TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Vaccines Are Not to Blame


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Vaccines Are Not to Blame
Permalink  
 


 

Vaccines Are Not to Blame

A decade before the measles vaccine panic, parents feared this vaccine could harm their children.

 
whooping cough, in Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.David Snook comforts his 1-month-old baby, Zane Flavell, who is recovering from whooping cough, in Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand, on Oct. 18, 1999.

Photo by Bastiaan Beentjes/Getty Images

Sarah Lemar was born Dec. 5, 1979, in Memphis, Tennessee. She and her mother, Alice Clinton, soon fell into the blissful routine of a new mom and her first infant. Days, Clinton would steal naps on the couch, her newborn baby nestled on her chest—slender, fairylike legs tucked up underneath, like an Anne Geddes photograph. Nights, they danced that 2 a.m. waltz that all moms and babies know. When Clinton recalls those early days of motherhood, her soft, Southern drawl slows. “I remember nights, sitting in the rocking chair in her room with just the nightlight on, nursing her. That quiet time—that’s something I remember.”

When Sarah was 3 months old, she received her first vaccine, the DPT—short for diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus—at her family’s local health department clinic. Nothing remarkable happened, Clinton recalls, until later that evening. “She was running a little bit of fever, and she was screaming—this high-pitched screaming, wailing—and I couldn’t quiet her down,” says Clinton. Hours later, Sarah finally stopped crying, but in the days that followed, Clinton noticed subtle changes in Sarah’s behavior. “Her arms would go up like she’d been startled,” Clinton recalls. But Clinton was a new, young mom—just 20 years old at the time—and didn’t realize that something might be wrong. Two months later, when Sarah received her second DPT vaccine, she grew lethargic, and the startle responses increased in frequency. Over a period of several weeks, Sarah’s mental and physical development halted, then deteriorated. Clinton says, “She couldn’t roll over anymore, and her muscle tone was like a newborn’s.”

 
Sarah’s pediatrician referred her to a specialist in Memphis, where she was diagnosed with severe myoclonic epileptic seizures—transient, shocklike muscle spasms caused by disturbances in the electrical activity of Sarah’s brain. “The neurologist said most children with that type of seizure disorder die before they’re 3 years old,” recalls Clinton. “He advised us to put her in residential care.”

Many children who were diagnosed with pertussis vaccine encephalopathy were not harmed by a vaccine at all.

Clinton ignored that advice, and she and her husband, Brian Lemar, cared for their daughter at home. Over the next few years, she met other parents whose children had seizure disorders. Naturally, they all sought answers to the same question: What caused it? Many of them, including Clinton, wondered if they were to blame. Clinton spoke with other parents, read medical books and journals, and pieced together the timeline of events that led up to Sarah’s first seizure. For Clinton, all fingers pointed to the pertussis vaccine, the P in DPT.

A decade before Andrew Wakefield’s falsified research on the measles vaccine launched the current anti-vaccine movement, the pertussis vaccine, vilified for its supposed link to seizure disorders, came under similar attack. Today more than 10 percent of parents don’t follow the CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule for their children, delaying or splitting up the vaccines out of fear of complications like those Sarah experienced. Many selectively omit the pertussis component altogether. “The whole anti-vaccine movement in the U.S. started with pertussis,” says James Cherry, a pediatrician and pertussis vaccine expert at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California–Los Angeles.

 

Pertussis, or whooping cough, is a highly contagious disease caused by the bacteria Bordetella pertussis. It is often referred to as the “cough of 100 days” due to its characteristic cough, which you can see in the video—racking fits followed by a deep gasp—and its lingering effects. The disease occurs most often in children. Prior to the 1940s, the beginning of the vaccine era in the United States, pertussis sickened more than 200,000 children yearly, and killed nearly 4,000. The death rate peaked in 1934, when more than 7,500 children died from pertussis. Eventually, widespread vaccination programs reduced the number of U.S. cases by 99 percent. In recent years, however, pertussis has made a comeback. The disease tends to peak in late summer and early fall, and Kentucky and Ohio are already facing a severe outbreak this year. More outbreaks likely lie ahead.

