Retracted Autism study declared a fraud

[basketcase]

It is telling that webguy has not really been able to argue a connection between autism and vaccines. He has argued that mercury sounds scarry.

There have been no scientific studies linking autism to MMR or vaccines in general (including ones with mercury) despite hundreds of studies being done. The only one that did has either been completely discreditied as an oportunist fraud (unless you beleive that hundreds of thousands of people around the world have been a part of some huge pharma conspiracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Recent_research


I know a study that I would like to see done.

I would hypothesize that rates of autism diagnoses will be higher in non-vaccinated children that in vaccinated ones.

My reasoning is that parents refusing vaccines are likely the same parents who are over-involved in their children's lives and and therefore far more likely to get the 'slightly strange' child properly diagnosed (of course this study will be bashed as a conspiracy of big pharma too).


Of course it is worth noting that Wakefield is responsible for a massive uptick in both measles and mumps in the UK and measles is once again considered endemic to the British population.

 

[landscaper]

The disputed study never should have been published, the sample size was far to small to statistically prove anything. The accusation is that he shopped for his subjects which also is a no-no. The fact that it was not double blind should also have gotten it deep sixed prior to publication. There was a loud dissent to the publishing for these reasons, ignoring the shopping alleghation.

At present there is no credible study that shows the current vaccine regimen for children is dangerous, the mercury volume for preservation was and is so miniscule that it is doubtful it would have any effect on a child, as has been pointed out there is more mercury in a can of tuna.

The really big bottom line here is how many children have not died as result of the diseases that the vacinations cover off? millions, billions? That is the net benefit to the vacinations.

If thatwebguy wishes to believe that there is a boogie man in the bottle he can feel free to do so....

 

[blackrock13]

I love these arguments.

Fact 1: large numbers of people who normally don't get immunized got the H1N1 shot
Fact 2: flu rates were lower than normal

Possible conclusion 1: the flu was overhyped
Possible conclusion 2: the much larger than normal body of immune people prevented the flu from spreading

It is difficult to prove one hypothesis over the other with absolute certainty

Fact 3: there was a very low incidence of severe adverse reactions to the vaccine

Conclusion 3: getting the vaccine has a strong potential to benefit society as a whole with an extremely minimal risk. Why not get the shot?

The real danger is that some will read the comments from members like North pole and believe them. His comments in post in post #22 has half truth and misdirections.

Originally posted byNorthpole;

"Its ok to deny being biased. The numbers clearly show that the vaccine has had little to no effect on the number of deaths from flu versus previous years where no mass vaccination campaign occured. BTW 5 deaths have been linked to what flu? - there are hundreds of varieties to choose from. As well fluff lines like "Case numbers this year are down because of the concerted heavy effort last year" is total bullshit, there are many other more legitimate reasons case numbers are down - how about climate factors not supporting flu propagation for one.''

also

"The simple fact is there is no evidence to support flu vaccination. Even the vaccine creators admit the vaccines are only partly effective, as low as 30% effective, further there is an insufficient testing time frame - all this is hardly a statistical leg to stand on when ordering 50million doses of vacine, of which only 15million were distributed, estimates are there were only 12 million vaccinated anyway."

So.........

This years seasonal 2010-11 vaccine has begun shipping from manufacturers and protects against an H3N2 virus, an influenza B virus, and the 2009 H1N1 virus specifically unlike last year. As of mid Dec 2010, about 90 per cent of the flu cases in Canada so far this season are from the H3N2 strain, which has circulated in the country before and is covered in this year’s vaccine. About 9 per cent of cases are from the swine flu or H1N1, and that, too, is covered in the vaccine. Case numbers this year are down because of the concerted heavy effort last year.



The figure 30% represents the low ball figure of effectiveness of the total group include the least effected group of middle age healthy males. The effectiveness of the vaccines in one very large and sensitive group, the elderly, is 70-90%. The fact that only 12 to 15 million inoculations were given out of a pool(?) of 50 million eventually available, gets filed under 'so what' as the ones left will be used eventually in short order and you don't need anywhere near 100 % of the population with a 100% effective vaccine (which no one says or expects to exist). Normally, something in the range of 30% effective and 30% penetration is good enough to stop most influenza type infection. In Canada we had almost 50% penetration giving a very sound barrier against the spread of the virus. any second student of epidemiology or immunology knows this.

When NP states 5 deaths, he's talking in Toronto alone and expectation are that it hasn't peaked yet.

