There are vaccines for certain bacterial pathogens... There are also more effective ways of treating many bacterial infections (like Scarlet fever).
CDC, Vaccines and Autism
- Thread starter Nat Algren
- Start date
There are vaccines for certain bacterial pathogens... There are also more effective ways of treating many bacterial infections (like Scarlet fever).
Don't bother. We'll all be better off if he opts for organic kale smoothies in lieu of chemo.
Does DeVry Univ. really count?Can you even write in coherent sentences?
It's "Dr Scientist" to you, btw...
Yes, but Joe very specifically that we don't use vaccines for bacteria infections. He's a scientist by the way.
You kept bringing up Scarlet fever. The vaccine that was developed for that was deemed a failure and it was scrapped. And it is true that vaccines aren't developed for most of the common bacterial pathogens. There's a reason for that. Most aren't difficult to treat with antibiotics (yes, an arms race there).
What do I think alcohol is? Can it destroy your liver? Can it kill you by alcohol poisoning?
What does it matter what I think it is - the self appointed gods at the FDA are the arbiters of what is a food and what is a drug.
Is your body a drug? Sounds effin' crazy doesn't it?
The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Medical Clinic for two reasons:
- Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!)
- The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would “depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA.” http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-new-claim-body-is-a-drug/
http://humansarefree.com/2014/01/fda-insanity-walnuts-are-drugs-and-may.html
Is marijuana a drug? I don't think so, but what the hell do I know.....I don't have a PhD.
Is WATER a drug? According to the FDA, anything 'intended to affect the structure or any function of man or other animals' is a drug. Dying of thirst? Better hope that water you're chugging out of a canteen is FDA is licensed and approved cuz' it's a drug.
Vaccines aren't used for actual infections. And, I could be wrong about this, but it's kind of rare for vaccinations to be developed for bacterial pathogens nowadays. It's easier to treat to bacterial infections with antibiotics (which, I know, is kind of an arms race against nature). The discussion was getting pushed toward the historical efficacy of vaccination, and and vaccines were most definitely made for common bacterial pathogens at one point. Picking and choosing failures of medicine isn't a good way to slam the undeniable successes 20-21st century medicine.
Were you vaccinated, Nat? I'm pretty sure you were. Do you count your lucky stars that you aren't autistic or do you just assume that it's because you're stronger than all the weaklings?
I asked a very simple question in the context of your quote about supplements and drugs. I think I know why you couldn't answer it, but I'd like you to try again.
Supplements are food that the FDA won't evaluate. It's a conspiracy of big government and not a marketing gimmick for benign products which might or might not deliver on labeled claims.
That's fine and all for the scientist, but he didn't mean what you are trying to explain for him.
They seem in line with what I have read before, that's why I didn't question his numbers or sources.
Do you feel the numbers are skewed, or is there another reason for asking the question? Not trying to be a dick (though admittedly I am capable of such
It isn't that the numbers are skewed, it's your conclusion that's skewed. Here's a (not-so-subtle) hint:
Analysis of national databases show that acetaminophen-associated overdoses account for about 56,000 emergency room visits and 26,000 hospitalizations yearly. Analysis of national mortality files shows 458 deaths occur each year from acetaminophen-associated overdoses...
On average, ten people drown accidentally every day. Is that the fault of the water or the way people use it?
He's still made a lot more sense ITT than the contrarian anti-gov retards (all 3 of them) who are insisting that vaccines are simultaneously dangerous and ineffective.
A: That's not a complete sentence.
B: I did NOT state 'we don't use vaccines for bacterial infections. I referred specifically to your example, for which there is no vaccine. Generally, vaccines do NOT work for most bacteria-based infections (strep, E-coli, etc), because bacteria are able to mutate so readily that they cannot be effectively controlled by vaccines. Viruses are more effectively treated using vaccination.
Go learn a little science before you post your generalizations and idiocy here.
It's precisely what I stated. YOU made the specific 'scarlet fever' reference (like a complete idiot)
Nope. I simply pointed out that Scarlett Fever was caused by BACTERIA, not VIRUSES. And it's fairly common knowledge that MOST vaccines are effective against VIRUSES. Very few actually work vs. bacteria.
Most grade school kids know this stuff. Practically ANY scientist working in bio/medicine knows it.
And (wow!) now YOU know it!!!
Last edited:
I admire your ability to continue to argue with stupid people past page 3. I just don't have the stamina. Must be the side effects of all the vaccines I was given as a kid.
....we may possibly have 3 or so examples in this thread of individuals impacted directly by vaccinations.
Either they are now already autistic, or the vaccines cause their IQs to drop 25-50 points at some point between the childhood vaccination events and now...
Vaccines don't cause autism. The crowd which promotes this nonsense are a bunch of nuts.
Reminds me of the anti climate change group.
Reminds me of the anti climate change group.
You love what kills, maims, corrupts, and destroy, got it.
Tell me, how does one so humane just simply ignore those facts?
There have been instances where it was seen that thimersol did in fact cause brain issues. Which is who the govenement started Vaccine Injury Program. Yes, the government itself started.
The nuts are the ones who are too stupid to realize how blindly they follow anything and everything.
No, you didn't and you've been found as a fraud. You can't deny it, as it's written in 0's and 1's now.
I'm not looking for APA format bonus points here. Keep on subject and stay within the argument. You're reaching with this post. You be Googlin' eh boy?
I was being sarcastic re: Joe's Place telling us he has a Phd of the umpteenth time in this thread.
I'm not against vaccinations. However, I do think there are way too many right now. We vaccinate way more than 20 years ago...to the benefit of Big Pharma. My radar goes up when I see the Pharma giants come out and smear good people as a means to shut off debate. That tells me something shady is going on.
I usually just get screamed at when I ask this question, but ya'll seem like really nice folks. My nephew had a seizure on the way home from the doctor after having immunization shots when he was 6. He has since been diagnosed with mild aspergers after having no previous symptoms whatsoever before that time.
I suppose one could say that it's a complete coincidence. I respect science and have never been a conspiracy theorist. I have no interest in debating studies, I only know the real life experience of a close family member. My sister has discovered that many parents have lived this exact same nightmare. When she tells the story... the one that actually happened... in real life, she is chastised, even by medical professionals as a nut job. She isn't some crazy activist, and I would characterize what she has dealt with as unjust, regardless of whether there is any correlation or just a coincidence.
Do you think this, and similar stories, are pure coincidence or do you think it's possible that we simply haven't found the link yet?
I suppose one could say that it's a complete coincidence. I respect science and have never been a conspiracy theorist. I have no interest in debating studies, I only know the real life experience of a close family member. My sister has discovered that many parents have lived this exact same nightmare. When she tells the story... the one that actually happened... in real life, she is chastised, even by medical professionals as a nut job. She isn't some crazy activist, and I would characterize what she has dealt with as unjust, regardless of whether there is any correlation or just a coincidence.
Do you think this, and similar stories, are pure coincidence or do you think it's possible that we simply haven't found the link yet?
Sorry. Unlike you (who fakes being a black person on here), I actually am honest and truthful about my background. And there are probably a dozen or more posters who know me and can vouch for my education level.
I merely pointed out my credentials after numerous attacks from people being 'Google Jockeys' and pulling up woefully inaccurate information, completely lacking in scientific credibility - or grossly overgeneralizing a few actual science facts - and claiming I didn't understand the issue any more than they do.
Well, I do understand the science, because I got my PhD at the University of Iowa. I had a guy named Roderic Lakes on my PhD/exam committee, who conveyed to my advisor how impressed he was with my defense. Rod Lakes is now a Distinguished professor at UW Madison, and you can look his bio up to see how impressive his credentials are (he's a borderline genius, IMO). I was pretty humbled to have a guy of that stature complement my presentation and thesis work when I was just starting out. I had 2 or 3 classes from him while at Iowa, and did well in all of them.
You came up w/ a 'whopper' about Scarlet Fever 'vaccinations', and got completely put in your place. You should recognize when other people are far more knowledgeable on a topic than you are and heed their advice. Or, don't and remain an ignorant idiot.
Introduction: Dr. Andrew Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath, is an academic gastroenterologist. He received his medical degree from St. Mary’s Hospital Medical School (part of the University of London) in 1981, one of the third generation of his family to have studied medicine at that teaching hospital. He pursued a career in gastrointestinal surgery with a particular interest in inflammatory bowel disease. He qualified as Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1985 and in 1996 was awarded a Wellcome Trust Traveling Fellowship to study small-intestinal transplantation in Toronto, Canada. He was made a Fellow of theRoyal College of Pathologists in 2001. He has published over 130 original scientific articles, book chapters, and invited scientific commentaries. In the pursuit of possible links between childhood vaccines, intestinal inflammation, and neurologic injury in children, Dr. Wakefield lost his job in the Department of Medicine at London’s Royal Free Hospital, his country, his career, and his medical license.
