Misleading reports about autism data - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 08:35 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,498
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

    

 

     

       Quote:

 

And I find it equally disgusting when autism is used to further an anti-vaccine, anti-"big-pharma," anti-western medicine, anti-whatever agenda. I think the reason the issue probably gets marginalized is because some of the more vocal opponents do come off as conspiracy theorists or worse yet have a financial interest in promoting the idea.  There's a lot of money to made off "curing" children of autism supposedly caused by vaccines. There's an entire industry based on squeezing money out of desperate parents, and it's based on pseudoscience, and that's putting it kindly. It's probably hard to hear the voices of reason underneath all that. 

 

The biggest group looking to make money off autism is the pharma industry. It certainly isn't the relatively small group of DAN! doctors or the supplement industry. So it looks like big pharma is about to cash in on all those desperate parents, with their own brand of junk science.

 

New Autism Research Program: Big Pharma Profit Center With Taxpayers Help

 

 

 

 

Quote:

The European Union has partnered with pharmaceutical corporations and Autism Speaks for the sole purpose of developing drugs to cram down the throats of autistics. Rather than doing honest research into the causes of this devastating condition, money is being poured into finding ways to suppress its symptoms.

A new organization, European Autism Interventions – A Multicentre Study for Developing New Medications  (EU-AIMS), has been formed to benefit Big Pharma’s bottom line at the expense of autistics. The plan is to simply accept that autism is here, in spite of its nonexistence or near nonexistence a few decades ago. The organization has no interest in autism prevention.

 

The goals of the collaboration are:

 

To develop and validate "translation research approaches" for the advancement of novel therapies. (ie development of drug therapies - who stands to make money there?). 

 

To set new standards in research and clinical development to aid the drug discovery process. (More drugs, more money for big pharma).

 

Develop sites across Europe for clinical trials on autism and, create an "interactive platform for ASD professionals and patients". (Research and market development opportunities for these new drugs)

 

 

This is all about profit. Autsim is a huge potential market and profit center for big pharma and they are poised to make the most of the 1 in 88 children with ASD, and with the rate rising it is only going to become an even bigger market for the "therapies".

 

The three groups involved in this collaboration are the pharmaceutical companies, universities and research centers and Autism Speaks. The pharma industry and the research intitutions are benefiting by the tune of  €29.6 million (US$38.7 million). As the article states:

 

 

 

Quote:

Researchers are receiving a nice boost in income and pharmaceutical corporations are anticipating more drugs with their associated profits. But they aren’t the primary source of funding. And neither is Autism Speaks, though they’re giving $1 million.

 

No the primary funder is the European tax payer.

 

 

 

Quote:
The European taxpayer is the big philanthropist, through the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking, which is funded primarily by the EU government, with additional funds from the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, which of course, exists for the purpose of promoting Big Pharma’s bottom line.

 

BeckyBird likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#62 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 08:38 AM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

 

I wish more hcps would take a more Dr. Sears-ish attitude, and at least recongize that vax *may* have issues, or that it is not fully known, and parents should be able to make decisions about sel/del. I also get a little bit more upset when I feel that qualified hcps or official health orgs are lying to me than when some random "dr" marketing some random alt. health thing on the internet. 

 

I am fortunate that our pediatrician is not just accepting of our decision to not vax/delay vaxes, but supports and even encourages it. 


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#63 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 08:43 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 AbbyGrant View Post

 

And I find it equally disgusting when autism is used to further an anti-vaccine, anti-"big-pharma," anti-western medicine, anti-whatever agenda. I think the reason the issue probably gets marginalized is because some of the more vocal opponents do come off as conspiracy theorists or worse yet have a financial interest in promoting the idea.  There's a lot of money to made off "curing" children of autism supposedly caused by vaccines. There's an entire industry based on squeezing money out of desperate parents, and it's based on pseudoscience, and that's putting it kindly. It's probably hard to hear the voices of reason underneath all that. 

 

There is a lot of volatile emotions on both sides of the vaccine debate, and they are never more volatile than when talking about autism.

 

It is the medical communities job, though, to look through the high emotions and controversy, and search for truth.

 

I have no issues (nada) with a parent on a forum who cannot see past their POV.  I am sure I have been guilty of that myself on occasion, lol.  We all have our own baggage, histories, etc.  I do have issues with medical professionals who wear blinders, though.  It is their job to investigate, be accountable, etc.  No medical program should be above scrutiny - and sometimes it seems that the vax program is.  That is not good science. 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#64 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 08:46 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

 

Why do you assume that?  What would be the harm in trying?  NOT doing these kinds of studies isn't helping anyone, and raises a lot of questions.

