Vaccinations Cause Autism.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: rickymouse

So, seeing as you consider yourself to have more knowledge than health professionals who have studied for years and keep on learning as they work and they are continuously tested:

What do you suggest doctors do then?
What would you do if you were a doctor?

If doctors had more time to check out this stuff it would be good. But they work long hours and do want to have a life too. They are trained to administer pharmaceuticals and treat most common diseases. There are specialists and they do know a lot, but their treatment most often is decided by those who create medicines and they also do not have a lot of time to do research. Doctors are also not allowed to do things that are not approved by the Medical profession. They sometimes will inform their patients of other possible ways to help them be healthy, as long as it is approved by the governing health body.

How can you fix this? Competition between doctors offices makes it difficult to discuss stuff with their peers. It may be better in Socialized medicine, but even there there is problems with doctors beliefs. The computer programs that have been developed to standardize treatment are flawed, the doctor inputs only what the program asks for, sometimes there can be many symptoms to diagnose a disease and those programs do not account for that.


Competition has to be taken out of medicine. But doctors have to compete here because they have nurses to support with their practice. It is a business, and unless you have money coming in a business will not survive.

Also, what is normal for a patient is often misinterpreted in an appointment. The doctor asks how is your BM. Now I would say normal if it was normal. My normal is what most would call constipated. I never realized that most people consider a BM I have as being constipated, I have been this way all my life. How would a person know to tell this to a doctor.

My heart rate is between a hundred ten and a hundred twenty normally at rest, it goes up to around one sixty to one eighty when I work. This is normal to me. My blood pressure was never less than one forty over eighty, even when I was in excellent shape. This is normal for me. Now when I donated blood, I went to sleep for a day and a half straight the first time and two days the second time. Thirty six hours once and forty eight hours the second time. The third time I was going to donate the guy taking my blood was chuckling as he looked at the charts saying it was a coincidence. His face turned pale and he started to shake as he took my needle out and said I should never ever give blood again and do not let anyone talk me into it. This is all related, I am hypovolemic by nature. Doctors induce a coma by pulling out blood, I went into a mild coma till my blood got restored. I'm alive yet, no harm done, but it took researching thousands of articles for me to identify the relationship and actually now that I am not in as good a shape it is easy to identify, drastic changes in my BP depending on if I am standing or sitting or laying down.

I don't blame the doctors, I blame myself for not studying this stuff earlier so I could talk to the doctor on his own level and explain things. My new doctor I just got asked me what I had wrong and took my bp in two positions and he wrote down I have a problem with this. I was told by my first doctor that diagnosed my tachychardia, he also treated my uncle and dad, that I should not tell anyone or I would not get a job. I told him that they will know my heart is beating fast and he told me they won't he said the nurses will think they made a mistake in their multiplying, thinking they actually went did it for more seconds than they did. They used to take it for fifteen seconds and multiply it by four. I was calm, most people do not have a heart rate of one ten and remain calm. I told this to a couple of doctors who denied I had tachychardia because the nurse had wrote down the wrong number. The doctor took it and it was way higher and one doctor mentioned it nicely to the nurse and told her to not correct for what she thought was a mistake on her part.

But beta blockers do not work well when you have low blood volume. I learned to correct my diet over the years. Think of all the problems with tests that can occur if you have less blood volume. Older people usually get lower blood volume. Now more sugar would need to be in the blood to be normal if you have less blood, also more insulin would need to be present. What about electrolyte levels?

What can I suggest? I don't know, I am not in that field. You say your in that field, maybe you can discuss this stuff with coworkers and doctors to try to figure out something. Someone who knows the particulars needs to bring this up, not a person who used to build houses. I am only studying this stuff so I can possibly help others who help others, not to cause conflicts. Open your mind, you probably know a lot of things you do in your field that don't seem quite right. This can be fixed. Knowing how to interpret Epigenetics might help someday but it is only a tool and it will take many years to get things figured out.

I do not like to judge unless cornered. I would like to see what I am finding from my research and understanding help to fix things that are not completely correct. I am a perfectionist, completely OCD with making sure I do things the best I can. I have many more years of studying to go.

Also I research mostly legitimate research but will take something that is mostly correct and in laymans terms and show someone elses conclusion even though the source may not be considered acceptable. I also look at unlegitamate research to find out if there is any truth to it. Often there is some truth but much of the time the way they arrived at the conclusion is wrong. This happens in peer reviewed articles a lot.

Your first paragraph demonstrates how completely you don't understand doctors and the medical profession.
Doctors constantly read and produce research.
In every hospital I have ever been two there are at least 2 to 3 teaching sessions, doctors have time during their days to keep up with papers and there are numerous research projects happening in every hospital every week.
There are pretty good reasons why doctors "are not allowed to do things that are not approved by the Medical profession". Think about it...
Even so, if they are able to demonstrate that there is a benefit to a new treatment and that benefit outweighs any risk then they can get approval. It's really not that hard.
If doctors weren't able to do that then medicine would never progress.

So unfortunately, I can't take anything you say with a degree of seriousness now as you're so far off the mark it's worrying.

originally posted by: obnoxiouschick
Since this thread is still going strong I'll throw in some links & quotes I ran across.
Keep in mind my children have already had the MMR. I refuse to do the flu and HPV vaccine though.

Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn't been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That's right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.

quoted from here

I just thought it was interesting.

Interesting but fictional and scientifically naive.

originally posted by: obnoxiouschick
There has been more recent research into Autism - probably to get people away from thinking vaccines cause it

This is a current study

In the 1970s, Stella Chess found a high prevalence of autism in children with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), 200 times that of the general population at the time. Many researchers quote this fact to add proof to the current theory that maternal infection with immune system activation in pregnancy leads to autism in the offspring.

PubMed link

This is a current ongoing study... it must be it's dated March 2016

Genetic research involving twins and family studies strongly supports a significant contribution of environmental factors in addition to genetic factors in ASD etiology. A comprehensive literature search has implicated several environmental factors associated with the development of ASD. These include pesticides, phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls, solvents, air pollutants, fragrances, glyphosate and heavy metals, especially aluminum used in vaccines as adjuvant. Importantly, the majority of these toxicants are some of the most common ingredients in cosmetics and herbicides to which almost all of us are regularly exposed to in the form of fragrances, face makeup, cologne, air fresheners, food flavors, detergents, insecticides and herbicides. In this review we describe various scientific data to show the role of environmental factors in ASD.

PubMed link

There's lots of on-going research into autism and it's not to "get people away from thinking vaccines cause it" as you may have missed the studies proving that there isn't even an association between vaccines and autism.

Your first link is a review of an old study which says nothing new and in itself is not a study.

Your second link is a review of literature and in itself is not a study. And it's complete, it's not on-going.
If you search for and read the full article the "conclusion" is as woolly as a mammoth.
It also cites studies from Chris Shaw and Tomljenovic who are well known in autism circles as purveyors of the "aluminium causes autism" trope. Their "work" has been soundly rebuked and found to be false. Therefore any conclusion based on false evidence must, by definition, be false itself.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: obnoxiouschick
Since this thread is still going strong I'll throw in some links & quotes I ran across.
Keep in mind my children have already had the MMR. I refuse to do the flu and HPV vaccine though.

Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn't been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That's right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.

quoted from here

I just thought it was interesting.

Interesting but fictional and scientifically naive.

It was a theory on a possible cause. Or were you taking a jab at my personal choice to minimize the number of my children's vaccines?

a reply to: obnoxiouschick

There is no difference in autism rates between vaccinated children and unvaccinated children.

That right there shoots any hypothesis that vaccines cause autism, no matter how fantastic, weird, stupid or plausible, dead in the water.

originally posted by: obnoxiouschick

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: obnoxiouschick
Since this thread is still going strong I'll throw in some links & quotes I ran across.
Keep in mind my children have already had the MMR. I refuse to do the flu and HPV vaccine though.

Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn't been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That's right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.

quoted from here

I just thought it was interesting.

Interesting but fictional and scientifically naive.

It was a theory on a possible cause. Or were you taking a jab at my personal choice to minimize the number of my children's vaccines?

It's not a theory on a possible cause. Theories encompass proven hypothesis. There is t even a hypothesis in this article.
The part of the article that really stood out to me was-

Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: "Because it's human DNA and recipients are humans, there's homologous recombinaltion tiniker. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it's changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it's an ongoing inflammation. It doesn't stop, it continues through the life of that individual."

The entire article, or at least the premise put forth by Ratajczak, is geared towards the scientifically illiterate suffering from confirmation bias who are highly unlikely to engage in due diligence. The phrase in bold, homologous recombinaltion timiker is what seals the deal. For a former pharmaceutical professional, one would think Ratajczak would at least attempt to use proper terminology in the appropriate context. Homologous Recombination is a real thing. It just isn't a real thing that can occur in the brain. It's when a mammal creates sperm or egg cells. Homologous RECOMBINALTION is not and tiniker isn't even an actual word. It's just fluff and woo. For a vaccine to affect the brain, it would have to be administered intravenously and not intramuscularly and even then, it would have to find a miraculous way to pass the blood-brain barrier and then into nuclei. The premise is that human DNA from a foreign donor is attacking the brains of individuals who have been vaccinated. This is simply an impossibility. As is the premise put forth.

Again
I already said I don't think there is any connection between Autism and vaccines.

I do think there are other things going on. Especially the pharmaceutical companies making so much $ off them.

All it takes is one having a bad experience handling a medical situation and that person tends to lose faith in the medical establishment.

For example me discussing how Lyme crosses the blood brain barrier with a doctor. He kept insisting it didn't. It took another 5 minutes of me saying yes it does before he whipped out his tablet. He looked it up and reluctantly nodded his head agreeing. And that was a medical doctor, it was so frustrating.

So it takes experiences like that one for someone to realize that doctors don't know everything and could be wrong. I am not a medical professional. I am just a regular person trying to do what I think is right. I don't think it's right to pump toxins into my kids unnecessarily. The flu & HPV vaccines are unnecessary in my opinion. The risk is high for nonlethal diseases.

originally posted by: obnoxiouschick
Again
I already said I don't think there is any connection between Autism and vaccines.

I do think there are other things going on. Especially the pharmaceutical companies making so much $ off them.

All it takes is one having a bad experience handling a medical situation and that person tends to lose faith in the medical establishment.

For example me discussing how Lyme crosses the blood brain barrier with a doctor. He kept insisting it didn't. It took another 5 minutes of me saying yes it does before he whipped out his tablet. He looked it up and reluctantly nodded his head agreeing. And that was a medical doctor, it was so frustrating.

So it takes experiences like that one for someone to realize that doctors don't know everything and could be wrong. I am not a medical professional. I am just a regular person trying to do what I think is right. I don't think it's right to pump toxins into my kids unnecessarily. The flu & HPV vaccines are unnecessary in my opinion. The risk is high for nonlethal diseases.

You're right, not every doctor knows everything about everything.
That's why there are specialists in individual fields.

When you say "pump toxins into my kids" you do understand the meaning of the word toxin and that toxicity is always dose dependant?
And 'flu is a killer.
So is cervical cancer (and other associated cancers).
And the severe adverse reaction rates for both flu and HPV vaccines are extremely low.


So what was your argument again?

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: IvyNeptune
Despite this, More and more parents are refusing to have their children vaccinated. Illnesses such as whooping cough and the measles and even polio are on the rise, where they were once almost eradicated.

And now we see the rise of previously "dead" diseases in localized pockets where this 'anti vaccine' belief is most prevalent.

Should we force people to have vaccines? Absolutely not, it should be kept as a choice, all we need to do is spread factual information.

It doesn't matter how intelligent a person is, they can still hold an invalid concept as truth.

Increase education, Increase availability of information. The people whom still hold such concepts as factual will simply face Natural Selection.

If vaccination should be a choice, then the hospitals, public schools, workplaces, should also have a choice on whether or not they allow unvaccinated people into their buildings.

I fail to see why people who want the choice also demand that others are not given a choice to come in contact with these people.

originally posted by: IvyNeptune
Ive had this very thing preached to me various times by pretty intelligent people no less. "Vaccinations cause Autism"

More recently US Public Health Officials, And those alike around the western world say that there is no substance to this claim.
Numerous studies have found no evidence to support the notion that vaccines cause autism and other chronic illnesses.
Source

Despite this, More and more parents are refusing to have their children vaccinated. Illnesses such as whooping cough and the measles and even polio are on the rise, where they were once almost eradicated.

I was hoping for the most part that people were staring to understand more about vaccinations and why they are so important, but I still see mixed messages in media and from various news sources.

Even politicians (mostly on the right side) including Donald Trump have made big claims about vaccinations during the campaign trail, claiming they definitely cause autism. Children going limp hours after having them.
Source

Information is mixed on the Internet. Many Sources Debunk the whole theory. Others say that its a conspiracy and cover up by the big drug companies.
Source


As far as my opinion goes..
I think that if we live in a country where vaccinations are available, and there is no evidence that they cause autism, then my children will be having them.


Im curious as to what your opinions are on vaccinations.

Not to mention all the major autism groups also agree with the fact that vaccinations do not cause autism.

People are more inclined to agree with Jenny McCarthy than sound science though...

a reply to: Pardon?

I'm not arguing.

You are.

HVP does not always lead to cancer. The vaccine only covers certain strains.
I HAD HVP. It clears on it's own.
With the flu vaccine they're GUESSING which strain will be prevalent, so in reality you're not immune. The flu vaccine is THE MONEY MAKER for big pharma. Do you get yours every year?

The only thing I'm saying is I personally don't just accept everything doctors tell me without questioning it.
Or you'd rather I blindly follow along like the rest of the sheeple.

originally posted by: obnoxiouschick
a reply to: Pardon?

I'm not arguing.

You are.

HVP does not always lead to cancer. The vaccine only covers certain strains.
I HAD HVP. It clears on it's own.
With the flu vaccine they're GUESSING which strain will be prevalent, so in reality you're not immune. The flu vaccine is THE MONEY MAKER for big pharma. Do you get yours every year?

The only thing I'm saying is I personally don't just accept everything doctors tell me without questioning it.
Or you'd rather I blindly follow along like the rest of the sheeple.

You're right HPV doesn't always lead to cancer.
And you're right again as the vaccine only covers certain strains.
But the vaccine covers all of the strains of HPV which cause cancer.
Would you be so flippant if the HPV you had was one of the strains which can cause cancer?
Probably not.

And again, it's a gues as to which strain of flu will be prevalent in a particular season.
However, even the worst guess has been around 50% effective.
So if you can reduce your chance of developing flu by half at the very least and therefore lessen the chance of passing it on why wouldn't you?
My Dad was in and out of hospital for several months due to pneumonia caused directly by the flu a few years ago. That stay alone probably cost more than all of the flu vaccines in our district given in that year alone. The drugs he was given during that stay cost hundreds of times more than the vaccine.
But they make their money from the vaccines (yawn).
And yes, I get mine every year as I don't wish to be a disease vector in the hospitals I work in.
As does my Dad.

And your last sentence is beautifully ironic.

a reply to: Pardon?
While I do agree with you about getting the flu shot to not spread it, if it mutates at all, you might as well take a sugar pill.
Deciding in February which ones to protect against, gives the virus quite a bit of time to mutate by the time flu season (Oct-May) occurs.

In Canada, the 2014/2015 flu season shot was largely ineffective. Link, but like you said, you can expect to get wet if you don't carry an umbrella.