Autism/Vaccination Correlation and Functional Medicine - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 79 Old 07-03-2013, 11:39 PM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I meant it doesn't affect us in our children are not on the spectrum.
Kamiro likes this.
nia82 is offline  
#62 of 79 Old 07-05-2013, 09:43 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

I do not believe that a doctor would refuse to treat chronic constipation in any child. Unfortunately, there just isn't much that can done other that eat more fiber, increase water intake etc.  Suppositories can be used occasionally but can create a dependency. 

 

"In August of 2009, a study done by S.H. Ibrahim et al. did address some of these research issues. "U.S. News and World Report" writes that the researchers followed both autistic children and non-autistic children for 18 years, noting gastrointestinal problems. The study authors found very little difference in the frequency of problems like diarrhea and gastric reflux between children with autism and those without. They did find a higher percentage of constipation in autistic children but feeding issues like ritualistic eating and picky eating was higher in children with autism as well." 

 

"Autistic children often have very narrow food preferences that can contribute to constipation. It is this kind of increased incidence of picky eating in children with autism that could account for the higher levels of constipation, Ibrahim and his colleagues found. Autistic children may not get enough fiber.


Medications can also play a role. The stimulant medications that autistic children take can affect appetite, digestion or influence food issues, Ibrahim reported.
 

 http://www.livestrong.com/article/496272-constipation-in-children-with-autism/#ixzz2XuCdqFSN

 

So I think there are many plausible reasons why an autistic child may have more problems with constipation than children without autism. 

BOLLOCKS. I have absolutely nothing to add except to point out that this is total crap. - mainly because I don't feel like banging my head against a brick wall - but I also just can't help myself sometimes. winky.gif

BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#63 of 79 Old 07-05-2013, 09:47 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

"Yes, the Mayo clinic is wrong." 

 

Here is what the AAP has to say about it as well: 

 

"Although use of the gluten/casein-free diet for children with ASDs is popular, there is little evidence to support or refute this intervention.

Parents of children with ASDs will understandably pursue interventions that they believe may help their child, particularly if the therapies are viewed as being unlikely to have any adverse effects. Unfortunately, families are often exposed to unsubstantiated, pseudoscientific theories and related clinical practices that are, at best, ineffective and, at worst, compete with validated treatments or lead to physical, emotional, or financial harm." 

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2008/1215/p1399.html

Here is what the NHS has to say : "Examples of suggested CAMS to treat ASD include:

  • special diets, such as gluten-free diets
  • vitamin supplements
  • anti-fungal medication
  • chelation therapy, which uses medication or other agents to remove metal, in particular mercury, from the body

There is little or no evidence that any of these approaches are effective, and some may even be potentially dangerous.

If you are considering a CAM, look out for certain claims and signs that suggest that the treatment may be unsound. These include claims that:

  • are based on overly simplified scientific theories – for example, that ASD is caused by mercury in the body
  • promise effective treatment for a wide range of unrelated symptoms
  • offer dramatic results or the possibility of a cure
  • rely on unpublished case reports rather than carefully designed studies
  • the treatment has no risks or side effects "

 

This was after just a few minutes of googling. I could find more but I don't think it would make a difference.

 

So I guess the AAP is wrong, Mayo Clinic is wrong, and NHS is wrong?  And this is why there is no point in debating certain people on this forum. Anything and everything that doesn't support your theory is "biased" "big pharma" "wrong" and there is no arguing with people like that.  So with that I bid you all farewell!  

 

If anyone has anything to add please do, but it seems like most pro science/pro vaccine people have left this board. 

So one cannot be pro-science and vaccine skeptic? Again I call BS

BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#64 of 79 Old 07-05-2013, 12:15 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
It's quite hard to when systematic reviews and the odd of the scientific literature are so strongly in favour of all the currently recommended vaccines - that after all is why they are currently recommended.

Questioning is pro-science, but questioning beyond reasonable doubt is not. You would not question gravity, or electricity for example.

I just got done reading "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre, who many of you know is extremely critical of big pharma tactics to sell medicines. I strongly recommend everyone read that before making any more proclamations about what is or isn't scientific. smile.gif

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  
#65 of 79 Old 07-05-2013, 01:19 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

It's quite hard to when systematic reviews and the odd of the scientific literature are so strongly in favour of all the currently recommended vaccines - that after all is why they are currently recommended.

Questioning is pro-science, but questioning beyond reasonable doubt is not. You would not question gravity, or electricity for example.

