# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Study of 92,727 Children Confirms No MMR-Autism Link

## TheCount

> *Conclusions and Relevance*      In this large sample of privately insured children with older  siblings, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased  risk of ASD, regardless of whether older siblings had ASD. These  findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and  ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD.


https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article...icleid=2275444

----------


## pacodever

My concern remains regarding the cumulative effect of the CDC recommended vaccine schedule.  There has yet to be a study on the schedule. The fact that many of those vaccines are given simultaneously, (intentionally) obscures the effects and prevents causality from being established.

----------


## TheCount

> My concern remains regarding the cumulative effect of the CDC recommended vaccine schedule.  There has yet to be a study on the schedule. The fact that many of those vaccines are given simultaneously, (intentionally) obscures the effects and prevents causality from being established.


If there's no study, what evidence did you use to come to the conclusion that the schedule is harmful?

----------


## angelatc

> My concern remains regarding the cumulative effect of the CDC recommended vaccine schedule.  There has yet to be a study on the schedule. The fact that many of those vaccines are given simultaneously, (intentionally) obscures the effects and prevents causality from being established.


Oh great  - another anti vax nutjob.

The current vacine schedule is the only study that has been studied.  The results are clear: children who are not vaccinated are at a bigger risk for getting diseases than those who are not.

----------


## presence

Well that makes two things its not linked to, because it pretty clear its not linked to doing anything about measles either.

----------


## Thor

> Oh great  - another anti vax nutjob.
> 
> The current vacine schedule is the only study that has been studied.  The results are clear: children who are not vaccinated are at a bigger risk for getting diseases than those who are not.


Hey AngelaTC, an oligarchist in the flesh...  who is the nut job ... mountain dew, roller coaster, end of life, worshiper (or wisher)?

LOL..  hope the ride is fun...

----------


## pacodever

> Oh great  - another anti vax nutjob.


Calling me "another anti vax nutjob" is quite a leap for someone who couldn't possibly know my position or ascertain it from three sentences on RPF.

----------


## dannno

> Well that makes two things its not linked to, because it pretty clear its not linked to doing anything about measles either.



Where's your photoshop with the semi-transparent background and highlighted transaction points??

----------


## VegasPatriot

> Oh great  - another anti vax nutjob.


You are simply a miserable person.  I'll bet the people closest to you in your life (family) don't like to be around you.  You are rude and flat out mean... name calling isn't going to win any arguments, but you're not trying to convince anyone are you?  I think you just enjoy being a bitch...  and keep giving me negative reps on unrelated posts, your neg reps are a badge of honor for me.

----------


## pacodever

> The current vacine schedule is the only study that has been studied.


Please cite a study on the current vaccine schedule.

----------


## presence

> The results are clear: children who are not vaccinated are at a bigger risk for getting diseases than those who are not.


"diseases" 

As in "all diseases"  or "vaccine preventable diseases" ?



Do vaccinated kids have lower overall mortality rates? 




Do you speculate there could be some theoretical upper limit to how many vaccines a child's immune system can handle before increasing mortality rate from* all disease*? 

Do you think that some kids might have lower thresholds than others? 






> In many countries, government  officials and drug companies aggressively resist conducting studies that  compare the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. But such  studies have been conducted in Africa.  One such study, from Guinea-Bissau, shows a doubling of the mortality  rate among infants vaccinated with a single dose of DTP vaccine. The  mortality rate more than quadrupled after the second and third dose.


 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-children.aspx

----------


## pacodever

> If there's no study, what evidence did you use to come to the conclusion that the schedule is harmful?


The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) has awarded over $2.8 billion to families of vaccine injured children since the program began in 1986.  These awards were made to families of vaccine injured children in an adversarial and political process with DoJ attorneys arguing against the families.  So my evidence would start with +$2.8 billion in harm.

----------


## roho76

Study: The entire human race's existence on this planet is proof positive that vaccines are unnecessary.

----------


## Thor

> *I think you just enjoy being a bitch...*  and keep giving me negative reps on unrelated posts, your neg reps are a badge of honor for me.


+ rep because oligarchist AngelaTC...

----------


## Weston White

> You are simply a miserable person.  I'll bet the people closest to you in your life (family) don't like to be around you.  You are rude and flat out mean... name calling isn't going to win any arguments, but you're not trying to convince anyone are you?  I think you just enjoy being a bitch...  and keep giving me negative reps on unrelated posts, your neg reps are a badge of honor for me.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

These two studies say otherwise:


"...*children from the countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines*; (ii) "the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States..."a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven western countries..."

http://omsj.org/reports/tomljenovic%202011.pdf 



 "...the relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. *A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI."*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article...icleid=2275444



*These data and results are based on privately insured children with an extensive period (5 years) of continuous enrollment in a single health plan and may not be completely generalizable to other groups.* The prevalence of ASD among all index children in the study sample was 1.04%, comparable with the current estimate of ASD prevalence of 1.5% in the general US population.28 In addition, the younger siblings of children with ASD had a 6.9% risk of ASD, also consistent with published estimates ranging from 6.4% to 24.7%.12- 14 Despite the large sample size for the entire study, *the RR estimates for the children with older siblings with ASD are based on a modest number of children (1929 children including 134 with ASD).* Yet, the upper bound of the CI never exceeded 1.44, implying that any true large effects are unlikely to be masked because of statistical imprecision. *The findings of this study may not be as applicable to more ethnically and socioeconomically diverse populations that have less access to health care services. For example, in our population, the average age of ASD recognition based on claims was 4 years, several months earlier than the average age of ASD diagnosis in the US population of 4 years 5 months.28*

----------


## Sam I am

> Well that makes two things its not linked to, because it pretty clear its not linked to doing anything about measles either.


According to that chart, the number of measles deaths stabilized at 0 at roughly the same time that the vaccination was implemented.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Well that makes two things its not linked to, because it pretty clear its not linked to doing anything about measles either.


it is absurd to claim the vaccine isn't linked to reducing the measles outbreaks.  your chart relates to deaths, not outbreaks.

also, these charts that go back to 1900, and use 1968 as some flash point are just propaganda.  I would be ashamed of posting such nonsense.

1)  1963 is when the vaccine was introduced.

2)  a chart going back to 1900 is used to attempt to minimize the effect of the vaccines on deaths because of how many died at the turn of the century.  This chart, better shows the change:

http://www.software3d.com/Home/Vax/MeaslesUSBig.jpg

----------


## presence



----------


## presence

"The US spent 1.4 Billion to treat 28 individuals with ebola in Africa; that's $50,000,000 per patient.    However, ebola was brought under control not with mandatory vaccinations but with a little bit of bleach and some changes in personal sanitation practices"  - Ron Paul

----------


## angelatc

> Please cite a study on the current vaccine schedule.


This single article cites at least two, but you'll need to find someone with access to the journals to see the actual studies.  Do you have a friend that is a researcher who can pull them up for you?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...utism/2026617/




> The new research confirms the findings of a 2010 study in Pediatrics, which compared babies who received all vaccines on time in the first year of life with those who skipped or delayed their shot. That research found no neuropsychological differences, such as stuttering, facial tics or lower scores on IQ tests.





> The study, published today in the Journal of Pediatrics, is the latest of more than 20 studies showing no connection between autism and vaccines, given either individually or as part of the standard schedule. The paper is the first to consider not just the number of vaccines, but a child's total exposure to the substances inside vaccines that trigger an immune response.
> 
> 
> Study authors say they sought to address the fear that multiple vaccines are "overwhelming" children's immune system, possibly contributing to long-term problems.


You have no evidence to support your theory, and yet have the gall to insist that the evidence supporting mine does not exist.  Seriously, thats pretty much the definition of crazy.

----------


## angelatc

> According to that chart, the number of measles deaths stabilized at 0 at roughly the same time that the vaccination was implemented.


 These charts have been patiently explained repeatedly, yet they continue to excitedly post them despite knowing that they are not interpreting the data correctly.  And notice how they quickly steered you away from their favorite topic,  the imaginary MMR-Austim link. 

This is why the government will eventually mandate vaccines. There is a certain segment of the population who just refuse to be educated.  I would perfectly comfortable allowing them to die off, but the liberals want to save them from themselves for some unfathomable reason.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> According to that chart, the number of measles deaths stabilized at 0 at roughly the same time that the vaccination was implemented.


So now staying exactly where it was is evidence of efficacy?

----------


## Deborah K

> https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article...icleid=2275444


Who funded the study?

----------


## angelatc

> Who funded the study?


No actual data to dispute the findings, so throw out a logic fallacy.  That's textbook.

Insurance companies, with a vested interest in keeping children healthy, funded the study:



> *Conflict of Interest Disclosures:* All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Jain, Ms Marshall, and Mr Kelly report being employees of The Lewin Group. Ms Buikema and Dr Bancroft are employees of Optum. Optum is a wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group and The Lewin Group is an Optum company. The Lewin Group operates with editorial independence. No other disclosures are reported.
> 
> *Funding/Support:* This project was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, and the US Department of Health and Human Services under contract HHSN-271-2010-00033-C.
> 
> *Role of the Funder/Sponsor:* The National Institute of Mental Health had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.



Who is funding the studies that the anti-vaxxers stand behind? Oh that's right - there are none.

----------


## ARealConservative

> 


again, 1963 was when the measles vaccine was introduced and this graph smashes the propaganda graph you are running with

http://www.software3d.com/Home/Vax/MeaslesUSBig.jpg

----------


## angelatc

> again, 1963 was when the measles vaccine was introduced and this graph smashes the propaganda graph you are running with
> 
> http://www.software3d.com/Home/Vax/MeaslesUSBig.jpg


Exactly right.  And the second dose was added in 1986 because the antibodies were waning and the disease was regaining ground.

----------


## Deborah K

> No actual data to dispute the findings, so throw out a logic fallacy.  That's textbook.
> 
> Insurance companies, with a vested interest in keeping children healthy, funded the study:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is funding the studies that the anti-vaxxers stand behind? Oh that's right - there are none.


It's not a logical fallacy, Angie.  Motives are a factor when conducting studies.  But I see you can't answer the question, and that's fine.  I made my point.

Edit:  Forgot to add this from your post:  




> Funding/Support: This project was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, and the US Department of Health and Human Services under contract HHSN-271-2010-00033-C.


Check the revolving door between these departments and big Pharma.

----------


## angelatc

> It's not a logical fallacy, Angie.  Motives are a factor when conducting studies.  But I see you can't answer the question, and that's fine.  I made my point.


So as a Republican, you would say that the iberal left was wrong about the war in Iraq because they are pro-choice? Of course not.  This is the same thing, and it is indeed a logical fallacy.  It is healthy to question the bias of a study, but it is not a valid reason to simply throw out the conclusion.

I did answer the question, quite succinctly and in detail. Again, short version:   Insurance companies who profit from having healthy patients paid for the study.

But you didn't answer mine, which is who is funding the studies that you are basing your conclusions on?

----------


## ARealConservative

> It's not a logical fallacy, Angie.  Motives are a factor when conducting studies.


an appeal to motive is a type of informal logical fallacy.    rather then debate the substance of the data, you merely tried to poison the well on the people publishing the data

----------


## Deborah K

> So as a Republican, you would say that the iberal left was wrong about the war in Iraq because they are pro-choice? Of course not.  This is the same thing, and it is indeed a logical fallacy.  It is healthy to question the bias of a study, but it is not a valid reason to simply throw out the conclusion.
> 
> I did answer the question, quite succinctly and in detail. Again, short version:   Insurance companies who profit from having healthy patients paid for the study.
> 
> But you didn't answer mine, which is who is funding the studies that you are basing your conclusions on?


Your analogy to liberals and the Iraq war and abortion escapes me.  I'm not throwing conclusions out, I was asking who is funding the study in the OP.  It's a relevant question.  And random government departments don't answer the question, nor do they give credence to the study.

As for your question about who funds the studies I base my conclusions on, I don't necessarily base my conclusions on studies.  But I give very serious consideration to court cases regarding damage done to children from vaccines.

----------


## Deborah K

> an appeal to motive is a type of informal logical fallacy.    rather then debate the substance of the data, you merely tried to poison the well on the people publishing the data


Is this a debate class now?

----------


## ARealConservative

> Is this a debate class now?


not really.  We can lead a horse to water, but we can't make it drink.  would it be so bad if you were to walk away slightly more enlightened?

you said it wasn't a fallacy, but it was.

----------


## angelatc

> Your analogy to liberals and the Iraq war and abortion escapes me.  I'm not throwing conclusions out, I was asking who is funding the study in the OP.  It's a relevant question.  And random government departments don't answer the question, nor do they give credence to the study.


What gives credibility to the study is that the facts stand up to scrutiny.  The funding can be a tip-off that they might not, but it certainly does not invalidate the results.




> As for your question about who funds the studies I base my conclusions on, I don't necessarily base my conclusions on studies.  But I give very serious consideration to court cases regarding damage done to children from vaccines.


Judges and lawyers are not scientists, and the burden of proof in the vaccine court is much lower than it would be in a real court.  The vaccine makers do not present a defense, because they don't need to.  It's just a government program doling out cash.

And all those cases involved children who were already sick, and/or had specific genetic abnormalities.  Again, the dangers of getting the diseases are far greater than the dangers of getting the vaccines, and that holds true for all children.

----------


## Deborah K

> What gives credibility to the study is that the facts stand up to scrutiny.  The funding can be a tip-off that they might not, but it certainly does not invalidate the results.


I never said it invalidated the results.  I simply asked who funded the study because, as you have pointed out, funding can be a tip-off for motive.




> Judges and lawyers are not scientists, and the burden of proof in the vaccine court is much lower than it would be in a real court.  The vaccine makers do not present a defense, because they don't need to.  It's just a government program doling out cash.


Right.  They don't need to because settling cases where families are ruined is just the cost of doing business.  




> And all those cases involved children who were already sick, and/or had specific genetic abnormalities.  Again, the dangers of getting the diseases are far greater than the dangers of getting the vaccines, and that holds true for all children


All of the cases do NOT involve children who are already sick, etc..  That is inaccurate.  And not all diseases that big pharma wants to vaccinate against are life threatening or maiming.

----------


## Deborah K

> not really.  We can lead a horse to water, but we can't make it drink.  would it be so bad if you were to walk away slightly more enlightened?
> 
> you said it wasn't a fallacy, but it was.


Granted, technically you are right, in that it _may_ be a fallacy.  However, an appeal to motive is relevant as it pertains to this topic, imo.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Granted, technically you are right, in that it _may_ be a fallacy.  However, an appeal to motive is relevant as it pertains to this topic, imo.


an appeal to motive with nothing else behind it is vapid

----------


## erowe1

> Well that makes two things its not linked to, because it pretty clear its not linked to doing anything about measles either.


Notice that your graphs are of measles deaths, not measles cases. Contrast that with this:
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/con...-measles-cases

----------


## presence

> Notice that your graphs are of measles deaths, not measles cases. Contrast that with this:
> http://www.historyofvaccines.org/con...-measles-cases


If measles doesn't kill anyone any more because of things like toilet bowls, refrigerators, transportation, and chlorinated tap water... what difference does it make if there are cases?   Is it worth 1:2000 babies having seizures, if coping with measles in the modern world has been reduced to the severity of a common cold and a rash?

----------


## erowe1

> If measles doesn't kill anyone any more because of things like toilet bowls, refrigerators, transportation, and chlorinated tap water... what difference does it make if there are cases?   Is it worth 1:2000 babies having seizures, if coping with measles in the modern world has been reduced to the severity of a common cold and a rash?


That's quite a change in tune from you saying that it was pretty clear that the MMR vaccine wasn't linked to doing anything about Measles.

----------


## ARealConservative

> If measles doesn't kill anyone any more because of things like toilet bowls, refrigerators, transportation, and chlorinated tap water... what difference does it make if there are cases?


other serious side effects are being avoided.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pin...#complications

----------


## Deborah K

> an appeal to motive with nothing else behind it is vapid


....in your opinion.  If you don't care who funds a study, and you choose to take it at face value, then go ahead.  I don't.

----------


## Deborah K

> If measles doesn't kill anyone any more because of things like toilet bowls, refrigerators, transportation, and chlorinated tap water... what difference does it make if there are cases?   Is it worth 1:2000 babies having seizures, if coping with measles in the modern world has been reduced to the severity of a common cold and a rash?
> [URL="http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473387-Delaying-Measles-Vaccines-Increases-Risks-Of-Seizures&p=5850361"]


I would like to know if the government vaccinated the 70k plus immigrant children who were invited to cross our borders last year - since the fedgov is so hell-bent on vaccinating American children.  Can't seem to get an answer to that question.  And since the migration, we've had an outbreak of measles..  Just sayin.

----------


## ARealConservative

> I would like to know if the government vaccinated the 70k plus immigrant children who were invited to cross our borders last year - since the fedgov is so hell-bent on vaccinating American children.  Can't seem to get an answer to that question.  And since the migration, we've had an outbreak of measles..  Just sayin.


considering we aren't actually arguing in favor of forced vaccinations, I don't see how your question belongs in this thread?

----------


## Deborah K

> considering we aren't actually arguing in favor of forced vaccinations, I don't see how your question belongs in this thread?


I digressed.  So sue me.  What is your problem?  Why are you riding my ass?

----------


## ARealConservative

> I digressed.  So sue me.  What is your problem?  Why are you riding my ass?


I find you to be very intelligent on issues other then this one.  I don't feel like I am riding your ass, just disagreeing with you.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Study: The entire human race's existence on this planet is proof positive that vaccines are unnecessary.



the human race would live without penicillin too.  there is not a single human innovation that your claim could not be said of

----------


## Deborah K

> I find you to be very intelligent on issues other then this one.  I don't feel like I am riding your ass, just disagreeing with you.


So, if I don't agree with you on an issue, that makes me less intelligent than you?  If my argument seems sloppy today it could be because I'm not at the top of my game right now, for reasons I'd rather not go into. 

My stance on this issue is solid.  There is more than enough evidence to conclude that the current vaccine schedule, as well as the additives in the vaccines are detrimental to immature and developing immune systems.  It's presently a David vs. Goliath issue (i.e. informed families vs. the government and its cohorts), but that will change.

----------


## Working Poor

> but that will change.


I truly hope you are right about that.

----------


## ARealConservative

> So, if I don't agree with you on an issue, that makes me less intelligent than you?  If my argument seems sloppy today it could be because I'm not at the top of my game right now, for reasons I'd rather not go into. 
> 
> My stance on this issue is solid.  There is more than enough evidence to conclude that the current vaccine schedule, as well as the additives in the vaccines are detrimental to immature and developing immune systems.  It's presently a David vs. Goliath issue (i.e. informed families vs. the government and its cohorts), but that will change.


I have been amazed by your lack of sound replies in this thread..something I typically have not seen from you.  sometimes people that are too entrenched in a position will exude such behavior.  What evidence exists to support your position is not being presented, but I would be happy to look at it objectively if provided.

----------


## ARealConservative

duplicate

----------


## Deborah K

> I have been amazed by your lack of sound replies in this thread..something I typically have not seen from you.  sometimes people that are too entrenched in a position will exude such behavior.  What evidence exists to support your position is not being presented, but I would be happy to look at it objectively if provided.


Shall I provide you a dissertation, Professaa!!??  LOL.

I've made arguments a few times in the past on RPFs.  I've researched the subject thoroughly.  I've come to my conclusions based on that research.  Right now I have to go pick up my grandson from school.  Somehow, I really don't believe you would be objective.  You seem to be more interested in scrutinizing my posts on the subject than in looking at the subject objectively.

----------


## donnay

*Independent Study Finding No MMR Autism Link Not So Independent*

By Brandon Turbeville and Heather Callaghan

For those who may be critical of the process of vaccination, particularly its safety and effectiveness, it is a known fact that there has never been a study proving safety or effectiveness that was not linked to a pharmaceutical firm or vaccine maker.[1] Indeed, if vaccines were so easy to prove safe and effective, then certainly an entirely government-funded or independent agency would have done so by now.

With the recent mainstream media hype, however, one would be tempted to believe that such an independent study has finally taken place proving that the *MMR vaccine is not linked to autism*. However, brief research into the allegedly independent "review panel" of the new darling of the month "MMR is not related to autism study" reveals that this is not the case.

For instance, the organization that conducted the study is the Lewin Group, a corporate healthcare consulting firm based in Falls Church, Virginia. The Lewin Group works with a wide range of players in the medical establishment. Most notably *major pharmaceutical companies* like *Pfizer*, *Johnson & Johnson* and Novo Nordisk among others. It should be noted that at least two out of these three corporations are not only vaccine proponents, they are vaccine manufacturers. The Lewin Group also works with a number of major medical and pharmaceutical *associations and organizations* like the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America association.

In addition to working with the *federal*, *state and local governments*, the Lewin Group works with a *variety of foundations* such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Heritage Foundation as well as a large number of *hospitals, health systems, and healthcare providers*. The Lewin Group is especially involved in major *medical insurance programs* like Blue Cross Blue Shield, Health Now New York, LA Care Health Plan, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Wellcare among many others.

*
Continued...*

----------


## Weston White

But Donnay correlation does not imply causation! ...But it is a pretty good hint.  But... But... But...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *Independent Study Finding No MMR Autism Link Not So Independent*
> 
> By Brandon Turbeville and Heather Callaghan
> 
> For those who may be critical of the process of vaccination, particularly its safety and effectiveness, it is a known fact that there has never been a study proving safety or effectiveness that was not linked to a pharmaceutical firm or vaccine maker.[1] Indeed, if vaccines were so easy to prove safe and effective, then certainly an entirely government-funded or independent agency would have done so by now.
> 
> With the recent mainstream media hype, however, one would be tempted to believe that such an independent study has finally taken place proving that the *MMR vaccine is not linked to autism*. However, brief research into the allegedly independent "review panel" of the new darling of the month "MMR is not related to autism study" reveals that this is not the case.
> 
> For instance, the organization that conducted the study is the Lewin Group, a corporate healthcare consulting firm based in Falls Church, Virginia. The Lewin Group works with a wide range of players in the medical establishment. Most notably *major pharmaceutical companies* like *Pfizer*, *Johnson & Johnson* and Novo Nordisk among others. It should be noted that at least two out of these three corporations are not only vaccine proponents, they are vaccine manufacturers. The Lewin Group also works with a number of major medical and pharmaceutical *associations and organizations* like the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America association.
> ...


You mean they actually have experience in conducting studies?

----------


## William Tell

> Edit:  Forgot to add this from your post:  
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				 	 		 			 			 				Funding/Support: This project was funded by the National Institute  of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, and the US Department  of Health and Human Services under contract HHSN-271-2010-00033-C. 			 		
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its ok though, they love us.

----------


## Deborah K

> You mean they actually have experience in conducting studies?


As opposed to whom?  What are you trying to imply?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

i dont understand all the hate on here.... if you like to vaccinate then vaccinate... if you dont then dont.. (I dont).  At least I havent since 1973.

----------


## donnay

> i dont understand all the hate on here.... if you like to vaccinate then vaccinate... if you dont then dont.. (I dont).  At least I havent since 1973.


What will you do when vaccines will be forced upon us because the brainwashing the Medical Mafia, Big pHARMa and MSM have put forth?  California is a good example where it is looking like they will force parents to vaccinate their children with color of law.  Even when hundreds of people showed up to protest this unconstitutional law it went through regardless of their protests.

----------


## Thor

> i dont understand all the hate on here.... if you like to vaccinate then vaccinate... if you dont then dont.. (I dont).  At least I havent since 1973.


Are you a liberal or something?  According to olicharchist Angie, only liberals act like you have since 1973...

----------


## donnay



----------


## Thor

> 


But that is natural news, and infowars, and that is not a scientific document...  it is just a confidential, internal GSK document signed by Dr. Felix Arellano, the Vice President and Head of Biological  Safety and Pharmacovigilance of GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.  It proves nothing.  You liberal...  LOL

We know there are complications - and we all must sacrifice those few "complications"; but not autism.  Autism is not a complication. "Independent" studies have shown this... even though this internal GSK document states there is autism as a side effect...

Document is fake...

Why can't you just accept SCIENCE from big corporations who swap employees with government officials and manipulate studies to sell more scientifically proven (by our standards) drugs to make a bigger profit...  you liberal you..

LOL.

Thanks for sharing.

----------


## juleswin

> No actual data to dispute the findings, so throw out a logic fallacy.  That's textbook.
> 
> Insurance companies, with a vested interest in keeping children healthy, funded the study:
> Who is funding the studies that the anti-vaxxers stand behind? Oh that's right - there are none.


Pro vaxxer zealots are quite the sensitive ones. That someone throws around logical fallacy when someone wants to know who funds the study is a new low for them. The truth is that very few people can question the research and the methods used and with something which probably has multiple factors and a low sensitivity like whatever is causing autism, it can be manipulated to give desired results. So asking about who is funding them is entirely a legitimate question to ask before even trying to analyze their data

This is why any sane person who understands the first thing about science wouldn't start popping champagne after 1 or even a half dozen studies confirming their bias. There are going to be multiple studies coming from different perspective over many years for there to be any kind of consensus.

Now all we have are studies from insurance companies and governments who will get to lose a ton of money just like they lost and continue to lose because of the asbestos fiasco and a few studies from vaccine skeptics some of whom are quickly banished because they came out with the wrong conclusion. Make no mistake, the health insurance companies will lose big time if vaccine safety is called into question because more people will start refusing to take it and their cost of doing business will increase. 

Vaccines overall are good for mankind but I believe they come with some risk and this is something the pro vaxx zealots cannot stand. They want all to agree that vaccines are safer than holy water and if you don't go along with that corporate line of thinking, they will -rep and call you anti vaxxer.

----------


## ARealConservative

> i dont understand all the hate on here.... if you like to vaccinate then vaccinate... if you dont then dont.. (I dont).  At least I havent since 1973.


my hate stems from the the dishonest use of graphs brought forward by people on one side of this discussion.

if a position relies on fake stats, and dishonest representation of the facts, then the position is a bad one.

----------


## donnay

> my hate stems from the the dishonest use of graphs brought forward by people on one side of this discussion.
> 
> if a position relies on fake stats, and dishonest representation of the facts, then the position is a bad one.


You mean like this one?


*Source*

----------


## ARealConservative

> You mean like this one?


your death graph going back to 1900 is designed to minimize the the visual effect the vaccine had on measles.  the more you use that graph, the more I know not to trust anything you write.

----------


## donnay

> your death graph going back to 1900 is designed to minimize the the visual effect the vaccine had on measles.  the more you use that graph, the more I know not to trust anything you write.


Hmm...not my graph.  Can you provide the source?

----------


## Ronin Truth

Just probably in the autistic kids that the study didn't even bother to check.

----------


## Reece

> Well that makes two things its not linked to, because it pretty clear its not linked to doing anything about measles either.


A few things:

1) The date is wrong.  The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963 and the first widespread vaccination was in 1966.
2) The graph seems to be incorrect, although a source is not included to see how they got this data.  The data from the CDC gives us quite different numbers in the 50s-60s:

Measles Deaths

1950: 468
1951: 683
1952: 618
1953: 462
1954: 518
1955: 345
1956: 530
1957: 389
1958: 552
1959: 385
1960: 380
1961: 434
1962: 408
1963: 364 (Vaccine introduced)
1964: 421
1965: 276
1966: 261 (First widespread vaccination)
1967: 81
1968: 24
1969: 41

And so on.  The number of deaths was no longer dropping rapidly in the 50s.  That's easily 200 lives saved per year, which is more significant than some other things libertarians get worked up over.

Your graph has the line far too low in the 50s, even seemingly hitting around 0 some years; it should be around a fourth of the way to 2000 deaths until the vaccinations were ramped up.

3) Your claim that "[it's] pretty clear its not linked to doing anything about measles either" cannot be backed up just by data on deaths anyway.

The number of cases of measles before the introduction of the vaccine was probably decreasing, but not significantly so.  The number of reported cases was actually _increasing_ before the vaccine was introduced.  After the first widespread vaccination, reported cases immediately dropped by over 60%.  The idea that this drop is somehow not related to the vaccine is ludicrous.

Nor is death the only serious complication from measles.  Mental disabilities from measles happens more frequently than death, and continued at high rates before the introduction of the vaccine:

"Nevertheless, in the late 1950s, serious complications due to measles remained frequent and costly.  As a result of measles virus infections, an average of 150,000 patients had respiratory complications and 4000 patients had encephalitis each year; the latter was associated with a high risk of neurological sequelae and death. These complications and others resulted in an estimated 48,000 persons with measles being hospitalized every year [3]."

The _possible_ negative side-effects from vaccines are far rarer than the _definite_ extreme negative side effects from measles, even if you ignore the deaths.

----------

