View Full Version : How do you feel about vaccines?


sarahsweets
04-29-16, 08:41 AM
I put this here in this section with the hope that we could have a discussion about vaccines and what you think about them. Let me be clear:
I dont care if you feel you dont know enough about science to participate. I know I dont. In fact Ive felt intimidated in the past in any of the science sections because I felt like I could not participate or that the thread would be spammed by repeat, hard to understand posts that werent relevant.
All are welcome here. I would love to hear your thoughts, experiences etc actually, more than some of the science, but all is welcome here.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should anyone get downright nasty with anyone. No name calling or stuff like that. I fully expect this to get opinionated and I know people have strong opinions but you can talk about this without being mean to each other. Please, I really get tired of my threads getting moved to debates.

DO NOT invoke a single thing about the government, I dont care if you think the government is involved or not, or if you feel that a certain political group is involved or what your politics are. I dont care if you like the president, hate the president or voted for Big Bird- any talk about this stuff will get it shut down or moved.

Seriously, I really want to talk about this. Its good to have healthy and hearty discussions about this stuff.
Mods- if you need to move this to another section (but not debates pretty please) feel free to do so. I just thought the subject matter could be seen as philosophical.

My opinions-
I think they are very good over-all for the population. I know they save lives. I have been fortunate enough to have kids that never experienced any negative symptoms and in fact, after reading through the research on the hype over the HPV vaccine, I got all of my kids the shots. Even my son because HPV isnt a woman-only problem. My youngest has 1 or 2 more left in the series.
I got the kids their menengitis (sp) shots. Although the risks are fairly low, my husband works for Princeton U and that school is full of a lot of folks who dont believe in vaccines. In fact last year they had an outbreak of Menengitis and petitioned the government to allow them to offer a vaccine that was still in the clinical studies phase to prevent harm. My husband works all over the place there, dorms, offices, etc. God knows what he could bring home.

My kids have all of their vaccines.
Every year we get the flu shot.
No one has had any reactions, or gotten the flu in about 3 years.
Even my daughter who is immune compromised because of severe lyme's disease, was able to tolerate it.
In fact, if they had a lyme's vaccine I would get it in a heartbeat. All three of my kids have been treated for it and my oldest daughter has had three treatments and she has never quite bounced back.
They were very young when they got it, and the symptoms are so different in kids, no one believed me at first. Once the western blot was done there was no mistaking it.
If my oldest has a swollen tick on her, we have to wait out three weeks to see if lyme's rears its ugly head.

Maybe Im old fashioned but I am not sure if I would have gotten them the chicken pox vaccine. It didnt used to be mandatory. Maybe because I lived through it I dont look at it as severely as I should.

When my youngest was a little baby, her peds office had to inform patients from a certain date that an unvaccinnated child had exposed every child to whooping cough.
You cant imagine the anger and fear I felt.
The autism thing is a non issue. Its been studied a zillion times and the origional due who said vaccines caused autism had his license suspended and the Lancet retracted the article. Even Autism speaks says that vaccines do not cause autism.
I think its important to realize that causation does not equal correlation or is it the other way around? I always forget that.

What are your thoughts and experiences?
Pleas-please be nice.
We can disagree, strongly without violating the guidelines. I am sure the mods have better things to do than editing and deleting things from this thread.
I am pretty sure they arent itching to hand out warnings and infractions although thats a very real possibility if people dont slow their roll.

XXXOOO

Helloit'sme
04-29-16, 09:12 AM
Long story short. I have a daughter with autism. She is now 16. The symptoms appeared one day after her first MMR. BUT, she was at the age that symptoms of autism start to emerge. So, was it the vaccine or a coincidence? Did the vaccine expedite the symptoms that we going to appear anyway? The answer is that I have no idea. So much info out there. So much research trying to both prove and disprove. As everyone knows, it is a very controversial topic. Robert De Niro recently announced that he has a child with autism. He firmly believes it was the vaccine. There is a new movie out about the topic: VAXXED. I will certainly see it and probably be even more confused. For those of us personally affected, it is a heartbreaking issue.

BellaVita
04-29-16, 10:03 AM
Long story short. I have a daughter with autism. She is now 16. The symptoms appeared one day after her first MMR. BUT, she was at the age that symptoms of autism start to emerge. So, was it the vaccine or a coincidence? Did the vaccine expedite the symptoms that we going to appear anyway? The answer is that I have no idea. So much info out there. So much research trying to both prove and disprove. As everyone knows, it is a very controversial topic. Robert De Niro recently announced that he has a child with autism. He firmly believes it was the vaccine. There is a new movie out about the topic: VAXXED. I will certainly see it and probably be even more confused. For those of us personally affected, it is a heartbreaking issue.

Vaccines don't cause autism. That is a fact. It has been shown time and time again.

Andrew Wakefield was dishonest and lost his medical license.

Here is a helpful video that shows study after study showing that vaccines do not cause autism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o65l1YAVaYc

I don't know if this helps but I have memories [of my feelings/semi-thoughts - when I was in the crib] before the age of 2 and based off those memories I know I thought the same as I do today. I was born autistic and have always been autistic.

It's not a heartbreaking issue, I'm sorry but autism isn't heartbreaking. That sounds as if autistics are a bad thing. Or a disease. We're not.

Thank you for listening.

Roundmouth
04-29-16, 10:53 AM
I find it somewhat strange that there are so many strong opinions against vaccines. Of course, sometimes it goes very wrong and people develope problems with narcolepsy, but over all... Even those who refuse vaccination take benefit from the rest of us. As long as the majority is protected, spreading of infections will be limited.

Pasteur didn't care at first, until he encountered a little girl dying from rabies. I think many of those enemies of science also would need to face some human suffering that scientific research may perhaps one day cure. I saw some TV program about a family where on of their twin sons had died from some painful genetic disease. Stem cells will in the future maybe be the key to a cure, so that their other son actually may live a normal and healthy life. Also, organs and whole limbs may perhaps some day be cultivated. But their are groups opposing stem cell research, some of them for religious reasons. They would probably not change their mind if they have a strong belief, but that confrontation might perhaps make others more aware and engaged.

Well, I'll take the risk going off topic... I'm actually more worried about the use of antibiotics. It's a great invention and it has saved millions of lives - let's hope it will keep saving lives in the future too. Many people seem to think that it's their right to get antibiotics as soon as they suspect an infection of any kind. However, bacteria will adapt and very soon no antibiotics will help, while the bacterias will become stronger than ever.

