OT: MMR vaccine not associated with autism, even in at risk children

[derleider]

Sure it is. Because you are doing a disservice to them by believing BS. Maybe if you are relentlessly mocked for your self-righteous attitude towards your wrongheaded beliefs you might realize this.

If you want to waste money that might have been used to actually crack the case, then so be it. Just dont expect people to respect that decision or not mock you for it.

 

[WhiteBus]

Sure it is. Because you are doing a disservice to them by believing BS. Maybe if you are relentlessly mocked for your self-righteous attitude towards your wrongheaded beliefs you might realize this.

If you want to waste money that might have been used to actually crack the case, then so be it. Just dont expect people to respect that decision or not mock you for it.

What BS am I believing?? What wrongheaded beliefs?

 

[Leonard23]

My point is no one knows what it is. I know several families who have multiple children where one has Autism. They come from the same parents, they went to the same doctors, had the same vaccines. Just because only one of them has Autism doesn't mean anything could not have been a contributing factor.

The rise in Autism % is dramatically scary.

As for getting on a soapbox and declaring what isn't causing the rise in Autism I will give you all this challenge. My club is sponsoring their 6th Annual AOH Puzzle Walk this Saturday morning. Get away from your keyboards for a morning and join us for a good cause. After you spend time with many of these parents you might not be so eager to make declarations of what causes or does not cause Autism.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1418008205164455/

As for those that want to make umbrella or pizza jokes on this thread about such a serious topic you have zero class. I hope you got a good chuckle from your posts because you have exposed yourselves again as complete A-Holes.

You may have missed this thread: http://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/threads/ot-my-kid-diagnosed-with-autism-spectrum-disorder.7442/

 

[derleider]

What BS am I believing?? What wrongheaded beliefs?

That the MMR vaccine is a cause of autism. Study after study shows its not true, but you say, with presumed sincerity and self-righteousness, that nothing has been eliminated. You are being mocked for the fact that in fact, as said above, within the limits of statistical inference, MMR (and probably other vaccines as well, although they aren't the subject of this thread) has in fact been eliminated.

If you dont think thats true you can come out and say it.

If you do, because some parents have heartbreaking stories, just remember data isnt the plural of anecdote.

 

[WhiteBus]

Identifying the cause is a significant challenge. It's being *almost* relentlessly addressed. Almost.

For my part, I'd do it differently - or, at least, add another element to the investigative conversation. It's always been my contention that available data isn't being used to its fullest extent.

Given a large chunk of funding, I would design a "performance database" for diagnosed ASD patients. It would contain elements corresponding to every aspect of their ongoing healthcare, including all routine blood work and diagnostic test results. We know that autistic kids are tested almost beyond the limits of comprehension - constant blood work, EEGs, CAT scans, MRIs, etc. Generally speaking, the results of these tests taken individually are within normal limits - but "normal" with regard to all diagnostic tests consists of a range which in many instances is very broad.

Given enough data it should be possible to compare the typical range of test results in the ASD population against the typical range of test results in the neurologically typical population in an effort to identify variations, however small. My theory is that this data would provide clues for additional research.

Exactly however when people declare anything definitely out than people begin to lose hope and give up.
The debate shouldn't be what's not a part of the problem, the debate should be how do we get more money and people to find a cause. These "there is nothing to see here, lets move on" statements do more harm than good.

 

[WhiteBus]

That the MMR vaccine is a cause of autism. Study after study shows its not true, but you say, with presumed sincerity and self-righteousness, that nothing has been eliminated. You are being mocked for the fact that in fact, as said above, within the limits of statistical inference, MMR (and probably other vaccines as well, although they aren't the subject of this thread) has in fact been eliminated.

If you dont think thats true you can come out and say it.

If you do, because some parents have heartbreaking stories, just remember data isnt the plural of anecdote.

I haven't said anything is the cause. I have said that until they know exactly what has caused this dramatic increase no one should declare anything out as a CONTRIBUTING factor.
My personal belief is that isn't just one thing. But please don't tell me I'm doing more harm than good!!

 

[RU4Real]

Exactly however when people declare anything definitely out than people begin to lose hope and give up.
The debate shouldn't be what's not a part of the problem, the debate should be how do we get more money and people to find a cause. These "there is nothing to see here, lets move on" statements do more harm than good.

Except that with respect to the notion of vaccines, specifically, as a causal element, there is nothing to see here. Many of us knew there was nothing to see here 15 years ago. It is, in the context of this element of the conversation, absolutely time to move on.

 

[derleider]

Exactly however when people declare anything definitely out than people begin to lose hope and give up.
The debate shouldn't be what's not a part of the problem, the debate should be how do we get more money and people to find a cause. These "there is nothing to see here, lets move on" statements do more harm than good.

You don't think wasting money on yet another MMR/autism study did harm? You really think false hope is a good thing for anyone?

I mean whats not part of the problem is inherent in the question of what is part of the problem. If you cant accept that disproven causes are in fact not causes, then you are stalling the search for the real cause.

I didnt say you are doing more harm than good. You are doing less good than you could be.

 

[Mike from MD]

Wakefield is a charlatan of the worst kind. His motives were pure greed. He was working on a vaccine to compete against Merck's MMR vaccine so he concocted a scheme to discredit Merck's vaccine using fraudulent data derived from 12 children -with many being subjected to testing that violated their bodies. This is the study the anti-vaccine crowd hangs their hats on.

Time to end the religious exemption. This ignorance can be directly linked to recent outbreaks for pertussis, measles and mumps. Vaccines are largely safe and effective even for persons with compromised immune systems.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/A/immuno-table.pdf

 

[RU85inFla]

Autism today is a spectrum of disorders that is possibly caused by a number of environmental and genetic factors. As a matter of fact, much of what we call Autism today would not have been classified as Autism when Wakefield cooked the books and this is the issue. The article today concludes that immunizations are not the cause of The condition called Autisim today when that condition may actually be many different conditions.

This is why it is so complex to diagnose and where scientific testing is somewhat flawed. Let's say that in the population of children, 1 in 65 react to preservatives in bread. But it is unknown which ones and 1 in 65 are effected by immunization but it is unknown which ones and 1 in 65 are effected by one of the medicines their mother took during pregnancy, and 1 in 65 have bad genes, and so on. If we test all children to see if immunizations cause their illness, it is not surprising that we conclude that immunizations were not the cause. As the number of possible environmental and genetic factors increase, it makes it impossible to isolate the effects of only one.

 

[WhiteBus]

You don't think wasting money on yet another MMR/autism study did harm? You really think false hope is a good thing for anyone?

I mean whats not part of the problem is inherent in the question of what is part of the problem. If you cant accept that disproven causes are in fact not causes, then you are stalling the search for the real cause.

I didnt say you are doing more harm than good. You are doing less good than you could be.

I'm sorry I fail your standards of what I should be doing. Even though you don't know how much I am involved.

And where did I ask for another study???? No such thing and couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm just tired of the arrogance on both sides. Yours included.

 

[derleider]

Wakefield is a charlatan of the worst kind. His motives were pure greed. He was working on a vaccine to compete against Merck's MMR vaccine so he concocted a scheme to discredit Merck's vaccine using fraudulent data derived from 12 children -with many being subjected to testing that violated their bodies. This is the study the anti-vaccine crowd hangs their hats on.

Time to end the religious exemption. This ignorance can be directly linked to recent outbreaks for pertussis, measles and mumps. Vaccines are largely safe and effective even for persons with compromised immune systems.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/A/immuno-table.pdf

Even if he werent a charlatan, the nature of scientific and particularly human biological research is such that early studies (which are usually just statistical correlations, not explanatory research) will often find linkages due to mere coincidence.

Small sample sizes and reporting biases (no journal accepts a paper that says a sample of 12 kids showed no link between autism and MMR - they would be inundated with papers, given that most things are not linked to most other things - so you only see research of interesting results) mean that these early studies are often wrong. If the results are meaningful to society (as clearly an autism cause paper would be) they are tested with largely samples, and usually that eliminates the coincidence factor and very often the findings dont hold up. That has clearly been the case here.

 

[Mike from MD]

my point was and continues to be that because there is not data to show statistically significant evidence of an issue does NOT mean it cannot happen in an isolated case this is true in regards to all studies where there is a POTENTIAL mechanism of cause..and although some may disagree, I would say there is an obvious pathway of cause

What is that obvious pathway that all the learned immunologist, virologist and molecular biologists of the past 70 or 80 years appear to have overlooked?

 

[derleider]

I'm sorry I fail your standards of what I should be doing. Even though you don't know how much I am involved.

And where did I ask for another study???? No such thing and couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm just tired of the arrogance on both sides. Yours included.

You arent seeing the linkage here between the fact that these studies keep getting done, and the fact that so much of the autism community continues to disbelieve the results? Whether you specifically asked for one is meaningless. If you, and large parts of the community continue to believe it, researchers will continue to investigate it.

As for the first part. Its simple logic. I dont care how much you are doing. If you are doing something harmful, then by definition, you are doing less good than you could be doing. You could be the Bill and Melinda Gates of autism research for all I care, but if your mantra is - nothing can ever be eliminated as a cause until weve nailed down the cause 100%, then you are doing some harm.

And the logical end of your argument is that since we can't eliminate anything, even stuff that has been pretty conclusively eliminated, then we can't even eliminate pizza (maybe the cheese has more chemicals over time) or damp air (which is on the rise due to global warming increasing the water holding capacity of the atmosphere).

On top of that, the refusal to drop the vaccine link, unlike pizza or umbrellas, has actual real world implications beyond wasting autism research money. Amazingly places like Libya have a higher vaccination rate than California - largely because of this one BS paper and fears of the vaccines causing autism.

 

[Mike from MD]

Even if he werent a charlatan, the nature of scientific and particularly human biological research is such that early studies (which are usually just statistical correlations, not explanatory research) will often find linkages due to mere coincidence.

Small sample sizes and reporting biases (no journal accepts a paper that says a sample of 12 kids showed no link between autism and MMR - they would be inundated with papers, given that most things are not linked to most other things - so you only see research of interesting results) mean that these early studies are often wrong. If the results are meaningful to society (as clearly an autism cause paper would be) they are tested with largely samples, and usually that eliminates the coincidence factor and very often the findings dont hold up. That has clearly been the case here.

Wakefield did not conduct a controlled study. He got his friends and colleagues to commit their children to physical exams well after MMR vaccination. It was pure scientific fraud. He created false data with the expressed objective of discrediting Merck's vaccine so he could replace it with one of his creation. Greed was the motive. Not advancement of science or the safety of children.

 

[ClassOf02]

Given that medical data seems to prove no correlation (nor causation) between vaccines & autism, I find it very surprising that people continue to push that particular angle while seemingly ignoring other possibilities. Maybe it has something to do with our diets. Or the increasing number of people medicated by anti-depressants. Or EMF waves from cell phone usage over the last generation or so. I'm sure we could come up with 100+ other possible causes that could be discussed, studied, etc. So while I can sympathize with those who say "until we know for sure, nothing is off the table," I simply don't understand why the conversation continues to focus around vaccines and not on other possible contributing factors.

 

[derleider]

Mike - yes, Im aware of that. Im just pointing out that people shouldnt get their hopes up based on any small initial research, as research shows that they are highly likely to be shown to be wrong.

 

[WhiteBus]

You arent seeing the linkage here between the fact that these studies keep getting done, and the fact that so much of the autism community continues to disbelieve the results? Whether you specifically asked for one is meaningless. If you, and large parts of the community continue to believe it, researchers will continue to investigate it.

As for the first part. Its simple logic. I dont care how much you are doing. If you are doing something harmful, then by definition, you are doing less good than you could be doing. You could be the Bill and Melinda Gates of autism research for all I care, but if your mantra is - nothing can ever be eliminated as a cause until weve nailed down the cause 100%, then you are doing some harm.

And the logical end of your argument is that since we can't eliminate anything, even stuff that has been pretty conclusively eliminated, then we can't even eliminate pizza (maybe the cheese has more chemicals over time) or damp air (which is on the rise due to global warming increasing the water holding capacity of the atmosphere).

On top of that, the refusal to drop the vaccine link, unlike pizza or umbrellas, has actual real world implications beyond wasting autism research money. Amazingly places like Libya have a higher vaccination rate than California - largely because of this one BS paper and fears of the vaccines causing autism.

Der please stop! You haven't read a word I have posted correctly. Stop pushing your agenda. I have none other than this is no answer right now. You viewpoint is more damaging than the MMR/Autism zealots.

I have not disputed all the studies that MMR is not DIRECT cause. However there are no studies that it could be a CONTRIBUTING cause. I guess you don't know the difference.

You conclusion that anything is 100% eliminated from being a CONTRIBUTING factor is as just as false and does more harm in the fundraising field.

There has been dramatic increase in Autism, a terrifying increase but people like you have all the answers.

You talk about my arrogance. You think your are such an expert. From the start I have admitted that I don't know and nobody else knows.

And it's very apparent that you don't care what people are doing to help.

 

[beaced]

Also, you have to be careful about Thimerosal. It is a preservative used in vaccine that is MERCURY-based. Yeah Mercury aka one of the most famous neurotoxins in the world! Here is a quick explanation I found about Thimerosal...
I have to concur with Mike.Mercury is SUCH a destructive element to the nervous system that I have always wondered why it's use has not been discontinued years ago.Surely there must be something else that would act as the preservative and NOT be as potentially dangerous.I understand that the use of a preservative IS needed so as to be able to stockpile vaccines having them ready for emergencies BUT there was NO reason for a preservative,particularly MERCURY BASED, for infant and early childhood inoculations. Under pressure ,the mercury was removed.Kids keep on getting shots forever. At what point was the mercury replaced in the vaccines and is there some correlation with autism occurring afterwards at that later age?I fully understand the profit motif and the need for earnings for a drug company to survive. There are many drug products that are needed by many people.I DO think that substances of low or little toxicity should be used in their manufacture.
"First, one must understand a few facts regarding thimerosal. Used as a preservative, thimerosal is made up of 49.6% mercury, a known neurotoxin. (Immunizationinfo.org) There are 25 mcg of mercury included in each regular season flu shot while the EPA sets the toxicity limit of mercury at .1 mcg. This is a 250 times greater amount than the EPA considers the toxic level in each injection. (Safeminds) While denial by vaccine makers and welfare scientists may exist as to the effects of ethylmercury compared to methylmercury, there can be no denial that mercury, in any form, is harmful to the brain. The argument made by vaccinators, of course, is that the harmful effects of ethylmercury are negligible when weighed against the benefits of the vaccine."

This quote came from this article... http://www.infowars.com/mercury-in-vaccines-no-more-dangerous-than-the-mercury-in-a-tuna-sandwich/

So while I am sure the debate will continue I think people need to think a little bit longer than they are about what EXACTLY they are allowing injected into their own body or their children's body.

 

[RU1994]

Normally don't post often, but this one hits close. I am a pediatrician, researcher, and epidemiologist. There are some here that are using facts and critical thinking, and many that still are adhering to popular beliefs and misunderstanding what scientific research is all about. A few things to consider:

1) Science is not about proving anything 100%. By nature, that is impossible. Can we ever prove that vaccines absolutely do not contribute to to autism? No. Only if we studied all 6+ billion people on Earth could that be possible, and even then, it would not account for the multi-factorial (epigentics as someone above pointed out) nature of many diseases. Using the best science and nearly 100,000 children, the link with a high degree of certainty minmizes the risk of autism from vaccines

2) Surveillance Bias. Do you know why more kids have autism? In part its because our generation of parents looks for any signs of imperfection, or not "competing" with other young children. They alert the priary doctor, who now also has a bias towards diagnosis. Bam...you child has autism-spectrum disorder. I am CERTAIN that MANY people in previous generations have ASD but were not diagnosed. Why? Because nobody was looking for it. Many of my teachers in med school and since have some ASD, I am sure of it. It was just not en vogue to diagnose. Also, ASD seems to have a tendency for more wealthy caucasian populations, of which there are many more in the US now that 30+ years ago. This may go hand in hand with increased surveillance.

3) Time of Diagnosis. It is in many ways coincidence when ASD is diagnosed, as it is during the age that many vaccines are administered (from 1-4 years of age). The chance of diagnosis of Autism is most likley to be in this window, which makes me think the chicken (autism) came before the egg (vaccines) in most cases. In terms of time, also note that the agent thought to contribute, Thimerisol, has bee absent in vaccines for 15 years.

4) Societal Benefit. People who refuse to vaccinate based on hearsay are the most selfish in the world. They depend on others who are vaccinated to protect their children. They use idiots like Jennie McCarthy and Facebook moms to make their conclusion. Vaccines save lives. Vaccines have probably saved your life, you just take it for granted. I have seen infants die of pertussis (whooping cough), children die of measles, pneumococcal, and Hib sepsis, and have seen the torture suffered by an 8 yo with tetanus. The number of adverse events from vaccines compared to the number of people protected is miniscule. They put young infants, children with cancer and other immune suppressed at risk because of your selfishness. Everytime I see a child diagnoses with a vaccine-preventable disease, it makes me cringe. Do you all know why child mortality from infection is so rare in the United States? Because we vaccinate. It is not voodoo, it is common sense.

 

[derleider]

Der please stop! You haven't read a word I have posted correctly. Stop pushing your agenda. I have none other than this is no answer right now. You viewpoint is more damaging than the MMR/Autism zealots.

I have not disputed all the studies that MMR is not DIRECT cause. However there are no studies that it could be a CONTRIBUTING cause. I guess you don't know the difference.

You conclusion that anything is 100% eliminated from being a CONTRIBUTING factor is as just as false and does more harm in the fundraising field.

There has been dramatic increase in Autism, a terrifying increase but people like you have all the answers.

You talk about my arrogance. You think your are such an expert. From the start I have admitted that I don't know and nobody else knows.

I didnt talk about arrogance. That was you. Nor did I say I was an expert. I can read the work of experts though. They are posted on this thread. Where did I say I had all of the answers? I havent suggested a single answer here. All I have said is that the thing that you think might be an answer has been shown again and again to have no statistical correlation to autism and in the meantime is both wasting autism research money, and causing people to not get their kids vaccinated.

Even if it isnt the sole direct cause, with a large enough sample, even a contributing factor would show up. If its not enough of a factor to even show up in large samples, then probably it should be shelved until the bigger contributing factors are uncovered.

Whether something is 100% eliminated is a red herring though and also a strawman (I didnt say it was 100% eliminated, I said it was eliminated within the limits of statistical inference - language which I used for a very specific reason.)

If I told you there was a 75% correlation between having a HoF QB and having a perennial playoff team, and only a 5% correlation between having a HoF center and having a perennial playoff team, would you say that it was important to have a good center? I mean there isnt a 0% correlation. I haven't 100% eliminated having a center as a contributing cause of success in the NFL. But any GM would spend their money and time trying to identify HoF level QBs, not centers.

As for fundraising. What you are basically saying is one of these two things

Autism research depends on raising money on the basis that it will be used to do research on causes that have been eliminated as causes within the limits of statistical inference.

OR

Autism research depends on raising money on the basis that the donors think it will be used to do research on a cause that has been eliminated within the limits of statistical inference, but will instead be used to research other more likely causes.

But you are probably right. Telling people they are scientifically illiterate or willfully ignorant probably isnt a great way to entice them to give money for research. Thats why Im not a good salesperson I guess. Lying to them or dancing around the truth isnt one of my skills sets.

 

[Mike from MD]

Mike - yes, Im aware of that. Im just pointing out that people shouldnt get their hopes up based on any small initial research, as research shows that they are highly likely to be shown to be wrong.

My apologies. I misinterpreted your post. Quite true about the public getting excited over potential breakthrough cures based solely on pre-clinical research data. What occurs in a Petri-dish or flask does not often result in an approved therapy. Companies publish this data to generate more interest and more funding for follow up studies.

 

[Upstream]

FWIW, I don't think they were making fun of the topic (Autism), but rather making fun of you. JMHO of course.

Actually I was neither making fun of the topic, nor making fun of WhiteBus. I wasn't making fun of anything. I was using an obviously absurd example to show the logical fallacy of WhiteBus' argument.

 

[WhiteBus]

I didnt talk about arrogance. That was you. Nor did I say I was an expert. I can read the work of experts though. They are posted on this thread. Where did I say I had all of the answers? I havent suggested a single answer here. All I have said is that the thing that you think might be an answer has been shown again and again to have no statistical correlation to autism and in the meantime is both wasting autism research money, and causing people to not get their kids vaccinated.

Even if it isnt the sole direct cause, with a large enough sample, even a contributing factor would show up. If its not enough of a factor to even show up in large samples, then probably it should be shelved until the bigger contributing factors are uncovered.

Whether something is 100% eliminated is a red herring though and also a strawman (I didnt say it was 100% eliminated, I said it was eliminated within the limits of statistical inference - language which I used for a very specific reason.)

If I told you there was a 75% correlation between having a HoF QB and having a perennial playoff team, and only a 5% correlation between having a HoF center and having a perennial playoff team, would you say that it was important to have a good center? I mean there isnt a 0% correlation. I haven't 100% eliminated having a center as a contributing cause of success in the NFL. But any GM would spend their money and time trying to identify HoF level QBs, not centers.

As for fundraising. What you are basically saying is one of these two things

Autism research depends on raising money on the basis that it will be used to do research on causes that have been eliminated as causes within the limits of statistical inference.

OR

Autism research depends on raising money on the basis that the donors think it will be used to do research on a cause that has been eliminated within the limits of statistical inference, but will instead be used to research other more likely causes.

But you are probably right. Telling people they are scientifically illiterate or willfully ignorant probably isnt a great way to entice them to give money for research. Thats why Im not a good salesperson I guess. Lying to them or dancing around the truth isnt one of my skills sets.

No that is what you are saying. I had enough with your spin. Keep drawing eyes away from the problem.

 

[RU85inFla]

nearly 100,000 children, the link with a

You arent seeing the linkage here between the fact that these studies keep getting done, and the fact that so much of the autism community continues to disbelieve the results? Whether you specifically asked for one is meaningless. If you, and large parts of the community continue to believe it, researchers will continue to investigate it.

As for the first part. Its simple logic. I dont care how much you are doing. If you are doing something harmful, then by definition, you are doing less good than you could be doing. You could be the Bill and Melinda Gates of autism research for all I care, but if your mantra is - nothing can ever be eliminated as a cause until weve nailed down the cause 100%, then you are doing some harm.

And the logical end of your argument is that since we can't eliminate anything, even stuff that has been pretty conclusively eliminated, then we can't even eliminate pizza (maybe the cheese has more chemicals over time) or damp air (which is on the rise due to global warming increasing the water holding capacity of the atmosphere).

On top of that, the refusal to drop the vaccine link, unlike pizza or umbrellas, has actual real world implications beyond wasting autism research money. Amazingly places like Libya have a higher vaccination rate than California - largely because of this one BS paper and fears of the vaccines causing autism.

Derleider - I think you are completely wrong on one point here. I don't think that large parts of the community continue to believe that immunization are the cause. Are most in support of research? Sure anybody would be curious to know if the research divulged what might have caused their child's ailments. However the level of the anti-immunization debate is much quieter now than just a few years ago.

You are a smart guy. I am quite confident you know how to set up a statistical test. I ask only one question. If there is a possibility that there exists a portion of the population that is effected by immunization and leads to ASD in this group of children, then is it worth investigating this hypothesis?? I am not saying immunizations are bad nor are they the cause of all Autism, but like RU1994 points out, we are not 100% certain.

 

[derleider]

No that is what your are saying. I had enough with your spin. Keep drawing eyes away from the problem.

No, its what you are saying.

"You conclusion that anything is 100% eliminated from being a CONTRIBUTING factor is as just as false and does more harm in the fundraising field."

Since I never said 100%, we'll assume what you meant was my words that its been eliminated enough that its not worth researching right now and shouldn't really be used in fundraising pitches (since the money wouldn't be going in that direction.)

So you are saying that even though something is almost surely not even a contributing cause (according to experts -- not me, not you, actual experts in this field), you raise more money if people still think it could be a cause.

Is there some interpretation Im missing here? If so, I would like you to spell it out a little more clearly.

And again - if what you said is true. If your statement that ANYTHING being 100% eliminated is bad for fundraising, then why limit it to this thing. Why NOT pizza or umbrellas? Since you dont support that, what you really mean is eliminating previously supposed theories is bad, even if those theories were based on fraudulent research to begin with, and havent been proven right since then. That just seems like a weird thing to say (even if its true).

85 - Well perhaps the research has finally sunk in, and money can stop being spent for now on the MMR linkage, and researchers can follow more promising leads with that money. If sometime latter they have identified the major contributors, then go back and look at the more minor contributors if the money is there.

Hopefully if the autism community has given up on the link the anti-vaxx crowd will come around too and we can get back to having higher rates of vaccinations than Libya and Tunisia.

 

[WhiteBus]

No, its what you are saying.

"You conclusion that anything is 100% eliminated from being a CONTRIBUTING factor is as just as false and does more harm in the fundraising field."

Since I never said 100%, we'll assume what you meant was my words that its been eliminated enough that its not worth researching right now and shouldn't really be used in fundraising pitches (since the money wouldn't be going in that direction.)

So you are saying that even though something is almost surely not even a contributing cause (according to experts -- not me, not you, actual experts in this field), you raise more money if people still think it could be a cause.

Is there some interpretation Im missing here? If so, I would like you to spell it out a little more clearly.

And again - if what you said is true. If your statement that ANYTHING being 100% eliminated is bad for fundraising, then why limit it to this thing. Why NOT pizza or umbrellas? Since you dont support that, what you really mean is eliminating previously supposed theories is bad, even if those theories were based on fraudulent research to begin with, and havent been proven right since then. That just seems like a weird thing to say (even if its true).

85 - Well perhaps the research has finally sunk in, and money can stop being spent for now on the MMR linkage, and researchers can follow more promising leads with that money. If sometime latter they have identified the major contributors, then go back and look at the more minor contributors if the money is there.

Hopefully if the autism community has given up on the link the anti-vaxx crowd will come around too and we can get back to having higher rates of vaccinations than Libya and Tunisia.[/QUOTE

 

[WhiteBus]

Jeeze Der I thought you were a smart guy, but this nonsense has my head scratching.

First don't paint all people who support Autism fundraising as part of the zealots who push the cause of the link. They are a very small percentage. I AM NOT ONE of them. You reading comprehension and analogies have sunk to the same level as the people who bunch everyone in the Fire Flood crowd. You last post is complete crap and you know it. And keep bring up pizzas and umbrellas, it shows that you lost any class I believed you had.

You doing nothing to further the cause, you discourage people getting involved because you say everyone, in the Autism community it narrowly focused on one aspect, including myself. It simply it shows you know nothing. Stop spewing your hatred for those that are looking for answers.

 

[RU85inFla]

No, its what you are saying.
85 - Well perhaps the research has finally sunk in, and money can stop being spent for now on the MMR linkage, and researchers can follow more promising leads with that money. If sometime latter they have identified the major contributors, then go back and look at the more minor contributors if the money is there.

Hopefully if the autism community has given up on the link the anti-vaxx crowd will come around too and we can get back to having higher rates of vaccinations than Libya and Tunisia.

It's pretty hard to optimize research dollars when you don't know the outcome

Jeeze Der I thought you were a smart guy, but this nonsense has my head scratching.

First don't paint all people who support Autism fundraising as part of the zealots who push the cause of the link. They are a very small percentage. I AM NOT ONE of them. You reading comprehension and analogies have sunk to the same level as the people who bunch everyone in the Fire Flood crowd. You last post is complete crap and you know it. And keep bring up pizzas and umbrellas, it shows that you lost any class I believed you had.

You doing nothing to further the cause, you discourage people getting involved because you say everyone, in the Autism community it narrowly focused on one aspect, including myself. It simply it shows you know nothing. Stop spewing your hatred for those that are looking for answers.

I gotta agree with you WhiteBus - and you know that's rare!!! Very myopic view.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Anyone who does NOT vaccinate their kids are committing child abuse and neglect.

This is no different than parents who refuse cancer treatments for their kids for religious reasons because it goes against god's will so they just let their kids die a slow painful death. Those kids didn't have to die.

Some people here just do not understand how science works. It is extremely important to use reason and logic when discussing science.

Can science prove that there is no link 100%? No, BUT ONLY because you would have to to study every single person to ever get a vaccine in history.

It is reasonable and logical to conclude that Vaccines do not cause autism? 100% YES, since the science is rather overwhelming that is is no link.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Funny. So tell me what is causing the dramatic rise in Autism. So you say vaccines aren't a part of because there is no data to support it. There is also no data to disprove it either.
Vaccines may not be a direct cause but they can be a part of a combination of things that is different today than it was 20 years ago. Some of you read a study and than put your head in the sand. I knew to many friends who have children with Autism to be be satisfied with studies declaring that a singular event doesn't cause Autism. Until we can find a link to why there is a staggering increase in Autism please don't declare anything out!!

But the MMR vaccine, in some form, has been around since the 60s so why is the "sudden rise" attributed to it and other vaccines rather than something else? Why? Because of a fraudulent medical study that played into fear and is perpetuated by ignorance and misinformation. It's the same style of ignorance and misinformation that politicians exploit.

