January 26, 2019 7:02 pm at 7:02 pm #1668442
“Testing 69 pills vs 70 pills is NOT scientific – even if the 70th pill is different.”
Do you think when a study is done on a new pill the subjects cant be taking any other pills?January 26, 2019 9:35 pm at 9:35 pm #1668520
2Cents – still waiting for you to comment on the CDS MMR Study FRAUD:
2Cents “Are you arguing that other vaccines and not MMR vaccine cause autism, only because the data shows that MMR does not cause autism,”
The DATA does NOT show that MMR does not cause Autism. The Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism Studies are ALL FRAUDS – and I PROVED they are Frauds. Here is ONE Example:
2Cents: There was an increase, (become or make greater in size, amount, intensity, or degree.) in autism. In the same time, vaccines were not given at all, in this same period of time there was an increase in autism.
Below is the exact quote. (of course, you omitted it, or maybe it was by error and unintentional)
The MMR vaccination rate in the city of Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1992, and not a single vaccination was administered in 1993 or thereafter. In contrast, cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993.”
The Study LIED when it said “NOT A SINGLE VACCINATION WAS ADMINSTERED in 1993 and thereafter”
What the study meant was not a single MMR vaccination was administered.
But omitting the word MMR was INTENTIONAL because ALL Fraudulent Studies denying the connection between Vaccines and Autism do the same thing! Like calling children who did not
receive ONE vaccine “unvaccinated” when they WERE vaccinated. That is DELIBERATE FRAUD to
MISLEAD the public that the study was vaxxed vs unvaxxed when it was vaxxed vs. vaxxed.
More Fraud: In the summary of the study it says that Autism rate went UP after MMR was removed.
But no where in the summary does it say that the MMR was REPLACED with THREE SEPARATE VACCINES. Here is a quote from the Body of the Study where this IMPORTANT fact was HIDDEN:
“The [MMR] program was terminated in April 1993. Subsequently, only MONOVELENT [single] vaccines were administered…measles and rubella vaccinations were each specified for children between 12 and 90 months…the mumps vaccination was voluntary..It was also stipulated that an interval of at least four weeks separate administration of vaccination.”
So the RESULTS of the study proclaim – AFTER MMR was stopped – Autism went up.
What the RESULTS of the study OMITS – is that the MMR was replaced with THREE OTHER Vaccines – and THAT is why Autism went. So NO PROOF that MMR does not cause Autism. FAKE STUDY!
2Cents – are you going to admit that the “MMR Doesn’t Cause Autism Study” YOU Cited is FRAUDULENT? “No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study”January 26, 2019 9:51 pm at 9:51 pm #1668527
What is the name of this study and do you honestly think this one faulty study negates hundreds of valid studies that show the same thing?January 26, 2019 10:37 pm at 10:37 pm #1668545
Your confusing the dates. 93 is when they began giving the mono shots. Yet at much lower rates compared to elsewhere.
1988 is when they paused the MMR vaccines.
The cohorts that were matched were from 1988 and upward.January 26, 2019 11:45 pm at 11:45 pm #1668549
From Autism speaks:
“No MMR-Autism Link in Large Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Kids
Study of over 95,000 children included 15,000 unvaccinated 2 to 5 year olds and nearly 2,000 kids already considered at high risk for autism
April 21, 2015
In the largest-ever study of its kind, researchers again found that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine did not increase risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This proved true even among children already considered at high risk for the disorder.
In all, the researchers analyzed the health records of 95,727 children, including more than 15,000 children unvaccinated at age 2 and more than 8,000 still unvaccinated at age 5. Nearly 2,000 of these children were considered at risk for autism because they were born into families that already had a child with the disorder.
The report appears today in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association.
“Consistent with studies in other populations, we observed no association between MMR vaccination and increased ASD risk,” the authors write. “We also found no evidence that receipt of either one or two doses of MMR vaccination was associated with an increased risk of ASD among children who had older siblings with ASD.”
The analysis looked at autism rates and MMR vaccination at ages 2, 3, 4 and 5 years. It showed no increased risk of autism with immunization at any age. In fact, autism rates were lower in the vaccinated groups. However, this might be because parents who see early signs of autism were more likely to delay or avoid vaccination, the authors speculate.
