Interesting admission from the FDA - autism and vaccines

link to fda site

From near the top of pg 11.

Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.2

I am no medical expert but does this not show a link between vaccines and autism? as well as all the other ones

a reply to: johnb

"Reported".

Anyone can report any unverified effects and they have to be listed. They even had to list turning into The Incredible Hulk as an effect until they convinced the guy to retract the report.

a reply to: johnb

Your own external text explains what you're asking.

And this is from one type of vaccine, not all.

a reply to: johnb

Repeating what the other two posters above have said, this is from your link (same section):

Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.2

^^ Parents reporting autism. A health professional would never report anything like this unless they have done numerous studies and tests.

And also please note Big Bad Pharma encourages parents to report adverse effects, from the same section:

Reporting by parents or guardians of all adverse events after vaccine administration should be encouraged.

yes but they also say

Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting.

I don't know whether they cause autism or not, just see a lot of threads and articles about it.

In this case they included autism presumably, as they say above, because of the seriousness or frequency of said reports.

So vaccines MAY not cause autism but it seems kind of disingenuous to claim they DEFINITELY don't either.

a reply to: johnb

'Vaxxers' film is being shunned. Censored. As it will here on these boards. It basically 'reports' a link to vaccines and autism.

Andrew Wakefield - the guy who when you Google his name all the 'usual suspects' pop up claiming he is a fraud, that you the reader are stupid for believing him.... The Vaxxers film highlights how his research was not fraud. How we have indeed been misled.

But of course, it's a film for lunatics, full of nonsense... Why censor it then?

a reply to: and14263

Because weak minded idiots will believe what he says and stop vaccinating their kids.

And you're talking about one, single film festive that decided to not show his film.

That is not censorship.

a reply to: Chadwickus

You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

Your choice of language serves to reinforce the point I am making. Those who want to push their agenda use words to make us feel 'weak' and like 'idiots'.

It's completely 100% your choice how you treat your children and which research you trust

I've always thought there was a link between today's vaccines and all the issues popping up....also the GMO food ....but of course no one will be able to prove it until we are all dead and long gone.

originally posted by: johnb
In this case they included autism presumably, as they say above, because of the seriousness or frequency of said reports.

The leaflet is a legal document, don't forget that, so they have to include what customers have said. If the FDA thought the vaccine caused autism it would be in the adverse reactions section, after having been confirmed by robust clinical trials. Instead it is in the 'reported' section, which is just parents believing it caused their children autism.

So vaccines MAY not cause autism but it seems kind of disingenuous to claim they DEFINITELY don't either.

Hundreds of trials and studies in the last decade have confirmed vaccines do not cause autism.

originally posted by: and14263
But of course, it's a film for lunatics, full of nonsense... Why censor it then?

Censorship is when a government blocks something because they don't like the message. Tribecca is a private institution and what they have done is quality control as they did not want their venue to be used for pseudoscience that the gullible may believe. No censorship happened here.

a reply to: Agartha

Just because the film festival is 'private' please don't let that make you think the government would not have any involvement. I'm not suggesting they definitely did but with utmost respect that view point is a little naive. I agree with your definition of the term. But the government can and does have outside influence on private corporations.

a reply to: Agartha

You mean like when they used to say DDT was safe or smoking...... need I go on.

Now this is correlation not proof but raises questions for me anyway.

CDC link

This year marks the 20th Anniversary of passage of the legislation that created the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC), one of our nation’s most successful public-private partnerships for improving public health.

US Library of Medicine, national Institue of Health link

Autism is about 10 times as common in the United States today as it was in the 1980s, concludes the largest epidemiological study of the condition yet to be carried out.

So you are saying that it is pure coincidence that as we have vaccinated more, that the rates of Autism have increased 10 fold?

Why would so many people be reporting it, if it isn't happening?

originally posted by: and14263
Just because the film festival is 'private' please don't let that make you think the government would not have any involvement. I'm not suggesting they definitely did but with utmost respect that view point is a little naive. I agree with your definition of the term. But the government can and does have outside influence on private corporations.

Sorry, I disagree. This is just one company, the film (unfortunately) will be available to the public via other sources, because it has not been censored by any government. Wakefield will make sure of that as this fraud of his has made him rich in the past and, as we can see, he is stil profiting from it.

De Niro and Tribeca realized they have social responsibility when they screen films, and serious concerns were raised about this one, as the 'science' behind this film has been largely discredited.

originally posted by: johnb
So you are saying that it is pure coincidence that as we have vaccinated more, that the rates of Autism have increased 10 fold?

There is no rise in autism: there is earlier and better detection. Let's take the US for example: in the 1980s it was called 'Infantile autism' and could only be diagnosed in children who showed symptoms before they were three years of age. Now it's not 'infantile' anymore, the age and language impairment limits have been removed. This means the number of people that fit into the autism criteria has expanded.

Diagnostic Criteria for Autism through the Years

a reply to: and14263

Erm... a private film festival can do whatever the heck they want.

Ironic that the people that crow the loudest about free speech not only don't understand exactly what their constitution protects under free speech but want to limit the free speech of a private festival who have already exercised their free speech by deciding not to air a quack film filled with medical inaccuracies and outright lies. Free speech works both ways.

a reply to: johnb

When I consider the fact that the US is the most chronically ill nation on the planet, and we spend the most money on health care, along with hospital and doctor error being the third leading cause of death in the US, I seek my health advice elsewhere.

Everyone needs to decide for themselves. But those decisions should be based on all available information,. Read the vaccine inserts and do the research.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: johnb

Censored.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means...

originally posted by: johnb
I am no medical expert

Clearly.

originally posted by: johnb
but does this not show a link between vaccines and autism? as well as all the other ones

No, it doesn't, although the anti-vaccination fanatics will no doubt claim that it is.

a reply to: GetHyped

Nothing you said is incorrect. Although I don't think my using a film festival pulling a film is an example of limiting free speech. Of course they can choose to do whatever they want, I don't disagree with that. I question why they do that. By the tone of your post I would suggest you are limiting my free speech/suggesting I shouldn't ask why it has pulled the film.

Maybe we can both watch the film and comment afterwards?

What are your thoughts on CDC destroying/hiding evidence of the link?

As a side we don't have a constitution in England.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: GetHyped

Nothing you said is incorrect. Although I don't think my using a film festival pulling a film is an example of limiting free speech. Of course they can choose to do whatever they want, I don't disagree with that. I question why they do that. By the tone of your post I would suggest you are limiting my free speech/suggesting I shouldn't ask why it has pulled the film.

Maybe we can both watch the film and comment afterwards?

What are your thoughts on CDC destroying/hiding evidence of the link?

As a side we don't have a constitution in England.

The CDC didn't destroy or hide evidence, it's there in plain site.
Have a read of this and tell me where it's wrong if you disagree with it.
scienceblogs.com...

As for censorship of free speech, pulling the film from the festival isn't that in the slightest.
De Niro was initially approached by Bill Posey who's been taken in hook, line & sinker by this whistleblower nonsense and because of this decided to showcase the film.
After the inevitable social media backlash, De Niro then spoke to medics who suggested that in the interest of public health the film shouldn't be shown and also alerted him to Wakefield's less than salubrious past.

Wakefield''s been found to be a dangerous fraud and is still a dangerous fraud.

If you can show me without reasonable doubt that he didn't accept money from lawyers to recruit patients for his "study", perform unnecessary and invasive tests on children, patent an alternative to the MMR a year prior to his "study" results with a parent of one of his subjects, abuse the inclusion criteria, falsify the results and then make a claim about the "study" in front of the UK's press which differed from the "study's" conclusion I might give you some time.