 


Why do I assume that?  Because there are a lot of variables that come into play when it comes to parents that choose to vaccinate and those that don't. It would be damn near impossible to factor out all those out.  A non-randomized study would be less reliable to say the least than a randomized one (which would be unethical).  Whoever lost so to speak could poke a million holes in it. 

 

Super~Single~Mama likes this.
AbbyGrant is offline  
#65 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 09:19 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

       Quote:

Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

I wish more hcps would take a more Dr. Sears-ish attitude, and at least recongize that vax *may* have issues, or that it is not fully known, and parents should be able to make decisions about sel/del/non (as opposed to how very often vax concerns get glossed over or patients get kicked out of practice). I also get a little bit more upset when I feel that qualified hcps or official health orgs are lying to me than some random "dr" marketing some random alt. health thing on the internet. 

 

I guess I've never felt I was being lied to my my children's pediatrician or even the official health organizations about vaccines. Not saying that doctors are incapable of lying, but my kids doctor is pretty awesome and is fully supportive of my choices.  As far as the AAP and the CDC and such, while I have felt they have underestimated my intelligence (probably because they are preaching to the masses), and I do question some of their recommendations, I've never felt they were "lying."  Multiple large organizations "lying" would involve a conspiracy, and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But when some "random dr" on the internet is lying to steal money from desperate parents, now that pisses me off.

AbbyGrant is offline  
#66 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 09:31 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 AbbyGrant View Post

I've never felt they were "lying."  A large organization lying would involve a conspiracy, and I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

 

I don't think you have to out and out lie to be deemed untrustworthy.  Lack of transparency, conflict of interest on committees, etc, are all concerning.

 

I am not sure why you (and prosciencemom) brought the word "conspiracy theory" into this discussion.

 

It is a little dismissive and over-generalising. 

 

It is very possible to question vaccines and their  possible role in autism without being a conspiracy theorist.

 

I should be able to raise a concern (vaccines possible role in autism) without being branded a conspiracy theorist.

 

(I would also like to add that I have found this discussion very interesting and, for the most part, civil  (Yay MDC!) I hope we can keep it that way for the sake of the topic.  Abbymom (or anyone else) I am really interested in hearing any other potential environmental causes for autism.  For personal reasons, it is a topic close to my heart)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jennyanydots likes this.
purslaine is offline  
#67 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 09:33 AM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

I don't think you have to out and out lie to be deemed untrustworthy.  Lack of transparency, conflict of interest on committees, etc, are all concerning.

 

I am not sure why you (and prosciencemom) brought the word "conspiracy theory" into this discussion.

 

It is a little dismissive and over-generalising. 

 

It is very possible to question vaccines and their  possible role in autism without being a conspiracy theorist.

 

I should be able to raise a concern (vaccines possible role in autism) without being branded a conspiracy theorist.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Being concerned about children's health does not make one a conspiracy theorist, and marginalizing vaccine questioners as such is offensive and small-minded.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#68 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 09:35 AM
 
Emily St Onge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I am a Medical Microbiology major currently in my senior year. I am taking an ethics class right now and we have heavily been discussing the "issues" people have with vaccinations. I was reading all your comments, and while I am not a mother yet, I will have my children vaccinated, even if thimerosal is used. The levels of mercury in fish are much higher, and the recommended amounts that pregnant women should not exceed are also higher. The studies you have said they should conduct, they have. Many, actually, look up articles in science journals, survey journals, they are all readily available to the public. If you want to make a wise decision and know all the facts you need to also take into consideration what the alternative diseases may do to your child and how easily transferable they are to other children, or adults, or elderly people who have lowered immune response. Each disease is different, knowing the history of the disease is important, where we are today with the disease, and what kind of vaccine is it. Is the vaccine a "live attenuated" vaccine, and what are those risks, or is it a killed vaccine, and if so how much protection does it really provide. These are the real issues to think about and take into consideration. Not weather the CDC is lying and conspiring against us. Thimerosal is used as an antibacterial agent, to keep your vaccine uncontaminated by other microorganisms, a wide spectrum antibiotic such as penicillin would be effective and MORE cost efficient than thimerosal (it is NOT cheaper), the only problem with that is now we have super bugs that are resistant to such antibiotics. They (CDC, FDA, etc.) on multiple occasions have shown tons of data on multiple studies conducted that show NO correlation between thimerosal and mercury poisoning, autism, etc. The real vaccine issues lye in the issues I stated before. Legitimate issues can be seen like, why are we using eggs to cultivate influenza for flu vaccines, when Europe has changed to cell culture? What is the benefit? Or how about besides the fact that children who are not vaccinated against certain diseases are at risk for diseases that cause pox, rash, pulmonary syndrome, swelling of the brain, paralysis, and death; those children may be a risk to other children, pregnant women, elderly, immune compromised and even children who are vaccinated! Those are just some things that come to my mind when thinking about whether or not my children will be vaccinated. 