Could it be a contributing factor? Theoretically anything including pizza could be a contributing factor. So when you say that there is "no date to disprove it" you are contributing to that misinformation. And when people use pizza and umbrellas they are rightly exaggerating to make a point - you can say what you said about anything. So what is the fixation on vaccines? Are you also arguing with people that children's Tylenol may be a contributing factor? Because you could say there is no data to disprove it.

Many believe the sudden rise is actually related to diagnosis rather than actual existence. You could also say that ADHD/ADD is on the rise over the last 20 years if you only went by diagnosis. But doctors will tell you that the reason for the rise in cases of ADD is accurate diagnosis not a real increase in cases. In developing countries it is estimated that 38% of pediatric cancer cases are not diagnosed properly. As medical care and diagnosis capabilities improve - more are identified and treated (thank god) but the actual number of children with cancer doesn't go up.

The point is that vaccine worries are baseless that do more harm than good. The fact is that data and the medical community tell us that the diseases that these vaccines treat are more of a threat than any (entirely unscientific) connection to autism.

 

[RUBigFrank]

Anyone that believes in the vaccine/autism link is a fool. Data is data and the connection just isn't there.

data is data and no one can explain the increased rise in autism in thedeveloped world that is coincidental with the onset of vacinations.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

data is data and no one can explain the increased rise in autism in thedeveloped world that is coincidental with the onset of vacinations.

except it was explained already.

 

[vkj91]

Anyone who does NOT vaccinate their kids are committing child abuse and neglect.

This is no different than parents who refuse cancer treatments for their kids for religious reasons because it goes against god's will so they just let their kids die a slow painful death. Those kids didn't have to die.

Some people here just do not understand how science works. It is extremely important to use reason and logic when discussing science.

Can science prove that there is no link 100%? No, BUT ONLY because you would have to to study every single person to ever get a vaccine in history.

It is reasonable and logical to conclude that Vaccines do not cause autism? 100% YES, since the science is rather overwhelming that is is no link.

Is that for all available vaccines or just the ones you think are important?

 

[newell138]

Exactly. Most multi-dose vials still use it. Guess what most state and county health centers use to keep costs down? Multi-dose vials. Poor kid that gets the last dose from the vial that was not shaken enough prior to drawing the vaccine. Preservative tends to separate out to the bottom of the vial.

Sorry to rain on your theory but since i actually work in vaccine mfg for Merck i can say that we do not use multi dose vials for any of our products. The last one was the pneumovax vaccine but we recently stopped, everything is either a 1 dose vial or a 1 dose, pre-filled syringe.

 

[derleider]

Jeeze Der I thought you were a smart guy, but this nonsense has my head scratching.

First don't paint all people who support Autism fundraising as part of the zealots who push the cause of the link. They are a very small percentage. I AM NOT ONE of them. You reading comprehension and analogies have sunk to the same level as the people who bunch everyone in the Fire Flood crowd. You last post is complete crap and you know it. And keep bring up pizzas and umbrellas, it shows that you lost any class I believed you had.

You doing nothing to further the cause, you discourage people getting involved because you say everyone, in the Autism community it narrowly focused on one aspect, including myself. It simply it shows you know nothing. Stop spewing your hatred for those that are looking for answers.

Again you say Im saying stuff I specifically didnt say.

Just say the words I think its ill advised to continue research this link given the limited research funding and I'll believe you when you say you dont think that there is a link.

85 - you say we dont know the outcome - but given that the initial research was fraudulent, and the recent research shows no basis for it being true even by chance (i.e. the guy fraudulently posited a theory which ended up being true) then why bother.

And of course you can direct research. Which is why we arent researching pizza and umbrellas.

Im being mypoic because the topic is myopic. If the topic were what are the actual causes of autism and should we research them, then answer is obviously yes - we should. But thats not the topic. The topic on which you commented and said - NOTHING can be ruled out is the MMR vaccine and its link to autism - a link that clearly lives on and one which you specifically wont let go of.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Is that for all available vaccines or just the ones you think are important?

Whichever ones most doctors recommend.

 

[vkj91]

Whichever ones most doctors recommend.

Do you have any idea the number they recommend these days? Or what diseases some of them are for?

 

[derleider]

How about this then - whichever ones most doctors get for their kids.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

How about this then - whichever ones most doctors get for their kids.

Perfect.