Vaccines (and autism)

>It seems to prevent natural selection from doing its job ;)
I am a bit of a paranoid guy, so if this was not intended towards me then I apologize for getting angry.
All good. Just me having a bit of fun, not directly at you. :)

Edit: In terms of fitness of the species, there is a serious point there too.
 
You don't appear to be broadly anti-vax, but anti Thimerasol. Cool, let's use proven, better alternatives. That has broadly happened and is continuing to happen, encouraged by the CDC. We are in agreement here.

However, The infant dose of Thimerosal has been dramatically reduced, if not eliminated,
over the past 15 years or so with no reduction in Autism diagnoses (quite the reverse) indicating that Thimerosal may be a poor candidate for initiating those changes.

(I understand the rates of flu vaccination in childhood are pretty low)

What is the evidence for the first claim?

On the second:
When I was in high school about 6 years ago we had yearly flu shots, the CDC supports this https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1314estimates.htm interesting flu vaccinations among children has risen by 15%~ in 4-5 years to about 58% and this only goes up to 2014, flu vaccination raises about 3% a year. I don't know about you but I don't consider 58% to be pretty low.

EDIT: are the forums messed up? I had a triple post yesterday and it looks like malf just got a double
 
What is the evidence for the first claim?

On the second:
When I was in high school about 6 years ago we had yearly flu shots, the CDC supports this https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1314estimates.htm interesting flu vaccinations among children has risen by 15%~ in 4-5 years to about 58% and this only goes up to 2014, flu vaccination raises about 3% a year. I don't know about you but I don't consider 58% to be pretty low.

EDIT: are the forums messed up? I had a triple post yesterday and it looks like malf just got a double

According to this study Autism has gone up, and quite a bit - Prevalence has increased by 6-15 percent each year from 2002 to 2010. - https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

EDIT: misread your post, we're not in disagreement here.

However I don't see any evidence that thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines, just a 1 liner in your cdc report that also says there actually still is thimerosal in flu vaccines (and 4 out of 7 of those vaccines) edit: it's actually 4 out of 8 flu vaccines, but 4 out of 7 trivalent flu vaccines.

Considering flu vaccination has been steadily on the rise, its a good idea to look for which vaccines are used the most.
 
Last edited:
Great question with no eay answer. In some groups the benefits massively outweigh the risks. It's a value judgement I guess. FWIW, I have never had it, and i work in a moderate risk envionment. My wife is in teaching and has a history of pneumonia. She has a yearly shot.

https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?sour...pv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=risks+vs+benefits+flu+vaccine

If you cannot quantify the benefits; how do you justify saying that in some groups benefits massively outweigh the risks?
 
What is the evidence for the first claim?

On the second:
When I was in high school about 6 years ago we had yearly flu shots, the CDC supports this https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1314estimates.htm interesting flu vaccinations among children has risen by 15%~ in 4-5 years to about 58% and this only goes up to 2014, flu vaccination raises about 3% a year. I don't know about you but I don't consider 58% to be pretty low.

EDIT: are the forums messed up? I had a triple post yesterday and it looks like malf just got a double

According to this study Autism has gone up, and quite a bit - Prevalence has increased by 6-15 percent each year from 2002 to 2010. - https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

EDIT: misread your post, we're not in disagreement here.

However I don't see any evidence that thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines, just a 1 liner in your cdc report that also says there actually still is thimerosal in flu vaccines (and 4 out of 7 of those vaccines) edit: it's actually 4 out of 8 flu vaccines, but 4 out of 7 trivalent flu vaccines.

Considering flu vaccination has been steadily on the rise, its a good idea to look for which vaccines are used the most.



https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/mercury-in-vaccines-and-autism-a-failed-hypothesis/
 
If you cannot quantify the benefits; how do you justify saying that in some groups benefits massively outweigh the risks?

I didn't say the benefits cannot be quantified. The benefits for someone with existing respiatory illness would seem clear, no?
 
I didn't say the benefits cannot be quantified. The benefits for someone with existing respiatory illness would seem clear, no?

I struggle with this every year Malf. My daughter has asthma and has been hospitalized many times in the past because of it. One of her triggers is illness ie respiratory viruses. I have looked into this particular issue more than any other. I have learned many things over the years, including that the statistics show that 1 in 6 children vaccinated on schedule could have avoided asthma if they had been vaccinated one month later. These results are from studies from New Zealand, and Canada. I did read the original studies but I don't have them at hand now. So, my brother has asthma, his wife has asthma and all his kids had asthma, but they grew out it as they had it as babies. My daughter developed it late at age 7, and it seems unlikely that she will 'grow out of it.' I always thought it was because it ran in my family, but then I found that unless both parents had it, it was unlikely that she should have it at all.

To cut a long story short, my daughter probably has a predisposition to it. We have been visiting a specialist every 6 months for the last 9 years. NEVER has he directly told me to get her a flu shot although it is plastered throughout the hospital walls. I have asked him directly, and he will not say she should have a flu shot, but neither will he say that she should not. He is very vocal on other issues. The statistics that I read say that having a flu shot does not decrease the number of and length of hospital visits for asthmatics, yet it is advised by the CDC. Only 50% of asthmatics take the shot. Are they stupid, or have they done the research like I did because they know , like I do, that it is a life or death situation for their child.

I only want to do the right thing for my child. Every year it is a painful decision. Already she is be old enough to make her own decisions. I tell her, do your research.

Edit. I forgot one of the most important points. She had her baby vaccines a little early because the doctor wasn't available at the time that she should have had them. My son, had them a little late. He does not have asthma.
 
Last edited:
Just so I'm clear, what do you see as the risks?

Most commonly, the adverse reactions as listed on package inserts are... influenza-like-illness (headache, fever, muscle pain, myalgia, malaise, etc), and seizures, Guillain-Barré syndrome, allergic reactions... and that's just what is commonly reported on vaccine inserts. Based on my reading I believe other risks are: miscarriage, allergic sensitivities, asthma, and possibly auto-immune illnesses.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say the benefits cannot be quantified. The benefits for someone with existing respiatory illness would seem clear, no?

Not at all. The only way to quantify benefit is if you know both the vaccine effectiveness and probability of contracting the flu without the shot. You don't know either one. No one does. So it cannot be quantified. The CDC's method of estimating flu vaccine effectiveness every year is a fraud. It could show high VE, even if only vaccinated people are getting sick. And nobody has good data on exactly what the flu infection rate in the unvaccinated population is. I've read in the literature estimates from <1% to 20%.
 
Are you saying many doctors are turning against the flu shot? Or the opposite?

What I am saying is that doctors know that in some recipients there is a risk, but that risk is outweighed by the benefits for the larger whole (in their opinion). I know this because my brother is a doctor (anesthesiologist) and this is what he told me. It is also the thing that makes sense when the 'one size fits all' is all that we can offer our children at this time and that, as I am sure you know Hurm, the vaccine producing companies cover themselves from the negative results for the few

edit. sorry, this was an ideological mess! Post edit. Doctors know the risk, but are willing to take it for the larger group.
 
Last edited:
Statin research denonstrates neatly the trickyness of analysing risk vs benefits (somewhere D. Bailey stirs...).

Consider this:

... while statins offer real benefits, those benefits are, from a population perspective, modest. If statins provide a 1% absolute benefit over 5 years, then we must treat 100 people for five years to benefit one person
*

Is the risk versus benefit worth it? It is if your in the 1%! I'm not sue there's an absolute "right" or "wrong" answer here. Patients have to be informed consumers and own their own risks I guess.


*Source
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Agreed. If only most people that criticised vaccines took that view, and weren't full on anti-vaxxers that make extreme claims about vaccine and are contributing toward the reemergence of several diseases that were almost eradicated by vaccines.

Alot of people get lumped in to the "anti vax" category is they so much suggest that vaccines might cause autism or any other physical or neurological disorders. Its a common tactic used my pseudo skeptics. "Oh your're criticizing the science you must be anti vax!"

When its more like, I want more answers, testing, more controls because it seems like some people who get these shots suffer from developing diseases/ Autism disorder
 
What I am saying is that doctors know that in some recipients there is a risk, but that risk is outweighed by the benefits for the larger whole (in their opinion). I know this because my brother is a doctor (anesthesiologist) and this is what he told me. It is also the thing that makes sense when the 'one size fits all' is all that we can offer our children at this time and that, as I am sure you know Hurm, the vaccine producing companies cover themselves from the negative results for the few

edit. sorry, this was an ideological mess! Post edit. Doctors know the risk, but are willing to take it for the larger group.

Agreed, our bodies are very complex and react differently to foods, vaccines or many other factors. There are "positive" and negative "overlaps" with reactions to these things, but not one size fits all. Similar to people having different food or pollen allergies.

Could the adverse effects of vaccine shots be due to an allergic reaction in some cases?

Also not taking sides on the issue, but I read somewhere and its probably posted in this thread about Vaccines eradicating diseases being a myth for the most part?
 
What I am saying is that doctors know that in some recipients there is a risk, but that risk is outweighed by the benefits for the larger whole (in their opinion). I know this because my brother is a doctor (anesthesiologist) and this is what he told me. It is also the thing that makes sense when the 'one size fits all' is all that we can offer our children at this time and that, as I am sure you know Hurm, the vaccine producing companies cover themselves from the negative results for the few

edit. sorry, this was an ideological mess! Post edit. Doctors know the risk, but are willing to take it for the larger group.

In engineering (especially oilfield engineering) many things we don't bother to calculate out... we just go with "best engineering practice" which is a combination of experience and theoretical understanding. So I assume the same kind of thing goes on in the medical world, and I get that.

But one problem is that doctors are fed bad information. You ask them about flu vaccine benefits and they'll probably cite the CDC's statistics. But there's two problems with the CDC's stats: they don't know flu infection rates in the unvaccinated population and they don't really know true VE because their case-controlled study they do every year is a sham.

Case-controlled studies are the lowest quality of evidence. And the CDC's case controlled study each year only looks at sick people and relies on the critical assumption that being in the vaccinated population does not make you more likely to get influenza-like-illness (ILI) ....when ILI is the most common side effect of the vaccine!!

So with the CDC's method of estimating VE, they could produce very high VE even if almost the entire vaccinated population gets sick (with ILI and Influenza) and almost the entire unvaccinated population does not get sick.

I went into more detail and worked an example calculation on just such a hypothetical example here:
https://fluvaccinefraud.wordpress.com/

I'd like your Bro's input on that! :)

So without knowing true VE and without knowing true unvaccinated risk of contracting flu, there's absolutely no way to know the benefit (if any).
 
Could the adverse effects of vaccine shots be due to an allergic reaction in some cases?

Yes absolutely. The theory of vaccination is that you put the virus protein in your blood so that your body can identify it as the enemy and then attack it. Well that's great, but what about the substrate proteins the virus was grown on? If the virus was grown on eggs, you're going to get some egg protein mixed in with your vaccine. So now your body is learning to attack egg protein, and you get people with horrible life threatening egg allergies. Or let's say you put Squalene in the vaccine. Squalene is an oil produced within your body (joints). Now you inject Squalene as an adjuvant directly into the bloodstream and your body learns to attack it. So then your body starts attacking it's own endogenously produced Squalene and you get arthritis in the joints. Sometimes virus is grown on fetal cells... could an injection with fetal cells cause a mother's immune system to attack her own fetus and miscarry?

As Bill Gates, life long eugenicist and population control advocate said... if we do a really great job with vaccines we can get the population down.

Also not taking sides on the issue, but I read somewhere and its probably posted in this thread about Vaccines eradicating diseases being a myth for the most part?

That is certainly true of Polio. Haven't researched other diseases enough to argue. Deaths from polio had decreased 90% by the time the first Polio vaccines became available. As soon as the Polio vaccination first became available, it was suddenly halted after hundreds of people contracted polio from some bad batches of the vaccine and were paralyzed. Fear of the vaccine spread rapidly. Vaccination campaigns were carried out in certain areas, but were far from universal. Yet the Polio infection rate continued the plummet which began before vaccination began. By 1980 when there was major push to eradicate polio with universal vaccination, Polio was already almost non-existent.

And the polio vaccine killed millions of people with cancer because it was contaminated with Simian Virus-40 (SV-40) because it was grown on monkey kidney cells.
 
Last edited:
And the polio vaccine killed millions of people with cancer
This is actually a huge problem with you, Hurm. That is not a fact. At least to my knowledge. Can you show any data to prove that millions died from SV-40 contamination?

Around 98 million people were vaccinated from 1955 to 1963 with doses that were contaminated with SV-40. That is a fact.
 
Back
Top