Nov 29 2012 - Congress, CDC Autism and Vaccines

[Jetdawgg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=IiQX0dRejz8

[FF2®]

The vaccine-autism controversy has been brewing ever since Andrew Wakefield published his infamous 1998 paper in The Lancet. Fourteen years later, the study has been retracted and scientists have had no luck finding a legitimate link between childhood vaccinations and autism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1586898.html

[Axil]

There is no evidence linking vaccination to autism. However it's equally disturbing the rabid ferocity you'll get from the medical community claiming that vaccinations absolutely do not cause autism. Just because a theory hasn't been proven to be true, doesn't mean it's false.

It's impossible to conduct a good study because doing so would mean not vaccinating hundreds or thousands of children. This obviously isn't ethical. It still doesn't justify the unscientific vitriol directed towards those who think there may be a link between increased vaccination rates and increasing autism rates.

[Jetdawgg]

The American people have lost faith in the government. The government is controlled by the corporations thru bribes (contributions).

The numbers mentioned by the congressman at the end of the video is frightening and should at the very least turn the heads of everyone that something may be amiss here.

Why so many vaccines?

[Ernie]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

The numbers mentioned by the congressman at the end of the video is frightening and should at the very least turn the heads of everyone that something may be amiss here.

Why so many Entitlements?

fixed

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by FF2®

The vaccine-autism controversy has been brewing ever since Andrew Wakefield published his infamous 1998 paper in The Lancet. Fourteen years later, the study has been retracted and scientists have had no luck finding a legitimate link between childhood vaccinations and autism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1586898.html

Wakefield's paper was wrongfully retracted. The co-authors have been found to be free of any wrong-doing, the paper itself has been replicated and it never claimed that the MMR caused autism, only that there was a link found between MMR, children with autism and a novel GI issue that should be investigated further.

Scientists have found no link because they haven't looked for one. The Denmark study is chock-full of data that points to a link between thimerosal and autism rates but the data released by the CDC was massaged. There has never been a study on any vaccine outside of MMR, nor any component outside of thimerosal.

Originally Posted by Axil

There is no evidence linking vaccination to autism. However it's equally disturbing the rabid ferocity you'll get from the medical community claiming that vaccinations absolutely do not cause autism. Just because a theory hasn't been proven to be true, doesn't mean it's false.

It's impossible to conduct a good study because doing so would mean not vaccinating hundreds or thousands of children. This obviously isn't ethical. It still doesn't justify the unscientific vitriol directed towards those who think there may be a link between increased vaccination rates and increasing autism rates.

It also isn't ethical to mandate vaccinations that injured/maimed/killed thousands of children, but it happened (and still does) nonetheless. The government insulates the manufacturers and instead pays out awards to the families funded by taxes on the vaccines.

There are existing populations of unvaccinated individuals that could help in investigating. There is currently a push to fund this, but it will likely fall short of its goal.

Watch the hearings from last week on C-SPAN. Pretty sickening how much double-speak is put forth by the two "experts".

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AutismRa

Here is an edited version of the testimony given by Dr. Brian Hooker. I think it's excellent:

Originally Posted by Dr. Brian Hooker

My name is Brian Hooker and I hold a PhD in Biochemical Engineering. I am also the very proud father of a neurologically impaired fourteen-year old young man, Steven. Steven received all of his infant vaccines through 15 months of age and subsequently regressed into what is commonly called autism.

Unfortunately, Steven's story has become much more common and we have to ask: What role, if any, did vaccines play in the emergence of symptoms that will be most likely a life-sentence for a generation of children? A life sentence where these children are unable to speak, are unable to take care of simple bodily functions, are in near-constant chronic pain, and struggle to control their behavior? These children will never realize their full potential and their voices will never be heard.

For all the children still to be born, it remains more than relevant to let our voices ask: What role, if any, have vaccines played in the rising epidemic of autism - up from 1 in 10,000 cases in 1983 to a staggering 1 in 88 in 2008? Is it merely a coincidence that during this same time period, the vaccine schedule for children in the US has shot up from 10 vaccinations to 49, making our country the most vaccinated nation in the world?

If we simply say over and over again that vaccines are safe and all the studies prove it, might it be lost on all those busy parents that mercury, through the organic compound thimerosal, is still in various U.S. vaccines, at levels many times the EPA toxic exposure limit?

What does the evidence suggest and are we willing to look at it objectively, fairly, with science as our maiden - and with the kids, not politics our guiding light - despite a public health tradition in this country that gives vaccines protected status?

So far, based on my years of research into what the vaccine studies actually find and how they have been conveniently interpreted; and despite my efforts to engage many at the center of these studies, there appears, sadly, an unwillingness to move beyond protected positions.

And the public is deprived of the full accounting it deserves, as those who might question the safety of vaccines, are marginalized, or worse.

But perhaps that is because the evidence connecting vaccines and their chemical components to neurological impairments, including autism, has not been laid out in the way I am going to reveal now.

While I am the parent of child with what is commonly called autism, my research and scientific focus on the data around the issue of vaccines and autism is what I believe to be most relevant to all of us here today... and most telling.

I know that your concern for the health and safety of our children is unwavering....and that you will be guided by that, above all else

With that in mind, let me start by saying that over a period of 8 years during which I submitted more than 100 Freedom of Information requests to The Centers for Disease Control--the CDC--most of which were denied, I have nevertheless uncovered evidence of a disturbingly clear connection between infant vaccines and the incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

I have found, further, that many of these vaccines contain mercury in the form of thimerosal at many times the EPA toxic exposure limit.

Despite these facts the CDC consistently denies the existence of a relationship between any vaccine or vaccine component, including thimerosal, and autism, and has worked very hard to bury the fact that thimerosal, a potent neurotoxin, has played a significant role in the current autism epidemic, as shown by their own studies.

On one single day, when my son was 2 months of age, he received 62.5 mcg. of mercury, which exceeded the EPA safe exposure limit by 130 times. Many health professionals will erroneously tell you that mercury has been removed from of our vaccines. That is not true. The vast majority of seasonal influenza vaccines distributed in the U.S. today contain 25 micrograms of mercury. The seasonal flu vaccine, along with the H1N1 vaccine recommended in 2009, is given routinely to pregnant women in their first trimester as well as infants down to 6 months of age. Mercury partitions preferentially to the placenta and then to the unborn child, meaning that for the 2010 flu season, these very tiny unborn children were exposed to 50 micrograms of mercury. Interestingly, as reported by the CDC's own VAERS database, the fetal death rate during that particular period jumped by 4250% as compared to the previous "flu season."

I agree with the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's 2003 Mercury in Medicine Report. Mercury is a known, potent neurotoxin. Placing it in maternal and infant vaccines is at best irresponsible and, at worst, criminal.

Even if you are not willing to condemn injecting infants and pregnant women with toxic mercury-containing vaccines, you would expect that the evidence was at least worthy of the concern and scrutiny of a taxpayer supported health agency like CDC that should be accountable to the public. Yet, over my 8 years and more than a hundred Freedom of Information requests to the CDC regarding the possible link between thimerosal-exposure in infant vaccines and the incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, I have encountered a Berlin-wall like resistance. I have been shut out of the information necessary to get to the bottom of the question.

During all these years, the CDC has consistently refused to release the vast majority of the pertinent data, reports and correspondences to me, a father who has a strong right to understand how the CDC conducted its studies and reached its negative conclusions about the relationship between vaccines and autism.

To paint the issue more broadly, the CDC consistently denies the existence of a relationship between any vaccine or vaccine component, including thimerosal, and autism, and while doing so, ignores the evidence contained in their own studies.

The initial analysis of the data used in the CDC's own "landmark" study, by Verstraeten et al. published in 2003 in the Journal Pediatrics showed that infants exposed to the highest thimerosal levels in their vaccines at one month of age were 7.4 times more likely to receive an autism diagnosis. The children exposed to the highest doses of mercury from vaccines were 7 times more likely to receive an autism diagnosis than children who received the lowest doses of mercury!! It is clear that the CDC researchers responsible for this study worked very hard to bury this result via statistical manipulations as even the head researcher, Dr. Thomas Verstraeten entitled an email, regarding the consistent relationship between thimerosal and autism, "It just won't go away." Yes, the relationship between thimerosal and autism won’t go away, no matter how expert the experts are at using science to obscure the data.

Later at a secret CDC-vaccine industry representative meeting held in June, 2000, at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Georgia, convened to consider these shocking data, CDC scientist Dr. Phillip Rhodes who coauthored the study, stated, regarding the use of data methods to obfuscate the original disturbing analysis of the data, "So you can push, I can pull. But there has been substantial movement from this very highly significant result down to a fairly marginal result."

I was curious as to why the CDC did not publish the initial analysis of the Verstraeten data right away. But these comments by Dr. Rhodes at Simpsonwood made it evident why the CDC needed to revise its inconvenient initial findings. It took until November 2003 for the final analysis to be released via publication in Pediatrics, as the responsible CDC researchers pushed and pulled for 4 years to make the clear association between thimerosal and autism "go away."

Although the CDC claimed that their landmark study proved there was no relationship between vaccines and autism, Dr. Verstraeten, who left CDC to work for vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline in July, 2001, stated in 2004 regarding the study's final outcome, "The article does not state that we found evidence against an association, as a negative study would. It does state, on the contrary, that additional study is recommended, which is the conclusion to which a neutral study must come."

Rather than doing additional study, the CDC hired the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to hold a meeting on "Vaccines and Autism" in February 2004. Representatives of CDC and affiliated organizations presented 5 very flawed epidemiology studies, each of which I could discuss at length. Based solely on these five studies, the IOM Immunization Safety Review Committee issued a report in May 2004 stating, "The committee...concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism" and "In addition, the committee recommends that available funding for autism research be channeled to the most promising areas," meaning, don't do any more research on thimerosal and autism. Prior to the meeting, the ISR Committee chairperson Dr. Marie McCormick instructed the committee, "we are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect." The CDC specified the outcome of this report before the fact and McCormick made sure the CDC's specifications were met.

In 2008, this report was invoked by the Special Master in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to refuse to award compensation in the autism "test cases" closing the door for any recompense to children maimed by high levels of vaccine-based mercury.

Are you beginning to see the pattern here?

One of the 5 studies used to dismiss the vaccine-autism link was co-authored by Dr. Poul Thorsen, who has collaborated with the CDC from 1998 to the present time. Dr. Thorsen is featured on the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General's Most Wanted Fugitive List as he was indicted on April 14, 2011 by a Federal grand jury on 22 counts of fraud and embezzlement. Dr. Thorsen was installed as the lead investigator for a cohort of scientists from Denmark to investigate the vaccine autism link using Danish databases. Thorsen's work was funded by a CDC grant of over $10 million dollars. Most of the funds were disbursed after he coauthored the aforementioned thimerosal-autism paper, which was reviewed prior to publication by Dr. Diana Schendel.

While compiling the results for this publication, Denmark researchers deliberately withheld critical data that would have revealed a decline in autism rates in Denmark after mercury-containing vaccines were removed from the Danish childhood vaccine schedule in 1992. The manuscript was initially rejected by the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Lancet, leading medical journals. Dr. Coleen Boyle of the CDC then took the unusual action of advocating for the paper by submitting a letter pushing for expedited review by the journal Pediatrics. The letter was signed by Dr. Jose Cordero, then Director of the CDC National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

Dr. Thorsen has coauthored 36 peer-reviewed publications in collaboration with the CDC. Since his indictment by a Federal Grand Jury for fraud, he has coauthored four papers in collaboration with Dr. Schendel.

Why is the branch of the CDC charged with responsibility for autism research collaborating with a fugitive charged with defrauding the very agency, the CDC, engaging in this critically important research? Why haven't any of his studies been retracted or been subjected to review?

The CDC is playing fast and loose with the truth when it promotes its spin on what scientific studies show about vaccines and autism. What I've disclosed briefly today is the very tip of the iceberg regarding the use of mercury, a known neurotoxin in vaccines.

Please help us expose the malfeasance or downright efforts by the CDC to suppress the truth by bureaucratic spin. There must be a full investigation of the CDC's activities in the vaccine safety program and the National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

By pursuing such an investigation, you will help bring to light the information hidden in CDC files, some of which I have obtained and am providing to this committee today, that show our children have been and continue to be exposed to dangerous neurotoxins in vaccines, and that these vaccines have been linked to what is commonly called autism.

There is no acceptable reason why mercury should not be banned from all vaccines. The second most toxic substance known to science has no place being injected into infants, pregnant mothers or any human.

Through your efforts, we can take a long needed step toward ending this horrible epidemic and spare a generation of children from what happened to my wonderful, precious son.

The history of this country is, in many ways, based on the idea that powerful political forces are not greater than the power of an idea, especially when that idea is guided by a search for truth, wherever it takes us, and a mission to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Please speak for them.

Thank you for your attention.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D.

[Jetdawgg]

JW that was an excellent post. The chem trails. The vaccines and the GMO foods seem to be major issues of this era along with the wars and the debts.

I know that some states allow people to opt out of these vaccines. I would tread carefully if I had children that had to go thru this

[Buster]

Nobody is getting rich selling Vaccines.

This argument is almost as shameful as the denial of climate change.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Buster

Nobody is getting rich selling Vaccines.

Nope... nobody.
GlaxoSmithKline Q4 profits up 66% from H1N1 vaccines


Merck, the makers of the Gardasil vaccine, expects to earn roughly $1.5 billion in profits directly as a result of the vaccine administration to young women.

I'd prefer better sources, but sense the financials (as far as I'm willing to dig) of the primary vaccine providers, aren't limited strictly to their vaccine sales, it's difficult to find those numbers.

However feel free to look for yourself and i think you'll find there are large pharma company's (Sanofi-Aventis) comes to mind, that are generating most of their revenue through vaccination.

For the record, i am not "anti-vaccine". I have had all my children vaccinated, and i get a flu shot every year, as does the rest of my family. I do not believe the risk that come with vaccination outweigh the benefits. However I do believe that it is plausible that some vaccinations have contributed to some extent to some cases of autism. Is there any reason you don't believe that to be plausible?

Originally Posted by Buster

This argument is almost as shameful as the denial of climate change.

I had hoped you'd continue to respond to that thread. You didn't like my sources, but did not explain which facts you disputed, or what part of the methodology of the study you found to be lacking.

I'm sorry but: "I am right, and it's so obvious I'm right, I'm not going to explain it to you", is not conducive to meaningful discourse. You seem to know something about these subjects, and your opinion tends to be very different from my own. I am genuinely interested in hearing your reasoning and rational. I believe that's the primary function these forums serve.

[Warfish]

Long and complicated subject is too long and too complicated.

So my TLDR is:

The good done by vaccinations is vastly > that the potential risks at current. Hence, I'm ok with them being mandatory.

With that said, I would also fund (public/private partnership-based) legitimate, unbiased scientific exploration and monitoring of the issue.

While I don't personally think they are explicitly a cause of autism in the vast majority of cases, I'm open to the idea that they could be a factor. But even if they ARE a factor, the overall good done (eliminating many historic deadly diseases) is still > the small group who have adverse reactions IMO. It's not happy, but eliminating say, polio, is better for humanity than the lternative if the cost is 0.00001% who get autism.

Heartless sounding, I know. But it sounds, from what I've read, that the problem is with the individual reactions to it, not the cure (which is not reacted to badly by the vast vast majority). No cure will be reacted to perfectly well by every individual......that does not warrant removal of that cure.

But who knows, far too complicated and not an area I'm terrably well versed, so I could be 100% wrong.

[palmetto defender]

Just to follow Warfish's comment: Shall we discontinue all vaccines? That way there will not be any side effects.
No vaccinations for typhoid, typhus, yellow fever (it still exists), pneumonia, flu or HPV. Add tetanus too.
Let's send all out soldiers overseas with no vaccinations.
BTW, for those taking various medications. Read the accompanying data sheet that comes with many. Anti inflammatory's causing heart attacks. Blood pressure meds the same. Let's just GUT IT OUT like they did in 1912. The life expectancy then was what - 60 at most?
With rewards come some risk. I feel bad for those with children with autism or disabilities. But there will always bee problems for all groups.

[MnJetFan]

Originally Posted by Buster

Nobody is getting rich selling Vaccines.

This argument is almost as shameful as the denial of climate change.

Climate change, Is that Man Made, or controlled by nature.

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by Buster

Nobody is getting rich selling Vaccines.

This argument is almost as shameful as the denial of climate change.

Post is full of fail and ignorance.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Long and complicated subject is too long and too complicated.

Originally Posted by Warfish

So my TLDR is:

The good done by vaccinations is vastly > that the potential risks at current. Hence, I'm ok with them being mandatory.

Even at the cost of their being exempt from liability as per the federal government?

Originally Posted by Warfish

With that said, I would also fund (public/private partnership-based) legitimate, unbiased scientific exploration and monitoring of the issue.

No such animal could ever exist, but the closest is VAERS, a woefully underutilized reporting system. The IACC has been about as useful as t!ts on a bull.

Originally Posted by Warfish

While I don't personally think they are explicitly a cause of autism in the vast majority of cases, I'm open to the idea that they could be a factor. But even if they ARE a factor, the overall good done (eliminating many historic deadly diseases) is still > the small group who have adverse reactions IMO. It's not happy, but eliminating say, polio, is better for humanity than the lternative if the cost is 0.00001% who get autism.

IF (and it's a big IF) vaccinations have a hand in autism, that's over 1 million people, many of which will need life-long supports at (mostly) taxpayer expense. As for the others that have met with adverse reactions, they too are compensated via taxpayer dollars, generated by the imposed taxes on the very vaccinations mandated by the government, who in turn absolves the manufacturers of any liability. Sorry, there's something fundamentally wrong with that.

Less people contracted/were paralyzed by polio than autism. Apples to oranges since vaccines have not been proven as a contributing factor. Still, at 1 in 88, the cause for alarm is very real.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Heartless sounding, I know. But it sounds, from what I've read, that the problem is with the individual reactions to it, not the cure (which is not reacted to badly by the vast vast majority). No cure will be reacted to perfectly well by every individual......that does not warrant removal of that cure.

And no one is saying it should be removed. But the argument can be made (just as heartlessly I suppose) that they are called "childhood illnesses" for a reason and should therefore be allowed to run their course, even if some kids die from them. If the various agencies are too concerned about looking into this as a cause, shouldn't they at least do their diligence and see if the vaccines are at least safe for what appear to be significant segments of the population?

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Just to follow Warfish's comment: Shall we discontinue all vaccines? That way there will not be any side effects.

Nowhere have I stated that for a goal. I would like safer vaccines with liability attached to their manufacturers, just like any other product.

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

No vaccinations for typhoid, typhus, yellow fever (it still exists), pneumonia, flu or HPV. Add tetanus too.

Split up MMR and DTaP, or does children's health cut into the bottom line too much? Same for eliminating multi-dose vials that were originally setup for use in 3rd world countries. Eliminate the mandate that neonates receive a Hep B vaccine within 3 days of birth. Stop recommending that pregnant women get a flu shot with organic mercury that passes not only the placental membrane but the blood-brain barrier as well. And does the US really need a rotovirus vaccine as part of the schedule? Well, if you're the patent holder and self-described "autism expert" Paul Offit, then I guess the answer is "yes!".

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Let's send all out soldiers overseas with no vaccinations.

There's some corollary evidence that indicates some forms of PTSD and "Gulf War Syndrome" may be tied to adverse reactions to certain military vaccines.

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

BTW, for those taking various medications. Read the accompanying data sheet that comes with many. Anti inflammatory's causing heart attacks. Blood pressure meds the same.

Vioxx springs to mind, yes. And the pharmaceutical companies were held liable for their dishonesty and malfeasance. You're point?

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Let's just GUT IT OUT like they did in 1912. The life expectancy then was what - 60 at most?

Again, no one is advocating for the elimination of vaccines. But many other countries have just as good, if not better life expectancies and disease resistance as the US, with fewer vaccines on the schedule to boot.

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

With rewards come some risk. I feel bad for those with children with autism or disabilities. But there will always bee problems for all groups.

And since we're all dealing with the big "IF", I would say I feel bad for those children with blindness caused by measles or paralysis from polio, or even death from whooping cough. As long as my kid's health isn't put secondary to theirs, that is. With the information I have in front of me from the past 12 years, I can't say that's the case. I hope none of you ever have to feel the same way.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jetworks

Even at the cost of their being exempt from liability as per the federal government?

Generally.........yes.

The only liabillity I would retain in conscious, knowing, wrongdoing. I.e. they know it has X effect on 0.0X% of recipients, and hide that knowledge.

As long as they are honest, yes, I would limit liabillity, and leave the decision to go/no go on the medical communty at large.

No such animal could ever exist, but the closest is VAERS, a woefully underutilized reporting system. The IACC has been about as useful as t!ts on a bull.

I'm flexable on the mechanics that would work best, but support the idea strongly.

IF (and it's a big IF) vaccinations have a hand in autism, that's over 1 million people, many of which will need life-long supports at (mostly) taxpayer expense. As for the others that have met with adverse reactions, they too are compensated via taxpayer dollars, generated by the imposed taxes on the very vaccinations mandated by the government, who in turn absolves the manufacturers of any liability. Sorry, there's something fundamentally wrong with that.

Falls rather squarely in the "greater good" concepts of governence.

Didn't say I was happy about my view.

Less people contracted/were paralyzed by polio than autism.

Thats one of many diseases vaccines have effectively eliminated, and assumed ALL autism was caused by vaccines. Not exactly a apples to apples comparison as you say..

And no one is saying it should be removed. But the argument can be made (just as heartlessly I suppose) that they are called "childhood illnesses" for a reason and should therefore be allowed to run their course, even if some kids die from them.

A very interesting idea to discuss, but probably (in the science and medicine and evolutionary genetics) above my knowledge/intelligence level, frankly.

If the various agencies are too concerned about looking into this as a cause, shouldn't they at least do their diligence and see if the vaccines are at least safe for what appear to be significant segments of the population?

Agreed.

Nowhere have I stated that for a goal. I would like safer vaccines with liability attached to their manufacturers, just like any other product.

It's the liabillity thats an issue. If they create Medicine X that cures AIDS, but a small percentge get horrible acne, no, there should not be liabillity to sue. IF and only IF the data is provided up front, both to Docs and (by Docs) to parents.

While I understand the desire for liabillity, I also can see it being unfair and counterproductive to allow lawsuits against a fim that cured say, Cancer, because 1 in 1,000 who used the cure had both their arms falls off too.

I feel like this is a similar agrument as that against DDT. DDT which could have saved hundreds of thousands of deaths by malaria, but was banned because of some (IMO) minor and not quite proven effects. Instead, those folks get......nets. And alot of Malaria. I don't see that as a better choice per se.

Not an easy topic to be sure. Made harder knowing you're my friend, and what your situation is, tbqh. I'm not enjoying this debate.

[chirorob]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Long and complicated subject is too long and too complicated.

So my TLDR is:

The good done by vaccinations is vastly > that the potential risks at current. Hence, I'm ok with them being mandatory.

With that said, I would also fund (public/private partnership-based) legitimate, unbiased scientific exploration and monitoring of the issue.

While I don't personally think they are explicitly a cause of autism in the vast majority of cases, I'm open to the idea that they could be a factor. But even if they ARE a factor, the overall good done (eliminating many historic deadly diseases) is still > the small group who have adverse reactions IMO. It's not happy, but eliminating say, polio, is better for humanity than the lternative if the cost is 0.00001% who get autism.

Heartless sounding, I know. But it sounds, from what I've read, that the problem is with the individual reactions to it, not the cure (which is not reacted to badly by the vast vast majority). No cure will be reacted to perfectly well by every individual......that does not warrant removal of that cure.

But who knows, far too complicated and not an area I'm terrably well versed, so I could be 100% wrong.

What if the incidence of polio was already in decline before the vaccines became popular? What if many people who were diagnosed with polio are now diagnosed with meningitis, so that the rates aren't dipping as fast as you are being led to believe.

So because you are ok with the risks of my children getting autism, it should be mandatory that I am ok with those risks? Because that is what you are saying. Now, once you make these shots mandatory, what age are you going to deliver them? Because a child's immune system may not be capable of properly handling a vaccine at 4-6 months of age. But are you telling me that I have to give them the shot at that age?

Now, if I don't give my child a mandatory shot, what happens? I lose my child? Fine, now what happens if I am forced to give my child a shot I don't want to give him, and he winds up with autism? What do I get to do now that you have screwed up my entire child's life? Can I put my caseworker in jail?

What about the flu vaccine? My own sister in law worked in a hospital in CA, and told me about how when they ran out of shots, they just went into storage and pulled the old shots from the previous year, and injected those into kids and seniors. Do I have to get that?

I have met too many people who had a perfectly normal 2 or 3 year old, who got a batch of vaccines, and 1 week later had an autistic child.

[chirorob]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Generally.........yes.

The only liabillity I would retain in conscious, knowing, wrongdoing. I.e. they know it has X effect on 0.0X% of recipients, and hide that knowledge.

As long as they are honest, yes, I would limit liabillity, and leave the decision to go/no go on the medical communty at large.




Thats one of many diseases vaccines have effectively eliminated, and assumed ALL autism was caused by vaccines. Not exactly a apples to apples comparison as you say..



A very interesting idea to discuss, but probably (in the science and medicine and evolutionary genetics) above my knowledge/intelligence level, frankly.



Agreed.



It's the liabillity thats an issue. If they create Medicine X that cures AIDS, but a small percentge get horrible acne, no, there should not be liabillity to sue. IF and only IF the data is provided up front, both to Docs and (by Docs) to parents.


While I understand the desire for liabillity, I also can see it being unfair and counterproductive to allow lawsuits against a fim that cured say, Cancer, because 1 in 1,000 who used the cure had both their arms falls off too.


Not an easy topic to be sure. Made harder knowing you're my friend, and what your situation is, tbqh. I'm not enjoying this debate.

Yes, no drug company would ever create a product that produced a bad side effect, and then hide that side effect?

As for an AIDS vaccine, what if my child chooses to wait until marriage to have sex, and marries someone else of that disposition. Should they have to get a vaccination. Now, I know that is a crazy idea, and people will mock me for it, but shouldn't that decision be left to the family?

I reminds me of a couple years ago, when a company said it had a vaccine for cervical cancer in women, and the governor of Texas wanted to make it mandatory for all women at 12 years old. The drug company was positive there were no side effects, and no long term problems, and no follow up shots needed. My question was, if the shot is only 1 year old, how do you know what the long term side effects are? If I know my child won't get cervical cancer, but due to the heavy metals in the shot they are 700% more likely to have early onset dementia, maybe I don't want that shot.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Long and complicated subject is too long and too complicated.

So my TLDR is:

The good done by vaccinations is vastly > that the potential risks at current. Hence, I'm ok with them being mandatory.

I am ok with some vaccine's being mandatory. Let's take small pox. Before a vaccination was developed small pox was a prevalent disease. It had a 20-30% kill rate. It was highly contagious. It was very bad news. I absolutely think small pox vaccine's should be mandatory. I do not believe a parent should have the right to expose their child to that level of risk, and potentially expose other children who have not yet been vaccinated to that risk.

Now let's compare that to the flu. According to the CDC 5-20% of the us population gets the flu every year. That's roughly 15,750,000-63,000,000 cases every year. The CDC also says about 36,000 people die from the flu every year. That means you're looking at a mortality rate of .2% - .05%. Yet a flu vaccination is a requirement to attend preschool in new jersey. I do not believe the government should be making this decision for me. Now again, i get a flu shot, my wife gets a flu shot, my other children who are not required to have flu shots get them. I don't like getting the flu. I still believe it should be my decision.

