Although to be fair I don't read your posts very carefully after the one where you questioned my motherhood.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 08:38 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

      Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

.No, at best, the answer from this study is exactly as they state: "Nonetheless, given that the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed, it would seem ill advised to exclude pediatric vaccinations as a possible cause of adverse long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, including those associated with autism. "
Let's make sure not to ignore, as you did, that it is a given that "the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed."

 

That is their opinion. They did not prove that or do a study about that.  I'm "ignoring" it for that reason. And notice I didn't creatively snip it out of the paragraph. I posted it. I'm not trying to hide anything here. By the researchers own admission, their study did not prove anything and only created a hypothesis. Period.

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 09:27 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

That is their opinion. They did not prove that or do a study about that.  I'm "ignoring" it for that reason. And notice I didn't creatively snip it out of the paragraph. I posted it. I'm not trying to hide anything here. By the researchers own admission, their study did not prove anything and only created a hypothesis. Period.

 

This is also the opinion  -  that there are significant unanswered questions about vaccine adjuvants and safety, reactions, autism, autoimmune disorders --  is also the same opinion Ratajczak has, and Bernadine Healy had, and Dr. Sears (? not sure if he calls for more research but he admits a lot is unknown?), and countless other pediatricians, drs, researchers, thousands and thousands of parents, vaccine safety advocate organizations, etc. that all usually get discounted and ignored by "pro-pro" vax in .2 seconds.

"we have no evidence that there is an issue" -ok, well you have researchers, drs, phds writing papers and presenting issues which have not be sufficiently studied. If you want to ignore that then there NEVER will be anymore evidence whether or not some of the issues we have brought up are true problems or not. Ignoring something does not mean it does not exist, and if studies are never done, how the heck will anything ever been found? My opinion is that quite enough already has been found or put forth to warrant much more concern than is officially displayed.

 

Even this thing I linked earlier about aluminum toxicity brings this up.:  "It has also been linked to vaccine-associated macrophagic myofasciitis and chronic fatigue syndrome, thus highlighting the potential dangers associated with aluminum-containing adjuvants as described recently.[13] "  http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-overview

 

The law review I spoke of earlier was calling for congress and official investigation into VICP and the autism cases already compensated in vax court.

 

Do you want to keep ignoring these things? That's fine I guess. Don't expect some of us to. 

 

If Paul Offit or AAP admitted that maybe there is question in adjuvant safety or possible autism/vax link, we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

Seems like until they do, some of you will not believe there could be possibility of any issue. And while the research/hypotheses put forward are marginalized, ignored, or maligned and discounted, nothing is going to change.

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 09:33 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

nm...I don't care anymore how aluminum could affect boys and girls differently...I'm done.

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 09:40 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

       Quote:

Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

Do you want to keep ignoring these things? That's fine I guess. Don't expect some of us to.

 

slmommy, the study was posted to answer the question "do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?"  I was simply pointing out it doesn't answer the question. There's no reason to get nasty about it. Just because I have a different interpretation of the facts does not mean I have my head up my butt. And I'm not asking you to ignore anything.  You are free to decide what you like. I was simply posting here because it's about researching the issue, and I wanted to try to make sure there was a representation of both sides of the issue.  But I see that's not allowed. And I'm sure much of what I posted was ignored. I can't believe some people complain about how hostile the pro-vax side is. Sorry I offended you and everyone else here with my opinions based on my research about the issue since my son was identified with autism. I'm bowing out of this now to go spend time with my kids. Have fun.

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 10:01 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

slmommy, the study was posted to answer the question "do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?"  I was simply pointing out it doesn't answer the question. There's no reason to get nasty about it. Just because I have a different interpretation of the facts does not mean I have my head up my butt. And I'm not asking you to ignore anything.  You are free to decide what you like. I was simply posting here because it's about researching the issue, and I wanted to try to make sure there was a representation of both side of the issue.  But I see that's not allowed. And I'm sure much of what I posted was ignored. I can't believe some people complain about how hostile the pro-vax side is. Sorry I offended you and everyone else here with my opinions based on years worth of research as a parent on vaccines, just like everyone else here, and a years worth of autism research since my son was identified with it. I'm bowing out of this now to go spend time with my kids. Have fun.

