Vaccines and Autism

[steveh_131]

So, do unvaccinated kids where special hats so they may be identified?

Are there separate drinking fountains?

Separate playgrounds and schools?

We already know there are not separate airplanes.

If your fear of germs is really this crippling, keep them home. You have every right to do so. You will never be able to control and/or assess the immune system function of other children. Do they eat enough vitamins? Do they eat too much sugar? Do they get enough sun? Exercise? All of these affect the immune response.

We get no science, no studies, just emotion and faith-based rantings.

See, this is silly. The OP posted an article by a woman who is, by all accounts, rather scientifically brilliant. She posited theories and explanations that were all based in science, apart from the Mennonite connection which she provided no source for (yet). I've never made a statement or an argument on INGO without providing scientific research to back it up... So who, exactly, is all of this venom directed towards? Dan Olmsted? Go complain to Age of Autism then, I'll probably back you on most of it. But don't point the finger at me; I've read and posted more scientific research and studies on the subject here on INGO than anybody else.

Steveh, I am afraid I would disregard her for scientific reasons. She is citing as evidence data obtained through statistical analysis of reporting from sources of widely variable veracity and verifiability. No peer review, and she's in the business of selling alternate cell lines not 'contaminated' with fetal toxins. A snake oil saleswoman with a PhD from Stanford is still a snake oil saleswoman, just a well educated one.

What sources of hers would you question?

Do you have a link to her alternate vaccine cell lines that she's selling? If she sells a competing project, then you're damn right to question her motives and I'm right there with you. But I'd like to see where you read that.

On the other hand, I certainly hope that you equally question the CDC and the rest of the vaccine research that we have that has almost all been influenced and/or funded by pharmaceutical companies.

We're thinking. We're asking questions. We're discussing alternate motivations. I like it. Let's just make sure that we are equal-opportunity skeptics.

 

[BugI02]

1DOWN4UP I also do not wish to make light of you situation, but as a scientist I just have a problem with this line of reasoning. I assume oyu know that ASDs are four times more likely to strike males than females. If its an immune response to toxins in vaccines why has no one postulated a mechanism for this disproportionate sexual distribution given that the likelihood of autoimmune diseases leans heavily in the other direction. As I said in an earlier post, if science cannot say for sure what is altered in the genome/physiology of an autistic child relative to a non ASD child how can they postulate a causative mechanism.

 

[Alpo]

Steveh, I am afraid I would disregard her for scientific reasons. She is citing as evidence data obtained through statistical analysis of reporting from sources of widely variable veracity and verifiability. No peer review, and she's in the business of selling alternate cell lines not 'contaminated' with fetal toxins. A snake oil saleswoman with a PhD from Stanford is still a snake oil saleswoman, just a well educated one.

A number of people on this site would probably have tremendous issue with Richard Dawkins, DS-Oxford, on his view of God, yet a single other scientist from Stanford is reliable?

The issue with non-vaccination is the potential that disease will spread that otherwise might not have a survivable vector. The greatest risk is to children who have not yet reached an age where vaccinations are indicated.

 

[steveh_131]

She presents her science in the article. If you disagree on any point, let's discuss it. Her credentials only show me that her thoughts on the subject are worth discussing. Not that she is infallible.

If he had posted an article written by Jenny McCarthy then yes, he would deserve the spiteful responses that he has received.

 

[halfmileharry]

A number of people on this site would probably have tremendous issue with Richard Dawkins, DS-Oxford, on his view of God, yet a single other scientist from Stanford is reliable?

The issue with non-vaccination is the potential that disease will spread that otherwise might not have a survivable vector. The greatest risk is to children who have not yet reached an age where vaccinations are indicated.

Figured in Collateral damage...

 

[BugI02]

Steveh, this is right out of the article linked by the OP:

" She is also founder of AVM Biotechnology, which is dedicated to the discovery, development, and commercialization of safe, effective,[my edit: Begging the question] and ethical stem cell technologies for regenerative medicine, oncology, and fully human biologics."

and:

"Therefore, we undertook a survey of as many countries as possible where autism and vaccine information was accessible and accurate [My Edit: Whose criteria were used to declare the information accurate?]. Across decades and across continents there is an association between the use of fetal manufactured vaccines and autism."

To me that reads we took data from many disparate locations, reporting systems and time periods, decided they were accurate and drew conclusions from them, all without peer review.

Some of us did read the article

 

[Alpo]

I did a little background research on Dr. Theresa Deisher, PhD. She appears to be a credible scientist in her own field, adult stem cell research. Perhaps there is a mild conflict of interest between what she studies and the status quo. Just a thought.

 

[steveh_131]

First of all, none of that indicates to me that she is selling anything that directly competes with modern vaccines. Yes, she's in the business of biotech. Everybody knowledgeable on this subject is.

As to her research, let's dig it up and read it. Maybe it's nonsense. If only we were all so skeptical of the proven liars at the CDC who purposely hide data that is inconvenient for vaccine interests.

 

[Alpo]

As Bug said, if her research on the subject has been peer-reviewed and published, it might be worth a read. Otherwise, it's opinion, not science.

 

[BugI02]

First of all, none of that indicates to me that she is selling anything that directly competes with modern vaccines. Yes, she's in the business of biotech. Everybody knowledgeable on this subject is.

As to her research, let's dig it up and read it. Maybe it's nonsense. If only we were all so skeptical of the proven liars at the CDC who purposely hide data that is inconvenient for vaccine interests.

The point I was speaking to, Steveh, is that she is seeking to raise doubts about the safety of the cell lines currently used in vaccine research while developing a competing product line. this is where I might see conflict of interest

 

[Kirk Freeman]

rather scientifically brilliant.

Great, she's brilliant. So brilliant that she understands endnotes.

Can I get that Mennonite study now? You know, what the OP asked about.

If he had posted an article written by Jenny McCarthy then yes, he would deserve the spiteful responses that he has received.

No one is being spiteful. Just pointing out the complete lack of evidence. That's not spite, it's science.

 

[halfmileharry]

The point I was speaking to, Steveh, is that she is seeking to raise doubts about the safety of the cell lines currently used in vaccine research while developing a competing product line. this is where I might see conflict of interest

I'm basically clueless in any of the vaccine area but I took it as she's trying to eliminate the bad and save the good in the vaccines.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm basically clueless in any of the vaccine area but I took it as she's trying to eliminate the bad and save the good in the vaccines.

Sure, you have an accurate characterization of her motive, but this article is less than optimal for the OP's inquiry.

 

[halfmileharry]

Sure, you have an accurate characterization of her motive, but this article is less than optimal for the OP's inquiry.

I see any research as a positive step. Even a tiny breakthrough can lead to life altering find. Baby steps are better than sitting on one's arse.

 

[17 squirrel]

Also........keep it civil boys and girls. People are starting to stare.

This seems to be a hot button for some of you and I get that.

Not me Boss......,. Shakin the bush Boss,.,., Shakin the bush.....

 

[17 squirrel]

This has really fell apart.My son has had every vaccination in which a child is required to have.I am not antivac. As the autism no.increase every year,at some point the cause will be found.Than the greedy lawyers will have a field day. If any scraps are left,mabye the children will get more help. My wife who was in perfect health,NEVER smoked,NEVER drank, asks herself every day what she did wrong. Now a niece has just found her son has it. Laugh if you all must,but this problem stares me in the face every day.

I sir am not laughing at you, if I offended you in any way,
I do apologize, Squirrel.

 

[steveh_131]

The point I was speaking to, Steveh, is that she is seeking to raise doubts about the safety of the cell lines currently used in vaccine research while developing a competing product line. this is where I might see conflict of interest

This is a gigantic field. Where did you read that she was developing something that specifically competes with modern vaccines?

Great, she's brilliant. So brilliant that she understands endnotes.

Endnotes? Did you read this article? It's an interview. Not a research paper.

No one is being spiteful. Just pointing out the complete lack of evidence. That's not spite, it's science.

Your first reply was spiteful and condescending by any standard.

Otherwise, it's opinion, not science.

Of course it's opinion. It's an interview. Her opinion interests me, given her credentials. But I'd need to see the research to form any conclusions on it.

But she sounds like a smart lady, and my only point has been that it's a bit silly to take a **** on the OP here for posting it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Your first reply was spiteful and condescending by any standard.

No it wasn't. Don't be foolish.

Pointing out the history of this nonsense is not spite, it is the truth. The truth is never spiteful.

Endnotes? Did you read this article? It's an interview. Not a research paper.

And endnotes can be put into an interview. You know, for science.

 

[steveh_131]

No it wasn't. Don't be foolish.

Pointing out the history of this nonsense is not spite, it is the truth. The truth is never spiteful.

Your opinion can be delivered kindly. Especially with a topic that was clearly upsetting to him.

And endnotes can be put into an interview. You know, for science.

Yeah. So many interviews out there with endnotes.

This was her expert opinion. Nothing more. She has the credentials to be allowed to offer one, and we can consider it for what it is without crapping on someone for posting it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Your opinion can be delivered kindly.

It was. If you are reading more into it, then you are projecting again.

The Mennonite nonsense is clearly nonsense.