Lower vaccination rates among families affected by autism
Some 15 year ago, a small, now-discredited study sparked concerns about a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Since then, a large and growing body of research has continued to find no association. Still, the continuing uncertainty around what does cause autism has left some people worried. Such concerns likely explain why vaccination rates have dropped in families that have an older child with the disorder.
In the new study, MMR vaccination rates for children without an affected older siblings were 84 percent at 2 years and 92 percent by age 5 years. Vaccination rates for children with an older sibling affected by autism were significantly lower: 73 percent at 2 years and 86 percent at age 5 years.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Bryan King, director of the Seattle Children’s Autism Center, writes:
“Taken together, some dozen studies have now shown that the age of onset of ASD does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the severity or course of ASD does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, and now the risk of ASD recurrence in families does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.”
Study made possible by large database
The investigators performed their analysis using the claims records from a large US health plan database (the Optum Research Database). Participants included children continuously enrolled in an associated health plan from birth to at least 5 years of age between 2001 and 2012. All had an older sibling.
Of the 95,727 children in the study, around 1 percent (994) were diagnosed with autism during the study’s follow-up period. Among those who had an older sibling with autism (1,929), approximately 7 percent (134) developed the disorder. This difference in autism prevalence – between children with or without an older sibling affected by autism – is consistent with earlier studies. “January 26, 2019 11:46 pm at 11:46 pm #1668552
A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism
Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, M.D., Anders Hviid, M.Sc., Mogens Vestergaard, M.D., Diana Schendel, Ph.D., et al.
Andrew Wakefield wrote to the authors that the mercury is a factor in vaccines that causes autism and they have not taken that into consideration when doing the very large study.
This is the editors respond:
“Dr. Wakefield argues that we should have controlled for mercury exposure from vaccines. However, mercury — or more precisely, the vaccine preservative thimerosal that contains ethyl mercury — has not been used in Danish vaccines since 1992 and thus was not a confounder in the study.”January 26, 2019 11:47 pm at 11:47 pm #1668560
Doomsday, could you please explain this paragraph you wrote? I read it three times and I still can’t figure out what you’re trying to say:
“What the RESULTS of the study OMITS – is that the MMR was replaced with THREE OTHER Vaccines – and THAT is why Autism went. So NO PROOF that MMR does not cause Autism. FAKE STUDY!”
And okay, let’s say for argument’s sake that this one study was faulty, fraudulent, whatever. There are a huge number of other studies that came to the same conclusion. What about those?
The point is this: Whether or not every single study that comes to the conclusion that autism, SIDS, etc. are not caused by vaccines were all done by lying, cheating people with an agenda, you still can’t disprove them by bringing studies done by other people…with an agenda, especially when they’ve been more or less proven to be conspiracy theorists with little to no qualifications to be doing the research they say they’re doing.
And please don’t bring the fight against smoking to prove your point. The dangers of smoking were proven by the very medical establishment and government health agencies you now say are lying about vaccines, and the top was blown off the issue by a whistleblower who worked inside the tobacco industry and was able to bring solid proof from within that the manufacturers knew about the dangers of smoking and were covering it up.January 26, 2019 11:48 pm at 11:48 pm #1668563
The name of the study is:
“No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study”
And I have shown you how every study that is cited by the ProVaxxers on this thread
But let’s take it one study at a time.
Don’t you agree it is fraudulent for the summary of the study to say how after MMR was withdrawn the autism was rate went up –
and OMIT that the MMR was replaced by THREE SEPARATE VACCINES (Measles, Mumps and Rubella – given separately) – and THAT is why Autism went up???January 27, 2019 12:51 am at 12:51 am #1668598
Doomsday, at least lately, you’ve quoted studies, meaning, you’ve copied and pasted quotes from studies, but haven’t cited who conducted the studies, when, why and how. If they’ve all been lifted from Neil Z. Miller, then I’m sorry but they don’t prove anything.January 27, 2019 7:02 am at 7:02 am #1668623
“But let’s take it one study at a time.
Don’t you agree it is fraudulent for the summary of the study to say how after MMR was withdrawn the autism was rate went up”
A. Andrew Wakfield who is the father of the autism MMR conspiracy made the claim that the combo MMR vaccine is the cause of autism.
B. You failed to read that the MONO MR vaccine was started in 1993. They initially halted vaccines and only restarted them in 1993, even when they did restart them as single vaccines, vaccination rates were very low.
