MMR - again

[marnix]

the same unholy ingredients (activists, vaccine, compensation fund) are trying to link autism with some aspect of vaccination again
in this case, this being the US, it's going to court : US vaccines on trial over link to autism

[marnix]

the website "Bad Science" fingers what the author thinks is the real culprit for the MMR scare, and it's not in the main andrew Wakefield's flawed analysis, but the media who love a health scare because it makes such a good story

[scpg02]

the same unholy ingredients (activists, vaccine, compensation fund) are trying to link autism with some aspect of vaccination again
in this case, this being the US, it's going to court : US vaccines on trial over link to autism

Oh don't get me started. The culprit in their minds is thimerasol, a mercury based perservative. I tried to have a discussion about it once with a true believer. He ended up hating me and everything I said. After our discussion he would routinely attack me on global warming threads. Accused me of all kinds of things including posting as two different people on a previous forum. Claimed I was a government worker. LOL. I'd make more money if I was and have better benefits.

Anyway for him it was all about the mercury. Ok mercury is bad, and yes it should be removed from the vaccines. But as that being the cause of autism I wasn't convinced. Why? I wear contacts. What does that have to do with autism? Allow me to explain.

Contact solution used thimerasol as a perservative. They have since removed it. The eyes are a great way to introduce drugs into the system. Eye drops nearly killed my husband. If thimerasol was the bad guy they say it is then autism would have gone up in the children of women using contact solution containing thimerasol.

One article I read said that they suspected that women who eat a lot of fish were passing mercury on to their infants and the vaccine just pushed them over the edge. Wouldn't that have also shown up in those wearing thimerasol contacts?

Do I believe there are issues with vaccines? Yes. The only one I would not give my kids though is the one for cervical cancer. Well one my kids are boys but even if they were girls I would not. I don't trust that one for somereason.

[drifterz]

While it is true the eyes are effective for administering drugs I don't think it's the same in this case. With vaccines it is being directly applied to the blood stream avoiding any mucus membranes. Also as far as contacts I don't know how much mercury would be involved but I doubt it is as easily absorbed out of the contacts.

I don't know if vaccines are in fact a cause of autism but I wouldn't say it isn't possible. There seems to be a lot of support for this theory. However the greater benefit of using vaccines outweighs the costs in my opinion. Obviously it is better now that these harmful substances are removed from vaccines. I think it's also relevant that vaccines accused of causing autism are usually administered to young children as opposed to eye contact wearers who are likely to be older.

[scpg02]

Also as far as contacts I don't know how much mercury would be involved but I doubt it is as easily absorbed out of the contacts

It was in the fluid not the contacts. It was removed because it was causing allergic reactions supposedly. and you misunderstood my point. I was not suggesting that the contact wearers themselves were becoming autistic.

Remember one study suggested that a pregnant mother eating fish was a contributor of mercury to the infant. Passing the mercury on through both the placental barrier and through breast feeding. How much more mercury would a woman get putting mercury containing contact solution in her eye on a daily basis?

and wouldn't mercury crossing the placental barrier be more likely to do damage to a developing fetus than a vaccine given to an infant?

[marnix]

and here's the final study that gives the lie to the claim that MMR leads to measles infection in the gut leads to autism :

RT-qPCR and molecular diagnostics: no evidence for measles virus in the GI tract of autistic children

!!! NO MEASLES !!!

but for some reason or another, that's not newsworthy to the same newspapers that ran the original scare stories

[scpg02]

but for some reason or another, that's not newsworthy to the same newspapers that ran the original scare stories

that reminds me of a lot of things. AGW is the same thing. You find all these stories about how AGW is real etc but no mention of the recent cooling.

[marnix]

still, the whole AGW business is so full of uncertainty that sticking your neck out either way is likely to leave you with egg on your face
a reversal in global warming during one year is not clear evidence either way : it could be the start of a cooling period, on the other hand it could just be a blip - only time will tell

however, in the case of MMR, there's absolute PROOF, as solid as you'll ever get in science, that the rationale behind a major scare story is dead wrong, and still it doesn't get reported - presumably because it's not what the papers want to peddle ?

[scpg02]

a reversal in global warming during one year is not clear evidence either way :

It's been 10, but yes the time frames are too small when climate changes drastically over 10s of thousands of years.

[marnix]

and here's the final study that gives the lie to the claim that MMR leads to measles infection in the gut leads to autism :

RT-qPCR and molecular diagnostics: no evidence for measles virus in the GI tract of autistic children

!!! NO MEASLES !!!

but for some reason or another, that's not newsworthy to the same newspapers that ran the original scare stories

i know the following article is about tampering of evidence (Hidden records show MMR truth), but one thing also becomes clear - the assertion that problems started to become apparent after the MMR jabs is also suspect

the exact wording was that for 8 out of the 12 children studied “... the average interval from exposure to first behavioural symptoms was 6.3 days”

now compare this with what the actual medical records say :

child #1 : At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism.

child #2 : However, this child’s medical records, backed by numerous specialist assessments, said his problems began three to five months later.

child #4 : Her medical records did not support this. Before she was admitted, she had been seen by local specialists, and her GP told the Royal Free of “significant concerns about her development some months before she had her MMR”.

child #6 : Child Six received his vaccine at the age of 14 months, but had twice previously been admitted with fits.

child #7 : Child Seven was given his at the age of 20 months but, again, problems already showed. “He developed well, had social smiling and was responsive to his mother,” a psychia-trist wrote. “But he began to have pale episodes and ? [sic] petit mal [convulsions], and had an EEG [an electroencephalogram, a common test for epilepsy] done at 15 months, which was abnormal.”

methinks that the assertion comes from the parents, possibly after leading questioning linking the onset of autism with the timing of the MMR jabs - goes to show how fickle memory can be, when previous behavioural symptoms can be forgotten so that the remembered symptoms start after the jabs

another reminder that the plural of anecdote is not data

[marnix]

so andrew Wakefield has been found guilty of gross professional misconduct

MMR scare doctor 'acted unethically', panel finds

still, two things that stood out while i was watching the item on the news :

1. his repeated insistence that the verdict was "unfounded and unjust" reminded me of what Goebels is supposed to have said of the big lie : "a lie, no matter how outrageous, will eventually be accepted as truth if it is repeated often and forcefully enough"
2. his supporters are clearly anti-vaccinationists, not just MMR - what a pleasant lot to be supported by, with a longing for the golden age where children often got killed through preventable diseases

another thing that now stands out is the stance of the media who are all too willing to point the finger at Wakefield, whilst conveniently forgetting that it was the media in the first place who stirred up the findings into a public panic