New study shows no connection between full vaccine schedule and autism. - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 148 Old 03-31-2013, 12:39 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

If you want to talk about me, please start a different thread.

 

I don't think call out threads are allowed here.  I think you rock by the way and have nice little hands.  Wanna be besties?

Imakcerka is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 of 148 Old 03-31-2013, 01:08 PM
 
JulieWojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Corpus Christi, Tx
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Dr sears is not "neutral".

If you'd like to talk about me please start a new thread.

have you read his book?

I was actually talking to you...not about you. in that particular post anyways.
JulieWojo is offline  
#63 of 148 Old 03-31-2013, 01:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Yes. I read his book. Like lots of people it was one of the first things I read when I began researching vaccines.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#64 of 148 Old 03-31-2013, 01:46 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamiro View Post

 

I find it interesting how there is yet another article online about how the new generation vaccines are so much kinder and more gentle than vaccines just 15 years ago. Yet, any one complaining about vaccine problems is assumed to be 'blaming the wrong thing'. 15 years may seem like a long while to a new, young mother - but it isn't at all.

 

I can not trust an industry who assures me everything is absolutely safe, and then 15 years later comes out with 'new, improved' vaccines and touts how their old vaccines exposed the body to more than 3,000 and this *new, improved* vaccine is an improvement because it only exposes the body to 4-6.

The wording on the article leaves much to be researched, and if I was on the fence and cared - I'd do it.

 

Otherwise, my opinion is this - interesting. Thanks for the link.

 

You bring up a good point. The authors claim that 15 years ago vaccines (DPT) were cruder and had more antigens and caused more side effects. However, the autism rate has skyrocketed in the last 15 years, now 1 in 50, yet children today are receiving those kinder, gentler vaccines and less antigens. So why would antigens be the problem in the increasing rate of autism? The authors have effectively admitted that their research, looking at antigens as a cause of autism, is useless.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#65 of 148 Old 03-31-2013, 01:51 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I don't see why it's useless. Why isn't this area worth researching? There absolutely are people that worry the schedule is too many vaccines too soon, and this research speaks to those concerns.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#66 of 148 Old 03-31-2013, 02:06 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't see why it's useless. Why isn't this area worth researching? There absolutely are people that worry the schedule is too many vaccines too soon, and this research speaks to those concerns.

The main reason I see it as pointless because they did not compare vaccinated with unvaccinated ie no antigens. The only way to prove vaccines can cause autism is to study vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Until then there seems little point in studying the impact of varying levels of vaccines (antigens) on the condition. Why would you study the degree vaccines can effect autism if you haven't established that vaccines can cause it in the first place? The study assumed there was no connection between vaccines and autsim, so why bother doing this study? It is jumping the gun, so to speak.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#67 of 148 Old 03-31-2013, 02:13 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)

I read a comment on the study, sorry can't remember where but I thought it was apt, so I will paraphrase.

 

Imagine a study in which the researchers had 10 peanuts, they gave five peanuts to child A and five peanuts to child B. Child A ate the peanuts and was fine, child B ate the peanuts and had an allergic reaction. The conclusion to this study is as both children ate the same number of peanuts so there is nothing wrong with the peanuts.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#68 of 148 Old 03-31-2013, 02:23 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I guess I think of this more as sel/del vs on schedule instead of vax vs no vax, which is why the conclusion is couched in terms of the schedule.

It's like letting kid a eat all the peanuts at once and having kid b eat one a week for a month, an deciding the problem isn't with the quantity of peanuts eaten.

Or maybe I just butchered that analogy, I don't know.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#69 of 148 Old 03-31-2013, 03:03 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)

Well you could have a study where child A ate 6 peanuts, child B ate 3 peanuts and child C ate 3 peanuts. Child A is fine, child B is fine, but child C has an serious allergic reaction. Same conclusion: as all three children ate the peanuts child A (most peanuts) and child B (less peanuts) child C (less peanuts), neither the peanuts nor the quantity consumed is a problem.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#70 of 148 Old 03-31-2013, 03:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
That's kind of why we don't use sample sizes of one. If you make it group a, b, and c and each group is 100 or so randomly assigned children and they have statistically the same number of reactions, then yeah you can say the quantity consumed isn't the issue. You can't say the peanuts weren't the issue because you didn't control for that.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#71 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 09:15 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am going to quote a MDC poster from another thread: 'the way a study is conducted matters. Like really really matters.' This study's methodology is so poor & the bias so obvious that it would never have made prime time on any other subject.

The fact that outlets of (nominal) 'journalism' like NPR are accepting it without so much as a single criticism is actually terrifying to me . . .
dinahx is offline  
#72 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 10:27 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
What's wrong with te methodology? What are the sources of bias?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#73 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 10:49 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

What's wrong with te methodology? What are the sources of bias?

