Vaccines and Autism.[W:390]

[Bodi]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

Dude. We get it. Some people think there are problems with voluntary adverse reporting. Your kid had a serious adverse reaction, so you're amped up about it.

But the fact still remains that serious adverse reactions to MMR are rare. The official rate is 1 in 1,000,000. If it's really 3,000 kids, then that is 0.04% ADR's. If it's really 30,000 kids, then it's 0.4% -- and such serious under-reporting is far beyond any serious allegations, and STILL qualifies as rare.

There is no need to keep linking the same paper(s) by the same guy. Repetition does not improve your argument.

No dude, you DON'T get it. Not one parent will ever lose a child to a vaccine and sit back and say, "that's just how it goes... at least we took one for the team though".

No, I am not amped up about it. Our situation happened ten years ago... I am quite over it and am now talking about it with people being unreasonable.

My argument is sound, as well and there are multiple studies, not just the one that I used. In our situation, we had 7 separate doctors that we dealt with and none of them reported it. My nephew developed autism after MMR and that could be because of a mitochondrial disorder but it was never looked into and never reported. His sister had issues after vaccination with long term stiffness in joints and muscles affecting balance and development. Nothing was reported and nothing was ever looked into. There are tons of stories like this. I know... it is very easy to just brush it off as anecdotal or chicken little-ish. Not sure why.

I have said it before and will say it again... if everything was reported and they are as safe as they say... if SIDS and Autism and brain seizures and etc and etc have no correlation, then I would accept that. As it is though... there is so much that they do not know, that to make the claim that they are as safe as they claim is either intellectual dishonest for any number of reasons up to and most likely including that it is a billion dollar industry or it is pure, unadulterated ignorance.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

No dude, you DON'T get it. Not one parent will ever lose a child to a vaccine and sit back and say, "that's just how it goes... at least we took one for the team though".

Of course they won't. But that kind of emotional reaction is not how we judge the efficacy of a medical treatment.

The fact remains that measles, mumps and rubella are FAR more dangerous than the vaccines. We don't think about it that way, because it's been decades since those diseases were so wide-spread. We don't think about how hundreds of kids were killed by measles or mumps, how thousands developed permanent brain damage from measles-induced meningitis, or thousands more went deaf from mumps, how tens of thousands were hospitalized.

I.e. when you look at it rationally, there is no question that a responsible parent would give their child the MMR vaccine, even though it means we have to watch for the side effects. Which most kids don't get, and in most cases is nothing worse than a sore arm or a fever.

My argument is sound, as well and there are multiple studies, not just the one that I used.

Then why do you keep quoting the same one? And why are you vastly inflating its claims?

In our situation, we had 7 separate doctors that we dealt with and none of them reported it.

Then why didn't you? Heck, I figured out how to report a side effect. You make a phone call, you answer a few questions. It really isn't that hard.

That said, doctors rarely report side effects because the side effects are largely known. E.g. when one of my medications gave me migraines, there was no need to report it because that's a known side effect of the medication. And when an unreported and serious side effect does come to light -- as it did with Vioxx -- then people certainly start hearing about it.

My nephew developed autism after MMR and that could be because of a mitochondrial disorder but it was never looked into and never reported.

*sigh*

Yet again, it's basically a coincidence that the signs of autism become apparent in the same general time frame that kids get vaccinated. As the old saw goes, "correlation does not prove causation."

Meanwhile, most mitochondrial disorders are genetic. There is really no evidence that vaccines cause any mitochondrial diseases, especially since tens of millions of kids have gotten vaccinated and mitochondrial disorders are still very rare. Even the paper you cited doesn't claim a strong causal link, rather they're just trying to figure out if there is any commonality in the first place.

His sister had issues after vaccination with long term stiffness in joints and muscles affecting balance and development. Nothing was reported and nothing was ever looked into. There are tons of stories like this. I know... it is very easy to just brush it off as anecdotal or chicken little-ish. Not sure why.

Probably because... they're anecdotal.

The emotional punch of an anecdote is all but inverse in its actual scientific merit. E.g. I've met thousands of people in my lifetime; as far as I know, all of them were vaccinated. I don't think I've ever met a single autistic person, or at worst it's single-digits. I've never met anyone with mitochondrial disease. I've never met anyone who had stiff joints as a child. Shouldn't we conclude on that basis that "vaccines are completely safe?" Why do you only pay attention to the bad examples, and not the millions of positive results?

When you go to an anti-vaccination website, you're not hearing from the millions of parents with successful vaccinations. You're hearing from a self-selected group of people distributed all over the US (if not the world), who want to vent and blame someone for the unfortunate outcomes they experience. A few hundred voices can make it seem like a statistically small group is huge. While I don't fault anyone for seeking company and wanting to discuss it, I also cannot take it seriously as a research tool. No one should.

I have said it before and will say it again... if everything was reported and they are as safe as they say... if SIDS and Autism and brain seizures and etc and etc have no correlation, then I would accept that. As it is though... there is so much that they do not know, that to make the claim that they are as safe as they claim is either intellectual dishonest for any number of reasons up to and most likely including that it is a billion dollar industry or it is pure, unadulterated ignorance.

Yeah, dude, you're not wound up about it at all....

No one is getting rich off of vaccines these days. How do pharmaceutical companies get rich these days? With boner pills, hair loss creams, opiates, botox, medications that make your eyelashes thicker, with new SSRI's that are just as effective as the old SSRI's, with insanely expensive biologics for chronic conditions, and so forth.

Fewer and fewer companies make vaccines now. Why? Because they're not profitable. They're expensive to research and expensive to make. They're one-shot deals, so the have a much smaller market than chronic conditions, or cosmetic drugs, or erectile dysfunction pills. They can't sell them at high margins to poorer countries. The result? Companies have been dropping vaccines for decades.

So, yeah, you really are going to have to come up with a new conspiracy theory.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

Of course they won't. But that kind of emotional reaction is not how we judge the efficacy of a medical treatment.

The fact remains that measles, mumps and rubella are FAR more dangerous than the vaccines. We don't think about it that way, because it's been decades since those diseases were so wide-spread. We don't think about how hundreds of kids were killed by measles or mumps, how thousands developed permanent brain damage from measles-induced meningitis, or thousands more went deaf from mumps, how tens of thousands were hospitalized.

I.e. when you look at it rationally, there is no question that a responsible parent would give their child the MMR vaccine, even though it means we have to watch for the side effects. Which most kids don't get, and in most cases is nothing worse than a sore arm or a fever.

Am I arguing against any of that? Nope.

Then why do you keep quoting the same one? And why are you vastly inflating its claims?

I am not inflating its claims and why is using the same one an error in debate?

Then why didn't you? Heck, I figured out how to report a side effect. You make a phone call, you answer a few questions. It really isn't that hard.

I did... what lead you to believe that I didn't? A sample copy of the VAERS report form is included on the last page of the 1997 Physician's Desk Reference (PDR). I mean, I never indicated anything about not personally reporting it... so I can see how you arrived at that conclusion. :lol:

That said, doctors rarely report side effects because the side effects are largely known. E.g. when one of my medications gave me migraines, there was no need to report it because that's a known side effect of the medication. And when an unreported and serious side effect does come to light -- as it did with Vioxx -- then people certainly start hearing about it.

Federal Law requires that doctors or other health care professionals who give vaccines to report adverse events: (hospitalizations, injuries, and deaths) occurring within 30 days of vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The doctor or other health care provider that administered the vaccination is not supposed to make a judgment as to whether the adverse event that occurred following vaccination was caused by the vaccine or not caused by the vaccine. The law says it is the duty of all vaccine administrators to report the event to the federal government regardless of whether they believe the vaccine caused the event.

*sigh*

Yet again, it's basically a coincidence that the signs of autism become apparent in the same general time frame that kids get vaccinated. As the old saw goes, "correlation does not prove causation."

Yep, the coincidence argument. Coincidentally, my daughter had an adverse reaction that exactly mirrored the adverse reactions listed by the CDC the afternoon that she got the MMR. Coincidence. That is what the doctors said. They said that they had no idea what caused it... but they did know for a fact that it was not the vaccine that she was just injected with and that the CDC's adverse reaction list was just a coincidence that it matched her reaction. They said it might be Cat Scratch Fever even... One doctor even laughed at the suggestion it was the vaccine. I was shocked. In time though I have come to accept that there is a block in rational thinking when it comes to vaccines...

Meanwhile, most mitochondrial disorders are genetic. There is really no evidence that vaccines cause any mitochondrial diseases, especially since tens of millions of kids have gotten vaccinated and mitochondrial disorders are still very rare. Even the paper you cited doesn't claim a strong causal link, rather they're just trying to figure out if there is any commonality in the first place.

Mitochondrial disorders can be genetic or not... they aren't sure either way. My argument was NOT that vaccines cause mitochondrial disorder, which they do not. It was that a person with a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder might be at risk of getting autism when vaccinated. I can't find the study but I found this:

vaccines didn't "cause" autism, but rather that the vaccines aggravated an unknown and previously undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder the child had which "resulted" in autism. It's unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder.
Source: HHS-HRSA (Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration)

CBS News has learned the government has previously been court-ordered to pay on other vaccine injury cases in which a child ended up with damage including autism or autistic symptoms. In one case from 1986, the child had a pre-existing condition that the court decided was aggravated by his vaccinations. Here, the pre-existing condition was "tuberous sclerosis" or TS. According to court testimony, many children with TS will suffer seizures and brain damage.

However, not unlike the government's concession in Hannah Poling's case, the court found that vaccines aggravated the child's pre-existing condition, and were therefore responsible for his mental retardation and autism.

Learning From a Previous Vaccine-Autism Case? - CBS News

More research is needed to determine if there are rare cases where underlying mitochondrial disorders are triggered by anything related to vaccines.

CDC | Mitochondrial Disease | Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) | NCBDDD

So it is possible, even if unlikely, that vaccines contribute to autism despite popular literature and disdain for those that bring this idea up. And again, if adverse reactions are under-reported...

Probably because... they're anecdotal.

The emotional punch of an anecdote is all but inverse in its actual scientific merit. E.g. I've met thousands of people in my lifetime; as far as I know, all of them were vaccinated. I don't think I've ever met a single autistic person, or at worst it's single-digits. I've never met anyone with mitochondrial disease. I've never met anyone who had stiff joints as a child. Shouldn't we conclude on that basis that "vaccines are completely safe?" Why do you only pay attention to the bad examples, and not the millions of positive results?

Because that is not the argument that I am making... I acknowledge the millions of positive results. Why can't you acknowledge the serious adverse reactions and deaths in addition to recognizing a problem in the reporting system that in turn affects or knowledge on the safety of vaccines?

When you go to an anti-vaccination website, you're not hearing from the millions of parents with successful vaccinations. You're hearing from a self-selected group of people distributed all over the US (if not the world), who want to vent and blame someone for the unfortunate outcomes they experience. A few hundred voices can make it seem like a statistically small group is huge. While I don't fault anyone for seeking company and wanting to discuss it, I also cannot take it seriously as a research tool. No one should.

Depends. If the system is set up to not correctly inform the people then the people need to look to alternative sites. They may not be the best but it is better than nothing.

Yeah, dude, you're not wound up about it at all....

Right. I am not wound up about vaccines. I am frustrated at having to deal with another blockhead that refuses to see an error in the reporting system though, because that is all I am pointing out... an error in a system.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

No one is getting rich off of vaccines these days. How do pharmaceutical companies get rich these days? With boner pills, hair loss creams, opiates, botox, medications that make your eyelashes thicker, with new SSRI's that are just as effective as the old SSRI's, with insanely expensive biologics for chronic conditions, and so forth.

Fewer and fewer companies make vaccines now. Why? Because they're not profitable. They're expensive to research and expensive to make. They're one-shot deals, so the have a much smaller market than chronic conditions, or cosmetic drugs, or erectile dysfunction pills. They can't sell them at high margins to poorer countries. The result? Companies have been dropping vaccines for decades.

With the $780 billion global prescription drug market growing at a sluggish 5% a year, many analysts reckon that the vaccine industry, which is forecast to climb 13% annually through 2012, offers the most upside potential. "More companies are investing in vaccines as a way of diversifying away from prescription drugs, and new technologies such as cell culture are enabling them to produce more sophisticated vaccines," says Michael Boyd, acting director general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA).

How Big Pharma Profits from Swine Flu - Businessweek

The CDC recommends 48 doses of 14 vaccines by age six, and 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18.

Big Profits Linked to Vaccine Mandates

since January 2006, Merck has given an additional $377,500 to the Republican Governors Association

Novartis has donated $700,000 to the RGA since January 2006, although it has only directly donated $5,000 to Perry's own campaign. In 2009, Perry signed a bill into law mandating meningitis vaccines for all college students, a requirement he expanded again earlier this year. Novartis was not the only pharmaceutical company to benefit from the new requirement,

HPV vaccine, Merck and Rick Perry's money - CNN.com

Located in Holly Springs, N.C., the Novartis plant, backed by $487 million in federal funding

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical profits from swine-flu-related drugs have soared – with earnings between $10 billion and $15 billion in 2009, investment bank JPMorgan estimates.

http://www.wnd.com/2009/12/118262/!

So, yeah, you really are going to have to come up with a new conspiracy theory

I don't think it is a conspiracy. If it helps you feel better by thinking like that then please go ahead though... stupid, but it is your right.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

No dude, you DON'T get it. Not one parent will ever lose a child to a vaccine and sit back and say, "that's just how it goes... at least we took one for the team though".

How many parents will lose a child to whooping cough and say "Well, at least they weren't vaccinated."

 

[Deuce]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

I don't think it is a conspiracy. If it helps you feel better by thinking like that then please go ahead though... stupid, but it is your right.

Treating illnesses is more profitable than preventing them.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

How many parents will lose a child to whooping cough and say "Well, at least they weren't vaccinated."

Not many since so many people get vaccinated... other than that your argument is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

Treating illnesses is more profitable than preventing them.

:lol: That is just a retarded understanding of capitalism. :lol:

 

[Deuce]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

Not many since so many people get vaccinated... other than that your argument is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

Oh, well, if only some children die because their parents decided it was ok to risk their lives, and the lives of other children, that's swell.

Whooping Cough Officially Epidemic in California: Officials - NBC News

This is happening because a growing number of people like you.

In very rare cases, people have serious reactions to a vaccine. But in virtually every infection, people have serious reactions to whooping cough, measles, diptheria, polio, etc. Going unvaccinated is like going without a seatbelt because one in a million car crashes you're better off being ejected from the vehicle. And you want to talk about failures of logic...

 

[Visbek]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

Because that is not the argument that I am making... I acknowledge the millions of positive results. Why can't you acknowledge the serious adverse reactions and deaths in addition to recognizing a problem in the reporting system that in turn affects or knowledge on the safety of vaccines?

I do acknowledge that there are serious adverse reactions, and potential issues in voluntary reporting systems. Absolutely nothing I've said denies either of these claims -- or, really, is changed by accepting those claims.

Since you clearly missed it, I'll say it again and explicitly: Even with those issues, it is very clear that the benefits are still worth the risks, and that anecdotal evidence does not give anyone a good assessment of those risks.

Again, even if 95% of serious adverse reactions to MMR are not reported, you're still dealing with an utterly minuscule number of cases -- e.g. 0.4% of vaccinated kids would get encephalitis.

Or, let's look at your mitochondrial disease situation. Those types of diseases are very rare -- so rare that, at this point in time, it probably doesn't make sense to test every single child right at birth. If that type of test does become cheap, and we establish a link as some of those papers suggest, then I'd say we have a good reason to delay some vaccines until after such a test is complete.

We should also note that mandatory screening for genetic diseases is not necessarily an all-around win. False positives, or diagnoses of diseases that can't be cured, can be very difficult for many parents (Screening Newborns For Disease Can Leave Families In Limbo : Shots - Health News : NPR)

Anyway. We have a long way to go before those tests are cheap and routine. We have a long way to go before that specific link is established. And any potential benefits of the delays are almost certainly overwhelmed by the downsides, including leaving infants more vulnerable to potentially devastating diseases, and decreasing herd immunity.

I.e. nothing you're suggesting is remotely actionable or even wise. We shouldn't delay or stop vaccines because there is an extremely small risk that some kids with a genetic predisposition for autism might (or might not!) get triggered by a vaccine. We cannot treat anecdotes like data. We don't have a reliable genetic test for any predispositions to autism. Reporting isn't so far off that we can't trust vaccines at all.

All I'm seeing is that you're putting a few matchsticks together, and claiming they're a bonfire.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

With the $780 billion global prescription drug market growing at a sluggish 5% a year...

If making vaccines is profitable, why did Novartis need a $487,000,000 grant from the government to build a new vaccine manufacturing facility?

Oh wait, I know. It's because developing vaccines is expensive, and not particularly profitable.

Balancing profits against public health in the search for innovative vaccines | Sci-Tech | DW.DE | 31.03.2014

And yes, I'd say that accusing public health officials of pushing vaccines because Merck and Novartis contributes to a bunch of governors -- since when do state governors control the CDC? -- flirts with a conspiracy mentality. It's far, far more likely that they're looking for tax breaks and/or the right to dump pharma waste, rather than telling governors to advocate for more vaccinations.

The CDC recommends 48 doses of 14 vaccines by age six, and 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18.

Wanna guess how long it takes for someone with a chronic condition to go through 70 doses? 1-2 months.

So yeah, I really don't buy into the idea that the Evil Greedy Big Pharmas are pushing vaccines because they value profits more than lives.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

Oh, well, if only some children die because their parents decided it was ok to risk their lives, and the lives of other children, that's swell.

Whooping Cough Officially Epidemic in California: Officials - NBC News

This is happening because a growing number of people like you.

In very rare cases, people have serious reactions to a vaccine. But in virtually every infection, people have serious reactions to whooping cough, measles, diptheria, polio, etc. Going unvaccinated is like going without a seatbelt because one in a million car crashes you're better off being ejected from the vehicle. And you want to talk about failures of logic...

The only reason my daughter is not vaccinated is because she had a serious adverse reaction. And people thanked you? I swear, some people are so obtuse...

... and not everybody gets whooping cough anyway.

... and some people would rather take a chance with nature than intentionally jab their child and take a chance... but go ahead and misunderstand that one as well.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

I do acknowledge that there are serious adverse reactions, and potential issues in voluntary reporting systems.

Good.

Since you clearly missed it, I'll say it again and explicitly: Even with those issues, it is very clear that the benefits are still worth the risks, and that anecdotal evidence does not give anyone a good assessment of those risks.

I didn't miss it...

Again, even if 95% of serious adverse reactions to MMR are not reported, you're still dealing with an utterly minuscule number of cases -- e.g. 0.4% of vaccinated kids would get encephalitis.

It isn't small to those affected...

Or, let's look at your mitochondrial disease situation. Those types of diseases are very rare -- so rare that, at this point in time, it probably doesn't make sense to test every single child right at birth. If that type of test does become cheap, and we establish a link as some of those papers suggest, then I'd say we have a good reason to delay some vaccines until after such a test is complete.

People should be tested prior to vaccination

We should also note that mandatory screening for genetic diseases is not necessarily an all-around win. False positives, or diagnoses of diseases that can't be cured, can be very difficult for many parents (Screening Newborns For Disease Can Leave Families In Limbo : Shots - Health News : NPR)

The parent will have a hard time upon finding out regardless of when they are informed...

Anyway. We have a long way to go before those tests are cheap and routine. We have a long way to go before that specific link is established. And any potential benefits of the delays are almost certainly overwhelmed by the downsides, including leaving infants more vulnerable to potentially devastating diseases, and decreasing herd immunity.

Herd immunity is not effected by a minority that does not vaccinate... the idea is a myth.

I.e. nothing you're suggesting is remotely actionable or even wise. We shouldn't delay or stop vaccines because there is an extremely small risk that some kids with a genetic predisposition for autism might (or might not!) get triggered by a vaccine. We cannot treat anecdotes like data. We don't have a reliable genetic test for any predispositions to autism. Reporting isn't so far off that we can't trust vaccines at all.

- Who suggested stopping vaccines?
- Vaccines should be delayed until kids are a little older.
- I feel that we might potentially be trading some diseases for new issues like SIDS.
- Anecdotes are data if properly recorded... which is the whole point. They are not being reported.
- Reporting is so far off as to make data unreliable. For all you or I know doctors only report minor incidents and not ones like my daughters or even more serious ones. For all we know SIDS is a direct result of vaccines and the numbers will skyrocket. That is the whole point. We can't just extrapolate existing data and say, "hey, it was .004% so it would only be .04%" That is a logical assumption based off of results that are incomplete making the assumption, by default, illogical.

All I'm seeing is that you're putting a few matchsticks together, and claiming they're a bonfire.

Not even close to what I am doing...

 

[Bodi]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

If making vaccines is profitable, why did Novartis need a $487,000,000 grant from the government to build a new vaccine manufacturing facility?

Oh wait, I know. It's because developing vaccines is expensive, and not particularly profitable.

Balancing profits against public health in the search for innovative vaccines | Sci-Tech | DW.DE | 31.03.2014

Seriously? You are attempting to refute my facts with this garbage?

From you article:

The easy vaccines have been made. They're on the market, they're working.

Those are the ones we are debating right now. MMR, etc. ...and then:

You work on malaria. Surely that's a huge market?

Oddly enough, even though it's the biggest killer of children in Africa, and one of the biggest global health problems of all, it's not a big market. And that's because the people who really need a malaria vaccine are infants in Africa, who are at the most risk of dying. And there may be 30, 50 million of them needing a vaccine every year, but they can't, by and large, afford to pay more than a few cents. And that doesn't add up to a big global market for a big pharmaceutical company.


http://www.dw.de/balancing-profits-...the-search-for-innovative-vaccines/a-17532265

As Bon Jovi was fond of singing... SHOT DOWN, in a blaze of glory. :lol:

And yes, I'd say that accusing public health officials of pushing vaccines because Merck and Novartis contributes to a bunch of governors -- since when do state governors control the CDC? -- flirts with a conspiracy mentality. It's far, far more likely that they're looking for tax breaks and/or the right to dump pharma waste, rather than telling governors to advocate for more vaccinations.

You didn't even bother to read what I gave you:

In 2009, Perry signed a bill into law mandating meningitis vaccines for all college students, a requirement he expanded again earlier this year. Novartis was not the only pharmaceutical company to benefit from the new requirement,

HPV vaccine, Merck and Rick Perry's money - CNN.com

If the governor MANDATES vaccines then the pharmaceutical company makes profits.

Wanna guess how long it takes for someone with a chronic condition to go through 70 doses? 1-2 months.

So yeah, I really don't buy into the idea that the Evil Greedy Big Pharmas are pushing vaccines because they value profits more than lives.

All corporations are essentially Big Greedy Machines... tobacco, alcohol, automotive industry. They don't do call backs until a certain number of deaths and law-suits begin. Tobacco lied under oath for years... are you really that naïve? There is nothing tin foil capped about understanding profit motive and stock holders...

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf

Ouranalysesshowed increasingrelativerisksfor neurodevelopmentdisordersand heartdiseasewithincreasingdosesof mercury.Thisstudyprovidesstrong epidemiologicalevidenceforalink betweenmercuryexposurefrom thimerosal-containingchildhood vaccinesandneurodevelopment disorders.

http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7020.pdf

After controlling for left amygdala volume, the binding of the opioid antagonist [11C]diprenorphine (DPN) in exposed animals remained relatively constant over time, compared with unexposed animals, in which a significant decrease in [11C]DPN binding occurred. These results suggest that maturational changes in amygdala volume and the binding capacity of [11C]DPN in the amygdala was significantly altered in infant macaques receiving the vaccine schedule. The macaque infant is a relevant animal model in which to investigate specific environmental exposures and structural/functional neuroimaging during neurodevelopment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23609067

The literature demonstrates clearly negative impacts of aluminum on the nervous system across the age span. In adults, aluminum exposure can lead to apparently age-related neurological deficits resembling Alzheimer's and has been linked to this disease and to the Guamanian variant, ALS-PDC.
*snip*
In young children, a highly significant correlation exists between the number of pediatric aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered and the rate of autism spectrum disorders. Many of the features of aluminum-induced neurotoxicity may arise, in part, from autoimmune reactions, as part of the ASIA syndrome.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/22-medical-studies-that-show-vaccines.html?m=1
22 more linked papers

 

[Visbek]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

It isn't small to those affected...

And again: That isn't the way to judge the efficacy of medicine. If that was our yardstick, we'd never be able to use any medication.

People should be tested prior to vaccination

Tested for what? Genetic precursors for autism? We don't know what they are. Mitochondrial diseases? OK, but there's no evidence yet that there is any real link between (for example) MELAS and autism. Possible reactions to a vaccine? We don't have a test. In fact, there's a lot about genetic factors of diseases that we just don't know at this time.

You're demanding tests we don't have yet, for things we don't know yet. You do realize that at the very least, this request cannot be currently fulfilled, right...?

Herd immunity is not effected by a minority that does not vaccinate... the idea is a myth.

Or, it's a scientific fact, demonstrated by recent outbreaks in areas with low vaccination rates.

- Vaccines should be delayed until kids are a little older.

Oh? How much older? 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months? 4 years? Should we really delay vaccinations based off of completely unproven, hypothetical, scare-tactic claims with no epidemiological evidence? Pass.

- I feel that we might potentially be trading some diseases for new issues like SIDS.... For all we know SIDS is a direct result of vaccines and the numbers will skyrocket.

You do know that SIDS rates are declining, right? Apparently, just putting babies to sleep on their backs and a few other minor changes in sleep behavior cut the SIDS rate in half. Maternal smoking is apparently another big risk factor.
SIDS rate has declined, but 2,300 U.S. babies still die annually - The Washington Post

So, yeah. I think we can say that whatever it is that causes SIDS, it's almost certainly not vaccines.

- Anecdotes are data if properly recorded... which is the whole point. They are not being reported.

And self-selecting websites populated by upset parents are not a form of proper recording.

- Reporting is so far off as to make data unreliable.

Again: 70 million children have received the MMR vaccine. If just 0.1% of of kids had a life-threatening reaction, that would be 70,000 kids. That many serious effects in infants and young children would draw lots of attention. The idea that there is THAT much under-reporting, mostly because your doctors screwed up, is not even remotely justified.

In addition, there are lots of drugs out there which are actually much more dangerous than any vaccine -- and yet, we still prescribe them. Go figure.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

Or, it's a scientific fact, demonstrated by recent outbreaks in areas with low vaccination rates.

Something like 65% of those vaccinated actually become immune. Immunity sometimes only lasts 2-10 years. The outbreaks occur amongst kids that have been vaccinated as well, but did not get immunity. For a long time, until recently (80s and 90s to present) the vaccination rate was around 50% of the population, yet there were no major outbreaks. People lived. Now, small outbreaks occur like they always have and some, like you, latch onto that like it is concrete evidence that herd immunity is a scientific fact. Absurd.

Oh? How much older? 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months? 4 years? Should we really delay vaccinations based off of completely unproven, hypothetical, scare-tactic claims with no epidemiological evidence? Pass.

6 months to a year... too much crap going into a newborn that is still developing.

You do know that SIDS rates are declining, right? Apparently, just putting babies to sleep on their backs and a few other minor changes in sleep behavior cut the SIDS rate in half. Maternal smoking is apparently another big risk factor.
SIDS rate has declined, but 2,300 U.S. babies still die annually - The Washington Post

It hasn't been declining since 2001, according to your article. Why? They don't know. So... 2,300 infants still die every year even though maternal smoking has reduced and babies are being placed on their backs. I know... since we have no idea why, let's just rule out vaccines. Seems pretty smart to me. :lol:

So, yeah. I think we can say that whatever it is that causes SIDS, it's almost certainly not vaccines.

Well, you can say that if you like.

And self-selecting websites populated by upset parents are not a form of proper recording.

If it is true then it is a proper recording... some government seal does not make something more true. :roll:

Again: 70 million children have received the MMR vaccine. If just 0.1% of of kids had a life-threatening reaction, that would be 70,000 kids. That many serious effects in infants and young children would draw lots of attention. The idea that there is THAT much under-reporting, mostly because your doctors screwed up, is not even remotely justified.

Well, what if it was 7,000? 2,300 from SIDS. Another 1,000 here and there. It is plausible.

In addition, there are lots of drugs out there which are actually much more dangerous than any vaccine -- and yet, we still prescribe them. Go figure.

Straw Man... that is a logical fallacy, BTW.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

Seriously? You are attempting to refute my facts with this garbage?

You obviously didn't read what he was saying.

Yes, lots of kids in developing nations need a vaccine for malaria. But since their governments can't afford to pay for it, the pharmaceuticals aren't interested. It's not that complicated.

In 2009, Perry signed a bill into law mandating meningitis vaccines for all college students, a requirement he expanded again earlier this year. Novartis was not the only pharmaceutical company to benefit from the new requirement....

Novartis' total vaccine and diagnostics revenues were $1.9 billion in 2012. Wanna guess what their total revenues were for that year? $58 billion. Wanna guess the division's losses? $165 million.

Yeah, they're making a mint. No, wait. They're losing money. The greedy bastards! Maybe that explains why they have to hit up the government for half a billion for a vaccine facility.

Oh, and the meningitis vaccine? It's for adults. But hey, it's a Big Evil Pharmaceutical, right? There's no problem lumping all this stuff together and slandering them with whatever you think will stick.

All corporations are essentially Big Greedy Machines... tobacco, alcohol, automotive industry. They don't do call backs until a certain number of deaths and law-suits begin. Tobacco lied under oath for years... are you really that naïve?

Meaning what, our only choices are bitter cynicism and radical naïveté? Every company is the moral equivalent of a tobacco company, no matter what they do? Pass.

For all their flaws, you and/or many people you know wouldn't be able to survive without products from the Eeevil Big Pharmas. You might want to keep that in mind.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

Something like 65% of those vaccinated actually become immune....

Please get your facts straight.

"After the first dose of the MMR vaccine, 64 out of 100 people will be protected against mumps, 90 out of 100 people will be protected against measles and 95 out of 100 people will be protected against rubella. You will need two doses of the vaccine to provide enough protection against measles, mumps and rubella." (Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine | Bupa UK)

A vaccine that is only 65% effective would be replaced with a more effective version at the earliest possible opportunity.

And yes, the small percentage of people who aren't protected successfully by a vaccine? They're protected by the others who are successfully vaccinated. The longer the delays in vaccinating children, the weaker the herd protection.

Immunity sometimes only lasts 2-10 years.

MMR can last for 20 years or more. Even if it doesn't fully protect the child, it dramatically reduces the harm caused by the disease(s).

For a long time, until recently (80s and 90s to present) the vaccination rate was around 50% of the population, yet there were no major outbreaks.

People lived.

Children suffered. Some were permanently deafened, some had brain damage, some died.

It hasn't been declining since 2001, according to your article. Why? They don't know. So... 2,300 infants still die every year even though maternal smoking has reduced and babies are being placed on their backs. I know... since we have no idea why, let's just rule out vaccines.

...except there is zero evidence that vaccines have anything to do with SIDS.

Straw Man... that is a logical fallacy, BTW.

There's no straw man. It's the consequence of your own argument.

You claim that "we can't know medicines are safe! We can't trust these guys! Effects are under-reported across the board!" And yet, we take all sorts of medicines all the time, including ones with significantly higher reported rates. Why should we ONLY single out vaccines? Do parents never give their kids aspirin or antibiotics? What about formula, why isn't that to blame? Why shouldn't adults be petrified about under-reported side effects?

 

[Bodi]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

You obviously didn't read what he was saying.

Yes, lots of kids in developing nations need a vaccine for malaria. But since their governments can't afford to pay for it, the pharmaceuticals aren't interested. It's not that complicated.

You are right, it is not complicated and what you are saying backs up my argument that the pharmaceuticals companies are concerned with making a profit. They do not want to waste their time and money if there is not a profit to make. It is a billion dollar a year business and not a charity. Thank you.

Novartis' total vaccine and diagnostics revenues were $1.9 billion in 2012. Wanna guess what their total revenues were for that year? $58 billion. Wanna guess the division's losses? $165 million.

Yeah, they're making a mint. No, wait. They're losing money. The greedy bastards! Maybe that explains why they have to hit up the government for half a billion for a vaccine facility.

PERFORMANCE Another year of record results as momentum from recently launched products drives
growth across broad healthcare portfolio.
Net sales rise 7% (+11% in local currencies), led by Pharmaceuticals and Vaccines and
Diagnostics. Core operating income advances 11% to USD 11.4 billion on the solid
business expansion and operational improvements while absorbing an adverse currency
impact. Core operating income margin improves to 25.8% of net sales. Core net income
up 8% to USD 10.3 billon, while core EPS grows at same pace to USD 4.50.

PORTFOLIO Strengthening our focused portfolio to meet evolving healthcare needs, Novartis commits
to invest more than USD 1 billion in China to create the country’s leading pharmaceutical
R&D institute and expand offering of vaccines. Sandoz acquires EBEWE Pharma’s
specialty generics business, gaining a new growth platform and improving access to
oncology medicines.

http://www.novartis.pt/downloads/imprensa/publicacoes/en/Novartis_Annual_Report_2009_EN.pdf

Oh, and the meningitis vaccine? It's for adults. But hey, it's a Big Evil Pharmaceutical, right? There's no problem lumping all this stuff together and slandering them with whatever you think will stick.

A vaccine is a vaccine... pretty simple. Also, my point trounced your refutation. Politicians and money are a factor... a big one.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

You are right, it is not complicated and what you are saying backs up my argument that the pharmaceuticals companies are concerned with making a profit. They do not want to waste their time and money if there is not a profit to make. It is a billion dollar a year business and not a charity. Thank you.



PERFORMANCE Another year of record results as momentum from recently launched products drives
growth across broad healthcare portfolio.
Net sales rise 7% (+11% in local currencies), led by Pharmaceuticals and Vaccines and
Diagnostics. Core operating income advances 11% to USD 11.4 billion on the solid
business expansion and operational improvements while absorbing an adverse currency
impact. Core operating income margin improves to 25.8% of net sales. Core net income
up 8% to USD 10.3 billon, while core EPS grows at same pace to USD 4.50.

PORTFOLIO Strengthening our focused portfolio to meet evolving healthcare needs, Novartis commits
to invest more than USD 1 billion in China to create the country’s leading pharmaceutical
R&D institute and expand offering of vaccines. Sandoz acquires EBEWE Pharma’s
specialty generics business, gaining a new growth platform and improving access to
oncology medicines.

http://www.novartis.pt/downloads/imprensa/publicacoes/en/Novartis_Annual_Report_2009_EN.pdf



A vaccine is a vaccine... pretty simple. Also, my point trounced your refutation. Politicians and money are a factor... a big one.

Good things do come from a profit motive from time to time. Vaccines are a great example of that.

 

[iangb]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

... and not everybody gets whooping cough anyway.

... and some people would rather take a chance with nature than intentionally jab their child and take a chance... but go ahead and misunderstand that one as well.

*Facepalm*

Those people are putting their children at direct risk because of their ignorance. It's like saying "I'd rather take a chance walking down the middle of the road, than intentiaonally walk on the sidewalk and risk a car swerving off the road and killing me. And not everyone who jaywalks gets hit by a car anyway!"

Worse, they are putting others at risk - other people like your daughter, who is not immune because she could not have the injection.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

*Facepalm*

Those people are putting their children at direct risk because of their ignorance. It's like saying "I'd rather take a chance walking down the middle of the road, than intentiaonally walk on the sidewalk and risk a car swerving off the road and killing me. And not everyone who jaywalks gets hit by a car anyway!"

Worse, they are putting others at risk - other people like your daughter, who is not immune because she could not have the injection.

If you are arguing that people not taking vaccines are making vaccinated people sick is a fallacy in itself. If you are vaccinated, you only worry about what other people did if you are not confident that the vaccines actually work.

here; these all presume that the vaccines do work as advertised though... but at least gets into the dangers and even how they can be remedied

www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf

Our analyses showed increasing relative risks for neuro-development disorders and heart disease with increasing doses of mercury. This study provides strong epidemiological evidence for a link between mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and neurodevelopment disorders.

http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7020.pdf

After controlling for left amygdala volume, the binding of the opioid antagonist [11C]diprenorphine (DPN) in exposed animals remained relatively constant over time, compared with unexposed animals, in which a significant decrease in [11C]DPN binding occurred. These results suggest that maturational changes in amygdala volume and the binding capacity of [11C]DPN in the amygdala was significantly altered in infant macaques receiving the vaccine schedule. The macaque infant is a relevant animal model in which to investigate specific environmental exposures and structural/functional neuroimaging during neurodevelopment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23609067

The literature demonstrates clearly negative impacts of aluminum on the nervous system across the age span. In adults, aluminum exposure can lead to apparently age-related neurological deficits resembling Alzheimer's and has been linked to this disease and to the Guamanian variant, ALS-PDC.*
*snip*
In young children, a highly significant correlation exists between the number of pediatric aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered and the rate of autism spectrum disorders. Many of the features of aluminum-induced neurotoxicity may arise, in part, from autoimmune reactions, as part of the ASIA syndrome.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/...cines.html?m=1
22 more linked papers

 

[iangb]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

If you are arguing that people not taking vaccines are making vaccinated people sick is a fallacy in itself. If you are vaccinated, you only worry about what other people did if you are not confident that the vaccines actually work.

I am not. I am arguing that people not taking vaccines puts both them and others who have not been vaccinated (due to health or age reasons) at risk.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

Vaccines are not 100% effective. They are effective enough to render a virus extinct if everyone, or nearly everyone, is vaccinated. Smallpox is now extinct due to the vaccine. Measles, mumps, whooping cough, rubella, chicken pox, and polio would follow if only people weren't so damn hard headed and stupid.

But, alas, human beings are what we are. Maybe in another couple of million years a truly intelligent creature will evolve on Planet Earth.

 

[Sherman123]

Re: Vaccines and Autism.

If you are arguing that people not taking vaccines are making vaccinated people sick is a fallacy in itself. If you are vaccinated, you only worry about what other people did if you are not confident that the vaccines actually work.

here; these all presume that the vaccines do work as advertised though... but at least gets into the dangers and even how they can be remedied

www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf





http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7020.pdf





Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): to... [Immunol Res. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI


http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/...cines.html?m=1
22 more linked papers

False. One of the most nefarious lies that have been propagated with the modern anti-vaccine movement is an attempt to undermine the concept of herd immunity by preying on scientific ignorance.

1. There are several classes of people for whom vaccines are not an option or are temporarily not effective including people who have gone through chemotherapy, people who have severe allergies to a component of the vaccine, people with certain illnesses, some kinds of vaccines for pregnant women, very young children, etc. Herd immunity helps to protect these people.

2. Vaccines do not have a 100% efficacy rate. Even our most effective vaccines like the two course measles schedule is 'only' 99% whereas some others go lower like rotavirus which can go down to 85%. If we broadly assume vaccines are 90-98% effective then you are still putting millions of people at risk. Once again herd immunity helps to protect those people.