<p>Why are they being denied access to the database? so the validity of the data was called into question! 1of42, this is EXACTLY what I was referring to when I said the study is only as good as the data used. And here, right here, it is confirmed that the data was being questioned! Oh, and the original data ‘somehow went missing!’ How convenient! And you contend that we should trust studies of this sort?</p>
<p>Schmoomcgoo: So sorry to hear about your condition and I hope you fully recover from it!</p>
<p>Schmoomcgoo is an example of someone who ‘did her due diligence’ just as I did, but arrived at a different conclusion than I did: she decided to vaccinate whereas I decided not to.</p>
<p>I completely respect this. My entire argument is that we, as parents, have the right to research both sides of this very complex issue, if we feel so inclined, and have our decision, whatever it may be, respected. Both Schmoomcgoo’s and my decisions should be equally respected.</p>
<p>But where is this research going to come from? How do we really get scientific proof? The vaccine court is not looking for scientific proof - the burden of proof is 50% and a feather. Of course, the vast majority of kids with autism were vaccinated since the vast majority of kids were vaccinated. Are we going to recruit enough parents to enter a study and not have their kids vaccinated to get good stats? Do we isolate those kids so they don’t start an epidemic? Maybe we should create a bunch of little test tube babies with all the unfertilized eggs out there that we can’t use for stem cell research in order to do research. Or maybe we could pay the mothers who want abortions to have their kids and donate them to a research facilty. We’re talking about research using human babies who are exposed to different environmental factors, are different genetically, eat differently, etc, etc, - are we going to see an unflawed study?</p>
<p>cartera45 has so passionately and eloquently made the very point I was (unsuccessfully) trying to convey.</p>
<p>The task is enormous and probably not even possible. So to disregard anecdotal evidence and say ‘there are no studies’ when it’s near impossible to get such studies, is ridiculous. We have to err on the side of caution here: not disregard anything and not foolishly believe that any conclusions are absolute.</p>
<p>leal - we also have to do a risk/benefit analysis. A rational person might conclude that since vaccines have been proven to protect children against a host of debilitating and lethal diseases and that since there is not clear scientific proof that vaccines cause autism, that this is a no brainer decision, but clearly it is not. We might find one day that autism appearing with a few days of a vaccination means no more than a rain shower coming after a rain dance. I don’t know what the answer is - I’m glad I don’t have a small child right now to make that decision for and it will be interesting to see where this all is when I have grandchildren.</p>
<p>Yeah, I wouldn’t want to have to make that decision again.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I have a close friend whose son has cystic fibrosis. At the time of his diagnosis some 25 years ago, nearly all CF children died by their 20s. Now, my friend’s son is the longest-surviving CF patient in our area (San Antonio). They have used a combination of conventional and wholistic treatments. Clearly, there have been great strides in conventional treatments for CF and they are seeing lots of CF patients who use conventional treatment only living longer. So obviously the improvements in conventional treatments are largely responsible for the increase in longevity. Still, I find it interesting that her son is the longest lived patient. All his friends in his age group that used to meet with him have passed away. Even his doctor grudgingly agrees that his mom’s alternative therapies, used in conjunction, may have given him that edge. (He is now 27 or 28.) Anecdotal, yes, but interesting.</p>
<p>I have not read every post and this may not be “the point”, but it is my belief that the “autism epidemic” is largely a function of changes in by whom and how '“autism” is diagnosed, and in how money is allocated. In some communities there are more options for autism then mental retardation and with “spectrum” disorders, more diagnosis will follow.</p>
<p>cartera45, just saw your post. And while I have few anectdotes about “anti-vaccine” enthusiasts, I have MANY about what psychotropics, parents are willing to give their children, without much in the way of evidence to support.</p>
<p>I agree with Shrinkrap. That has been my experience as well, with parents willingly giving their children the most dangerous cocktails of medicine.</p>
<p>In terms of Anita’s patient, there have ALWAYS been people on the autism spectrum, particularly those with Asperger’s, who were high enough functioning, even if socially maladaptive. These people were just considered “odd” or “weird”; nobody labeled them, or pathologized them.</p>
<p>This relatively new diagnosis (Aspergers), which has ballooned in numbers isn’t really a new illness, just a new diagnosis. Many of the children who are currently diagnosed do not fit the original diagnostic criteria…there is loads of “stretching” of the criteria, which has resulted in enormous numbers of children who appear to be on the autism spectrum, but differ entirely from autistics of the past. Perhaps today’s Asperger’s children, are yesterday’s "weird’ kids, who are now Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. They may never have achieved what they have, had they been so overpathologized in their youth.</p>
<p>So, it may not be greater numbers of autistics at all, but greater (or over) diagnoses.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m naive or reading the wrong material, but what I’ve read of the history of the study of tobacco’s health effects states that by the 1940’s it was widely accepted in the medical community that lung cancer was at the very least strongly associated with cigarette smoking. Whether or not this means that the general population was aware of that fact is a rather different thing, of course, especially given the denials from the industry and scientists it paid to spread misinformation for it.</p>
<p>Which illustrates a great example of the difference between the vaccine controversy and legitimate health controversies. With tobacco, doctors had been theorizing about its harmful effects for years; even after the epidemiological studies definitively showing no links, the general public was not acutely aware of the links for some years. The difference with the vaccine controversy is that studies have been done that show no correlation, yet people still persist in this useless spiral of anecdotes, junk-science theorizing and outright denial of established medical science.</p>
<p>The reason I am so condescending about it is because this is not just a personal problem. Vaccination has been probably the most cost-effective tool of public health to eradicate communicable diseases that caused incredible amounts of suffering. We now live in a world where those diseases essentially don’t exist (at least in the developed world), and that can be directly attributed to vaccination (junk science about disease cycles and so forth notwithstanding). The reason I’m so “arrogant” about this, so “condescending”, is because the more people who buy into the misinformation about vaccine dangers, the more we lose the herd immunity that is currently protecting our societies. And that is much, much harder to get back once it is lost than it is to maintain. So I will continue to argue stridently against the people jeopardizing much of our current immunity in favor of unproven claims about this or that chemical.</p>
<p>While the callenges of raising an autistic child are dauting & the quest to understand its cause may cloud ones judgment, that still doesn’t excuse the desperate grasp for the latest junk science explanation. Failure to vaccinate endangers us all.</p>
<p>Yes, I did, and on re-reading can’t find what you’re referring to - which has happened before - sometimes I just miss things. Could I get the post number?</p>
<p>Which studies were the data lost for?</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>I cannot seriously believe you would link to a site which says things like:</p>
<p>“‘Organically-grown’ (vaccine-free) children arouse frequent comments due to their noticeably stronger health, alertness, awareness and happier demeanor. Their parents frequently comment that they learn faster than their vaccinated older siblings did, and are ahead of their peers at school.”</p>
<p>This is the kind of junk science crap that makes the debate so misinforming to many members of the general public who aren’t as equipped with the true, scientifically validated information necessary to see through this kind of crap.</p>
<p>As for the article about ingredients itself: interesting, but not particularly convincing. Yes, many of those things in high dosages are very toxic. To the extent that mercury, for example, could be eliminated from vaccines, it probably should be. But there is no epidemiological proof, again, that shows any harmful side effects from the ingredients in vaccines. In the same way that cigarette smoke is harmful in any quantity, and I’m not putting on my breathing mask when walking past people smoking, those “harmful in any amount” compounds, while not safe, at the levels in vaccines do not cause any appreciable harmful side effects (again, this is supported by epidemiological studies).</p>
<p>“So my issue with anti-vaccinators is that they’re not just making a decision for their own kids - they are exposing their entire community to an increased risk of sickness, birth defects and death. Who are the “arrogant” ones in this picture? And people who encourage that - with faux-science and slickly packaged anecdotal “evidence” – are increasing a known and proven risk to the community by scaring parents with tales of unproven (and in fact disproven) risk to their kids. Villified? Seems about right to me.”</p>
<p>Kluge, you and I have had our differences in the past, but if it were possible, I would shake your hand for this post.</p>
<p>There is a solo pediatric practice in the suburbs of Chicago that does not vaccinate, the rates of asthma, add/adhd etc are almost nill in this practice of 2,000 kids. </p>
<p>Still working through the CDC transcript, which will take a while. Did you read the whole thing? It’s 286 pages long, so I kind of doubt it, but I’ll go through it as I get the time.</p>
<p>As for Homefirst, it’s a practice full of educated, involved parents. Quite different from the general population. Also, a sort of self-selection goes on in going to that medical practice. All of which makes the anecdotal evidence not particularly convincing. But, again, the plural of anecdote is not statistic, so even if the anecdotal evidence were convincing, more is needed.</p>
<p>I linked to the site because it had the ingredients list. I did not read all the commentary. There are other sites (perhaps more to your liking) that list the same ingredients.</p>
<p>1of42: post #41</p>
<p>Read the whole article. But in particular please see the 3 paragraphs beginning with “Over the next three weeks,”</p>
<p>Please also see:</p>
<p>Hepatitis B Vaccinations: Michael Belkin Testimony to Congress (from Mercola’s site but without any commentary)</p>
Could I get the post number?</p>