Misleading reports about autism data - Page 9 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#241 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 06:28 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You get more vaccines at once now, but the pathogen load is actually much lower.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#242 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 06:31 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 Rrrrrachel View Post

You get more vaccines at once now, but the pathogen load is actually much lower.

 

but more exposure and quantity of adjuvant and other ingredients, no?

BeckyBird likes this.
Slmommy is offline  
#243 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 06:34 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm not sure, honestly, I would have to look. Again, though, no evidence that adjuvants are harmful in the quantities they're given in. no biological plausibility that they cause autism.

Observational/retrospective studies of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children find no significant difference in health outcomes except for a difference in the likelihood of getting a vaccine preventable disease. http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/pdf.asp?id=80869
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#244 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 06:35 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 Rrrrrachel View Post

The alleged link between autism and vaccines has been studied, it's been rejected over and over. They are no more likely to cause it than anything else. You migh as well say broccoli causes autism.

 

If it were mandated that we feed newborns and young babies broccoli, repeatedly, in a sauce of formaldehyde, msg, aluminum, mercury, human and animal cells, dna and viruses, polysorbate 80, etc., and most of the "safety" data about this broccoli sauce came from the industry creating said sauce... I think a lot of parents would question.

 

Especially when the health of children seems to be on the decline, especially in terms of development and learning disorders.

Bokonon and Taximom5 like this.
Slmommy is offline  
#245 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 06:41 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 Rrrrrachel View Post

Observational/retrospective studies of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children find no significant difference in health outcomes except for a difference in the likelihood of getting a vaccine preventable disease. http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/pdf.asp?id=80869

 

I've thought a few times about posting that study just to see how it would be received. I am very curious what people think about it. Thoughts from anyone?

AbbyGrant is offline  
#246 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 06:50 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You get more vaccines at once now, but the pathogen load is actually much lower.

 

Its not the pathogens that's the issue is the adjuvants and the other "ingredients" that is the issue. Without adjuvants the vaccines would do squat. The adjuvants create the immune response, aka wounds in the body.

BeckyBird and Taximom5 like 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  
#247 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 06:50 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 Rrrrrachel View Post
Again, though, no evidence that adjuvants are harmful in the quantities they're given in. 

you can say this until you turn blue, and it will not make it true. There is evidence suggesting possibility of safety issues, many concerned hcps and researchers, and a total lack of clear safety - 

 

why was thimerosal removed? because they really have no clue about true safety of ethylmercury, it was exceeding methylmerc recs, and no one has a clue if ethyl really has same effects as methyl. they didn't know, had to defer to methyl because they didnt know about ethyl. = lack of knowledge.

they used thimerosal for decades... if it was so safe and they knew so much about it, why was it removed? just to placate a small group of parents? please... in previous decades, aluminum containing vaccines was not allowed in some nations - Britain in the 50's and Canada.

 

everything I've read about aluminum would suggest that a lot of people have concerns.

 

I have not seen real safety standards for newborns, especially those of lower birth weight and prematurity. Any studies what happens when you inject a bunch of babies full of adjuvants vs. true placebo? At the same quantity as pedi schedule and long term followup?

Slmommy is offline  
#248 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:05 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thimerosol was removed because from a public health issue it wasn't worth fighting that battle. Vaccination is important, so if we can remove a barrier for some people without effecting vaccine effectiveness, why not? It still hasn't been shown to be harmful.

I think it's getting to be time for me to bow out because we keep going around in circles. There is no evidence any of these things are harmful in the quantities contained in vaccines. I'm going to keep pointing that out every time someone says otherwise, so if you want me to stop saying it stop speculating. Sure, there are people on the Internet who are concerned, but research and biology contradict them.

There seems to be a shot gun approach to these concerns, when one thing is refuted we switch to something else. It's thimerosol, no it's aluminum, no it's too many vaccines at once, no it's thimerosol again. Where's the science? This is like global warming. Are there some scientists who say global warming doesn't exist o the it's not man made? Sure. However, the majority of scientists and the consensus of the scientific community is that it does exist and it is. The evidence of vaccines being safe and effective is a mountain next to a mole hill.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#249 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:06 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You get more vaccines at once now, but the pathogen load is actually much lower.

 

Its not the pathogens that's the issue is the adjuvants and the other "ingredients" that is the issue. Without adjuvants the vaccines would do squat. The adjuvants create the immune response, aka wounds in the body.