The pertussis vaccine acquired a bad reputation early. About half of all children who received the vaccine experienced a mild fever or redness at the injection site. Several studies conducted between the 1940s and 1970s linked the vaccine to more serious complications, like the seizures Sarah had, leading many parents to believe the vaccine was responsible. Many doctors—in the absence of a more plausible diagnosis—also believed there was a connection. Adding to the controversy, a 1982 NBC news program, Vaccine Roulette, further implicated the vaccines. Between 1980 and 1986, hundreds of parents, convinced of the link, sued the vaccine-makers—to the tune of $3.6 billion in alleged damages.

In 1984, Alice and Brian Lemar filed a lawsuit against the makers of the vaccine that Sarah received. Evidence came from many sources, including the timeline, the testimony of several physicians, and the results of genetic testing that ruled out a family history of seizure disorders. But the most incriminating evidence came from the state of Tennessee. In the early 1980s, Tennessee health departments kept meticulous records of vaccine lot numbers and manufacturers. The records revealed that the lot from which Sarah’s vaccine was drawn was four times more potent (as measured in “mouse protection units”) than the recommended level. The night before the trial, the vaccine manufacturers opted to settle out of court.

 

For many scientists, however, questions remained. What was it about the pertussis vaccine that linked it to seizures? “The old DPT vaccines contained the entire [pertussis bacterium] cell, so you got what we used to call a ‘dirty vaccine.’ There were a lot of [cellular] components in the vaccine in addition to the ones that provided immunity,” says Christian Coles, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and an expert in the control of pediatric infectious diseases. Pertussis vaccines were notoriously dirty, and often temporally associated with adverse events, such as seizures and sudden, unexplained death. Some children became pale, limp, and unresponsive after receiving the vaccine (later recovering with no long-term negative effects), while others—about 1 in 10,000 children—experienced febrile seizures and, like Sarah, long-lasting episodes of high-pitched crying. One of the cellular components in the whole-cell pertussis vaccine was an endotoxin produced by the pertussis bacterium. Endotoxins can elicit immune responses in humans, most notably fever. Even with mild fever, ranging from 100 to 101 degrees Fahrenheit, about 2 percent to 5 percent of all children will have febrile seizures, typically with no serious, long-term effects.

But Sarah’s condition was serious, and it eventually earned a new name: pertussis vaccine encephalopathy, or PVE. Cherry began questioning the moniker, however, and so did his colleagues. Although a study conducted in England in the late 1970s estimated as many as 1 in 140,000 children were affected by PVE, suggesting there was a link between the vaccine and seizure disorders, the investigators didn’t include a control group in their studies, a critical component of a well-designed study that minimizes bias and confounding variables that could skew the data. At least five well-designed studies conducted between 1976 and 1994 eventually vindicated the vaccine. “It became apparent to me and others that what was being called PVE was not an encephalitis-like event” caused by a vaccine-induced inflammation, says Cherry. “Instead, it was the first seizure or seizures of infantile epilepsy,” a disorder these children would have developed whether or not they were vaccinated. The fever from the vaccination may have “simply moved [the epilepsy] forward in time.”

Modern genetic analysis supports Cherry’s conclusions: Nearly all seizure disorders that occur in infancy or early childhood, even those that occur shortly after vaccination, are caused by genetic disorders. Nearly three-fourths of PVE cases have been attributed to Dravet syndrome, formerly referred to as severe myoclonic epilepsy. In Dravet syndrome, a mutation in the gene for a particular protein in the brain causes epileptic seizures. The condition is exceptionally rare—occurring in fewer than 1 in 30,000 children in the United States—and leads to intellectual disability and lifelong severe seizures. A cruel twist: Many commonly used anti-seizure medications exacerbate seizures in patients with Dravet syndrome. Other instances of previously diagnosed PVE have been linked to another genetic disorder, Angelman syndrome, made famous by actor Colin Farrell, whose son has the condition. Angelman syndrome, like Dravet, is rare, with prevalence estimated at 1 in 15,000 children. Although both Dravet and Angelman syndromes are caused by genetic mutations, the mutations are rarely inherited; instead they are new mutations that occur during conception. The mutations aren’t present in the parents and can’t be detected through parental genetic testing. Many children who were diagnosed with pertussis vaccine encephalopathy were not harmed by a vaccine at all; they had a clear genetic basis for their disease.

Furthermore, the assumption was flawed that a more potent vaccine, like the one Sarah received, caused harm. Paul Offit, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, explains, “Animal model studies were designed to gauge protective efficacy, not safety.” Mouse protection units were a measure of a vaccine’s potency for the purposes of vaccine production—a sort of quality control. “[Having] more protective units was a good thing,” says Offit.

