From Acrodynia to Autism: Mercury Across Generations, More Evidence of Harm - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 07:08 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 EineMutti View Post
 

 

Many parents who have one child on the spectrum refuse to vaccinate their subsequent children. Fair enough, really, I would do the same. But because there seems to be a genetic component, the subsequent children turn out to have autism as well. Not all, but many. We have many siblings here, one vaccinated, one unvaccinated kid (not hundreds mind you, but about 20), both severely affected by autism. Is this some type of sick joke?? :irked 

 

This is to count as evidence? This is disturbing on so many levels to even put this out there! IF this is what counts in your book (20), please get out into the REAL world a bit more!!

 

The NAS will soon publish a study about this.

 

If you visit a school with severely affected children and ask around, you will find the same. Actually IRL I have found the complete opposite.

It's quite clear from your other posts that you don't feel there is even an increase, let alone any connection that is "medical", all you have provided is antidotal evidence that thus far is not supported by the REAL medical community - NO data and actually there are a growing number of physicians and organizations (govt run ones too) that do see an increase and as Kathy has pointed out data supports it as well, your claims are just that, nothing real. Multitudes of evidence and numerous previous threads have also shown this.


 

 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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 07:27 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

It's quite clear from your other posts that you don't feel there is even an increase, let alone any connection that is "medical", all you have provided is antidotal evidence that thus far is not supported by the REAL medical community - NO data and actually there are a growing number of physicians and organizations (govt run ones too) that do see an increase and as Kathy has pointed out data supports it as well, your claims are just that, nothing real. Multitudes of evidence and numerous previous threads have also shown this.

 

There is an increase, but the cause is unknown. Diagnosis criteria could have changed. Globalization and higher exposure to different viruses could be a trigger. Changes in food could be one, too. No-one knows for sure. This is what the REAL medical community says.

 

There are no "multitudes of evidence" that support the idea that vaccinations cause autism. At least not scientific evidence. And if there is, I have yet to see the discussing, passionate mother who understands any of it. 

 

 

Response bias is a real problem in statistical survey. There are methods of empirical Social Science to reduce this. Of of those methods is to throw out results from a study that only has a 23% response.

 

Anecdotal evidence is very, very useful though. Sociological research is split into qualitative and quantitative research. Anecdotal evidence is part of the qualitative.

 

Let's say, statistical research shows that is a very strong link between socio-econimic status (income, job-position and educational qualifications) of parents and educational achievement of their children. 

 

This is very true. In Germany, only 7% of kids with parents of the lowest socio-economic status manage to get a University degree. Compared to 80% of kids who have parents in the academic world.

 

That does NOT mean that ALL children of parents who have a degree and a high income and job-position will study, nor does it mean that children of deprived household have no chance. This is where the anecdotal evidence comes in and one can analyse HOW it is possible, even though it is unlikely. Saying that "my parents were poor and have no degree, but I am doing awesome" does not negate the strong link.

 

Same goes for all studies. Anecdotal evidence is used when a parent says: "My kid was normal, then had the MMR and in the next few months developed autism". That is a good anecdote and deserves proper research. Then you find parents whose children have not been vaccinated and have autism anyway. That concludes that there is no cause and effect relationship, BUT there might be a link. So you get in the quantitative research which.... shows no link between the two. Unlike my previous example. 

 

There are really not so many links between things than we think. One study might show a correlation between autism and mercury and one does not. That, generally means that there isn't one.

 

A theory is a system of axioms, which are hypotheses that do not negate each other. As soon as a hypothesis has been negated in quantitative research, there really is little point in keeping going.

 

So many articles claim "correlations" between this and that and forget that there is a thing called "intervening variable" and then make up their own mind.

 

It took me FIVE YEARS and an MA in sociology to even understand the simplest study and distinguish between good ones and bad ones.

