Autism... caused by Vaccinations?

[Praxius]

From Supplied Link:

"Diseases had already begun to disappear before vaccines were introduced, because of better hygiene and sanitation."

Statements like this are very common in anti-vaccine literature, the intent apparently being to suggest that vaccines are not needed. Improved socioeconomic conditions have undoubtedly had an indirect impact on disease. Better nutrition, not to mention the development of antibiotics and other treatments, have increased survival rates among the sick; less crowded living conditions have reduced disease transmission; and lower birth rates have decreased the number of susceptible household contacts. But looking at the actual incidence of disease over the years can leave little doubt of the significant direct impact vaccines have had, even in modern times.

Compared to my above post, this doesn't cover my skepticism as I agree with this.... to a degree. It's the clouded mix of information in between this fact which is know, compared to the amount of vaccines being distributed today and their actual effectiveness which is also compared to the actual risks today.

..... Are we expected to believe that better sanitation caused incidence of each disease to drop just at the time a vaccine for that disease was introduced? Since sanitation is not better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Hib disease in children in recent years in countries with routine Hib vaccination (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping in the United States of America) to anything other than the vaccine.

Wrong... sanitation has indeed improved since 1990 in the means of more societies recycling, moving biodegradable products from your trash into compost bins (Thereby less bacteria buildup [ie: mold spores from fruits and vegitables, rotting meat products] in your garbage bags and spores being released into the air in your houshold.) The reduction of pollution overall since 1990 is alone a contributor to increased health. Not to mention the continual improvments of cleaner water and hygen around the world, esspecially in developing countries....

This of course is not to say Vaccines have also had an effect on health too, but the above statement is incorrect. Also granted, pollution is still no where perfect in the world and there are still effects seen due to pollution today, but it's still improved since 1990.

I am currently looking for backup information.....

 

[Praxius]

Info directly from the same site which claims sanitation hasn't inproved since 1990:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2004/pr58/en/index1.html

The world appears on target to reach the MDG drinking water goal of reducing the number of people without access to an improved drinking water source3 to 800 million by 2015. Over the past 12 years, WHO and UNICEF estimate that an additional 1.1 billion people have gained access to an improved source of drinking water - bringing global coverage rates up to 83 per cent, from 77 per cent in 1990.

And

Progress toward the sanitation goal

While more than 1 billion people have gained access to basic sanitation services, population growth has outstripped our efforts, translating the numerical gains into much smaller gains in proportional terms. In 1990, 49 per cent of world had access to basic sanitation facilities. Today, that figure has increased by only nine percentage points, leaving us way behind schedule for the 2015 MDG target (75 per cent coverage). If this trend continues, the world will miss its sanitation pledge by over 500 million people.

Regardless, the above counters their own claims that they have not improved.... which is the point I am making. If they want to be considdered credible, then perhaps they shouldn't contradict themselves.

 

[dancing-loon]

http://www.who.int/immunization_safety/aefi/immunization_misconceptions/en/index1.html

It doesn't get a whole lot more reliable to me than this.

(btw, if a five second google search turns up more than 10 links for me, I generally don't post sources)

Sorry, Karrie, I inconvenienced you! Sure, I could have found the WHO pages myself, but that is just another impersonal institution of huge power and influence. I rather listen to the individual stories of real parents.

Does it not rouse some perplexity in you that the vaccinations can never be the least harmful or at fault or casting justified doubt?? NO, any mental illness is caused by "old fathers" for instance!!:lol::lol::lol: Or a whole register of other likely causes, one just doesn't know yet for sure, but it is not the blanket, indiscriminately applied toxic serums... that much is known for sure!!! The government is so convinced that they have made it a LAW!!! Only with some letter from a religious outfit was I able to spare my son the immunization!!! Now, I've heard, you can't even get away with that!!!
Here I am 100% with Scott-Free.... I reject the governmental meddling in my business. They have not proven to me or anybody else that these immunizations are harmless!!

 

[karrie]

Sorry, Karrie, I inconvenienced you! Sure, I could have found the WHO pages myself, but that is just another impersonal institution of huge power and influence. I rather listen to the individual stories of real parents.

Does it not rouse some perplexity in you that the vaccinations can never be the least harmful or at fault or casting justified doubt?? NO, any mental illness is caused by "old fathers" for instance!!:lol::lol::lol: Or a whole register of other likely causes, one just doesn't know yet for sure, but it is not the blanket, indiscriminately applied toxic serums... that much is known for sure!!! The government is so convinced that they have made it a LAW!!! Only with some letter from a religious outfit was I able to spare my son the immunization!!! Now, I've heard, you can't even get away with that!!!
Here I am 100% with Scott-Free.... I reject the governmental meddling in my business. They have not proven to me or anybody else that these immunizations are harmless!!

I was simply explaining why I didn't post it loon, it was no inconvenience to go get it. I just find we end up with a lot of extraneous links is all.

As for listening to the parents... no, I don't think listening to the parents is a good source. I've explained why previously... that often the onset of autism occurs at ages coincidental to the administration of vaccines. Parents who are uneducated in the way autism works (yes, it's largely genetic and older parents are more likely to pass along bad genes, that's scientifically proven), parents who are biased in their view because they've already decided the vaccine is at fault, are not a good source of information on whether there is a true link or not.

Health organizations are a great source of information, because it is their job to aim for as healthy a population as possible. And the WHO takes a definite stand in many ways against big business's meddling (the issue of breast feeding is one that springs readily to mind). WHO is not a pharmaceutical company, there's a difference there in the quality of info.

And no loon, I don't think vaccines are entirely safe. I don't think any medicines are. No one who is educated should. There's a reason there are warnings on the labels, and signs in the health unit waiting rooms telling you not to leave with your child until as much as 30 minutes after the vaccine. There are risks.

 

[karrie]

Regardless, the above counters their own claims that they have not improved.... which is the point I am making. If they want to be considdered credible, then perhaps they shouldn't contradict themselves.

They didn't contradict themselves IMO Praxius. The first reference I read said 'in countries with a vaccination schedule', and further stated 'especially the united states'. The other sources talk about increase in sanitation on a global scale, not merely in countries with a vaccination schedule applicable to the disease they were discussing. Perhaps I'm missing something you're seeing, but, one is a qualified set of data, the other a widespread.

 

[Praxius]

They didn't contradict themselves IMO Praxius. The first reference I read said 'in countries with a vaccination schedule', and further stated 'especially the united states'. The other sources talk about increase in sanitation on a global scale, not merely in countries with a vaccination schedule applicable to the disease they were discussing. Perhaps I'm missing something you're seeing, but, one is a qualified set of data, the other a widespread.

From what I read they said that sanitation has not improved since 1990 (Which seemed as their key defence to vaccines being the be all magical solution) and in another link from their own site states that they have indeed improved.

Now either they contradicted themselves, they don't know how to incorporate their collective of studies they present to the public (A common scientific flaw I see on an everday basis) or they're full of it.

Now if they can not keep their details and fact straight with one another, then how can one hold faith in the information they provide?

They used a generic claim that sanitation hasn't improved, which to me means a global classification, then uses an example of the US, but didn't provide information about the US's sanitation improvements themselves to back up their claim. The references in which I cited are expressing a 1.1 billion number of people have gained access to better sanitation, which I am sure are not all in the US and other developed countries, but globally. This could also mean native reservations and lower income housing in the US, Canada or elsewhere in the same countries which claim to have a regular vaccine schedule. And in reading local news in our countries just in the last couple of years, there have been countless reports of pitiful living conditions on reserves, and I am sure that since those have become public, they have since improved.

Regardless, improved sanitation does help improve overall health and resistence to viruses and diseases, and to say otherwise and that vaccines alone are responsible for the improvements, seems sorta foolish to me. Plus most of these developing countries which have had improved sanitation, do usually go hand in hand with vacinations increasing due to the obvious problems of diseases in those areas (Which is why sanitation was improved there to begin with)

 

[karrie]

Regardless, improved sanitation does help improve overall health and resistence to viruses and diseases, and to say otherwise and that vaccines alone are responsible for the improvements, seems sorta foolish to me. Plus most of these developing countries which have had improved sanitation, do usually go hand in hand with vacinations increasing due to the obvious problems of diseases in those areas (Which is why sanitation was improved there to begin with)

again I feel you're reading it a bit wrong. They didn't say that the decrease in all disease is only from vaccines. The article states that the virtual disappearance of one particular disease is attributed to the vaccine, implying that hygiene alone wouldn't be able to achieve that.

 

[karrie]

BTW, Prax, we need to get some more people posting because it's starting to come off like I'm riding your butt today. I'm gonna take a break, but when I come back, I expect you to have drummed up some fresh input from others. lol.

 

[Tonington]

The sanitation improvements in the past two decades have been modest at best, while the gains made in disease control have been staggering. 20,000 cases down to 1,419 in just one disease. In that time access to drinking water improved by 6 % and sanitation facilities by 9 %.

Check out what happened with smallpox. The first disease eradicated by humans. How? With a comprehensive vaccination campaign.

Praxius, do you remember the mumps outbreak last year? We had an outbreak of mumps just last year, after the vaccination program left one age group at higher risk of transmission due to lapses in vaccination coverage( offered only a one dose schedule rather than a two dose schedule.) After the introduction of the mumps vaccination in the 70s, the cases of mumps dropped by 99%. In 1996, a second dose was added to the program, as protection fades with time for passive artificial immunity.

 

[Praxius]

again I feel you're reading it a bit wrong. They didn't say that the decrease in all disease is only from vaccines. The article states that the virtual disappearance of one particular disease is attributed to the vaccine, implying that hygiene alone wouldn't be able to achieve that.

All granted, minus this snippet:

"... it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Hib disease in children in recent years in countries with routine Hib vaccination (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping in the United States of America) to anything other than the vaccine."

To me, call me crazy, but that sounds more like it and only it was the solution to the problem and nothing else.

That was actually the main line that caught my eye and made me feel it required some dispute.

As a repeat, I never said Vaccines were useless.... I question the actual level of them being used every year and the actual reasons why we all should use them. Also.... which vaccines are genuine and which are actual causes of the problems.

 

[Tonington]

As a repeat, I never said Vaccines were useless.... I question the actual level of them being used every year and the actual reasons why we all should use them. Also.... which vaccines are genuine and which are actual causes of the problems.

That was my point in mentioning the difference susceptibilities of people to mumps in the two groups (one vaccine versus two.)

What is a genuine vaccine? All vaccines contain the material needed to invoke the anitigen-antibody response. It's not saline solution being injected.

 

[Praxius]

BTW, Prax, we need to get some more people posting because it's starting to come off like I'm riding your butt today.

Na no worries, just be gentle, it'd be my first time. But I also expected that I would get reposnes similar from someone else if not you, so it's all good.

I'm gonna take a break, but when I come back, I expect you to have drummed up some fresh input from others. lol.

In time I imagine.

 

[Praxius]

The sanitation improvements in the past two decades have been modest at best, while the gains made in disease control have been staggering. 20,000 cases down to 1,419 in just one disease. In that time access to drinking water improved by 6 % and sanitation facilities by 9 %.

Fair enough... I wasn't attempting to claim that sanitation was the be all end all solution to the problem, just like I was trying to say Vaccines were not the be all end all. But the site linked seemed to potray that vaccines were, all on their own, the solution. For a site as well known as this one linked, and the type of information they are supplying to the public, I would expect nothing less then them to be careful on what they say and how they say it.

Check out what happened with smallpox. The first disease eradicated by humans. How? With a comprehensive vaccination campaign.

Indeed, it worked wonderfully, although the needles of the time were about as small as a McDonalds Straw and I imagine hurt like a mofo.... they worked.

But I am concerned about who all are milking off these sucesses for any other agenda but profit..... where some vaccines seem somehow responsible for the health complications of many.

Praxius, do you remember the mumps outbreak last year? We had an outbreak of mumps just last year, after the vaccination program left one age group at higher risk of transmission due to lapses in vaccination coverage( offered only a one dose schedule rather than a two dose schedule.) After the introduction of the mumps vaccination in the 70s, the cases of mumps dropped by 99%. In 1996, a second dose was added to the program, as protection fades with time for passive artificial immunity.

Yeah I remember those occuring, most of which in NS seemed to have occured in many Universities, such as St FX and I believe Acadia. Good thing my University days were long over by that time.

 

[karrie]

"... it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance .... to anything other than the vaccine."

To me, call me crazy, but that sounds more like it and only it was the solution to the problem and nothing else.

And yes, since that sentence is discussing the virtual disappearance, I think it's an accurate statement. Good hygiene doesn't eradicate most diseases. It may prevent them, but not bring about the virtual disappearance that this sentence is discussing. But, we're picking nits now.

 

[karrie]

But I am concerned about who all are milking off these sucesses for any other agenda but profit..... where some vaccines seem somehow responsible for the health complications of many.

Considering the way Canadian health care is run, I tend to believe that we're getting what's best to keep the population healthy. The Canadian government has been proven to not be out to pad the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, quite the opposite. And I guarantee, given the cost to the government every time a child suffers an issue like autism, they'd be cracking down on it mighty hard if it was some unnecessary ingredient in the vaccines doing it, as is so often claimed by their detractors.

 

[tracy]

All granted, minus this snippet:

"... it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Hib disease in children in recent years in countries with routine Hib vaccination (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping in the United States of America) to anything other than the vaccine."

To me, call me crazy, but that sounds more like it and only it was the solution to the problem and nothing else.

That was actually the main line that caught my eye and made me feel it required some dispute.

As a repeat, I never said Vaccines were useless.... I question the actual level of them being used every year and the actual reasons why we all should use them. Also.... which vaccines are genuine and which are actual causes of the problems.

Please note, I believe the decrease in the disease from over 20 000 cases to 1419 happened in 3 years (from 1990 to 1993). There is no way hygeine and sanitation changed enough in 3 years to do that. That's the point WHO is making.

 

[Praxius]

Please note, I believe the decrease in the disease from over 20 000 cases to 1419 happened in 3 years (from 1990 to 1993). There is no way hygeine and sanitation changed enough in 3 years to do that. That's the point WHO is making.

But the point I was trying to make was that they really don't provide anything to confirm their assumptions. It might very well be true that vaccines did have the most effect on this, but it just seemed a little "Almighty" of them to word it the way they did.

I mean I had this discussion in another forum a while back about Vaccines and went through the same arguments. People for some reason figured I wouldn't have anything to do with vaccines by my position. All I'm doing is just making sure people think of things before just relying on what others say.... much like my own posts I don't normally claim to say what I say is right. Sometimes I just throw something in to make sure you're reading ;-)

And besides, it gives for a good debate for thinking. It's not just how a report or what someone concludes as the final answer that makes me think about these things, it's how it is worded and how they came to that conclusion. Why did they come to that conclusion, what are the pros and the cons for stating the final conclusion? Is the person or party who claims something consistant with what they state.

To me, it wasn't the dispute on if or if not vaccines were the major contributor, it was the comparisons to other reports that to me, still contradict one another.

But *shrugs* meh.

Ever since I've read up, seen, watched, listened to plenty of things relating to the pharmacutical companies and their money grabs at health expenses (Anti Depressants, everybody today seems to have some mental illness, etc.) and other things.... I have pretty well lost any and all faith in what these places claim.

Plus I also put into factor my own personal life experiences, my own health, and those in which I talk to on an everyday basis. I have a few friends, one of which I just finished talking to who seem to be so screwed up in their lives, always sick, headaches, depression and the sort, where they never had it to the extent they do now, whom have been loaded up on Px's to fix their problems.... now they're much worse then before, have more side effects to deal with, and the doctors just give them more Px's to counter the side effects of the original Px's. Like seriously, wtf kind of solution is that?

I see what they go through, plus what I went through not too long ago, and to be perfectly honest, I don't trust these companies and organizations have any of our best interests at heart. The fact that this family in the first post won their battle in relation to what happened to their child, it just adds onto my original opinions of these organizations. Apparently they won in the court of law, therefore there must have been something screwed up going on and the company which gave them this vaccine were found liable for what happened to their kid.... so my only point is that vaccines, at least some of them, are a risk to some people's health and I only hope people just look into these things before taking action, nothing more.

 

[tracy]

The thing is, you're ignoring the details of this decision. The vaccine didn't cause her to get autism. She has a genetic disorder. It's rare and it causes autism-like symptoms. It's possible that the vaccine aggravated the genetic disorder she already had. That's all this court decision says.

It's true, if you have a rare genetic condition like this girl did, then many things will be harmful to you that aren't harmful to the general population. It doesn't mean the company did something wrong. That's like saying pea farmers did something wrong because my mom's allergic to them. It's true that many prescriptions are probably unecessary and can be harmful and have bad side effects. It's true that drug companies are in it to make money. BUT- there has been no proof that vaccines cause autism.

 

[tracy]

From the original article explaining the girl has a mitochondrial disorder which was possibly aggravated by the vaccine:

In a news conference on Thursday, Dr. Edwin Trevathan, director of the National Center for Birth Defects and Development Disabilities at the disease control agency, said, “I don’t think we have any science that would lead us to believe that mitochondrial disorders are caused by vaccines.”
Dr. Trevathan explained that children with mitochondrial disorders often develop normally until they come down with an infection. Then their mitochondria are unable to manufacture the energy needed to nourish the brain. As a result, they regress.

 

[Praxius]

The thing is, you're ignoring the details of this decision. The vaccine didn't cause her to get autism. She has a genetic disorder. It's rare and it causes autism-like symptoms. It's possible that the vaccine aggravated the genetic disorder she already had. That's all this court decision says.

It's true, if you have a rare genetic condition like this girl did, then many things will be harmful to you that aren't harmful to the general population. It doesn't mean the company did something wrong. That's like saying pea farmers did something wrong because my mom's allergic to them. It's true that many prescriptions are probably unecessary and can be harmful and have bad side effects. It's true that drug companies are in it to make money. BUT- there has been no proof that vaccines cause autism.

If the vaccine triggered the autism in this girl as it seem, then yes indeed the vaccine did have an effect on her.

And yes, I am aware of the selective process these have on the select few people in the population..... as my point was, yet again, was that people/parents look into these things, find what may cause risks, know your own health, and make the proper decisions without going into it blindly. Then you can help increase the chances of avoiding such rare situations.