LMV Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Well, that's what I think. But you said this, in the middle: LMV: If your local hospital does not have a negative pressure isolation room (or have one available) then presumably your pediatrician will direct you to an appropriate facility. It would be a very rare primary care practice that had a negative pressure isolation room in their office so it would be unlikely that they would suggest you bring the child into the office for evaluation. This is not because they are punishing you (or your child) for deciding not to immunize but because they are trying to avoid spreading the virus. This policy would apply to any unimmunized children who could possibly be infected and the reason why they were unimmunized (whether because they were babies too young to immunize, children who were receiving immunosuppressant therapy that couldn't receive live vaccines, children who's parents made a conscious decision to not immunize, or children who's parents just hadn't got around to immunizing, etc) would be irrelevant. What policy would apply to any unimmunized children? Perhaps the unclear reference is tripping me up and I misread you to say that unimmunizied children are not to be brought into the office, not for reasons of punishment but to contain the virus (the latter of which makes sense, of course). So...what policy applies to unimmunized children, as opposed to any ill children? Just trying to understand your point here. If it would help you (and possibly others) understand, I will change my post to remove the unimmunized---you have to understand that my post you were responding to was a response to SKL's post (which I carefully attributed to SKL so there would not be any confusion) where she specifically was talking about unimmunized kids where she asked if there were special cases for babies to young to be immunized or kids who missed the shot due to illness so I worded it that way. You questioned my response so I clarified. Apparently you didn't like my clarification and are now returning to my original response so I will modify it in the hopes of clarifying further. I truly hope this helps you understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 If it would help you (and possibly others) understand, I will change my post to remove the unimmunized---you have to understand that my post you were responding to was a response to SKL's post (which I carefully attributed to SKL so there would not be any confusion) where she specifically was talking about unimmunized kids where she asked if there were special cases for babies to young to be immunized or kids who missed the shot due to illness so I worded it that way. You questioned my response so I clarified. Apparently you didn't like my clarification and are now returning to my original response so I will modify it in the hopes of clarifying further. I truly hope this helps you understand. It isn't that I didn't like it. It was unclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I have in fact met people who are slow to vaccinate for perceived medical reasons. (reluctance to cause a vaccine overload, or family history of vaccine issues) So we should be looking at these people as illogical extremists? Or should we be pushing them to vaccinate on schedule to make everyone else feel better? 1) You've conflated two different reasons for delayed vaccination. A "reluctance to cause vaccine overload" is a fear, not a medical contraindication for vaccination. A family history of vaccine issues can be a medical contraindication not to vaccinate on the CDC's recommended schedule. No pro-vaccination person that I've seen in this thread advocates giving vaccines to people who have a medical reason not to have them. 2) No one is pushing people to vaccinate in order to "make everyone else feel better". While eliminating, eradicating and preventing VPDs does make me feel better, it is the elimination and eradication of disease that I'm after, not the feel good after effects. In fact, I would rather more people get vaccinated to protect those you mention above who cannot get vaccinated at all or on schedule because of medical contraindications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 This is not going to go anywhere. She's citing a website that is well known for conspiracy theories and quackery as a legit source where she obtains information on this topic. Sorry, if they were quacky sites, I'm on my phone so can only see sections of the site. My computer is dying a slow death, as it's a XP Microsoft dinosaur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 But why are we even discussing mercury? Most vaccinations haven't had thimerisol in them for years. I think the only one that may sometimes still contain thimerisol is the flu shot. I'm not sure why it came up, but it is interesting that it was in them previously. If the mercury was so safe, then why did they feel compelled to remove it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Perhaps, Jasperstone, because removing it was a lot easier than making doctors have this argument a bajillion times a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I just knew someone was going to say that. ;-) Why was that toxic heavy metal ever in there in the first place? If they can do without it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Paul Offit: What Would Jesus Do About Measles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Why was that toxic heavy metal ever in there in the first place? If they can do without it.... Because vaccines used to be packaged in multi-dose vials, which reduced the cost of distributing vaccines (and the thimerosal inhibited