# Autism and MMR shot.



## richie33

This debate is all over the place. The medical field says that there is no proof. The other side says how can the numbers keep getting higher now 1 in 88. My oldest diagnosed at 2. You wouldn't believe the pressure our doctor tried putting on us when we told him we are holding off giving it to our youngest. Thankfully the RN pulled us aside and said wait until 3, he is not in daycare and not being exposed to other children so wait it out. He is not showing signs and we are going to wait. Anyone else with the same experience or opinions on the subject?


----------



## KeepLoveGrowing

I don't feel there is enough proof to say the shots cause autism. There is plenty of proof of the damage that can be done by the MMR viruses though. My son is already at risk for complications with seizures if he gets any sickness, so I went with what I felt was the lesser of two evils and keep him up on all his shots. 

I understand the concerns on both sides and don't judge any parents decision.


----------



## Linguist

I'm an autism subject expert, i don't think there is at correlation at all. I can elaborate later, but for now, I'd have no concern. The numbers for autism are more realistically like 1 in every 35 kids btw


----------



## Runs like Dog

Because there is no empirical or measurable reference for autism spectrum disorders, that's why. It's a 100% inferred diagnosis. It is whatever some doctor thinks it might look like. So from near zero it's zoomed up the charts to 'everyone's got it now!' just like food allergies, autoimmune diseases and vitamin D mega doses. It's good for what's popular. And of course with autism spectrum, like all those other things there's no treatment or cure, it rarely if ever kills the patient and they never get better.


----------



## Linguist

Runs like Dog said:


> Because there is no empirical or measurable reference for autism spectrum disorders, that's why. It's a 100% inferred diagnosis. It is whatever some doctor thinks it might look like. So from near zero it's zoomed up the charts to 'everyone's got it now!' just like food allergies, autoimmune diseases and vitamin D mega doses. It's good for what's popular. And of course with autism spectrum, like all those other things there's no treatment or cure, it rarely if ever kills the patient and they never get better.


That's not true, I'll elaborate more later


----------



## Dollystanford

It was a huge thing over here. Despite the doctor who did the original study that caused the furore being totally discredited parents still refused to give their kids the vaccine. So all those diseases came back with a vengeance along with all the complications

Do I judge the parents' decisions? Only a little bit, because they listened to hysterical media reports rather than looking at the actual evidence of a link. Which is non existent. 

I mean you talk of the medical field being one side. Who actually is 'the other side'?


----------



## that_girl

As parents, you just have to do research and make the best choice. I do NOT think 1 year olds should get MMR at all. Their brain's membrane of protection is not finished forming. 

My oldest was on schedule with her shots. She has sensory processing disorder and who knows if that was caused by the shots or what. I do know that after her first set of shots, she screamed for days. Blood curtling screams. Days. Hours. Omg. Was never the same. Smart kid though...not autistic.

With my 2nd, we delayed....and she never got the MMR. Not sure if she will and that is based on research, talking with doctors, etc. Our choice and we're fine with it.


----------



## sandc

I am not an autism subject expert. I have raised a child with autism for the past 20 years. If I could travel back in time I would without a doubt not have him vaccinated until he was 3 or 4.


----------



## richie33

Parents who are concerned would be the other side. Just type in MMR into YouTube and you can see for yourself. See parents whose child showed no signs before the shot and hours later developed a fever and were never the same. We seen signs before the shot but when the odds are something like 40% that my other child could possible have it we decided to wait to give it to him.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anotherguy

I wouldnt use 'youtube' as a research tool, sorry. Talk to your doctor. Talk to your pediatrician. Do your own research.

The Vaccine-Autism Connection: A Public Health Crisis Caused by Unethical Medical Practices and Fraudulent Science


----------



## richie33

Of course. I am not saying it is or isn't. Just a conversation. But I don't believe everything the drug companies are saying.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anotherguy

It's not 'the drug companies' saying its ok, it is peer reviewed science.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sandc

Global warming is peer-reviewed science as well. What are your thoughts on that?


----------



## Anonymous07

I would rather vaccinate than not, as the scare started from faulty "medical research" that was disproved years ago, but for what ever reason people are still thinking that vaccines cause autism. There is no such proof and I would want to protect my child from dangerous, preventable diseases. 

We have outbreaks now of diseases that were almost eradicated because so many refuse to vaccinate. When people do not vaccinate, they rely on what is called "herd immunity", but it only works if a certain percentage of the population is vaccinated. We're in a time now where a high percentage of people are refusing to vaccinate, so we are seeing record numbers of preventable diseases. It's really sad.


----------



## sandc

I so wish I could change your mind. I've lived with autism 20 years now. I don't know if it's the vaccines or some other environmental factor. It's not better diagnosis. I can watch my son's behaviors deteriorate depending upon what he eats. Any dairy or wheat and he becomes violent. He was part of the Lovaas program when he was three all the way up until he was 15. We started living a lifestyle of logging behaviors and antecedents. I know that if my son eats a milk product, within 24 hours he will become uncontrollably angry. He will engage in self-injurious behaviors sometimes necessitating mild restraining intervention. His receptive and expressive language regresses. This will occur off and on for the next 24 hours. By the 2nd day after ingesting dairy products, he will start slowly returning to normal.

Behaviors are also spiked by other environmental factors such as allergens. Spring and Autumn (harvest) are the worst times of year for him and his anger issues.

Ay yay yay. You can see this is a touchy issue for me. I personally don't think Autism results JUST from immunization, or JUST from environmental factors. But I think there is some combination of both plus some possible genetic predispositions that are causing it. SOMETHING has changed in the last 30 years. SOMETHING is causing this.


----------



## richie33

Thank you for sharing. We are going to wait as long as possible to give him the MMR. Again my children are not in daycare or around other children, so for now we have the luxury of waiting to give it to our youngest. Thankfully early intervention approved ABA therapy for 24 hours a week and we have seen a lot of improvements.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anonymous07

I have no doubts that Austism is tough to deal with and was a nanny to a young girl with it for years. She is a sweet heart and I love her to death. 

BUT, I have also seen the other side as well, with children who were not vaccinated and contracted these preventable diseases. I've seen young babies die of whooping cough(Pertussis), a boy who contracted Mumps at 2 which led to a meningitis infection then causing severe brain damage(he will always be mentally at that same age), and other children who have suffered from preventable diseases. They didn't have to suffer or die. These are all preventable cases with vaccines. 

I feel like the benefits of vaccination outweigh the small risks.


----------



## anotherguy

sandc said:


> Global warming is peer-reviewed science as well. What are your thoughts on that?


OK, I'll take that bait.  I know its totally off topic, and I'll chime in on the autism thing next.

The thing is... the more I research GW, the more I understand how much of a slam dunk it is. By any measure at this point - it is irrefutable. The is no longer any 'controversy' or any refutation that carries any weight because there is no evidence to back that position up. This really is a topic for a different thread maybe in the Social Spot. 

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists


----------



## anotherguy

sandc said:


> Ay yay yay. You can see this is a touchy issue for me. I personally don't think Autism results JUST from immunization, or JUST from environmental factors. But I think there is some combination of both plus some possible genetic predispositions that are causing it. SOMETHING has changed in the last 30 years. SOMETHING is causing this.


First off SandC... I really respect your thoughts and experience and you seem to me one of the more lucid people on TAM. Really.

My own lay view about autism and its causes I mostly get from my own incessant reading of technical journals of all stripes and some people I know that work with autistic kids. I have zero medical background and no particular interest in autism specifically. I have no doubt that you have things that you observe that directly impact, and severely, the childs behavior - same as many parents that deal with it to varying degrees of success.

You have to agree however that we simply dont know what is going on, and that it is not the same for everyone. That is where science helps separate the chaff from the wheat.. that is where we start distinguishing between, anecdote, folk tales and homeopathy. If we dont then we start doing everything needlessly and relying on superstition and gut feelings and maybe make things worse. Gluten free may help some with behaviors, but so far nobody can say it is a root cause. Nor vaccinations. Nor VOCs from your carpet. Nor Phthalates. There are hints and hopes, but bottom line is, as you know.. nobody knows. The search continues...

I believe many people just buy into the 'something is better than nothing' mentality. You cant just do nothing.. its not an option. So healhy people take vitamins which dont do anything unless you have a dietary deficiancy which almost none of us do. They avoid immunizations for kids out of fear of autism when in fact their real fear should be potentially fatal childhood diseases. Immunizations are so effective people are forgetting how brutal these diseases can be. They kill.

