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

Copasetic

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

That is an important point BR. This is the case with literally ALL diseases. When a group of symptoms are codified into a disease giving clinicians a diagnostic platform, the incidence of disease will obviously seem to increase; as clinicians can then make a definitive diagnosis in the medical record-Rather than passing off the diagnosis as idiosyncratic. This "phenomena" can be seen whether we're talking about schizophrenia or strep throat.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

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......

which study compares mercury vaccines with a control group that had no mercury vaccine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

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

no i don't have references, clearly there is disagreement between Wakefield and his accusers with respect to no studies having replicated his work. He says there are venezuelan, italian, US, candian studies. "all you ever hear is that no one has ever been able to replicate the study, I'm afriad that is false".

I think it's unlikely he's flat out lying about the existence of these studies. I'm making the point that those that claim "there are no studies" are being disengensious to the truth or are not fully informed.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

no i don't have references, clearly there is disagreement between Wakefield and his accusers with respect to no studies having replicated his work. He says there are venezuelan, italian, candian studies. I think it's unlikely he's flat out lying about the existence of these studies. I'm making the point that those that claim "there are no studies" are being disengensious to the truth or are not fully informed.

As you well know, many things are misrepresented as saying one thing when infact they say exactly the opposite. This is why you have to have a source which allows you to judge the study yourself, or you have been told by someone who is demonstrably honest and trustworth, that the study has been conducted. Wakefield fails as a trustworthy source so we need independent verification of what he claims.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

which study compares mercury vaccines with a control group that had no mercury vaccine?

I already played this game with you. Read the studies. I provided the evidence, I cannot make you read it and I will not hold your hand and highlight every word you wish to be highlighted. That isn't how these things work.

I countered a claim by providing the evidence, its on you to actually read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

no i don't have references, clearly there is disagreement between Wakefield and his accusers with respect to no studies having replicated his work. He says there are venezuelan, italian, US, candian studies. "all you ever hear is that no one has ever been able to replicate the study, I'm afriad that is false".

I think it's unlikely he's flat out lying about the existence of these studies. I'm making the point that those that claim "there are no studies" are being disengensious to the truth or are not fully informed.

If you cannot support you claim, that these studies exist, then you need retract it. This is the science forum, not the conspiracy forum and you need to provide (preferably from a scientific source) evidence for your claim--Rather than hearsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

I already played this game with you. Read the studies. I provided the evidence, I cannot make you read it and I will not hold your hand and highlight every word you wish to be highlighted. That isn't how these things work.

I countered a claim by providing the evidence, its on you to actually read it.

have you read those studies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

have you read those studies?

Yes, hence my posting them and referencing them. Many I had read when my wife and I were getting our children vaccinated. The others I searched for in pubmed, logged into them and read over the methodology and conclusions (that would be the "important" parts). For the reviews and meta-analyses I read their conclusions of the study group not each individual study they reviewed (which is why we have reviews and meta-analyses).

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

If you cannot support you claim, that these studies exist, then you need retract it. This is the science forum, not the conspiracy forum and you need to provide (preferably from a scientific source) evidence for your claim--Rather than hearsay.

it is not my claim, it is Wakefield's claim as I clearly stated. don't you think he should heard? or should we just skip the trial, jump to the sentencing and pass the firelighters around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

it is not my claim, it is Wakefield's claim as I clearly stated. don't you think he should heard? or should we just skip the trial, jump to the sentencing and pass the firelighters around?

Incorrect. This is a science form, you don't get to post something not supported by science then "pass blame" onto someone else. You are supporting Wakefield's claim by posting it here and thus you (the person using it) need to support it with evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Incorrect. This is a science form, you don't get to post something not supported by science then "pass blame" onto someone else. You are supporting Wakefield's claim by posting it here and thus you (the person using it) need to support it with evidence.

shouldn't you support your claims then?

- that a Thimerosal mercury vaccine study exists that has compared unvaccinated to vaccinated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

shouldn't you support your claims then?

- that a Thimerosal mercury vaccine study exists that has compared unvaccinated to vaccinated.

I have;

Post 18

I'd start with the Stehr-Green et al, study or Parker et al meta-analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Incorrect. This is a science form, you don't get to post something not supported by science then "pass blame" onto someone else. You are supporting Wakefield's claim by posting it here and thus you (the person using it) need to support it with evidence.

"I stand by everything I have written and the conclusions I have previously reached: that the clinical jury is still out on the risks of MMR; that the epidemiological research on which the claims are based that it has conclusively been proved to be safe is at best methodologically inadequate and at worst has been misleadingly spun; that although any link to MMR remains unproven, Wakefield’s Lancet findings of a new clinical syndrome have been replicated."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3346281/the-witchhunt-against-andrew-wakefield.thtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

"I stand by everything I have written and the conclusions I have previously reached: that the clinical jury is still out on the risks of MMR; that the epidemiological research on which the claims are based that it has conclusively been proved to be safe is at best methodologically inadequate and at worst has been misleadingly spun; that although any link to MMR remains unproven, Wakefield’s Lancet findings of a new clinical syndrome have been replicated."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3346281/the-witchhunt-against-andrew-wakefield.thtml

This is a news story with an interview with Wakefield (In a British magazine). It is not support for your or his claim. Can you link these studies of which you speak?

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

This is a news story with an interview with Wakefield (In a British magazine). It is not support for your or his claim. Can you link these studies of which you speak?

It is a well respected establishment "magazine". if we are to disregard mainstream media journalists, then why should we consider any contribution from Brian Deer, he is after all only a journalist and he is the one providing the evidence against Wakefield. I'm sure anyone can dig them up, it's not like this is new information, as I said before it is not my claim, it is Wakefield's, and it's not hearsay because there is no thrid party, it comes directly from the accused. Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

It is a well respected establishment "magazine". if we are to disregard mainstream media journalists, then why should we consider any contribution from Brian Deer, he is after all only a journalist and he is the one providing the evidence against Wakefield. I'm sure anyone can dig them up, it's not like this is new information, as I said before it is not my claim, it is Wakefield's, and it's not hearsay because there is no thrid party, it comes directly from the accused.

There is a reason we do science Little Fish, and its not for fun. Its because, we as humans, aren't very good at intuitively figuring out the world we live in. We mis-mash cause-effect relationships, we establish causal relationships etc, when there is none.

Whether its a "well respected" magazine or not makes little difference. You are posting a claim; that studies (5 no doubt) exist that Wakefield's findings have been replicated. To support said claim, you need to reference the studies not the written claim itself again (as you've done here).

It is not my job to dig up or research support for your claims (by the way I have anyway, and by the way your claim is as fraudulent as the first time Wakefield made it). Just as it wasn't your responsibility to research my claim--Hence I provided you citations from the scientific literature for said claims. It is your job however, to read those citations. Likewise it would be my job to read any citation you provide. That is about how it works.

Since you cannot seem to support your false claim, you need to retract it. It is unfortunately hearsay. You or Wakefield failing to provide reference for said claim, means you are only claiming what "others" have claimed (that there are studies that replicate Wakefield's findings). Until those studies (which would be a primary source, not Wakefield in an interview) are cited you are promoting hearsay.

Edit: As previously shown, Brian Deer only reported the discrepancies found in the patients medical records, Wakefield's motives and his publications which were all verified during Wakefield's trial. As I linked above, these are both verified by the staff and professionals at BMJ. This isn't a case of following "popular journalism" as you are doing here. Unfortunately for your position, supporting Wakefield, those claims against him are sourced with evidence.....

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

I have;

Post 18

I'd start with the Stehr-Green et al

http://www.14studies.org/pdf/HG_5.pdf

this study did not compare vaccinated to unvaccinated.

it compared those that had mercury vaccines to another group that had more mercury vaccines.

"The body of existing data, including the ecologic data presented herein, is not consistent with the hypothesis that increased exposure to Thimerosal-containing vaccines is responsible for the apparent increase in the rates of autism in young children being observed worldwide."

The hypothesis is not that increasing doses of Thimerosal leads to autism, it is that some kids are predisposed to autism from Thimerosal vaccines.

furthermore it says

"And even though the data systems in Sweden and Denmark achieve a remarkable level of validity and accuracy, similar confounding influences or biases may be present. For instance, several external events in Denmark, summarized below, may have spuriously increased the apparent number of autism cases.

● Prior to 1992, the data in the national register did not include cases diagnosed in one large clinic in Copenhagen (which accounts for approximately 20% of cases occurring nationwide).

● Prior to 1995, the autism cases reported to the national register reflected only cases diagnosed in inpatient settings."

so what the study did was compare autism rates after 1992 (after mercury was removed from the vaccines) The database they used changed its recording method in 1995 to include kids diagnosed with autism as outpatients, not just inpatients as it had done previously. clearly this artificially raises the number of autism cases after the mercury was taken out, thus they conclude removal of mercury did not lead to drop in autism. well that's not really a surprise since most autism cases are diagnosed as outpatients. This paper is seriously flawed, as is any other that uses the Danish database. Look at figure 3, its as if this study was designed to discredit the hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

There is a reason.....

it is not my claim. you are framing this as me trying to prove his work has been replicated, I'm not trying to do that, I'm pointing out that Wakefield disagrees with that accusation. It is a rebuttal from the accused to the accusation that "no studies have replicated" his work. any claim of "no studies have replicated" his work needs to account for the studies that he mentions. It's not Wakefield's burden to prove his innocence, nor mine, the burden lies with the accuser or the one making the claim. Wakefield and The Spectator have mentioned the studies, so where is the rebuttal that these studies he mentions do not replicate his work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psukhe

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.

I have two children and vaccinate them.

Autism is an insignificant disability compared to the disabilities that death causes.

People who don't vaccinate are people who either don't understand or care to understand the solid empirical evidence. Who in their right mind would put their children at risk of catching diseases that could very well kill them, like H1N1, which targets young healthy people and kills you by pretty much drowning you in your own fluids.

People who are civilized understand the huge risks of non-vaccination & get vaccinated to protect themselves & society as a whole. The small chance of any autism cases is significantly outweighed by the benefits and lives saved by vaccines.

Edited by Psukhe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

It is an insignificant disability compared to the disabilities that death causes.

People who don't vaccinate are people who either don't understand or care to understand the solid empirical evidence. Who in their right mind would put their children at risk of catching diseases that could very well kill them, like H1N1, which targets young healthy people and kills you by pretty much drowning you in your own fluids.

People who are civilized understand the huge risks of non-vaccination & get vaccinated to protect themselves & society as a whole. The small chance of any autism cases is significantly outweighed by the benefits and lives saved by vaccines.

do you want safe vaccines or dangerous vaccines?

Your argument seems to be that a lesser evil is acceptable to protect against a greater evil, in which case would you sacrifce Wakefield for the survival of the Vaccine program?

http://www.viddler.com/explore/ziggy/videos/1/

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

http://www.14studies.org/pdf/HG_5.pdf

this study did not compare vaccinated to unvaccinated.

No, we already went over that one for autism a couple pages back. You asked of this request;

which study compares mercury vaccines with a control group that had no mercury vaccine?

I responded with telling you to go back and read the post of references. In the study you link above (one of the ones I pointed out);

As shown in Figure 3, the experience in Denmark was

similar to that in Sweden, where the annual number of

autism cases rose from 10 cases among 2 to 10 year

olds before 1990 to a peak of 181 cases in 1999. This

increase, which began around 1990, affected all age

groups aged 2 years and resulted in an estimated

prevalence of 8.1 cases per 10,000 persons at the end of

2000.6 As in Sweden, vaccination coverage in Denmark

has remained high (i.e., almost always 90% for all

age-specific antigens) since 1980. In Denmark,

throughout the period between 1970 and 1989,

Thimerosal was used only in whole-cell pertussis (wP)-

containing vaccines at a concentration of 0.01% (i.e.,

identical to the amount of Thimerosal in DT and

pertussis-containing vaccines in the United States and

Sweden). Therefore, children in Denmark who received

the three recommended doses of Thimerosalcontaining

wP between 1970 and 1991 would have

received a 125-g cumulative dose of ethylmercury by

age 10 months. In April 1992, the last batch of Thimerosal-

containing wP vaccine was produced in Denmark,

and its use was eliminated entirely by the end of 1992.

Consequently, the proportion of children who received

a 125-g cumulative dose of ethylmercury by age 10

months decreased dramatically between 1991 and 1993.

Thus, the apparent rise in diagnosed autism cases in

Denmark, as in Sweden, occurred during a time of

decreasing use (and eventual elimination) of Thimerosal-

containing vaccines.

So in concordance with your request, this study did look at autism rates in children who had thimerosal and those who did not (post 1992 vaccines). And they found (drum roll please) no statistically significant cause for a causal relationship between thimerosal and autism. Surprise, surprise.

it compared those that had mercury vaccines to another group that had more mercury vaccines.

Incorrect. Read the quoted above. Are you just a dishonest person, or do you really have no clue about what you are arguing?

The hypothesis is not that increasing doses of Thimerosal leads to autism, it is that some kids are predisposed to autism from Thimerosal vaccines.

Do you have any kind of statistics training Little fish? Out of curiosity I mean?

You are doing what's called "moving the goal posts". You had no response the first time you asked me to hold your hand then moved onto the second, now you are doing the same thing again.

furthermore it says

"And even though the data systems in Sweden and Denmark achieve a remarkable level of validity and accuracy, similar confounding influences or biases may be present. For instance, several external events in Denmark, summarized below, may have spuriously increased the apparent number of autism cases.

● Prior to 1992, the data in the national register did not include cases diagnosed in one large clinic in Copenhagen (which accounts for approximately 20% of cases occurring nationwide).

● Prior to 1995, the autism cases reported to the national register reflected only cases diagnosed in inpatient settings."

so what the study did was compare autism rates after 1992 (after mercury was removed from the vaccines) The database they used changed its recording method in 1995 to include kids diagnosed with autism as outpatients, not just inpatients as it had done previously. clearly this artificially raises the number of autism cases after the mercury was taken out, thus they conclude removal of mercury did not lead to drop in autism. well that's not really a surprise since most autism cases are diagnosed as outpatients. This paper is seriously flawed, as is any other that uses the Danish database. Look at figure 3, its as if this study was designed to discredit the hypothesis.

You honestly have no idea what you are talking about do you..... :blink: :blink: :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psukhe

do you want safe vaccines or dangerous vaccines?Your argument seems to be that a lesser evil is acceptable to protect against a greater evil, in which case would you sacrifce Wakefield for the survival of the Vaccine program?

What makes you think science can make them any safer than they already are? Wakefield was dishonest and lazy. Are you supposing a conspiracy?

Edited by Psukhe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

it is not my claim. you are framing this as me trying to prove his work has been replicated, I'm not trying to do that, I'm pointing out that Wakefield disagrees with that accusation. It is a rebuttal from the accused to the accusation that "no studies have replicated" his work. any claim of "no studies have replicated" his work needs to account for the studies that he mentions. It's not Wakefield's burden to prove his innocence, nor mine, the burden lies with the accuser or the one making the claim. Wakefield and The Spectator have mentioned the studies, so where is the rebuttal that these studies he mentions do not replicate his work?

This is not court, this is science. If you want to support or replicate Wakefield's claim that these studies replicate his work, then you need to provide a reference to said studies........It is not upon those asking for supporting evidence to support your claim for you.

Here this is from the forum guidelines;

Why should I post a source - its up to everyone else to do research and validate what i'm saying

No it isn't, if you are making a claim that requires validation and you are able to provide it then it is generally up to you to do so; you are making the claim and therefore you need to back it up with sources if you want it to be taken seriously. Again while there is no strict enforcement of this if you are looking to convince others that your point is correct but are telling others that they will need to look up the facts themselves or to "do their homework" then you are unlikely to elicit much support.

You should maybe familiarize yourself with how science is done and claims are handled before jumping headlong into something you clearly don't understand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Little Fish, I don't really see any further point to this discussion, unless or until you are willing to support your views with evidence from a respectable source. If/when such a thing were to occur, I'd more than happy to take a look at those sources as a member of the medical community. Until such a time, I see you only using this topic as a spring board to fan the flaming pile of **** that the anti-vacc "movement" has become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
furthermore it says

"And even though the data systems in Sweden and Denmark achieve a remarkable level of validity and accuracy, similar confounding influences or biases may be present. For instance, several external events in Denmark, summarized below, may have spuriously increased the apparent number of autism cases.

● Prior to 1992, the data in the national register did not include cases diagnosed in one large clinic in Copenhagen (which accounts for approximately 20% of cases occurring nationwide).

● Prior to 1995, the autism cases reported to the national register reflected only cases diagnosed in inpatient settings."

so what the study did was compare autism rates after 1992 (after mercury was removed from the vaccines) The database they used changed its recording method in 1995 to include kids diagnosed with autism as outpatients, not just inpatients as it had done previously. clearly this artificially raises the number of autism cases after the mercury was taken out, thus they conclude removal of mercury did not lead to drop in autism. well that's not really a surprise since most autism cases are diagnosed as outpatients. This paper is seriously flawed, as is any other that uses the Danish database. Look at figure 3, its as if this study was designed to discredit the hypothesis.

You honestly have no idea what you are talking about do you..... :blink: :blink: :blink:

you are just handwaving. the data after the Thimerosal was removed is useless because they changed the database recording methods which dramatically favoured additional recording of autism after Thimerosal was removed. do you accept this?@

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.