Anti-vaxxers

Neyite

Orion wrote: »

Not in the slightest. If a child has a valid reason for not getting vaccinated such as being immunocompromised or a known severe allergy to some compenents they should be allowed attend. But for the exact same reasons the precious rugrats who's mammy read Mumsnet should be banned.

It's predominately pro-vax on mumsnet, any anti-vaxxer usually gets their arse handed back to them on a thread. You might be thinking of the other one Netmums where it's all "Ur bubz, Ur rules, hun." Or Nethuns as the mumsnetters like to call them

batgoat

Neyite wrote: »

It's predominately pro-vax on mumsnet, any anti-vaxxer usually gets their arse handed back to them on a thread. You might be thinking of the other one Netmums where it's all "Ur bubz, Ur rules, hun." Or Nethuns as the mumsnetters like to call them

All those sites have become increasingly more extreme in views regardless. Relief that mumsnet is at least pro vaccine...

fxotoole

Encephalopathy wrote: »

She's 100% right, I'm in the same boat as her and thousands more.

I've two children, two fully vaccinated to date, two of them diagnosed with autism. Honestly can't blame the vaccines on the oldest ones problems but the youngest one was severely damaged by them. As a result of that, they will be receiving no more vaccines and if we have any more children, they will not be vaccinated. If that makes me an anti vaxxer, then so be it. I've met quite a lot of parents in person who've turned their backs on vaccines for the same reasons, I've yet to meet someone who turned anti vaxx because the "I heard" reason.

I read in the US they set up a vaccine court in 1986 and to date they've paid out over 4 billion dollars compensation for vaccine injuries and deaths, how is there not a uproar from the taxpayers having to foot that bill (plus all the legal costs)?
Crazy that that the pharmaceutical companies have no liability for the products they created and produce!
4 billion dollars compensation and that's just one country, crazy for something that is safe

Newly registered account with 1 post. You wouldn’t be a Russian troll by any chance, would you?

Encephalopathy

skepticalraptor

This will help explain about the Vaccine payouts, click into his sources, seeing as how anti-vaxxers hate Skeptical Raptor :rolleyes:

There is possibly a one in a million chance of your child being injured by a vaccine. If, and that's a big IF, your child was vaccine-damaged, what do you think the odds are that more than one of your children would be injured? So no need to not vaccinated the rest and endanger everybody else, they are safe.

No point linking me to a blog of someone who's worked in marketing for pharm for 20+ years, going to be just little tiny bit biased would you not agree. There's a video on YouTube from "Unhoodwinked" called "how the vaccine court works", it would be a bit more even sided.

Did I say two of my children were damaged by vaccines? No harm to you but you come across as a worrier.😷

Encephalopathy

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Proof?

You want proof or what proof do I have?

Igotadose

Encephalopathy wrote: »

No point linking me to a blog of someone who's worked in marketing for pharm for 20+ years, going to be just little tiny bit biased would you not agree. There's a video on YouTube from "Unhoodwinked" called "how the vaccine court works", it would be a bit more even sided.

Did I say two of my children were damaged by vaccines? No harm to you but you come across as a worrier.😷

No you said one was but offered no proof. If I were you I'd refrain from more children as you appear to have a genetic defect leading to autism disorder in your children.

Dohnjoe

Encephalopathy wrote: »

You want proof or what proof do I have?

I strongly suspect this is a troll account. But do you have evidence that vaccines cause autism. Only from credible medical sources. (not cranks, woo-merchants and "youtube videos")

Encephalopathy

batgoat wrote: »

Vaccines don't cause autism.... I'm amazed there are people who still believe this. General signs of autism start to manifest at around that age but this does not mean it causes autism...

How do you know vaccines don't cause autism? The media? The pharmaceutical companies? I've unfortunately witnessed it first hand.
Stanley plotkin(vaccine creator) has just come out and said it hasn't been scientifically proven that vaccines don't cause autism.

