DPT Incidence of reactions
T D Laing
> "The Fonz" <forn...@home.com> wrote in message
> > Yes, but my story was intended to show that, in instances when children
> > do react to vaccines, steps can be taken to reduce the risk and still
> > get most of the benefit of the vaccine. I am a supporter of
> > vaccination, which has saved millions of lives. Parents who do not get
> > their children vaccinated due to fear of an adverse reaction, which is
> > usually temporary and usually not life-threatening, are exposing their
> > children to the risk of serious, damaging and possibly life-threatening
> > illness.
>
> And when have I ever said that I'm not a supporter of vaccinations?
You have an unusual way of showing it.
> I am a supporter of parent's choice to whithold vaccinations in situations
> where the child's medical status is at risk for adverse reactions.
Lesa, current ACIP recommendations are to withhold vaccine if a child is
at risk for, or develops, severe adverse effects. They're WRITTEN OUT
for ANYONE to read and you can download them (free!) from the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/ACIP-list.htm
Perhaps you're not as aware of this as you should be. A lot of the ACIP
downloads are in pdf format.
> I am
> also a supporter of improving vaccinations to reduce, or even eliminate, the
> risks of adverse effects.
This sounds suspiciously like an anti-vacc ploy--implying that vaccine
supporters do not support either more research, or improving current
vaccine formulation or recommendations to reduce risk, when there is a
wealth of evidence to suggest otherwise. For example, ACIP has changed
the recommendations to use acellular pertussis vaccine for all series, a
vaccine that reduces risk by 90% compared to whole-cell pertussis
vaccine.
> I am not in suport of whitholding all vaccinations from every child to
> prevent the possibility of an adverse reaction.
That's not what your previous posts have implied.
> I do not believe that vaccinations in and of themselves have caused an
> increase in ADD/ADHD, autism, ashtma or anything else. I do, however,
> believe that there has been an increase in these diseases and that there is
> a possbility that vaccines may be one of many factors which has had an
> impact on this situation. Much more research and time is needed to
> determine the acutal cause(s) however. Until this is done, vaccines should
> not automatically be withheld, but they should not automatically be
> disounted either.
Autism was recognized in 1943. Asthma started increasing in the 1970s.
At least part of the perceived increase has been in better diagnosis of
the conditions. If we really want to think about it, vaccines may have
led to an increase, simply by improving overall childhood survival. In
1900, the death rate in childhood was 30%. Look at 10 kids in your
child's class--100 years ago, 3 wouldn't even be there. So kids who
otherwise would have died from the diseases in childhood, survived and
passed on their genes--which might include increased susceptibility to
autism or asthma. But should we go back to the natural selection that
existed early this century?
> I'm not anti-vaccitation. I am skeptical of vaccines (as I am of many other
> things in the world) and would like to see them continuosly studied and
> improved upon.
And they are, and you'd know that if you kept up with the medical
literature. It's free access to Medline. There's been some very
promising work done with inhaled measles vaccine in kids for
example--prevents the risk of needles and provides both similar or
improved protection, and an easier and more palatable way to administer.
> If wanting to make vaccinations safer for everyone, rather than risking the
> few to assist the many, makes me anti-vaccination in your eyes, so be it.
Unfortunately that's yet another rallying cry of anti-vaccs: "We need
more studies!" The studies get done and they still complain because the
results are not what they expect or want. Or, they complain that the
study is worthless because it was done by "The Establishment". You may
state you're not anti-vacc, Lesa, but every indication in your posts
points otherwise. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
T.
schl...@cruzio.com
T D Laing <RTL...@Monarch.net> wrote:
I think you are missing the point. Vaccines may have subtle
adverse effects that contribute to problems like asthma and
autism. You can point to studies that show that vaccines
are not the sole cause of autism, or that certain other strong
links are not consistent with certain datasets. But there is
still a possibility of substantial harm, and nearly all the
vaccine literature ignores this fact.
There is a possibility that polio vaccines started the AIDS
epidemic. Maybe it did, maybe not. But did the research on
polio vaccines ever mention this as a possibility? Of course
not.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lesa
<schl...@cruzio.com> wrote in message news:8a4npp$t8l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
that there are people there who are capable of having a reasonable
disucssion without making assumptions or accusations, even when points of
view differ.
Michael Sierchio
> There is a possibility that polio vaccines started the AIDS
> epidemic. Maybe it did, maybe not. But did the research on
> polio vaccines ever mention this as a possibility? Of course
> not.
There's a possibility that an alien spaceship dumped it from
its bilge. Jeez, Roger, this is the same old paranoid drivel
that Jeremy Rifkin has been spooging, except he drooled that
it was smallpox vaccine. This is just self-promoting prevarication,
the alarmist's only reliable technique. Shame on you.
There's an even greater possibility, and actual scientific
evidence to support the theory, that HIV is a zoonotic disease
with origins in the central African rainforest.
schl...@cruzio.com
Michael Sierchio <ku...@dnai.com> wrote:
> > There is a possibility that polio vaccines started the AIDS
> > epidemic. Maybe it did, maybe not. But did the research on
> > polio vaccines ever mention this as a possibility? Of course
> > not.
> There's an even greater possibility, and actual scientific
> evidence to support the theory, that HIV is a zoonotic disease
> with origins in the central African rainforest.
There is a fair amount of scientific evidence to support the
polio vaccine AIDS theory. Eg, see
THE RIVER: A JOURNEY BACK TO THE SOURCE OF HIV AND AIDS.
By Edward Hooper.
Little, Brown; 1,104 pages; $34
The earliest known cases of AIDS are from exactly those areas
in the Congo that got the polio vaccine, and there are some
good reasons to believe that the polio vaccines were
contaminated.
The theory is unproved, but there is more evidence for it
than the alternative theories.
Whether or not the theory is validated, the point is that
it could have happened. Based on favorable reviews of this
book, I think there is agreement that the theory is a real
possibility.
John
news:38C692A9...@dnai.com...
> Schlafly (Roger, not Phyllis) wrote:
>
> > There is a possibility that polio vaccines started the AIDS
> > epidemic. Maybe it did, maybe not. But did the research on
> > polio vaccines ever mention this as a possibility? Of course
> > not.
>
> its bilge. Jeez, Roger, this is the same old paranoid drivel
> that Jeremy Rifkin has been spooging, except he drooled that
> it was smallpox vaccine. This is just self-promoting prevarication,
> the alarmist's only reliable technique. Shame on you.
>
> evidence to support the theory, that HIV is a zoonotic disease
> with origins in the central African rainforest.
RAOFL!!!
Thanks for that. Which monkey is it this time? Or have we moved to some
other species?
John
T D Laing
> T D Laing <RTL...@Monarch.net> wrote:
> > "Lesa" <lsch...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > I do not believe that vaccinations in and of themselves have caused an
> > > increase in ADD/ADHD, autism, ashtma or anything else. I do, however,
> > > believe that there has been an increase in these diseases and that there is
> > > a possbility that vaccines may be one of many factors which has had an
> > > impact on this situation. Much more research and time is needed to
> > > determine the acutal cause(s) however. Until this is done, vaccines should
> > > not automatically be withheld, but they should not automatically be
> > > disounted either.
> >
> > Autism was recognized in 1943. Asthma started increasing in the 1970s.
> > At least part of the perceived increase has been in better diagnosis of
> > the conditions. If we really want to think about it, vaccines may have
> > led to an increase, simply by improving overall childhood survival. In
> > 1900, the death rate in childhood was 30%. Look at 10 kids in your
> > child's class--100 years ago, 3 wouldn't even be there. So kids who
> > otherwise would have died from the diseases in childhood, survived and
> > passed on their genes--which might include increased susceptibility to
> > autism or asthma. But should we go back to the natural selection that
> > existed early this century?
>
> I think you are missing the point.
That's funny, coming from you.
> Vaccines may have subtle adverse effects that contribute to problems like asthma
> and autism.
Even these subtle adverse effects, should be able to be teased out from
background noise with the appropriate studies. Meanwhile much stronger
evidence exists regarding other causative factors for autism and asthma,
and is discounted.
> You can point to studies that show that vaccines
> are not the sole cause of autism, or that certain other strong
> links are not consistent with certain datasets. But there is
> still a possibility of substantial harm, and nearly all the
> vaccine literature ignores this fact.
Actually the vaccine literature addresses this fact, it's just that
their conclusions do not agree with your own biased opinions. The
conclusions are if indeed vaccines contribute, it's at such a low rate
it's almost indistinguishable from background. In the meantime, studies
show clearly the danger in stopping vaccination entirely in a
population. When faced with weak evidence for one effect but strong
evidence for another, common sense suggests, go with the stronger
evidence.
> There is a possibility that polio vaccines started the AIDS
> epidemic. Maybe it did, maybe not.
HIV was around since the 1920s. If HIV-contaminated polio vaccines
(from contaminated monkey cells used to grow the vaccine virus) indeed
started the AIDS epidemic, one would have expected AIDS cases to start
showing up within a few years of giving the vaccine in the US (since the
US got it first)--and the numbers would have been more evenly
distributed amongst males and females. Therefore we should have started
seeing AIDS cases in the early 1960s, not the early 1980s, and
throughout the population, not just sequestered in certain groups in the
US.
> But did the research on polio vaccines ever mention this as a possibility? Of
> course not.
Actually, Salk and other researchers were keenly aware that they were
venturing into unknown territory regarding polio vaccines, but the need
for the vaccine was seen to be far greater than any potential long-term
risk:
http://members.xoom.com/PolioStory/salk.html
Many did demand an extended 15-20 year evaluation of the Salk vaccine.
But when compared with the potential of over 2,000,000 polio cases and
400,000 paralysis outcomes over that time, Salk and others thought they
had to act sooner than later.
T.