 

Didn't mean to offend you. How exactly was I being nasty? You said you would ignore it, I just said don't expect anyone else to. I guess it is just frustrating to continually have everything posted dismissed because it is not from CHOP. I can only imagine how it is for some of these researchers. Sorry you were offended.

 

Anyway, I do not know about possible difference between male and female accumulation and excretion of metals, but one thing I thought might be of interest here is the differences between male and female immune systems, and maybe of interest to those interested autoimmune, as women usually have more autoimmune disorders.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201100047/abstract

 

Quote:
The unique mode of inheritance of the X chromosome is ultimately the cause of the immune disadvantage of males and the enhanced survival of females following immunological challenges.

 

Quote:

Dr Eleanor Fish, professor of women’s health and immunobiology at the University of Toronto, said of the findings in the BioEssays journal: ‘The advantages of having two X-chromosomes as opposed to an X- and a Y-chromosome are huge. 

‘MicroRNAs are very important for regulating proteins that would influence cell growth and cancer, and the immune response. 

‘They can suppress proteins that promote cancer and boost proteins that do the opposite.’

If women develop a mutation on a gene linked to the immune system on the X-chromosome, they have a backup copy. But men do not. 

From a biological point of view, she added, the difference has probably evolved because women are more likely to ensure the survival of a species.

...

However, there is a downside to a woman’s super immunity, said Dr Fish: ‘It favours resistance to infection with a more robust immune response but once you have got infection then it can result in a more severe inflammatory response. 

‘This means women are more likely to develop autoimmune diseases and they may suffer flu more badly than men.’

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2042665/Women-superior-immune-systems-men.html?ITO=1490

 

One of Ratajczak's questions also addresses male/female issue, but that didn't go over well here either.

 

Quote:
The human DNA from the vaccine can be randomly inserted into the recipient’s genes by homologous recombination, a process that occurs spontaneously only within a species. Hot spots for DNA insertion are found on the X chromosome in eight autism-associated genes involved in nerve cell synapse formation, central nervous system development, and mitochondrial function (Deisher, 2010). This could provide some explanation of why autism is predominantly a disease of boys. Taken together, these data support the hypothesis that residual human DNA in some vaccines might cause autism.

 

 

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 10:12 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

       Quote:

Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

Didn't mean to offend you. How exactly was I being nasty? You said you would ignore it, I just said don't expect anyone else to.

 

If you don't understand why is was nasty, then I don't know what to tell you.  And notice "ignoring" was in quotes. I was being what I thought was obviously sarcastic because Taximom5 said I was ignoring it. I wasn't ignoring it.  The sentence just had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making. And then I get accused of ignoring it.  eyesroll.gif For pete's sake, I can't believe this is being argued over. The study came to the conclusion that they couldn't draw a conclusion about aluminum causing autism but that they came up with a hypothesis. I'm really done now. I can see that any questioning of the theory that vaccines cause autism is unacceptable. I'll leave everyone to the echo chamber. And yeah, that's probably a little petty, but this is the last straw after being told I have no right to speak and to stop saying things and now I apparently I want to keep ignoring things. It's getting old.

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 12:32 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

       Quote:

 

It's the Dept. of Ophthamology study again. This thread really is getting long. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the researchers state:

 

"Clearly, we cannot draw definite conclusions regarding the link between Al adjuvants and autism based on an ecological study such as the present one and hence the validity of our results remains to be confirmed. A case control study with detailed examination of vaccination records and Al body burden measurements (i.e., hair, urine, blood) in autistic and a control group of children would be one step toward this goal. Nonetheless, given that the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed, it would seem ill advised to exclude pediatric vaccinations as a possible cause of adverse long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, including those associated with autism. We have thus provided a hypothesis which we hope will encourage future research into this area in order to resolve the issue of whether or not vaccines might be responsible in some part for the growing prevalence of autism in the developed world. Such future research should consider the following: (i) the postnatal period represents a very sensitive phase in development during which the physiology of the nervous as well as the immune system can be influenced and sometimes permanently changed."