Originally Posted by Warfish

With that said, I would also fund (public/private partnership-based) legitimate, unbiased scientific exploration and monitoring of the issue.

You know my thoughts on this. Other than the word in red, I wouldn't be opposed to such a body, but as i stated in my previous post i do not believe you could get a definitive answer without your experimental methodology including unvaccinated children, within the US.

Originally Posted by Warfish

While I don't personally think they are explicitly a cause of autism in the vast majority of cases, I'm open to the idea that they could be a factor. But even if they ARE a factor, the overall good done (eliminating many historic deadly diseases) is still > the small group who have adverse reactions IMO. It's not happy, but eliminating say, polio, is better for humanity than the lternative if the cost is 0.00001% who get autism.

I tend to agree. However if we knew that vaccines factors into autism we may be able to either create vaccines that did not contribute to autism, or predetermine the likelihood of a vaccine causing autism in an individual, and selectively choose not to vaccinate those individuals.

It's also entirely possible that vaccines play no role whatsoever in autism, under any circumstances. That would also be good to know, because increased autism rates are coming from somewhere, and seem to be continuing to climb.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Heartless sounding, I know. But it sounds, from what I've read, that the problem is with the individual reactions to it, not the cure (which is not reacted to badly by the vast vast majority). No cure will be reacted to perfectly well by every individual......that does not warrant removal of that cure.

But who knows, far too complicated and not an area I'm terrably well versed, so I could be 100% wrong.

Not heartless, practical. The original small pox vaccine caused fatality rates of 0.5-2%. The upper end of that range is greater than the entire autism rate. People still gave it to their children, because it was still better than smallpox.

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Just to follow Warfish's comment: Shall we discontinue all vaccines? That way there will not be any side effects.
No vaccinations for typhoid, typhus, yellow fever (it still exists), pneumonia, flu or HPV. Add tetanus too.

No, but some of them (flu) shouldn't be mandatory. I believe it should take a great deal of (greater good) to usurp individual freedom of choice.

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Let's send all out soldiers overseas with no vaccinations.

Soldiers give up a lot of their personal freedoms when they volunteer for military service. Any decision on what vaccines are and are not required by the general population need not affect soldiers.

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

BTW, for those taking various medications. Read the accompanying data sheet that comes with many. Anti inflammatory's causing heart attacks. Blood pressure meds the same. Let's just GUT IT OUT like they did in 1912. The life expectancy then was what - 60 at most?
With rewards come some risk. I feel bad for those with children with autism or disabilities. But there will always bee problems for all groups.

This plays into the "liability" argument. If it's on that sheet, you can't sue for it, they're covered. However if i take a sleeping pill which warns against the risk of fatigue, itching, and diareah, and i go blind, i should be able to sue and collect.


*edit*

more on liability. Why should vaccines belong to a special class of limited liability. Warfish, let's use your cancer example. If a company created a cure for cancer (as you suggested) they would not get this special limitation on liability. If they created a vaccine for cancer, they would. And let me reiterate. If during clinical testing you find that 1 in 1000 times your cure for cancer causes your patients arms to fall off. You put that on the warning label, and are legally covered. Good luck getting spontaneous double amputations through the FDA though.

[Jetworks]

WF, Chiro and Axil: some really, well thought-out commentaries.

I know most, if none of you have any interest in watching that video from C-SPAN, but know this; it was a significant step in the right direction in holding the rest of our government accountable about finding some answers regarding the autism epidemic. For too long the answers put forth by the two representatives from the NIH and CDC have been accepted. This time, they weren't. Quite frankly, I think the lawmakers are scared of facing what their constituency has brought to their attention; that the 1 in 88 are rapidly aging out of school and are going to be dependent on services, very expensive services.

Axil, just an FYI, that 36K number about flu deaths has been shown to be an exaggeration by the CDC. The number is derived from reported influenza deaths and any other respiratory death suspected of being flu-related. Even a perusal of the CDC's own "Leading Causes of Death" reports show the inanity of their methods. For instance, in 2009 the CDC reported 53,692 deaths from influenza and pneumonia (yes, they combine them). If you take the time to look at the demographic breakdown, the numbers get even sillier.