Despite the progressive nature of Sarah’s seizure disorder, Alice Clinton cared for her at home for more than two decades. “She began having grand mal seizures—sometimes hundreds a day—that lasted 30 seconds to a couple of minutes or more,” says Clinton. Sarah’s medications numbered in the teens. The frequent, severe seizures and long-term anticonvulsant drug use damaged Sarah’s brain, and although she learned to walk with assistance, she never spoke. She did communicate, however. “You could get a message from her looks, like a true Southern woman,” Clinton says, laughing.

Sarah died in 2004, just two weeks before her 25th birthday. More than a decade after Sarah’s passing, Clinton’s voice breaks slightly when speaking of her daughter’s death. “Her life is a joy to share,” she says. “I will always be less because she is no longer in my arms.”

Stories like Sarah’s are tragic and harrowing. They rarely tell the whole story, however, and frequently are mired in investigational bias, historically inaccurate diagnoses, and the emotionally charged environment surrounding vaccines. But, even some 35 years later, they’re important stories to tell, especially in light of what’s been learned since then.

The intense scrutiny the pertussis vaccine endured led to substantive modifications that improved its safety, and the first “acellular” pertussis vaccines (or DTaP), which contain only the immune-stimulating parts of the bacterium rather than the whole cell, were approved in the early 1990s. According to the CDC, after the acellular formulation was introduced in the United States, physician reports of pertussis vaccine-related adverse events dropped by nearly half compared with those related to the old, whole-cell vaccine. “With advances in technology, we’ve been able to reduce the amount of ‘collateral damage’—the side effects,” says Coles. Even so, many parents wait until their children are older to vaccinate due to concerns about complications. This is risky because delaying by even a few months leaves a child unprotected against the virus.

Although a large body of evidence seems to exonerate the pertussis vaccine, a cloud of doubt surrounds it and other vaccines. The consequences are dire: Pertussis outbreaks sickened almost 33,000 children in 2014—15 percent more than CDC’s early counts from the previous year, and many times more than the better-publicized measles epidemic that spread to visitors at Disneyland. Both epidemics were due largely to low vaccination rates. Allaying those doubts ranks high on health officials’ agendas.

Convincing parents that the pertussis vaccine can protect their children safely against a horrible disease is an important contribution to public health. But there is another benefit: assuaging the guilt and anguish experienced by so many parents of children whose seizure disorders closely followed their child’s vaccination. Physicians and public health officials can console parents with the knowledge that, as science advances, it unravels the mysteries of neurological disorders previously attributed to immunizations. They can reassure parents as to the true causes, and remove the blame parents may feel for having vaccinated their children. 

 

Teresa L. Johnson is a public health professional and health communications consultant pursuing a master’s in science writing from Johns Hopkins University.

 



__________________

The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.

Always misinterpret when you can.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

There is no reason we have to slam infants with all these vaccines. We could do an extended vaccine schedule. They don't need these shots until they are school aged. If parents want to wait and do the extended schedule, that should be their choice.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

There is no reason we have to slam infants with all these vaccines. We could do an extended vaccine schedule. They don't need these shots until they are school aged. If parents want to wait and do the extended schedule, that should be their choice.


If they go to daycare, or nursery school, or a playground, they need to be protected as early as it's safe to do so. 

If they visit homes where there are other children, they need to be protected.

 



__________________

The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.

Always misinterpret when you can.



Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

There is no reason we have to slam infants with all these vaccines. We could do an extended vaccine schedule. They don't need these shots until they are school aged. If parents want to wait and do the extended schedule, that should be their choice.


 Infants are the population most at risk from vaccine preventable diseases. The most apt to be hospitalized and the most apt to die. They are socialized with other children and adults from birth and exposed to many infections. Arguably, they are the population we need to prioritize vaccination for. School aged kids with pertussis get sick and cough for a while. Infants with pertussis get hospitalized and die. 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

No, they are not "most at risk" to get Hepatitis B. That's a shot that could be given much later. Same with some of the others. And, by later, I am saying we can wait. We don't have to do them at birth and at 6 weeks. Why are some of you sooooo hysterical over coming up with a new schedule and at least evaluating it? Wow. The kids would still get all of their shots. But, not slam them all at once.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

No, they are not "most at risk" to get Hepatitis B. That's a shot that could be given much later. Same with some of the others. And, by later, I am saying we can wait. We don't have to do them at birth and at 6 weeks. Why are some of you sooooo hysterical over coming up with a new schedule and at least evaluating it? Wow. The kids would still get all of their shots. But, not slam them all at once.


