Italian Court Rules that MMR Vaccine Caused Autism

Post Reply New Topic

Hi, honest to gosh, it doesn't sound like PANDAS which is pretty specific. But it does sound like it could be some other autoimmune condition which revved up your body's response way too much.

The real question might be how it went away overnight.

(One study found that PANDAS was the probable cause of 50% of rapid-onset OCD cases in children. The thinking is that antibodies to strep, rather than strep itself, attack the brain's basal ganglia. Other doctors are skeptical about the whole thing, reasoning that kids get strep all the time anyway snd OCD symptoms tend to come and go, so of course you're going to have a lot of apparent correlations.)

I had the symptoms of communication/motor deterioration, OCD, mood swings, and oppositional behavior arise at age 4. My mother says I would sometimes go into a corner and just cry for 4-5 hours at a time and was completely responsive to anything else. Other times, I would engage in a lot of inappropriate, oppositional behavior that was impervious to physical punishment. I also lost a lot of communication abilities and a certain relational/emotional reciprocity that never returned.

I also had lots of triggers, routines, and rituals that had to be maintained. Of course, this was in additional the multiple food allergies. My parents who don't really believe in medical treatment claim my allergy and some behavioral symptoms and certainly the deterioration disappeared overnight after "prayer and deliverance." Of course, the deficits in learning and social skills remained. I was diagnosed with NLD and PDD at the age of 25.

Wakefield was discredited in the UK, not the US, and the research that finds no link between autism and vaccines is not restricted to the US.

At most, existing research only has possible correlations and no demonstrated of causation. Oh, and stuff like this:

http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2013/03/ ... ism/17604/

which shows that autism rates have no correlation to any particular vaccination schedule or exposure.

Another study in the UK found that autism rates have been constant and have not changed in response to additions or removals or changes to vaccines. I'm trying to find that one again, but it is certainly a real study.

It's also faulty reasoning to conclude "big pharma means all US research is automatically suspect." That way lay tinfoil hats.

Also, I would add that parents being awarded a settlement or having a court rule in their favor when seeking restitution for autism allegedly being caused by vaccines does not actually count as evidence that vaccines cause autism, except in terms of legal precedent. However, courts can and have made unscientific judgments and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

There have been similar settlements in the US, where there is a strong almost unilateral agreement that vaccines do not cause autism, and where you seem to think that big pharma maintains an iron grip over all research (not true, not even close) and shuts down anything that might demonstrate a causal link between vaccines and autism.

Much of this sort of "etiological theory" are fantasies for people who want something clear, concrete, and obvious to blame for their childrens' disabilities. It's driven by emotion more than anything else.

Thank you.

Some people clearly don't understand how chemicals work, especially in trace amounts. If the vaccines were even remotely damaging to the brain, the FDA and other medical associations wouldn't have approved them to begin with. Medical science has been around long enough to determine what's dangerous and what isn't on whom and when, that knowledge has been around for decades.

And no formally approved medicines have ever been subsequently withdrawn from use in medical history either.


If medical science is so complete the effect of all know drugs in every situation would be predictable? again.

Just a small point, not only was Wakefield discredited, his licence to practice in the UK was also revoked, which is why he has moved his quackery to America.

1. In cases of new drugs only, yes they have. Vaccines aren't new, they haven't been new decades and they have continued to change ever slightly, but at this point in time medical technicians and doctors know what these vaccines will and will not do, to whom.

2. I never said that all drugs are predictable, you're putting words my mouth again.

Honestly, I don't know why you even bother to reply to me at this point, we're never going to have a decent conersation, especially when you twist my words into something totally different than what I have said.
The facts don't change, chemicals just don't react that way on a massive scale, and once again, even if they did, the FDA would have discovered the flaw and not allowed the drug to be put into human subjects, period.

To top it all off, even if these vaccines could do that kind of brain damage (which, once again, trace chemicals are incapable of that to that level), it would easily show up on a scan and the scan would show damage over time, but they don't. Not to mention all of the people who didn't become autistic after taking their vaccines, or for that matter, those who didn't take the vaccines and still became autistic anyway. What about those cases? Are people so blind today, to think that those cases honestly are no testament to the data? Are people so determined to find a cause that they'll go to pseudoscience for an answer? Especially when the data has been proven false.

For all we know, autism could be solely genetic. Or it could be the result of certain circumstances in the womb that are just frankly uncontrollable. The fact is we don't know, but pointing fingers at something that has been in use for decades, and that these days most people don't even use because of spiritual beliefs, using data that we know to be corrupt, is inherently meaningless and shortsighted.

But, since you "know so much about it", why don't you give us all the proof that convinced you that this is fact, because I'm willing to bet that you're just following what other people are saying because it sounds good to you. So yes, shows all the proof that what you and others say is truth.

Personally, I'm more willing to believe the living proof that this theory is total crap (like my sister and others who took the vaccines without any ill affects), then to believe anyone using pseudoscience and data that is proven to be corrupted.

I have made no claims on the subject.
You are making assumptions again.
I do not see your responses as valid.

Yet you support the idea that it's what is going on, otherwise you wouldn't bother disputing the idea that it isn't. If you had no standpoint either way, you (like most) wouldn't bother with the topic to begin with.

I make no assumptions here, I state what is known.

I don't need you're validity approval to state what I know. Nor does how you see my responses discredit anything that I've said.

Ultimately, you can believe whatever you want, but the facts still remain on the subject and nothing that anyone believes will change fact.

I'm challenging your opinion that the FDA, and other organisations, can be completely correct about vaccines and yet fallible, and also disagree, on other subjects. Until the causes of Autism are fully deciphered you would benefit if you could keep a more open mind. To hold blind faith in organisations that are subject to intense lobbying is limiting.
My post on this thread, following the one you have responded to, may have given an insight on my feelings regarding the subject. Reading this could have saved you some effort in making assumptions.

Peace, out, or whatever you klingons say to each other.

I never claimed that the FDA and other organizations can be completely correct, I said that these vaccines have been used for years and in all that time there's never been a real issue with them, and that the basis for the vaccine causing autism theory comes from data that has been since disproved and discredited.

If there was some real science behind the possibility, then yeah I'd probably think about it. But right now there is no real fact to the theory. Having an open mind has little to do with it.

Same old, sidestep the issue and say you actually meant something different. Pointless talking to you again Jared.

conspiracytheoriesdebunked

This is probably my favorite article on the autism-vaccines subject. I like this one because it has a lot of links to what you have to admit are reputable sources (unless you are really into the whole big pharma / big government / new world order / they're just out to get Wakefield / corrupt FDA & CDC & HHS & WHO & IHO & UNICEF & AIHS & AMA conspiracy theories).

I haven't "sidestepped" anything, and considering every post you've made in reply to my opinions and statements has been argumentative and charged posts with insult after insult, it shouldn't be a surprise that this conversation is pointless. So why don't you just give it up, grow up, and accept the fact that I'm going to state my opinions regardless of how you feel about them. If you don't like what I have to say, too bad, get over it.

Also, the name is Jaden, not "Jared".

Whether vaccines cause (some) cases of autism, the whole thing with the possibility of the toxicity of the mercury preservative, that's been pretty well looked into. But the possibility of some funky auto-immune something, and to me that's a far more likely possibility, I'm not really sure that's been so thoroughly looked into.

For examply, with the auto-immune condition of Guillain Barre syndrome,
This is occasionally caused by getting a flu vaccine (like 1 out of 100,000 persons).
It is also occasionally caused by getting flu itself.