RFK, Jr. Reportedly Compares Vaccinations To The Holocaust

[AUDub 11,131]

i am actually conversing with a dear friend who's son is an autistic teen on FB. He is sending me some more material. Unlike me(i dont know) he is 100% convinced vaccines caused his son's autism.

He may be convinced, and it's easy to see why. Vaccines are an easy boogeyman, especially with so much misinformation out there directing people in an unfortunate situation to that very conclusion. To me, these people are no different from the ones that promise to cure your kid's fatal cancer with homeopathy.

by the way the link you have been tearing apart is just something i pulled up and didnt even look too hard at.

A dangerous habit that you really ought to break.

one thing i am noticing is most pro vaccinators just show the effectiveness of vaccines. the success of the vaccines are not related to the possibiltiy of side effects. Does that make sense?

It would, but without evidence to support that assertion, the argument is bunk. They may as well be focusing on bad haircuts, portable electronics, pesticides, flouridated water, etc. etc. ad nauseum. The only case I can recall off hand that went to court was the autism omnibus trial. The parents presented video of a child prior to her receiving the MMR vaccine and essentially said, "Look! Look at this healthy, normal baby! The vaccine did this!"

A child psychologist spotted early signs of autism straightaway. There have been many cases like that.

the only people i know whose children are autistic figured this out from 18 months to 4 years old. it didnt just pop up. one was 8 but he is diagnosed with aspergers but had been treated for adhd his whole life and just thought to be going through annoying stages. kid is 16 now somewhat intelligent but socially retarded.

Nobody said it pops up straightaway, there are, however obvious signs very early on if you know what you're looking for.

[alexava 6,973]

http://www.globalres...-immunity/14510

Globalresearch.ca is subject to Scopie's Law. Citing them at all is an automatic loss in any internet debate. I hereby proclaim victory.

s***, man. I've been tearing through that PowerPoint then you're chucking all this garbage at me at once?

I gotta sleep sometime!

*sigh* where to begin.

you are young. take your time. and i admit i had no idea about the power point. these are from my buddy who says he has more. I am not looking to win anything. my kids 10 and 6 are fully vaccinated. im glad i was not aware of this back then. i didnt think there was a need to question anything.

[quietfan 233]

. i have a good friend who is a medical professional. he also asked why would you not want a child to get chicken pox? it is not dangerous and builds your immune system.

Whatever your friend's opinion, here is why I would not want my child to get chickenpox:

1. It IS dangerous! "Before the varicella vaccine was licensed in the U.S. in 1995, there were approximately 100 deaths and more than 11,000 hospitalizations a year from chickenpox." --http://www.webmd.com...ricella-vaccine

2. The virus that causes chicken pox, VZV, remains dormant in the human body for years after infection, but may erupt in adulthood as shingles, a painful and sometimes debilitating disease. "Chickenpox vaccines contain weakened live VZV, which may cause latent (dormant) infection. The vaccine-strain VZV can reactivate later in life and cause shingles. However, the risk of getting shingles from vaccine-strain VZV after chickenpox vaccination is much lower than getting shingles after natural infection with wild-type VZV."--http://www.cdc.gov/v...ines/varicella/

(There is, incidentally, an additional vaccine for shingles which is now recommended for all aging (60+) adults. I plan to ask my docter for it at my next physical since I've reached that age.)

3. I would not wish even the typical symptoms of common chicken pox--itching, blistering, scabbing, possible scarring, fever, headache, fatigue--on my child or any other when they can be prevented with a simple vaccine that causes far less distress. Why torture any child because of a parent's irrational and scientifically unfounded fear of vaccines or a reactionary fear of "Big Brother"?

And surely a medical professional would understand that any "building of the immune system" cause by contracting chicken pox is the very same immunity-building process produced by the vaccine, only the vaccine has far fewer dangers that contracting the full-blown wild virus!

[AUDub 11,131]

BigBens, Glad you are well versed in the subject.

Thank you for the compliment. Auctoritas and Selias need to get their asses down here straightaway. They're probably more knowledgeable on the subject than me.

Serious question for you, what are the benefits for my kids getting the chicken pox vaccine compared to me getting chicken pox and thus being immune later on?

That the benefits of receiving the vaccine outweigh the risks of catching the disease itself. In all of the time the vaccine has been given, there was 1 recorded death as a result of the vaccine, to a child with leukemia that had no business receiving the vaccine anyway. 1 death in roughly 100,000,000 vaccines given.

Other side effects include maybe a slight fever and rash, but those are exceedingly rare. 675 per 100,000.

By Contrast, here are the last stats before the vaccine became widespread:

Chickenpox (varicella) used to be very common in the United States before the chickenpox vaccine became available in 1995. In the early 1990s, an average of 4 million people got chickenpox, 10,500 to 13,000 were hospitalized (range, 8,000 to 18,000), and 100 to 150 died each year. Most of the severe complications and deaths from chickenpox occurred in people who were previously healthy.

Do you think vaccines for sickneses that occur and are (by majority) overcame by the persons immune system a boon or potential bane? (IE: we wreck chickpox now without help, but will our forced evolution for it cause negatives later?)

If we vaccinate properly, the virus can be eliminated before it has a chance to do any sort of evolving.

I'm not a "vaccine denier" by any means, I and all my kids get all vaccines.... but scientifically I wonder about the above, As evolutionary bounds seem to get crossed, when they need to to survive.

(cue the Jurassic Park guy saying "life finds a way")

Viruses like these generally exclusively effect humans. Wiping them off the map is no great loss. We've eliminated viruses before and things are now better as a result. Smallpox and Polio say hi.

I had chicken pox when I was 21. Almost killed me.

yes, it's much worse to catch it as an adult.

Got it in fourth grade, with only scars to show for it and two lost weeks of school. Hoping to avoid shingles.

[Weegle777 78]

Me too. Hopefully neither of us will get a case of that. Heard that was extremely painful.

[AUDub 11,131]

http://www.morganver...ine-and-autism/

just getting started. your thoroughness has work to do.

Let's start here. Getting sleepy, so I'm going to let Snopes answer in my stead:

Claim: Data suppressed by the CDC proved that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys.

FALSE Is the following true: Fraud at the CDC uncovered, 340% increased risk of autism hidden from public.

Origins: On 24 August 2014 a CNN iReport claiming intentional suppression of data relating to 340% increased risk of autism among specific populations of African-American boys following MMR vaccinations went viral. The story seemed to disappear mysteriously, further fueling the notion that an intentional coverup was underway.

The idea that vaccines lead to autism is not a new conspiracy theory, nor is it a particularly uncommon one. A now heavily discredited study published in the medical

journal Lancet in 1998 planted a seed of fear about vaccine safety; and despite efforts to counteract the widespread concern among worried parents, public health officials continue to encounter growing public resistance to vaccination. And the CNN iReport in question was based on a video which featured William Thompson, a senior researcher at the CDC, seemly "confessing" to anti-vaccinationist Brian Hooker about a coverup at the CDC and included material such as a claim by Dr. Andrew Wakefield (who in 1998 published a fraudulent research paper claiming a link between MMR vaccine and the appearance of autism and has since been barred from practicing medicine in the UK) asserting that the results of a study proving a link between autism and MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccinations had been "hidden" by the CDC:

The claim being put forward in the video is that earlier MMR vaccination is associated with an increased risk of autism in African-American boys and that the CDC has spent the last 13 years covering this linkage up. These charges are based the result of a "reanalysis" by Brian Hooker in Translational Neurodegeneration entitled "Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young african american boys: a reanalysis of CDC data." The study which has been "reanalyzed" is from a study by DeStefano et al in 2004 published in Pediatrics entitled "Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta." That study was a case-control study in which age at first MMR vaccination was compared between autistic "cases" and neurotypical controls. Vaccination data were abstracted from immunization forms required for school entry, and records of children who were born in Georgia were linked to Georgia birth certificates for information on maternal and birth factors.

The second iReport published on 22 August 2014 explicitly claimed that the CDC had been involved in an intentional coverup:

William W. Thompson, PhD, Senior Scientist with the CDC has stepped forward and admitted the 2004 paper entitled "Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta," which has been used repeatedly by the CDC to deny the MMR-autism connection, was a fraud.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14754936

Dr. Thompson has admitted the 340% increase in boys receiving the MMR vaccine "on time," as opposed to delayed, was buried by himself, Dr. DeStefano, Dr. Bhasin, Dr. Yeargin-Allsopp, and Dr. Boyle ... Dr. Thompson first called and spoke with Dr. Brian Hooker, who then revealed the information to Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the Autism Media Channel.

On 27 August, Thompson released a statement via law firm Morgan Verkamp, LLC, confirming that he had spoken with Dr. Brian Hooker and that he had "omitted statistically significant information" from his study. Titled "STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM," Thompson's statement began:

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

What got lost in the brouhaha over Dr. Thompson's "confession," allegations about a "cover-up" at the CDC, and threats of whistleblower lawsuits was what should have been the main point: Did collected data actually prove that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys? The answer is no, it did not.

On 27 August 2014, Dr. Hooker's article published in the journal Translational Neurodegeneration that concluded "African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis" was removed from public domain due to issues of conflict of interest and the questionable validity of its methods:

The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings.

The CDC issued a statement regarding the data in question, with instructions for accessing the study at the center of the controversy. As the CDC noted, the authors of that study suggested that the most likely explanation for the moderate correlation between autism and vaccination in young children was the existence of immunization requirements for autistic children enrolled in special education preschool programs:

Access to the information on the birth certificates allowed researchers to assess more complete information on race as well as other important characteristics, including possible risk factors for autism such as the child’s birth weight, mother’s age, and education. This information was not available for the children without birth certificates; hence CDC study did not present data by race on black, white, or other race children from the whole study sample. It presented the results on black and white/other race children from the group with birth certificates.

The study looked at different age groups: children vaccinated by 18 months, 24 months, and 36 months. The findings revealed that vaccination between 24 and 36 months was slightly more common among children with autism, and that association was strongest among children 3-5 years of age. The authors reported this finding was most likely a result of immunization requirements for preschool special education program attendance in children with autism.

For a thorough analysis of the flaws and misinformation associated with the current CDC autism "cover-up" conspiracy theory, we recommend the posts on the subject at ScienceBlogs, which note of the claim at the heart of this matter (i.e, allegedly suppressed proof of a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys after MMR vaccination) that:

Vaccination data were abstracted from immunization forms required for school entry, and records of children who were born in Georgia were linked to Georgia birth certificates for information on maternal and birth factors. Basically, no significant associations were found between the age cutoffs examined and the risk of autism. I note that, even in the "reanalysis" by Brian Hooker, there still isn't any such correlation for children who are not African American boys

So is Hooker’s result valid? Was there really a 3.36-fold increased risk for autism in African-American males who received MMR vaccination before the age of 36 months in this dataset? Hooker [performed] multiple subset analyses, which, of course, are prone to false positives. As we say, if you slice and dice the evidence more and more finely, eventually you will find apparent correlations that might or might not be real. In this case, I doubt Hooker's correlation is real.

There's no biologically plausible reason why there would be an effect observed in African-Americans but no other race and, more specifically than that, in African-American males. In the discussion, Hooker does a bunch of handwaving about lower vitamin D levels and the like in African American boys, but there really isn't a biologically plausible mechanism to account for his observation, suggesting that it's probably spurious. There are multiple other studies, many much larger than this one, that failed to find a correlation between MMR and autism.

What [Hooker] has done, apparently, is found grist for a perfect conspiracy theory to demonize the CDC, play the race card in a truly despicable fashion, and cast fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the CDC vaccination program, knowing that most of the white antivaccine activists who support [him] hate the CDC so much that they won't notice that even Hooker's reanalysis doesn’t support their belief that vaccines caused the autism in their children.

[AUDub 11,131]

Hmm. AUFamily is acting odd all of the sudden. Won't let me post.

http://www.canarypar...eblower-scandal

This is related to my previous response quoted from Snopes, but let me just say that using RT as a source is not good. At all.

ORAC has also dropped some Insolence on him in the past

For some reason, I was really beat last night, and, given that this weekend is a holiday for a large proportion of the country (if, perhaps, not for a large proportion of my readership), I don’t feel too bad about slacking off a bit by mentioning a couple of short bits that I wanted to blog about but didn’t get around to. And what better topic to blog about on Good Friday than the exact opposite of what this Easter season is supposed to be about, namely the behavior of antivaccinationists? I realize it’s an easy target, but, hey, I’m tired. Besides, it amuses me, and, as I’ve said so many times before, this blog is about what I like and what amuses me. You’re just along for the ride, and if you like what I like, great. If not, there are plenty of other blogs out there.

This particular bit of misbehavior on the part of the antivaccine movement happened earlier this week and hit rather close to home. Remember nearly four years ago, when the Boy Wonder (Jake Crosby) launched an attack against me in which he accused me of having an undisclosed conflict of interest putting me in essence in the pay of Sanofi-Aventis. It was utterly ridiculous, as always, and based on his usual “six degrees of separation” conspiracy mongering, but it did spark antivaccinationists to start writing and calling the Board of Governors of my university demanding that I be fired or disciplined. Fortunately, the medical school and university stood by me. Indeed, he medical school dean even called me and asked if I felt threatened. When I likened the antivaccine activists harassing me to animal rights loons, she totally “got it,” which is why I recommend that comparison to any other academic who is subject to this sort of harassment. In any case, nothing came of it, other than some agita on my part, when I wasn’t sure whether Jake’s sliming would gain traction.

Even with Jake having completely nuked his bridges to the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism (AoA) and the antivaccine activist organization SafeMinds, it would appear that the antivaccine movement still likes to try to harass its critics at work. Earlier this week, I received an e-mail alert from the Autism Action Network (A-CHAMP) with the Subject: header of “Take Action: Paul Offit claims we know autism is prenatal.” (Yes, I am on the mailing lists of a number of antivaccine crank and other crank organizations, the better to have blogging material come to me, rather than having to seek it out.) Right on schedule, a couple of days later, on April 16, the antivaccine crank blog AoA published this “Take Action” notice:

Note: Here is an easy to use action alert to ask Dr. Paul Offit’s bosses to Action alertrequest that he stop making “stuff” (another word would fit well) up about autism – as a distraction for the epidemic and to protect his industry land connections. Click HERE.

Offit: “When you have autism, you are born with autism

”

Ask Offit’s bosses to stop him making stuff up

In a recent interview with Medscape (www.medscape.com/viewarticle/822981) millionaire vaccine industrialist and spokesman, Paul Offit, MD, pretends that he knows that autism begins before birth, which denies that autistic regression occurs, “When you have autism, you are born with autism. There is no changing that, and to some people, that is helpful to know.” We thought this might come as a surprise to many people who watched their healthy child regress into autism, and anybody who follows autism research.

Offit promotes himself as one of America’s leading authorities on autism, even though, like most parents, he has no professional training in autism. Which may account for him saying things that have no foundation in either the medical literature, or the experience of hundreds of thousands of people. And he has several jobs at very prestigious institutions, which one would hope would value a close adherence to truth and known facts. Offit is the Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology, and Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases, and the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

If you are tired of credentialed elites with obvious conflicts of interest making up stuff about autism that conveniently supports their own financial interests please click on the Take Action link above to send an email to Offit’s bosses at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s of Hospital of Pennsylvania.

And why not give Offit’s bosses a call and ask them to ask Offit to stop making things up.

Amy Gutman, President, University of Pennsylvania, (215) 898-7221

Steven M. Altschuler, MD, CEO, Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania (267) 426-6143

Please share this message with friends and family.

This is how antivaccinationists roll. They don’t have the evidence. They don’t have the science. They don’t have the clinical epidemiology. So they attack the messenger. They’ve been attacking Paul Offit this way for years. They’ve attacked me this way, but appear to have backed off now that it’s become clear to them that their attacks don’t gain any traction at my university and that I now view them as a badge of honor. Nowadays, the antivaccine cranks seem to be focusing largely on law professor Dorit Reiss and Forbes blogger Emily Willingham. At some point, new pro-science bloggers will earn the ire of the antivaccine movement–and I will congratulate them when they do–and become the new favorite target of these cranks. They also never learn. In the culture of academia, freedom of academic exp<b></b>ression is highly valued, and if that exp<b></b>ression happens to be in support of science it’s incredibly unlikely that any university’s administration would act to silence an academic like Dr. Offit, Prof. Reiss, or myself, as much annoyance as such e-mail and phone campaigns might cause deans and chairs. Indeed, a supporter of Stanislaw Burzynski tried the same thing on me just this year, and one of the associate deans told me that dealing with such cranks was just part of the job.

Still, years ago, I didn’t know that. I really thought that my job might be in jeopardy if cranks targeted me at work. Cranks rely on that fear to intimidate and silence newbies. I also realize that I’m lucky to be in academia. If I worked for a private hospital or clinic, for instance, it’s quite conceivable that the administration would find my extracurricular activities too troublesome to tolerate. Others who speak out against the antivaccine movement who aren’t in medicine or science and work for corporate America could also find that their bosses aren’t supportive of extracurricular activities that result in complaints and—to them—potentially adverse publicity. Government employees are particularly vulnerable because of political considerations and rules about advocating for causes; sometimes supervisors are just plain spineless. This is how the antivaccine movement silences bloggers. As much as I love to welcome new voices to the pro-science fold, I do want them to understand that they could potentially fall victim to attacks like the one most recently launched on Paul Offit, the attacks I’ve suffered over the last nine years, and the attacks that frequently target Dorit Reiss and Emily Willingham, among others. Such attacks used to frighten me; now I consider them, at most, to be an annoyance, not to mention as a badge of honor that I’m being effective.

I also take my amusement in noting that character assassination and ad hominem attacks aren’t just the weapon of choice of the antivaccine movement against its enemies, but also against itself. I need to fire up the microwave for some fresh popcorn to watch the latest internecine bloodletting going on in the antivaccine movement, courtesy of—of course!—Jake Crosby, who’s busily re-nuking all the bridges to his former friends and allies that he started nuking about a year ago. This time around, he’s busily continuing his attacks on former ally and mentor Mark Blaxill in a post entitled Mark Blaxill Didn’t Disclose Pharma Conflict at 2001 IOM Meeting:

Other than identify himself as a parent, Blaxill revealed no conflict of interest whatsoever. He only stated that his research was not supported by any funding source as IOM requested that he disclose. What he did not reveal was that he was still in the employ of Boston Consulting Group, which still had vaccine manufacturers as clients. He would admit this in email to SafeMinds’ board of directors the following year and to omnibus attorney Mike Williams the year after that. Blaxill even consulted for Merck.

Jake’s a crank whom I detest, all the more so after having actually met him in person about a year ago, but it is rather amusing to see some of the people who cheered him on as he tried to accuse me of undisclosed COIs getting a taste of their own medicine from the Frankenstein monster they created. Sure, his “logic,” such as it is, is completely based on conspiracy fantasies and support of pseudoscience, but that’s always the case, a world in which vaccines cause autism and all-pervasive, all-powerful pharmaceutical companies will do anything to silence it, even buying off people like Mark “Not a Doctor, Not a Scientist” Blaxill apparently not to push too hard against vaccines. Of course, if that really were the case, one wonders why those evil pharma overlords wouldn’t just co-opt Blaxill completely and have him “convert” to being pro-science, having seen the light? After all, if what Jake writes is true Blaxill is too stupid to be an effective double agent.

There, as tired as I am, I feel better.

[Mims44 1,864]

Shingles later....

What if my kick-ass body mike tyson'd the pox faster than most as a child... lower risk of shingles?

And to the earlier posts which I'm too lazy to quote....

It was kind of an "end of days" question, lots of life forms are thought to be extinct/near extinct and then scientists find them elsewhere thriving. It's fascinating to me to think of how that could affect humans down the road.

IE: Us not having advanced vaccines because we think of a virus/disease as extinct, then it comes back generations later deadly as hell.

[AUDub 11,131]

Shingles later.... :(/>

What if my kick-ass body mike tyson'd the pox faster than most as a child... lower risk of shingles?

And to the earlier posts which I'm too lazy to quote....

It was kind of an "end of days" question, lots of life forms are thought to be extinct/near extinct and then scientists find them elsewhere thriving. It's fascinating to me to think of how that could affect humans down the road.

IE: Us not having advanced vaccines because we think of a virus/disease as extinct, then it comes back generations later deadly as hell.

But viruses are exclusively parasitic. No host. No evolution. It's at a dead end. All of the old Polio and Smallox vaccines will still work. Just a matter of gearing them back into production.

[Mims44 1,864]

Shingles later....

What if my kick-ass body mike tyson'd the pox faster than most as a child... lower risk of shingles?

And to the earlier posts which I'm too lazy to quote....

It was kind of an "end of days" question, lots of life forms are thought to be extinct/near extinct and then scientists find them elsewhere thriving. It's fascinating to me to think of how that could affect humans down the road.

IE: Us not having advanced vaccines because we think of a virus/disease as extinct, then it comes back generations later deadly as hell.

But viruses are exclusively parasitic. No host. No evolution.

Doesn't have to be human:)

Again, I'm talking outskirts of thoughts here.. there are viruses which became prevalent through other species before crossing and affecting humans... seems it could possibly go back and forth, given enough time.

again though, this is away from the main alexva/bigben talk

[AUDub 11,131]

Shingles later....

What if my kick-ass body mike tyson'd the pox faster than most as a child... lower risk of shingles?

And to the earlier posts which I'm too lazy to quote....

It was kind of an "end of days" question, lots of life forms are thought to be extinct/near extinct and then scientists find them elsewhere thriving. It's fascinating to me to think of how that could affect humans down the road.

IE: Us not having advanced vaccines because we think of a virus/disease as extinct, then it comes back generations later deadly as hell.

But viruses are exclusively parasitic. No host. No evolution.

Doesn't have to be human:)

Again, I'm talking outskirts of thoughts here.. there are viruses which became prevalent through other species before crossing and affecting humans... seems it could possibly go back and forth, given enough time.

again though, this is away from the main alexva/bigben talk

Were that the case, it wouldn't matter if we had the old vaccines or not. Might as well be a new virus. Whether we stop it in the human population or not would be irrelevant.

[AUDub 11,131]

http://www.danolmsted.com/

http://www.ageofautism.com/vaccines/

you could retire on this one.

Indeed, I could. Age of autism is beyond wrong. It's what referred to as "not even wrong" or "fractally wrong." So very wrong. Was there a specific claim you wanted to parse?

[Mims44 1,864]

Shingles later....

What if my kick-ass body mike tyson'd the pox faster than most as a child... lower risk of shingles?

And to the earlier posts which I'm too lazy to quote....

It was kind of an "end of days" question, lots of life forms are thought to be extinct/near extinct and then scientists find them elsewhere thriving. It's fascinating to me to think of how that could affect humans down the road.

IE: Us not having advanced vaccines because we think of a virus/disease as extinct, then it comes back generations later deadly as hell.

But viruses are exclusively parasitic. No host. No evolution.

Doesn't have to be human:)

Again, I'm talking outskirts of thoughts here.. there are viruses which became prevalent through other species before crossing and affecting humans... seems it could possibly go back and forth, given enough time.

again though, this is away from the main alexva/bigben talk

Were that the case, it wouldn't matter if we had the old vaccines or not. Might as well be a new virus. Whether we stop it in the human population or not would be irrelevant.

Well that's what I was getting at. We (humans) force evolution of a certain virus by way of mass vaccines. We believe it to be extinct. We then die in large numbers later when it comes back.

Had we not tried to cure it with vaccines it would not have evolved to that deadly end (or maybe it would have lol). Again not part of this vaccine/antivacc argument, but it's fun to think of in a sci-fi way.

[AUDub 11,131]

Well that's what I was getting at. We (humans) force evolution of a certain virus by way of mass vaccines. We believe it to be extinct. We then die in large numbers later when it comes back.

Had we not tried to cure it with vaccines it would not have evolved to that deadly end (or maybe it would have lol). Again not part of this vaccine/antivacc argument, but it's fun to think of in a sci-fi way.

But we're not "forcing" its evolution. By vaccinating correctly, we're limiting its ability to evolve full-stop. We're not herding it down a narrow road, we're herding it off a cliff. That's good no matter how you slice it.

Viral evolution in other animals is not relevant. No matter what action we take, it continues unless we starts immunizing the critters. Better, because we don't give it a chance to jump from us back to other animals.

[alexava 6,973]

. i have a good friend who is a medical professional. he also asked why would you not want a child to get chicken pox? it is not dangerous and builds your immune system.

Whatever your friend's opinion, here is why I would not want my child to get chickenpox:

1. It IS dangerous! "Before the varicella vaccine was licensed in the U.S. in 1995, there were approximately 100 deaths and more than 11,000 hospitalizations a year from chickenpox." --http://www.webmd.com...ricella-vaccine

2. The virus that causes chicken pox, VZV, remains dormant in the human body for years after infection, but may erupt in adulthood as shingles, a painful and sometimes debilitating disease. "Chickenpox vaccines contain weakened live VZV, which may cause latent (dormant) infection. The vaccine-strain VZV can reactivate later in life and cause shingles. However, the risk of getting shingles from vaccine-strain VZV after chickenpox vaccination is much lower than getting shingles after natural infection with wild-type VZV."--http://www.cdc.gov/v...ines/varicella/

(There is, incidentally, an additional vaccine for shingles which is now recommended for all aging (60+) adults. I plan to ask my docter for it at my next physical since I've reached that age.)

3. I would not wish even the typical symptoms of common chicken pox--itching, blistering, scabbing, possible scarring, fever, headache, fatigue--on my child or any other when they can be prevented with a simple vaccine that causes far less distress. Why torture any child because of a parent's irrational and scientifically unfounded fear of vaccines or a reactionary fear of "Big Brother"?

And surely a medical professional would understand that any "building of the immune system" cause by contracting chicken pox is the very same immunity-building process produced by the vaccine, only the vaccine has far fewer dangers that contracting the full-blown wild virus!

he disagrees that the vaccine builds the immune system the same as the illness. The only benefit he sees possible is too early to telll is does ir prevent shingles later in life.

[alexava 6,973]

http://www.danolmsted.com/

http://www.ageofautism.com/vaccines/

you could retire on this one.

Indeed, I could. Age of autism is beyond wrong. It's what referred to as "not even wrong" or "fractally wrong." So very wrong. Was there a specific claim you wanted to parse?

every word like you did the power point.

[AUDub 11,131]

. i have a good friend who is a medical professional. he also asked why would you not want a child to get chicken pox? it is not dangerous and builds your immune system.

Whatever your friend's opinion, here is why I would not want my child to get chickenpox:

1. It IS dangerous! "Before the varicella vaccine was licensed in the U.S. in 1995, there were approximately 100 deaths and more than 11,000 hospitalizations a year from chickenpox." --http://www.webmd.com...ricella-vaccine

2. The virus that causes chicken pox, VZV, remains dormant in the human body for years after infection, but may erupt in adulthood as shingles, a painful and sometimes debilitating disease. "Chickenpox vaccines contain weakened live VZV, which may cause latent (dormant) infection. The vaccine-strain VZV can reactivate later in life and cause shingles. However, the risk of getting shingles from vaccine-strain VZV after chickenpox vaccination is much lower than getting shingles after natural infection with wild-type VZV."--http://www.cdc.gov/v...ines/varicella/

(There is, incidentally, an additional vaccine for shingles which is now recommended for all aging (60+) adults. I plan to ask my docter for it at my next physical since I've reached that age.)

3. I would not wish even the typical symptoms of common chicken pox--itching, blistering, scabbing, possible scarring, fever, headache, fatigue--on my child or any other when they can be prevented with a simple vaccine that causes far less distress. Why torture any child because of a parent's irrational and scientifically unfounded fear of vaccines or a reactionary fear of "Big Brother"?

And surely a medical professional would understand that any "building of the immune system" cause by contracting chicken pox is the very same immunity-building process produced by the vaccine, only the vaccine has far fewer dangers that contracting the full-blown wild virus!

he disagrees that the vaccine builds the immune system the same as the illness. The only benefit he sees possible is too early to telll is does ir prevent shingles later in life.

With all due respect to your friend, he's absolutely wrong. He has no idea what he's talking about. I'm not lending his opinion on the matter credence anymore than I would a random quack that denies the causal link between smoking and cancer.

There's a reason the virus infects so few compared to two decades ago. One need not have any understanding of epidemiology to make that connection.

[AUDub 11,131]

http://www.danolmsted.com/

http://www.ageofautism.com/vaccines/

you could retire on this one.

Indeed, I could. Age of autism is beyond wrong. It's what referred to as "not even wrong" or "fractally wrong." So very wrong. Was there a specific claim you wanted to parse?

every word like you did the power point.

*Sigh*

There's far more misinformation here than that PowerPoint. You understand I have a job, wife and kids, right? You may as well drop War and Peace and the Quran in my lap and expect a cogent literary analysis by the afternoon.

Just so we're clear, you understand the inherent dishonesty in such a tactic, correct?

And don't be under any impression that any answer will be satisfactory, particularly as it pertains to your friend. He's beyond the point of being convinced by evidence. In the thrall of emotive belief. Even if I take the time to point out everything wrong with the site, there will simply be another right behind it.

Now, where do you want to start?

[alexava 6,973]

http://www.danolmsted.com/

http://www.ageofautism.com/vaccines/

you could retire on this one.

Indeed, I could. Age of autism is beyond wrong. It's what referred to as "not even wrong" or "fractally wrong." So very wrong. Was there a specific claim you wanted to parse?

every word like you did the power point.

*Sigh*

There's far more misinformation here than that PowerPoint. You understand I have a job, wife and kids, right? You may as well drop War and Peace and the Quran in my lap and expect a cogent literary analysis by the afternoon.

Just so we're clear, you understand the inherent dishonesty in such a tactic, correct?

And don't be under any impression that any answer will be satisfactory, particularly as it pertains to your friend. He's beyond the point of being convinced by evidence. In the thrall of emotive belief. Even if I take the time to point out everything wrong with the site, there will simply be another right behind it.

Now, where do you want to start?

you can start with the information the cdc hid from their report. Then you can explain why the cdc and big pharma held secret meetings to discuss what they wanted the public to know and not to know then you can tell me who funds these " conclusive" studies. Explain why they should be believed after caught removing parts of the study that showed possible links. What did they remove that wasn't exposed.? You have much work to do. I suggest you plan it out over the next several months. Then I will have more links for you.

[AUDub 11,131]

[

You have much work to do. I suggest you plan it out over the next several months. Then I will have more links for you.

Just so we're clear, you understand the inherent dishonesty in such a tactic, correct?

And don't be under any impression that any answer will be satisfactory, particularly as it pertains to your friend. He's beyond the point of being convinced by evidence. In the thrall of emotive belief. Even if I take the time to point out everything wrong with the site, there will simply be another right behind it.

And just so we're clear, I am going to answer. Seeing as I've already refuted two questions from your prior post, it's clear you have not even bothered to vet my responses. As such, it's clear that this isn't a debate. You're simply trying to get me to quit. You're better than that, alexava. Stop playing games and engage me in debate.

[quietfan 233]

Thought I'd throw this into the mix:

http://www.bbc.com/n...tralia-32274107

Australia to stop welfare cash of anti-vaccine parents

The Australian government has announced that it intends to stop welfare payments to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

The "no jab, no pay" policy may cost parents more than A$11,000 a year per child in lost benefit payments.

Families with children not immunised have been able to receive childcare cash if they have a philosophical or religious objection to vaccines.

PM Tony Abbott said that the rules would soon be substantially tightened.

He said that there would only be a small number of religious and medical exceptions to the new rules - supported by the Labor opposition and due to come into effect in early 2016.

The prime minister refused to say in detail how much money the initiative would save.

(...more)

To me, makes more sense, with more potential upside, than wasting money drug testing welfare recipients, as many want to do in this country.

(But of course, I'm an "ignorant, insane, socialist liberal" so what do I know? :-\ )

[AUDub 11,131]

Thought I'd throw this into the mix:

http://www.bbc.com/n...tralia-32274107

Australia to stop welfare cash of anti-vaccine parents

The Australian government has announced that it intends to stop welfare payments to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

The "no jab, no pay" policy may cost parents more than A$11,000 a year per child in lost benefit payments.

Families with children not immunised have been able to receive childcare cash if they have a philosophical or religious objection to vaccines.

PM Tony Abbott said that the rules would soon be substantially tightened.

He said that there would only be a small number of religious and medical exceptions to the new rules - supported by the Labor opposition and due to come into effect in early 2016.

The prime minister refused to say in detail how much money the initiative would save.

(...more)

To me, makes more since, with more potential upside, than wasting money drug testing welfare recipients, as many want to do in this country.

(But of course, I'm an "ignorant, insane, socialist liberal" so what do I know? :-\ )

You cad! You beat me by about a minute!

Oh, well. Still got this one to share:

link

A Canadian mother-of-seven has been forced to rethink her anti-vaccination stance – after all her children fell sick with whooping cough.

North America has seen a growing number of families opt out of immunisation programmes, frequently because they are concerned about side-effects, despite warnings that deadly childhood diseases such as measles are on the rise.

Tara Hills and her husband decided to stop vaccinating their children six years ago after losing faith in the health care system, according to a blog post in which she described the family's experience.

"I'm writing this from quarantine, the irony of which isn't lost on me," she said.

Although her first three children were immunised - on what she described as an "alternative schedule" - the youngest four received no vaccinations at all.

"I just got scared. I got spooked. I thought, 'There's a lot of smoke, there must be fire.' We stopped vaccinating," she told CBC News.

Then last month the coughing began. It sounded like a bad cold at first.

"But a week after the symptoms started the kids weren't improving, in fact they were getting worse," wrote Hills. "And the cough. No one had a runny nose or sneezing but they all had the same unproductive cough."

A trip to the doctor's surgery was followed by hospital tests, which confirmed whooping cough.

The highly infectious disease takes its name from the characteristic whoop noise that young children make following a cough as they struggle to catch their breath.

Young infants are at particular risk of severe complications and even death.

Vaccinations have massively reduced the number fatalities, which once ran at 10,000 a year in the US, according to KidsHealth.

Yet cases are on the rise again as parents – frequently well educated and middle class – shun the scientific evidence.

Hills admitted she had recently begun to rethink her stance, as the number of measles outbreaks began to grow.

Now with her six sons and a daughter, aged from 10 years to 10 months in quarantine at their home in Ottawa, she said she was doing her best to get them all up to date with their vaccinations. She added that any parents with doubts should be able to find good, reliable data about the benefits.

"I am not looking forward to any gloating or shame as this 'defection' from the antivaxx camp goes public, but this isn't a popularity contest. Right now my family is living the consequences of misinformation and fear," she said.

[alexava 6,973]

. i have a good friend who is a medical professional. he also asked why would you not want a child to get chicken pox? it is not dangerous and builds your immune system.

Whatever your friend's opinion, here is why I would not want my child to get chickenpox:

1. It IS dangerous! "Before the varicella vaccine was licensed in the U.S. in 1995, there were approximately 100 deaths and more than 11,000 hospitalizations a year from chickenpox." --http://www.webmd.com...ricella-vaccine

2. The virus that causes chicken pox, VZV, remains dormant in the human body for years after infection, but may erupt in adulthood as shingles, a painful and sometimes debilitating disease. "Chickenpox vaccines contain weakened live VZV, which may cause latent (dormant) infection. The vaccine-strain VZV can reactivate later in life and cause shingles. However, the risk of getting shingles from vaccine-strain VZV after chickenpox vaccination is much lower than getting shingles after natural infection with wild-type VZV."--http://www.cdc.gov/v...ines/varicella/

(There is, incidentally, an additional vaccine for shingles which is now recommended for all aging (60+) adults. I plan to ask my docter for it at my next physical since I've reached that age.)

3. I would not wish even the typical symptoms of common chicken pox--itching, blistering, scabbing, possible scarring, fever, headache, fatigue--on my child or any other when they can be prevented with a simple vaccine that causes far less distress. Why torture any child because of a parent's irrational and scientifically unfounded fear of vaccines or a reactionary fear of "Big Brother"?

And surely a medical professional would understand that any "building of the immune system" cause by contracting chicken pox is the very same immunity-building process produced by the vaccine, only the vaccine has far fewer dangers that contracting the full-blown wild virus!

he disagrees that the vaccine builds the immune system the same as the illness. The only benefit he sees possible is too early to telll is does ir prevent shingles later in life.

With all due respect to your friend, he's absolutely wrong. He has no idea what he's talking about. I'm not lending his opinion on the matter credence anymore than I would a random quack that denies the causal link between smoking and cancer.

There's a reason the virus infects so few compared to two decades ago. One need not have any understanding of epidemiology to make that connection.

i can assure you he knows exactly what he is talking about. However he does not talk openly about his research and opinions. It's bad for business because too many people believe what they are fed even when lies are exposed like the first link I provided which you never addressed. And as for your Canadien family who got sick, I am not arguing against the effectiveness of vaccines. I am not saying they cause autism for sure. I am saying there is a possibility that it does and lies have been told to protect this industry. The cdc has not been open about these possibilities.

[AUDub 11,131]

i can assure you he knows exactly what he is talking about. However he does not talk openly about his research and opinions. It's bad for business because too many people believe what they are fed even when lies are exposed like the first link I provided which you never addressed.

Without evidence, this is anecdotal at best, and has no place in a formal argument. Personally, I think your friend is suffering from a raging case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you're going to argue from authority, make it clear exactly why he knows what he's talking about.

I believe I did address it, or have you still not bothered to read that Snopes link?

And as for your Canadien family who got sick, I am not arguing against the effectiveness of vaccines. I am not saying they cause autism for sure. I am saying there is a possibility that it does and lies have been told to protect this industry. The cdc has not been open about these possibilities.

American, actually. I brought up that particular family because they were the feature case of the Autism Omnibus trial. Since you're obviously unfamiliar with that case, let me expound a little bit on it.

That trial was a landmark case in which many of the arguments you have presented here were scrutinized in the court of law. The plaintiffs not only failed to meet the burden of proof that vaccines had a hand in that child's autism, which in court is actually much easier to meet than it is academically, their supposed "expert" witnesses, many names you will bring up if this argument goes on long enough, were thoroughly slaughtered by the defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedillo_v._Secretary_of_Health_and_Human_Services

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Autism_omnibus_trial

On June 11, 2007 the US Court of Federal Claims opened hearings on what has been dubbed the autism omnibus trial. This omnibus trial stems from over 4,800 lawsuits that were filed by families, claiming that thiomersal contained in earlier vaccinations, and the measles in the mumps-measles-rubella (MMR) vaccine, played a causal role in the development of autism in their children. In order to better handle the overwhelming caseload three "special masters" were appointed to hear the evidence in the case. Most of the lawsuits were filed in 2001 - the reason for the delay of the trial being due to the claimants attempting to find some evidence, any evidence, to support the causal link they claim.

====================

The Cedillo case can be broken down into the following claims:

-Michelle was normal before receiving the MMR vaccine, evidenced only by a series of baby videos of Michelle between 6 and 8 months.

-The thiomersal in early vaccines degraded Michelle's immune system, though the only evidence presented for this was that a couple of plaintiff experts think that this might be possible.

-The degraded immune system allowed the measles to infect Michelle and cause autism and other health problems. Again, the only evidence offered for this was the O'Leary Lab claiming to find measles RNA in Michelle's gut.

The Cedillo claim falls apart if any one of these claims or their evidence is shown to be faulty. In the end, the state witnesses showed that all three of these and the evidence for them were bogus.

1. Michelle was a normal baby who got sick suddenly

The first point was dissected by Dr. Eric Fombonne who is a professor, and Head of the Division of Child Psychiatry, at McGill University, Montreal Children's Hospital. Fombonne broke down the videos the plaintiffs had earlier presented to show that even as early as 6–8 months (well before she received her vaccine), Michelle was showing stereotypical autistic patterns. In the videos, Fombonne testified that Michelle failed to follow hand and eye indications from her mother, exhibited repetitive arm flapping, and showed a single purpose obsession with a Sesame Street video. All of these are classic indications of a neurodevelopmental disorder such as autism. Fombonne also points out that these are sometimes hard for parents, particularly new parents, to spot as abnormal. However, he also says that any expert in diagnosis would immediately see these behaviors as indicative of autism.

2. Thiomersal damaged the immune system

The State presented Dr. Jeffrey Brent, a pediatrician and medical toxicologist at the University of Colorado, to counter the nonsensical theory about thiomersal that was presented. Brent re-iterated the fact that every large scale study that has ever been done on thiomersal-containing vaccines has shown that there are no ill effects. The evidence presented by the experts for the plaintiffs for immune system damage by thiomersal was based on in-vitro exposure of immune cells to several hundred to a thousand times the dosage present in vaccines. Based on extensive evidence to the contrary, Brent summed up the plaintiff's theory that thiomersal caused Michelle to be sensitive to a measles infection as: "That couldn’t possibly be the case.”

3. Measles detected in the GI tract

Kinsbourne, one of the plaintiff's experts, said quite plainly, that the detection of the measles RNA in the GI tract is the key to whole case. Kinsbourne said if that was not the case then the whole hypothesis falls apart. The O'Leary lab used a technique to identify the measles RNA called PCR, or polymerase chain reaction (which basically consists of putting genetic material in a soup of enzymes and nucleotides, putting it through repeated heating/cooling cycles, and thereby obtaining vast numbers of copies of the original DNA/RNA in a relatively short time). The state's expert to dissect O'Leary's claim was Dr. Stephen A. Bustin. Bustin is a renowned expert in PCR techniques and impeccably credentialed.

Bustin laid out a trail of incompetences - and perhaps out-and-out fraud - by O'Leary. This is nothing new, since the British government did a detailed investigation of O'Leary's lab and decided to pull all funding and shut it down back in 2002. What O'Leary detected could not have been measles. The detected sample the lab put forth as measles turned out to be DNA, not RNA, and measles does not contain any DNA. Every attempt to replicate the O'Leary results in other studies has completely failed. There is no way to emphasize enough that this part of the case is absolutely wrong. There is no doubt that it was contamination that O'Leary was picking up. Perhaps Bustin himself said it best:

"So all of this evidence suggests very, very strongly that what they are detecting is DNA and not RNA. Because measles virus doesn’t exist as a DNA molecule in nature, they cannot be detecting measles virus RNA. They are detecting a contaminant. All of the additional evidence, from the nonreproducibility by Professor Cotter of the same samples that Unigenetics analyzed to the analysis of the data where there are discordant positives, where the negatives came up positive, suggests very, very strongly to me that there is a lot of contamination in the laboratory, which is not unusual, but they have not handled it very well in how they have troubleshot their problems. So I have very little doubt that what they are detecting is a DNA contaminant and not measles virus, and I do not believe there is any measles virus in any of the cases they have looked at."

===================

"The scientific testimony has been devastating to the plaintiffs because the recognized experts on autism, vaccines, and immunology do not support even one of these premises, let alone a linkage between any of them. The only thing the government and Cedillos agree on is that Michelle Cedillo has autism."

"The government position is backed by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, which has repeatedly found the vaccines safe. But what the Cedillos and other parents lack in hard data, they have made up for with a stubborn passion and sorrow that science cannot dispute. “It is parents versus science,” said Kevin Conway, one of the attorneys for the Cedillos."

The question about whether vaccines play a role in the development of autism was answered well before this trial began. Extensive studies of the evidence in the field and in the lab have put it to bed. The problem is that parents are looking for someone to blame and there are far too many quacks in the world that are willing to provide them a scapegoat, for profit. The plaintiff's experts were ill prepared, unprofessional, and the case presented was extremely weak. The true scientists professionally and convincingly destroyed the tattered linkages that make up the hypothesis that (thiomersal-preserved) vaccines cause autism. One interesting point about this is that this case was chosen from over 5,000 pending cases to represent the best shot the plaintiffs had at getting a favorable verdict. If this is the best they have to offer, then they are in real trouble. However, as can be seen by the above quote, the science doesn't matter to the lawyers, or the parents; this is about faith to them, and no amount of science or evidence seems to shake that faith.

As a final note, this case is also about a person: Michelle Cedillo, and her family. This article and all of our work on the pseudoscience surrounding autism is not about cheapening their plight. Rather it is for people like this that we show how vacuous and unscientific the claims are of those that prey upon the desperate. Those who peddle hope for profit are our targets. We hope, truly, that Michelle Cedillo and her parents, and those in similar plights, find better and better alternatives and solutions to their difficulties with every passing year - due to good, clear, scientific research.

Your friend is peddling bull**** and you are buying it, alexava. Despite your claim that you remain neutral, it's clear that you do not. If you had any idea of the grave stupidity you're supporting, we wouldn't be having this argument. It's really very sad.

[alexava 6,973]

i can assure you he knows exactly what he is talking about. However he does not talk openly about his research and opinions. It's bad for business because too many people believe what they are fed even when lies are exposed like the first link I provided which you never addressed.

Without evidence, this is anecdotal at best, and has no place in a formal argument. Personally, I think your friend is suffering from a raging case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you're going to argue from authority, make it clear exactly why he knows what he's talking about.

I believe I did address it, or have you still not bothered to read that Snopes link?

And as for your Canadien family who got sick, I am not arguing against the effectiveness of vaccines. I am not saying they cause autism for sure. I am saying there is a possibility that it does and lies have been told to protect this industry. The cdc has not been open about these possibilities.

I brought up that particular family because they were the feature case of the Autism Omnibus trial. Since you're obviously unfamiliar with that case, let me expound a little bit on it.

That trial was a landmark case in which many of the arguments you have presented here were scrutinized in the court of law. The plaintiffs not only failed to meet the burden of proof that vaccines had a hand in that child's autism, which in court is actually much easier to meet than it is academically, their supposed "expert" witnesses, many names you will bring up if this argument goes on long enough, were thoroughly slaughtered by the defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedillo_v._Secretary_of_Health_and_Human_Services

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Autism_omnibus_trial

On June 11, 2007 the US Court of Federal Claims opened hearings on what has been dubbed the autism omnibus trial. This omnibus trial stems from over 4,800 lawsuits that were filed by families, claiming that thiomersal contained in earlier vaccinations, and the measles in the mumps-measles-rubella (MMR) vaccine, played a causal role in the development of autism in their children. In order to better handle the overwhelming caseload three "special masters" were appointed to hear the evidence in the case. Most of the lawsuits were filed in 2001 - the reason for the delay of the trial being due to the claimants attempting to find some evidence, any evidence, to support the causal link they claim.

====================

The Cedillo case can be broken down into the following claims:

-Michelle was normal before receiving the MMR vaccine, evidenced only by a series of baby videos of Michelle between 6 and 8 months.

-The thiomersal in early vaccines degraded Michelle's immune system, though the only evidence presented for this was that a couple of plaintiff experts think that this might be possible.

-The degraded immune system allowed the measles to infect Michelle and cause autism and other health problems. Again, the only evidence offered for this was the O'Leary Lab claiming to find measles RNA in Michelle's gut.

The Cedillo claim falls apart if any one of these claims or their evidence is shown to be faulty. In the end, the state witnesses showed that all three of these and the evidence for them were bogus.

1. Michelle was a normal baby who got sick suddenly

The first point was dissected by Dr. Eric Fombonne who is a professor, and Head of the Division of Child Psychiatry, at McGill University, Montreal Children's Hospital. Fombonne broke down the videos the plaintiffs had earlier presented to show that even as early as 6–8 months (well before she received her vaccine), Michelle was showing stereotypical autistic patterns. In the videos, Fombonne testified that Michelle failed to follow hand and eye indications from her mother, exhibited repetitive arm flapping, and showed a single purpose obsession with a Sesame Street video. All of these are classic indications of a neurodevelopmental disorder such as autism. Fombonne also points out that these are sometimes hard for parents, particularly new parents, to spot as abnormal. However, he also says that any expert in diagnosis would immediately see these behaviors as indicative of autism.

2. Thiomersal damaged the immune system

The State presented Dr. Jeffrey Brent, a pediatrician and medical toxicologist at the University of Colorado, to counter the nonsensical theory about thiomersal that was presented. Brent re-iterated the fact that every large scale study that has ever been done on thiomersal-containing vaccines has shown that there are no ill effects. The evidence presented by the experts for the plaintiffs for immune system damage by thiomersal was based on in-vitro exposure of immune cells to several hundred to a thousand times the dosage present in vaccines. Based on extensive evidence to the contrary, Brent summed up the plaintiff's theory that thiomersal caused Michelle to be sensitive to a measles infection as: "That couldn’t possibly be the case.”

3. Measles detected in the GI tract

Kinsbourne, one of the plaintiff's experts, said quite plainly, that the detection of the measles RNA in the GI tract is the key to whole case. Kinsbourne said if that was not the case then the whole hypothesis falls apart. The O'Leary lab used a technique to identify the measles RNA called PCR, or polymerase chain reaction (which basically consists of putting genetic material in a soup of enzymes and nucleotides, putting it through repeated heating/cooling cycles, and thereby obtaining vast numbers of copies of the original DNA/RNA in a relatively short time). The state's expert to dissect O'Leary's claim was Dr. Stephen A. Bustin. Bustin is a renowned expert in PCR techniques and impeccably credentialed.

Bustin laid out a trail of incompetences - and perhaps out-and-out fraud - by O'Leary. This is nothing new, since the British government did a detailed investigation of O'Leary's lab and decided to pull all funding and shut it down back in 2002. What O'Leary detected could not have been measles. The detected sample the lab put forth as measles turned out to be DNA, not RNA, and measles does not contain any DNA. Every attempt to replicate the O'Leary results in other studies has completely failed. There is no way to emphasize enough that this part of the case is absolutely wrong. There is no doubt that it was contamination that O'Leary was picking up. Perhaps Bustin himself said it best:

"So all of this evidence suggests very, very strongly that what they are detecting is DNA and not RNA. Because measles virus doesn’t exist as a DNA molecule in nature, they cannot be detecting measles virus RNA. They are detecting a contaminant. All of the additional evidence, from the nonreproducibility by Professor Cotter of the same samples that Unigenetics analyzed to the analysis of the data where there are discordant positives, where the negatives came up positive, suggests very, very strongly to me that there is a lot of contamination in the laboratory, which is not unusual, but they have not handled it very well in how they have troubleshot their problems. So I have very little doubt that what they are detecting is a DNA contaminant and not measles virus, and I do not believe there is any measles virus in any of the cases they have looked at."

===================

"The scientific testimony has been devastating to the plaintiffs because the recognized experts on autism, vaccines, and immunology do not support even one of these premises, let alone a linkage between any of them. The only thing the government and Cedillos agree on is that Michelle Cedillo has autism."

"The government position is backed by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, which has repeatedly found the vaccines safe. But what the Cedillos and other parents lack in hard data, they have made up for with a stubborn passion and sorrow that science cannot dispute. “It is parents versus science,” said Kevin Conway, one of the attorneys for the Cedillos."

The question about whether vaccines play a role in the development of autism was answered well before this trial began. Extensive studies of the evidence in the field and in the lab have put it to bed. The problem is that parents are looking for someone to blame and there are far too many quacks in the world that are willing to provide them a scapegoat, for profit. The plaintiff's experts were ill prepared, unprofessional, and the case presented was extremely weak. The true scientists professionally and convincingly destroyed the tattered linkages that make up the hypothesis that (thiomersal-preserved) vaccines cause autism. One interesting point about this is that this case was chosen from over 5,000 pending cases to represent the best shot the plaintiffs had at getting a favorable verdict. If this is the best they have to offer, then they are in real trouble. However, as can be seen by the above quote, the science doesn't matter to the lawyers, or the parents; this is about faith to them, and no amount of science or evidence seems to shake that faith.

As a final note, this case is also about a person: Michelle Cedillo, and her family. This article and all of our work on the pseudoscience surrounding autism is not about cheapening their plight. Rather it is for people like this that we show how vacuous and unscientific the claims are of those that prey upon the desperate. Those who peddle hope for profit are our targets. We hope, truly, that Michelle Cedillo and her parents, and those in similar plights, find better and better alternatives and solutions to their difficulties with every passing year - due to good, clear, scientific research.

Your friend is peddling bull**** and you are buying it, alexava. Despite your claim that you remain neutral, it's clear that you do not. If you had any idea of the grave stupidity you're supporting, we wouldn't be having this argument. It's really very sad.

you still don't address tge need for the cdc to withhold info that did connect autism to African American males vaccinated prior to 3 years.