I dont fault you one tiny bit for suggesting parents wait until 3-4. I am as sucpicious as anyone on that score, so I suppose I am as 'bad' as everyone else too - but we immunized our kids as the pediatrician, who we very much trust she is very good - suggests. The frequency and volume of immunization ****tails given to kids these days is crazy. I honestly feel it is fear that keeps people from getting them and not reason. Its risky not to as well.

So I guess what I'm suggestion is that the gut feeling that you could have done 'something' such as waiting to immunize a child would have made a difference - I just dont buy it.

Peace and love to you and your family.


----------



## zillard

Just read the vaccine insert and there are plenty of reasons to be wary of putting it into your child, regardless of an autism connection. 

Look at the data the CDC releases too. Some of them have higher adverse event rates than confirmed cases of the illnesses they vaccinate against. 

There is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program funded by the federal government. This would not exist if vaccines were harmless.


----------



## turnera

There is no correlation. Do the research. Here:
autism mmr vaccine - Google Scholar


----------



## Anonymous07

zillard said:


> There is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program funded by the federal government. This would not exist if vaccines were harmless.


The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is there for people who have allergic reactions to the vaccine. It is a very rare occurrence, usually only about 3 in a few hundred thousand cases. The benefits that vaccines offer have always outweighed the small risks they pose. If you do more research, they will tell you the minute numbers of bad reactions compared to the thousands saved from preventable diseases.


----------



## Maricha75

All three of my kids, my two nieces and my nephew all got their vaccines on the normal schedule. Not one of them had any issues with them. If I had it to do all over again, I'd still vaccinate on schedule, but that's me.


----------



## Bellavista

Now this is just my personal opinion. Severe Autistic spectrum is often diagnosed around the age of 18 months -3 years.
The MMR is given around the same age.
Just because the 2 occur at a similar time does not mean they are connected.

Why the increase in diagnoses? It may be that diagnoses are now made more often due to an increase in the knowledge of ASD. Even back when my son was little, in the 90's, it was hard to get him diagnosed. The internet was not very common then and when it did first come out information on a lot of subjects was sketchy. 

The diagnosis I have trouble with is ADD or ADHD. I think that it is over diagnosed.


----------



## turnera

DD22, who is getting a degree in psychology, told me today that they expect 1/3 of all kids to be diagnosed with ADD in about 10 years.


----------



## zillard

Anonymous07 said:


> The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is there for people who have allergic reactions to the vaccine. It is a very rare occurrence, usually only about 3 in a few hundred thousand cases. The benefits that vaccines offer have always outweighed the small risks they pose. If you do more research, they will tell you the minute numbers of bad reactions compared to the thousands saved from preventable diseases.


The trouble with this is prevention is very difficult to prove, much less in accurate numbers. How many other factors could possibly contribute to the decline of these diseases? Better sanitation. Education. Treated water. Advances in medicine and sterilization techniques, etc. 

I'm not saying vaccines are not a benefit, but "benefits of vaccines outweight the small risks" is conjecture. Especially when many adverse events are rarely attributed to the vaccine, even when the vaccine insert lists the symptoms and reactions specifically.


----------



## anotherguy

zillard said:


> The trouble with this is prevention is very difficult to prove, much less in accurate numbers. How many other factors could possibly contribute to the decline of these diseases? Better sanitation. Education. Treated water. Advances in medicine and sterilization techniques, etc.
> I'm not saying vaccines are not a benefit, but "benefits of vaccines outweight the small risks" is conjecture. Especially when many adverse events are rarely attributed to the vaccine, even when the vaccine insert lists the symptoms and reactions specifically.
> .


No. Your entire post is utter BS. Prevention is NOT hard to prove. That is the entire point: Safe and effective, by any measurements that have been taken and subject to public review and rigorous scrutiny. Your opinion does not matter unless you have something to back it up. You are of course free to do as you please - but lets not cloud the facts with manufactured uncertainty and baseless claims such as 'many adverse reations are rarely attributed to the vaccine.'

Which adverse reactions would those be, exactly?

It isnt a drug company conspiracy. There is no grassy gnoll. There is no reason to be needlessly overcautious. If you read the 'insert', read it in full and you can see what the exact rates of effectivity and side effects are. Unvaccinated kids are the actual looming threat these days - to themselves and others.

for example:
_The impact of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination on the natural history of each disease in the
United States can be quantified by comparing the maximum number of measles, mumps, and rubella
cases reported in a given year prior to vaccine use to the number of cases of each disease reported in
1995. For measles, 894,134 cases reported in 1941 compared to 288 cases reported in 1995 resulted in
a 99.97% decrease in reported cases; for mumps, 152,209 cases reported in 1968 compared to 840
cases reported in 1995 resulted in a 99.45% decrease in reported cases; and for rubella, 57,686 cases
reported in 1969 compared to 200 cases reported in 1995 resulted in a 99.65% decrease."_

http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf


----------



## zillard

Ok, here is one example:

The CDC states that "During the 8-10 days after vaccination, about one additional febrile seizure occurs among every 3,000-4,000 children who receive MMR vaccine, compared with children who do not receive any vaccines."

In 1995 there were 288 cases of measles, 840 of mumps, 200 of rubella. 

How does that stack up against the number of febrile seizures if 1 in even 4000 have one? 

I have said nothing about conspiracy theories. I am talking about skepticism and weighting risks.


----------



## anotherguy

zillard said:


> Ok, here is one example:
> 
> The CDC states that "During the 8-10 days after vaccination, about one additional febrile seizure occurs among every 3,000-4,000 children who receive MMR vaccine, compared with children who do not receive any vaccines."
> 
> In 1995 there were 288 cases of measles, 840 of mumps, 200 of rubella.
> 
> How does that stack up against the number of febrile seizures if 1 in even 4000 have one?
> 
> I have said nothing about conspiracy theories. I am talking about skepticism and weighting risks.


You are correct - you didnt say anything about conspiracies, My bad. (Someone else said something about drug companies.. sorry.)

You also fail to mention the over 1 million cases or MMR before vaccines were used that have been in straight decline since the 40's. Surely that must be part of your calculus.

...and I would hardly classify febrile seizure a one of the 'many adverse events that are rarely attributed to the vaccine' as you put it. It is the first warning on the label and some doctors suggest an asperin as prophylactic if someone is worried about familial history or high fever.

Again - to each their own, but the CDC also says (since you are usng them to bolster your position) to go ahead and do it since the benefits outweighs any risk. They track over 10 million doses a year, they collect a ton of data. I'm good.

(...as he gets hit by a bus walking across the street to get a flu vaccine...)

(p.s. full disclosure - never got a flu shot in my life. I hate shots.)


----------



## zillard

anotherguy said:


> You also fail to mention the over 1 million cases or MMR before vaccines were used that have been in straight decline since the 40's. Surely that must be part of your calculus.


And I'm sure the vaccine helped in bringing those numbers down. But all the other factors cannot be overlooked. I'm skeptical that the drop was solely due to vaccinations. 



anotherguy said:


> ...and I would hardly classify febrile seizure a one of the 'many adverse events that are rarely attributed to the vaccine' as you put it.


That was more an example of a risk that should be weighed. But you can't deny that many times parents just write off things that pop up weeks after their child is vaccinated and never report. Or go back to the doctor who convinces them it's merely a coincidence. Therefore never attributed. 



anotherguy said:


> to each their own.... the benefit FAR outweighs the risk.


In many cases, sure. Not in all. I have yet to find a pediatrician who asks the parents about allergies or history of adverse reactions before vaccinating, or knows much about them when asked. I've even had one fire us as patients for asking too many questions. 

So yes, please research and educate yourselves as you cannot rely on the medical establishment to do this for you. Then make the decision that is right for you.


----------



## anotherguy

"...I'm skeptical that the drop was solely due to vaccinations..."

Yeah.. you lose me there. If you cant buy into that, then we wont agree on much. People forget how bad all these things were and there is NO doubt vaccination is the cause of the obliteration of these diseases. Smallpox, etc. 

Measels:









from: Graph of U.S. Measles Cases — History of Vaccines


----------



## zillard

Nice graph. I've seem similar with vaccine rates vs neurological disorders.

Neither are definitive proof on their own.