This resulted in large measles epidemics and an estimated of about 100 deaths per year, as per Jappan health ministry estimates.January 27, 2019 7:03 am at 7:03 am #1668619
Please explain why studies brought by Neil Z. Miller don’t prove anything.January 27, 2019 8:26 am at 8:26 am #1668641
Because he’s a one-man show, that’s why. No one credible who is not associated with a conspiracy theory movement has ever backed up his studies.
He’s a “medical research journalist” – whatever that means – with an agenda. Look him up in American Loons, Quackwatch, etc. and you’ll find him. You don’t see names of real researchers there. The studies he quotes have all been discredited, and by more than one person or organization.
Also, while it’s true that some of the studies done on vaccines have been either done or paid for by individuals or organizations with conflicts of interest, the exact same thing can be said for Miller. So he’s just not someone who can be used to disprove repeated studies showing that vaccines do not cause autism, SIDS, etc.January 27, 2019 9:04 am at 9:04 am #1668662
Vaccine skeptic:“My child developed xxxx after a vaccine.”
“The rates of xxxx went up after more vaccines became mandated.”
Response: “Correlation does not equal causation.”
Vaccine skeptic:”but shouldn’t we stop vaccinating until we are sure?
Response:”it’s unethical to deny any child a vaccine because they are so critical.
They have saved millions of lives. They are the single-most important innovation of modern medicine. Before vaccines half of children didn’t make it to adulthood. People used to live an average of 40-50 years…”
Vaccine skeptic: “CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!”January 27, 2019 9:56 am at 9:56 am #1668686
Here’s the 1980 definition of Infantile Autism as it appeared in DSM-III.
A. Onset before 30 months of age
B. Pervasive lack of responsiveness to other people
C. Gross deficits in language development
D. If speech is present, peculiar speech patterns such as immediate and delayed echolalia, metaphorical language, pronominal reversal
E. Bizarre responses to various aspects of the environment, e.g., resistance to change, peculiar interest in or attachments to animate or inanimate objects
F. Absence of delusions, hallucinations, loosening of associations, and incoherence as in Schizophrenia.
And here is how the equivalent items are phrased in the current version, DSM-5, under Autism Spectrum Disorder:
A. Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities or may be masked by learned strategies later in life).
B. Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity must be present (or have been present earlier in development). However, these can range from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back and forth conversation through reduced sharing of interests, emotions, and affect and response to total lack of initiation of social interaction
C. ASD can be diagnosed with or without accompanying language impairment
D. “Peculiar speech patterns” are not required for a diagnosis. However, echolalia and idiosyncratic phrases are considered examples of Stereotyped or repetitive movements, use of objects, or speech – one of four nonsocial features (see E below)
E. Any two of the following must be present (currently or earlier in development): (1) Stereotyped use of objects; (2) Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behaviour; (3) Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus; (4) Hyper- or hypo-reactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment
F. Hallucinations and delusions, which are defining features of schizophrenia, are not features of ASD
it’s fair to say that the majority of people whom we would today think of as being “on the spectrum” would not have come close to a diagnosis in the 1980s.January 27, 2019 10:05 am at 10:05 am #1668696
Sorry for posting so many different reviews and studies. However there is inaccurate information being spread about the correlation and causation of the so call increase of autism.
The epidemiology of autistic spectrum disorders: is the prevalence rising?
Wing L, et al. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2002.
Show full citation
For decades after Kanner’s original paper on the subject was published in 1943, autism was generally considered to be a rare condition with a prevalence of around 2-4 per 10,000 children. Then, studies carried out in the late 1990s and the present century reported annual rises in incidence of autism in pre-school children, based on age of diagnosis, and increases in the age-specific prevalence rates in children. Prevalence rates of up to 60 per 10,000 for autism and even more for the whole autistic spectrum were reported. Reasons for these increases are discussed. They include changes in diagnostic criteria, development of the concept of the wide autistic spectrum, different methods used in studies, growing awareness and knowledge among parents and professional workers and the development of specialist services, as well as the possibility of a true increase in numbers. Various environmental causes for a genuine rise in incidence have been suggested, including the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR]. Not one of the possible environmental causes, including MMR, has been confirmed by independent scientific investigation, whereas there is strong evidence that complex genetic factors play a major role in etiology. The evidence suggests that the majority, if not all, of the reported rise in incidence and prevalence is due to changes in diagnostic criteria and increasing awareness and recognition of autistic spectrum disordersJanuary 27, 2019 10:05 am at 10:05 am #1668695
A comprehensive overview that proves that there is no epidemic with regards to ASD.
