Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
maciymommieof3
Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?
November 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM

 

 

November 10, 2012
Follow us on Twitter Become our friend on Facebook

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?

  digg  
Pin It

child receiving vaccine Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?

 

 

by Vera Sharav
Alliance for Human Research Protection

 

The Centers for Disease Control issued an alarming report: 1 in 88 US children are afflicted with autism-an increase of 25% between 2006-2008.

 

On March 29, 2012, the US Centers for Disease Control reported startling evidence: the number of children diagnosed with autism in the United States increased 25% between 2006 and 2008. The autism rate jumped from 1 in 100 (2006) to 1 in 88 children (2008).  The autism rate is even higher for boys: one in 54 compared to girls, one in 252.

 

This CDC report was featured as headline news throughout the media-but not The New York Times, which buried the CDC news report on page A20.

 

Yesterday, The Times published on its front page an article under the headline, "Scientists Link Gene Mutation To Autism Risk," reporting that three teams of  scientists found several rare spontaneous gene mutations in a few individuals with autism whose father was over age 35. The scientists suspect that such gene mutations may result in a 5 to 20 times higher risk of developing autism.

 

The scientists' reports were published in NATURE-abstracts accessible: herehere and here

 

"The gene mutations are extremely rare and together account for a tiny fraction of autism cases, suggesting that the search for therapies will be a long one, and that what is loosely known as autism may represent a broad category of related but biologically distinct conditions. There are likely hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rare mutations that could disrupt brain development enough to result in social and developmental delays."

 

If rare gene mutations are suspected to be the cause of  5% to, at most, 20%  autism, it leaves the most important questions unanswered:
What about the cause of autism in 80%  (possibly 95%) of autistic children unanswered?

 

To date, only the MMR vaccine and mercury in vaccines have been studied.

 

With so many millions of children affected by autism-and the spiraling increase in that number-shouldn't scientists take seriously the eye witness reports by thousands of parents who blame vaccines for triggering autistic spectrum in their previously healthy children?

 

There is a pressing need to examine without prejudice whether the vaccine-autism association is valid by comparing  autism (and other health) outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children.

 

Why is such an obviously necessary research approach so contentious and, therefore, neglected?

 

Whose financial investments are threatened by an analysis of data comparing the health of children vaccinated with those not vaccinated?

 

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/841/9/

 

Unvaccinated Children Madness

By J.B. Handley
Age of Autism

 

Dan Olmsted: Has the government ever looked at the autism rate in an unvaccinated U.S. population, and if not, why not?

 

Julie Gerberding: In this country, we have very high levels of vaccination as you probably know, and I think this year we have record immunization levels among all of our children, so to (select an unvaccinated group) that on a population basis would be representative to look at incidence in that population compared to the other population would be something that could be done.

 

But as we're learning, just trying to look at autism in a community the size of Atlanta, it's very, very difficult to get an effective numerator and denominator to get a reliable diagnosis.

 

I think those kind of studies could be done and should be done. You'd have to adjust for the strong genetic component that also distinguishes, for example, people in Amish communities who may elect not to be immunized (and) also have genetic connectivity that would make them different from populations that are in other sectors of the United States. So drawing some conclusions from them would be very difficult.

 

I think with reference to the timing of all of this, good science does take time, and it's part of one of the messages I feel like I've learned from the feedback that we've gotten from parents groups this summer (in) struggling with developing a more robust and a faster research agenda, is let's speed this up. Let's look for the early studies that could give us at least some hypotheses to test and evaluate and get information flowing through the research pipeline as quickly as we can.

 

So we are committed to doing that, and as I mentioned, in terms of just measuring the frequency of autism in the population some pretty big steps have been taken. We're careful not to jump ahead of our data, but we think we will be able to provide more accurate information in the next year or so than we've been able to do up to this point. And I know that is our responsibility.

 

We've also benefited from some increased investments in these areas that have allowed us to do this, and so we thank Congress and we thank the administration for supporting those investments, not just at CDC but also at NIH and FDA.
*  *

 

I'm sure Julie Gerberding had a point with her answer, for the life of me I don't know what it was.

 

Not to be outdone, Dr. Paul Offit recently got into the act with his own perspective on studying unvaccinated children (at least he concedes the studies don't exist):

 

"No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines."

 

Health care seeking behavior? Ethics of studying kids who haven't gotten vaccines?

 

Let me get this straight: we have the most complex and raging health epidemic amongst our kids in modern times, and no plausible explanation for cause from the mainstream authorities. Meanwhile, we have tens of thousands of case reports of kids regressing into autism after vaccination, but it's just too complicated and unethical to study unvaccinated kids?

 

"Health care seeking behavior" is the notion that parents who do not vaccinate their children may be less inclined to seek an autism diagnosis if there is a problem with their child's development. Fair enough, that MAY be true. But, in a well-designed study that issue could be dealt with in a very straightforward way: you independently evaluate every single kid for neurological disorders. Would that be expensive? Yes. Would it be thorough? Yes. Would it mitigate any issues related to health seeking behavior? Yes.