 Do you realize how easily Hep B is spread?  And they do it at birth in case the mother in unknowingly infected to try to ward off the baby getting it from delivery.  It's the very first vaccine they get for that reason.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

No, they are not "most at risk" to get Hepatitis B. That's a shot that could be given much later. Same with some of the others. And, by later, I am saying we can wait. We don't have to do them at birth and at 6 weeks. Why are some of you sooooo hysterical over coming up with a new schedule and at least evaluating it? Wow. The kids would still get all of their shots. But, not slam them all at once.


 Do you realize how easily Hep B is spread?  And they do it at birth in case the mother in unknowingly infected to try to ward off the baby getting it from delivery.  It's the very first vaccine they get for that reason.


Yes, I know how diseases are spread.  And, a vaccine doesn't give you Instant Immunity.  There is NO REASON that we parents cannot be offered a delayed schedule.  I want kids to get all of their shots.  But, I think it is reasonable to allow parents to make that choice for their own kids if they want to spread those shots out. 



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1849
Date:
Permalink  
 

If you plan to take your infant out in public, you should have them vaccinated. Because they can catch something and freaking die.
Why is that so hard for people to understand?

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tangerine wrote:

If you plan to take your infant out in public, you should have them vaccinated. Because they can catch something and freaking die.
Why is that so hard for people to understand?


Kids aren't getting the first dose of the MMR until they are a year old.  Should the infant not be in public until then?



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

No, they are not "most at risk" to get Hepatitis B. That's a shot that could be given much later. Same with some of the others. And, by later, I am saying we can wait. We don't have to do them at birth and at 6 weeks. Why are some of you sooooo hysterical over coming up with a new schedule and at least evaluating it? Wow. The kids would still get all of their shots. But, not slam them all at once.


 Do you realize how easily Hep B is spread?  And they do it at birth in case the mother in unknowingly infected to try to ward off the baby getting it from delivery.  It's the very first vaccine they get for that reason.


Yes, I know how diseases are spread.  And, a vaccine doesn't give you Instant Immunity.  There is NO REASON that we parents cannot be offered a delayed schedule.  I want kids to get all of their shots.  But, I think it is reasonable to allow parents to make that choice for their own kids if they want to spread those shots out. 


 A newborn has to be vaccinated immediately to try to avoid infection from the mother.  And kids can get infected with Hep B through scrapes and cuts, too.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24026
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tangerine wrote:

If you plan to take your infant out in public, you should have them vaccinated. Because they can catch something and freaking die.
Why is that so hard for people to understand?


 And most mothers are working mothers now.  I have an Autistic son.  I don't blame vaccines.



__________________


“You may shoot me with your words, you may cut me with your eyes, you may kill me with your hatefulness, but still, like air, I'll rise!”
Maya Angelou



Regular

Status: Offline
Posts: 332
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

There is no reason we have to slam infants with all these vaccines. We could do an extended vaccine schedule. They don't need these shots until they are school aged. If parents want to wait and do the extended schedule, that should be their choice.


First of all, vaccine creation has progressed in the past few years. The scientists heard the concerns and created safer vaccines. Even though there are more vaccines today, then 30 years ago, there are actually less antigens. In the 1980's, the smaller number of vaccines had 3,000 antigens pumped into our kids.  Today, there are more vaccines with culmination of 150 antigens.  

So the whole "we put too much into your kids all at once" bit is just a misinformed myth. 

HOWEVER BECAUSE they have least amount of antigens needed, they NEED to be given in the schedule the way that the scientists created.  Who also created the overall schedule for very specific reasons.   

 

Honestly, unless your are some sort of conspiracy theorist, who believes that every Doctor, Nurse, Scientist and CDC employee (or comparable government agency) in the industrial World are working together with the Big Pharma companies, then I am surprised with your stance on this.  Every country's CDC has reviewed both the true scientific research on the vaccines themselves and the proposed schedules and approved them for a reason.  And they are reviewed by the various countries pretty much all of the time.  And yet there has never been ONE credible scientist or government employee who has come forward with credible scientific research or evidence of Pharma tampering yet.  

And given human nature someone would have come forward by now, even it was to get their 15 minutes of fame or earn the big bucks. 

 

 



__________________
“One day, you will be old enough to start reading fairytales again.” C.S.Lewis


Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24026
Date:
Permalink  
 

Kids get cancer too. We don't blame that on vaccines. Kids get a lot of things. We don't blame it on vaccines. There is NO CREDIBLE research to say that vaccines cause Autism.

__________________


“You may shoot me with your words, you may cut me with your eyes, you may kill me with your hatefulness, but still, like air, I'll rise!”
Maya Angelou



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Nah. Just a 78% increase in autism. Nothing to see here folks!

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

Nah. Just a 78% increase in autism. Nothing to see here folks!


 You are not seriously an anti-vaccer over autism?  There is NO LINK between the two.  There are a LOT of things that have increased in prevalence in our country in the last 60 years that people do.

People are having kids LATER.

People are eating WORSE. 

Pollution is HORRID. 

 

It's not the damn vaccines. It's LIFE.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24026
Date:
Permalink  
 

We are also discovering new "illnesses" every day. Two hundred years ago cancer didn't exist. A hundred years ago acid reflux didn't exist. Were they around? Absolutely! We just didn't have names for everything. As science evolves and grows we are learning more about how the brain does and doesn't work and are able to say "Wait! This isn't right."

__________________


“You may shoot me with your words, you may cut me with your eyes, you may kill me with your hatefulness, but still, like air, I'll rise!”
Maya Angelou



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

New evidence suggests it could be the GMOs. It is very likely a combination of many things mutating the genes.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 4882
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

Nah. Just a 78% increase in autism. Nothing to see here folks!


There is no difference in the rates of autism between vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. 



__________________


My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

I don't remember my kids getting anything at the hospital when they were born. We went back at 6 weeks to start their vaccines.

Is it a new thing to get certain vaccines at birth now?

As for autism and vaccines, no, I do not belive it causes it.

I do wonder if maybe there is something in the vaccines that maybe causes it to be more pronounced. For lack of a better word.

I personally believe a lot of the autistic diagnosises now a days are more an attempt to label any kid who is the least bit different.

We use to call those on the lightest end of the spectrum backwards.



__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1345
Date:
Permalink  
 

I am a firm supporter and believer in vaccines

__________________

~~Four Wheels Move the Body~~  ~~ Two Wheels Move the Soul~~ 



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

lilyofcourse wrote:

I don't remember my kids getting anything at the hospital when they were born. We went back at 6 weeks to start their vaccines.

Is it a new thing to get certain vaccines at birth now?

As for autism and vaccines, no, I do not belive it causes it.

I do wonder if maybe there is something in the vaccines that maybe causes it to be more pronounced. For lack of a better word.

I personally believe a lot of the autistic diagnosises now a days are more an attempt to label any kid who is the least bit different.

We use to call those on the lightest end of the spectrum backwards.


My kids were born in the early 90s and they both got vaccines in the hospital when they were born... 



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

No, they are not "most at risk" to get Hepatitis B. That's a shot that could be given much later. Same with some of the others. And, by later, I am saying we can wait. We don't have to do them at birth and at 6 weeks. Why are some of you sooooo hysterical over coming up with a new schedule and at least evaluating it? Wow. The kids would still get all of their shots. But, not slam them all at once.


 Get it over with.  No reason to wait.  That's silly.  As others have said, babies are very vulnerable to diseases such as measles and whooping cough which, once nearly eradicated, have been making a ferocious comeback because of nutty parents not getting babies vaccinated.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

I don't remember my kids getting anything at the hospital when they were born. We went back at 6 weeks to start their vaccines.

Is it a new thing to get certain vaccines at birth now?

As for autism and vaccines, no, I do not belive it causes it.

I do wonder if maybe there is something in the vaccines that maybe causes it to be more pronounced. For lack of a better word.

I personally believe a lot of the autistic diagnosises now a days are more an attempt to label any kid who is the least bit different.

We use to call those on the lightest end of the spectrum backwards.


My kids were born in the early 90s and they both got vaccines in the hospital when they were born... 


 Maybe mine did. I just don't remember it.

I thought the baby had the mothers immunity for a little bit after birth and that breast feeding the first 6 weeks also boosted their immunity. 



__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

lilyofcourse wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

I don't remember my kids getting anything at the hospital when they were born. We went back at 6 weeks to start their vaccines.

Is it a new thing to get certain vaccines at birth now?

As for autism and vaccines, no, I do not belive it causes it.

I do wonder if maybe there is something in the vaccines that maybe causes it to be more pronounced. For lack of a better word.

I personally believe a lot of the autistic diagnosises now a days are more an attempt to label any kid who is the least bit different.

We use to call those on the lightest end of the spectrum backwards.


My kids were born in the early 90s and they both got vaccines in the hospital when they were born... 


 Maybe mine did. I just don't remember it.

I thought the baby had the mothers immunity for a little bit after birth and that breast feeding the first 6 weeks also boosted their immunity. 


 I thought so, too.  Ours kids were vaccinated early, though.  A couple of months old, for sure.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

I know mine got vaccines at 6 weeks.

I really do believe that was the first round.



__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.



Regular

Status: Offline
Posts: 332
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

Nah. Just a 78% increase in autism. Nothing to see here folks!


 https://www.inverse.com/article/4512-new-evidence-for-the-cause-of-autism-spoiler-alert-it-s-not-vaccines (link thingy isn't working).

 

Many scientists tend to think there is a strong genetic basis, but the evidence hasn’t been definitive. Some new research out of Australia, however, sheds some more light on which genes are implicated, and what role they play.

In what’s being touted as a first-of-its-kind study, neuroscientists and geneticists from the University of New South Wales in Sydney say they’ve identified a link between mutations in certain gene segments and symptoms of autism. The researchers pinpointed more than 100 chunks of DNA known as enhancers, which control gene activity in the brain.

 

or 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/22/3650089/massive-study-autism-vaccine/

Now, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association has ruled out a potential vaccine-autism link even among a small group of children who are more at risk for the disorder. The review of nearly 100,000 children found that even when toddlers have an older sibling who has been placed on the autism spectrum — which means they could have a greater chance of developing autism themselves — getting the MMR shot does nothing to increase that risk.

“Even for children who are high-risk, the vaccine does not play a role,” lead author Dr. Anjali Jain told Reuters. “We don’t know what does unfortunately, but it’s not the MMR vaccine.”

 

 



__________________
“One day, you will be old enough to start reading fairytales again.” C.S.Lewis


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

Nah. Just a 78% increase in autism. Nothing to see here folks!


That is one of the most stupid statements ever posted in this forum. 

ANY link between vaccines and autism has been thoroughly DEBUNKED.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:

New evidence suggests it could be the GMOs. It is very likely a combination of many things mutating the genes.


What evidence?  That is BS.  No reputable agency has found that.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Frozen Sucks!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24384
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

Nah. Just a 78% increase in autism. Nothing to see here folks!


 You are not seriously an anti-vaccer over autism?  There is NO LINK between the two.  There are a LOT of things that have increased in prevalence in our country in the last 60 years that people do.

People are having kids LATER.

People are eating WORSE. 

Pollution is HORRID. 

 

It's not the damn vaccines. It's LIFE.


 You also forgot the over diagnosis of Autism coupled with it not being diagnosed at all 30 years ago.



__________________

Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.

Frozen is the bestest movie ever, NOT!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Plus, until that de-bunked study from England connecting thimerasol with autism--there was NEVER any link found between the two.

Then, that study came out and everyone freaked the fvck out.

Now, despite the fact that that study had been found to be DELIBERATELY FALSE, and NO other link has since been found between them, people still continue to stupidly hang on to that myth--to the great detriment of many individuals, especially children, and society as a whole.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:

New evidence suggests it could be the GMOs. It is very likely a combination of many things mutating the genes.


What evidence?  That is BS.  No reputable agency has found that.   


 There are several articles regarding GMOs and autism.  Is there evidence?  No - no one knows for sure what causes autism, but our messing with our food supply in all the many ways we do, and external environmental factors have to have a negative effect on our health.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Articles? Yeah, so nothing.

This is how nonsense such as the vaccine link get started. Someone writes an "article" with their opinion which is based on, essentially, NOTHING--and people pass it on as if it were fact. It's BS.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:

Articles? Yeah, so nothing.

This is how nonsense such as the vaccine link get started. Someone writes an "article" with their opinion which is based on, essentially, NOTHING--and people pass it on as if it were fact. It's BS.


 The articles are written by doctors, Husker, not journalists.  And MAYBE they are nutsy like the vaccine guy, but maybe they are onto something.  You can't dismiss something out of hand that actually COULD be a problem.  GMOs are not ok.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

Articles? Yeah, so nothing.

This is how nonsense such as the vaccine link get started. Someone writes an "article" with their opinion which is based on, essentially, NOTHING--and people pass it on as if it were fact. It's BS.


 The articles are written by doctors, Husker, not journalists.  And MAYBE they are nutsy like the vaccine guy, but maybe they are onto something.  You can't dismiss something out of hand that actually COULD be a problem.  GMOs are not ok.


WTF are you talking about????

 

GMO's are MORE than "ok".  They are going to enable us to feed the world. They are an ESSENTIAL part of food production for the future. 

 

OMFG.  I can't believe you even said that.  I thought you were more intelligent than to believe some nutjob's blatherings.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

Articles? Yeah, so nothing.

This is how nonsense such as the vaccine link get started. Someone writes an "article" with their opinion which is based on, essentially, NOTHING--and people pass it on as if it were fact. It's BS.


 The articles are written by doctors, Husker, not journalists.  And MAYBE they are nutsy like the vaccine guy, but maybe they are onto something.  You can't dismiss something out of hand that actually COULD be a problem.  GMOs are not ok.


WTF are you talking about????

 

GMO's are MORE than "ok".  They are going to enable us to feed the world. They are an ESSENTIAL part of food production for the future. 

 

OMFG.  I can't believe you even said that.  I thought you were more intelligent than to believe some nutjob's blatherings.   


 Says you.  Genetically modified anything is not a good idea.  Don't mess with God's creations - it is going to backfire.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

And if you are so in favor - prove they are perfectly safe and healthy. You CAN'T. The only studies you'll find showing that are by the ones pushing it.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

That is complete BS. We've been "messing" with God's creations since the beginning of human civilization.

My God. Educate yourself at least a little bit. It IS NOT just "me" that says so. It's the following:

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all declared that there’s no good evidence GMOs are unsafe. Hundreds of studies back up that conclusion.

If you want the links to those positions, they are contained in this article (since you seem to like articles so much, but whether you believe the article or not, the links should still be good):

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:

And if you are so in favor - prove they are perfectly safe and healthy. You CAN'T. The only studies you'll find showing that are by the ones pushing it.


BS.  There have been HUNDREDS of studies by reputable government agencies and public and private universities that have shown them to be safe. 

 

HUNDREDS.  I can't possibly list them all--but I did provide an article with links to some of them.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Yeah, lots of things have been declared "safe" until it isn't. Natural is best. Natural sugar, and natural food.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:

Yeah, lots of things have been declared "safe" until it isn't. Natural is best. Natural sugar, and natural food.


There is nothing "unnatural" about GMO's.  You don't even seem to have a clue what they are, how they are used, what they are used for, and even whether or not they are in the food system and where they are found there. 

 

There is ZERO evidence that "natural" (whatever the fvck that is) is "best".  ZERO.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

You are so close-minded you won't even look at the links and try to educate yourself.

You tell me to listen to these "doctors"--yet you won't do so, yourself, if you don't agree with them.

 

Anti-vaxxers/anti-GMO are pretty much cut from the same cloth.  They bask in ignorance with no scientific evidence to back up their points.  They rely on fear of what they don't trust rather than any proof or evidence. 



-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 17th of September 2015 10:54:58 PM

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:

You are so close-minded you won't even look at the links and try to educate yourself.

You tell me to listen to these "doctors"--yet you won't do so, yourself, if you don't agree with them.

 

Anti-vaxxers/anti-GMO are pretty much cut from the same cloth.  They bask in ignorance with no scientific evidence to back up their points.  They rely on fear of what they don't trust rather than any proof or evidence. 



