Willingness to expose children to sickness--an eagerness to, almost; the same kind of willful, deliberately lethal stupidity you see so often from zealots--is the only sign of damaged thinking I've seen on this thread thus far.
California lawmakers seek to end 'personal belief' vaccine exemptions
- Thread starter Angel4Truth
- Start date
Willingness to expose children to sickness--an eagerness to, almost; the same kind of willful, deliberately lethal stupidity you see so often from zealots--is the only sign of damaged thinking I've seen on this thread thus far.
The reason live virus vaccines work so well, is that you will continue to manufacture antibodies against them for a very, very long time, often for the rest of your life.
So, it's not surprising that so many people turned up positive for having been exposed to the vaccine. Notice it's the vaccine, not the wild form that these kids have a positive reaction for.
The real test would be to compare these people with the same demographic group, but without autism.
I think it's very clear why they didn't do a control group. Odds are, most of them would have also been vaccinated.
Would it be ok with you, if the state told you to get your child's appendix removed for example to ensure they never got appendicitis?
Where do you think the line should be drawn on the state telling you what medical procedures you should undergo?
The courts have held that the Constitution requires that any restriction on your freedom be based on a compelling public interest, and even then, must be done in the least restrictive way.
Since it's not medically indicated to remove one's appendix, and even more important, appendicitis on your part doesn't mean a public health hazard for anyone else, there's a huge difference here.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
I'll let the lead author of the study tell you himself:
| WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – An American scientist whose research replicates a connection published in England in 2002 between the measles virus and bowel disease in autistic children strongly warns against making the “leap” to suggesting that the measles vaccine might actually cause autism. “That is not what our research is showing,” said Stephen J. Walker, Ph.D., an assistant professor of physiology and pharmacology at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. ... Walker says the new research does not support the connection, and he notes that the results have not even been published in a peer-reviewed journal. “Even if we showed association (between measles virus and bowel disease) and we published it in a peer-reviewed journal, the conclusion will be simply that there is measles virus in the gut of a large number of children who have regressive autism and bowel disease. End of story. “We haven’t done anything to demonstrate that the measles virus is causing autism or even causing bowel disease.” |
it continues:
A high percentage of autistic children have chronic bowel disease, a discovery in the late 1990s that eventually led to the measles virus connection. “If anybody has severe GI problems, it causes problems with focus, it causes problems with everything. You can’t do anything until you get that resolved. We’ve all experienced that. “These kids experience it hour after hour every single day of their lives. Many of them are non-verbal so they can’t tell anybody what the problem is, and the behavior that they exhibit as a result of a severe stomach ache was once attributed to just being autistic and having weird behaviors – for example, leaning over the sharp edge of a coffee table for hours at a time. That seems weird, but what they’re doing is relieving pressure on their lower abdomen.” Walker said that relieving the bowel discomfort has been shown to improve other conditions associated with autism, such as cognition and the ability to learn. |
http://www.wakehealth.edu/News-Rele...ween_Presence_of_Measles_Virus_and_Autism.htm
Oh, Hey! What do ya know? What are the odds that anti-vaxxers are still going to cite it as evidence that MMR causes Autism? Pretty good I'd say.
Last edited:
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
I decided to just pick one of these at random, and sure enough:
"In our sample of children with PDD, we were not able to
detect any differences between children with and without
GI symptoms, including sex, race, special education
placement, and family background. Similarly, children with
greater intellectual disability and lower adaptive function
were not more likely to have a history of GI problems.
Furthermore, on measures reflecting the core symptoms of
autism—communication, social development and repetitive
behavior—there were no differences between those with or
without GI problems as determined with the ADI-R or
CYBOCS-PDD."
The data?
"Our results are comparable to
the prevalence of GI problems observed in the population-
based UK studies with n =262 (18.8%) (Fombonne and Chakrabarti 2001)"
So exactly what is Fombonne and Chakrabarti finding? Look for yourself:
No Evidence for A New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella–Induced Autism
When someone cites research, it's always good to go read it before you take it as evidence for anything.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
As for the source of the list of 28 studies that allegedly support wakefield's findings?
Mercola:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx
No surprise there.
Mercola:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx
No surprise there.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
For a more in-depth analysis of some of the fraudulent data included in Wakefield's study:
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347
| Mr 11, an American engineer, looked again at the paper: a five page case series of 11 boys and one girl, aged between 3 and 9 years. Nine children, it said, had diagnoses of “regressive” autism, and all but one were reported with “non-specific colitis.” The “new syndrome” brought these together, linking brain and bowel diseases. His son was the penultimate case. Running his finger across the paper’s tables, over coffee in London, Mr 11 seemed reassured by his anonymised son’s age and other details. But then he pointed at table 2—headed “neuropsychiatric diagnosis”—and for a second time objected. “That’s not true.” Child 11 was among the eight whose parents apparently blamed MMR. The interval between his vaccination and the first “behavioural symptom” was reported as 1 week. This symptom was said to have appeared at age 15 months. But his father, whom I had tracked down, said this was wrong. |
| The two men also aimed to show a sudden-onset “temporal association”—strong evidence in product liability. “Dr Wakefield feels that if we can show a clear time link between the vaccination and onset of symptoms,” Barr told the legal board, “we should be able to dispose of the suggestion that it’s simply a chance encounter.”13 But child 11’s case must have proved a disappointment. Records show his behavioural symptoms started too soon. “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age,” notes the discharge summary. “In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.” That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection. |
As usual, look to the money. Wakefield was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by lawyers looking to sue medical providers over vaccines. Not surprisingly, he changed some of the facts to fit what the lawyers wanted.
elohiym
Well-known member
Are you claiming that none of those studies support Wakefield's findings? Yes? No?
elohiym
Well-known member
The vaccine manufacturers and the researchers who are funded by them?
elohiym
Well-known member
Here are Wakefield's findings and interpretation:
FINDINGS: Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. All 12 children had intestinal abnormalities, ranging from lymphoid nodular hyperplasia to aphthoid ulceration. Histology showed patchy chronic inflammation in the colon in 11 children and reactive ileal lymphoid hyperplasia in seven, but no granulomas. Behavioural disorders included autism (nine), disintegrative psychosis (one), and possible postviral or vaccinal encephalitis (two). There were no focal neurological abnormalities and MRI and EEG tests were normal. Abnormal laboratory results were significantly raised urinary methylmalonic acid compared with age-matched controls (p=0.003), low haemoglobin in four children, and a low serum IgA in four children.
INTERPRETATION: We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.
INTERPRETATION: We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.
What specifically is fraudulent about those finding?
Are you claiming that none of those 28 studies support Wakefield's finding?
elohiym
Well-known member
Out of the list of 28 studies provided, do you agree that at least some of them support Wakefield's findings?
Do you agree it is a false claim that his findings were never replicated despite numerous attempts?
I am thankful to hear some sanity. It will be a horrific thing when infants start succumbing to the disease. My former wife got the measles when we were pregnant and the prognosis was we could have easily lost the pregancy and terminated our potential child's life.
For those who are familiar with Kenneth Copeland's church and ministry probably need to know that measles has struck the congregation in a serious outbreak.
"Absolute Truth" is our best teacher at times, unfortunately.
Maybe science can help develop a useful and effective treatment for infants and young children. But the way science is morally and medically forced to admit, science does not argue issues like this in black and white terms.
There will always be a percentage of any discovery that does not go along with the majority of the knowledge. And that makes it easier for the average person to deny new discoveries because they will never be 100% effective.
elohiym
Well-known member
This was published in the same journal:
http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/09/re-how-case-against-mmr-vaccine-was-fixed
The controversy about whether the children were diagnosed with non-specific colitis or if that information had been fabricated was resolved in favor of Wakefield. He was not guilty of fraud. Is there another controversy regarding his findings that you want address?
elohiym
Well-known member
What is the evidence to prove ending the personal belief exemption will prevent that?
Children interact with the general public outside of school.
You are absolutely right. People are understandably leery of government or scientific or academic pronouncements.
Personally, I think too many people go into a "victimhood mode" and feel put down be cause "some damn elite is talking down to me and trying to change me."
elohiym
Well-known member
What you are claiming doesn't appear to be true.
You and others brought up Wakefield several times, as if his alleged fraudulent acts prove anything relevant to this discussion, as if they justify my children being mandated to receive vaccinations they don't need or want, as if that one case somehow justifies that my religious rights should be denied to comply with the mandate.
I think it is better to give total freedom to anyone who wants to follow different paths. But the problem is, those with infant mortality issues (or geriatric issues) because of measles will have to not only be accountable for the truth and consequences of their actions, their actions can clearly allow others to get sick or die.
So I see we are in a bind here and I cannot think of any good choices--at least right now.
Maybe forced marginalization like the first-century did to the lepers and poor and sick to get them all to live together in a secure border and keep away from the rest of us.
But clearly, not many will go along with this, don't you agree?