----------



## anotherguy

laugh. I guess. 

relevant:
Science-Based Medicine » “Vaccines didn’t save us” (a.k.a. “vaccines don’t work”): Intellectual dishonesty at its most naked


----------



## Runs like Dog

As someone went blind for several weeks from childhood measles, I suggest the vaccine.


----------



## hawkeye

anotherguy said:


> ...I'm skeptical that the drop was solely due to vaccinations...
> 
> Yeah.. you lose me there. If you cant buy into that, then we wont agree on much. People forget how bad all these things were and there is NO doubt vaccination is the cause of the obliteration of these diseases. Smallpox, etc.


Thanks for your work in this thread. Too many "science is great...except when I don't want to believe it" types around. Good luck, although I'm afraid you're going up against a brick wall.


----------



## zillard

Also many "if you are skeptical at all then you must be an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist" types around. 

Note I said "skeptical" and "solely". Interpret as you will I guess.

As someone who has personally experienced adverse effects from a vaccine, I advise proceeding with caution. Yet I would still get a round of vaccines and boosters if I were to travel to certain areas of the world where the risk is higher.


----------



## anotherguy

my friend.. I am 'Mr. Skeptic.' Not only a I an insufferable blowhard, I am also famously hard to persuade. But I also know when I am proven wrong.

There is a difference between skepticism and digging your heels in against all available, verifiable evidence.

Shrug. No worries. I agree on one thing - next time I go to Rwanda (never been), I too will get a fresh boost of (gasp!) MMR... and lets not forget YellowFever and Typhus and DPT. 

Malaria is a problem though...

Health Information for Travelers to Rwanda - Travelers' Health - CDC

all in fun...


----------



## zillard

anotherguy said:


> There is a difference between skepticism and digging your heels in against all available, verifiable evidence.


Agreed. Which is what I would be doing if I refused to ever get a vaccine again. 

For me it is like this:

Family history
Personal experience
Adverse event rates & risks

vs. 

Disease rates & risks
Efficacy rates

And each vaccine must be weighed individually before a decision is made.


----------



## anotherguy

Runs like Dog said:


> As someone went blind for several weeks from childhood measles, I suggest the vaccine.


'weeks'.

yikes. High fever?


----------



## turnera

My husband went blind for a week once because of a virus he got on his eyes from touching stuff, going to lots of restaurants in one week, and then touching his eyes without washing his hands.


----------



## richie33

The post was to hear peoples opinions. I don't remember anyone saying not to vaccinate their children.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Linguist

And back to autism

Only half of all doctors do a measure for autism in children, and there is no universal test so it's really tough to have any reliable research when either 50% of practitioners don't test for it and the rest are using varying measures to make a diagnosis. That being said, real numbers are most likely 1 out every 35. ADD I think is 1 out of every 8 or so. Autism itself is so unique in each individual it's difficult to draw similarities except in socialization challenges, fine motor difficulties, and communication challenges. 

Being comfortable with your vaccine schedule is smart I think, to a point. Be judicious and discuss it with your doctor. But not vaccinating seems like poor judgement to me. There is no link between autism and vaccines although that doesn't mean vaccines can't cause adverse developmental effects on some kids. Just look what's in them. 

There are lots of treatments and early intervention is the key to success, it changes the life trajectory of the child and can increase intelligence but vast amounts which leads to more understanding and opportunity. That being said, if only half of practitioners are testing for it, and media savvy parents who are educated seem to be the ones in the know about autism, then there is a large unrecorded demographic of parents out there who don't even know what autism is or that their kid has it.


----------



## NelsonTrouble

We live in a community where there is an active, long term Autism study happening. I have volunteered at the project with my children over the years. 

When my oldest was about 2 she started showing possible signs of indicators related to Broad Spectrum and we, along with the full consideration of our Ped. decided to wait until after she was 4 before starting MMR vaccinations. 

It has been difficult for science up to this point to actually link Autism to just one thing, i.e. the MMR vaccine, but there is a proven correlation between the onset and vaccination schedules, as well as many other possible factors. 

Our daughter ended up being fine overall, it was a much safer bet for us, to wait a bit longer. Measels, Mumps or Rubella are not commonplace in the US at any age, waiting until our children are a bit older, in my opinion is a fine alternative. 

btw other countries that are medicine forward and strongly promote vaccinations do not rush their children into immediate vaccinations from the day their born. It is not a race, its a childs developing immunity and brain, there are many things in vaccinations that are plenty harmful in other ways. 

Just my experience. Best of luck to you and your family.


----------



## northernlights

NelsonTrouble said:


> It has been difficult for science up to this point to actually link Autism to just one thing, i.e. the MMR vaccine, but there is a proven correlation between the onset and vaccination schedules, as well as many other possible factors.


Calling the correlation "proven" is giving it too much weight. There's a correlation between the presence of a PC in the home and autism too... a correlation between the number of cell phones and autism... I could go on. Did you get rid of your cell phone and PC too? 

The autism/vaccination connection has been studied to death and there's nothing. Check out what sciencebasedmedicine.org has on vaccines, they're a fantastic source. 

(Not a doctor, not a scientist here. But when my first was born, I read up on the anti-vax and pro-vax claims for quite a long time... original research papers, not opinion pieces. Basically, I looked at the anti-vax claims one at a time. Each time, the science didn't back them up. The anti-vax claims were either a lie, a partial truth, or a distortion. I found respectful insolence and science based medicine after spending hundreds of hours researching myself, and both sources repeat exactly what I found. So when I endorse those sites, it's because they reflect what I found through hundreds of hours of tedious research).


----------



## NelsonTrouble

northernlights

I think that it is amazing that you took the time to read up about vaccinations claims when your first child was born. Many people do not in fact read much more than the piece of paper the Dr. is legally required to hand you for each injection. It would be wonderful of more people took the time to know exactly what they are injecting into their kids before they just nodded and complied. 

My experience started much the same way and lead to me to do work, over the past 6 years, with a world recognized University in my area that receives millions of dollars each year in funding to work specifically with the environmental/chemical and genetic factors of Autism. There are in fact, many correlations that are found regularly, they are simply not strong enough to match the world wide increase and all of the individual circumstances that are present. 

I personally think that with the increase of work being done with Genomes that its possible there could be a breakthrough on the horizon. And that would be amazing for the families who need answers to this puzzle.


----------



## Shaggy

The doctor who originally made up the claim that there was an association has since been discredited by the community, in fact I think he lost his license.

He did not have science or data backing him up, and as such he was guessing blindly in the dark at best. At worst he was saying things to push a particular agenda he had.

Either way both he and the original idea have been rejected.

If anything we are seeing more autism because we have more people looking for it, and a big industry making $$$ off of identifying and managing it.

That doesn't mean they aren't avoiding in finding it, it just means that before no many people were looking or were motivated to look.


----------



## Shaggy

NelsonTrouble said:


> It has been difficult for science up to this point to actually link Autism to just one thing, i.e. the MMR vaccine, but there is a proven correlation between the onset and vaccination schedules, as well as many other possible factors.
> 
> .


Science can look and see if there is a correlation. In the case or vaccination and autism, it has been studied in depth and no link could be found. None.

If you want to associate by events happening around the same time, you could like it to wearing shoes, or walking, or talking, or.... There are so so many thing things going on during that age.


----------



## Revel

Shaggy said:


> The doctor who originally made up the claim that there was an association has since been discredited by the community, in fact I think he lost his license.



Here's a link about this doctor and the fraud he committed with the 1998 Lancet paper. The "study" only had 12 patients, and he was caught faking the data. The journal retracted the paper. 



> Wakefield was found guilty of serious professional misconduct on four counts of dishonesty and 12 involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children, and was ordered to be struck off the medical register.


The myth of the Austiism and MMR link needs to die.


----------



## zillard

Even if you are right on the money, that does not mean vaccines are safe and effective.


----------



## Blanca

After working in the science industry for a few years i'm completely skeptical by anything "science," a.k.a people, prove with their research. I have a friend who works on an ethics panel reviewing the legitimacy of a company's "proof" for their new drug and he was just fired for calling out some unethical behavior. The researchers left out some participants from their trail because of adverse side effects. He called them out and was then fired. The research will continue without those participants. My friend said the drug was very nearly on the market. And in some circles this is considered ethical because "outliers" can be ignored. 

People are quick to say that the researcher who correlated vaccination to Autism falsified his data. I have no doubt that he did but who would have known had the media not pointed it out? Had his claims not seriously conflicted with a major business he would have been left alone. Most people don't know that the researcher who "proved" wine was good for you also falsified his data. No one is going to call him out on that since it only helps the industry. So it remains mainstream thought that it's been "proven." 

