SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Autism and Vaccines Taken On By Matt Lauer

by Kirsten Sanford, Aug 28 2009

This Sunday before game-time you might want to set your Tivos to record Dateline. This week, supposedly, Matt Lauer interviews Dr. Andrew Wakefield and several other affiliates of the Thoughtful House Center for Children, along with Dr. Paul Offit and journalist Brian Deer.

The Thoughtful House agreed to the interviews because they figured they would get fair treatment from the likes of Matt. I’m interested to see what kind of a program NBC has put together on this very sensitive subject.

Depending on how this major media outlet writes the script, it could either be a major affirmation of what many within the science community already know, or it could increase the divide between anti-vax’ers and science.

Please, Matt… don’t go Jenny McCarthy on us. Don’t do the usual journalistic job of being “fair-and-balanced”. This is not a “he said, she said” issue. This is science. Do tell the world what the science supports.

Recommended Reading

179 Responses to “Autism and Vaccines Taken On By Matt Lauer”

  1. Here’s hoping this is an actual honest reporting of the science and not fanning the flames of the false controversy.

    Minor nitpick: Dateline is on NBC, not ABC.

  2. Kevin says:

    So… what do “many in the science community” already know? Please forgive the ignorance.

  3. Kirsten Sanford says:

    Sorry for the mis-attribution, Jake… you are absolutely right. NBC not ABC… change made.

    Kevin, the scientific evidence does not support a link between autism and vaccines. The paper published by Wakefield initially suggesting a link had major problems, and has since been discredited. The problem is that people don’t like to hear things that don’t support their views. So, the discrediting goes unnoticed and the myth is perpetuated.

    • Tim says:

      I have a comment on the anti-vax’er terminology. Denier, truther, birther, the adding of ‘er on the end of a statement has become a way to demagogue people by comparing them to people, well, like Holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers. While certainly valid for the most part in regard to those heading up the anti-vaccine movement there are a great many people who are nothing like those people who just hear a story on the news and carry it passively in their mind. Holocaust denying and 9/11 conspiracies are not anything like that. Those beliefs require serious conspiracy thinking and to equate something like being nervous about giving your child something borders on demagoguery.

      I agree with you that these people are nuts, but nuts’ers?

      • tmac57 says:

        Tim,
        I think that you are confusing the victims of anti-vaxers with the perpetrators. There is indeed conspiracy theory thinking in the anti-vax purveyors. Big Pharma comes to mind. Supposed coverups. The Australian Vaccination Network
        believes that Baxter Labs created and spread the H1N1 swine flu virus so they could provide the vaccine for it.

      • Tim says:

        tmac,

        With all due respect I believe I covered that difference. I stated that those leaders of the anti-vaccine (or as one person cleverly put it, the pro-disease) organizations are fanatics of a similar brand as Holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers in the above statement. After making clear that we shared a mutually contemptuous opinion of these people I then proceeded with my critique of the terminology which has come to become the tool of the demagogue. I believe that such a critique is both legitimate and accurate.

      • tmac57 says:

        Tim, if you are trying to draw a distinction between the leaders and the followers of the anti-vax crowd, then OK, but even the followers can be very strident, and practice demagoguery themselves, as well as believe in and spread conspiracy type hysteria. Just go to one of their sites and read all of the comments of the followers, and you will see plenty enough to add an ‘er’ on the end of whatever you want to call them. The fact that some are more reasonable does not necessarily reflect the very unreasonableness and dare I say demagoguery of their positions.With all due respect!

      • Tim says:

        Fair enough. I definitely do not wish to spend too much time defending the ‘ers, but I stand by my point about the tendency to slap a label on people and then stop thinking. People dismissed Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and disregarded them as nuts and there they were left to fester and grow until Oliver Stone made a shitty movie about them and they became a majority freggin’ opinion. Only recently have the ‘ers been taken on seriously. When reading Mr. Shermer’s book “Why People Believe Weird Things” he speaks of his time with Holocaust deniers on the Donahue Show. Nobody took them seriously and nobody wanted to sound like them so when Donahue ran footage of Dacau while talking about gas chambers he was immediately called out by the Deniers. Well since nobody wanted to sound like them or insensitive real scholars never talked about Dacau not having gas chambers and the crowd had to hear the facts from the Deniers.

        Only recently have people decided to take the points people like this make seriously. The recent 9/11 conspiracies are the best example in which popular mechanics, Skeptic magazine, Discover, Penn & Teller Bullshit!, etc. took their claims seriously and debunked the theories on their own terms.

        So my point? You are right on your various points, I don’t dispute that. All I am saying is that labeling people as “oh, one of THOSE people” can be true, but can also be an excuse for not thinking about things.

  4. Greg says:

    Dr. Kiki,

    I totally agree with you. It is sad that so many parents do not vaccinate their kids. Herd immunity is very necessary to prevent the spread of diseases that are already under control. Keep bringing interesting guests on “This Week In Science”.

  5. James Young says:

    I really don’t know how he operates and don’t keep up with the morning television scene, but Matt Lauer’s handling of Tom Cruise’s anti-psychiatry blathering a while ago leaves me hopeful that he will have a more objective and evidence based approach.

  6. Jodi says:

    Thanks for the reminder. I’m interested to see how fair and balanced this ends up. NBC is interested in ratings, which usually means controversy. So, I’m doubting the science sees much light of day in this story. But, here’s hoping they put a beat down on Wakefield and the other anti-vaxers.

  7. Tim says:

    I hate it when they do the “well either side might be right” relativist garbage. Sean Hannity has done that with every conspiracy theory out there from moon landings to 2012. I can see both sides being given equal weight on some issues, but here is a clear cut case of a scientist falsifying results and starting a needless scare with no basis in science. Not only that, but California acted on such nonsense through legislation and the rates of autism remained constant throughout showing no significant change whatsoever.

    Being state run television though Matt Lauer, being the puppet he is, could very well ignore the science just to try to advance President Obama’s national healthcare bill. On the other hand he may use the issue to advance the concept of argument by authority and try to use the dogma of scientific consensus to push global warming. Of course the issue here is not scientific consensus, but scientific fact, but NBC has become so biased that I have trouble even watching any of it any more because they are so predictable.

    I know, I sound kind of loopy, but we will see. My money says Lauer works in President Obama in one way or another either in regards to national healthcare or through scientific consensus. These people are completely predictable. Now I could be wrong, but I’m not.

    • Max says:

      Of course the issue here is not scientific consensus, but scientific fact.

      How should the reporting go? “Here is the scientific consensus, here are the folks who have a different theory, and here is what I, Matt Lauer, personally think is the scientific fact.”

      • Tim says:

        Contrarian buffoonery. Typical anti-rationalist tripe, attacking a position for no other reason than somebody thinks it is right. You do not think something is a scientific fact, something IS a scientific fact, as in it can be verified through testing.

        I suppose I should be flattered though, that you formed your opinion based on my opinion.

      • Max says:

        Pretend you’re in Matt Lauer’s shoes, only you’re doing a program on Global Warming. How would you report it? Would you call it a scientific controversy? Would you state your personal interpretation of the evidence and explain why you reject the scientific consensus?

      • Tim says:

        I would report what people are saying and what they can prove. I would call the issue a controversy because it is (although the word controversy is kind of an odd word because really anything that could be disputed would be a controversy and if you are not disputing something then that would probably be a controversy). I would not state my personal interpretation of the evidence nor would I take either side of the issue. If I am a reporter then my job is to report. One group of scientists say one thing, another group says another. If the evidence is inconclusive then I give both sides equal weight. If the evidence is conclusive and the other side cannot refute it, then I do not give each side equal weight (although I may give both sides equal time). I do not say one is better than the other, I just refrain from saying “we may never know” or some other typical reporter line.

        If I were a commentator though, then I would voice my opinion, but if I were a commentator then giving my opinion would be my job.

        Fair enough?

  8. I hope that Matt has a copy of the information at http://factsnotfantasy.com/vaccines.html to help him with all the crap the pro-disease nutters throw out.

  9. DrV says:

    Matt has already declared the vax-autism connection a ‘controversy’. Not a good start.

  10. Marco says:

    If vaccines cannot cause autism we better get our $1,000,000 back from Bailey Banks. And what about the 1.7BILLION (with a B) that has been paid bi the vaccine court (HHS)
    Guys the evidence is there according to the us government.

    • Tim says:

      No sir, people settling in lawsuits says nothing about the science, it only speaks to the nature of our legal system. Our government is very good at intimidating people and so are trial lawyers. Often settling out of court is cheaper than going to court (even if you win).

      • Also, if you look at the rulings, NONE (zero, zip, nadda, zilch) were pay outs for AUTISM. There have been numerous payouts as you state, however they are for many other things that are NOT autism. You know, sort of like vanilla isn’t chocolate…

  11. AVR says:

    No this is about politics, not science. you are right the government is very good at intimidating people and this is what we have with the vaccine autism mess. I really can’t understand how a decent scientist can deny that a live virus containing vaccine cannot ever cause the same damage as the virus its self. (as with rubella)
    it was the US gavenment that conceded that vaccines cause brain damage.

    your cause of defending vaccines are not helped by the investment banks speculating over the pandemic vaccine “opertunity”
    or the choice of Brian Deer and Paul offit as their champions.
    we all know where Paul has his vaccines millions invested and as for Brian , even fellow journalist joke about the way he “ammends” his website to suit his version of history.
    I really think you lot should take a look at brian “debating” with parents outside the GMC. in this 1 hour long documenary about HIM. what a charming man

    • Tim says:

      If you don’t understand how scientists can encourage vaccination, then ask one. Go to a nearby university with a medical school, walk into the faculty area for offices, knock on a door at random, and ask the professor why vaccines are good or bad.

      However if I may make a seemingly condescending recommendation (which is not meant so), I would reconsider taking information in Youtube videos as true at face value.