"General signs of autism start to manifest at around that age"
Again how do you know this? Are you talking from experience? My oldest child was around six before he showed any signs, there's no two the same.

batgoat

Encephalopathy wrote: »

How do you know vaccines don't cause autism? The media? The pharmaceutical companies? I've unfortunately witnessed it first hand.
Stanley plotkin(vaccine creator) has just come out and said it hasn't been scientifically proven that vaccines don't cause autism.

"General signs of autism start to manifest at around that age"
Again how do you know this? Are you talking from experience? My oldest child was around six before he showed any signs, there's no two the same.

Peer reviewed research. How do I know this? In terms of manifestation, starts between twelve and eighteen months. Same time as mmr vaccine is administered. Diagnosis often doesn't occur till around age 3. This is all backed up by research.
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/autism/conditioninfo/symptoms-appear

Encephalopathy

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's not taxpayer funded. A certain amount per vaccine used is put into the fund by the vaccine companies. My friends family received over 4 million dollars back in the 90s from it. I don't know if it's still around?

My mistake then, when I seen an excise tax of 75 cent per vaccine from the person who is buying it, for some reason I took that as taxpayers money.

It's still around, as long as there is adverse reactions to vaccines, it has to be.

ancapailldorcha

Encephalopathy wrote: »

How do you know vaccines don't cause autism? The media? The pharmaceutical companies? I've unfortunately witnessed it first hand.

Frankly, this is the sort of stupidity and ignorance that makes anti-vaxxers a health threat to global health according to the WHO (Source).

Encephalopathy

Igotadose wrote: »

No you said one was but offered no proof. If I were you I'd refrain from more children as you appear to have a genetic defect leading to autism disorder in your children.

Sorry pal, the child's pediatrician theory was it was was some in our genes too, asked could she do genetic testing, no bother, work away I said.
Next visit I had to ask her if the results were back, yeah all clear, no abnormalities, she said.
Sure you said it's something to do with our genes I said.
Well something's causing it she said.
Yeah that's what we've been telling you.

Obviously you wouldn't believe I've met people with two children with autism, people with three children with autism, went on to have more children and did get them vaccinated, to date they are very healthy children without asd.

Dohnjoe

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Sorry pal, the child's pediatrician theory was it was was some in our genes too...

Anecdotal. No offense, but this being the internet - this could be complete horse****

mzungu

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Obviously you wouldn't believe I've met people with two children with autism, people with three children with autism, went on to have more children and did get them vaccinated, to date they are very healthy children without asd.

Rates of autism stayed largely the same between places that had a high vaccine take up and those that didn't. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. All the made up anecdotes in the world won't change that.

batgoat

mzungu wrote: »

Rates of autism stayed largely the same between places that had a high vaccine take up and those that didn't. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. All the made up anecdotes in the world won't change that.

One of the popular claims is that there was less autism historically. But it simply had been identified. Eg the likes of Mozart, Einstein etc were likely candidates for having it.

banie01

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Sorry pal, the child's pediatrician theory was it was was some in our genes too, asked could she do genetic testing, no bother, work away I said.
Next visit I had to ask her if the results were back, yeah all clear, no abnormalities, she said.
Sure you said it's something to do with our genes I said.
Well something's causing it she said.
Yeah that's what we've been telling you.
asd.

There's a genetic screening test for autism now?

Apart from Fragile X syndrome which can manifest itself in similar behaviours to autism, there is no identified genetic test for Autism.
So I'd love to know what markers this doctor tested for and how they could confirm that autism wasn't down to a genetic factor on the parents part?
There is no recognised genetic test for autism diagnosis or screening.
So frankly prove that claim...
Or peddle that particular line of BS somewhere else.

Dravokivich

Encephalopathy wrote: »

How do you know vaccines don't cause autism? The media? The pharmaceutical companies? I've unfortunately witnessed it first hand.
Stanley plotkin(vaccine creator) has just come out and said it hasn't been scientifically proven that vaccines don't cause autism.

"General signs of autism start to manifest at around that age"
Again how do you know this? Are you talking from experience? My oldest child was around six before he showed any signs, there's no two the same.

They don't cure cancer either!!!

Encephalopathy

mzungu wrote: »

Rates of autism stayed largely the same between places that had a high vaccine take up and those that didn't. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. All the made up anecdotes in the world won't change that.

Where?

eagle eye

mzungu wrote:

Rates of autism stayed largely the same between places that had a high vaccine take up and those that didn't. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. All the made up anecdotes in the world won't change that.

People are calling in anti-vaxers to.provide proof for everything so I think you should do the same to get fair.

batgoat

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Where?

Here's one for you. For a person who claims to know a lot about the subject, you seem to know very little.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2275444

Encephalopathy

banie01 wrote: »

There's a genetic screening test for autism now?

Apart from Fragile X syndrome which can manifest itself in similar behaviours to autism, there is no identified genetic test for Autism.
So I'd love to know what markers this doctor tested for and how they could confirm that autism wasn't down to a genetic factor on the parents part?
There is no recognised genetic test for autism diagnosis or screening.
So frankly prove that claim...
Or peddle that particular line of BS somewhere else.

To be honest I didn't know the first thing about genetic testing, she's asked for permission, we give it, just had to assume she knew what she was looking, doctors are always right sure.

sullivlo

Encephalopathy wrote: »

To be honest I didn't know the first thing about genetic testing, she's asked for permission, we give it, just had to assume she knew what she was looking, doctors are always right sure.

Andrew Wakefield was a doctor once upon a time.

banie01

Encephalopathy wrote: »

To be honest I didn't know the first thing about genetic testing, she's asked for permission, we give it, just had to assume she knew what she was looking, doctors are always right sure.

You should go back and ask her to walk you through the results then, as the information she has provided is patently false.
There is no genetic test for Autism or ASD.
Fragile X can present in a similar fashion but it is a specific chromosomal disorder that is not Autism.

Martina1991

Encephalopathy wrote:

To be honest I didn't know the first thing about genetic testing, she's asked for permission, we give it, just had to assume she knew what she was looking, doctors are always right sure.

It might have been microarray testing that was carried out, which is kind of a screening test to detect some chromosomal abnormalities, but it won't detect all genetic mutations and is not specific for autism.

Gonad

This is a good watch



Sorry link doesn’t work

Guy:Incognito

Encephalopathy wrote: »

No point linking me to a blog of someone who's worked in marketing for pharm for 20+ years, going to be just little tiny bit biased would you not agree. There's a video on YouTube from "Unhoodwinked" called "how the vaccine court works", it would be a bit more even sided.

Did I say two of my children were damaged by vaccines? No harm to you but you come across as a worrier.😷

But linking to forums of people who agree that vaccines are bad would be grand, wouldnt it? Cos those internet people are telling the truth.

rawn

Encephalopathy wrote: »

No point linking me to a blog of someone who's worked in marketing for pharm for 20+ years, going to be just little tiny bit biased would you not agree. There's a video on YouTube from "Unhoodwinked" called "how the vaccine court works", it would be a bit more even sided.

Did I say two of my children were damaged by vaccines? No harm to you but you come across as a worrier.��

if we have any more children, they will not be vaccinated.

What do you think the odds are that more than one will be "damaged"?

I knew you would not like skeptical raptor, which is why I suggested you read the sources rather than the article. Did you?

Dohnjoe

eagle eye wrote: »

People are calling in anti-vaxers to.provide proof for everything so I think you should do the same to get fair.

In fairness the thread is full of evidence/proof that vaccines work. Few or no credible sources to the contrary. It's astonishing that some individuals are still trying so hard to make the tenuous autism/vaccines link when it's been completely refuted.

mzungu

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Where?

eagle eye wrote: »

People are calling in anti-vaxers to.provide proof for everything so I think you should do the same to get fair.