 

So at best, the answer from this study would be we don't know. 

Blue mine.  For some of us, not knowing ( not just this on this issue, but many related to vaccination) is good enough to think hard about vaxxing.  This isn't about vaccines and it isn't about autism:  controversy and "not knowing" would give me pause on any medication someone suggested my children take.  

 

 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 12:40 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

       Quote:

I'm really done now. I can see that any questioning of the theory that vaccines cause autism is unacceptable. I'll leave everyone to the echo chamber. 

 

I am not sure why you think this.  Did a mod ask you to edit or refrain from posting or something?  I get a poster did, but people on all sides of this issue get a little hot under the collar sometimes.  

 

As per it being an echo chamber - on this page slmommy, taximom and myself have posted in favour of exploring the vaccine/autism connection and you and rrrrrachel have posted views from the other side.    It is hardly a one sided debate.  I  do think the non-vax contingent is more heavily posting (slightly) but that is hardly an echo chamber.  

 

I have actually thought this discussion was really worthwhile.  So many people are afraid to discuss the possible autism/vaccination connection - and here we have oodles of pages of discussion, links, experiences for questioning parents.  

 

 

purslaine is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:43 PM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

       Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Did a mod ask you to edit or refrain from posting or something? 

 

No.

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 02:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

. I can see that any questioning of the theory that vaccines cause autism is unacceptable. .


Again, you have it wrong. Backwards, in fact. It is you have decided that questioning the Pharma-funded conclusion that vaccines are NOT linked with autism is unacceptable ("let's not waste money on research in that direction, it's been asked and answered.")

You haven't questioned the vaccine/autism theory. You have dismissed it entirely.

There has been much discussion here about what might put children at risk for vaccine reaction, with or without autism, but you even dismiss the possibility that parents have the ability to recognize both true vaccine reaction and onset of autism symptoms.

Your agenda on this thread has been to attempt to prove every aspect of the vaccine-autism theory wrong, except for when you asked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

Also, I'm curious why boys would be so much more affected than girls if it's ethyl mercury or aluminum or thimerosal or even other vaccine ingredients. In the US, the rate of autism for boys is 1 in 54 but 1 in 252 for girls. To me this suggests genetics and/or perhaps something in utero, but I'm interested to hear how it could be due to ingredients in vaccines given in infancy and early childhood. 
 


So we posted answers to your question.

Your response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

   nm...I don't care anymore how aluminum could affect boys and girls differently...I'm done.


That says it all, doesn't it?









Taximom5 is online now  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:17 PM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

       Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Again, you have it wrong. Backwards, in fact. It is you have decided that questioning the Pharma-funded conclusion that vaccines are NOT linked with autism is unacceptable ("let's not waste money on research in that direction, it's been asked and answered.")
You haven't questioned the vaccine/autism theory. You have dismissed it entirely.
There has been much discussion here about what might put children at risk for vaccine reaction, with or without autism, but you even dismiss the possibility that parents have the ability to recognize both true vaccine reaction and onset of autism symptoms.
Your agenda on this thread has been to attempt to prove every aspect of the vaccine-autism theory wrong, except for when you asked:
So we posted answers to your question.
Your response:
That says it all, doesn't it?

 

I said nevermind I don't care anymore because I didn't want to leave an open question on a thread I was no longer going to participate in. There are other places to find the information.  I don't know what you mean "when we answered" as I didn't see an answer to the question.  You provided some info about mercury after my first question.  The question I deleted was about aluminum. 

 

Your tone here is such a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier.  The hostility and personal attacks are just not worth dealing with. And you might want to go back and re-read the thread before you post lies about what I've said or accuse me of being ignorant. Not agreeing with you does not mean I've just dismissed things out of hand or not questioned things. Anyway, the fact that you continually have to stoop to such levels doesn't do much for you or your cause. Questioning whether people are really mothers or pondering about how otherwise seemingly decent people could hold such views. eyesroll.gif It's just stupid.

