Perhaps one thing that will follow from more studies like this is a more complicated, multivalenced understanding and discussion of autism causation, without excessive fixation on certain vaccines or substance in vaccines or on vaccines, period.

If there hasn't been an identified "cause" of autism, how can everyone be so quick to rule out vaccines?Autsim cannot be fully "genetic". We would see all identical twins with both children having autism. We don't see this - there are many cases where only one sibling has it.We have gone from giving 3 vaccines in the 1970s (polio, DPT and MMR) to many more than that today - honestly, I would need to pull up the everchanging chart to be sure I had the count correct - and even then, it would vary from one state to the next. It's hard to believe injecting more and more chemicals into our children's young bodies cannot bring with it risks. After all, you can visit the Merck websites and they tell you on their inserts and in their written literature that vaccines come with risks and side effects. I hate the thought that I held my screaming children down - only to be harmed by the very thing that I thought would protect them. But, there are just too many "coincidences" today, to exonerate vaccines. We were once told that smoking was safe too...

But if Andrew Wakefield had not held his infamous 1998 press conference about his Lancet study claiming that there was an MMR-autism "link," would we even be talking about this? Especially keeping in mind that most of the authors of the study have since retracted their support for it?

Jody, your assertion regarding something that is "fully" genetic and identical twins is not accurate. Is is entirely possible for both identical twins to carry the alleles for heritable disorders yet for one twin to be unaffected, later affected, or less affected than the other. This is called "expressivity" in individuals. In saying that, I'm not arguing that autism is "fully genetic," whatever that means; no gene is an island, and all genes are under environmental influences.

You may have hated "holding (your) screaming children down" to give them something that holds miniscule risk--really, documented, miniscule--but you'd've hated it a lot more watching them die from a HiB-related meningitis infection, among the multitude of possibilities that existed before we moved beyond that basic "three" vaccines you describe from the '70s (it wasn't just three)--the good old days when so many more people died from or were permanently disabled by the diseases against which we now vaccinate.

Kristina--exactly. How much harm has that one "publication" done?

The environment is full of poisons, bad air, tainted food, impure drugs outsourced from India, etc.. Just focusing on vaccines as a likely culprit doesn't make sense. Is it because of deep pockets?

Is the claim that a sample size of 1403 showed only 1 case of autism?  Wouldn't you expect more?  At a rate of 1:150, you'd expect around 9.    And, if the expected rate of autism is indeed in this 1:1400 range, isn't the sample size too low to reach any conclusion at all?    Wouldn't you want a sample size such that both the control and non-control group would be expected to contain such a case?

Jim, that rate of 1 in 150 is, I believe, *prevalence*; i.e., the rate of autism in the existing population at a snapshot in time, NOT the rate of newly diagnosed cases in a population.

According to the US Department of Education, 1 in 67 children has an IEP for autism. So, the "1 in 150" (from the CDC) is likely to be too low. How do we go from 1-2 per 10,000 children having autism in the 1980s to current numbers? It is not "better diagnosis". There is nobody in my family history anywhere who had autism, until the 1980s!

In terms of 1970s vaccines, I only received three (polio, MMR, DPT). My mother assured me that every vaccine the doctor suggested, I received. Now, as an adult, I've had several more. When I had 5 within short succession a few years ago, I felt like I was "slurring" my words for a couple of years. Perhaps it was just a "coincidence", but it seemed strange that both of my children had speech delays and are on the spectrum. I guess I too was a bit skeptical - until, I personally had a "vaccine reaction".

I know that Wakefield is often mentioned; however, he is not the only doctor discussing vaccine risks. He may be one of the more publicized, in recent years. But, he is by no means the first. Vaccines come with risks. They ended the practice of smallpox vaccination in 1972, shortly before I was born, because there was a greater risk of harm from the shot than of contracting the disease.

There were other sources of mercury which hit us in the 80's.  Consider that our world is full of dangerous pollutants.
From Nature:

Mercury emissions from Mount St Helens during September 1980Johan C. Varekamp* & Peter R. Buseck*†Departments of *Geology and †Chemistry, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA
Mercury emissions from active volcanoes are of interest for monitoring and forecasting volcanic activity, and for estimating the volcanogenic contribution of Hg to the atmosphere. We collected Hg from air samples during the first two weeks of September 1980, while Mt St Helens was in a non-eruptive phase. Mercury concentrations in the plume varied between 750 and 1,800 ng m-3. With these analyses we calculated that the daily Hg output from the Mt St Helens system ranged from 200 to 1,700 kg. Rough estimates of yearly Hg release from volcanic sources worldwide suggest that volcanoes may be important contributors of Hg to the atmosphere.

And apparently high-fructose corn syrup.

Um, Jody...that's because they eradicated smallpox, and you hit exactly on what the real analysis ought to be in considerations of any medical intervention--the cost-benefit analysis. The costs of vaccines in terms of medical risk are miniscule compared to the weight of their benefits. With the smallpox vaccine, with the WHO near complete eradication by '72, just about any risk with the vaccine--and that was a pretty risky vaccine--outweighed the benefits of protection against a disease that essentially no longer existed.

Polio, tetanus, pertussis, diphteria, HiB meningitis, measles, mumps, and rubella--all potentially deadly and frequently permanently debilitating--still exist.

I had the smallpox vaccine. I had many more vaccines than the three you describe in the early 1970s. Whatever. I'm not sure how that's relevant?

Your stats on 1 in 67 children with an IEP for autism can't be compared either way to the prevalence statistic for the population as a whole. It's not an appropriate comparison, and that's not even accounting for the kitchen-sink approach to using "autism" for this purpose, regardless of the real diagnosis, just so services will be available. It's a bureaucratic trick to cut through red tape.

And there have been numerous studies addressing potential explanations for the alleged rise in autism prevalence. If anything, their conclusions point away from vaccination as part of the etiology or cause. One recent study out of California was pretty clear on that. It is, in fact, in part attributable to diagnostic changes (not "better" diagnosis), and some studies suggest that it is in large part attributable to that.

Even if autism were demonstrated to be 100% heritable, it's still entirely possible for your family not to have had a hint of it before. Many disorders arise anew in family lines; in fact, it's one way we measure the rate of genetic mutation--by determining the rate at which dominantly inherited disorders like Huntington's or achondroplasic dwarfism arise de novo in a lineage. And some disorders--like Huntington's, Fragile X, tuberous sclerosis--are fully heritable yet require a sort of threshold of mutation to be met before they manifest. They lurk in lineages as "premutations" long before they achieve the threshold to show up as a disorder.

So, are some of you implicating mercury, as having a role in autism? Is autism caused by the environment? Or genetics?

Personally, I don't think "mercury" (Thimerosal) is the only issue associated with vaccines. The ingredients used in various shots are quite disturbing - aluminum, fetal remains, live viruses, animal tissue (and viruses that come with it's use) and so forth. To limit the concern to mercury, doesn't make sense. People who receive the live virus vaccines and then spend time around immunocompromised people, actually risk giving them - measles, rubbela, mumps, chickenpox, etc. Individuals who are not eating a "well-balanced" diet risk being immunocompromised and also catching these viruses from those vaccinated. The standard American diet is not "well-balanced".

How do you account for rising rates of asthma, allergies, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, ADHD, learning disabilities, and on and on? Better diagnosis? Genetic? Environmental? What about all of the websites that address specific health issues -cancers, neurological issues, etc.? Old-age disorders (Alzheimers and Parkinson's) are on the rise too. Coincidence? Better diagnosis? Environmental? Genetic mutations?

How anyone can claim that the rise in autism is due to "better" or "different" diagnosis - is stunning. Again, where were all of these kids 20-30 years ago. Where are all of the adults with autism? Now, I'm not describing those with asperger's or who are high-functioning enough to work and support themselves. I'm talking about adults with autism who are non-verbal (or close to it), perseverate repeatedly and who are unable to interact with the world (in a way that allows them to care for themselves). Where are they? I have no relatives with any form of autism - severe or Aspergers - over the age of 20-something. Not one! Strange to say it's due to genetic mutations. What exactly is causing these mutations? Why can't vaccines play a role? I can play devil's advocate and say "maybe vaccines aren't the ONLY cause" - the water supply, food supply, air, etc. leave a lot to be desired and I don't disagree that they are part of the larger problem. But, why if it's JUST those things, why are most kids developing normally once first outisde the womb? Most parents state that their kids "regress" around age 1-2. If it's JUST the environment, why aren't more kids being born autistic? What is causing the regressions?

I get that it is not "popular" to discuss vaccines on this website, but I'm not sure why. This website should allow for the sharing of all opinions and information.  

Probably not.  But that doesn't mean MMR shot taken all together doesn't cause gut issues.   I wish that would be made clearer.

The above comment was in Reply to this:

@Kristina: But if Andrew Wakefield had not held his infamous 1998 press conference about his Lancet study claiming that there was an MMR-autism "link," would we even be talking about this? Especially keeping in mind that most of the authors of the study have since retracted their support for it?

I don't know why Change.org's format doesn't let me post the reply directly to the comment.  Grrr.

Jody, your questions are all over the map. There are strong hypotheses for why allergies are on the rise, for example, but they are unrelated to the hypotheses for diagnostic changes for the other groups of disorders you cite. Autoimmunity alone is something that encompasses a vast number of disorders arising through different physiological mechanisms at different timepoints. If you truly want to know the answers to your questions--if you are "stunned" that changes in diagnosis can account for much of the increase in autism diagnoses--I really, sincerely suggest that you do some research. PubMed is a good place to start.

I didn't "say" that your situation arises from genetic mutations. What I said is that it is common for new mutations to arise leading to the manifestation of a genetic disorder in a lineage in which it was previously absent. Again...this requires that you learn something about it to gain a better understanding of what you're trying to discuss.

Regressions at a specific developmental timepoint occur ALL THE TIME with what you would consider "strictly" genetically heritable disorders, including Rhetts and tuberous sclerosis and many others. Often, a disorder won't manifest until a developmental period arrives that either highlights something that is missing or triggers the physiological response that we see as symptoms. And it has nothing to do with vaccines, even though several of these show up around timepoints along the vaccine schedule. What would you expect? The schedule occurs throughout the early years of childhood. ANY developmental disorder that manifests in childhood is going to show up right around some vaccination timepoint.

In addition, accumulating research suggests that there are early signs of autism that have previously been overlooked, leading to the perception in at least some cases that development was "normal" to a certain timepoint. My youngest son is an excellent case in point. Had I not been aware of some of the signs of retained reflexes and motor manifestations prior to his first birthday, I might have thought that his loss of his single word and two gestures just after 12 months was related to something else, like vaccines. But we already knew he had "issues" and he'd already been in therapy for those issues for several months when that sign emerged. We pretty much saw it coming because we knew what we were seeing. His autistic signs didn't start at 12 months--he was born with several, but even a few years ago, they wouldn't have been recognized as such.

You ask: "Where are all of the adults with autism? Now, I'm not describing those with asperger's or who are high-functioning enough to work and support themselves. I'm talking about adults with autism who are non-verbal (or close to it), perseverate repeatedly and who are unable to interact with the world (in a way that allows them to care for themselves). Where are they?"
To answer your questions, I'd say look at the populations that were dx'd as MR in the '70s and are now in state homes and other facilities. This question has been addressed by others.

You're casting around for some invisible something to blame when there are perfectly good, established, and often well-researched explanations already available.

@Jennifer - Would you please share the links/articles/reports where you located your information about Wakefield being involved in vaccine creation. I could not locate anything to substantiate your allegation. I have never heard such a thing. 

@Kristina - Thank you for your last comment - "We're definitely interested in discussing the science of autism and the latest research."

I'm glad that you are open to discussions, such as these.

@Becky - I also have two children on the spectrum and can relate to a lot of what you said. It is important to have balance - I agree! While I choose not to focus solely on any one dimension of "autism" (or topics associated with it), I try not to ignore any particular topic either. All areas need to be respected and discussed - and acted upon! - incl. education, adult services, early intervention, medical care, social services, etc. We cannot overlook any of our children's needs.In terms of a "cure", whether or not we can find one - or effectively prevent autism - there is no chance of doing so without looking for a cause. I don't look critically at vaccines, due to the pharmaceutical company's "deep pockets", but rather - due to reading quite a bit about the subject. The more books and article I read, the more videos that I watch - the more concerned that I become. Even vets are expressing concerns about the animal vaccination schedules. How can so many professionals be wrong about vaccine risks? My stepfather had cancer removed - from his smallpox injection site. I guess that could be considered a "coincidence". I suppose someone could say that we don't use that vaccine any longer, why bring it up. Since I have had a vaccine reaction and a loved one has had cancer in shot site, it is important to me that we don't absolve vaccines prematurely. If they are causing (or contributing) to the epidemics we're seeing today, then they need to changed (or abandoned). Imagine if they are the shots and somebody already has "proof" - what if you children suffered needlessly? Why force any other child to face autism - if they don't have to? Ending this epidemic won't take the focus off of our children, it will only free up resources to help them. There will be less people demanding services of all kinds. 

We need to love and care for people with autism - that includes treating legitimate medical issues. For my kids, when we addressed their food allergies/intolerances by changing their diets, they felt better and were able to participate at school. We use various supplements to address other (doctor identified) deficiencies and issues. Three years ago my daughter was non-verbal and my son could not stay in his seat at school. Today, my daughter is able to speak, read, write and better able to participate in social activities. My son is above grade level and although still hyper - he does not come home with a daily behavior report. Are they "cured" - definitely not. However, they "feel better" and are doing better at school. They have less tantrums. There are less tears.

It's interesting how parents on both sides of the biomed (or DAN) issue seem to view one another. I wouldn't call anyone shrill. It just seems like so many families are hurting. Too many families are struggling with unmet needs and overwhelming demands. It is hard enough to raise a typical child (whatever that means) in today's fast-paced, everything must be perfect world - our families face an unimaginable battle to help out kids succeed.  

@Emily - Simple questions. Is autism genetic or environmental? Are there risks to being vaccinated?

@Kristina - Thanks for the Wakefield link.

As far as "assumption" - I try not to assume. Many of the comments just sounded very "pro-vaccine".  The more I have learned about vaccines, the more concerned I have become. I choose not to focus on Wakefield, Harris Coulter, David Kirby, Neil Miller, Offit or any other single professional who writes about vaccines. I try to read a variety of books and articles. Dr. Offit is a tough one for me to read, due to his role in developing vaccines and personally benefitting financially from them. I still read the link you sent. I still read some of his blogs and articles. But, I tend to be extra cautious when reading positions by individuals who have a "conflict of interests". Hopefully, we all give these individuals extra scrutiny!

"Vaccines are principally responsible for the increase of those two really dangerous diseases, cancer and heart disease." (Dr. Benchetrit, practitioner)

"I am convinced that the increase of cancer is due to vaccination." (Dr. Forbe Laurie, Medical Director of the Metropolitan Cancer Hospital, London)

"I have removed cancers from vaccinated arms exactly where the poison was injected." (Dr. E.J. Post, Michigan practitioner)

"I have no hesitation in stating that in my judgement the most frequent disposing condition for cancerous development is infused into the blood by vaccination and re-vaccination." (Dr. Dennis Turnbull, 30 year cancer researcher)  

Hey Kristina - the threaded comments aren't working, I can't reply to yours!!!  LOL

Jody--

You wrote, "Simple questions. Is autism genetic or environmental? Are there risks to being vaccinated?"

As I've said before, ANY gene is under environmental influence. Thus, your posited dichotomy between the two is a false dichotomy. Autism is both. The majority of mechanistic studies suggest a multifactorial inheritance. Twin studies suggest a strong genetic component. Your question is not "simple" by any stretch, but at least it's focused.

And I've indirectly responded already to the second question. Of course there are risks to being vaccinated. There are risks to breathing. There are risks to eating. There are risks involved with every single thing we do every single day. And every day, we make rapid calculations about whether the benefits of doing that thing outweigh the risks. And in the case of the vaccines we use today, the overwhelming--OVERWHELMING--evidence in terms of risk-benefit is that the benefits >>>>>>>>>>>> the miniscule risks. They just do.

If I'm not mistaken, the "Dr. Forbe Laurie" guy you quote up there lived in the 19th century. The "Dr. EJ Post" seems barely to have survived into the 20th century. Etc. If you're going to cite from something that was written/published 1957, you should also be aware of how extraordinarily ancient that is in the field of medicine, especially in the field of vaccines.

Emily -

Genetic make-up varies between individuals. We all have organ systems that are more susceptible to damage. "Sensitive" systems will differ from one person to the next. Let's say - those posting on this board - "we" might have more "sensitive" neurological and/or GI systems. My neighbors - they have more "sensitive" lungs. My postman - a more "sensitive" pancreas. When were exposed to the same toxin - "we" get autism/ADHD/alzheimer's/etc. My neighbors get asthma. My postman gets diabetes. We're not all made the same, so toxins are going to damage different systems.

When someone is vaccinated, we are introducing numerous toxins into their body. If they don't detox properly, then those toxins will impact the body system that is most susceptible - based upon their genetic profile. Who can claim that the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks? We can't - if the risks have not not been fully (and honestly) disclosed.  I had chickenpox - I wasn't permanently disabled from it. What if my daughter's varicella shot caused (or contributed to) her autism? Then the risk of the shot is so much greater, than the risk of the disease. Look at Merck's vaccine inserts. They list all kinds of symptoms and side effects. They admit danger - why are you trying to minimize the risks that they are disclosing? They never tells us exactly how dangerous they are...probably, because most people would never think to blame their vaccines for their health issues. I heard that 10-15% of vaccine reactions are reported to VAERS. It seems impossible for anyone to accurately say the rates of vaccine side effects today. But, they are obviously much higher than are being disclosed to us.

In terms of the people that I quoted, my point was to avoid Wakefield and other "popular" activists that we commonly hear from today. It was also to show that vaccines have been an issue of concern for a LONG time! Why are we repeating the same patterns and mistakes - over and over again? Why did people express concerns about vaccines 50-100+ years ago - and we are still using poor studies to quote from (when people try to argue about their "safety")? Well, if they exclude all of the underweight, premature, ill and disabled children from the vaccine studies - don't you think the results will be skewed in their favor? We should all be asking for good, high quality studies that utilize existing populations.

What about this link -
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/cdc-fraud-tax-dollars-and-italian-vaccine-mercury-study/

What are your thoughts? I know that you've said that I'm not "focused", but the link touches upon allergies and other things I've brought up in other posts. What I'm saying is not "all over the place", but I agree that it can be overwhelming to face the fact that we've been harmed and hoodwinked for so long.

Kristina - I am using Firefox.  Here's what I saw from your last post - notice the word Reply isn't there!!!


I'm able too----what browser are you using?   Quote and mention me to reply, lol indeed. Posted by Kristina Chew on 01/28/2009 @ 02:51PM PST Report close Please report any offensive or inappropriate content.
Reason (optional)
 Send a Compliment

Well Reply is at the end of My signature.  Maybe the blog is letting you get the last word in the threads, lol.

Jody, I'm sorry, but your entire latest post shows that you don't really understand what you're talking about, and to reply to that farrago of mishmashed this'n'that is really well nigh impossible. Use "Existing" populations? What else would we use? "Nonexistent" ones? Do you know how these studies are done? This is so tiresome. I've said this to other posters at AutismVox, but it really is important to educate yourself about what you're discussing before you embark on these wholesale queries.

I'm not "trying to minimize" any risks about vaccines. I am stating what ought to be glaringly apparent. The risks of vaccination are miniscule compared to the risks of not vaccinating. Jesus, this stuff gets old. What you are going on and on about IS "all over the place" biologically speaking, argument-wise, history-wise, information-wise...it's just meandering. Your opening paragraph alone requires about six textbooks worth of information to address in all of its fallacious glory.

The Blogger Prometheus has a new post with graphs depicting the rates of autism and mental retardation for the years 1993-2007. Very interesting!

Diana, Thoughtful House preys on people who have money and who are emotionally vulnerable. There's a reason they're not sited on the other side of I-35, their stated mission notwithstanding. "Dr" Wakefield is a charlatan who has taken blood from children at a birthday party, a clear violation of established research ethics. I wouldn't trust that man near me, much less my child.

You say "ad hominem" attacks yet accuse parents who don't try unproven, physiologically impossible "treatments" as risk averse. OK.

And there's not "significant" disagreement among actual scientists about whether conclusive studies have been conducted or not.

And the divide arises from the fact that some people, when confronted by shrill, strident, accusatory conspiracy theorists who wouldn't know basic science if it walked up, bit them on the butt, and said, "Hi, I'm Basic Science" make other people want to put on our ear muffs.

And that was garbled, but you get the idea.

Really...there's just no point in expending energy like the Red Queen in Alice on this kind of thing. Ignorance is bliss, apparently, or at least a great reason for a lot of hand wringing and time wasting.

I assure you that I am not one who would not know basic science.  That is at least one reason I can recognize a flawed study when I see one.

Further, we certainly don't feel preyed upon by Thoughtful House.  Did you look at the link I provided to Thoughtful House?  Did you see the picture of the kid hanging over the sofa arm?  Before we went to Thoughtful House, my kid did that.  And much worse.  Now, he has no autisitic symptoms. 

If I took my kid to a birthday party at a doctor's house and he wanted to draw blood for a study, I would allow it if my child was agreeable.  Since when has it become unethical to want to help children?  And, yes, I figure my kid would be agreeable to a simple blood draw given he wanted to go get his IVs for chelation.

Further, I didn't accuse parents of anything, I am just trying to understand parents who take the "oh all those other parents must be making all that stuff up" approach.  ALL those parents, ALL that stuff....  Besides, many people would not take offense to being called risk averse, some would even consider it a compliment.  But, what can I say?  I am arguing with someone who has taken an approach, leave my child hurting and ill, that I would not, could not, and did not fathom.

Is there any way to opt out of the comments????  (sigh)  I am really tired of all the emails.

Thanks!

Diana, if you know even basic science, you know that it is extraordinarly unethical to draw blood at a children's birthday party, for any reason, in the name of science. There are institutional codes governing these things that require approval of the institution's ethics committee and that at the very least must follow Helsinki protocols, and no peer-reviewed journal would publish results from a study that got their information otherwise. He had to have known, I only hope, that what he was doing was wrong. If he didn't, I'm not sure which was the more egregious defalcation of his duties. And how 'bout that suit with the child with the perforated intestines? Nice stuff.

You did accuse parents of being "risk averse," with the strong inference to be drawn that SOME parents are willing to do whatever it takes for their kids, while OTHER parents are far too cautious and sheeplike ever to be able to see through the vast global conspiracy that is vaccines. It's the common tenor from Wakefield et al. devotees.

BTW, the kids at the party? They weren't agreeable. Some sobbed. One threw up. Sounds like a GREAT birthday party.

Thoughtful House is perfect for folks like you. I have no doubt. And they know it. I don't need to look at the link to Thoughtful House (again). I've spent plenty of time on that topic, I can assure you, including at their Website.

I do not understand what you are saying with your last sentence. I've explained what I've inferred from your comment about "risk averse" parents. If your last comment is in some way intended to imply that I have anything to say about parents who do what they feel is right for their child, you are wrong. What I get unhappy about is when those parents choose to villify me and my parenting choices, asking HOW it is possible that anyone in their right minds could POSSIBLY have their child vaccinated or not POSSIBLY have their child on GFCF or not POSSIBLY be checking out chelation or Thoughtful House, ad nauseum. Or...that we're "risk averse. Or that we need to crawl back under our rocks.

And I also take issue with the rampant misinformation that is spread around on sites like these and parenting boards about vaccines because I know that the ultimate outcome of this viral garbage is death.

It is irresponsible to state - "The risks of vaccination are miniscule compared to the risks of not vaccinating." Tell that to the people who have died or been permanently disabled by vaccines. Tell it to their families. Tell it to the parents and guardians who will likely spend the rest of their lives grieving or struggling to ensure that their child is as self-sufficient as possible - or, at least, is cared for in a humane way when they are gone. Between 1989 and 2009, 2328 "non-autism" VICP cases were adjudicated. Out of those cases, nearly half of the cases (1071) were proven well enough to have them deemed "compensable". Recently, one of those cases involved a girl with autism. She is listed with the "non-autism" cases. Her family must have been wise enough to see that no "autism" case had ever won, so their case instead hinged on mitochondrial damage that resulted in "autism-like symptoms". We will likely never know how many of the other "non-autism" cases involved children who have autism. Likely more than that "one". Keep in mind that most families NEVER file a VICP case. There is a three year statute of limitations. For some of us, it takes that long to really "believe" that vaccines can cause harm. For most of my life, there wasn't a vaccine that I didn't like. Whatever the doctor recommended I (and my children) received. It took me a while to doubt the "safety" of vaccines.

http://www.hrsa.gov/Vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm

Before you say that a couple thousand cases show that the vaccine program is safe, look at the following link. It states - "About 12,000 vaccine-related adverse reactions are reported annually; however, it is estimated that less than 10 percent of doctors file such reports." So, if we argue that roughly 120,000 Americans experience vaccine side effects - is that acceptable? Do we consider that many people expendable? How about 12,000 a year - are they the acceptable "collateral damage" of a "one size fits all" mandated vaccination program?

http://www.answers.com/topic/childhood-vaccine-injury-act

I'm glad that Jesus was brought up...even if I don't agree with the approach used to do so. It allows us to confront the fact that none of us is God. Not one of us has all of the answers. Not one of us can effectively speak about each others' motives or experiences. We can only share our own personal opinions. That's all that any of us are doing here, as we discuss vaccines. We are sharing our OPINIONS. You can't prove that vaccines don't cause autism anymore than I can prove that they do. But, we can have a dialogue about our experiences, opinions and the information we have gathered. Those of us on opposite sides of the issue may not agree with each other. However, we can agree to disagree - without being disagreeable. It's a shame to see those who are so "sure" of their opinions, so easily "rattled".

If you want to say the "studies prove"...then, give us some legitimate studies. Don't give us those corrupt, "doctored" studies that are designed to prove exactly what the author of the study wants to prove. It's crazy to cite studies that have eliminated all "premature, underweight, disabled or ill" children. That's not a valid "population". That's a doctored one. Practitioners are giving "those children", that I just listed, the routine childhood vaccinations. They are not changing the schedule for them. Those kids get all of the shots - unless a parent objects. Most aren't objecting. As a result, the studies that are conducted should be representative of our society. Oh, and don't eliminate anyone based on "genetic" information or "family histories" either!

I get it. Really I do. Most people in the pharmaceutical, govermental and traditional medical "worlds" don't WANT a valid study into vaccines launched. If vaccines were proven to play a role in today's childhood "epidemics" (autism, adhd, asthma, diabetes, cancer, etc.) - then someone would be asked to take responsibility. Most people loathe admitting fault. Few voluntarily take personal responsibility. See "personal responsibility" is popular - until it's YOU who has done wrong. So, few are racing to do legitimate vaccine studies. If vaccines hurt lots of people then someone will have to pay for that damage. Someone will have to apologize. Someone will have to explain what we've done to the children, not just in America, but around the world. There's no race to do that. But, there should be. IF vaccines DO harm people, it's better to know it now then in 100 years. There's no need to harm one more person. You (or your child) will not receive more or "better" services by adding additional "victims" to the headcounts. Identifying a causal factor may; however, end the growing numbers and free up more services and supports for those alive who have already been harmed.

While I may not agree with all of you, I will take many of your comments and look further into the things that you've shared. Hopefully other posts won't be so heated and emotional. It would be nice if we could all learn to respect one another. Most of us are parents. We all want the best for our kids. We're more likely to see that happen by working to be more empathetic and fight with one another, instead of fighting one another. Don't we all already have enough battles to wage? Don't you have to struggle to have your child's educational needs met? Don't you fight for insurance coverage? Don't you argue to ensure that there will be adult services for your "too soon to be adult" child? It's fine to disagree, but what do we win by fighting? Moi got sick of the emails and wanted to stop them. If you're tired of this topic, click the box.

It's not irresponsible to state that. It's a fact. It's statistics, but it's still a fact. Yes, for every medical intervention, there are personal horror stories, and on that level, I have no intention of dismissing those stories. I know some personally. But that doesn't detract from the practicalities of risk-benefit analyses. Ethics alone dictates that.

I've had an adverse reaction to vaccines. Two of them, actually. I never reported them. They were insignificant. Is that significant?

It's your decision to think that studies that don't say what you want are "corrupt" and "doctored" while choosing to believe those that do say what you want. I'm not anyone's mother here, and I'm not going to tell you what to think. You're obviously ascribing to some bizarre conspiracy theory involving thousands and thousands of people, and that's your prerogative. You also obviously aren't even remotely interested in learning what an actual scientist has to say or in the practicalities of disease prevention or any of the above, and I'm not interested in "fighting" with you either. I thought, initially, that what I was doing was "educating" and "clarifying," but one cannot do that to a mind that is shut up tight. I haven't felt terribly heated or emotional here. Just tired, as usual. It's always so exhausting to contemplate the sheer obstacles presented by the failure of science and math education in this country.

Emily said: "I thought, initially, that what I was doing was "educating" and "clarifying," but one cannot do that to a mind that is shut up tight. I haven't felt terribly heated or emotional here. Just tired, as usual."

When I see these endless comment threads on this subject, all I feel is tiredness, too. And despair. You only need to see one or two comments to know that this isn't a conversation, or an argument. No one is going to convince anyone. No one is even going to be able to induce anyone else to truly think. The thought traps and circular 'reasoning' were obvious almost from the start.

"Studies need to be done. If the studies disagree with what I want to hear, they are doctored or biased, or whatever. Just keep going until we get a study that agrees with us (or seems to). Anything that says what I like to hear will NOT be doctored or biased, but expose a shocking truth, that was obvious to me and many other brave people for a long time."

This is pretty much all I read, no matter how it is worded. Time to move on to other matters. More important ones, maybe, but even if they are not, at least something that will matter.