Whistleblower exposes MMR Autism link

[Boss]

No one as far as i can see is saying don't vaccinate your child.

[Evelyn Tentions]

I think its ok to be distrustful of drug salesmen/physicians, government and the pharmaceutical industry on these big questions. Can it be proven there is no correlation between vaccinations and the apparent rise in autism? I don't think so.

The general consensus seems to be that vaccinations do more good than harm, and I'm happy to go along with that until we see clear, irrefutable evidence to the contrary - but you can't forget that when somebody is trying to peddle their drug, the answers can be clouded.

There is no rise in rate of autism, just an increase inumbers due to both sheer popuation size and diagnosis. but more importantly there is no evidence that there is any correlation at all. It is one of the ways that the loony fringe phrase their arguments. There is no evidence for their argument but even if there was any correlation, it is just that - a correlation - it does NOT imply a causal relationship.The data  put forward is all from one survey, proven to br fraudulent by Andrew Wakefield who had been hired by solicitors acting for the parents of autistic children. His co authors would not proceed with using their names on the publication, the paper was later refuted by the journal that published, the data was shown to be falsified and Wakefield has been struck off the medical register. None of this stops anti vaxers trotting out the same garbage.

I don't usually get too worked up about the nutjob conspiracy theorists but promulgating this dickwittery puts lives at risk.

Neg away fuckwits.

[Boss]

There is no rise in rate of autism, just an increase inumbers due to both sheer popuation size and diagnosis. but more importantly there is no evidence that there is any correlation at all. It is one of the ways that the loony fringe phrase their arguments. There is no evidence for their argument but even if there was any correlation, it is just that - a correlation - it does NOT imply a causal relationship.The data  put forward is all from one survey, proven to br fraudulent by Andrew Wakefield who had been hired by solicitors acting for the parents of autistic children. His co authors would not proceed with using their names on the publication, the paper was later refuted by the journal that published, the data was shown to be falsified and Wakefield has been struck off the medical register. None of this stops anti vaxers trotting out the same garbage.

I don't usually get too worked up about the nutjob conspiracy theorists but promulgating this dickwittery puts lives at risk.

Neg away fuckwits.

 

No one is putting lives at risk you jabroni, it's a discussion on whether the mercury in vaccines and certain other factors post industrial revolution caused the disease we now know today as Autism. If you can post you're evidence for the same number of people having autism in the 1800's and then likewise pre industrial revolution, keeping the percentage the same, then you'd have means to be talking in the absolute terms you do, until then you have no argument, just ad hominem attacks.

[Arl arse]

[Ne Moe Imya]

No one as far as i can see is saying don't vaccinate your child.

 

Er, except half the thread is people saying "vaccinating children causes autism, it's all a conspiracy to deny THE TRUTH!!!"

 

So no, I suppose no one said specifically "Don't vaccinate your children."  But when you're saying "The medical establishment is bought and paid for by corporations who are hiding the fact that if you vaccinate your children you're exposing them to the risk of autism" then you might as well have done.

 

I genuinely am gobsmacked that this thread even exists.  I realise that those of us on the left are more prone to question authority, and this can be a very good and necessary thing.  However, one has to balance a healthy scepticism of authority with a reasonable ability to evaluate things that are scientifically proven, otherwise you descend into madness.

 

The psychology of conspiracy is very interesting, once the person "believes" then anyone who questions them is perceived as "in on it" and therefore unreliable.  But in this case (as in the case of many other so-called "conspiracies" like global warming or Bush-did-9/11) there are absolute mountains of evidence on one side vs a few nuts and crackpots on the other side.  Not saying it's completely impossible that vaccines cause autism and that thousands of experts are either intentionally lying for profit or hugely blind to the truth, but the odds are probably 0.0000000001% that this is the case.  It's a ridiculous position to espouse and anyone that does so is rightly mocked for being a danger to public health.

[Sugar Ape]

Wish Dave would sort the rep thing out on the mobile site. Got some stuff to rep on here later.

 

Baby has got her first vaccination next Friday, said to bring some calpol as they often get a high temperature and feel a bit under the weather.

[Rico1304]

I dont need to google the man I know who he is very well actually. 

He has not done a ten year study as you said to me earlier this was your standard and refuse to look outside of that, he is faling short of your demands in any case. 

You do tend to look down your nose to me as if you are the one who has researched the topic any more than I have.

You can appeal to authority all you want there are no gods on earth mate.

You must be 'thinking' of a different Ben Goldacre. The one I mean has been a dr since 2000, has been a research fellow in cognitive neuroscience and is now research fellow in evidence based medicine. So I'd say he covers all of the bases in my example pretty well.

