Vaccines and Autism

[mbills2223]

Not a fan of SSRIs, SNRIs, benzos or TCAs but they have a place

 

[Cygnus]

Not a fan of SSRIs, SNRIs, benzos or TCAs but they have a place

+1

Proving once again why you are a stealth MOD.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Why would anyone take such meds while carrying......makes no sense to me.

I have a grand daughter that is pregnant and she refuses to stop smoking.

I want to throttle her. Seriously.

Very understandable. I don't know if this makes you feel any better or not, but you just don't seem old enough to have a granddaughter old enough to be pregnant or smoking either one!

 

[Dean C.]

The shots have been ruled out. Really, thay have been.
Antidepressants are generally a bad thing for pregnacy. The warnings are out in the open.
The idiot politician and the guy who faked the vaccine data ( yes faked as in study retracted and license gone) have done way more harm than good. Albiet not their intent.
Sorry folks flame away. It is my field and it pains me to see people waste their money and resources on BS treatments and Jenny Mc Carthy books.
OK back to work for me.n

Hoosire doc is right on the mark too. Although the depending on the drug......

+1 for sure, and people have to keep in mind that the rise in Autism Spectrum diagnosis can also be linked to the broadened definition of the syndrome as well more people are being diagnosed with it due to this as well. I still think anti-depresants are way over prescribed in this country and most of the psychologists I have talked to say they should be used on a shorter term basis instead of a longer term one that many people are using them for.

 

[steveh_131]

The shots have been ruled out. Really, thay have been.

Ruled out by dishonest research performed by dishonest people.

While your statement may be true, the pro-vaccines lies and propaganda muddy the waters substantially.

The idiot politician and the guy who faked the vaccine data ( yes faked as in study retracted and license gone) have done way more harm than good.

I debunked these myths in a different thread, located here.

I challenge you to back up your claims.

 

[Cygnus]

Ruled out by dishonest research performed by dishonest people.

While your statement may be true, the pro-vaccines lies and propaganda muddy the waters substantially.



I debunked these myths in a different thread, located here.

I challenge you to back up your claims.

I mean you will just debunk them. Are you also saying that not imunizing doesn't place the child and others at risk? So really the comments and links are meant to help. Not something I am going to dwell on in this venue. Just because two things are happening at the same time doesn;t mean they are causally related.

Here is a source. Again meaning to help out.

Association for Science in Autism Treatment | Search Results | vaccines


Scroll down on thisone below. A few other topics but several vaccine related. CDC, Forbes, Globe........

http://www.asatonline.org/?s=vaccines



Association for Science in Autism Treatment | What We Know about the Causes of Autism



Check out the "What works" and "what doesn't work" sections......

Association for Science in Autism Treatment | Learn More About Specific Treatments

 

[historian]

This comes to mind:

Spurious Correlations

 

[CountryBoy19]

Sorry folks flame away. It is my field and ...

Ah, yes, the "this is my job so I know every possible aspect about every possible thing remotely related to this discussion, even the things that have yet to be discovered" logic...

Lol... I don't even know what to say outside of that...

 

[steveh_131]

I mean you will just debunk them.

Very true. I will and I already did.

Are you also saying that not imunizing doesn't place the child and others at risk?

I think there is risk associated with both vaccinating and not vaccinating. I think one side of that risk is overblown to the point of hysteria and the other side is minimized to the point of burying our heads in the sand. I wrote about the hysteria here.

Just because two things are happening at the same time doesn;t mean they are causally related.

I agree. I am not convinced that vaccines play a very significant role in autism.

Here is a source. Again meaning to help out.

Association for Science in Autism Treatment | Search Results | vaccines

Scroll down on thisone below. A few other topics but several vaccine related. CDC, Forbes, Globe........

Association for Science in Autism Treatment | Search Results | vaccines

Association for Science in Autism Treatment | What We Know about the Causes of Autism

Check out the "What works" and "what doesn't work" sections......

Association for Science in Autism Treatment | Learn More About Specific Treatments

I appreciate the links. I've read much of that material already, but there is always more to learn.

Unfortunately, the sources of much of that information has been thoroughly tainted. The CDC has been caught with their pants down, blatantly lying and covering up [destroying] information about possible links between vaccines and autism. Most of the attacks on Wakefield are absurd, including yours, which you would know if you had actually read the links I provided.

Again, I can't stress enough that I am really not on the 'vaccines cause autism' bandwagon. I lean more towards a combination of genetic components and environmental toxins as a large contributor. But there are real, tangible risks to vaccines and nobody in the industry or the government will be honest about them. And perhaps there are tangible benefits to them as well, but again, nobody in the industry or government will be realistic about those either. They want to hype the benefits and lie about the risks.

 

[JettaKnight]

Ah, yes, the "this is my job so I know every possible aspect about every possible thing remotely related to this discussion, even the things that have yet to be discovered" logic...

Lol... I don't even know what to say outside of that...

When did it become more noble to be ignorant? I ask that with partial seriousness. I perceive a modern trend to question authority that's spilled over into all realms of society to the point that if someone makes a statement, just impugn them for having too much knowledge on the subject.

CountryBoy, if you told me the best way to milk a cow, should my response be, "Oh sure, like I should trust you just because you're a farmer and work with cows all day for your entire life? Fat chance!"?




I'll "hang up and listen the answer on the radio", because I don't want to get sucked back into this mess.

 

[HoughMade]

When did it become more noble to be ignorant? I ask that with partial seriousness. I perceive a modern trend to question authority that's spilled over into all realms of society to the point that if someone makes a statement, just impugn them for having too much knowledge on the subject...

Part of the issue of rejection of Truth in favor of "my truth".

 

[steveh_131]

Part of the issue of rejection of Truth in favor of "my truth".

This is not scripture. This is science. It's a melting pot of evidence, statistics, politics and agendas. The best we can do is sort it out and come to the best conclusion that we can.

Even a guy who does 'science' for a living doesn't know these answers. There are thousands of scientists who can't come to an agreement on these things.

If Cygnus wants to post up his credentials then fill us in on his investigative research into vaccines, I'll certainly listen. Popping in to say "I'm a scientist, you're wrong" is not helpful.

 

[HoughMade]

Jettaknight was speaking of a broader societal trend as was I.

As to the law, I hear it every day. People spout off about what the law "is" when what they mean is what they wish the law was....never realizing there is a profound different between the two.

 

[CountryBoy19]

When did it become more noble to be ignorant? I ask that with partial seriousness. I perceive a modern trend to question authority that's spilled over into all realms of society to the point that if someone makes a statement, just impugn them for having too much knowledge on the subject.

CountryBoy, if you told me the best way to milk a cow, should my response be, "Oh sure, like I should trust you just because you're a farmer and work with cows all day for your entire life? Fat chance!"?




I'll "hang up and listen the answer on the radio", because I don't want to get sucked back into this mess.

I think you're missing the point of my comment. First and foremost, I haven't studied this topic well enough to carry on an intelligent discussion regarding it. I'm talking merely on the topic of scientific discovery and making absolute statements regarding discoveries.

That being said, there is a VAST amount of stuff we simply don't know about the human body. We discover new cures, new health risks, new interactions, new "things" everyday. The process of discovery hasn't halted yet as far as I know. Secondary to that, it's impossible for one single person to know every single aspect of every discovery made regarding XYZ topic. Thereby, for anybody to say, "this is my field, I'm an authority on the subject, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION" is a logical fallacy. If an actual authority on the subject told me "There is no known connection" I would believe him. But if an authority says there is absolutely no connection, then he very well may be full of **** and we just don't know it yet. There is no possible way, for even an authority on a subject, to be able to know for certain that a connection will never be found.

In scientific discovery if we can without a shadow of a doubt, eliminate all the variables and account for all inconsistencies in our studies we can make reasonably certain claims likes this. But when it comes to studying the human body and how different environmental factors contribute to the human body there is no way to completely eliminate those variables to make reasonably certain claims. We can only make claims on what we currently know but I think a prudent scientist would leave the door open for future discoveries to prove current "conclusions" or claims wrong.

Get my drift now?

 

[JettaKnight]

Get my drift now?

More so.

But I think the a scientist sees that door is only the slightest bit ajar whereas others may imagine it to be half open. To the scientist, it's pointless, and even dangerous, to focus on shadow of a doubt. When people try and parse every little word, then saying, "There is no known connection" gives doubter and myth spreaders ammunition to carry on misguiding people.

I deal with this as an engineer - "well couldn't the problem be ..." or "can't we just ....", almost always the answer is no. Believe me, I thought about that possibility. After spending untold hours analyzing a problem, then having a boss come and second guess me and think he can solve the problem in 20 seconds is annoying, to say the least.

Is there times when something new is seen by the pointy haired boss? Yes, but it is few and far between. Do I know everything about my job? No, of course not. However, I know enough to do my job very competently. To try and use my ignorance as a reason to distrust me is foolish.

I try to never explicitly say, "trust me, I'm an engineer"; I'd rather let past performance do the talking. But, there's a point where you have to accept that someone knows more about a particular subject than you do and trust them. It seems the current trend is to distrust authority figures (doctors, scientist, lawyers, LEOs, etc.) as a default. I don't see that being a good practice.

For instance, if your doctor is right nine times out of ten, then you were wrong to distrust him nine times out of ten. But wait, I was right that tenth time! Sure you were and maybe you saved some time, needless procedures or something else. However, what was the cost for those other nine times to your health? Maybe you could have saved your amputated finger from gangrene if you just accepted the diagnosis the first time.


Same thing here. Sure, there might be a link, because you know, can't prove a negative. But, at what cost? Sort through this thread - there's details about the risks and consequences of avoiding vaccines.

 

[Alpo]

Ditto.

The scientific method and peer review process aren't understood very well by those outside of their communities.

And then there is the tin foil hat delegation who believe everything is a conspiracy...

 

[steveh_131]

When people try and parse every little word, then saying, "There is no known connection" gives doubter and myth spreaders ammunition to carry on misguiding people.

Yes, it's just so inconvenient for 'scientists' to be honest about it. To make fully truthful statements. Wouldn't want people thinking for themselves, now would we?

It seems the current trend is to distrust authority figures (doctors, scientist, lawyers, LEOs, etc.) as a default. I don't see that being a good practice.

For instance, if your doctor is right nine times out of ten, then you were wrong to distrust him nine times out of ten. But wait, I was right that tenth time! Sure you were and maybe you saved some time, needless procedures or something else. However, what was the cost for those other nine times to your health? Maybe you could have saved your amputated finger from gangrene if you just accepted the diagnosis the first time.

This isn't a simple matter of expertise. 99% of doctors don't spend much time investigating vaccines. Not really investigating them. Sure, they understand the immune process and they know what they have been told about how vaccines work and what they contain. Mostly they get their information from the CDC and accept it at face value. Have you ever had a vaccine discussion with a doctor? I had one with a pediatrician and he had maybe 10% of my knowledge level on them - at the most. That didn't stop him from dripping with condescension and disdain though. We found a new pediatrician, obviously.

So it all leads us back to the source - the CDC. Their own research and their analysis of pharmaceutical-funded research. And since they've been proven to be a pack of liars from the top to the bottom, what do we really know?

 

[historian]

And then there is the tin foil hat delegation who believe everything is a conspiracy...

Why do you work for the man?

 

[steveh_131]

And then there is the tin foil hat delegation who believe everything is a conspiracy...

This is no longer tin foil hat material. It has been proven that the CDC, as an organization, seeks to conceal evidence of vaccine damage. The corruption goes straight to the top. I've pointed out all of the key players and the parts they played in this corruption.

This 'tin foil hat conspiracy' is now history.

 

[Alpo]

Why do you work for the man?