      • oldebabe says:

        Both are sensible suggestions in any case.

      • adam says:

        Tim, if it is indeed not your intention to appear condescending, then you have failed. As every one of your replies to this thread has a holier-than-thou stench of condescension. But where you did succeed is to remind me why I cannot take seriously folks like yourself who claim to know everything based upon the ‘scientific facts’ of a report or two.

        Show me the scientific facts you speak so certainly of.

      • Tim says:

        http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-06-20#feature

        Although if you suggest that vaccines cause autism then the burden of proof is actually on you, not me.

      • adam says:

        Erm, no. I don’t have any burden of proof. I’m quite happy to leave my son pure. It is you and your quarter who insist that behaviour is unsound. The burden of proof, sir, lies on your side. And please, a link to skeptic.com? you may have well provided ‘evidence’ from Snopes. I thought you a pompous fool before, now I simply find you amusing, if that is your holy evidence.

        LOL

      • Tim says:

        If you have not really immunized your son, please do it soon. That immunization will protect him from the measles and the mumps. Leaving your son “pure” means that you are leaving him vulnerable to these diseases and several children have died from these preventable diseases in recent years.

        You believe that vaccines cause autism. You admit you have no proof for that. Would you not give your child food if somebody told you that food causes AIDS without any proof? There is just as much proof linking AIDS with food consumption as autism with vaccines. Calling me names will not change that.

      • James says:

        I don’t know how helpful this might be, but to keep it all user friendly try this enter “Vaccine Controversy” in teh search field of Wikipedia. Browse the general topics, now see those little numbers? These are citations, they link to various studies at various different websites. Some are pay to view but if your as diligent as you say adam that shouldn’t stop you. So read those and then get back to us.

        Of course your now in a lose-lose situation.

  12. SlashInMaine says:

    I have access to an iron lung in a warehouse that I want to put on display as a reminder of the days before vaccines. If there is someone that would like to display it for 3 or 6 months let me know. It is located in Brewer, Maine. My contact is slashinme@gmail.com

    • dugmaze says:

      Feel free to prove polio was eradicated by vaccines.

      You know, I never questioned vaccines until my son was damaged. Then I started researching vaccines. What I found is disturbing to say the least.

      If you want to know, do your own research.

      • tmac57 says:

        Feel free to prove that it wasn’t.
        Re: “do your own research”, one could do “research that will “prove” the following:
        1.That the holocaust never happened.
        2.That aliens built the Egyptian pyramids.
        3.That the Bush administration was responsible for 911.
        4.That Chemtrails (contrails) are chemical or biological agents being sprayed on us by the government.
        5.That Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike and sound-alike.
        6.That “free energy” advanced technology is being suppressed by the government and Big Oil.
        7.That the Apollo moon landings were a hoax.
        I could go on, but you get the idea. The key to whether or not you should believe in any idea, is to consider the source, and plausibility factor. Conspiracies are pretty hard to contain, especially a wide spread one. Be very wary of medical information that doesn’t seem to be widely excepted by mainstream science. They can be wrong, but the chances of some lone maverick coming out of left field and disproving everyone is low, and when study after study disputes a hypothesis, you should be willing to accept that.

      • Gio says:

        Stop being so immature … and link to your “research” … not anecdotal evidence!

        Better yet, raise funds, lobby, and have your own research done using the strictest of methods.

      • dugmaze says:

        Typical response.

        Did you actually try looking it up?

      • James says:

        That sir, is the point. Most everyone commenting has looked it up, what have you been doing? Probably doing what you accuse us of doing, accepting evidence from dubious sources.

      • Max says:

        Well said. “Research” without a baloney detection kit will turn up all sorts of anecdotes, red herrings, ad hominems, anomaly hunting, conspiracy theories, and other BS that quacks toss around to disguise their lack of evidence and dismiss their critics. If the researcher can’t separate the wheat from the chaff, s/he only ends up dumber.

  13. Trimegistus says:

    Matt Lauer’s position will depend on whether or not David Axelrod has instructed him to favor or oppose the antivaxers. “Journalists” today are nothing but mouthpieces for the regime.

    • Beelzebud says:

      Speaking of conspiracy theories…

      • Tim says:

        Leftist bias in the media is well documented. Watch tonight, I’ll bet that President Obama is worked into the program favorably.

      • tmac57 says:

        Fail.

      • Tim says:

        Really? I missed the program. Well I’m certainly surprised. Was the program any good? What side did they take if any?

      • tmac57 says:

        It was just Ok in my view. The case of fraud that Brian Deer uncovered against Wakefield was incompletely presented. They didn’t discuss the case histories of the 12 subjects of his study which were largely found to have had problems before they ever received the MMR. They really should have devoted 2 hours to it like they do with other less important subjects.

      • Tim says:

        Well fortunately my brother recorded it so I’ll have an opportunity to watch it later. It’s too bad they didn’t do a two hour special.

  14. Malachi Constant says:

    Well that was disappointing. It felt like Lauer was taking a “teach the controversy” approach to the whole thing. I would have liked him to have held Wakefield’s feet to the fire, maybe ask him how he feels about the outbreaks of previously under control diseases.

    It’s also galling to see an autistic kid given invasive procedures for no apparent purpose. He could have nailed McCarthy with her indigo child nonsense, too.

    It all came off as a primer for folks who have never heard of the controversy, but I fear it didn’t do a good job of showing just how wrong the antivaxxers are.

  15. DC says:

    I’m asking this in all seriousness. Does anyone here who has commented actually have a child with autism? I don’t mean know someone with autism, I mean an actual PARENT of an autistic child. I’d really like to hear your views, in that case.

    • tmac57 says:

      What would you do with that information? I mean would it make any difference in your opinion? And if so, why?

      • DC says:

        Yes, it would absolutely make a difference in my opinion. Parents of autistic children, in my view, have first-hand knowledge on this issue, because they are the ones who can say either 1) no, my kid was fully vaccinated and I see no correlation, or 2) yes, I witnessed my kid regressing after a particular series of vaccines.
        “Experts” (armchair or otherwise) aren’t going to be as credible to me as parents, who know their children better than anyone.

      • tmac57 says:

        That seems to be part of the problem of the perception of vaccines being suspect.The timing of when vaccine schedules occur will naturally lead to a correlation/causation fallacy, because that is when autism symptoms are more likely to show up. Forget about the millions of kids who get vaccines, and don’t have autism. People are easily fooled into making an association with a recent event and mistaking it for the cause of some subsequent event.It is the way our brains are wired. Always trying to figure out what causes what in an effort to avoid problems, or increase desired effects, but it is a well known mental trap that will often lead one astray. That is what science is all about DC, trying to sort out what is a real effect, and what is not, and a parents anecdotal observation is not rigorous enough to qualify as evidence. The data just does not support the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism.

      • rutty says:

        There’s a pretty good pro-vaccine blog by parents of children with autism here:

        http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/

  16. mommabear says:

    Having a child w/ autism makes a HUGE difference! Before my son got sick, I didn’t have a clue about a lot of things. I trusted everything the media and my doctors said to be true. Now…I’m a research-aholic. I know there is a lot of garbage out there, and it is my job as a mom to keep my children safe. When you have a “sick” child (mine doesn’t have autism, but other issues), you say, “Stop everything…let me figure out what is going on here so I can help my baby. They wanted to put my one year old on 4 different daily medicines… researched and found one was about to be RECALLED! This was CHOP. What you are forgetting is that most of us are NOT anti-vaccine, we just want safe happy children. It is instincts that turn us into mama bears and want to fight to protect our babies. Most are young moms who just don’t want to be lied to anymore. We don’t want to be guinea pigs. Please stop and think about this. Is that really a bad thing. If your children are vaccinated…Why are you worried???I am actually not anti-vaccine, but I don’t bash those that are…because of what I went through with my last…I now know, they are just trying to protect their babie. Does it matter what mothers that are affected think…certainly does. Unaffected, I would still be a “sheeple”.

    • James says:

      The problem with your idea, that because my child is vaccinated, I shouldn’t be worried. Your a research-a-holic why don’t you figure it out. Let me help you out.

      1) just becasue my children have received the vaccine doesn’t mean that she is immune. Sometime the desired immunre response just does not happen and my child is still at risk.

      2) Others are legitimately allergic to vaccines and are unable to receive them.

      3) The big one your forgetting is that there is a schedule that is adhered too. So an unvaccinated child can be at risk because they are too young to get the vaccine. The latest Measles outbreak in SoCal happened in such a way. A one month old baby was infected with measles because they were in the same doctor’s waiting room as patient zero. This child or their parents certainly had no choice in the matter. For further proof I submit Dana McCaffrey’s totally preventable death.

  17. dugmaze says:

    The show and Matt were nothing short of propaganda. 90% of parents with autistic children know that Matt was misleading viewers by straying away from facts.

    I’m so tired of trying to warn parents about the dangers in vaccines. You know what, if you want to inject your child with vaccines there is NOTHING stopping you. By all means do it. Then there will be more people on our side.

    A couple of things that I didn’t like about tonight’s show(if anyone cares):
    1) They promoted gene research. GE and autismspeaks will profit from this.
    2) Vaccines causing autism has very little if anything to do with Wakefield. If you notice they started out saying MMR but ended saying vaccines. There’s a little bit of difference between the two.
    3) Wakefield is clearly being targeted by big pharma
    a) Deer’s boss is one of the GMC’s brothers.
    b) The Sun is owned by the far right. Clearly in the pockets of big pharma.
    c) Wakefield’s study was in 1995. Deer’s story was in 2005. They allowed this “cover up” to go on for 10 years.
    d) Wakefield said to stagger shots. He never said not to get shots. Why and how is that wrong?
    e) Researchers get paid by big pharma all the time. Isn’t Offit’s wages coming from vaccine makers? Penn is surrounded and funded by pharma.
    f) Offit is on the board to approve vaccines for our children.
    g) Why is Wakefield’s study junk but other studies are credible?
    4) It’s not 1 in 150. It’s in 100 or 1 in 38 boys.
    5) Thimerosal was not removed.
    6) Vaccine/autism was proven in the courts.
    7) Dr Snyderman interned under Offit.
    8) The commercial following the segment was for swine flu shots.

    People do some research before running your mouths. If parents can find out this info, anyone can. Don’t waste your time responding to me, I could care less. Devote your time to research.

    Does anyone ever question why parents say “do your own research” while the government “don’t, everything’s fine”? You blindly allow the government to choose your child’s health?

    I never even knew about Wakefield when I started researching cures for my son. I learned about him from the deniers and the front groups. They are ate up with him just like Matt Lauer is. That is classic front group material.

    If you don’t believe soemthing I say, then look it up.

    • Tim says:

      http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-06-20#feature

      I’m sorry you have been taken in by this cult.

    • Max says:

      Why is Wakefield’s study junk but other studies are credible?

      Because Wakefield’s study evidently misrepresented patients’ medical records and was refuted by others trying to replicate it, while other studies were not.

      Researchers get paid by big pharma all the time.

      Except when researchers like Wakefield get paid by big trial lawyers intending to sue big pharma. Only, Wakefield didn’t disclose his conflict of interests.

      Vaccine/autism was proven in the courts.

      Not by the lawyers who paid Wakefield.
      In any case, prove it to the scientific community rather than the courts.

      • dugmaze says:

        “Because Wakefield’s study evidently misrepresented patients’ medical records”

        evidently? What kind of an answer is that?

        “Only, Wakefield didn’t disclose his conflict of interests”

        Did you research this? Let me know what you find. And don’t look on Brian Deer’s website either.

        “In any case, prove it to the scientific community rather than the courts.”

        Arrogance in it’s finest hour.
        Just a little refresher. The VIC is backed by the HHS and the “science” community. Don’t you know the rules. You wasn’t supposed to say that!

      • James says:

        I would say that you don’t know what your talking about. As for being “proven” in the courts the case you are referring to for Vaccine Injury Compensation was actually a case of Autism Spectrum Disroder. Which is simply a range of disorders that have autism-like symptoms but is NOT Autism. The patient in question had an undiagnosed mitochondrial condition exacerbated by vaccines. This was a case where she qualified for compensation due to a technicality, NOT because she had Autism caused by vaccines.

    • adam says:

      The voice of reason. i was very happy to read your words here dugmaze. Staggering shots is an option we have been looking into, but sadly the party line is all or nothing. our way or the highway. Until there is some reasonable sense in this conversation we’ll leave our child pure.

      Another thing I’ve had thrown in my face is “Dont let your child anywhere near mine” It’s hysterical. Like my child is any threat to anyone. It’s pure unscientific fear-mongering nonsense. What about the queers, they spread AIDS, and those darkies, they look like they’re full of disease. It’s that antiquated mentality of yesteryear. We gots to have somebody to fear loath and project our hate onto…

      • Tim says:

        “We gots to have somebody to fear loath and project our hate onto”

        Like Big Pharma?

        If I had kids I’d keep them away from your kids too. Why? Not because I “hate” you or your kid, but because your child is more likely to give deadly diseases to my kid. The vaccines are proven to prevent those diseases, they are not proven to cause autism. Stop endangering your child, get him vaccinated.

      • dugmaze says:

        You don’t have kids? That explains a lot.
        Let me guess, your a student learning some science?
        If you are, do me a favor and research some of the greatest scientists and researcher/inventors of all time.
        It’s a shame we’ve lost so much so fast from our science community. I blame politicians but I’m sure there’s other reasons.
        Will there ever be another great scientist? Are we not capable of producing another great?
        Try to honestly answer that question. Not to me, to yourself.

      • James says:

        I have to wonder what your criteria would be for a great scientist? Darwin, Einstein, Galileo, Copernicaus were all credited as great scienctists because they upset the established order. With FACTS, not conjecture and poor studies. This evidence was so overwhelming that it changed the way people thought of the universe.

        As for great science in modern times, it’s happening right now.

      • dugmaze says:

        We have neighbors who have generations living together all in one area. They have never received ANY vaccinations. Their 4 children play with my autistic child all the time.

        The 90 year old grandfather still milks his cows twice a day and the grandmother works in the garden everyday.

        People call them names but they knew something we didn’t know. How to stay away from the modern lifestyle.

        You should see them whoop and holler when they make molasses!

      • James says:

        It seems that you live in an isolated area, if this is the case it’s no wonder that you haven’t seen the benefits of vaccines since in insular areas there are fewer vectors to transmit disease. I would wonder what would then happen if say, someone with Haemophlus Influenza moved in next door?

      • dugmaze says:

        You know Adam, they try so hard to label us “anti-vax”. But in reality, we’ve had all of our shots, that’s why my son is autistic.
        I wish I would have been anti-vax.
        I challenge you to do all the research you want before vaccinating. And at the end of your research, if you feel like vaccines are for your child, then you make that decision. Please don’t allow others to make it for you.
        Fear is their greatest product.

      • tmac57 says:

        “Fear is their greatest product.”
        How ironic!

      • James says:

        Well as for staggering shots the premise is that the immunological elements that trigger an immune response is what is responsible for autism and autism spectum disorders. The fact is that there is now less than 10% of the immunological elements (I don’t know if there is a proper term for them) in the seven shots I recieved as a child, than in the entire vaccine schedule that kids receive today. This includes my kids as well, so get that weak “argument from authority” out of here.

      • James says:

        So you’ve never heard of the “herd immunity”? Apparently not, since you consider it to be needless fear mongering. So do you know what happens when the herd immunity drops below a certain point? Outbreaks of disease that decimates populations. I’m curious, I’m sure that you have parents and grandparents alive during the polio epidemic in this country. Have you asked them about it? Would you call the threat of fatal diseases fear mongering?

      • James says:

        I don’t know why this was at the bottom but it was @adam Aug 31 at 1:18 AM

  18. Gio says:

    Society needs to move toward research being more open.

    Both sides need to get experts involved in doing their own research.

    This site is an open referenced resource from experts
    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=36

  19. adam says:

    As one of the anti-vax parents being ridiculed here, I take offense to being described as an ‘er’ because its so easy to polarize the discussion; those that agree with you and those other nuts. I surely can’t possibly have formulated my own opinion without following some conspiracy, eh. But thats the way it seems these days in America. after 8 years of Bush politics its us and them wherever I look. And I expect better than that from the ‘science community’ whom I imagined to be level headed and calculating. Although I reckon most of the ‘scientific community’ with an opinion here are laymen with a knee-jerk reactionary opinion

    Science thinks it has all the answers. Science is pure. Science never lies, it is always right. But thats bolloney. Its been revealed time and again that science is open to the highest bidder. Much of scientific research is undertaken I imagine in university labs, unless we are talking about military research of course. These labs need funding and take huge payments in return for what? Favourable results? I wouldn’t doubt it, in fact I’m pretty sure that is fairly often the case. Just look at LSU that had a study into the New Orleans levees washed under the rug for a large contribution from Shell and Chevron. The study proved to be right when Katrina hit. Its no surprize that Big Oil buys its favourable scientific research (or to hide unfavourable kind). I’m of the belief that Big Pharma is no different.

    What I’d like science to prove, rather than waste its time trying to prove vaccinations are not making kids sick, is find out WHAT IS. something is giving those kids autism, and the numbers have been on the rise since the introduction of Themirasol. Like it or not, scientific proof or not, thats correlation. It could be coincidence, but rather than lambasting anyone who thinks otherwise as a conspiracy theorist, prove without any doubt what the cause is. I don’t trust or buy into any study that simply dismisses the entire discussion as bogus conspiracy.

    But at the root of it, before any f this comes into play. As a parent I know one thing. My child was born pure. I believe in the sanctity of human blood. There is no way I’m going to allow him to have 40 vaccinations before his young fragile body turns five just because there is a one in 40 million chance of a serious disease. It does not feel right, in my heart.

    And I wish, especially of science, that there was serious discussion and investigation beyond petty name-calling and labeling. I wish I could go to my doctor and have a serious discussion without feeling I was being fed the party line. I wish I could write this here and get some serious response and not the hysterical outrage I reckon I’ll conjure. Because obviously as a concerned parent I have doubts. i’ve heard about certain diseases making a comeback. I want to know if there is TRULY no danger to my child. But in my heart I don’t trust all this bullshit, and this post has verified that for me further.

    • Max says:

      When you exceed a threshold of fallacies, misinformation, and conspiracy theories, you deserve the ‘er.

      Much of scientific research is undertaken I imagine in university labs, unless we are talking about military research of course.

      Most applied R&D is probably done by industry. Basic research, including military research, is done by university labs, and they’ve come up with some great stuff.

      something is giving those kids autism, and the numbers have been on the rise since the introduction of Themirasol. Like it or not, scientific proof or not, thats correlation.

      There’d be correlation if thimerosal use were on the rise, but it’s not. How much of the rise in autism is just due to wider recognition and looser definition of autism?

      Science never lies, it is always right.

      If scientists think that, why do they waste time replicating each other’s work?

      My child was born pure. I believe in the sanctity of human blood.

      Is the child still pure after getting sick? What’s more important to you, preserving sanctity, or preventing illness?

      These labs need funding and take huge payments in return for what? Favourable results?

      A little cynicism is good, but you can’t avoid all medicine, food, cars, and other products due to potential conflicts of interest.

      • Max says:

        There is no way I’m going to allow him to have 40 vaccinations before his young fragile body turns five just because there is a one in 40 million chance of a serious disease.

        Can you guess why the chance of a serious disease is so low?
        Hint: It’s much higher in places where children don’t get vaccinated.

    • Joel says:

      You’ve asked for “serious discussion and investigation” and that’s exactly what has been given.

      Serious discussion and investigation has led to the dismantling of the mercury/Autism link, so in order to preserve the model, the proponents have conjured up conspiracy theories to explain why the evidence is now against them.

      It’s come to the point where the position is now ridiculous to hold, one has to reject such a vast body of evidence to the contrary. How is this evidence debunked? Not by honest inquiry or replicating results, but by calling shenanigans and conflicts of interest where none exist.

      • tmac57 says:

        Well said, Joel and Max. It just seems hopeless to try to reason with people who are so emotionally invested in this issue against vaccines. They don’t seem to realize how incongruous their position is on research. The idea that “my researcher who studied 12 children is superior to your researcher’s studies that studied 500,000 to 1.8 million” is dumbfounding. Also the widespread distrust of most doctors, and then the ‘canonization’ of ‘their’ doctor, whose ideas are widely discredited, is very hard to understand. I understand how people with autistic children would desperately want to find the ‘answer’, but they are being used and misled by unscrupulous people, and it is so sad and disappointing to watch.

    • Cthandhs says:

      “What I’d like science to prove, rather than waste its time trying to prove vaccinations are not making kids sick, is find out WHAT IS.”

      Twin studies suggest genetics. Sorry. Kids get this from their parents.

      http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/dougherty.html

      • Max says:

        First adam says that “trying to prove vaccinations are not making kids sick” is a waste of time. Then, adam says, “I want to know if there is TRULY no danger to my child.”

  20. Mark says:

    The problem is that government is involved to an extent in vaccine production/distribution/administration. And our government has a terrible track record when it comes to dealing honestly with its citizens, e.g. Bush/Cheney lies about Iraq involvement in 9-11, Bush/Cheney giving trillions in welfare for the wealthy, followed by Obama giving more welfare for the wealthy. It’s understandable that people don’t trust the government or vaccines. But I think Matt Lauer did a great job of discrediting Wakefield. It is unfortunate that the autism group is wasting so much of its energy on the vaccine thing.

  21. WScott says:

    Assuming that the increase in autism numbers is due primarily to 1) broader definition, and 2) better screening, has anyone tried to run numbers for “If we were still using [old definition] and were only detecting [old percentage] of cases, what would the numbers look like today?” I’m sure it’s not quite as simple as that, but it seems like it ought to be possible to control for those variables in a historical study. Maybe it turns out that does account for 100% of the increase; or maybe it turns out to only account for 75% and there is some (as yet unidentified) environmental factor. I know that still wouldn’t convince the die-hards, but it sure would give a sharper tool for deflating their arguments.

    • tmac57 says:

      Yes, there have been some studies done. It looks like it is likely that some portion if not all increases in autism rates is due to broadening the diagnosis to ASD, and increased surveillance by clinicians, but there is still the possibility that some unknown environmental agents are responsible for part of the increase. See: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=95

    • dugmaze says:

      “Assuming that the increase in autism numbers is due primarily to ”
      They have run the numbers.

      But I can tell by your wording that you’ve never researched this before.

      Yet you make a conclusion based on what? Personal beliefs?

      Is that your science? Not trying to sound mean but a quick search on this subject will find a study dated this year by UCLA on that very subject.

      • WScott says:

        But I can tell by your wording that you’ve never researched this before.

        No shit – that’s why I asked the question.

        Yet you make a conclusion based on what? Personal beliefs?

        No, I was repeating an argument I have read here and several other places, and asking what data exists to support it. The only one leaping to conclusions here is you.

        a study dated this year by UCLA

        But of course you can’t be bothered to actually provide the link or anything useful. Gee, thanks.

    • WScott says:

      Someone on another blog pointed me to this study, but I don’t have access to pubmed for teh full text:

      Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;162(6):1133-41.
      Pervasive developmental disorders in preschool children: confirmation of high prevalence.
      Chakrabarti S, Fombonne E.

      Child Development Centre, Central Clinic, Stafford, UK.

      OBJECTIVE: The rate of reported pervasive developmental disorders has increased, and the authors found a rate of 62.6 per 10,000 in a previous study of preschoolers in Stafford, U.K. They conducted another survey in 2002 to estimate the prevalence in children in a later birth cohort and to compare it to previous findings from the same area. METHOD: Screening for developmental problems included 10,903 children ages 4.0 to 6.0 years who were living in a Midlands town on the survey date. Children with symptoms suggestive of pervasive developmental disorders were intensively assessed by a multidisciplinary team using standardized diagnostic interviews, psychometric tests, and medical workups. RESULTS: Sixty-four children (85.9% boys) were diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorders. The prevalence was 58.7 per 10,000, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 45.2-74.9, for all pervasive developmental disorders, 22.0 per 10,000 (95% CI=14.1-32.7) for autistic disorder, and 36.7 per 10,000 (95% CI=26.2-49.9) for other variants. These rates were not significantly different from the previous rates. The mean age at diagnosis was 37.8 months, and 53.1% of the children were originally referred by health visitors. Of the 64 children with pervasive developmental disorders, 29.8% had mental retardation, but this rate varied by disorder subtype. Few children had associated medical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of pervasive developmental disorders is higher than reported 15 years ago. The rate in this study is comparable to that in previous birth cohorts from the same area and surveyed with the same methods, suggesting a stable incidence.

  22. dugmaze says:

    Funny thing happened at work today. Seems everyone was convinced that NBC was covering for someone and there was more doubt than ever.

    Why is that funny? Because I was furious over GE’s, I mean NBC’s, propaganda vaccine story. My wife and I was so mad we vowed never to watch NBC again(except for Jeopardy). I was mad because I got to thinking about work and how I was going to convince everyone I was right and they was wrong. Because they’ve heard me for years now on my soapbox.

    Well when I went to work, EVERYONE agreed that the story was either made up or not telling the whole story. There was a couple a questions about Dr. Wakefield but I cleared them up in a hurry.

    Matt was weak. The story was weak. And weak-minded individuals think alike. I think their minds get in sync when their around each other like girls do with their periods.

    Have a nice day and God bless each and every one of you. You need it.

  23. grace says:

    I used to believe in science on this subject, that is, until I began working as a rehab therapist with children who have autism ten years ago. Over the years I have had no less than forty families tell the same story of vaccinating their child. Child was talking, interacting, hitting milestones. Child was vaccinated more than three shots around 15 months. Child spiked a high fever. Child began screaming, stopped sleeping, had diaherria, stopped eating. Fever broke. Child was left a shell who became withdrawn and over-sensitive to sensory input. I have had parents bring in time-date stamped videos from one week before the shots and three days after. This is not “autism appears around the same time as the shots anyway”, this is autism happened DIRECTLY following the shots in more than enough cases to create a panic amongst parents.

    I wish Matt Lauer had commented about the number of other doctors, besides the lone Andrew Wakefield, who support a vaccince-autism theory. There are hundreds of doctors that treat autistic children by checking for gut inflammation, and using a combination of chelating agents with other vitamins and dietary intervention.

    If your chld, skeptics, were stung by a bee and went into shock, would you conclude that it was due to the sting?

    But parents who have a child injected with vaccines and then see the child spiked a high fever, scream bloody murder, and stop talking are supposed to take pharma-funded researchers word for it that autism just “happens around the same time”?

    Please. This stinks of cover-up. The government funds research that supports what the parents are saying, and vaccine court is backed up for decades with lawsuits, parents stop all vaccinating out of fear and mistrust, and big pharma is losing billions. Who is motivated to do what here?

    I’ll tell you one thing, until they hash it out my two year-old will continue to get delayed and split vaccines.

    • superdave says:

      The difference between an allergy to a bee sting and autism caused by vaccines, is that

      1) Bee stings contain actual poison. The mechanism of action here is clear. (note, the dose is far to low to cause actual poisoning, it is the immune reaction that is the problem for some people)

      2) There are not studies of millions of children which show no correlation between Bee stings and allergic reactions.

      • grace says:

        huh…kind of like an immune reaction to vaccine components that start the chain of deterioration in an autistic child. Not enough to posion, just enough to trigger a series of events in a pre-disposed group of children. You just backed the argument of most parents, genius…

      • superdave says:

        I had a feeling you would say this. But let’s compare apples to apples here. Anaphylactic shock is an acute allergic. In this case, it is the allergic reacton itself which is the issue at hand. You claim that this is comparable to “triggering a series of events”, but this is a false comparison. For one, there is no plausible mechanism to go from immune response to what is classically defined as Autism. I believe the Hannah Polling case is an isolated case. Before you bring that up, I do not think that she represents the typical presentation of Autism, as she has a known enzyme disorder.

        Also, if there was a true immune response attacking the brains of these kids, why would it specifically damage the areas that lead to Autism. If your hypothesis is true, there would basically be symptoms of brain injury occurring just as commonly as Autism. Again, the failure here is that even though the hypothesis has some small bit of rationale, it there is no evidence that you can go from point A of the vaccine all the way to point B, which is autism.

        You said that you counted about 40 families in ten years whose stories lead you to believe that there is a vaccine connection. How many families have you seen in that time who had no problems? Why do they count less? Over 10 years, I think 40 sounds about right for children whose autism symptoms developed coincidentally about the same time as vaccinations especially if the majority of families you work with have autistic children.

        Finally you mention chelating, a method that removes heavy metals from the body, as a treatment. Are heavy metals known to cause a severe immune reaction? Havey metals can cause nervous system damage, but the mechanism of action is not the immune system, they interfere directly. So what are you arguing? Is it an immune over-response triggered by the vaccine antigen? Is it the heavy metal poisoning?

        Basically my point is that while your arguments make some amount of sense superficially, when you break them down, it leads to many scientific questions, the answers of which all of to be yes in order for you to be right. So far, the answer to few of them have been yes, and it only takes one no to prove you wrong.

      • grace says:

        I’ve had approximately 70 families whose children have had autism. Do the math. 40 of 70 families.

      • superdave says:

        OK, taking your claims at face value, and assuming that there are no confounding elements (a big assumption) what do we have. One relatively small study that is refuted by larger ones. This happens all the time in science. The larger studies get the say. Your only evidence here is the timing, which is relatively weak as far as evidence goes.

      • grace says:

        “A possible course of events stems from early and repeated damage from toxic substances in our environment. Because of a genetically weak detoxification system, babies who develop autism are more susceptible to toxins, even at low doses. The fetus is exposed to mercury through maternal amalgams, fish consumption, or thimerosol containing injection (flu shot and Rho(D) immunoglobulin.) On the day of birth, the newborn is given Hep B vaccine (with aluminum and other additives), and exposed to anesthetics, inducing agents, pain medications, or antibiotics given to the mother during delivery. The baby’s ability to detoxify is minimal at best, so toxins begin to accumulate in its small body. Over the next six months, many immunizations with low doses of thimerosol that far exceed safety limits for adults are given. These additives disrupt dendritic cells in the immune system and interrupts methylation, leading to abnormal neurotransmitter function and decreased ability to form glutathione. to make matters worse, babies are given acetaminophen for pain and fever the day before and after immunizations, further depleting glutathione and leaving the brain and gut cells even more liable to toxic injury. As these struggling babies confront other common exposures, autoimmune reactions are triggered and inflammation increases. Because the dendritic cells functin has been disrupted, they don’t kill foreign invaders such as viruses and bacteria efficiently, leading to chronic ear infections and frequent upper respiratory infections. repeated courses of antibiotics further injure the gut through the destruction of beneficial bacteria. Abnormal bacteria and yeast erode the gut lining and leaky gut ensues. Now the tiny body is flooded with new food antigens and chemicals that previously weren’t absorbed. The detoxification and immune system are at a tipping point when the baby is given a live-virus vaccine or develops a viral illness. In fact, babies are exposed to three or four live-virus vaccines at once; MMR,(measles, mumps, rubella) and chickenpox are known to have immunosuppresive and neurological effects. This event can be more than a small body can handle-the brain is now injured and the child regresses into autism.”
        (Brian Jepson, M.D, “Changing the course of Autism.” 2007

      • grace says:

        Point A to Point B.

      • Max says:

        Researchers ought to study the timing. Oh wait, they did.

        http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/09/03/measles.autism/

        The researchers replicated key parts of Wakefield’s original study to determine whether the vaccine causes autism and GI problems…
        Irish pathologist John O’Leary, co-author of Wakefield’s studies that supported the autism link, also is a co-author of the new study…
        The conclusion: “no evidence” linked the vaccine to either autism or GI disorders, Lipkin said.
        They also said they found no relationship between the timing of the vaccine and children getting GI disorders or autism.

      • grace says:

        Yes, a study involving 38 children is compelling. Not enough to make me want to fill my two-year old with toxins.

      • Max says:

        It’s enough to refute Wakefield’s study of 12 children. The point here is that researchers tried to replicate it, they even had one of Wakefield’s co-authors on their team, and they studied whether autism symptoms developed before or after the vaccination. I assume their observations were more careful and better documented than yours.

        Of course, there are large studies showing no vaccine/autism link, but you already know this because you’ve done all the research.
        http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-mmr.htm

      • grace says:

        I suppose you read the part of the o’leary study that states he was paid in a trial regarding the mmr and vaccines. Wakefields conflict of interest was stated on the show, but they must have missed that one. Such a suprise. Oh, and it was funded by the CDC and AAP. Huh. Oh, and the gi symptoms of the children were listed as vomiting, reflux, and stomach complaints. Not diaherria and severe constipation, which are the real flags. How many three year olds with autism can verbalize that they have stomach pain? Not one that I’ve ever seen.

      • Max says:

        O’Leary was paid on behalf of claimants. I’m sure his former sponsors are not happy that his new study REFUTES their case.

        You have a problem with CDC and AAP funding? Aren’t you glad it’s not “big pharma”? Do you only accept studies funded by trial lawyers?

        You know, systematic reviews score and rank studies based on size, randomization, controls, etc., but I’ve never seen them rank studies based on the sponsors.

        Yes, conflicts of interest influence outcomes, but you just use it as a cudgel to dismiss everyone you don’t agree with. It’s an old trick.

      • grace says:

        Sources on O’leary being paid by claimants please, Max. And yes, I view CDC funding as a conflict of interest, considering they are the ones stating how safe the vaccines are and stand to lose major credibility if the studies link probable cause.

      • tmac57 says:

        So in order for the CDC to have any credibility, they would have to agree with you? And anything the CDC says is safe is automatically suspect by your reasoning.Right?

      • Max says:

        Here’s the study:
        http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003140

        At the bottom of the abstract

        Competing interests: Authors JOL (O’Leary) and OS were compensated for expert witness statements concerning MMR vaccine and autism on behalf of claimants in litigation in the United Kingdom.

      • tmac57 says:

        Good work Max!

      • grace says:

        Oh, now I remember. It’s the same O’leary from dublin whose Unigenetics lab was discredited due to screwing up samples of RNA from the wakefield study. Interesting. He must have tweaked his equipment to get better results for his own study.

    • James says:

      I don’t understand what there is to hash out? The evidence is in, there is no link, at all, whatsoever, period. As for being a cover up, why? What are they protecting? Profits? Look it’s big news when a vaccine hits one billion in revenue annually, and it’s mind blowing when a vaccine hits two billion annually. But let’s keep things in perspective, the statin Lipitor makes one billion A MONTH, that’s twelve times the amount of money in a lifestyle drug than in a vaccine. So what else would they be protecting?

      Also, it’s good to know that rehab therapists have the ability to contradict years of carefully considered research with just a few anecdotes from parents. Cannot be understated, good to know.

      As for the other doctors that suupport Wakefield’s study, would you include the co-authors of the study? Who then took their names off of the study after the fact?

      • grace says:

        I never stated that other doctors co-authored wakefield’s study. I stated that there are numerous doctors treating children with autism all over the country based on the same theory of gut deterioration. Autism is a medical condition. There is not enough completed research at this time to support that autism cannot be triggered by vaccines, taking into consideration birth weight the combination of different shots, timing, and whether a child may have been vaccinated while recovering from a pre-existing condition such as an undiagnosed ear infection, for example. I have been working with this population and various doctors for ten years. What credentials do you have besides spending your time arguing bunk science against space aliens, gay marriage and the paranormal? Please. I think your out of your league on this topic.

      • Cthandhs says:

        Lots of people are “studying” ghosts and acupuncture too. The reason that all these groups haven’t gotten any hard evidence is because there isn’t any.

      • Max says:

        Why do you suppose autism affects boys four times more often than girls?

        Scientists found a genetic clue, but maybe you have a better idea.
        http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1899756,00.html

      • James says:

        I’m curious to know why I’m out of my league? Apparently the only requriement to be an “expert” in this field is to have kids and an opinion. Of which I confess I have only one requirement filled, I have kids. As for my opinion, it’s irrelevant, I stand on the research that has been done, that you claim has not been done.

      • grace says:

        I never said research hasn’t been done. I don’t think the research has taking all variables into consideration, and setting up studies that give them the padded results that they are looking for. Read the Simpsonwood trials.

      • Max says:

        A Senate committee rejected the conspiracy theory, but that must mean the Senate is in on the conspiracy, right?
        http://help.senate.gov/Min_press/autism.pdf

      • grace says:

        Yes, a super source, Max. A summary of the fact that they reviewed hundreds of pages of data. So where are the links to all that data? You expect people to just take their word for it? And your into stellar science?

      • tmac57 says:

        By my count, grace, Max has posted links to 6 different sources in this thread. You on the other hand have made one questionable assertion after another without providing any links to back them up, unless I missed one. BTW, just saying read about this or that is not the same as providing a link .

      • grace says:

        Girls have more estrogen, which is linked to maintaining levels of glutathione, which assists in flushing out toxins.
        Boys levels are lower.

      • iggy grey says:

        Wow! Estrogen?

        Estrogen? “Estrogen” is a most ignorant response. It shows your lack of knowledge of some very good, basic research that went into determining the very troubling reason why males dominate the autism diagnosis.

        Estrogen? You who called out other folks on this thread for being out of their league when discussing autism, “know” estrogen’s anti-toxic flushing capabilities is the reason males dominate (by as much as 4x) autism diagnosis.

        Estrogen? Like vaccines, estrogen has nothing to do with the preponderance of males with autism.

        Let me learn you some autism research paid for by public money. The prevalence of males with autism is due to the X-link factor and, pseudo-expert, it also explains why some unlucky females get diagnosed autistic too.

        Quick Google “X-link factor” so’s you can learn you why nobody should be answering “estrogen” when discussing the preponderance of males among autism diagnoses.

      • grace says:

        I didn’t state that estrogen has “toxic flushing” capabilities. Read through what I said. I stated that glutithione has toxin flushing properties. There are many theories out there. Or is the X-factor enough a cure for you? Seems to have paid off in helping these kids so far.

      • grace says:

        Fall Defeat Autism Now!TM 2003 Conference
        *** Portland, Oregon *** October 3-5, 2003
        Impaired transsulfuration and oxidative stress in autistic children: Improvement with targeted nutritional intervention

        S. Jill James, PhD
        Oxidative Stress

        It is well-established that females have lower homocysteine levels than males. After menopause, however, the difference in homocysteine levels between sexes narrows, suggesting that estrogen regulates the rate and activity of methionine turnover and transsulfuration 35. Consistent with this possibility, females have been shown to have higher MAT activity than males in humans 36. Estrogen has been shown to increase plasma glutathione levels in a dose-dependent manner in experimental animals 37. By enhancing the activity of glucose-6 phosphate dehydrogenase, estrogen supports the regeneration of reduced glutathione from NADPH and increases antioxidant potential 38. Mitochondrial glutathione levels and antioxidant capacity have been reported to be higher in females than in males 39. Taken together, the evidence suggests that both cellular methylation capacity and antioxidant activity are higher in females than males. The increased rate of methionine transsulfuration and glutathione antioxidant activity in females may have a protective effect against the development of autism.

      • James says:

        Does being right for the wrong reasons still make you right?

        For those interested take a look:
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/8566649/Autism-Current-Theories-and-Evidence

        The gender disparity question is on page 253

        The study starts on page 245, if you don’t want to read it let me sum it up for you.

        That a disruption in three different metabolic pathways decrease the production of one of the bodies most important self-produced anitoxidants, the aforementioned GSH. Since the brain consumes 20% of the body’s oxygen and yet makes up only 2% of the body’s weight an impairment in natural anti-oxidants can lead to the brain being subject to oxidative stress. It is this oxidative stress that can be one of the major contributing factors in the development of Autism.

        So does having more estrogen in fact protect a child from autism? That’s the working hypothesis and more research is being conducted to see if whether or not this is the case. It is funny though that “toxins” were never mentioned.

        An interesting point of this Doctor’s article was when vaccines were mentioned, she goes so far as to say that mercury as a cause MAY have some biological plausibility. Of which “plausible” is the key word here, since numerous studies around the world have shown no link between thimerosal when it was IN vaccines, and no changes in autism rates when thimerosal was taken OUT of vaccines.

      • grace says:

        Thank you, James. This is the kind of info I’m looking for to read over.

      • grace says:

        FYI- check out the Cdc’s website. Even there, it admits that before thimerosol was removed from vaccines that some children may have been exposed to well over the limits required by the EPA. And those were set for adults. Also, check out the dates on when some of the thimerosol-free vaccines were approved. Some were quite a bit later than 2000. It is ridiculous to believe that it was safe to have thimerosol/ethylmercury in vaccines. It was removed from shelves for topical use well before it was removed from vaccines, when the cdc realized just how dangerous it was. After that, they wait years before recommending that it not be injected into small infants. And you put your faith in them? Their answer to all those extra junky toxic vaccines collecting on shelves…send them on over to third world countries. The article you posted above was great. It provides more evidence to the theory I was describing, and refers to “environmental toxicants” as possibly playing a significant role in genetically predisposed children. They even mention vaccines as being a “plausible” source of toxins. plausible, as in possible.

  24. Mark says:

    The gut argument would make a lot more sense to me if the vaccines were given orally, but they are not. They are injected, thereby bypassing the gut. At one year is when most parents are introducing solid foods. And it is very scary what parents are feeding kids now days. With respect to risks and benefits, vaccine benefits far outweigh the risks.

  25. Iggy Grey says:

    I got the plan to make everybody (us heartless skeptics and autism litigat…errr…activist/parents) happy.

    A recent study from Sweden found a correlation between autism and…wait for it…linoleum. Yeah! The stuff covering your autism litigator’s…errrr…advocate/parent’s kitchen, family room and bathroom floors. Your probably standing on it right now.

    It’s not all good for autism litigat…errr…activist/parents. There’s a downside to the study. It was conducted by real SCIENTISTS (snicker) independent of linoleum companies and autism litigators…errr…parents and ranting, Indigo baby birthing movie stars. Here’s the hold-your-nose-part: the scientists collected, compiled and analyzed their data using REAL SCIENTIFIC methods (roll ur eyez.)

    The astute autism litigators…errr…advocate/activist/parent/relative/friend/rehab person/disease-curing starlet will quickly note: said researchers (if they can be called that) used a sample of waaayyyy too many children (almost 5,000) and for waaaayyy too long of time (several years). Jenni McCarthy proved autism was curable using a sample size of her son in just a few months.

    Still holding your collective autism litigator…errrr…activist/advocate/FOCWA/rehab person nose? Good. Let’s pretend the Swedish study holds the tiniest bit of the water Wakefield’s vaccine conspira…errr…study does.

    Well, that’s good news for you autism litigator…errrr…activist/advocate/FOCWA/rehab person. According to the study, phthalates, chemical compounds suspected many other human sufferings, is used to manufacture linoleum!

    Now let go of your noses cuz this is the juicy part that all autism lawyers…errr…advocates/parents/ROCWA/FOPOCWA/rehab peoples care about: phthalates is produced by major OIL & CHEMICAL companies! Yes! I just writ and you just read “OIL & CHEMICAL COMPANIES!” CHA-CHING! Organizations that hold half the cash-money in the whole wide world. These companies are involved in soooo many “conspiracies” that EVERYBODY (even 99% of skeptics) knows they’re responsible for…well…everything bad…sooo…why not autism?

    I’m outta breath but here’s the plan of action I promised autism litigato…errr…activist/rich movie stars/advocates/parents/ROCWA/FOPOCWA/rehaber/affiliated victims:
    1. GET YOUR KIDS OFF THE LINOLEUM (but do not remove it from your home as it is evidence. If you don’t have linoleum get it installed pronto)
    2. GET YOUR KID ON JENNI McCARTHY’S AUTISM ENDING, MACRO-BIOTIC DIET (I realize I just wasted electrons writing this step as I’m certain your autistic child is already on Jenni’s diet)
    3. GO GIT THEM LINOLEUM PEOPLE! You’ll get richer faster and the rest of us get to vaccinate and save children from DISEASES that cripple and kill without your conspiracy static.

    Here’s a link to Scientific (snicker) American’s story:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=link-between-autism-and-vinyl

    • James says:

      Too funny man, too funny.

      • grace says:

        Yeah…Autism is a real riot.

      • iggy grey says:

        No its not the disease that’s the riot it’s the riot of people who know better cuz…cuz they just do.

        The folks that are part of the cult and not the herd. They’re the riot. They want to stop vaccinations and don’t mind killing and crippling the herd’s kidz cuz…cuz they know better than…than the herd. Just cuz `kay!

        This is all moot. Jenny proved us skeptics and the rest of herd wrong when she cured her son of autism.

        You do believe that, right? That’s all the research you should need. The cult’s got Jenny’s cure. Done. Autism’s over except for getting the money.

      • Cthandhs says:

        The solution is simple. All the anti-vaxers should go live together somewhere where their pure blooded children can be clean and autism free. The rest of us, with our filthy-blooded vaccinated kids (who are chock full of toxins) can live out the rest of our poisoned lives in peace. Which society do you think will fare better ;)

      • grace says:

        Unfortunately, I don’t take anyone who uses the word “cuz” in post responding to a medical debate. But that’s just me.

      • iggy grey says:

        Grace don’t do no agrufiying wit peeples dat uz “cuz.” Aaawwwwww SNAP! You go perfect mommy!

        Cuz why?

        Cuz she think she all scientifical and medicasious wit all dem !!!!!!!!

        Cuz she served a slice of ignant (it means ignorant grace) da size of her area code talkin’ bout estrogen. (Reduced levels of estrogen in little boyz is da reason dey is 4x more diagnosed with autism…da stoopid burns).

        Cuz she don’t git the difference between basic genome research and a “cure.” (WTF you thinkin’…oh right).

        Cuz she got all smart allecky and righteous bout a study wit just 38 patients when her cult done the same exact study with jus’ 12! (it’s not an efficiency thing grace…or…you went about the maths wrong…probably got your book sized calculator from under the leg of the kitchen table…hunted awhile then punched the big pad ‘1’…then the ‘2’…many moments and you found the subtracty button…hit it…put in ‘3’ and ‘8’…your answer had that minusy sign in front…you probably stared at it a bit and decided ‘I win!’ cuz your number of patients ’12’ was positive…yeaaaahhhh!…rush to internets).

        Cuz when she right…well we waiting for that shizzle to hizzle.

        On a side note. One of the very few countries your anti-vaxxed younglings are going to be admitted to is Mexico (other way…your thinking of the “up” country…that’s Canada!).

        Let me recommended the naturally beautiful Chiapas region. Stay a few days. Let the younglings play futbol (what we call soccer) in the streets with the little Chiapanistas.

        You’ll inoculate your children to that third world right on the U.S.’s doorstep (no…other way).

        The young ones will learn Chiapans are like their parents…very suspicious of their government when it comes to education and health.

        Good times in Chiapas. The visit will leave a lasting impression on your kids. They’ll remember you for it…may not love you for it…but you’d have made them live the Chiapan experience.

        Whoa! What am I thinking? You won’t need to drag them down to Chiapas. Tons of illegals from Chiapas (it is a very poor region) are already here. Up here, their kids play soccer (what they call futbol) with our kids. Wow! Your kids get the same experience right here! Yeaahhh! Ur the bestest mommy evah!

      • grace says:

        Seriously…you might want to get yourself involved in a study to cure whatever you have. Or whatever your on.

      • James says:

        dude!!! You are hilarious!!!

  26. superdave says:

    Grace, just how many children are born poor toxin clearing ability? what is a toxin? Are all cases of autism caused by toxins? In children susceptible to toxins, why do some develop autism earlier than when they get vaccinated? Are there any other toxins that cause autism? There are states with levels of arsenic above the approved amount (Az for one), do these states have more autism? Does the mother’s ability to clear toxins have anything to do with it? Can these toxins cross the placenta since there is no blood shared between the fetus and the mother? Which toxins cause autism? Do any not cause autism? Are there acceptable doses of some toxins?

    • James says:

      This is a question that I’ve always had when talking with proponents of Complimentary and Alterneative Medicine (CAM) what exactly is a toxin? If the “toxin” is a chemical, what are the safe levels? I would hesitate to say that I would sleep better knowing what is actually in my food or water, but I know that there is a safe limit to them.

      Further, if toxins do exist, what is the mechanism by which to get rid of them? I’ve seen everything from colonic irrigation to toxin absorbing socks. The term toxin just seems a blanket statement used to scare people to spend money they don’t have on crap they don’t need.

    • grace says:

      See Dave! your catching on! When they answer those questions with good data to back them up, then I’ll be the first one in line to vaccinate my son! Those are the questions that need to be answered! Good for you, thinker!

      • Joel says:

        I think superdave is questioning your use of the word “toxin” as a catch-all phrase.

        Pretty much everything natural or synthetic is a “toxin” at some dosage. Sodium will kill me at a certain dosage, but I need it to live. So…is it a toxin?

        Toxin is a nonspecific word used by writers trying to sell books, water purification salesmen and infomercial con artists. The word itself has become a cue for an eye roll because nobody who uses it has the gall to define it.

  27. grace says:

    My use of the word toxin relates to exposure to ethylmercury via vaccines above what is allowed by the EPA as has been the case in the cumulative number of shots, mercury from fish, mercury via dental amalgams, lead (as in every toy from china), aluminum from vaccines, high levels of mold, psych med drug residue in unfiltered tap water, chlorine, antimony-containing fire retardants, arsenic treated wood, organopesticides, formaldahyde (found in some vaccines and bedsheets, and on, and on, and on….

    • tmac57 says:

      Does Botox make your list? Beer, Wine? Msg, sugar…?

      • Max says:

        Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause birth defects, so alcohol should make the list.
        http://www.cdc.gov/features/alcoholfreepregnancy/
        “There is no known amount of alcohol that is safe to drink while pregnant.”

      • tmac57 says:

        Agreed. Also drinking large amounts will kill you. But of course there is a safe level(pregnancy aside) for use as well. The dose amount is the key(and my point), and even Botox (one of the most deadly toxins known to man), can be safely administered in the proper dose and usage, just as the “toxins” in vaccines are safe at the miniscule amounts used. Also, the purest water found on earth will also kill you if you drink too much (water poisoning). Its all about the dose.

      • grace says:

        Joel-
        you stated that the research in regards to my post has been done. Please provide the sources your talking about.

    • superdave says:

      Grace the point is that these questions are not answered because they make no sense. They are self contradictory in some cases and rely on inconsistent definitions of toxins in other cases. Merely implying that my questions made sense shows that you really have a facile understanding of these issues.

      • grace says:

        It doesn’t make sense to research the cumulative effects of vaccines in relation to current levels of compounded toxins that may be accumulating in the body given all the multiple sources in today’s society? Of course it does. I agree in isolation small doses of certain substances may not pose a problem, but it would be foolish to assume that the total effect of all of these substances are safe. Add in four live viruses injected at one time during the MMR/Chx pox vax, and insult enough to create an autoimmune response seems plausible. This is a main hypothesis within the autism community (of doctors).

      • Joel says:

        The research has been done Grace. This “MMR and Autism” stir has led to a ton of research on the subject. The community genuinely wanted to know the truth about it. So the CDC and other organizations pumped millions of dollars into the investigation.

        It turned out to be a bogus claim based on skewed data, which is unfortunate. Pinning Autism on a specific autoimmune response would have been a total win for science.

        Unfortunately, for all of us, a group of people have decided that none of the honest well controlled studies “count” because the medical research was funded by medical organizations, which they see as a conflict of interests. Who’s supposed to fund it?

      • superdave says:

        That theory sounds good in principle but it just falls apart on scrutiny. There are no toxins in vaccines, 4 antigens in one shot is actually minuscule, the immune system can handle it easily, the cumulative effects of toxins we encounter in daily life is minimal mainly because our body deals with them and they don’t accumulate. The effects that various toxic substances have in the body are not even the same, some don’t involve the immune system at all, it doesn’t make sense that they should combine in the way you suggest.

        There are specific disorders in which people have weakened immune systems and weakened liver function and these people do not become autistic any more often than people with normal liver and immune function. This is a prediction that your hypothesis makes, but it just isn’t true.

    • Tim says:

      “and on, and on, and on…”

      and that would be the point of the word “toxins,” to mean everything, anything, and nothing.

      By the way, when California about a decade ago banned mercury in vaccines it effectively disproved the link between mercury and autism. Why? Because autism rates remained the same after the ban as they were before the ban. So basically all the ban did was make vaccines more expensive since they had to use a more expensive preserving agent for the vaccines.

      Organopesticides? You realize that most plants produce their own pesticides naturally right? Most of those can be poisonous to humans, including the leaves on potatoes, right? Pesticides and genetically modified food are what make 8 billion people possible on this planet rather than 4 billion (which is the total number of people who could survive if all farming was organic.

  28. Gonzo Skeptic says:

    Just noticing that anytime the word “vaccine” makes it into a blog post there is always pages upon pages of arguments. No one is going to switch sides on this forum, and we’ve all heard all these arguments over and over again. Unless you’re actually bringing something new to the table, spend your time on something more constructive.

    • James says:

      Are you suggesting that arguments on the internet are not productive??? Psh!!!

    • tmac57 says:

      Gonzo, I share your frustration, but I think that the real target audience is the ‘lurkers’ that are on the fence. There are many more people reading these blogs than those who participate actively. It would be interesting to know how these discussions are affecting the undecided.

      • James says:

        That would be an interesting bit of information.

      • well, here’s how it’s affecting me, a first time reader:

        1. personally, thank FSM I decided not to have children.
        2. intrigued at how nasty ‘believers’ can get.
        3. fascinated by the science, lots of which I only barely understand, but it’s fun to follow it.
        4. hoping that rationality is making a comeback in America
        5. have to go, but bookmarked to return for another dose of critical thinking.
        :-)

  29. grace says:

    Your closed-minded thinking is what prevents the medical community from pushing forward and doing more research. 10 vaccines in the 80’s administered and 38 currently given, and you think all the questions have been answered. How, my friend, could all the longitudinal studies have been done to a level of satisfaction in that short amount of time. It is impossible.

    If it wasn’t for people challenging mainstream beliefs in medicine over the years, thousands of advancements would never have been made.

    Sounds like you guys are happy sitting with your head buried in the sand.

    • Cthandhs says:

      Whereas your complete “open”-mindedness would bring scientific research to a standstill. How can doctors examine not only every credible risk for every medical procedure and then move on to research every imaginary one before a product can be made available? Face the fact that it is better to live in a vaccinated society than an un-vaccinated one. Lets spend our limited resources on advancing medicine, not continuing to re-tread the same ground.

      • James says:

        Grace let me ask you a question, in an earlier post, you mentioned that you had a two year old. Now lets say that she contracted pertussis (Whooping cough) because of a loss of herd immunity since you don’t vaccinate, would your attitudes on vaccines change then? If we eliminate vaccines like some people want what’s going to happen when all these preventable deaths start occuring?

        Further, these advancements you speak of were backed up by evidence. Edward Jenner discovered the first vaccine by rubbing pus from a cowpox blister onto an open wound. This had actually been done before but Jenner is the one who proved that an immunity had been gained. With evidence that was peer reviewed. I’m curious then what would be your criteria for a totally objective study? Since the government and “Big Pharma” aren’t allowed to pay for it.

      • grace says:

        James-
        First off, I thank you for debating without being obnoxious. I appreciate it. I did state that I have a two-year old- but I never stated he hadn’t received any vaccinations. You guys always assume when someone debates vaccines that they are anti-vax. I research every shot and choose carefully, avoiding or delaying the ones that I feel are not needed at the time. My son has had the HIB and DPT (due to pertussis being on the rise and a nasty lingering disease), polio series, and first HEP B. He skipped the Prevnar, rotavirus, and HEP A. And will be getting the rest of the HEP series and split MMR before his third birthday. He will receive the Measles component last in the series, followed by the chicken pox before staring school. He never gets more than two shots combined (they usually give HIB, Heb B, Rotovirus, Polio, prevnar, and the DPT all at once during the 2, 4, and 6 month visits). I wouldn’t give myself all those shots at once, so why would I give them to my ten lb baby? My son has never had a reaction, is rarely sick, and has no allergies.

        I believe that my decision is a logical alternative to the schedule, and keeps my child safe on both sides of the argument.

        I feel that I am a good therapist, in that most would not go the extra mile to review all the information out there. I do not preach a position regarding vaccines to the families I work with, and in fact, make it a point to never mention the issue. I merely observed and listen to their stories. In being an involved therapist, I desperately want the medical community to find answers in order to alleviate the pain these kids are obviously in. It is nothing short of heartbreaking.

      • James says:

        I think at this point we are just splitting hairs.

        If you want to stagger the shots your child receives I suppose that is better than not getting any at all, but I should point out that the hypothesis advanced by the anti-vaccination community in support of staggering vaccinations is lacking credibility.

        The other problem that I have with this vaccination debate is that it is diverting resources and political will away from finding the real causes of Autism and related Autism Spectrum Disorders. Every dollar spent on trying to prove a non-existent link is money taken away from Autism research.

        Max posted like fourteen different studies proving no link between vaccines and Autism. These studies were motivated by the anti-vaccination community and took money and manhours away from real Autism research. So the scientific community is forced to fight a war on two fronts. Defending vaccines and conducting research on the causes and cures of Autism. Right now taxpayer money is being wasted on chelation therapy studies that have proven to be harmful to subjects and has little if any redeeming value to them. So when you say that you want to,”alleviate the pain these kids are obviously in” I don’t understand why you wouldn’t support an evidence based approach.

        I applaud you for noticing something and then doing some of your own research on the subject. If fact your observations are what starts science on its merry way. An observation is made, a hypothesis is generated, and then tested to see if it’s true. If it is true then before publication it is peer-reviewed and then reproduced. Only then will it be considered as valid evidence.

        What most here on this site see happening is that people such as Jenny McCarthy, Andrew Wakefield, or Jim Carrey disregard or reinterpret the evidence to fit their own agendas.

        What you interpret as “obnoxiousness” is not closed-mindedness but an intolerance of people who try to trump facts with emotion.

  30. grace says:

    See, that’s it James… people they are not involved in the autism community here a few cases where crazy intravenous chelation harmed children and they claim that it is a hokey treatment pushed by over emotion parents. If you were involved in the community or the doctors who used treatments like chelation (which by the way is hundreds of doctors nation wide), or supplementation combined with dietary intervention, you would feel differently. These aren’t witch doctor treatments, they are evidence based and monitored closely after initial bloodwork in taken. After working ten years under almost every treatment theory out there (ABA, floortime, RDI…) the kids I see who are on gluten/casein free diets and supplements make the most gains, by far. The parents I have worked with who do not believe it works or worked have either never tried it, tried it for too short a period of time, or were not strict in implementing it. The fact is, the observations the parents are making in their children coincide with the theory I described in my above posts. They see the child vaccinated, child spikes fever, child loses skills and language fairly quickly. They see intense constipation or diaherria. Craving of gluten/casein based foods, reactions to other foods, and good responses to dietary intervention.

    You say that parents who are anti-vax drain money demanding research studies, but the truth is that they would not be reacting this way if the CDC had built trust with parents by being honest. They see the CDC admit that ethlymercury given during the 90’s in vaccines was well-above the legal EPA limits, and they saw them stall years before pulling thimerosol out of vaccines, knowing of it’s harmful effects. They grandfathered in thimerosol over the years while adding over 20 extra shots to the schedule without doing research of what might happen when shots accumulate. Then you have Paul Offit supporting the schedule, who just so happens to create the vaccies he votes into the school-based schedule. A guy whose original rotavirus vaccine injured/killed around 13 kids due to being implemented with minimal research. You can’t expect parents to trust an organization who has a history of cover-up and their hands deeps in each others pockets.

    So they brought it on themselves. It’s not about emotion, it’s about common sense. When you burn someone, they don’t trust you anymore.

    • James says:

      Just when I thought we were reaching a consensus, Paul Offit gets no crediblilty because he creates vaccines. Never mind that Andrew Wakefield published his infamous study on the heels of having his non-thimerosal vaccines being patented. Patented why you might ask? To SELL them. So I don’t understand why Offit gets a mob with pitchforks while Wakefield gets a free pass and folk hero status.

      As for chelation therapy:
      http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html

      As for the government claims of conspiracy and knowing that they were causing harm. I don’t have a blinding trust of the government, under the Bush administration we have seen government blunder after government blunder. People who should have known better didn’t. Here is the critical difference, science is largely unaffected by politics. Meaning that the results of large, and controlled studies leave little room for doubt. Which is why those in the anti-vaccination community usually fund poorly controlled and small studies. Seriously, if Wakefield’s hypothesis was correct it would have been shown to be true when the number of children examined went from 8 to 8,000.

      As for the unsafe levels of mercury, it is true that they were above EPA standards, but they were below FDA and WHO standards. Certainly questionable but not exactly ringing alarm bells here. Another point I don’t understand is that when it was discovered that the mercury levels were so high the CDC recommended the removal of thimerosal as a PRECAUTION. They were doing their job in protecting the public, but somehow it’s damning evidence of malfeasance and government cover up.

      I’m not asking you to trust Paul Offit, the CDC, or even the American Government. I’m merely pointing to the evidence that is available. Forget about the government, look at the EVIDENCE. Which leads me to my last question, what do you have against evidence? It seems you’d rather take the side of everyone with an anecdote than anything else.

      Let me be clear, anecdotes are NOT evidence, and for good reason. If you can just wrap your head around the placebo effect and how powerful it can be than it should become clear why anecdotes DO NOT count as evidence.

      Lastly, and this has been repeated througout our exchange, why haven’t you posted any links to any evidence. What I find strange is that you want me to just “accept” what your saying is valid without you having any proof whatsoever. As a skeptic and critical thinker, I can’t just accept what your saying at face value, so come hard or go home.

    • Max says:

      The parents I have worked with who do not believe it works or worked have either never tried it, tried it for too short a period of time, or were not strict in implementing it.

      “If my treatment didn’t work for the patient, it means the patient did something wrong.”
      Every quack says that.

      A guy whose original rotavirus vaccine injured/killed around 13 kids due to being implemented with minimal research.

      The rotavirus kills over half a million children per year, so delays can be measured in hundreds of lives per day.

      • James says:

        I don’t know if that’s the argument that I would take, but if what you say is true where is the evidence? Can you link to the press release or whatever saying that Paul Offit helped create a vaccine that killed kids. I would also like to know if this is true, since I immediately looked to see if this was true and spend thirty minutes of my life (which I won’t get back) looking for the evidence that the rotavirus killed kids.

        I know that some years ago rotavirus vaccines were pulled becuause of a correlation between the vaccine and conditions like intessusception and Kawasaki’s disease. The only information I found was a small blurb saying that the rotavirus was not the cause.

        So if you have some info about this I know I would be interested. Plus, of interesting note is that the CDC website does NOT reccommend a rotavirus vaccine for children. Must be because there is no money in it, and couldn’t possibly be because a rotavirus vaccine in the industrialized world is of little use.

      • James says:

        The rotavirus vaccine that killed kids, not the rotavirus itself.

      • grace says:

        That’s what I said, James. Paul Offit’s original rotavirus vaccine injured children because he rushed to have it passed into the schedule with limited research. Then you go on to say that the CDC does not recommend the rotavirus vaccine in children… Are you kidding me? If you have a child then you know that it is administered at the 2, 4 and 6month appointments. So which is it? Who is right now? The AAP or the CDC? EVERY child is given the rotavirus vax unless they have a parent who demand that it not be administered. You know, the ones they scream anti-vax to…

      • James says:

        I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise, I ask for a link or some way to verify your claims of Paul Offit’s rotavirus debacle and what do I get? Absolutely nothing, well unless you count your assurances that it did happen, which I don’t.

        As for the differing views of which government acronym to follow, As Jack’s sense of bewilderment I just thought that it was of interesting note. Especially since the CDC and “big pharma” are obviously in cahoots.

        What are you saying in the last part? I think you need to clear it up. Any open minded person would see that the rotavirus vax is kind of not really necessary. Since the virus itself is essentially really bad diarrhea, which doesn’t come into play that often in the US. Overseas in remote areas of third world nations where access is remote and a trip to the nearest hospital can take days, the landscape changes. Rotavirus vax saves lives. I don’t necessarily think that you NEED to have this one if you live in an industialized nation or have quick access to medical care.

        As Jack’s sense of open mindedness though, I admit I could be missing something and so, feel free to change my mind.

        Lastly, as Jack’s growing sense of irritation, I again have to wonder what it is that you have against evidence? I challenged you to come hard or go home and your just repeating the same nonsense ad nauseum. If this is the best that you can do, you should know that Jack has a library of very interesting names to call you.

        However, if you want to keep it academic and pleasant, all I ask is that if your going to make a claim, reference your evidence here. If you can’t do that then stop posting.

      • Chris says:

        Grace:

        That’s what I said, James. Paul Offit’s original rotavirus vaccine injured children because he rushed to have it passed into the schedule with limited research.

        Paul Offit is only associated with the development of RotaTeq. He was not part of the RotaShield development.

        Please try to use only verifiable facts.

        Thank you.

  31. grace says:

    Please fill me in on who jack is. Are you referring to yourself in the third person?

  32. James says:

    The third person gimmick is from the movie “Fight Club”.

  33. James says:

    I think you need a prescription refill.

  34. Anna says:

    In the UK up to one million children are NOT vaccinated with anything. (take 7% of 70,000 annual live births and times by 18) and nearly 2 million are not vaccinated for Mumps, measles and Rubella. (Take 15% etc).

    Then take a look at the death rates.

    My unvaccinated children are more likely to die on the roads, or in a hospital (from MRSA) or even by lightening than die from these diseases. Herd immunity? What about those millions of unvaccinated children walking around? And even among the immune compromised, for whom we are supposed to vaccinate our healthy children to protect, where are their deaths from these diseases. Nearly ZERO in the UK.

    100,000 folk died of measles 100 years ago, 100 died just BEFORE vaccines. So if vaccines played any part in reducing death is was minute.

    And what about safety?

    Control groups of unvaccinated?
    No, this would be unethical.

    Use of the unvax by choice?
    No this would not be double blind?

    Placebo where the placebo is saline?
    No unethical again – placebos in vaccine studies are usually other vaccines or modified vaccines.

    Long term follow up scientific studies?
    Er no, but we have the reporting system for adverse reactions?

    Follow up studies to compare the health out comes for the vaccinated v the un vax?
    Er no.

    Liability for the pharma companies?
    No they are exempt. We all pay into a fund (USA) or tax (UK)

    Independent body to oversee?
    No, JCVI made up of industry and medical appointments in the UK mostly ‘believe’ in vaccines in the outset.

    Fair reporting of diseases and vaccines to the public?
    NO, the UK has a child health book which quotes figures for measles complications from the third world. The Measles campaign hands out a book which describes parents who don’t vaccinate as “anti-vaccine nutters.’ The media are told not to report or present anything which may upset the vaccine ‘program’

    Skeptics?
    Healthy skeptics should work both ways.

    Anna

  35. Anna says:

    I meant to write 700,000 annual births..

  36. Anna says:

    Hello Max
    Thank you for responding..

    Before vaccination in the UK for measles around 100, mostly children, died. This is not proof that the vaccine has saved 100 lives a year but illustration that to return to pre-vaccine levels, even an estimate of 100 deaths each year would be an over estimate.

    Measles mortality of 100 annually in the fifties, 500 a year in the 40’s, and 2,300 per year in the 30’s, means that mortality was dropping by 80% a decade so an estimation would be around 20 deaths from measles in the seventies and 4 deaths in the eighties and non in the nineties.

    Again, my child is more likely to die from an adverse reaction to antibiotics, with the odds being 1 in 7 million, (10 deaths a year in the UK) than from measles.

    I will remain vigilant however, and will not bring down the high fever of measles and will give vitamin A, both proven to greatly reduce complications and reduce deaths by half, respectively.