Batgoat posted one above, but here is another one:
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/48/4/456/284219

In the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated 498 autistic children born from 1979 through 1992 who were identified by computerized health records from 8 health districts [5]. Although a trend toward increasing autism diagnoses by year of birth was confirmed, no change in the rates of autism diagnoses after the 1987 introduction of MMR vaccine was observed. Further, MMR vaccination rates of autistic children were similar to those of the entire study population. Also, investigators did not observe a clustering of autism diagnoses relative to the time that children received MMR vaccine, nor did they observe a difference in age at autism diagnosis between those vaccinated and not vaccinated or between those vaccinated before or after 18 months of age. These authors also found no differences in autism rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated children when they extended their analysis to include a longer time after MMR exposure or a second dose of MMR [6].

The above is only one of many. There have been numerous studies (some mentioned in the articles posted for you so you can have a read in your free time) that back it up.

waxmoth

I think the sensitivity around the proposed link between MMR vaccine and autism is that it was the first exploration of the general claim of universal safety of vaccines which gained significant publicity. That MMR can cause encephalopathy/brain damage is accepted in the vaccine injury table and the restrictive criteria for onset/recognition of symptoms (not less than 5 or greater than 15 days from vaccination) puts the compensated case figures into context.

Our examination of federal vaccine court decisions over the years reflects this. Children who end up with autistic symptoms or autism have won vaccine injury claims over the years-as long as they highlighted general, widely-accepted brain damage; not autism specifically. But when autism or autistic symptoms are alleged as the primary brain damage, the cases are lost.
That doesn't make sense to families who see autism as a specific form of encephalopathy. But it makes perfect sense to the University of Pennsylvania's Dr. Brian Strom, who has served on Institute of Medicine panels advising the government on vaccine safety. He says the prevailing medical opinion is that vaccines are scientifically linked to encephalopathy, but not scientifically linked to autism.
"The fact that a person suffers autism and encephalopathy does not mean that the vaccine caused both of them," says Dr. Strom. "Even if it caused the encephalopathy, that may or may not have been the cause of the autism--those are two different questions."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-autism-and-brain-damage-whats-in-a-name/

The real issue is the regulatory system of drug control and the associated conflict of interest. If safety issues are masked in clinical trials, and compounded by industry obfuscation and denial, then the system is set up for a loss of trust.

FDA staffers play a pivotal role in drug approvals, presenting evidence to the agency's advisory panels and influencing or making approval decisions. They are free to move to jobs in pharma, and many do; in a 2016 study in The BMJ, researchers examined the job histories of 55 FDA staff who had conducted drug reviews over a 9-year period in the hematologyoncology field. They found that 15 of the 26 employees who left the agency later worked or consulted for the biopharmaceutical industry.
FDA's safeguards are supposed to keep the prospect of industry employment from affecting employees' decisions while at the agency, and to discourage them from exploiting relationships with former colleagues after they depart. For example, former high-level employees can't appear before the agency on the precise issues they regulated—sometimes permanently, in other cases for a year or two.
Through web searches and online services such as LinkedIn, however, Science has discovered that 11 of 16 FDA medical examiners who worked on 28 drug approvals and then left the agency for new jobs are now employed by or consult for the companies they recently regulated. This can create at least the appearance of conflicts of interest.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/fda-s-revolving-door-companies-often-hire-agency-staffers-who-managed-their-successful

Gonad

My child was perfectly fine . Hitting all his milestones and targets . We got vaccine and things started to change . My wife is convinced it was the vaccination. We have spoken to a few parents who are in the same boat and they all say like our child their kids were not great feeders when baby’s and had problems keeping food down and issues when pooping .

My wife thinks it may have something to do with the gut when vaccine is administered .

My kid used to constantly talk and run around excitedly and it all stopped after vaccine

ancapailldorcha

Gonad wrote: »

My child was perfectly fine . Hitting all his milestones and targets . We got vaccine and things started to change . My wife is convinced it was the vaccination. We have spoken to a few parents who are in the same boat and they all say like our child their kids were not great feeders when baby’s and had problems keeping food down and issues when pooping .

My wife thinks it may have something to do with the gut when vaccine is administered .

My kid used to constantly talk and run around excitedly and it all stopped after vaccine

That's exactly the same hateful drivel that's made Wakefield a fortune.

Martina1991

Gonad wrote:

My wife thinks it may have something to do with the gut when vaccine is administered .

