ADVERTISEMENT

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

My personal hypothesis is that the old vaccines with the heavy metals may have caused harm to children because of operator error. Multi use vials existed for years as I mentioned yesterday. You incorrectly stated that multi use vials were for one patient only. This was not the case with respect to vaccines. I am quite certain that in a percentage of instances, vials were not shaken properly and the kids that got the bottom of the vial may have had a reaction to the dosage that was very different from what it should be if properly dispensed. Note yesterdays comments that the Pharma companies are moving from multi use vaccines. Unfortunately Big Pharma doesn't want the liability associated with the prior product so we spend research dollars investigating the vaccine/Autism link when it was all probably just operator error on the part of Doctors and Nurses administering vaccines.

Multi use vials are not used in this country for pediatric vaccines, WHO may use them in 3rd world countries but since we are talking about the recent surge in autism and vaccines in this country, I have to say this theory doesn't make sense.
 
Multi use vials are not used in this country for pediatric vaccines, WHO may use them in 3rd world countries but since we are talking about the recent surge in autism and vaccines in this country, I have to say this theory doesn't make sense.
I did not realize that . The reference I made was stated as over a decade ago. I've attached a link to a FDA website noting that the last vaccine free of the preservative Thimerosal was approved in 2010. So your statement is correct that we have not used multi dose vials for pediatric vaccines in the US since 2010 when all vaccines became Thimerosal free.

If the old vaccines weren't dangerous, why the elimination of Thimerosal from all of them?

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t1
 
Oh, please, stop the name calling. You don't have to be an "anti-government conspiracy theorist" to see the revolving door between regulators (FDA) and Big Pharma. You don't have to be an "anti-government conspiracy theorist" to understand that politicians care far less about your vote than they care about large contributions from Big Pharma. You don't have to be an "anti-government conspiracy theorist" to see that scientists (someone earlier in this thread called them "welfare scientists") are dependent upon grants/contracts from Big Pharma and government. All in all not exactly the atmosphere for true scientific exploration no matter where it leads.

I didnt do any name calling but when you enter the conversation talking about government forced vaccinations which was not a topic at hand and then follow up by linking to a right wing anti-government blog - well you pretty much self identify.
 
To the contrary.

Ty's point that more people are diagnosed now than ever before due to increased understanding of what autism is... makes perfect sense. I know for sure of kids that I went to school with....who were not labeled as autistic by 1985's standards, that absolutely one hundred percent would be by today's standards. Does that mean they weren't autistic back then because they were not labeled back then? Of course not. The fact that you disagree with that pretty much solidifies it in my mind .

You have a pattern. You try to shout down and mock people that don't share the same opinion as you. You hurl insults, and call people stupid. Say they have no class.

I may have done that also. About 35 years ago when I was still a kid.

In my third grade daughter's class has a name for that. It's called bullying. Based on your history on this board, I have no doubt whatsoever that you were a bully as a kid, and continue to be one today.

Derleider sounds infinitesimally more intelligent on this subject than you do....and all you can do when being crushed in a debate with him is try to insult his intelligence and call him names.

You should really take a long hard look at yourself, and how many times you call people names or insult them by saying they have no class.

An educated grown man shouldn't be stooping to such low levels.


Hey Bugs,

Did you mean infinitely more intelligent rather than infinitesimally more intelligent?
 
Hmm, seems this thread is still going on. I'm guessing the number of people whose opinions have been changed from the arguments presented is the same number of people who were swayed by the original topic - another convincing study showing no link between autism and vaccination. This is why I think it should no longer be studied.

It seems nobody is being convinced as long as the internet is still around and science education is so poor. Then again, what's actually needed are probably history lessons about what the world was like before vaccination. People have no idea what the world was like before vaccination and antibiotics. It was like this:
VpzwTDT.png

Ironically, the success of our treatment and prevention of infectious diseases has allowed cancer and heart disease to thrive in an elderly population that used to just die of pneumonia (which killed 1 in 4 people infected, and often follows the flu).

