It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vaccines, Autism and Glyphosate

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

I wish all vaccine threads had an element of humour
. That may also be the definition of post 40's..




posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Charlyboy

Humor is a good way to help tensions and tempers from being drawn too taught to maintain civility.

I've actually circumvented bar fights by telling the opposing parties a random and usually extremely inappropriate joke when I was a bouncer.
Didn't always work. Probably not even 35% of the times I tried it. But it was always worth it when it did.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I think in virtually every recent study I've seen on the subject, vaccines have no association with autism. Not just doesn't cause autism but has no association with it.

Therefore linking vaccines to autism in collusion with another chemical fails immediately as vaccines are ruled out straight away.

So, although you say (in all caps too!) that you're not anti-vax, me thinks the lady doth protest too much...



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

I would like to see those studies, can you cite them here please? I prefer to see the recent studies people talk about so I can read them myself. Did you read the paper about viral infection during pregnancy doubling the risk of autism due to auto immune responses? Could the same mechanism occur during vaccination in pregnancy? I clearly stated my beliefs, I would have no reason to falsify them because this thread was meant to be a conversation. I assume you didn't read the attached papers? Just read though the op quickly and left a fairly empty response.

Here is a short piece on herpes infection during pregnancy, possibly linked to Autism... Other viral infections are linked due to immune responses, it's not too hard to imagine a situation where an aggressive immune response to a vaccine may cause a similar situation.

The question is why???

www.sciencedaily.com...



edit on 26-6-2017 by Charlyboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Pardon?

I would like to see those studies, can you cite them here please? I prefer to see the recent studies people talk about so I can read them myself. Did you read the paper about viral infection during pregnancy doubling the risk of autism due to auto immune responses? Could the same mechanism occur during vaccination in pregnancy? I clearly stated my beliefs, I would have no reason to falsify them because this thread was meant to be a conversation. I assume you didn't read the attached papers? Just read though the op quickly and left a fairly empty response.

Here is a short piece on herpes infection during pregnancy, possibly linked to Autism... Other viral infections are linked due to immune responses, it's not too hard to imagine a situation where an aggressive immune response to a vaccine may cause a similar situation.

The question is why???

www.sciencedaily.com...




Ony phone so linking is a pain, look in Google Scholar for no association between vaccines and autism.
Yes I read what you wrote and your links in the OP hence why I posted what I did.

The fact you start by stating there's an autism epidemic when there isn't at all immediately raises red flags.
The fact that you narrow down on vaccines causing these inflammatory responses instead of saying that ANY pathogen capable of producing an immune response could be responsible leads me to believe you're being disingenuous and have a very loaded agenda.

Change my mind.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

I do understand what you are saying but the simple facts around 1 in 60 children born in the USA will be diagnosed with autism, you are accepting an unprovable narrative that autism rates have always been this way and there is no increase. Nobody can prove that the increase in autism is just diagnostic, the guess is that 60% of the increase is related to diagnosis, that still leaves 40%... Please read my op and my responses to others here, I clearly state that immune responses, specifically the type associated with viral infections may also lead to autism wether in utero or early childhood.

If you accept a narrative that there is no epidemic or if you prefer, a large increase in autism presentation then you quietly accept the situation without thought.

You will notice how quiet this thread is compared to most on this subject, and this I believe is in part due to the lack of emotive responses and the fact I am not polarised on this subject, I really am just looking at the science and biology.

Also I read the testimonies of parents which although anecdotal is a representation of the rapid onset of autistic behaviour seen in SOME cases. You cannot ignore this, if you do you are not looking at the evidence.

I am not being disingenuous, I am reading the literature (more than most people here I can assure you). I know vaccines have saved millions of lives and I would advocate people to vaccinate their children, that does not stop me seeing small risks associated with them.

Think of this, parents of a few children see a rapid decline in their Childs behaviour post vaccination, then a conspiracy driven by redacted claims whips up a heap of emotion causing a drop in vaccination rates, then we see a rise in preventable childhood diseases a dire situation, I think you will agree. The response is a flat out denial any child has suffered autism asa result of vaccination, yet a small number of parents continue to see this happen.

We end up polarised, fighting each other, no discussion just anger, ego and a situation where anti-vaccine groups deny the benefit of vaccines (truly horrifying in my mind) and the pro-vaccine group flatly denying to a small number of parents that what they saw happen to their children was just coincidence. This situation just feeds conspiracy and emotive behaviour without any real assessment of the biology or science.

The facts are this:

Vaccines have been used for decades, no problem.

Autism rates are increasing (regardless of what you believe).

A minority of parents see a change in their child shortly after vaccination (and I mean rapid onset after 24hrs, sometimes associated with seizures).

Immune response maybe responsible, indeed the pathology of autism suggests auto-immunity and inflammation as a cause in a high majority of cases.

Certain individuals are genetically predisposed.

I don't want to change anyones mind, I want people to look at the science, look at the biology and listen to the parents of the FEW children that experience rapid onset post infection/vaccination.

If we could identify those few at risk we can avert the declining vaccine rates, the suspicion of pharmaceutical companies and get back to protecting the children.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Pardon?

I do understand what you are saying but the simple facts around 1 in 60 children born in the USA will be diagnosed with autism, you are accepting an unprovable narrative that autism rates have always been this way and there is no increase. Nobody can prove that the increase in autism is just diagnostic, the guess is that 60% of the increase is related to diagnosis, that still leaves 40%... Please read my op and my responses to others here, I clearly state that immune responses, specifically the type associated with viral infections may also lead to autism wether in utero or early childhood.

If you accept a narrative that there is no epidemic or if you prefer, a large increase in autism presentation then you quietly accept the situation without thought.

You will notice how quiet this thread is compared to most on this subject, and this I believe is in part due to the lack of emotive responses and the fact I am not polarised on this subject, I really am just looking at the science and biology.

Also I read the testimonies of parents which although anecdotal is a representation of the rapid onset of autistic behaviour seen in SOME cases. You cannot ignore this, if you do you are not looking at the evidence.

I am not being disingenuous, I am reading the literature (more than most people here I can assure you). I know vaccines have saved millions of lives and I would advocate people to vaccinate their children, that does not stop me seeing small risks associated with them.

Think of this, parents of a few children see a rapid decline in their Childs behaviour post vaccination, then a conspiracy driven by redacted claims whips up a heap of emotion causing a drop in vaccination rates, then we see a rise in preventable childhood diseases a dire situation, I think you will agree. The response is a flat out denial any child has suffered autism asa result of vaccination, yet a small number of parents continue to see this happen.

We end up polarised, fighting each other, no discussion just anger, ego and a situation where anti-vaccine groups deny the benefit of vaccines (truly horrifying in my mind) and the pro-vaccine group flatly denying to a small number of parents that what they saw happen to their children was just coincidence. This situation just feeds conspiracy and emotive behaviour without any real assessment of the biology or science.

The facts are this:

Vaccines have been used for decades, no problem.

Autism rates are increasing (regardless of what you believe).

A minority of parents see a change in their child shortly after vaccination (and I mean rapid onset after 24hrs, sometimes associated with seizures).

Immune response maybe responsible, indeed the pathology of autism suggests auto-immunity and inflammation as a cause in a high majority of cases.

Certain individuals are genetically predisposed.

I don't want to change anyones mind, I want people to look at the science, look at the biology and listen to the parents of the FEW children that experience rapid onset post infection/vaccination.

If we could identify those few at risk we can avert the declining vaccine rates, the suspicion of pharmaceutical companies and get back to protecting the children.



Here's a nice article from Spectrum published earlier this year about the autism "increase". (You might wish to read it after reading the ones I suggested you look for in my previous post like this one for instance www.sciencedirect.com... ).

spectrumnews.org...

So it's not a case of my "accepting there's no epidemic" it's more a case of you suggesting there's one without any evidence that there is anything other than a small increase.

You also seem to be basing part of your "narrative" on parental testimony which by its very nature is loaded with bias so whilst your post may initially look appealing, since it's based on suppositions, anecdotes and plain falsehoods it's a non-starter.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

You didn't suggest any papers you told me to google......

I don't use google, I use NCBI and Pub-med.

The paper you linked discussing no autism link to vaccines is based on meta-analysis not clinical observations, I know you haven't read that paper because you would be ables to see the obvious flaw. Meta-analysis looks at previously undertaken studies, it is not impartial. As you know there have been no studies showing links to vaccines other than from that rather dubious doctor. That does not mean to say there isn't one. I am a published author, I know the procedures and I also know how the politics of science drives publications.