Daily Bell: Can you fill our readers in on the controversy that has cost you so dearly?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Certainly. Let me give you a bit of background as to who I am. I am a gastroenterologist and an entirely conventional physician. I trained at St. Mary’s Hospital in London, qualifying in 1981 and then went on to study surgery and became a fellow at the Royal College of Surgeons. I had a particular interest in Crones Disease, Bowel disease, Osteo Colitis and pursued an academic career. I published about 130 papers in bowel disease prior to becoming involved in Autism in 1995.
Daily Bell: How did that happen?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: A mother called me and said a child is developing perfectly normally and then had their MR vaccine. The child became extremely unwell, high fever for days and upon recovery was never the same. The child deteriorated into Autism – lost speech,communication, language, inter-action. I said, I’m terribly sorry, I’m a gastroenterologist, you must have rung the wrong number. I knew nothing about Autism; when I was in medical school, it was so rare – we were not even taught about it. And she said, No, you don’t understand my child has terrible bowel problems; he’s having diarrhea 12 times a day he’s lost continence; I know he’s in pain but he can’t tell me he’s in pain. He’s hitting himself,banging his head, biting himself and attacking people and I know this is because he is in pain.
Daily Bell: Did you believe her?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: The first and most fundamental rule of clinical medicine, the kind of medicine I was trained to practice and my parents and grandparents were trained to practice, is to listen to the patient or the patient’s parents and they will tell you the problem. Now here is a mother who is not anti-vaccine, who took her child to be vaccinated, did all the right things and lo-and-behold this is what happened to her child. We eventually had a series of children whose mothers told exactly the same story. We decided, a team of us, at the Royal Free Hospital – including some of the most eminent pediatric gastroenterologists in the world such as Professor John Walker-Smith – to take a closer look at these children because they were clearly suffering. The children underwent a series of tests, colonoscopy and biopsy and we discovered they had bowel disease.
We treated the bowel disease, the inflammation, just as you might treat Crones disease or Colitis with anti-inflammatory and diet and the children got better, not only from the bowel disease perspective; their diarrhea improved and also their behavior improved. That was very, very interesting. So we decided to pursue this.
Daily Bell: How did you pursue it exactly?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: By the time I left the Royal Free in 2001, nearly 200 hundred children with this condition had been seen and diagnosed. The problem came of course, when the parent said, my child regressed after the vaccine. If the child had regressed after, let’s say natural chicken pox, we would not be having this conversation right now. There would have been no controversy, it would have been, "that’s extremely interesting, let’s have a look at it." There would have been no problem, but because it happened after a vaccine, all hell broke loose.
Daily Bell: And you are still living with the results.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: My job is not to pander to the whims of the pharmaceutical industry or to government policy. My job is to answer the question that the parent presents to me when they call me or confront me at a meeting. That is my job and my duty as a doctor. So one came to a crossroads … well, if the parents are right about the boweldisease, are they right about the vaccine? We decided to look into that in more detail. And that’s where the controversy began. I am not in any way anti-vaccine, by the way, and my own children were vaccinated. But I had to understand the background. I put together a 250-page report on these safety studies and they were appalling, they were totally unsatisfactory.
Daily Bell: You’re saying those who make and regulate vaccines – both – were not properly vetting the effects of vaccines? That’s a strong statement to make.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: They did not look at the outcomes of the vaccine beyond the short-term. To put this in context, we are dealing with viruses that can cause disease many years later. Thus, you do not confine your safety studies to 3–6 weeks. As a result of thisunderstanding, it became my clear conviction that parents deserved access to the option to access single vaccines – the way it was done before, which was perfectly effective.
Daily Bell: Sounds reasonable.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: In fact, Measles, Mumps and Rubella had separate vaccines. The combined risk of three viruses in a vaccine, MMR, is a way in which nature has never seen them before. Never. And to subject those to inadequate safety studies is in my opinion, not acceptable. That was the essence of the controversy and what has happened ever since has been in essence what medicine and science have done perhaps for all time – crush dissent by discrediting the messenger … me.
It is simply an effort to silence me because of the egregious errors that have been made in vaccination safety studies. But this has happened since time immemorial. One of the classic cases has to do with the drug Thalidomide. The doctor who first described abnormalities following mothers taking Thalidomide during pregnancy was strongly attacked.
Daily Bell: Let’s back up to be clear. Exactly what did you suggest parents do as a result of your famous study published in the Lancet Journal in 1988?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: The Autism study was a simple case series of 12 children and all it did was to tell the parents story of what they told us. It was to document the pinnacle findings in the children. Further research was needed into causes of autism.
Daily Bell: As we understand it, the paper suggested further research specifically regarding linkage between the MMR vaccine and autism, and thus you have been held responsible for the plunge in children getting vaccinated with MMR. However, it also seems to us that in thousands of articles written about all this recently that you’ve been constantly accused of making a direct link between vaccines and autism in that now-retracted paper.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Never before in the history of human endeavor has so much been said about a paper that has been read or understood by so few. It is quite extraordinary. The fact that we published 19 papers on the subject after that one is irrelevant. It’s nevermentioned. Critics dwell only upon that one paper. I listened to the parents’ story and acted according to my professional and moral obligations to determine what was happening with these children.
Click link for balance of interview:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/05...ersy-and-his-ongoing-professionalpersecution/
Daily Bell: Can you fill our readers in on the controversy that has cost you so dearly?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Certainly. Let me give you a bit of background as to who I am. I am a gastroenterologist and an entirely conventional physician. I trained at St. Mary’s Hospital in London, qualifying in 1981 and then went on to study surgery and became a fellow at the Royal College of Surgeons. I had a particular interest in Crones Disease, Bowel disease, Osteo Colitis and pursued an academic career. I published about 130 papers in bowel disease prior to becoming involved in Autism in 1995.
Daily Bell: How did that happen?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: A mother called me and said a child is developing perfectly normally and then had their MR vaccine. The child became extremely unwell, high fever for days and upon recovery was never the same. The child deteriorated into Autism – lost speech,communication, language, inter-action. I said, I’m terribly sorry, I’m a gastroenterologist, you must have rung the wrong number. I knew nothing about Autism; when I was in medical school, it was so rare – we were not even taught about it. And she said, No, you don’t understand my child has terrible bowel problems; he’s having diarrhea 12 times a day he’s lost continence; I know he’s in pain but he can’t tell me he’s in pain. He’s hitting himself,banging his head, biting himself and attacking people and I know this is because he is in pain.
Daily Bell: Did you believe her?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: The first and most fundamental rule of clinical medicine, the kind of medicine I was trained to practice and my parents and grandparents were trained to practice, is to listen to the patient or the patient’s parents and they will tell you the problem. Now here is a mother who is not anti-vaccine, who took her child to be vaccinated, did all the right things and lo-and-behold this is what happened to her child. We eventually had a series of children whose mothers told exactly the same story. We decided, a team of us, at the Royal Free Hospital – including some of the most eminent pediatric gastroenterologists in the world such as Professor John Walker-Smith – to take a closer look at these children because they were clearly suffering. The children underwent a series of tests, colonoscopy and biopsy and we discovered they had bowel disease.
We treated the bowel disease, the inflammation, just as you might treat Crones disease or Colitis with anti-inflammatory and diet and the children got better, not only from the bowel disease perspective; their diarrhea improved and also their behavior improved. That was very, very interesting. So we decided to pursue this.
Daily Bell: How did you pursue it exactly?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: By the time I left the Royal Free in 2001, nearly 200 hundred children with this condition had been seen and diagnosed. The problem came of course, when the parent said, my child regressed after the vaccine. If the child had regressed after, let’s say natural chicken pox, we would not be having this conversation right now. There would have been no controversy, it would have been, "that’s extremely interesting, let’s have a look at it." There would have been no problem, but because it happened after a vaccine, all hell broke loose.
Daily Bell: And you are still living with the results.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: My job is not to pander to the whims of the pharmaceutical industry or to government policy. My job is to answer the question that the parent presents to me when they call me or confront me at a meeting. That is my job and my duty as a doctor. So one came to a crossroads … well, if the parents are right about the boweldisease, are they right about the vaccine? We decided to look into that in more detail. And that’s where the controversy began. I am not in any way anti-vaccine, by the way, and my own children were vaccinated. But I had to understand the background. I put together a 250-page report on these safety studies and they were appalling, they were totally unsatisfactory.
Daily Bell: You’re saying those who make and regulate vaccines – both – were not properly vetting the effects of vaccines? That’s a strong statement to make.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: They did not look at the outcomes of the vaccine beyond the short-term. To put this in context, we are dealing with viruses that can cause disease many years later. Thus, you do not confine your safety studies to 3–6 weeks. As a result of thisunderstanding, it became my clear conviction that parents deserved access to the option to access single vaccines – the way it was done before, which was perfectly effective.
Daily Bell: Sounds reasonable.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: In fact, Measles, Mumps and Rubella had separate vaccines. The combined risk of three viruses in a vaccine, MMR, is a way in which nature has never seen them before. Never. And to subject those to inadequate safety studies is in my opinion, not acceptable. That was the essence of the controversy and what has happened ever since has been in essence what medicine and science have done perhaps for all time – crush dissent by discrediting the messenger … me.
It is simply an effort to silence me because of the egregious errors that have been made in vaccination safety studies. But this has happened since time immemorial. One of the classic cases has to do with the drug Thalidomide. The doctor who first described abnormalities following mothers taking Thalidomide during pregnancy was strongly attacked.
Daily Bell: Let’s back up to be clear. Exactly what did you suggest parents do as a result of your famous study published in the Lancet Journal in 1988?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: The Autism study was a simple case series of 12 children and all it did was to tell the parents story of what they told us. It was to document the pinnacle findings in the children. Further research was needed into causes of autism.
Daily Bell: As we understand it, the paper suggested further research specifically regarding linkage between the MMR vaccine and autism, and thus you have been held responsible for the plunge in children getting vaccinated with MMR. However, it also seems to us that in thousands of articles written about all this recently that you’ve been constantly accused of making a direct link between vaccines and autism in that now-retracted paper.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Never before in the history of human endeavor has so much been said about a paper that has been read or understood by so few. It is quite extraordinary. The fact that we published 19 papers on the subject after that one is irrelevant. It’s nevermentioned. Critics dwell only upon that one paper. I listened to the parents’ story and acted according to my professional and moral obligations to determine what was happening with these children.
Click link for balance of interview:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/05...ersy-and-his-ongoing-professionalpersecution/
Sorry man: been away for awhile.
What do I think alcohol is? It depends on what kind of alcohol. Methyl alcohol I would think is a poison. Vodka? It's just booze to me, I don't need a huge bureaucracy like the FDA telling me what it is. Home brewed beer? I would even consider that a food of sorts. Definitely not a 'supplement.' Still don't understand what you're trying to get at though.
My point is that these agencies (CDC, FDA, etc.) operate under huge conflicts of interest and fail to fulfill even the barest minimum of what they are legally obligated to do. Again, try and reconcile the FDA mission statement with the damage that Tylenol and it's generic counterparts do every single year. You can't.
How can the CDC be an unbiased overseer of vaccine safety when they purchase over $4 billion a year from the pharmaceutical companies? They can't.
I have no problem with people getting their shots, I just don't want the government trying to force them on everybody. I have no problem with people buying pain relievers, just have a big problem with a company that kills hundreds of people a year being protected by the very agency obligated to do something about it. If the FDA can classify walnuts as 'drugs' they sure as f*#k should see a problem with acetaminophen.
Follow the money; it's all you have to do.
So, if there is one bad reaction which apparently coincides with vaccination, but there are 250,000 where there is zero negative reaction, how are we to establish the vaccine as the direct cause? What else (perhaps) happened within the same timeframe which may have started the behavioral issues/problems?
Science and medicine are not based on anecdotes, although enough anecdotal experiences can be strung together to initiate and conduct a formal study - that is how many medical advances are made: anecdotal or coincidental experiences are analyzed in greater detail, studies are performed and statistical analysis is done to establish whether there is clearly a link, or if the experiences are simply coincidence. We use statistical data to establish levels of confidence in the answers, too. Commonly referred to as 'p-values', it is really the probability of a chance occurrence vs. an actual effect being identified.
Dozens of groups have sifted through data (prospective AND retrospective) and have not been able to identify a clear and convincing link between vaccines and autism. Certainly, there ARE kids who have bad reactions to vaccines; what is uncertain (but reasonably likely) is that if these same kids were not vaccinated and exposed to the same viral triggers, those reactions would probably occur anyway, along with contraction of the actual disease. We KNOW that many of the childhood viruses (like mumps, rubella, etc) directly caused things like complete hearing loss, paralysis, death - among many other side effects of the diseases. Perhaps there are just a very few kids who have immune systems that, when triggered by a common virus, develop serious problems - is it the vaccine, or the actual viral trigger? Do we decide to expose 250,000 OTHER kids to those viruses without vaccination, KNOWING that a significant percentage of them will develop known side effects of those diseases, vs. accepting the infinitesimally small risk that 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 200,000 MIGHT have a reaction to the vaccine? And without vaccination, they'd probably develop that same reaction or worse?
Most (if not ALL) of the publications on this issue are publicly available, and have been conducted by completely different entities (CDC, European Health agencies, universities, hospitals, etc). and they all come up with the same answer: vaccines are inherently safe BUT they are NOT completely risk-free. And on-balance, we are willing to accept those small risks as a society to avoid the extremely high risks associated with an UN-vaccinated society and the health burdens/costs associated with that.
Believe me: scientists and medical professionals are sympathetic to those who either have serious side effects to vaccines, or THINK that a vaccine cause their issues. But absent clear statistical links OR a clear mechanism or trigger that we can identify, we have no other realistic option but to accept those low risks to prevent broader problems and much higher health costs/risks. Scientists ARE working to identify if there are clear triggers from vaccines, because IF they can screen kids to identify a genetic makeup which predisposes a kid to a reaction to a particular vaccine (for a certain virus), then it's clear those kids SHOULD be 'opted out', and we then would rely on herd-immunity to prevent them from contracting diseases.
Unfortunately, there are far too many woefully uneducated people (and even some doctors, who really do not understand how the science and statistical analysis works) who stir up controversy where there really is none. If they have the data to show vaccines are inherently unsafe, I have yet to see them publish it and present their work for independent analysis. Instead, they just spout off more anecdotal BS and unsubstantiated opinions that have no factual basis to support them. One thing you learn in grad school, particularly when working with doctors/med students, is that MANY, if not MOST doctors/physicians are NOT very good critical thinkers and scientists. They can be quite good at medicine, but woefully incompetent at being able to design and conduct a solid scientific study. And it's the doctors with big egos who think they can do anything that often perform the worst studies of any of them. And then they hit the 'dog and pony' road show to spread their disinformation to the masses, while the real scientists (and capable scientist/physicians) end up wasting their time debunking their BS.
Thanks for the response. Sincerely. There are a lot of good people out there whose lives have been adversely affected and are left with only an anecdotal story to show for it. They haven't the first clue how to contribute towards useful research and it doesn't ease their pain that what has happened is rare or might have happened anyway.
In society today, influencers in media, politics, and everywhere are screaming that government & big business are not to be trusted. I understand completely that no evidence exists, but when pitched (however irresponsibly) as yet another example of profit over the wellbeing of citizens, it is a fairly compelling boogeyman to believe in.
If we could rise above the screaming and condescension and promote reasonable conversation with just a hint of empathy for what good people are going through, it would help.
My opinion, is that it's coincidence. I never finished medical school so take the opinion with a grain of salt. But logically I look at the hundreds of millions of us who were vaccinated with no syndromatic outcomes such as aspergers, autism, etc. Science has found those issues as not repeatable in their research. Rather, those afflictions seem to be naturally reoccurring.
Their experiences do get reported; those incidents are reported by their physicians, and those experiences are almost certainly included in retrospective studies - such as a study where researchers are trying to determine links between vaccinations and autism onset.
The problem with anecdotal stories is that they are fraught with 'confirmation biases'. Often, behavioral or medical issues with a child may be present, but a parent can just shrug those off for a few days or weeks as though the child is ill or just tired or something. But when they coincide with a vaccination event, confirmation biases kick in and attribute the issue to the vaccines. That is why universities/CDC/etc use very large datasets and experiences of hundreds of thousands of vaccination events, as well as other incidents of children becoming ill or developing autism-spectral behavior INDEPENDENT of any vaccination event. If a child is going to get sick or develop autism, a small percentage of those incidents WILL occur on or around a vaccine event. But you can plug all that data into a statistical analysis program and determine whether there is any signal present relative to the vaccinations. Multiple studies have NOT been able to find a clear correlation that exceeds a 'chance' probability of occurring.
Until we can find that signal, most of the incidents you are referring to are more likely to be 'chance' occurrences based on bad luck, genetics or something else completely unrelated to vaccines.
But all it takes is a small handful of cases to occur around the time of vaccination for the anecdotal 'confirmation biases' to kick in. We use blind statistical analysis tools to correct for that. Big Pharma has zero control over any of that data, or any of the researchers/institutions analyzing it (nearly all of the raw data are covered under HIPAA, and they are only accessible via healthcare professionals).
The few weak-minded and scientifically naïve individuals in this thread making assertions to the contrary cannot alter these simple facts. But that won’t stop them from crying ‘conspiracy’ at every opportunity.
What if they had a family member who died from an adverse reaction to an antibiotic? Leaving aside the fact that we have seriously overused antibiotics, should we stop using them completely because we know there are people who will be killed taking them?
Here's what I don't understand. Many of the anti-vaxxers will say it's not the vaccines themselves but the timing to which they object. They will argue that the MMR vaccine should be split. They will then go on their anti-"Big Pharma" diatribe. Well...excuse me...but if the vaccines are going to be administered anyway, why would "Big Pharma" care about the timeline? They'll get their money in the end...and splitting the MMR into three separate shots would likely raise their bottom-line. Why would "BP" care?
Absolutely correct. In fact, by spreading out vaccinations, BigPharm would be able to 'sell' multiple products and gain extra $$ for each separate vaccine dose, rather than bundling them all together.
What's even more nonsensical is the notion that the vaccines together are somehow 'dangerous' or 'overloading' young immune systems. That flies in the face of the pathogens that a newborn is exposed to during the birth process - they get an enormous dose of bacteria, viruses, etc on the way out - a far larger spread of crap than they'd ever possibly get through a controlled vaccine.
Rather than set up controlled prospective or retrospective studies to establish some 'horrible risks' associated with vaccines, the anti-vaxx crowd instead takes to the public media forums and repeats anecdotal stories (which may be factual and true) and all kinds of nonsense to try and make their case. But anecdotes alone are not 'data', and until they can run a double-blinded study that supports their assertions, they are totally full of shit.
They don't get those doses of bacteria, viruses, etc. along with a dose of Thimersol, or whatever chemical agent they add into the vaccines though do they? No, that only comes from how they decide to administer them. There have in fact been cases of problems with vaccines, there are in fact government created programs to deal with those problems, and there is always a risk. Risk being something even the scientist admits.
You are pointing at the dead virus, bacteria, whatever else that constitutes the disease itself. Most anti-vaccine types are against what comes along with them in the vaccine formula they conjure up.
Get your fact straight before posting such nonsense.
I think there is a high likelihood, no, an extremely overwhelmingly enormous likelihood that there is no link between autism and vaccines. I also think it naive, no, ridiculous to think that some sort of link could never be found. There is a reason more studies are being done.
To suggest that financial influence could not possibly have played a part in any studies up to this point is also hard to fathom. It wouldn't be the first time. To clarify, I admit you are most likely right. I admit that you are almost certainly right. It is the position that science has definitively spoken once and for all that I find perplexing, coupled with the anger spewed towards anyone unwilling to concede with the same certitude.
Anti-vaxxers are worse... speaking with certitude while having no science to back their claims, but history is littered with well meaning scientists who were certain about things only to be found erroneous later. I believe it's reasonable to think that there is more to learn and that we might not have all the answers yet.
To suggest that financial influence could not possibly have played a part in any studies up to this point is also hard to fathom. It wouldn't be the first time. To clarify, I admit you are most likely right. I admit that you are almost certainly right. It is the position that science has definitively spoken once and for all that I find perplexing, coupled with the anger spewed towards anyone unwilling to concede with the same certitude.
Anti-vaxxers are worse... speaking with certitude while having no science to back their claims, but history is littered with well meaning scientists who were certain about things only to be found erroneous later. I believe it's reasonable to think that there is more to learn and that we might not have all the answers yet.
