Studies that link Autism to Vaccinations.

Post Reply New Topic

You might need to learn when to take something literally and when not to. We would all be better off if you learned that difference.

Likewise. I get the impression people think I am upset when I am typing. I need to post more emojis:)

In reality, this is what I look like when I am typing...

....most of the time

Thank you Boo. right back at ya.

Yes, I think this is reasonable and rational. We do tend to "jump ahead" with new drug and preventative discoveries once we realize how well we work for Issue X. It's happened in the past. Thalidomide and Fen/Phen are two very notorious examples but there are other are more recent ones, like statins now being called into question (and even the need for them under question in many cases).

For the purpose of autism/vaxes and a link, though, yes, that was debunked...I do think it's prudent to make a deeper study of the preservatives and development methods to be cautious but in this case, the link between autism and vaccinations has just been debunked.

Now if that includes a conspiracy/coverup as stated in one of the posts before this one, that I don't know and I am on REALLY shaky ground just assuming that there would be a coverup or other-such, because at that point we're really getting away from evidence and into literal outright theory so what end can that even be picked up by? I am far more comfortable with what we actually know. Just how I see things.

As far as studying a possible genetic propensity toward reacting to vaccines with autistic behaviors or an actual autism DX from the perspective of a possible genetic leaning on the part of the actual subject, that could certainly be beneficial. But then again all vaxes are not alike, besides the obvious of them containing different "actives" so that would really have to be a case-by-case basis...I would think. And it would require genetic testing, quite obviously. Not sure how that could pan out as actual lab studies injecting infants/children for the purpose of studying potential effects would be probably unethical and I still am not sure how the results could be logged...and related directly to the vax. Unless this could be done as an in-vitro thing. In addition, results, even if they were unraveled accurately and pinpointed, wold have to confirm that some other environmental or other factor wouldn't also have contributed toward "bringing out the autism genes" or perhaps may have been exclusively the issue...v. the actual vax or set of vaxes. I just don't know.

I agree with you that we don't know for SURE. But I would not like to see more studies on vaccines causing autism because there have been so many, I feel it's been beaten to death. Seems like a waste of time and money to me...it's time to investigate other avenues. I would like to see more research on other biological factors associated with autism (genetics being one) and more research on the effect of ingredients in vaccines in general.

My younger son started having seizures shortly after getting DPT and then regressed resulting in autism shortly after getting MMR. I'm pretty sure he didn't get autism from MMR. I think the two just coincided in time. This opinion is based on many different things, some actual science and some casual observations of my child...

Regarding the DPT shot, studies have shown that DPT does sometimes cause earlier onset of Dravet syndrome (the type of epilepsy my son has), HOWEVER the child would've developed seizures either way due to the genetic abnormality. So DPT doesn't cause Dravet; DPT speeds up the onset. I wonder if it's something similar with MMR. I think understanding the genetics of autism could help with this autism/vaccine thing too.

I agree with bbtnyr that people believe vaccines cause autism despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary mostly because they WANT it to be true. There could still be something to it (see my previous paragraph) but I don't think we need more studies on the subject.

Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies:
"An argumentum ad hominem is any kind of argument that criticizes an idea by pointing something out about the people who hold the idea rather than directly addressing the merits of the idea….
"Ad hominem attacks are ultimately self-defeating. They are equivalent to admitting that you have lost the argument." (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AdHominem)

So would you like to rephrase, or are we done here?

No, I don't think we are. I pointed out your red herring and drew a comparison with other dangerous people who use similar strategies. I don't see what the problem is.

The point remains that your article does not support your non-argument.

So what exactly do you propose be done with these undesirable "other dangerous people" to which you refer?

Should these "dangerous people" be vaccinated forcibly if they persist in refusing to see the situation as you do?

It's not about refusing to see the situation as I do: it's about refusing to accept evidence and putting others at risk in the process. What we do about such people acting as part of a conspiracy to murder is another matter.

I've studied research design and am well-acquainted with the standards of research-based evidence. My research into this topic has led me to a conclusion that is different from yours. Your prior statement regarding those who don't agree is that they have to just "live with it." And this last post indicates that you believe that all the evidence needed is in, and the results are conclusive. They are not on this matter, nor as Boo pointed out in the OP, are the results conclusive regarding the link between vaccines and autism.

Evidence in the case of historical inquiry should require establishing "credibility of witness." I presented evidence that the scientific methods used by Pasteur were deceitful and you called it a "red herring" without waiting for further evidence I would present, and belligerently called my position a "non-argument." Having a witness present testimony when they've been known to have presented falsified reports is a violation of the "clean hands" doctrine in law, but having called this fact a false trail in the matter of Pasteur, you seem to have no use for this legal principle in this case. So, moving on.

You say that those who don't get vaccinated are "dangerous" and are "putting others at risk" by refusing to accept evidence. I think any reasonable person can see where that logic leads, and it seems to me that you're skirting the issue by implying there's some large distance between calling a group dangerous and the point of forcing them to comply with your position. I am not saying that you yourself are forcing anyone to comply with your position, but society is moving in this direction: http://www.theeventchronicle.com/health ... cinations/

Marginalizing and demeaning a group for their beliefs is part of the process of imposing one's will upon them. To state otherwise by implying it is solely an intellectual discussion or such is disingenuous.

So on the one hand you're saying you're not going to force any action upon anyone, but in a prior post you stated flat out that those who disagreed had to just "live with it." Just telling someone to "live with it" is along the same lines as saying it isn't going to allow for divergence. Your arguments lack consistency. And your approach lacks integrity.

Here's more to review. Too much to quote extensively:

Health and Survival in the 21st Century: http://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/upl ... 22ch5.html - which specifically addresses the microsome theory and following section stating: " Not only cancer, but all chronic pathological conditions display in the blood various pleomorphic microorganisms which originate from within the body itself to proliferate and participate in the disease process." And continues with a quote from Dr Raymond Brown, formerly of the Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research.

BECHAMP'S MICROZYMAS OR `LITTLE BODIES' - Ch. 4 at: http://www.whale.to/a/b/pearson.html

Excerpts from Bechamp or Pasteur? by Ethel Douglas Hume, p 181 (including footnote 1), p 198 (summary of lab experiments), p. 194 (effect of Pasteur on the silkworm industry). Ms. Hume's book is written from Dr. Leverson's notes, after meeting with Bechamp. Text available at google books.

Chart comparing Germ Theory with Cellular Theory near bottom of page at: http://vaccine-injury.info/trust.cfm

I've talked with many nurses and MD's who do not feel the matter is beyond being settled. In the article I cited regarding the mandatory vaccination program, the article states that CDC researched and found that there is no evidence that vaccinating nurses offers protection to patients; the reason for the program was so as not to lose federal funds.