I've worked side-by-side with researchers in an academic setting who leave out data all the time. It doesn't go with their line, deviates from what they want to show, messes up their R^2 and obstructs their correlation, and so they just leave it out. Who will know? No body. Unless your claims rub a big company the wrong way no one is going to call you out. And in the science field it's not technically considered unethical to omit data. A lot of times this one little omission is no big deal - no one person's paper or discovery ever broke ground. But then someone else sites that paper as "proof" because it was peer reviewed and taken as credible. Other's continue to build on research of this nature until someone comes along and makes a big discovery - such as the safety of a vaccine. But if you trace the trail of their research and their references who knows how many outliers were omitted and unaccounted for. This isn't "science" proving anything - we're talking about people with an agenda and just as fallible as any other ambitious regular joe out there.

And there's really no room to go into how inaccurate research is when trying to understand how the applications impact people. Aside from no one knowing what this stuff does in an actual person, no one is sure what it does in the test subjects either; be it cells or animals. My professor and I would review peer-reviewed research and she's point out all the flaws, assumptions, and mistakes made. I never reviewed one paper where the conclusion was actually supported by their data but that isn't really a big deal. Those papers will be cited and used as a backbone by other's for their own research. 

It's only if your research conflicts with a major company that you're going to get blasted. They'll point out every single mistake in your work and the media will make it sound like this is the only research to have these flaws, which is why they're ousting it from "good" science. Then the general public feels safe and good again. At that point, and only at that point, is the true nature of "science" revealed. All research is just as flawed. It's just no one cares that much to point it out.

I love science purely for discovery but I find it deplorable that people have tried to turn it into some kind of new "Savior." Science is a human endeavor carried out by everyday individuals and as such is subject to all of humanities flaws. It's an imperfect and inaccurate system driven to the illusion of perfection by the desperation of the general public. We know so very little about what we're doing and the safety of anything science churns out is merely an illusion.


----------



## d4life

I have not read this thread, but I do know a nurse who has a son that was perfectly fine until the day after his MMR shot. He ran a high fever and is now autistic. She swears it was the shot that caused this. 

I will also say that he had heart problems years later and other issues. I do not know all of the details, I am just posting what little information I know.

Now that I have a grand baby on the way, I would hope my daughter would wait and give this shot at a later date.


----------



## Anonymous07

Revel said:


> Here's a link about this doctor and the fraud he committed with the 1998 Lancet paper. The "study" only had 12 patients, and he was caught faking the data. The journal retracted the paper.
> 
> The myth of the Autism and MMR link needs to die.


:iagree: I wish people would stop thinking this man's "study" is true and look at it for what it is. He falsified data. 

Yes, there is human error in all scientific studies, but that is why the studies get repeated by other scientist and until others can come up with the same results, their data doesn't mean much. If a paper is published in a medical journal, than it already has been peer reviewed and accepted, to an extent. I know a number of people who do research and sit on the review board, and it is a meticulous process. 

My degree is in Health Science and I have read so many medical journals that I have information coming out of my ears. I hope people understand, when they read these journals, just what they are looking at. A correlation is not the same thing as something being proven, not even close. A correlation just says that the two might be associated, but that can also mean it is associated with a number of other things as well. It really doesn't say anything.

*I hope that made sense, I'm half asleep.


----------



## northernlights

I think too that most people who are reviewing these papers to determine public policy are aware of the fact that a shocking percentage of them are total **** (methodological flaws, biases, and bad math doom more than outright fraud. I hope anyway). It's just the nature of the beast. I have a huge, huge degree of skepticism for anything the pharmaceuticals put out, but most of the long-term vaccine safety research comes out of the university system, where there's not the same pressure to only find "good" results. Quite the opposite, actually. There'd be pressure to overturn the accepted beliefs/find the next vioxx, because that would bring recognition and funding. 

Anyone who spends a serious amount of time reading journal articles knows how horribly bad they can be. That still doesn't make vaccines cause autism.


----------



## Trojan John

Penn & Teller Bullsh*t : Vaccinations - Penn and Teller - Vaccinations (Full Episode) - YouTube
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## turnera

I work at a major cancer hospital, editing the papers researchers publish on their findings. It is VERY tightly monitored and goes through several reviews and review boards to ensure that everything adds up, is ethical, and contains no falsities.


