OT: MMR vaccine not associated with autism, even in at risk children
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
Its possible that the Godzilla is going to emerge from the sea and chuck the Empire State building directly onto your head in ten minutes. I doubt you are moving to the mountains to avoid that possibility though.
yeah, possible in the sense of way less than a 1 in 10 million probability of getting autism from a vaccine vs. maybe a 1 in 10 chance of getting a potentially life-threatening viral disease if not vaccinated (and way more than 1 in 10 if enough "stupid" people keep refusing to get vaccinated, such that relying on low rates in the "herd" no longer applies). The probability based risk-benefit calculation is blindingly obvious that vaccination is the overwhelmingly safer choice.
der - nice job on the last few posts. I actually had a few minutes and likely would have typed about 90% of what you typed. I like saving time, lol...
LocalDC -- Since you seem to have returned to this thread, I am still waiting for a response to the question I asked you on page 4.
Yes, I seem to have returned to this thread about vaccines and autism
I have no interest in getting into my personal practice..tried that on this board years ago
if I want to be insulted by people who have no idea what they are talking about, I'll try again sometime (not directed at you, just my past experience)
I have no interest in getting into my personal practice..tried that on this board years ago
if I want to be insulted by people who have no idea what they are talking about, I'll try again sometime (not directed at you, just my past experience)
C'mon DC. It's not like I'm trying to draw you into a debate that you're trying to avoid. You made several posts in this thread disparaging conventional medicine, including the exchange I quoted above that prompted my question.
Since you made the statement that the days of conventional medicine are over, it seems reasonable to ask you to clarify your comment.
Are you afraid that some football fans will think you're a quack, or are you afraid that some of your customers will realize you're a charlatan?
Since you made the statement that the days of conventional medicine are over, it seems reasonable to ask you to clarify your comment.
Are you afraid that some football fans will think you're a quack, or are you afraid that some of your customers will realize you're a charlatan?
ha ha...very good...proving my point
my posts although accurate were only made after the usual insults were initiated towards me by the same usual suspects
just came back to make the point , which I have done before, that nothing shows that it is impossible for an individual to suffer some sort of injury from a vaccine and to think otherwise... well, anyway, that's my input
my posts although accurate were only made after the usual insults were initiated towards me by the same usual suspects
just came back to make the point , which I have done before, that nothing shows that it is impossible for an individual to suffer some sort of injury from a vaccine and to think otherwise... well, anyway, that's my input
There are two kinds of studies that you could look at here. One would be called "observational." Here you would just gather up people who had been vaccinated and people who hadn't and look at the incidence of autism. You would be looking to see if the percentage of autism cases in the vaccinated people was statistically greater than in the non-vaccinated population. That statistical test is an easy one to calculate.
But, if you find a difference in that study (say, in the Amish community as discussed above), you have to ask the question, "Could there be alternative explanations of the findings?" The Amish tend to intermarry, so there may be a genetic disposition against autism. They don't use electricity, so maybe there is a cause there. Maybe those cool black hats protect the autism rays from coming in. Now, in fact, the genetic argument probably holds the greatest possibility for the argument here, but you have to wonder about what is going on. (Another possibility is that the Amish community doesn't get kids diagnosed as frequently.)
The second kind of study is where you randomly assign people to getting vaccinated or not, and then look at the relative frequency of occurrence. With a big enough sample, you essential eliminate the possibility of outside causes affecting the results. That is, when you randomly assign people to conditions, and then check for the occurrence of autism, you can statistically calculate the degree to which these differences occurred through the "luck of the draw." And if the "luck of the draw" seems highly unlikely, then you have strong internal validity that the cause was the vaccination. That is how they tested the original penicillin vaccine.
Thank you Skillet. As I stated back on page 1 or 2, there is enough antidotal evidence to hypothesize that there might be some sub-segment of the population with unknown characteristics that cause autistic behaviors after vaccination. All these studies have proven is that vaccines don't statistically speaking cause autism in the population of children in the world. However the evidence seems to point that we might want to understand the unique characteristics of kids that seemingly have/had reactions.
This thread keeps going and going. But basically it boils down to this.....
The initial conception of this thread was asking for trouble because the thread should not have been that vaccine cause autism because that is a tall statement and would obviously need strong evidence that as of now I have not been shown.
