Great. You should be a person to look into this.
In your research did you sit down and talk with any families who feel their child was vaccine-damaged? Its interesting because many have documented evidence of developmental milestones being met before the MMR shots and then suddenly the kids fall back and never recover.
“Feel” has nothing to do with it. Families are free to feel whatever they want, and it doesn’t affect reality in the least. The hypothesis that vaccines cause autism been tested way more than it needs to be in order to come to conclusion that they do not. Talking to families about what they feel is not in any way relevant or helpful and is not how science is (or should be) done.
The rise of AIDS came suddenly after the proliferation of home computer usage, and I can feel that personal computers cause AIDS as much as I want, but it doesn’t make it true.
It always seems strange to me that people who don’t agree with scientific consensus bring up “Hey, go actually *ask *people and find out their stories!” as a better option.
Who do you think studies actually look at? In essence a lot of studies are actually “Hey, go talk to these actual people”… except instead of talking to some it’s hundreds or thousands or more. Taking documented evidence from hundreds or thousands or more. Behind every participant number in a study is an actual person with an actual family and with a real life.
The correct question to ask, Urbanredneck, is; why aren’t you willing to listen to them? Why are you shutting your ears to these incredibly numerous people telling you their stories?
How about “vax-hole”?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you ever going to address the responses to your own OP?
I’ve heard such stories. The common thread is correlation (often very feeble, with changes noted weeks to months after vaccination) with no good evidence of causation.
Have you in your research ever sat down and talked to parents whose children were injured or killed by vaccine-preventable diseases?
I can’t be further bothered to respond to someone who is only interested in proselytizing as opposed to responsive discussion.
And you’ve had it explained several times why that’s the case: because you’re spreading dangerous myths and propping up dangerous misinformation, and when called on it, you’ve piled it on higher and higher rather than either addressing any complaints or retracting your position. In fact:
If you had finished reading the post you quoted, you would have seen pretty much the exact same message.
Then why are you propping up a movie which is not “vax-cautious” but very explicitly antivaccine?! Why do you cite Health Impact News and Mercola, two sites which are most certainly not “vax-cautious”, but rather explicitly antivaccine? Why aren’t you fact-checking any of this crap you throw up on a forum dedicated to fighting ignorance? Why do you make us do the incredibly cursory and simple task of getting to the bottom of these claims, something you easily could have done yourself and saved yourself the embarrassment and us the frustration? Why, and lean in real close, because this is the important one, why are you ignoring the strong scientific consensus surrounding vaccines?
That’s why we call you anti-vax. Because, fundamentally, the same problems apply. You don’t want to examine the science. You believe in insane conspiracy theories and fake authorities uncritically but ignore real expert opinion and solid evidence. You refuse to vaccinate your children on time for no justified reason, raising the risk of infection for the general population.
It’s like the difference between a guy whose psychosis leads to him beating his wife and a guy whose psychosis turns him into Ted Bundy - same root cause, awful results in both cases, and now we’re supposed to give you credit because you’re not as bad as the people who wrote “Melanie’s Marvelous Measles”? Like I said, your group, the “vax-cautious”, also encompasses such luminaries as Jenny McCarthy. So at least you’re in good company.
In the interest of fighting ignorance, there’s already a name for this: Vaccine hesitancy. It was coined a while back to differentiate between the people who refuse and will always refuse and it’s a waste of time, money and resources even trying to educate them, and the people like this (and me, once upon a time) who have doubts, but are open to further education, may request alternate schedules, accept some vaccines and refuse others, or who would vaccinate if the vaccines were more convenient, cheaper, etc.
Antivaxxers are a plague and the only way of fighting them is by mandating vaccination. Vaccine hesitant people can be reached by other means.
So if you don’t like mandatory vaccination, blame the antivaxxers.
Nice little graphic representation of the vaccine hesitancy spectrum here: http://nobleresearch.org/Content/CurrentIssues/3/Oct_2015/2053-1273.2015-4/ci_images/2053-1273.2015-4_Figure-1.png
And the WHO report on vaccine hesitancy here: http://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/vaccine_hesitancy/en/
More accurate would be ‘plague starters’.
Not sure about that, the OP here has not posted sources that are hesitant about it, but full blown anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.
I was going to make a long post to explain how the sources you keep can make a conspiracy theorist worse, but this Cracked article points to good sources and reasons why one should indeed clean the bookmarks one has. The article is about a former 9/11 truther, and about the reasons why he fell for the conspiracies, it applies a lot to the anti-vaccine CTs.
Yes, to me there is a big contradiction when claiming to be vax-cautious and in the end the poster relies on full blown anti-vacine conspiracy theories/sources.
Autism is a spectrum disorder and so is kind of a catch-all thing. The only likely cause I’ve seen of some cases has to do with Autoimmune diseases in the mother and mutations in the X chromosome, that’s why more boys have autism than girls. If you are a boy and you get a damaged X chromosome from your mother that’s it, if you are a girl you have an extra X chromosome which apparently protects you. Its thought that 25% of cases of Autism are Maternal Auto-antibody related Autism. These mothers often have autoimmune diseases like lupus or rheumatoid arthritis and they have antibodies in their blood, Gamma Immunoglobulin that pass through the placenta and change the course of development of the fetal brain.
I also have two daughters. The oldest is autistic, and the youngest is not.
Both were fully vaccinated according to the standard schedule.
My anecdote therefore cancels out yours. This is why we have science, to look at large enough numbers to draw legitimate conclusions. ALL of the science disagrees with you.
I think there are also possible environmental causes or they are inter-related. It seems like men especially are sensitive to chemicals and such in the environment and the damages it cause, things like phthalates in plastics which are endocrine disruptors and basically acts as estrogen in the male body, you also have people having children later in life which has associations with higher autism diagnoses.
The reason people think vaccines are related even though its been repeatedly proven not to be, is because often the vaccine and the diagnosis comes within weeks of each other, but if those parents were to go back and look at the child’s behavior, stimming, lack of eye contact, delayed speech development they would see the symptoms were already present at a very young age.
Here is a study related to the Autoimmune thing I was talking about, pregnant monkeys were injected with these antibodies and sure enough their offspring had a lot of the same symptoms, a sort a asocial monkey form of autism.
This is a Warning that you need to leave personal insults in The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Cite?
Is it possible science has left something out when everything is done in controlled laboratory settings and is reduced to just numbers and data? Maybe their is something missing when a researcher just stays in their lab with their computers, books, and testing equipment.
You can also look at school records or even the families home videos and you see a clear before and after distinction. So say a kid was hitting developmental milestones such as speech and physical activity one day and then loses those shortly after getting their 15 month vaccinations. Wouldn’t that be evidence of something happening?
Evidently you haven’t even read about any of these studies, because that’s not how these studies work. Many of these studies are results of studying the medical records of thousands of real-world children, comparing those who received MMR vaccines vs. those who did not.
Anything is possible. Is it likely that someone will uncover this oversight with their feelings and intuition? That is far less likely than science overlooking a major side effect of vaccines like autism.