----------



## anotherguy

Blanca said:


> ...I love science purely for discovery but I find it deplorable that people have tried to turn it into some kind of new "Savior." Science is a human endeavor carried out by everyday individuals and as such is subject to all of humanities flaws. It's an imperfect and inaccurate system driven to the illusion of perfection by the desperation of the general public. We know so very little about what we're doing and the safety of anything science churns out is merely an illusion.


I disagre. Science is not a religious endeavor ('savior').. this is the way science works. Its messy.. and it subject to never ending scrutiny and testing. That is why bad reasearch IS called into question - and not merely results that uphold the status quo. THAT is why it is awesome - and not because it pretends to know all... but rather that it is explicitely skeptical of itself and admits to what is unknown. Human flaws.. of course.. and it is self correcting - that is the beauty of it. Junk science does not drive public policy because it is quickly discredited. Peer review does not eff around.

'illusion of perfection'? According to whom?

A warning label is long exactly because it is excriciatingly detailed about what it does and does not do - to the best of all available evidence. Its not guesswork - it is reproducable and verifiable. It is not gut feelings, and does not overreach.


----------



## anotherguy

Anonymous07 said:


> ...A correlation just says that the two might be associated, but that can also mean it is associated with a number of other things as well. It really doesn't say anything..


laugh. 'might be associated' That's unfortunate phrasing, but I get it. 

And therein lies part of the problem. Science is intentionally eager to admit what it doesnt know. Its not vague or evasive - it is accuracy. This is exactly why people misunderstand what a 'theory' actually means (an explanation that is supported by _all available evidence_). It is not speculation.

If someone thinks the current science is wrong - all they need do is show conflicting evidence (They need not try and disprove everything...) just a little bit of conflicting evidence and you know what - everything goes out the window and we have to scrap our assumptions - or rethink some of them...and try again. 

People can be total screwups, and in the end - the science continues to stand on its own merits as it gets repeatedly asaulted, checked, verified and assailed from all sides. It is particularly infuriating to those that have conflicting beliefs about what they 'know' to be true.

I'll take science over homeopathy and superstition and gut feelings any day.. and you now why? Because science can explain itself - and points out first - where it is weak.


----------



## Bellavista

We have always been advised that if you have a theory to be proven, you first set out to disprove your theory.

If it can be disproven, then it probably is not correct or not correct in every case.

I have a son on the autism spectrum, he had MMR at 18 months. He also had the signs of autism well before he had the shot. This same son had a very bad reaction to his first whooping cough vac at 2 months, I could surmise this caused his autism.

So, he didn't have any more whooping cough needles & ended up with the illness when he was 20.


----------



## mablenc

Not to stir up more arguments, I just wanted to share.

We had moved when my son was shedule for his MMR so between all the moving and finding a dr then traveling we ended up giving him his MMR when he had just turned 2. My son was speaking at a very advanced level and as soon as went home he was crying more than usual then, just like that he quit talking. no other signs had been present before. We did vaccinate him again which was hard to do but, I thought I reather have a autistic child the a dead one.

So on 2010 my son asthma was really bad, he got pneumonia twice along with strep, and all other colds, his dr suggested the flu vaccine because of how sick he was. We did the flu shot and he developed mini seizers right after. Later we learned that our city had revived a "bad" batch and other children where affected. I think vaccines need to be regulated better, maybe there the correlation? 

So, I don't believe vaccines cause autism, I think it's a combination of issues. But i dont blame Parents like me who saw their child change right before their eyes, not speak up against them. But you can find articles that blame autism on rainy weather to parents abusive childhoods. 

I would like to get answers and see how it can be prevented, too many people are getting diagnosed and something is happening.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## turnera

I would say to use the Internet to get a consensus of past statistics. And educate yourself on the different vaccines available so you can have a strong discussion about the possibilities with your child's doctor.


----------



## Wiltshireman

In the UK the missed vaccinations this IMO unwarranted scare cause are now coming back to bite us. 
The current measles epidemic in Wales looks as if it will spread across the UK and even beyond.


Measles outbreak could spread and hit London and North most, expert warns - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent


----------