 

You aren't researching something you don't understand, you are looking at it. Are you honestly saying that you have the same ability to critique complex medical research and data as he does? Really? Are you, are you?

[dennis tooth]

You must be 'thinking' of a different Ben Goldacre. The one I mean has been a dr since 2000, has been a research fellow in cognitive neuroscience and is now research fellow in evidence based medicine. So I'd say he covers all of the bases in my example pretty well.

 

You aren't researching something you don't understand, you are looking at it. Are you honestly saying that you have the same ability to critique complex medical research and data as he does? Really? Are you, are you?

I can read scientific research very well thank you. I dont really need to compare with him myself since there are plenty of other similarly qualified people to him that draw a different conclusion. Im not sure what part of science assumes it knows everything.

In the case of the guy you put forward as your god you have to question how he gets to the position he is in and you just dont get to write for the guardian and telegraph on such matters. You dont just get to go to oxford.

I dont see how that covers what you requested at all since thats not what you specified. You understand very little on this matter and i will expect a thank you letter from you for broadening your flat mind.

[dennis tooth]

I had zero hesitation in getting my offspring vaccinated and will continue to do so whenever medical science suggests. This is because I'm not an anti vaxxer idiot that wants all these horrendous illnesses which were super rare to make a come back and cost lives. *drops mic*

Right.

Maybe you should research the matter probably?

[dennis tooth]

Does anyone on here have children and have not had them vaccinated?

Me

[dennis tooth]

There is no rise in rate of autism, just an increase inumbers due to both sheer popuation size and diagnosis. but more importantly there is no evidence that there is any correlation at all. It is one of the ways that the loony fringe phrase their arguments. There is no evidence for their argument but even if there was any correlation, it is just that - a correlation - it does NOT imply a causal relationship.The data put forward is all from one survey, proven to br fraudulent by Andrew Wakefield who had been hired by solicitors acting for the parents of autistic children. His co authors would not proceed with using their names on the publication, the paper was later refuted by the journal that published, the data was shown to be falsified and Wakefield has been struck off the medical register. None of this stops anti vaxers trotting out the same garbage.

I don't usually get too worked up about the nutjob conspiracy theorists but promulgating this dickwittery puts lives at risk.

Neg away fuckwits.

Listen mate i understand methodology.

You say there is no data. How first of all can someone have the access to data to study it? How do we get funds and access to documents pharma companies say is confidential?

Its not as cut and dried as you claim and when courts are paying out on the premise that the vaccination has caused the autism you might want to look again.

[Rico1304]

I can read scientific research very well thank you. I dont really need to compare with him myself since there are plenty of other similarly qualified people to him that draw a different conclusion. Im not sure what part of science assumes it knows everything.

In the case of the guy you put forward as your god you have to question how he gets to the position he is in and you just dont get to write for the guardian and telegraph on such matters. You dont just get to go to oxford.

I dont see how that covers what you requested at all since thats not what you specified. You understand very little on this matter and i will expect a thank you letter from you for broadening your flat mind.

Who are they Den so I can read their work.

[Rico1304]

I can read scientific research very well thank you. I dont really need to compare with him myself since there are plenty of other similarly qualified people to him that draw a different conclusion. Im not sure what part of science assumes it knows everything.

In the case of the guy you put forward as your god you have to question how he gets to the position he is in and you just dont get to write for the guardian and telegraph on such matters. You dont just get to go to oxford.

I dont see how that covers what you requested at all since thats not what you specified. You understand very little on this matter and i will expect a thank you letter from you for broadening your flat mind.

You don't just 'get to go to Oxford' ? Wow, mental.

[dennis tooth]

You don't just 'get to go to Oxford' ? Wow, mental.

In what way?

[dennis tooth]

Who are they Den so I can read their work.

See you in a few months.

Lucija Tomljenovic, Catherine DeSoto, Robert Hitlan, Christopher Shaw, Helen Ratajczak, Boyd Haley, Carolyn Gallagher, Melody Goodman, M.I. Kawashti, O.R. Amin, N.G. Rowehy, T. Minami, Laura Hewitson, Brian Lopresti, Carol Stott, Scott Mason, Jaime Tomko, Bernard Rimland, Woody McGinnis, K. Shandley and D.W. Austin.

Well-published neurologists, pharmacists, epidemiologists, immunologists, PhD’s, chemists and microbiologists from places like Boston Children’s Hospital, Horizon Molecular Medicine at Georgia State University, University of British Columbia, City College of New York, Columbia University, Stony Brook University Medical Center, University of Northern Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Al Azhar University of Cairo, Kinki University in Japan, the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Poland, Department of Child Health Care, Children’s Hospital of Fudan University in China, Utah State University and many

[dennis tooth]

Thirty years ago youd be telling us smoking has no link to lung cancer.

[Paulie Dangerously]

See you in a few months.

Lucija Tomljenovic, Catherine DeSoto, Robert Hitlan, Christopher Shaw, Helen Ratajczak, Boyd Haley, Carolyn Gallagher, Melody Goodman, M.I. Kawashti, O.R. Amin, N.G. Rowehy, T. Minami, Laura Hewitson, Brian Lopresti, Carol Stott, Scott Mason, Jaime Tomko, Bernard Rimland, Woody McGinnis, K. Shandley and D.W. Austin.

Well-published neurologists, pharmacists, epidemiologists, immunologists, PhD’s, chemists and microbiologists from places like Boston Children’s Hospital, Horizon Molecular Medicine at Georgia State University, University of British Columbia, City College of New York, Columbia University, Stony Brook University Medical Center, University of Northern Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Al Azhar University of Cairo, Kinki University in Japan, the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Poland, Department of Child Health Care, Children’s Hospital of Fudan University in China, Utah State University and many

 

[dennis tooth]

As far back as 1998, a serology study by the College of Pharmacy at University of Michigan supported the hypothesis that an autoimmune response from the live measles virus in MMR vaccine “may play a causal role in autism.” (Nothing to see here, say the critics, that study is old.)

 

In 2002, a Utah State University study found that “an inappropriate antibody response to MMR [vaccine], specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.” (“Flawed and non-replicable,” insist the propagandists.)

 

Also in 2002, the Autism Research Institute in San Diego looked at a combination of vaccine factors. Scientists found the mercury preservative thimerosal used in some vaccines (such as flu shots) could depress a baby’s immunity. That could make him susceptible to chronic measles infection of the gut when he gets MMR vaccine, which contains live measles virus. (The bloggers say it’s an old study, and that other studies contradict it.)

 

In 2006, a team of microbiologists in Cairo, Egyptconcluded, “deficient immune response to measles, mumps and rubella vaccine antigens might be associated with autism, as a leading cause or a resulting event.”

 

A 2007 study found statistically significant evidence suggesting that boys who got the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine when it contained thimerosal were “more susceptible to developmental disability” than unvaccinated boys.

 

Similarly, a 5-year study of 79,000 children by the same institution found boys given Hepatitis B vaccine at birth had a three times increased risk for autism than boys vaccinated later or not at all. Nonwhite boys were at greatest risk. (“Weak study,” say the critics.)

 

A 2009 study in The Journal of Child Neurology found a major flaw in a widely-cited study that claimed no link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Their analysis found that “the original p value was in error and that a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.”

 

The researchers noted, “Like the link between aspirin and heart attack, even a small effect can have major health implications. If there is any link between autism and mercury, it is absolutely crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stating that no link occurs.”

[dennis tooth]

Dont take the risk to not vaccinate your kids,you will be devastated if they died from complications of measles,chicken pox or whooping cough etc. In my experience there tends to be a case of very shitty nappies and some slight 'under the weather' behaviour from your child but when the alternative is possible death I think its a simple decision myself.

Do the hours of research mate.

I can tell you I have a 2nd cousin who is autistic and was walking talking before the vaccination jabs.

Of course I cant prove anything like everyone else.

I certainly wouldnt lecture other parents to do anything but research for themselves. Its not your choice or mine that should be imposed but educate yourself and choose for your own kids whats best when it comes to people injecting your kid.

You havent looked into it enough to be scaring people because that goes both ways.

[dennis tooth]

He asked.

I didnt have any peer reviewed studies of my own soz.

[Denny Crane]

As a lot of the UK is vaccinated statistically the few that don't are pretty safe and unlikely to be exposed more likely to choke on a toy or on food.

 

Not that I have a view either way but I respect peoples cynicism to the pharmaceutical industry. I don't think they should be labelled fruitcakes or mocked.

 

This is from the same Ben Goldacre in his book badpharma.

 

 

Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don’t like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug’s true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in its life, and even then they don’t give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion. In their forty years of practice after leaving medical school, doctors hear about what works through ad hoc oral traditions, from sales reps, colleagues or journals. But those colleagues can be in the pay of drug companies – often undisclosed – and the journals are too. And so are the patient groups. And finally, academic papers, which everyone thinks of as objective, are often covertly planned and written by people who work directly for the companies, without disclosure. Sometimes whole academic journals are even owned outright by one drug company. Aside from all this, for several of the most important and enduring problems in medicine, we have no idea what the best treatment is, because it’s not in anyone’s financial interest to conduct any trials at all. These are ongoing problems, and although people have claimed to fix many of them, for the most part, they have failed; so all these problems persist, but worse than ever, because now people can pretend that everything is fine after all.

 

http://www.badscience.net/2012/09/heres-the-intro-to-my-new-book/

[dennis tooth]

Dennis - I don't think you understand the phrase 'from a position of authority ' it doesn't mean elected or government post, it means having experience. For example, if I were to have a conversation with Anubis about the law he'd be talking from a position of authority. Hope that helps.

 

Edit: Google Ben Goldacre and tell me he's in with the government or big pharma

But that works both ways.

I mean theres well qualified people on both sides of the argument and also a lot open minded about it.

The people with the power to open a democratic debate holding all the data have shut down and refused in fear of people excercising the right to choose and harming profits or questioning their authority or a million other motives.

They may think one kid in every few hundred is worth it but i may disagree but theres only one side tryna stifle debate or scrutiny.

Theres nothing scientific about it.

[dennis tooth]

As a lot of the UK is vaccinated statistically the few that don't are pretty safe and unlikely to be exposed more likely to choke on a toy or on food.

 

Not that I have a view either way but I respect peoples cynicism to the pharmaceutical industry. I don't think they should be labelled fruitcakes or mocked.

 

This is from the same Ben Goldacre in his book badpharma.

 

 

Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don’t like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug’s true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in its life, and even then they don’t give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion. In their forty years of practice after leaving medical school, doctors hear about what works through ad hoc oral traditions, from sales reps, colleagues or journals. But those colleagues can be in the pay of drug companies – often undisclosed – and the journals are too. And so are the patient groups. And finally, academic papers, which everyone thinks of as objective, are often covertly planned and written by people who work directly for the companies, without disclosure. Sometimes whole academic journals are even owned outright by one drug company. Aside from all this, for several of the most important and enduring problems in medicine, we have no idea what the best treatment is, because it’s not in anyone’s financial interest to conduct any trials at all. These are ongoing problems, and although people have claimed to fix many of them, for the most part, they have failed; so all these problems persist, but worse than ever, because now people can pretend that everything is fine after all.

 

http://www.badscience.net/2012/09/heres-the-intro-to-my-new-book/

Yeah Ive read bad pharma and it took a long time I need a kip just thinking about it.

 

I doubt rico has read it.

 

I hope he does as I stand here like some intellectual bruce willis setting fire to the runway smoothing his path to enlightenment. Hes tryna drive his plane at me though.

[dennis tooth]

Er, except half the thread is people saying "vaccinating children causes autism, it's all a conspiracy to deny THE TRUTH!!!"

 

So no, I suppose no one said specifically "Don't vaccinate your children." But when you're saying "The medical establishment is bought and paid for by corporations who are hiding the fact that if you vaccinate your children you're exposing them to the risk of autism" then you might as well have done.

 

I genuinely am gobsmacked that this thread even exists. I realise that those of us on the left are more prone to question authority, and this can be a very good and necessary thing. However, one has to balance a healthy scepticism of authority with a reasonable ability to evaluate things that are scientifically proven, otherwise you descend into madness.

 

The psychology of conspiracy is very interesting, once the person "believes" then anyone who questions them is perceived as "in on it" and therefore unreliable. But in this case (as in the case of many other so-called "conspiracies" like global warming or Bush-did-9/11) there are absolute mountains of evidence on one side vs a few nuts and crackpots on the other side. Not saying it's completely impossible that vaccines cause autism and that thousands of experts are either intentionally lying for profit or hugely blind to the truth, but the odds are probably 0.0000000001% that this is the case. It's a ridiculous position to espouse and anyone that does so is rightly mocked for being a danger to public health.

Clearly you have a lot to learn.

Show me where it is scientifically proven that it doesnt cause autism?

They freely admit vaccinations can cause brain damage and a host of other things.

[dennis tooth]

There is no rise in rate of autism, just an increase inumbers due to both sheer popuation size and diagnosis. but more importantly there is no evidence that there is any correlation at all. It is one of the ways that the loony fringe phrase their arguments. There is no evidence for their argument but even if there was any correlation, it is just that - a correlation - it does NOT imply a causal relationship.The data put forward is all from one survey, proven to br fraudulent by Andrew Wakefield who had been hired by solicitors acting for the parents of autistic children. His co authors would not proceed with using their names on the publication, the paper was later refuted by the journal that published, the data was shown to be falsified and Wakefield has been struck off the medical register. None of this stops anti vaxers trotting out the same garbage.

I don't usually get too worked up about the nutjob conspiracy theorists but promulgating this dickwittery puts lives at risk.

Neg away fuckwits.

There is a rise in the rate. Your explanation doesnt account for a 600% increase in 30 years.