Do you ever read anything that contradicts your belief in the "Holy of Holies"?


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#74 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 11:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I don't have any clue what you're talking about or what it has to do with my questions.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#75 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 11:04 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't have any clue what you're talking about or what it has to do with my questions.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/can-we-trust-the-cdc-claim-that-there-is-no-link-between-vaccines-and-autism/


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#76 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 11:11 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't have any clue what you're talking about or what it has to do with my questions.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/can-we-trust-the-cdc-claim-that-there-is-no-link-between-vaccines-and-autism/

Thanks Becky tiphat.gif


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#77 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 11:13 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't have any clue what you're talking about or what it has to do with my questions.

Oh, I think you have a clue exactly what is going on (and more so!!)  - are you just playing us as in an April Fools joke?? joy.gif


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#78 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 11:18 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Har I read anything that contradicts the idea that there's no link between autism and vaccines? Sure. Even aside from posts here and the studies posted here. I just haven't found any of it very compelling. I tend to trust different sources than a lot of other folks here, though. I put a lot more stock in CDC, iom, and WHO than others.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#79 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 11:20 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
And fwiw this study in no way ends the autism vaccines debate. It looks at one aspect of vaccines and one aspect only.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#80 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 11:26 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)

So 1 in 88 is the correct number as of now -

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

 About 1 in 88 children has been identified with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) according to estimates from CDC's Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network.


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#81 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 11:29 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
The 1 in 88 number and the 1 in 50 number were arrived at using very different techniques. It seems pretty apparent though that the 1 in 50 number is an increase in detection over the 1 in 88, not a real increase. The main increase in the most recent survey was in older kids who were already around for the previous survey, but they've been diagnosed since then. My guess is you'll see both stats for awhile.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#82 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 11:35 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The 1 in 88 number and the 1 in 50 number were arrived at using very different techniques. It seems pretty apparent though that the 1 in 50 number is an increase in detection over the 1 in 88, not a real increase. The main increase in the most recent survey was in older kids who were already around for the previous survey, but they've been diagnosed since then. My guess is you'll see both stats for awhile.

well, will it make a difference if it's 1 in 25 or 1 in 10?????? 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#83 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 11:44 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
A difference in what?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#84 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 11:46 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The 1 in 88 number and the 1 in 50 number were arrived at using very different techniques. It seems pretty apparent though that the 1 in 50 number is an increase in detection over the 1 in 88, not a real increase. The main increase in the most recent survey was in older kids who were already around for the previous survey, but they've been diagnosed since then. My guess is you'll see both stats for awhile.

And this bit of nonsense has been refuted by someone (pro-vax no less) that looked at the raw data and crunched the numbers and showed that this was certainly NOT the case. A link was posted in the relevant thread, but yet again, you either didn't read it, or because it goes against all that is Holy, you choose instead to parrot the official line. 


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#85 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 12:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I did not see it. I went back and looked at this thread again

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1380114/1-in-50-with-autism-now

And I still don't see it. Could you help me out?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#86 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 12:10 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I did not see it. I went back and looked at this thread again

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1380114/1-in-50-with-autism-now

And I still don't see it. Could you help me out?

Just this once. If you don't read the links posted, its not my problem.

 

http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.com/2013/03/autism-rising-by-numbers.html


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#87 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 12:23 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Thanks. I appreciate it. His analysis (which I need to go trough more carefully later) seems to say that not all of the increase is due to improved detection. Which isn't what I claimed.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#88 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 12:33 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Thanks. I appreciate it. His analysis (which I need to go trough more carefully later) seems to say that not all very little of the increase is due to improved detection. Which isn't what I claimed.

You're welcome.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#89 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 12:53 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
.7% of the .9% increase.

He also doesn't mention the significant differences in how the data was gathered.

Fwiw I do think there's a real increase in autism diagnosis, I just don't think it's as big as it looks.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#90 of 148 Old 04-01-2013, 01:27 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

And fwiw this study in no way ends the autism vaccines debate. It looks at one aspect of vaccines and one aspect only.

You are a lone voice crying in the Wilderness on that tip! The *entire* news media is calling THE END . . . Again. They are casting an entirely uncritical eye. Just read the headlines, no mention of Antigen there! The fact that this is being reported with a total absence of critical review is the part that is scarier than any vax schedule. It is a sad day 4 public discourse.

The issues with Methodology & Bias are clear & glaring & obvious. Anyone who even casually reviews methodology & conflict of interest can see them, unfortunately that is not most of the population, they get it filtered, thru NPR @ *best*.

Efforts to increase compliance in this way undermine the sacred principle of informed consent in the public, IMRealOpinion. There are also economic justice issues, because it is a priveledge to get your 411 from the Internet rather than TV & Radio News & Public Heresay. And folks with time & good Internet access are the only ones who can truly hear both sides, access primary lit & choose.
dinahx is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

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

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