Three Reasons Not to Believe in an Autism Epidemic
Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Michelle Dawson, and H. Hill GoldsmithJanuary 27, 2019 10:16 am at 10:16 am #1668699
EY Mom: Also, while it’s true that some of the studies done on vaccines have been either done or paid for by individuals or organizations with conflicts of interest, the exact same thing can be said for Miller.
OK, so you admit that there are conflicts of interest, do you also know that they have been proven to be dishonest in their studies done?
But you choose to rely on them anyway?
What about the SIDS study? You’re OK that the public has been fooled into thinking the Back To Sleep campaign lowered SIDS rates, when it never did?
Maybe its OK, bec for the good of the people we have to fool the masses into getting all the “life-saving” vaccines.January 27, 2019 10:36 am at 10:36 am #1668708
I would love to hear which vaccine studies have been proven to be dishonest, how they were proven, by whom, when and what percentage of all vaccine studies the dishonest ones represent.
Ditto for the SIDs study.
Really. I would. I am open to hearing other opinions, but not from conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientists.January 27, 2019 10:36 am at 10:36 am #1668707
Conflict of interest is not dishonest, as long as its disclosed.
SIDS is not dishonest, dishonest is using incorrect facts to create an argument.
Sids and post neonatal mortality has sharply decreased. If you use the correlation argument that would favor vaccines.January 27, 2019 10:54 am at 10:54 am #1668722
TIH -“What about the SIDS study? You’re OK that the public has been fooled into thinking the Back To Sleep campaign lowered SIDS rates, when it never did?”
Why do you Anti-vaxxers lie?
Stop with your Lying!
From the AAP:
“Reducing Sudden Infant Death with “Back to Sleep”
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), also re- ferred to as “crib death,” occurs without warning and is associated with a sleep period. A diagnosis of SIDS is given when no expla- nation can found for the baby’s death after a complete postmortem investigation. SIDS is the leading cause of death for infants between 1 month and 1 year of age. In 1993 alone, nearly 4,700 U.S. infants died from SIDS.
Research found that if infants were placed to sleep on their stomachs, their risk of dying from SIDS increased by at least two-fold.
As a result, the “Back-to-Sleep” Campaign was initiated in 1994 by a collaboration between the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the Health Resources and Services Administration and SIDS groups.
The focus of the campaign was to en- courage parents to put their babies to sleep on their backs in order to reduce the risk of SIDS. The AAP Task Force on SIDS published a policy statement in 2005 encouraging the practice of “Back-to-Sleep” for all infants.
Research showed that between 1993 and 2010 the percent of infants placed to sleep on their backs increased from 17% to 73%. Following the initiation of the “Back-to-Sleep” campaign, the number of infants dying from SIDS has decreased to 2,063 per year as of 2010.”
January 27, 2019 11:15 am at 11:15 am #1668732
“What about the SIDS study? You’re OK that the public has been fooled into thinking the Back To Sleep campaign lowered SIDS rates, when it never did?”
I find it rather astonishing that you are concerned about changes to SIDS criteria and changes in SIDS rate yet not about ASD rate and the changes to ASD diagnostics. Basically, you are using today’s criteria for ASD on children that were not diagnosed with todays ASD criteria.
With regards to SIDS, being that your positions are that SIDS has increased and not decreased, your argument is based on changes to the SIDS diagnostics, please detail the numbers so that we can see if there was a decrease or an increase. Do that prior to accusing people of a coverup.
Let us say there was a 50% decrease to SIDS, but only a 1.5% increase to suffocation, this would still amount to a significant decrease to SIDS or postneonatal mortality as a whole.January 27, 2019 11:39 am at 11:39 am #1668737
SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, Compressed Mortality File
This graph shows the trends in sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) rates in the United States from 1990 through 2016.
In 1990, the SUID rate, which includes sudden infant death syndrome, unknown cause, and accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed, was 154.6 deaths per 100,000 live births. The SUID rate declined considerably following the release of the American Academy of Pediatrics safe sleep recommendations in 1992, the initiation of the Back to Sleep campaign in 1994, and the release of the Sudden Unexplained Infant Death Investigation Reporting Form in 1996. Since 1999, declines have slowed. In 2016, the SUID rate was 91.4 deaths per 100,000 live births.
