Vaccines cause autism: Supporting evidence

reply to post by ZombieOctopus


Vaccines licensed prior to 1999 have "been forced to reduce the thimerosal preservative and are labeled "reduced thimerosal". Vaccines licensed after 1999 have no thimerosal.

It was not, btw, thimerosal itself, but multiple vaccinations producing levels that did not meet compliance for methylmercury put out by the EPA. Since guidance requires an explicit number of vaccinations prior to the entry into public schooling and those vaccination schedules were in danger of crossing the boundaries set by the EPA, the FDA challenged pharmaceutical firms to produce without mercury based preservatives or have only "trace" mercury elements.

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Which ones was it not taken out of, relating to the context of this discussion?

The Swine Flu vaccine has it, it has thimerosal, which is 49% ethylmercury.

Almost all multi-dose virals have thimerosal in them.

Also

A new study in the leading scientific journal NeuroToxicology lends further credence to parents and scientists concerned about an increasingly aggressive childhood vaccine schedule and toxic vaccine components. A team led by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh found that infant macaque monkeys receiving a single Hepatitis B vaccine containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal underwent significant delays in developing critical reflexes controlled by the brainstem. The infant macaques that did not receive vaccines developed normally.

www.prnewswire.com...

And for the guy in the thread who said his child had autism before being born

Thimerosal was removed from U.S. Hepatitis B vaccines in 2000 but was not recalled from the market and was administered for approximately two more years. It still remains in other vaccines including all multi-dose shots for both the seasonal flu and H1N1.

So as mentioned, there's still mercury!

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Of course the OP points to a public health article and not a research paper, and the Skeptics magazine's article was opinion and not a research paper, so maybe we could cut them both some slack and realize these are people commenting and piggybacking off the research of others not the scientists themselves, thereby not calling them "frauds".

Oh OK, when it's an article it's OK to make things up and pass it off as research, which is what you're missing. It's painfully obvious that it's not a research paper, however it's more important how it presents itself to the reader. Do you really think anyone reading it will have any experience with real journals and thereby will be able to know an authoritative source of information when they see it? No. The article presents itself as an authority, to the average reader, that's all that matters. And yes, what they are doing would qualify them as frauds.

This is an article, not a research white paper. The audience and goals are different. It is a synthesis of work produced by other people. You are judging it by the same standards you would the findings of research and that is hardly fair.

Why shouldn't you call crap when you see it? If you don't point out bad opinions, views and "research", they fester and grow.

And sometimes when people are full of crap they search the internet for quotes by other people even if they have no idea what they mean and post them on a message board along with insupportable comments, dripping with snark.

Sometimes they will say: "Prove it" without providing a measure of success or context. That is equally unhelpful.

I didn't post any quotes outside of what was in the OP or linked from it. Clearly you failed to read the entire posted article and then tried to pin it on me.

The measure of success is the same as with any other comparable affliction. Anti-vaxxers like to pretend this isn't the case but the reality is that nothing is different. The fact that the evidence isn't on their side frustrates them into taking the position that this particular situation is uniquely unfair.

If you're able to ask the easiest questions - what, where, when, how, why - and not get a sufficient answer, it's crap.

If you do not supply criteria for have a sliding bar of criteria for or explain the measurement of success in supplying answers to such questions, its likewise crap.

I just did, and you recited it. If someone makes a statement that they lay out as absolute fact, and you can't cross examine that statement, it's not a fact, it's an opinion and someone who states opinions as facts is obviously a charlatan. Having opinions is fine, writing commentary is fine but doing either and saying that's a fact, is not.

Vaccines and most medicines are meant to meet the needs of a large, generic portion of the population, and they do. However, in some individuals this can be detrimental to the health of a child versus positive. In those cases, it is unkind and unwise to act dismissively.

I believe in general vaccines are a good thing for those diseases that cannot be easily treated, and unnecessary for those that can.
[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Possibly detrimental side effects in tiny number of people - possible, but not relavent to this discussion.

Causes autism - dis-proven again, and again, and again... I would love to post links to studies showing this, but only if requested since the anti-vaxx religious movement generally doesn't do "evidence" anyway.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I'm not sure if vaccines are the cause of autism. What I am sure of is that the number of vaccines we're pumping into our kids is absurd and alarming and I can understand the negative attitude attached to that many syringes full of chemicals. The medical community cannot be serious if they think small children should be pumped full of these vaccines just to stave off disease.

Vaccines

Is all that really necessary? I'd be surprised if there wasn't some side-effect, that being said I don't think the research is conclusive. What we need is to look into a great many more environmental, chemical and genetic factors and I think if we do we'll find a handful of reasons why autism is increasing so rapidly. Perhaps daily doses of radiation from cell phones, radio waves and wi-fi are injuring our genetic material, and I'm sure chemicals in our water supply can't be helping...

So we really should look at all the factors before slamming the door on vaccines...

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by ZombieOctopus

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Causes autism - dis-proven again, and again, and again... I would love to post links to studies showing this, but only if requested since the anti-vaxx religious movement generally doesn't do "evidence" anyway.

Ok.

Requested.

But I must say, you seem rather pious with your views to be going around labelling others that disagree with you as part of any religious movement. But it's interesting to see exactly what is "evidence" to different people. Some people won't accept "evidence" unless it's from an official source. Some won't accept it if it's from an official source.
Some would have heard anecdotal "evidence" such as:

Originally posted by Jomina
My son, who up until the time that he had one of his vaccines, was well ahead of the curve, suddenly went into a downward spiral. Within 2 weeks of having his vaccine.

2 weeks after his vaccine, the downward spiral began.

I am sorry, but no one will ever tell me different. I know what caused it. He now is irreparably damaged. Officially his condition is called Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, and is one dang nasty thing to have.

For some people, just hearing stories such as the above (and there are LOTS of them) are enough to at least discourage unneccessary vaccine risks. But I guess they must just be part of "the anti-vaxx religious movement" and "generally doesn't do "evidence" anyway."

Oh OK, when it's an article it's OK to make things up and pass it off as research, which is what you're missing.

It does not pass anything off as "research". I read the same article. It was a public health article that referenced those studies and findings which the organization writing the article published. The government does this, as well. It inserts only those findings which meet their public position.

If you want to formulate your own opinion then you appeal to Universities and review their findings.

It's painfully obvious that it's not a research paper, however it's more important how it presents itself to the reader.

It is persuasive as are they all.

Do you really think anyone reading it will have any experience with real journals and thereby will be able to know an authoritative source of information when they see it?

Very few of us would as most people are not research scientists proficient in neurobiology, physiology, metrics, etc and therefore while we are intelligent and contain some relevant sphere of knowledge, our knowledge it more than enough to make us dangerous and insufficient to pronounce support for any one position.

Hence, why I feel that there is needless snark.

No. The article presents itself as an authority, to the average reader, that's all that matters. And yes, what they are doing would qualify them as frauds.

Only if they are knowingly incorrect. In the 1950s it was found that tobacco was not harmful, but today we understand the effects of tobacco products on the developing human. Were the researchers fraudulent? I would suggest they are not.

Why shouldn't you call crap when you see it? If you don't point out bad opinions, views and "research", they fester and grow.

Alright, fair enough. Please, advise us of your qualifications to dismiss the findings of researchers with medical degrees that were referenced in the articles. Are you a neurobiology major? A pediatrician practicing evidence based medicine? How about a molecular biologist?

If you are none of these, if you are not a research scientist or a physician then your opinion can hardly be considered expert and therefore are unable to pronounce it "crap" with total honesty. And if you were an expert, your same decree of "why" would be examined as you touched points in various research.

I didn't post any quotes outside of what was in the OP or linked from it.

I didn't say that you did. I said that it was unhelpful when people do that.

The measure of success is the same as with any other comparable affliction.

Agreed. There are adverse events with every medication. The difference is other medications are not mandated and they warn you up front. When it comes to vaccination you see it in the fine print. There are no "warranty" documents for a vaccine. There are no pro-vaccine commercials that trail off with "Warning you may experience drowsiness, delayed speech, heart palpitations...." With other medications you have a choice whether or not to take the medication based upon the side effects. Parents are told that their child must receive these vaccines or else cannot participate in public schools. That makes it a mandate. That makes them treated differently than other FDA products and that makes all of this questioning for a purpose.

When you have a "pass" then you must be held to higher standards than those that don't. It is only common sense.

The fact that the evidence isn't on their side frustrates them into taking the position that this particular situation is uniquely unfair.

You are speculating as to the innermost thoughts and emotions that drive the opinions of a generic group, and that is a logical fallacy and "uniquely unfair" as you put it. Perhaps, they are people who have observed changes post-vaccination and are frustrated when told there are no changes.

If you're able to ask the easiest questions - what, where, when, how, why - and not get a sufficient answer, it's crap.

If you do not supply criteria for have a sliding bar of criteria for or explain the measurement of success in supplying answers to such questions, its likewise crap.

I just did, and you recited it. If someone makes a statement that they lay out as absolute fact, and you can't cross examine that statement, it's not a fact, it's an opinion and someone who states opinions as facts is obviously a charlatan. Having opinions is fine, writing commentary is fine but doing either and saying that's a fact, is not.

No, those were supplied. I said "measurements". You ask me to tell you why radiocarbon dating is effective and I tell you because it measures the fixed atmospheric CO2 during a given photosynthesis and matches the atmospheric isotope in a testable manner. If you say, but you didn't explain how the atmospheric levels were calculated, that is another fair question that I may answer. What I have seen by most skeptics is this:

Skeptic: Tell me why, since you're so smart, you believe carbon dating is soooo effective?

ME: Because CO2 during photosynthesis can be correlated to the atmospheric isotope in a testable manner.

Skeptic: Aha! but you neglected to point out that it must be recalibrated. Everyone knows that it must be recalibrated.

ME: Well, I didn't know you expected me to explain radiocarbon dating, just why I thought it was effective. Yes, it may have to be recalibrated but the calibration methodology is likewise repeatable.

Skeptic: Well, why didn't you also bring up carbon-12 and the assumption that carbon-14 is not in equal measures?

ME: Um, you didn't ask?

That is a demonstration of what I meant by providing a "means" to measure the success of the answer. In this case the question is not: Why should we use radiocarbon dating, but explain it in its entirety.

I see that quite often in these debates.

How could one prove to you that vaccine adverse events can be tied to autistic symptoms? What are the statistics you would need?

Vaccines and most medicines are meant to meet the needs of a large, generic portion of the population, and they do. However, in some individuals this can be detrimental to the health of a child versus positive. In those cases, it is unkind and unwise to act dismissively. I believe in general vaccines are a good thing for those diseases that cannot be easily treated, and unnecessary for those that can.
[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Possibly detrimental side effects in tiny number of people - possible, but not relavent to this discussion.

Yes, relevant. The CDC and FDA admits to vaccine sensitivity and admits that there have been incidents of tainted vaccines. As the topic is the potential for vaccines to cause autistic like symptoms then the "how, what, when, where, why" of the bureaucratic procedures and policies of the CDC and FDA and their fallback methodologies becomes important as we are a nation that prides itself on minority protections and all handicaps and birth defects are covered in the Americans with Disability Act. If if can be proven that vaccines cause these symptoms in even a tiny amount of the population, then governmental protections will incur, regardless of how "tiny".

Causes autism - dis-proven again, and again, and again... I would love to post links to studies showing this,

I am not anti-vaccination. I will read the studies. Please post and explain why it is that you feel these studies are accurate and their protocols relevant.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by Hal9000
reply to post by Longtimegone

 

I think this person is just pointing out that some autism is genetic and may occur naturally.

Is that why there's no autism -- and no vaccination -- in the Amish community?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Hal9000
reply to post by Longtimegone

 

I think this person is just pointing out that some autism is genetic and may occur naturally.

Is that why there's no autism -- and no vaccination -- in the Amish community?

The Amish also do not eat food with preservatives, live off corn syrup, and pollute their bodies with bad food and non-stop stimulation. I'm not disagreeing with the "evidence" but it is one bit of the puzzle.

I think if we gave up all this unnatural crap we'd all be better off for it.

reply to post by A Fortiori

Except I really doubt preservatives, corn syrup, bad food or non-stop stimulation has anything to do with autism.

Mercury does.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


I know of a little girl with ASD whose doctor suggested that they remove corn syrup completely from her diet, all non whole foods, and if she had to have something sweetened use raw sugar and became a-symptomatic.