the growth of microbes). Vaccines are now packaged individually, which eliminates the need for thimerosal but increases vaccine cost and medical waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I'm not sure why it came up, but it is interesting that it was in them previously. If the mercury was so safe, then why did they feel compelled to remove it? http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-thimerosal-color-office.pdf http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 From 2nd linked site- However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury. As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued two Joint Statements, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible (CDC 1999) and (CDC 2000). http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-thimerosal-color-office.pdf http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228 So their science got it wrong the first time around. And they had to adjust what they were doing??? Hmmm... just too bad if it was your own precious baby that, that (overload) happened to. I wonder how understanding you all would be then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 So their science got it wrong the first time around. And they had to adjust what they were doing??? Hmmm... just too bad if it was your own precious baby that, that (overload) happened to. I wonder how understanding you all would be then? But you don't trust those sources anyway, so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 But you don't trust those sources anyway, so... And that only confirms it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Misleading Mercury-exposure Comparisons: Thimerosal ... - Dr. King dr-king.com/.../091129_MisleadingMerc... Thimerosal-preserved Flu Shot Versus the Eating ofTuna Fish by: Paul G. ... “My doctor says there is more mercury in a can of tuna fish than in avaccination†is intentionally ... The maximum level in the mercury absorbed from eating fish: Sorry, if they were quacky sites, I'm on my phone so can only see sections of the site. My computer is dying a slow death, as it's a XP Microsoft dinosaur. This one above is from a doctor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 A doctor of what, exactly? What is his certification? Where did he study? Where is he published? Jasperstone, most of us don't operate under "who do you trust?" We use a rule of "what does the evidence say, and where does it lead?" "Oh, well, this guy's a doctor" is not a very convincing argument. So their science got it wrong the first time around. And they had to adjust what they were doing??? No, actually, it was removed simply as a precaution, despite no evidence of harm. Had you read the links, you would know that. However, yes, "science gets it wrong" sometimes. We've already explained it to you. This is how science works. We get things wrong, and then we fix them. Just like in life. Furthermore, in life, everything is a cost benefit analysis. The cost of mass vaccinations is outweighed by the benefits to society. Some children get sick from the vaccines... but many more would get sick and die from the disease. Cost down, benefits up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 No, actually, it was removed simply as a precaution, despite no evidence of harm. Had you read the links, you would know that. However, yes, "science gets it wrong" sometimes. We've already explained it to you. This is how science works. We get things wrong, and then we fix them. Just like in life. Furthermore, in life, everything is a cost benefit analysis. The cost of mass vaccinations is outweighed by the benefits to society. Some children get sick from the vaccines... but many more would get sick and die from the disease. Cost down, benefits up. That's not what it says. It says some babies depending on their weight can have an overload of it. So, let's sacrifice our own to save others, huh? Seriously, if it was your child that was harmed, would we be having this conversation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 That's not what it says. It says some babies depending on their weight can have an overload of it. So, let's sacrifice our own to save others, huh? Did you read the links? Please quote the section that says any child, anywhere, was harmed by an overdose from the vaccine. Another option would have been to use one vaccine formulation for low-weight infants and another for older children and heavier infants. Seriously, if it was your child that was harmed, would we be having this conversation? Well, let's look at the stats. Actually, let's not and say we did - we don't really need the numbers for this. A small, undetermined number of infants could have had too much exposure to mercury, maybe (but there's no evidence that this ever happened to any infant anywhere at any time). That sucks! Without any vaccines, some number of children died yearly due to measles in the US, and others were permanently injured. That sucks even more! If my child was harmed by a preventable illness, you can bet we'd be having this conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 That's not what it says. It says some babies depending on their weight can have an overload of it. That isn't quite what they said. "As part of the FDAMA review, the FDA evaluated the amount of mercury an infant might receive in the form of ethylmercury from vaccines under the U.S. recommended childhood immunization schedule and compared these levels with existing guidelines for exposure to methylmercury, as there are no existing guidelines for ethylmercury, the metabolite of thimerosal. At the time of this review in 1999, the maximum cumulative exposure to mercury from vaccines in the recommended childhood immunization schedule was within acceptable limits for the methylmercury exposure guidelines set by FDA, ATSDR, and WHO. However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury." As they observed earlier and are still researching, ethylmercury is metabolized significantly differently than methylmercury, and methylmercury is significantly more toxic. So they exceeded recommended guidelines for a more toxic substance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 And that only confirms it. This is called circular reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiguirre Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 The thing about science ... it doesn't depend on faith. It depends on observable evidence and replicable studies. That is the opposite of faith. Except when it's not. It turns out it's not quite so reliable when there's lot of money riding on the results and big companies have incentives to carefully craft studies to prove their products are "safe and effective". This isn't tin foil conspiracy stuff, it's become mainstream, thanks to John Ioannidis: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Here's a link to the wiki on him for some background. He's currently at Stanford Medical School, so he's not a fringe figure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._A._Ioannidis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury. Did you read the links? Please quote the section that says any child, anywhere, was harmed by an overdose from the vaccine. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Yes... except that, as has been explained to you in this thread, the preservative doesn't use methylmercury, it uses ethylmercury, which, as we're finding, is passed from the body faster and is much safer. So there was no risk. And even if there had been, it could've been avoided by not vaccinating children below a certain weight limit. Except that they chose to take the preservative out instead, which was also a valid choice, out of an abundance of caution. You have yet to answer my question. Please quote a section of the link that says that any child HAS been harmed. Not "could have happened", not "if this were methylmercury instead of ethylmercury", not "hypothetically speaking". If you cannot find such a section - and you won't, because it doesn't say so, because no child has been harmed - please do not rely on that argument again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiguirre Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 A propos of Big Pharma's marketing practices, John Oliver did a piece this weekend: The usual disclaimers apply: It's John Oliver, it's HBO, they don't beep out the cuss words. Proceed at your own risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Interesting, in the CDC link it seems to say that the way they proved no link to autism was by noting that the number of kids being diagnosed with autism after the removal of thimerosal was higher than before. Is this the way they prove vaccine safety in general? That's like saying ice cream isn't fattening because people who don't eat ice cream get fat too. I also read that although they stopped making vaxes with mercury in them, they didn't remove the existing ones from circulation, and they were still being used years later (I'm not sure they are used up still). I don't know what is behind the increase in autism diagnoses. I don't think anyone really knows. I am not one to insist it is caused by vaccines, but I don't understand the derision toward people who want to take precautions, especially those who have a family history. There is nothing funny about autism. I'm surprised more people aren't demanding answers for the increase in diagnoses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Interesting, in the CDC link it seems to say that the way they proved no link to autism was by noting that the number of kids being diagnosed with autism after the removal of thimerosal was higher than before. Is this the way they prove vaccine safety in general? That's like saying ice cream isn't fattening because people who don't eat ice cream get fat too. I also read that although they stopped making vaxes with mercury in them, they didn't remove the existing ones from circulation, and they were still being used years later (I'm not sure they are used up still). I don't know what is behind the increase in autism diagnoses. I don't think anyone really knows. I am not one to insist it is caused by vaccines, but I don't understand the derision toward people who want to take precautions, especially those who have a family history. There is nothing funny about autism. I'm surprised more people aren't demanding answers for the increase in diagnoses. No,it isn't like saying that. Like at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/new-study-implicates-thimerosal-containing-vaccines-in-causing-brain-damage/ New Study Shows Mercury in Vaccines Causes Brain Damage Major databases (PubMed and Web-of-science) were searched for in vitro and in vivo experimental studies that addressed the effects of low-dose Thimerosal (or ethylmercury) on neural tissues and animal behaviour. Information extracted from studies indicates that: (a) activity of low doses of Thimerosal against isolated human and animal brain cells was found in all studies and is consistent with Hg neurotoxicity; (b) the neurotoxic effect of ethylmercury has not been studied with co-occurring adjuvant-Al in TCVs; © animal studies have shown that exposure to Thimerosal-Hg can lead to accumulation of inorganic Hg in brain, and that (d) doses relevant to TCV exposure possess the