I just got done reading "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre, who many of you know is extremely critical of big pharma tactics to sell medicines. I strongly recommend everyone read that before making any more proclamations about what is or isn't scientific. smile.gif

Except that the science of vaccine has a lot more unanswered questions. It isn't as black and white as the science of gravity or a spherically shaped earth. The 2011 report on vaccine safety from the Institutes of Medicine, while heralding vaccine safety, simultaneously details all of the gaps and unknowns in this branch of research. I strongly recommend everyone read that before making any more proclamations about what is or isn't scientific. smile.gif

duck.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#66 of 79 Old 07-05-2013, 01:46 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

It's quite hard to when systematic reviews and the odd of the scientific literature are so strongly in favour of all the currently recommended vaccines - that after all is why they are currently recommended.

Questioning is pro-science, but questioning beyond reasonable doubt is not. You would not question gravity, or electricity for example.

I just got done reading "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre, who many of you know is extremely critical of big pharma tactics to sell medicines. I strongly recommend everyone read that before making any more proclamations about what is or isn't scientific. smile.gif

Comparing vaccines--an invasive injection of many chemicals that can affect immunity (which is good), autoimmunity (which is not good), neurological function, brain function, etc--with GRAVITY is unscientific.

 

But of course, there are questions one can and should ask about gravity:  Are there situations where gravity behaves differently?  Are there situations where gravity's effect can be changed? How?  Why?

 

And why on earth WOULDN'T one question anything about electricity?  FOR EXAMPLE: CAN IT BE MADE TO BE SAFER???? (Hello?  Sound familiar?)

 

It certainly sounds like you are saying that we shouldn't question vaccines.  That kind of thinking does not go over well with those who have already been injured by vaccines.  

Taximom5 is offline  
#67 of 79 Old 07-05-2013, 06:03 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,141
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 187 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

It's quite hard to when systematic reviews and the odd of the scientific literature are so strongly in favour of all the currently recommended vaccines - that after all is why they are currently recommended.

Questioning is pro-science, but questioning beyond reasonable doubt is not. You would not question gravity, or electricity for example.

 

 

A thumbs up to Turquesa and Taxi's response….

 

 

I would not say someone who questions gravity or electricity is anti science.

 

Not agreeing with one commonly accepted practice in science does not make one anti-science as a whole.  In fact, haven't you argued repeatedly that you can still attachment parent and vax? That one choice not always held by the rest of the community does not negate the other ways you are pro attachment parenting?

 

I think the stance of non vax =anti science is painting with very large brush strokes and illogical.


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  
#68 of 79 Old 07-05-2013, 06:23 PM
 
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 prosciencemum View Post

Questioning is pro-science, but questioning beyond reasonable doubt is not. You would not question gravity, or electricity for example.

 

My husband is a HV electrician, responsible for installation and testing of the massive power structures of industrial sites. If he did not continually question the changeable properties of electricity, influenced by such mundane things as surrounding infrastructure and weather (of all things), he'd likely be dead by now. 

 

Based on his experience over the past 25 years, it's the guys who go into it taking everything at face value, without question, and without a critical eye ("Oh that could never happen! The Engineer knows what he's doing") who end up as accident report stats.  


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  
#69 of 79 Old 07-05-2013, 10:05 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,934
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)

Gravity.....that's a good one! Unfortunately, nobody really understands gravity, at least not yet. 

 

Quote:

Gravity still stumps scientists

The wimpiest force in the universe is tough to explain

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20215345/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/gravity-still-stumps-scientists/#.UdedCW2bgog

 

The immune system..... we don't fully understand that, either. We, meaning scientists, researchers, humankind, etc. We still have so much to discover about the immune system. As one immunologist admits,

Quote:

For now, from the standpoint of the practicing clinician the immune system remains a black box, says Garry Fathman, MD, a professor of immunology and rheumatology and associate director of the Institute for Immunology, Transplantation and Infection.

“If a patient were to ask me, ‘How’s my immune system doing today?’ I would have no idea how to answer that, and I’m an immunologist. None of us can answer that.

 

Quote:
We can perturb the immune system all kinds of different ways, measure the levels of hundreds or thousands of different things in response to that, and figure out which ones go up or down with different states of health or non-health,” Davis says. “Anything that might affect the system — a vaccine, a disease, a drug — can tell you something.

(Thanks Momtezuma! http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2011summer/article7.html )

 

This is it, right here. Vaccines affect the immune system--everyone agrees with this fact, right? Do vaccines only affect the system by providing immunity to disease, and nothing more? Of course not--that's nonsense! In some individuals, vaccines can adversely affect the immune system. This is an accepted fact as well, right?  Ok then. Now, with these facts in mind, you have to make a choice. Is the current scientific evidence acceptable?

Mirzam, japonica and Turquesa like this.