 

And with that I really really really am done..unsubscribing and blocking a certain member done. peace.gif

 

 

(edited to change members to member)

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:46 PM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

AbbyGrant, you are probably never coming back or have me blocked or whatever, but I was feeling bad about this and re-read it, I think in the am I didn't follow your replies with taximom as well as I should have, but I am not going to change my post because some of the "you"s were meant to be more plural then maybe it came across as. I already apologized to you.

 

I have posted numerous things that get no response and then a few pages later, someone will say there is no evidence, or something of the sort. 

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:56 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree AbbyGrant. There are certain posters who are pretty well intolerable. Taxi being one of them - according to her vaxing mothers aren't mothers at all (mods, if you ask me to remove this, I will on the condition that Taximom be required to edit the post where she claimed the above, which I flagged to no apparent response).
Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:08 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Slmommy: I think we disagree over evidence. I am not trying to get into a back and forth, just clarifying in case you think I was ignoring you (which is a frustrating feeling). I also cant remember for sure if you did these things and I'm not going back to check, so take it with a grain of salt.

Using aluminum as an example, I don't think posting research that shows aluminum is toxic in high doses (we know it is) or a paper where someone speculated what aluminum adjuvants might do qualifies as research. I get that a lot where I say "there's no evidence aluminum in these doses is toxic" and then someone posts a paper where someone once said maybe it was or pointed out there haven't been a bunch of studies on adjuvant safety. Neither of those are evidence aluminum is toxic. So I keep saying there's no evidence.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:09 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
According to her we aren't even people let alone mothers.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:28 PM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Rrrrrachel, a more simple point was how many times you stated ingestion/injection is the same. I posted several things concerning that, probably the most "reliable" in your eyes today. But, whatever. Everyone is pretty pissed and frustrated I think.

 

I don't really know what to say. I don't even really know what the point is here anymore. Neither side will budge and continues to dismiss everything from the other side. I guess the thing a bit more frustrating on "my" end is that the alternative/non/anti vaxing is a minority position, often ridiculed or worse, so the tension is already probably a bit high from this side.

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:33 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I guess I missed that. They're not the same, but the body eliminates the aluminum the same way. Either way, I'm sorry if i made you feel ignored, it wasn't intentional. I post mostly from tapatalk and for some reason on this forum it can be very difficult to read posts that are quote heavy or if they're coming fast and thick.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:34 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
And it may be a minority position in general, but not usually on boards like this one. I've had people say some pretty nasty things to me as a result of my pro vaccination position, so I do empathize. I respect that you're doing what you think is best for your family even though it's not always easy.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 05:16 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This is a long thread and people on both sides have said some inappropriate or badly worded things.

 

I could point them out if anyone really does not see this, but otherwise I will leave it at that.

 

Also, and I mean this in the best possible way, anyone engaging in a discussion on autism and vaccination must expect strong emotions and should expect that staunch believers in either direction are unlikely to move based on one discussion!  Does it make it acceptable to write in a disrespectful manner - no, it doesn't.  

 

I do think we did some good things (yes, I am a Pollyanna) - including the many links, ideas etc before this thing went south.  I also do not doubt that everyone is here because they care about children, vaccines and autism.  

 

I genuinely hope everyone has a great weekend.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 06:48 AM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arabia!
Posts: 38,755
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)

Repeating QueenoftheMeadow's warning to this thread a week ago:

 

 

 

Quote:
This thread is getting a bit on the snarky side.   In this forum, we allow differing opinions, as long as they are expressed within the UA.  There is a lot of great debate, and I don't want to have to shut the thread down, so please keep things about the issues and not about each other.  Thanks.

This is a final warning. Please stop the nastiness and have this discussion peacefully and respectfully. If someone does post inappropriately report it and refrain from commenting about it on the thread. Those who fail to heed this warning may lose their posting privileges. 


cynthia mosher is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 01:04 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher View Post

Repeating QueenoftheMeadow's warning to this thread a week ago:

 

 

 

Quote:
This thread is getting a bit on the snarky side.   In this forum, we allow differing opinions, as long as they are expressed within the UA.  There is a lot of great debate, and I don't want to have to shut the thread down, so please keep things about the issues and not about each other.  Thanks.