T D Laing
> Michael Sierchio <ku...@dnai.com> wrote:
> > > There is a possibility that polio vaccines started the AIDS
> > > epidemic. Maybe it did, maybe not. But did the research on
> > > polio vaccines ever mention this as a possibility? Of course
> > > not.
>
> > There's an even greater possibility, and actual scientific
> > evidence to support the theory, that HIV is a zoonotic disease
> > with origins in the central African rainforest.
>
> There is a fair amount of scientific evidence to support the
> polio vaccine AIDS theory. Eg, see
>
> THE RIVER: A JOURNEY BACK TO THE SOURCE OF HIV AND AIDS.
> By Edward Hooper.
> Little, Brown; 1,104 pages; $34
Hooper presents a pile of correlations, assumptions and insinuations.
And Hooper makes no conclusions in the end--if he believed he were
right, wouldn't you think he'd be making definite conclusions and
standing by them?
> The earliest known cases of AIDS are from exactly those areas
> in the Congo that got the polio vaccine, and there are some
> good reasons to believe that the polio vaccines were
> contaminated.
How do you reconcile that to the finding of HIV in humans as far back as
1929--a full 25 years before polio vaccine was developed? An awful lot
of changes occurred in the Congo between 1929 and 1959, any of which
could be the culprit, besides polio vaccine.
> The theory is unproved, but there is more evidence for it
> than the alternative theories.
Is there? The US got polio vaccine first, and so if the vaccines were
indeed unknowingly contaminated, AIDS should logically have started
showing up in the general polio-vaccinated US population sometime in the
1960s.
> Whether or not the theory is validated, the point is that
> it could have happened.
And we could all have been derived from aliens from Alpha Centauri, too.
> Based on favorable reviews of this
> book, I think there is agreement that the theory is a real
> possibility.
"Favorable reviews" by scientific experts? Or "favorable reviews" by
those who believe such conspiracy theories? I'm sure Hooper is a
darling of the Art Bell circuit, but I have to wonder why Hooper went to
the popular press to present his theories, rather than through the
peer-review process. Anyone can publish anything he wants in the
popular press, Roger, without having to worry about such piddling
matters as scientific accountability or accuracy.
T.
schl...@cruzio.com
T D Laing <RTL...@Monarch.net> wrote:
> > polio vaccine AIDS theory. Eg, see
> >
> > THE RIVER: A JOURNEY BACK TO THE SOURCE OF HIV AND AIDS.
> > By Edward Hooper.
> > Little, Brown; 1,104 pages; $34
>
> Hooper presents a pile of correlations, assumptions and insinuations.
> And Hooper makes no conclusions in the end--if he believed he were
> right, wouldn't you think he'd be making definite conclusions and
> standing by them?
Your question doesn't make any sense. He presents evidence,
and suggests experiments that would test the theory. He stands
by what he says. You seem to expect him to stand by what he
doesn't say.
> How do you reconcile that to the finding of HIV in humans as far
> back as > 1929--a full 25 years before polio vaccine was developed?
Hasn't happened. There have been report of earlier cases of HIV,
but they all turned out to be bogus.
> Is there? The US got polio vaccine first, and so if the vaccines were
> indeed unknowingly contaminated, AIDS should logically have started
> showing up in the general polio-vaccinated US population sometime in
the
> 1960s.
Maybe just the African batches were contaminated.
> > Whether or not the theory is validated, the point is that
> > it could have happened.
>
> And we could all have been derived from aliens from Alpha Centauri,
too.
I see you have your head firmly planted in the sand.
schl...@cruzio.com
T D Laing <RTL...@Monarch.net> wrote:
> > are not the sole cause of autism, or that certain other strong
> > links are not consistent with certain datasets. But there is
> > still a possibility of substantial harm, and nearly all the
> > vaccine literature ignores this fact.
>
> conclusions are if indeed vaccines contribute, it's at such a low rate
> it's almost indistinguishable from background.
Care to cite such a study? If true, I'd like to see the numbers.
> > There is a possibility that polio vaccines started the AIDS
> > epidemic. Maybe it did, maybe not.
>
> HIV was around since the 1920s.
No, there is no direct evidence for any such cases.
There was a computer simulation that came to that conclusion,
plus or minus 30 years. But it is controversial.
A. Moore
>
<snip>
>
> I think you are missing the point. Vaccines may have subtle
> adverse effects that contribute to problems like asthma and
> are not the sole cause of autism, or that certain other strong
> links are not consistent with certain datasets. But there is
> still a possibility of substantial harm, and nearly all the
> vaccine literature ignores this fact.
Actually, the statisticians at CDC weigh the observed damage
done in tests of proposed vaccines pretty heavily when considering
whether or not to recommend their use. That's why we routinely
vaccinate only for a very few, very dangerous diseases.
>
> There is a possibility that polio vaccines started the AIDS
> epidemic. Maybe it did, maybe not. But did the research on
> polio vaccines ever mention this as a possibility? Of course
> not.
Recently published research into the AIDS genetic materials
variability indicates that the virus first appeared in the
1930s. That's about 20 years before the widespread use of
polio vaccines. Also, AIDs first appeared in Africa, but
polio vaccines were first used in the US, Canada and Europe.
This suggestion is clearly inflammatory and absurd. Never
repeat it if you wish to be taken seriously.
Al Moore
schl...@cruzio.com
alan....@lmco.com wrote:
> Actually, the statisticians at CDC weigh the observed damage
> done in tests of proposed vaccines pretty heavily when considering
> whether or not to recommend their use.
The key word there is "observed". If the drug companies do
not observe damage, then the CDC doesn't worry about it.
> That's why we routinely
> vaccinate only for a very few, very dangerous diseases.
LOL! You mean like chicken pox and diarrhea?
> > There is a possibility that polio vaccines started the AIDS
> > epidemic. Maybe it did, maybe not. But did the research on
> > polio vaccines ever mention this as a possibility? Of course
> > not.
>
> Recently published research into the AIDS genetic materials
> variability indicates that the virus first appeared in the
> 1930s. That's about 20 years before the widespread use of
> polio vaccines.
Yes, based on a computer model and various extrapolations.
Might be true, but I suppose you know that these models are
very controversial.
> Also, AIDs first appeared in Africa, but
> polio vaccines were first used in the US, Canada and Europe.
Yes, but only the ones used in the Congo were contaminated
with (what became) HIV, according to the theory.
> This suggestion is clearly inflammatory and absurd. Never
> repeat it if you wish to be taken seriously.
Now here is someone with a closed mind. It's not my theory.
It just happens to be one of the leading scientific theories.
THE RIVER: A JOURNEY BACK TO THE SOURCE OF HIV AND AIDS.
By Edward Hooper.
Little, Brown; 1,104 pages; $34
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316372617/o/qid=952640030/sr=8-
1/104-1193377-4969266
Michael Sierchio
> > Actually, the statisticians at CDC weigh the observed damage
> > done in tests of proposed vaccines pretty heavily when considering
> > whether or not to recommend their use.
>
> The key word there is "observed". If the drug companies do
> not observe damage, then the CDC doesn't worry about it.
Roger, again you are engaging in intentional fallacy -- drug
companies are part of the adverse reaction reporting network.
And as for the origin of HIV, the best and most recent research
(done by scientists, not journalists or math lecturers) is by
Beatrice Hahn, Pascal Ganeaux, et al. Beatrice Hahn has addressed
the issue directly, here:
======================================
I got the 1958 Brit. J. Med paper from Koprowski, and after reading it, I
have decided to close the book on "the polio hypothesis" (what's your fax
number; I can fax the article).
The paper describes the location and purpose of the Lindi chimp camp (with
a map!). It was in then Stanleyville (don't know what it is called today),
which is SQUARE in P.t.schweinfurthii country (north eastern province of
Zaire). The purpose of that camp was to test the safety of the polio
vaccines in chimps prior to use in humans (apparently standart procedure
together with testing in other animals; after all, these vaccines were only
attenuated and thus potentially pathogenic). Obviously life polio
challenge was administered, hence (as I said yesterday), the care takers
had to be vaccinated. So nothing "sinister" occured here.
More importantly, all vaccines used in the Congo were produced AT THE
Wistar Institute AND NOT in Africa according to this article, BUT ALSO
according to people I trust who said that there simply were no facilities
in Africa that would have made a local production feasible. The monkeys
used to produce the vaccines at the Wistar were macaques imported from
Asia, and after 1961, African green monkeys because of the SV40 infections
of the macaques. But the latter is irrelevant to the Congo vaccines which
were administered between 1957 and 1960. There was NEVER ANY MENTION IN
ANY OF THE PAPERS of chimp tissue in the U.S. or elsewhere as the source of
vaccine production, not even in the papers by the advocates of the
hypothesis. AND as I told you yesterday, there was one specific mention by
the editorial board of one of the journals stating that chimp tissues, in
fact, were NEVER used for polio virus production.
BUT EVEN IF YOU ASSUMED that the polio vaccine was in fact chock full of
SIVcpz (from a hypothetical P.t.t. source, lets say a chimp like "Marilyn"
that was in a U.S. primate center wild-caught from Africa and whose kidney
was ground up "by accident" and without anybody's official knowledge), the
geographic locale of the vaccinations does not fit group M virus evolution.
250,000 individuals were vaccinated in northern Zaire, Burundi and Rwanda,
NOT IN rural GABON/CAMEROON where group M has been endemic (NOT EPIDEMIC!)
apparently for many decades up till NOW. ALL of the various group M
subtypes have been found in Gabon/Cameroon/C.A.R., which means that group M
must have initially evolved (into these different subtypes) THERE, and NOT
in northern Zaire/Rwanda/Burundi where the vaccinations occured (and where
usually only one subtype predominates). We know group M is the derivative
of a P.t.troglodytes SIVcpz virus: So EITHER it evolved in west equatorial
Africa in the immediate vicinity of the cross-species transmission event OR
it came from an artificial source, i.e., the polio vaccine, BUT NOT BOTH.
The fact that group M subtypes are documentedly endemic in semi-rural
Gabon/Cameroon/C.A.R. EXCLUDES the latter possibility. It ALSO excludes
the (even more remote) possibility that the various group M subtypes are
themselves DIFFERENT polio virus based SIVcpz introductions.
Finally, there is the point of TIMING, that I discussed with you before.
Although back calculations do make assumptions (and are associated with an
error margin), in the context of the above, the finding that the last
common ancestor of group M likely existed 15 years BEFORE the polio vaccine
was administered, closes the chapter, at least in my book.
I am looking forward to being PROVEN WRONG!
Let me say though parenthetically (after having given this some thought)
that in 1992 the polio hypothesis was not as stupid as I (and MANY of my
collegues) assumed. A lot of critical facts were unknown and the location
of the early African EPIDEMIC DID - for whatever reason - coincide with the
area of vaccinations (which was probably the most compelling piece of
"evidence" at the time). However, the initial paper by Elswood and
Stricker also had an unsually hostile and accusatory tone which makes me
think that there might have been "more axes to grind" than met the eye. As
a good friend of mine said, he always felt it was ironic that Hilary got
nailed with something he DID NOT do, while he got away with many things he
DID DO.
hope this helps
beatrice
Beatrice H. Hahn, M.D.
Professor, Depts. of Medicine and Microbiology
Unv. of Alabama at Birmingham
701 S. 19th Street, LHRB 613
Birmingham, AL 35294
(205) 934-0412 phone
(205) 934-1580 fax
bh...@uab.edu
Michael Sierchio
>
> Roger, again you are engaging in intentional fallacy -- drug
> companies are part of the adverse reaction reporting network.
Sorry, I meant to write "drug companies are a miniscule
part of the adverse reaction reporting network. Mostly
physicians, clinics and individuals. They'll even take calls
from Roger.
Mark Probert
>Might be true, but I suppose you know that these models are
>very controversial.
>
def. 'very controversial'
Roger does not agree with it a whole big buch.
Mark Probert
A vote for Pat Buchanan is a vote for America's First Fuhrer!
Mark Probert
>
>There was a computer simulation that came to that conclusion,
>plus or minus 30 years. But it is controversial.
Mr. Schlafly's definition of 'controversial' is:
I do not agree with it.
amp_sp...@my-deja.com
Michael Sierchio <ku...@dnai.com> wrote:
> Michael Sierchio wrote:
> >
> > Roger, again you are engaging in intentional fallacy -- drug
> > companies are part of the adverse reaction reporting network.
>
> part of the adverse reaction reporting network. Mostly
> physicians, clinics and individuals. They'll even take calls
> from Roger.
>
In the case of the recently introduced Prevnar vaccine, a rather
comprehensive monitoring program designed to assess the large scale
safety issues has been implemented. Monthly reporting by W-A of the
ongoing data is part of this program. This initiative is being
undertaken as a condition of market approval and funded by W-A.
Additional Phase IV evaluations will begin in April related to the
immunogenicity of catch-up innoculations.
This was reported in the FDC Reports - Feb 21, 2000.
amp
T D Laing
> T D Laing <RTL...@Monarch.net> wrote:
> > > There is a fair amount of scientific evidence to support the
> > > polio vaccine AIDS theory. Eg, see
> > >
> > > THE RIVER: A JOURNEY BACK TO THE SOURCE OF HIV AND AIDS.
> > > By Edward Hooper.
> > > Little, Brown; 1,104 pages; $34
> >
> > Hooper presents a pile of correlations, assumptions and insinuations.
> > And Hooper makes no conclusions in the end--if he believed he were
> > right, wouldn't you think he'd be making definite conclusions and
> > standing by them?
>
> Your question doesn't make any sense. He presents evidence,
> and suggests experiments that would test the theory. He stands
> by what he says. You seem to expect him to stand by what he
> doesn't say.
If he truly believes his theory, I would expect him to stand by it, not
weasel out of it. It's obvious he believes his theory is correct so why
doesn't he come out and say it, take a stand? One would expect at least
that much integrity from a journalist...OTOH maybe not...
> > How do you reconcile that to the finding of HIV in humans as far
> > back as > 1929--a full 25 years before polio vaccine was developed?
>
> Hasn't happened. There have been report of earlier cases of HIV,
> but they all turned out to be bogus.
When did the first reports of definite AIDS come out? If Hooper's
theory is correct, one should have started seeing lots (i.e. thousands)
of AIDS cases in the early to mid-1960s, given that a zoonotic disease
tends to be more severe in a previously unknown host. That was
certainly the experience in the early days of the North American
epidemic.
> > Is there? The US got polio vaccine first, and so if the vaccines were
> > indeed unknowingly contaminated, AIDS should logically have started
> > showing up in the general polio-vaccinated US population sometime in the
> > 1960s.
>
> Maybe just the African batches were contaminated.