 
 
 "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  
#70 of 79 Old 07-06-2013, 09:14 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
You'll notice in my post that I didn't bring up not questioning electricity. I even hesitated to mention gravity. What makes science beautiful is that even the seemingly obvious has so much unknown about it.

As an aside, here's an interesting exercise. Enter the following search term into your browser: "Believe in vaccines." I find it fascinating how many politicians and doctors use that phrase because it's a statement of faith and not of science. There's a fine line between treating science as science and science as religion. I think that "God has spoken" and "the science has spoken" are equally dogmatic and religious statements. They both convey, "I've heard what I wanted to hear, I believe what I want to believe, and I am uninterested in any further information that might challenge it." Apart from the earth not being flat, I can think of very few scientific facts that don't come with some subtlety, mystery, and complexity. Even the stuff we take for granted comes with stuff we can't take for granted. Japonica's post illustrates that well.

But getting back on topic, here's the rub with vaccines. Whether through psychological or legal coercion, they are medical interventions that are getting forced on us. We can't give our informed consent or refusal to accepting gravity and electricity (ever been in a thunder storm?) So I'm sure you'll understand that because they're so entrenched in public policy and medical practice, vaccines warrant such a special level of scientific scrutiny. smile.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#71 of 79 Old 07-06-2013, 12:04 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Sure. And they also get it.

Science is complex, but the thing that differentiates it from religion is evidence. Maybe it takes years of study to understand the evidence sometimes, but it's still there.

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  
#72 of 79 Old 07-06-2013, 03:28 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Sure. And they also get it.

Science is complex, but the thing that differentiates it from religion is evidence. Maybe it takes years of study to understand the evidence sometimes, but it's still there.

You sound like you approach science with the reverence and passive acceptance typically seen in religious views.

Scientific "evidence" of safety/efficacy has been given for Every. Single. Recalled. Drug. Each and every time, the manufacturers did their best to fight against the truth coming out.

It's awfully condescending for you to tell us that "it takes years of study to understand the evidence," when so many people have had their adverse reactions--evidence of harm-- denied by the manufacturers and their paid cronies.

When the scientists are instructed by those funding the studies to NOT study the people who have suffered reactions--in other words, to ignore the evidence--and instead to come up with studies showing safety and efficacy at all costs, then having faith in "science" becomes a bad joke at best.

Your branch of science may be the last branch that has remained relatively pure. The "science" of pharmacology has become the science of how to sell the most pharmaceutical products possible. What used to be a tool to save lives has become increasingly tainted by the corrupt companies who profit at every turn, and who have staffed the government watchdog agencies with their own paid representatives.
Taximom5 is offline  
#73 of 79 Old 07-07-2013, 03:58 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
emmy526 is offline  
#74 of 79 Old 07-07-2013, 05:06 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Emmy, that's so good, it should have its own thread!
Taximom5 is offline  
#75 of 79 Old 07-07-2013, 02:26 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Nm.

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  
#76 of 79 Old 07-08-2013, 06:54 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Sure. And they also get it.

Science is complex, but the thing that differentiates it from religion is evidence. Maybe it takes years of study to understand the evidence sometimes, but it's still there.

No, it takes a critical eye and an open mind. Things that many thoughtful mamas here at MDC actually DO possess.


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#77 of 79 Old 07-08-2013, 06:57 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Maybe. Sometimes. Do my posts actually get read before they are objected to....?

I can only speak for myself, but yes, I read your posts before responding. I'm wondering if YOU read them before hitting the submit button and realize how condescending some of them sound?

Mirzam, applejuice and Taximom5 like this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#78 of 79 Old 07-08-2013, 08:26 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Maybe. Sometimes. Do my posts actually get read before they are objected to....?

I read and re-read your post -- the one you seem to be replying to, although it is not clear, since you didn't quote -- several times before writing my response. I gave my response a great deal of thought, and reminded myself (and you) that you are coming from a very different perspective, one that doesn't necessarily allow you to see first-hand the extent of corruption and ethical problems involved with the vaccine industry.

Does that answer your question?
applejuice and Marnica like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#79 of 79 Old 07-10-2013, 10:57 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

No, it takes a critical eye and an open mind. Things that many thoughtful mamas here at MDC actually DO possess.

Sure some,even a lot of science is relatively easy to understand. The scientific method after all is just about trying to understand the world around us with the help of mathematical techniques.

Some things are more complicated though - that's all my point is. I don't think it's condescending to believe that people who've spent years studying a subject might understand it better than the average person posting in an Internet forum.

I've mentioned it before - can't remember if it was here, but Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is a nice helpful book, clearly not on the side of big pharma, but with some great tips about critiquing science.

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  
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