potential to affect human neuro-development. Thimerosal at concentrations relevant for infants’ exposure (in vaccines) is toxic to cultured human-brain cells and to laboratory animals. Yes... except that, as has been explained to you in this thread, the preservative doesn't use methylmercury, it uses ethylmercury, which, as we're finding, is passed from the body faster and is much safer. So there was no risk. And even if there had been, it could've been avoided by not vaccinating children below a certain weight limit. Except that they chose to take the preservative out instead, which was also a valid choice, out of an abundance of caution. You have yet to answer my question. Please quote a section of the link that says that any child HAS been harmed. Not "could have happened", not "if this were methylmercury instead of ethylmercury", not "hypothetically speaking". If you cannot find such a section - and you won't, because it doesn't say so, because no child has been harmed - please do not rely on that argument again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 http://vaccinecasualty.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/is-ethyl-mercury-in-thimerosal-vaccines.html?m=1 Is it possible that the ethyl-mercury in thimerosal vaccines is safe? To quote is directly from the CDC on mercury: “Exposure to high levels of metallic, inorganic, or organic mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetus.†This means all types of mercury including the ethyl-mercury in thimerosal can cause harm. Effects on brain functioning may include irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, attention, language, and memory problems. Effects of short-term exposure to high levels of metallic mercury may include lung damage, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increases in blood pressure or heart rate, skin rashes, and eye irritation.â€(CDC link) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Mercury has been linked to regressive autism, autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, developmental delays, and a variety of physical, cognitive, and behavioral problems. If that's not proof enough, nothing is. You have yet to answer my question. Please quote a section of the link that says that any child HAS been harmed. Not "could have happened", not "if this were methylmercury instead of ethylmercury", not "hypothetically speaking". If you cannot find such a section - and you won't, because it doesn't say so, because no child has been harmed - please do not rely on that argument again. Lot's of children have been harmed by vaccines, was it just the mercury, or the combination of the other heavy metals? Who knows.... Bottom line is kids can get damaged by vaccines. Google vaccination damage and read some of the hundreds of heart wrenching stories of perfectly developed toddlers going in for their shots and losing speech days after! Again, you should be asking why it was removed if it was so safe in the first place. Some say that the original mercury poisioning- like Mad Hatter looks awfully like autism does today. I'll find a link later. I'm done discussing this, as you are just going to nit-pick everything I say anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 No,it isn't like saying that. Like at all. I think she was referring to this part: "Was thimerosal in vaccines a cause of autism? Reputable scientific studies have shown that mercury in vaccines given to young children is not a cause of autism. The studies used different methods. Some examined rates of autism in a state or a country, comparing autism rates before and after thimerosal was removed as a preservative from vaccines. In the United States and other countries, the number of children diagnosed with autism has not gone down since thimerosal was removed from vaccines." Which does more or less say that. The blue box on the right side goes into more detail about more specific studies, though, I think, that use a different more targeted methodology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 GOVERNMENT ADMITS MERCURY AUTISM CONNECTION http://www.foroptimalhealth.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=175&Itemid=8 ----------------- http://www.cqs.com/autismmercury.htm Animal and in vitro studies also provide insights into the mechanisms of Hg toxicity. More recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have determined that the typical amount of Hg injected into infants and toddlers via childhood immunizations has exceeded government safety guidelines on an individual (6) and cumulative vaccine basis (7). The mercury in vaccines derives from thimerosal (TMS), a preservative which is 49.6% ethylmercury (eHg) (7). .............↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ ----------------------------------------------------- This is interesting- Autism is more prevalent among boys than girls, with the ratio estimated at 4:1 (2). Mercury studies in mice and humans consistently report greater effects on males than females, except for kidney damage (57). At high doses, both sexes are affected equally; at low doses only males are affected (38,40,127). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 GOVERNMENT ADMITS MERCURY AUTISM CONNECTION http://www.foroptimalhealth.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=175&Itemid=8 I agree, it is interesting that the article you cited does not support its own headline. That's unusual. "Significantly, the government's decision says nothing about whether vaccines cause autism." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726464.100-autism-payout-reignites-vaccine-controversy.html#.VNst_hb5gUV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 I've been inspired by Jasperstone to do my OWN research on the Internet, and I am ready to BLOW THE LID OFF the autism-industrial complex. The connection cannot be denied. Autism is not caused by vaccines, but rather by increasing sales of organic food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/09/family-win-15-million-in-autis.html By paying the family out they are admitting to it being the reason that she developed autism. No matter how much they say it didn't cause it. It was triggered by the vaccine, period. I'm sure they would have tried to disprove it if there was a way out of it. quote name="CaffeineDiary" post="6182757" timestamp="1423650326"] I agree, it is interesting that the article you cited does not support its own headline. That's unusual. "Significantly, the government's decision says nothing about whether vaccines cause autism." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726464.100-autism-payout-reignites-vaccine-controversy.html#.VNst_hb5gUV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanM Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Interesting, in the CDC link it seems to say that the way they proved no link to autism was by noting that the number of kids being diagnosed with autism after the removal of thimerosal was higher than before. Is this the way they prove vaccine safety in general? That's like saying ice cream isn't fattening because people who don't eat ice cream get fat too. Actually it's more like this. You are gaining weight, and you decide to stop eating ice cream, but you keep the rest of your diet the same. Unfortunately you continue gaining weight. Then you conclude the ice cream wasn't the cause of your weight gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom31257 Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 My nephew's vaccine injury also triggered an underlying mitochondrial disorder. His vaccine injury is documented, and the lot number of his vaccine had reported 2 deaths and 10 permanent disabilities but was still out on the market. He's been to two mitochondrial research doctors, and both concluded the trauma from the vaccine injury triggered the disease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Actually it's more like this. You are gaining weight, and you decide to stop eating ice cream, but you keep the rest of your diet the same. Unfortunately you continue gaining weight. Then you conclude the ice cream wasn't the cause of your weight gain. Except that everything isn't the same. If it were, autism diagnoses would not be dramatically increasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 My nephew's vaccine injury also triggered an underlying mitochondrial disorder. His vaccine injury is documented, and the lot number of his vaccine had reported 2 deaths and 10 permanent disabilities but was still out on the market. He's been to two mitochondrial research doctors, and both concluded the trauma from the vaccine injury triggered the disease. (((Amy))) I am so sorry. It is heartbreaking what has happened to your family and other families with children with serious vaccine injuries. We can't forget these children and families in all the "discussions" about vaccines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanM Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 My nephew's vaccine injury also triggered an underlying mitochondrial disorder. His vaccine injury is documented, and the lot number of his vaccine had reported 2 deaths and 10 permanent disabilities but was still out on the market. He's been to two mitochondrial research doctors, and both concluded the trauma from the vaccine injury triggered the disease. I'm so sorry for your nephew. Mitochondrial diseases can be terrible and tend to be misdiagnosed/underdiagnosed. The trouble is that people with mitochondrial diseases are also likely to have issues from the diseases that vaccines prevent. Thus if you have a mitochondrial disorder, it is in your best interest to have a population that is well vaccinated to decrease the possibility of outbreaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 By paying the family out they are admitting to it being the reason that she developed autism. No matter how much they say it didn't cause it. It was triggered by the vaccine, period. I'm sure they would have tried to disprove it if there was a way out of it. No, that's exactly not what it means. You saying this makes me think you don't understand the legal system or logic or both. If what you're saying is true, then anyone, anywhere who ever takes a plea deal or makes a settlement out of court must be guilty. Lawsuits are expensive and when an injury is involved, often the most sympathetic party in the suit (i.e. the injured) will win the case regardless of circumstances. This used to happen a lot (maybe it still does) for birth injuries. It's why OBs have such high malpractice insurance. Even if it can't be proven that a doctor could have done anything to prevent the injury, a jury will look at an injured party and feel like someone needs to pay for what happened, and the doctor is the closest one to hold responsible. So, if the choice is paying $$$$ in legal bills and then likely having a multi-million dollar award at the end of that, often times, no matter actual culpability, defendants will settle for a large amount out of court to save themselves heartache and money. As for disproving their way out of it, how do you prove a negative? I get a vaccine and 10 days later get a fever, there's no way to prove or disprove where I got that fever definitively. I'm not saying vaccines never cause injuries ever, but as for proving it in court and cash settlements? That's not medical science and doesn't tell us anything about what really happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 Except that everything isn't the same. If it were, autism diagnoses would not be dramatically increasing. As already mentioned earlier in the thread, autism diagnoses are increasing not because of vaccines, but because of increased organic food sales, pushed on us by the greedy organic agribusiness corporations. The correlation is stunningly high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Some say that the original mercury poisoning- like Mad Hatter looks awfully like autism does today. I'll find a link later. I'm an autistic individual. I have been since my birth - and you can ask my mother. Suffice to say, I've done a LOT of research on this subject over the past 17 years or so. NOBODY does research like an autistic woman. (Aspie superpowers FTW!) Mercury poisoning doesn't look one thing like autism. I know, because I've actually gone ahead and checked the symptoms of mercury poisoning and compared them to the diagnostic criteria for autism. They're not similar, not even a tiny little bit. As for "why have autism cases increased", the important thing to remember is that an increase in diagnosis rates does not necessarily equal an increase in incidence rates. The two can go together (and an increase in incidence generally will lead to an increase in diagnoses), but they don't have to. People have been screaming about the rising diagnosis rates for autism since the mid-90s. They say that increased awareness cannot possibly account for all the increase. I submit that it certainly can and probably does for several reasons. First, starting with the publication of the DSM-IV in the early 90s the diagnostic criteria for autism changed significantly. It became much easier to obtain. Previously, if you did not perfectly match the criteria you got a diagnosis of the catch-all "mental retardation" or even of "childhood schizophrenia" - and if you're about to say that autism is nothing like schizophrenia, don't bother, I know. But that's how the diagnosis was back then. Since it was easier to get a diagnosis of autism, naturally, diagnoses went up. (And every time I say "diagnoses went up", remember that this means awareness went up as well.) Secondly, at that same time, "asperger's" as entered into the DSM, and the whole concept of an autistic spectrum emerged. Plenty of children who would have received no diagnosis at all prior to this, or who would've been diagnosed as ADD or as OCD were now obtaining diagnoses such as Asperger's, HFA, or PDD-NOS. (This actually happened to me. My parents dragged me around to doctors for years trying to get me diagnosed, but back in the day you basically couldn't get diagnosed as autistic if you could speak, especially if you were bright and/or female. When I got diagnosed as an adult I was told it was really pretty obvious. Trust me, I don't act more autistic now than I did as a kid!) Remember, lots of the kids with diagnoses today would not have received any diagnosis in the 1980s and 90s. Thirdly, prior to the 90s, reporting of autism was sporadic at best. Many states made no reports of cases of autism, or only half-hearted ones. But as awareness continued to rise, more and more states started making better and better reports, allowing us to get a better grasp of new cases being diagnosed. And this, of course, in and of itself led to increased awareness. Increased awareness is, of course, the fourth piece of the puzzle, the one all the others lead to. Doctors, as we know, are told "when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras". Sound advice in most situations - if it looks like a cold, it probably IS a cold. But the problem comes when what you think is a zebra is really a horse. Prior to the DSM-IV, doctors were told that the autism risk was something like 1 in 10,000. And parents didn't really hear about it at all, or if they did they thought of "Rain Man", and if their kid didn't match that profile perfectly (given that Kim Peek, the inspiration for the character, wasn't autistic they shouldn't expect that), assumed that the term "autistic" didn't apply to their child and didn't ask doctors to look into it. (I am certain that if I had been given the Checklist for Autism in Toddlers as a toddler I would have been diagnosed much sooner. I would have failed it at 18 months. Heck, I would have failed it at 8 years, and that's not an exaggeration or a lie in any way. I didn't point to things. I didn't look people in the eye. My play was stereotypically autistic, and I had little interest in other people. Now the CHAT is standard, but it wasn't when I was a child.) Because the doctors parents went to assumed it was rare, they didn't look for it, and so they failed to diagnose it. But as awareness continued to rise, doctors were more and more likely to look for autism, and thus more and more likely to diagnose it. And when the alarmist bells started to ring about how autism is "increasing", doctors and parents BOTH started to look for it a LOT more. Now, of course, this all doesn't show that incidence is the same as it has always been, simply that incidence could be the same as it has always been. Anecdotally, though, I will say that it is a very common story among adult autistics to be diagnosed only after a child in the family is diagnosed. Sometime during the process they start to realize that everything that applies to this kid also applies to them, and then they get diagnosed. Not so anecdotally, at least one study has shown that the rate in adults is really no different from the rate in children. (I've seen