Vaccine Controversy: A PubMed Compilation - 15 to start with - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 72 Old 08-03-2012, 01:30 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,129
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I'm wondering if we can even agree on what constitutes a CREDIBLE study. Sometimes it seems as though the only 'credible' study is the one supporting a specific idea (for both sides).

Maybe?

 

I think many people would accept a study that was:

 

-large scale and reproducible

-unbiased or lacking conflicts of interest (not done by pharmaceutical companies!)

-asks the right questions (do unvaxxed have less autism than vaxxed - in random double blind studies).

 

I do think hard core pro or non vaxxers would be less likely to accept such a study - old habit die hard and trust is a hard thing to earn.

 

The problem is such study has never been done.  Most researchers think it is unethical to leave kids unvaxxed to test it and most parents probably would not agree to their child being vaxxed or unvaxxed willy-nilly.  

 

So parents are left to piecemeal together various studies and the like (with their various flaws and lack of asking the right questions) to try and figure out what to do. 


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#62 of 72 Old 08-03-2012, 02:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I'm wondering if we can even agree on what constitutes a CREDIBLE study. Sometimes it seems as though the only 'credible' study is the one supporting a specific idea (for both sides).

Maybe?

 

I think many people would accept a study that was:

 

-large scale and reproducible

-unbiased or lacking conflicts of interest (not done by pharmaceutical companies!)

-asks the right questions (do unvaxxed have less autism than vaxxed - in random double blind studies).

 

i do think hard core pro or non vaxxers would be less likely to accept such a study - old habit die hard and trust is a hard thing to earn.

 

The problem is such study has never been done.  Most researchers think it is unethical to leave kids unvaxxed to test it and most parents probably would not agree to their child being vaxxed or unvaxxed willy-nilly.  

 

So parents are left to piecemeal together various studies and the like (with their various flaws and lack of asking the right questions) to try and figure out what to do. 

I have a very hard time trusting anything put out or funded by pharmaceutical companies and most of the propaganda released by governments, and medical associations. This paper written after obtaining FOI documents from the UK's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JVCI) illustrates the deceptions and the lengths medical authorities will go to ensure the general public vaccinates. 

 

The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds? This is long but well worth reading.


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  
#63 of 72 Old 08-03-2012, 02:56 PM
 
tonttu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The fact does remain though , that not too long ago autism didn´t exist in the minds of people , nor in the minds of the scientific community .

People who would now be considered autistic , were considered quirky at best and downright loony at worst , with the ( for them ) many times fatal consequence of being institutionalized . 

The argument here is , did the vaccines start the problem ? No , they did not , since people were autistic long before vaccines even existed .

So , instead of getting stuck on what has proven NOT to be the reason , it would be a lot more useful to instead focus on really finding a reason , why people are born with autism , working on improving treatment and therapy options and possibly even finding a cure / prevention 


vbac.gifafter 3 cs fambedsingle1.gifbfinfant.gifHappily single Momteapot2.GIFknit.gif

tonttu is offline  
#64 of 72 Old 08-03-2012, 04:23 PM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You cannot KNOW that those people in the past had autism. Therefore, I'm less likely to believe the rest of your arguments.
pek64 is offline  
#65 of 72 Old 08-03-2012, 05:08 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,129
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonttu View Post

So , instead of getting stuck on what has proven NOT to be the reason , it would be a lot more useful to instead focus on really finding a reason , why people are born with autism , working on improving treatment and therapy options and possibly even finding a cure / prevention 

I do not entirely disagree with you.  As a society I do hope we spend money and time on research into causes, treatment, therapies, etc.  My personal interest is in causes, but I do not undervalue the other areas of exploration.

 

I am interested in all potential causes of autism. I am more interested in environmental causes as I feel understanding environmental causes  could potentially help more parents make decisions than genetics.  There is not much you can do about genetics, but if you know flea shampoo (http://www.ei-resource.org/myblog/More-evidence-of-environmental-toxins-link-to-autism.html) might be linked to autism you can avoid it.  Vaccines get explored here because it is the vaccine forum.  Personally, I am up for any discussion of any environmental causes.

 

 

Not all people are born with autism.  Regressive autism exists:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041203100809.htm

Anecdotally, of my two nephews with autism, one did have symptoms from the start and one developed them around 2.  No one who knew him prior to age two (including his paediatrician) disagree with this.

 

Some people argue that if you look at videos of kids who regressed, there are subtle symptoms of autism there all along.  I do not entirely agree with this.  If you go looking for signs, you often find them.    I will say, also anecdotally, I have one child who did hand flap a bit, run on tip toes, and has somewhat poor eye contact.  He is not on the ASD spectrum although he probably has mild ADHD.  If he did have ASD, people might look back and go "oh, there were signs all along."  

 

The reason I keep coming back to this thread really comes down to awareness and funding.  Almost all the funding for autism has gone into genetics research, but very little into environment, although there are no genetic epidemics and shifting diagnosis etc only account for 50% of the increase in cases.  I also fear (somewhat) that if people do not accept the fact that autism rates are skyrocketing (and I personally think they are) it will not get the funding it deserves.

Bokonon likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#66 of 72 Old 08-03-2012, 06:07 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonttu View Post

The fact does remain though , that not too long ago autism didn´t exist in the minds of people , nor in the minds of the scientific community .

People who would now be considered autistic , were considered quirky at best and downright loony at worst , with the ( for them ) many times fatal consequence of being institutionalized . 

The argument here is , did the vaccines start the problem ? No , they did not , since people were autistic long before vaccines even existed .

So , instead of getting stuck on what has proven NOT to be the reason , it would be a lot more useful to instead focus on really finding a reason , why people are born with autism , working on improving treatment and therapy options and possibly even finding a cure / prevention 

I'm afraid I DO entirely disagree with you.

 

You cannot reasonably say that vaccines have been proven NOT to be a causal factor in the increase in autism, when the UC Davis MIND institute has already determined that the increase in autism is NOT just better diagnosis, but that there is a strong environmental component.

 

Institutions exist today, and have existed for over a century, but they are NOT filled with middle-aged and elderly people with severe autism. If autism has always been with us, then the institutions WOULD be filled with them.  I have spent quite a bit of time at one such institution, and the caregivers there say that they have only seen a few autistic people there over the last few decades. People with autism severe enough to require 24-hour care have NOT always existed in such numbers as we are seeing with today's children--and the first generation of children who received the increased number of thimerosal-preserved and aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines is only just now reaching adulthood.

 

Ask any teacher who has been teaching for over 20 years, and (s)he will tell you that the number of kids displaying autistic symptoms in the classroom has skyrocketed.  The kids who are in the classroom are the ones who are verbal; they would not have been institutionalized 20, 30 years ago (and if they had, they'd still BE in those institutions--and they're not there).

 

Yes, quirky personalities have been around for centuries. But you can't have it both ways.  Either quirkiness does not equal autism, or if it does--well, remember where the phrase "mad as a hatter" comes from?  I'll give you a hint:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_hatter_disease  "Mad Hatter Disease" describes the symptoms of MERCURY POISONING.

 

Ever hear of acrodynia? It is described as an idosyncratic sensitivity to mercury, where mercury-containingteething powders in the early 20th century resulted in severe neurological effects on babies and toddlers.  Acrodynia cases pretty much disappeared after the mercury was removed from the teething powders.

 

Not surprisingly, grandchildren of acrodynia survivors are six times as likely to be autistic as grandchildren of the general population.

 

Articles like this one http://legacy.autism.com/triggers/vaccine/mercurylong.htm have yet to be "proven" wrong.

 

You want to find a cure/prevention for at least some cases of autism?  Well, first you have to admit to the possiblity that vaccines play a causal role in at least some cases.  And that's already been proven.  Saying "autism was with us before vaccines" does not prove that vaccines don't cause autism.

Taximom5 is online now  
#67 of 72 Old 08-04-2012, 10:37 AM
 
tonttu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

I'm afraid I DO entirely disagree with you.

 

You cannot reasonably say that vaccines have been proven NOT to be a causal factor in the increase in autism, when the UC Davis MIND institute has already determined that the increase in autism is NOT just better diagnosis, but that there is a strong environmental component.

 

Institutions exist today, and have existed for over a century, but they are NOT filled with middle-aged and elderly people with severe autism. If autism has always been with us, then the institutions WOULD be filled with them.  I have spent quite a bit of time at one such institution, and the caregivers there say that they have only seen a few autistic people there over the last few decades. People with autism severe enough to require 24-hour care have NOT always existed in such numbers as we are seeing with today's children--and the first generation of children who received the increased number of thimerosal-preserved and aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines is only just now reaching adulthood.

 

Ask any teacher who has been teaching for over 20 years, and (s)he will tell you that the number of kids displaying autistic symptoms in the classroom has skyrocketed.  The kids who are in the classroom are the ones who are verbal; they would not have been institutionalized 20, 30 years ago (and if they had, they'd still BE in those institutions--and they're not there).

 

Yes, quirky personalities have been around for centuries. But you can't have it both ways.  Either quirkiness does not equal autism, or if it does--well, remember where the phrase "mad as a hatter" comes from?  I'll give you a hint:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_hatter_disease  "Mad Hatter Disease" describes the symptoms of MERCURY POISONING.

 

Ever hear of acrodynia? It is described as an idosyncratic sensitivity to mercury, where mercury-containingteething powders in the early 20th century resulted in severe neurological effects on babies and toddlers.  Acrodynia cases pretty much disappeared after the mercury was removed from the teething powders.

 

Not surprisingly, grandchildren of acrodynia survivors are six times as likely to be autistic as grandchildren of the general population.

 

Articles like this one http://legacy.autism.com/triggers/vaccine/mercurylong.htm have yet to be "proven" wrong.

 

You want to find a cure/prevention for at least some cases of autism?  Well, first you have to admit to the possiblity that vaccines play a causal role in at least some cases.  And that's already been proven.  Saying "autism was with us before vaccines" does not prove that vaccines don't cause autism.

Well , but from many of the other threats you have posted , we also know , that you really have been substantially wrong on many of the " claims " you made , especially regarding the PROVEN VALUE of vaccines .


vbac.gifafter 3 cs fambedsingle1.gifbfinfant.gifHappily single Momteapot2.GIFknit.gif

tonttu is offline  
#68 of 72 Old 08-04-2012, 12:11 PM
 
tonttu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I   I also fear (somewhat) that if people do not accept the fact that autism rates are skyrocketing (and I personally think they are) it will not get the funding it deserves.

That is probably , because they really are not . It´s simply better diagnostics , that showed up more autistic people than even 15 or 20 yrs ago   


vbac.gifafter 3 cs fambedsingle1.gifbfinfant.gifHappily single Momteapot2.GIFknit.gif

tonttu is offline  
#69 of 72 Old 08-04-2012, 12:27 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,129
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonttu View Post

That is probably , because they really are not . It´s simply better diagnostics , that showed up more autistic people than even 15 or 20 yrs ago   

This may be an area where we will not agree.

 

There are plenty of links above for lurkers to make up their minds.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#70 of 72 Old 08-05-2012, 10:45 AM
 
Mosaic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: La vida loca
Posts: 4,005
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Tonttu, edit your post. The topic of the thread is not how often Taximom has been "right" in your opinion. Keep it about the TOPIC, not the poster.

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  
#71 of 72 Old 08-05-2012, 03:17 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonttu View Post

That is probably , because they really are not . It´s simply better diagnostics , that showed up more autistic people than even 15 or 20 yrs ago   

The UC Davis MIND Institute has shown that it is not just better diagnostics, that environmental causes are a strong factor, and their conclusion seems to be agreed upon by other experts.  Perhaps you have not read their conclusions?

 

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

Toddler boys playing in the park
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.

Published in the January 2009 issue of the journal Epidemiology, results from the study also suggest that research should shift from genetics to the host of chemicals and infectious microbes in the environment that are likely at the root of changes in the neurodevelopment of California’s children.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120425140118.htm

 

Top Ten Toxic Chemicals Suspected to Cause Autism and Learning Disabilities

ScienceDaily (Apr. 25, 2012) — An editorial published April 25 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives calls for increased research to identify possible environmental causes of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders in America's children and presents a list of ten target chemicals including which are considered highly likely to contribute to these conditions.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/health/research/05autism.html

 

New Study Implicates Environmental Factors in Autism

A new study of twins suggests that environmental factors, including conditions in the womb, may be at least as important as genes in causing autism.

This one is from 2009, but I have not seen any publication directly refuting it:

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxautism/

 

Japanese & British Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism

add to del.icio.us ::Add to Blinkslist::add to furl ::Digg it::add to ma.gnolia::Stumble It! ::add to simpy ::seed the vine:: ::::TailRank

Just months following the US Court of Federal Claims rejection of the claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism, here you will see data from formal peer refereed medical papers showing that vaccines caused autism in British and in Japanese children and will be doing the same to children around the world. The number of Japanese children developing autism rose and fell in direct proportion to the number of children vaccinated each year:-

  •  
 
Taximom5 is online now  
#72 of 72 Old 08-06-2012, 01:13 AM
 
japonica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada-->Australia
Posts: 979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

I have a very hard time trusting anything put out or funded by pharmaceutical companies and most of the propaganda released by governments, and medical associations. This paper written after obtaining FOI documents from the UK's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JVCI) illustrates the deceptions and the lengths medical authorities will go to ensure the general public vaccinates. 

 

The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds? This is long but well worth reading.

 

Awesome, thanks for that link. I really enjoy both Shaw's and Tomljenovic's work. I've got something to read tonight. thumb.gif


Mother to DD#1  s/b @40w 2003 for unknown reasons; DD#2   9.5 years old; DS  6 years old 
  Why are daughters protected but not sons?
 
 
 
  
japonica is offline  
Reply

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