Instead the thread should have been titled that parents should think extremely hard about if they should vaccinate their kids based on past incidents with vaccines as well as the poor ethics of it's owners. There is a myriad of examples that provide evidence that this medical companies in general DO NOT keep their consumer ultimate health at the forefront and instead puts profits ahead of the individuals health. There have even been examples where these companies push "medicine" on people when they know it could be dangerous! i.e Just google GlaxoSmithKline had to pay a 3 billion dollar fine for doing SO MANY horrible things I can't even remember them all off the top of my head.
So yeah I would agree that it is smart to be skeptical about the statement that vaccines cause autism only because I haven't seen the evidence to support it yet.
BUT it is definitely NOT smart to accept vaccines as 100% safe just based on past examples of the poor ethics of its owners. If people hear that a car dealer is a rip-off artist people RUN the other way..... but some people if they hear that a pharmaceutical company is found to have HORRENDOUS ETHICS ISSUES, they don't even think twice about allowing their kids to be INJECTED WITH CHEMICALS directly into their body that are made by that exact company! Pretty crazy stuff.
The initial conception of this thread was asking for trouble because the thread should not have been that vaccine cause autism because that is a tall statement and would obviously need strong evidence that as of now I have not been shown.
Instead the thread should have been titled that parents should think extremely hard about if they should vaccinate their kids based on past incidents with vaccines as well as the poor ethics of it's owners. There is a myriad of examples that provide evidence that this medical companies in general DO NOT keep their consumer ultimate health at the forefront and instead puts profits ahead of the individuals health. There have even been examples where these companies push "medicine" on people when they know it could be dangerous! i.e Just google GlaxoSmithKline had to pay a 3 billion dollar fine for doing SO MANY horrible things I can't even remember them all off the top of my head.
So yeah I would agree that it is smart to be skeptical about the statement that vaccines cause autism only because I haven't seen the evidence to support it yet.
BUT it is definitely NOT smart to accept vaccines as 100% safe just based on past examples of the poor ethics of its owners. If people hear that a car dealer is a rip-off artist people RUN the other way..... but some people if they hear that a pharmaceutical company is found to have HORRENDOUS ETHICS ISSUES, they don't even think twice about allowing their kids to be INJECTED WITH CHEMICALS directly into their body that are made by that exact company! Pretty crazy stuff.
Vaccine makers acknowledge that they arent 100% safe. ou know what else is also not 100% safe - not getting vaccinated. ALso driving, flying, breathing, walking, having sex with strangers, or your wife, or your wife and strangers at the same time. Feeding your kids organic food (laden with organic pesticides) is also not 100% safe.
Ethics issues? - this entire debate exists because of etics issues. A guy lied about the link in question in order to sell his own vaccine instead. And somehow THIS has become the rallying point for the anti-authority/libertarian viewpoint on vaccines and medicine in general. Weird. Its all quite Rovian - take your greatest weakness (lack of scientific rigor in basically all of the alternatives in this case) and turn it against your opponent.
So heres the real issue. Some people dont trust doctors, or pharmaceutical companies, or the government or all three and choose to act out in weird ways. not much different really than people who distrust the government and the military industrial complex, so they believe that 9-11 was an inside job.
Well, let's just say the model is changing slowly. The traditional model which works well for acute care is intact.
The idea that applying those same principles to a chronic condition is taking a small hit, but a hit nonetheless. Hence, a small movement of MDs dabbling in what is being called functional medicine.
Now whether that particular field is suited for a medical doctor who maintains a medical philosophy and covers it with a bit of functional medicine philosophy and application remains to be seen. If that field utilizes little from the pharmaceutical realm, it may not ultimately be the mds who lead the way.
The idea that applying those same principles to a chronic condition is taking a small hit, but a hit nonetheless. Hence, a small movement of MDs dabbling in what is being called functional medicine.
Now whether that particular field is suited for a medical doctor who maintains a medical philosophy and covers it with a bit of functional medicine philosophy and application remains to be seen. If that field utilizes little from the pharmaceutical realm, it may not ultimately be the mds who lead the way.
So there we have it from the "experts" in this thread . Those who question the orthodoxy are:
1. Stupid
2. Blind followers of Jenny McCarthy
3. Base their belief on one false study
4. And now you add not different than those who believe 9-11 was an inside job.
The issue is vaccines not 9-11. You are linking together two unrelated things to create an emotional reaction and to create guilt by association.
Our modern economy depends on trust. I explained when I trust and when I don't trust a few posts ago. Those who are accountable to consumers because they have to compete usually are trustworthy. Those who use coercive power are not accountable and are often not trustworthy. No conspiracy theory, plain ordinary economics 101.
Our pediatrician said this same thing.
He said the kicker here is that many of hte more prominent "anti-vax" experts scream about the dangers of vaccines but then turn around and push or endorse products that are also potentially unsafe, etc.
Amish do not have a zero percent vaccination rate.
It's a myth perpetuated by many of the fraudsters in the anti-vax movement.
Their autism rate is lower but they represent half of all measles cases in the US. But the majority of Amish still vaccinate their children but less than the rest of the population.
That seems to be the case with one large outbreak in 2014. I think your comment might be a little overstated.
He stated unequivocally that half of the measles cases in the US are of Amish people. This is true for one year because of one outbreak. That would be an overstatement, pretty simple. BTW- there are hundreds of measles cases per year. Again, poor info to make the point he was trying to make.
This is what happens when a thread reaches 7 pages. This is the question that started this thread.
The first post in this thread was regarding a study comparing autism rates in vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. The study looked at both children classified as "at risk" (i.e., children with an older sibling with autism) and children that were not classified as "at risk".
The study found that there was no increase in the rate of autism among vaccinated vs unvaccinated children, whether "at risk" or not. (Actually, the data showed that vaccinated children had lower rates of autism than unvaccinated children, but the difference was not statistically significant.)
Well then, I'm both ashamed that I forgot that and proud that I did not re-read the beginning of this thread -- an interesting combination. We could have avoided 7 pages and all just agreed that this anti-vaxxer nonsense needs to stop and medical resources need to be focused elsewhere.
It's funny how the article says that there is no significant increase in Autism rates amongst children that were vaccinated but when trying to strengthen their argument, they casually mention facts that are not statistically significant. The vaccinated kids had no lower rates of Autism as well as no higher rates of Autism.
Not correct. The vaccinated kids had lower rates of autism. However, the difference was not statistically significant.
Not per the CDC. In the last 14 years, only 6 years have had reported measles cases above 100. In those 6 years where there was more than 100 measles cases, only twice has the number been above 200 (although 2015 looks to be trending towards 200+). So to say there are 100s of measles cases per year is also overstating a point.
Again as per vaccines equaling autism, there just isn't enough evidence that I have seen yet to agree which this statement.
But here is my last post about vaccines in general and their manufacturers because I know this thread was initially about vaccine equaling autism so I don't want to hijack the thread.
GlaxoSmithKline is the 3rd largest vaccine supplier in the WORLD based on revenues in 2012 as per this article... http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-reports/top-5-vaccine-companies-revenue-2012
This is the same company that in 2012 paid a 3 billion dollar fine for fraud aka the largest settlement ever in history for a pharamaceutical company! And this was a settlement where they had to ADMIT guilt as well, not one of those settlements where they don't have to admit guilt (Kudos to the prosecutor for forcing GSK to do that). Here is the link to that article about why they had to pay 3 billion dollars... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/b...o-pay-3-billion-in-fraud-settlement.html?_r=0
If you don't have the time here are most of the key points that I ascertained:
1. They plead guilty to promoting it's best selling anti-depressant drug for unapproved uses.
- So essentially they could care less about the safety of their customers and care more about gaining more sales of their blockbuster drug.
2. They also plead guilty for failing to report safety data about their top diabetes drug.
- Common sense would tell you that if the safety data was good they would have reported it. So odds are the company purposely hid safety data that would indicate dangers about the drug and hence would rightly lower sales of the that drug. But of course they couldn't put their customer health above profits which is SO SAD.
- **** Oh and what a surprise..... a company LIED ABOUT THEIR DATA and purposely withheld data that would negatively impact the numbers.
3. The whole reason this case was even started was not thanks to the government catching them or the company self reporting themselves to come clean..... it only came to light because their practices that were occurring at GSK were SO EGREGIOUS and horrible that 4 employees felt so guilty that they became whistleblowers and did the country and world a major favor.
4. They helped push a medical journal article that misreported data from a clinical trial.
- EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND WRONG as many doctors and industry people use medical journal and clinical trials as their main source of supposed unbiased and honest information which they then pass along to their patients.
5. There were many other issues going on here as well such as improper incentive pay for salespeople that rewarded pill pushing from doctors on their patients, improper marketing of 6 of their drugs, and many other unethical issues.
So in conclusion, the 3rd largest vaccine supplier in 2012 also plead guilty in 2012 to a PLETHORA OF OFFENSES THAT SHOW AN ENTIRE COMPANY WITH CORRUPT AND UNETHICAL INTENTIONS! And yet many parents still trust this company to supply CHEMICALS THAT GET INJECTED DIRECTLY INTO THEIR CHILDREN'S BLOODSTREAM!
Sorry for the long post everybody, but this issue is SUCH A CRUCIAL issue that I thought it was worth the time to write because if it raises the alarm of even one parent which then leads to a child being better protected as well then it was totally worth it.
But here is my last post about vaccines in general and their manufacturers because I know this thread was initially about vaccine equaling autism so I don't want to hijack the thread.
GlaxoSmithKline is the 3rd largest vaccine supplier in the WORLD based on revenues in 2012 as per this article... http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-reports/top-5-vaccine-companies-revenue-2012
This is the same company that in 2012 paid a 3 billion dollar fine for fraud aka the largest settlement ever in history for a pharamaceutical company! And this was a settlement where they had to ADMIT guilt as well, not one of those settlements where they don't have to admit guilt (Kudos to the prosecutor for forcing GSK to do that). Here is the link to that article about why they had to pay 3 billion dollars... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/b...o-pay-3-billion-in-fraud-settlement.html?_r=0
If you don't have the time here are most of the key points that I ascertained:
1. They plead guilty to promoting it's best selling anti-depressant drug for unapproved uses.
- So essentially they could care less about the safety of their customers and care more about gaining more sales of their blockbuster drug.
2. They also plead guilty for failing to report safety data about their top diabetes drug.
- Common sense would tell you that if the safety data was good they would have reported it. So odds are the company purposely hid safety data that would indicate dangers about the drug and hence would rightly lower sales of the that drug. But of course they couldn't put their customer health above profits which is SO SAD.
- **** Oh and what a surprise..... a company LIED ABOUT THEIR DATA and purposely withheld data that would negatively impact the numbers.
3. The whole reason this case was even started was not thanks to the government catching them or the company self reporting themselves to come clean..... it only came to light because their practices that were occurring at GSK were SO EGREGIOUS and horrible that 4 employees felt so guilty that they became whistleblowers and did the country and world a major favor.
4. They helped push a medical journal article that misreported data from a clinical trial.
- EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND WRONG as many doctors and industry people use medical journal and clinical trials as their main source of supposed unbiased and honest information which they then pass along to their patients.
5. There were many other issues going on here as well such as improper incentive pay for salespeople that rewarded pill pushing from doctors on their patients, improper marketing of 6 of their drugs, and many other unethical issues.
So in conclusion, the 3rd largest vaccine supplier in 2012 also plead guilty in 2012 to a PLETHORA OF OFFENSES THAT SHOW AN ENTIRE COMPANY WITH CORRUPT AND UNETHICAL INTENTIONS! And yet many parents still trust this company to supply CHEMICALS THAT GET INJECTED DIRECTLY INTO THEIR CHILDREN'S BLOODSTREAM!
Sorry for the long post everybody, but this issue is SUCH A CRUCIAL issue that I thought it was worth the time to write because if it raises the alarm of even one parent which then leads to a child being better protected as well then it was totally worth it.
Health impact news 5/21/2015
"Zero measels deaths in ten years, over 100 measle vaccine deaths reported".
very interesting article Health impact news 5/21/2015.
Please don't even comment on this post if you don't at least read the article.
"Zero measels deaths in ten years, over 100 measle vaccine deaths reported".
very interesting article Health impact news 5/21/2015.
Please don't even comment on this post if you don't at least read the article.
Facts are more useful if you use real facts
From the World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/
Key facts
- Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
- In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.
- Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.
- In 2013, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 73% in 2000.
- During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.
The disease remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 145 700 people died from measles in 2013 – mostly children under the age of 5.
Measles is caused by a virus in the paramyxovirus family and it is normally passed through direct contact and through the air. The virus infects the mucous membranes, then spreads throughout the body. Measles is a human disease and is not known to occur in animals.
Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths. Global measles deaths have decreased by 75% from an estimated 544 200 in 2000 to 145 700 in 2013
According to that article those numbers came right from the CDC and VAERS vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (Gov't sponsored)program to track vaccine injuries. Most people don't even know there is such a program.
I have absolutely no statistics on this, but I'd guess that a majority of the measels deaths in children noted above, also happened because of poor nutrition, and health care. In this case, measels vaccine is a great choice to have. How many well feed, healthy American children who contracted measles, died of measles? I'd rather roll the dice with measles, than risk a tiny chance of autism.
I've never had the MMR vaccine. Contracted Mumps and Measles back to back when I was four (1968 - no vaccine back then). Stayed in bed for about a month, with Mom taking care of me. I'm still here. Had Whooping Cough six years ago even though I was vaccinated. Can see how it would kill the weak and old. Was a bitch. Got the polio vaccine in 1965. Hope I didn't get the one with Simian Virus 40. But I should be OK since all vaccines are safe. http://www.sv40foundation.org/CPV-link.html
You can't use VAERS reporting for M&M tracking. VAERS is a self-reporting system not limited to clinicians (anyone can file a report) and the instructions for reporting very specifically say this:
"Please report all significant adverse events that occur after vaccination of adults and children, even if you are not sure whether the vaccine caused the adverse event."
According to the CDC, there were 7 deaths in the US from measles between 2005 and 2013. http://wonder.cdc.gov/
According to VAERS, there were 5 deaths from measles vaccines reported in the US for vaccines administered after Jan 2004.
Also, VAERS is a reporting system, not a verification system. In order to access VAERS data, you need to click that you read and understand a statement explaining the data. The statement includes the following: "VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event." and "A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine."
But, Cool story, Bro. Next time try real facts.
Even if this were true - wouldnt it stand to reason that the reason that there are few measles deaths (zero) is because people are vaccinating their kids for the most part, and that if you STOPPED vaccinating them more of them would get the disease and some would die. So you would have a reduction of measles vaccine related deaths, but an increase in measles related deaths.
Also, rubella, which is the R in MMR, has been eradicated in the Western Hemisphere because of vaccination efforts. The only cases that occur here now are imported from the other side of the world. It didnt cause death in kids, but did cause birth defects if pregnant mothers got it, which is even worse than autism.
The study is trying to determine if there is a statistically significant difference in the autism rate of at risk children due to vaccination. The methodology is not necessarily wrong but so many people overlook the simple implications of the test sample. The abstract states that there were 1,929 high risk kids and 134 of them (6.95%) got Autism with no statistical difference in the Autism rate between the 1,409 vaccinated children and the 520 non-vaccinated children.
At a 6.95% incident rate we would expect 98 vaccinated and 36 non-vaccinated high risk children to become autistic if there is no effect due to vaccination. If the non-vaccinated group had a much lower incidence rate than 6.95% or if the vaccinated group had a much higher incidence rate then we could conclude that vaccinations cause Autism. So the question is simple, How much higher/lower would the rates have to be to say that there is a statistically significant difference?
Since the sample size is so small, the non-vaccinated group incident rate would have to be 59% lower than 6.95% or drop to an incidence rate of 4.06% to be statistically significant at the 99% level of significance. The vaccinated group, which is relatively small but at least larger would have to increase by 25% to 8.70% to conclude that vaccinations cause Autism.
You see, statistics are your friend. Since vaccinations don't increase the rate of Autism by 25% in high risk children big pharma can conclude that vaccinations don't cause Autism. This study is a piece of crap and any idiot that has been using it to make a conclusion regarding the safety of vaccinations is just an imbecile.
At a 6.95% incident rate we would expect 98 vaccinated and 36 non-vaccinated high risk children to become autistic if there is no effect due to vaccination. If the non-vaccinated group had a much lower incidence rate than 6.95% or if the vaccinated group had a much higher incidence rate then we could conclude that vaccinations cause Autism. So the question is simple, How much higher/lower would the rates have to be to say that there is a statistically significant difference?
Since the sample size is so small, the non-vaccinated group incident rate would have to be 59% lower than 6.95% or drop to an incidence rate of 4.06% to be statistically significant at the 99% level of significance. The vaccinated group, which is relatively small but at least larger would have to increase by 25% to 8.70% to conclude that vaccinations cause Autism.
You see, statistics are your friend. Since vaccinations don't increase the rate of Autism by 25% in high risk children big pharma can conclude that vaccinations don't cause Autism. This study is a piece of crap and any idiot that has been using it to make a conclusion regarding the safety of vaccinations is just an imbecile.
