Vaccines and autism

On big pharma's financial interest...

Drugs are sometimes prescribed for the treatment of Autism. I am not sure how much, but this could well be part of the cause for the rise in diagnosis. It's pretty hard to argue that it is not a major factor driving the increase in the diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

Between 1995 and 2003 children are being diagnosed with bipolar disorder at an increase of 40 times! Surprising that they have not jumped on the blame vaccines bandwagon. Also, it is odd that that is a 500% increase over rates in Germany, where direct to consumer advertising is not allowed.

Both bipolar and autism can not be definitively diagnosed. Before somebody spazzes out, I am not arguing that means they don't exist. Rather, the diagnosis is subjective and will fluctuate based on changes in the methods. Whether one has it or not depends solely on a doctor's or a psychiatrist's opinion. That could very easily be swayed by their financial interest, even without any malicious intent. And with government programs requiring coverage there is lots more revenue available.

There is no epidemic of autism or bipolar disorder. Just like there has not been any sharp decline in rates of mental retardation. The differences are merely due changes in categorization.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/04/evidence_against_an_autism_epi.php
 
I forgot to mention that, though doctors know autism is genetic, they haven't been able to quite identify the gene yet...at least not when my son was going through genetic testing to rule out everything else.
 
RStringfield said:
On big pharma's financial interest...

Drugs are sometimes prescribed for the treatment of Autism. I am not sure how much, but this could well be part of the cause for the rise in diagnosis. It's pretty hard to argue that it is not a major factor driving the increase in the diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

Between 1995 and 2003 children are being diagnosed with bipolar disorder at an increase of 40 times! Surprising that they have not jumped on the blame vaccines bandwagon. Also, it is odd that that is a 500% increase over rates in Germany, where direct to consumer advertising is not allowed.

Both bipolar and autism can not be definitively diagnosed. Before somebody spazzes out, I am not arguing that means they don't exist. Rather, the diagnosis is subjective and will fluctuate based on changes in the methods. Whether one has it or not depends solely on a doctor's or a psychiatrist's opinion. That could very easily be swayed by their financial interest, even without any malicious intent. And with government programs requiring coverage there is lots more revenue available.

There is no epidemic of autism or bipolar disorder. Just like there has not been any sharp decline in rates of mental retardation. The differences are merely due changes in categorization.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/04/evidence_against_an_autism_epi.php
Click to expand...

The meds prescribed for autistic individuals are typically those that are described to those suffering from depression, ADD, and psychosis. They do nothing to treat the disorder, but only help improve the "behavior" of an autistic person. Many parents refuse these medications, and many doctors don't prescribe them for an autistic diagnosis.
 
I did not want TexasMeg to show up. O_O

Meg, I in no way meant to be patronizing or derogatory towards you anywhere in this thread. I hope you get that. :-/
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, that's why I wanted to see comparative stats. It was a relatively rare occurrence. It's cool that we can keep even those 450 from dying if we're smart enough to vaccinate. I see no reason for my children to suffer something that is so easily stopped. I can see it being more deadly in other places. It just peaked my curiosity to see a disease that I had seen so often listed as particularly deadly.

I believe that most of the fear of Autism is simply better capacity for diagnosis rather than a link to immunizations. I know a few kids with mild Autism (teaching the kids class at Ninjitsu) and most people had friends that acted like they do when they were children. I think in the past many people were never diagnosed and am unconvinced that the instances are actually higher because of any action we have taken.
Click to expand...


Here is some interesting food for thought for you:

http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/0405-conf-mblaxill.htm
 
Watermark said:
I did not want TexasMeg to show up. O_O

Meg, I in no way meant to be patronizing or derogatory towards you anywhere in this thread. I hope you get that. :-/
Click to expand...

I wasn't offended by the things you said. I find myself in a position now where I can relay information that I have learned through this journey. No one has the answers to any of this, but it certainly doesn't hurt to see this from different sides. I also believe that some people here are missing some key facts. That was the point of my first post.
 
RStringfield said:
Emotional appeal.



BULLSHIT! The scientific consensus on smoking was in in the 50s. There are only some crackpots who have been exposed as frauds backing this nonsense. The scientific consensus is that autism is hereditary and not caused by any environmental factors.
Click to expand...

LOL are you serious??? I guarantee I have read much more scientific research and data than you have on this topic. The consensus is, and remains, that autism occurs in people who are genetically predisposed and that it is TRIGGERED by something environmental. There is NO consensus on what, exactly, that trigger is. You have no right to spout off on things that you haven't researched.
 
TexasMeg said:
LOL are you serious??? I guarantee I have read much more scientific research and data than you have on this topic. The consensus is, and remains, that autism occurs in people who are genetically predisposed and that it is TRIGGERED by something environmental. There is NO consensus on what, exactly, that trigger is. You have no right to spout off on things that you haven't researched.
Click to expand...

Nope, but I will restate. The consensus is that it is hereditary. There is some speculation on environmental factors but no proof as of yet.

Here is some interesting food for thought for you:

http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/0405-conf-mblaxill.htm
Click to expand...

Wakefield has been thoroughly and completely discredited. His research was fraudulent.
 
RStringfield said:
Meg you should research the fact that Wakefield's a piece of shit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29128976#29128976
Click to expand...

I already knew about some of that, tho it doesn't discount many of the findings or the fact that he's not the only one who has made similar discoveries. It doesn't discount the fact that pharmas have had to admit that vaccines(especially those containing harmful binding agents) can cause SEVERE reactions in children.

I am not a firm believer that vaccines are the cause. I think that because it's been determined that this disorder is also immunological, different victims have different triggers. The complication is identifying all of them. Read some of the other links and research...not just Wakefields.
 
RStringfield said:
Meg you should research the fact that Wakefield's a piece of shit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29128976#29128976
Click to expand...

You should research the MMR and the complications it can cause in children. I am not against having a vaccination against those particular diseases, tho I AM against the combined version. BTW I have had 6 of them...apparently I am one of the rare ones who doesn't build immunity to Rubella. One happened to be right before I conceived, and one after the birth of my children because I was told it would be safe for nursing.
 
TexasMeg said:
You should research the MMR and the complications it can cause in children. I am not against having a vaccination against those particular diseases, tho I AM against the combined version.
Click to expand...

...which was Wakefields belief. He suggested that three doses would be better than a combined version, but their wasn't any research to back him up, and he was later proved to be a fraud.
 
Watermark said:
...which was Wakefields belief. He suggested that three doses would be better than a combined version, but their wasn't any research to back him up, and he was later proved to be a fraud.
Click to expand...

There is tons of research to back this up. The binding agents that have to be used in a shot like that is what is so harmful...that and the live cultures.
 
TexasMeg said:
There is tons of research to back this up. The binding agents that have to be used in a shot like that is what is so harmful...that and the live cultures.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

* Japan provided a natural experiment on the subject: combined MMR vaccine was introduced in 1989, but the programme was terminated in 1993 and only single vaccines used thereafter. In March 2005 a study of over 30,000 children (278 cases) born in one district of Yokohama concluded "The incidence of all autistic spectrum disorders (ASD), and of autism, continued to rise after MMR vaccine was discontinued. The incidence of autism was higher in children born after 1992 who were not vaccinated with MMR than in children born before 1992 who were vaccinated. The incidence of autism associated with regression was the same during the use of MMR and after it was discontinued." The authors concluded: "The significance of this finding is that MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD."[50]




A 30k sample size is extremely relevant.
 
Meg, simply because I am unconvinced doesn't mean that I can see a benefit to spreading out the vaccinations over time. If some kids systems are shocked by the overwhelming amount all at once then it seems logical that you would spread them out even if you aren't convinced.

Being unconvinced also does not mean that I am not open to the idea. It is possible, but the vast majority of the evidence I have seen and heard is anecdotal and unreliable as scientific evidence. Stats of how many kids have had some reaction and also have autism does not prove a link scientifically, in fact it is particularly specious to use such stats to suggest a link, such stats are valid to suggest a study to see if there is a link but it is not evidence of a link. One can use statistics to also show children who had a reaction and do not also have autism, it would be equally specious to suggest that because they exist it means that there can be no link as it would be to suggest that the opposite proves a link.
 
Yeah I don't really like arguing emotionally involved people like Meg. They get extremely defensive and start to think you're calling them a liar or a gullible idiot - which couldn't be further from the truth. I understand exactly how Meg got to where she is, and I respect that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top