I did read the abstract and that's what it says 'vaccination is recognized as having a starter function for the onset of autism' - if you think pudmed are making it up take it up with them.
I'm aware that the study said it didn't prove a link with MMR, but they did say that there was evidence previously of that and as it was in 1997 this was before Wakefield and the controversy which means that the issue was there before he mentioned it. And at any rate, there are many studies that mention really awful side-effects and then conclude support of the product. After all, journals are paid for by drug companies and no one wants to annoy their sponsor.
See this:
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1678.long
So, some children with encephalopathy are thought to have gene mutations, and??? No one does genetic testing of children before they are vaccinated. Everyone, no matter what their health condition is expected to partake in the program no matter what and the contraindications list has got less over the years, while the number of vaccines required has increased. Yet parents would be called irresponsible if they requested screening before they considered vaccination.
Perhaps a sizable number of children has a mitochondrial dysfunction that is tipped over the edge by vaccination and that is why some children regress after MMR and other's don't? It still means vaccines are implicated. Is anyone going to check for mitochondrial dysfunction prior to vaccination? It hasn't been done so far.
I get the studies by searching for them on google and from paper copies of journals and from books and I am also on several special interest lists where I am emailed links to studies. I also get sent press releases since I'm a writer and the majority of them are medical. I don't just look on an 'anti-vaccine' website (although I WROTE one 'anti-vaccine' website as you put it, I personally prefer pro-choice). I mean, if someone had an allergic reaction to penicillin and then studied the phenominon, he wouldn't be called 'anti-penicillin'.
And at any rate, regardless of how the reporter feels on vaccines, whether that be myself or someone else, the studies and observations come from medical journals and doctors that are perfectly valid. Just saying that someone is anti-vaccine doesn't change the fact.
Comment Reply
I did read the abstract and that's what it says 'vaccination is recognized as having a starter function for the onset of autism' - if you think pudmed are making it up take it up with them.
I'm aware that the study said it didn't prove a link with MMR, but they did say that there was evidence previously of that and as it was in 1997 this was before Wakefield and the controversy which means that the issue was there before he mentioned it. And at any rate, there are many studies that mention really awful side-effects and then conclude support of the product. After all, journals are paid for by drug companies and no one wants to annoy their sponsor.
See this:
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1678.long
So, some children with encephalopathy are thought to have gene mutations, and??? No one does genetic testing of children before they are vaccinated. Everyone, no matter what their health condition is expected to partake in the program no matter what and the contraindications list has got less over the years, while the number of vaccines required has increased. Yet parents would be called irresponsible if they requested screening before they considered vaccination.
Perhaps a sizable number of children has a mitochondrial dysfunction that is tipped over the edge by vaccination and that is why some children regress after MMR and other's don't? It still means vaccines are implicated. Is anyone going to check for mitochondrial dysfunction prior to vaccination? It hasn't been done so far.
I get the studies by searching for them on google and from paper copies of journals and from books and I am also on several special interest lists where I am emailed links to studies. I also get sent press releases since I'm a writer and the majority of them are medical. I don't just look on an 'anti-vaccine' website (although I WROTE one 'anti-vaccine' website as you put it, I personally prefer pro-choice). I mean, if someone had an allergic reaction to penicillin and then studied the phenominon, he wouldn't be called 'anti-penicillin'.
And at any rate, regardless of how the reporter feels on vaccines, whether that be myself or someone else, the studies and observations come from medical journals and doctors that are perfectly valid. Just saying that someone is anti-vaccine doesn't change the fact.
September 9, 2011 - 5:49pmThis Comment
Reply