RFK, Jr. Reportedly Compares Vaccinations To The Holocaust

[AUDub 11,131]

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.

Oh, ffs. Are you still not going to read the damned snopes link I posted?

Fine. I'll post it again.

link

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.

For good measure, Here's Orac's full post on the matter:

Here we go again.

If there’s anything that ignites the fevered brains (such as they are) of antivaccine activists, it’s a good seeming conspiracy. Indeed, as we’ve seen before, if they can’t find a legitimate one, they’ll either exaggerate one or make one up out of whole cloth. This week, an “alleged” conspiracy has been brewing. It’s really the damnedest thing in that it’s hard to figure out exactly what’s going on. Whatever is going on, though, I would recommend extreme skepticism because two people are involved whose word you would be very foolish to trust on any scientific matter relating to vaccines: Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker. It began with a paper published in yet another journal I’ve never heard of, Translational Neurodegeneration, and accelerated last night with the release of a video that claims to name a former high ranking CDC official as a “whistleblower” for the finding that the CDC has been “covering up” (of course!) the “truth” that the MMR vaccine causes autism. This is one that might require multiple posts as information dribbles out and people figure out exactly what is really going on. In the meantime, let’s start with the video, released by Andrew Wakefield’s Autism Media Channel, the same “channel” that tried to make antivaccine hay over the murder of an autistic boy. Here’s the video, which is now also on

:

http://www.youtube.....g&v=sGOtDVilkUc

(Note that I’ve downloaded a copy in case it changes, as apparently it has before.)

A partial transcript can be found at—where else?—that wretched hive of antivaccine scum and quackery, Age of Autism.

The first thing one notices about the video is how intentionally inflammatory it is. The “malfeasance” (if such it is) being discovered is compared unfavorably—yes, unfavorably—to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, complete with lurid pictures patients suffering from advanced syphilis and the introduction of Peter Buxton, the Public Health Service investigator who blew the whistle on the experiment, because, apparently, to Wakefield and Hooker autism is just like end stage syphilis. (Yes, there is another “whistleblower” in this video.) The “malfeasance” being claimed is that the CDC supposedly covered up the link between MMR and autism in African American boys, hence the puffed up rhetoric about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Before I go into that more, there is one thing that bears mentioning here. The video even concludes with the sheer Godwin-y goodness (from an entertainment standpoint) of references to the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, because, I guess, autism is just like the mass murder of millions, at least in the minds of Wakefield supporters.

Of course, the key finding in Brian Hooker’s paper is that Wakefield was wrong. Indeed, in this video, Wakefield even admits that he was mostly wrong about MMR and autism. Let that sink in again. He admits that he was mostly wrong about MMR and autism. OK, he says we were “partially right,” but the flip side of that is that he must have been mostly wrong. What do I mean? I’ll explain.

The claims 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. Basically, no significant associations were found between the age cutoffs examined and the risk of autism. I note that, even in this “reanalysis” by Brian Hooker, there still isn’t any such correlation for children who are not African American boys.

I’ll get into the issues with this study a bit more later, but I’ll admit up front that it’s hard to go too deeply into this study without a statistician and access to the actual restricted data set from the CDC used. Not having access to the data set, I have no way of knowing if the analyses Hooker used were appropriate. However, for purposes of this post, let’s just, for a thought experiment, assume Hooker’s study comes to a valid conclusion (which is, given that it’s Hooker, highly unlikely, but stay with me for a moment). If that were the case, these results are no reassurance whatsoever to the vast majority of antivaccinationists supporting Wakefield. This study says nothing whatsoever about, for instance, Jenny McCarthy and her son’s autism, other than that there is no link between MMR and autism for children like him. Remember, the most vocal antivaccinationists jumping all over this are not African-American but instead tend to be UMC or even highly affluent Caucasians. There’s absolutely nothing in even Hooker’s ham-fisted “reanalysis” of this data to tell them that the MMR vaccine caused their children’s autism.

All there is left is a chance to hype up the conspiracy mongering machine against the hated CDC, because even Hooker’s reanalysis doesn’t support an increased risk of autism with earlier MMR vaccination in white babies. Zero. Nada. Zip. This leads to a bunch of “Tuskegee” handwaving to hide that finding, that even taking his best shot at it the most Hooker could come up with after he tortured the data was a correlation between age of MMR vaccination and autism in African Americans babies—and not just African-American babies, but African-American male babies. Even taken at face value, Hooker et al is a disaster for the vast majority of antivaccine activists. This can’t be repeated often enough. But does the study support an increased risk for African American males, as claimed?

There are a couple of things you have to remember whenever looking at a study that is billed as a “reanalysis” of an existing data set that’s already been published. The first is that no one—I mean no one—”reanalyzes” such a dataset unless he has an ax to grind and disagrees with the results of the original analysis so strongly that he is willing to go through the trouble of getting institutional review board (IRB) approval, as Hooker did from Simpson University, going to the CDC to get this dataset, and then analyzing it. Think, for instance, the infamous “reanalysis” by homeopaths of the meta-analysis of Shang et al that concluded that the effects of homeopathy are placebo effects. The reanalysis did not refute the original meta-analysis. The second thing you have to remember is that it’s pretty uncommon for such a “reanalysis” to refute the original analysis. Certainly, antivaccine “researchers” like Hooker try to do this all the time. Occasionally they get their results published in a bottom-feeding peer-reviewed journal (Translational Neurodegeneration doesn’t even appear to have an impact factor yet), as Hooker has. It means little.

So what about the paper itself? First, one has to go back to Destefano et al 2004. Basically, this was a case-control study in which 624 case children were identified from multiple sources and matched to 1,824 control children on age, gender, and school. In case control studies, researchers look at (usually) two groups of people, cases (those with the condition under study) and controls (those without) and tries to match them as closely as possible to every other confounding factor except for the risk factor being studied, in this case, the age of receiving first MMR vaccination. Porta’s Dictionary of Epidemiology defines the case-control study as: “an observational epidemiological study of persons with the disease (or another outcome variable) of interest and a suitable control group of persons without the disease (comparison group, reference group). The potential relationship of a suspected risk factor or an attribute to the disease is examined by comparing the diseased and nondiseased subjects with regard to how frequently the factor or attribute is present (or, if quantitative, the levels of the attribute) in each of the groups (diseased and nondiseased).” They then see if that risk factor is higher in the case population than it is in the control population. This is in comparison to cohort studies, in which researchers look at groups of people who vary in exposure to a given putative risk factor (for instance, vaccines), each controlled for every other potential risk factor that the authors can control for, and then determine if the condition for which that putative risk factor is suspected to be a risk factor for. A cohort study can be retrospective (looking at existing data) or prospective (the cohorts determined in advance and then followed over time), while case control studies are retrospective.

It’s also not uncommon for epidemiologists to choose more controls than cases in case-control studies. In any case, one thing Destefano et al did was to perform a case control study of children in metropolitan Atlanta looking at age at first MMR vaccination (0-11 months; 12-17 months; 18-23 months; 24-29 months; 30-35 months; and 36+ months). They found no statistically significant correlations. They also looked at a subgroup of the groups, children for whom a Georgia birth certificate could be located, in order to test correlations for other traits:

We matched 355 (56%) case and 1020 (56%) control children to Georgia state birth certificate records, which allowed us to obtain additional information, such as each child’s birth weight and gestational age and the mother’s parity, age, race, and education.

There was no significant correlation noted in various groups based on race, maternal age, maternal education, and birth weight. It’s all pretty straightforward, at least a straightforward as a epidemiological study can be. The only hint of a whiff of anything in it helpful to antivaccinationists was this:

Vaccination before 36 months was more common among case children than control children, especially among children 3 to 5 years of age, likely reflecting immunization requirements for enrollment in early intervention programs.

In other words, it’s a result that is likely not due to an actual effect.

Fast forward to Brian Hooker’s study. The first thing I noticed reading it was that it contains a lot of the usual red flags of antivaccine papers. Hooker cites several Mark Geier papers as evidence of a correlation between vaccines and autism, to try to make it seem as though there is an actual scientific controversy. He even cites a Wakefield paper.

Then there is the methods section. It’s really not very clear exactly what Hooker did with this dataset, other than muck around with it using SAS® software. He keeps referring to “cohorts,” which made me wonder right away whether he was not doing the same sort of analysis as Destefano. Instead of doing a case control study, it looks as though he did a cohort study:

The Pearson’s chi -squared test contained in the SAS® software was utilized for current statistical analyses, and a two-sided p-value <  0.05 was considered statistically significant. This is in contrast to the original Destefano et al. [14] (CDC) study, where a case–control study design was used, where 3 control children were matched to each case child, and analyzed using conditional logistic regression dichotomized for the three age cut-offs at 18, 24 and 36 months...In the present study, frequencies of cases were determined for first MMR ages of less than versus greater than 18 months, 24 months and 36 months in each separate analysis.

Yep, he did a cohort study. Basically, he looked at the risk of an autism diagnosis in the groups first exposed to MMR at different age ranges. Remember, case control = comparing risk factor frequency in people with a condition compared to controls; cohort = examining risk of condition in people with different exposures.

There’s an old saying in epidemiology (and in science in general) that says that if you torture data enough, eventually they will confess. With this in mind, it’s hard not to think of Brian Hooker as the Spanish Inquisition. I find it very telling that Hooker couldn’t find (or didn’t bother to look for) coauthor who is an actual epidemiologist or statistician. Heck, Jake Crosby wasn’t available? He might not be an epidemiologist, but he does have a degree in epidemiology and is in graduate school. What training in epidemiology or statistics does Brian Hooker have that qualifies him to do a retrospective cohort study like this? None that I can see. My first rule of thumb doing anything involving anything more complicated than the rudimentary statistics that I use to analyze laboratory experiments (such as even a “simple” clinical trial) is to find a statistician. While it’s true that Hooker used to lead a high throughput biology team, which likely required some statistical expertise, that’s a different sort of statistics and experimental design than epidemiology. Basically, if you’re going to do epidemiology, you should find an epidemiologist to collaborate with, and if you’re going to do something that requires some heavy statistical lifting you really need to get a statistician on board as well before you start the study.

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? Who knows? Hooker analyzed a dataset collected to be analyzed by a case-control method using a cohort design. Then he did multiple subset analyses, which, of course, are prone to false positives. As we also 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. More importantly, even if his statistics were correctly done, his changing the design is highly suspect, particularly when coupled with claims being promulgated by our good buddy Jake Crosby that the CDC intentionally left out subjects in order to hide this correlation:

According to Dr. Hooker, the CDC whistleblower informant — who wishes to remain anonymous — guided him to evidence that a statistically significant relationship between the age the MMR vaccine was first given and autism incidence in African-American boys was hidden by CDC researchers. After data were gathered on 2,583 children living in Atlanta, Georgia who were born between 1986 and 1993, CDC researchers excluded children that did not have a valid State of Georgia birth certificate — reducing the sample size being studied by 41%. Hooker explains that by introducing this arbitrary criteria into the analysis, the cohort size was sharply reduced, eliminating the statistical power of the findings and negating the strong MMR-autism link in African American boys.