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) rates declined considerably from 130.3 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1990 to 38.0 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2016
So here you have it, using CURRENT criteria to review different cohorts.January 27, 2019 3:23 pm at 3:23 pm #1668860
Here is Proof that the study “No effect of MMR withdrawal…” is FRAUDULENT!
You must see the CHART that the Fraudulent Study used – the chart Shows Vaccines Cause Autism!
Google: childhealthsafety Japanese Data shows vaccines cause autism.
scroll down a little to the paper: Japanese Data shows vaccines cause autism.
You will see the CHART that the Fraudulent Study “No effect of MMR withdrawal..” used!
The Chart shows Autism DOUBLED in 1990 – After MMR was introduced in 1989!
When MMR Vaccination Rate Sharply Declined – AUTISM RATE SHARPLY DECLINED.
In 1993 MMR was replaced with three SEPARATE Vaccines – AUTISM WENT UP EVEN MORE!
This is what Fraudulent Study “No effect of MMR withdrawal…” wrote in their “Results”
Results: The MMR vaccination rate in the city of Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1992, and not a single vaccination was administered in 1993 or thereafter. In contrast, cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993.
LIE! MMR Vaccination rate did not decline in 1988 because MMR was INTRODUCED IN 1989!
MMR Vaccination Rate declined sharply – and so did Autism Rate
1993 – MMR withdrawn and REPLACED with THREE SEPARATE VACCINES – Autism Rate SKYROCKETS!
FRAUD: The Fraud Doctors state that Autism increased the MOST in 1993 AFTER MMR was withdrawn. But the Fraud Doctors HIDE in the “Results” that MMR was REPLACED with 3 Vaccines:
Here is quote from the BODY of Fake Study where they Admit the Replacement:
“The [MMR] program was terminated in April 1993. Subsequently, only MONOVELENT [single] vaccines were administered…measles and rubella vaccinations were each specified for children between 12 and 90 months…the mumps vaccination was voluntary..It was also stipulated that an interval of at least four weeks separate administration of vaccination.”
ProVaxxers, do you admit this study is a Fraud and the Chart this Study used proves the
EXACT OPPOSITE – that Autism Rises and Falls with use of vaccines!!!January 27, 2019 3:24 pm at 3:24 pm #1668870
2cents: Your confusing the dates. 93 is when they began giving the mono shots. Yet at much lower rates compared to elsewhere. 1988 is when they paused the MMR vaccines.
YOU are confused. 1989 was when they INTRODUCED MMR. 1993 was when they withdrew MMR and
replaced it with 3 separate vaccines. here is a quote from the Fraud Study:
“The [MMR] program was terminated in April 1993. Subsequently, only MONOVELENT [single] vaccines were administered…
It is NOT True that the 3 vaccines were given at a much lower rate.
What is the source for this “fact”?January 27, 2019 3:26 pm at 3:26 pm #1668874
EY MOM: . The studies he quotes have all been discredited, and by more than one person or organization.
Also, while it’s true that some of the studies done on vaccines have been either done or paid for by individuals or organizations with conflicts of interest, the exact same thing can be said for Miller. So he’s just not someone who can be used to disprove repeated studies showing that vaccines do not cause autism, SIDS, etc.
Everything you say about Dr. Miller, you can say about the CDC Safety Studies.
ALL the CDC Vaccine Safety Studies have been discredited by other PhD Scientists.
All the CDC and Other Vaccines Safety Studies have conflicts of interest – ties to the Vaccine Industry.
EY Mom, do you know that the CDC OWNS 50+ Vaccine Patents?
Did you know that CDC accepts Millions of Dollars of “Gifts” (bribes) from Vaccine Industry?
EY MOM, Please tell me what are the “Conflicts of Interest” that you claim, Dr. Miller’s Studies have!January 27, 2019 3:27 pm at 3:27 pm #1668876
Can we please put the SIDS debate on the side for now and look at the PROVEN FRAUD I have shown
of the “No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study”?
It was seeing all the FRAUD committed by the Vaccines are Safe Studies that make me
an Anti-Vaxxer!January 27, 2019 3:27 pm at 3:27 pm #1668885
2scents: it’s fair to say that the majority of people whom we would today think of as being “on the spectrum” would not have come close to a diagnosis in the 1980s.
2Scents: ONE THIRD of all ASD are NON-VERBAL!
If the ASD Rate is 1:50 that means the NON-VERBAL Autism Rate is 1:150.
Per the CDC the Autism Rate in 1970 was 1:10,000 which was for NON-VERBAL Autism.
Today it is 1:150 for NON-VERBAL Autism.
HOW did Non-Verbal Autism go from 1:10,000 to 1:150????
So it is a LIE to say that there isn’t an EPIDEMIC of Autism.
And there is no such think as a GENETIC Epidemic.
We don’t have a DOWN SYNDROME Epidemic – the Rate of all KNOWN Genetic Retardation
has remained the same! Because Autism is not Primarily Genetic but caused by something in
And Autism SKYROCKETED AFTER CDC quadrupled the Vaccine Schedule around
1990!January 27, 2019 3:35 pm at 3:35 pm #1668894
I have already mentioned the real reason for the increase in autism.January 27, 2019 4:16 pm at 4:16 pm #1668910
So that you understand a thing or so about autism.
From the CDC:
studies have shown that among identical twins, if one child has ASD, then the other will be affected about 36-95% of the time. In non-identical twins, if one child has ASD, then the other is affected about 0-31% of the time. [1-4]
Parents who have a child with ASD have a 2%–18% chance of having a second child who is also affected.[5,6]
ASD tends to occur more often in people who have certain genetic or chromosomal conditions. About 10% of children with autism are also identified as having Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, or other genetic and chromosomal disorders.[7-10]
Almost half (44%) of children identified with ASD has average to above average intellectual ability. [Read article]
Children born to older parents are at a higher risk for having ASD.
A small percentage of children who are born prematurely or with low birth weight are at greater risk for having ASD.
ASD commonly co-occurs with other developmental, psychiatric, neurologic, chromosomal, and genetic diagnoses. The co-occurrence of one or more non-ASD developmental diagnoses is 83%. The co-occurrence of one or more psychiatric diagnoses is 10%.January 27, 2019 4:17 pm at 4:17 pm #1668912
Research has shown that a diagnosis of autism at age 2 can be reliable, valid, and stable.
Even though ASD can be diagnosed as early as age 2 years, most children are not diagnosed with ASD until after age 4 years. The median age of first diagnosis by subtype is as follows.
Autistic disorder: 3 years, 10 months
ASD/pervasive developmental disorder (PDD): 4 years, 8 months
Asperger disorder: 5 years, 7 months
Studies have shown that parents of children with ASD notice a developmental problem before their child’s first birthday. Concerns about vision and hearing were more often reported in the first year, and differences in social, communication, and fine motor skills were evident from 6 months of age
— Yet DSM III had this requirement “Onset before 30 months of age”
So basically most children diagnosed today would not fit the DSM III criteria, which means that in the 1990s they would not be classified as autistic and the insurance would not cover for their specialized care.January 27, 2019 4:17 pm at 4:17 pm #1668924
“And there is no such think as a GENETIC Epidemic.”
It is a lie to say that something that exists does not exist, all the data shows that autism is genetic, I am sorry that you feel otherwise.January 27, 2019 4:34 pm at 4:34 pm #1668934
“It is NOT True that the 3 vaccines were given at a much lower rate.
What is the source for this “fact”?”
It is called the “vaccine gap”, since vaccines were no longer mandatory meaning that parents in most cases had to pay for them out of pocket, which resulted in lower vaccination rates.
You seem to focus on the lower vaccination rates, not that the triple jab vs MMR vaccine was rolled out in 1993, yet this study is focused on cohorts of 1988 and on, which means that they followed cohorts that received no MMR shots as well as no triple jab shots.
Its dishonest to make dishonest claims and then accuse someone else of being dishonest, just saying.January 27, 2019 4:35 pm at 4:35 pm #1668936
“studies have shown that among identical twins, if one child has ASD, then the other will be affected about 36-95% of the time. ”
So explain this, if autism has nothing to do with genetics, a claim you had just made in public. Why is there even a 1% increase in identical twins?
Let alone a 36-95%?!January 27, 2019 8:05 pm at 8:05 pm #1669009
Doomsday, you’re not giving any sources. You’re just quoting. Who are the scientists who have disproved the CDC studies? Whoever 2scents is, they’re quoting source upon source. What are your sources?January 27, 2019 8:15 pm at 8:15 pm #1669015
Shimon: Before vaccines half of children didn’t make it to adulthood. People used to live an average of 40-50 years…”
Shimon, in the 1940s and 1950s BEFORE VACCINES, Half the children did NOT Die before adulthood.
