Provax,

“well nobody else died from the current so called outbreak of measles besides that child that the parents neglected, and Icant harm my child because it might keep someone else from getting the measles , ( which BTW is a total myth)”

Why are you calling this a ‘so called’ outbreak, are you implying that this is not an outbreak, how often does this occur in our community?

Being that you seem to dismiss the severity of the measles virus, I am sure that you have an exact number of how many children were taken to the hospital, how many of those were admitted for observation and how many to the ICU. Otherwise, I do not think that you would have the audacity to dismiss this in a public forum.

Oh.. its all a myth, I am sure that your chavrusa told you that he knows first hand that all of this is a myth, now go tell that to the parents of the children that bought into some radical hotline or publication written by ignoramuses and are now with their children in the hospital, I guess they are taking one for the greater cause.

Dooms,

“And the Government would NEVER DARE compare the autism rate of
Vaxxed Children vs 100% UnVaxxed Children.”

Being that you have tremendous distrust in the government (unless they will conclude as you do, then you will say Congress even asked for a study..), why are you asking the government to initiate a study?

Rather one of the ‘real PhDs’ that you keep on writing about should do so, if they need funds let them make a go fund me account.

Dooms,
“The researchers also fraudulently moved some autistic children who GOT the MMR into the group of children who did NOT get the MMR – but even with that Fraud the number of children with Autism was HIGHER in the MMR Group!”

Are you saying that they were not able to pull off their fraud? or that they just lied about the real numbers or they just are so bad with numbers that despite trying to lie they mistakenly placed the numbers in the wrong columns?

So basically, you have a bunch of silly websites that are the core source of your ‘arguments’ and whatever they say you accept as truth, to the point that you can just respond with CAPS and label others as liars, it must be so because there is a website that you trust that makes the claim..

JAMA

“RESULTS:
Essentially no correlation was observed between the secular trend of early childhood MMR immunization rates in California and the secular trend in numbers of children with autism enrolled in California’s regional service center system. For the 1980-1994 birth cohorts, a marked, sustained increase in autism case numbers was noted, from 44 cases per 100 000 live births in the 1980 cohort to 208 cases per 100 000 live births in the 1994 cohort (a 373% relative increase), but changes in early childhood MMR immunization coverage over the same time period were much smaller and of shorter duration. Immunization coverage by the age of 24 months increased from 72% to 82%, a relative increase of only 14%, over the same time period.

CONCLUSIONS:
These data do not suggest an association between MMR immunization among young children and an increase in autism occurrence.”

““2cents, MORE children die from MMR Vaccine per year then die from Measles per year”

You would have to provide the data that supports this. Otheoiys nonexistent and just another attempt of yours to spread lies.

Dooms,

a. Not sure why you recycle your old garbage, the Danish study actually supports the null hypothesis that MMR does not cause autism.

b. In a simplistic way of explaining it, if there would have been a link between MMR and autism, the very many studies (combined studies cover millions of children) would have shown some shift or link and the null hypothesis would not have been able to be established.

c. the NAM (formerly IOM) has accepted the evidence as conclusive and released a comprehensive report that there actually is evidence that there is no link between MMR and autism. (the NAM is an independent body comprised of doctors and scientists)

d. Regardless of any changes in the rate of vaccinations, autism has increased.

e. Not sure why you still state that you are unsure what Dr. Zimmermans position is, he clearly released a written statement post the ‘news’ piece that you posted, in which he writes that despite the statements being released about him, he clearly supports vaccinations.

f. Dr Zimmeran clearly stated, he does not know of any data that supports a link between MMR and Autism.

h. Dr. Zimmermans opinion was and still is, that any infectious stress can cause children with mitochondrial dysfunction to regress.

i. Nor does Dr. Zimmeran believe that the case was based on his opinion,

j. Dr. Zimmerman clarified that while he does believe that children should be vaccinated, children with mitochondrial dysfunction should be studies better.

k. This is in line with what other experts have stated.
“As noted above, an important consideration for treatment of AMD is that “normal” inflammation can impair mitochondrial function. Although most infections cannot be avoided, certain measures can limit the risk of injury during infection or other causes of inflammation… We believe it is much better to immunize with DTaP than risk infection with highly inflammatory and potentially damaging community-acquired pertussis.”

-Dr. Richard Kelley on Evaluation and Treatment of Patients with Autism and Mitochondrial Disease

While you try to twist all of this as if there is some massive fraud going on here, For those that actually care to review the details and do not go for your twisting, the facts are there to see.

Yet, as noted previously, you have made up your mind, you will pick and chose which ‘experts’ you believe in, and despite being shown how the people that just make statements are not qualified, nor is there any real data that shows what you claim.

Not sure why you keep on stating, that you have studies of “real PhDs”, as if all the studies that dictate medical recommendations are from made up PhDs.

While a lot of parents are emotional and buy into the claim that vaccines have caused their childs autism. It is not hard to understand why they would buy into this idea, nor are they to blame.

Yet it is important to note, there has been a drastic decrease in vaccinations, families with one sibling that has been diagnosed with ASD, are less likely to vaccinate their other younger children, most likely due to the belief that vaccines were the cause to their child’s autism.

However, the rate of ASD diagnoses have no dropped, nor are these families chances of their other children diagnosed with ASD less likely, despite withholding vaccines, in fact, these families have an increased chance of having their other children diagnosed with ASD, as like most diseases and disorders autism seems to be a genetic disease.

Dooms,

No need to learn a pshat in the events and no need to caps, Dr. ZImmeran is still around and can speak for himself.

He clearly states that his opinion has not changed, nothing ‘came out’, he clearly is an advocate for vaccines and does not believe that vaccine causes autism.

He does believe that children with mitochondrial dysfunction are at risk to regress when their immune system is under distress, such as infection or even a minor immune response such as associated with vaccines.

I did have a chance to read Nevilles post, not sure why it was edited. To me it seemed pretty relevant to the discussion and he tried making a point, regardless if we liked it or not.

“If Stalin promised yeshiva funding, would you still endorse him and vote for him in a primary?”

-No.

“With people like Tlaib Omar and Cortez, what level of radical left is acceptable?”

-Regardless of the party line affiliation, most radical people are dangerous. If one supports a radical candidate only because they are affiliated with their party line, they need to take a look at their values.

One week into this, has it had any impact?

“2Cents, Are you going to admit you were WRONG when you claimed the Siblings of Autistic children did not
receive ANY vaccines?”

I would only be wrong if this is what I stated, I stated that it is likely they have not received any vaccines unless they only believe that the MMR was the cause for their childs autism.

Likely being the keyword.

however, this study was focused on the MMR vaccines role (or lack of) with autism.

Dooms,

You have to prove that the theory regarding withholding vaccines for children that were later diagnosed is true.

In fact the study shows that its nonexistent. Besides for the fact that there would have been a difference in the autism rate. Since if the bias that you claim truly existed, how is it that there is no difference in autism rate. How is it that with such a large group of children, regardless how you splice it the numbers are almost the same?

If this were some littly fuzzy study like the 11 children wakfield claimed had autism from the MMR you could start making these bias claims. Otherwise you have to explain how the autism rate remains the same in all groups.

Truth,

Once again when posting what would seem like a study you have not posted who the author is.

The author of that ‘paper’ is Gayle Delong.

Only a site as ageOfAutism would accept Gayle as a credible person and regardless of the lack of credentials or knowledge in medicine she meets the very low criteria that you and radicals have to when it comes to anyone that concludes like your made up religious like radical agenda.

She has much more radical stuff she has come up with, interesting how it just so happens that these same people that are on the radical anti medicine side, just so happen to also have other radical views.

Dooms,

“Which means that MMR RAISED the Autism Rate to Equal that of a Group that had a high percentage of Children who already showed SIGNS OF AUTISM!”

Not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. First off, it groups children that were not vaccinated, and their siblings were diagnosed with autism.
Explain how this group is divided based on ‘healthy user bias’, the selection has nothing to do with calling being diagnosed with autism or with the MMR.
Another group is selected based on having the MMR, yet these children do not have siblings that were diagnosed with autism.

Now in a simplistic fashion, explain how come the group that had no siblings with autism actually had a lower rate of autism than those that were not vaccinated, yet had a sibling with autism.

In the past, you made a bold claim that autism has nothing to do with genetics, so explain how come the group that did not vaccinate, only because they had a sibling that was diagnosed with autism, actually had a higher rate of autism.

you also refused to acknowledge that adding autism to the DSM in the 1980s actually increased the rate of diagnosed autism a few thousand percents, you also refuse to acknowledge that all the additions to the ASD criteria are clearly associated with increases to ASD diagnosis.

You also selectively did not acknowledge what I wrote about the fact that you now acknowledge that most autistic children actually have signs (or how you wrote it, SIGNS) of the disorder prior to the diagnosis and prior to the receiving the MMR shot, which is why they have withheld the vaccination.

You only came up with this, as this was the only explanation for healthy bias claim you made, you cannot use all the arguments to further your agenda when they actually contradict each other.

“IF the MMR was RANDOMIZED, the MMR would have shown a greater rate of Autism.”

So you conclude prior to seeing the results?

The study actually proves the opposite, you cannot accept that since you already concluded otherwise.
Besides, if these children already show signs of autism, why would the MMR vaccine be withheld, as these parents already know that the vaccine has nothing to do with their childs condition.

Your not making sense.

“No. Autism is usually diagnosed around age 3. But parents saw SIGNS of AUTISM earlier, so stopped
vaccinating – this is a very common scenario.”

I feel that you are confusing your position, autism is caused by vaccines, yet those that did not get vaccinated and were diagnosed with autism, are still unlikely to vaccinate, why?
Also, are you now saying that all autism cases showed signs prior to receiving the MMR shot, it seems that is what you are implying, this is actually in line with what the experts have to say, yet they use this as a claim to show that autism was present in these children prior to the MMR Vaccine, only that it was not yet prevalent which is why they have not been officially diagnosed.

I applaud you for finally getting it right. That most cases of autism are not associated with the MMR vaccine, despite what the fact that these parents are now scared to vaccinate their other children.

(these ‘other children’ btw, despite having lower vaccination rates, even though they were never diagnosed with autism, so for sure do not have the signs of autism that you referenced, have higher rates of autism, not lower.

“From an interview with Dr. Stephanie Seneff:’

being that you probably did a comprehensive analysis of Dr Seneffs work prior to just pasting what you found on another junk website, you probably already know that Dr Seneffs experience and work is in computer science, yet has decided to start publishing radical opinions in open access platforms.

What Ari Levaux wrote about her after interviewing her and basically getting her to admit that she is not really ‘studying’ biology.

“according to many in the science community, a “quack,” meaning a poseur at the business of science, and a practitioner of pseudoscience.

Since she began publishing papers on biology, in journals considered fringe by the mainstream scientific establishment, Seneff has posited explanations for a host of disorders, and drawn heated objections from experts in almost every field she’s delved into. ”

I was actually baffled that you picked Dr. Seneff as someone that would further your position, it seems that you base your positions on pseudoscience and not on true science and facts.

I decided to refrain from further being involved with these discussions, its a very low-level discussion, yourself and Mrs. Doomsday clearly have a comprehension problem, almost every single point that has been raised has been explained in a very clear fashion, yet the most you can do is just repeat the claims and questions time after time.

You have also managed to slip in, that despite losing an argument or being shown that your position is incorrect, that there are “many other reasons for not vaccinating”,
1. Only someone that has nothing to stand on would say something like that, as you clearly admit there is a chance that each argument is nonsense and the only thing left would be “many other reasons”.
2. There is no point of having a rational discussion with you, as it is not the facts that matter, only “many other reasons”.

Dooms,

”
Why? Because of Healthy User Bias. If a child appears healthy and normal despite vaccines, he
is likely to be fully vaccinated. If a child shows SIGNS OF AUTISM or DELAYS – the parents STOP
Vaccinating.”

Exactly!

I see that you are finally getting this, parents are more likely to stop vaccinating their other children yet these other children not only are not better off, but they are also much more likely to develop autism than other children,

More about autism,

The 1980s is when the diagnosis of autism (only for infants that met the criteria) was added to the DSM, prior to that, there was no official diagnosis of autism.

In the following years (including recent years), the official criteria for autism diagnosis has been dramatically expanded, all of this accounts to an ‘increase’ in autism diagnosis.

Furthermore, parental and provider education has increased dramatically which also resulted in more diagnosis in autism.

For one to not acknowledge and appreciate these facts and to use these increases that correlate to the changes to the official autism criteria, is dishonest and furthering an agenda on these unfortunate individuals.

While there may have been increases that are greater than the changes in diagnosis and education regarding the topic, it is not nearly as dramatic and like other hereditary disorders, they increase.

Blaming something that is clearly not the cause of the autism, is distracting from the true causes and research into managing these patients.

Truth,

This is the ‘unhidden’ truth about aluminum, the very reason why the CDC can ‘afford’ to make the claims they make.

“
Food—primary source of exposure
Unprocessed foods like fresh fruits, vegetables, and meat contain very little aluminum.

Aluminum compounds may be added during processing of foods, such as:

flour
baking powder
coloring agents
anticaking agents
An average adult in the United States eats about 7–9 mg of aluminum per day in their food.

Air
Most people take in very little aluminum from breathing. Levels of aluminum in the air generally range from 0.005 to 0.18 micrograms per cubic meter (ìg/m3), depending on location, weather conditions, and type and level of industrial activity in the area. Most of the aluminum in the air is in the form of small suspended particles of soil (dust).

Aluminum levels in urban and industrial areas may be higher and can range from 0.4 to 8.0 ìg/m3.

Water and soil
The concentration of aluminum in natural waters (e.g., ponds, lakes, streams) is generally below 0.1 milligrams per liter (mg/L).

People generally consume little aluminum from drinking water. Water is sometimes treated with aluminum salts while it is processed to become drinking water. But even then, aluminum levels generally do not exceed 0.1 mg/L. Several cities have reported concentrations as high as 0.4–1 mg/L of aluminum in their drinking water.

Consumer Products
People are exposed to aluminum in some cosmetics, antiperspirants, and pharmaceuticals such as antacids and buffered aspirin.

Antacids have 300–600 mg aluminum hydroxide (approximately 104–208 mg of aluminum) per tablet, capsule, or 5 milliliter (mL) liquid dose. Little of this form of aluminum is taken up into the bloodstream.
Buffered aspirin may contain 10–20 mg of aluminum per tablet
Vaccines may contain small amounts of aluminum compounds, no greater than 0.85 mg/dose.”

“It is IMPOSSIBLE that genetics alone is the cause of Autism because you can’t go from
1:3,333 cases of autism to 1:50 in 40 years because of genetics.”

Incorrect, it is possible and is observed in other diseases and disorders.

In fact, the sibling rate for autism is significantly higher, this population group contributes to the higher autism overall as a group. If you remove this group the incidence of autism is no where as significant.

Dooms,

” have shown you how EVERY Study you cited to Prove that Vaccines does NOT cause Autism
is FRAUDULENT.”

Maybe in your mind, but in reality, you have not shown anything other than making up some facts and then claiming that what was published was a fraud. I guess anything that does not correlate to your beliefs is fraudulent.

Dooms,

“I didn’t credit age of autism because Lying ProVaxxers, instead of responding to the FACTS and DATA that
are listed in the “Debunking”, attack the authors or website as “Anti-Vaccine” or “Anti-Medicine”.”

Dooms, you do realize that the credibility of that site is little to none, so the FACTS that you write about (in CAPS) are not really facts, the arguments are just a bunch of nonsense, the statistics are made up and correlations are not able to be verified.

Dooms,

You should have credited your responses to the website age of autism, as I actually just noticed that your recent response comes from that website.

Instead of just dumping their blogs on this website, you should write your own responses, otherwise, you are just duplicating their blogs into the coffee room.

I noticed, that you are good when it comes to accusing individuals about lying and posting repetitive posts, yet data and facts are not your thing, for that you rely on radical anti-medicine websites such as age of autism.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Volume 46, Issue 6

No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study

Methods: This study examined cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven for children born from 1988 to 1996 in Kohoku Ward (population approximately 300,000), Yokohama, Japan. ASD cases included all cases of pervasive developmental disorders according to ICD

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.

Conclusions: The significance of this finding is that MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD.

Before rejecting the causal hypothesis, it is essential to consider possible objections to our study. There are five that need attention. First, Wakefield and his colleagues have postulated that the autism associated with MMR almost always involves developmental regression (Furlano et al., 2001; Torrente et al., 2002; Wakefield et al., 2000). Accordingly, it could be suggested that we needed to focus on autism with regression. We found no change in the incidence of ASD with regression between the periods before and after withdrawal of MMR. Three British studies (Fombonne & Chakrabarti, 2001; Taylor et al., 2002; Fombonne et al., 2004) have also shown no change in the rate of regression across time periods beginning before introduction of MMR and continuing during a time of high take‐up of the vaccine. In any case, the Spitzer, Aitken, Dell’Aniello, and Davis (2001) finding on a large sample of cases of ASD supposed to be attributable to the MMR vaccine found only 39% with regression, a proportion broadly in line with that reported during the pre‐MMR era.

Second, it could be claimed that the proportion of cases of autism due to the vaccine is too low to be detectable in a total population study of time trends in incidence. However, this runs counter to the argument that the effect was big enough to result in an overall rise in the frequency of autism (Wakefield, 1999). If it was sufficient to cause an overall rise, the cessation of MMR usage should be sufficient to result in a measurable fall. Also, the Spitzer et al. study in the UK concerned 325 cases of ASD thought to be due to MMR; this is a sizeable number.

Third, it has been argued that previous studies have been misleading because their follow‐up has not extended over at least three years (Spitzer et al., 2001). That objection cannot be applied to our study because we have deliberately focused on incidence in birth cohorts followed to age seven, meaning an age roughly six years after MMR (if used).

Fourth, it might be suggested that our surveillance system missed many cases of autism. That is extremely unlikely because our system is unusually thorough and because our overall incidence figure of 88.5 per 10,000 for ASD is in line with some other recent estimates (Kadesjö, Gillberg, & Hagberg, 1999; Wing, 1996) and higher than the 60 per 10,000 that has been put forward as the best estimate (Medical Research Council, 2001) based on high quality total population epidemiological data (Baird et al., 2000; Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2001).