Emily St Onge is offline  
#69 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 09:47 AM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emily St Onge View Post

I am a Medical Microbiology major currently in my senior year. I am taking an ethics class right now and we have heavily been discussing the "issues" people have with vaccinations. I was reading all your comments, and while I am not a mother yet, I will have my children vaccinated, even if thimerosal is used. The levels of mercury in fish are much higher, and the recommended amounts that pregnant women should not exceed are also higher. The studies you have said they should conduct, they have. Many, actually, look up articles in science journals, survey journals, they are all readily available to the public. If you want to make a wise decision and know all the facts you need to also take into consideration what the alternative diseases may do to your child and how easily transferable they are to other children, or adults, or elderly people who have lowered immune response. Each disease is different, knowing the history of the disease is important, where we are today with the disease, and what kind of vaccine is it. Is the vaccine a "live attenuated" vaccine, and what are those risks, or is it a killed vaccine, and if so how much protection does it really provide. These are the real issues to think about and take into consideration. Not weather the CDC is lying and conspiring against us. Thimerosal is used as an antibacterial agent, to keep your vaccine uncontaminated by other microorganisms, a wide spectrum antibiotic such as penicillin would be effective and MORE cost efficient than thimerosal (it is NOT cheaper), the only problem with that is now we have super bugs that are resistant to such antibiotics. They (CDC, FDA, etc.) on multiple occasions have shown tons of data on multiple studies conducted that show NO correlation between thimerosal and mercury poisoning, autism, etc. The real vaccine issues lye in the issues I stated before. Legitimate issues can be seen like, why are we using eggs to cultivate influenza for flu vaccines, when Europe has changed to cell culture? What is the benefit? Or how about besides the fact that children who are not vaccinated against certain diseases are at risk for diseases that cause pox, rash, pulmonary syndrome, swelling of the brain, paralysis, and death; those children may be a risk to other children, pregnant women, elderly, immune compromised and even children who are vaccinated! Those are just some things that come to my mind when thinking about whether or not my children will be vaccinated. 

 

With all due respect, those of us posting in this thread KNOW about what issues to think about and take into consideration.  Many of us have seen our children have severe reactions to vaccination.  Most of us here have spent more hours than you have been in college studying all sides of the vaccine issue.

 

So I'm sorry if I really take no stock in what a college senior with no children has to say about the vaccine issue.  You have no idea what you are talking about or who you are talking to.

BeckyBird and Jennyanydots like this.

A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#70 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 09:50 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

      Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I don't think you have to out and out lie to be deemed untrustworthy.  Lack of transparency, conflict of interest on committees, etc, are all concerning.

 

 

But the word "lying" was used.  shrug.gif If someone said these organizations were "untrustworthy" due to "lack of transparency, conflict of interest on committees, etc," I wouldn't have brought it up.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I am not sure why you (and prosciencemom) brought the word "conspiracy theory" into this discussion.

 

It is a little dismissive and over-generalising. 

 

It is very possible to question vaccines and their  possible role in autism without being a conspiracy theorist.

 

I should be able to raise a concern (vaccines possible role in autism) without being branded a conspiracy theorist.

 

 

I didn't bring it into the conversation.  It was already being discussed.  And I do agree that just questioning does not make one a conspiracy theorist. I thought that would have been apparent from my post and apologize if it was not.  My point was I think the conspiracy theorists detract from real issues and do a real disservice.

 

I have to go focus on being a parent now (shame on mommy for spending time on the interwebz) and go take my son to therapy. I'll try to come back later.

AbbyGrant is offline  
#71 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 09:53 AM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

 My point was I think the conspiracy theorists detract from real issues and do a real disservice.

 

 

 

The problem is that many people DO deem even casual vaccine questioners "conspiracy theorists" and summarily dismiss anything they have to say.

 

I would also posit that die-hard vaccine apologists detract from the real issues as well.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#72 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 09:58 AM
 
Kelly Deschamps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I stumbled upon this thread and noticed a glaring absence of information.  No where in this entire post (including all the threads) has anyone ever mentioned the controversy and lack of scientific study done on the inclusion of aborted fetal cell cultures (human DNA) in our vaccines. 

 

 

Many parents choose not to use some vaccines because of the aborted fetal cell line ingredients.  Beyond moral objections to the use of this material there is a credible scientific theory that posits the inclusion of human DNA fragments into injections for neurologically developing infants is dangerous.  A brief synopsis of the theory is below and much more is linked below or can be found throughwww.soundchoice.org. I find the exclusion of this information is usually related to unfortunate journalistic confirmation bias or plain old ignorance.  The latter is excusable while the former is not.  The general public should be fully informed. 
 
