Posted by linkadge on September 3, 2016, at 20:30:34
In reply to Re: vaccinations and autism » linkadge, posted by baseball55 on September 2, 2016, at 19:20:03
>1. To say that there are rare allergic reactions >to vaccines does not mean they are not a rousing >success. There are people allergic to >penicillin, yet penicillin practically wiped out >deaths from numerous diseases.
The fact that vaccinations are used on such a widespread basis means that even a 0.01% rate of serious reactions can result in a large number of injuries. I am supposing that if your child suffered permanent paralysis because of a 'routine vaccination' you wouldn't be too pleased with the conclusion that 'sorry, we're no longer studying the issue'.
>But the data against vaccine->autism is such >that nobody is investigating it any more.
Firstly, I don't know if that is the case. Secondly, scientists only decided to study it in response to the original (admittedly flawed) study suggesting a link. Again, my original stance was that no, the research currently does not support a link. However, I have personally read enough research to see a *possible* link between the adjuvant (not the mercury) and negative neurological and psychiatric events.
>And why should they? So many actual correlations >with autism have since been found (see of them, >it seems, pretty weird, like father's age),I agree. I read and consider many of these studies. A recent one suggests that mothers enduring significant prenatal stress (who also possessed certain genetic factors) had children with more difficult to manage autism.
This is along the lines with my point. Studies that are only looking for a binary outcome (i.e. autism or no autism) may be missing how vaccines may or may not influence disease severity.
>3. What's the deal with nut allergies? So >they've increased. So what? Not exactly a world-shattering event.Every medical trend has the potential to be part of a larger picture. For all we know nut allergies could end up having a common link with autism. Sounds crazy, but until we know the true cause I wouldn't rule anything out. Perhaps some immune system altering chemical in the environment activates autism (in individuals with certain genetic predispositions) and food allergies (in another group). My main point was that just like peanut allergies have increased, so too (I personally believe) has the actual incidence of autism. If the rise in peanut allergies is due to a man made change in the food or environment, then its not inconceivable that the rise in autism is too. The temporal association between the increased incidence of the two disorders warrants consideration.
Many of the risk factors need to be studied (and studied again). For instance, there is at least one positive and one negative association between antidepressant use in pregnancy and autism. So, clearly we need more studies.
I disagree with the notion that science should ever close the case. If we did that, the atom would be the smallest unit of matter, and gravity would be a force acting at a distance (rather than the bending of spacetime).
>that children need to be exposed very early to >allergens to avoid allergies. As I said, nuts have been all but banned in the US schools since my children were young (1990s).
That is strange. I know Canada and (apparently) the UK did not act (on a widespread basis) till late 90's / early 2000's. My point was that I was happily eating PB sandwiches regularly without the school going into lockdown. My point was that something has changed. Yes, I agree with you that the anti-nut response, is probably counterproductive. But then again, we live in a society where the needs of the few supersede the needs of the many - yes nuts are a need :)
>4. Sorry about Canada's poor math performance. >The NEAP in the US administers an annual test to >4th and 8th graders. Math scores have improved >quite significantly.Ok, there are many grades in between :) However, I am not familiar with mathematics trends (and test methodology in the US.)
>5. I don't mean to count you among the followers >of Lou. I know you routinely dispute him. But >the vaccine/autism conspiracy seems very much a >piece with Lou's rants
Again, I never said it was a conspiracy not did I say that vaccines cause autism. Please don't try to paint me as a 'tinfoil hat' wearer. I simply said that I would like to see more research done (as is being done b.t.w.) on the impact of vaccines on a variety of neurological events. (Europe has been much more open minded than the US when it comes to such issues. I know that there are ongoing studies, for instance, of a link between the swine flu vaccines and a dramatic rise in juvenile narcolepsy around that temporal timeframe). Most people who get very heated about the debate don't actually spend much time on pubmed.com
Again, there are two clear camps (1. vaccines don't cause autism - case closed and 2. vaccines do cause autism). I assume you are part of camp #1. I would say that I am in neither camp. I want more research.
I could bring up GMO, but I'd be saying the same thing. I am not suggesting that GMO foods DO cause autism (or any other disease) however, I see a *potential* that warrants more study (IMO).
The problem is (these days) is that we are supposed to believe science without question. If you show any skepticism towards 'science' you are a wacko.
Linkadge
poster:linkadge
thread:1091559
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20160819/msgs/1091678.html