other sources, but it's been a while since I avidly kept up on autism news). Another note: Many people on my family match the broader autistic phenotype. My maternal grandfather was most definitely autistic. As in, could get a diagnosis if he was alive today. Kanner himself noted that the parents of the children he worked with showed autistic traits. You can see, though, if you haven't thought of it, that we really only have accurate information about autism going back a few generations at best. It's only recently, for example, that we've found that men who are older when they father their first child are more likely to have an autistic child (that applies to my father!) or grandchild (and that one applies to my mother's father). The jury is most definitely out on why this should be so, though - is it because something happens to the sperm as men age? Or is it because men and women who show autistic traits are slower to enter into relationships and take longer to start having sex? That is also most definitely possible - just as it is possible that people who show autistic traits prefer to be in relationships with other people who show autistic traits, a form of assortive mating (that is, people tend to marry people like them), and one that is evidently true within my own family, though I cannot speak for how common that really is. Now, somewhere along the line, somebody is just bound to mention the Amish. Three things here: One, the Amish actually aren't prohibited from vaccinating by their religion, and when they choose not to vaccinate it's usually for the same reasons as the general population. Two, there is no evidence that the Amish actually have a lower incidence rate of autism than the rest of us. I know people who work with the Amish who say that, if you know what you're looking at, they have just as many autistics as we do... it's just that those kids are less likely to need and then receive a diagnosis. Three, the Amish suffer from a pronounced founder effect, which could easily (if it were true about them having less autism) cause them to simply lack the genes that cause autism. They also have many things they do differently from everybody else. I could as easily claim that autism is linked to having a phone in the house! Except I wouldn't, because there's no evidence for that and a great deal of evidence that autism is genetic in origin. To sum up: There is no evidence that the rate of autism is actually increasing. Our diagnostic standards have changed considerably, and our awareness has increased. Those together can account for much or all of the supposed "increase". Again, you should be asking why it was removed if it was so safe in the first place. That question has been asked and answered. You yourself said you had anticipated the answer you were given, so I don't know why you think this is a trump card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 As for "why have autism cases increased", the important thing to remember is that an increase in diagnosis rates does not necessarily equal an increase in incidence rates. The two can go together (and an increase in incidence generally will lead to an increase in diagnoses), but they don't have to. People have been screaming about the rising diagnosis rates for autism since the mid-90s. They say that increased awareness cannot possibly account for all the increase. I submit that it certainly can and probably does for several reasons. I don't disagree. This is why it doesn't make sense to say "autism diagnoses did not decrease after vaxes were reformulated, therefore vaxes have never caused autism." The logic fails because: An increase in diagnoses does not necessarily mean an increase in incidence. There could have been a decrease in incidence and still been an increase in diagnoses. If diagnoses are increasing for some other reason, this could mask the fact that some cause or trigger disappeared or changed in that time frame. The ingredient they took out of the vaxes may not have been the only thing problematic about the vaxes. Again, I'm not in the "vaxes cause autism" camp. I do believe vaxes are not as benign as claimed and they sometimes cause significant injury, including brain injury; that some individuals are much more susceptible to injury; and the susceptibility is higher at certain ages than at others. Arbitrariness about vaxes may be convenient for many, but it's not good policy IMO. Also, admitting that vaxes are somewhat risky would encourage scientists to keep working on making them safer for more people, identifying the people most at risk, and coming up with a better alternate plan for those who are at higher risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Caffiene Diary, thank you for your well thought out post. I tend to agree with you. My son is on the spectrum, and I see some of his tendencies in myself, and others in my ex husband. Even in my father, actually. My mom went from not believing my son's diagnosis to asking if my dad could have it too, actually. Also, my son was different at birth. Before he had a single vaccine, he was different, noticably so. My mom kept telling me, but I had no answers for her questions. But yes, this was something he was born with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 Also, admitting that vaxes are somewhat risky would encourage scientists to keep working on making them safer for more people, identifying the people most at risk, and coming up with a better alternate plan for those who are at higher risk. And your evidence for rationally believing that vaccine developers ARE NOT working to make them safer for more people, identifying the people most at risk, and coming up with a better alternate plan for those who are at higher risk is what, exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 And your evidence for rationally believing that vaccine developers ARE NOT working to make them safer for more people, identifying the people most at risk, and coming up with a better alternate plan for those who are at higher risk is what, exactly? Interestingly, a family member (who is an immunology PhD and a pediatric infectious disease MD) addressed this very thing yesterday in a family email conversation we have going on about the issue of vaccines and outbreaks. (Copied here with permission.) 1) NOTHING in medicine is ever 100% safe or effective. Even oxygen - if given inapproprately - can kill you. This extends to many things beyond medicine. Seatbelts - even when used correctly can lead to injuries, or inability to egress a vehicle when necessary. So the question is all about relative risk. There is NO doubt that the scientificaly-evaluated relative risk of vaccinating vs not vaccinating overwhelmingly and crushingly favors that of using vaccines. And as our understanding of medicine, genetics, immunology and vaccinology increases, we may identify even more potential associations and possibly even causal links between vaccinations and children with very unique genetic make-ups. For example, we now have identified over 300 different genetic immunodeficiencies. The vast amajority of these conditions are extremely rare (most being described in only one or two kindreds/families). But the way these children respond to vaccines may be quite different than 99.9% of the population, and in fact a live virus if given to such children may indeed be harmful. And since 99.999% of the population on this planet never gets their genome sequenced, we may be vaccinating children that may have harm come to them as a result of vaccination. Medical professionals ARE aware that vaccines have the potential to cause harm. They are not trying to hide it. They are trying to address it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 So, let's sacrifice our own to save others, huh? Seriously, if it was your child that was harmed, would we be having this conversation? I have thought about this a lot--really thought about it, not just casually thought about it so I could come up with a snarky response. The best thing I can imagine is that if my child were injured by a vaccine, I would feel every bit as bad about it as I would if they were injured in a car accident. Cars are notoriously unsafe. People are injured, maimed, disabled, and killed by them multiple times every day. But I don't avoid them, because their benefits outweigh the possible risks. If my child were injured by a car crash, I would feel like I could have prevented it if I just hadn't put them in the stupid car. I'd feel terrible. But I think that I would eventually accept that just like everything else in life, vaccines and cars each carry some risks, and we can't see all possible outcomes of our actions, and we just have to trust that we will be in the majority who are not injured or killed by cars or vaccines. Cars are far, far more dangerous than vaccines, yet no one asserts the viewpoint that children should be kept out of cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 The car argument can also be made about selective / delayed vax or even not vaxing. I mean, how does the rate of child death from chickenpox stack up against the rate of child death from car accidents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBlossom Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 The car analogy is a fair one. While a parent has no reason to feel guilty for something out of her control, it may still affect her future behavior. Maybe your next car would have higher crash test ratings. Maybe you'd buy the better car seat. Maybe you'd talk to your friends about extended rear facing and keeping your kids in 5 pt harnesses for as long as possible. I bet you'd even develop some serious defensive driving skills. When your child has been injured by vaccines or you know a child who has, you're going to want to make the safest choice possible in the future. Maybe that means delaying or spreading out vaccines or opting out of certain ones. Maybe it means taking a closer look at your family medical history to see if there is any history of adverse reactions. You may not want to get back in the car again, but when you do, you're going to make sure you are as safe as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I've been inspired by Jasperstone to do my OWN research on the Internet, and I am ready to BLOW THE LID OFF the autism-industrial complex. The connection cannot be denied. Autism is not caused by vaccines, but rather by increasing sales of organic food. Hehehe..... yep, that does look impressive. And it seems like a good reason to stop buying organic food. :-D While we are looking at charts here are some *real* ones below- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Dr. Gerhard Buchwald, MD, 1989, Director of the Park-Sanatorium of Bad-Steben, West Germany, witness in more than 150 court trials about vaccination damages: "Vaccines have never had the proclaimed preventive effect on infections. The regression of infectious diseases started over 200 years ago, which means long before the introduction of vaccination, and it was due to the improved social conditions of the population: nutrition and hygiene. http://www.medicinekillsmillions.com/articles/truth-about-decline-of-the-infectious-diseases.html http://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/vaccination_doctors.html http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.