 
"SCPI conducts research into the biologic and physiologic consequences of using aborted fetal material for drug, vaccine and cosmetic production.

Our research focus is on genomic instability created by the presence of residual contaminating short human DNA fragments and viruses.  Drugs and vaccines are too large to produce in a test tube, and therefore, they must be manufactured using cell lines.  The final products contain contaminants from the cell line used to manufacture the drug or vaccine.  When animal cell lines are utilized, these contaminants are recognized by our immune systems as ‘foreign’ and are eliminated from our bodies.  However, when aborted human fetal or other primitive human cell lines are used, these contaminants have the potential to trigger auto-immune diseases or genomic instability.  When we inject our children or ourselves with aborted fetal producedvaccines, and when we use cosmetics made using aborted fetal cells, we are also injecting or transferring DNA and viruses from the aborted fetus that was used to create the manufacturing cell line."

JCI 2008 SCID gene therapy _ 4 of 9 develop cancer
Kelly Deschamps is offline  
#73 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 10:03 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 Emily St Onge View Post

 

 

The levels of mercury in fish are much higher, and the recommended amounts that pregnant women should not exceed are also higher.

 

There may or may not be differences in mercury that is ingested versus injected.  That may be something to look up for those facing decisions.  

 

 

The studies you have said they should conduct, they have. Many, actually, look up articles in science journals, survey journals, they are all readily available to the public.

 

Where?  Links, please.  

 

If you want to make a wise decision and know all the facts you need to also take into consideration what the alternative diseases may do to your child and how easily transferable they are to other children, or adults, or elderly people who have lowered immune response. Each disease is different, knowing the history of the disease is important, where we are today with the disease, and what kind of vaccine is it. Is the vaccine a "live attenuated" vaccine, and what are those risks, or is it a killed vaccine, and if so how much protection does it really provide. These are the real issues to think about and take into consideration.

 

I think most of us here know this.  It is good advice for a newbie, though.  

 

 

Not weather the CDC is lying and conspiring against us. Thimerosal is used as an antibacterial agent, to keep your vaccine uncontaminated by other microorganisms, a wide spectrum antibiotic such as penicillin would be effective and MORE cost efficient than thimerosal (it is NOT cheaper), the only problem with that is now we have super bugs that are resistant to such antibiotics. They (CDC, FDA, etc.) on multiple occasions have shown tons of data on multiple studies conducted that show NO correlation between thimerosal and mercury poisoning, autism, etc. The real vaccine issues lye in the issues I stated before. Legitimate issues can be seen like, why are we using eggs to cultivate influenza for flu vaccines, when Europe has changed to cell culture? What is the benefit? Or how about besides the fact that children who are not vaccinated against certain diseases are at risk for diseases that cause pox, rash, pulmonary syndrome, swelling of the brain, paralysis, and death; those children may be a risk to other children, pregnant women, elderly, immune compromised and even children who are vaccinated! Those are just some things that come to my mind when thinking about whether or not my children will be vaccinated. 

 

 All vaccines carry risks.  Here is a link from the CDC pages.http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm   It is a parents job to weigh the risks against the benefits of vaccines.  I think the bolded is somewhat fear mongering - with few exceptions, my child is more likely to have a serious reaction to a vaccine than to get the VPD and have a serious reaction to it, or pass it on.  Here are some CDC stats on disease prevalence and death rates from VPD's. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

 

purslaine is offline  
#74 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 10:10 AM
 
Emily St Onge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

 

With all due respect, those of us posting in this thread KNOW about what issues to think about and take into consideration.  Many of us have seen our children have severe reactions to vaccination.  Most of us here have spent more hours than you have been in college studying all sides of the vaccine issue.

 

So I'm sorry if I really take no stock in what a college senior with no children has to say about the vaccine issue.  You have no idea what you are talking about or who you are talking to.

 

Wow, respect? I am a 30 year old woman and have spent a long time investing my time and energy into molecular sciences. I am not some 18 year old child who is just staring out. I have worked many hours with patients and people. I have heard many concerns and seen many "bad reactions". You asked for peoples opinions, so I gave mine, and you shoot me down because I say I am in college. This is what I spend all of the hours of almost every day investigating because I want parents, children and all people to be safe and healthy. I want to fight disease with everything I have, and help children to grow up and live long and healthy lives. I am in the lab working with all sorts of disease, learning how to make vaccines, and you think I don't have any idea what I am talking about? How many times have you worked with polio? Grown kidney cell? Lung cells? How many times have you made influenza vaccinations? I thought this was supposed to be a discussion of opinions and ideas. I am very sorry for sharing my opinion, I really didn't know just who I was talking to.

