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 Fourteen years later, the study has been retracted and scientists have had no luck finding a legitimate link between childhood vaccinations and autism.
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.
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?
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.
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".
Here is an edited version of the testimony given by Dr. Brian Hooker. I think it's excellent:
Originally Posted by Dr. Brian Hooker
Last edited by Jetworks; 12-04-2012 at 06:30 PM.
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
Nobody is getting rich selling Vaccines.
This argument is almost as shameful as the denial of climate change.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Jetworks; 12-05-2012 at 08:08 PM.
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.
I'm flexable on the mechanics that would work best, but support the idea strongly.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.
Falls rather squarely in the "greater good" concepts of governence.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.
Didn't say I was happy about my view.
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..Less people contracted/were paralyzed by polio than autism.
A very interesting idea to discuss, but probably (in the science and medicine and evolutionary genetics) above my knowledge/intelligence level, frankly.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.
Agreed.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?
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.Nowhere have I stated that for a goal. I would like safer vaccines with liability attached to their manufacturers, just like any other product.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Axil; 12-06-2012 at 01:19 PM.
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.