What is the proof that vaccines work? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 24 Old 07-20-2012, 08:09 AM - Thread Starter
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 260
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I get that it sounds like a silly question. It seems a simple answer:

 

1. Disease rates go down when vaccination rates go up.

 

2. Vaccinated individuals contract VPD's much less than a non-vaccinated person.

 

Is there any more to it? I am aware of antibody testing as well. I guess what I'm looking for is the evidence that you and I can tell they work. Is there more evidence than the above two statements?


"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is offline  
#2 of 24 Old 07-21-2012, 11:43 AM
 
tonttu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I am sure , there are a lot more , but even those to facts are good enough for me thumb.gif


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

tonttu is offline  
#3 of 24 Old 07-22-2012, 08:52 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm not sure what sort of evidence beyond that you would be looking for?  

 

New vaccines are tested against a placebo in randomized double-blind tests.  That really  fits under your second point of evidence that vaccinated people get the disease less often, but it's a bit more controlled than surveillance studies and investigation of outbreaks, I guess.  

 

Or, it still fits under your second point, but testing of animal vaccines go a step beyond that by deliberately exposing animals to the disease.  This can also be done, to some extent, with vaccines for diseases that can be passed back and forth between animals and humans.  The 2009 pandemic H1N1 vaccine was tested this way in ferrets.

pers is offline  
#4 of 24 Old 07-22-2012, 09:25 PM
 
proudMoMmy2634's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

I'm not sure what sort of evidence beyond that you would be looking for?  

 

New vaccines are tested against a placebo in randomized double-blind tests.  That really  fits under your second point of evidence that vaccinated people get the disease less often, but it's a bit more controlled than surveillance studies and investigation of outbreaks, I guess.  

 

Or, it still fits under your second point, but testing of animal vaccines go a step beyond that by deliberately exposing animals to the disease.  This can also be done, to some extent, with vaccines for diseases that can be passed back and forth between animals and humans.  The 2009 pandemic H1N1 vaccine was tested this way in ferrets.

 

Very well said.

 

 

And in addition to this,  non-vaccinated person are more at risk when their is an occurence of a disease that could have been prevented if they had been vaccinated.

prosciencemum likes this.

Living is great but being a MOM is even better

proudMoMmy2634 is offline  
#5 of 24 Old 07-22-2012, 10:37 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

New vaccines are tested against a placebo in randomized double-blind tests.  That really  fits under your second point of evidence that vaccinated people get the disease less often, but it's a bit more controlled than surveillance studies and investigation of outbreaks, I guess.  

Really? Are you sure about that?

 

What kinds of things do they use for the "placebos?" Do the tests show that the people getting the "placebos" get the disease at a higher rate? Can you provide links? These types of clinical trials don't last very long. So I don't see how, without purposely exposing the people to the disease, which they wouldn't be allowed to do, that they could determine the "unvaccinated" people get the disease more often.

boomer78 and Taximom5 like this.
ma2two is offline  
#6 of 24 Old 07-22-2012, 10:39 PM
 
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 littlec View Post

I get that it sounds like a silly question. It seems a simple answer:

 

1. Disease rates go down when vaccination rates go up.

 

2. Vaccinated individuals contract VPD's much less than a non-vaccinated person.

 

 

 

I thought correlation did not equal causation?  At least, that's what vaccine defenders say when a parent says that their child regressed developmentally immediately after vaccines and was later diagnosed with autism.  

 

If you argue that autism rates have gone up as vaccination rates have gone up, then how can your assertion #1 be a valid argument?

boomer78, Taximom5 and girlygaia like this.

A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#7 of 24 Old 07-23-2012, 02:38 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

I thought correlation did not equal causation?  At least, that's what vaccine defenders say when a parent says that their child regressed developmentally immediately after vaccines and was later diagnosed with autism.  

 

If you argue that autism rates have gone up as vaccination rates have gone up, then how can your assertion #1 be a valid argument?

 

Correlation does not equal causation - it requires a plausible physical explanation as well. With vaccine trials, the plausible explanation is there. Scientists understand the mechanism by which vaccines can induce an immunity reponse without getting the person sick, and that this "trains" the immune systems to react more vigourously when exposed to the full disease. 

 

Time again it has been shown there are ways to develop autism without vaccines, and that autism rates are not well correlated with vaccination take up (e.g. different rates in different countries with similar vaccination programs). So the physical link does not exist.


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#8 of 24 Old 07-23-2012, 08:15 AM
 
tonttu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Time again it has been shown there are ways to develop autism without vaccines, and that autism rates are not well correlated with vaccination take up (e.g. different rates in different countries with similar vaccination programs). So the physical link does not exist.