 

For anyone who has any interest in a good article on the issue:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388/

Emily St Onge is offline  
#75 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 10:14 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 AbbyGrant View Post

      Quote:

 

But the word "lying" was used.  shrug.gif If someone said these organizations were "untrustworthy" due to "lack of transparency, conflict of interest on committees, etc," I wouldn't have brought it up.

 

I must have missed that.  It is a long thread.  Personally, I have no idea if they lie (and do not accuse anyone without proof).  I still don't trust them for reason explored upthread.

 

 

I didn't bring it into the conversation.  It was already being discussed.  And I do agree that just questioning does not make one a conspiracy theorist. I thought that would have been apparent from my post and apologize if it was not.  My point was I think the conspiracy theorists detract from real issues and do a real disservice.

 

It wasn't apparent to me, but honestly, I am a bit guarded on discussing vax issues and more likely to read negative intent when there was none. peace.gif

 

I have to go focus on being a parent now (shame on mommy for spending time on the interwebz) and go take my son to therapy. I'll try to come back later.

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#76 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 10:15 AM
 
Emily St Onge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Well I tried to post some links to some journal articles on these researches, and the site said my response was being held for review or something. 

 

I will look into the mercury thing, that is great point! 

 

As for the fear mongering, that is not my intention. These are things I have seen and experienced, personally. 

The cdc link you gave shows all the death rates from vaccine preventable diseases. Also the data from 2008- to current show NA.?

Emily St Onge is offline  
#77 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 10:35 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 Emily St Onge View Post

Well I tried to post some links to some journal articles on these researches, and the site said my response was being held for review or something. 

 

I will look into the mercury thing, that is great point! 

 

As for the fear mongering, that is not my intention. These are things I have seen and experienced, personally. 

The cdc link you gave shows all the death rates from vaccine preventable diseases. Also the data from 2008- to current show NA.?

 

Off the top of my head, I do not think the data has changed much since 2008.  An exception might be pertussis - there was an outbreak, largely in California (and largely in the vaxxed community - not one of our more effective vaccines). CP might be another exception as the vaccine rate has risen.  Welcome to MDC!

purslaine is offline  
#78 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 10:37 AM
 
Emily St Onge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

 

With all due respect, those of us posting in this thread KNOW about what issues to think about and take into consideration.  Many of us have seen our children have severe reactions to vaccination.  Most of us here have spent more hours than you have been in college studying all sides of the vaccine issue.

 

So I'm sorry if I really take no stock in what a college senior with no children has to say about the vaccine issue.  You have no idea what you are talking about or who you are talking to.

 

 

Wow, sorry to offend you so. So that you know, I am a 30 year old woman. I have been working in health care for quite some time. While I do have no children I have worked with many children and parents. I have spent many years and hours of my life invested into this subject and many other health issues. I have worked in the labs with many diseases such as polio, and I have seen the clinical effects of polio at a very personal level. I have seen children with some of these diseases. I have worked in the lab making influenza vaccines, grown lung and kidney tissues. I am not 18 and uneducated or experienced. My intention was not at all to anger or offend you, but to share an opinion from my perspective. I will be making some of these vaccines and doing some important studies in issues such as these. My intention is to hear concerns and other opinions to expand my own view and knowledge. I do feel I have some idea of what I am talking about, and I have very good intentions. I want to fight disease and help children to live long and healthy lives. I am married and have been looking forward to graduating because the first thing I want to do is become a Mother. So these are issues that are very important to me. 

Emily St Onge is offline  
#79 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 10:50 AM
 
Emily St Onge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

Off the top of my head, I do not think the data has changed much since 2008.  An exception might be pertussis - there was an outbreak, largely in California (and largely in the vaxxed community - not one of our more effective vaccines). CP might be another exception as the vaccine rate has risen.  Welcome to MDC!

No, definitely not one of our best vaccinations. And that is always in the back of my mind, the fact that there is no 100% certainty of protection with any vaccine. Also, these viruses and bacteria are constantly evolving to survive all of our tricks. And they evolve so fast. It is a continuous race. There is just so much to weigh in making the decision. 

 

Thanks for the welcome! 

 

Here is an interesting article, I would like to see what you think.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388/

Emily St Onge is offline  
#80 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 10:51 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 Emily St Onge View Post

 

 

 

 My intention is to hear concerns and other opinions to expand my own view and knowledge. I do feel I have some idea of what I am talking about, and I have very good intentions. I want to fight disease and help children to live long and healthy lives. I am married and have been looking forward to graduating because the first thing I want to do is become a Mother. So these are issues that are very important to me. 

 

Something I would advise anyone planning to vax to do would be to spend some time on the selective and delayed board.

 

There are things you can do to lower the chances your child has a vax reaction even if you vax.  2 things off the top of my head are:

-do not give the MMR and varicella together

-do not give tylenol before and after vax.

 

Both are known to increase adverse reactions (mainstream sources for these 2).  

 

Dr. Sears has an alternative vax schedule and it is worth taking a look at - all vaxes are done, but in a  more spaced out way.

 

As a mother, you are going to want to know that you minimised all chances of harm coming to your child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#81 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 11:28 AM
 
Emily St Onge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thank you for the welcome! I really want to post this link, but the web site wont let me because I am new. So here is the website:

 

www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /pmc/articles/ PMC2908388/

 

just don't put the spaces in. =)dust.gif

 

Can't wait to hear what you all think and feel about this. 

 

Emily St Onge is offline  
#82 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 11:45 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

      Quote:

 

But the word "lying" was used.  shrug.gif If someone said these organizations were "untrustworthy" due to "lack of transparency, conflict of interest on committees, etc," I wouldn't have brought it up.

 

yeah I think I said lying. I do feel that way, lying by extreme over-glossing of issues, ignoring the question entirely, or bringing in some extreme irrelevant info. I can provide examples, but that's really the focus of this thread, any maybe some of you would not consider it a "true" lie.

 

...but someone brought up mercury in fish - methylmercury, not injected, most newborns don't ingest large quantities of fish. Same as the classic... concerned about aluminum? oh you get more using aluminum pans... how can it be bad for you? um, consumption vs. injection, how can this really answer that question other than trivializing it? I consider this type of thing lying, maybe it is not true "lying" but totally downplaying/redirecting the question. It does not inspire my trust.

 

Another example I saw recently - "no one has ever died from pertussis vaccine." and yet vax court has compensated death for DTP. But I guess maybe that is not a true lie either since DT were involved in the vax and we can't prove it was the pertussis component, even though it is generally well accepted that P causes the worse reactions in that vax.

 

BeckyBird likes this.
Slmommy is offline  
#83 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 11:47 AM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

yeah I think I said lying. I do feel that way, lying by extreme over-glossing of issues, ignoring the question entirely, or bringing in some extreme irrelevant info. I can provide examples, but that's really the focus of this thread, any maybe some of you would not consider it a "true" lie.

 

...but someone brought up mercury in fish - methylmercury, not injected, most newborns don't ingest large quantities of fish. Same as the classic... concerned about aluminum? oh you get more using aluminum pans... how can it be bad for you? um, consumption vs. injection, how can this really answer that question other than trivializing it? I consider this type of thing lying, maybe it is not true "lying" but totally downplaying/redirecting the question. It does not inspire my trust.

 

 

This is a good point.  Infants do not typically start on food until after 4-6 months, and fish comes much later usually, when organs are better able to process such food.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#84 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 11:53 AM
 
nukuspot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

lurk.gif

 

Taximom….you are brave!

 

I am not convinced vaccines play a role in autism - but I am not convinced they don't either.  

 

I am convinced that autism rates have risen.  100% convinced.  I have seen more autism in recent years. My mother has as well.   Teachers I work with (I am a public librarian) report more autism.  I know borderline cases of autism are diagnosed more now than in the past, which does account for some of the rise in numbers - but just some of it.  

 

We know autism has a strong genetic component.  Given the escalating numbers of autistic children we know environment must play some part in autism or the numbers would be stable. 

 

My own belief is there are probably multiple causes of autism (in addition to the necessary genetic tendency).  Vaccines (which may or may not) contribute to autism in susceptible individuals are one of the few environmental issues I can control.  

 

Even if the chances of vaccines contributing to autism are tiny I am not risking it.  My 2 nephews have autism - one has no language, one has very little.  Both are still in diapers and are 9 and 12.  One is aggressive and one is a flight risk.  Autism does not always look like this - but sometimes it does.  

 

IMHO, if you are thinking about selective and delayed I would delay until after 4 or so when the risk of developing autism is past.  Why risk it?  The only disease I think one might have grounds for in an infant is pertussis. Pertussis is common and not safe for infants - I can see why people choose to vaccinate for it.    Everything else your child has a very low risk of catching (check the stats).  Please wait.

 

 

 

kathy

 

 

 

edited for spelling

 

 

Hi Kathy,

Where do you get the information from that the risk of developing autism is past at age 4?  Very curious to know more about this...

