Vaccination & epidemic

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

For one thing, look at all the other chemicals we regularly expose our bodies to, and that's just around the home. then consider all the chemicals in processed foods etc, aside from exposure to pesticides in the air from farming etc.

I'm sure you get my point. I just don't think autism et al, can be attributed to immunisation. certainly not all cases, and possibly none.

There are many factors involved, I absolutely agree. There is usually no one cause of autism even in a specific individual, let alone across all cases. But you can control for all those factors when you study the data, in order to isolate whether one factor is contributing or not. And in the link I provided earlier, they did just that. They surveyed 9,000 families living in roughly the same geographical area, the same culture, the same chemicals. The ones who didn't vaccinate had significantly lower rates of not just autism, but ADHD and asthma as well. This is the only major study that has compared vaccinated to unvaccinated children, which is really the question. All of the other studies compare autistic children to other autistic children, which as you point out, only leads to the conclusion that there are many causes of autism. But that's like saying there are many causes of cancer--you can still reasonably conclude that all the people with lung cancer probably got it from smoking, but only when you compare people who smoke to people who don't, not people who have lung cancer to people who have cervical cancer.

I'm afraid I have a very hard time unskeptically accepting data from privately funded surveys conducted by organizations with an agenda, just as I have a very hard time unskeptically accepting data from privately funded studies conducted by corporations with a bottom line.

I was just trying to find the study that showed a strong likelihood of bias in privately finded studies, but I couldn't find it online.

[Clodfobble]

Ah, so you finally got around to answering my earlier question, which is to say that you think they faked the data in that study?

[Aliantha]

Fair enough.

With regard to my family history, and I'm talking my small sample study of around 100 people, we have all been fully vaccinated, and there are none of us with any of the health issues possibly associated with vaccination.

I'd also like to point out that there are 'cancer clusters' sometimes associated with geographical areas. Also note the fact that non breast fed babies are more likely to suffer from asthma, and possibly take into account that there could be a link between parents who choose not to breast feed but choose to vaccinate. I see a logical connection there because I believe there are similar motivations behind breast feeding and not vaccinating.

It's also possible that they had a greater response to their survey from parents who are anti vaccination simply due to the fact people who are against vaccination in general seem to me to be more vocal.

Also, the people with kids who were vaccinated were probably too busy chasing their hypo kids to do a survey.

[Aliantha]

I note also that there are a couple of points in the course of the article worth consideration, such as 'All vaccinated boys, removing one county with unusual results (Multnomah, OR)'. It'd be interesting to know what that unusual result was. They also suggest that they don't consider this survey to be proof of the link, only that it proves there should be more research into the issue.

[Clodfobble]

Absolutely. The fastest way to shut everyone up and kill the sensationalism and controversy would be to do widespread, thorough research across a variety of populations, vaccinated and unvaccinated, breastfed and unbreastfed, etc. And yet, the CDC and other various government organizations still haven't done it...

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I note also that there are a couple of points in the course of the article worth consideration, such as 'All vaccinated boys, removing one county with unusual results (Multnomah, OR)'. It'd be interesting to know what that unusual result was. They also suggest that they don't consider this survey to be proof of the link, only that it proves there should be more research into the issue.

I think it's really odd, and interesting, that they removed the county with the highest population and the only major metropolitan area in the state.

I am also concerned at the lack of addressing a single very important built-in bias in the survey that is linked to it being a survey and therefore reliant on the accuracy of self-reporting; that families who choose not to vaccinate, unless they are carefully screened, may also be less likely to have their children tested for neurodevelopmental issues. The exclusion of Multnomah County heightens this possibility due to the reduced likelihood of developmental disorder screening in rural areas, and it is compounded, if you restrict the survey to suburban and rural areas, by the correlation between non-vaccinators and homeschoolers, as homeshoolers are far less likely to screen for mild neurodevelopmental disorders.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Absolutely. The fastest way to shut everyone up and kill the sensationalism and controversy would be to do widespread, thorough research across a variety of populations, vaccinated and unvaccinated, breastfed and unbreastfed, etc. And yet, the CDC and other various government organizations still haven't done it...

because reason doesn't have any money. and truth doesn't make a noise.

the pharma companies that fund vaccine development, marketing and apparent brainwashing of physicians.......stand to make money selling their snake oil.

there is no profit to be made in studies that are pure science.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Absolutely. The fastest way to shut everyone up and kill the sensationalism and controversy would be to do widespread, thorough research across a variety of populations, vaccinated and unvaccinated, breastfed and unbreastfed, etc. And yet, the CDC and other various government organizations still haven't done it...

But the CDC is continuously collecting health data nationwide. They don't "do" a study as much as collection of statistical data is ongoing. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/con...thimerosal.htm

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

because reason doesn't have any money. and truth doesn't make a noise.

the pharma companies that fund vaccine development, marketing and apparent brainwashing of physicians.......stand to make money selling their snake oil.

there is no profit to be made in studies that are pure science.

And people selling Nissans tend to advocate the advantages of Nissans because they stand to make money from selling Nissans. It doesn't mean there's anything evil about the people selling Nissans. Just that it's in their best interest to promote their product.

The point is that it doesn't help the argument from either side to demonize any of the stakeholders.

As clod mentions, there isn't really any conclusive evidence (due to lack of non-biased research) and there should be.

[TheMercenary]

Why has this thread begun to sound like a discussion between supporters and opponents of gay marriage, abortion, or Bush?

[Aliantha]

Because there's two sides (at least) and both have some very valid points which the other side (in general) doesn't want to acknowledge.

[DanaC]

*Nods* That's my understanding of how it works over here as well Jinx.

With my eldest niece, my brother and SiL were extremely reluctant to let her have the MMR jab. She had childhood eczema, very much like I did at that age. This was before the autism thing. They tried to get individual, staggered jabs and faced pretty much a brick wall on it. Not sure what the situation was like a few years later when Soph was born, but I have also heard of other parents having problems.

Not sure where I read it now, but a couple of years ago when this was doing the rounds of the cellar before, I went checking out some stuff and found an artcle in which medical professionals were arguing that the problem was parents trying to stagger the jabs, because in their opinion, many parents never take their child to complete the programme, once the first one is done. Which, they said, was why they were strongly encouraging parents not to opt for the single jabs. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe there were very few circumstances in which the NHS would provide single jabs. In order to get single jabs, these parents would have to pay private fees, where parents accepting the MMR would get it for free. Not sure whether that's still the case. I suspect it's another of those postcode lottery situations, where it depends on your local health authority.

So, parents who wanted to stagger their child's jabs, were treated as a problem. And, made to feel that they were being individually, and socially, irresponsible for not simply accepting the MMR as matter of course.

The medical profession, especially after the autism thing, haven't responded to parents with doubts as if they are rational responsible adults; they have instead responded with judgmental hysteria. Parents, who have accepted their wisdom on the need to vaccinate, but who have sought to personalise that according to unknown risks (unknown to the medical profession as well) and their own responsibility to their children, have been configured in the press and by medical professionals as hysterical, irrational and socially dangerous. Rather than facilitating increase in take up, they have pushed away people who were in fact open to their ideas. By insisting that their way was the only way, they made the situation far worse.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Tiki

Funny how Clod has been able to post, for the most part, with a minimum of courtesy and intelligence rather than filling her posts with personal insults and namecalling.

I may have used strong verbiage in my OP, but it wasn't personally directed at anyone. I was stating a strong opinion, rather than targeting an individual for personal insults.

Every interaction I've had with you since I came here - since before I came here, in fact - has involved you insulting me, Jim. Maybe you think it's "cute" or "friendly" to constantly make personal jabs at people, but I don't, and neither do any other adults I associate with. My repartee with you has nothing to do with me thinking I'm more "creative", "sensitive", or "feeling" than anyone else here... it had everything to do with you saying something shitty to me and me jabbing back at you.

Frankly, I think you're a bad person, and I don't want you to talk to me. You clearly don't like me, and I don't like you either. At all.

Thanks.

funny....i know i said i'd ignore you....but i just happened upon this thread and that deal is now off.

it was posted some 13 hours before the OP....where you use 'strong verbiage' not personal insults. see....i was offended by the tone of the 1st post in this thread because i knew we'd argued about this in the past, and felt like it might be directed at me and my family. now i see that it was, indeed.....even though you've claimed to be speaking in general since i've pointed it out.

fucking lying reality bending hypocrite jerkoff. i cant wait until you get back on your meds.