Medical doctors are best served by denying ANY serious reaction of vaccines as temporal.

@Robert

How do you figure? Vaccines and the doctor hours needed to administer them are much less expensive than the hospital admissions and doctor care that would be required if polio, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, etc were to come back.

amber,

Your view is too simplistic and altruistic.

Think about what would happen to a doctor's pyche if they realized the actual damage that they cause in the name of prevention. No one denies that people die or are permanently damaged by vaccines. But no one wants to admit that they were the one that caused it. It's somone else somewhere else. It's not my practice. Long term side effects? Don't even think about it. No studies to reassure the doctor. Just don't think about it.

From a professional, economic, and litigation standpoint it is not wise either.

All medical interventions have a chance of side effects. The reason to get vaccines is that the probability of having a serious vaccine side effect is much, much less than the probability of getting the disease and having a serious detrimental outcome.

Would you suggest that people facing surgery not get it because there might be long-term side effects even if the probability of the disease killing them is much higher? Of course not. And vaccines are no different.

And there have been safety studies on vaccines. After the Wakefield study, there were multiple studies that failed to find a link between MMR and autism. There have been multiple studies that have failed to find a link between thimerosal and autism. Scientists have looked for a link and haven't found one.

Would you suggest that people facing surgery not get it because there might be long-term side effects even if the probability of the disease killing them is much higher? Of course not. And vaccines are no different.

You forgot to add some variables that would help you answer that question. What is the individual benefit? If it's measles, pre vaccine era, you had more of a chance of winning the lottery multiple times than dying of measles. And of those you have to ask what was the status of those deaths. Nutrition, santitation, socal conditions, etc,. My actual risk may be like winning the lottery a 100 times. Medical template is called "box" medicine. Everyone is in the box. Pour in the medicine. Some want like it some will.

You're using another simple analogy which doesn't even come close to resembling the situation.

measles is a mild self limiting viral disease of childhood.

When I was a kid, if someone in the neighborhood got measles, mumps, whooping cough, whatever, parents used to hurry their own kids right over and put them in bed with the affected child. Within two weeks, their kids had caught and survived -- and become immune to -- all manner of childhood illnesses. Now they get vacinnated against them all, then catch them in their 40's or 50's making it a much worse case.

Wakefield used sloppy science. There was also a conflict of interest.

1) Nine months prior to the publication of the MMR scare story, Wakefield had filed for a patent on an alternative vaccine for MMR. Wakefield stood to profit if the safety of the MMR vaccination could be called into question.

2) Wakefield was receiving compensation from an attorney to support the claim that there was a link between MMR vaccine and autism.

3) A few of the children used in the Lancet study had parents who were involved in such lawsuits.

Link to those and more here:

http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm

All follow up studies fail to show a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The most glaring is a study from Japan. When MMR vaccination rates in Yokohama declined, autism rates increased.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jcpp/2005/00000046/00000006/art00003

The Japanese study concludes "withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD."

Just food for thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5uVrbH9lME

measles is a mild self limiting viral disease of childhood.

It is when children contract it. Measles in an infant is quite deadly.

measles is a mild self limiting viral disease of childhood.

Better look that up--not always, there can be severe consequences.

at what rate?

You better look it up.

Measles in an infant is quite deadly.

Infants should be protected through maternal antibodies. Emphasis on should. Infants do not receive the measles vaccine.It is not reccomended on purpose.

Infants should be protected through maternal antibodies. Emphasis on should. Infants do not receive the measles vaccine.It is not reccomended on purpose.

Infants don't receive it but they are protected through 2 various forms of immunity. 1. their mother was likely immunized and thus produces antibodies and 2. they gain herd immunity from all the other children who have been immunized. If we got rid of vaccinations, the mother may never have contracted measles, thus eliminating protection 1 and there would be no herd effect, eliminating protection 2. That is a deadly combination.

That is a deadly combination.

How often is it deadly exactly?

They always do this. You ask a legitimate question to clarify true informed consent (risk and benefit)and they try to turn it back to fear. It's the wheel of this debate. Every single one of these debates turns by that same wheel.

I find it ironic that the pro forced mass vaccinators call the pro informed consenters "fear mongerers".

I find it ironic that the pro forced mass vaccinators call the pro informed consenters "fear mongerers".

It's not there fault...pharmaceutical companies have the best propagandist marketing this world have ever seen to date.

Any of you look at the link I suggested?

Robert - Do you know how long protection from maternal antibodies lasts? In what age group does measles infection have the greatest morbidity and mortality? Define "infant" in the medical sense. Research measles mortality rates prior to vaccine, and stats during more recent outbreaks in the past 25 years. Also research rubella infection in pregnant women, pre- and post-vaccine availability.

Santino - Answer to 1.15 - go back to pre-vaccine days. Modern stats without vaccine would not be as bad as historical stats due to advances in technology, but hospitalization itself has economic costs, and there is the risk of nosocomial infections, and also, unfortunately, medical errors. I would agree pharmaceutical companies have profit motive and I wish we could ban direct-to-consumer advertising of OTC and rx drugs (I see much deception in the form of only "half the story" told), but keep in mind there is much more money to be made on drugs (esp. biologicals) and medical equipment (stents, CT and MRI, etc.) than on vaccines, which are purely preventive medicine and not a very attractive area to invest in from the economic and legal liability (think lawsuits, both legitimate and frivolous) standpoints. Why else did all our injectable pandemic flu vaccine come from foreign manufacturers this past season? And remember what happened to Dow Corning over silicone breast implants - trends in rates of purported illnesses from silicone were unchanged following withdrawal of implants from the market, and numerous studies by independent researchers found no link.

Personally, I think chemical exposures from the environment, plastic containers, and in our processed foods may be major contributors to various disorders such as autism, cancers, ADD & ADHD, however it is very difficult to perform scientific studies in this are due to uncontrollable confounding factors.

Infants should be protected via maternal antiobodies from measles?

Well, 18 kids die every hour from the measles, today, or 450 deaths per day. That's in 2008 actually.

4 people every day become a lottery millionaire. You are only off by two and some odd orders of magnitude. Sure, if by "win" you mean get second prize or whatever, then let's multiply it by 10. And you're still off by more than an order of magnitude.

In the US, in the 1950s, there were, on average, 500+ measles deaths per year. There were 500,000 cases on average, per year.

Stick with me through the higher-maths going on at this point... but that would yield a rate of 1 death per every thousand cases.

To that, I can only ask Robert WHERE do you play the lottery cause I will bloody move RIGHT away!

n the US, in the 1950s, there were, on average, 500+ measles deaths per year. There were 500,000 cases on average, per year.

What was the death toll in 1967 before the vaccine? 1961? 1955? 1950? 1945? 1920? We obviously had a vaccine deficiency during those years. What accounted for the drastic decrease in severity of the disease? This pattern and extremely low numbers aren't as misleading as simply giving an average.

Stick with me through the higher-maths going on at this point... but that would yield a rate of 1 death per every thousand cases.

Yes, I'll stick with you because this is where you try to pull people into the numbers and lose sight of the big picture. It's common with statistics and salesmanship. The 1/1000 does not apply to the population. It applies to cases only.

Personally, I think chemical exposures from the environment, plastic containers, and in our processed foods may be major contributors to various disorders such as autism, cancers, ADD & ADHD, however it is very difficult to perform scientific studies in this are due to uncontrollable confounding factors.

I agree. The epigenetic research is showing that our lifestyle and culture does make a difference to not only our own health but also our children and grandchildren. It is also showing that we have huge gaping holes in our knowledge and theories.

Robert - Do you know how long protection from maternal antibodies lasts?

apparently about 12 months give or take a few.

Define "infant" in the medical sense.

I call a one year old a "toddler".

Research measles mortality rates prior to vaccine, and stats during more recent outbreaks in the past 25 years

I do have something interesting on this I'll have to look up later.

In the US, in the 1950s, there were, on average, 500+ measles deaths per year. There were 500,000 cases on average, per year.

Stick with me through the higher-maths going on at this point... but that would yield a rate of 1 death per every thousand cases.

"Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2–3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3–4 million annually. More than 50% of persons had measles by age 6, and more than 90% had measles by age 15. The highest incidence was among 5–9-year-olds, who generally accounted for more than 50% of reported cases." -CDC

4 million cases throws off your case average doesn't it? Most cases were mild and not reported. The reported case fatality sure helps sell a vaccine though.

In the 5 year period from 1965-70 the TOTAL deaths from measles were 44. That really throws off your numbers.

Also research rubella infection in pregnant women, pre- and post-vaccine availability.

So there is a small possibility of fetal damage if the mother gets rubella before 4mos pregnancy. The problem is vaccine immunity wears off long before adulthood and babies don't get pregnant.

Before vaccines, if you got the disease you got lifetime immunity. You don't have to worry about it.

BECAUSE of the vaccine there is now a much bigger chance of a woman getting rubella during pregnancy.

I know you love the herd immunity stategy. Vaccinate the children to protect the pregnant mother right? But the MMR is not without side effects (arthritis, polyneuritis, numbness). So now the selling strategy becomes a bait n switch.

The reported cases are the only ones you can verify, though, isn't it?

Couldn't I just as speciously say that the unreported deaths due to measles was a lot higher in the 1950s?

See the problem? I am using reported cases AND reported deaths from measles.

The amount of time the measles immunity from the vaccine is the same as post-exposure because the mechanism is identical.

Both immunity-lifespans are approximately 27 years at about 99+ percent. Statistically, getting measles again after initial immunity (via infectious exposure or vaccination) is less than 1 in 280,000.

The rates of serious complications or side-effects from the vaccine are extremely rare. The rates of such from measles are extremely common, by comparison.

Robert - Respectfully, I have two corrections (I'm surprised you didn't just google the answer). Maternal antibodies last about 3-6 months, at least that is the commonly accepted duration. Breastfeeding, however, can extend this protection. And rubella immunity lasts decades following vaccination, as evidenced by the IgG titers I run on women of childbearing age. The majority are still immune. The flipside is that a sizable minority are not immune, thus these women depend on luck and herd immunity from having babies with devastating congenital rubella. I do not know what percentage didn't respond to the original vaccination (years ago, only one shot was routine, now two are routine in childhood) vs. the percentage in whom vaccine immunity wanes (I am not sure where CodeSculptor gets those stats, as they overestimate vaccine effectiveness). The most relevant fact is that the hard endpoint of incidence of congenital rubella infection has decreased by orders of magnitude since vaccination was started decades ago - the info is in my old textbooks, so it might be hard for you to find on the internet. If you keep an open mind, you might just learn something from those of us in the field.

Both immunity-lifespans are approximately 27 years at about 99+ percent.

References? I highly doubt these numbers. I've seen way to many references that oppose these numbers by a long shot. But if you have a citation I'd be open to looking at how those numbers were derived. See, doc, I'm open.

The rates of serious complications or side-effects from the vaccine are extremely rare. The rates of such from measles are extremely common, by comparison.

Could you show me the studies that you are using to compare the above claims. And are they apples to apples?

See the problem? I am using reported cases AND reported deaths from measles.

So do you now see the problem with that and accepting the numbers for face value without thinking about them?

Couldn't I just as speciously say that the unreported deaths due to measles was a lot higher in the 1950s?

Sure you could. The CDC does it all the time with their "modeling". But they didn't do it for measles probably because the deaths were so low. You also don't have an explanatory leg to stand on to suggest that you're rates would be affected by changing that number.

The quote of 3-4 million is from the CDC. You'll have to use some common sense in this case. The vast majority of measles cases are mild. It makes sense that the vast majority go unreported because measles itself is self limiting.

Maternal antibodies last about 3-6 months, at least that is the commonly accepted duration

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/3/447

"All infants with detectable measles antibody at 9 or 12 months had mothers born before 1963, before the vaccine era, and both maternal and cord blood measles geometric mean titers decreased significantly with decreasing maternal age."

Maybe it's commonly accepted because most mother's have been vaccinated instead of naturally infected. It could be argued that the introduction of mass vaccines has put infants at MORE of a risk.

The most relevant fact is that the hard endpoint of incidence of congenital rubella infection has decreased by orders of magnitude since vaccination was started decades ago - the info is in my old textbooks, so it might be hard for you to find on the internet.

Again as with the infectious death rate numbers, I'd like to see the big picture of the stats instead of a snapshot. Were these numbers derived from a specified time period. Were they derived during and following a natural epidemic? Any question that let's you see the bigger picture and factor in more variables is helpful.

It's estimated that 85% of the population had natural immunity before vaccines.

Well, 18 kids die every hour from the measles, today, or 450 deaths per day. That's in 2008 actually.

To that, I can only ask Robert WHERE do you play the lottery cause I will bloody move RIGHT away!

If 18 kids die every hour from measles where you live, then you NEED to move where I live!

Robert, I apologize for taking so long to get back to ya. Here are the titles of three influential studies (each for different reasons) regarding the duration of vaccination-induced immunity :

Duration of live measles vaccine-induced immunity ORENSTEIN 1990

Duration of immunity following immunization with live measles vaccine: 15 years of observation in Zhejiang Province, China

Measles Vaccine Effectiveness and Duration of Vaccine-induced Immunity in the Absence of Boosting from Exposure to Measles Virus

The 15 year study basically says that immunity persisted for the entire life of the study (15 years). The last one said that in an absence to continued exposure of measles (in the population) the average person maintains their vaccination-induced immunity for at least 27 years.

The first study concludes that (like the other studies) our immune system regenerates antibodies over time, but more often in response to continued challenges (endogenous exposure in everyday life) and that both vaccination-induced and infectious-induced immunities are lifelong, as per the study-data.

Measles, mumps, and rubella antibodies in children 5–6 years after immunization: effect of vaccine type and age at vaccination

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-3Y44SK2-1P&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=697765fd6b771d119481d9b25915d635

"These data indicate that a large proportion of children vaccinated under routine conditions do not have detectable measles and mumps antibody."

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/132/3/287

Part of the problem as I see it is science can now help couples have kids that nature didn't want having them for what ever reason. The best way to keep defective genes out of the pool is not allow reproduction, enter science and viola, here is your kids who can now pass those defective genes along.

Aspergers scores go up from watching TV, from using computers, and using video games. Now there's an interest that doesn't want to lose money.

There is overdiagnosis. There are revised criteria. There is motherly hysteria. There is a radical drop in infestation with helminths (worms).

And there is concentration of alleles of people with high ability to concentrate coming together marrying for several generations now. We are evolving.

By the way, what we call autism was, I believe, necessary for the development of human civilization. In a stone age society, think about the kind of characteristics that would be required for a person to focus on learning all about physical things. Science has its roots in autism.

And please, don't argue it's due to the ability to diagnose it properly as the cause; that's just as damaging as this doctor's theory has been proven.

Why not argue this? Because its contrary to what you want to hear? How could it be as damaging as the initial incorrect theories? It seems that most of the doctors who worked on this particular study all say it was flawed and produced incorrect conclusions. Why don't you want to believe them?

We've only really known and recognized Autism disorders for a little more than 50 years. Its not surprising that as time goes by we are able to recognize and diagnose it more consistently and appropriately.

So, if it's not MMR, then what about the chicken pox vaccine?

This vaccine hasn't been around that long, so its unlikely to be the cause.

Or the food we eat? Growth hormones in our meat? Chemicals we are exposed to in our water and air? None of these things were an issue when I was growing up.

Yes, it might be. Let's keep researching it. Let's make an effort to find the real causes instead of finding something that helps us to tidy up the rough ends.

I've often wondered if there is a link between prenatal ultrasound imaging and autism. Ultrasound is used more and more often during pregnancy and autism is on the rise as well. Ultraound has powerful effects, from thermal (heating) to mechanical and chemical effects. Perhaps the anti-vaccine folks should look here, as the main piece of research they use for their argument is now gone.

As far as allergy and asthma, let your kids play in the dirt a little. Their immune system needs some mild stimulation. After all, these are both problems in the immune system and inappropriate responses to environmental stimuli.

Part of the problem as I see it is science can now help couples have kids that nature didn't want having them for what ever reason. The best way to keep defective genes out of the pool is not allow reproduction, enter science and viola, here is your kids who can now pass those defective genes along.

Neitchze lives on.

Yes, it might be. Let's keep researching it. Let's make an effort to find the real causes instead of finding something that helps us to tidy up the rough ends.

You'll NEVER find the cause of autism or cancer with that reductionistic approach. NEVER? Never, ever! The premise is flawed. To discount vaccines in all cases or as a contributing factor is an error.

When ADHD was first diagnosed, it became the diagnosis "du jour" and every kid who ever acted out or wouldn't listen was diagnosed as hyperactive. I can think of other diseases of the week, that were over diagnosed also. Perhaps this accounts for some of the increase in Autism diagnoses.

Amen! Why are we up to 4 cases of autism in every 100 children, I think it is? This is unconscionable. Is it the same in all countries or just the USA? Could it indeed be environment or nutrition? Whatever it is, we need to put the money into research and find the cause and eliminate it. We cannot afford to let so many of our population be lost to autism.

John in NW PA - maybe not so much u/s but look at the use of medications such as pitocin in l&d - we know that many children with autism have changes in how their brains respond to oxytocin (pitocin is the synthetic medication)...

Even most doctors nowadays will admit that the large increase in autism cases can't all be attributed to increased diagnosis due to things like expanding the definition of who falls onto the autism spectrum etc. (And motherly hysteria? Really? Get a grip.) There is absolutely something, so far unidentified, that is contributing to a dramatic increase in cases of autism. And it's not just in the US.

Maybe it's a combination of exposure to a variety of environmental factors (chemicals in our food chain, in our water, in the air, etc.) in conjunction with a genetic predisposition to developing autism that triggers the condition. Maybe, as another poster said, it's related to the huge increase in pre-natal ultra-sounds and the use of labor-inducing drugs like pitocin.

Whatever it is, it should be clear to people by now, that SOMETHING is going on, it's getting worse and it's not only a human tragedy but a very expensive problem.

aniki, we don't know what's up, and that's kinda the point... to pick out one thing and blame it for all autism or even for an increase in autism is silly considering that we still don't even know what causes autism to begin with and there are literally billions of possible causes out there. First thing's first though, and that's that we need to figure out what causes autism before we can start pointing fingers with any authority.

Emma3 - My three year old son has autism. Autism isn't just a case of acting out... it's a completely different wiring of the brain. It is not the same thing as ADHD, my son for example will stay "on task" for 4 to 5 hours straight, and can do some things that other 3 year olds would never be able to, like basic algebra, but he avoids eye contact, will not communicate verbally, is hyper-vigilant with food and drink, craves routine, and literally freaks out if anyone other than myself, his mother, or the three therapists he sees weekly touch him in any way whatsoever. There is no way to mistake it as just "acting out".

Thought I should also add that we're one of the luckier cases in that our son's motor skills have not been affected by it, but we have friends with an older son whose autism so severely affects his motor skills that he's never been able to walk, or do simple tasks like feed himself. Kinda hard to misdiagnose that.

You forget that scientists are just people too and are just as capable of mistakes, lapses in judgement, and outright dishonesty?

I wouldn't immediately go out and think the proponents of the "alternatives" to mainstream medicine and science aren't capable of such foolishness either, quite the contrary.

Quite so. You can find, for instance, in most health food stores, ancient booklets based on rubbish from the 19th century that claim that a person's colon becomes filled with hardened fecal matter.

Flatly false. It does not happen except in very rare, and life threatening conditions.

What makes me the most irritated by that, John Toradze, is that such mumbo jumbo has infiltrated health food stores and vitamin isles of grocery stores and has successfully obfuscated proper diet and nutrition from the general public.

If someone wants to start eating healthy, they are very likely to be assaulted by a tidal wave of non-scientific nonsense and outright scams become coming across one shred of effective advice. Meanwhile, the general public increasingly casts doubts on scientists and medical doctors while exalting these trendy, quack-like "gurus."

Bauer

Actually, this demonstrates the triumph of science. When scientists (who are people like anyone else and can be influenced by self interest etc) deliberately mislead, other scientists prove their conculsions factuous. This is unlike other areas of human activity, such as superstitions, alternative medicines, religions, that are unfalsifiable and are not self correcting. The scientific method requires that you present your methods clearly and that your study can be reproduced by colleagues to confirm or falsify your claim. The process worked. The reason it takes time is that the studies themselves take years, but we got it right. This is important because new parents who don't read peer reviewed journals but only the popular press, were denying their children vaccines and, as a consequence, measles, mumps and rubella began showing up again.

Scientists were also quick to call bulls**t on 'cold fusion'. And when South Korean Dr. Hwang claimed he had created the first cloned humans and extracted stem cells in 2005, the scientific community responded and exposed his fraud.

So you have got it wrong. Most scientists do not rush headlong with predetermined outcomes, and those who do find a scrupulously disciplined community ready to expose anyone who does so. It is the process that is the important thing. Science does not depend that every 'so called' participant be honest, because it has built into it the means for identifying dishonesty - that is the process of peer review and reproducibility.

Jenny McCarthy will have to find some other cause now. Hopefully, she will leave medicine to physicians and academic researchers.

Jenny McCarthy will have to find some other cause now. Hopefully, she will leave medicine to physicians and academic researchers.

This in no way abdicates vaccines from the causes of autism. What we do know: ALL vaccines don't cause autism. All of autism isn't triggered by vaccines. Vaccines CAN cause neurological damage including Autism.

So vaccine injured victims will always have a cause because they a know a truth and nothing will suppress that truth in them. So instead of pretending vaccines are 100% safe, recognize the reality and give 100% informed consent. The only argument I can see is if one believes the perceived good of the state supercedes the health and welfare of the individual as in communism, fascism, socialism,etc. And this is philosophical belief with political implications, not a purely scientific decision. A confusion arises when people are claiming it's science and anything else is pseudoscience. That smacks of a religious belief in science not actual science.

Most scientists do not rush headlong with predetermined outcomes

You're right, but many newspapers and journals do write headlines that rush headlong into a predetermined outcome... by the time the dust settles, the public can be confused.

So the US government can quit spending millions in claims that MMR caused autism?

This, in no way, means that it cannot cause autism. vaccines have already been proven to cause cases of autism.

ANOTHER AUTISM CASE WINS IN VACCINE COURT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html

Did you know that thimerosal is only added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose. Nowadays, most vials of vaccine are single dose only.

The vast majority of influenza vaccine is fully loaded.

Robert is an expert, the rest of us are just pikers, stop posting it is his soapbox.

do you not like the opposing view, willie?

Would you prefer censonship or the truth?

CalgaryGirl -

and the best part is that even as we have removed the thimerosal from vaccines we have yet to see a decline in autism proportionate to that change. If it was in fact vaccines and the thimerosal causing autism then would we not see a decline in autism relative to the decline in the use of thimerosal? I am so glad to see this research/story reaching so many of us. Our children need to be vaccinated and we need to know the truth about it.

Our children need to be vaccinated and we need to know the truth about it.

If you knew the truth about vaccines your head would spin or you would just go into denial. It's like having your foundation of life ripped out from under you. It's like everything your mama and daddy told you was a lie. You'd learn what you thought was fact isn't fact at all. And you'd learn that it was decided that you best not know.

I would dismiss your idea as silly, but there was this story the other day which made me stop and think:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/232781/page/3

I think people should be allowed to publish so long as they use the scientific method, but I think the problem is the public will draw conclusions without all of the information, which makes scientists and physicians afraid that one rouge study which can be disproven after more rigorous investigation will cause fear in the public, leading people to not want to allow the publications of controversial studies, even if in a perfect world it would be fine.

I'm not really sure whose job it is to make sure people are scientifically literate, but I think there is some blame to the scientific community for not helping in the communication issues, and some blame in the public for selectively taking one study and ignoring dozens.

The problem is not with the Medical Journals whose job it is as you say to publish all studies using the proper scientific method. Your average lay American is not reading the New England Journal of Medicine.

The problem is that the mainstream media picks up on every single shocking preliminary study and puts it on the front page to garner good headlines. Then, they fail to follow up on the story one year later when 10 more studies come out that completely debunk the original one.

In consequence, only the most controversial and shocking research ever gets front page billing. More often than not though, these kinds of conclusions often get contradicted later down the road as it is a commonly accepted axiom that significant claims need significant evidence.

The other problem with his study was that it only involved 12 children. If I am handpicking 12 children for a study in my class, looking for a certain outcome, then when I pick the children I already personally know, the chances of my experiment "working" will be very high. The experiment has not been duplicated with actually numbers of random children - that is where the problem is!

The problem is that the mainstream media picks up on every single shocking preliminary study and puts it on the front page to garner good headlines.

Does the media "pick up" the studies/stories or are they given/force-fed to them?

Don, I think you make a really good point about the media picking up on single studies and spinning them in favor of their advertisers. But, I think we also need to look at what the journals are publishing. The New England Journal of Medicine had to give up its policy of refusing studies paid for by companies who stood to benefit. We now know, for instance, that 28 prime journal articles which formed the "evidence base" for the use of SSRIs were complete fraud. The data was made up and the articles were written by add men for the drug companies.

Don

The point you make is an excellent one and is frustrating for those in the medicine/science field like myself. The problem is that popular media have a different agenda than academic media. One paradigm that they are obliged to do is show 'both sides' of an issue. In politics and legal questions that is very important, and , in fact, necessary. The other component of popular press that leads to this type of controversy is that, just having a controversy is more interesting television for viewers who are looking for 'news entertainment'. As a consequence, a television news agency will pick two representatives advocating different views on an issue and put them on camera and just 'let them go at it.' And more entertaining news attracts commercial advertising and revenue.

In questions of science, including medicine, this approach does not apply well. What matters is the evidence. If the overwhelming evdience suggests that HIV causes AIDs then that is what we act on going forward until some new theory explains the disease process better. Some researchers do not believe HIV causes AIDs are, indeed, are looking for alternate theories. That is fine, but scientific journals and media do not conclude in the meantime that the odds for HIV being responsible are 50-50. The same is true for other scientific propositions about the world where academic research is overwhelmingly on one side of the issue but controversy remains in the population such as global warming.

It is hard to say where the media draws the line on these issues. Some people think the world is flat. An even greater number think the sun circles the earth. And even more think the world is about 6000 yrs old. It is not difficult to envision entities like CNN,CBS,Fox and others presenting 'both sides' of the 'heliocentrism controversy'.

What? You don't think that people should listen to a bubble-headed Playboy bunny?

I agree with your first two lines..i never understood why people are now so opposed to getting vaccinations when they have been proven time and again to save lives! In my country (which most people would term 3rd world-not gonna give the name) we have an 'immunisation card' that charts all the vaccinations/immunisations a child has to get, when they got it etc. without this card no one can get into schools-we insist that our children are protected either from another infected child or just simply from getting a disease. With this in mind, i do not believe we have seen any epidemic numbers of Autism since as you said 'Chicago Student' vaccines have been around for ages..

I think its just hysteria and all in all what the parents are doing are putting their children at risk-I mean would you willingly send you child to school knowing that another child was infected with meningitis??? I doubt it, you would get them vaccinated, so relax a bit and stop obsessing.

Robert knows, he is the expert here.

The best way to keep defective genes out of the pool is not allow reproduction, enter science and viola, here is your kids who can now pass those defective genes along.

Maybe you like vaccines because they are being researched in eugenics and "culling the herd" programs that fit with your beliefs.

Vaccine for control of fertility

http://www.pnas.org/content/91/18/8532.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1385402/

I believe some use the tetanus toxoid.

Is it cruel for me to say individuals should become scientifically literate and decide for themselves after reading all of the evidence? Or does that destroy the division of labor? I don't know.

I agree. People should become scientifically literate so they can see all of the pharmaceutical corruption that happens in medical education and the institutional propaganda that is unleashed on the people through policy. They would be able to see how scientific propaganda really works and how the consensus accepts it as truth. But it's not necessary.

You can still maintain the division of labor had these people listened to the AMA, the CDC, state Departments of Health, and just about every other reputable medical agency instead of Jenny McCarthy's website.

Yes Robeert, have the drug companies stop making drugs, all they do is make money and make us sicker.

You think the CDC has your best interests in mind Don....Interesting.

You can still maintain the division of labor had these people listened to the AMA, the CDC, state Departments of Health, and just about every other reputable medical agency instead of Jenny McCarthy's website.

How did that H1N1 vaccine push workout? Maybe we should have just shut our mouths and listened to every reputable agency?

go to www.thekaitlynproject.com and you can help us find that answer

I don't do on-line surveys, and it does not answer the questions. But thanks anyway!

Especially surveys that want my personal info, I might add!

I don't know about evolution, but how long has the vaccination process been going on. I wonder about DNA mutations with the process.

communities with lower interventions of pregnancy and birth tend to have lower rates of autism...just something to think about...

ok you want answers but you are not willing to be part of the solution. you posed the question about the Amish well this online survey its part of the solution. it doesnt ask for personal information. it is a survey intended for the non-vaccinated community as to wether they have the same autism rates as vaccinated kids. now wouldn't this answer some questions? the survey is being conducted by a 9th grade science student. so if you know of any non vaccinated people i would encourage you to direct them to this site

The website doesn't provide a lot of information in order to verify this kid and study, and the survey wants my email address and my name - that IS personal info in my book! And in order to find out or verify this student/project, one has to email her/it. I do not need more spam in my email inbox, thanks!

My son has Asperger's and showed the signs well before he ever received a MMR vaccination.

There has been NO link found in study after study, get over it! Just admit that things you may not like, just happen sometimes. Maybe it's a defective inherited gene?

How many thousands of children were crippled by polio or went blind or died from complications of measles? So, let's stop giving vaccines and kill thousands because one of them might react to the vaccine?

Emma .... there is a range or spectrum to the disorder. Aspberger's is not the only form of autism.

I am not getting over it.

My brother recieved the vaccination back in the early 70's. There has been much discussion about mercury poisoning. There is also quite a bit more mercury found in our foods these days.

I will admit, there is more to this than just the vaccines, but burying the information will never bring a cure.

So people need to pull their collective heads out their butts.... not get over it.

So, let's stop giving vaccines and kill thousands because one of them might react to the vaccine?

Do you know how many children died from measles per year before the vaccine was put into use? The last time it was in the thousands (plural) was 1931. Do you know what type of living conditions these children generally had? Measles likes overcrowded unhygienic environments.

It's not a lack of vaccines why third world countries have high infection deaths.

Wow...a climate change denier? They still MAKE you?!

Climate-gate, as the media called it, had no bearing on the accuracy of the science of climate change. It only reflected a few scientists being disgruntled. Their work...and more importantly, the work of thousands of scientists around the globe at competing institutions, irrefutably show that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and at an accelerated rate.

I know it is popular to admire the lone-wolf scientist in popular culture who single-handily fights for the truth (see the amalgamation of scientists recently grabbed and put into one scientist in Harrison Ford's character in Extraordinary Measures...I guess having a lone-wolf instead of a team makes the scientist somehow more respectable because he is fighting the "establishment"). In reality, the truth is more accurately sought after by large numbers of scientists independently researching a given topic. This is being done with climate change and ALL reputable climatologists have come to the same conclusion that humans are a significant cause of global climate change. This idea that they are working together to dupe the world is simply insane. Scientists build their careers on refuting or making slight corrections to past theories/models...not by towing the "party" line. In all cases, the answers are dictated by the evidence, and not vice-versa. Not understanding this is to not really understand the scientific process.

I think it would be good to find out if the people having the baby, with these problems were, Marijuana users and if they were second and third generation babies of Marijuana users themselves, I'm not saying that that is the cause but could it be possibly related in some way, the reason I'm thinking this way is because Marijuana effects the signal system in the brain, by slowing down the way thoughts are processed, is it possible to change the genetic makeup this way? I dont know!!!

Thank you for this post.

This is what I have been trying to say. I am sure that all forms of autism are not directly and solely linked to immunizations.... BUT,,,,

All of us are not born equally. My brothers and I share the same parents, I am the oldest. Myself and the one born a year after me both have dyslexia (in differnet ways). Our youngest brother is autistic. I have noticed simularities in obsessive cumpulsive behaviors and a struggle with communication in all of us. I have wondered about the co-relation of autism and dyslexia. I spoke to someone last year here on the vine with Aspberger's who said something about them coming from different functions of the brain. I would be interested in any information on this.

I think you have something about the connections between certain learning disabilities and autism. In addition to the dyslexia (my husband has it) and the autism (my son has it), I would add ADD/ADHD to that list.

Remember Helen Keller? It was measles that made her deaf and blind. And people DO die from it!

I'm 67 years old. A classmate of mine in grammar school was disfigured by chicken pox. I myself have been "blessed" by two episodes of shingles.

These are serious diseases. The reason you don't hear about anyone dying from them is that there are so few cases today, BECAUSE OF VACCINATIONS!

Really Ernie,

You'd have a hard time explaining why measles was on the decline way before vaccines were used. Your theory doesn't work.

I agree about the hand sanitizers....

I had chicken pox at 6, and I have been warned about Shingles... My mother and grandmother both have been "blessed".

Not sure I would force a child to be around another with a disease, but the earlier you face it (I understand), the less likely to become sterile.

It is my understanding that people died from Small Pox... Meningitis is a word that seems to be on the TV quite a bit. I had exclaimed to my mother that I never heard of anyone dying of that. She said someone in her HS died from it.

I have an issue with Texas forcing 12 year old girls to get vaccinated with Gynocyle (sp??) to ward off HPV. If you see the commercial... it does not guarantee 100% resistance to the infection, but can have all these side affects. Not to mention the Governor who signed the Bill, was funded by the company who produces it.... and the shot is $700 each.

I also have a problem with all of the sanitizers being used and killing all the bacteria that is on our hands.

haha yeah I get a kick out of those lysol commercials and such. especially the ones like this one i saw where the kid was reaching for a phone and they had a bunch of retardedly(I understand the irony and inappropriate-ness of using that word in an autism related discussion, it amuses me)colored enlarged computer generated "bacteria" on it in dramatic slow motion.

well, enjoy your hay fever and immune system weaknesses.

quick find a Thesaurus before the word police comes to get you.

quick find a Thesaurus before the word police comes to get you.

but I thought dinosaurs were extinct...

/really bad pun

I keep it right next to the computer... I have an eclectic taste.