Summary of FluWatch Findings for the Week ending December 11, 2010; http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/fluwatch/10-11/w49_10/index-eng.php

* During week 49, the overall influenza activity in Canada increased from the previous week, particularly in regions across the Prairies, Ontario and Quebec.
* The proportion of positive influenza specimens reported during week 49 has increased over last week with 323 specimens out of 3,000 (10.8%) testing positive of which 96.6% are influenza A and 3.4% influenza B. Of the positive influenza A tests subtyped, 94% are influenza A/H3N2 and 6% are pandemic H1N1 2009.
* Both the number of paediatric and adult hospitalizations with influenza reported through IMPACT and CNISP surveillance systems have increased during week 49 compared to the previous week.

That's for one week alone.

There are also only 3 virus (A,B,C) that cause influenza and only ~10 variants of those, not the 100s claimed by NP in post #22.

 

[blackrock13]

Now I am certain you don't know what you are talking about. My comments are not misleading or half truths. Further, there are not 3 Viruses - A, B, C are type/genus classifications - pick up a book on virology at the U of T book store and read up on classification and subtypes. The information you are looking for is not readily found on the web in any decent format.

Fluwatch - which you aren't even aware - compiles INFLUENZA LIKE sympoms stats, incase you didnt know ILI means influenza like illness. The stats are junk for the purposes of this debate and for anything to do with a vaccine.

You are being lurred into false protection, with the disguise of "why not, it can't hurt." There is plenty of evidence of the former, and none of the later. I'm just saying wake up, the coffee is doped, stop drinking it.

If you are of the mindset to think that we need a pill or a vaccine for everything that can make us sick in this world, then I have to question why you think thats the case, and would further suggest to you that your education has failed you and you aren't aware of what the human body is capable of and you've succumbed to marketing that induces fear.

Why are you afraid to get the flu - do you think you'll die? Its highly unlikely. The flu itself doesnt really kill, its some underlying disease state that the flu or other illness helps make worse.

BTW don't you have original thoughts of your own, your entire post is blatant copy any paste from websites - perhaps this is why you believe the flu hype.

Here's some general reading.
http://vran.org/about-vaccines/spec...ectiveness-of-flu-shots-wildly-overestimated/
Read the reference articles too.

I'm not afraid of getting sick and certainly are not a pill poppers. If you paid attention I've said exactly the opposite about pills in previous posts. As far a getting sick from whatever, I'm very fortunate, but I have to play on the side of caution, not for me as for others I come in contact with. For what ever reason my genes or epigene are such that I don't get sick as much from whatever is going around compared to others.

As far as cutting and pasting informations, it's the fastest way to get the info into the posts as scanning and posting textbooks and reference books i have on the self is a little trickier. I'm well aware of the limits of sites like Fluwatch, but it's what is available to others on the BB and not requiring passwords or account to access.

A quick boo at your reference shows graphs such as this one;

http://www.vaclib.org/images/scaled_US-Flu-1900-2002.gif

vaclib
That one shows a decrease of influenza death since the turn of the century. DUH! Since then, we've had access to a vaccine in large amounts and generally have had a number of major innoculation programs, since the early 30's, oddly enough just before the outbreak of WWII. tie that in with the large increase in the population over 65 since the turn of the century and the numbers skew. The amount of information contained will take time to look at, but i would expect a whole lot of selective fluff from a sight called 'Vacination Liberation' and contains a whole lot of holistic alternative medical information.

The other information tries to muddy the water by tying Pneumonia and influenza when doing the calculations.

I do understand about the finer points of the nomenclature of viruses and could prattle on about the systematics of same, but I try to keep some things simple for the benefit of others.

From this point it appears to be a discussion similar to the snow tire debate; you either believe the science or you don't. Apparently you don't.

 

[Greekstar]

Re: big pharma and vaccines - if there was so much money in them why don't they really want to make them?
There's a lot more money in cures than prevention.
For all those who want their kids go vaccine free than let them. They can pay for treatment and hospitalization of their children out of their own pockets.

Anyone want to take bets on the return of polio in a big way?
Got a nice crisp 50 here!

 

[landscaper]

Re: big pharma and vaccines - if there was so much money in them why don't they really want to make them?
There's a lot more money in cures than prevention.
For all those who want their kids go vaccine free than let them. They can pay for treatment and hospitalization of their children out of their own pockets.

Anyone want to take bets on the return of polio in a big way?
Got a nice crisp 50 here!

Small pox would be a better bet. Polio still occurs in areas of the world where vaccination programs are sketchy

 

[alexmst]

How about doctors being aware enough about it to diagnosine it? Up until about 15 years ago, all except for the most extreme cases of ASD were just "that weird kid".

I don't buy into that explaination. It would expalin some increase, but not the rates we are seeing. There must be some environmental factor affecting the kids in the womb - 20 years from now it will probably be discovered. For now all we can do is wonder/speculate.

 

[basketcase]

Someone posted info about a study on autism where they kept the criteria to diagnose autism the same as they were decades ago and found no increase in autism.

Perhaps there are environmental factors that we don't understand yet but all of the studies done have found no evidence of this.


On the contrary, studies are starting to find genetic links.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/183267 (2007)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080110144835.htm (2008)
http://www.smh.com.au/world/genetic-link-to-autism-found-20100610-y0lq.html (2010)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...r-incidence-of-autism-in-boys/article1709177/ (2010)

 

[larry]

I don't buy into that explaination. It would expalin some increase, but not the rates we are seeing. There must be some environmental factor affecting the kids in the womb - 20 years from now it will probably be discovered. For now all we can do is wonder/speculate.

I'm not sure how you can leap from "we don't know" to "it must be environmental". Could it be anything else? Do you suggest lots of money be spent on your idea or should we ask scientists for some plausible ideas? next...liberation theeory. we don't know so it must be blood flow!!!

 

[Aardvark154]

studies are starting to find genetic links.

From personal knowledge, seemingly (at least in Asperger's syndrome), there is a connection.

 

[blackrock13]

I think the proper interpretation of the graph is that there has been no significant decrease in deaths due to mass vaccination.

There was no mass vaccination program from the 50s to 80s the first was in the 90s, there was prior experimentation but nothing on the scale of what we saw in the 90s or even close to 2008/9.

The science of flu vaccines is very questionable, its guesswork and poorly understood technology being rolled out en masse.

When the science is cooked why would you believe it? You can no longer afford to believe science that has been corrupted by commercial interests.

I think we have forgotten the original purpose of a vaccine was to prevent death or substantial harm from illness, not something to take every year for the rest of your comercially useful life.

As for autismn and vaccines, theres no known hard link, but there must be something that inspired the notion - launch of whooping cough vaccines and a rise in autism by over 1000%. Maybe they are related maybe not. Science today has this issue that it thinks everything that statistically spikes around the same time *IS* related, which is very limiting. Vaccines however are under alot of scrutiny and there are direct links with reduced intelligence and reduced brain function.

While Dr.Wakefield seems to have been a real fool, but its more apparent that he was woed by commercial interest.

Good science has almost been thrown out the window. Be very wary of what you read.

PS: I don't read all of your posts - that would take way to long - so I have no clue what you do or your views on pills.

PPS: Not sure what the snow tire debate was, but snow tires work only in the right conditions, simliarly for all seasons and summers. We don't need tires, we need levitation.

I suspect we are roughly the same age and I don't know what province you were going to school in, but I got the full set of shots from the beginning to the end of my schooling. Especially since we lived most of my life in a part of the country that got hit very heavily by the flu and lost a couple of family members to it. Combine that with the fact that the family had a number of medical professionals in it and to not do so would have been thought of as foolish. That may have made my parent puck shy for things like that, but it must have worked as their children didn't miss much school because of illness. After I graduated, they started phasing out the programs.

As for the science being cooked, I feel that's open for debate. What the vaccination program have done is kept the massive peaks from materializing as they did in the early years of the 20th centuries. If you can gauge/guess what's coming, you can prepare. If you let nature take its course, that when the system breaks down and spikes worsen.

 

[blackrock13]

You are a perfect example that few people are smart enough to be swayed or educated by the arguments of others. Those who have the anti-vaccination, anti-medicine, natural alternative therapy mindset often have it founded in a conspiracy theory mindset and anything you say is seen as furthering that conspiracy.

I'm certainly not as some perceive. I generally believe in western medicine, but won't let it run roughshod over me and mine, often holding it to task when things don't jive. My recent posts on not getting effective MRI and challenging over medications would show that. I've told my doctor that I won't blindly believe everything he says and he's fine with that. I also have been treated by practitioners of traditional and homeopathic medicines at various points in time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it's just another way of getting to the same destination and ultimate discovery. I'm more open minded than many people.

 

[larry]

... Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't ...

you're funny. your very statement indicates that it doesn't work. i hope you're using your own money to eed these scammers. and not mine.

 

[blackrock13]

you're funny. your very statement indicates that it doesn't work. i hope you're using your own money to eed these scammers. and not mine.

To admit that it doesn't work simply means it doesn't find the answer right off the top. That's no different than western medicine. If you don't a cure or relief you try another approach.

 

[blackrock13]

Good strategy as we really have to be our own advocate.

But you LOST me on the homeopathy! What a joke THAT bullshit is! Do you still believe in it? If so, have a listen to this guy.

I have faith in some aspects of homeopathy, just not all the claims. How many of you have been served chicken soup by your nana and been told it's good for you. It is! Many natural ingredients are basis for many modern meds; think Willow bark, Quinine, Sassafras, Plantain, before big pharma get their hands on it. I've been offered and taken local medicines when in third world countries with no medical help with in a 100 miles for topical relief or if my bowels or stomach are in revolt. I don't remember many failures. The jury still out on the laying on of hands, but it sure does gets my attention.

I have great respect for James Randi in a lot of his work.

 

[fuji]

There is plenty of evidence of the former, and none of the later.

There's reams of data on the effectiveness of flu vaccines. I've noticed that in your posting you have been fairly innumerate. There are indeed cases of people who fall ill from receiving a flu shot, but they are so extraordinarily rare that they are overwhelmed by the many more people who are helped by it.

Yes, most people who die from a flu are people who have already been weakened in other ways--but those are people who weren't going to die that day if they didn't get a flu.

Moreover, even among the survivors of the flu there are people who become seriously ill and suffer permanent scarring to their lung tissue as a result of a flu illness. These are often younger, otherwise healthy people, who subsequently suffer life long complications from their flu illness. These people outnumber those who are sickened by the flu shot.

It boils down to whether more people will be helped by running a flu shot program, or hurt, and it's overwhelmingly and inconceivably in favour of administering the shot, despite your few and far between "I know of a guy who" innumerate stories.

 

[fuji]

Homeopathy is much different than natural medicine

Yes. There are good reasons to believe that a natural medication could be effective. Quinine occurring naturally in some plant is still quinine. Maybe some natural medicine has an as yet unknown agent in it that is beneficial--there is a sound rational framework for understanding how natural medicines COULD be effective. OK, so many of them turn out to be snake oil and useless--but at least it's plausible to want to investigate them, and find out whether there is some value there.

With homeopathy you're diluting stuff in water to the point where it's not even conceivable that any of it remains in the water. There is some witch doctor voodoo propagated that there are "structures" in the remaining water molecules and other bullshit like that. Stuff that has no viable scientific basis, has never shown itself effective in any properly controlled study, and so on.

At the end of the day homeopathy is a giant piece of wool being pulled over the eyes of sheep who have been brainwashed into thinking that drug companies are bad because they are profit seeking. Oh yeah, and that will be $100 for your "homeopathic" vial of water please, but hey, your homeopathic "doctor" wears birkenstock sandals, and takes a "wholistic approach", so he's obviously not profit motivated--it's only bad drug companies that try and make money off patients.

 

[odie999]

Stuff that has no viable scientific basis, has never shown itself effective in any properly controlled study, and so on

(skip if you don't like rants)

They do have a theory that explains why it works. the standard theory of the woo-woos - the psychics and the the fortune tellers and all the rest. Quantum-chaos-kinetic-genetic somef*ck bullcr*p they think makes them sound smart. And the woo-woos actually DO think "quantum" is a magic pixie dust word that will explain all their bull if they spread it around thick enough. Remember "the Secret" ?

Actually, if homeopathic remedies really worked ...

If they worked, I would NOT give a flying f*ck if there's a theory that explains it. "It works, I'll use it" I believe some doctors started washing their hands long before germ borne diseases were verified. There was no real theory to explain why it worked.

But that's the point, ain't it? homeopathy doesn't WORK. IT DON'T DO NO FRICKING NUffiN. Some moron who was about to get better ON HIS OWN, because cancer sometimes goes away on its own, because sometimes insomnia just goes away by itself, THAT moron took the homeopathy at just the WRONG time, and now there's no power on earth that will show him

IT DIDN'T DO NO FRICKING NUffiN. It was a coincidence. That's the reason scientists use "control groups" - the "placebo group" and the "nothing group". That's one reason double blinded is better than no control, no blinding. That's one reason triple-blinding is better than double.

 

[fuji]

If the vaccine worked, the flu would be very rare

False. You lose the argument right there.

 

[Bella Italiana]

OMG!! I don't believe this for a second. WHAT a load of garbage! It's apparent that the Food/Drug Industry don't want to take any accountability at the same time making money off of this. I KNOW FOR A FACT that there are ligitimate cases where Innoculations had caused Autism with the murcury that is IN them.... There have been cases where Autism and Pervasive Developement Disorder have been cured by changing diet. Taking away the foods/chemicals in their diets that cause hyperactivity...good reads from Kevin Trudeau, or Karen Seroussi.