 

There is so little point in sitting in front of google and digging out links that support what YOU want, because in the end, all facts are chosen facts and even the people who did the research often had a "wish" about their outcome. Mums discussing vaccinations online and googling links are wasting their time, because they do NOT understand what an intervening variable even is, a yes-response, a closed questionnaire, the theory of correlation coefficient r compared to chi-aquare. Not even the journalists who "try" to report about Professor XYZ's research really get it right. How many times my old Profs have been upset because their so carefully conducted study has been misrepresented by the media. The problem is that professor XYZ's research about about the side effect of vaccinations is full of Covariant and factor analysis and the question if longitudinal is better than cross-sectional data. It is HARD to understand, it NOT visible for most of the public and there is higher maths involved to grasp just the basics. 

 

 

 

And then consider the fact that, in order to see unbiased, scientific material, google is not the place. Even google scholar is rather chopped up and doesn't show it all. Many good studies are not published for the reader and are done by Universities and only available on Moodle.

chickabiddy, Katie8681 and teacozy like this.
EineMutti is offline  
#33 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 07:46 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

You misunderstood. It is not about keeping secrets per se, it is just not published online for everyone to see. But then, neither is Harry Potter (unless you go and download it illegally, but you won't find many seeders on a torrent about sociological studies). 

 

It is their work, it is their patent, their "baby" and sometimes, you have to purchase a book to see it or be lucky and get the Moodle link if it is your Prof. 

 

Or, as I said, it is misunderstood, because it is hard to understand. 

EineMutti is offline  
#34 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 07:46 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,570
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 426 Post(s)

Serenbat, I thought Mutti's response was very good and well thought out.  

 

If you disagree maybe you can point them out and tell us why?  Just saying "The rest of your post= rolling smiley face" isn't very helpful in this kind of discussion. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#35 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 07:47 AM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Again just want to point out that this current debate is not linked directly to OPs posted study, do we need to go here again?
Ratchet is offline  
#36 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 07:47 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)

 

Just some FYI ElneMutti - people around here DO read, and when you post that there hasn't been an increase (haven't actually increased)  in one section but go to post that there is in another- it really makes you look inconstant - others take notice!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

There is an increase, but the cause is unknown. 


 

 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  
#37 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 07:49 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 teacozy View Post
 

Serenbat, I thought Mutti's response was very good and well thought out.  

 

If you disagree maybe you can point them out and tell us why?  Just saying "The rest of your post= rolling smiley face" isn't very helpful in this kind of discussion. 

maybe you don't know you can't cross post from sections tea?

 

as I stated others do read! 


 

 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  
#38 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 07:51 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 Ratchet View Post

Again just want to point out that this current debate is not linked directly to OPs posted study, do we need to go here again?

it certainly doesn't belong here and but when you purposely go off topic (some call it avoiding) and go on to post things that our not correct - other have every right to comment on it


 

 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  
#39 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 07:52 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

There is an increase of diagnosed autism. It didn't used to be defined as a "spectrum". There "might" also be an increase in AS disorders in general, I did say that I am not sure. This is where you find studies that say both again and you have to make up your own mind.

 

Sorry my opinions aren't made of concrete.

EineMutti is offline  
#40 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 08:36 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

The REAL medical world would like a new study about this.

 

But the criteria to get it "right" are not easy.

 

You would need several Professors of Medical Sociology with absolutely no personal interest in EITHER outcome. You would need at least 10 000 vaxxed and 10 000 unvaxxed children. The picking has to be done by simple random sample and the groups wouldn't be allowed to differ much from each other in intervening variable (socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol, genetic defects in family, etc, etc).

 

Then you divide each group into 10, so a 1000 kids.

 

Then you make your closed questionnaire or get data from a reliable source, or both. The people who conduct this research also aren't allowed to have a personal interest either way, or it could be suggestive. 

 

If the results of each group don't differ by more than 5% from each other and all ten studies that include the correlation coefficients and the variables "autism" and "vaccination" (or whichever part of the vaccination is currently blamed, as that changes, too) you have a result. 

 

Show me that study and we can talk about "vaccination causes autism". :thumb

 

Until then, the debates between pro-vaxxers and vax-skeptics do not differ much from a good old religious debate where one party goes to a pro-Christian site and the other to an atheist site and they debate with each other until red in the face.

 

It's a waste of time, really. Go out and play with your kids. Mine is in Germany just now, or I would, too. 

 

Sources: Schnell, Hill, Esser: Methods of Empirical Social Science

Atteslander: Methoden der Empirischen Sozialforschung

EineMutti is offline  
#41 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 09:30 AM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
The first person to go off topic (IMO) was Mirzam, and I don't think she did it to avoid anything, and she was stating a position you believe to be correct. Please do not use my comment against any of the PPs.
Ratchet is offline  
#42 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 09:37 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

The REAL medical world would like a new study about this.

 

But the criteria to get it "right" are not easy.

 

You would need several Professors of Medical Sociology with absolutely no personal interest in EITHER outcome. You would need at least 10 000 vaxxed and 10 000 unvaxxed children. The picking has to be done by simple random sample and the groups wouldn't be allowed to differ much from each other in intervening variable (socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol, genetic defects in family, etc, etc).

 

Then you divide each group into 10, so a 1000 kids.

 

Then you make your closed questionnaire or get data from a reliable source, or both. The people who conduct this research also aren't allowed to have a personal interest either way, or it could be suggestive.

 

If the results of each group don't differ by more than 5% from each other and all ten studies that include the correlation coefficients and the variables "autism" and "vaccination" (or whichever part of the vaccination is currently blamed, as that changes, too) you have a result.

 

Show me that study and we can talk about "vaccination causes autism". :thumb

 

Until then, the debates between pro-vaxxers and vax-skeptics do not differ much from a good old religious debate where one party goes to a pro-Christian site and the other to an atheist site and they debate with each other until red in the face.

 

It's a waste of time, really. Go out and play with your kids. Mine is in Germany just now, or I would, too.

 

Sources: Schnell, Hill, Esser: Methods of Empirical Social Science

Atteslander: Methoden der Empirischen Sozialforschung

There are other points I would like to make, but I will stick to this:

 

Most non-vaxxers do not think vaccines are THE cause of autism.  They think they might be a trigger in susceptible individuals.  There is quite the difference.

 

That being said, I do not disagree with your post.  We do not have good data.  So , what, exactly is a mother to do?  Because parents  do have to decide what to do in terms of vaccines.  Should they just listen to whatever mainstream science  has to say ?  Should they try and sort it out themselves?  Each has pros and cons.

 

Telling people that researching and discussing vaccine issues is a waste of time is  dismissive. Some people are making vaccine decisions shortly and to them it might be very important to have a place to read or discuss ideas.  

BeckyBird 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  
#43 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 09:59 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

There are other points I would like to make, but I will stick to this:

 

Most non-vaxxers do not think vaccines are THE cause of autism.  They think they might be a trigger in susceptible individuals.  There is quite the difference.

 

That being said, I do not disagree with your post.  We do not have good data.  So , what, exactly is a mother to do?  Because parents  do have to decide what to do in terms of vaccines.  Should they just listen to whatever mainstream science  has to say ?  Should they try and sort it out themselves?  Each has pros and cons.

 

Telling people that researching and discussing vaccine issues is a waste of time is  dismissive. Some people are making vaccine decisions shortly and to them it might be very important to have a place to read or discuss ideas.  

 

Vaccines being a trigger to susceptible individuals by no means would mean that you shouldn't vaccinate though? Let's take MDEM, which is the disease by little boy has. It causes brain damage, seizures, coma and has a mortality rate of up to 10%. Around 1% of the cases are caused by vaccination. Yes. Caused. I admit it. Not because of stuff in the vaxx, but because of the following "ailment". Fever, runny nose, etc. 99% of cases are caused by bacteria and viruses, or the cause is unknown. Measles, mumps, rubella, Herpes, chicken pox and EBV are 99 times more likely to cause MDEM than a vaccination does. That is still a strong case FOR vaccinations, isn't it? Depending how you look at it.

 

A vulnerable individual is more likely to develop certain conditions, these can be caused by viruses, bacteria, OR vaccinations.

 

A vulnerable individual is a child on chemotherapy, for instance. He cannot be in contact with any of those, including the vaccination, which really would speak for other children being vaccinated in order to protect him. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I would personally LOVE for mercury to be cause for autism. Some of the kids I work with and their families would get a payout and the support they need, plus better research into maybe how to reverse the damage that has been done? Vaccinations could be made organic and the whole autism nightmare would have an end, numbers would suddenly reduce, etc. I am sure pharma companies would find great new ways of financially turning this around for them. They are clever that way.

 

But it just simply isn't the case (with our knowledge so for, anyway.)

 

What exactly is a mother to do? Wasting her time on google to find bad studies, memes and scare-mongerers isn't the solution. The first step, I guess, is to truly understand that she cannot understand, unless she spends years and years in a sociology library, just to find out that there is no good data. The best there is, are the University ones, that conclude that there is no link and then go vaccinate. 

chickabiddy likes this.
EineMutti is offline  
#44 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 10:38 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

Vaccines being a trigger to susceptible individuals by no means would mean that you shouldn't vaccinate though? Let's take MDEM, which is the disease by little boy has. 

 

Please clarify - is the "by" a typo and you meant "my"?  Thanks.

 

K.

applejuice 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  
#45 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 10:43 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Yes, it means "my" not "by".

 

I have cold so sound a bit nasal.

 

 hide.gif 

EineMutti is offline  
#46 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 10:44 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)

No worries.  I  hope he is doing well.  Welcome to MDC :)

 

kathy


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  
#47 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 10:48 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

He is doing amazing! And thanks :)

EineMutti is offline  
#48 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 11:01 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

 

What exactly is a mother to do? Wasting her time on google to find bad studies, memes and scare-mongers isn't the solution. The first step, I guess, is to truly understand that she cannot understand, unless she spends years and years in a sociology library, just to find out that there is no good data. The best there is, are the University ones, that conclude that there is no link and then go vaccinate. 

 

  I think pro-vaxxers are equally culpable when it comes to posting bad studies, memes and scaremongering.  I agree there is a lack of good data.  Given this, I think it is perfectly reasonable to refuse, select or delay prophylactic pharmaceuticals for an infant who is not under any real threat from a disease (due to prevalence of disease, mildness of disease or whatever).  

rachelsmama and serenbat like 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  
#49 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 11:09 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 kathymuggle View Post
Given this, I think it is perfectly reasonable to refuse, select or delay prophylactic pharmaceuticals for an infant who is not under any real threat from a disease (due to prevalence of disease, mildness of disease or whatever).  

:thumb

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

 The best there is, are the University ones, that conclude that there is no link and then go vaccinate. 

yea, real nice sentiment to hold

 

until you find your child has a problem, let them be the ginny pig for the herd :irked 


 

 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  
#50 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 11:23 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
 
Both are culpable of scare-mongering and bad data. Absolutely agree.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

:thumb

yea, real nice sentiment to hold

 

until you find your child has a problem, let them be the ginny pig for the herd :irked 

 

We are all guinea pigs.Kids WITH problems even more so. Good thing is that we are not the first generation to try vaccinations and all had to rely on our parent's and grandparent's generation to do so. 

 

Every medication makes you a "guinea pig". Sick kids take part in medical trials that only sometimes save their lives so the next generation can be cured. The majority of children with cancer are in trials and the results of those are mostly beneficial for adults (other soapbox, off topic).

 

Fact is, we live in a society, let's not just think about ourselves. The vaccination risk for healthy children is toty compared to what other children have to go through. To potentially save YOUR child's life.  

 

ETA, basically everything you consume in any way has once been trialled by a human guinea pig. All the meds you, your parents, siblings, children have ever taken has been tried and tested by someone else, and you happily profit. Every fruit or veg was first tried by someone who took the risk and deemed it edible. Your computer has been develped by someone else, your clothes have been made by someone else. Your house has been built by someone else. EVERYTHING was untested once and improved, vaccinations are just a very small part of all of this. A part of society. We all want to benefit from our society, but when it suddenly comes to do something for someone else... we hesitate. Statistically (given doctor's advice and I do follow it, they have saved my boy's life), giving them to your child not only benefits your own child (just not much, really) and only exposes it to a miniscule risk, but it benefits another one way more. 

 

So yes. It IS a nice sentiment to have, 

EineMutti is offline  
#51 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 02:31 PM
 
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 EineMutti View Post
 

 

 Good thing is that we are not the first generation to try vaccinations and all had to rely on our parent's and grandparent's generation to do so. 

 

 

 

I feel that speaks volumes of your knowledge of todays vaccines.

 

You work for NAS - as in The National Autistic Society? Not National Academy of Sciences- correct?


 

 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  
#52 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 02:39 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

I don't believe EM is in the US, so her "national" will be different from yours.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#53 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 04:19 PM
 
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 chickabiddy View Post
 

I don't believe EM is in the US, so her "national" will be different from yours.

What is this suppose to mean? "National" what?

 

The National Autistic Society is in the UK!


 

 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  
#54 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 06:53 PM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

I feel that speaks volumes of your knowledge of todays vaccines.

 

You work for NAS - as in The National Autistic Society? Not National Academy of Sciences- correct?

 

Well, our parents and grandparent's had to be experimented on MORE, I wasn't quite clear. Some had to take vaccinations in the very first generation. There was once a person who took it for the very first time, before ANY vaccine had ever been tested. Now, it is more variations, but the general idea and theory of them has been tested and it did work.

 

Odd debate strategy though, taking out one quote that is not 100% clear and just picking on that, ignoring the rest. 

 

NAS is the National Autistic Society and it is in the UK. And yes, my "national" is different, I am from Germany :wink 

EineMutti is offline  
#55 of 114 Old 10-26-2013, 09:23 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

Where is the data that supports your claim? So many??? REALLY?

I've never seen information at all on this. IRL I have yet to know of any.

But surely you have read the posts here made by moms of unvaccinated children who are autistic right? Just because you haven't met one IRL doesn't make it impossible. Heck how many posts have there been here at MDC saying they have never known a child with a serious vaccine reaction - while they may be telling the truth it certainly doesn't mean severe reactions don't exist.
TCMoulton is offline  
#56 of 114 Old 10-27-2013, 05:31 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 TCMoulton View Post

But surely you have read the posts here made by moms of unvaccinated children who are autistic right? Just because you haven't met one IRL doesn't make it impossible. Heck how many posts have there been here at MDC saying they have never known a child with a serious vaccine reaction - while they may be telling the truth it certainly doesn't mean severe reactions don't exist.
Surely you have read that this poster is not some random mother making these claims- she states she is a professional who works with autistic children yet produces no data to back up what she stated. Quite a bit different.

 

 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  
#57 of 114 Old 10-27-2013, 09:58 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 EineMutti View Post
 

 

Well, our parents and grandparent's had to be experimented on MORE, I wasn't quite clear. Some had to take vaccinations in the very first generation. There was once a person who took it for the very first time, before ANY vaccine had ever been tested. Now, it is more variations, but the general idea and theory of them has been tested and it did work.

 

Odd debate strategy though, taking out one quote that is not 100% clear and just picking on that, ignoring the rest. What are you talking about?

 

NAS is the National Autistic Society and it is in the UK. And yes, my "national" is different, I am from Germany :wink 

 

I didn't take ONE quote, in fact in the PP where you "quoted" me "I feel that speaks volumes of your knowledge of todays vaccines",  I didn't not even comment on your post!

 

 

I found what you wrote astounding, thus my reply -  "I feel that speaks volumes of your knowledge of todays vaccines"- Sorry, no debate strategy there either.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

We are all guinea pigs.Kids WITH problems even more so. Good thing is that we are not the first generation to try vaccinations and all had to rely on our parent's and grandparent's generation to do so. 

 

Every medication makes you a "guinea pig". Sick kids take part in medical trials that only sometimes save their lives so the next generation can be cured. The majority of children with cancer are in trials and the results of those are mostly beneficial for adults (other soapbox, off topic).

 

Fact is, we live in a society, let's not just think about ourselves. The vaccination risk for healthy children is toty compared to what other children have to go through. To potentially save YOUR child's life.  

 

ETA, basically everything you consume in any way has once been trialled by a human guinea pig. All the meds you, your parents, siblings, children have ever taken has been tried and tested by someone else, and you happily profit. Every fruit or veg was first tried by someone who took the risk and deemed it edible. Your computer has been develped by someone else, your clothes have been made by someone else. Your house has been built by someone else. EVERYTHING was untested once and improved, vaccinations are just a very small part of all of this. A part of society. We all want to benefit from our society, but when it suddenly comes to do something for someone else... we hesitate. Statistically (given doctor's advice and I do follow it, they have saved my boy's life), giving them to your child not only benefits your own child (just not much, really) and only exposes it to a miniscule risk, but it benefits another one way more. 

 

So yes. It IS a nice sentiment to have, 

 

want it picked apart? gladly

 

The vaccination risk for healthy children is toty ? compared to what other children have to go through.

REALLY? guess that depends on who you ask - I too trust my doctor and my child's doctor and BOTH can not tell me my child won't be at risk for a reaction, quite the opposite, they know reactions happen in HEALTHY children.

 

your whole notion about our parents and grandparents (be it post 51 or 55 - really doesn't matter) being the ones to try them out - really isn't too accurate, as it has been pointed out here and elsewhere, be in US, UK or un-unified Germany, what children are receiving now and have been for 10+ years is not even close to what their parents, grandparents or even great-grandparents got, AGAIN not even close!!

 

want antidotal instead of the schedules (they are readily available to compare the contrast)? My DD didn't get what is being given now (she grew up in the 80's) I didn't get what my parents got (they each got 2- not combos either- 2 single vaccines), my grandmother (almost 100- has only had one vaccine) - even if you only look at a parent born in the 1980's the sheer number of vaccines and TYPES, not to also mention they were NOT the same vaccine that was given in the 1960's or 1980's, is in no way comparable to today and what is given! Your attempt at an argument here is baseless. Number, types, and the formulas are not the same! 

 

tested-------- AGAIN, really? Since when do we know the longterm effects of such vaccines like Hepb, varicella, gardasil (and the like) or how about zoster?

 

antidotal again, I know someone two months ago that got zoster, she had such a severe reaction she was hospitalized, see the "herd" isn't protecting her, she isn't being exposed to CP among children, she took the vaccine (one HER parents and grandparents didn't test out) and now this woman can't work, she is one year away from Medicare, needs to file for long term disability and it also seems her "reaction" wasn't reported - the Dr that gave her the vaccine wasn't the ER Dr who treated her, she refuses to go back to the Dr who vaccinated her, she didn't even know what VAERS was when I spoke to her and her new Dr won't do it because he didn't administer it and has only seen her after the fact, besides this woman is facing so many problems because of it, financial being her biggest worry, reporting it isn't on her radar - small risk, right? Was mine or my DD reaction counted, ah, NO, that was prior to VAERS too. As it has been pointed out here, acknowledgement of a reaction and getting it reported doesn't always happen, that is why some feel the risk is just soooooo small, it's OK for another parent's child to take that - for yours? 

 

AND your son - 

Statistically (given doctor's advice and I do follow it, they have saved my boy's life), giving them to your child not only benefits your own child (just not much, really) and only exposes it to a miniscule risk, but it benefits another one way more. 

