1998 Study Linking Autism to MMR Vaccine Is Retracted

London Bridge

Tough question you ask. In my situation having a non-verbal child who will never be able to live independently, I will take my chances with my other child and deal with the vaccines later, after he is fully developed and has a full understanding of the risks on both sides.

There are many different levels of severity in Autism. My son is some what social and seeks comfort from people. He is not self injurous as many of them are, but went through a bad bout of aggression at age 15.
He knows a lot of things , but is unable to apply them in daily life.

For those reading this post, there is an article by Robert F Kennedy Jr called Deadly Immunity you should read. I believe it was in Rolling Stone 2005.

scb wrote:

London Bridge wrote:

Most parents have seen their child take the downward spiral from 18 to 24 months. I do worry about my second child not being fully vaccinated, but knowing he won't be autistic out weighs all this. As with any mental disabilty, it fucks up your life, can destroy your marriage(which it did mine), plus it makes you never want to have children again.

Pearl Jam is one of the positives in life.

Here's a purely hypothetical and probably unfair question, and I wouldn't wish either of these fates on anyone's children:

Would you rather have an autistic, vaccinated child who lives a long life or a "normal," unvaccinated child who dies young from a preventable (by vaccine) illness?

Just wondering.

OutOfBreath

TravisTheSky wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

Children are very capable to die of measles for instance.

From Dr. Tenpenny: "In 1955, the death rate from measles was less than 3 per ten million; that was eight years before the measles vaccination campaign began in 1963." [Here she is referencing Achievements In Public Health 1900-1999 Impact of Vaccines Universally Recommended for Children]

Looks like vaccination saved us from that killer!

And what was the death rate afterwards?

I just pulled measles out of a hat as an example of vaccination. Not the biggest killer perhaps, but something one can do without, and avoid potentially unnecessary deaths. The real vaccination successes in saved lives/avoided maiming are polio and tuberculosis. Read up on those numbers.

Peace
Dan

_

OutOfBreath wrote:

TravisTheSky wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

Children are very capable to die of measles for instance.

From Dr. Tenpenny: "In 1955, the death rate from measles was less than 3 per ten million; that was eight years before the measles vaccination campaign began in 1963." [Here she is referencing Achievements In Public Health 1900-1999 Impact of Vaccines Universally Recommended for Children]

Looks like vaccination saved us from that killer!

And what was the death rate afterwards?

I just pulled measles out of a hat as an example of vaccination. Not the biggest killer perhaps, but something one can do without, and avoid potentially unnecessary deaths. The real vaccination successes in saved lives/avoided maiming are polio and tuberculosis. Read up on those numbers.

Peace
Dan

Interesting bit from the other article I linked:

Still, when the public got word of Wakefield's work, worried parents skipped vaccines, and the percentage of children who were not vaccinated in the United States rose from 0.77 percent in 1997 to 2.1 percent in 2000, according to an article by Dr. Michael Smith in the journal Pediatrics. A similar rise in children not being vaccinated occurred in Britain.

Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control declared the United States cleared of measles in 2000, the lower vaccination rate brought back the disease in a 2008 outbreak. At least 131 cases were reported to the CDC, and 11 percent of the cases were hospitalized. A handful of children in Britain died of the measles around the time of the U.S. outbreak.

_

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123494736&sc=17&f=1001

Autism Risks Detailed In Children Of Older Mothers
by The Associated Press

AP - February 8, 2010

A woman's chance of having a child with autism increase substantially as she ages, but the risk may be less for older dads than previously suggested, a new study analyzing more than 5 million births found.

"Although fathers' age can contribute risk, the risk is overwhelmed by maternal age," said University of California at Davis researcher Janie Shelton, the study's lead author.

Mothers older than 40 were about 50 percent more likely to have a child with autism than those in their 20s; the risk for fathers older than 40 was 36 percent higher than for men in their 20s.

Even at that, the study suggests the risk of a woman over 40 having an autistic child was still less than 4 in 1,000, one expert noted.

The new research suggests the father's age appears to make the most difference with young mothers. Among children whose mothers were younger than 25, autism was twice as common when fathers were older than 40 than when dads were in their 20s.

The findings contrast with recent research that suggested the father's age played a bigger role than the mother's. Researchers and other autism experts said the new study is more convincing, partly because it's larger. Older mothers are known to face increased risks for having children with genetic disorders, and genes are thought to play a role in autism.

The study was released Monday in the February issue of the journal Autism Research.

Maureen Durkin, a University of Wisconsin researcher who also has studied the influence of parents' age on autism, said it's important to note that the increased risks are small and that most babies born to older mothers do not develop autism.

Durkin said the overall low risk for autism "may be the most important take-home message," especially for prospective parents

The study was based on records of all 5.6 million births in California between Jan. 1, 1990 and Dec. 31, 1999, and on cases of autism diagnosed before age 6. That number totaled more than 13,000; the study involved 12,159 autistic children for whom information on both parents' ages was also available.

The researchers took into account factors that might affect autism diagnosis, including parents' education and race.

Catherine Lord, director of the University of Michigan's Autism and Communication Disorders Center, said the study is stronger than previous research focusing on paternal age, and "gives us a fuller picture of what is going on."

Autism is a developmental disorder that involves mild to severe problems with behavior, communication and socializing.

Recent data suggest about 1 in 100 U.S. children are autistic, a rate that appears to have increased substantially in recent decades. Many experts believe that rise reflects better awareness and a broadening of the definition of autism rather than a true increase in affected children.

Births to older mothers also have risen in recent years, but that likely only accounts for a small part of the increase in cases, said study co-author and UC-Davis researcher Irva Hertz-Picciotto.

Dr. Edwin Cook, an autism researcher with University of Illinois at Chicago, offered a novel theory for why autism is more common among children with older parents: Autism is known to run in families and it may be that adults with mild or undiagnosed autism have children at later ages, Cook said.

The study doesn't include information on autism in adults.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press

JS81606

If one is able to contract the disease (measles) and live and heal from it, their risk of colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, bone cancer are significantly lower than those who receive the vaccine (injected). from Amer. J of epidemiology. All infectious diseases were on the decline when the vaccine was introduced. (TRUE!) (Public Health legislation cleaned up the water/ sewers/ etc..) J of infectious disease. Look it up. The entire vaccine concept is based on fear and a paradigm that we are nothing more than weak helpless individuals who are being "attacked" by germs, based on concept called the "germ theory". Why is it then that when they isolate a germ, it is not always present in the disease? How come five men sitting at a table, one sneezes and two get sick, while the other two have total vitality? We are trading common childhood diseases, which we have had for thousands of years to help us evolve on this planet, for an unknown host of much more debilitating diseases. All for conveinence? For all those with a child with ASD (autism spectrum disorder) my heart goes out to you. Secondly, the retraction by the Lancet was money based. Take a look in these medical journals,( I will not list them all as it is not my job to do what you can do for yourself.) some as far back as 1981, where they found a direct link from vaccines and a condition/ syndrome/ neruological deficit, etc.. JAMA 1992, Pediatric Infect Disease 1983,Lancet 1991, (this one concerns the mmr shot and child mortality and attentuated virus to live virus in the gut! HMMMMM? So glad Lancet recanted Dr Wakefield, yet this study done seven years earlier already raised some serious questions. The journals are out there, find them and read them. As for the articles that are pro vaccine, continue reading and read exactly what they find immunologically, neurologically, in these studies. Science seldom connects the dots for us, it is our duty to investigate that which we find offensive and determine if is offensiveness is warranted. In this case, the reasearch, and there is a boat load, says vaccines are one cluprit in the de-evolution of man. Yes they are implicated in a host of other coditions we see today. ASD is just one. Today, ASD 1 in 91, two years ago, 1 in 150, 1998, 1 in 750, 1989, 1 in 1000. Those are not good numbers!

As far as the doctors who recanted their positions, five are working directly with big pharma. In other words, they are paid, not by you, or me, or the damaged child, but by the manufacturer of the vaccine. Conflict of interest. No. Just criminals. Vist VAERS. Look at he stats. It is mindblowing.


Peace.

London Bridge

Just want to thank everyone for some really good posts.

TravisTheSky

scb wrote:

Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control declared the United States cleared of measles in 2000, the lower vaccination rate brought back the disease in a 2008 outbreak. At least 131 cases were reported to the CDC, and 11 percent of the cases were hospitalized. A handful of children in Britain died of the measles around the time of the U.S. outbreak.

If we were 'clear' of measles, then where did it come from 8 years later?
It could be like rabies and foot and mouth in animals, where the vaccines for those diseases are keeping it in circulation and causing outbreaks.

On a different point: Autism is much more prevalent in northern cities where women get less Vitamin D from the sun.

The Generation Rescue article provided some great reasons for the Wakefield study to be discredited now, all these years later, yeah? Or do you disagree?

_

JS81606 wrote:

If one is able to contract the disease (measles) and live and heal from it, their risk of colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, bone cancer are significantly lower than those who receive the vaccine (injected). from Amer. J of epidemiology. All infectious diseases were on the decline when the vaccine was introduced. (TRUE!) (Public Health legislation cleaned up the water/ sewers/ etc..) J of infectious disease. Look it up. The entire vaccine concept is based on fear and a paradigm that we are nothing more than weak helpless individuals who are being "attacked" by germs, based on concept called the "germ theory". Why is it then that when they isolate a germ, it is not always present in the disease? How come five men sitting at a table, one sneezes and two get sick, while the other two have total vitality? We are trading common childhood diseases, which we have had for thousands of years to help us evolve on this planet, for an unknown host of much more debilitating diseases. All for conveinence? For all those with a child with ASD (autism spectrum disorder) my heart goes out to you. Secondly, the retraction by the Lancet was money based. Take a look in these medical journals,( I will not list them all as it is not my job to do what you can do for yourself.) some as far back as 1981, where they found a direct link from vaccines and a condition/ syndrome/ neruological deficit, etc.. JAMA 1992, Pediatric Infect Disease 1983,Lancet 1991, (this one concerns the mmr shot and child mortality and attentuated virus to live virus in the gut! HMMMMM? So glad Lancet recanted Dr Wakefield, yet this study done seven years earlier already raised some serious questions. The journals are out there, find them and read them. As for the articles that are pro vaccine, continue reading and read exactly what they find immunologically, neurologically, in these studies. Science seldom connects the dots for us, it is our duty to investigate that which we find offensive and determine if is offensiveness is warranted. In this case, the reasearch, and there is a boat load, says vaccines are one cluprit in the de-evolution of man. Yes they are implicated in a host of other coditions we see today. ASD is just one. Today, ASD 1 in 91, two years ago, 1 in 150, 1998, 1 in 750, 1989, 1 in 1000. Those are not good numbers!

As far as the doctors who recanted their positions, five are working directly with big pharma. In other words, they are paid, not by you, or me, or the damaged child, but by the manufacturer of the vaccine. Conflict of interest. No. Just criminals. Vist VAERS. Look at he stats. It is mindblowing.


Peace.

I was going to reply, and then I realized you're the same person who hasn't answered my questions from your other post. You conspiracy-theorist folks really scare me.

I'd just like to point out, in all your attempts (with zero proof to back it up) to discredit research as being invalid because it's supposedly driven by money motives, that one of the many reasons THIS study was discredited was because the author not only falsified his research methods, but also because he had a direct profit motive to do so. How can you say profit motives which are unproven invalidate research but profit motives which are proven don't?? :roll: Seriously??? :roll: :?

Edit to add: If you're going to throw around "sources" as if to lend validity to your argument, you've got to cite your sources better and be more clear about what statements you're referencing. Otherwise people can't follow your source. But I have a feeling that was your intention all along.

JS81606

Thanks for the label. Do I need to send you the article myself? Go to pubmed, spend the $ to research on your own. I gave you journals to start with and from there, do the math. If you would like the names of the doctors who recanted and said the research was flawed, take the names, do a search, and WOW! I'll be a monkeys uncle, they have other positions whereby they are reimbursed for their input to pharma. Conflict of interest? NO! Here is the simple matter, your questions are easliy answered by you. You believe one thing, and most undoubtedly spent more time researching your ipod than the shots you had, gave your child if you have one or whatever you feel needs t be injected with chemicals to sustain life. Now that is a oxymoron. Chemicals = Life. If I pay others to research for me, and they in turn send me articles, why can't you do the same? Get off your duff and read, it is quite liberating. I'll continue to watch as this country continues to spiral downward with all the new illnesses we give our kids. Austism, 1:91, (read as one in ninety-one) Here, Lancet 1991, the research took place in Senegal. Key words will help. If the live measles virus found in the intestines of the children Dr Wakefield happened there by chance, how come they were not present in the children without the vaccine. why was each child with the virus found, found to have a reactive IgE with skin abrasion? I thought those immune responses quieted after the infection was killed off. But no here, Why? What irrefutable evidence other than opinions did these doctors give. Why did Mr Horton not give any evidence other than buggish statements saying Dr Wakefield was unjustified in how he approached the research. His parameters did not meet the four rules of objective science? What do you have that supports vaccine that is so conclusive that a blind monkey coud see the truth? Nothing! There are not independent studies not linked to big pharma. All indpendent studies are withheld as invalid. Check with CDC, they concur.

_

So what I hear you saying is:

1. "My 'return' key is broken & I have no ability to create paragraphs."

2. "I am unable to provide specific, properly-cited sources to back up my claims, so I'll just insult you instead."

JS81606

1. I type as I think. If I do not find the return key, may be cuz' I skipped typing class.
2 Here is just a short list you can start with. Please send $ as you are obviously too damn lazy to do your own work. Seems to me you managed quite well in group projects as the others were able to pull you thru. (no insult, observation!)
2 1/2. I have included pro's to vaccincation and cons. Also info on public health, as that is what this issue is about, correct? I like to read both sides as then I am prepared to understand the entirety of the issue. I tend to step carefully where my understanding is limited and biased based on personal convictions. (Just where do we develop our convictions from....past expereince? Ojective science? Myths? Family? GOD?)
JAMA 1992:267(3)392-396 (first part, is the journal, 2nd year published, third vlume, followed by pages #'s)
JAMA 1994: 271(20) 1602-1605
Pediatric Infectious Dis 1983: 2(1) 7-11
Neurology 1982 (32) 4
Journal of Pediatrics 1997: 131(4) 529-535
Cochrane Database Syst Review 2005;(4)CD004407
Lancet 1988 351:1327-1328
Journal Infectious Dis 1994; 169(1)77-82
Pediatrics 2000; 106:1307-1317
3.If these are not sufficient sources, oh please let me know, for I have so much extra time to take care of those that can't do for themselves that those of us who do, seem to manage quite well.
4.Good luck with the reading and may you find the anwers that you so desparately desire.

NBER Digest, March 2002 “Why do death rates decline?”
J of Allergy Clinical Immunology 2006:118(4)938-9415.
5. oops! I made another mistake. Please remind me again.



Peace

cincybearcat

scb wrote:

London Bridge wrote:

Most parents have seen their child take the downward spiral from 18 to 24 months. I do worry about my second child not being fully vaccinated, but knowing he won't be autistic out weighs all this. As with any mental disabilty, it fucks up your life, can destroy your marriage(which it did mine), plus it makes you never want to have children again.

Pearl Jam is one of the positives in life.

Here's a purely hypothetical and probably unfair question, and I wouldn't wish either of these fates on anyone's children:

Would you rather have an autistic, vaccinated child who lives a long life or a "normal," unvaccinated child who dies young from a preventable (by vaccine) illness?

Just wondering.

scb...no parent could ever answer this question.

London Bridge

For me it was easy to answer.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

London Bridge wrote:

Most parents have seen their child take the downward spiral from 18 to 24 months. I do worry about my second child not being fully vaccinated, but knowing he won't be autistic out weighs all this. As with any mental disabilty, it fucks up your life, can destroy your marriage(which it did mine), plus it makes you never want to have children again.

Pearl Jam is one of the positives in life.

Here's a purely hypothetical and probably unfair question, and I wouldn't wish either of these fates on anyone's children:

Would you rather have an autistic, vaccinated child who lives a long life or a "normal," unvaccinated child who dies young from a preventable (by vaccine) illness?

Just wondering.

scb...no parent could ever answer this question.

And yet they answer it every day when they make these decisions (if they actually believe vaccines cause autism, that is).

cincybearcat

scb wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

Here's a purely hypothetical and probably unfair question, and I wouldn't wish either of these fates on anyone's children:

Would you rather have an autistic, vaccinated child who lives a long life or a "normal," unvaccinated child who dies young from a preventable (by vaccine) illness?

Just wondering.

scb...no parent could ever answer this question.

And yet they answer it every day when they make these decisions (if they actually believe vaccines cause autism, that is).

No they aren't answering it when they make these decisions as you have no guarantee that if you get your child vaccinated they will automatically become autistic and also automatically live a long life. And you certainly are not ensuring your child a young death if you choose not to get them vaccinated.

cincybearcat

scb wrote:

And yet they answer it every day when they make these decisions (if they actually believe vaccines cause autism, that is).

If they believe vaccinations will certainly cause autism it's an easy choice...no vaccination.

London Bridge

Oh, I firmly believe my second child would be Autistic if I would have continued with the vaccinations.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

scb...no parent could ever answer this question.

And yet they answer it every day when they make these decisions (if they actually believe vaccines cause autism, that is).

No they aren't answering it when they make these decisions as you have no guarantee that if you get your child vaccinated they will automatically become autistic and also automatically live a long life. And you certainly are not ensuring your child a young death if you choose not to get them vaccinated.

Okay, they're answering which risk they'd rather take. Better?

_

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

And yet they answer it every day when they make these decisions (if they actually believe vaccines cause autism, that is).

If they believe vaccinations will certainly cause autism it's an easy choice...no vaccination.

How could ANYONE believe that vaccination will certainly cause autism?? If that were the case, ALL children who were vaccinated would be autistic.... which, of course, is not the case.

cincybearcat

scb wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

And yet they answer it every day when they make these decisions (if they actually believe vaccines cause autism, that is).

If they believe vaccinations will certainly cause autism it's an easy choice...no vaccination.

How could ANYONE believe that vaccination will certainly cause autism?? If that were the case, ALL children who were vaccinated would be autistic.... which, of course, is not the case.

Look at LondonBridge's last post.