I work in infectious diseases so I'm obviously biased on this one (you know, towards "correct"). But I also have a brother with Asperger's and am sensitive towards that issue in general. There is no biologically plausible mechanism for vaccination to lead to any form of autism. Despite that, many studies have been done to prove that there is no association. Every single study that has investigated it has found no association between vaccination and autism. And yet, people still aren't convinced. What's left to do? I don't think anything will convince the ignorant.

For what it's worth, I have no hope for a 'cure' either. There are no curable diseases that aren't infections, cancers, or resolved deficiencies. Chronic diseases aren't cured - they are treated.

(Ironically, my brother would not want a cure if one was offered to him. He likes the way he thinks, even if it's pretty odd to the rest of us... and it is)
 
This just in--no autoimmune reactions can effect the brain and furthermore there are no triggers to autoimmune conditions
glad that is settled
 
If the old vaccines weren't dangerous, why the elimination of Thimerosal from all of them?

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t1

There have been significant improvements in the supply chain that ensure the vaccines are maintained under refrigerated conditions from the manufacturer to the end user. That has allowed the manufacturers to delete preservatives that were needed in the older vaccines where the temperature controlled supply chain was not well developed.

Thimerosal contains ethyl-mercury. It does not accumulate in the tissues or nervous system, and is easily removed from the body in a couple of weeks. Safety studies in infants demonstrated complete removal in less than 4 hours.

See the link to an excellent summary on a 2010 CDC study that evaluated the potential link between Thimerosal and Autism.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Thimerosal/QA_Pediatrics-thimerosal-autism.html
 
Been outrageously busy, working on our new drug to treat HCV and hopefully a new drug to provide another treatment option for antibiotic resistant bacteria (a looming crisis, worldwide). Nice to see the rational science viewpoint crushing irrational fear-mongering and scientific ignorance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RcoasterA
yes..good to see the fairy tales exposed for what they are
end to all fear mongering and anti scientific intimidation
bravo
 
Science is a pretty basic thing. The OP can probably articulate this better than I. He likes to do that. Of course, his explanation would take us all about 11 hours to read. :)

The point is this - even if you adjust for changes in diagnostics, the rate of autism does not track - not even closely - the rate of vaccination, which has been constant for decades.

So for the vaccine/autism connection to be even remotely considered, you would have to demonstrate the specific mechanism. Nobody is doing that. All that's been provided - the ONLY thing that has ever been provided - is the loose correlation specified in the Wakefield paper, which has since been proven fraudulent.

Note that it wasn't simply rebutted - it was proven (by an actual investigative court in the UK) to be fraud.

It's not a religious argument. It's an argument based in very, very simple mathematics as applied to the scientific principle. You say it's possible for vaccinations to cause autism. We say that there has never been presented a single shred of evidence to support that statement and, in fact, every single shred of evidence offered in the context of the discussion disproves the assertion.

It puts your argument in a logically difficult position.

While explaining scientific mechanisms and statistical analysis can certainly require long, complex posts (and I'm just the guy to do it, lol - but not now), in the vaccines-autism argument, the case against there being a connection is frightfully simple to make and you've made it very well.
 
Ban vaccines. That way we can rule out vaccines when some polio-stricken kids are autistic.

Even if there was a plausible link, what a morbid concept, to suggest that you'd rather have your kid contract an awful disease than be autistic.
 
I got killed on this thread for posting a brief 1st response. I totally agree there are multiple factors for the increase. Just like plane crashes it's never one thing...well except gravity.
And I was one of those kids who ran behind the mosquito truck while my mom smoked cigarettes and drank wine while pregnant with my youngest brother and years later my youngest sister.

You got killed because you tried to poo poo a study that stated there was no link between vaccines and autism. Someone introduced this study, you immediately claimed you can't rule anything out (ie, this study is bogus), even though this study shows there is no link.
 
You got killed because you tried to poo poo a study that stated there was no link between vaccines and autism. Someone introduced this study, you immediately claimed you can't rule anything out (ie, this study is bogus), even though this study shows there is no link.
Yes and, sure, it was the brief first response. But maybe it was also the innumerable follow up responses with the same arguments, sometimes new ones.

