Vaccine study finds no link to autism

[GoldenBrain]

Good news to all those anti-vaccine folks out there. You can now vaccinate your children again because there is NO link to autism. A study of over a million kids is a huge sample group so once again, I'm going with the science on this one.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/meta-a...es-and-autism/

[Syn7]

Vaccinate your kids people. Memory is short, and when you are dealing with time scale that spans generations, memory is down right embarrassing.

Let's say for arguments sake that vaccines do cause harm(relax, just for arguments sake ). The number I see most is 1 in 100. Get on google and find out what the child mortality rate was before vaccines were wide spread. It's a good trade. And considering the FACT that they don't cause autism and bad batches are quite rare, it's an amazing trade.

Not vaccinating your kids is ignorant and selfish. You do harm to the community as a whole by keeping your head that far up your own ass. I understand that it is hard for a parent to deal with an autistic child, especially in the case of regressive autism and that they search for answers. But you can't allow your emotions to overpower your good sense when the damage caused by not using vaccines is potentially earth shattering. I am so tired of hearing people talk about freedom and choice in this respect. As if it's simply their risk to take. These people have absolutely no idea as to the scope of the problems that are already popping up due to this ridiculous movement. Your guru should be tossed into a deep dark hole for the damage he has caused.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ditto.
I have been in countries where there is no vaccination program.
Not places you would want to live in.

[MarathonTmatt]

Now this is rich... the top comment on the article that GoldenBrain linked by a Dr. J Smythe: (thank you dr. smythe.)

“Science denial”? Look at who came up with that term, sociologists. There’s a valid science for you… Based on the concepts of political correctness and the denial of objective truth.

Then they use the concepts of “global warming” and “evolution” – both of which have been scientifically disproven, so they try to use the term “climate change” and Darwinian evolution is just touted as “fact” even though it is nothing more than a mere theory. A theory that if questioned those who do so are merely ridiculed to help shame them back into the status quo.

Whatever happened to true critical (criterion based) thinking … ?

That’s right, that went out when subjectivism became the fad." (end quote).



Anywhooz, back to the thread at hand: I am not going to say anything for or against vaccinations. But I do have questions- at what age should children be vaccinated? How often? (is it subjective or is there a general consensus?) And Sanjuro Ronin, what counties if you don't mind were you at?
Thnx.

[GoldenBrain]

Now this is rich... the top comment on the article that GoldenBrain linked by a Dr. J Smythe: (thank you dr. smythe.)

“Science denial”? Look at who came up with that term, sociologists. There’s a valid science for you… Based on the concepts of political correctness and the denial of objective truth.

Then they use the concepts of “global warming” and “evolution” – both of which have been scientifically disproven, so they try to use the term “climate change” and Darwinian evolution is just touted as “fact” even though it is nothing more than a mere theory. A theory that if questioned those who do so are merely ridiculed to help shame them back into the status quo.

Whatever happened to true critical (criterion based) thinking … ?

That’s right, that went out when subjectivism became the fad." (end quote).



Anywhooz, back to the thread at hand: I am not going to say anything for or against vaccinations. But I do have questions- at what age should children be vaccinated? How often? (is it subjective or is there a general consensus?) And Sanjuro Ronin, what counties if you don't mind were you at?
Thnx.

I wasn't aware that either evolution or global warming has been scientifically disproven. Without going deep into the global warming debate I'll just point out one part of it. The carbon dioxide in the air today is as high by percentage than at any other time in history except for several of the major extinction events. The problem is, at present there are no super volcanos erupting or extremely large asteroids slamming into the earth causing world wide fires, which in the past is what increased the carbon dioxide. In fact, other than man, there is not a very good explanation for the increase in carbon dioxide today. If you have an alternate theory I'm all ears. One of the arguments I hear all the time is that scientists get money in grants for keeping the global warming scare alive. I'll point out another bit of info. Many scientists who have peer reviewed the climate change studies have no vested interest in the money flow from said climate change because they don't even work in the climatology field. Neil Degrass Tyson is one of those uber intelligent scientists. He's an astrophysicist which is the field where is money comes from, other than being the director of the the National Museum of Science, his books and of course the awesome show Cosmos...etc.

As far as evolution is concerned, I'll just allow Richard Dawkins to speak for me. "Evolution could so easily be disproved if even a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colors." ~ Richard Dawkins.

Now to answer your vaccine question. As you know, hopefully you know, there are many major diseases that vaccines address such as polio, measles, mumps, rubella...etc., so the following schedule is designed to deal with these in a way that the body can tolerate. That's why they don't give children all these vaccines at once. The schedule is something like this, although my wife or professor Google could probably get you an exact answer. From birth children receive vaccinations monthly for the first six months. After that every three months or so until they are twelve months old, and then yearly for the next seven to ten years. The major vaccines are complete by three to five years. The remaining years are maintenance and boosters.

I know you haven't been vaccinated at all, or regularly, based on what you've said. I hope I got that right because I really hate to make assumptions. So, you my friend are fortunate that you live in a country where regular vaccinations have all but wiped out the major diseases, or you may not be here today. If you visited one of the countries that Sanjuro is referring to then it wouldn't take very long for you to get very sick. Just look at what happened to the many tribes of North and South America when they first encountered Europeans. They, unfortunately hadn't yet EVOLVED the necessary immunity to these new diseases. Another thing is that the people who are most negatively affected by vaccines would be the worst affected if they actually got the disease. Take chicken pocks for instance. Not a big one right? Well, that's actually not true. There are many children who contract chicken pocks that end up hospitalized with brain swelling and other terrible symptoms up to and including death. It's these children, who are most affected by the disease in the first place that have bad reactions to the vaccines. Syn and others are exactly right when they say the trade off is well worth it. Instead of 40 out of 100 coming down with the nasty or dying there are now only 1 out of 100. I just made those numbers up for the sake of discussion but I think you can get my point.

[mickey]

Greetings,

I just want to take a moment to share that in NYC there have been pocketed outbreaks of the measles. The unusual thing about it is that it is occurring in poor neighborhoods, amongst people who are more likely to vaccinate their children.


mickey