 


Midwife mama bellycast.gif to DD1 bouncy.gif (4.5) and DD2 h20homebirth.gif (1.5)
nukuspot is offline  
#85 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 12:07 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 Emily St Onge View Post

Thank you for the welcome! I really want to post this link, but the web site wont let me because I am new. So here is the website:

 

www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /pmc/articles/ PMC2908388/

 

I had the same problem posting when I was new too, very frustrating. I think it happens when you try to quote people too? Drove me nuts.

 

I looked at the link, there are some other vax/autism concerns other than MMR and thimerosal. I have already posted this but maybe you didn't see. 

http://www.cogforlife.org/ratajczakstudy.pdf (published in journal of immunotoxicology)

 

I don't have much to say about whole wakefield issue, but I know some people here do.

 

I am interested in some of the Too Many Vaccines part

 

Quote:
Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system. Although the infant immune system is relatively naive, it is immediately capable of generating a vast array of protective responses; even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously [30]

there's a terrifying view of the future, 1000s, really? the footnote is a skimpy abstract, also by Offit, I can't read more to this claim.

Quote:
Further, vaccines represent a minute fraction of what a child’s immune system routinely navigates; the average child is infected with 4–6 viruses per year [32].

I don't understand this. So what? 4-6 viruses a year, through a normal immune route, not several antigens directly injected surpassing normal routes all at same time, multiple times. What am I missing here? How does this prove/account for safety of vaccines and all the other ingredients?

 

Some info in my above link would challenge these statements too:

 

Quote:
Although specific immune functions, governed by B- and T-lymphocytes, are competent in the newborn (Solomon, 1971), the polymorphonuclear cells are less in number than the lymphocytes in the peripheral blood (Diem, 1962). Also, the phagocytic cells and complement system of a newborn are decreased in function (Xanthou et al., 1975; Madden et al., 
1989). Thus, the immune system of an infant is compromised at 2 months. A challenge by so many vaccines while the immune system is compromised might contribute to an onset of autism.

 

ETA: I have seen this answer, that the vax schedule only represents a handful of antigens vs. what your child will be exposed to in life, as an answer to the question "Are so many shots at once safe?" on parenting.com/aap sites I think. This is another example of sketchiness imo. Downplays the question and does not directly answer it.

 

ETA more: didn't Offit make tons off of rotateq? $$$ he has quite a biased interest in vax industry. Ratajczak is retired scientist from pharma company. Of course I have my own biased views, but I don't think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to see issue here.

Jennyanydots likes this.
Slmommy is offline  
#86 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 12:12 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 nukuspot View Post

 

Hi Kathy,

Where do you get the information from that the risk of developing autism is past at age 4?  Very curious to know more about this...

 

 

Off the top of my head.  Sorry.  The vast majority of children (as far as I know) either:

 

a) have symptoms from birth

b) shows signs between 18 months-2.5 years.

 

Here is a quick article on the topic (off to work again!).  

 

http://autism.about.com/od/typesautism/f/What-Is-Regressive-Autism-Or-Late-Onset-Autism.htm

 

 

I do think, particularly in the case of high functioning Aspergers, that the child may not be diagnosed until school age.  They may have had signs before, but the signs were written off, peopled hoped they "would grow out it" etc.

 

 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#87 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 02:05 PM
 
Emily St Onge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

I had the same problem posting when I was new too, very frustrating. I think it happens when you try to quote people too? Drove me nuts.

 

I looked at the link, there are some other vax/autism concerns other than MMR and thimerosal. I have already posted this but maybe you didn't see. 

http://www.cogforlife.org/ratajczakstudy.pdf (published in journal of immunotoxicology)

 

Interesting article. I am printing it out to read through the whole thing. I only read the beginning. But right in the abstract she 

 

I don't have much to say about whole wakefield issue, but I know some people here do.

 

I am interested in some of the Too Many Vaccines part

 

This is the most interesting issue to me as well. 

 

there's a terrifying view of the future, 1000s, really? the footnote is a skimpy abstract, also by Offit, I can't read more to this claim.

I don't understand this. So what? 4-6 viruses a year, through a normal immune route, not several antigens directly injected surpassing normal routes all at same time, multiple times. What am I missing here? How does this prove/account for safety of vaccines and all the other ingredients?

 

Haha.... yes that is terrifying, but I don't honestly think this is what will happen. This is all from my brain, but take viruses for example, influenza, they change their antigens so easily and so often that we have to guess what strains to vaccinate against. Their are usually only 3 seasonal strains selected against, thus that is what is in your vaccine for the year. Polio and small pox are two examples of the easiest viruses to vaccinate against, because we are "dead end hosts". Thats why vaccinations worked so well, just look at the numbers, small pox- completely eradicated and Polio- only endemic in 3 countries (Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan). These are gone because of vaccines. But for viruses like influenza, no matter how much we vaccinate, we can never eradicate influenza, but we can vaccinate annually against the most prevalent strains. (sorry, tangent)

Going back to what you were saying, I think the statement of 1000s was meant to show that a childs immune system is capable of a lot! And with viruses and antigens, no matter what rout they enter your body they all go to target tissue for replication, so I don't see how the way it enters your body would have any effect at all. And honestly, most babies are borne in hospitals which are a cesspool of viral and bacterial infection, and I think the reason they want to give them so many shots almost immediately is because of that as well, which is a horrible reason, but I believe it to be true. This is where I have issues, in hospital cleanliness and aseptic techniques used.