This is an accusation neither Hooker’s study nor anything any antivaccinationist has published thus far provides any tangible evidence for. Requiring the birth certificate was not an “arbitrary” criterion, either. It allowed investigators to account for known confounders related to autism risk, such as birth weight, at least in this subset of the case and control groups. I also can’t help but think there is likely to be a confounder that is unaccounted for in this study, particularly given how there increase in risk is found in only one group. In fact, as Reuben at The Poxes Blog explains, there almost certainly was just such a confounder:

Next come the statistics. Hooker uses Pearson’s chi squared test to see if there is a significant association between MMR and autism in children at different ages. DeStefano et al used conditional logistic regression. For the non-biostatisticians out there, the technique that DeStefano et al used accounts for confounders and effect modifiers, different traits in their population that could skew the results. Hooker’s technique doesn’t really do that, unless you stratify results and use very, very large datasets. Hooker’s approach is more “conservative,” meaning that it will detect small effects and amplify them, and those effects can come from anything.

In other words, Hooker used a method prone to false positives. Then:

The nail in the coffin for the Hooker paper is that autism is usually diagnosed by the time a child is three years old. There was no increased risk at 18 months, higher but not by a whole lot at 24, and then the three-fold increase at 36 months. Gee, was it the MMR vaccine, mister? No, the effect is being modified by age. It’s as if I asked you if your shoe size was bigger at 36 months because you drank milk vs because you were 36 months. It’s age. It’s the way that autism is diagnosed. You’re going to have more children diagnosed as autistic at 36 months than you will at 18 months or at 24 months. Using the chi square test doesn’t tease this out, Dr. Hooker! That’s more than likely why DeStefano et al used conditional logistic regression, to take age into account in the analysis.

So why did we not see this in the other ethnic groups or in girls? The answer here is simple, again. Hooker had a limited dataset to work with when he boiled it down to African-American baby boys. In this table, for example, he tells us that he had to modify the analysis to 31 months instead of 36 because he had less than 5 children in that group. It’s the same goddamned mistake that Andrew Jeremy Wakefield wanted to pass off as legitimate science. You cannot, and must not use small numbers to make big assertions…

Quite right. I should have seen that right off the bat.

And, of course, 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. Finally, even if Destefano et al is thrown out, it’s just one study. There are multiple other studies, many much larger than this one, that failed to find a correlation between MMR and autism. Even if Hooker succeeded in “knocking out” Destefano et al, it doesn’t invalidate all that other evidence.

Hooker’s “reanalysis” aside, somehow, some way, a senior CDC scientist has made the massive mistake of speaking with Brian Hooker. That CDC scientist is William Thompson, well-respected (until, possibly, now) scientist and co-author of Destefano et al, as well as first author on a widely cited NEJM study showing no correlation between thimerosal in vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, among other studies. The first thing I noticed listening to Thompson in Wakefield’s video is just how little he is quoted. Instead he’s paraphrased by Hooker, who portrays himself as Thompson’s “confessor” to whom Thompson is “confessing.” The parts with Thompson’s voice appear highly edited, brief sound bites. They sound, at least the way they are presented, highly damning on first listen. It seems very odd on first listen. Heck, it sounds very odd on second listen. So what really happened? Again, who knows? You’ll excuse me if I reserve judgment until more information comes in from sources other than Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker because I suspect that what we’re seeing is a highly one-sided presentation of cherry picked information. It is, after all, Wakefield and Hooker we’re talking about.

In the meantime, remember this. Even if Hooker is “right,” he has just undermined the MMR-autism hypothesis and proven Wakefield wrong, with the possible (and unlikely) exception of a single group, African American males. Given the dubiousness of his analysis and background, he hasn’t even demonstrated it for them, either, particularly given the copious other studies that have failed to find a correlation between MMR and autism. What he 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 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.

ADDENDUM:

Whoa. The beat goes on and on and on. Our “buddy” Jake Crosby is now claiming that Andrew Wakefield betrayed William Thompson by identifying him in the video without Thompson’s permission:

Andrew Wakefield has betrayed the CDC whistleblower by releasing his name without his consent. On the Autism Media Channel website, a video hosted by Wakefield is up announcing the whistleblower’s name and playing recordings of his voice. In the video is scientist and parent Dr. Brian Hooker, who had been in discussions with the whistleblower and made the catastrophic mistake of sharing his identity with Wakefield. Complicit in the betrayal is Age of Autism, which is promoting Wakefield’s video while repeating the whistleblower’s name.

In commentary to a small group of people later relayed to Autism Investigated, attorney Robert Krakow commented:

“I am very familiar with the information [whistleblower] offered. Disclosure of [whistleblower]’s existence and identity at this point in time is a colossal blunder and an inexplicable error in judgment that damages irreparably the opportunity to use [whistleblower]’s very valuable information and testimony effectively. I know that Brian Hooker did not make the disclosure.”

It remains truly ironic that Andrew Wakefield – a man betrayed by the Lancet editor a decade ago – would turn around and betray the trust of someone who has come forward with valuable information about the fraud committed in a federal agency. Also ironic is that Wakefield similarly betrayed the trust of Dr. Brian Hooker, whose congressional activities have been repeatedly undermined by groups associated with Age of Autism.

Given Jake’s past reliability, take this with a grain of salt. It does have plausibility in that, given Wakefield’s history I could totally see him betraying a “whistleblower” like that. However, I don’t for a moment believe that, if it’s true that Wakefield “outed” Thompson without his permission, Hooker didn’t know about it and at least acquiesce, if not actually approve. I mean, seriously. Hooker spent a lot of time in front of the camera bragging about how he had become William Thompson’s “confessor” and relating what Thompson had said to him, and he didn’t think Wakefield would use that footage? He’s either complicit or a irredeemably stupid and gullible. Take your pick. Of course, Jake is Brian Hooker’s best bud these days and admires him far out of proportion to any reason there might be to admire Hooker; my guess is that he wants to protect Hooker from this allegation, and that’s why he made the claim that

.

ADDENDUM #2:

Well, well, well. Andy Wakefield jumps in:

Jake, in light of your serious allegation that I “betrayed” the whistleblower by disclosing his name without permission, I asked you how you knew this. You replied “my sources”. There are no sources other than the whistleblower himself that would know whether or not this was the case since this matter was discussed between the two of us, in several of our conversations. I did, as a matter of fact, have his full knowledge and his permission to do what “I felt best” with the uncensored video.

Although it is a moot point, I remain perplexed as to quite why a man who participated in a prolonged scientific fraud – one that likely resulted in harm to many children – should merit anonymity on his terms. The misinformation you have put out has spread through an already divided community. Your reporting on this matter does you no credit.

So that’s Wakefield’s story, is it? That Thompson gave him permission to “do what he felt best,” but that Thompson doesn’t deserve anonymity on his terms. Why is it that I don’t believe Wakefield’s first claim in light of his attitude expressed in the second part of his comment?

[alexava 6,972]

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...._Human_Services

http://rationalwiki....m_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.

Oh, ffs. Are you still not going to read the damned snopes link I posted?

Fine. I'll post it again.

link

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.

so it's ok to just report the data that supports your interests? Slice and dice? Who knows what else they left out.

[AUDub 11,131]

so it's ok to just report the data that supports your interests? Slice and dice? Who knows what else they left out.

The post I shared explains that. Most importantly, it explains why your claim is flat wrong. Explain why you're right in its face, rather than stomping you foot and claiming you're correct.

[AUDub 11,131]

you can start with the information the cdc hid from their report.

Addressed above.

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...

Source this claim. You've thrown so much bull**** at me I've lost track.

then you can tell me who funds these " conclusive" studies.

85% of funding for these studies comes from the National Institute of Health

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.?

Addressed above.

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.

Indeed. My only goal here is to convince you. Hopefully, if we go far enough, you'll come out of this conversation a little less ignorant of the danger such thinking presents.

[TitanTiger 20,464]

After reading this thread, I'm disappointed. I would have thought better of intelligent Auburn people.

Vaccines don't cause autism. Full stop.

Yes vaccines have some side effects for a small percentage of people. The odds of the more serious ones are so low they don't even compare to what can happen if someone contracts the actual disease.

Finally, I wouldn't jail anyone for refusing vaccines but I would require them for all public school children, anyone who works with children, anyone in healthcare, and I might consider banning anyone who isn't vaccinated from government and public buildings, public parks, pools, campgrounds and national parks. You want to believe hippie crackpots? Go live with them on a commune where y'all can endanger each other and no one else.

[AUDub 11,131]

After reading this thread, I'm disappointed. I would have thought better of intelligent Auburn people.

Vaccines don't cause autism. Full stop.

Yes vaccines have some side effects for a small percentage of people. The odds of the more serious ones are so low they don't even compare to what can happen if someone contracts the actual disease.

Finally, I wouldn't jail anyone for refusing vaccines but I would require them for all public school children, anyone who works with children, and I might consider banning anyone who isn't vaccinated from government and public buildings, public parks, pools, campgrounds and national parks. You want to believe hippie crackpots? Go live with them on a commune where y'all can endanger each other and no one else.

Thank you for weighing in. I need a beer after all this.

[quietfan 233]

After reading this thread, I'm disappointed. I would have thought better of intelligent Auburn people.

Vaccines don't cause autism. Full stop.

Yes vaccines have some side effects for a small percentage of people. The odds of the more serious ones are so low they don't even compare to what can happen if someone contracts the actual disease.

Finally, I wouldn't jail anyone for refusing vaccines but I would require them for all public school children, anyone who works with children, and I might consider banning anyone who isn't vaccinated from government and public buildings, public parks, pools, campgrounds and national parks. You want to believe hippie crackpots? Go live with them on a commune where y'all can endanger each other and no one else.

Thank you for weighing in. I need a beer after all this.

Bens: You've done all the heavy lifting in terms of documentation and facts. I thank you for that.

TitanTiger: Clear, concise, and to the point. 'Nuff said!

[AUDub 11,131]

After reading this thread, I'm disappointed. I would have thought better of intelligent Auburn people.

Vaccines don't cause autism. Full stop.

Yes vaccines have some side effects for a small percentage of people. The odds of the more serious ones are so low they don't even compare to what can happen if someone contracts the actual disease.

Finally, I wouldn't jail anyone for refusing vaccines but I would require them for all public school children, anyone who works with children, and I might consider banning anyone who isn't vaccinated from government and public buildings, public parks, pools, campgrounds and national parks. You want to believe hippie crackpots? Go live with them on a commune where y'all can endanger each other and no one else.

Thank you for weighing in. I need a beer after all this.

Bens: You've done all the heavy lifting in terms of documentation and facts. I thank you for that.

TitanTiger: Clear, concise, and to the point. 'Nuff said!

Thank you. I enjoy these little discussions more than I let on. They're excelling learning opportunities and critical thinking exercises. Made a lot of minor errors that I really ought to clean up, though.

[alexava 6,972]

After reading this thread, I'm disappointed. I would have thought better of intelligent Auburn people.

Vaccines don't cause autism. Full stop.

Yes vaccines have some side effects for a small percentage of people. The odds of the more serious ones are so low they don't even compare to what can happen if someone contracts the actual disease.

Finally, I wouldn't jail anyone for refusing vaccines but I would require them for all public school children, anyone who works with children, and I might consider banning anyone who isn't vaccinated from government and public buildings, public parks, pools, campgrounds and national parks. You want to believe hippie crackpots? Go live with them on a commune where y'all can endanger each other and no one else.

:bow:/>

Thank you for weighing in. I need a beer after all this. :glare:/>

Bens: You've done all the heavy lifting in terms of documentation and facts. I thank you for that.

TitanTiger: Clear, concise, and to the point. 'Nuff said!

:thumbsup:/>

Thank you. I enjoy these little discussions more than I let on. They're excelling learning opportunities and critical thinking exercises. Made a lot of minor errors that I really ought to clean up, though.

i just had another discussion with my friend who has a 15 year old autistic son he told me some more info i didn't realize about his sons condition. I didn't know it went down that way. I was friends with this guy since 94 we worked together till 03. We all knew his condition but i never felt comfortable asking about it in detail. I will paste his words later. Can't from phone.

[alexava 6,972]

I will add parts of my conversation with my friend. to this post. i took names out-----

Autism Dad; u can always ask me anything and no i am not offended because i believe 100% ____'s autism was due to vaccines. there r parents with children with autism that believe otherwise and it may be true in their situation.

Autism Dad;depends on where the information you have read came from. the way i explain it is that of course we are all different and are prone to different things. i, along with many people think that some babies are pre-disposed to autism and there is something that triggers that pre-disposition. ie, vaccines, additives, environmental or possible other triggers that when the child is exposed to the trigger they develop autism or any other of a hundred things. add, adhd, asthma ect. i use the example that i can lay in, pick up or anything with poison oak or ivy. but i have friends if the wind is blowing right seem to break out and itch. i don't have a pre-disposition to either of those allergies where others do. there were no kids like ---- when i was in school and certainly not the numbers you see now. the only thing that has changed is the vaccination schedule and all the crap that goes in them. our story is similar to thousand others where ----was developing fine and on pace. he was talking, walking ect. then he had his round of shots at 14 months old. developed high fever and was gone. no more words, smiles, expressions or anything. just there. the only common denominator in all these stories are the children went away after their shots.the cdc and pharmaceutical companies are in bed together and have way way too much to lose so that is why you see "proof" that vaccines are totally safe. i am not anti vaccine, i among many others believe they should be spaced out and broken up. doctors get 8 hours of training in their 6 yr or so education in college. 8 hrs over a 6 yr period. my point about that is they don't know jack crap about it anymore than the common person that researches vaccination injury. after 911 a senator from indiana put a rider in the homeland security act that does not allow a pharmaceutical company to be sued. the "vaccine court" is the only government court that hears separate cases other than the us supreme court. if they went that far to do that then there is a reason why.

Me ; I didn't know you saw a change and fever after the 14 month round of shots.

Autism Dad; yeah.. he got sick within probably two or three hours after getting the shots . hope i explained what my thoughts are and why. i am not very good at that. i never tell parents not to vaccinate but if it comes up for discussion i just recommend they research it and at the very least to ask the doctor to wait and to break them up. if i knew then what i know now i sure would have.

Me; did you go back or call Dr when he had reactions to shots?

Autism Dad ;yes.. they said sometimes that was typical and if he continued to have a reaction to let them know and they would call in an antibiotic which they did. it was one of the weirdest things ever. he could talk and had not a ton of words but could call me daddy and tammy momma. and could say drink ect.. then nothing. he went almost three years after that with no language. he called me "coo coo" and tammy "mop" and could say dog. and that was it

[alexava 6,972]

i knew he had issues with the vaccine studies but didnt know what he explained above. it is these cases which number literally in the thousands and i know 3 others like him who i form my opinions from. they, cdc just claim there is no link. well this story and the thousands like it ARE the link. the cdc quickly brushes it away then is caught omitting certain aspects out of their findings is enough to make you want answers. his son is physically healthy but will never live alone or care for himself as an adult. they have reduced their standard of living to provide care for him after he and his wife get old and pass. it is very frustrating for him to feel he knows exactly what caused the condition and be very involved with so many other parents who can pinpoint it but not be taken seriously by the people who control it and profit from it. anyway this is a good friend. not as close as when we worked together and before we had kids but he is a solid person, good family. not a wingnut, or someone who cries wolf about everything. he is very involved with this cause as far as organizing events for awareness, fundraising and i guess just bringing others that share the same lifestyle now together. he told me they have differing opinions on the cause of autism but all basically agree the claim that it is just diagnosed more now is totally wrong.

[TitanTiger 20,464]

I think your friend and you need to understand the phrase "correlation does not equal causation." In other words, the fact that two events coincide or that one follows shortly after another does not mean that one event caused the other to happen.

There have been numerous studies now, researching this and looking for any link...anything that we could show scientifically that vaccines, or some ingredient in them, or the age at which we give them, or the combination that we give them cause autism. The evidence simply isn't there. Period. Anecdotes are not evidence. Controlled experiments are evidence. Now, if a parent would rather separate the vaccines - space giving them out over time, I don't have a problem with that. It's not necessary, but it doesn't hurt anything to do it if it gets their kids vaccinated and gives them a little piece of mind. I know I used to own a beagle who had a rheumatoid arthritis problem in one of his legs that would flare up right after the yearly rabies and parvo and kennel cough shots. Because RA is an immune system condition, it would cause that joint to swell and give get hot and cause him discomfort. We started spacing out the shots over a period of 4-5 weeks and it was fine from then on.

