Vaccines for children
- Thread starter Tumbo
- Start date
Also,
None of the professionals I know who work with children who have autism hesitate to vaccinate their kids.
I didn't claim that there are parents of children(who are not professionals in the field who I know) who have vaccine hesitations. Particularly in the MAGA sphere which loves to be anti science and medicine.
Not sure the disconnect with my statements.
Last edited:
Just how sure are you of that? Think about it. How many of those people, if they're in a social bubble that condemns the "antivax" crowd, would ever admit any of their kids aren't up to date, according to the schedule. The answer to that question is probably zero, which parallels your claim.
In addition, as I alluded to before, just because you've worked with autistic children doesn't mean you know and understand the body of science behind what is or is not causing it, correct?
The people I refer to have advanced degrees, they are board certified in addition to having years of experience.
But, I guess the Internet has taught you better.
This isn't worth my time. Have a great Day.
You don't like answering questions, do you? You like having questions answered but you don't like answering.
The guy you are arguing with is a dishonest putz.
He argued a point for weeks only to complete change his mind while trying to claim he didn’t change his mind. I had to put him on ignore a few months ago. If he was a troll I’d tell him good job, but he isn’t even smart enough to to be a troll. He is just an outright dishonest putz. Don’t waste your time, use the ignore function.
I’d tell you to go back and look at the thread but when the switch to on3 happened everyone’s name changed.
Total ********. The guy who commented put me on Ignore when I reminded everyone that he changed his username to avoid paying a bet he lost.
I have never changed my positions on Autism and whether Vaccines caused them.
Just to answer your question, my degree is in Environmental Biology. I also work in a related field where I utilize my degree to its fullest. I understand that's not impressive, but I do understand the science. In addition, there are plenty of experts, who do not agree with what you're typing.
I literally answered your questions multiple times.
I know many people who are involved in educating and working with children with intellectual and behavioral disabilities.
They range from Special Education teachers, to Pediatric Psychologists to Board Certified Behavior Analysts.
Speaking of my wife specifically, she has a BA in Music, a Muitcategorical special Education Degree, She has a Master's in School Counseling as well as an Education Specialist certification. She is also a Board Certified Behavioral Analyst.
No. There aren't any actual experts who agree with your supposition that Vaccines cause autism.
And you lean on their expertise for getting to the bottom of whether vaccines are causing autism? Sorry but that doesn't make any sense at all.
Why doesn't it make sense? I have had deep discussions with people who work in the field daily. You've read about it on message boards.
Let me ask you this, what is your connection to this issue? What was the specific evidence that made you believe, with 100% certainty that vaccines caused autism?
Yeah, this is ********, yoshi is one of the most stand-up guys on this board. The guy who spoke against him is not.Lol, believe it or not I could tell
Do you understand that there is a big difference between the claim that vaccines do not cause autism, and the claim that there aren't any reliable studies that might indicate a causal relationship (which is false by the way)?
You have claimed that vaccines cause autism. explain that position.
Honestly this seems to be a waste of time, I have tried to be civil and have a real conversation, but I don't think either of us are budging on this. Welcome to our board and have a great day.
The answer to this should be completely obvious. During their coursework, what kind of exposure do you think these people had to virology, immunology, micro, biochemistry, molecular biology, vaccinology?
It's like a big puzzle. When you put in as much effort as I have, you start putting the pieces together. For me it's like having about 85-90% of the puzzle put together. If you look at it, you can pretty much tell what the missing pieces look like. I can see it and you have never seen it, but you're trying to tell me what it looks like.
This might be the funniest post on this forum of all time lol.
Live look at homie putting the effort in to get his Masters in Online Research about Vaccines and Autism:
At least I didn't claim those with an advanced degrees in psychology and behavioral sciences are the experts you can rely on if you want to know whether vaccines cause autism.This might be the funniest post on this forum of all time lol.
Live look at homie putting the effort in to get his Masters in Online Research about Vaccines and Autism:
Why do people demonize others for looking into information online? Not all information is unreliable. Publications are posted online, many times full publications, without a pay wall. Lots of other good information can be found if you know where to look.This might be the funniest post on this forum of all time lol.
Live look at homie putting the effort in to get his Masters in Online Research about Vaccines and Autism:
No, you claimed to be an expert based on your internet research. That's way better?
Yoshi there are a lot of experts posting on X that think vaccines are causing autism and allergies.
RFK is having real study and testing conducted now. We should get some results next year.
posting on X doesn't make you an expert. Claiming to be an expert doesn't make you an expert.
You don't have the best track record of posting truths. I remember the loads of actual garbage you spammed the board with from the Gateway Pundit that you swore was true
RFK has zero credibility when he discussed science and vaccines. None.
Can you share these reliable studies that indicate this causal relationship? Thanks.
There are ZERO, I repeat, ZERO peer reviewed studies that link the cause of Autism to Vaccines.
I'm not arguing that there is. Genuinely curious what he's referencing that leads to the confidence in his opinion.
For sure, I wasn't saying you were/weren't. His sources are going to be youtube videos/papers that have been debunked everywhere outside the anti-vaxx/MAGA community. And they always have a reason why they were debunked of course.
I was just adding to the convo, that despite his soon to be revealed "evidence" and extensive "effort" into his online research, the fact remains there are no peer reviewed studies that give any kind of causal link. From there, their arguments always goes into conspiracy theory.
I did explain some of it. There's so much evidence out there, all you have to do is look, and have some common sense to understand what you're seeing.
One glaring problem I see is that the science body as a whole seems to go out of its way to avoid detecting autism (and other potential injuries).
1) The clinical trials themselves seem to be designed to not detect injury. For virtually all vaccines (even the older ones) their clinical trials do not use an inert placebo (they use other vaccines or adjuvants), they are extremely low powered, and they are ultra short-term. Why? Those who understand science understand what a devastating blow this is to the safety (or lack thereof) that backs them. That's why Stanley Plotkin and Kathryn Edwards suffered such a devastating take-down during their depositions.
2) The retrospective epidemiological studies focus primarily only on 1 vaccine type (MMR) and 1 ingredient (thimerosal). Those studies like to tout the fact that they are extremely high powered, but they fail on the fact that none of the children in those studies are completely unvaccinated (even though the title of some of them makes you think they are). There are over 100 studies like this, complete with meta analyses. This leaves an obvious gaping hole in the safety science. What about the other vaccines on the schedule? Other ingredients? Even the CDC tips its hand by admitting the body of science it relies upon to ensure safety is wholly inadequate:
CDC Fails to Produce to Support its Claim that Vaccines Given During the First Six Months of Life “Do Not Cause Autism” - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network
In a federal lawsuit filed by the non-profit Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has failed to produce scientific studies that back up its long-declared assertion that vaccines given to babies in the first six months of life do not cause autism.
icandecide.org
3) The highest ever recorded aluminum levels in brains were from autistic patients.
4) As another poster alluded to, there are several experts that believe vaccines could be causing autism.
5) Mechanistic data exists that shows how aluminum adjuvant could be causing autism. See the works of Gherardi et al.
6) It's been claimed here that there are no reliable studies that show a link between vaccines and autism. How about this one? https://publichealthpolicyjournal.c...-nine-year-old-children-enrolled-in-medicaid/
7) The VSD could be (could have been) used as a tool to look at completely vaccinated vs. completely unvaccinated children and study health outcomes. Why hasn't it been used.
8) Both sides admit that the only post-marketing surveilance system (VAERS) is unreliable. Why? Why don't we have a better system in place that captures injury?
9) We're being told we don't know what it is (or told it's something it's obviously not), and we KNOW it's not vaccines. As we can see here that couldn't be further from the truth. Why are we being told that the science is settled and to look the other way when the science is this bad? It's completely insane.
These are a few pieces to the puzzle that I can think of off the top. Maybe I'll add more as I think of them. I can expand on any one of these points if needed.
Last edited:
Does it concern you that the funding of the research that you cited above in #6 came 100% from a known anti-vaccine organization? Or that the publication in which this article appears is noted for it's non-transparent "peer-review"? Or that the publishers, owners, clinical board for the "journal" are all noted anti-vax spokepeople? Or that this publication is not indexed on PubMed?I did explain some of it. There's so much evidence out there, all you have to do is look, and have some common sense to understand what you're seeing.
One glaring problem I see is that the science body as a whole seems to go out of its way to avoid detecting autism (and other potential injuries).
1) The clinical trials themselves seem to be designed to not detect injury. For virtually all vaccines (even the older ones) their clinical trials do not use an inert placebo (they use other vaccines or adjuvants), they are extremely low powered, and they are ultra short-term. Why? Those who understand science understand what a devastating blow this is to the safety (or lack thereof) that backs them. That's why Stanley Plotkin and Kathryn Edwards suffered such a devastating take-down during their depositions.
2) The retrospective epidemiological studies focus primarily only on 1 vaccine type (MMR) and 1 ingredient (thimerosal). Those studies like to tout the fact that they are extremely high powered, but they fail on the fact that none of the children in those studies are completely unvaccinated (even though the title of some of them makes you think they are). There are over 100 studies like this, complete with meta analyses. This leaves an obvious gaping hole in the safety science. What about the other vaccines on the schedule? Other ingredients? Even the CDC tips its hand by admitting the body of science it relies upon to ensure safety is wholly inadequate:
CDC Fails to Produce to Support its Claim that Vaccines Given During the First Six Months of Life “Do Not Cause Autism” - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network
In a federal lawsuit filed by the non-profit Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has failed to produce scientific studies that back up its long-declared assertion that vaccines given to babies in the first six months of life do not cause autism.
3) The highest ever recorded aluminum levels in brains were from autistic patients.
4) As another poster alluded to, there are several experts that believe vaccines could be causing autism.
5) Mechanistic data exists that shows how aluminum adjuvant could be causing autism. See the works of Gherardi et al.
6) It's been claimed here that there are no reliable studies that show a link between vaccines and autism. How about this one? https://publichealthpolicyjournal.c...-nine-year-old-children-enrolled-in-medicaid/
7) The VSD could be (could have been) used as a tool to look at completely vaccinated vs. completely unvaccinated children and study health outcomes. Why hasn't it been used.
8) Both sides admit that the only post-marketing surveilance system (VAERS) is unreliable. Why? Why don't we have a better system in place that captures injury?
9) We're being told we don't know what it is (or told it's something it's obviously not), and we KNOW it's not vaccines. As we can see here that couldn't be further from the truth. Why are we being told that the science is settled and to look the other way when the science is this bad? It's completely insane.
These are a few pieces to the puzzle that I can think of off the top. Maybe I'll add more as I think of them. I can expand on any one of these points if needed.
You're right to be skeptical about funding, that's a good thing. Does that automatically mean that the publication is not worthy? And where's that fiery skepticism for the rest of it?
I think you're way too concerned about a source being "antivax" as if it's the devil himself. "Antivax" means nothing more than those who are skeptical about vaccines. Is it inherently wrong to be skeptical? You should be skeptical about just about any product until it's been proven, and as you can see given the above vaccines certainly are not proven. I'd encourage you to use that skepticism and look into these things yourself and you'll find that everything that I posted above is true.
Yes, it means this publication is not worthy.
Sure, being "skeptical" or "curious" about the relationship between vaccines and ASD's is not necessarily a bad thing, per se. But your arguments fall apart when your "key" studies are funded by organizations that are noted for their anti-vaccine propaganda. The arguments fall apart when the journals that see these studies as fit to print are products of anti-vaccine organizations. It falls apart when the "peer review" can not be authenticated. It falls apart when the "peer review" panel consists entirely of noted anti-vaccine spokespeople. It falls apart when the board members of said publication have financial interests in therapies and supplements that they promote as the answer to healthy outcomes in lieu of vaccines.
It's a grift. These "experts" are screaming from the mountaintops about how "big pharma" is rigging it to make more money. (And, in many cases, they are). But the truth is that these "researchers" aren't getting any of that money so they shift an unsuspecting and gullible subset of the public into believing that alternative therapies are the answer. It just so happens that these "experts" also get to line their pockets when John Q Public buys those therapies.
Would you expect the pro-vaccine folks to do studies or research on the negative aspects of vaccines?
That is like asking the folks who are against immigration to spend their time researching reasons and building arguments for why immigration is a good thing for the US.
When there are different opposing opinions on something, accusing the opposite sides argument as falling apart because "your "key" studies are funded by organizations that are noted for their anti-vaccine propaganda" is kinda silly when you consider they ARE going to use the opposite stances research.
I love when MAGA goes mask off. I thought the argument was that illegal immigration was a bad thing, but immigration in general is a net positive for modern societies and its not really disputed.
I didn't realize anyone needed to build a case FOR correct and legal immigration, and if so, WOW.