- advertisement -

Vaccines: Discredited Theory Thrown Out

Discussion in 'Other Hot Topics' started by sooz, Jun 2, 2010.

  1. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    Oh, no trap (was it? she now spends the night in anguished scruples over whether she was trying to be trapping. . . ). Still pretty lay guess. Or lame guess".

    Oh, absolutely, since washing isn't necessarily helpful for many pesticides especially, and apples certainly problematic. I just meant that people concentrate so much on washing or buying organic produce, meaning fruits and veggies, but don't often consider that grains and oils are also subject to pesticide residue.
     
  2. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    Always depends on which alien is currently in charge of my consciousness. . .
     
  3. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    Well, I saw at least one study in the list which showed that there was a case for vaccinations causing clusters of type 1 diabetes after vaccinations.

    How about a study comparing unvaccinated vs. vaccinated children? That's what is really needed. Even in the studies which claim to show no relationship, all the children were in fact vaccinated (the schedule may have been different or they may not have had a specific vaccine or similar).

    Anyone here from Australia? There was some interesting information from there... Basically, Australia had a huge push in vaccinating children and getting children children up to date, adding vaccines, etc... Then, 5 years later... the rate of type 1 diabetes in young children - under 5 - had doubled. The rate of autism also increased substantially. That would be an interesting topic to follow. Was there a connection between increased vaccines given/increased push for vaccines and ultimately an increase in type 1 diabetes and autism? I would say definitely possible but certainly someone would have to look into that much closer and chances of that being allowed to happen... slim to none.
     
  4. Becky Stevens mom

    Becky Stevens mom Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,719
    I agree Joshua! Ive started reading through the information and find it fascinating to say the least.
     
  5. Nancy in VA

    Nancy in VA Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,308
    Perspectives are one thing. Science is another. I think what this letter is saying is that just because this "doctor" has his "perspective", its not science and not fact and his "perspective" has created a problem in "science" with people not vaccinating - and the diseases are much worse than the vaccines.
     
  6. Nancy in VA

    Nancy in VA Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,308

    there was a quote in a very early episode of West Wing that fit this perfectly - post hoc ergo propter hoc. It means, "After therefore because of it". It means, because something follows something else, it was caused by something else. The thing is, it isn't usually true.

    The rate of diagnoses of these two diseases has gone up in recent years around the world. There is no increase in vaccination rates in the US - in fact, it probably has gone down. But diagnosis rates have gone up. Just because two events happened to coincide does not mean one was caused by the other.
     
  7. joshualevy

    joshualevy Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    654
    Right. A good way to illustrate this is with Pineapples. You may not know this but I can prove that Pineapples cause Autism. It's easy! Back in the 1950s people ate very few Pineapples and autism rates were very low, but in the 1970s more people ate Pineapples and the autism rates went up. Today, Pineapples are cheaper an more plentiful then every before, and consumption has gone way up and so has Autism! See? Replace "Pineapple" with anything you hate to get the same effect: Color TVs, organic food, kid's soccer, vaccines, computers. Whatever you hate, that's growing in use.

    Joshua Levy
     
  8. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    The letter is an opinion piece. Which is fine, it just as easily could have been an opinion piece from someone writing about how Wakefield was likely correct and/or how Wakefield was doing some good work in trying to figure out what was going on with children with autism who also suffered from GI problems.

    Again though, it is interesting to note that the paper which got Wakefield in trouble NEVER stated that vaccines (specifically the mmr) triggered autism. It was a call for more exploration. After the fact, he did suggest parents may want to use the single measles vaccine as opposed to the mmr vaccine. Personally, I don't see the problem with that. It makes sense to me that the way to go may be to separate the live virus vaccine... instead of combing the three diseases (measles, mumps and rubella).

    As for the "science", we really don't know the answer yet. There are plenty of indications out there that children with autism often have bowel disease/bowel problems. (Which is different from saying that ALL children with autism have bowel problems). It also happens to be that many parents have indicated that these bowel problems have correlated with that child having the mmr vaccine. It seems logical to me that studies need to be done in order to see if there is a link between the two conditions (in some children). Now, people can complain about Wakefield all they want (whatever...) but there are many other indications that show that *SOME* children may have issues with the mmr vaccine. It isn't like it is just Wakefield who came up with this crazy idea out of nowhere... just to scare poor vulnerable parents... Not at all.

    As for the comment about the diseases being much worse than the vaccine... Wouldn't that depend? I would say that for the most part that would be correct.... But if the theory is correct... (which I believe it is... yes, my opinion only...), then measles would be a better choice than severe bowel disease and/or severe autism.
     
  9. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380

    I get that just because two events coincide it does not indicate that one was caused by the other... Agree.

    It is also true that you can't say definitely say that one set of circumstances did not cause the other... It has to work both ways.

    While you say that there is no increase in vaccination rates, there has been an increase in the numbers of vaccines given to babies or specific vaccines being added to the schedule, etc.

    Nothing can be ruled "out" ... and nothing can be ruled "in" at this point. All I am saying is... it is fair to keep all options open at this point. Especially, in a case where there is some evidence of a connection.
     
  10. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    I think it's pretty clear at this point that your personal tolerance for proof in "science" (your quoting of the word seems to scoff it) is radically different that the general public's as well as the "scientists" themselves.

    You're absolutely right.

    The Sunday Times and Channel 4 investigation unearthed another shocking conflict of interest. In June 1997 - nearly nine months before the press conference at which Wakefield called for single vaccines - he had filed a patent on products, including his own supposedly "safer" single measles vaccine, which only stood any prospect of success if confidence in MMR was damaged. Wakefield denied any vaccine plans, but his proposed shot, and a network of companies intended to raise venture capital for purported inventions - including a vaccine, testing methods, and strange potential miracle cures for autism - were set out in confidential documents. One business was later awarded ?800,000 from the legal aid fund on the strength of now-discredited data which he had supplied.

    http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
     
  11. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    Which "scientists"? I have plenty of scientists/doctors who I could reference who minimally have concerns about the vaccine schedule. Many who believe that vaccines trigger autism. So, to toss out that comment about scientists as if all scientists agree with your side is just not true. Some may fall for it, I won't. As for the general public... If the general public all felt as you do... then, why the problem? Why are we even having this conversation? As you know, that isn't the case. The general public is smart enough (well many are smart enough...) to realize that things like this aren't always so black and white.

    As for the single measles vaccine question... It's interesting because at the time that Wakefield suggested the single measles vaccine (press conference after the paper was published), his suggestion was for the standard single measles vaccine - already available. He did not have a vaccine that would compete at all. He had applied for a patent for a product which if it came to fruition would help children who were having difficulty processing the mmr vaccine. I guess that doesn't matter though... When it comes to Wakefield anything he does is seen by some as horrible and dangerous and a huge conflict of interest. I have to admit to laughing at some of that... People who bring up Wakefield as so horrible and yet have no issues when Dr. Offit makes millions of dollars off his own vaccine and speaks about vaccine safety, etc. When it's Wakefield, it's horrible. When it's Offit, it's somehow ok to have conflicts of interests, etc. Why is that?

    I have always said that it is ok with me to question Wakefield. I don't have a problem with that. Even if people want to take him out of the equation for whatever reason. That's ok. Having said that, when you do so... it doesn't mean the problem with autism/immune system dysfunction/GI problems goes away... It would be great for you if it were so easy to discredit Wakefield and then have all the questions go away as well. Unfortunately, they don't... The problems remain and the questions about vaccine safety remain as well...
     
  12. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    I'm not happy with myself for getting sucked into the exact same back and forth with no hope of a conclusion but I would like to share my perception of your stance - if I may be allegorical ... I think.

    I feel you spend an extraordinary amount of time looking for weak noise within a very strong signal in order to cast doubt on an otherwise well understood broadcast.
     
  13. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    I agree with your comment in regards to getting into the same back and forth. I think that we can agree that we have differing opinions on the topic.

    As for your other comment... Please spare me. I have no desire to decipher your allegorical commentary/nonsense.
     
  14. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    Actually, I think that's a very good analogy. And I think you were trying to use it to demonstrate an attempt to understand my "side".

    To me, the question would be what is the quiet message and does it contradict the louder one, and is it actually there?

    Because I don't want to know what is loudest. I want to know what is true.


    And I would understand you scorning me if you knew with certainty that the quiet message was not there. But you don't know that it's not there, all you know is that you can't hear it. And so you conclude that it's either not there, or it's not important, and decide I have an irrational misunderstanding of how radio works. :eek:

    Of course, I've been reading a lot of Dr. Seuss lately. . . .:rolleyes:
     
  15. Snowbound

    Snowbound Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    869
  16. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
  17. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    Putting aside the obvious slant of the author of the article, this makes sense in that Wakefield is a GI doctor and the studies involved GI inflammatory diseases. Crohns would be included as well as other GI problems that may be associated more commonly with children with autism (who *may* also present with GI distress). A lot of children with autism are tested for IBD, Colitis, Crohn's, etc.... Again, to be clear, not all children with autism have this issue... but it has been found that many children DO have bowel disorders leading many to believe that there is an association between the bowel disorder and the autism.
     
  18. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    Well, all slate. . ..
     
  19. Sportsrep

    Sportsrep Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    Messages:
    51
    In the interests of fairness, it's worth pointing out that Wakefield has been struck off because he conducted his research in an unethical manner - the hearing made no comment as to the accuracy or otherwise of his findings as a result of that research, it's the methods he used which were criticised.

    That said, the two are inextricably linked because Wakefield unfortunately approached the whole research with the attitude that he had a theory and was going to prove it. He never had an open mind about what he would find, so he pushed on regardless ignoring any evidence which seemed to cast doubt on his theory.

    Consequently, no study since has been able to replicate his findings. In the broadest terms only two scenarios could account for this: a) he's a genius who's so far ahead of his time that he discovered something years before anyone else or b) his research/findings were in some way flawed. Having followed the case and studied it in some detail (I'm in the UK), I pretty sure the latter explanation is the correct one.

    Just to address a couple of specific points people have raised:

    Sue, following the publication of Wakefield?s paper in The Lancet, there was a 15% drop in the uptake of MMR. Over the same period there was a 12% increase in diagnoses of autism and autistic spectrum disorders. This would seem to rule out a direct causal link.

    Well, it?s impossible to prove a negative, but for most people the fact that no other research has come up with the same conclusions as Wakefield pretty much discredits his findings. Of course, this could all be part of some gigantic cover-up/conspiracy, but back in the real world the answer is that Wakefield was wrong all along.
     
  20. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    Do you have some evidence that he "approached the whole research with the attitude that he had a theory and was going to prove it". That sounds like an opinion... (which is fine)... but it would certainly be hard to prove intent in a situation such as that.


    We need to be very clear here. As it relates to the Lancet paper (the one which started the controversy), Dr. Wakefield NEVER stated or concluded that the mmr caused autism. That was never a finding, so what findings are you referring to? If you are talking about the findings that in some cases, children with autism DO have bowel irregularities, then I reject the notion that there have been no other studies that replicate his study. In fact, there have been other studies which found similar results. If, you are talking about his findings in regards to the mmr causing autism... Can you point out where in the Lancet paper it states that the mmr causes autism (or is definitively associated with autism)?
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice