CDC Documents showing vaccine preservative causes Autism

Post Reply New Topic

You are assuming that the research to date is not flawed. Let's just suppose that a very small percentage of all cases of autism are, in truth, related to vaccinations. Say, 2-3% (of course, I am making that up completely, but it is just for argument's sake). The relationship will NEVER show up, because it will ALWAYS be diluted and distorted by the 97-98% of cases for which there is no relationship. If there is such a small percentage in existence, and we were able to parcel them out from the rest, then--and only then--will we find the link in research. The fact that we have found no link could be a result of flawed design and methodology, not a result of a lack of relationship for a very specific subset of the population. I am certain this would not be the first case in which that has happened.

I would hardly call a debate a "pi**ing contest". As for people trying to prove the other side wrong, there isn't even a real medical basis for the theory to begin with, so all it is, is opinion versus science fact. Scientifically it's a one sided argument. Papers have been released debunking the theory more than once, it's not hard to see why either. Trace amounts of said chemical cannot do the kind of damage that is required for it to cause autism. The body absorbs trace chemicals all the time, and much the same way, once the body has done so, they lose the very little potency they had to begin with.

If people want the facts, here they are:
To date, no evidence has ever been produced to support the claim that vaccines are causing autism in any shape, way, or form. However, there has been data presented explaining why they do not. Therefore, the claim that they do should be considered false until such time that real data is presented to support the claim, which again, has yet to happen.

And yet you're assuming that the assumption that vaccines cause autism isn't flawed as well. Not only that but you're also running with the assumption that past data is flawed instead.
The fact is, no legitimate data has ever supported the idea, anywhere, to any degree. That's why it's considered bull. Not because of past data, rather because no proof has been given from a legitimate source. Period.

No, I am not assuming the research to date is not flawed. I am assuming that multiple studies have come to similar conclusions. I've studied this as extensively as I could over the past six years and the consensus was and remains that vaccines don't cause autism.

And you're badly misusing statistics there. If the amount of autism theoretically caused by vaccinations is low enough to be statistical noise, then that amount cannot be said to be caused by vaccinations because there is no statistically significant increase. However, there have been studies done that found that the real incidence of autism has not increased since the introduction of the MMR vaccine.

If vaccines were increasing the rate of autism, it would likely stand out rather clearly. So far this has not happened.

Further, due to controversy surrounding the discussions of vaccines, thimerosal has been removed from or greatly reduced in vaccines intended for children under 6 years of age (exception: inactivated influenza vaccine). So everyone's favorite "vaccines cause autism" chemical isn't even being given to children in measurable quantities at this point. And the amounts prior to that reduction were still extremely low compared to the effects ascribed to them.

Everything that currently points to the notion that vaccines cause autism is pseudoscience and conspiracy theory.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillin ... verywhere/

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/good ... 1101061067

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/bla ... -movement/

If you want to make the argument that the research regarding vaccines and autism is flawed, then please by all means do so, but simply asserting that they could be as you did is not an argument. Of course the research could be flawed! But the example you provided isn't even in the ballpark of how statistics work, and thus it is pretty much impossible for the research to be flawed in terms of statistics in the specific case that you brought up.

Exactly. There is no debate here. There's nothing to support one position, and reams of data to support the other. Anything that would shift this status quo would by necessity have to be hard, empirical data that demonstrates a correlation between autism and childhood vaccinations.

I, personally, will not be holding my breath.

Also, I think if anyone (including myself, because I've made that mistake) decides to attempt to discredit someone else's arguments by asserting cognitive impairments related to autism or any other neurological or psychological condition, they really should stop and consider what that says about them.

Telling autistic people that we're too "all or nothing" is not a valid argument or counter. You may not like a tendency to state things as more absolute than they might actually be, but that does not in fact render such a statement factually wrong, and is nothing more than argument ad hominem - an attack on the person, not a refutation of their argument.

I especially dislike this when NTs try to pull it, and I would request that NTs think several times before trying to pull this on us.

Nor will I

When the FDA actually starts looking out for consumers and not the big money interests, your statement would be justified.

I am on Escitalopram and Bupropion for OCD and it has greatly improved my quality of life and decreased the anxiety substantially. One great bonus is it also improved spontaneous speech from the autism side of things. I don't think "Big pharma" is trying to screw me over. I think you need to look at the drugs which are helping people and not the marketing...

zer0netgain is perhaps slightly too cynical, but pharmaceutical companies do pull all kinds of nasty tricks. They avoid publishing trials that discredit their medications, for one, which makes them look better than they really are. They lobby patient groups to pressurise healthcare providers to give them ineffective drugs, they make "me again" drugs that are no better than their drugs which have lapsed from patent, and they pressurise doctors to use drugs "off label" for conditions they haven't been tested on. They've even invented medical conditions that don't exist to sell drugs for.

However, vaccinations are not profitable, and are actually safe, so that is one case where paranoia is totally undeserved. Despite that, they're seemingly the medication associated with the most paranoia. People forget about, for example, the anti-depressant that made teenagers more likely to kill themselves, or the drugs that cause more heart attacks than they prevent.

Honestly, that'd be kinda awesome. We'd all be part alien.

I really don't care. Vaccines are an important element in making sure that the diseases we've declared "dead" in the western world STAY dead. If parents are prepared to risk their kid's lives just so they don't get autism, then that just shows how utterly hideous and backwards our society's views of autism are.

Precisely.