This is a final warning. Please stop the nastiness and have this discussion peacefully and respectfully. If someone does post inappropriately report it and refrain from commenting about it on the thread. Those who fail to heed this warning may lose their posting privileges. 


I did report. Why was it ignored?
Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:19 AM
 
Mosaic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: La vida loca
Posts: 3,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

I did report. Why was it ignored?

It's not ignored, but to be honest I'm not typically online during the weekends. Feel free to PM an admin or a mod who is online if you see something that needs to be dealt with immediately.

ETA, I just checked the queue and can't find the particular post you say that you flagged. Can you flag it again, please, or PM me a link?

Mi vida loca: full-time WOHM, frugalista, foodie wannabe, 10+ years of TCOYF 

 

R-E-S-P-E-C-T spells BRAND NEW User Agreement!!

Mosaic is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 08:46 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Post 198 in a HUGE thread, bolded mine:

 

 

Quote:
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090218_autism_environment/index.html

UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute study shows California's autism increase not due to better counting, diagnosis

"The incidence of autism by age six in California has increased from fewer than nine in 10,000 for children born in 1990 to more than 44 in 10,000 for children born in 2000.
A study by researchers at the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute has found that the seven- to eight-fold increase in the number children born in California with autism since 1990 cannot be explained by either changes in how the condition is diagnosed or counted — and the trend shows no sign of abating."


On is thread, we have one group of people saying thing like, "here are studies that show a link between vaccines (or specific vaccine ingredients) and autism, and that may help explain why there has been such a drastic increase over the last decade."

Then there's the other group--the one posting things like, "these vaccines/ingredients have been used safely for ages, so they couldn't possibly cause any harm, and those studies indicating harm, and a relationship to autism, those can't be right, and there isn't a real increase in autism, anyway."

Funny, the tobacco manufacturers made pretty much the same arguments...

Now, if the pro-vaccine group actually admitted that vaccines have caused severe harm to many individuals, that the harm is far greater than vaccine manufacturers admit (and therefore greater than doctors know), that yes, of course, something should be done about it immediately, but in spite of that, they still believe in the importance of vaccines, then I would think we were dealing with real mothers on this forum.

But to systematically attempt to dismiss EVERY concern about vaccines, to attempt to dismiss EVERY last study that does indicate vaccine harm (but say nothing of the obvious and far worse flaws in the studies that supposedly indicate safety)--and then to pretend that there has been no real increase in autism? The agenda there is obvious.

 

I tried to merely flag, but a box with red lettering came up and said that I had already flagged it and couldn't flag it again.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 09:17 AM
 
Mosaic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: La vida loca
Posts: 3,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Taximom, it appears as though several members feel you are saying they are not "real mothers" if they support vaccination.

Though you're certainly not the only one to make a comment that has ruffled some feathers, maybe you and others would like to clarify or apologize for vearing off topic and getting a bit personal.

Otherwise, y'all, maybe it would be better to start over fresh. I think this thread has some helpful info in it, but it may have run its course.

Mi vida loca: full-time WOHM, frugalista, foodie wannabe, 10+ years of TCOYF 

 

R-E-S-P-E-C-T spells BRAND NEW User Agreement!!

Mosaic is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 10:19 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

I'm happy to clarify.


I am not saying that those who support vaccination are not "real mothers".  I used to support vaccination.  My children had severe reactions to their vaccines BECAUSE I let them be vaccinated. That certainly didn't make me less of a "real mother."

 

I do have concerns (the old "strangers on the internet" worry) when I see people posting that mothers who report their childrens' seizure reactions to vaccines (and subsequent braindamage) are only imagining that it's caused by the vaccine, and when I see the same people dismissing every single valid concern about vaccines, and defending the vaccine program as if it were completely safe and as though Big Pharma had never demonstrated a lack of ethics anywhere, I naturally question where that line of thinking comes from.

 

If that offends people here who are real mothers, then I do apologize.  But my concern is not that people support vaccination. It's the attack on those who question vaccine safety that raises red flags for me.

Taximom5 is online now  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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