Home > Expert Insights, Science & Research, Vaccine Myths > Vaccines: Autism’s Great Divide

Vaccines: Autism’s Great Divide

November 2, 2011

Every Child By Two (ECBT) recently offered an informative webinar entitled “Autism 101 for Immunization Advocates”. 

You may be asking, why would an immunization organization like Every Child By Two be offering education on autism?  To be honest, as we continue to share information about autism research on this blog and on our Vaccinate Your Baby Facebook page, we hear this question time and again.

“If there is no link between vaccines and autism, then why do you spend so much time talking about it?”

While the majority of people realize that vaccines are not responsible for a diagnosis of autism, there are still some people who are under the impression that some possible link may exist.  In fact, research has indicated that some parental hesitation about vaccinations is in part due to these unsettling concerns and misconceptions.   According to a Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll published in January 2011, 18% of Americans say vaccines cause autism and 30% of Americans aren’t sure.

That is why Every Child By Two continues to be involved in the conversation.  They believe that as long as these two things remain associated in some way, both the immunization community, as well as the autism community, have an important role in educating parents.

Amy Pisani, Executive Director of Every Child By Two, explains,

“Immunization advocates need to listen carefully to the concerns that parents have raised regarding vaccines and autism.  Parents may have heard scary things on TV or from friends and their fears are very real.  It’s our job as public health professionals to have respect for their legitimate concerns and to do our best to explain the science regarding vaccines and autism clearly and concisely.”

In an effort to address these concerns, Every Child By Two has collaborated with Alison Singer, Executive Director of The Autism Science Foundation, to help educate immunization advocates about early diagnosis, interventions and potential causes of autism. Throughout this special one hour presentation, Ms. Singer combines emotional and scientific talking points that can be used to address emotional responses that people have to vaccines and autism and help parents face their concerns more logically.

It is understandable that parents with autistic children often turn to various autism organizations for information and support.  That is why it’s also imperative that these organization not only educate people on autism, but also take the opportunity to exonerate vaccines in the diagnosis.  Every Child By Two has chosen to partner with The Autism Science Foundation because of the clear message they send to parents in regards to vaccines.     The Autism Science Foundation is one of the few autism organizations that not only offers people the scientific research that has been conducted to disprove any links between vaccines and autism, but who also emphasize the need for immunizations in protecting everyone in our community from vaccine preventable diseases.

Unlike most other autism organizations, The Autism Science Foundation is very clear in stating their views on vaccines as they pertain to autism:

“A decade ago most agreed that we need to study vaccines in relation to autism. We had to reconcile the fact that the number of vaccines children were receiving was increasing, and at the same time, the number of children who were being diagnosed with autism also was on the rise. But fortunately this was a question that could be studied – and answered – by science. We looked at children who received vaccines and those who didn’t, or who received them on a different, slower schedule. There was no difference in their neurological outcomes.  We’ve done multiple studies looking at the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination in relation to autism. We’ve looked at thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, and its relation to autism. The studies are very clear; there is no relationship in the data between vaccines and autism.  It’s Time to Ask New Questions. If we ask the same questions we’ll get the same answers. We’ve asked the autism vaccine question over two dozen times and each time we get the same response; no relationship.  We need to move on; We need to invest in studying genetics, the brain structures of children with autism, and environmental factors that may be playing a role.”

Ms. Singer’s presentation was full of the latest information and statistics that are helping to identify causes and risk factors relating to autism.  This information is not only helpful for immunization advocates, but for the general public as well.

As Ms. Pisani emphasized after the presentation,

“All parents need to be educated about autism spectrum disorders.  By knowing what signs to look for, parents can make observations that may lead to an early diagnosis which can be critical to getting families the assistance they need.  And what’s great about The Autism Science Foundation is that they are funding important research and constantly educating parents about the latest scientific findings.  I learned so much from Alison’s presentation and by making it available on our website, we hope that others will learn from it as well. “

If you’re a parent who wants to learn more, check out the full presentation on the Every Child By Two website here or you can listen to the recorded webinar when you register here.

For more details on the exciting research being funded by The Autism Science Foundation, be sure to visit their website and friend them on Facebook.  If you subscribe to their YouTube channel, you can also hear first-hand accounts from various scientists about their current research projects.

Autism awareness is such an important public health issue and we must continue to give it the attention it deserves.  In doing so, we should also call for more autism organizations to assist in  educating parents about the research that has already been done to prove vaccines safe and unrelated to autism diagnosis.  Only then can we expect parents to respect the science that relates to both immunization issues and autism research, and hope that this will help put aside the speculation that is preventing people from getting immunized against dangerous, and sometimes deadly, diseases.

Perhaps you have a personal experience with autism that you can share with us.  Does it frustrate you that the autism community is often polarized by the topic of vaccines?  Does the great vaccine divide ever interfere with your efforts to help and support an autistic loved one in your life?

  1. November 2, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    Please supply a link to the study or studies that looked at unvaccinated children in relation to autism. Thanks!

  2. November 3, 2011 at 10:24 am

    No, none of those studies include observation of completely unvaccinated babies or children. Thanks.

  3. judy
    November 3, 2011 at 11:00 am

    No real world studies of the vaccine schedule have ever been done. Of the 11 separate vaccines given to American children (many given multiple times), only one vaccine — the MMR — has ever been studied for its relationship to autism. Yet, American children get 6 or 7 different vaccines simultaneously at 2, 4, 6, and 12 month doctor appointments.

    Not one study compares vaccinated children to unvaccinated children — every study only looks at children who have received vaccines. This is like comparing smokers who smoke one pack a day to those who smoke two packs a day, seeing no difference in cancer rates, and saying cigarettes don’t cause cancer. Or, investigating an airplane crash, and after looking at one of the planes wings, exonerating the entire craft as having been safe because that one wing didn’t prove to have a flaw.

    ECB2 is heavily funded by pharma, a fact they fail to mention when touting vaccine safety/

  4. Chris
    November 3, 2011 at 11:51 am

    http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/pdf.asp?id=80869

    I suggest if you want any other studies that you convince the folks at Generation Rescue, SafeMinds and others to pay for them. Just make sure that they do not put children at risk from getting real diseases, because the only difference they found in the link was that the children without vaccines had more vaccine preventable diseases.

  5. Chris
    November 3, 2011 at 11:54 am

    Again, that was exactly what was done in this German study:

    http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/pdf.asp?id=80869

    Again, if you wish for any other studies to be done then have them paid for by SafeMinds, NVIC, Generation Rescue, NAA, etc. If you want them, then pay for them. Do not ask for any more public funds.

  6. Lauren Hanson
    November 3, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    My son became autistic after receiving his MMR vaccine at 16 months. He had a history of ear infections, pneumonia and hospitalizations before he was a year old. We also have a family history of immune disorders like ALS, and arthritis. However, his doctor said they would “kick us out of the practice” if he did not get his immunization. They did not even perceive him as high risk. The doctor implied I was ignorant for even suggesting that he should not have the vaccine due to the autism risk. Supposedly it just “comes on around the same time as the MMR vaccinations are being given.”

    Two days later my son lost all his speech and launched into autism. As other readers have mentioned, no REAL studies have been done on immunizations. Read the latest scientific review at:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html

    Read it and think for yourself!

    I don’t think most parents with autistic children are “anti-vaccine.” However, children should not be given multiple doses of a vaccine at a young age when their brains are developing. It can damage their immune system and launch them into autism. Especially if they have high risk factors like being sick during the vaccination, a family history of immune disorders, reoccuring ear infections etc.

    Ask the right questions before vaccinations:

    http://www.nvic.org/Ask-Eight-Questions.aspx

    ECB2 is a disgrace! We had 11 vaccinations growing up and now are kids are given over 30. It’s a money maker for the pharmaeutical companies, doctors and the US government who mandate them for our schools.

  7. Chris
    November 3, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Could you post the actual scientific citations on what evidence you have that the MMR causes autism and is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella? And please do not post the paper that is the subject of this article, nor anything by Wakefield and his associates.

    I ask you as a parent whose child suffered through a now vaccine preventable disease over twenty years ago, and is still disabled. Thank you.

  8. November 3, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Could you explain how vaccines are supposed to cause autism? Not, “There’s DNA and Toxins and too many too soon”, but point to some source that has actually looked for a mechanism and discussed it?

    There were to mechanisms proposed. First the MMR, which was supposed to lead to persistent measles infections in the gut followed by a “leaky gut” which allowed harmful proteins into the bloodstream. The second was “autism is like mercury poisoning, and the rate of autism diagnoses tracks the increase in thimerosal exposure from vaccines in the 1990’s”

    Both failed. In both cases both the epidemiological evidence and the base mechanisms proposed didn’t hold up to scrutiny.

    The mechanisms proposed were both weak to begin with. The thimerosal hypothesis was extremely tenuous (autism does not present like mercury poisoning). Millions of dollars and countless researcher-years later, we now know it.

    And now we are asked to put more money into research with even less substantiation. I’d rather see it spent on something with a higher probability of success.

  9. November 3, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    “We had 11 vaccinations growing up and now are kids are given over 30. It’s a money maker for the pharmaeutical companies, doctors and the US government who mandate them for our schools.”

    I’m fine with paying people to keep me and my family safer from diseases like meningitis. A few dollars to protect against measles encephalitis? I’m good with that. A few bucks in the pockets of someone else so that my family doesn’t have to face congenital rubella syndrome? Not a problem.

  10. November 3, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    “I don’t think most parents with autistic children are “anti-vaccine.”

    you seem to be assuming that most parents of autistic children subscribe to the “vaccines cause autism” idea.

    They don’t. This was presented at IMFAR this year.

  11. November 3, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    “No real world studies of the vaccine schedule have ever been done. Of the 11 separate vaccines given to American children (many given multiple times), only one vaccine — the MMR — has ever been studied for its relationship to autism. ”

    Do you accept the results? MMR doesn’t cause an increased risk of autism?

    If not, what is the point of continuing this discussion? It will then be your beliefs against facts.

  12. November 3, 2011 at 4:14 pm
  13. Shannon Rosa
    November 3, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    I’d recommend readers look at Paul Offit’s interview on this matter at Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

    SR: The anti-vaccination camp frequently demands to know why a vaccinated vs. vaccinated study hasn’t been done. The reply is usually that such a study would be unethical — but it sounds like you can draw those comparisons from existing studies — that the study’s effectively already been done.

    OFFIT: If you look at the Smith and Woods Pediatrics study, they mined data from Bill Thompson’s thimerosal study at the CDC. Thompson and his colleagues went through the medical records of 1,000 children and carefully documented whether mothers had received RhoGAM that had contained thimerosal prenatally, exactly which vaccines the children were given post-natally, then they subjected the children to 42 different neurological and psychological tests — and concluded that thimerosal wasn’t associated with an adverse neurological outcome.

    What Smith and Woods did is take Thompson’s data, and determine which kids got which shots when. They took a group that was fully vaccinated and compared it to a group that was much less vaccinated, who only got two or three vaccines in the first couple years of life. So it wasn’t a vax/unvax, but it was a vaccinated/much less vaccinated study. And there wasn’t any evidence supporting an autism connection.

    But you’re right, [a vaccinated/unvaccinated study] is unethical. There’s not an institutional review board in the world that would approve that kind of study, because we know that vaccines work, we know that if you don’t give a large number of children vaccines that some of them are going to get whooping cough or chicken pox, some of them may be hospitalized or even killed by the diseases — you can’t do that kind of study.

    from: http://thinkingautismguide.blogspot.com/2011/01/interview-dr-paul-offit.html

  14. November 3, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    About the request for a “vaccinated versus unvaccinated” study on autism prevalence. ToddW at the excellent (and independent) blog Harpocrates Speaks has written a four-part series on the issues around mounting such as study.

    Part one is an overview of randomized, controlled trial (RCT) studies

    Part two is a brief history of medical research ethics

    Part three is a discussion of the ethical considerations and regulations of a prospective RTC on vaccination/nonvaccination and autism.

    Part four is a consideration of the legal perspectives of a prospective RTC on vaccination/nonvaccination and autism.

    Judy wrote:

    Not one study compares vaccinated children to unvaccinated children — every study only looks at children who have received vaccines.