Also , when saying , that autism rates have gone up , we always have to remember , that the way children are being checked for problems , have really advanced and many children , that may have been considered simply " misbehaving " ( I am not just talking about autism now ) a few years or decades ago , are now being looked at from a totally different angle


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

tonttu is offline  
#9 of 24 Old 07-23-2012, 08:29 AM - Thread Starter
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 260
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

 If  disease rate declines and the fact that vaccinated individuals come down with the VPD less frequently than unvaccinated are accurate assessments of vaccine effectiveness, then I think it's safe to conclude the Pertussis vaccine no longer works. If I'm wrong, please help me understand.

 

 

From the CDC Pink Book:

Pertussis incidence has been gradually increasing since the early 1980s. A total of 25,827 cases was reported in 2004, the largest number since 1959. The reasons for the increase are not clear.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/pert.html

 

I'm not familiar with this site, but I read most of the links- they are just news reports discussing pertussis outbreaks among vaccinated individuals and areas with high vaccine coverage:

 

http://www.dailypaul.com/167931/a-collection-of-mainstream-news-reports-and-studies-exploding-the-whooping-cough-vaccine-myth

 

 

Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmission of pertussis in the community. More studies are needed to find the immunologic basis of protection against infection and colonization and thus an effective way to eradicate pertussis.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/414768_3

 

Vaccination Coverage over the last 30 years or so shows that the coverage has been high, between 94-96% since 1994:

http://apps.who.int/ghodata/?vid=80100

 

 

Disease Rates:

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting.html

 

Year Reported Cases*
2000 7,867
2001 7,580
2002 9,771
2003 11,647
2004 25,827
2005 25,616
2006 15,632
2007 10,454
2008 13,278
2009 16,858
2010 27,550
2011** 15,216

*Total reported cases include those with unknown age.
**2011 data are provisional


"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is offline  
#10 of 24 Old 07-23-2012, 01:14 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

As I understand it, Pertusiss is a complicated case. It was a challenge to make the vaccination for, and makes us sick with a lot of different triggers than (e.g.) diptheria, or other bacterial toxins (this was covered in one of the videos of that vaccine course I watched earlier today). I have also heard it's changing fast, and it's hard for the vaccine researchers to keep up. Dropping uptake of the vaccination in certain areas is not helping either (nor is totally to blame). It's not exactly the poster child for success of vaccinations, but the vaccination at least appears to be better than nothing in terms of protecting against pertussis. 

 

At least that's how I understand the situation with pertussis. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#11 of 24 Old 07-23-2012, 10:34 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

Really? Are you sure about that?

 

What kinds of things do they use for the "placebos?" Do the tests show that the people getting the "placebos" get the disease at a higher rate? Can you provide links? These types of clinical trials don't last very long. So I don't see how, without purposely exposing the people to the disease, which they wouldn't be allowed to do, that they could determine the "unvaccinated" people get the disease more often.

 

 

Yes, I am sure about that. Here is a page that describes the vaccine development process and the phases of vaccine trials.  As the page mentions, while the placebo can be something innocuous such as saline solution, often it is tested against another vaccine.  I understand why people may object to this for safety testing since the other vaccine could be causing the same bad reactions, but when testing for efficacy, it doesn't really matter much whether the placebo is saline or the rabies vaccine unless we're going to consider that the rabies vaccine is magically protecting against HIV or some disease it wasn't designed to - extremely unlikely.  

 

For very rare diseases such as tetanus and rabies, yes it would be hard to test them against natural exposure.  I'm not  sure how those are handled, but I'm guessing evidence supporting them relies mainly on animal tests,  tests of antibodies after vaccination in humans, and long term observation of vaccinated populations.  These are the only two vaccines I can think of off the top of my head for which this would be a problem. Oh, and smallpox vaccine, if they ever try to make a safer one.  

 

For most vaccines though, the diseases were common enough pre-vaccine that reasonably large studies could have enough exposure to see a significant difference (or lack there of) of disease between the vaccinated group and the placebo group. 

 

I am talking about vaccines for diseases not previously vaccinated for, by the way.  A new measles vaccine would be tested against existing measles vaccine (still in double-blind tests) as it is considered unethical to give a placebo when there exists a vaccine known to be effective.  There have been relatively recent tests of different measles vaccines in areas where measles is still endemic... there has also been a fair amount of controversy over at least one of these tests as the parents of children enrolled may not have been fully informed :(   I think (but am not sure) that the procedure is also different for combination vaccines that combine vaccines that were already known to be effective rather than entirely new vaccines.  

 

A few examples:

 

Here is a really long but interesting paper on the creation and testing of the Salk vaccine, including background information on polio and other vaccine attempts.  Discussion of designing the trial begins on page 8, and description of the final design on page 13.  There were over 450,000 children in the double-blind placebo study.  There was also a non-blind study of over 560,000 children where 220,000 or so were given the vaccine and the rest served as controls.  The results showed that while cases of polio still occurred in the vaccinated group, the rate of infection was less than half the rate of infection in both the placebo and the control group.  Also, the disease was more severe in the control group - none of the vaccinated children died of polio, but there were fifteen fatal cases in the control groups.  The numbers are at the bottom of page 19 & top of 20.  The placebo used was a saline injection. 

 

Here is a brief description of the random  double blind trial for an HIV vaccine that unfortunately revealed that it was not effective.

 

Section 14 of this document describes pre-license trials of Rotarix.  

 

The clinical evaluation section of this gives a brief description a double-blind placebo trial of a HIB vaccine and its results.  

 

Abstract discussing a double blind trial of inactivated measles vaccine alone and inactivated measles vaccine + live measles vaccine against a placebo in the early '60s.  

 

Zostavax package insert (shingles vaccine). Section 14, which begins near the bottom of page 8, outlines the clinical trials.  

 

Prevnar7 package insert.  Clinical evaluation begins on page 3.  This one mentions that a MenC vaccine was used as the control in the US study and HepB vaccine in Finland.  

prosciencemum likes this.
pers is offline  
#12 of 24 Old 07-24-2012, 11:58 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

The short anwer is yes, what's not clear is at what cost.


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#13 of 24 Old 08-19-2012, 03:06 AM
 
marsupial-mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

The short anwer is yes, what's not clear is at what cost.

In other words, there is NOT clear and compelling evidence that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits. In fact, the opposite is true.
marsupial-mom is offline  
#14 of 24 Old 08-20-2012, 01:32 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

The short anwer is yes, what's not clear is at what cost.

 

Originally Posted by marsupial-mom View Post


In other words, there is NOT clear and compelling evidence that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits. In fact, the opposite is true.

 

It's also - not - clear that the benefits outweigh the risks.  Some of us are in the process of figuring out if 'the opposite is true' is true/false/unknown/unknowable at this point.


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#15 of 24 Old 10-09-2012, 07:36 PM
 
Pookietooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Actually, new vaccines are not tested against a placebo, they are tested against an existing vaccine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

New vaccines are tested against a placebo in randomized double-blind tests.  That really  fits under your second point of evidence that vaccinated people get the disease less often, but it's a bit more controlled than surveillance studies and investigation of outbreaks, I guess.  

 


Jen 47 DS C 2/03  angel.gif04/29/08/ DD S 10/28/09 DH Bill '97.

mighty-mama and her sister Kundalini-Mamacandle.gif

Pookietooth is offline  
#16 of 24 Old 10-11-2012, 09:37 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookietooth View Post

Actually, new vaccines are not tested against a placebo, they are tested against an existing vaccine.

 

Some have been tested against just saline or some against  a different non-vaccine such as an injection with just a bit of adjuvant so it will have the same sting to prevent the subject from being able to tell if they have had the vaccine or the placebo.  While I understand the objection to using another vaccine (or even the just adjuvant injection) for safety, as far as effectiveness testing goes, it functions as a placebo since unless somehow the rabies vaccine prevented HIV or whatever.  See my previous post in this thread just a few posts up from this one. 

pers is offline  
#17 of 24 Old 10-11-2012, 12:09 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by marsupial-mom View Post


In other words, there is NOT clear and compelling evidence that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits. In fact, the opposite is true.

For myself, my children, and thousands and thousands of others who have had serious adverse reactions to vaccines, the risks outweighed the benefits--and we can never, ever take back our foolish decision to vaccinate.

 

Neither can the 2000 people whose brain damage was admitted to be vaccine-induced by the US government, nor the 40+ people whose vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders were admitted by the US government to be caused by vaccines.  

 

Of course, as long as the pharmaceutical industry continues their massive effort to cover up the evidence of such reactions, there will be people who continue to believe that such reactions are rare and therefore acceptable.

 

They are not nearly as rare as you think, and they are not acceptable.

Taximom5 is online now  
#18 of 24 Old 10-11-2012, 12:11 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

Some have been tested against just saline or some against  a different non-vaccine such as an injection with just a bit of adjuvant so it will have the same sting to prevent the subject from being able to tell if they have had the vaccine or the placebo.  While I understand the objection to using another vaccine (or even the just adjuvant injection) for safety, as far as effectiveness testing goes, it functions as a placebo since unless somehow the rabies vaccine prevented HIV or whatever.  See my previous post in this thread just a few posts up from this one. 