 

You are PRO- vaccine, has your son's been vaccinated? Comes off as he has not. Seems you have been advised to do so by several medical professionals but it comes off the you are relying on other's (herd) to do it. Again, this seems to be conflicting to state this - as inconsistent, one thread one thing, another thread another statement.

 

 

giving them to your child not only benefits your own child (just not much, really)

 

"just not much, really" - WOW!  yikes2.gif Even the PRO-vaccine camp on here didn't touch that one!

 

NEVER ever have I heard (be it IRL or on line) anyone even assert that, NEVER a medical professional, NEVER even on those useless google machine sites, like those even run by the groups pushing vaccines or the sites set up directly by the vaccine manufactures - not much really???            So, it's all about benefiting others?

 

Where do they hide this information that there is "just not much really" for a child to get from vaccines? Is it hidden in those University ones? Is it before or after you are told to go vaccinate? I would love to know this!

 

 - The first step, I guess, is to truly understand that she cannot understand, unless she spends years and years in a sociology library, just to find out that there is no good data. The best there is, are the University ones, that conclude that there is no link and then go vaccinate. 

 

there are many threads on here about the herd and pertussis and how well that is working out - please search them out

 

Your posts I find extremely disturbing on so many levels.

You have stated (what appears to be) part of your name, where you live but what is far more alarming, where you work.

You have made (I and others could interpret it the same way) very personal remarks about parents who's children have autism and how they feel, and these are who you work with. :irked

You have made a claim about information your employer has yet to release as well. :dizzy

 

In this country it's called being unprofessional and companies fire people for doing this, many must sign paper work about exposing where they work and it's simple grounds for termination and no compensation when this is breeched. Employers don't take to kindly this stuff!

Other people look at people like this as not credible and also very stupid.


 

 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  
#58 of 114 Old 10-27-2013, 10:38 AM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
"Other people look at people like this as... very stupid". But not you, right? Because I think calling people stupid might be considered a personal attack. How about you let her worry about her job.

I don't think those who vax assume there is a huge benefit. More like, there are a small number of children/people who will have a severe or fatal course of an otherwise common illnesses. We can't always predict who that will be, or can't predict if we will become a high risk person (ie become immune compromised). And the cost of that protection is a smaller number of adverse events (ie injured, sick, even dead children) as compared to the benefits (so we believe). So it is a risk/benefit ratio I accept. I know that my decision to for example not smoke has a far bigger and more certain impact on my health then my decision (or my parents's decision) to be vaxxed.
Ratchet is offline  
#59 of 114 Old 10-27-2013, 10:42 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 Ratchet View Post

"Other people look at people like this as... very stupid". But not you, right? Because I think calling people stupid might be considered a personal attack. How about you let her worry about her job.

I don't think those who vax assume there is a huge benefit. More like, there are a small number of children/people who will have a severe or fatal course of an otherwise common illnesses. We can't always predict who that will be, or can't predict if we will become a high risk person (ie become immune compromised). And the cost of that protection is a smaller number of adverse events (ie injured, sick, even dead children) as compared to the benefits (so we believe). So it is a risk/benefit ratio I accept. I know that my decision to for example not smoke has a far bigger and more certain impact on my health then my decision (or my parents's decision) to be vaxxed.

 please read

 

I DID NOT called the poster "stupid" twist all you want, that is not what I did. 

 

ETA- "stupid" IMO is a accurate word to use (acting in an unintelligent or careless manner) used within the context of a breach of employee conduct - as I used it


 

 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  
#60 of 114 Old 10-27-2013, 11:07 AM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
I'm not twisting, I quoted you directly. I guess a twisted statement would be more like, "a person like me might say that a person like you was stupid if that person was to do something like you did." But you are right, you did not say "EM is stupid."

Whatever the definition of stupid, I would ask my daughter for example to not use that word to refer to another person.
Ratchet 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