    It’s a familiar complaint, but what the complainers fail to do is to address the issues raised in the posts above.

  15. November 3, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    I have a comment in moderation about the ethics and legality of any vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study, but I also want to bring up the topic of cost.

    There is a finite amount of research money. How much money has been diverted from other pressing research needs in autism by previous vaccine-causation studies?

    If the “autism is vaccine injury” true believers want such a study, they should pay for it.

  16. November 3, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    I am very curious if a parallel study is in the works re-analyzing the data from the Price study on autism and thimerosal.

    A study out of Vanderbilt presented at IMFAR this year showed *lower* autism rates in vaccinated kids. The likely reason was that there is an artifact: siblings of autistic kids are less likely to be vaccinated, but more likely to be autistic due to the sibling risk factors.

    This points out one of the obvious potential flaws in a vaccinated/unvaccinated study.

    We already have much of the data comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated kids: unvaccinated kids get sick more often. Vaccines work. In fact, there are studies that show that not only do they prevent the diseases they target, but that vaccinated kids get fewer other diseases as well. Some of this must be due to the lack of opportunity for secondary infections, but it speaks to the question of whether vaccines “weaken the immune system” (i.e., they don’t)

  17. November 3, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    In “The Greater Good”, Dr. Bob Sears says the only way to do that study is with a randomized control group. Even he knows how impractical and unethical that would be.

  18. November 3, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    Lauren, the CBS News story you linked to made mention of homologous recombinaltion tiniker, and its relationship to autism. Is that one of your concerns?

    Thank you.

  19. November 3, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Listen, folks, the next best thing to the unethical randomized clinical trial proposed by anti-vaccine advocates is a case-control study. It has the same statistical power when it comes to rare outcomes like autism. And, guess what? It’s been done. It’s been done over and over and over again every time there is an outbreak of a vaccine-preventable disease. And it’s been found – every single time, every one of them – that children who are infected and fall ill with a vaccine-preventable illness during an outbreak is more likely to be unvaccinated. It has also been found that children who remain healthy during that outbreak are more likely to be vaccinated.

    There are two scientific fields called epidemiology and biostatistics. People who study diseases and then calculate the odds of certain events given certain characteristics of a population practice those fields. Time after time, once and again, they keep finding that sick children are more likely to be unvaccinated and that healthy children are more likely to be vaccinated. They use things like case-control matching and other procedures to make sure that they are not being biased in their assessments. They surely don’t post an online poll and use it as any sort of evidence.

    Not only that, but they have also used case-control studies to study the proposed link between vaccines and autism. Guess what? Children with autism (cases) are no more or less likely to have been vaccinated than children without autism (controls). This has been done over and over and over, ad nauseum. But yet you anti-vaccine people and groups keep calling for these “REAL” studies that would be unethical, and for what? So you could move the goalposts when even that study shows there is no link between vaccines and autism? So that the children in the control group (those who you wouldn’t vaccinate to see if they develop autism or not) fall ill and maybe die of a vaccine-preventable disease later on? So your ego would be nice and satisfied?

    So more time and money can be wasted on chasing this windmill?

    Of course, I just wasted ten minutes of my time writing this since you won’t listen… You won’t listen to reason, and so, you’re going to destroy us all.

  20. Curtis E. Flush
    November 3, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    ECB2 is a disgrace! We had 11 vaccinations growing up and now are kids are given over 30.

    So Lauren Hanson, if the numbers matter, can you tell us about the total number of antigens in those vaccines now compared to the past?

    It’s a money maker for the pharmaeutical companies, doctors and the US government who mandate them for our schools.

    It’s a money maker for the U.S. Government? That’s hilarious, especially since federal, state, and local government agencies are vaccine purchasers.

  21. Steve Michaels
    November 5, 2011 at 11:42 am

    Which of course these groups have done and have been cited on here many times before but vaccine advocates like you automatically dismiss because the studies have been sponsored by ‘biased’ groups. It’s a nice catch 22 style of argument. The already proven conflicted interest studies YOU rely upon are gospel and any other study that challenges your preconceived/purchased (delete as appropriate) view is summarily dismissed as conflicted and therefore unreliable.

  22. Steve Michaels
    November 5, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Well Chris, why not quote Wakefield? Conflict of interest? Alleged lack of ethics approval? His results stand unquestioned even today. He has been PERSONALLY vilified but his work and conclusions have not been disproven. In fact, his main conclusion was to not use the MMR vaccine because of potential issues that required more investigation, but continue with the individual vaccines instead. Well why don’t we apply your standard to your support pillars…. the CDC, Poul Thorsen, Paul Offitt, ECBT, the AAP and virtually EVERY journal you rely upon.

    It is already widely known that journals depend heavily on advertising revenue from the pharma industry. Merck in particular, as I recall was found guilty of creating it’s own ghost written journals to tout their products by giving an illusion of independent endorsement.

    The CDC and Thorsen are covered in this letter to the Danish authorities about the much beloved and cited “Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data”. Based on FOIA released correspondence between Thorsen, the CDC, the industry and HHS, the Danish study actually showed a decrease in autism rates, but the figures were massaged to make the rates appear to increase. Read the ENTIRE letter and supporting evidence and you will find, as I have previously reported, that Pediatrics was pressured to publish quickly even though it was already known that NEJM and JAMA refused to publish the report due to the inconsistencies.

    http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/110927_ResponseToDanishCommitteeOnSciDishonesty_CombinedLetterExhibits_b.pdf

    As far as Thorsen goes, his indictment for fraud and embezzlement of CDC funds goes FAR beyond the complaints lodged against Wakefield, so by your own standard, he and his work should be summarily rejected on that matter alone.

    On to Offitt, ECBT and AAP. CBS
    highlighted it all in a nutshell in this report that people seem to have forgotten.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/25/cbsnews_investigates/main4296175.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;2

    Also let’s not forget that THIS site is considered a sister site to ECBT and Amy Pisani is a frequent subject/commentator on here and ECBT is at least partly funded by the industry and therefore it, and this site, are NOT presenting unbiased information.

  23. Steve Michaels
    November 5, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    And in continuation of the below (to avoid moderation delays):

    Anything coming from the CDC associated with Dr. Kimberly Quinlan Lindsey or any department she has worked in should be immediately discounted. One of the top CDC officials has been caught on video copulating with her pets and involving a six year in her antics with her live in boyfriend, although it is unclear at this point whether the animal was involved in that as well. This level of moral depravity in such a high level official charged with helping safeguard children is beyond reprehensible. That such depravity could be hidden in her rise to the top echelons also beggars belief.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/11/justice/georiga-cdc-arrest/index.html

    And while you will immediately discount the below linked analysis since your mind is already made up and contrary information is always summarily dismissed, other reader are urged to look to these and other non-industry affiliated information sites before taking what is published here on board at face value.

    http://www.anh-usa.org/cdc-mercury-in-vaccines/

  24. November 5, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    “Conflict of interest? Alleged lack of ethics approval? His results stand unquestioned even today. ”

    Wow. This is completely

    First off–conflict of interest and lack of ethics approval were found proved. Not alleged. Proved.

    Unquestioned? They were questioned from the moment they were published (in a companion piece in The Lancet). He has had multiple papers retracted. Key pieces of his work and theory has been not only questioned, but disproved (see Hornig et al. in PLoS One)

    It is very difficult to have a conversation with people who are in stark denial of clear facts. Yes, I’m talking about you, Mr. Michaels.

    People like you are causing harm. It’s one thing to be making honest mistakes. It is another altogether to be promoting fear and confusion based on whatever is causing your complete lack of understanding of the situation.

  25. November 5, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    Here is my original question: Please supply a link to the study or studies that looked at unvaccinated children in relation to autism. Thanks!

    I was supplied with a page of links. None of the studies looked at unvaccinated children in relation to autism.

    So how come the statement says: “We looked at children who received vaccines and those who didn’t, or who received them on a different, slower schedule.”

    If this was actually done, you should be able to supply not a list, but the specific study. If you can’t supply the specific study you are making false statements. Which is not at all reassuring for parents who have doubts.

    Thanks.

  26. Kelly
    November 5, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    Perhaps you would find this summary easier to read to answer your question?

    http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/VaccineStudies.pdf

    From the above link, the following studies compared vaccinated vs. unvaccinated:
    – Lack of Association Between Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination and Autism in
    Children: A Case-Control Study
    Budzyn D, et al. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. Vol. 29, No. 5, May 2010

    – MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results
    Presented from Japan
    Uchiyama T et al. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2007; 37(2):210-7

    – No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study
    Honda H et al, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2005 June; 46(6):572-9

    – A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and
    Autism
    Madsen KM et al. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002; 347(19):1477-82

    – No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism
    Fombonne E et al. Pediatrics. 2001;108(4):E58

    – Association Between Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine and Autism
    Hviid et al., Journal of the American Medical Association, 2003; 290(13):1763-6

  27. Steve Michaels
    November 5, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    It is a common ploy on their part.

  28. Steve Michaels
    November 5, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Lbrb Sullivan :
    “Conflict of interest? Alleged lack of ethics approval? His results stand unquestioned even today. ”
    Wow. This is completely
    First off–conflict of interest and lack of ethics approval were found proved. Not alleged. Proved.
    Unquestioned? They were questioned from the moment they were published (in a companion piece in The Lancet). He has had multiple papers retracted. Key pieces of his work and theory has been not only questioned, but disproved (see Hornig et al. in PLoS One)
    It is very difficult to have a conversation with people who are in stark denial of clear facts. Yes, I’m talking about you, Mr. Michaels.
    People like you are causing harm. It’s one thing to be making honest mistakes. It is another altogether to be promoting fear and confusion based on whatever is causing your complete lack of understanding of the situation.

    You obviously have NOT read the GMC report. I have linked to it previously. Please don’t throw stones in glass houses. The ‘proof’ you claim was only asserted AFTER the GMC summarily dismissed huge swaths of evidence that did not fit with the preordained outcome. By the way, if the research was soooooo off base, why did nothing get done about it until Rupert Murdoch’s discredited papers became interested? Why did the GMC only act after it’s membership included a Murdoch associate? How did Brian Deer get confidential patient information that was completely unavailable to the research team? By the way, Murchoch and his wife serve as directors of pharma companies, and their daughter is a government official for vaccines in Australia. But no conflicts there, eh?

  29. November 5, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    Perhaps you could explain how vaccines of any sort could possible cause autism when adjusting vaccine administration does not affect autism diagnosis?

  30. November 5, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    I think I see your misunderstanding now. You are adding the word “all” to the sentence.

    You are seeing this: “We looked at children who received vaccines and those who didn’t, or who received them on a different, slower schedule.”

    And reading this: “We looked at children who received vaccines and those who didn’t , or who received them on a different, slower schedule.”

    It would be just as valid to read that sentence as: “We looked at children who received vaccines and those who didn’t, or who received them on a different, slower schedule.”

  31. November 5, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    Sorry, the html processor filtered out the most important part of that comment. I’ll reformat it:

    I think I see your misunderstanding now. You are adding the word “all” to the sentence.

    You are seeing this: “We looked at children who received vaccines and those who didn’t, or who received them on a different, slower schedule.”

    And reading this: “We looked at children who received (all) vaccines and those who didn’t (receive any) , or who received them on a different, slower schedule.”

    It would be just as valid to read that sentence as: “We looked at children who received (particular) vaccines and those who didn’t, or who received them on a different, slower schedule.”

  32. Informed Consent
    November 5, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    I’m so sorry, Lauren. It is families like yours that have continued to fight for our rights. I hope your son is doing better. New research, in regards to thimersol, is proving our “suspicions”. I am happy that they took thimersol out of most of the vaccines, but it is a shame it had to go down like this. No one should ever be exposed to thimersol. And aluminum is no exception.

    I will pray for your son and family. God bless you and I hope things get batter for your family, I am sorry your son was pharma’s sacrificial lamb.

  33. Informed Consent
    November 5, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    Gattarian, sadly you probably won’t get to see these links because the moderator keeps deleting this comment. But, in the off chance you do get to see this…this might help you answer your question. Its really sad that the moderator won’t allow us to speak our minds and present valid scientific evidence. Why are you doing that? What are you afraid of?

    “These results indicate that embryonic exposure to thimerosal affects early development of serotonergic neurons.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21669256

    “Our data thus demonstrate a negative neurodevelopmental impact of perinatal TM exposure which appears to be both strain- and sex-dependent.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22015705

    ‎”Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170

    “The neurotoxic organomercurial thimerosal (THIM), used for decades as vaccine preservative, is a suspected factor in the pathogenesis of some neurodevelopmental disorders. Previously we showed that neonatal administration of THIM at doses equivalent to those used in infant vaccines or higher, causes lasting alterations in the brain opioid system in rats. These data document that early postnatal THIM administration causes lasting neurobehavioral impairments and neurochemical alterations in the brain, dependent on dose and sex. If similar changes occur in THIM/mercurial-exposed children, they could contribute do neurodevelopmental disorders.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21549155
    ‎”our data imply that neonatal exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines might induce excitotoxic brain injuries, leading to neurodevelopmental disorders” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22015977

  34. November 5, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    “You obviously have NOT read the GMC report”

    Interesting that things which are “obvious” to you are false. I’ve read the GMC report. I reported on it, many times. I was the first to report the transcripts from the hearing. Have you read those? I have.

    “The ‘proof’ you claim was only asserted AFTER the GMC summarily dismissed huge swaths of evidence that did not fit with the preordained outcome.”

    Right. It was a great conspiracy. That’s what “preordained outcome” means, you know. So don’t cry “ad hominem attack!”.

    That said, having read both the GMC report and the transcripts, and Andrew Wakefield’s book, I can say I completely agree with the GMC. Andrew Wakefield was guilty of mutliple instances of dishonesty and unethical behavior.

    ” How did Brian Deer get confidential patient information that was completely unavailable to the research team?”

    I guess you haven’t followed this very closely at all. This has been explained, repeatedly. Mr. Deer gained access to the patient records orginally when Mr. Wakefield sued him. Mr. Wakefield was then forced to give Mr. Deer access to the records so that Mr. Deer could defend himself. (You do recall Mr. Wakefield’s failed lawsuit, don’t you?). Later, many more details were made public in the GMC hearings. Again, those who have read the transcripts are aware of this.

    Of course, you are aware that Mr. Wakefield’s report in The Lancet included misrepresentations of data which was available to him at that time. The “this material was not available to me” defense doesn’t hold up.

    That’s the problem with relying on attacking people’s credibility with “Obviously” type statements. When you are proven wrong, you just look arrogant and ignorant.

  35. November 5, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    “Here is my original question: Please supply a link to the study or studies that looked at unvaccinated children in relation to autism. Thanks!”

    Would you be so kind as to let us know your view on the efficacy of vaccines? People who deny that vaccines present a life-saving medical advance tend to downplay the danger posed by attempting a randomized controlled trial of the vaccine schedule.

    There are people who downplay the dangers posed by infectious diseases as well. This is also a level of denialism and unscientific thinking which should not be factored in to designing medical studies.

    Frankly, these sorts of denialists (and that is an accurate term, not an attack) are dangerous. They spread fear and doubt using pseudoscience.

    I recall a MInority View who trolls autism forums with such pseudoscience. She was one of those denialsits.

  36. Chris
    November 5, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    I am quite curious how you avoid aluminum, when it is the most common metal element on this planet’s crust? It is in the soil, the air, in the water and hence absorbed into your food:
    “Virtually all food, water, air, and soil contain some aluminum”.
    and
    “The average adult in the U.S. eats about 7-9 mg aluminum per day in their food”.

    Do you grow your own food with soil that does not contain feldspars? And have you found a place to live where there is no aluminum anywhere, so if you child falls and scrapes a knee they don’t get any soil born aluminum in the their skin and muscle? Have you made sure that there are absolutely no aluminum chain link fences or aluminum windows in your neighborhood? Do you make sure that you buy baked goods that do not have baking powder with alum? Do you ask if the pickles offered at a restaurant have alum? If there is a fire do you read the side of the fire extinguisher to make sure it has no alum?

    Would you absolutely freak out if you saw the partially used pound bag of alum sitting on my kitchen counter? I bought it at an art supply store and used it to mordant fabric before dying it with onions (using a method on natural dying, and from the alum wiki article learned it was used that way since ancient times).

  37. Chris
    November 5, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Wow, Mr. Michaels, you are a total fanboy. So instead of posting the scientific citations you just gush about Wakefield, and then try proof through ad hominems.

    How about you give the actual scientific citations that show autism is caused by the MMR with the Jeryl Lynn mumps strain. You can start by showing it started to cause autism in the USA when it was approved in 1971.

    By the way, have you ever figured out why the morbidity (incidence) of measles in 1970 was only 10% of the levels in 1960 in the USA? What happened? And why has the rate of measles in the USA never been more than half the level they were in 1970 in the last forty years?

    Try answering by using real American public health data, I should not have to remind you that neither Wales nor England are in the USA. And use real scientific evidence that I can find in medical school library. Not credulous webpages and spurious news reports.

    I keep asking you this, yet you have failed repeatedly to give a satisfactory answer.

  38. Steve Michaels
    November 5, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    As per usual Kelly, you avoid the question and provide unrelated studies. The question was about vaccinated versus unvaccinated and you offer comparative and controlled case studies of some vaccinated with this and some vaccinated with that and NONE not vaccinated at all. There are large and growing numbers of people not vaccinating voluntarily. There is no ethical breach in comparing them to vaccinated populations but it isn’t being done…

  39. Steve Michaels
    November 5, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    Wrong my friend. The original complaints about Wakefield included confidential patient information that a journalist should have never had access to and could only be given to him from an inside source, information that was not included in the research because it was also not available to the researchers. How can this be? Why did, upon publishing of the papers did not ONE ethics committee member take umbrage with this alleged breach of using approvals as cover for unapproved procedures? Why did not one parent, one GP, one consultant, one other researcher complain about these allegations? Why was a journalist, who was on the payroll of pharma before filing his complaint, misrepresent himself as a staff writer when he was merely freelance (credibility question), the only one to see fit to complain about Wakefield? I am not a ‘Wakefield cheerleader’ as you and other might like to characterize me, but I can see a stitch up when I see it. Do you intend to dismiss my points with the ‘conspiracy’ smear? That is, my friend, ad hominem. The links I have already provided prove a conspiracy on the Danish study which is a pillar of the claims of no links between vaccines and vaccine injury (thimerasol in that case). $1 Billion dollars in vaccine injury payments with a burden of proof that must PROVE the link between injury and vaccine really says it all, along with the gag orders that accompany those payments.

  40. November 5, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    Ironic that “Informed Consent” gives only the weak half of the story. He/she ignores the data which shows that thimerosal does not increase the risk of autism.

    Give links to people finding non-autism in rats when they are given really big doses of thimerosal (e.g. (1mg Hg/kg) as in your first link, 3000 μg Hg/kg in another…)

    There’s no argument: really big doses of mercury are harmful. There are two big points to make: 1) really big doses and 2) at big doses, mercury doesn’t cause autism. There is no dose that causes autism. Mercury poisoning is not the same thing as autism. Not even close.

  41. November 5, 2011 at 11:59 pm

    Ava Fellows. Amazing, your post did show up. No one is blocking anything. The computers which host this blog use software that tags posts with lots of links as spam It takes time for them to be cleared. See, once again, you see conspiracies where there are none.

  42. November 6, 2011 at 12:13 am

    stevie, are you off your meds? You are really frothing today.

    You KNOW that the vaccine injury court does not require claimants to prove anything except that the injured was vaccinated and that the injury is one of those on the approved list. Failing that, all they have to show is that the vaccine is a plausible cause of that type of injury. In no case do they ever have to prove that a particular vaccine caused a particular injury.

    In fact, the opposite is the case. Advocates for the fund have to show that something else caused the injury in order for the claim to be denied.

    Sometimes I think you cannot possible be as dim as you appear. But then I read another of your posts.

  43. Chris
  44. November 6, 2011 at 2:54 am

    stevie, seriously! Why do you insist on misunderstanding ever single thing you read. No one has ever suggested that there would be any ethical problem with doing a retrospective study on people who had chosen not to vaccinate versus people who had vaccinated.

    Be that as it may, you still have to justify such a study. If the much less vaccinated have just as much autism as the much more vaccinated, how could vaccines possibly cause autism? What is the mechanism that much less vs much more cannot find but none versus some can find?

  45. November 6, 2011 at 2:56 am

    IC, you misunderstood my question. I’m not asking for a biological mechanism the would allow vaccines to cause autism. I’m asking how they could cause autism when we know that much less vaccinating does not cause less. In other words, when you compare the vaccinated to the much less vaccinated, there is no difference in autism rates. What sort of mechanism could work that way?

  46. November 6, 2011 at 2:57 am

    Those groups have not done studies, stevie, they have posted blog entries. There is a big difference. Such a big difference, that I think you are joking.

  47. November 6, 2011 at 3:01 am

    And what difference would it make anyway? Seriously, if delaying, reducing, or spacing out vaccinations for millions of kids does not affect the rate of autism in any way, what possible mechanism would be caught by a study which added eliminating vaccination.

  48. Steve Michaels
    November 6, 2011 at 5:20 am

    gattarian :
    stevie, are you off your meds? You are really frothing today.
    You KNOW that the vaccine injury court does not require claimants to prove anything except that the injured was vaccinated and that the injury is one of those on the approved list. Failing that, all they have to show is that the vaccine is a plausible cause of that type of injury. In no case do they ever have to prove that a particular vaccine caused a particular injury.
    In fact, the opposite is the case. Advocates for the fund have to show that something else caused the injury in order for the claim to be denied.
    Sometimes I think you cannot possible be as dim as you appear. But then I read another of your posts.

    Have you to the Fox school of debate? You dismiss my comments by characterizing me as ‘frothing at the mouth’? References to being on medication? Why not deal with the content? Oh, that doesn’t work when you make claims like ” vaccine injury court does not require claimants to prove anything except that the injured was vaccinated” which are so easily dispelled. No, the burden of proof is NOT ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as in a criminal court, it is ‘the balance of probabilities’, also known in civil law as a ‘preponderance of evidence’.

    Why do you refuse to comment of the Danish study? It is still a mainstay defense of vaccine safety by the CDC yet the proof is virtually unassailable that the main researcher was corrupt, the CDC hired researchers as staff thus creating conflicts of interest, the CDC knowingly and purposely misrepresents the results by ignoring a vast skewing of the data and HHS pushed ‘Pediatrics’ to publish the study knowing full well that it had already been deemed as flawed and not worthy of publication by 2 other journals. The released emails stand as proof of conspiracy to falsely report the study’s results. When the factors of broadening of definition of autism and the addition of an out-patient clinic that was soley responsible for some 20% of all autism reports after thimerasol was removed although it’s patients had all received thimerasol tainted vaccines (they were not included pre-report because they had not received in-patient care before the report) then the Danish study actually shows a 75% REDUCTION in autism after thimerasol was removed….

    I do not in any way expect you to change your views. I started where you are and changed my mind based on research. I am not dogmatic about vaccines and I don’t care if you choose to put that stuff in yourself or your own kids. I support freedom of choice and true unbiased research, both of which are woefully lacking today. Your Fox style smear attempts merely serve to inform the more open minded readers that you have something to fear because you avoid reasoned commentary and prefer a bulldog style approach of attacking messengers to discredit the message.

  49. Steve Michaels
    November 6, 2011 at 5:21 am
  50. November 6, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    stevie, I am not dismissing your comments by characterizing you, I am dismissing YOU by characterizing you. And that based on my experience of you here.

    Meanwhile, your original claim “…with a burden of proof that must PROVE the link between injury and vaccine…” does not hold up to your own source:
    “While the procedures for filing a claim in the USA are modelled quite closely on the civil litigation process, the scheme includes a process for pre-determining causation if a vaccine injury is included on its vaccine injury table.42 This process presumes causation if any injury listed in the table occurs within a specified time frame after vaccination. For example, if anaphylaxis occurrs within 4 hours of hepatitis B vaccine administration, it is presumed due to the vaccine. While an alternate mechanism exists for injuries which fall outside the table specifications, most claims have been for “on-table” injuries”

    So your original claim is utterly untrue for the vast majority of cases. That is, simply by showing that an injury occured, is on the list, and is within a certain time of a vaccination, the claim is awarded. No proving of causation to ANY standard of proof.

    But maybe your right about those few claims that are not on the list? Perhaps you were referring to them only? I know you weren’t. But you know shadow of a doubt and all.

    http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/strategicplan406.pdf

    “The VICP strives to compensate vaccine-injured individuals quickly, easily, and fairly. The three means by which a petitioner may qualify for compensation are: 1) proof that an injury listed on the Table occurred within the specified timeframe; 2) proof that the vaccine significantly aggravated a pre-existing condition; or 3) proof that the vaccine caused the injury.”

    “The Table lists specific injuries or conditions and the time frames in which they must occur after vaccine administration. The Table is a legal mechanism for defining complex medical conditions, and allows a statutory “presumption of causation.” The Table serves as the basis for presumptions of causation for vaccines covered under the VICP. It is much easier to demonstrate a Table injury than to prove that the vaccine caused the condition. However, if an adverse event is not listed on the Table, an individual may still file a claim, but must prove that the vaccine did “in fact” cause the alleged injury. Compensation may not be awarded if the Court determines that the injury or death was due to an alternative cause unrelated to the vaccine, even if a Table injury is demonstrated.”

    Uh-Oh! Maybe I’m in trouble. It says right there “proof”.

    These are minutes from a meeting where the standard of proof for off list injuries is discussed by legal experts.
    See the section entitled “Discussion of Burden of Proof”

    http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/accvminutes91709.pdf

    I am clipping a bit to shorten it, but please feel free to read the whole thing.

    “Dr. Grey explained that, although her area of academic focus is civil tort law, she has remained aware of the vaccine claims process and offered to provide a comparison of the two in order to highlight the challenges that the special masters, and both the plaintiffs’ and respondents attorney’s face in pursuing resolution of claims filed under the VICP.”

    “In a traditional tort proceeding involving injury the plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence at a preliminary hearing to reasonably convince a jury that, first, the cause of injury can be rationally supported and, second, that there is reasonable evidence to show that the defendant could have caused that injury. The plaintiff must prove both.”

    “She noted the contrast to the tort process, that in vaccine injury proceedings the special master is the sole decision maker, who must decide on the balance of the evidence as presented by both sides. In a tort case, if the evidence appears to be exactly equal, the ruling is usually against the plaintiff. In vaccine injury cases, when that occurs, the ruling is in favor of the petitioner.”

    “Although the rules are different in vaccine injury cases, as in tort cases the petitioner must show that the vaccine could reasonably cause the injury to anyone, and then that the injury to the petitioner was a result of the administration of the vaccine.”

    “If the petitioner cannot establish a cause of injury based on the injury table, or if the respondent successfully refutes the petitioner’s claim that the injury is covered under the injury table, then the petitioner may develop a “cause-in-fact” case, but then evidence must be presented to substantiate that claim. The legislation gives little guidance for this process and the special master may consider a vast array of medical and scientific evidence that may be presented by either side in the case.”

    “In 1993, the Federal Circuit established the first guideline — show a medical theory of causation, show a logical sequence of events supporting the notion that the vaccine was the direct cause of the injury, based on a reputable medical/scientific explanation.”

    “This kind of guidance leaned toward the tort process with the result that cause-in-fact (non-table) cases became lengthier and more expensive. In response, Chief Special Master Gary Golkiewicz developed guidance to help petitioners understand the requirements of a preponderance of evidence test of causation: medical plausibility confirmed by published studies in the medical/scientific community; proof of injury also
    supported by scientific evidence; proof of a temporal relationship between vaccination and onset of injury; and proof of elimination of other causes of the injury. As a result of several appeals, the Federal Circuit ruled that a petitioner need not present such scientific/medical evidence, but could rely on “reputable medical or scientific explanation.” That is, medical opinion alone, not published studies, would be sufficient.”

    “Mr. Shoemaker pointed out the negative effect of protracted litigation and adversary environment in the current claims process with regard to the public’s confidence in the VICP. He added that the VICP has a lower burden of proof requirement, which translates into a reticence on the part of attorneys to pursue civil litigation if a claim fails. A civil tort procedure would focus on the negative aspects of the vaccination program to the possible detriment of public participation. He suggested that it would be better to almost automatically compensate any injury that is linked temporally to a vaccination even if there is doubt as to the specific causation. Ms. Hoiberg agreed that a prompt non-adversarial settlement would benefit the overall mission of the VICP.”

    Now for my favorite quote, Bugs Bunny:
    “Having re RE disposed of the monster, exit our hero stage left.”

  51. Nathan
    November 6, 2011 at 11:49 pm

    Have you to the Fox school of debate? You dismiss my comments by characterizing me as ‘frothing at the mouth’? References to being on medication?Why not deal with the content?

    Mostly because you have demonstrated so conclusively that you only parrot what other websites tell you, and make such ridiculous claims with a complete absence of understanding of basic science, that you’ve been reduced to a punchline by those of us who visit here regularly.

    In other words, your content is so reliably faulty that there is less and less reason to invest the time. But why not, for old time’s sake.

    Why do you refuse to comment of the Danish study? It is still a mainstay defense of vaccine safety by the CDC

    There’s roughly a dozen or so major studies specifically looking at thimerosal in vaccines and autism and finding no link. Only the antivaccine lobby holds up the Danish study as the end-all be-all, because it’s the one they can most easily needle. Toss it, if you want, there is still overwhelming evidence that thimerosal does not cause autism.

    yet the proof is virtually unassailable that the main researcher was corrupt

    You are referring to Thorsen? Wow are you not keeping up. He was a minor author; the lead author was Madsen. Not that it matters.

    the CDC hired researchers as staff thus creating conflicts of interest

    Wait. How, exactly, is it a conflict of interest to hire a researcher?

    CDC knowingly and purposely misrepresents the results by ignoring a vast skewing of the data

    Except that they address these limitations in the study itself, and even re-analyzed the data to account for the differences in in- and outpatients, and found the same trend. Read the study, not what is being fed to you (as I have probably said for the hundredth time).

    HHS pushed ‘Pediatrics’ to publish the study knowing full well that it had already been deemed as flawed and not worthy of publication by 2 other journals.

    Absolutley nothing in what you linked to says anything about the publication decision-making process.

    The released emails stand as proof of conspiracy to falsely report the study’s results.

    No, they don’t, and we’ve been over this tired ground before.

    then the Danish study actually shows a 75% REDUCTION in autism after thimerasol was removed….

    Say, just curious, did you just take this document at face value, or did you actually try to take a look at the references it gave? Because it hangs a lot on a commentary in JPANDS, a low tier journal with a dedicated antivaccine agenda (happy to look that up for you if you need it), so the peer review for this kind of stuff is not exactly going to be top notch. And the great thing is, even assuming the commenter is correct, this “75% reduction” was in the 2-4 year age group only. I know this because I read the things that the COMED press release referenced and did not simply take it at face value myself. BTW, the 2-4 year age group is not a good age group to get a good reading on autism rates. I will let you figure out why.

    And give me a break. If autism rates were down 75% in Denmark, we’d know about it. Thimerosal is out of the infant schedule for a decade, and autism continues unabated. Time to move on.

    I do not in any way expect you to change your views. I started where you are and changed my mind based on research.

    Yeah, you say that every chance you get as if it means anything. Whatever you read, it appealed to you enough that you subsequently welded your mind shut and it is now impervious to research.

    Seriously, Steve, we like talking about this stuff. We like the debate. But we also like the other person to show some effort in thinking for themself.

  52. NotTelling
    November 7, 2011 at 3:09 pm

    I guess you’ve never heard of a retrospective study? Also, there is a large and growing number of children in this country who are unvaccinated.

    Oh well, guess that’s too difficult a concept to handle considering that you’ve performed the usual and typical evasions.

  53. NotTelling
    November 7, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    A bit misleading, especially since Doctors get money from each one of those well-baby visits, which is covered by insurance. Not only that, they get further income for promoting the vaccines, for visits post-vaccination (also covered by insurance), for any reactions that may occur (ditto). Don’t forget those little kick-backs from the pharmaceutical industry, too.

  54. Chris
    November 7, 2011 at 3:23 pm
  55. Chris
    November 7, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Oh, deer. So are you shilling for big hospital supply? Can you seriously tell me it is cheaper to treat a child for pertussis and measles than to give them vaccines? Really, do give us the numbers that show hospital care is more less costly than a vaccine program. Something similar to the following:

    Benefits, Risks and Costs of Immunization for Measles, Mumps and Rubella

    Economic Evaluation of the 7-Vaccine Routine Childhood Immunization Schedule in the United States, 2001
    Zhou F, Santoli J, Messonnier ML, Yusuf HR, Shefer A, Chu SY, Rodewald L, Harpaz R.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:1136-1144.

    An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
    Zhou F, Reef S, Massoudi M, Papania MJ, Yusuf HR, Bardenheier B, Zimmerman L, McCauley MM.
    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.

    Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.
    Chavez GF, Ellis AA.
    West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.

    Impact of universal Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination starting at 2 months of age in the United States: an economic analysis.
    Zhou F, Bisgard KM, Yusuf HR, Deuson RR, Bath SK, Murphy TV.
    Pediatrics. 2002 Oct;110(4):653-61.

    Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
    Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Mar;160(3):302-9. Review.

    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S210-5.
    Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1985-2002.
    Lee B, Ying M, Papania MJ, Stevenson J, Seward JF, Hutchins SS.
    Epidemiology Program Office, and National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.

    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
    Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.
    Gindler J, Tinker S, Markowitz L, Atkinson W, Dales L, Papania MJ.
    National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

  56. NotTelling
    November 7, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    Oh, deer; a straw-man argument. I said none of that.

    The argument is that vaccines are not a moneymaker for doctors. I said that was misleading, and gave reasons why. So, yawn…come up with some new tropes

  57. NotTelling
    November 7, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    I don’t see where this study mentions anything about Autism. I do recall several studies that showed increase incidence of asthma, neurological impairment, facial tics, etc. from vaccines, however.

  58. Chris
    November 7, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Okay, then just supply the evidence supporting what you did say. Like: “Don’t forget those little kick-backs from the pharmaceutical industry, too”

  59. NotTelling
    November 7, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Simple…magic google-fu!

    Step 1: Go to the mystical Google box.
    Step 2: Type in “Do Doctors get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies”
    Step 3: Read a few links.

    Here’s one of many for your enjoyment.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/health/policy/04doctors.html

  60. NotTelling
    November 7, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    This reply should be here, not where it wound up below…odd

    Simple…magic google-fu!

    Step 1: Go to the mystical Google box.
    Step 2: Type in “Do Doctors get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies”
    Step 3: Read a few links.

    Here’s one of many for your enjoyment.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/health/policy/04doctors.html

  61. Chris
    November 7, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    It was a retrospective study. Other retrospective studies are, and if these are not to your satisfaction then please lobby Generation Rescue, SafeMinds, Autism Speaks, NAA, JABS and others to finance a study that does not cause undo harm to children:

    Neurologic Disorders after Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination.
    Makela A et al.
    Pediatrics 2002; 110:957-63

    Mumps, Measles, and Rubella Vaccine and the Incidence of Autism Recorded by General Practitioners: A Time Trend Analysis.
    Kaye JA et al.
    BMJ 2001; 322:460-63

    Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.
    Taylor B et al.
    Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9

    MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan.
    Uchiyama T et al.
    J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 37(2):210-7

    No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study.
    Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M.
    J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9.

  62. NotTelling
    November 7, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    I believe what is being asked for here is a retrospective study that looks at neurological health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children. None of the studies you referenced looked at a truly unvaccinated populace.

    This should have been done long ago. If the drug companies and their cronies the CDC are truly worried about people lining up like sheep to take their products, then THEY should do this study.

    Instead, they get caught lying about the safety of their products and covering up uncomfortable details that show that their products aren’t as safe as they thought.

    Sadly, I think it will take a truly independant group to do this study to be accepted.

  63. Chris
    November 7, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    Oooh, a news article, how not real evidence. And the amount for vaccines? Which in my county are supplied by the public health department. And does that include the pharmacies that provide vaccines for about $25 for flu?

