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.

 

Childhood Vaccinations??

page: 14
4
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MonoIonic_Gold
I noticed that nobody on the pro-vaccine side has even touched the Question of the Year. Is this question too hot to touch maybe?
I guess its not called the Question of the Year for nothing eh?


Maybe its cause All of us non vaccine people have so much # up our asses that this isn't warranted an answer.

On a brighter note.. It does strike odd as hell that Nobody Not even our ATS Doctor from Italy can give us a straight cut answer...

Maybe cause deep down inside they know they are all full of # and have no way of answering this question without destroying everything they posted up on here...

Altho I would like an answer to this question like it was posted now for a 4th time in this thread.

Pro Vaccine people here's a hint..

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION SO WE CAN MOVE ON!!

That is all we ask, is that so hard now?

[edit on 2/8/2006 by ThichHeaded]




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Here are some links that show comparison rates of autism and other effects in children broth vaccinated and unvaccinated:

Autism in immunised and unimmunised children

MMR and Autism
Here's a quote from this article that I liked:

The rate of MMR immunization leveled off as the prevalence of autism continued to increase. In addition, no differences were detected in age at diagnosis of autism between vaccinated patients with autism and unvaccinated patients with autism. The authors concluded that the increasing trend in the incidence of autism could not be temporally associated with the initiation of MMR vaccine, since autism rates continued to increase despite a plateau in the rates of vaccination. In addition, the age of diagnosis of autism was unrelated to the administration of MMR vaccine.


Great study

Here's a good quote from the New England Journal of Medicine study linked above:

he relative risk of autistic disorder in the group of vaccinated children, as compared with the unvaccinated group, was 0.92 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24), and the relative risk of another autistic-spectrum disorder was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07). There was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development of autistic disorder.


JAAP Study

And finally, here's a quote from an American Academy of Pediatrics study:

The prevalence of childhood disintegrative disorder was 0.6/10 000 (95% confidence interval: 0.02-3.6/10 000); this very low rate is consistent with previous estimates and is not suggestive of an increased frequency of this form of pervasive developmental disorder in samples of children who are immunized with MMR. There was no difference in the mean age at first parental concern between the 2 samples exposed to MMR (19.3 and 19.2 months) and the pre-MMR sample (19.5 months). Thus, MMR immunization was not associated with a shift toward an earlier age for first parental concerns. Similarly, the rate of developmental regression reported in the post-MMR sample (15.6%) was not different from that in the pre-MMR sample (18.4%); therefore, there was no suggestion that regression in the developmental course of autism had increased in frequency since MMR was introduced.


I have now answered your question of the year with a study from the American Academy of Pediatrics, New England Journal of Medicine, The Annals, Pediatrics JWatch, and previously posted FDA and CDC studies. So, the answer to your question of the year is there is little to no difference in autism rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. I have shown this in multiple scientific studies now. These studies are published and peer reviewed internationally. Now, can you provide a source of similar quality that shows the opposite?

~MFP



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
The next person to post a flame-baiting statement, or insult, will be cooling their heels in the penalty box for three days or longer.
For those who don't know about my experiences with the admin panel, my attempts at banning you might cause many side effects, such as headaches, nausea, constipation, drowsiness and exploding computer monitors. Do not try me.
Behave or find another sandbox, kiddies. I don't care which.


Furthermore, the admin of love and tolerance and all that crap is dead. Long Live Thomas Crowne, Evil, PhD!



[edit on 9-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Nice try bsl4doc

ALL 3 of your studies deals with the MMR vaccine.

The MMR vaccine does NOT have Thimerosal. As was discussed earlier in the thread. Where have you been?

We are talking about Thimerosal.

So NO... the Question is not answered, at all.

Question : What is the rate of autism in un-vaccinated individuals.

Vaccinated w/thimerosal is a rate of 1 in 166 develop autism.
Un-vaccinated is a rate of 1 in ??????

Such a simple question. Health authorities owe the parents this answer. It is science 101.





[edit on 9-2-2006 by KDX175DUEX]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The next person to post a flame-baiting statement, or insult, will be cooling their heels in the penalty box for three days or longer.
For those who don't know about my experiences with the admin panel, my attempts at banning you might cause many side effects, such as headaches, nausea, constipation, drowsiness and exploding computer monitors. Do not try me.
Behave or find another sandbox, kiddies. I don't care which.


Furthermore, the admin of love and tolerance and all that crap is dead. Long Live Thomas Crowne, Evil, PhD!



[edit on 9-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]


You know whats really interesting, as far as I know 2 of us in this thread are speaking on real life and on exp.

As in seeing our kids get messed up because of this life saving vaccine that we are supposed to take to get us better. Ans you expect us to act normal when some people who have no clue on what the hell is going on saying things that DO NOT MAKE SENSE at all.

This is interesting, is there a new rule on this forum that denies us the express our feelings or something?

I think this stuff pisses us off because people are to blind to see that this has a real impact on things more than they even realize.

And if people are to continue to be ignorant, well its kinda like school 5th grade where you get what you deserve for being the outcast.

[edit on 2/9/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   


As in seeing our kids get messed up because of this life saving vaccine that we are supposed to take to get us better. Ans you expect us to act normal when some people who have no clue on what the hell is going on saying things that DO NOT MAKE SENSE at all.


I appreciate that having a child with autism must be terrible - we vaccinated our son without any problems, but it was always at the back of our mind, even after reading the evidence.

I think that in defence of the pro-vaccination people here (and I would probably class myself as one because our son has been vaccinated, albeit without thiomersal being used) - I think that they were simply observing that people who are against vaccination need to produce one good population study (rather than anecdotes, or anecdotal evidence from books or websites, or mis-quoted government or manufacturer decrees).

I think *also*, to be fair the whole population is affected by the decision of a family *not* to vaccinate - there have been a few studies and reports quoted here showing that. So I think people *do* have a right to comment on the topic of vaccination even if they don't have a child with ASD.

I think that as with a lot of topics on this site, emotion is understandably getting in the way of polite debate and rational analysis - and if people can't get back on an even keel then I think everyone is as well to just kill this thread now before it degenerates any further.

TD



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MonoIonic_Gold
Byrd- your link on fish did not show anything for comparing.

Granted. My point is that there are a number of societies whose principle source of protein is fish (Japan would be another.) There is no unusual rate of autism in any of these societies.



Your statement of Autistic children "just dying early" before 1930 is perhaps one of the strangest things I have seen you say. Kanner diagnosed Autism as an emerging disease in the 1930s.


You're assuming that the world of then is the same as the world of now. Let's examine what happens to an autistic child in an average family of the early 1800's and early 1900's.

These children are hard to feed and hard to control. Disease is rampant (plagues are still frequent in the 1800's and as recently as the early 1900's, when epidemics killed millions.) People who are deaf/dumb/demented are usually sent somewhere and not cared for at home, where a large family makes it hard to care for someone like that. In the 1800's, the usual place for them was a place like Newgate prison or the poorhouse where they were kept in pens and chained to the walls (the works of Dorothea Dix come to mind, here. For those unfamiliar with poorhouse and prison treatment of these populations here's a little bit about it here: www.elderweb.com... )

This is not conducive to a very long life.


But then fall back on the agruement of protecting 99% of the populace while leaving the other 1% in the dirt.

So you prefer to leave the whole population at risk (with a 30% mortality rate or so) rather than risk 1%.




The actual figure as you know is 1 in 166 has autism.
But how many have ADHD?
and how many have Asthma?
How many children are really being affected to a lesser degree? probably more than your 1%


The thing I see is a leap on "one cause" here, and it doesn't match the evidence. New Zealand, for instance, has a low rate of autism and people regularly vaccinate their children. You can find other countries with low or high rates of those things you list... and there's no correlation between vaccines, or much of anything else.

Nor are genetic dispositions mentioned in any place or extensive family medial histories.

I think, as do many, that there's a complicated picture here and that leaping on one agent does a lot of harm. That's like saying that traveling with your dog in your car is the cause of every automobile accident.

Furthermore, for those where there may be a link between autism and a vaccination -- there's some critical questions that need to be looked at in family history. Is this, for instance, one of a cluster of syndromes that are found in that area or is it linked to a specific family history? Is it a marker that your other children may be at risk for, say, autoimmune diseases whether or not you vaccinate?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   


I think, as do many, that there's a complicated picture here


I agree with you Byrd, a complicated picture indeed...

If there was only some way.... some way.... we could once and for all prove that vaccines make no difference in autism.

Oh.... I know!! I know!!
The CDC could host a study that proves the rate of autism in vaccinated is the same as in the un-vaccinated.
Then all the parents could finally shut up!

It's a win / win opportunity for the CDC and health authorities!
The CDC already knows what the results will be right??

This is the perfect opportunity to PROVE it to everyone!
And finally lay this all to rest.
Their vaccine rates will go UP as people see there was nothing to worry about!
See.... a win /win for the CDC!!

Would you support such a study?

]

[edit on 9-2-2006 by KDX175DUEX]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
autoimmune diseases whether or not you vaccinate?


We already know the answer to this, Look at the Amish, and look at the study earlier posted in this thread.

15% of unvaccinated kids in Britain from 1970 to 80 and only 1 acquired autism.

I am going to guess and say 500,000 kids in that 10 yrs. that is 1 kid in 500,000. You know the odds in that. You can get struck by lightning 3 times in the same spot 3 times in a year kinda luck.

So we already know that the Vaccines are associated with autism. Its just the right people to say it.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

The CDC could host a study that proves the rate of autism in vaccinated is the same as in the un-vaccinated.
Then all the parents could finally shut up!

It's a win / win opportunity for the CDC and health authorities!
The CDC already knows what the results will be right??

This is the perfect opportunity to PROVE it to everyone!
And finally lay this all to rest.
Their vaccine rates will go UP as people see there was nothing to worry about!
See.... a win /win for the CDC!!


Do you know how likely it is a federal research laboratory will get funding for something the scientific community feels is already solved?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Do you know how likely it is a federal research laboratory will get funding for something the scientific community feels is already solved?

Yes.. most studies are indeed sponsored by pharmacutical companies with bias. As to whether the scientific community feels it's solved.. apparently they do not as there are some doctors and researchers that do consider the prevervative a cause of autism. Are they not part of the scientific community?

The removal of the preservative was also based on the possibility that it could cause autism and other harmful side-effects.. that in itself suggests that they do not feel it has been completely solved and have removed that risk just in case.

[edit on 9-2-2006 by riley]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   


Originally posted by bsl4doc
Do you know how likely it is a federal research laboratory will get funding for something the scientific community feels is already solved?


Kind of like the cat watching the canary isn't it? Kind of like big tobacco saying they don't need to do any more research because cigarettes aren't harmful. You never answer a question, never consider facts presented to you that go against your text book opinions and, besides, the "scientific community" can't be trusted. (i.e. my thread about faked cancer research by some wonderful cancer researcher). So, do you think we are going to trust any of this nonsense that comes from the "scientific community?"

BTW....do you know how likely it is that your opinoins carry any weight? NIL!



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Your opinions have just as much weight. Really, keep the discussion civil. Last warning.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Excitable has a point. If these comapnies realized that they had messed up (and indeed they must realize this now, with the removal of Thimerosal) do we honestly think they would let us, as a general public, know they had. NO, they are going to try to avoid millions/billions of dollars of lawsuits and the risk of being shut down to protect themselves. There is a cover up here on the Thimerosal preservative. Even some of our pro-vaccine supporters (like Taupe Dragon) know this. That's why he chose to vaccinate his kids with Thimerosal free vaccines, he knows it's just not right (injecting kids with a poison, EVEN TRACE AMOUNTS)! While it may be true that "their" studies show no relationship, they as medical doctors/students still must believe in the "good" fight, which is why they support their vaccines. What kind of doctor/student would they be to go against the very practice they provide? Probably better ones, but that will never happen. It's always been that those whose question the system and its rules are the outcasts (and end up on conspiracy sites).


No matter what proof the anti vaccination people provide, it will never be good enough for the pro people (which I think there are only 3 here) because it isn't backed with a stamp by a government organization/affiliate.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

No matter what proof the anti vaccination people provide, it will never be good enough for the pro people (which I think there are only 3 here) because it isn't backed with a stamp by a government organization/affiliate.


No, the reason none of the anti-vaccination research presented has been acceptable is because it isn't research. Everything presented has been anecdotal evidence, an article on a website selling a book about it, or from a third party source saying they knew someone who was hurt by vaccines. Where are the large scale studies? Where are the independant labs?

Do you not think that an independant lab woulh JUMP at the chance to research something which could bring them as much attention and grant money as finding the cause of most autism would? Do you now think every university would be crunching numbers to get this kind of publicity? This kind of research would be a huge feather in an independant researcher's cap. But, alas, no one has been able to produce this research from any sort of journal, online publicaiton, etc. Makes me think there is no study because most researchers feel there is no link to explore. As another poster pointed out, I think it was Byrd, there is little to no logic in assigning all causation of a multifactorial disease like autism to one simple cause. Very few advanced conditions can be pinpointed to just one factor. If you take into account genetic vulnerability to heavy metals and environmental heavy metal exposure, sure, I think thimerosal may play a PART. I think children born with glutathione deificiencies may very well be more vulnerable to the ethyl mercury in vaccines, but it is not enough to cause neurologic disorders. When compounded with environmental heavy metals, maybe.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dirty_underground
Excitable has a point. If these comapnies realized that they had messed up (and indeed they must realize this now, with the removal of Thimerosal) do we honestly think they would let us, as a general public, know they had.


Hey. The Finland Study, right at the beginning of this rumble. Not aware that was paid for by Merck.


www.jr2.ox.ac.uk...

I'm not aware of any big Finnish drugs company. Astra used to be Swedish, but they merged with someone in the UK(Astra-Zeneca). As rule, and with a few exceptions such as Roche and Bayer, evil drugs multinationals are generally US or UK based.

Anyway. All these studies would have had to declare an interest.

And really, to be absolutely fair - I *could* accuse a lot of anti-mercury people of quackery, and I haven't, because I believe it could be biologically plausible and it's probably not necessary as a preservative any more.

www.quackwatch.org...

www.quackwatch.org...

*However*, rather than people accusing good studies of being biased due to big Pharm money, why don't people just concentrate on showing anti-studies of similar quality? Really - just *one* would shut the entire industry down.

It keeps things polite, and would be a lot more effective than people hurling abuse at BSL!

Even if his country is bloody useless at rugby.


TD



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
www.quackwatch.org...


After recieving permission, I posted an official reply to this 'flawed mercury testing' from an actual blood diagnostic laboratory which debunked that entire article. Did you not read it? It was a reputable medical site.. 'quackwatch' has proven itself not to be by publishing innacuracies. Are we only considering information that supports pro-thimerosal views now? You're complaining about us not posting information that supports our views.. yet when we do and it usually gets completely ignored.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by riley]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
You're complaining about us not posting information that supports our views.. yet when we do and it usually gets completely ignored.


Hey Riley

I did read the link - it was a rebuttal written by someone who tests for mercury toxicity, but to be fair, Quackwatch is listed at the top of this forum section as being a useful information source. I don't think it completely invalidates the points raised in the original article.

My point was really that a lot of reputable studies which seem to find in favour of vaccinations are being dismissed out of hand, or called 'biased' and 'influenced by big Pharma', whereas anecdotes alone are being used to support the anti-vaccination people.

I think all I was really asking for was a level playing field. PLEASE - U2U me with a population study supporting an anti-vacccination viewpoint - I can't see any this thread, although it's getting so big I could well have missed it. I'm already aware of the Geier articles, I found them on Pubmed, but I'm not aware of anything else comparable, and as far as I can see the consensus appears to show that vaccination is safe.

TD



[edit on 10-2-2006 by TaupeDragon]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
TaupeDragon

Maybe I am contradicting myself here (and misunderstanding some of the others), but I believe our real concern here is the Thimerosal being added and the mercury poisoning being obtained from it. You yourself had your own child vaccinated Thimerosal free, you must see there being some problem with it (if this was for another reason, please clarify). Otherwise I would like to see a study where it shows Thimerosal is SAFE. Sure the vaccinations themselves may be safe and prevent harmful diseases, but I'm sure most everyone on this thread is concerned with the "accused" mercury poisoning being recieved by the Thimerosal. I know that they have passed an ACT to remove this from vaccines, but many still contain the preservative. This continues to be a problem for those parents who are not aware of the dangers.

Here is a quote I found




the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) alerted the public about the possible health effects associated with thimerosal-containing vaccines. These health-related organizations strongly recommended that thimerosal be removed from vaccines as soon as possible. Under the directive of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, the Food and Drug Administration also determined that infants who received several thimerosal-containing vaccines may be receiving mercury exposure over and above the recommended federal guidelines.


Another one from the CDC (I will post my reference link at the end of my post) which CONFIRMS a LINK between MERCURY CONTAINING VACCINES AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS!!!!



The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found enough data to link mercury-containing vaccines and developmental disorders. Among these disorders are autism, attention deficit disorder, and speech and language deficiencies. It should be noted that the CDC still recommends that parents vaccinate their children. There has however been a strong push by the CDC and other watchdog groups to eliminate thimerosal from all vaccines






The resulting Congressional report found that the pharmaceutical industry exerted undue influence on mandatory vaccine legislation. The study stated that, "The vaccine approval process has also been contaminated by flawed or incomplete clinical trials, and government officials have chosen to ignore negative results."


As I'm sure this site has already been posted within this thread, I found it to be VERY informative and they aren't trying to sell you anything. But here is the link again

Thimerosal News

I'm sure this link will not qualify as being GOOD ENOUGH evidence, biased, or otherwise "anecdotal" but seeing as how I saw the government affiliated CDC, FDA, AAP, I thought this MIGHT be sufficient in atleast making a point on our part of the issue.


****Also MMR is not listed as containing Thimerosal, we have stated that, yet we still seem to be related back to studies showing MMR vaccine statistics.


[edit on 10-2-2006 by dirty_underground]

[edit on 10-2-2006 by dirty_underground]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
You know something I noticed today, while looking thru the paranormal forum.

Check this out.

Flouride and Mercury prevent Psychic Abilities?

Its not only vaccinations, People are starting to question everything.,, I think they need to add more mercury to the list of crap they give us.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join