Autism rates exploding in Asia after they adopt western vaccination protocols.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I totally agree with you. It's almost as if our society feels this inherent need to categorize or compartmentalize everyone into some pre-determined mold. It's always been "uncool" to be too different, but it's almost like people want their kids to be little automatons, not the individuals they are supposed to be.

It directly impacts other kids who actually do have developmental issues too...trivializes their very real struggle; cheapens it in such a way that it is not taken seriously enough because it appears to be so commonplace or "ordinary". You can see the effects of that mentality right here on this very thread.

a reply to: GetHyped

I'm sorry, but what I have been reading says differently. I have seen lots of evidence, none of it what I would call "solid", that supports both sides of this debate. Bottom line is, there is no known cause of autism. Therefore, it is possible that it can be caused by vaccines and it is equally possible that it can not be. We simply don't know. But vaccines for such illnesses as the flu or pneumonia or other things like that should be optional. They are not necessary. People still get the flu and pneumococcal infections after receiving the vaccine, so there is no reason to be required to take it. It is not like smallpox or cholera...they can test for it and it has an incubation period, so if someone has it, they stay home until they're better. There are also people like myself who cannot take it...it could be fatal to take it, due to other health reasons, and we are perfectly ok to live our lives without it.

Personally, I am not against vaccines...for certain things. But when people start pushing heavily for other people to discard their beliefs about such things and jump on board with "everyone else is doing it, so you have to do it too, and if you don't, we will all publicly call you stupid and ignorant and act as if you are somehow not worthy of sharing the planet with the rest of us", that kind of thing automatically raises my suspicions about the veracity of their position on the subject. There is no valid reason to push a vaccine that a) doesn't guarantee protection in the first place and b) is for an illness that is seasonal and largely non-fatal...certain risk factors can contribute to fatalities, but the incidents are relatively rare, and nothing has changed about that.

The fact that it is being pushed, even to the point of personally attacking people (as has been done extensively on this thread) and questioning their intellectual ability because they don't want to get an injection that may very well cause more harm than good is, historically, a huge red flag to me that something is most definitely not right here. Sort of a "methinks thou dost protesteth too much" type of thing.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: GetHyped

I have seen lots of evidence, none of it what I would call "solid", that supports both sides of this debate.

What exactly would you call "solid"? A look at the autism rates of millions of children is pretty darn solid.

And what exactly does the anti-vaccination side have to offer? Nothing of the sort.

Bottom line is, there is no known cause of autism.

We don't need to know the cause in order to investigate causation.

Therefore, it is possible that it can be caused by vaccines and it is equally possible that it can not be.

This is plain wrong. A causal link between vaccinations and autism has been investigated many times. Every time, there is no correlation. That definitively demonstrates that vaccines don't cause autism.

We simply don't know.

There's many things we don't know, but there are also things we do know. "Vaccines don't cause autism" is one of them.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: superman2012

At what concentrations? Are people exposed to more in everyday life, or just through vaccines? Just because there is a correlation, does not mean it is the cause.

Doesn't mean it isn't the cause either, to be fair. It is very possible, however. Some people are more sensitive to certain things than others. You cannot place a blanket "normal" value on everyone and say that it is the absolute 100% accurate value...medical science proves that every single day. It could be a cumulative effect, as you mentioned, and somehow the particular concentration of the chemical makeup interacts with that in a certain predisposed demographic. No one knows what causes autism, so in actuality it is wrong to say that vaccines are not the cause...for all we know, they might actually be, in a certain group of people. It could be a very large group, and quite culturally (and otherwise) diverse as well.

Fair enough.
Until a cause is found, we can't rule out anything, including cucumbers.
There is quite a bit of research saying that vaccines do not cause Autism. All major Autism groups also agree with this.
I'm not so daft that I won't say there might be a chance that certain reactions to vaccines, along with environmental factors, along with certain genes in people can NEVER bring about symptoms of Autism, but all available science says no. Key word is available.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Great post, that's what critical thinking is about.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: superman2012

I get called a bad parent by some family for taking away the Xbox when they misbehave or don't listen.

Some parents nowadays are wanting to be their kids friend more than they want to be a parent. They also look for a quick fix for their kids problems or some sort of effin disorder to label them with to excuse their behaviour.

Is it this way for all parents and kids? No, but it sure seems like it is becoming more and more common which would be another reason why the Autism rates are exploding. Easy diagnosis.

Autism is absolutely nothing like just some bratty kid misbehaving. Symptoms are severe and affect the quality of their lives. It is a mistake to trivialize something that is in reality a debilitating disorder. No reputable physician in their right mind is going to "mistake" the signs and symptoms of autism with a poorly-behaved child. Ever. And it is ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. If you had picked ADHD or Bipolar disorder, I might agree with you. But autism is nothing like those at all...a totally different ballgame altogether.

Calm down lady.
I didn't say Autism equals bad behaviour or vice versa. I said the rates could be exploding because it seems to be the diagnosis du jour.
Parents needlessly "label" their kid(s) with different disorders just because it might be "fashionable" at the time. Mistaking a child that won't look at you in the eyes as disrespectful was very common back in the day. Wonder how many of the signs and symptoms of Autism were seen as disrespectful?

My second sentence in that post you responded to, was about any "disorder" in general, including the ones you said that you might agree with.
Read more slowly or ask questions before jumping to conclusions.

a reply to: superman2012

Calm down lady.

If there is ever a time when I am in fact not calm, you will most definitely know the difference...speaking of jumping to conclusions.

I understand what you said. What I was saying is that it would be ridiculous, no matter how many parents want to label their kid, for that to even affect what we are discussing here in any real way, because no reputable physician would ever "mistake" a bratty kid with an over-imaginative mother for one suffering autism. And that would be about the only way for erroneous diagnoses to even factor in with this discussion as an argument because of it. Which, if you're reading all the posts, you can easily see is something that people are trying to do.

a reply to: theMediator

Thank you kindly

a reply to: GetHyped

This is plain wrong. A causal link between vaccinations and autism has been investigated many times. Every time, there is no correlation. That definitively demonstrates that vaccines don't cause autism.

I, as well as several others on this thread, have linked more than a couple of studies that directly contradict what you are saying. There is absolutely a correlation. But like every other bad idea that the government has had, they didn't count on people figuring out what was going on. So when they get called out, what do they do? Deny everything. That is stupid, for two reasons: 1) It is obvious. 2) When you tell a lie, you have to then tell another lie to cover that one. You then have to tell a further lie to cover the lie that you covered the lie before it with. And so on.

People are getting tired of being mislead and misinformed, so it's kind of dumb for them to keep doing it. People get tired enough of something, they're going to fight back. This is part of that. Wait and see. Meanwhile, free your mind a little and look at things from another person's point of view...you might learn something.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
I, as well as several others on this thread, have linked more than a couple of studies that directly contradict what you are saying. There is absolutely a correlation.

Where are these studies? I have yet to see you (or anyone else in this thread) post a study that shows causation between vaccines and autism. Studies about the harms of elemental mercury (methylmercury) have nothing to do with this whatsoever.

How exactly do you explain away the utter lack of correlation between vaccines and autism with a sample size of millions of children?

a reply to: tigertatzen
My mistake, I wrongly assumed you were applying your words to me, not the ridiculous situation of a Dr misdiagnosing a child. Sorry again.

a reply to: tigertatzen
Correlation does not equal causation. If that were true, have they ruled out baby food? Mothers diet while breastfeeding? Formula? Brand of diapers? Laundry detergent? Mold in the house? I could literally go on for the whole page, but I'm sure you get the point.

There are tonnes of studies, even research papers, that show there might be a correlation, but they are looking specifically at one item. Perhaps if they looked at the whole picture in every instance, they might have a better idea instead of some what ifs that get people so wound up they start believing a guy who has been discredited and Jenny McCarthy.

originally posted by: damwel
Oh Bologna. I don't know of one case myself and everyone I know and their kids are vaccinated.

Don't be so quick to dismiss these claims. I used to find it ridiculous too, until I got a tetanus vaccine in February. Just 3 weeks ago I was diagnosed with severe testicular autism.

Only proper study I could see, is 1000 healthy 6 month old babies, that were born on term, mother had a healthy diet and breastfed within a healthy environment...Then inject the little babies according to schedule assuring they are not running a fever from flu, cold or teething.

Then 1000 6 months old, born premature, with mother who had preeclampsia, and fed cheap baby powdered milk...Then inject the little babies according to schedule, when they have a higher then normal temp from flu or cold or teething....

Then we could have a proper study between the two...don't you think these study's that have been done..choose the healthiest baby's to include within the study. Studies like these have strict guidelines on choosing healthy participants..clinicaltrial.gov

Look it's very simple, you take a 6 month old, with underdeveloped blood brain barrier, underdeveloped immune system, underdeveloped brain. And possibly running a higher then normal temp the day or night after a multi injection of cocktails laced with chemical, strains, additives, and who knows what else...Just common sense with shields down in the immune system and blood brain barrier, crapp is going to get into the brain and screw s#t up...be it ever so slightly damage or more pronounced damage..

can't put it more simple then that....and if you think 100 percent of all cases, every time, little babies brains can handle that well there is nothing changing your mind...

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Pardon?

Go look them up. This stuff is all over online, and I flat don't have time to hunt it all down and post it for you. What makes your personal review any more valid than that of anyone else?

I have done thanks.
And none of them show an association which stands up to real scrutiny.
That's why I asked if you could provide some that do as you're so convinced.

And like I said, I'll look at them from a scientific perspective, it won't be my "personal review".

originally posted by: nitetrain
Only proper study I could see, is 1000 healthy 6 month old babies, that were born on term, mother had a healthy diet and breastfed within a healthy environment...Then inject the little babies according to schedule assuring they are not running a fever from flu, cold or teething.

Then 1000 6 months old, born premature, with mother who had preeclampsia, and fed cheap baby powdered milk...Then inject the little babies according to schedule, when they have a higher then normal temp from flu or cold or teething....

Then we could have a proper study between the two...don't you think these study's that have been done..choose the healthiest baby's to include within the study. Studies like these have strict guidelines on choosing healthy participants..clinicaltrial.gov

Look it's very simple, you take a 6 month old, with underdeveloped blood brain barrier, underdeveloped immune system, underdeveloped brain. And possibly running a higher then normal temp the day or night after a multi injection of cocktails laced with chemical, strains, additives, and who knows what else...Just common sense with shields down in the immune system and blood brain barrier, crapp is going to get into the brain and screw s#t up...be it ever so slightly damage or more pronounced damage..

can't put it more simple then that....and if you think 100 percent of all cases, every time, little babies brains can handle that well there is nothing changing your mind...

You'll need to re-think some of the premises in your study.
The "blood-brain barrier" is fully functional at birth. It's formed at the end of the third trimester.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Agartha

New Meta-analysis Confirms: No Association between Vaccines and Autism. Analysis of 10 studies involving more than 1.2 million children reaffirms that vaccines don’t cause autism; MMR shot may actually decrease risk.

First of all, it is not the MMR vaccine that is the risk. It is the flu vaccine. Second, the "analysis" doesn't "reaffirm" anything. It is a compilation of certain evidence that has been used to suggest a lack of correlation, not hard data being researched and applied to real research subjects in a real study. It is guesswork. And they admit as much, right there in your link.

We performed a meta-analysis to summarise available evidence from case-control and cohort studies on this topic

Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Disagreement was resolved by consensus with another author.

your link

So it's the flu vax that is the risk?
How come in countries where the flu vax isn't routinely given to kids and only adults in risk groups (i.e. the UK) the rates of diagnosis of autism have increased the same as in the US?

originally posted by: Pardon?
You'll need to re-think some of the premises in your study.
The "blood-brain barrier" is fully functional at birth. It's formed at the end of the third trimester.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It's not like an arm is sticking out and researchers can say look it's fully developed and fully functional..how many times have researchers been wrong in the past, after more advances and more understanding...heck we just recently had the NFL and basically the whole public ACCEPT the fact that one head trauma from football could cause life long brain damage, more so then thought before....my guess the brain is the bodies last frontier still in the medical field and there is so much we still do not understand..much less the developing brain in a little guy..

Let's have a test done..have a baby, and at 4-6 months age, we can inject all the vaccinations on schedule, and we can send them on a direct path to the brain through the CSF...Then let's see if the little guys brain can handle it....just common sense...if you can't understand there is potential for damage, then nothing will....obviously something is happening to the brain, in most cases after birth...so something is getting inside and doing damage....and why they haven't pinpointed it, with all the advances, we should have some clear cut reasoning,or atleast a few,something should be obvious cause..

originally posted by: nitetrain

originally posted by: Pardon?
You'll need to re-think some of the premises in your study.
The "blood-brain barrier" is fully functional at birth. It's formed at the end of the third trimester.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It's not like an arm is sticking out and researchers can say look it's fully developed and fully functional..how many times have researchers been wrong in the past, after more advances and more understanding...heck we just recently had the NFL and basically the whole public ACCEPT the fact that one head trauma from football could cause life long brain damage, more so then thought before....my guess the brain is the bodies last frontier still in the medical field and there is so much we still do not understand..much less the developing brain in a little guy..

Let's have a test done..have a baby, and at 4-6 months age, we can inject all the vaccinations on schedule, and we can send them on a direct path to the brain through the CSF...Then let's see if the little guys brain can handle it....just common sense...if you can't understand there is potential for damage, then nothing will....obviously something is happening to the brain, in most cases after birth...so something is getting inside and doing damage....and why they haven't pinpointed it, with all the advances, we should have some clear cut reasoning,or atleast a few,something should be obvious cause..

No, you're right.
It's not like an arm is sticking out. That would be silly.
But researchers can tell whether it's fully-formed and when that happens whether you believe it or not.

And how many times do researchers have to tell you that there's no association before you accept that there isn't?
That means it doesn't matter what what the root cause of autism is, vaccines have been ruled out.

But other than your extremely unethical and potentially dangerous idea for a study, what research would convince you otherwise?

While you're thinking about that, can you tell me how vaccinations go on a "direct path to the brain through the CSF" please (I'm guessing that CSF is cerebrospinal fluid?).
And how come all of the other pathogens a baby is exposed to don't cross the blood-brain barrier, just vaccine-mediated ones?

Autism before the raise of big pharma vaccination scam that has grown in the last 50 years was only limited to few cases.

Since our babies had been bombarded with vaccinations since they are born in the last 20 years, making them pin cushions for profits as soon they are pull from the womb the raise of autism is out very clear out of control.

Anybody that can read and write can see the correlation of vaccines increases in new born and autism.

But like everything, you want to gamble with your unborn children I can bet you that one of them will be autistic in the future that's how fast autism is growing in America.