    Seriously, that is stretching. And it is still a silly argument against vaccines. Really, how big of a money maker are vaccines? Download the following document, look at page 30 and tell me exactly where vaccines fall the table:

    http://timewellness.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/ihii_useofmed_report.pdf

  64. NotTelling
    November 7, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Really? Yawn….

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203687504577003472909986602.html

    The Pharmaceutical giants are really pushing vaccines. They forcast that they will easily exceed $20 billion in profits by 2015…so yeah, they’re not much of a money maker.

  65. NotTelling
    November 7, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    And again, another straw-man. Nice…

    Here’s what you said:
    “Okay, then just supply the evidence supporting what you did say. Like: “Don’t forget those little kick-backs from the pharmaceutical industry, too””

    I gave you the tools that to look that information up. Instead, you evade the point and try to change the subject.

  66. Chris
    November 7, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    So you posted an article that requires a log in. Sorry, I cannot vouch for the quote. And you still have not proven that vaccines are large money makers. And that is a valid argument against vaccines, given the cost of diseases.

    Now can you tell me what number is the left of the word vaccines on that table?

  67. Chris
    November 7, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    Sorry, wrote too quickly: Please tell me the number to the left of the word vaccines on page 30 of the document that I posted. All it requires is that you click on the Time magazine link, go to page 30, look at the table and look for the word “vaccines” and tell us what the number is right next to it.

    The argument that companies make money from vaccines is not a valid argument against vaccines, especially compared to the cost of vaccine preventable disease outbreaks. That is not a strawman argument, but an observation.

    Actually, it is silly to claim “But companies are making money form vaccines! Oh noes! That is bad!”

  68. Chris
    November 7, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Also, to understand how silly your “Doctors get money from each one of those well-baby visits”/”little kick-backs from the pharmaceutical industry” argument is, Dr. Willingham has posted an article on her blog that you should read:

    http://biologyfiles.fieldofscience.com/2011/11/i-received-this-comment-on-yesterdays.html

  69. NotTelling
    November 7, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    So now, you’re moving the goalposts. Very nice.

    The argument is that vaccines aren’t money makers. I’ve given you enough information to disprove that statement. The fact that you continue to comment that they aren’t profitable means that you aren’t open to new evidence. Alas…

  70. Chris
    November 7, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    You really have no idea what you are talking about.

    And you can’t seem to download a pdf, go to a page, look at a table, find the word “vaccines” and figure out what number is to the left of it.

  71. NotTelling
    November 8, 2011 at 1:12 am

    Speaking of those who really have no idea what they are talking about, you clearly are incapable of looking at other sites that don’t support your preconceived bias. It’s as simple as signing up for the site, or, if you are too mentally challenged to do that, looking it up yourself. The fallacy that vaccines are not profitable is just that; a fallacy. Anyone with a 3rd grade education can do a simple query through whatever internet search engine they prefer and see that.

  72. Kelly
    November 8, 2011 at 10:56 am

    I’m not seeing the relevance. Are companies not to make a profit from their products? How would they pay their workers and facilities? Invest in new products and innovations without the investments of their shareholders?

    Why is this a reason to reject vaccines? Do you reject the products of other companies that make a profit? Do you work for free? Why should these companies not make a profit on their products?

    Furthermore, if we reject vaccines, the diseases would return. It is also quite clear that there is much more money to be made from treating disease than preventing it. Are we to reject medical treatment because the company producing treatments are making profit too?

  73. Chris
    November 8, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    Well he/she did say “Doctors get money from each one of those well-baby visits, which is covered by insurance.” It seems that NotTelling does not like the fact that doctors get paid for their expertise.

    As I noted, it was a silly argument.

  74. Kelly
    November 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Totally agree that NotTelling’s argument is quite silly. I love how she/he attempts to school you on logical fallacy while making a logical fallacy him/herself.

    Since science isn’t on their side, all the AVers have is misinformation, misconception and logical fallacies.

  75. Beelzebubba
    November 8, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    It’s interesting that Chris/Kelly comment on the irrelevance of NotTelling’s comment. I see him/her as presenting evidence that the statement that doctors don’t make money from vaccines is a misleading comment. His/her statement is true, is it not? Don’t doctors make money from visits?

    What is irrelevant is the massive strawman built by Chris/Kelly saying that NotTelling is a shill for big hospital supply for saying that Emily’s comment was misleading. Chris/Kelly even went so far as to ask NotTelling to provide evidence of his/her statement, which he/she did. And then Chris/Kelly, upon reading this evidence, say it is irrelevant, when it was THEY who asked for it. Not only that, but they completely misrepresent NotTelling’s argument, claiming that NotTelling is opposed to Doctors making money. I see no where in any of NotTelling’s statements where he/she says this.

    Someone said something that was demonstrably false (vaccines are not a moneymaker). NotTelling provided information that contradicted that statement (like this link here:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20877-vaccines-enjoy-a-health). When asked for proof of NotTelling’s statement, NotTelling is attacked for something he/she didn’t even say.

    He/she schooling Chris/Kelly on logical fallacies because Chris/Kelly was making a logical fallacy. Their entire argument (that NotTelling is opposed to Doctors making money) is one massive strawman argument.

    Thank both of you for demonstrating the dishonesty inherent in the false skeptic community. When they are unable to prove their claims, they attack the messenger and all they have left is to hurl baseless insults, misconceptions and logical fallacies. Not only that, but it clearly demonstrates their fanatical mindset in that anyone who disagrees with their interpretation and zealous worship of science, then that person must be a heretic or “AV.”

  76. Kelly
    November 8, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    Beezlebubba, you are very confused. Let me recap the story for you.

    Laura Hansen encourages people to “think for yourself” and reject vaccines because “ECB2 is a disgrace! We had 11 vaccinations growing up and now are kids are given over 30. It’s a money maker for the pharmaeutical companies, doctors and the US government who mandate them for our schools.”

    Emily Willingham responds with “actually, it’s not a moneymaker for doctors, at least” and provides a link.

    NotTelling (NT) claims this is misleading because doctors get money from the insurance companies, however, if you read Emily’s link, you find out that these insurance payments do not cover the cost of administering the vaccines. NotTelling covers that by saying that they get money for promoting vaccines and kick-backs from the pharmaceutical industry. He also says they get paid for post-vaccination visits and for vaccine reactions.

    Chris asks NT for evidence to support his claim for these additional payments.

    NT produces an irrelevant newspaper article about surgeons, the marketing of antipsychotic medicine, and the marketing of a painkiller that is no longer on the market. The article heavily emphasizes that these practices are illegal. There is no evidence that these practices apply to pediatricians administrating vaccines, so the evidence is irrelevant.

    Chris calls NT out on his BS article, so NT changes his/her position to provide evidence that vaccines make profits for vaccine manufacturers. I accept NT’s claim that vaccines are profitable for manufacturer’s and ask to clarify the relevance, which hasn’t been answered yet.

    In addition to countering NT’s argument, Chris offers an argument of his/her own. Chris’s argument is that the profit from disease is way more than the profit of prevention. To support this, Chris provides numerous primary literature references and financial statement showing that the treatment of disease ranks way higher than the profits from vaccines.

    Now, let’s look at who is hurling insults:
    – Chris asks NT if he/she is a shill for big hospital supply. Not an insult, rather a question.
    – NT accuses Chris of committing a strawman fallacy, when that’s not actually what Chris did. Chris asked NT to counter Chris’ argument. Chris concedes and asks for NT to support NT’s argument.
    – NT responds with telling Chris to use Google and the irrelevant article.
    – Chris calls NT’s argument silly, which it is, given that NT has failed to support any of it.
    – NT “yawns” and changes his argument to something he thinks he can win.
    – NT accuses Chris of another strawman and that Chris is evading the proof that NT hasn’t presented yet.
    – Chris again asks for NT’s proof.
    – NT claims Chris is moving the goal post, when it was actually NT that changed his/her argument and still hasn’t provided evidence for his/her original position.
    – Chris says NT has no idea what he/her is talking about, because NT has refused to address the evidence that Chris provided to support Chris’ argument.
    – NT implies that someone in the 3rd grade can find evidence to support his/her evidence, which is actually kind of funny since NT has failed to provide evidence him/herself.

    So overall, look’s like NT is on the losing side here and instead of supporting his/her argument, hurling insults.

    And now we have your rant. Beezlebubba. You are the one constructing strawmen, because:
    – I am not Chris.
    – I did not say NotTelling was a shill for hospital supply.
    – I did not ask NotTelling for evidence to support his/her claim.
    – I did not say NotTelling’s evidence was irrelevant.
    – I did not say NotTelling was opposed to doctors making money. I did not mention doctors at all.
    – I did not call NotTelling “AV” or “heretic”.

    But based on your false statements, you jumped to the conclusion that I’m a dishonest fanatic hurling “baseless insults, misconceptions and logical fallacies” because I asked questions that weren’t even directed at NT.

    So instead of hurling insults, perhaps you can add to the discussion. Can you provide evidence to counter Chris’ argument that even though vaccines are profitable, not preventing disease would be even more profitable? Can you answer any of my questions based on Laura’s original post that we should reject vaccines because they make profits for vaccine manufacturers? We have already ruled out that vaccines do not make profits for doctors nor the government. Someone else pointed out that government is a vaccine buyer, not a vaccine seller.

  77. NotTelling
    November 8, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    So, you didn’t say this?

    “Since science isn’t on their side, all the AVers have is misinformation, misconception and logical fallacies.”

    That sounds like you’re calling me Anti-vax, yes? Why yes, I think it does…

    It says to me that because I disagree and think that doctors make money from vaccines, then I must believe that this is wrong and that I want to find an excuse to get rid of vaccines, therefore I am an AVer or Antivax.

    “Furthermore, if we reject vaccines, the diseases would return. It is also quite clear that there is much more money to be made from treating disease than preventing it. Are we to reject medical treatment because the company producing treatments are making profit too?”

    Where in any of my statements do you see me actually saying this? So, it is indeed a strawman argument, further compounded by Chris’s irrelevant statements that I am opposed to doctors making money.

    The focus of the conversation was that Doctors do make money from vaccines. I provided the means to research this yourself, and even provided examples of doctors who were caught taking kickbacks from the pharmaceutical companies. Not irrelevant to the topic as this WAS the topic. Chris shifts focus and says that vaccines aren’t profitable, and I provided a link to a WSJ article that showed the opposite. Chris then shifts the goalposts by claiming that I am opposed to doctors making money.

    The argument wasn’t that vaccines are more profitable than the disease, but that vaccines weren’t profitable. Do try to stay on topic.

    And I do appreciate Beelzebubba’s response, though I will agree with you, Kelly, that including you the way he did was not appropriate. Perhaps he can respond as to why he was including you and Chris both as the instigators of this useless endeavor, when it was clearly Chris (though, you were defending him).

    Now, let’s look at who is hurling insults. I answered Emily’s statement, disagreeing and giving reason why. Then, I was insulted and called a shill. Hmm….I wonder if that’s why I responded with the tone that I did. And then, someone comes out of no where and calls me anti-vaccine, which is insulting to me. So, hmmm…again, I wonder where the hurling insults comment came from?

  78. Chris
    November 8, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Thank you, Kelly, for that summary. I was trying to not get into how NT was messing up the logical fallacies. I just figured he/she did not know what they were, just like not understanding the news articles did not answer my question about kick backs that pertained to vaccines.

    Actually, I am still confused what NT has against well-child visits when he/she said: “A bit misleading, especially since Doctors get money from each one of those well-baby visits, which is covered by insurance. ”

    That is how we found out my son has a serious genetic heart condition. Just a week after a child just a year younger than him was diagnosed the more common way: sudden cardiac death.

    I am also surprised that he/she has issues with people getting paid for their labor. Doctors have bills to pay, and so do those who manufacture vaccines.

    By the way, Beelzebubba, can you tell me the number to the left of the word “vaccines” on page 30 of the pdf document, and what it means? Here is the link:

    http://timewellness.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/ihii_useofmed_report.pdf

  79. Chris
    November 8, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    NT:

    I answered Emily’s statement, disagreeing and giving reason why.

    You may have disagreed, but you failed to support your reasons.

    Please provide actual evidence that there are pharmaceutical kickbacks specifically for vaccines to support your statement: “Don’t forget those little kick-backs from the pharmaceutical industry, too.”

    Do not post articles about anything except vaccines, and make sure that they are not news reports. PubMed cites are appropriate.

    Now for this this state: “Not only that, they get further income for promoting the vaccines, for visits post-vaccination (also covered by insurance), for any reactions that may occur (ditto).”

    You imply that those are unreasonable costs. That is precisely why you are asked to compare the costs of actually getting the diseases versus preventing them with vaccines. So do tell us why it is better to not get the vaccines, and how that would work out financially. Provide cites comparable to the ones I used using journal, title, date and author of the paper. No news reports, please.

    And again, please tell me the number to the left of the word vaccines on page 30 of http://timewellness.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/ihii_useofmed_report.pdf , and what it means. I believe this is the third time I have asked you for this information.

  80. Beelzebubba
    November 8, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    I am not in the least bit confused, Kelly. I was quite clear where the problem lies, and I even explained why. Now, admittedly, my Chris/Kelly comments were thrown in to instigate a reaction (i.e. trolling). I was looping you and Chris together because you were both essentially arguing the same thing. You see, false skeptics and science poseurs despise it when you use the same tactics and methods that they use on people they disagree with on them. They use things like broad generalizations (like baselessly calling someone anti-vaccine) and ad hominems (like calling someone a shill), but don’t you dare do that to them; that’s just wrong.

    Now, let’s clarify my comment about dishonesty. Here’s a key example:

    “- I did not call NotTelling “AV” or “heretic”.”

    “Since science isn’t on their side, all the AVers have is misinformation, misconception and logical fallacies.”

    So, again, thank you so much for demonstrating how dishonest the science poseurs and pseudo-skeptics are. I could not have done a better job of demonstrating if I tried. Luckily, anyone reading these comments can easily see this.

  81. Beelzebubba
    November 8, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    “By the way, Beelzebubba, can you tell me the number to the left of the word “vaccines” on page 30 of the pdf document, and what it means?”

    Do you know the difference between spending and profit? Perhaps not.

  82. Beelzebubba
    November 8, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    “Actually, I am still confused what NT has against well-child visits when he/she said: “A bit misleading, especially since Doctors get money from each one of those well-baby visits, which is covered by insurance. ””

    As far as I can tell, NT doesn’t really have a problem with it. You’ve merely inferred that.

    “I am also surprised that he/she has issues with people getting paid for their labor. Doctors have bills to pay, and so do those who manufacture vaccines.”

    No, you inferred that. NT makes no comment about having issues with this.

    “You imply that those are unreasonable costs. That is precisely why you are asked to compare the costs of actually getting the diseases versus preventing them with vaccines. So do tell us why it is better to not get the vaccines, and how that would work out financially. Provide cites comparable to the ones I used using journal, title, date and author of the paper. No news reports, please.”

    No, NT didn’t imply that. You, however, inferred that. Do you know the difference between implying and inferring? Please take the time to look that up, please. NT was merely commenting that Doctors do make a profit from vaccines.

  83. Kelly
    November 8, 2011 at 8:06 pm

    NotTelling :
    So, you didn’t say this?
    “Since science isn’t on their side, all the AVers have is misinformation, misconception and logical fallacies.”
    That sounds like you’re calling me Anti-vax, yes? Why yes, I think it does…

    Actually, no it doesn’t. Unless you are an anti-vaxer, NT? You are certainly right that just disagreeing with Emily doesn’t make you an anti-vaxer, so why did you assume my comment applied to you?

    “Furthermore, if we reject vaccines, the diseases would return. It is also quite clear that there is much more money to be made from treating disease than preventing it. Are we to reject medical treatment because the company producing treatments are making profit too?”
    Where in any of my statements do you see me actually saying this? So, it is indeed a strawman argument, further compounded by Chris’s irrelevant statements that I am opposed to doctors making money.

    Never said it did, NT. I did not mention you at all in my post. Just throwing some questions out there for anyone to answer.

    The focus of the conversation was that Doctors do make money from vaccines. I provided the means to research this yourself, and even provided examples of doctors who were caught taking kickbacks from the pharmaceutical companies. Not irrelevant to the topic as this WAS the topic. Chris shifts focus and says that vaccines aren’t profitable, and I provided a link to a WSJ article that showed the opposite. Chris then shifts the goalposts by claiming that I am opposed to doctors making money.

    Yes, I researched it myself, and found your argument to be unfounded. So if you want to make a contrary claim, you have to provide the evidence for it. And you haven’t.

    The argument wasn’t that vaccines are more profitable than the disease, but that vaccines weren’t profitable. Do try to stay on topic.

    This is your strawman, NT. Emily specified that the vaccines were not profitable to DOCTORS. Nobody said they weren’t profitable to manufacturer’s. Chris’ own link shows profit, and since Chris really, really really wanted you to look at that link, I don’t think Chris was trying to make that claim.

    Now, let’s look at who is hurling insults. I answered Emily’s statement, disagreeing and giving reason why. Then, I was insulted and called a shill. Hmm….I wonder if that’s why I responded with the tone that I did. And then, someone comes out of no where and calls me anti-vaccine, which is insulting to me. So, hmmm…again, I wonder where the hurling insults comment came from?

    No you weren’t called a shill. You were asked if you were a shill. There is a difference. You were also not called anti-vaccine. You applied that to yourself. So nobody is hurling insults at you NT. You are imagining insults that don’t exist because you can’t defend your argument and it is easier to fake outrage at being insulted.

  84. Kelly
    November 8, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    Beelzebubba :
    I am not in the least bit confused, Kelly. I was quite clear where the problem lies, and I even explained why. Now, admittedly, my Chris/Kelly comments were thrown in to instigate a reaction (i.e. trolling). I was looping you and Chris together because you were both essentially arguing the same thing. You see, false skeptics and science poseurs despise it when you use the same tactics and methods that they use on people they disagree with on them. They use things like broad generalizations (like baselessly calling someone anti-vaccine) and ad hominems (like calling someone a shill), but don’t you dare do that to them; that’s just wrong.
    Now, let’s clarify my comment about dishonesty. Here’s a key example:
    “- I did not call NotTelling “AV” or “heretic”.”
    “Since science isn’t on their side, all the AVers have is misinformation, misconception and logical fallacies.”
    So, again, thank you so much for demonstrating how dishonest the science poseurs and pseudo-skeptics are. I could not have done a better job of demonstrating if I tried. Luckily, anyone reading these comments can easily see this.

    Bahahaha. So you manufacture a claim that I called NT a shill and an AVer when I did not to degrade me because you think such tactics are dishonest, but then turn around and call me “dishonest”, “a false skeptic” and “science poseurs” based on your false claims. But you would never make broad generalization or use ad hominems like that, no way.

    Thanks for the laugh Beezlebubba. Since you admit you are a troll, I won’t feed you anymore!

  85. NotTelling
    November 8, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    Chris, since you are unable to comprehend simple logic, I’ll take the time to spell it out for you (not to answer your unreasonable interpretations and expectations).

    Since Doctors have been getting kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies for the promotion and distribution of their drugs, then it is reasonable to conclude that they get the same types of kickbacks and payoffs from vaccines. This has been documented by numerous organizations, so it is quite easy to find. And why wouldn’t I use a reputable news site? Who do you think would report on something like this, Sesame Street?

    Wait…nevermind. Don’t answer that…

  86. Chris
    November 8, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    NT:

    “Not only that, they get further income for promoting the vaccines, for visits post-vaccination (also covered by insurance), for any reactions that may occur (ditto).”

    Do tell us about those reactions! I have no idea about reactions, and we skipped the doctor visit for a reaction to a disease. It was a call to 911, several paramedics in the house, a trip by ambulance to the emergency room.

    Please choose a vaccine, give its rate of reaction compared to the reaction from the disease. For instance, tell us how the MMR causes more reactions than actually getting measles. Just give the journal, title, date and author of the paper supporting your conclusions.

    BB:

    Do you know the difference between spending and profit? Perhaps not.

    Ha ha ha! I do know that they are often proportional. And that a daily prescription costs more per year than a few vaccines. Perhaps you just don’t like the number to the left of the word vaccine.

    If you think that vaccines are more profitable than the items with a smaller number on that list, then give us the actual documentation for over half of the list above. It would be curious comparing things that are given daily versus the limited number of vaccines a child has between birth and age 18.

  87. Chris
    November 8, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    NT:

    Since Doctors have been getting kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies for the promotion and distribution of their drugs, then it is reasonable to conclude that they get the same types of kickbacks and payoffs from vaccines.

    Um, no. That is not reasonable. You made a claim, therefore you need to support it.

  88. Kelly
    November 8, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    “NT was merely commenting that Doctors do make a profit from vaccines.”

    OK, Emily’s reference trumps NT’s unsupported claim. NT has been asked several times to support this claim and has failed to do so.

    Can I ask then, why NT bothered at all? How is Emily’s statement misleading when it is indeed correct?

  89. Beelzebubba
    November 8, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    “Ha ha ha! I do know that they are often proportional. And that a daily prescription costs more per year than a few vaccines. Perhaps you just don’t like the number to the left of the word vaccine.”

    Or, perhaps you didn’t read the article in question. This has to do with spending, not profits made from vaccine sells. Thanks for proving my point.

  90. Beelzebubba
    November 8, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    “This has to do with spending, not profits made from vaccine sells”

    That should be sales…correcting before the pendants attack.

  91. Beelzebubba
    November 8, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    “That is not reasonable. You made a claim, therefore you need to support it.”

    Like your claim that NT is opposed to doctors making money? Or your claim stating that NT is opposed to well-baby visits? Or your claim that NT is implying that these are unreasonable costs?

    And, I guess Doctors don’t make any money off of Gardasil. Who’da thunk?

  92. NotTelling
    November 8, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    “That is not reasonable. You made a claim, therefore you need to support it.”

    Hmm…They’ve been caught taking kickbacks for the sale and promotion of pharmaceutical products. So, that means they would NEVER do the same thing for vaccines.

    Hey, I have a bridge to sell you, man…

  93. Kelly
    November 8, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    I think the name for NT’s reasoning is called an association fallacy. Basically, NT is saying, pediatricians are doctors, doctors have been caught taking kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies, therefore pediatricians are taking kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies. While this does not mean that pediatricians could never be taking kickbacks, it doesn’t mean they are either. The logic fails because not all doctors take kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies. This practice is illegal and frowned upon on the medical community. In order for NT’s claim to be reasonable, NT would have to show evidence that kickbacks give pediatricians incentive to recommend vaccines without benefit to their patients. NT has not provided evidence that these kickbacks even exist and Emily has clearly shown that doctors have actually have a clear financial motive not to recommend vaccines because it costs the doctor money to administer vaccines. The doctor would receive a greater profit by discouraging vaccine use rather than encouraging.

  94. Nepenthe
    November 9, 2011 at 12:57 am

    In the practice that I am familiar with, a good 60 to 70% of their income is visits associated with vaccinations, either through well baby visits, boosters, or regular visits. Saying that vaccines are not a moneymaker for doctors is, indeed, a bit misleading.

    It’s a far stretch of the imagination to think that doctors are losing money from vaccines. If the example I gave above were the average, then there would be no pediatricians due to extreme loss of revenue. It’s good business to promote vaccinations.

    Now, as to the kickbacks, I will agree. It is supposed to be illegal to accept monetary gifts to promote pharmaceutical interests. However, this does not stop some doctors from doing this. Additionally, there are other incentives that are not financial that the pharmaceutical representatives provide. Do all pediatricians do this? Absolutely not! And I don’t think NT is claiming otherwise.

  95. Nathan
    November 9, 2011 at 2:18 am

    In the practice that I am familiar with, a good 60 to 70% of their income is visits associated with vaccinations, either through well baby visits, boosters, or regular visits. Saying that vaccines are not a moneymaker for doctors is, indeed, a bit misleading.

    It is “a bit misleading” to say that well baby visits constitute “income associated with vaccinations,” as well baby visits are compensated regardless of whether vaccines are given. You are going to have to demonstrate that patients would not go to their docs for preventative care if there were no such things as vaccines for this to be a valid argument. Strangely, children seem to come in for physicals when there are no vaccines given, in infancy and later childhood.

    Indeed, if a doctor did not have to take the time and manpower for the administration and counseling of vaccinations, they would be able to see more sick visits and earn more income. Also, more vaccine preventable diseases would mean a lot more hospitalizations which pay way better than well child checks. Because, you know, the docs are all in it for the money.

    It’s a far stretch of the imagination to think that doctors are losing money from vaccines.

    Emily provided a study demonstrating that this is indeed the case. The only counter arguments have been opinions and anecdotes, with absolutely no attempt at evaluation of the study. The stretch of the imagination is entirely in your claim.

    It’s good business to promote vaccinations.

    It’s good medical care to promote vaccinations. Good doctors get more business. Oh look, conflict of interest there as well. All these doctors want to save children’s lives just so they can make a buck.

    Now, as to the kickbacks, I will agree. It is supposed to be illegal to accept monetary gifts to promote pharmaceutical interests. However, this does not stop some doctors from doing this.

    “Some,” being a number that does not contribute to the assertion that vaccines in general are profitable for doctors. No one here has any sympathy for doctors who take money illegally.

    Do all pediatricians do this? Absolutely not! And I don’t think NT is claiming otherwise.

    I agree. Which makes it all the more unusual that he brought it up, as it therefore seems noncontributory. I expect it was just nonspecific fearmongering.

  96. Beelzebubba
    November 9, 2011 at 10:24 am

    “It is “a bit misleading” to say that well baby visits constitute “income associated with vaccinations,” as well baby visits are compensated regardless of whether vaccines are given. You are going to have to demonstrate that patients would not go to their docs for preventative care if there were no such things as vaccines for this to be a valid argument. Strangely, children seem to come in for physicals when there are no vaccines given, in infancy and later childhood. ”

    Perhaps you didn’t read Nepenthe’s comment. He/she said that 60-70% of the pediatrician’s office he/she is familiar with is vaccine related. I can only assume that he/she is speaking of clinics, where vaccines are given on a routine basis.

    “Emily provided a study demonstrating that this is indeed the case. The only counter arguments have been opinions and anecdotes, with absolutely no attempt at evaluation of the study. The stretch of the imagination is entirely in your claim. ”

    No, I see someone disagreeing and giving reason why. Most of the counter arguments presented by Nepenthe are simple common sense observations. In other words, while doctors may not “make much from vaccines” there are other contributing factors that more than make up for it, such as more business, etc.

    “It’s good medical care to promote vaccinations. Good doctors get more business. Oh look, conflict of interest there as well. All these doctors want to save children’s lives just so they can make a buck.”

    It’s good business. Most of the American population just do what they’re told. They line up every year for the flu shot, get their babies vaccinated, etc. If a clinic did not provide vaccinations, they would not get that much business. So promoting and providing vaccinations brings in the customers. And I highly doubt that these doctors are just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts; they need to eat and make money just like everyone else. But since they’re losing money from vaccines, I tend to see those news stories every day about vaccine clinics going out of business. And nice strawman you provided there about the COI. I don’t see where Nepenthe was complaining or even commenting on that. Alas, more meaningless extrapolation of something not even part of the topic.

    ““Some,” being a number that does not contribute to the assertion that vaccines in general are profitable for doctors. No one here has any sympathy for doctors who take money illegally. ”

    Just as “some” vaccines looked at in the study are not contributable to the amount of money doctors make from vaccines. Some don’t provide much profit, but the study linked only looks at some, not all. And, if you read Nepenthe’s comment carefully, I think you would see that Nepenthe agrees with what you’re saying.

    “I agree. Which makes it all the more unusual that he brought it up, as it therefore seems noncontributory. I expect it was just nonspecific fearmongering.”

    So, because NT is disagreeing, then its fearmongering. Very nice. I do see NT saying that he/she disagrees, providing reasons why, and then getting rudely attacked and insulted because he/she had a difference of opinion and presented that opinion. You know, being called a shill, and anti-vaxxer, and a fear-mongerer.

    Hey, since you disagree with me, you must be fear-mongering! Or does that only apply to people who disagree with you?

  97. Kelly
    November 9, 2011 at 11:22 am

    So, because NT is disagreeing, then its fearmongering. Very nice. I do see NT saying that he/she disagrees, providing reasons why, and then getting rudely attacked and insulted because he/she had a difference of opinion and presented that opinion. You know, being called a shill, and anti-vaxxer, and a fear-mongerer.

    Actually, it was you, Buzzlebubble that called NT a shill and anti-vaxer, not Chris or myself. Don’t you remember that you admitted to making that part up to troll the page, Buzzlebubba? You said “admittedly, my Chris/Kelly comments were thrown in to instigate a reaction (i.e. trolling).” and your Chris/Kelly comments included “Chris/Kelly saying that NotTelling is a shill” and “their fanatical mindset in that anyone who disagrees with their interpretation and zealous worship of science, then that person must be a heretic or “AV.” How misleading and dishonest are you Buzzlebubble to rudely attack and insult NT and then try to blame others for it?

    The fear-mongering is by making up claims that have been demonstrated as false for the mere sake of casting doubt. NT and Nepenthe labeled Emily’s counter argument of doctors not making money off vaccines as “misleading”, when in fact, it is true. Neither have supported the claim of Emily’s counter-argument being misleading with anything substantial.

    NT has not provided any reasons why he/she disagrees, just that he/she does. OK, but why should I give any credibility to NT’s fantasy beliefs, especially when these beliefs have been demonstrated as false?

    Nepenthe shares an anecdote by saying “good 60 to 70% of their income is visits associated with vaccinations, either through well baby visits, boosters, or regular visits.” First of all, we can’t verify Nepenthe’s claim of 60-70%. This could very well just be a made up number for all we know. Second, well baby visits and regular visits are not associated with vaccines. While vaccines may be given at this time, that is not the reason for their existence. It would actually be more profitable not to give the vaccines at this time and ask for parents to come for a “vaccine visit”. If doctors are in it for the money, why do they combine normal routine visits with vaccination? Again, common sense says there is no credibility to Nepenthe’s beliefs either.

    Another point to consider is what about countries that separate well-visits and vaccinations? I live in BC, Canada. Here, the public health nurse gives the vaccinations, not the doctors. The public health nurse’s salary and the vaccines are paid for by the government and provided at no direct cost to parents (we all pay taxes whether we have children or not, receive vaccines or not). There is no profit to be made, yet the BC government still recommends and promotes vaccines. There is also considerable expense to pay the nurse and buy the vaccines. The doctor’s here also receive no insurance payment or payment for administering vaccines yet the BC doctors still recommend and promote vaccines.

    So how do explain the promotion of vaccines in the absence of potential profit, if the reason the doctors recommend vaccines is for profit?

  98. Beelzebubba
    November 9, 2011 at 11:44 am

    “Actually, it was you, Buzzlebubble that called NT a shill and anti-vaxer, not Chris or myself. Don’t you remember that you admitted to making that part up to troll the page, Buzzlebubba? You said “admittedly, my Chris/Kelly comments were thrown in to instigate a reaction (i.e. trolling).” and your Chris/Kelly comments included “Chris/Kelly saying that NotTelling is a shill” and “their fanatical mindset in that anyone who disagrees with their interpretation and zealous worship of science, then that person must be a heretic or “AV.” How misleading and dishonest are you Buzzlebubble to rudely attack and insult NT and then try to blame others for it?”

    It’s fortunate that anyone reading these comments can see just how dishonest this statement is. Here’s some examples:

    Said by Chris on November 7 at 3:29pm:
    “Oh, deer. So are you shilling for big hospital supply?”

    So, Chris calling NT a shill.

    Said by Kelly on November 8 at 2:32pm:
    “Since science isn’t on their side, all the AVers have is misinformation, misconception and logical fallacies.”

    So, this is Kelly calling NT an antivaxxer.

    And, NT and Nepenthe both said they disagreed. They even said why. Perhaps if you’d learn to read, you’d see that. And disagreeing and giving reasons why they disagree is not fear-mongering; it’s disagreeing. No matter how you try to twist and bend the meaning of what they are saying. Fortunately, most people are intelligent enough to see that.

  99. Kelly
    November 9, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    Yes, anyone with the ability to read would see that Chris asked a question and did not call NT a shill, and that I was referring to AVers in general, although NT is fond of logical fallacies. Of course, if you learned to read, you would know that we discussed that already. Fact is that you called NT a shill and AVer, Buzzlebubba. Those were your words that you are falsely trying to attribute to others.

    Yes, and their reasons why are because they believe this to be so. They don’t say why they believe it, just that they do. Pulled it out of their butt apparently. Disagreeing with a true statement for the purpose of casting doubt is fear-mongering.

    Yes, I do think most people will see the irony in your statements Beezlebubba, especially after you admitted that you are a trolling. Do you have anything intelligent to add to this conversation or can we dismiss the court jester now?

  100. Beelzebubba
    November 9, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    “Yes, anyone with the ability to read would see that Chris asked a question and did not call NT a shill, and that I was referring to AVers in general, although NT is fond of logical fallacies. Of course, if you learned to read, you would know that we discussed that already. Fact is that you called NT a shill and AVer, Buzzlebubba. Those were your words that you are falsely trying to attribute to others.”

    Which is calling him a shill. And your Anti-vaxxer comment was in reference to NT’s comment. It’s easy to see that you are trying to weasel out of admitting that you meant it in reference to NT.

    And, if you really knew how to read, you’d see that I was remarking on these insults from both you and Chris, calling you out on the derogatory comments and looping you both together as a generalization. Again, not calling NT a shill or AV, just remarking on your insinuations and accusations. Do try to keep up, since it’s pretty clear that these simple statements are beyond you.

    “Yes, and their reasons why are because they believe this to be so. They don’t say why they believe it, just that they do. Pulled it out of their butt apparently. Disagreeing with a true statement for the purpose of casting doubt is fear-mongering.”

    You may want to read that again, because both of them DID say why they believed it to be so. In fact, one of them gave a reference to a story about law enforcement cracking down on illegal kickbacks. The other gave personal knowledge about why they believe that doctors make money because of vaccines and laid it out in plain english. They are both expressing their opinions, and they are attacked for doing so.

    Are all of you false skeptics and science poseur religious nuts so sensitive when someone disagrees with you? Really, it’s like you have a chip on your shoulder or something. Get with the program! And you people make fun of Anti-vaxxers for doing the same…oh, the hypocrisy is rich…

  101. Nathan
    November 9, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    Perhaps you didn’t read Nepenthe’s comment. He/she said that 60-70% of the pediatrician’s office he/she is familiar with is vaccine related. I can only assume that he/she is speaking of clinics, where vaccines are given on a routine basis.

    I have no idea how your comment is relevant. I am assuming it is a clinic as well, and that vaccines are given routinely. In a clinic, well child check compensation is in parallel with vaccination, and is not predicated on vaccination. Many well visits have no vaccinations at all, yet patients go and doctors are still compensated. In order for this 60-70% anecdotal “vaccine-related” number to be in the least bit contributory, you would have to demonstrate that patients would not go for well care if there were not vaccinations. And then one would have to demonstrate evidcence of this 60-70%.

    No, I see someone disagreeing and giving reason why. Most of the counter arguments presented by Nepenthe are simple common sense observations.

    But no evidence. I disagree about the common sense part. Claiming that well child checks should be grouped with vaccine income requires evidence, not anecdotes.

    If a clinic did not provide vaccinations, they would not get that much business.

    Again, evidence required. Children go to well child checks when vaccines are not given, and quite a few doctors seem to be finding a good business model in not vaccinating patients.

    And nice strawman you provided there about the COI.

    Not a strawman, as I do not in any way think you would make that argument. I pointed out the absurdity of that (my own) argument which parallels the absurdity of the argument that doctors vaccinate because of the increased income of things like caring for vaccine reactions. Vaccination is good medicine and good business, because good doctors get more business. I don’t consider that to be a COI, and I doubt you would either.

    Just as “some” vaccines looked at in the study are not contributable to the amount of money doctors make from vaccines.

    It indicated that nearly 50% of all payments were undercompensated. By no stretch of the imagination is this “noncontributable.”

    You might also read

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/Supplement_5/S472.full

    “Conclusions: The study demonstrates that the financial returns to pediatricians for participating in the vaccination process are not commensurate with the medical importance and social benefits of a highly vaccinated pediatric population. On average, private pediatric medical practices are breaking even or achieving a small gain with privately insured patients. However, practices mostly lose money administering vaccines to VFC-eligible children. When the net returns for privately and publicly insured children are combined, the vaccination process becomes a business loss for many practices.”

    So, because NT is disagreeing, then its fearmongering.

    Wow, talk about your strawman. I was clearly referring specifically to your claim that NT does not believe that all doctors take money illegally from pharma companies. Since this is true, and since, I assume you would agree, that the prevalence of this is low, there seems to be no reason to introduce it except to create a general mistrust of doctors. This seems to me to be fearmongering.

    But perhaps we are all gettig our wires crossed in this conference call style debate. To be honest, I’m not sure how we got into this discussion as I cannot figure out to whom Emily was addressing with her link in the first place.

  102. Chris
    November 9, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Reminder, I said “Oh, deer. So are you shilling for big hospital supply?” Which was a rhetorical question, and not to be taken seriously. Persevering on that one sentence was just a way to avoid answering direct questions.

    NT made several claims, and has not provided any evidence for them. He/she said “Don’t forget those little kick-backs from the pharmaceutical industry, too.”

    The evidence he/she gave for this was a three year old NY Times article on a crackdown of pharmaceutical kickbacks, with no mention of vaccines. It in no way supports that vaccine companies regularly pay doctors to give vaccines.

    It is a ridiculous argument that vaccines are promoted to make money for pharmaceutical companies, and doctors. Especially when there have been shortages of vaccines due to companies deciding they were not worth the costs, especially the way they are regulated (starting with the 1902 Biologics Control Act). National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was created because there were shortages of pertussis vaccines as manufacturers decided to not deal with it anymore, often due to issues addressed here:
    Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story

    It is also a ridiculous argument in light of there being several other pharmaceuticals that are taken daily for a lifetime, versus the limited number per lifetime a person gets immunized. If NT and BB had bothered to actually read and understand the table on page 30 of the Time Magazine document I posted, it would have been clear. In fact the drug categories that were above the word “vaccines” were included in the NY Times article. I am not surprised that I have not seen an answer to what the number is to the left of the word “vaccines.”

    It is also a ridiculous argument since in the USA the Immunization Grant Program provide funds for states to buy the vaccines. The vaccines my children get from our family doctor come from the county. From the county public health website:

    Public Health clinics provide routine immunizations for children 6 weeks to 19 years of age (to age 20 years for hepatitis B) for current patients through the public-funded “Vaccines For Children” (VFC) program. VFC was established in 1993 to remove the barriers of cost and access to attaining childhood immunizations. The program is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the State of Washington, and supplies vaccines to providers across the state. Almost 95% of public and private immunization providers in King County are currently enrolled. All children from birth up to the 19th birthday (hepatitis B up to the 20th birthday) are eligible to receive these vaccines. For more information, see the ‘Where to Go for Immunizations’ section.

    It is also a ridiculous argument given the costs of not vaccinating. There are several cases of a country delaying or cancelling a vaccine program due to anti-vax pressures. The experience of Japan and the UK are outlined in the Lancet paper I linked to above. More recently Japan removed their version of the MMR, and made measles vaccination optional. Which led to this:
    Measles vaccine coverage and factors related to uncompleted vaccination among 18-month-old and 36-month-old children in Kyoto, Japan:

    . According to an infectious disease surveillance (2000), total measles cases were estimated to be from 180,000 to 210,000, and total deaths were estimated to be 88 [11,12]. Measles cases are most frequently observed among non-immunized children, particularly between 12 to 24 months.

    More recently Germany is reporting at least 27 children have died from SSPE from measles infections between 2005 to 2010.

    It would be useful if NT and BB made clear statements, and included the actual supporting evidence. The form of evidence should be peer reviewed papers from reliable researchers. Until then, I am done with both of them.

  103. Beelzebubba
    November 9, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    “The evidence he/she gave for this was a three year old NY Times article on a crackdown of pharmaceutical kickbacks, with no mention of vaccines. It in no way supports that vaccine companies regularly pay doctors to give vaccines.”

    I don’t see where he is saying that this happens in all cases. He is just offering this as a reason for his opinion, and that this does indeed happen. Else, why would there be a crack-down? Oh, wait…they do this for pharmaceutical products, just not for Vaccines. Right, I forget.

    “It is also a ridiculous argument in light of there being several other pharmaceuticals that are taken daily for a lifetime, versus the limited number per lifetime a person gets immunized. If NT and BB had bothered to actually read and understand the table on page 30 of the Time Magazine document I posted, it would have been clear. In fact the drug categories that were above the word “vaccines” were included in the NY Times article. I am not surprised that I have not seen an answer to what the number is to the left of the word “vaccines.””

    If you had actually bothered to read the article you posted, you would understand that it was concerning SPENDING, not PROFIT. There is a very clear and very distinct difference. Vaccine profits are up. NT even went so far as to provide several articles that verified this statement. So, spending is not at the top of the list when it comes to vaccines. But, this is concerning profits. You’re arguing apples and oranges. Spending is down, but profits are up? Hey, win win, right?

    “It is also a ridiculous argument given the costs of not vaccinating. There are several cases of a country delaying or cancelling a vaccine program due to anti-vax pressures. The experience of Japan and the UK are outlined in the Lancet paper I linked to above. More recently Japan removed their version of the MMR, and made measles vaccination optional.”

    It is a ridiculous argument because YOU are the one making this argument. Neither I, nor NT, are making an argument to get rid of vaccines. YOU are. You are inferring this. This is YOUR interpretation. I don’t see how I can be any clearer than that.

    “It would be useful if NT and BB made clear statements, and included the actual supporting evidence. The form of evidence should be peer reviewed papers from reliable researchers. Until then, I am done with both of them.”

    It would be useful if Chris quit attributing his own interpretation of what the argument is and actually stick with what is actually being written. And, good! See ya!

  104. Kelly
    November 9, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    It is a ridiculous argument because YOU are the one making this argument. Neither I, nor NT, are making an argument to get rid of vaccines. YOU are. You are inferring this. This is YOUR interpretation. I don’t see how I can be any clearer than that.

    The original claim by Laura was to reject vaccines because doctors make a profit. This was countered by Emily based on false premise. NT said that Emily was mistaken and doctors do make a profit, but has yet to provide any evidence of this. So NT is defending Laura’s premise, but that premise has indeed shown to be false.

    So why are you defending this faulty position of Laura’s then BB/NT? You say you don’t agree with Laura’s position, but yet you are attempting to defend it. Perhaps you are trying to stick up for the art of debate, but you argued poorly by not providing evidence and committing several logical fallacies. Considering you are ignorant about the accuracy of Laura’s premises and you are ignorant about proper construction of an argument, what is your point?

  105. Chris
    November 9, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Lauren Hansen said:

    It’s a money maker for the pharmaeutical companies, doctors and the US government who mandate them for our schools.

    I am curious how it is a money maker for the US government, which is actually spending the money. Ms. Hansen made a ridiculous statement. And again, BB makes absolutely no sense.

  106. Steve Michaels
    November 9, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    “There’s roughly a dozen or so major studies specifically looking at thimerosal in vaccines and autism and finding no link. Only the antivaccine lobby holds up the Danish study as the end-all be-all, because it’s the one they can most easily needle. Toss it, if you want, there is still overwhelming evidence that thimerosal does not cause autism.”

    No Nathan, we have covered this before and the studies you have cited were about thimerasol’s efficacy as a preservative without any safety components in any conclusions.

    “You are referring to Thorsen? Wow are you not keeping up. He was a minor author; the lead author was Madsen. Not that it matters.”

    He was not minor if he was controlling the accounts and the purse strings and was able to personally apply for grant money to be released to him.

    “Wait. How, exactly, is it a conflict of interest to hire a researcher?”

    Well let’s see…. The emails show that Thorsen was aware that the results were skewed in favor of the CDC’s desired position. Then, after the report is pushed through Pediatrics, Thorsen, after embezzling MILLIONS of dollars, is offered a plush position at the CDC. I think most people would, at the very least, find this suspicious. However I do appreciate your clear display of rose-tinted glasses.

    “Absolutley nothing in what you linked to says anything about the publication decision-making process.”

    No, but the HHS letter clearly asked for an expedited review and publication. And this was after the study had already been rejected twice for being poorly managed, researched and produced.

    “No, they don’t, and we’ve been over this tired ground before.”

    No, only the redacted email was referenced at that time. Now, with the associated emails, the context becomes much clearer. Not that you would ever want to revisit your views when new information comes to light.

    “And give me a break. If autism rates were down 75% in Denmark, we’d know about it. Thimerosal is out of the infant schedule for a decade, and autism continues unabated. Time to move on.”

    Unless the final study results were massaged to make it look otherwise…. And while thimerosal has been out of the infant schedule for a decade, it was replaced with a heavy recommendation for flu vaccines which DO contain thimerosal, and at higher levels than the vaccines which had removed it. On top of all that, you are arguing a monolithic cause for autism. Even if rates only leveled off for a period of time after the removal of thimerosal (not decline as they actually did), it would lend credibility to the overall toxicity threshold argument that I have already made in comments on previous topics.

  107. Nathan
    November 9, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    No Nathan, we have covered this before and the studies you have cited were about thimerasol’s efficacy as a preservative without any safety components in any conclusions.

    I have never cited any thimerosal efficacy studies to you; you are again thinking of some other conversation. I am referring to the studies that have been done in the last decade concerning thimerosal and autism and neurodevelopmental disorders. They have nothing to do with efficacy. The studies in the latter part of this list, among others that have been done more recently.

    http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/VaccineStudies.pdf

    He was not minor if he was controlling the accounts and the purse strings and was able to personally apply for grant money to be released to him.

    “Minor author” does not mean without responsibility. He was still a minor author – authors are listed in order of importance in the citation, with the last author usually being the lab owner or funding person. He’s in the middle. He was not the lead author, and certainly not the “lead researcher.”

    Well let’s see…. The emails show that Thorsen was aware that the results were skewed in favor of the CDC’s desired position. Then, after the report is pushed through Pediatrics, Thorsen, after embezzling MILLIONS of dollars, is offered a plush position at the CDC. I think most people would, at the very least, find this suspicious. However I do appreciate your clear display of rose-tinted glasses.

    Perhaps my rose colored glasses are too powerful, as I don’t see anything in your COMED link (or Google for that matter) indicating that Thorsen was offered a position at the CDC after his embezzling incident or even after the paper was published.

    And this was after the study had already been rejected twice for being poorly managed, researched and produced.

    Steve, this is what I want you to substantiate, not repeat. Demonstrate for me that the paper was “rejected twice for being poorly managed, researched and produced.”

    No, only the redacted email was referenced at that time. Now, with the associated emails, the context becomes much clearer. Not that you would ever want to revisit your views when new information comes to light.

    I would be happy to. However, I have no idea which emails you are referring to, since I believe they were all available the last time we discussed this. Perhaps you can be more specific. Rose colored glasses and all.

    Unless the final study results were massaged to make it look otherwise….

    Which they weren’t, plus as referenced above we have a whole lot of other studies that also confirm that thimerosal is not associated with autism.

    And while thimerosal has been out of the infant schedule for a decade, it was replaced with a heavy recommendation for flu vaccines which DO contain thimerosal, and at higher levels than the vaccines which had removed it.

    Except that thimerosal free vaccines are preferentially recommended for infants and uptake is nowhere near the level of routine vaccines. And it isn’t given until six months. And I am doubtful of your claim that flu vaccine contains more thimerosal than previous vaccines. The under 3 dosage of flu vaccine, if it did happen to contain thimerosal would be 12.5 mcg. Which TCVs from the routine schedule contained less than that?

    Even if rates only leveled off for a period of time after the removal of thimerosal (not decline as they actually did), it would lend credibility to the overall toxicity threshold argument that I have already made in comments on previous topics.

    A decade after removal? Even a decline in 2001 doesn’t provide that credibility. But your theory isn’t credible to begin with.

  108. August 5, 2013 at 11:39 am

    WOW just what I was looking for. Came here by searching for new msn
    messenger 2009

  1. November 15, 2012 at 8:34 am
Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 386 other followers