-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 17th of September 2015 10:54:58 PM


 I did look at the links.  And they are all lacking in time and tests.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

When they fall back on the argument "there is no evidence GMOs are unsafe" rather than providing proof they are safe - that is not a valid assurance. GMOs are not even that old, and have not had the proper time or testing. When they refer to "years" of testing in one of your instances, they are talking short terms 90 days tests on rats and feeding animals from 1997 to 2004, which is nothing. Drug trials take longer than that to be approved.  There are no human tests.  Valid scientists understand that you do genetic modification in a lab only until it is truly and completely tested with all the factors taken into consideration.  GMOs were prematurely released into our food supply before adequate testing was done and without the proper foresight on the long term effects on agriculture.  It was and is irresponsible science.  This type of science - the kind you can't take back - needs to be PROVEN safe before being done, not done and then argued as safe because others can't prove it unsafe.  It will be years before we know the long term affects, but already food related allergies and diseases have increased since the introduction of GMOs.  Instead of looking at that - it is dismissed as not being able to prove it is because of the GMOs.  Well, with such a new science - they should have to prove it doesn't do those things, not the other way around.

And the anti-vaccine movement was caused by one doctor and one bad study. There are LOTS of doctors and scientists against GMOs for various reasons, including the effect on small farmers, natural agriculture, the modification showing up in humans, and the very real problem of pesticide resistance that leads to greater pesticide use (and which is admitted even by GMO proponents - they just shrug that part off).

You can't just declare something safe because there hasn't been enough studies to prove it one way or another.



-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Friday 18th of September 2015 03:43:30 AM

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24026
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:

When they fall back on the argument "there is no evidence GMOs are unsafe" rather than providing proof they are safe - that is not a valid assurance. GMOs are not even that old, and have not had the proper time or testing. When they refer to "years" of testing in one of your instances, they are talking from 1997 to 2004, which is nothing. Drug trials take longer than that to be approved.

And the anti-vaccine movement was caused by one doctor and one bad study. There are LOTS of doctors and scientists against GMOs.

You can't just declare something safe because there hasn't been enough studies to prove it one way or another.


 No.  It was cause by one very bad doctor that faked ALL HIS WORK.  He cannot even have a doctors license anymore that how badly he screwed that one up.  Doctors just don't lose their licenses for no reason.  Doctors live by the old boys network and do not report each other.  It is almost unheard of for a doctor to lose his license.  So the fact that they ripped his license away and he cannot have a license in that entire COUNTRY should tell you something.



__________________


“You may shoot me with your words, you may cut me with your eyes, you may kill me with your hatefulness, but still, like air, I'll rise!”
Maya Angelou



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 4882
Date:
Permalink  
 

There hasn't been a single study proving that GMOs are unsafe. Not one. There was that one incredibly flawed French study, but it has been discredited six ways from Sunday. All we have is anecdotes, much like vaccine anecdotes. "Mah cow done got sick after she et GM corn'. People seem to jump on the bandwagon without doing any real research, but listen to the hysteria.
There was all this brouhaha about Indian farmers committing suicide en masse "because of GMO seeds." I hear this meme time and time again. If you just do a little investigating, it turns out that they started committing suicide 17 years before any of them saw a single Monsanto seed. That's right, almost two decades prior to the introduction of GMO in India.
I do know that GMO can be a real boon to feeding the global population, which is exploding. GMO rice helps prevent blindness in Africa. It can do a lot of good.
So, until I have evidence that it's harmful to humans, I have no problem with eating it.
I'm an evidence-based person, much to your chagrin.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 4882
Date:
Permalink  
 

Dr. Joe Schwarcz is the head of the McGill Science Department. Very smart man.

www.cjad.com/dr-joe/2014/07/17/genetically-modified-fears



__________________


On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

GMOs are banned in over 60 countries, including most of Europe, Australia and Japan. Those are developed, science capable countries. The studies relied upon for "safety" have been produced and funded by the very companies that push GMOs. That is not a valid study.

We're not talking about a few rogue scientists denouncing GMOs.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

And there you go again - "not a single study showing they are unsafe". THAT's what you rely on? It will take YEARS to know the true effect. But when it comes to food, we should not be doing and then telling people to prove it is unsafe - we should be proving it safe. And they have not.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

And if it's so damn safe - why are companies spending more money on fighting against labeling than they are on proving it?

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

GMOs are patented (yes, patented - how is that natural), by MONSANTO.

For those who do not know, Monsanto also gave us PCBs and DDT, which were proclaimed safe when released, and proven NOT, and BANNED - these products were disastrous health-wise and still affect people today. Monsanto also gave us Agent Orange, Saccarin and Aspartame.

Yeah - that's the company I want to trust the food supply to.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 

1 2 3 4  >  Last»  | Page of 4  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard