Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Mac E

Study tying vaccine to autism was fraud

316 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Little Fish

I agree with Copasetic. The one paper that started this whole mess was later tossed out. And the dozens of studies done since then have turned up with a negative correlation between autism and vaccines. The only thing both have in common is that autism shows bigger symptoms around the time vaccines are normally given to kids.

Even Jenny McCarthy, who crusaded to get the Hollywood elite behing this hoax, has now confessed the data shows no such connection exists.

The Wakefield paper never claimed there was a connection between MMR vaccines and autism, it merely called for further study as a hypothesis. the paper suggested a connection between autism and gastrointestinal problems.

http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/wakefield2.pdf

"We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of

previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers."

"We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

The Wakefield paper never claimed there was a connection between MMR vaccines and autism, it merely called for further study as a hypothesis. the paper suggested a connection between autism and gastrointestinal problems.

http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/wakefield2.pdf

"We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of

previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers."

"We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."

No response to the fact that Wakefield falsified data and case-reports? Or all the studies I linked? Are we going to play the "maybe if I move onto the next topic, they'll forget"-game?

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

No response to the fact that Wakefield falsified data and case-reports? Or all the studies I linked? Are we going to play the "maybe if I move onto the next topic, they'll forget"-game?

I had not read that second article (published yesterday), it certainly does look bad for Wakefield if it's true and he needs to respond, and I'd like to hear his response.

There is no need to be so hostile, I am just asking for information.

I am aware of most of the studies you presented, but like I said before I am not aware that any study has been done to compare vaccinated to unvaccinated with respect to autism, are you aware of any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

"Boys age 3 to 17 years (born before 1999 with a vaccination record) who received the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 3-fold greater odds for autism diagnosis"

http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/Hepatitis%20B%20Vaccination%20male%20neonates%201997-2002.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psukhe

"Boys age 3 to 17 years (born before 1999 with a vaccination record) who received the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 3-fold greater odds for autism diagnosis"

http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/Hepatitis%20B%20Vaccination%20male%20neonates%201997-2002.pdf

So what if they "caught" autism? It's still the lesser of two evils. Autism is sad and a difficult human debility, however it pales in comparison to the millions upon millions of lives that would be lost without mandated inoculations. Take something as or more virulent than the Spanish Flu and then factor in international air travel and humankind would likely be hooped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

I have. I can't find a study comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated, and it seems to be impossible to ask others to provide one without encountering hate.

Fish, I'm not trying to be mean. But its obvious, there is a plethora of information you seem hell bent on not learning about this supposed "vaccine controversy". Were you to actually read some of these papers, you'd see what you are asking for. I know you are lying when you "claim" to have read them, because spelled out in them is the very information you can't seem to find.....

Granted, I realize the average joe, does not have institutional access to scientific literature and the average joe doesn't spend his time browsing the literature on hand the library. A loss for both camps in my opinion, but regardless it makes it rather hard for you to be informed when you don't make an effort (and claim to have) to inform yourself. I realize I can't "make you read something" and if you want to check the facts, you'll need to find the motivation to do so.

In that second post to you, I presented nothing but reviews and meta-analyses. I also told you that reviews and meta-analyses are the "highest" kind of evidence in science and medicine. Why?

Because while a single study maybe published, it may be published based on bad experimental design, poor compensation for bias, or the results/data simply may not be reproducible. A review or meta-analyses looks at the design, statistical correlations, data of many (sometimes even hundreds) of scientific studies where a trend in said data can be observed. A trend in lots of data, the same type of data, is a very powerful thing--Because it means we've (collectively scientists) have hit upon evidence to support or refute a hypothesis. Hence, the weight given to a review or meta-analyses.

Anyway, grabbing one of the reviews from above you see some of the papers they reviewed like this one published in the Lancet, fairly shortly after Wakefields' refuting the "vaccine scare" he was trying to cause;

Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association

Since at this point its unlikely you have access to scientific literature, you can click on the link above to read the abstract for free. From the abstract;

We identified 498 cases of autism (261 of core autism, 166 of atypical autism, and 71 of Asperger's syndrome). In 293 cases the diagnosis could be confirmed by the criteria of the International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD10: 214 [82%] core autism, 52 [31%] atypical autism, 27 [38%] Asperger's syndrome). There was a steady increase in cases by year of birth with no sudden “step-up” or change in the trend line after the introduction of MMR vaccination. There was no difference in age at diagnosis between the cases vaccinated before or after 18 months of age and those never vaccinated. There was no temporal association between onset of autism within 1 or 2 years after vaccination with MMR (relative incidence compared with control period 0·94 [95% Cl 0·60—1·47] and 1·09 [0·79—1·52]). Developmental regression was not clustered in the months after vaccination (relative incidence within 2 months and 4 months after MMR vaccination 0·92 [0·38—2·21] and 1·00 [0·52—1·95]). No significant temporal clustering for age at onset of parental concern was seen for cases of core autism or atypical autism with the exception of a single interval within 6 months of MMR vaccination. This appeared to be an artifact related to the difficulty of defining precisely the onset of symptoms in this disorder.

From the review;

Klein KC, Diehl EB. Relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(7-8):1297-1300.

You again, could try actually reading these studies as opposed to claiming you've done so when its clear to anyone who has that you have not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

"Boys age 3 to 17 years (born before 1999 with a vaccination record) who received the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 3-fold greater odds for autism diagnosis"

http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/Hepatitis%20B%20Vaccination%20male%20neonates%201997-2002.pdf

Yes because this "study" is so reliable.....

Of the 193 child population they used;

Has vaccination record 45 23%

On the "diagnosis of autism"...

On the other hand, parent report of

autism diagnosis may be subject to case ascertainment

bias, as diagnosis was not medically

confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odin11

Little Fish, I want to know what you think is in vaccines that could cause autism or has a connection with autism.

Edited by Odin11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Little Fish has a profound belief that Vaccines are part of an ongoing Eugenics program to achieve population reduction. All his comments should be viewed in light of this cognitive bias.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Little Fish has a profound belief that Vaccines are part of an ongoing Eugenics program to achieve population reduction. All his comments should be viewed in light of this cognitive bias.

Br Cornelius

Great to see you not exaggerating and using ad homenim for once.

/sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

***

under a new carbonnazi directive this post has been censored until brother cornelius has permitted its release to a free speech zone. thank you for your obediance to authority.

***

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Little Fish, I want to know what you think is in vaccines that could cause autism or has a connection with autism.

neurotoxins, specifically the mercury. The MMR contains no mercury so is not the obvious candidate. Wakefield never claimed the MMR caused autism, this seems to be misunderstood by many people. Attacks on Wakefield's paper seem to be a strawman with regard to vaccines causing autism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Great to see you not exaggerating and using ad homenim for once.

/sarcasm.

I thought that information was highly pertinent to people's understanding of your position.

Would you deny it ? I know you wont.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Yes because this "study" is so reliable.....

Of the 193 child population they used;

"Has vaccination record 45 23%"

the child population was 79,883.

193 refers to the number with autism.

http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/Hepatitis%20B%20Vaccination%20male%20neonates%201997-2002.pdf

"In the subsample limited to boys 3 to 17 years of age with a vaccination record, and whose first vaccinations were received before 1999, autism prevalence was greater, 4.32 per 1000 boys

Adjusted Findings

Boys age 3 to 17 years (born before 1999 with a vaccination record) who received the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 3-fold greater odds for autism diagnosis"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

I thought that information was highly pertinent to people's understanding of your position.

Would you deny it ? I know you wont.

Br Cornelius

I think you do not understand what Ad Hominem argument is and why it is a fallacy.

perhaps the neurotoxins in your vaccines are crippling your logical thought process.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Fish, I'm not trying to be mean. But its obvious, there is a plethora of information you seem hell bent on not learning about this supposed "vaccine controversy". Were you to actually read some of these papers, you'd see what you are asking for. I know you are lying when you "claim" to have read them, because spelled out in them is the very information you can't seem to find....."

I have not read them all, such a task is not trivial but I have read the ones that are commonly paraded as refuting a link and I have spent money, perhaps I should have been cleaer in order to avoid the drop of the hat response of "liar", which is why I was asking for some help in identifying an actual study which compares vaccinated to unvaccinated. If you have read those studies then it would be simple enough for you to point me to such a study, if you have not read those studies then you only have assumptions on the strengths and limitations of their findings.

According to the groups calling for safer vaccines, this is the only study that has compared unvaccinated with vaccinated, and it only concerns the MMR vaccine. As everyone should know by now: the Wakefield study never claimed a causal link between Autism and the MMR vaccine. He claimed a link between autism and gastro problems, and he says there are five other studies which have reproduced his results.

the obvious and widely talked about candidate is vaccine mercury, there is not a study (that I am aware of) that has compared vaccinated with unvaccinated. All studies that examined mercury in vaccines compared groups exposed to mercury with groups exposed to mercury. This is not a well designed method of ruling out mercury as a cause for autism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

So what if they "caught" autism? It's still the lesser of two evils. Autism is sad and a difficult human debility, however it pales in comparison to the millions upon millions of lives that would be lost without mandated inoculations. Take something as or more virulent than the Spanish Flu and then factor in international air travel and humankind would likely be hooped.

I think your views may change when you have children, I can't imagine any parent who knows about autism saying such a thing, it is not an insignificant disability.

vaccines are not mandatory as you implied above. Medicine is practised on the basis of "informed consent" and "do no harm", in civilised countries anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Little Fish,

You have still not denied it and it is highly pertinent to understanding why an individual will cleave to an idea in the face of overwhelming evidence. Yours is a strong belief and it clouds your every thought. When evidence and proof fail to convince then the reason why must be deduced from the known facts.

Remember always that the onus is always on the skeptic to prove his case with strong evidence rather than opinion and hearsay.

People can waste a lot of time and effort without realising that such a fundamental belief cannot be disproved in any meaningful way, because it was never based on facts.

You maybe surprised to learn that I once shared many of your beliefs, but through years of reading around the subjects and a far better understanding of the scientific method- I am far more skeptical now than I ever was . I still hold that the recent flu vaccine was pushed out in a highly unsafe way - with excessive squaline content, but this was a clever business fraud carried out by pharmacautical companies.

I realise that theories of Grand Conspiracies are just that - theories, and they create a very damaging psychology in those who hold them. A psychology where nothing but confirmitory information can ever be accepted and where the only sources acceptable are those which were used to build the theory in the first place. I know because I have been there. A real skeptic is one who prefers the neutral explanation over the extreme interpretation.

You should read some Robert Anton Wilson to understand what I am saying.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Travelling Man

I think that the most telling evidence of fraud is that in over a decade of attempting to do so, there have been a grand total of ZERO studies and trials that have been able to duplicate Wakefield's results.

This is the scientific method in toto... you do a study, document EVERYTHING, and then others try to either support you or knock you off your pedestal by failing to match your results. Thus far, there have been NO scientists that have supported Wakefield... which means that either his study was a total fluke - OR that he fudged the results.

By reviewing his notes, it really appears that it was the latter. This is so fraudulent that it's spelled, "FRAWD".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

I think that the most telling evidence of fraud is that in over a decade of attempting to do so, there have been a grand total of ZERO studies and trials that have been able to duplicate Wakefield's results.

This is the scientific method in toto... you do a study, document EVERYTHING, and then others try to either support you or knock you off your pedestal by failing to match your results. Thus far, there have been NO scientists that have supported Wakefield... which means that either his study was a total fluke - OR that he fudged the results.

By reviewing his notes, it really appears that it was the latter. This is so fraudulent that it's spelled, "FRAWD".

Wakefield has said there are five studies that claimed they did replicate his findings.

he addressed these allegations of fraud a few years ago, and quite convincingly.

edit:

4 minutes 40, he mentions the replication found in other studies:

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormalcy

I have seen some unacceptable posting behavior here from MORE THAN ONE POSTER and none of it will be tolerated. The phrase "clouds your every thought" is antagonistic and a personal criticism of a fellow poster, NOT addressing the topic. "despicable ... BS" is also not anywhere near civil. Further continuance along these lines can easily result in administrative actions - please address the topic of the thread, not other posters. -Para, Senior UM Mod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

So what if they "caught" autism? It's still the lesser of two evils. Autism is sad and a difficult human debility, however it pales in comparison to the millions upon millions of lives that would be lost without mandated inoculations. Take something as or more virulent than the Spanish Flu and then factor in international air travel and humankind would likely be hooped.

sorry but i would consider being locked up inside my own brain the same as being dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

neurotoxins, specifically the mercury. The MMR contains no mercury so is not the obvious candidate. Wakefield never claimed the MMR caused autism, this seems to be misunderstood by many people. Attacks on Wakefield's paper seem to be a strawman with regard to vaccines causing autism.

Would that you finally sit down and read some of the studies I posted above, you'll note that "mercury" (thimerosal) has no link to autism either......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Wakefield has said there are five studies that claimed they did replicate his findings.

he addressed these allegations of fraud a few years ago, and quite convincingly.

edit:

4 minutes 40, he mentions the replication found in other studies:

A youtube interview of Wakefield (who wants to sell you his book) is hardly evidence of anything, other than an unethical doctor who wants to make money at the expense and safety of others.

Can you provide references to these studies and reviews of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

sorry but i would consider being locked up inside my own brain the same as being dead.

Autism is a terrible disease, but I have never seen a definitive study which shows anything other than a genetic source. Autism has not been shown to have been caught by anyone to my certain knowledge. Autism is understood to have age dependent onset and the coincidence of vaccine administration and that onset is in no way evidence of a causal relationship. Until a causal relationship is established then there can not be assumed to be a link between vaccines and Autism. There have been many epidemiological studies carried out in order to find such a link - and none has been identified.

Remember that autism has only been a well defined and commonly diagnosed condition for a relatively short number of decades. Most people previously were simply labelled as simple - given menial jobs or sent to institution’s never to be heard of again. We see more autism because we have defined it in a more precise way and attempt to treat those who suffer from it in a way which was never attempted before.

I delayed giving my two children the MMR vaccine for a number of years as a consequence of this controversy, I changed my position when the evidence was established to be extremely weak.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.