Do you honestly think a paper linking vaccines to even a small number of autism, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and guilain barre syndrome cases would be published in this climate? It would not, regardless of the science.

If you ignore parental testimony you are ignoring evidence, where are the plain falsehoods? Have you been involved in the science field? Do you understand peer review and stats?

From the article you linked :

The latest estimate of autism prevalence — 1 in 68 — is up 30 percent from the 1 in 88 rate reported in 2008, and more than double the 1 in 150 rate in 2000. In fact, the trend has been steeply upward since the early 1990s, not only in the U.S. but globally, says Maureen Durkin, who heads the network site in Wisconsin.


The article states that there is a high degree of variation across states and that is evidence of diagnosis variation, indeed it is but that variation has always been there it hasn't just appeared over night. As far as the increase in autism rates being solely down to 'improved diagnosis' this is simply not true, the literature suggests at most only 60% can be attributed to this.

We have to drag ourselves away from what we have been spoon fed by the media, all of us do. Its taken me about 10 years to disengage a little from my love of science. I saw so much that was wrong yet it was my religion I suppose.

Science is not what it was 20-30 years ago. It has been corrupted, politicised and we cannot publish freely, we do have to follow the 'narrative' or we do not get funding.

Here is a summary from a study comparing autistic children to none autistic children.


1. Seafood: Maternal consumption of more than 2 servings per month was found to be a risk factor for ASD. This was true of 57% of the mothers of children with ASD, vs. 33% of the controls.
2. Oral Antibiotics: Due to a high incidence of ear infections, the children with ASD received much higher levels of oral antibiotics. This is important because 1) oral antibiotics destroy normal beneficial bacteria, can cause overgrowths of harmful bacteria and yeast, and 2) oral antibiotics greatly decrease the excretion of mercury, causing it to build up to higher levels.
3. Vaccines: Children with ASD were more likely to have an adverse reaction to vaccines, and those adverse reactions tended to be more severe. This could be due to the thimerosal in the vaccines.
4. Pica: The children with ASD were reported to be much more likely to have moderate to severe pica (30%) than the typical children (2%). Using a severity scale of 0-3, the difference was highly significant (0.9 vs. 0.04, p=0.00001). This consumption of non-food items, including sand, dirt, paper, and other objects, probably resulted in a significant increase in their exposure to toxic metals.
5. Dental Fillings: There was a trend (p=0.08) that the mothers of children with ASD were more likely to have had a mercury filling placed or removed during their pregnancy (7 cases vs. 1 case for the controls). This is relevant because our recent study has found that fillings release much more mercury when initially placed.
Several physical symptoms were found to be very common in ASD, with an extremely high statistical significance:
1. Gastrointestinal: 62% of the children with ASD had moderate or severe problems with chronic constipation and/or diarrhea, far more than the typical children (2%). The difference was highly statistically significant, 1.9 vs. 0.1, p=1 x 10-12. This may be partly due to the high usage of oral antibiotics, which can disrupt normal GI flora, which are important in promoting normal motility.
2. Sleep: 60% of the children with ASD were reported to have moderate or severe sleep problems, far more than the typical children (2%). Using a severity scale of 0-3, the difference was highly statistically significant, 1.8 vs. 0.2, p=1x10-13).
3. Sleep and gastrointestinal problems were moderately correlated, with a correlation coefficient of 0.31.
4. Muscle Tone: 30% of the children with ASD had moderate or severe problems with low muscle tone, far more than the typical children (on a scale of 0-3, 1.0 vs. 0.06, p=0.000000002).
5. Salivation/Drooling: 15% of the children with ASD had problems with salivation/drooling, much more than the typical children (p=0.0003). Salivation/drooling problems were moderately correlated with muscle tone problems (correlation coefficient = 0.47).
6. Ear infections: Children with ASD were reported to have had many more ear infections than typical children during their first three years of life (10.9 vs. 4.3, p=0.00006). Since almost all ear infections were treated with oral antibiotics, this resulted in much higher oral antibiotic use in children with ASD.
Regressive ASD was found to occur in 62% of the children with ASD, at an average age of 18 months. Those children met their developmental milestones (age of crawling, sitting, walking, and talking) at the normal time. In contrast, the children with non-regressive ASD were two months late in crawling and sitting, four months late in walking, and 17 months late in talking.


Note a number of issues with these children, gastrointestinal for one and also the adverse reaction to vaccines, they also suggest that the gastrointestinal issues may derive from antibiotics taken during pregnancy.

Can you see the issues we are dealing with? Its a very complicated environment, if you read the science and you understand to some extent what is happening there is an increased incidence in Autism it is not just diagnostic. There are many causes and genetics play a role. As I have stated, vaccines may be a trigger for a small number of individuals, as are viral infections. This is an inflammatory immune related disorder, anything that triggers that pathway is and should be a suspect.

But you will believe what you believe, one thing I have learnt since being a member of ATS is humans including myself are terribly programmed and emotive beings. To look through all of that and try to take an unbiased view of the world whilst still having a belief system is almost impossible.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I haven't participated in this thread. Just replying as no subscribe button on ph.

Very interesting. Thanks



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Pardon?




I asked you to look via Google Scholar for papers with "no association with vaccines and autism".
It's right there in white on black...
Even standard Google searches list NCBI and PubMeb papers, but still.
Minutae seems to be your forte.

You should know better than to dismiss a meta-analysis with a cry of conspiracy.
And that is but one study, there are plenty of others so feel free to search and dissect at your leisure.
Don't use the conspiracy thing though as, similar to you, Ive been involved in the scientific community, specifically in healthcare, for several decades and have seen plenty of published studies which go against what was currently accepted at that time so that doesn't wash at all.
As you also should know, if the science is robust enough it will be listened to as it will be repeated and reproduced until it becomes accepted (see h. pylori as an example. Also the recall of the Rotashield vaccine as another example.).

Parental testimony can be used as a starting point but not any more than that due to the reasons I've already stated.

Without showing the literature you state that shows only around 60% of the increase in autism diagnoses being due to better diagnostic techniques and wider inclusion criteria I have no reason to believe you.
In the Spectrum article it suggests that "Awareness and changing criteria probably account for the bulk of the rise in prevalence", not just over half. Whilst there may be a slight increase it's certainly not an epidemic.
That's your falsehood.
Epidemiology of ASD

Although you copied and pasted some words which had the appearance of being from a study of sorts, you didn't actually link the source material.
Surely as an (ex?) scientist you should know better than that?
edit on 28/6/17 by Pardon? because: Reformatted link.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Being curious as I am, I searched for the invisible study you c&p'd from and found it not in NCBI nor PubMed but on the grandly titled Autism Research Institute.
The study was a questionnaire...yes, a questionnaire.

Now, in the robustness of studies where do you think questionnaire-based ones come?
Especially those which could have leading questions on?
And you had the cheek to criticize a meta-study for being observational?

As an extra bonus, special thanks is given to some people at the bottom of the piece:
Amy Holmes MD who is quite outspoken against vaccines.
Boyd Hayley PhD, a chemistry professor who is quite outspoken against vaccines.
And last but not least...wait for it....
Mark Blaxill who runs Age of Autism and who is very outspoken against vaccines.
(I'm being very nice about these people, believe me. The manners and decorum rules on this site can be very restrictive).

Just to conclude, this "study" consisted of a questionnaire given to parents of autistic and non-autistic children and consisted of questions clearly based upon a pre-defined conclusion.
No wonder you didn't put the link in.
So the circle completes itself.

Anti-vaxxers continue to prove that they are lying liars who lie.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

Your attitude is a little toxic, to suggest that I am a liar is also somewhat offensive. I have listed a number of articles and you suggest I use google scholar and could not cite them yourself. Suggesting you are following the standard response, I could google scholar all week if wanted to and not find the specific articles you alluded to.

Questionaires are used in all areas of stats to gather information, I am funnily enough not interested in the people associated with the questionnaire I am however interested in the numbers. Did you look at the numbers or spend your whole time trying to discredit the information which at best was interesting as far as clinical observations are concerned.

You are a little quick to judge, also I really don't like being called an anti-vaxxer, one of my kids is fully vaccinated, the other unfortunately has a serious seizure disorder which is triggered by infections and vaccinations which pushed into this whole scenario.

I have sat in the room with a number of neurologists who refused to believe that a vaccine caused status epileptics in my son until it happened a second time. Then after a 3 hour meeting they agreed. This is how hard is to discuss rare complications with vaccines. You are just another person who has not experienced how the medical community can ignore the few.

if you want papers here are few from my archive.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

msphere.asm.org...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

journals.sagepub.com...

www.nature.com...

Enjoy the reading.
edit on 28-6-2017 by Charlyboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Charlyboy

Sometimes I laugh at things I really shouldn't.
When I saw the thread title my first thought was "what would have happened if Omar Khayyám had bought Roundup?"



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Cauliflower

It's necessary to laugh and that is hilarious!

edit on 28-6-2017 by Charlyboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Cauliflower

He would have been philosophical about it whatever the end result



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Pardon?

Your attitude is a little toxic, to suggest that I am a liar is also somewhat offensive. I have listed a number of articles and you suggest I use google scholar and could not cite them yourself. You are obviously completely opposed to ideas outside of your own beliefs on this topic and thats ok, but you have absolutely no right to suggest I am a liar.

If it is so difficult for you to have a civilised discussion I suggest you don't try.


If you consider yourself to be an anti-vaxxer then yes I probably called you a liar.
If you don't then I didn't.
It actually referred to the rabid anti-vaxxers in my post above but if the cap fits...

A response like yours is a useful get out clause isn't it?
And reading skills aren't your forte (remember I said I was on my phone so linking was a pain?)
Nothing to stop you looking with those search terms is there?
You're making the claims, you gotta back them up.

As for the original post and links, the first one seems valid enough, the second by the Geiers isn't great (they're pro-chelation/anti-vax) and the methodology and subsequent results reflect a heavy (metal, sorry couldn't resist) bias.
Whilst the third is interesting it's a little out of date, I suggest you look for updates on this one.
And the fourth, again whilst interesting is only a small initial finding, again more current and robust info needed.



So it seems like you have a pre-defined conclusion and are trying to fit studies into this.
The fact you used that questionnaire study just highlights how desperate you are to finish your jigsaw.

I am completely opposed to ideas like yours as they are false.
Prove me wrong and I'll accept it.

edit on 28/6/17 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

No I just have testimonies from parents, medical science that describes immune-disorders maybe responsible and the pathway maybe triggered by viral infection. This as I clerkly stated may or may not be brought on in rare cases by vaccination in susceptible individuals.

Are there other environmental factors involved? Of course, is vaccination responsible for autism? No, may it trigger it in some instances, sure the whole point is to generate a strong immune response.

I am not talking about the 99% of cases I am asking the question is it possible and in my mind if the circumstances are right a vaccine or infection may trigger a cascade event.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
Again, and I must keep reiterating this point, I am not blaming vaccines for autism, I am saying that there is potentially a unique set of circumstances that creates an environment in susceptible children which when challenged by viral infection or vaccination triggers a rapid regression into autism. There are a number of parents who say their children change rapidly after reaction to a vaccine. Unfortunately this is ignored and we are told that autism just happens to manifest at the time of infection. If this was a biological process that was on going throughout development we would see a slow transition into the autistic spectrum not a rapid onset.


And yet this happens with unvaccinated children too. When parents try to put a date to the onset, they usually try to find a point in their children lives when things changed, suddenly. Latest research shows clinical onset for autism is 6 to 12 months, with parents only noticing (or remembering) changes, a lot later. Biological onset is probably from birth, but because of how we develop, certain behaviours are not going to be noticed until babies become older. There's also a psychological factor with this, parents who need something or someone to be blamed for their children's condition. I really hate saying this, but it's true. Look at Jenny McCarthy, for example, she said her child suddenly changed after his vaccines, and yet the paternal grandmother has come out to say the child showed signs of autism from a very early age, before his immunization.

I don't like to discuss personal experiences, exactly because of that, they are personal and witness testimony is not evidence.


Also the idea that vaccines are responsible for all cases of Autism is absurd, I am really only interested in the relatively small number that are potentially vaccine mediated. If this is the case then it explains why parents see this transition shortly after vaccination and why we find ourselves in an atmosphere of fear and anxiety regarding vaccines. I personally would like these cases investigated to determine why these kids are susceptible so we could develop testing to mitigate these heartbreaking events.


Susceptible to what, that's the big question. If vaccines cause an inflammation that can cause (in some children only) an immune response that can lead to neurological problems and autism, then any viral or bacterial infection can do that and that would make testing very difficult. Why? Because of the small sample (we don't know which children may be susceptible), because by the time parents notice changes the infection is most likely gone, because there are too many pathogens to test, etc etc. See the difficulty?




No anecdotes to not hold water in science but we are not talking science we are talking medicine, science is responsible for the development of medical procedures, drugs and therapies. Medicine is responsible for the delivery and clinical observation post delivery of these therapies be physical, chemo active etc. Medicine is an art not a science, every single patient has different requirements due to their genetic disposition. I go to a doctor and say I ate a steak and got sick, he treats me for food poisoning although it is anecdotal the chances are its food poisoning, no scientific evidence.


Wrong. If you go to your GP with a minor ailment (like feeling queasy or sick for example) then the doctor won't waste time and resources on something the body will fix itself. But if the ailment continues then it's not minor anymore, and specific tests will be needed and diagnoses and treatment will only be given after scientific (medical) evidence.

Medicine is evidence based, scientific evidence.


I saw the child the day before he was vaccinated, he spiked a fever and bang, I saw him 2 days after and it was crushing. I have spent enough time in hospitals with my son who has a seizure disorder to understand how parents thoughts are often dismissed based purely belief systems from a pretty parrot fashion education system (yes the same education system I spent time in).


Parrot fashion education system? I'm sorry but even if you say you are pro-vaccines, you keep repeating antivaxx statements.... all those in favour of pseudoscience (that have no education in healthcare ) always say that, that doctors and nurses are useless because they are brainwashed and only keep parroting what they are taught, without doubting anything.

That's completely untrue: if you study to be a nurse or doctor (or any other medical field) you have to demonstrate critical skills, you need to show you can critically analyze information, which is the opposite of parroting. So I'm sorry your education was not up to standard.


I am not blaming doctors, nurses or anyone for that matter, I am simply stating there is enough anecdotal evidence to warrant investigation. You simply cannot get scientific proof in the investigations are not undertaken.


And personal anecdotes are taken in consideration, but only when they have a real medical basis... when you work in healthcare you see people panicking for small things, because they don't have the knowledge needed to understand certain conditions, and because they are not exposed (like doctors and nurses) to serious ones. But when there is a pattern, or when something is serious enough, then personal experiences will prompt investigations.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Pardon?

No I just have testimonies from parents, medical science that describes immune-disorders maybe responsible and the pathway maybe triggered by viral infection. This as I clerkly stated may or may not be brought on in rare cases by vaccination in susceptible individuals.

Are there other environmental factors involved? Of course, is vaccination responsible for autism? No, may it trigger it in some instances, sure the whole point is to generate a strong immune response.

I am not talking about the 99% of cases I am asking the question is it possible and in my mind if the circumstances are right a vaccine or infection may trigger a cascade event.





Look, kudos to what you're trying but that path has been well-trodden and turned out a dead-end.

Whilst 2+2 usually equals 4, 2a+2b doesn't always.

Post-vaccine "autism" testimonies are generally (virtually always actually) first recounted quite a while after vaccination (in some cases years) and the vaccination date almost acts like a temporal date-stamp for events. (post hoc ergo propter hoc).
Testimonies are pretty poor judges.
Without a doubt there have been a very small number of cases where kids have shown an immediate allergic reaction or even a prolonged febrile event post vax (which are scary to see) but to my knowledge (and I have looked quite a lot) there has been no documented and verified case anywhere showing a direct autism response.
Add to that several independent studies showing no association with vaccines to autism in various degrees and I think you're clutching at straws.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

I really get that and again I agree thee is no proof in the literature but if medically you are told its not possible and medical staff are 100% sure of this you wouldn't see evidence even if it was the case.

In this country (Australia) we have a situation where vaccine rates have dropped, whooping cough is on the rise and the government in its wisdom decided against through investigation and instead took away all benefits from parents with children who weren't vaccinated.

This has increased vaccination rates which is good, but unfortunately it has generated even more distrust in the government amongst certain groups.

I get its a well trodden path, I know there is no evidence but honestly I see a number of studies with large numbers and enough noise in the data that it would be easy to loose 50-60 kids out of a couple of thousand (so clutching at straws possibly but those 50-60 straws are still lives). Parents testimony really is important, its part of the clinical observation, no 2 humans are alike and although there is a high level of emotion with the parents it can't just be dismissed.

Anyway it is what it is, I would like to see cool heads prevail but like the climate debate, people seem to prefer the divided response.

Thank you for challenging me Pardon.
edit on 28-6-2017 by Charlyboy because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2017 by Charlyboy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join