Why there is still a vaccine/autism controversy? This is an important video for those with children

We diagonose more autism because

1...
We have higher population

2....
We have many other factors like environment and food.

3....
We have better method for diagnosing autism, that does not mean there is an increase in autism.. same with other "mental disorders".... AHDH, ADD, OCD also of these existed before.. under 1 category "mental disorder" "Demons" etc..... now we have different category for them, that does not make them "more".

4.....
People usually think in these mind set... "i ate this, i got sick after, thus, this is the reason that i got sick".. what else to blame other than some complex things they don't understand.

5---
Not all Vaccines are the same. There are Necessary and Unnecessary.

The link between vaccines and autism is tenuous at best and complete fiction at worst.

There seems to be a stronger link between autism and levels of air and environmental pollution though, the most recent study being published only a couple of months ago.
www.scientificamerican.com...
The fact that autism is on the rise even after thimerasol was removed from childhood vaccines points to something else.
This seems to be completely ignored by the anti-vax brigade though possibly because there's no one to get compensation from.

reply to post by 727Sky


Do you know there are countries that had not a single case of autism until the first vaccines were introduced.
Not in the countries history was there autism.vaccines...boom, autism.
Japan is one of these countries.

Autism. Source – The NHS UK
Prior to 1960 autism was virtually unheard of.
In the UK 1 in every 80 children now has autism.
In America its 1 in every 60.
So, in the UK we’ve gone from being practically unheard of, to 1 in 80

Children with Asthma. Source – The NHS UK
In 1962 just 4 in every 10,000.
In 2012 it’s 833 in every 10,000
I think you’ll agree that’s a huge increase, also consider that air pollution dropped during this period.

In the past 25 years all childhood diseases have increased. Source – The NHS UK
Childhood cancer is rapidly increasing.
We see 1 in 20 children being diagnosed with ADHD.
Childhood leukaemia is rising out of control.
Diabetes - poor hearing - poor eyesight are all increasing.
Why have all these diseases increased during the last 25 years?

Unless you can show us what the cause of all this illness is, you have no right to say "Its not the vaccines"

PtolemyII
reply to post by 727Sky

 

Do you know there are countries that had not a single case of autism until the first vaccines were introduced.
Not in the countries history was there autism.vaccines...boom, autism.
Japan is one of these countries.

I see you chose your words carefully.
I think what you possibly meant to say that there are countries where not a single case was diagnosed as autism until the first vaccines were introduced.
This would certainly coincide with the fact that autism as a specific condition/disease was only really brought to the fore in the 1940's (even though it was first coined early last century) and therefore would not have been diagnosed specifically prior to this.
Autism may have been previously been diagnosed as schizophrenia, idiot savants, insanity, slowness or a number of other conditions.

Using the current autism spectrum as a guide, there are plenty of people pre-vaccine era who have fallen into this. In fact the first recorded account of an autistic child was written by a Frenchman named Jean Marc Gaspard Itard in 1800 about a boy commonly known as the "Wild Boy of Averyon".
So this "thinking" that autism is a relatively modern condition is completely untrue.
In fact, it's been traced back in to pre-history.

www.academia.edu...

reply to post by VoidHawk


I think people have every right when the weight of evidence tells us that it's not the vaccines.

Referring to my post above, whilst I agree that it was "unheard of" I dispute that there were very few autistic children.

WIth regards to asthma and other immune diseases, believe it or not a huge factor in the increase of this (add eczema and hay-fever too) is the increasing sterility we surround our young children with. Their immune systems are protected to the point that when they encounter an allergen after infancy their immune system goes into overdrive and their IgE response is through the roof.
Like I said, look more closely at environmental factors, certainly pollution seems to have some impact but definitely don't discount food, lifestyle, genetics etc etc etc.
The cause of the increase in childhood diseases really doesn't fall down to one thing. Like the cancers which have increased there is no single cause but usually multiple factors are responsible.

It's so, so convenient (and it a lot of cases very profitable) to blame vaccines but according to the evidence, they seem to be the least of our worries.

reply to post by Pardon?


Both of your post are well written and I agree there are many factors to consider. Nothing to argue with the contributing factors you mentioned and no doubt all can play a roll....

There is a growing preponderance of outraged parents who will point to one action that made their child first show the symptoms of autism and it wasn't the breath they took or the food they ate....Just a simple shot that took their normal baby and turned them into a child that will need constant care for the rest of their life in a worse case scenario or be an under achiever who was brain damaged by something that could have been avoided. One of the reasons 'stated' so many shots are given at once is the fear the parents who do not have the money or will not go to the doctor on a regular basis for a less doubled up shot schedule. Thus vaccinate while you got them there....1/10,000 verses 1/50 reported autism cases today....Pretty big difference whatever the cause

simple fix is to have required shots before attending school and let the parents space the shots out over the first 5 or 6 years of a child's life. Not turn a developing brain of a child into a pin cushion.

All anyone has to do is look at the changes in vaccine schedules for children from the 50s to now.
A child got total before the age of 16 :
maybe three in the 60s.5 in the 70s.
8 in the 80s.
And now ,Theyve had 12 vaccinations by 18 months,with yearly vaccinarions thru the age of 18.
I had a total of three before I needed the Hep B vaccine for my job in the 1990s.
So ive had a total of four in my life .
I got the flu shot twice,and I still got sick .

If no one thinks this isnt very significant.....well.....ok.

Here is a comprehensive look at the changes in vaccine frequency.

www.chop.edu...

reply to post by 727Sky


Autism is generally noticed and/or diagnosed around the time of the first major infant vaccinations. Given this, it is perfectly understandable that parents would then point the finger at the vaccine.
This however isn't evidence. This is merely correlation and cannot possibly implicate the vaccine in being the cause.
There certainly has been the odd case where a vaccination has been thought to provoke encephalopathy for instance but this is as much to do with the recipient's physiology as it is to the vaccine. A severe illness would have probably provoked the same response.
In some respects it would be like my blaming non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like aspirin, voltarol, ibuprofen etc for my anaphyactic reaction if I take them by accident. I found out quite accidentally about this, obviously!
However, it is my own personal opinion that every vaccine recipient should have some sort of screening prior to a particular vax to ensure the above won't happen. That would open another can of worms though...

The argument is why don't the majority of kids develop autism since they're all having the same vaccines?
Surely there should be far more than there are if it was purely down to the vaccines?
But in reality it's a minuscule fraction of the total vaccinations given.

I'll throw this site in here as it's very well compiled and provides a comprehensive overview of vaccinations.
www.historyofvaccines.org...
You're more than welcome to throw in some anti-vax sites if you wish to counter it but I'm quite confident that this will stand up to scrutiny a lot better than those.

Pardon?
reply to post by 727Sky

 

Autism is generally noticed and/or diagnosed around the time of the first major infant vaccinations. Given this, it is perfectly understandable that parents would then point the finger at the vaccine.

Wrong!! Many THOUSANDS of parents WANT to stand in court and swear their child was completely normal UNTIL they'd HAD the shots. Not before! Not during! But immediately AFTER they'd had the shots.

Pardon?
reply to post by 727Sky

 

This however isn't evidence. This is merely correlation and cannot possibly implicate the vaccine in being the cause.

Correlation is not evidence, I agree, but it does not mean we should ignore it! It also does not prove that vaccine is not the cause.

Pardon?
reply to post by 727Sky

 

There certainly has been the odd case where a vaccination has been thought to provoke encephalopathy for instance but this is as much to do with the recipient's physiology as it is to the vaccine. A severe illness would have probably provoked the same response.

Above you said correlation should be ignored, but now you use the word "probably".

Pardon?
reply to post by 727Sky

 

The argument is why don't the majority of kids develop autism since they're all having the same vaccines?
Surely there should be far more than there are if it was purely down to the vaccines?
But in reality it's a minuscule fraction of the total vaccinations given.

It is NOT a minuscule amount!! One in 80 in the uk! One in sixty in the US!
Now consider that both the US and the UK governments complain that so few are vaccinating! If they had all been vaccinated those numbers of VICTIMS would be far higher.

Here's another way to look at this.
You said yourself that you had an anaphyactic reaction to anti-inflammatory drugs. Your not alone, there are hundreds of thousands just like you. It's the same with any drug really, there's always a percentage that have a reaction.
The World Health Organisation
"If every person in the US were to be vaccinated we can expect to see THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DEATHS caused by vaccine problems."
Now I know you consider this to be a "minuscule" amount, but what this actually means is that every year we SACRIFICE 300,000 people.
And for what?
How many died last year from the illnesses that vaccines are supposed to protect us from?

reply to post by VoidHawk


check your p.m young lady

www.collective-evolution.com...

22 studies showing the connections between autism and vaccinations.
Twenty TWOOOO

reply to post by PtolemyII


And yet there are many more that refute this claim. As has been mentioned prior correlation does not imply causation. Where are the double blind studies that show the connection between vaccinations and autism.

It's true that we've seen an increase of the number of documented autism over the past few decades. Do you know what we've also seen? A decline in cases of mental retardation. So since apparently frequency of vaccines are the only thing that have changed during his time period does that mean that vaccinations also prevent mental retardation? Or could it simply be that children who might have once been diagnosed as MR are now getting a proper diagnosis?

VoidHawk

reply to post by 727Sky

 

Wrong!! Many THOUSANDS of parents WANT to stand in court and swear their child was completely normal UNTIL they'd HAD the shots. Not before! Not during! But immediately AFTER they'd had the shots.

You've missed my point in spectacular fashion but in doing so have proved another, namely that litigation and compensation is driving the majority of anti-vax "science".

Above you said correlation should be ignored, but now you use the word "probably".

Using "probably" is connected with causality not correlation.

It is NOT a minuscule amount!! One in 80 in the uk! One in sixty in the US!
Now consider that both the US and the UK governments complain that so few are vaccinating! If they had all been vaccinated those numbers of VICTIMS would be far higher.

The PROVEN vaccine injuries are indeed a minuscule amount. You are talking about your belief that vaccines cause autism. A belief for one thing, that doesn't include unvaccinated autistic children of which there are more and more since people are choosing to not vaccinate based upon beliefs rather than evidence.

Here's another way to look at this.
You said yourself that you had an anaphyactic reaction to anti-inflammatory drugs. Your not alone, there are hundreds of thousands just like you. It's the same with any drug really, there's always a percentage that have a reaction.
The World Health Organisation
"If every person in the US were to be vaccinated we can expect to see THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DEATHS caused by vaccine problems."
Now I know you consider this to be a "minuscule" amount, but what this actually means is that every year we SACRIFICE 300,000 people.
And for what?
How many died last year from the illnesses that vaccines are supposed to protect us from?

I think you may have misread that last item from WHO as the only number that matches the 300,000 is the amount of deaths globally from pertussis.
I'm not sure what you mean in your last sentence. Re-write it so I know what you're getting at.

reply to post by PtolemyII


The list of studies you posted is a cannibalised version of the one analysed here.
lizditz.typepad.com...

It goes into quite some depth on some when needed with plenty of links etc.
Have a read.

reply to post by Pardon?


I read everything that came out via the FOIA that's been white washed off the internet .
I also believe NOTHING WHO says,what so ever.
They are so behind the unnecessary vaccination nonsense ,its not funny .

As i always say ,feel FREE to pump yourself and your family with that poison .
And leave me to be free to do what i like
And no,all that BS about unvaccinated children being a danger to vaccinated children is just that ,BS.

reply to post by Pardon?


Heres what was revealed covering 30 years of vaccine lies.
Its what has prompted Obama to change the guidelines of the FOIA,and has gotten no media coverage despite being oh so damning.
Do have a read .

humansarefree.com...


A PDF of the actual documents

www.ecomed.org.uk...

Wow, talk about deniers with their heads in the sand. If vaccines are not causing brain damage then why did the SIDS rate drop precipitously when England quit doing the vaccine schedule they were on until after children turned 2? Encephalitis is a massive problem with vaccines. It is believed to be the major cause of SIDS.

Viera Scheibner is a retired principal research scientist with a doctorate in natural sciences. During her distinguished career, she has published three books and 90 scientific papers in prestigious scientific journals.

In 1983, she published her book on the results of her research Vaccination: The Medical Assault on the Immune System. She often provides expert reports for court cases involving immunizations and vaccine-damaged individuals throughout the world.

This was a pro-vaccine doctor until she found massive linkage to children dying of SIDS and getting a vaccine. She did studies with families using breathing alarms, and she noticed that there were no alarms for breathing until after the children were vaccinated.

We then informed the pediatric and SIDS researchers that the babies were having alarms after vaccinations. We were not critical of vaccines and we didn't even know about the raging controversy surrounding vaccinations. At this point, the Crib Death Management Center pediatricians stopped sending parents to get our monitor. They didn't want parents to know that vaccines were stressing their children. Until that time, I was actually pro-vaccination.

COT RESEARCH RESULTS Our computer printouts of babies' breathing showed non-stop hour by hour recording of the babies' breathing whenever the child was in the cot. Again, the events are called apneas (pauses in breathing) and hypopneas (a stress-induced shallow, low volume breathing pattern). The graphs all showed increased stress patterns after vaccinations. For instance, after a baby was given his third triple antigen (DPT - diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) the record of breathing changed and produced peaks in the graph, which indicated increased stress levels.

source

Japan stopped the vaccine schedule and had dramatic results.

What would happen if we stopped vaccinating? Would lives be lost, saved or no change? In 1975, when Japan stopped vaccinating children under the age of 2 years dramatic improvements in their infant mortality occurred. Japan’s place in the world scale of infant mortality went from 17, a poor position, to number 1, the best performance. It is quite clear that the shift of the lower vaccination limit to 2 years resulted in a dramatic decrease in SIDS going quickly from a very high to the lowest rate of infant deaths in the world. Between 1970 and 1974, 37 infant deaths occurred after DPT vaccination in Japan and because of this the doctors in one prefecture boycotted the vaccination. Consequently, the Japanese Government stopped DPT vaccination for 2 months in 1975, and, when vaccination was resumed, the vaccination age was lifted to 2 years.

Source

Since the government will not do true double blind vaccine studies, then it is hard to get very good dependable data. But, when people stopped vaccinating their babies due to fear of the vaccines, infant mortality rates dropped in England.

In England, after the media in 1975 reported brain damage linked to vaccination, parents stopped vaccinating: the compliance fell down to 30% or even 10% in some areas. A. McFarlane reported in 1982 (Lancet) that the overall infant mortality rate plummeted. There is evidence around the world that low vaccination compliance is linked to low death rate and vice versa.

source

Now, if these vaccines are killing babies, do you not think they could be causing other damage to these young undeveloped nervous systems?

PtolemyII
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Heres what was revealed covering 30 years of vaccine lies.
Its what has prompted Obama to change the guidelines of the FOIA,and has gotten no media coverage despite being oh so damning.
Do have a read .

humansarefree.com...


A PDF of the actual documents

www.ecomed.org.uk...

edit on 9/14/13 by PtolemyII because: (no reason given)

Got no media coverage?
So that's why it's all over the internet or don't you count the web as media?

Have you actually read that document by the dedicated anti-vaxxer Tomljenovic?
Have you clicked on every link in it?

I have.

Apart from the fact that the majority of links are broken in the ones that do work, her quotes have been taken completely out of context which is unsurprising given her other "work".
Now I don't doubt for one moment that a fair bit of "greasing" has gone on and does go on between pharma and health services but does this necessarily mean a vaccine's bad?

You've made your mind up on the subject irrespective of what the evidence says.
And it's fine for you to believe that but but the fact that you try to convince others based upon a belief is not good.
It's almost like religious zealotry.

Pardon?
reply to post by PtolemyII

 

The list of studies you posted is a cannibalised version of the one analysed here.
lizditz.typepad.com...

It goes into quite some depth on some when needed with plenty of links etc.
Have a read.

This is a very weak rebuttal list, mostly consisting of 'studies of studies', corrections of recitation format, and blog responses from paid skeptics, or studies with one line abstracts outlining 'research' which consisted of a 'web query for articles.' Half of the studies, which were not blog opinions, outlined no methodology and no constraints or pre-study survey confidence intervals. And many were sponsored by one pharmaceutical vaccine industry activist organization. They were critiques and not original work.

And, I really have never heard of a refutation of a journal published article called a "debunking." The word refutation is considered the professional term. Most professionals when they refute a study, bring hard evidence and detailed work, not one liners commonly used on the UFO and Bigfoot industry.

I mean, here is an example of a 'Study' you included in this list which is an absolute joke. Over which, were it conducted by an intern even, I would fire the individual who handed this to me for review.

www.immunizationinfo.org...

I am on the fence on this issue, but regard it as a gravely serious matter in which there is no room for propaganda and intellectual pomposity from the celebrity and paid skeptic community. The issue deserves better diligence than this outline serves.