And maybe not. The uncertainty still existed with the US batches as
outlined on that site I quoted. So far the available data do not
definitely support Hooper's contention. So we should more properly
wait.
> > > Whether or not the theory is validated, the point is that
> > > it could have happened.
> >
> > And we could all have been derived from aliens from Alpha Centauri,
> too.
>
> I see you have your head firmly planted in the sand.
No deeper than yours is, Roger.
T.
T D Laing
> T D Laing <RTL...@Monarch.net> wrote:
> > > You can point to studies that show that vaccines
> > > are not the sole cause of autism, or that certain other strong
> > > links are not consistent with certain datasets. But there is
> > > still a possibility of substantial harm, and nearly all the
> > > vaccine literature ignores this fact.
> >
> > The
> > conclusions are if indeed vaccines contribute, it's at such a low rate
> > it's almost indistinguishable from background.
>
> Care to cite such a study? If true, I'd like to see the numbers.
For MMR vaccine:
Lancet 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2026-9
Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological
evidence for a
causal association.
Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington CP, Petropoulos MC, Favot-Mayaud I, Li J,
Waight PA
Department of Community Child Health, Royal Free and University College
Medical School, University College London, UK.
BACKGROUND: We undertook an epidemiological study to investigate whether
measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine may be causally associated
with autism. METHODS: Children with autism born since 1979 were
identified from special needs/disability registers and special schools
in eight North Thames health districts, UK. Information from clinical
records was linked to immunisation data held on the child health
computing system. We looked for evidence of a change in trend in
incidence or age at diagnosis associated with the introduction of MMR
vaccination to the UK in 1988. Clustering of onsets within defined
postvaccination periods was investigated by the case-series method.
FINDINGS: We identified 498 cases of autism (261 of core autism, 166 of
atypical autism, and 71 of Asperger's syndrome). In 293 cases the
diagnosis could be confirmed by the criteria of
the International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD10: 214
[82%] core autism, 52 [31%] atypical autism, 27 [38%] Asperger's
syndrome). There was a steady increase in cases by year of birth with no
sudden "step-up" or change in the trend line after the introduction of
MMR vaccination. There was no difference in age at diagnosis between the
cases vaccinated before or after 18 months of age and those never
vaccinated. There was no temporal association between onset of autism
within 1 or 2 years after vaccination with MMR (relative incidence
compared with control period 0.94 [95% CI 0.60-1.47] and 1.09
[0.79-1.52]). Developmental regression was not clustered in the months
after vaccination (relative incidence within 2 months and 4 months after
MMR vaccination 0.92 [0.38-2.21] and 1.00 [0.52-1.95]). No significant
temporal clustering for age at onset of parental concern was seen for
cases of core autism or atypical autism with the exception of a single
interval within 6 months of MMR vaccination. This appeared to be an
artifact related to the difficulty of defining precisely the onset of
symptoms in this disorder. INTERPRETATION: Our analyses do not support a
causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. If such an
association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in
this large regional sample.
Comments:
Comment in: Lancet 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):1987-8
Comment in: Lancet 1999 Sep 11;354(9182):949-50
Comment in: Lancet 1999 Sep 11;354(9182):951
PMID: 10376617, UI: 99303110
> > > There is a possibility that polio vaccines started the AIDS
> > > epidemic. Maybe it did, maybe not.
> >
> > HIV was around since the 1920s.
>
> No, there is no direct evidence for any such cases.
There's no direct evidence that polio vaccines caused the AIDS epidemic
either but that doesn't stop you. How about waiting for direct evidence
instead?
> There was a computer simulation that came to that conclusion,
> plus or minus 30 years. But it is controversial.
Because it makes the contaminated polio vaccine hypothesis less likely?
T.
schl...@cruzio.com
T D Laing <RTL...@Monarch.net> wrote:
> schl...@cruzio.com wrote:
> > T D Laing <RTL...@Monarch.net> wrote:
> > > > You can point to studies that show that vaccines
> > > > are not the sole cause of autism, or that certain other strong
> > > > links are not consistent with certain datasets. But there is
> > > > still a possibility of substantial harm, and nearly all the
> > > > vaccine literature ignores this fact.
> > >
> > > The
> > > conclusions are if indeed vaccines contribute, it's at such a low
rate
> > > it's almost indistinguishable from background.
> >
> > Care to cite such a study? If true, I'd like to see the numbers.
>
> For MMR vaccine:
>
> Lancet 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2026-9
>
> Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological
> evidence for a causal association.
> causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. If such an
> association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in
> this large regional sample.
Right, that is a study that concluded that there is no strong
link between MMR and autism in a particular dataset. But there
are other possible harms, and other vaccines, and other datasets.
> > > HIV was around since the 1920s.
> >
> > No, there is no direct evidence for any such cases.
>
> There's no direct evidence that polio vaccines caused the AIDS
epidemic
> either but that doesn't stop you. How about waiting for direct
evidence
> instead?
So why are you making the claim that HIV was around since the
1920s? Do you have any reason for thinking that?
I haven't concluded that polio vaccines caused the AIDS epidemic.
All I said was that it is a possibility, and I cited some
evidence for it. There is also some evidence otherwise.
> > There was a computer simulation that came to that conclusion,
> > plus or minus 30 years. But it is controversial.
>
> Because it makes the contaminated polio vaccine hypothesis less
likely?
Oh no, scientists were very happy to have something that makes
the polio hypothesis less likely. But the simulation is one of
those "Eve" theories, and some prominent Eve theories have
been shot down in the past. Opinions differ on whether we
know enough about genetic mutation rates to make that kind
of extrapolation.
schl...@cruzio.com
T D Laing <RTL...@Monarch.net> wrote:
> > and suggests experiments that would test the theory. He stands
> > by what he says. You seem to expect him to stand by what he
> > doesn't say.
>
> If he truly believes his theory, I would expect him to stand by it,
not
> weasel out of it. It's obvious he believes his theory is correct so
why
> doesn't he come out and say it, take a stand? One would expect at
least
> that much integrity from a journalist...OTOH maybe not...
Have you ever read a scientific paper? Sometimes the evidence
is not conclusive.
He proposed some tests that would help settle the matter. Eg,
examining the vaccine samples that a lab still has leftover
from the time in question. But the lab refused to allow the
samples to be tested. You can't blame the author for that.
schl...@cruzio.com
> I got the 1958 Brit. J. Med paper from Koprowski, and after reading
it, I
> The paper describes the location and purpose of the Lindi chimp camp
> vaccines in chimps prior to use in humans
> ANY OF THE PAPERS of chimp tissue in the U.S. or elsewhere as the
Ok, she reads one self-serving 1958 paper, and thinks she has all
the answers. There is a consensus that HIV came from chimps and
that the earliest known cases are from the Congo shortly after
polio vacccines were introduced. Her argument is that the 1958
paper mentions testing in chimp tissue but not production, so
there is no way the chimps could have contaminated the vaccines.
Not convincing to me.
Don't you think it is a little odd that there are still some
polio vaccine samples from back then, but the lab refused to
have them tested? You'd think they'd be eager to prove their
innocence.
amp_sp...@my-deja.com
schl...@cruzio.com wrote:
> In article <38CB0122...@Monarch.net>,
> T D Laing <RTL...@Monarch.net> wrote:
> > > > > are not the sole cause of autism, or that certain other strong
> > > > > links are not consistent with certain datasets. But there is
> > > > > still a possibility of substantial harm, and nearly all the
> > > > > vaccine literature ignores this fact.
> > > >
> > > > The
> > > > conclusions are if indeed vaccines contribute, it's at such a
low
> rate
> > > > it's almost indistinguishable from background.
> > >
> > > Care to cite such a study? If true, I'd like to see the numbers.
> >
> > For MMR vaccine:
> >
> > Lancet 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2026-9
> >
> > Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological
> > evidence for a causal association.
> > INTERPRETATION: Our analyses do not support a
> > causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. If such an
> > association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in
> > this large regional sample.
>
> Right, that is a study that concluded that there is no strong
> link between MMR and autism in a particular dataset. But there
> are other possible harms, and other vaccines, and other datasets.
One of the most disingenuous examples of Schlaflyism - Roger, the
Lancet work actually bothered to do confirmatory validation of the data
- yet you have the audacity to post the Hurwurtz conclusions under a
subject line that "DTP vaccine causes asthma" as if this was the end
all of all perfect studies and the Dourard work under a causal banner
as well.
Your acceptance without critical thought of those data which support
your views and the discounting of anything that possibly supports a
contrary position is as unscientific as it comes.
Have you no interest in objective science? You insist that you are
scientific, yet at no time has critical analysis of the scientific
basis for the conclusions been in your repetoire.
amp
Peter Bowditch
>Right, that is a study that concluded that there is no strong
>link between MMR and autism in a particular dataset. But there
>are other possible harms, and other vaccines, and other datasets.
Sophistry, Roger. Look it up in a dictionary. I know you have one.
There will always be other possibilities. Under your reasoning, every
study which uses a sample can be rejected because another dataset was
possible. The only inference we can draw from this is that you reject
all statements and assertions made on the basis of statistics.
........................................................
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
The duped, brainwashed, ranting bloke at
The Millenium Project - The fundaments of the 'net
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
schl...@cruzio.com
amp_sp...@my-deja.com wrote:
> [usual ad hominem attack snipped]
> Lancet work actually bothered to do confirmatory validation of the
data
> - yet you have the audacity to post the Hurwurtz conclusions under a
> subject line that "DTP vaccine causes asthma" as if this was the end
> all of all perfect studies and the Dourard work under a causal banner
> as well.
I think you are mixed up. TD Laing posted the study conclusions,
not me. The subject line is "DPT Incidence of reactions", and
that was chosen by someone else. (I no longer have the start
to the thread, so I don't know, but it wasn't me or Laing.)
willia...@my-deja.com
amp_sp...@my-deja.com
The two threads to which I referred were andsch originated - your
clone? You answer for each other routinely so I can only assume you
are one in the same. Regardless, you supported the conclusions made by
the poster (though not by the author) and the point is, the conclusion
was consistent with your beliefs whereas these conclusions are not and
hence not credible.
Scientific objectivity is an area for improvement for you.
amp
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
> > I do not believe that vaccinations in and of themselves have caused an
> > increase in ADD/ADHD, autism, ashtma or anything else. I do, however,
> > believe that there has been an increase in these diseases and that there is
> > a possbility that vaccines may be one of many factors which has had an
> > impact on this situation. Much more research and time is needed to
> > determine the acutal cause(s) however. Until this is done, vaccines should
> > not automatically be withheld, but they should not automatically be
> > disounted either.
>
> Autism was recognized in 1943. Asthma started increasing in the 1970s.
> At least part of the perceived increase has been in better diagnosis of
> the conditions. If we really want to think about it, vaccines may have
> led to an increase, simply by improving overall childhood survival. In
> 1900, the death rate in childhood was 30%. Look at 10 kids in your
> child's class--100 years ago, 3 wouldn't even be there. So kids who
> otherwise would have died from the diseases in childhood, survived and
> passed on their genes--which might include increased susceptibility to
> autism or asthma. But should we go back to the natural selection that
> existed early this century?
Note that children prone to asthma, in particular, would be at most
risk from childhood diseases. An otherwise-mild case of the flu
put ours in hospital when they were 6, for instance. An asthmatic
child with pertussis would have almost no chance of survival.
--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a tooth fairy, but whois toothfairy.com works. |
+----------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
schl...@cruzio.com
amp_sp...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I think you are mixed up. TD Laing posted the study conclusions,
> > not me. The subject line is "DPT Incidence of reactions", and
> > that was chosen by someone else. (I no longer have the start
> > to the thread, so I don't know, but it wasn't me or Laing.)
>
> The two threads to which I referred were andsch originated - your
> clone? You answer for each other routinely so I can only assume you
> are one in the same.
No, "andysch" is my brother. He lives 3,000 miles from me and I've
never discussed vaccines with him, so all I know about his views
on the subject is what I read online. If you don't like what he
said, then please address your comments to him in the thread
where he made the comments.
I realize it is confusing because I use different computers
and programs myself, so my headers are not always the same.
But I am not my brother's keeper. <g>
I have no opinion on whether there is a link between asthma
and vaccines. Some evidence suggest a link, and some does not.
I assume that science will soon answer this question.
T D Laing
> T D Laing <RTL...@Monarch.net> wrote:
> > > Your question doesn't make any sense. He presents evidence,
> > > and suggests experiments that would test the theory. He stands
> > > by what he says. You seem to expect him to stand by what he
> > > doesn't say.
> >
> > If he truly believes his theory, I would expect him to stand by it, not
> > weasel out of it. It's obvious he believes his theory is correct so why
> > doesn't he come out and say it, take a stand? One would expect at least
> > that much integrity from a journalist...OTOH maybe not...
>
> Have you ever read a scientific paper?
Many more than you, I bet. But Hooper is not a scientist.
> Sometimes the evidence is not conclusive.
Which makes it even more important not to make such idle speculations
IMHO unless one is firmly willing to stand by it. You still haven't
answered, how does Hooper reconcile his theory with all the other events
happening in Africa at the same time, and how they could impact on it.
Or how (un)likely such a massive change in the virus could occur in the
same host it occupied for millenia.
> He proposed some tests that would help settle the matter. Eg,
> examining the vaccine samples that a lab still has leftover
> from the time in question. But the lab refused to allow the
> samples to be tested. You can't blame the author for that.
So what were the reasons for the refusal?
T.
schl...@cruzio.com
T D Laing <RTL...@Monarch.net> wrote:
> > Sometimes the evidence is not conclusive.
>
> Which makes it even more important not to make such idle speculations
> IMHO unless one is firmly willing to stand by it. You still haven't
> answered, how does Hooper reconcile his theory with all the other
events
> happening in Africa at the same time, and how they could impact on
it.
> Or how (un)likely such a massive change in the virus could occur in
the
> same host it occupied for millenia.
I don't know. Hooper doesn't have all the answers, but you could
try reading his book.
> > He proposed some tests that would help settle the matter. Eg,
> > examining the vaccine samples that a lab still has leftover
> > from the time in question. But the lab refused to allow the
> > samples to be tested. You can't blame the author for that.
>
> So what were the reasons for the refusal?
It claimed that it wasn't satisfied that the test was going to
be done reliably. I understand that since Hooper's book has
come out, the lab has been shamed into permitting a test.
We should hear some results soon.
Elżbieta Matuszewska
Użytkownik <schl...@cruzio.com> w wiadomości do grup dyskusyjnych
napisał:8akcme$uvm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Elżbieta Matuszewska
Użytkownik D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> w wiadomooci do
grup dyskusyjnych napisał:38CCE5AE...@lumbercartel.com...