It's not the pathogen load, except sometimes it is, when it's not aluminum or thimerosol or formaldehyde or or or.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#250 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:07 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

 

I've thought a few times about posting that study just to see how it would be received. I am very curious what people think about it. Thoughts from anyone?

Haven´t read the whole thing, will try later but just at first glance? .7% of 13,000+ were unvaccinated? what is that a group of 94 unvaxed kids for that sample? Also, normal issues of why a family would choose to not vaccinate- other health issues, predisposition to allergies or vax reactions, as well as all of the other factors surrounding choice.

 

 

Taximom5 likes this.
Slmommy is offline  
#251 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:07 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post
Again, though, no evidence that adjuvants are harmful in the quantities they're given in. 

you can say this until you turn blue, and it will not make it true. There is evidence suggesting possibility of safety issues, many concerned hcps and researchers, and a total lack of clear safety - 

 

why was thimerosal removed? because they really have no clue about true safety of ethylmercury, it was exceeding methylmerc recs, and no one has a clue if ethyl really has same effects as methyl. they didn't know, had to defer to methyl because they didnt know about ethyl. = lack of knowledge.

they used thimerosal for decades... if it was so safe and they knew so much about it, why was it removed? just to placate a small group of parents? please... in previous decades, aluminum containing vaccines was not allowed in some nations - Britain in the 50's and Canada.

 

everything I've read about aluminum would suggest that a lot of people have concerns.

 

I have not seen real safety standards for newborns, especially those of lower birth weight and prematurity. Any studies what happens when you inject a bunch of babies full of adjuvants vs. true placebo? At the same quantity as pedi schedule and long term followup?


I posted a report from the aap last night that discussed the safety standards for newborns and aluminum exposure. Vaccines are well within safety limits.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#252 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:08 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

 

I've thought a few times about posting that study just to see how it would be received. I am very curious what people think about it. Thoughts from anyone?

Haven´t read the whole thing, will try later but just at first glance? .7% of 13,000+ were unvaccinated? what is that a group of 94 unvaxed kids for that sample? Also, normal issues of why a family would choose to not vaccinate- other health issues, predisposition to allergies or vax reactions, as well as all of the other factors surrounding choice.

 

 


That is a definite limit of studies like this. Since the unvaccinated population is so small and dispersed it's difficult to come up with a very good sample. It makes it impossible to really detect the incidence of rarer disorders like autism, but they were still able to look at some important relationships, IMO.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#253 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:16 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 Rrrrrachel View Post
 There is no evidence any of these things are harmful in the quantities contained in vaccines.

 

no evidence of safety either. 

 

VICP was founded in the 1980s because you can´t expect population to undergo medical procedure which may have adverse effects, just for the greater good, especially when safety in unknown and knowledge lacking...

 

 

[In its formation...] The Court articulated the reason for this lower burden then that necessary in civil court "to allow the finding of causation in a field bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the human body.52  

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr   (Page 10 of pdf)

 

It´s so funny how "we" accept that medications and other drugs may have side effects or be harmful, but when it is vax - nope, no evidence, reactions are 1 in a million.

 

 

Taximom5 likes this.
Slmommy is offline  
#254 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:18 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 Rrrrrachel View Post

I posted a report from the aap last night that discussed the safety standards for newborns and aluminum exposure. Vaccines are well within safety limits.

 

safety limits were established for newborns? low birth weight? prematurity? I believe those were adult safety limits, if you can show me how those mrls were established, that would be great.

 

Taximom5 likes this.
Slmommy is offline  
#255 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:18 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 Rrrrrachel View Post

That is a definite limit of studies like this. Since the unvaccinated population is so small and dispersed it's difficult to come up with a very good sample. It makes it impossible to really detect the incidence of rarer disorders like autism, but they were still able to look at some important relationships, IMO.

 

well we agree on something smile.gif

Slmommy is offline  
#256 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:20 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Of course vaccines have side effects. That is why we have the vaccine injury compensation program. no one disputes that they have side effects, just that they have side effects that there is no biological plausibility to support, like autism.

There is evidence that they are safe. I posted a bunch of it last night.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#257 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:22 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just for the record, rather than "where there's smoke there's fire" this basically comes down to "well there may not be smoke but there could still be a fire!". Or "walking like a chicken and talking like a chicken doesn't mean it's not a duck!"
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#258 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:24 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

VICP has already compensated cases of autism under a different name, as posted previously as well.

 

There is evidence they are not safe, as also previously posted.

 

I don´t really feel like going around in circles anymore. you can have last word if you´d like, I don´t think either of us will budge, but your position is perhaps the more extreme, disallowing possibility, I am just questioning.

Taximom5 likes this.
Slmommy is offline  
#259 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:25 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am not disallowing possibility, and my position is decidedly mainstream in the scientific community.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#260 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:34 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)

nm - sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#261 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:36 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

VICP has already compensated cases of autism under a different name, as posted previously as well.

 

There is evidence they are not safe, as also previously posted.

 

I don´t really feel like going around in circles anymore. you can have last word if you´d like, I don´t think either of us will budge, but your position is perhaps the more extreme, disallowing possibility, I am just questioning.

 

Your first assertion is up for debate. And no one has denied that there are risks. And no one has disallowed the possibility. I think some people are just looking at the issue of vaccines and autism from a different perspective than you and several others here. That doesn't mean they are closed minded but perhaps just asking different questions. Oddly enough, I kind of agree with some of you've had to say and some of what Rrrrrachel has had to say.

AbbyGrant is offline  
#262 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 07:58 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


It's not the pathogen load, except sometimes it is, when it's not aluminum or thimerosol or formaldehyde or or or.

 

I believe, it is never the pathogen load. Please do not assume you understand what I mean or what I think.


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  
#263 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 08:03 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I didn't realize you were the only person expressing anti vax position on this thread, let alone the world at large.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#264 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 08:08 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 Rrrrrachel View Post

I didn't realize you were the only person expressing anti vax position on this thread, let alone the world at large.

 

for the record, I don't think most people here are "Anti-vax," I'm not telling anyone not to vaccinate, my DD is partially vaccinated, and I can understand value in vaccination... but there are a lot of problems too. I don't think it is responsible of pro-vax to gloss over these things, they should also be interested in more science, safer vaccines, more understanding of mechanism that predispose or cause reaction, more transparency in the industry, etc.

thegoodearth and Taximom5 like this.
Slmommy is offline  
#265 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 08:16 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I didn't realize you were the only person expressing anti vax position on this thread, let alone the world at large.

 

I really have no idea what you mean by that statement.

 

 

 

 


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  
#266 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 08:43 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

 

for the record, I don't think most people here are "Anti-vax," I'm not telling anyone not to vaccinate, my DD is partially vaccinated, and I can understand value in vaccination... but there are a lot of problems too. I don't think it is responsible of pro-vax to gloss over these things, they should also be interested in more science, safer vaccines, more understanding of mechanism that predispose or cause reaction, more transparency in the industry, etc.

 

Well, I am anti-vax (for me and mine) and proud of it. I really couldn't care less if people vax or not, not my business if they choose to do so. But I do agree with your bolded statement, if you are going to vax your children or yourself.

Taximom5 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  
#267 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 08:46 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just that my other comment wasn't directed at you.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#268 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 08:49 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 Mirzam View Post

 

Well, I am anti-vax (for me and mine) and proud of it. I really couldn't care less if people vax or not, not my business if they choose to do so. But I do agree with your bolded statement, if you are going to vax your children or yourself.

I think there is a difference between non and anti vax. "Anti" to me would imply you are here trying to make all people not vaccinate for anything, ever.  That the whole vaccination program should be totally stopped and vax not used. Opposite to "pro" which more often than not assumes all people must be vaccinated for everything, and makes choice as difficult as possible. Non-vax to me just implies that you have made that choice for yourself personally. I don't know how to term someone who vaxes but doesn't put agenda on others? i guess that's usually called "pro" too.

 

 

Taximom5 likes this.
Slmommy is offline  
#269 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 08:59 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

rrrrrachel, you never brought any research showing that Ratajczak's ideas about the possibility of DNA in vax being a possiblity in autism is impossible.

(post 204)

BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.
Slmommy is offline  
#270 of 586 Old 04-24-2012, 09:03 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I did bring some basic biology, though.  Dna is a fragile thing.  The DNA that's used to grow viruses is mostly destroyed in the process of growing the virus.  What's left is highly fragmented and cannot reform complete proteins or reinsert itself into the patient's DNA.  This is precisely why gene therapy hasn't been successful.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
Closed Thread

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

Register Now

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

Log-in

Human Verification

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



User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

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

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