 

This does not account for the safety of all vaccines and other ingredients, it is just speaking of the correlation between vaccines an autism. There are other dangers of vaccines that are very real, such as Guillain-barre syndrome, encephalitis in 1 of every 100,000,000 who get the small pox vaccine. These are all still there, I specifically don't think autism is connected to vaccines. 

 

Some info in my above link would challenge these statements too:

 

 

ETA: I have seen this answer, that the vax schedule only represents a handful of antigens vs. what your child will be exposed to in life, as an answer to the question "Are so many shots at once safe?" on parenting.com/aap sites I think. This is another example of sketchiness imo. Downplays the question and does not directly answer it.

 

These are questions that NEED to addressed by scientists and should never ever be downplayed. I agree completely.

 

ETA more: didn't Offit make tons off of rotateq? $$$ he has quite a biased interest in vax industry. Ratajczak is retired scientist from pharma company. Of course I have my own biased views, but I don't think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to see issue here.

 

Doesn't every scientist who makes/discovers something make tons of $$$? Not all scientists are in it for the money, I am sure there are those, like in the chronic limes case. But making money doesn't discredit a scientist, that is not a very fair way of looking at it. If they make something that harms people it isn't gonna take very long to figure that out in trials. There are sooooo many rules and regulations in play when testing on human subjects.  You definitely don't sound like a conspiracy theorist to me, just a concerned loving Mother, who is smart enough to look as far into everything as possible! I love that! Your kids are very lucky. =)

 

 

Emily St Onge is offline  
#88 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 03:44 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 Emily St Onge View Post
And honestly, most babies are borne in hospitals which are a cesspool of viral and bacterial infection, and I think the reason they want to give them so many shots almost immediately is because of that as well, which is a horrible reason, but I believe it to be true. This is where I have issues, in hospital cleanliness and aseptic techniques used.

...yeah except the only vax on normal pedi schedule for birth is Hep B, which if mother is neg for, very little chances. Nothing else until 2 months. Most of the vax given at 2 don't even reach decent (gauranteed anyway) efficacy until later doses and boosters. 

 

Doesn't every scientist who makes/discovers something make tons of $$$? Not all scientists are in it for the money, I am sure there are those, like in the chronic limes case. But making money doesn't discredit a scientist, that is not a very fair way of looking at it 

 

I think the revolving door between pharma companies and cdc/acip, other orgs is a very big concern. And if we are going to discredit all "alternative" drs around here, selling supplements or treatments as part of their practice... well I know that's not 100% comparable, but still... people making public policy with such conflict of interest? 

Here's an interesting report by Union of Concerned Scientists someone posted in another thread on this forum (not vax specific but does heavily touch on this issue, especially in medical industry) http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdf

 

I agree certain things will always be endemic. My remark towards the 1000s was that there definitely is room for vax schedule to grow - Fifth disease, roseola, strep, MRSA, denegue and malaria (not in US prob), men B, noravirus, new lyme disease, more strands hpv, more stands pc, etc. etc. Our grandchildren could see a doubling+ of vax schedule just as we have seen in the schedule since we were babies.

Unless some serious science comes out about the actual safety of adjuvants and and long-term possible effects of the cumulative vax schedule, that concerns me. Unfortunately, I think a lot of those things are impossible, can not use true placebo, they add to schedule so often it would be impossible to study that longterm, etc.

 

Where did you get the 1/100,000,000 number for encephalitis and GB after small pox vax?

BeckyBird likes this.
Slmommy is offline  
#89 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 06:17 PM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

     Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

The biggest group looking to make money off autism is the pharma industry. It certainly isn't the relatively small group of DAN! doctors or the supplement industry. So it looks like big pharma is about to cash in on all those desperate parents, with their own brand of junk science.

 

Thank you for providing such an excellent example of the kind of exploitation I was talking about. 

AbbyGrant is offline  
#90 of 586 Old 04-19-2012, 07:16 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,498
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

     Quote:

 

Thank you for providing such an excellent example of the kind of exploitation I was talking about. 

 

Same people that make the vaccines that harm kids in the first place. Couldn't be better for business. 

BeckyBird likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
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