Socaljaxs
04-29-16, 11:26 AM
I feel like we've talked about this issue before in another thread. Not in detail like this but I do remember googling anti-vaccine reason due to conversations on this a month or so back... I just remember asking why there is this anti- vaccine movement to begin with. that is when I started to look at the anti-vaccine blogs. I will find the thread if it still exists to add this to the discussion. Since I think it's rather interesting the pro/anti vaccine reasoning.

Vaccines don't cause autism. That is a fact. It has been shown time and time again. this^^^ i think the blame/ scare tactics used are just ridiculous. There isn't proof of this cause nor is there a specific link or study that say all vaccines( which anything used in a debate utilizing "all" is usually easily disproven. Or even a specific vaccines that is blamed as the cause with science and proof to back it up. A person is born with autism. It is not something that is a side effect. Or something one can catch.

It's in my opinion a way to scare parents and/or allow blame. If someone has real scientific proof/ and studies that prove this to be true, please share..

ginniebean
04-29-16, 12:56 PM
I'm all for vaccinations.

Fuzzy12
04-29-16, 01:00 PM
It's strange for me but even till recently I was firmly in the pro vaccination camp. I remember there was a thread recently on vaccination and I posted very strongly in favour of it. Nothing has changed really and I'm still strongly for it but that thread made me think. I can imagine that at times it is a difficult issue e.g. for a parent to decide what is best.

My parents' first child started showing severe developmental delays after she received a vaccination that was highly recommended in those days before travelling to a tropical country. I don't know much about it because my parents rarely speak about her and she died soon after I was born. She was severely mentally and physically disabled. I do know though that a doctor was trying to get them and other parents who had a similar experience with this vaccine involved in a law suit and was trying to prove a link between the vaccine and their problems. I don't think they ever proved anything and my parents probably had too much on their hands to care about the lawsuit but that particular vaccine was pulled soon after.

I guess most vaccinations that are recommended these days are perfectly safe but that was what my parents had been told back then as well. Maybe they were just one of the few very unlucky ones who were affected (if it had anything to do with the vaccination at all). The thing is though that **** happens and science is not infallible. What is a fairly well established truth today might not be so tomorrow.

It's one of the things I love about science actually: that it doesn't claim to hold the absolute truth. It doesn't claim that it's omniscient or infallible. It's always examining, introspecting and correcting itself. That is why I believe in science. It doesn't claim to be all facts...or the truth. It's just the path to truth.

I always thought that if I had a child I would get all recommended vaccinations (my parents did for my brother and me ...in spite of their experiences and we've always been pictures of rosy health (at least physically) ). I'm pretty sure I'll do the same but then when I was offered the flu shot beginning of this year by my midwife I couldn't make up my mind what to do as my ln laws strongly advised again it. I took so much time that finally I was told that since it's not winter anymore I don't need it.

sarahsweets
04-29-16, 01:40 PM
Long story short. I have a daughter with autism. She is now 16. The symptoms appeared one day after her first MMR. BUT, she was at the age that symptoms of autism start to emerge. So, was it the vaccine or a coincidence? Did the vaccine expedite the symptoms that we going to appear anyway? The answer is that I have no idea. So much info out there.
I would think its coincidence, can autism symptoms come on so abruptly?
IME with my sister there were certain sensory issues and behaviors that were unusual and then at about age three it seemed like everything came to a halt.

Robert De Niro recently announced that he has a child with autism. He firmly believes it was the vaccine. There is a new movie out about the topic: VAXXED. I will certainly see it and probably be even more confused. For those of us personally affected, it is a heartbreaking issue.

I dont believe DeNiro said he believes the 2 are linked did he? Either way the film you mentioned which he was an executive producer of and was due to be shown at the Tribeca film festival (I think), was no shown. Once people got wind of the nature of the movie and the "scientist" involved (wakefield), even DeNiro retracted his stance on it. Most autism awareness groups do not believe in this. I know its being shown in select theatres which bugs me because its by no means a mainstream kind of film, at least as far as the concepts go. I guess I would understand people's stance on vaccination if they left the autism part out. Its been disproven to death and why any parent of an autistic child would want a doctor with bad research and who misrepresented himself and the studies behind his conjectures, to dictate what they do with their kids is beyond me. At least with other objections there are opportunities for discussion but when you try and discuss the specific links between autism and vaccines, and that there are none, its like some people shut down and refuse to hear anything more.

aeon
04-30-16, 12:22 AM
I am 100% pro-vaccination, and I think it is a violation of the social contract to not be vaccinated.


Be Well,
Ian

namazu
04-30-16, 01:12 AM
MODERATOR NOTE: Please note that the topic of this thread is vaccines.
[A side conversation about whether or not autism can or should be considered "heartbreaking" has been split to a separate thread here (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177111)so as not to derail this thread.]

stef
04-30-16, 03:04 AM
I'm pro vaccination and especially for things like whooping cough and measles;
i think its totally irresponsible to risk starting an epidemic of something that has been practically eradicated.

midnightstar
04-30-16, 05:02 AM
I think that vaccines should continue to be given to every child because that way it'll protect children from viruses that could cause them serious harm or even kill them :grouphug:

BellaVita
04-30-16, 05:15 AM
I am 100% for every vaccine.

Helloit'sme
04-30-16, 09:01 AM
Vaccines don't cause autism. That is a fact. It has been shown time and time again.

Andrew Wakefield was dishonest and lost his medical license.

Here is a helpful video that shows study after study showing that vaccines do not cause autism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o65l1YAVaYc

I don't know if this helps but I have memories [of my feelings/semi-thoughts - when I was in the crib] before the age of 2 and based off those memories I know I thought the same as I do today. I was born autistic and have always been autistic.

It's not a heartbreaking issue, I'm sorry but autism isn't heartbreaking. That sounds as if autistics are a bad thing. Or a disease. We're not.

Thank you for listening.

I should have elaborated. It is heartbreaking if the person with autism is so severely impacted that they cannot function nor find joy in life. No one knows what is going on in the mind of a very low functioning individual with autism because they cannot articulate it, but I know several teens who are always frightened, crying and very confused. They don't seem to have any peace. They are still in diapers, cannot dress or feed themselves and have no speech. They have not been able to learn to use communication devices. That must be an awful place to be. I hope this passes as they mature so that they can enjoy life.

Helloit'sme
04-30-16, 09:27 AM
I would think its coincidence, can autism symptoms come on so abruptly?
IME with my sister there were certain sensory issues and behaviors that were unusual and then at about age three it seemed like everything came to a halt.



