Does the new vaccine study change your mind about vaccines and autism?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Does the new vaccine study change your mind about vaccines and autism?

A couple of threads on the subject...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x108427

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x108450

[laconicsax]

1. Hmm. Maybe the people claiming flaws could explain their objections. n/t

[Nictuku]

5. Explanation of my position

As Rachael says, follow the Money.

I have a great admiration for RFK Jr. and Mike Papantonio.

I was interested in finding out who the critics of Papantonio's position on mercury/thimerosal ingredients in the vaccines causing autism and I found several references to Overlawyered.com holding the position against.

Who is behind Overlawyered.com? I didn't have to read far to find out there were links to American Enterprise Institute (that was enough for me), as well as the Cato institute (Koch Brothers). (Just Google overlawyered.com American Enterprise Institute Cato)

I found another article showing vindication of Dr. Wakefield who's study was the target of the hit pieces.
http://abbykorinnelee.hubpages.com/hub/Wakefield-Vindicated (Google Wakefield Vindicated)

I am not against vaccines. I am against using thimerosal. If it didn't cause any problems, why have they (mostly) discontinued its use? (Since 2001, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, thimerosal is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines.)

I don't understand the passion that people have about this issue. It seems very straight forward to me. Don't inject mercury into your children.

Go ahead and flame away. In my eyes those who do not even attempt to understand my position on the topic have let those behind the hit pieces against RFK Jr, and Papantonio win their arguments. And I can just be sad about that.

Follow the money.

[laconicsax]

6. Thimersoal has been repeatedly debunked.

The incidents of autism didn't decrease after thinerosal was removed from vaccines. They stayed the same. Also, if you apply the same diagnostic criteria to adults as is applied to children today, you find that autism isn't on the rise, but diagnoses due to new criteria are.

Thimerosal was discontinued because people were screaming about it, not because it was causing problems. It has repeatedly been shown that thimerosal is safe and doesn't cause autism. Remember, the dose makes the poison. The amount of thinerosal in the flu vaccine is well below the toxicity level, and it was never used in several childhood vaccines such as the MMR. It's one hell of a preservative if it can cause autism without even being present.

Wakefield is a fraud who falsified results to make money from the resulting panic. He patented a competing vaccine, acted unethically, falsified data, and repeatedly lied about it. This is a matter of public record. You want to follow the money, start with Wakefield.

[Nictuku]

7. That is just about what I expected

You stand strongly in your beliefs, so do I. You have not convinced me, nor I you. You asked for an explanation, you got mine. I don't believe Wakefield is a fraud, but AEI and Cato sure put a lot of effort into making other people believe it. Seems like it worked.

[laconicsax]

8. Sorry you hold an unshakable belief.

Wakefield's fraud is well documented and led to him being struck off the medical register.

Autism statistics are likewise well documented. It's too bad you're unwilling to do some basic research for yourself.

Good day.

[rexcat]

26. Some people will never believe in science...

unless it fits what their current beliefs are and there is nothing anyone can say that will change their minds. There are a lot of scientific illiterates in this country and more than our share on DU. As far as JFK Jr., he is a lawyer and has a poor understanding of medical science. I have listened to his arguments concerning vaccines and autism and he is a flake.

[laconicsax]

27. It's too bad

Reality is a fun place.

[ZombieHorde]

9. If you could design a vaccine/autism study, how would it work? nt

[HuckleB]

10. This is about science and the abundance of evidence, not about belief.

Please educate yourself:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/trouble-in-the-library/

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/25/news/lat-heb-autism-vaccines--01252011

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/robert_f_kenned.html

[LeftishBrit]

13. Thimerasol was never in the MMR anyway.

[laconicsax]

14. That doesn't matter, apparently.

[HuckleB]

15. Do you understand that finding a source that might have other problems...

... does not mean that its stance is wrong. Further, you do understand that there are MANY other sources that found RFK Jr., Papantonio and Wakefield to be way off course with their claims? Right?

If not, why not?

It's time to stop scaring people out of healthy decisions: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/20/anatomy-of-a-scare.html

[madrchsod]

2. my friends child just completed a mayo clinic study about this subject

they have not received the results.

[HuckleB]

11. And...?

:shrug:

[SheilaT]

3. My oldest is mildly autistic (Asperger's)

and I get very angry at people who try to convince me that vaccines did that to him. He was noticeably different from other babies before he ever got his first vaccination, although we didn't figure out exactly what it was until he was eighteen.

[dtexdem]

4. This is a house without a flaw.

Then what do you all walk on?

[LeftishBrit]

12. It doesn't change my mind, as I thought the evidence was already strongly against the theory

However, it is interesting additional evidence.

[petronius]

16. Vaccines cause autism? Crap, I didn't know that! I'm gonna call my doctor first

thing on Monday and make an appointment to get mine taken out... :mad:

[stockholmer]

17. The Institute of Medicine has members who were complicit in the Guatemalan Syphilis experiments

plus a lot their very funding comes from big pharma, and other corporatist interests.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21171206

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HH2ClvRhe38J:www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)62247-7+US+reviews+human+trial+participant+protections&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=se&source=www.google.se

Nonetheless, the Department of Health and Human Services called on the Institute of Medicine (IoM) to investigate the study. On Nov 24, President Obama asked the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to undertake a “thorough review of human subjects' protection to determine if Federal regulations and international standards adequately guard the health and well being of participants in scientific studies supported by the Federal government.” In a sign of just how thoroughly enmeshed in medical establishment approval the Guatemala study was, the IoM had to decline the assignment, citing “overlapping appointments” in the 1940s between individuals on an IoM subcommittee and the NIH Study Section on Syphilis. The fact-finding task has now been transferred to the bioethics committee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Who funds the Institute of Health http://iom.edu/~/media/Files/About%20the%20IOM/PresSupplement%202009.pdf

Department of Homeland Security, http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/NucEventPrepWS.aspx Department of Defense, PepsiCo http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/Mitigating-Nutritional-Impacts-of-Global-Food-Price-Crisis-Workshop-Summary.aspx, pro vaccine groups like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Defense contractors like Northrop Grumman http://www.ngsnp.com/forum/topics.aspx?ID=21 (who had one of their chief people, Sam Shekar , review this very report)

Here are more corporations who fund the Institute of Medicine INCLUDING big Pharma, MONSANTO, insurance companies etc, from the above IoM report itself: (page 68 to 70)

Abbott Laboratories
Aetna Inc.
Amgen, Inc.
Arch Chemicals, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association
Blue Shield of California Foundation
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Campbell Soup Company
Cargill, Inc.
Celtic Therapeutics Holdings L.P.
Cenerx Biopharma, Inc.
Citi Global Impact Funding Trust, Inc.
The Coca-Cola Company
Eli Lilly and Company
Entelos, Inc.
Experient, Inc.
ExxonMobil Foundation
Fish & Richardson P.C.
GE Healthcare
Genentech, Inc.
Genetic Alliance
Genomic Health, Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline
GlaxoSmithKline Foundation
Google, Inc.
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research
& Development, LLC
Kaiser Permanente
Kraft Foods, Inc.
Lundbeck Research USA, Inc.
Mars Incorporated
McCormick & Company
Merck & Company, Inc.
Merck Company Foundation
Merck Partnership for Giving
MetLife Foundation
Monsanto Company
Partners HealthCare Systems, Inc.
Pfizer Foundation Matching Gifts Program
Pfizer, Inc.
Sanofi Pasteur
sanofi-aventis
Schering-Plough Corporation
Shell International B.V.
Stryker
United Healthcare
Wyeth

Other Organizations

American Chemical Society

American Chemistry Council

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America


The Institute of Medicine Report, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13164 admits that vaccines cause infectious disease. It did not do ANY new research, it simply looked at 12,000 pre-existing studies, many of which were funded by the big pharmaceutical companies themselves.

The report investigated 158 potential adverse outcomes from vaccines. Of these, 135 or 85% were found to have inadequate research to accept or reject a causal association. Of the 23 outcomes where the research was deemed adequate, 18 or 78% were found supportive of harm.

https://download.nap.edu/chapterlist.php?record_id=13164&type=pdf_chapter&free=1



MMR vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causing measles.

MMR vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causing febrile seizure.

MMR vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causing anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction that can result in death within minutes. This is what kills many young children who are injected with MMR vaccines.

MMR vaccine is likely linked to causing transient arthralgia in women and children.

Varicella vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causing Disseminated Oka VZV, a viral disease (Varicella Zoster Virus) which causes skin lesions and can also infect the lungs and brain. The fact that this vaccine is causing VZV infections is proof that the vaccines contain live viruses.

Varicella vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causing Vaccine Strain Viral Reactivation, meaning the vaccine contains live viruses that are reactivated in the human host, multiplying and causing widespread infections.

Varicella vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causing anaphylaxis, the life-threatening allergic reaction mentioned above.

The influenza vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causing anaphylaxis, which is why influenza vaccines have killed so many children.

The influenza vaccine likely causes Oculorespiratory Syndrome, a vaccine reaction described as causing "bilateral conjunctivitis, facial edema, and upper respiratory symptoms." Once again, this is proof that the vaccine itself is dangerous to humans.

The Hepatitis B vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causing anaphylaxis.

The HPV vaccine (for cervical cancer) is also likely linked to causing anaphylaxis.

The TT (Tetanus Toxoid) vaccine is also likely linked to causing anaphylaxis.

The Meningo-Coccal vaccine is "convincingly" linked to causing anaphylaxis.

Vaccine injections (of all kinds) are "convincingly" linked to causing Deltoid Bursitis (severe pain and swelling at the injection sight) and Syncope (loss of consciousness).

----------------------------------------------------

The IoM admits it did not have accurate data:

"...we learned some lessons that may be of value for future efforts to evaluate vaccine safety. One is that some issues simply cannot be resolved with currently available epidemiologic data..."

It also tries to blame the very diseases that the vaccines supposedly guarded against (and were not even present in many causes) for the adverse effects:

"Some adverse events caused by vaccines are also caused by the natural infection. These effects often cannot be detected by epidemiologic methods, which typically cannot distinguish between the adverse events that are caused by the vaccine itself and the decrease in adverse events due to the decreased rate of natural infection."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The IoM openly admits it threw out all data covering long-term adverse events


"Case descriptions that did not have the three basic elements described above were not considered in the mechanistic weight-of-evidence assessments." One of those three elements was a "specified and reasonable time interval (i.e., temporality or latency) between vaccination and symptoms." But the IoM failed to define this "temporality," stating that "What constitutes reasonable latency will vary across vaccines and across adverse events."

This means the IoM could simply throw out any evidence it wanted by claiming the latency was too long between the vaccine injection and the appearance of side effects.
-------------------------------------------

The report is biased, bought and paid for, selective in its dismissal, uses no new studies, uses many studies by the very groups who would have the most to lose, and STILL, even within these horrid parameters, shows a multitude of damage done by vaccines.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. should I construe your post as tacit agreement that vaccines don't cause autism?

It seems remarkably tendentious and off topic.

[stockholmer]

19. absolutely not, I think there is a link, and off topic is not what my post is

especially the part where they admit that they did not study (or lacked the data) 'long term effects' , and then set up a straw man via their lack definition of temporal latency is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The IoM openly admits it threw out all data covering long-term adverse events.


"Case descriptions that did not have the three basic elements described above were not considered in the mechanistic weight-of-evidence assessments." One of those three elements was a "specified and reasonable time interval (i.e., temporality or latency) between vaccination and symptoms." But the IoM failed to define this "temporality," stating that "What constitutes reasonable latency will vary across vaccines and across adverse events."

This means the IoM could simply throw out any evidence it wanted by claiming the latency was too long between the vaccine injection and the appearance of side effects.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funding, scientific methodology, and motives are extremely germane to this cocked-up report by a severly compromised Institute.

[HuckleB]

20. In other words, you don't understand any of this.

Oh, and:


No Benefit Seen in Delaying Infant Vaccinations
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2010/05/24/no-benefit-seen-in-delaying-infant-vaccinations

Disease does fine on its own. It doesn't need to help promote it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. what you've quoted is self-evidently wrong

The IoM openly admits it threw out all data covering long-term adverse events.


"Case descriptions that did not have the three basic elements described above were not considered in the mechanistic weight-of-evidence assessments."

Have you looked at the report? Do you have any idea what "mechanistic weight-of-evidence assessments" are? I think the most charitable (but not very charitable) answers would be No, and No. If you knew, you would realize that this quotation could not possibly mean that the IoM "admits it threw out all data covering long-term adverse events."

My guess is that you think the source from which you copied and pasted this facially risible argument is authoritative and trustworthy. I urge you to examine the evidence and to reconsider that assumption.

[HuckleB]

21. To say the least.

+1

[EvolveOrConvolve]

23. I'm blown away by how many people in the poll thing vaccines cause autism

Scientific illiteracy abounds, even among progressives.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. well, the poll 'sample' is self-selected, but yes, there's ample ignorance

Most people, most of the time, decide who to trust. A lot of progressives would rather trust RFK Jr. than "Big Pharma" -- and that is pretty much the end of the story. It's not that they are incapable of assessing scientific evidence, per se; they just don't see any need to do so.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

25. Part of the definition of scientific illiteracy

is the unwillingness to confront ideas that don't mesh with whatever worldview one holds.

That stubborn, purposeful turning away from reality is worse than ignorance. It's willful ignorance.

[laconicsax]

28. +1

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. that's an interesting point in itself: whose definition are you using?

I wouldn't be predisposed to term that attitude "scientific illiteracy," but by whatever name, I agree that it's anti-scientific and worse than mere ignorance.

I don't know that everyone who espouses the belief that vaccine causes autism falls into that category. Some aren't necessarily unwilling to confront discrepant evidence and ideas, but simply haven't yet. However, for people who espoused the anti-vax position in this poll -- well, it isn't a good sign.