I'm no scientist. But I'm amazed at how easily it seems that folks can hole up in an unsupportable position, one hit with one devastating scientific bomb after another, and refuse to move. At that point, it's about something else, not science. Science, on the other hand, is an unemotional investigation that doesn't care about all the other stuff. I'll take that every time.
 
This just in--no autoimmune reactions can effect the brain and furthermore there are no triggers to autoimmune conditions
glad that is settled

Well in truth, that is not accurate. It is the mechanism of multiple sclerosis. The trigger is not known though.
 
Been outrageously busy, working on our new drug to treat HCV and hopefully a new drug to provide another treatment option for antibiotic resistant bacteria (a looming crisis, worldwide). Nice to see the rational science viewpoint crushing irrational fear-mongering and scientific ignorance.

Wow, we should chat sometime. I'm guessing that you work for Merck and that the latter drug you are referring to is relebactam? I hope Merck is fully committed to bringing it to market - it is badly needed in our area.

The antibiotic resistance crisis isn't looming - it's here.
 
Hey Mike
leave it to you to take it to a personal level
as a non clinician you have a pretty big mouth with nothing to back it up
the next person you help in a clinical setting will be your first
you and your big pharma poison
predictable arrogant ignorance once again
 
To the contrary.

Ty's point that more people are diagnosed now than ever before due to increased understanding of what autism is... makes perfect sense. I know for sure of kids that I went to school with....who were not labeled as autistic by 1985's standards, that absolutely one hundred percent would be by today's standards. Does that mean they weren't autistic back then because they were not labeled back then? Of course not. The fact that you disagree with that pretty much solidifies it in my mind .

You have a pattern. You try to shout down and mock people that don't share the same opinion as you. You hurl insults, and call people stupid. Say they have no class.

I may have done that also. About 35 years ago when I was still a kid.

In my third grade daughter's class has a name for that. It's called bullying. Based on your history on this board, I have no doubt whatsoever that you were a bully as a kid, and continue to be one today.

Derleider sounds infinitesimally more intelligent on this subject than you do....and all you can do when being crushed in a debate with him is try to insult his intelligence and call him names.

You should really take a long hard look at yourself, and how many times you call people names or insult them by saying they have no class.

An educated grown man shouldn't be stooping to such low levels.
Just FYI - infinitesimally actually means very very small - so um - thanks for the compliment I guess? :)
 
Hey Mike
leave it to you to take it to a personal level
as a non clinician you have a pretty big mouth with nothing to back it up
the next person you help in a clinical setting will be your first
you and your big pharma poison
predictable arrogant ignorance once again

You're a chiropractor. You dabble in neck snapping and pushing overpriced supplements with no proven benefit. You're not a clinician - you're a quack. Your rants about autoimmunity are ignorant.

I have a very long history of getting drugs to patients with critical needs. Who is the last patient you protected from pathogens or treated their cancer into remission?
 
  • Like
Reactions: T2Kplus10
Hippa precludes me from answering that..you may have heard of that, not sure

don't know why you get so irritable
you should take something for it
perhaps you can make up another vaccine..you are probably good at that..adios..enjoy your ivory tower of make believe
 
Just FYI - infinitesimally actually means very very small - so um - thanks for the compliment I guess? :)

Yes, I changed that. I definitely meant just the opposite of "very small." My meaning was to compliment you.
 
Hippa precludes me from answering that.

Actually HIPPA doesn't preclude you from answering that. It precludes you from providing personally identifiable information. There is nothing preventing you from sharing case studies (case studies are published all the time) as long as you don't provide personally identifiable information.
 
Actually HIPPA doesn't preclude you from answering that. It precludes you from providing personally identifiable information. There is nothing preventing you from sharing case studies (case studies are published all the time) as long as you don't provide personally identifiable information.

Since there's no such thing as "HIPPA", I'm assuming we're talking about HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act) - which allows me to observe, not for the first time or even the hundredth, how ridiculous it is that so many people throw that acronym around and have zero idea what it actually means.

And you're right - HIPAA doesn't preclude him from answering the question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jcg878
4Real, Thanks for the corection on HIPAA. I just copied what DC wrote, thought it looked funny, and hit post as my 11:00 conf call started.
 
4Real, Thanks for the corection on HIPAA. I just copied what DC wrote, thought it looked funny, and hit post as my 11:00 conf call started.

Yep, I knew that - my post was mostly directed at the Good Sorta Doctor. No worries.
 
You're a chiropractor. You dabble in neck snapping and pushing overpriced supplements with no proven benefit. You're not a clinician - you're a quack. Your rants about autoimmunity are ignorant.

I have a very long history of getting drugs to patients with critical needs. Who is the last patient you protected from pathogens or treated their cancer into remission?

Agreed. Chiropractors have a role in HC, but they need to keep quiet about playing the "I'm a doctor" card.
 
dream on fellas..those days are over
you had plenty of time to get things fixed
you'll still control the money for a while, but many people know the emperor has no clothes
stick to insults..that seems your specialty
 
dream on fellas..those days are over
you had plenty of time to get things fixed
you'll still control the money for a while, but many people know the emperor has no clothes
stick to insults..that seems your specialty

Are you suggesting that the role of Chiropractors in health care extends well beyond treating things like musculoskeletal pain? Do you think in the future, chiropractors will provide the primary treatment for infectious diseases, cancer, diabetes, stroke, or coronary disease?
 
dream on fellas..those days are over
you had plenty of time to get things fixed
you'll still control the money for a while, but many people know the emperor has no clothes
stick to insults..that seems your specialty

I mean this only with regards to your persona in this particular thread: I would not entrust my health care to you whatsoever with the attitude displayed here.
 
I don't blame you
its a message board where there has never been civil discourse in anything I have seen regarding health care
for my first year on it, I didn't understand that so I tried to bring in studies and real information
that was my mistake
now I just respond in kind when I get caught up in a thread here and there
 
I don't blame you
its a message board where there has never been civil discourse in anything I have seen regarding health care
for my first year on it, I didn't understand that so I tried to bring in studies and real information
that was my mistake
now I just respond in kind when I get caught up in a thread here and there
You didn't bring in any studies or real information, you just played the "you DON'T believe injecting stuff can cause brain damage??" game followed by no actual evidence. The statement itself is fine to make - now back it up with some vaccine causes autism science instead of making it seem like it's just common sense.

Honestly, I'm confident your and whitebus's comments have given more innocent readers autism than vaccines ever have.
 
You didn't bring in any studies or real information, you just played the "you DON'T believe injecting stuff can cause brain damage??" game followed by no actual evidence. The statement itself is fine to make - now back it up with some vaccine causes autism science instead of making it seem like it's just common sense.

Honestly, I'm confident your and whitebus's comments have given more innocent readers autism than vaccines ever have.

LocalDC never brings any real data/info to the table. That's his MO.
 
Wow, we should chat sometime. I'm guessing that you work for Merck and that the latter drug you are referring to is relebactam? I hope Merck is fully committed to bringing it to market - it is badly needed in our area.

The antibiotic resistance crisis isn't looming - it's here.
Correct and correct. Merck is fully committed to completing clinical studies on relebactam and bringing it to market, should those studies show good safety and efficacy. It would likely be a treatment of last resort for certain highly resistant infections, as I'm guessing you already know. Are you an MD?
 
As I posted before - we are constantly being exposed to things that cause immune responses - vaccines are just another way to cause an immune response. From a new Nature paper discussed in the NY Times today, even embryos are getting vaccinated. The "culprit" is our own DNA.


A new study published in the journal Nature on Monday suggests that endogenous retroviruses spring to life in the earliest stages of the development of human embryos. The viruses may even assist in human development by helping guide embryonic development and by defending young cells from infections by other viruses.
“The fact that viruses may be playing a vaccine role inside the cell is pretty amazing,” said Guillaume Bourque, a genomicist at McGill University who was not involved in the study.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT