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.

 

Follow-up to retracted MMR-autism "study"

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Thank you for posting this OP. I saw this yesterday and was going to start a thread taking your same position; however, I didn't have the time or energy to deal with getting flamed.


These bits right here are reason enough to discredit Wakefield:


Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them.

Most of his co-authors withdrew their names from the study in 2004 after learning he had had been paid by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers.


www.cnn.com...



S&F




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 


How do you have any idea that they are not tied to big pharma. And even if they werent, big pharmas got the power to blackmail or pay them off. There's rarely docters that come out against common medical practice as this one did, but whenever they do, the same thing usually happens. They get banned and sued and and fined and discredited.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by redhorse
 


I completely understand that some people here are likely to be frightened parents. That being said, generalizing myself and those I work with as "blindly" doing anything ticks me off just a tad. It's like they think ALL doctors must be cookie-cutter copies, but surely those against vaccines aren't...right?


Sure. It's frustrating. When people are frightened they tend to make generalizations, and to lump people into the 'boogie man' category in their head. So, unfortunately any and all who offer opposition are going to get blasted, or if you are associated with medical research or the medical profession at all, a money grubbing monster who does not care about their children. Although, apparently... Dr. Wakefield with his exploit-children-and-mangle-the-data-to-suit-my-hypotheses method does care about their children. It doesn't make sense. The motivation isn't logical. So the doctors that agree with Wakefield are 'thinkers', or just going against the grain.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by iSHRED
 

You are of course entitled to your opinion no matter how baseless it is, but it is just your opinion, not any kind of facts.
Read the report and make up your mind based on facts instead of paranoia.

The facts are clear, the evidence in the original report was tampered with to suit a legal firm that wanted to sue the producers of the MMR vaccine. The reason that this report has been discredited has nothing to do with Big Pharma, it is a scientific study that has discredited it.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, or any evidence of this blackmail I suggest you link to it.
I guess I had my paranoia vaccine a couple of years ago


I am on the other hand convinced that Big Pharma has and will try to hype different diseases to sell more medicine that we don't need (a good example beeing H1N1) and that certain effective types of medicine is being supressed (might be a vaccine against tooth deccay, HIV or cancer), but in this case the facts speaks for themselves.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
The Lancet and BMJ has nothing to do with Big Pharma and they have no reason to lie about this.

The bulk of the funding for most types of media these days comes from the advertisers. For a magazine, to annoy its big advertisers is to cut its own throat.

Most of the ads in medical journals are from pharmaceutical companies. This gives big pharma control of these magazines because they just have to cut off their advertizing revenue to one and it will go broke.


Is Content of Medical Journals Related to Advertisements? Case-control Study

The number of advertisements in medical journals is enormous, competing frequently with the professional medical content (2,9).
. . . .
With rare exceptions, the sustainability of paper journals depends on the revenue from advertisements, mostly from the pharmaceutical industry (1,2). Even in the best journals the revenue from advertisements is higher than revenues from subscription (2), the relations with industry are not completely benign (3,4), and advertisers influence the content of journals (5).



Excessive and disproportionate advertising in peer-reviewed journals.

Advertising ratios (ratio of advertisements to editorial content) were near unity in NEJM and 0.30 in JAMA, compared with reported ratios of 0.15 among low-circulation specialty science journals and 0.80 among high-circulation consumer magazines. In both journals, five corporations placed more than 50% of all display advertisements. The findings suggest a dissonance between the ethical guidelines and the de facto advertising practices of arguably the two most important member journals of the ICMJE.



Journal rejects article after objections from marketing department

A leading nephrology journal has rejected a guest editorial questioning the efficacy of epoetin in end stage renal disease, despite favourable peer reviews, apparently because it feared losing advertising.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
No flame, threat, or personal attacks...where do you think you are. I will simply tell you that this follow up study is full of crap...period. But thanks for the delivery. It only lets the public know how retarded and desperate big Pharma is.

I am living with the results of believing that getting my kid "shots" was a good thing. They worked for me right and you, right ??? Not.

My daughter has high autism...she had life threatening seizures brought on by the shots she was given (MMR, DPT, Hepititus shots, etc fevers, and other physical problems. She had to wear a heart monitor for the first year of her life after the seizures caused her to quit breathing too many times. I learned the hard way...some kids can take the shots...others can't. Maybe why so many kids die of SIDS every year, ya think?

She will soon be 22. She has never been able to work at a public job, and unless I can get help...may have a very difficult time after I'm gone. She is having certain female problems that have NEVER been in mine or her fathers family. She is major intelligent, yet her short term memory seems to be getting worse. She is very empathetic, but at the same time does not wish to be touched (yet when she was smaller and had what we call "hissy" fits, to hold her in a confined and tight hug always calmed her down. One way we control an autistic child) I could post more, but I think you get the picture. She has Aspergers Syndrome...thanks to the side effects of said meds....which I promptly quit giving her as soon as any of them gave her a reaction.

Big Pharm will say anything, and I believe they will do anything to keep these drugs on the market. I will agree that in countries where such things are epidemic the shots may be a help....but here in the US...let the kid get Chicken Pox and Measles...I got 'em and they didn't kill me or you. Then again if your kids are NEVER sick, it will allow you to work instead of take care of them like PARENTS are supposed to. Hope the new 50 inch home theater and the vacation to Never Never Land are worth your child's life.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
For all the nay sayers out there. To generalize and stereo type the parents of Autistic children as "frightened and acting on pure emotion is complete BS!! I have an autistic son whom was not so at birth. It was following his MMR that he began showing symptoms. I really don't care if you believe me or not.

The parents of these kids I think know best! We are the ones with first hand experience and eye witness accounts!! We have done the research and WATCHED the results. Do not discount us as hysterical idiots looking desperately for answers and someone to blame. We have much more important things to handle, like making sure our children have a shot at quality of life.

You have not walked in our shoes and until you do you have no right to make personal assumptions regarding why we tend to believe the MMR is responsible for our childs challenges. Perhaps you would be more informed if you read this thread.

above top secret

Thanks,
Pax



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Please read the report, it has nothing to do with the several manufaturers of this vaccine. As I said earlier, the evidence is clear the author of the original report was being paid to make it look like it was a link between autism and the vaccine by a law firm planing on sueing the manufaturer.

As to the advertisers in Lancet and BMJ....
How is it possible that the lancet is critical to many different medicines if they are ruled by Big Pharma?
If what you say is true, it seems impossible for them to have any credibility at all.

I for one have larger faith in experts having studied for years rather than paranoids just looking for the next big conspiracy that they usually make up or being fed by liars looking for a profit like the author of the original article.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I'm glad it wasn't mentioned that the BBC4 and The Sunday TImes (London) paid for this research and article. At least the BBC isn't run by the British government. The report also included the fact that 4 or 5 children "did" in fact develop autism from these vaccines. So while some or most of his (Wakefields) report was fabricated or doctored, the fact that autism was showing up in some of the children needs to be emphasized. A non-biased and independent study needs to be conducted, or a completely different method for vaccination needs to be researched. Using early 20th century technology in the 21st doesn't make much sense to me.

Vaccines are a touchy subject. While I do agree that we need to protect the "herd", we as a civilization have to realize that mercury is not a substance that was meant for our bodies to be ingested, absorbed, injected, etc. I don't care what any scientist, medical professional, etc says. Mercury is a poison, period.

After all these years, and all of our fantastic scientific advances....we can't find an alternative to a mercury based vaccination? Come to think of it, why do the producers of these vaccines use an egg-based concoction with the knowledge that there is a large percentage of the population that is allergic to eggs?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Where are the clinical studies of kids that have not been vaccinated? Seems the most logical study to see if there is a link between autism and vaccines, yes?

Only study I've found so far is from an actual doctor that tends to the Amish, and he's found not one single case of autism, but I will not post it, since it is only one doctor of 35 years to the Amish, and someone will find that not to be good enough.

Will keep looking. Years ago, I found a study done in the Northwest, on non-vaccinated, that proved positively that there was no autism in any of the subjects, but it seems to have disappeared now, will keep looking, and post when/if I find it.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Alright to make things a little clearer, please read the article "Scientific Link to Autism IDENTIFIED"
Here is the link.


www.abovetopsecret.com... my thread



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I'm not 100% sure either way however I do know when Bush Jnr became President there was already a very large group of parents preparing a summons of the pharma corp that makes the MMR vaccines and Bush via the Supreme Court had the pharma corp's files sealed. Now if Beyer (or whoever makes this vaccine) has nothing to worry about then these files can be un-sealed. Right?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Where are the clinical studies of kids that have not been vaccinated? Seems the most logical study to see if there is a link between autism and vaccines, yes?

Only study I've found so far is from an actual doctor that tends to the Amish, and he's found not one single case of autism, but I will not post it, since it is only one doctor of 35 years to the Amish, and someone will find that not to be good enough.

Will keep looking. Years ago, I found a study done in the Northwest, on non-vaccinated, that proved positively that there was no autism in any of the subjects, but it seems to have disappeared now, will keep looking, and post when/if I find it.



SunnyD...thanks for this post...I feel the reason we do not get more feed back on kids that have not had any vaccinations and do not show any autism is because it would put the nail in the coffin of Big Pharma....the point is it's not to say the follow ups have NOT been done...but more than likely any follow ups that have been done will never see the light of day.

Whether it is just simply they have been "lost" or may be tied up and held hostage with Big Pharma red tape....no one in that Business wants the studies to be seen.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by csimon
 


I agree with you csimon. MMR may not be the cause, but a trigger to vulnerable genes. After my son got his MMR I noticed a change in his behavior. Everyone in my family noticed a change. He appeared to be disconnected from everything around him. When he was in kindergarten it became very apparent that something was definitely wrong. The teacher suggested that I have him tested for ADD. He did not show any signs of ADHD. He just appeared to be zoned out all of the time. Of course, the doctors starting pumping him with medication. The school kept requesting that his dosage should be increased. My son was so drugged that he began drooling and biting his bottom lip constantly. I finally drew the line and said no more vaccinations and no more drugs. Of course, I was accused of being a "bad" parent. When I look back, I feel so guilty for allowing them to literally destroy my son's mind and for me allowing it to happen. My suggestion for everyone that can relate to my story is do your own research. Become informed about what is truly happening to our children. Become a critical thinker and question everything!



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SunnyDee
 


The Amish are a small group that is isolate from other groups the gene pool is a lot smaller so to say. Since Autism is a genetic disposition, naturally if no one in that group has the gene that affects the likelihood of Autism, then since the gene flow is restricted it will not enter the population. Its why some select groups of people are at risk for certain diseases. (This can be applied to any number of vaccines)

If new genes can't get into a populations area then the same genes will come up again and again.You can't use a group of Amish to verify a study because they are isolated enough that genetic drift happens. Proper studies look at the whole of a population examining it proportionately. If this vaccine defiantly caused autism anyone who got the vaccine should get autism OR the number of children with autism would be greater than the number who don't. So Its luck of the draw, that's the way with all vaccines and medications, everyone is genetically different so everyone will have slightly different reactions.
edit on 6-1-2011 by Xiamara because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Xiamara
 


And exactly why I didn't use it as proof, just anecdotal.

Where are the studies for austism on non-vaccinated? That is the BIG question.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by Xiamara
 


And exactly why I didn't use it as proof, just anecdotal.

Where are the studies for austism on non-vaccinated? That is the BIG question.


Here is an excerpt, I'm still looking for the actual research paper:


Strikingly, the survey found that while 3.01% of all vaccinated children had an ASD diagnosis, about 3.73% of all unvaccinated children did. That's right. The survey found autism to be more common among the unvaccinated.


autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com...
edit on 6-1-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
To my knowledge and information gathering I've done over the years, it appears almost all Autistic/ASD are A blood group. Although we know Autism affects alot more boys than girls, now the next question is how many of these kids are forceps delivery? I ask this because there are many forceps delivery kids, that forceps have been incorrectly used or placed too much pressure by the forceps on the skull can bruise the brains & or fontal lobes that cause symptoms of Autism. It's called birth or cranio injury and plenty of doctors are covering this up and telling parents their kid has ASD and it's genetic. The sure sign of this birth injury are obvious round ring marks anywhere on the head and/or swollen eye lids. Worse case senario, craniosynostosis which is premature fusing of the cranio sutures which requires early surgery to correct the abnormal head shape. In almost all these cases these babies have permanent brain damage caused by the forceps: symtoms may include developmental delays, Autism and other similar problems. However, craniosynostosis is not always caused by forceps and not all forceps deliveries can cause craniosynostosis.

Most children with ASD show an unusually way above average count of mercury in their blood stream than normal kids. Most suffer from a variety of allegies from food to animals and almsot all suffer from leaky bowel syndrome (takes much longer to toilet train these kids because of it).



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
In 1983, the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC") recommended a total of 10 vaccines for our children up to the age of 5. In 2007, the CDC recommends 36, an increase of 260%, or 3.6x. (See a comparison here).
During this time period, we have witnessed an epidemic of childhood neurological disorders ("NDs"). Today, the CDC estimates that 1 in 13 U.S. children has been diagnosed with ADHD and 1 in 150 has been diagnosed with autism. In the 1980s, ADHD was almost unheard of and autism was estimated to affect 1 in 10,000 children. Boys are significantly more affected by NDs, accounting for approximately 80% of all cases.
drtenpenny.com...

So 36 poisons pumped into a tiny baby, and you don't think it might mess with the circuits of these just barely developed minds? Maybe the 260% increase is the cause, not one specific ingredient, but the huge cocktail of shots started the day of their birth.

Some people have pointed out about the Amish's lack of autism and their having a small gen pool could be the reason. As unscientific as I am, I wonder why families with no previous autism,(so not in their gene pools) now have autistic kids?

An official clinical study of unvaccinated should have been done already.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SunnyDee
 


thats because up until the early 1980s vaccines were more spread out. After having my son diagnosed with ASD, I went on to spread out the vaccines in my two younger children over 6 years to avoid any issues later. Neither of the younger two have ASD.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join