And it only took twelve years.

May I inquire, has there ever been such a retraction and purging from the medical community on any widely propagated and accepted medical report in the past? Can we expect throngs of physicians to scour the 'facts' delivered by the medical society for other such cases; or is it only the vaccine link that merits such scrutiny?

Who from the Lancet made this monumental discovery of hoaxterism and fraud? From whence did the "new" information come, and why did it take twelve years to figure it out.

I find myself wondering if this isn't precisely the kind of revisionism that historians warn us about?

You know, I am not arguing that the link was real or not. Only that the circumstances and execution of the "debunking" to be less than persuasive and irregular to the point of alarm.

HAHA LMAO! This is like a huge wet dream for VZP.......people like her/him eat this stuff right up.

They will do everything to fight the possibility that their precious vaccines created through such hardwork and innovation might actually be harming people. I've always been on the fence with the whole vaccine and autism link but to call it "silly urban myth" is pretty stupid and naive. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the exponential increase in vaccinations among our children is harming their health in some ways. It doesn't take a genius to realize after all the hardline diet dictorats and medical doctors pushing the lipid hypothesis heart disease is more common than ever. But they'll never admit that vaccines and cholesterol drugs are two of the top 5 biggest honeypots for the pharmaceutical industry.

And for an academic such as his/herself to act as if these medical journals are the end all be all god's word when it comes to medical science is disengenous and laughable. The Lancet is not withou fallibility, controversy, and scandal.

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
HAHA LMAO! This is like a huge wet dream for VZP.......people like her/him eat this stuff right up.

As hominems are the first response of those with no argument.

[quote[They will do everything to fight the possibility that their precious vaccines created through such hardwork and innovation might actually be harming people.

I have no problem admitting this, so long as there is actually evidence.

I've always been on the fence with the whole vaccine and autism link but to call it "silly urban myth" is pretty stupid and naive. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the exponential increase in vaccinations among our children is harming their health in some ways.

Can you provide evidence of this harm? You may want to forward it on to the parents of the children who died of pertussis this year due to avoiding the DPT vaccine.

It doesn't take a genius to realize after all the hardline diet dictorats and medical doctors pushing the lipid hypothesis heart disease is more common than ever. But they'll never admit that vaccines and cholesterol drugs are two of the top 5 biggest honeypots for the pharmaceutical industry.

Vaccines actually don't produve much money, as many more are given freely at public health than paid for. I can't even recall the last time I charged a patient for a vaccine in the public hospital I work in.

And for an academic such as his/herself to act as if these medical journals are the end all be all god's word when it comes to medical science is disengenous and laughable. The Lancet is not withou fallibility, controversy, and scandal.

I never assumed the Lancet was infallible. In fact, I thought my posting of tihs article was proof not only of that fallibility, but of their willingness to admit fault. In the end, it still remains much more reliable than any source I've seen you post for, on the rare occasion you post sources.

Originally posted by Maxmars
And it only took twelve years.

May I inquire, has there ever been such a retraction and purging from the medical community on any widely propagated and accepted medical report in the past? Can we expect throngs of physicians to scour the 'facts' delivered by the medical society for other such cases; or is it only the vaccine link that merits such scrutiny?

Papers of all sorts and all levels of notoriety are retracted constantly... You make it sound like some kind of one off conspiracy, or maybe you actually believe that.

My fiance is a doing her doctoral dissertation in medicine and I can tell you from thumbing through her mountains of magazines where all the latest studies are published that there's pages in every one dedicated to retractions.

So, I have to ask, are all the retractions based in conspiracy, or only the ones you disagree with?

Vaccine allergies do exist and until a cause of autism is found nothing should be ruled out. Many parents have seen their own children "change overnight" and have suspected vaccines to be the cause. This may not be medical studies but their opninions should not be ruled out just because those opinions are not sponsored by multi billion dollar drug companies with agendas.

Originally posted by riley

Yet there are still children who have developed austism within 24 hours of recieving their vaccines. It is called a vaccine allergy. You can post a hundred (possibly drug sponsored) studies for all I care that will NOT render the eye witness testimonies of a million parents NA.

No one is claiming vaccine allergies exist. However, a multisystem genetic disroder like most austism spectrum disorders is not considered an allergy. A vaccine allergy could be a localized rash, flu-like symptoms, or joint pain, to name a few of the more common examples. These occur occasionally, but are temporary and much less dangerous than the risk of pertusses, mumps, measels, or rubella.

Just because one study got retracted (after years of bullying the author btw)

There were thirteen authors, not one author, and they voluntarily created a letter, signed it, and sent it, asking for retraction of their work. There is no evidence that any of these researchers were bullied. In fact, most have retained the positions they held prior to the publication of this study 12 years ago. Can you provide any information suggesting they were bullied, professionally or otherwise?

does not prove all other vaccines do not trigger an autism reaction.

So, the fact that we haven't 100% pinned down a cause for most autism disorders means it MUST be vaccines by default? That's the most ridiculous jump in logic I've ever heard, and it's dangerous on a public health scale.

SOMETHING is causing it and for you and others to expect parents to give their child vaccines when their other children have had a reactions is disgusting.

The "something" that causes it has been shown to be a genetic factor, as best as we can tell. It's no coincidence that an autistic individual is more likely to have a sibling with autism than someone who doesn't have autism. It's also no coincidence that certain key mutations have been found in large swaths of specific autism disorder populations.

Did you know they have autism in nations where vaccination isn't common or on the same schedule as the United States?

Did you also know that children vaccinated before 18 months and after 18 months have the same diagnosis rate at the same age (18 months)? Why would this be if it were the vaccinations causing autism spectrum disorder?

You are basically saying "take the risk if your kids becomes disabled or dies thats just too bad it's for the greater good".. yeah it's too bad if it is YOUR child that has to take the fall.

No, I'm "basically saying" that basic logic and medical science shows there is no indicated risk of autism spectrum disorders with any known vaccine, and the only risk is likely to be a rash or a few days of flu-like symptoms.

Allergic reaction to vaccines do ooccur; some causing injury, some even causing death but the medical community downplay the risks and imply "small minority" means "none"

I've never heard a colleague express it this way. It's always explained to the parent that a small number (less than 5%) of children have SOME sort of reaction, and less than 1% of this 5% is severe. That is what the current Mortality/Morbidity and Vaccine Safety Datalink informtation supports.

.. well at least until a kid dies and then they suddenly backflip doing into damage control saying "but we did warn the parents that there are risks so they can't sue us!."

I've never seen a child die from a vaccine (and I would put a large amount of money on you not having seen it either), so I can't attest to the attitudes fo the medical professionals in that case.

There are other ingredients that may be responsible.. like geletine or egg.

Gelatin has no negative effects in the human body. In fact, it's very similar to collagen and elastin in the human body. Usually, your digestive system strips it down and uses the spare parts. The rest of the breakdown product is water (gelatin is a hydrated gel).

As for egg, there are a few vaccines that incorporate egg protein, sure. That could certainly cause an anaphylactic response in children with egg allergies. However, those allergies don't typically exist at 18months of age, as you have few IgE-mast cells capable of responding to an allergen in that manner. Again, no real risk there until you're older, and would already know you have an egg allergy.

To spread myths that vaccines are safe for everyone is dangerous.

I don't think spreading supported, true information is dangerous at all. Spreading unfounded fear and distrust absolutely is, though.

There is autism, life threatening allergies and other auto immune disorders in my family. If I take that risk and vaccinate my child and they turn autistic the very next day then that would be abuse on my part.

Well then it's a darn good thing that no children have ever "turned autistic" from a vaccine.

In my family catching the disease could be actually safer than taking this preventative. If I do allow people such as yourself to bully or guilt me into vaccinating my child are you going to pick up the pieces if he/she is injured or dies from it? Didn't think so.

If your child inherits the autistic mutations, then certainly, I would be more than happy to help manage their disease, as far as it is withing my training and capabilities. If, however, you were to come into my clinic screeching that I made your child "turn autistic" with my "dangerous vaccine", I would probably ask that you explain why you think the vaccine was the problem, and then I would show you the actual research on the disorder, which you seem to be sorely lacking in.

If you'll notice, I have provided several well-reviewed studies demonstrating no link between autism and MMR. You have provided nothing but anecdotes. Before you post again, I would prefer if you would provide some sort of evidence other than "well, I saw..." or "in MY experience...".




[edit on 2/3/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by riley

Yet there are still children who have developed austism within 24 hours of recieving their vaccines. It is called a vaccine allergy. You can post a hundred (possibly drug sponsored) studies for all I care that will NOT render the eye witness testimonies of a million parents NA.

No one is claiming vaccine allergies exist.

Incorrect. No one is claming that they don't.. it is established FACT that they do and parents are warned about the "small risk" of death/injury before their child is given the injection. When the injection kills the kid they say "but we said there was a risk.." so they don't get sued. Unfortunately there's nothing illegal about bullying parents into vaccinating.

However, a multisystem genetic disroder like most austism spectrum disorders is not considered an allergy.

Not all kinds of autism have a been shown to have a genetic link.

A vaccine allergy could be a localized rash, flu-like symptoms, or joint pain, to name a few of the more common examples. These occur occasionally, but are temporary and much less dangerous than the risk of pertusses, mumps, measels, or rubella.

Death and severe disability happen with vaccine allergies occasionally as well. Saying something is rare is little consolation to grieving parents who just happen to be unlucky enough to be that statistical minority. AGAIN In MY family there is more risk having the vaccines than there is actually catching the disease.

hang on.. I said that in my last post yet you ignored that and tried the "severe side effects are rare so it's an accepotable risk for the good of society" argument yet again. You even said no-one is claiming vaccine allergies exist when it is PROVEN FACT that they do exist. It is clear you don't have a clue as to what your talking about and are only parroting pro-drug conmpany propoganda.

When vaccines have 0% dangers then maybe then I'll consider exposing my children to the risk but for now I will look before I leap. What you ask is the same as force feeding children with possible nut allergies peanut butter sandwiches.


[edit on 3-2-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
Not all kinds of autism have a been shown to have a genetic link.

And no forms of autism have been shown to have a vaccine link. Interesting.

Also, I should note, I made a typo. My first post should have read "no one claims vaccine allergies DON'T exist". Clearly, they do, as I explained in the rest of my post. Sorry for the typo.

Death and severe disabilty happen with vaccine allergies occasionally as well. Saying something is rare is little consolation to grieving parents who just happen to be unlucky enough to be that statistical minority.

There is also a risk of death with driving in a car. Do you avoid automobiles? There is a risk of death with all medications given after a heart attack. If you have one, would you prefer the doctor stand silently and watch you die?

AGAIN In MY family there is more risk having the vaccines than there is actually catching the disease.

False.

hang on.. I said that in my last post yet you ignored that and tried the "severe side effects are rare so it's an accepotable risk for the good of society" argument yet again.

I never made that argument. I was refuting your statement about doctors not informing parents of the risk. Please read my posts and stop cherry-picking words.

You even said no-one is claiming vaccine allergies exist when it is PROVEN FACT that they do exist. It is clear you don't have a clue as to what your talking about and are only parroting pro-drug conmpany propoganda.

See my note above about my typo. Additionally, even WITH the typo, you would note that I discuss vaccine allergies several times, and even give examples of them. Anyone with a basic level of reading comprehension would have noticed the contradication and assumed it was a typo or poor-wording, or I at least pointed out the contradiction. It seems your fear-mongering has blinded you to logic.

When vaccines have 0% dangers then maybe then I'll consider exposing my children to the risk.

Nothing in life has 0% risk of harm. You could be struck by a car crossing the street. You could catch influenza by hugging your child. You could get an electric shock plugging in your toaster.

How awful it must be to live your life in constant fear of the improbable.

What you ask is the same as force feeding children with nut allergies peanut butter sandwhiches.

That's a grossly incomparable analogy. Giving someone with a known allergy a dose of allergen is horrible. Giving someone a vaccine which has been demonstrated NOT to produce autism spectrum disorders, and carries a small risk of injury and a guaranteed risk of disease immunity is quite different.

I think the problem is that TPTB are trying really, really hard to "sell" the idea that their vaccines are harmless, and this old article is ammo to the contrary. So it had to go.

They could have simply said, "well, that was then, but modern research has proved it false". But then they would need to supply the proof of their claim, which obviously, they simply don't have.

And this explains perfectly why so many doctors go along with the scam, and won't speak what they truly think:

The council is now considering whether Wakefield is guilty of serious professional misconduct. A positive finding could cause him to lose his medical practice.

[edit on 3/2/10 by NuclearPaul]

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
I think the problem is that TPTB are trying really, really hard to "sell" the idea that their vaccines are harmless, and this old article is ammo to the contrary. So it had to go.

They could have simply said, "well, that was then, but modern research has proved it false". But then they would need to supply the proof of their claim, which obviously, they simply don't have.

And this explains perfectly why so many doctors go along with the scam, and won't speak what they truly think:

The council is now considering whether Wakefield is guilty of serious professional misconduct. A positive finding could cause him to lose his medical practice.

[edit on 3/2/10 by NuclearPaul]

Any evidence or source for your claims?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
That's a grossly incomparable analogy. Giving someone with a known allergy a dose of allergen is horrible. Giving someone a vaccine which has been demonstrated NOT to produce autism spectrum disorders, and carries a small risk of injury and a guaranteed risk of disease immunity is quite different.

Again vacines have NOT been proven to not cause autism.. if it had been we would know what causes autism. Thousands of families have watched vaccines trigger autism within 48 hours of their kids recieving the jab.

Guess what doctors call that? Coincidence!

Smokers getting lung cancer was also deemed coincidence by doctors too. Mobile phones causing brain cancer is also called coincience. Hormone replacement therapy causing breast cancer was called coincidence. We already have plenty of evidence that studies never find all possible negative side effects of a drug. I personally believe many of these kids are suffering from vaccine allergies so that means they are not just a small minority of victims but an epidemic of allergy induced autism.

Besides which the "only a small minority get severe reactions so it's worth the risk" is not a valid argument as that small minority is entitled to protection as well. Post all the links you want THEY ARE LIEING or are getting their science wrong.. there are far too many kids who turned autistic straight after the jab to be dismissed on coincidence. People will only swallow crap for so long before they realise it tastes bad.

Shall we look at autism rates among unvaccinated? (Amish) Oh thats coincidence too!

[edit on 3-2-2010 by riley]