I dont believe DeNiro said he believes the 2 are linked did he? Either way the film you mentioned which he was an executive producer of and was due to be shown at the Tribeca film festival (I think), was no shown. Once people got wind of the nature of the movie and the "scientist" involved (wakefield), even DeNiro retracted his stance on it. Most autism awareness groups do not believe in this. I know its being shown in select theatres which bugs me because its by no means a mainstream kind of film, at least as far as the concepts go. I guess I would understand people's stance on vaccination if they left the autism part out. Its been disproven to death and why any parent of an autistic child would want a doctor with bad research and who misrepresented himself and the studies behind his conjectures, to dictate what they do with their kids is beyond me. At least with other objections there are opportunities for discussion but when you try and discuss the specific links between autism and vaccines, and that there are none, its like some people shut down and refuse to hear anything more.

I stand corrected. He stated that his son changed overnight after receiving the MMR vaccine. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3537962/Let-s-truth-Robert-Niro-says-autistic-son-changed-overnight-MMR-jab-insists-isn-t-anti-vaccine-just-pro-safe-vaccines.html

Laserbeak
04-30-16, 05:40 PM
Vaccines are one of the great accomplishments/discoveries of mankind.

SB_UK
05-02-16, 02:44 PM
Prevention of the environments which causes pathogens to flourish is so much better than prevention by lesser methods.

Natural food, cleanliness, effective waste management - immersing ourself within the ecosystem - not seeking to destroy.

seemingly
05-02-16, 03:12 PM
Long story short. I have a daughter with autism. She is now 16. The symptoms appeared one day after her first MMR. BUT, she was at the age that symptoms of autism start to emerge. So, was it the vaccine or a coincidence? Did the vaccine expedite the symptoms that we going to appear anyway? The answer is that I have no idea. So much info out there. So much research trying to both prove and disprove. As everyone knows, it is a very controversial topic. Robert De Niro recently announced that he has a child with autism. He firmly believes it was the vaccine. There is a new movie out about the topic: VAXXED. I will certainly see it and probably be even more confused. For those of us personally affected, it is a heartbreaking issue.

What else did your daughter do that day that "coincided" with onset of autism? Drink milk? bump her head? Wear a pink dress?

Association is not causation.

Hathor
05-02-16, 09:38 PM
Perhaps Vax do not cause autism but can trigger symptoms.

I stopped talking and stared walking on my toes after childhood vaccinations.

sarahsweets
05-03-16, 04:28 AM
Perhaps Vax do not cause autism but can trigger symptoms.

I stopped talking and stared walking on my toes after childhood vaccinations.

when you say trigger symptoms, what do you mean?

BellaVita
05-03-16, 10:54 AM
I wonder if people just "know" to look for autism symptoms after they vaccinate their kids due to the Andrew Wakefield thing from years ago and the popularity of the myth, so all the sudden they think their child is autistic when really they had been showing symptoms all along.

Fuzzy12
05-03-16, 11:17 AM
I wonder if people just "know" to look for autism symptoms after they vaccinate their kids due to the Andrew Wakefield thing from years ago and the popularity of the myth, so all the sudden they think their child is autistic when really they had been showing symptoms all along.

Possible. That makes a lot of sense. Or when they recognise symptoms of autism they might then remember that their kid has had a vaccination recently (don't kids at that age have them fairly frequently?) and link it with that.

Hathor
05-03-16, 11:48 AM
when you say trigger symptoms, what do you mean?

Perhaps allergy is a good analogy.

Vax could trigger negative effects in autistics in a way related to Those with allergies.

OTO hand I don't even really know what allegory means.

TygerSan
05-03-16, 07:09 PM
Perhaps Vax do not cause autism but can trigger symptoms.

I stopped talking and stared walking on my toes after childhood vaccinations.

I am pro-vaccination and a scientist to boot. For the vast majority of folks, vaccines are safe and effective.

However, sometimes I think that the experiences of those who have truly had adverse reactions to vaccines are kind of shoved off to one side in the zealous defense of vaccination. For every hundred or so people who find a spurious correlation between discovery of developmental delays and time of vaccination, let's not forget that there *are* people who have bad reactions to vaccines, from febrile seizures to more severe reactions. Some of those may even have metabolic disorders that present, in part, with autistic symptoms.

Little Nut
05-03-16, 11:14 PM
I think of vaccines in the macro sense. i.e. how they impact the community as a whole and not what bad effects they may have for a single individual. So I support the process that rid us of polio (pretty much), smallpox, measles, tetanus, mumps, rubella...

I also think it is wrong to avoid the side effect risks on the back of those that accept that risk. IOW it is OK for me not to be vaccinated only because most everyone else is vaccinated.

Sarah, I didn't think chicken pox was a big deal either until I got shingles a cupla years ago. IMNVHO SHINGLES REALLY SUX.

Twiggy
05-04-16, 01:09 AM
I am anti-vaccines.

I haven't been vaccinated for flu or any other vaccine since elementary school.

Somehow, I am physically healthy and don't get too sick when the flu comes around.

That is my personal opinion and I don't want to be attacked for it.
Thank you.

BellaVita
05-04-16, 01:16 AM
I am anti-vaccines.

I haven't been vaccinated for flu or any other vaccine since elementary school.

Somehow, I am physically healthy and don't get too sick when the flu comes around.

That is my personal opinion and I don't want to be attacked for it.
Thank you.

No attacking, don't worry. :)

I wonder if the vaccines you got as a child helped you to not get any serious conditions, it's also a good thing there is such thing as herd immunity.

Glad to hear you are physically healthy.

Hathor
05-04-16, 06:49 AM
I'm not anti vax but just a bit paranoid

Little Nut
05-04-16, 12:05 PM
Twiggy, just a question. No right or wrong answer, just curious personally.

If no one was vaccinated for let's say smallpox or maybe polio and the virus was just as prevalent as it was 100 years ago, would you want to be vaccinated against it? TIA, -LN

allesandro1
12-11-17, 10:21 PM
Well, I am very ambivalent about them. I receive them because I am diabetic and have issues with immunosuppression. However, I saw an interview with Senator Robert Kennedy Jr. once who claimed to have done a great deal of research on the subject and said that the mercury-based neurotoxin used as a preservative can have a significant impact on the brain and cognitive functioning and that this may be the reason for an increase in the number of autism spectrum disorders. I don't know, but I've always wondered if this could be one of the causes of ADD. Not that everyone who has been vaccinated gets ADD, but a general rule of medicine is that 'anything can do anything to anybody.' Who knows how the introduction of a neurotoxin might affect someone

Lunacie
12-11-17, 10:41 PM
Well, I am very ambivalent about them. I receive them because I am diabetic and have issues with immunosuppression. However, I saw an interview with Senator Robert Kennedy Jr. once who claimed to have done a great deal of research on the subject and said that the mercury-based neurotoxin used as a preservative can have a significant impact on the brain and cognitive functioning and that this may be the reason for an increase in the number of autism spectrum disorders. I don't know, but I've always wondered if this could be one of the causes of ADD. Not that everyone who has been vaccinated gets ADD, but a general rule of medicine is that 'anything can do anything to anybody.' Who knows how the introduction of a neurotoxin might affect someone



Thimerosal (mercury) was taken out of childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001.

Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal.

Influenza (flu) vaccines are currently available in both thimerosal-containing (for multi-dose vaccine vials) and thimerosal-free versions.


And yet, the number of people (children and adults) continues to climb.
That is probably because knowledge of the condition has spread.

However, mercury is still present in other sources including dental amalgams
(silver fillings), food especially some types of fish, and air pollution from coal-
fired power plants and wildfires. So it's silly for anyone to blame vaccines for
mercury poisoning.

Kunga Dorji
04-25-18, 02:23 AM
And yet, the number of people (children and adults) continues to climb.
That is probably because knowledge of the condition has spread.

However, mercury is still present in other sources including dental amalgams
(silver fillings), food especially some types of fish, and air pollution from coal-
fired power plants and wildfires. So it's silly for anyone to blame vaccines for
mercury poisoning.

We're clear now that the increase in autism is not a matter of changed diagnostic practices. There is something significant going on.

The number is increasing and increasing at a rate that is similar to the increases in alzheimers. The possibility of the number of dependent people needing intense care exceeding the capacity of the taxpayer base required to support them is now real, and increasing every day.


The biggest issue seems to be aluminium:

http://vaccinepapers.org/

We have a clear demonstration that aluminium adjuvants injected into mice at the relevant dose cause an Il6, microglial reaction of the kind that is found in autism, and clear autopsy findings of high aluminium levels in the brains of autistics.

Its not all that easy to come to a conclusive position either way, but what is very clear is that the really high quality information like vaccinepapers website is not getting out to inform debate properly.

For the record I am not enthusiastic about having them myself.

Fortune
04-25-18, 05:12 AM
tl;dr: Vaccines don't cause autism. Aluminum in vaccines doesn't cause autism. Adverse events caused by vaccines occur at a significantly lower rate than, say, disease outbreaks caused by a lack of vaccinations in an area. Also, vaccinepapers is kind of shady.

https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/

https://medium.com/the-method/vaccines-dont-cause-autism-4ea5b1836022

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/scientists-fake-autism-study-data

Huh, the paper linking aluminum in vaccines to autism was retracted. And the study authors have had another paper about vaccines and autism retracted in the past. That's... interesting, and highly indicative.

And this:

In one response, critics said the study researchers injected the aluminum adjuvant under the skin of the mice, which is inconsistent with how vaccines are given in humans. They are injected into muscle tissue.

Others disputed the value of a mouse model entirely.makes it seem that the whole "injecting aluminum into mice" thing doesn't demonstrate anything.

Not vaccinating, however, has done demonstrable harm. For example

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5007135/

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/

The aluminum thing is a shifting of goalposts because thimerosal doesn't cause autism and as its use declined due to public backlash, the diagnoses continue to increase over time. What this appears to be is people looking for evidence to fit their conclusions, rather than drawing conclusions from existing evidence. This is bad science - one might even say corrupt science. When the evidence that aluminum doesn't cause autism becomes overwhelming, and (possibly) vaccine manufacturers stop using aluminum, and the diagnosis rate remains where it is, they'll start the same process all over again with some other ingredient or element common to vaccines.

This article from 2017 indicates that the likely cause of the increase in autism diagnosis is due to increased awareness:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-real-reasons-autism-rates-are-up-in-the-u-s/

It's hard to find discussion of vaccinepapers outside of vaccinepapers itself. I found one comment on an article or blog (not sure which) saying that it's a site maintained by one man who sells vaping supplies...which, what he sells isn't really relevant. Still, I wanted to know who was behind this site and what their history is. So I did a whois and got nothing. So I went to whois.icann.org and found that the site owner is "WhoisGuard protected."

Most of what I can find is offhanded comments about vaccinepapers' bias and overall kookery, which doesn't surprise me, but I would like to have something more substantial.

Looking at vaccinepapers itself, I see the claim that

In recent years, powerful scientific evidence has emerged indicating that vaccines cause brain injury such as autism, epilepsy, schizophrenia, depression, attention-deficit disorder and other mental illnesses. This scientific evidence has been largely ignored by the media, and by medical institutions that are supposedly guided by science.Now, I don't trust vaccinepapers because the current consensus says this is simply not the case, and a conspiracy this large would not be sustainable - not quite on the level of collusion necessary to suppress the notion that the Earth is really flat, but definitely a high degree of collusion across multiple disciplines and people with multiple agendas. Occam's Razor says this is unlikely.

I also don't trust vaccinepapers because whoever maintains the site asserts that he wants anonymity to simply focus on the science. I suspect this measure is more to protect the site from his own notoriety as an anti-vaxxer than it is to focus the discussion on the science itself. The entire site is basically a gish gallup, after all.

But if this is true, I should be able to find studies outside of vaccinepapers' claims that demonstrate this.

I already know (because I've been looking) that vaccines causing autism is largely rejected. Not ignored, but outright rejected with full blown criticism of the methods used to demonstrate that vaccines cause autism. Soooo, I'm not going to bother to research that claim further. Previous links address this.

But how about schizophrenia? Some googling found that a guy named Dr. Russell Blaylock, a neurosurgeon, claims that basically everything in vaccines will cause neurological injury and claims that if a pregnant mother is vaccinated immune cytokines will enter the fetus' brain and disrupt neurological development.

I did find this paper:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801483/

Which says:

Cytokine-induced sickness behavior was first described in the literature in 1995.7 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801483/#B7) It shares symptoms with fibromyalgia, such as fever, fatigue, pain, anorexia, and irritability. Immunoneuropsychiatric (INP) concepts were first introduced in the study of the pathophysiology of major depression. Dr. Michael Maes paved the path for the current explosion into cytokine research by linking the vegetative symptoms of major depression with increased production of IL-1, IL-6, and haptoglobin, an acute-phase reactant. The study of cytokine involvement in the pathophysiology of other neuropsychiatric and metabolic disorders, such as anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, headaches, epilepsy, dementia, and delirium, is also rapidly gaining momentum.Well, that's alarming.

So I look up the rate of vaccine injury in children. I'm not shifting the goalposts here, but rather seeing just how often this sort of thing actually happens in observable cases.