 

It's also interesting to consider a study completed by the CDC and published in Pediatrics, Children Who Have Received No Vaccines: Who Are They and Where Do They Live? The study noted:

 

"Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75,000, and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children."
And, it continues:

 

"Why do some parents avoid vaccinating their children? Our results indicate that parents of unvaccinated children are much more concerned about vaccine safety than are parents whose children receive 1 vaccine dose. In a survey of parent's beliefs and practices regarding vaccinations and autism, siblings in families in which there was an autistic child were 3 times more likely to be unvaccinated, compared with siblings in families in which there was a child with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In response to concerns about the perceived risk of autism resulting from vaccinations, parents might have avoided having their sons vaccinated at a higher rate than their daughters, as a result of knowing that they have risk factors for autism and knowing that the rate of autism is 4 times greater for boys than for girls."

 

What are the chances that white, upper middle-class families with an annual income in excess of $75,000 who are very concerned about vaccine safety don't pursue an autism diagnosis if their child is exhibiting the signs of autism? Probably close to nil, but science can still account for that.

 

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/unvaccinated-children-madness.html

 

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children: Some Data are In and They are Disturbing

By Maria  D.  Majewska
Age of Autism

 

While  in western countries  government officials  and their corporate sponsors  aggressively  resist conducting the studies comparing health of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children , such studies have been, in fact, conducted in Africa.   Below is the abstract of one such study from Guinea-Bissau, which  shows doubling of   mortality rate among infants vaccinated with a single  dose  of DTP vaccine, and more than quadrupling after the second and third dose.    VAERS data also show high infant mortality in the US  after DTP vaccination (much higher than from pertussis, diphteria and tetanus together,  hence  it  is clear that DTP vaccine is  harming more children than saving.  In the EU,  there is a relatively high incidence of pertussis (more than 20 000 per year), but  total mortality due to this disease was  4 in 2009.   At the same time, infant  mortality index in western EU  countries  is 2 or 3 times lower than in the US.  These data speak for themselves.

 

Int J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr;33(2):374-80.

 

The introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine and child mortality in rural Guinea-Bissau: an observational study.

 

Aaby PJensen HGomes JFernandes MLisse IM.

 

Bandim Health Project, Apartado 861, Bissau, Guinea-Bissau. psb@mail.gtelecom.gw

 

Comment in:

 

Int J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr;33(2):381.

 

Abstract

 

BACKGROUND: and objective Previous studies from areas with high mortality in West Africa have not found diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine to be associated with the expected reduction in mortality, a few studies suggesting increased mortality. We therefore examined mortality when DTP was first introduced in rural areas of Guinea-Bissau in 1984-1987. Setting Twenty villages in four regions have been followed with bi-annual examinations since 1979.

 

SUBJECTS: In all, 1657 children aged 2-8 months. Design Children were weighed when attending the bi-annual examinations and they were vaccinated whenever vaccines were available. DTP was introduced in the beginning of 1984, oral polio vaccine later that year. We examined mortality for children aged 2-8 months who had received DTP and compared them with children who had not been vaccinated because they were absent, vaccines were not available, or they were sick.

 

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mortality over the next 6 months from the day of examination for vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

 

RESULTS: Prior to the introduction of vaccines, children who were absent at a village examination had the same mortality as children who were present. During 1984-1987, children receiving DTP at 2-8 months of age had higher mortality over the next 6 months, the mortality rate ratio (MR) being 1.92 (95% CI: 1.04, 3.52) compared with DTP-unvaccinated children, adjusting for age, sex, season, period, BCG, and region. The MR was 1.81 (95% CI: 0.95, 3.45) for the first dose of DTP and 4.36 (95% CI: 1.28, 14.9) for the second and third dose. BCG was associated with slightly lower mortality (MR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.30, 1.33), the MR for DTP and BCG being significantly inversed. Following subsequent visits and further vaccinations with DTP and measles vaccine, there was no difference in vaccination coverage and subsequent mortality between the DTP-vaccinated group and the initially DTP-unvaccinated group (MR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.44).

 

CONCLUSIONS: In low-income countries with high mortality, DTP as the last vaccine received may be associated with slightly increased mortality. Since the pattern was inversed for BCG, the effect is unlikely to be due to higher-risk children having received vaccination. The role of DTP in high mortality areas needs to be clarified.

 

Replies

  • SuDoNim
    by SuDoNim
    November 16, 2012 at 9:54 AM

    How could one contract smallpox from the vaccine when the vaccine was made with the cowpox virus, not the smallpox virus?

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I've read a ton of medical journals.  If you go way back you'll find an article from a British doctor showing that smallpox deaths were 10 times higher among the vaccinated (if they got smallpox from the vaccine) than patients who got smallpox and were not vaccinated.  

    Quoting LindaClement:

    There are thousands of journal articles describing thousands of research projects published every year. You have not, I promise, looked at 'everything' the 'vaccinating community' (whoever that may be) has to offer. 

    Most non-vaxers don't understand statisical risk. If they did, the last thing they would EVER do with their precious children is let them ride in a car.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I, and many I know, have looked at everything the vaccinating community has to offer, and found it wanting.  The scientific data simply doesn't back it up, when you look at the big picture, which is how I came to the conclusions I have.  You are correct, many don't look at anything that opposes their views, on both sides of the spectrum, regardless of the topic at hand.

    I agree there's a death grip on that study, but I disagree that it is the nonvaxers whose hands are gripping it.  Most nonvaxers had never even heard of Wakefield before making their decisions.

    Quoting LindaClement:

    I've been having this argument for 20 years. There IS so much more out there that the anti-vax crowd WILL NOT LOOK AT.

    Their beliefs are practically religious, they will not examine what they're talking about at all unless the conclusions agree with their standing position.

    The death grip on that discredited study is appalling to watch, from a medical standpoint or an ethical one.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    Have you seen anyone, when asked about the link between vaccines and autism, ever post anything not related directly to the MMR vaccine?  That's what I'm talking about.  There's so much more out there that people (on here and elsewhere) are completely ignoring.




  • kailu1835
    November 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM

    Only because parents started refusing the vaccine for their children.

    http://whale.to/a/mcbean.html (chapter 2 deals with the smallpox vaccine)

    Some highlights:

    The following chart shows the comparison between Mexico with its sparse population of 16,500,000 (1930 figures approx.) and British India with its dense, congested population (300,000,000 approx.) In spite of the disease breeding conditions of India’s cities with inadequate sanitation, nutrition and housing facilities and the polluted water, lack of sewers, extreme heat, etc., the smallpox death rate is far lower than that of completely vaccinated Mexico.

    Sir Thomas Chambers, Q.C.M.P., recorder of the city of London said:

    "I find that of the 155 persons admitted to the Smallpox Hospital in the Parish of St. James, Piccadilly, 145 had been vaccinated."

    In Marylevore Hospital 92 per cent of the smallpox cases had been vaccinated.

    Marson’s report of Highgate Hospital for 1871 states that, "of the 950 cases of smallpox, 870 (90%) of the whole number of patients had been vaccinated."

    At Hempstead Hospital, up to May 13, 1884, out of 2,965 admissions for smallpox, 2,347 had been vaccinated.

    After these vaccination epidemics, more and more people refused to comply with the unjust vaccination laws and as a result of this and the improvements in sanitation and nutrition, smallpox took a drop and continued to decline until it is rarely seen at the present time.

    "In 1942 one case of smallpox at Seindon (Britain) resulted in the vaccination of a large number of people. Only three cases of smallpox occurred and these all recovered, but 12 vaccinated individuals died from inflammation of the brain. (This is a common after effect of vaccination.) In the same year near Edinburg, Scotland, eight people died of smallpox (six of which had been vaccinated) while ten died from the effects of the vaccination. .

    Here we see that at the time when nearly all (96.5%) of the babies were vaccinated, smallpox caused almost 4,000 deaths in that 10 year period; but, when the vaccinations were resisted until only 39% would submit to it, the death-rate dropped down to only 1.4 cases.  Before the passage of England’s compulsory vaccination law in 1853, the highest authentic smallpox death-rate was only 2,000 for any two year period, even during their most serious smallpox epidemics; whereas, after almost 20 years of compulsory vaccination there occurred the most devastating scourge of smallpox in 1870 to 1871 that the world has ever known. It took 23,062 lives in England and Wales and spread over Europe in all the countries where vaccination and inoculation had been practiced on a large scale. After that the vaccination laws were enforced even more rigidly until the people began to notice that smallpox was not decreasing by this practice but continued to ravage the homes of the vaccinated. During the same epidemic in Germany 124,948 people died of smallpox. All had been vaccinated (according to their carefully kept records.) "In Berlin alone no less that 17,038 persons had smallpox after vaccination, and 2,884 of them died."

    In Sheffield, England where 97 per cent of her 200,000 inhabitants had been thoroughly and frequently vaccinated for many years a smallpox epidemic swept the city in 1887 that caused 7,101 cases and 648 deaths.

    Preceding this, the large manufacturing town of Leicester, (England) which had been even more thoroughly vaccinated up to the time of the 1870 epidemic was the hardest hit of all the communities with over 3,500 deaths per million in the first year of the epidemic. This completely destroyed their faith in vaccination and the rich and poor alike rejected it and adopted sanitation with the result that smallpox epidemics were soon eliminated from that city.


    Quoting LindaClement:

    Now, with smallpox completely wiped out, that's a LITTLE hard to believe.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I've read a ton of medical journals.  If you go way back you'll find an article from a British doctor showing that smallpox deaths were 10 times higher among the vaccinated (if they got smallpox from the vaccine) than patients who got smallpox and were not vaccinated.  

    Quoting LindaClement:

    There are thousands of journal articles describing thousands of research projects published every year. You have not, I promise, looked at 'everything' the 'vaccinating community' (whoever that may be) has to offer. 

    Most non-vaxers don't understand statisical risk. If they did, the last thing they would EVER do with their precious children is let them ride in a car.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I, and many I know, have looked at everything the vaccinating community has to offer, and found it wanting.  The scientific data simply doesn't back it up, when you look at the big picture, which is how I came to the conclusions I have.  You are correct, many don't look at anything that opposes their views, on both sides of the spectrum, regardless of the topic at hand.

    I agree there's a death grip on that study, but I disagree that it is the nonvaxers whose hands are gripping it.  Most nonvaxers had never even heard of Wakefield before making their decisions.

    Quoting LindaClement:

    I've been having this argument for 20 years. There IS so much more out there that the anti-vax crowd WILL NOT LOOK AT.

    Their beliefs are practically religious, they will not examine what they're talking about at all unless the conclusions agree with their standing position.

    The death grip on that discredited study is appalling to watch, from a medical standpoint or an ethical one.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    Have you seen anyone, when asked about the link between vaccines and autism, ever post anything not related directly to the MMR vaccine?  That's what I'm talking about.  There's so much more out there that people (on here and elsewhere) are completely ignoring.





  • kailu1835
    November 16, 2012 at 1:52 PM

    The original was cowpox.  Later versions were smallpox.

    Quoting SuDoNim:

    How could one contract smallpox from the vaccine when the vaccine was made with the cowpox virus, not the smallpox virus?

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I've read a ton of medical journals.  If you go way back you'll find an article from a British doctor showing that smallpox deaths were 10 times higher among the vaccinated (if they got smallpox from the vaccine) than patients who got smallpox and were not vaccinated.  

    Quoting LindaClement:

    There are thousands of journal articles describing thousands of research projects published every year. You have not, I promise, looked at 'everything' the 'vaccinating community' (whoever that may be) has to offer. 

    Most non-vaxers don't understand statisical risk. If they did, the last thing they would EVER do with their precious children is let them ride in a car.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I, and many I know, have looked at everything the vaccinating community has to offer, and found it wanting.  The scientific data simply doesn't back it up, when you look at the big picture, which is how I came to the conclusions I have.  You are correct, many don't look at anything that opposes their views, on both sides of the spectrum, regardless of the topic at hand.

    I agree there's a death grip on that study, but I disagree that it is the nonvaxers whose hands are gripping it.  Most nonvaxers had never even heard of Wakefield before making their decisions.

    Quoting LindaClement:

    I've been having this argument for 20 years. There IS so much more out there that the anti-vax crowd WILL NOT LOOK AT.

    Their beliefs are practically religious, they will not examine what they're talking about at all unless the conclusions agree with their standing position.

    The death grip on that discredited study is appalling to watch, from a medical standpoint or an ethical one.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    Have you seen anyone, when asked about the link between vaccines and autism, ever post anything not related directly to the MMR vaccine?  That's what I'm talking about.  There's so much more out there that people (on here and elsewhere) are completely ignoring.





  • LindaClement
    November 16, 2012 at 1:56 PM

    Which peer-reviewed journal is this research study published in?

    As I have already said: I do not care what some author's opinion is. Research --checked by experts in the field for methodology and data accuracy.

    Or, just stop quoting the priests...

    Quoting kailu1835:

    Only because parents started refusing the vaccine for their children.

    http://whale.to/a/mcbean.html (chapter 2 deals with the smallpox vaccine)

    Some highlights:


    The following chart shows the comparison between Mexico with its sparse population of 16,500,000 (1930 figures approx.) and British India with its dense, congested population (300,000,000 approx.) In spite of the disease breeding conditions of India’s cities with inadequate sanitation, nutrition and housing facilities and the polluted water, lack of sewers, extreme heat, etc., the smallpox death rate is far lower than that of completely vaccinated Mexico.

    Sir Thomas Chambers, Q.C.M.P., recorder of the city of London said:

    "I find that of the 155 persons admitted to the Smallpox Hospital in the Parish of St. James, Piccadilly, 145 had been vaccinated."

    In Marylevore Hospital 92 per cent of the smallpox cases had been vaccinated.

    Marson’s report of Highgate Hospital for 1871 states that, "of the 950 cases of smallpox, 870 (90%) of the whole number of patients had been vaccinated."

    At Hempstead Hospital, up to May 13, 1884, out of 2,965 admissions for smallpox, 2,347 had been vaccinated.

    After these vaccination epidemics, more and more people refused to comply with the unjust vaccination laws and as a result of this and the improvements in sanitation and nutrition, smallpox took a drop and continued to decline until it is rarely seen at the present time.

    "In 1942 one case of smallpox at Seindon (Britain) resulted in the vaccination of a large number of people. Only three cases of smallpox occurred and these all recovered, but 12 vaccinated individuals died from inflammation of the brain. (This is a common after effect of vaccination.) In the same year near Edinburg, Scotland, eight people died of smallpox (six of which had been vaccinated) while ten died from the effects of the vaccination. .

    Here we see that at the time when nearly all (96.5%) of the babies were vaccinated, smallpox caused almost 4,000 deaths in that 10 year period; but, when the vaccinations were resisted until only 39% would submit to it, the death-rate dropped down to only 1.4 cases.  Before the passage of England’s compulsory vaccination law in 1853, the highest authentic smallpox death-rate was only 2,000 for any two year period, even during their most serious smallpox epidemics; whereas, after almost 20 years of compulsory vaccination there occurred the most devastating scourge of smallpox in 1870 to 1871 that the world has ever known. It took 23,062 lives in England and Wales and spread over Europe in all the countries where vaccination and inoculation had been practiced on a large scale. After that the vaccination laws were enforced even more rigidly until the people began to notice that smallpox was not decreasing by this practice but continued to ravage the homes of the vaccinated. During the same epidemic in Germany 124,948 people died of smallpox. All had been vaccinated (according to their carefully kept records.) "In Berlin alone no less that 17,038 persons had smallpox after vaccination, and 2,884 of them died."

    In Sheffield, England where 97 per cent of her 200,000 inhabitants had been thoroughly and frequently vaccinated for many years a smallpox epidemic swept the city in 1887 that caused 7,101 cases and 648 deaths.

    Preceding this, the large manufacturing town of Leicester, (England) which had been even more thoroughly vaccinated up to the time of the 1870 epidemic was the hardest hit of all the communities with over 3,500 deaths per million in the first year of the epidemic. This completely destroyed their faith in vaccination and the rich and poor alike rejected it and adopted sanitation with the result that smallpox epidemics were soon eliminated from that city.


    Quoting LindaClement:

    Now, with smallpox completely wiped out, that's a LITTLE hard to believe.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I've read a ton of medical journals.  If you go way back you'll find an article from a British doctor showing that smallpox deaths were 10 times higher among the vaccinated (if they got smallpox from the vaccine) than patients who got smallpox and were not vaccinated.  

    Quoting LindaClement:

    There are thousands of journal articles describing thousands of research projects published every year. You have not, I promise, looked at 'everything' the 'vaccinating community' (whoever that may be) has to offer. 

    Most non-vaxers don't understand statisical risk. If they did, the last thing they would EVER do with their precious children is let them ride in a car.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I, and many I know, have looked at everything the vaccinating community has to offer, and found it wanting.  The scientific data simply doesn't back it up, when you look at the big picture, which is how I came to the conclusions I have.  You are correct, many don't look at anything that opposes their views, on both sides of the spectrum, regardless of the topic at hand.

    I agree there's a death grip on that study, but I disagree that it is the nonvaxers whose hands are gripping it.  Most nonvaxers had never even heard of Wakefield before making their decisions.

    Quoting LindaClement:

    I've been having this argument for 20 years. There IS so much more out there that the anti-vax crowd WILL NOT LOOK AT.

    Their beliefs are practically religious, they will not examine what they're talking about at all unless the conclusions agree with their standing position.

    The death grip on that discredited study is appalling to watch, from a medical standpoint or an ethical one.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    Have you seen anyone, when asked about the link between vaccines and autism, ever post anything not related directly to the MMR vaccine?  That's what I'm talking about.  There's so much more out there that people (on here and elsewhere) are completely ignoring.






  • lancet98
    November 16, 2012 at 1:58 PM


    Quoting gammie:

    Sorry I haven't read all your post but heard that religious groups that do not believe in vaccines have very low or no cases of Autism?


    That has been proven to be complete bull.

     

  • kailu1835
    November 16, 2012 at 2:03 PM

    I originally found most of this information in very old medical journals that I don't have access to anymore.  You obviously did not read the link, since there are sources all through it.

    Quoting LindaClement:

    Which peer-reviewed journal is this research study published in?

    As I have already said: I do not care what some author's opinion is. Research --checked by experts in the field for methodology and data accuracy.

    Or, just stop quoting the priests...

    Quoting kailu1835:

    Only because parents started refusing the vaccine for their children.

    http://whale.to/a/mcbean.html (chapter 2 deals with the smallpox vaccine)

    Some highlights:


    The following chart shows the comparison between Mexico with its sparse population of 16,500,000 (1930 figures approx.) and British India with its dense, congested population (300,000,000 approx.) In spite of the disease breeding conditions of India’s cities with inadequate sanitation, nutrition and housing facilities and the polluted water, lack of sewers, extreme heat, etc., the smallpox death rate is far lower than that of completely vaccinated Mexico.

    Sir Thomas Chambers, Q.C.M.P., recorder of the city of London said:

    "I find that of the 155 persons admitted to the Smallpox Hospital in the Parish of St. James, Piccadilly, 145 had been vaccinated."

    In Marylevore Hospital 92 per cent of the smallpox cases had been vaccinated.

    Marson’s report of Highgate Hospital for 1871 states that, "of the 950 cases of smallpox, 870 (90%) of the whole number of patients had been vaccinated."

    At Hempstead Hospital, up to May 13, 1884, out of 2,965 admissions for smallpox, 2,347 had been vaccinated.

    After these vaccination epidemics, more and more people refused to comply with the unjust vaccination laws and as a result of this and the improvements in sanitation and nutrition, smallpox took a drop and continued to decline until it is rarely seen at the present time.

    "In 1942 one case of smallpox at Seindon (Britain) resulted in the vaccination of a large number of people. Only three cases of smallpox occurred and these all recovered, but 12 vaccinated individuals died from inflammation of the brain. (This is a common after effect of vaccination.) In the same year near Edinburg, Scotland, eight people died of smallpox (six of which had been vaccinated) while ten died from the effects of the vaccination. .

    Here we see that at the time when nearly all (96.5%) of the babies were vaccinated, smallpox caused almost 4,000 deaths in that 10 year period; but, when the vaccinations were resisted until only 39% would submit to it, the death-rate dropped down to only 1.4 cases.  Before the passage of England’s compulsory vaccination law in 1853, the highest authentic smallpox death-rate was only 2,000 for any two year period, even during their most serious smallpox epidemics; whereas, after almost 20 years of compulsory vaccination there occurred the most devastating scourge of smallpox in 1870 to 1871 that the world has ever known. It took 23,062 lives in England and Wales and spread over Europe in all the countries where vaccination and inoculation had been practiced on a large scale. After that the vaccination laws were enforced even more rigidly until the people began to notice that smallpox was not decreasing by this practice but continued to ravage the homes of the vaccinated. During the same epidemic in Germany 124,948 people died of smallpox. All had been vaccinated (according to their carefully kept records.) "In Berlin alone no less that 17,038 persons had smallpox after vaccination, and 2,884 of them died."

    In Sheffield, England where 97 per cent of her 200,000 inhabitants had been thoroughly and frequently vaccinated for many years a smallpox epidemic swept the city in 1887 that caused 7,101 cases and 648 deaths.

    Preceding this, the large manufacturing town of Leicester, (England) which had been even more thoroughly vaccinated up to the time of the 1870 epidemic was the hardest hit of all the communities with over 3,500 deaths per million in the first year of the epidemic. This completely destroyed their faith in vaccination and the rich and poor alike rejected it and adopted sanitation with the result that smallpox epidemics were soon eliminated from that city.


    Quoting LindaClement:

    Now, with smallpox completely wiped out, that's a LITTLE hard to believe.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I've read a ton of medical journals.  If you go way back you'll find an article from a British doctor showing that smallpox deaths were 10 times higher among the vaccinated (if they got smallpox from the vaccine) than patients who got smallpox and were not vaccinated.  

    Quoting LindaClement:

    There are thousands of journal articles describing thousands of research projects published every year. You have not, I promise, looked at 'everything' the 'vaccinating community' (whoever that may be) has to offer. 

    Most non-vaxers don't understand statisical risk. If they did, the last thing they would EVER do with their precious children is let them ride in a car.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I, and many I know, have looked at everything the vaccinating community has to offer, and found it wanting.  The scientific data simply doesn't back it up, when you look at the big picture, which is how I came to the conclusions I have.  You are correct, many don't look at anything that opposes their views, on both sides of the spectrum, regardless of the topic at hand.

    I agree there's a death grip on that study, but I disagree that it is the nonvaxers whose hands are gripping it.  Most nonvaxers had never even heard of Wakefield before making their decisions.

    Quoting LindaClement:

    I've been having this argument for 20 years. There IS so much more out there that the anti-vax crowd WILL NOT LOOK AT.

    Their beliefs are practically religious, they will not examine what they're talking about at all unless the conclusions agree with their standing position.

    The death grip on that discredited study is appalling to watch, from a medical standpoint or an ethical one.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    Have you seen anyone, when asked about the link between vaccines and autism, ever post anything not related directly to the MMR vaccine?  That's what I'm talking about.  There's so much more out there that people (on here and elsewhere) are completely ignoring.







  • LindaClement
    November 16, 2012 at 2:07 PM

    'Very old' often = 'long ago discredited'

    I asked for research studies. You link to more anti-vax propaganda... again. I am really not prepared to read secondary source material, because it is unconvincing and a waste of time.

    Clearly, this is never going to work.

    Your claim that there are 'lots of studies' against the safety and efficacy of vax is unsupported by your argument.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I originally found most of this information in very old medical journals that I don't have access to anymore.  You obviously did not read the link, since there are sources all through it.

    Quoting LindaClement:

    Which peer-reviewed journal is this research study published in?

    As I have already said: I do not care what some author's opinion is. Research --checked by experts in the field for methodology and data accuracy.

    Or, just stop quoting the priests...

    Quoting kailu1835:

    Only because parents started refusing the vaccine for their children.

    http://whale.to/a/mcbean.html (chapter 2 deals with the smallpox vaccine)

    Some highlights:


    The following chart shows the comparison between Mexico with its sparse population of 16,500,000 (1930 figures approx.) and British India with its dense, congested population (300,000,000 approx.) In spite of the disease breeding conditions of India’s cities with inadequate sanitation, nutrition and housing facilities and the polluted water, lack of sewers, extreme heat, etc., the smallpox death rate is far lower than that of completely vaccinated Mexico.

    Sir Thomas Chambers, Q.C.M.P., recorder of the city of London said:

    "I find that of the 155 persons admitted to the Smallpox Hospital in the Parish of St. James, Piccadilly, 145 had been vaccinated."

    In Marylevore Hospital 92 per cent of the smallpox cases had been vaccinated.

    Marson’s report of Highgate Hospital for 1871 states that, "of the 950 cases of smallpox, 870 (90%) of the whole number of patients had been vaccinated."

    At Hempstead Hospital, up to May 13, 1884, out of 2,965 admissions for smallpox, 2,347 had been vaccinated.

    After these vaccination epidemics, more and more people refused to comply with the unjust vaccination laws and as a result of this and the improvements in sanitation and nutrition, smallpox took a drop and continued to decline until it is rarely seen at the present time.

    "In 1942 one case of smallpox at Seindon (Britain) resulted in the vaccination of a large number of people. Only three cases of smallpox occurred and these all recovered, but 12 vaccinated individuals died from inflammation of the brain. (This is a common after effect of vaccination.) In the same year near Edinburg, Scotland, eight people died of smallpox (six of which had been vaccinated) while ten died from the effects of the vaccination. .

    Here we see that at the time when nearly all (96.5%) of the babies were vaccinated, smallpox caused almost 4,000 deaths in that 10 year period; but, when the vaccinations were resisted until only 39% would submit to it, the death-rate dropped down to only 1.4 cases.  Before the passage of England’s compulsory vaccination law in 1853, the highest authentic smallpox death-rate was only 2,000 for any two year period, even during their most serious smallpox epidemics; whereas, after almost 20 years of compulsory vaccination there occurred the most devastating scourge of smallpox in 1870 to 1871 that the world has ever known. It took 23,062 lives in England and Wales and spread over Europe in all the countries where vaccination and inoculation had been practiced on a large scale. After that the vaccination laws were enforced even more rigidly until the people began to notice that smallpox was not decreasing by this practice but continued to ravage the homes of the vaccinated. During the same epidemic in Germany 124,948 people died of smallpox. All had been vaccinated (according to their carefully kept records.) "In Berlin alone no less that 17,038 persons had smallpox after vaccination, and 2,884 of them died."

    In Sheffield, England where 97 per cent of her 200,000 inhabitants had been thoroughly and frequently vaccinated for many years a smallpox epidemic swept the city in 1887 that caused 7,101 cases and 648 deaths.

    Preceding this, the large manufacturing town of Leicester, (England) which had been even more thoroughly vaccinated up to the time of the 1870 epidemic was the hardest hit of all the communities with over 3,500 deaths per million in the first year of the epidemic. This completely destroyed their faith in vaccination and the rich and poor alike rejected it and adopted sanitation with the result that smallpox epidemics were soon eliminated from that city.


    Quoting LindaClement:

    Now, with smallpox completely wiped out, that's a LITTLE hard to believe.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I've read a ton of medical journals.  If you go way back you'll find an article from a British doctor showing that smallpox deaths were 10 times higher among the vaccinated (if they got smallpox from the vaccine) than patients who got smallpox and were not vaccinated.  

    Quoting LindaClement:

    There are thousands of journal articles describing thousands of research projects published every year. You have not, I promise, looked at 'everything' the 'vaccinating community' (whoever that may be) has to offer. 

    Most non-vaxers don't understand statisical risk. If they did, the last thing they would EVER do with their precious children is let them ride in a car.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I, and many I know, have looked at everything the vaccinating community has to offer, and found it wanting.  The scientific data simply doesn't back it up, when you look at the big picture, which is how I came to the conclusions I have.  You are correct, many don't look at anything that opposes their views, on both sides of the spectrum, regardless of the topic at hand.

    I agree there's a death grip on that study, but I disagree that it is the nonvaxers whose hands are gripping it.  Most nonvaxers had never even heard of Wakefield before making their decisions.

    Quoting LindaClement:

    I've been having this argument for 20 years. There IS so much more out there that the anti-vax crowd WILL NOT LOOK AT.

    Their beliefs are practically religious, they will not examine what they're talking about at all unless the conclusions agree with their standing position.

    The death grip on that discredited study is appalling to watch, from a medical standpoint or an ethical one.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    Have you seen anyone, when asked about the link between vaccines and autism, ever post anything not related directly to the MMR vaccine?  That's what I'm talking about.  There's so much more out there that people (on here and elsewhere) are completely ignoring.








  • gammie
    by gammie
    November 16, 2012 at 2:10 PM

    Really what medical journal did you read that? I would like to look it up.

    Quoting lancet98:


    Quoting gammie:

    Sorry I haven't read all your post but heard that religious groups that do not believe in vaccines have very low or no cases of Autism?


    That has been proven to be complete bull.



  • kailu1835
    November 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM

    So let me take a different tack....

    From the New England Journal of Medicine:
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb022994

    Quote:

    Disappearance was facilitated, not impeded, by economic development. Long before the World Health Organization's Smallpox Eradication Program began, and despite low herd immunity, unsophisticated public health facilities, and repeated introductions, smallpox disappeared from many countries as they developed economically, among them Thailand, Egypt, Mexico, Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Iraq.9 The largest and longest outbreak in postwar Europe occurred in Kosovo, in the least developed corner of the continent.19

    A terrorist introduction of smallpox could produce a short outbreak of cases and deaths, but the current vaccination policy will provide little protection, and the cost in deaths from vaccine complications will outweigh any benefit. Only if evidence suggests that a massive attack or sustained biologic warfare is probable can such a vaccination policy be justified. Safer options would be more effective. I recommend the following.

    Quoting LindaClement:

    'Very old' often = 'long ago discredited'

    I asked for research studies. You link to more anti-vax propaganda... again. I am really not prepared to read secondary source material, because it is unconvincing and a waste of time.

    Clearly, this is never going to work.

    Your claim that there are 'lots of studies' against the safety and efficacy of vax is unsupported by your argument.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I originally found most of this information in very old medical journals that I don't have access to anymore.  You obviously did not read the link, since there are sources all through it.

    Quoting LindaClement:

    Which peer-reviewed journal is this research study published in?

    As I have already said: I do not care what some author's opinion is. Research --checked by experts in the field for methodology and data accuracy.

    Or, just stop quoting the priests...

    Quoting kailu1835:

    Only because parents started refusing the vaccine for their children.

    http://whale.to/a/mcbean.html (chapter 2 deals with the smallpox vaccine)

    Some highlights:


    The following chart shows the comparison between Mexico with its sparse population of 16,500,000 (1930 figures approx.) and British India with its dense, congested population (300,000,000 approx.) In spite of the disease breeding conditions of India’s cities with inadequate sanitation, nutrition and housing facilities and the polluted water, lack of sewers, extreme heat, etc., the smallpox death rate is far lower than that of completely vaccinated Mexico.

    Sir Thomas Chambers, Q.C.M.P., recorder of the city of London said:

    "I find that of the 155 persons admitted to the Smallpox Hospital in the Parish of St. James, Piccadilly, 145 had been vaccinated."

    In Marylevore Hospital 92 per cent of the smallpox cases had been vaccinated.

    Marson’s report of Highgate Hospital for 1871 states that, "of the 950 cases of smallpox, 870 (90%) of the whole number of patients had been vaccinated."

    At Hempstead Hospital, up to May 13, 1884, out of 2,965 admissions for smallpox, 2,347 had been vaccinated.

    After these vaccination epidemics, more and more people refused to comply with the unjust vaccination laws and as a result of this and the improvements in sanitation and nutrition, smallpox took a drop and continued to decline until it is rarely seen at the present time.

    "In 1942 one case of smallpox at Seindon (Britain) resulted in the vaccination of a large number of people. Only three cases of smallpox occurred and these all recovered, but 12 vaccinated individuals died from inflammation of the brain. (This is a common after effect of vaccination.) In the same year near Edinburg, Scotland, eight people died of smallpox (six of which had been vaccinated) while ten died from the effects of the vaccination. .

    Here we see that at the time when nearly all (96.5%) of the babies were vaccinated, smallpox caused almost 4,000 deaths in that 10 year period; but, when the vaccinations were resisted until only 39% would submit to it, the death-rate dropped down to only 1.4 cases.  Before the passage of England’s compulsory vaccination law in 1853, the highest authentic smallpox death-rate was only 2,000 for any two year period, even during their most serious smallpox epidemics; whereas, after almost 20 years of compulsory vaccination there occurred the most devastating scourge of smallpox in 1870 to 1871 that the world has ever known. It took 23,062 lives in England and Wales and spread over Europe in all the countries where vaccination and inoculation had been practiced on a large scale. After that the vaccination laws were enforced even more rigidly until the people began to notice that smallpox was not decreasing by this practice but continued to ravage the homes of the vaccinated. During the same epidemic in Germany 124,948 people died of smallpox. All had been vaccinated (according to their carefully kept records.) "In Berlin alone no less that 17,038 persons had smallpox after vaccination, and 2,884 of them died."

    In Sheffield, England where 97 per cent of her 200,000 inhabitants had been thoroughly and frequently vaccinated for many years a smallpox epidemic swept the city in 1887 that caused 7,101 cases and 648 deaths.

    Preceding this, the large manufacturing town of Leicester, (England) which had been even more thoroughly vaccinated up to the time of the 1870 epidemic was the hardest hit of all the communities with over 3,500 deaths per million in the first year of the epidemic. This completely destroyed their faith in vaccination and the rich and poor alike rejected it and adopted sanitation with the result that smallpox epidemics were soon eliminated from that city.


    Quoting LindaClement:

    Now, with smallpox completely wiped out, that's a LITTLE hard to believe.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I've read a ton of medical journals.  If you go way back you'll find an article from a British doctor showing that smallpox deaths were 10 times higher among the vaccinated (if they got smallpox from the vaccine) than patients who got smallpox and were not vaccinated.  

    Quoting LindaClement:

    There are thousands of journal articles describing thousands of research projects published every year. You have not, I promise, looked at 'everything' the 'vaccinating community' (whoever that may be) has to offer. 

    Most non-vaxers don't understand statisical risk. If they did, the last thing they would EVER do with their precious children is let them ride in a car.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    I, and many I know, have looked at everything the vaccinating community has to offer, and found it wanting.  The scientific data simply doesn't back it up, when you look at the big picture, which is how I came to the conclusions I have.  You are correct, many don't look at anything that opposes their views, on both sides of the spectrum, regardless of the topic at hand.

    I agree there's a death grip on that study, but I disagree that it is the nonvaxers whose hands are gripping it.  Most nonvaxers had never even heard of Wakefield before making their decisions.

    Quoting LindaClement:

    I've been having this argument for 20 years. There IS so much more out there that the anti-vax crowd WILL NOT LOOK AT.

    Their beliefs are practically religious, they will not examine what they're talking about at all unless the conclusions agree with their standing position.

    The death grip on that discredited study is appalling to watch, from a medical standpoint or an ethical one.

    Quoting kailu1835:

    Have you seen anyone, when asked about the link between vaccines and autism, ever post anything not related directly to the MMR vaccine?  That's what I'm talking about.  There's so much more out there that people (on here and elsewhere) are completely ignoring.









  • JP-StrongForTwo
    November 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM

    Its been studied. I dont know if they will ever prove it. There have been many kids with autism who have never had any vax's at all. 

    but all i know is, my daughter was on time with her milestones, speech, motor skills, and everything, until she got the MMR vaccine, and her speech backslided, her potty training back slided, her motor skills backslided. and she started stacking her toys in a rainbow form. 


    however, i still vax her. and i will still vax any future children. 

Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN