Vaccine related autism study?

They were never unsubstantiated. I had already posted this whole article in the thread. Here's the final lines of it.

"But I digress, let’s compare measles death rates in 1963 to other death rates in 1963.

In 1963, there were about 450 deaths from measles. Meanwhile, about 12,000 people died from stomach ulcers and the likes. Just over 43,000 people died from car accidents in 1963. Over 700,000 people died from heart disease.

In 1963, you were more likely to be one of the 9200 people murdered that year than to die of measles. If you were born in 1963, you were more likely to die from a congenital disease than from measles. In 1963, it was about 46 times more likely for a child to die from a congenital malformation than for someone to die from the measles."

Frankly, in 1963, you were about 46 times more likely to kill yourself than you were to die from measles."====http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/measles-perspective/

I also quoted a source showing the chances of dying from measles is closer to 1 in 10,000 now. You can go find that. I'm not going to repeat my whole thread here for you.

You're the one making the insult. Do you really think that helps your case? It doesn't. It is immature and obnoxious and trollish. Take responsibility for your own words.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shame that's from a reputable source with several citations and references Captain Kremmen... it means MR will be sure to ignore it entirely.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...us-intellectual-dishonesty-at-its-most-naked/

I can't post the quotes (too many characters)... but he pretty well dismantles a vast majority of the "evidence" MR is trying to pass off...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is wrong about this claim? Did you fail to notice the study I already posted showing antibody protection in babies from their mother's milk lasting for a long time? Did you fail to notice the NBC article I quoted showing the measles outbreak was likely caused by a foreigner visiting Disneyland. Once again, your claims are shown to be entirely bogus and contrived. Essentially this means I was infracted for no good reason at all. All the sources for these claims have already been posted. If you had read the thread you would have known this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You apparently don't know how to use Bold...

And you also forgot that I showed the issue with your statement:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/939.aspx?CategoryID=54

You can think whatever you like MR... but the facts stand and speak for themselves.

You also haven't provided ANY backing for your made-up statistics that one is "more likely to die in a car crash than from measles" and other such bogus claims...

BTW - Tick Tock, you now have 7 hours remaining.

 

I'm glad he opened the thread.
It is worth discussing.

Companies opposing vaccination are often tied into providing alternative medicines.
There's nothing wrong with alternative medicine, but it is not a substitute for conventional medicine.

 

Indeed. There is no doubt that Vaccines could be made better, and the less than ideal components reduced or removed... but the suggestion of not having them done is, at best, foolish... not to mention dangerous.

 

Your odds of dying in a car crash are 1 in 100. That's way higher than the odds of dying from measles. Here's my source:

http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html

What "other such bogus claims" are you referring to? What claim are you waiting to ban me for now? Have you PM'd me a warning on this?

 

Ah, my apologies - you simply misrepresented it then. "motor vehicle accident" and "car crash" are two very different things.

Though it is interesting the difference between your statistics:

http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html

and the ones from the NSC directly:

http://www.riskcomm.com/visualaids/riskscale/datasources.php

It makes sense though - yours are statistics over a persons lifetime, as opposed to per-year (as mine are). We are not comparing apples to apples here. How did your statistics determine the risk of dying from measles and/or its complications?

Also of interest:

http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/injury-facts-chart.aspx

Seems one is almost four times as likely to die from a Lower Respiratory Disease than from a Motor Vehicle Accident. Scary shit

I guess now you just have to show actual fact-based evidence that vaccines cause autism.

 

The often quoted stat on dying from measles is 1 or 2 out of 1000. That's from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html. As for fact-based evidence that vaccines cause autism, see my 40 papers on this link. See also the quoted case of Hannah Polling, who won her court case for being afflicted with autism from being giving 9 vaccines. She was determined to have had a mitochrondrial condition, something that afflicts 1 out 600 babies. That in itself proves overvaccination can cause autism. Who has their baby checked for a mitochrondrial condition before vaccination? Nobody..

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904

Your argument here is hinging on a case that the medical and scientific community at large has stated is poorly reasoned...

And who, in their right mind, suggests getting 9 vaccinations at the same time? Certainly not the CDC!

 

From 12 to 15 months is the window for as many as 9 vaccines. If a doctor isn't aware of the dangers of overvaccination, it would be very easy to give them all in one multidose. Apparently that's what happened.

 

We already went over this. Your graph shows measles cases. My graph shows measles deaths. It's the dying from measles that we're so worried about isn't it?

 

Another fact-free post by MR.

Antibody protection from mother's milk protects against GI infections and a few upper respiratory infections - not measles.

 

"Passive immunity can also be acquired naturally by the fetus due to the transfer of antibodies by the maternal circulation in utero through the placenta around the third month of gestation. Immunity in newborn babies is only temporary and starts to decrease after the first few weeks, or months. Breast milk also contains antibodies, which means that babies who are breastfed have passive immunity for longer periods of time. The thick, yellowish milk (colostrum) that is produced during the first few days after birth is particularly rich in antibodies. For the newborn to have lasting protection, active immunity must be received. The first immunisation, given when a baby is two months old, includes whooping cough and Hib (haemophilus influenza type b) because immunity to these diseases decreases the fastest. Passive immunity to measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) usually lasts for about a year, which is why the MMR is given just after the baby's first birthday."

Source: Boundless. “Passive Immunization.” Boundless Microbiology. Boundless, 30 Dec. 2014. Retrieved 16 Feb. 2015 from https://www.boundless.com/microbiol...munization-147/passive-immunization-736-5429/

 

Right. But BREAST MILK does not provide the infant with antibodies or immunity to measles. (And to remind you, you claimed " . . . .showing antibody protection in babies from their mother's milk lasting for a long time.")

===========================
Breast milk is not a substitute for vaccination

It is not uncommon to find folks promoting breastfeeding as a way to boost their children’s immune systems as an alternative rather than an adjunct to vaccination. On the West Coast this philosophy is hindering the regions efforts in achieving high enough vaccine coverage to prevent disease as noted in the Herald this week.

When it comes to prevention of infectious diseases breastfeeding is certainly not a universal elixir.

It is well accepted that infants receive specific immunity in the form of antibodies from their mother through the placenta before birth and in breast milk if they are being breast fed against a range of infections. These antibodies are temporary and wane within weeks to months. Whether a baby receives any antibodies against a particular disease and whether these antibodies are actually protective are dependent on a range of variables. Here are two examples which are of particular concern to communities who do not vaccinate. The two most infectious diseases known to man.
. . . .
Measles

While infants may receive protective levels of antibody against measles from their mother, this rapidly wanes leaving them vulnerable. There is little or no measles antibody passed through breast milk. A study in Belgium found even when mothers had experienced clinical measles disease the antibodies passed to their babies only endured for a median of up to 3.78 months. Breastfeeding did not impact on the decay time of antibody. There is certainly some evidence that breastfeeding can reduce the severity of measles infection. A large British study investigated if breast feeding modified clinical measles and also the effect of immunisation. Breastfeeding was associated with a modest reduction in measles diagnosis but in contrast measles vaccination was highly associated with a low risk for measles. In other words, breast feeding helps a bit but vaccination is very effective.

http://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimmunity/2013/07/02/breast-milk-is-not-a-substitute-for-vaccination/

 

From the BMJ:

==================
The starting concentrations of maternal antibodies in infants in this study depended highly on the concentration of antibodies in the mother and on her vaccination status. Infants of vaccinated women started with significantly fewer antibodies than did infants of naturally immune women. The rate of decay of maternal antibodies was slightly steeper in infants of naturally immune women (fig 2⇑). The median time to loss of immunity was 2.61 months: 0.97 months for infants of vaccinated women and 3.78 months for infants of naturally immune women. We prefer to use the median rather than the mean time to loss of immunity because a quarter of the infants of vaccinated women started at birth with antibody titres below the threshold we used, which influences the mean. We found no significant impact of breast feeding, parity, birth weight, educational level, caesarean section, or day care attendance on the duration of maternal antibodies.
===================


http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1626

 

There is certainly some evidence that breastfeeding can reduce the severity of measles infection. A large British study investigated if breast feeding modified clinical measles and also the effect of immunisation. Breastfeeding was associated with a modest reduction in measles diagnosis

 

Changing your story now? You originally claimed that nursing provided immunity by ". . . .showing antibody protection in babies from their mother's milk lasting for a long time." That is false. There is no antibody protection, and breastfeeding is no substitute for vaccination.

You are now claiming that breast feeding helps overall in reducing the severity of diseases and helps keep infants healthy. That is definitely true - and a completely different topic.

As a suggestion, perhaps you could post such misinformation in the thread you already started, rather than posting it in a thread in Open Government. It would be nice to keep all the BS in one thread.

 

Yes, you are right, that analysis debunks a different graph.
But death is not the only consideration.

see http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long

In addition to serious complications, there is a cost factor.

See http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long