As it turns out, the CDC maintains a database recording incidences of possible vaccine injury. The site itself warns that cause and effect in these cases is not necessarily established. It's VAERS, or Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. https://vaers.hhs.gov/index.html

I'm not going to dig through this data because there's tens of thousands of reported adverse events. Before anyone panics, a lot of this data is stuff like swelling, itching, redness, and rashes. Which...are adverse events and can be caused by vaccines, but aren't indicative of neurological injury.

This site http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/03/bob-sears/what-cdc-statistics-say-about-vaccine-illnesses-in/ reports how many dangerous adverse events were reported in 2014. I wanted to find a nice neat summation for 2017, but I couldn't. Anyway, that page reports for 2014:


We looked at 2014 VEARS data, which covers reports processed as of Dec. 14, 2014. VAERS data shows (as of Feb. 3, 2015):
1,244 cases of people reported hospitalized
416 cases of people reporting a disability
122 reported deaths
388 reported life-threatening cases
That’s a total of 2,170 events, but once you factor out double and sometimes triple counting -- meaning a reported death could also could include a reported disability or hospitalization -- you drop to a total of 1,737 cases. (The numbers change slightly depending on how you run the search. We searched when cases were reported. Since the database is a living document, the numbers may also shift if you choose to run this calculation yourself.)
On the flip side, the 2014 count is only through Dec. 14, meaning that additional cases likely will be reported before the CDC closes out the year.None of these events specify neurological injury. But they do indicate that the number of dangerous adverse events is relatively small compared to the number of people vaccinated. This page shows that a significent percentage of the population were vaccinated against the flu in 2014, suggesting that a lot of people received just that one vaccine. When you're looking at 40% of the population being vaccinated, that comes to approximately 127.44 million people of all ages. And against that you have 1,737 cases leading to hospitalization or death out of 40,437 reported adverse events. Interesting, indicative that vaccines aren't leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake, but not quite the statistics I want.


So I go to http://www.medalerts.org/ which lets you apply all kinds of search criteria. It seems that out of 45,644 adverse events reported in 2017, 363 cases of disability were reported. 40 of those were children under 3. Eight were aged 3-6.



Now I don't know how many children under 3 were vaccinated in 2017. But the CDC gives us some stats: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/immunize.htm


And that tells us a lot of children under 3 receive a lot of vaccines. Like in the 80-90% range. https://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp tells me that there were 24.2 million children from age 0-5 in the US in 2017. So, it's safe to conclude that literal millions of children were vaccinated in 2017, and out of that we have 48 who experienced disability after a vaccination. 48. Dang, that's really risky. :rolleyes:


Now, getting back to vaccinating pregnant women and Dr. Russell Blaylock.


Fortunately, the CDC addresses this: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pregnancy/hcp/guidelines.html


Risk to a developing fetus from vaccination of the mother during pregnancy is theoretical. No evidence exists of risk to the fetus from vaccinating pregnant women with inactivated virus or bacterial vaccines or toxoids. Live vaccines administered to a pregnant woman pose a theoretical risk to the fetus; therefore, live, attenuated virus and live bacterial vaccines generally are contraindicated during pregnancy.


“Benefits of vaccinating pregnant women usually outweigh potential risks when the likelihood of disease exposure is high, when infection would pose a risk to the mother or fetus, and when the vaccine is unlikely to cause harm.”I mean, there's more, but it seems that there's no evidence of risks to the fetus so far. Obviously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but we do have this document: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/committee/downloads/preg-principles-2008.pdf which discuss the principles of vaccinating pregnant or breastfeeding mothers.



This discusses some research done, although it focuses on early life events and the likelihood of contracting diseases the mother was vaccinated against during pregnancy. At least in that regard, vaccination seems pretty safe.


But Dr. Blaylock proposes that these vaccinations cause brain damage that will over time reveal itself as schizophrenia, autism, etc. It appears that flu vaccines given to pregnant mothers don't cause autism:


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2587559


Back to schizophrenia, we have this study, which suggests a possible of pre-natal infection possibly causing schizophrenia (rubella is one such possibility) but most of these studies haven't been replicated:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2441883/


There have been some animal studies which show that infection during pregnancy can affect neurological development, which suggests to me that vaccination is a good thing as it reduces that risk of infection during one's entire life. The study itself proposes the question as to whether this is actually the case, but doesn't reach any conclusion in the text linked. So... more research may be needed.


Blaylock also claims vaccines cause ALS, which, no, there is a mountain of evidence that contradicts this. Blaylock also believes that vaccines are basically a plot by Big Pharma, WHO, and the US government to trick people into getting vaccinated.



It is obvious that the vaccine manufacturers stand to make billions of dollars in profits from this WHO/government-promoted pandemic.So, let's see what Big Pharma has to say about disease prevention:


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html




Goldman Sachs analysts attempted to address a touchy subject for biotech companies, especially those involved in the pioneering "gene therapy" treatment: cures could be bad for business in the long run.



"Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" analysts ask in an April 10 report entitled "The Genome Revolution."


"The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies," analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. "While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow."Welp.


Now, I know what you'll say - that comment is about gene therapy and not vaccination, so okay. There's this:


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/vaccines-are-profitable-so-what/385214/


While the main fixation of anti-vaccine groups is an old, discredited study linking vaccination to autism, another is a conspiracy theory circulated online that both doctors and pharmaceutical companies stand to profit financially from vaccination—which supposedly leads to perverse incentives in advocating for the public to vaccinate.

But that argument is historically unfounded. Not only do pediatricians and doctors often lose money on vaccine administration, it wasn't too long ago that the vaccine industry was struggling with slim profit margins and shortages. The Economist wrote that "for decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs."Huh.


I guess that leaves the notion that chronic diseases caused by vaccines are the profit motive, but I already established that such events are vanishingly rare, so it's really hard to explain spending millions on vaccines to exploit hundreds of people a year.



Oh yeah, and: autism rates aren't increasing according to this study:


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/epidemiology-and-global-burden-of-autism-spectrum-disorders/1F9C6FD6968D8B09231F2C35E70A46E8


Back to vaccinepapers, I can find on the site the following claims:

* Medicine is the most corrupt of the sciences.


While I have established that there is a serious problem in medicine related to the profit motive, it clearly shows that this problem is actually biased against vaccines, not in favor of them.


Also, this statement is a fallacy called "poisoning the well." The FAQ answer starts off with this extremely contentious statement to establish the idea that modern medicine as a profession is simply not trustworthy, and I think that's an extremely broad brush.


* Doctors find it difficult to face the possibility of iatrogenic (doctor-caused) diseases and damage. It's difficult for orthodox medicine to objectively consider the science because they face the blame for the epidemic of vaccine injury.


There's no such epidemic.



VP goes on to cite Dr. Gotzsche, director of the Nordic Cochrane Center with a relatively understandable statement, that doctors get angry if you tell them they harmed their patients. He's not wrong, citing him is a bit misleading as research produced by the Nordic Cochrane Center about aluminum in vaccines is, well


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(04)00927-2/fulltext?code=lancet-site


not supportive of the hypothesis that aluminum in vaccines is a serious risk.



I believe Dr. Gotzche is genuinely concerned about Big Pharma (and we should all be, because it really is terrible in a lot of ways), and with real issues like overprescription leading to death (the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer, at least in the US). I think his words are misused here.



VP's argument for how doctors can't stand being told they're causing harm, we get the story from the 1840s about how Dr. Semmelweis discovered that not washing hands between patients was killing them. This is all well and good, but the reality (as VP acknowledges) is that his findings and recommendations were in fact eventually adopted.


However, I don't think it's fair to compare the medical profession of the early 21st century to the medical profession of the mid 19th. I also think this is imputing a motive to all medical researchers on the basis of medical practitioners, and that's really dodgy.

He also claims that doctors don't look at research. Now, while doctors aren't infallible - https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes/517368/ - the problem seems to be more foundational than that.

He poisons the well more against the CDC and other organizations, suggesting they are corrupt establishments with no interest in science. Never mind that pointing to the CDC also points to data supporting what the CDC publishes, he argues that people are simply appealing to authority rather than addressing objective data. And...that's downright false.

His FAQ doesn't leave me feeling much trust for his methods or citations, and the articles and research I've linked points to a mountain of evidence that vaccines just aren't all that harmful, that Big Pharma doesn't even like vaccines because they're not all that profitable, that the increase in autism diagnosis is due to increased awareness, and that the actual rate hasn't increased in decades.

Also he makes a big deal about how medical researchers' and professionals' perspectives on medical treatment may be influenced by conflicts of interest (not in those words), but hides his identity and thus hides his own potential conflicts of interest.

I've also linked to some evidence that not vaccinating is harmful. Here's another one: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-children-measles-vaccinate-0922-20140919-story.html

And another one: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/07/study-small-drop-vaccine-uptake-can-trigger-measles-outbreak

Oh, I forgot: The original study by Andrew Wakefield that asserted a connection between vaccinations and autism was found to be fraudulent, retracted, and Andrew Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine in the UK.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/
http://healthland.time.com/2010/05/24/doctor-behind-vaccine-autism-link-loses-license/

It turned out he did it because he had a financial interest in discrediting the existing MMR vaccine - basically the same motive that anti-vaxxers claim informs everything about vaccinations that they don't like (peer reviewed research, facts, that sort of thing). And an entire movement was based on this fraud and continues to push variations on Wakefield's discredited claims, changing as needed to respond to those inconvenient facts I just mentioned.

Kunga Dorji
04-25-18, 05:39 AM
tl;dr: Vaccines don't cause autism. Aluminum in vaccines doesn't cause autism. Adverse events caused by vaccines occur at a significantly lower rate than, say, disease outbreaks caused by a lack of vaccinations in an area. Also, vaccinepapers is kind of shady.

https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/

https://medium.com/the-method/vaccines-dont-cause-autism-4ea5b1836022

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/scientists-fake-autism-study-data

Huh, the paper linking aluminum in vaccines to autism was retracted. And the study authors have had another paper about vaccines and autism retracted in the past. That's... interesting, and highly indicative.

And this:

makes it seem that the whole "injecting aluminum into mice" thing doesn't demonstrate anything.

Not vaccinating, however, has done demonstrable harm. For example

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5007135/

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/

The aluminum thing is a shifting of goalposts because thimerosal doesn't cause autism and as its use declined due to public backlash, the diagnoses continue to increase over time. What this appears to be is people looking for evidence to fit their conclusions, rather than drawing conclusions from existing evidence. This is bad science - one might even say corrupt science. When the evidence that aluminum doesn't cause autism becomes overwhelming, and (possibly) vaccine manufacturers stop using aluminum, and the diagnosis rate remains where it is, they'll start the same process all over again with some other ingredient or element common to vaccines.

This article from 2017 indicates that the likely cause of the increase in autism diagnosis is due to increased awareness:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-real-reasons-autism-rates-are-up-in-the-u-s/

It's hard to find discussion of vaccinepapers outside of vaccinepapers itself. I found one comment on an article or blog (not sure which) saying that it's a site maintained by one man who sells vaping supplies...which, what he sells isn't really relevant. Still, I wanted to know who was behind this site and what their history is. So I did a whois and got nothing. So I went to whois.icann.org and found that the site owner is "WhoisGuard protected."

Most of what I can find is offhanded comments about vaccinepapers' bias and overall kookery, which doesn't surprise me, but I would like to have something more substantial.

Looking at vaccinepapers itself, I see the claim that

Now, I don't trust vaccinepapers because the current consensus says this is simply not the case, and a conspiracy this large would not be sustainable - not quite on the level of collusion necessary to suppress the notion that the Earth is really flat, but definitely a high degree of collusion across multiple disciplines and people with multiple agendas. Occam's Razor says this is unlikely.

I also don't trust vaccinepapers because whoever maintains the site asserts that he wants anonymity to simply focus on the science. I suspect this measure is more to protect the site from his own notoriety as an anti-vaxxer than it is to focus the discussion on the science itself. The entire site is basically a gish gallup, after all.

But if this is true, I should be able to find studies outside of vaccinepapers' claims that demonstrate this.

I already know (because I've been looking) that vaccines causing autism is largely rejected. Not ignored, but outright rejected with full blown criticism of the methods used to demonstrate that vaccines cause autism. Soooo, I'm not going to bother to research that claim further. Previous links address this.

But how about schizophrenia? Some googling found that a guy named Dr. Russell Blaylock, a neurosurgeon, claims that basically everything in vaccines will cause neurological injury and claims that if a pregnant mother is vaccinated immune cytokines will enter the fetus' brain and disrupt neurological development.

I did find this paper:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801483/

Which says:

Well, that's alarming.

So I look up the rate of vaccine injury in children. I'm not shifting the goalposts here, but rather seeing just how often this sort of thing actually happens in observable cases.

As it turns out, the CDC maintains a database recording incidences of possible vaccine injury. The site itself warns that cause and effect in these cases is not necessarily established. It's VAERS, or Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. https://vaers.hhs.gov/index.html

I'm not going to dig through this data because there's tens of thousands of reported adverse events. Before anyone panics, a lot of this data is stuff like swelling, itching, redness, and rashes. Which...are adverse events and can be caused by vaccines, but aren't indicative of neurological injury.

This site http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/03/bob-sears/what-cdc-statistics-say-about-vaccine-illnesses-in/ reports how many dangerous adverse events were reported in 2014. I wanted to find a nice neat summation for 2017, but I couldn't. Anyway, that page reports for 2014:

None of these events specify neurological injury. But they do indicate that the number of dangerous adverse events is relatively small compared to the number of people vaccinated. This page shows that a significent percentage of the population were vaccinated against the flu in 2014, suggesting that a lot of people received just that one vaccine. When you're looking at 40% of the population being vaccinated, that comes to approximately 127.44 million people of all ages. And against that you have 1,737 cases leading to hospitalization or death out of 40,437 reported adverse events. Interesting, indicative that vaccines aren't leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake, but not quite the statistics I want.


So I go to http://www.medalerts.org/ which lets you apply all kinds of search criteria. It seems that out of 45,644 adverse events reported in 2017, 363 cases of disability were reported. 40 of those were children under 3. Eight were aged 3-6.



Now I don't know how many children under 3 were vaccinated in 2017. But the CDC gives us some stats: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/immunize.htm


And that tells us a lot of children under 3 receive a lot of vaccines. Like in the 80-90% range. https://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp tells me that there were 24.2 million children from age 0-5 in the US in 2017. So, it's safe to conclude that literal millions of children were vaccinated in 2017, and out of that we have 48 who experienced disability after a vaccination. 48. Dang, that's really risky. :rolleyes:


Now, getting back to vaccinating pregnant women and Dr. Russell Blaylock.


Fortunately, the CDC addresses this: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pregnancy/hcp/guidelines.html


I mean, there's more, but it seems that there's no evidence of risks to the fetus so far. Obviously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but we do have this document: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/committee/downloads/preg-principles-2008.pdf which discuss the principles of vaccinating pregnant or breastfeeding mothers.



This discusses some research done, although it focuses on early life events and the likelihood of contracting diseases the mother was vaccinated against during pregnancy. At least in that regard, vaccination seems pretty safe.


But Dr. Blaylock proposes that these vaccinations cause brain damage that will over time reveal itself as schizophrenia, autism, etc. It appears that flu vaccines given to pregnant mothers don't cause autism:


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2587559


Back to schizophrenia, we have this study, which suggests a possible of pre-natal infection possibly causing schizophrenia (rubella is one such possibility) but most of these studies haven't been replicated:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2441883/


There have been some animal studies which show that infection during pregnancy can affect neurological development, which suggests to me that vaccination is a good thing as it reduces that risk of infection during one's entire life. The study itself proposes the question as to whether this is actually the case, but doesn't reach any conclusion in the text linked. So... more research may be needed.


Blaylock also claims vaccines cause ALS, which, no, there is a mountain of evidence that contradicts this. Blaylock also believes that vaccines are basically a plot by Big Pharma, WHO, and the US government to trick people into getting vaccinated.



So, let's see what Big Pharma has to say about disease prevention:


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html


Welp.


Now, I know what you'll say - that comment is about gene therapy and not vaccination, so okay. There's this:


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/vaccines-are-profitable-so-what/385214/


Huh.


I guess that leaves the notion that chronic diseases caused by vaccines are the profit motive, but I already established that such events are vanishingly rare, so it's really hard to explain spending millions on vaccines to exploit hundreds of people a year.



Oh yeah, and: autism rates aren't increasing according to this study:


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/epidemiology-and-global-burden-of-autism-spectrum-disorders/1F9C6FD6968D8B09231F2C35E70A46E8


Back to vaccinepapers, I can find on the site the following claims:

* Medicine is the most corrupt of the sciences.


While I have established that there is a serious problem in medicine related to the profit motive, it clearly shows that this problem is actually biased against vaccines, not in favor of them.


Also, this statement is a fallacy called "poisoning the well." The FAQ answer starts off with this extremely contentious statement to establish the idea that modern medicine as a profession is simply not trustworthy, and I think that's an extremely broad brush.


* Doctors find it difficult to face the possibility of iatrogenic (doctor-caused) diseases and damage. It's difficult for orthodox medicine to objectively consider the science because they face the blame for the epidemic of vaccine injury.


There's no such epidemic.



VP goes on to cite Dr. Gotzsche, director of the Nordic Cochrane Center with a relatively understandable statement, that doctors get angry if you tell them they harmed their patients. He's not wrong, citing him is a bit misleading as research produced by the Nordic Cochrane Center about aluminum in vaccines is, well


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(04)00927-2/fulltext?code=lancet-site


not supportive of the hypothesis that aluminum in vaccines is a serious risk.



I believe Dr. Gotzche is genuinely concerned about Big Pharma (and we should all be, because it really is terrible in a lot of ways), and with real issues like overprescription leading to death (the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer, at least in the US). I think his words are misused here.



VP's argument for how doctors can't stand being told they're causing harm, we get the story from the 1840s about how Dr. Semmelweis discovered that not washing hands between patients was killing them. This is all well and good, but the reality (as VP acknowledges) is that his findings and recommendations were in fact eventually adopted.


However, I don't think it's fair to compare the medical profession of the early 21st century to the medical profession of the mid 19th. I also think this is imputing a motive to all medical researchers on the basis of medical practitioners, and that's really dodgy.

He also claims that doctors don't look at research. Now, while doctors aren't infallible - https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes/517368/ - the problem seems to be more foundational than that.

He poisons the well more against the CDC and other organizations, suggesting they are corrupt establishments with no interest in science. Never mind that pointing to the CDC also points to data supporting what the CDC publishes, he argues that people are simply appealing to authority rather than addressing objective data. And...that's downright false.

His FAQ doesn't leave me feeling much trust for his methods or citations, and the articles and research I've linked points to a mountain of evidence that vaccines just aren't all that harmful, that Big Pharma doesn't even like vaccines because they're not all that profitable, that the increase in autism diagnosis is due to increased awareness, and that the actual rate hasn't increased in decades.

Also he makes a big deal about how medical researchers' and professionals' perspectives on medical treatment may be influenced by conflicts of interest (not in those words), but hides his identity and thus hides his own potential conflicts of interest.

I've also linked to some evidence that not vaccinating is harmful. Here's another one: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-children-measles-vaccinate-0922-20140919-story.html

And another one: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/07/study-small-drop-vaccine-uptake-can-trigger-measles-outbreak

The whole point of the vaccinepapers site is that it is aiming to take attention away from the personal nature of the discussion and bring it to the issues. I can understand that the author would wish to remain anonymous, given the venomous nature of the mass attacks unleashed upon anyone percieved as being "anti vaccine".

Calling the site "kind of shady" is an ad hominem attack, and really is far less than your best work, Fortune.

Be aware that I was not quoting Russell Blaylock, simply because I have not had time to thoroughly review his material.

This page, and the papers that support it (quoted within the page) are highly significant:

http://vaccinepapers.org/al-adjuvant-causes-brain-inflammation-behavioral-disorders/

THe author talks about the difference between oral aluminium and injected. In particular the Crepaux paper is highly significant.

In addition the statistics showing the virtual disappearance of these illnesses before the introduction of vaccines are interesting, and are rarely mentioned.

My real position is that I am old enough to not need any more vaccines, I personally am not satisfied that the adjuvants are not neurotoxins, and I have seen the ineffectiveness of the ones being offered to my age group. So I'm out and I don't really give a damn what anyone else thinks. However this is how I feel about vaccines as per the original title, and this is how I feel.

One thing worries me and that is the hostile and malicious, antidemocratic nature of the attacks unleashed against anyone who dares to raise any criticisms or concerns (and I'm not talking about you here Fortune- just to be clear.) I would never have bothered drilling in to this issue as far as I have if this had not been the case.

Finally, Fortune, I would be obliged if you would tell me exactly which paper has been retracted. I will drop a message on the site and ask the author about it.
Thankyou kindly :)

Lunacie
04-25-18, 11:24 AM
The whole point of the vaccinepapers site is that it is aiming to take attention away from the personal nature of the discussion and bring it to the issues. I can understand that the author would wish to remain anonymous, given the venomous nature of the mass attacks unleashed upon anyone percieved as being "anti vaccine".

Calling the site "kind of shady" is an ad hominem attack, and really is far less than your best work, Fortune.

Be aware that I was not quoting Russell Blaylock, simply because I have not had time to thoroughly review his material.

This page, and the papers that support it (quoted within the page) are highly significant:

http://vaccinepapers.org/al-adjuvant-causes-brain-inflammation-behavioral-disorders/

THe author talks about the difference between oral aluminium and injected. In particular the Crepaux paper is highly significant.

In addition the statistics showing the virtual disappearance of these illnesses before the introduction of vaccines are interesting, and are rarely mentioned.

My real position is that I am old enough to not need any more vaccines, I personally am not satisfied that the adjuvants are not neurotoxins, and I have seen the ineffectiveness of the ones being offered to my age group. So I'm out and I don't really give a damn what anyone else thinks. However this is how I feel about vaccines as per the original title, and this is how I feel.

One thing worries me and that is the hostile and malicious, antidemocratic nature of the attacks unleashed against anyone who dares to raise any criticisms or concerns (and I'm not talking about you here Fortune- just to be clear.) I would never have bothered drilling in to this issue as far as I have if this had not been the case.

Finally, Fortune, I would be obliged if you would tell me exactly which paper has been retracted. I will drop a message on the site and ask the author about it.
Thankyou kindly :)

Strange wording there, an illness disappeared before something else happened.

However, if I'm correct in guessing the meaning of that, Autism as a diagnosis
did not ever happen prior to the late 1940's.

That doesn't mean that no one ever had Autism before that time, only that it
was called by other names.

Names like "retardation", "mania", "dementia", and "melancholia."

Fortune
04-26-18, 11:19 PM
This paper was retracted: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013417300417

RETRACTED: Subcutaneous injections of aluminum at vaccine adjuvant levels activate innate immune genes in mouse brain that are homologous with biomarkers of autism

The fact that the vaccine papers owner won't reveal his identity means we don't know if this individual has any conflicts of interest, has a history of fraud... basically, we know very little about this person. This is shady, and pointing this out is not ad hominem. I also do not trust anyone whose work consists of cherrypicking articles chosen to lead to a desired conclusion.

As far as anti-vaxxers being attacked, I don't condone harassment, but the impact of anti-vaccine ideology (it isn't science) is the resurgence of previously controlled diseases, thousands of deaths, and ~152,000 cases of vaccine-preventable diseases. Promoting anti-vaccination ideology literally kills people. And this is okay? It's okay for this guy to do this from behind a veil of anonymity? Advocate for more outbreaks, more preventable infectious diseases, and more death, because of his belief (that doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny) that vaccines are more harmful than not using them?

I mentioned Blaylock because he was the guy I found who claimed that vaccines cause schizophrenia. The first place I found the claim was on vaccinepapers. I addressed that because it was a contentious claim.

The Crépeaux paper is interesting. I don't think it's evidence that aluminum hydroxide actually causes autism because it's already been firmly established that vaccines don't cause autism. It probably is a sign we need to find a new, less toxic, adjutant.

I mean vaccinepapers guy loves it because it supports his confirmation bias, but I mean we still have actual mountains of research showing that there's no link between vaccines and autism diagnosis rates. This was researched to death after Wakefield's fraudulent study. Shifting the goalposts to find another possible ingredient that might, if you squint hard enough, be interpreted as causing autism, isn't good science. These people are researching things in vaccines they think can cause autism because they begin from a debunked conclusion: The reality is that vaccines don't cause autism.

Citation: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2275444

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23545349

As far as autism supposedly not existing before vaccines, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We do not have anyone diagnosed with autism before Leo Kanner started diagnosing autism, because no one was diagnosing autism before Leo Kanner, not because autism didn't exist.

This article talks about children who were possibly autistic in 19th century United States:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/early-history-autism-america-180957684/

I mean, prior to the establishment of diagnostic criteria for autism, it's hard to conclusively prove that autistic people existed. It is, however, possible to identify people in recorded history who were described as having signs that we, from our perspective in the 21st century, can interpret as possible autism. But since Leo Kanner clearly identified an existing phenomenon: autism, I think it is an extremely contentious claim to state that autism simply didn't exist before vaccines. Where's your evidence for this? No one was looking for it, so how could anyone possibly conclude it didn't exist? I mean, do things fail to exist when no one looks for them? Did other galaxies only appear when Andromeda was itself determined to be a galaxy separate from our own, despite prior observations that might in retrospect have hinted at the existence of other galaxies?

Like no one ever mentions autism statistics before autism was identified in the 1930s because, well, no one was tracking autism before the 1930s. I think maybe no one was tracking it before the 40s or 50s.

I also forgot to address your fearmongering about increased resources being spent to support autistic people - I really can't muster much more of a reaction than "so what? Why is it bad that disabled people be supported when they have difficulty supporting themselves?" Generally speaking, one of the signs of a society's health as a society is how they treat disabled people and the elderly. Characterizing support of autistic people as a waste of resources as you did was not a good look.

I don't really intend to go into a back and forth on this. I mean, believe what you want, you're entitled to your opinion. You're just not entitled to your own facts.