Just because there are cases that are undiagnosed (and I agree with you, there are), doesn't mean there would have been the same amount of undiagnosed cases back then, you can't know that, it's impossible to know that.
I know that human recall is not perfect, but neither is science. The first thing scientists should do is listen to the patients. There are parents with before and after video tapes, medical records etc showing illness afterwards but not before and they just aren't listened to.
The people I have worked with were pro-vaccine by the very nature of the fact that they got vaccines. They were welcomed into getting vaccines. I got vaccines for myself and didn't think anything of it because you trust your doctor. Then when something goes wrong afterwards, they shut the door in your face. You're either crazy, making it up or it's 'just a coincidence'. They refuse to report anything so the statistics they're working with just aren't accurate. If you look at VAERS for information they say 'oh, that isn't accurate because it may not be related to vaccines' so you can't even use government information when trying to judge safety or find out what happened to you.
Well, why would any scientist, any government create a system that relied on passive reporting? Why, since they say VAERS is no good and the vaccine program is universal and covers almost the entire population (except for maybe in some third world areas), would they not have a system that is reliable, where doctors have to report reactions, so that the information they collect is more than anecdotal? This is so important for something that is so widespread.
Why not do proper double blinded studies of totally unvaccinated vs. vaccinated (without using aluminium as a placebo or anything like that).
Because until that is done, one cannot argue accurately for or against or know really what is going on here.
I have never advised people not to vaccinate, although sometimes people ask me what to do. I tell them I cannot say, for they are the parent. If they ask me my personal opinion I will say what I did.
I am merely exploring some of the theories behind autism, hence the word 'theoretical' in the title. I don't believe that all autism is caused by vaccines (but some of the research out there has shown concern that there may be a problem with it) and I think there are other theoretical causes too, like pollution, certain medications, birth injuries, defective sperm etc etc and I intend to write about all of them. I'm not going to disclude vaccines just because it's a hot potato issue.
And I notice no one answered my questions, while expecting me to answer yours.
Comment Reply
Just because there are cases that are undiagnosed (and I agree with you, there are), doesn't mean there would have been the same amount of undiagnosed cases back then, you can't know that, it's impossible to know that.
I know that human recall is not perfect, but neither is science. The first thing scientists should do is listen to the patients. There are parents with before and after video tapes, medical records etc showing illness afterwards but not before and they just aren't listened to.
The people I have worked with were pro-vaccine by the very nature of the fact that they got vaccines. They were welcomed into getting vaccines. I got vaccines for myself and didn't think anything of it because you trust your doctor. Then when something goes wrong afterwards, they shut the door in your face. You're either crazy, making it up or it's 'just a coincidence'. They refuse to report anything so the statistics they're working with just aren't accurate. If you look at VAERS for information they say 'oh, that isn't accurate because it may not be related to vaccines' so you can't even use government information when trying to judge safety or find out what happened to you.
Well, why would any scientist, any government create a system that relied on passive reporting? Why, since they say VAERS is no good and the vaccine program is universal and covers almost the entire population (except for maybe in some third world areas), would they not have a system that is reliable, where doctors have to report reactions, so that the information they collect is more than anecdotal? This is so important for something that is so widespread.
Why not do proper double blinded studies of totally unvaccinated vs. vaccinated (without using aluminium as a placebo or anything like that).
Because until that is done, one cannot argue accurately for or against or know really what is going on here.
I have never advised people not to vaccinate, although sometimes people ask me what to do. I tell them I cannot say, for they are the parent. If they ask me my personal opinion I will say what I did.
I am merely exploring some of the theories behind autism, hence the word 'theoretical' in the title. I don't believe that all autism is caused by vaccines (but some of the research out there has shown concern that there may be a problem with it) and I think there are other theoretical causes too, like pollution, certain medications, birth injuries, defective sperm etc etc and I intend to write about all of them. I'm not going to disclude vaccines just because it's a hot potato issue.
And I notice no one answered my questions, while expecting me to answer yours.
September 12, 2011 - 3:11amThis Comment
Reply