Now people are not canines, but if a parent wanted to space out vaccines to assuage similar fears, so be it. But not vaccinating and then letting your kids interact with other kids, who could take home diseases to young infant siblings who cannot get certain vaccines yet, or to parents whose childhood vaccinations aren't as effective as they once were decades later, is selfish and irresponsible.

[alexava 6,972]

I think your friend and you need to understand the phrase "correlation does not equal causation." In other words, the fact that two events coincide or that one follows shortly after another does not mean that one event caused the other to happen.

There have been numerous studies now, researching this and looking for any link...anything that we could show scientifically that vaccines, or some ingredient in them, or the age at which we give them, or the combination that we give them cause autism. The evidence simply isn't there. Period. Anecdotes are not evidence. Controlled experiments are evidence. Now, if a parent would rather separate the vaccines - space giving them out over time, I don't have a problem with that. It's not necessary, but it doesn't hurt anything to do it if it gets their kids vaccinated and gives them a little piece of mind. I know I used to own a beagle who had a rheumatoid arthritis problem in one of his legs that would flare up right after the yearly rabies and parvo and kennel cough shots. Because RA is an immune system condition, it would cause that joint to swell and give get hot and cause him discomfort. We started spacing out the shots over a period of 4-5 weeks and it was fine from then on.

Now people are not canines, but if a parent wanted to space out vaccines to assuage similar fears, so be it. But not vaccinating and then letting your kids interact with other kids, who could take home diseases to young infant siblings who cannot get certain vaccines yet, or to parents whose childhood vaccinations aren't as effective as they once were decades later, is selfish and irresponsible.

titan that is exactly what I have been saying. Delay, change the schedule, break them up, go back to the schedule we had before this condition went rampant. But they just want to say it don't matter without showing it. One of the links I left that he gave me explained that one of the rounds of injections in this schedule, I don't remember which one contained about 97 times the amount of mercury that an adult should consume at one time. My other friend (the professional)I referenced that Ben thinks he discredited told me this before. He said even if we are sure these injection are not causing autism that is too much to put into such a small child or baby at one time. He also shared the same info that Drs are not trained on this but must follow cdc standards.the main reason they cram all these vaccine injections into this tight schedule is because many people with healthy babies won't return for shots after birth so they feel they must force feed them when they have them there and are not aware they have a choice. I admit I am hell and gone from any kind of expert and my debate shows it but I know and have been in conversations with multiple parents of these children at once when I just listened. The claim that autism has always been there just diagnosed more now makes them extremely angry.

[AUDub 11,131]

I think your friend and you need to understand the phrase "correlation does not equal causation." In other words, the fact that two events coincide or that one follows shortly after another does not mean that one event caused the other to happen.

There have been numerous studies now, researching this and looking for any link...anything that we could show scientifically that vaccines, or some ingredient in them, or the age at which we give them, or the combination that we give them cause autism. The evidence simply isn't there. Period. Anecdotes are not evidence. Controlled experiments are evidence. Now, if a parent would rather separate the vaccines - space giving them out over time, I don't have a problem with that. It's not necessary, but it doesn't hurt anything to do it if it gets their kids vaccinated and gives them a little piece of mind. I know I used to own a beagle who had a rheumatoid arthritis problem in one of his legs that would flare up right after the yearly rabies and parvo and kennel cough shots. Because RA is an immune system condition, it would cause that joint to swell and give get hot and cause him discomfort. We started spacing out the shots over a period of 4-5 weeks and it was fine from then on.

Now people are not canines, but if a parent wanted to space out vaccines to assuage similar fears, so be it. But not vaccinating and then letting your kids interact with other kids, who could take home diseases to young infant siblings who cannot get certain vaccines yet, or to parents whose childhood vaccinations aren't as effective as they once were decades later, is selfish and irresponsible.

titan that is exactly what I have been saying. Delay, change the schedule, break them up, go back to the schedule we had before this condition went rampant. But they just want to say it don't matter without showing it. One of the links I left that he gave me explained that one of the rounds of injections in this schedule, I don't remember which one contained about 97 times the amount of mercury that an adult should consume at one time. My other friend (the professional)I referenced that Ben thinks he discredited told me this before. He said even if we are sure these injection are not causing autism that is too much to put into such a small child or baby at one time. He also shared the same info that Drs are not trained on this but must follow cdc standards.the main reason they cram all these vaccine injections into this tight schedule is because many people with healthy babies won't return for shots after birth so they feel they must force feed them when they have them there and are not aware they have a choice. I admit I am hell and gone from any kind of expert and my debate shows it but I know and have been in conversations with multiple parents of these children at once when I just listened. The claim that autism has always been there just diagnosed more now makes them extremely angry.

The part I bolded has been experimented on.

I'm a healthcare professional, too. I assure you that I'm not talking out my ass.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

For those of you who are interested,

go to PBS.org, click on FRONTLINE, watch the episode entitled The Vaccine Wars.

[TitanTiger 20,464]

People have a strong need in situations like this to assign blame, know the unknown and gain some sense of control. Pinning it on vaccinations scratches all three itches for them - an "enemy" to blame, answer to the unknown and the ability to prevent it in the future (by not vaccinating) and when you take that away, it does make them angry. What it really is is fear and frustration manifesting itself as anger.

Again the controlled studies don't show any correlation between age of vaccinations or doing multiple ones at once causing these issues. But if it would get the anti-vax folks out of the realm of superstition and tinfoil hat conspiracy mongering to vaccinate their kids, I'd go along with it. We couldn't delay too much though...nurseries and preschools have kids in close proximity to other children, some of whom cannot yet be vaccinated or have known compromised immune systems and aren't vaccinated yet. It's not fair to those families for ones without those complications to refuse vaccinations and put others in danger.

[AUDub 11,131]

Back to this:

...he told me they have differing opinions on the cause of autism but all basically agree the claim that it is just diagnosed more now is totally wrong.

...The claim that autism has always been there just diagnosed more now makes them extremely angry.

Don't really care if they're angry. They're wrong. This is a central argument of the anti vaccination movement. It's also bunk. Diagnostic substitution, increased awareness, increased screening, and increased services easily explain the rise in diagnoses. Is it any wonder that the rise in diagnosed cases rose when the diagnostic criteria were broadly widened?

Example:

There is a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Well, actually, whether it’s really cancer or not is debatable, but it is clearly a precursor to cancer, although the percentage of DCIS lesions that progress to cancer isn’t precisely known. Be that as it may, before 1975 DCIS was a very uncommon diagnosis. Now it is very common, its incident has risen by 16-fold. No one believes that the actual incidence of DCIS has risen by that much. In fact, it’s unlikely that it’s actually risen much at all, but we are detecting much more of it because of the advent of mammography screening programs in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Yes, I know I’m mixing incidence and prevalence, but the example still illustrates a general principle that if you look for a disease or condition intensively, you will always find more of it, often a lot more of it. Always. And if the principle works for something that is diagnosed by an objective test, namely a biopsy, how much more so is it for a condition that has no unequivocal biochemical or tissue test to nail down the diagnosis, like autism...

And if your friends are going to confuse correlation for causation, I wish they had latched onto organic food sales rather than vaccines.

But no. Notice how your little PowerPoint started by fingering environmental factors, but it always, always, ends up being vaccines they want to focus on.

That alone betrays the silliness of the claimed "neutral" stance on the matter.

[alexava 6,972]

Titan, the explanation my friend gave that his son's language and emotional condition at 14 months changed at once . We talked on the phone too. But this kid completely changed he went from being affectionate, a momma's boy always wanting to be close sleeping with her, playing laughing. To a kid that couldn't communicate, smile, rejected the affection, and mostly hid behind the couch or in a closet. Didn't learn another word for 3 years. The change point was exactly a few ours after shots with high fever and obvious discomfort and pain for a couple of days, actually had to be treated. All this documented. Thousands of parents who will tell you they are not talking out of their asses either. They can't accept this as coincidence. I am not a conspiracy theorist my kids are vaccinated. I would do it differently now though. These four sets of parents I know are not either.

[TitanTiger 20,464]

Titan, the explanation my friend gave that his son's language and emotional condition at 14 months changed at once . We talked on the phone too. But this kid completely changed he went from being affectionate, a momma's boy always wanting to be close sleeping with her, playing laughing. To a kid that couldn't communicate, smile, rejected the affection, and mostly hid behind the couch or in a closet. Didn't learn another word for 3 years. The change point was exactly a few ours after shots with high fever and obvious discomfort and pain for a couple of days, actually had to be treated. All this documented. Thousands of parents who will tell you they are not talking out of their asses either. They can't accept this as coincidence. I am not a conspiracy theorist my kids are vaccinated. I would do it differently now though. These four sets of parents I know are not either.

I don't think they are talking out of their asses. I think they sincerely believe (or want to believe) they've identified the culprit. But the evidence simply does not bear that out.

There are plenty of people whose kids developed autism even though they were unvaccinated. Here's one account:

http://www.voicesforvaccines.org/how-my-daughter-taught-me-that-vaccines-do-not-cause-autism/

And here's a study showing developmental differences in a group of vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids:

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2014/01/22/a-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study-and-guess-what-vaccinated-kids-do-better-on-tests/

And yet another:

http://pediatrics.about.com/od/autism/fl/Unvaccinated-Children-with-Autism.htm

People who are not educated and trained enough to know good information from bad are trying to make medical diagnoses and think they are better at it than scientists and doctors who have devoted their lives to the study of these problems and are not in the pockets of "big pharma" or whatever other bogeyman they want to point to. They're taking an anecdotal situation, that is obviously complex and hard to understand, and listening the internet quacks and dunderheads like Jenny McCarthy over people whose careers are dedicated to helping people live healthy lives.

I'm sorry, but while my sympathies are with your friends (I have close friends who have similar erroneous beliefs), they are simply wrong.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Titan, the explanation my friend gave that his son's language and emotional condition at 14 months changed at once . We talked on the phone too. But this kid completely changed he went from being affectionate, a momma's boy always wanting to be close sleeping with her, playing laughing. To a kid that couldn't communicate, smile, rejected the affection, and mostly hid behind the couch or in a closet. Didn't learn another word for 3 years. The change point was exactly a few ours after shots with high fever and obvious discomfort and pain for a couple of days, actually had to be treated. All this documented. Thousands of parents who will tell you they are not talking out of their asses either. They can't accept this as coincidence. I am not a conspiracy theorist my kids are vaccinated. I would do it differently now though. These four sets of parents I know are not either.

I understand what you are saying and, I have great sympathy for your friend and his child.

When you vaccinate so many children, there are bound to be coincidental observations such as this. Some within a few hours, more within a few days, still more within a few weeks.

It is almost impossible to test the causation/correlation in this country due to the fact that so many are vaccinated and, you certainly can not give a group of children a placebo, sit back, and wait for the results. However, it has been tested in other parts of the world. The results show no difference in autism rates of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated.

I hope you understand. My intent is not to argue. I can not imagine what your friend is going through. I have no expertise. I am just throwing out what little I have seen.

[AUDub 11,131]

Titan, the explanation my friend gave that his son's language and emotional condition at 14 months changed at once . We talked on the phone too. But this kid completely changed he went from being affectionate, a momma's boy always wanting to be close sleeping with her, playing laughing. To a kid that couldn't communicate, smile, rejected the affection, and mostly hid behind the couch or in a closet. Didn't learn another word for 3 years.

That's not unexpected when autism manifests. Regression of any sort is a major tell. Some children with autism spectrum disorder start to develop communication skills and then suddenly regress.

This is another example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

The change point was exactly a few ours after shots with high fever and obvious discomfort and pain for a couple of days, actually had to be treated. All this documented.

Anecdotal.

Even then, post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Thousands of parents who will tell you they are not talking out of their asses either. They can't accept this as coincidence. I am not a conspiracy theorist my kids are vaccinated. I would do it differently now though. These four sets of parents I know are not either.

They sure sound like CT's. Remember "CDC and Big Pharma secret meetings?"

I do believe they genuinely believe what they're saying, but they're wrong.

Do you know these parents personally, or did you meet them on the Internet?

[AUDub 11,131]

http://www.voicesfor...t-cause-autism/

I love this one. Thank you for sharing it.

[alexava 6,972]

Titan, the explanation my friend gave that his son's language and emotional condition at 14 months changed at once . We talked on the phone too. But this kid completely changed he went from being affectionate, a momma's boy always wanting to be close sleeping with her, playing laughing. To a kid that couldn't communicate, smile, rejected the affection, and mostly hid behind the couch or in a closet. Didn't learn another word for 3 years.

That's not unexpected when autism manifests. Regression of any sort is a major tell. Some children with autism spectrum disorder start to develop communication skills and then suddenly regress.

This is another example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

The change point was exactly a few ours after shots with high fever and obvious discomfort and pain for a couple of days, actually had to be treated. All this documented.

Anecdotal.

Even then, post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Thousands of parents who will tell you they are not talking out of their asses either. They can't accept this as coincidence. I am not a conspiracy theorist my kids are vaccinated. I would do it differently now though. These four sets of parents I know are not either.

They sure sound like CT's. Remember "CDC and Big Pharma secret meetings?"

I do believe they genuinely believe what they're saying, but they're wrong.

Do you know these parents personally, or did you meet them on the Internet?

i know all them personally some my whole life. i try to show up when they organize events locally which they do. they are leaders for this cause. i have never talked in depth until recently but i have listened and shown empathy. they can talk more about this obviously than i can but will not argue in pointless online forums like i have done here. which is why i will not post their names. some are recognizable. the one i posted part of our discussion here is the only one who says he is 100% convinced and i think the only one of the four that can pinpoint the exact day the regression started. but he has met so many others that have and they are not buying that it is coincidence. they do not trust the cdc. like i said, i dont know but i know him. he is telling the truth. not just looking for someone to blame. he has always been good but become a different person, involved with church and such since our wilder days. not much more i can add here.

[AUDub 11,131]

Titan, the explanation my friend gave that his son's language and emotional condition at 14 months changed at once . We talked on the phone too. But this kid completely changed he went from being affectionate, a momma's boy always wanting to be close sleeping with her, playing laughing. To a kid that couldn't communicate, smile, rejected the affection, and mostly hid behind the couch or in a closet. Didn't learn another word for 3 years.

That's not unexpected when autism manifests. Regression of any sort is a major tell. Some children with autism spectrum disorder start to develop communication skills and then suddenly regress.

This is another example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

The change point was exactly a few ours after shots with high fever and obvious discomfort and pain for a couple of days, actually had to be treated. All this documented.

Anecdotal.

Even then, post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Thousands of parents who will tell you they are not talking out of their asses either. They can't accept this as coincidence. I am not a conspiracy theorist my kids are vaccinated. I would do it differently now though. These four sets of parents I know are not either.

They sure sound like CT's. Remember "CDC and Big Pharma secret meetings?"

I do believe they genuinely believe what they're saying, but they're wrong.

Do you know these parents personally, or did you meet them on the Internet?

i know all them personally some my whole life. i try to show up when they organize events locally which they do. they are leaders for this cause. i have never talked in depth until recently but i have listened and shown empathy. they can talk more about this obviously than i can but will not argue in pointless online forums like i have done here. which is why i will not post their names. some are recognizable. the one i posted part of our discussion here is the only one who says he is 100% convinced and i think the only one of the four that can pinpoint the exact day the regression started. but he has met so many others that have and they are not buying that it is coincidence. they do not trust the cdc. like i said, i dont know but i know him. he is telling the truth. not just looking for someone to blame. he has always been good but become a different person, involved with church and such since our wilder days. not much more i can add here.

Thank you. Your healthcare worker friend, what, specifically, does he do?

For instance, I'm a biomedical engineering technologist with experience as a lab technician. Trying to get a grasp for his cred on the matter.

[TitanTiger 20,464]

I believe he is telling the truth as far as he understands it. I think he truly believes what he's telling you. I just believe, and the science backs me up, that his understanding is wrong. I'm sorry, but I'm trusting the CDC, scientists, immunologists and doctors over uncredentialed, self-appointed health bloggers, former Playboy models turned reality show hosts and quacks.