As long as it contains ANYTHING that could (and does) have a harmful effect on a subgroup of people, it is not a placebo, and no amount of twisting the truth will make it one.  Saying that "it functions as a placebo" does not minimize the harmful effects; it just confuses people into believing so.

BeckyBird and boomer78 like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#19 of 24 Old 10-11-2012, 04:29 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

As long as it contains ANYTHING that could (and does) have a harmful effect on a subgroup of people, it is not a placebo, and no amount of twisting the truth will make it one.  Saying that "it functions as a placebo" does not minimize the harmful effects; it just confuses people into believing so.

 

Once again, I understand the objections to testing against another vaccine in regards to vaccine safety.  But this thread was not asking if vaccines were safe, it was asking if vaccines work.  Is there any reason to believe or suspect that the rabies vaccine is any better than saline solution at preventing HIV, dengue fever, or any other disease unrelated to rabies?  Has it ever been used with intent to prevent or treat these things?  No? Then it can function as a placebo for testing how effective an HIV vaccine or dengue fever vaccine is.  

pers is offline  
#20 of 24 Old 10-11-2012, 11:21 PM
 
Shanesmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

For myself, my children, and thousands and thousands of others who have had serious adverse reactions to vaccines, the risks outweighed the benefits--and we can never, ever take back our foolish decision to vaccinate.

Neither can the 2000 people whose brain damage was admitted to be vaccine-induced by the US government, nor the 40+ people whose vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders were admitted by the US government to be caused by vaccines.  

Of course, as long as the pharmaceutical industry continues their massive effort to cover up the evidence of such reactions, there will be people who continue to believe that such reactions are rare and therefore acceptable.

They are not nearly as rare as you think, and they are not acceptable.

I 100% agree

Crunchy Christian mama to my home birthed, unvaxed, uncirc boys Shane and Cody!!joy.gif
Shanesmom is offline  
#21 of 24 Old 10-12-2012, 05:55 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

As long as it contains ANYTHING that could (and does) have a harmful effect on a subgroup of people, it is not a placebo, and no amount of twisting the truth will make it one.  Saying that "it functions as a placebo" does not minimize the harmful effects; it just confuses people into believing so.

 

No. The definition of a placebo is "a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient." (that's from wikipedia at least). 

 

So it has to be something that the person thinks is medicine (or prevention) for the disease, but actually isn't. Research ethics would say it should also be something which the researcher believe is not harmful based on the best available evidence, but that has nothing to do with it being called a placebo.

 

A placebo is something which has no positive medical effects, and anyone who thinks otherwise just has a misconception. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#22 of 24 Old 10-12-2012, 05:57 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

Neither can the 2000 people whose brain damage was admitted to be vaccine-induced by the US government, nor the 40+ people whose vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders were admitted by the US government to be caused by vaccines.  

 

 

You've posted those figures before (http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1359577/newborn-vaccines-eye-drops-vitamin-k-and-hep-b/20 for example). I'm curious to follow them up. Where do they come from? Over what date range? 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#23 of 24 Old 10-12-2012, 07:21 PM
 
Pookietooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The fact that I have talked to people whose children were vaccine damaged whose doctors refused to do anything or report their children's adverse vaccine reactions leads me to suspect that the figures are vastly under-reported. Situations like the child went into convulsions and passed out, then continued to have regular convulsions (with no family history of seizure disorder) and eventually die (a few years later). 

I do know that I am still immune to rubella, and I probably had that vaccine 40 years ago or so. At least I was 3 years ago when I was getting pregnant with my dd. I also was vaccinated for mumps, but got it anyway when I was 8 or so, which makes me wonder about how effective they are.


Jen 47 DS C 2/03  angel.gif04/29/08/ DD S 10/28/09 DH Bill '97.

mighty-mama and her sister Kundalini-Mamacandle.gif

Pookietooth is offline  
#24 of 24 Old 10-13-2012, 11:05 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonttu View Post

Also , when saying , that autism rates have gone up , we always have to remember , that the way children are being checked for problems , have really advanced and many children , that may have been considered simply " misbehaving " ( I am not just talking about autism now ) a few years or decades ago , are now being looked at from a totally different angle

Not true.

The diagnostic criteria changed in 1994 with DSM IV. Nothing has changed in terms of diagnosis in nearly 20 years. But those who deny a vaccine-autism link like to pretend that it has so that they can justify the enormous increase in autism.
Taximom5 is online now  
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