In the 1940s and 1950s BEFORE VACCINES – children were much HEALTHIER – hardly any Autism, ADHD, Childhood Diabetes, Childhood Cancer, Childhood Epilepsy, etc!
And People did not DIE at age 40-50 in the 1940s and 1950s.
So the Pro Vax website you are quoting is WRONG!January 27, 2019 8:23 pm at 8:23 pm #1669017
2Cents: You seem to focus on the lower vaccination rates, not that the triple jab vs MMR vaccine was rolled out in 1993, yet this study is focused on cohorts of 1988 and on, which means that they followed cohorts that received no MMR shots as well as no triple jab shots.
2Cents, did you look at the CHART in the study? Please answer!
The Chart shows that after MMR was introduced in 1989 there was a sharp SPIKE of Autism in 1990!
Then when Vaccination Rates Dropped 1991-1992 = the Autism Rate dropped also.
Then when triple jab was introduced in 1993 – Autism Rate SPIKED AGAIN!
This is evidence that Vaccines cause Autism. The Autism Rate goes UP and DOWN at the same
time the Vaccination Rate goes UP and DOWN!
And the Study committed FRAUD by not noting that the Spike in Autism after 1993 was when
MMR was replaced by triple jab!January 27, 2019 9:23 pm at 9:23 pm #1669027
EY, I don’t give sources because Pro-Vaxxers attack the Source instead of the FACTS.
The fact is here is a study called “No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study”
In the RESULTS, the authors stated that AFTER MMR Vaccine was stopped in 1993 – the Autism Rate went UP!
The FRAUD is, the authors don’t mention in the “Results” that when the MMR was stopped in 1993 – the MMR was REPLACED with three separate shots – and THAT is why the Autism Rate went up.
In the Body of the Study (that few people read) it states that MMR was replaced with 3 Shots – but
in the paragraph called “results” that fact was NOT mentioned – which is Most Important!!!
Additionally, the study had a CHART. In the Chart it shows that AFTER MMR was introduced in
1989 – Autism SPIKED in 1990!
When people stopped using MMR in 1991-1992: – the Autism Rate DROPPED.
When people started doing 3 Vaccines in 1993 – Autism Rate SPIKED – AGAIN!
The CHART – which is in the study – clearly shows that Vaccines cause Autism.
Yet the authors – who get $$$ from Vaccine Industry – wrote the OPPOSITE!
EY Mom – is that not outright Fraud and Deception?January 27, 2019 9:23 pm at 9:23 pm #1669028
2Cents – are you claiming that Autism is Genetic like Down Syndrome?
Here are all the KNOWN Genetic Retardation:Down Syndrome, Fragile X, Rett Syndrome, Williams Syndrome, Angelman Syndrome, Prader Willi Syndrome, Patau Syndrome, Edwards Syndrome, Cohen Syndrome
NONE of the KNOWN Genetic Retardation Rates went up after 1990 when CDC quadrupled vaccines!
But AUTISM – which is NOT proven to be Genetic, there is NO BLOOD TEST – DID Go up!
2cents, how do you explain THAT!?!?January 27, 2019 9:23 pm at 9:23 pm #1669031
doomsday -“It was seeing all the FRAUD committed by the Vaccines are Safe Studies that make me
No – You became an Anti-vaxxer because of all the money you get from pushing Alternative Therapies for people that are desperate. Like ASD, which has No magic bullet in Real Medicine!January 27, 2019 9:23 pm at 9:23 pm #1669034
2Cents: So explain this, if autism has nothing to do with genetics, a claim you had just made in public. Why is there even a 1% increase in identical twins?
I answered this but I’ll say it again: Autism is BOTH Genetic and Environmental – just like SMOKING.
only 5% of Smokers get Lung Cancer – so it’s partly Genetic or else 100% would get cancer.
only 2R of children get Autism – so it’s partly Genetic or else 100% of children would get cancer.
But if a person does NOT smoke – they will not get Cancer!
And if a child is NOT Vaccinated – they will not get Autism.
Siblings of Autistic Children who are 100% UNVACCINATED – do not have Autism!January 27, 2019 9:23 pm at 9:23 pm #1669036
2Cents: all the data shows that autism is genetic,
Is there a BLOOD Test for Autism?
Then there is No PROOF that Autism is Genetic – even though they have been looking for
the “autism gene” for TWENTY YEARS!
And the Fact that the NON-VERBAL Autism rate went from 1:10,000 to 1:150 is proof that autism
is NOT primarily genetic.
There is a genetic component – but there has to be something in ENVIRONMENT (like vaccines) that
caused the Autism Rate like that to Skyrocket!January 27, 2019 10:28 pm at 10:28 pm #1669068
Your false dichotomy of Vaccines vs Genetics is very stupid, and I hope you get better.January 27, 2019 10:55 pm at 10:55 pm #1669084
Health, What about all the BILLIONS $$$ Pharmaceutical Company gets selling vaccines which we must buy by FORCE.
And then the TRILLIONS $$$ Pharmaceutical Company gets selling Meds to all the children that are made SICK by Vaccines: Ritalin, Chemotherapy, Insulin, Epi-Pens, Antihistamines, Anti-Seizure Drugs, etc?
If anyone is make TRILLIONS off this SCAM – its the Pharmaceutical Industry.
And they don’t care how many Millions of Children they Injure – as long as they get their $$$$$$$$$$$January 28, 2019 12:27 am at 12:27 am #1669106
I appreciate your honesty.
If you really want to get the truth, I advise you to do your own research, and not just rely on anonymous posters here.
There is tons of information to be gotten.
And I believe the truth will prevail.
2scents seems to know so much about this issue, he really know how to fardrei a kup in such a smart way.
I would even go so far as to say he doesn’t vaccinate his family.January 28, 2019 2:21 am at 2:21 am #1669116
Doomsday – you are quoting one study. That’s not enough. One falsified study – if it was falsified, and there are plenty who demonstrate that it was not – isn’t enough to discredit every other study.
As for life expectancy, yes, Shimon got his numbers a bit wrong. The average life expectancy in 1940 was 60. The infant mortality rate was 47 for every 1,000 births.
Still, any way you slice it, average life expectancy today is way higher and both the infant and child mortality rates today are way lower than they were back then.
Truthishidden, thank you for the compliment. The thing is…I have done my research. Again, I never weighed in on the actual vaccination issue here – i.e., should vaccines be mandated. I’m keeping my opinion to myself on that. The only thing I’ve been hammering at here is the credibility issue of the evidence being brought here in the CR.January 28, 2019 7:43 am at 7:43 am #1669134
Life expectancy is currently on the decline…January 28, 2019 7:43 am at 7:43 am #1669136
EY Mom: I would love to hear which vaccine studies have been proven to be dishonest,
Dr. William Thomspson from the CDC: I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics.
How can they be trusted?
They only lie 95% of the time?!January 28, 2019 7:44 am at 7:44 am #1669140
“EY, I don’t give sources because Pro-Vaxxers attack the Source instead of the FACTS.”
So what? If you feel the sources are legit, why don’t you give them?
Besides, isn’t that what the anti-vaxxers do, too? 2scents or whoever gives sources, and the other side says, “those don’t count because the CDC or whoever did the study is on the payroll of the vaccine companies and the results are fraudulent. And even if the results can’t be proven to be fraudulent, they shouldn’t be counted because the CDC is getting billions from the drug companies, so they results aren’t credible no matter what.”
What can I tell you, to me the CDC still has more credibility than people on quack watch lists.January 28, 2019 8:49 am at 8:49 am #1669204
EY Mom: What can I tell you, to me the CDC still has more credibility than people on quack watch lists.
Why? Bec. the CDC puts them on quack watch lists, so that makes them more credible?January 28, 2019 10:15 am at 10:15 am #1669293
“2scents seems to know so much about this issue, he really know how to fardrei a kup in such a smart way.
I would even go so far as to say he doesn’t vaccinate his family.”
Truth, I would stay far away from assumptions, you do not know who I am, what my credentials are, I can assure you that I will never use my position of authority to make an argument, now that you accused me of advocating for one thing and practicing another, you should explain what would be my intentions in doing so.
I feel bad that I cause you hardship and that I am actually with easy able to show you that cherry picking data and mispresenting the actual data is not the way to go. If you have made up your mind and no evidence will persuade you, why even participate in this discussion?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.