Is your wife well read on vaccinations

Gonad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's exactly the same hateful drivel that's made Wakefield a fortune.

What’s hateful about telling ones own experiences ?

It’s coming from somewhere isn’t it ?

Plenty of evidence and court cases seem to suggeet there is no smoke without fire .

Dohnjoe

Gonad wrote: »

What’s hateful about telling ones own experiences ?

It’s coming from somewhere isn’t it ?

That somewhere can't be verified.

/long, long experience with people on an anonymous medium "making stuff up" because they strongly believe in something

EdgeCase

From what I can see the biggest issue is people falling into the world's most common research error : assuming that correlation is causation.

A lot of childhood issues show up at around the kind of times that vaccines are likely to be occurring. That does not imply that the vaccine causes them, rather that they just happen to hit at particular development key stages which also coincide with the kinds of times you'd be vaccinating.

Likewise, you can get the flu vaccine and then end up catching some nasty virus that just happened to be going around at the time e.g. because you physically went to the GPs and inhaled someone's virus-ridden sneeze.

You then come home with some cold and claim the flu vaccine caused it, which it didn't.

Then you reinforce that with the social media filter bubble which concentrates every incidence of a kid having any kind of illness at age X and you reinforce the notion that it *must* be the vaccine. Unfortunately, reporting of problems online tends to mean that you have the problem in the first place. Not all that many people are going to post : my child had all his/her vaccines and is now bouncing around playing foot ball and in fantastic health and is protected against polio! yay vaccines!

A concerned parent comes along and just sees wall-to-wall stories of correlations between developmental disorders and so on and vaccines and then puts one and one together and gets 476.

If you're a parent it's also hardwired into your brain to be concerned, so a few horror stories, no matter how unscientific will resonate and take a lot of convincing to undo.

We could do with a lot more courses in school on how to actually carry out research. It's not nearly as intuitive as people think and we all jump to conclusions. That's why they don't let you near a masters or PhD without first proving you understand research methodologies!

Encephalopathy

batgoat wrote: »

One of the popular claims is that there was less autism historically. But it simply had been identified. Eg the likes of Mozart, Einstein etc were likely candidates for having it.

Popular alright, autism rate in the 80s was meant to be something like 10000/1 and around 60/1 today, so I take it you come across several 35+ year olds undiagnosed with autism on a daily basis?

And it's not just asd, there's a rise I behavioural disorders, speech development, asthma, allergies, immune disorders,children's cancer, sids.

Children have never been so sick.

Pa8301

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Children have never been so sick.

Do you have a source for that assertion?

Encephalopathy

sullivlo wrote: »

Andrew Wakefield was a doctor once upon a time.

He sure was, bet you heard a story about him writing an article in the Lancet and believed that story without ever going and reading the article yourself.
It's okay most of the world believed that honest reporters version aswell.

ancapailldorcha

Gonad wrote: »

What’s hateful about telling ones own experiences ?

It’s coming from somewhere isn’t it ?

Plenty of evidence and court cases seem to suggeet there is no smoke without fire .

Plenty of evidence and yet you cite none.

Encephalopathy wrote: »

He sure was, bet you heard a story about him writing an article in the Lancet and believed that story without ever going and reading the article yourself.
It's okay most of the world believed that honest reporters version aswell.

So he wasn't struck off and prevented from practicing medicine then?

Martina1991

Encephalopathy wrote:

And it's not just asd, there's a rise I behavioural disorders, speech development, asthma, allergies, immune disorders,children's cancer, sids.

Encephalopathy wrote:

Children have never been so sick.

Any proof of any of this?

sullivlo

Encephalopathy wrote: »

He sure was, bet you heard a story about him writing an article in the Lancet and believed that story without ever going and reading the article yourself.
It's okay most of the world believed that honest reporters version aswell.

I have read it. I have spent a considerable amount of time in vaccine research. I don’t just trust what I read online without checking sources.

Unlike 90% of sheep in this thread.

Capt'n Midnight

Encephalopathy wrote: »

And it's not just asd, there's a rise I behavioural disorders, speech development, asthma, allergies, immune disorders,children's cancer, sids.

Children have never been so sick.

In the past most children died before their fifth birthday.

And it wasn't in road traffic accidents which are the main killer today.

Encephalopathy

banie01 wrote: »

You should go back and ask her to walk you through the results then, as the information she has provided is patently false.
There is no genetic test for Autism or ASD.
Fragile X can present in a similar fashion but it is a specific chromosomal disorder that is not Autism.

As far as I can see, A Dr. Andrew Zimmerman has said there may be a link with underlying mitochondrial abnormalities and may contribute to the child's development of asd.
Maybe something to do with that, no harm done anyway.

This Dr. Zimmerman was involved in the "omnibus autism proceeding" in the vaccine court, it's going to be interesting to see if anything comes of his addvicat regarding it.

Encephalopathy

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But linking to forums of people who agree that vaccines are bad would be grand, wouldnt it? Cos those internet people are telling the truth.

Never really thought of YouTube as a forum, the actual video I pointed to seemed slot more unbiased compared to what I was directed too.

"The Highwire" on YouTube is a good one, it may be antivax, but he backs up everything he says with facts from the appropriate websites, well worth a watch.

Igotadose

Encephalopathy wrote: »

As far as I can see, A Dr. Andrew Zimmerman has said there may be a link with underlying mitochondrial abnormalities and may contribute to the child's development of asd.
Maybe something to do with that, no harm done anyway.

This Dr. Zimmerman was involved in the "omnibus autism proceeding" in the vaccine court, it's going to be interesting to see if anything comes of his addvicat regarding it.

Oh ffs. Go get better sources than the Age of Autism crap you're quoting. Zimmerman's story is known he's legit but you antivax zealots misquote him. Here's one of several articles explaining what's up with him. https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/01/17/zimmerman-useful-idiot-for-antivaxers/

Encephalopathy

mzungu wrote: »

Batgoat posted one above, but here is another one:
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/48/4/456/284219



The above is only one of many. There have been numerous studies (some mentioned in the articles posted for you so you can have a read in your free time) that back it up.

If I make it to 50 posts, I'll provide links to studies made by impartial parties.
Stanley Plotkin aka the vaccine king or godfather (something like that) is the first name I see on that,he has done a interview in the last couple of weeks saying there is no scientific proof that vaccines don't cause autism.

banie01

Encephalopathy wrote: »

A Dr. Andrew Zimmerman has said there may be a link with underlying mitochondrial abnormalities and may contribute to the child's development of asd.

Now you are being disingenuous!
I asked you to provide proof of a genetic test existing for autism.
A test you claim to have received.

So rather than accept you made an error, you misquote Zimmerman?
Note the words may in the statement above.
There may be, I actually agree there may well be!

But "may" is not the basis for any test that preclude a genetic cause.
The prime mitochondrial flaw that presents autistic behaviour is Fragile X.

The usual Anti-Vax tactics of starting off with "no-idea" but my research led me to this...
Perhaps you should research the test you claim to have had that ruled the DNA as a likely so conclusively?
Then share it with the world so everyone else can get it too!?

banie01

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Stanley Plotkin aka the vaccine king or godfather (something like that) is the first name I see on that,he has done a interview in the last couple of weeks saying there is no scientific proof that vaccines don't cause autism.

There's no scientific proof that my magic rock keeps bears away either?
But yet I have a rock and have never seen a bear round my house?
Does that count as scientific proof?
Because it is about as "scientific" as the assertion above!

There is plenty of evidence based, peer reviewed studies that prove no causation link between Autism and vaccines.
Spouting the above nonsense doesn't change that.

Timberrrrrrrr

Encephalopathy wrote: »

If I make it to 50 posts, I'll provide links to studies made by impartial parties.
Stanley Plotkin aka the vaccine king or godfather (something like that) is the first name I see on that,he has done a interview in the last couple of weeks saying there is no scientific proof that vaccines don't cause autism.

Doesn't bode well for you if yoi are saying this, how many times have you been banned before? If you're a rereg then why should we believe anything you say?