Vaccinations don't cause autism

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by bossmansteve

You haven't posted a single study backing up your claim that "enough studies refute" an autism / aluminum adjuvant relationship.

Curious how do you prove that something exists that doesn't exist?

[bossmansteve]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

Curious how do you prove that something exists that doesn't exist?

If this research exists that studies autism vs. aluminum adjuvants, you post links to it. Simple. Otherwise, you're just talking out of your butthole.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by bossmansteve

If this research exists that studies autism vs. aluminum adjuvants, you post links to it. Simple. Otherwise, you're just talking out of your butthole.

It is a simple question. How do you prove something exists that doesn't exist?

[aulrich]

I think a concept we need to drop is 100% safety, nothing is 100% safe. And both side are guilty of this and I think the because part of this problem was the dogmatic stance of the medical community that vaccinations are 100% safe, no side effects etc has in part made this anti-vac movement as much as anything. For myself, one of my sons and a nephew have nasty reactions to immunizations, my son would pop a nasty fever generally 2 weeks after the shot . The first time he such a high fever that he went into seizure he was still in the neo-natal unit about a week after they gave him his 3 month shot (him ad his brother were born at 27 weeks).

I'll tell you seeing your ~4 lb child go into seizures is more that a bit scary. A couple more more times about 2 weeks after the shot he would get fever seizures. After that we just gave Tylenol two times a day for the two weeks and it never happened again. But 20 years ago they refused to see any correlation and tried to treat him for epilepsy oddly now they do admit to a fever side effect.

If we give up the irrational idea that any medication is 100% safe we can then understand that there are risk but the overall benefits are so obvious that you still do it.

And the medical profession should be watching this like a hawk. Since immunizations affect basically everyone and logically we should assume that it is not 100% safe and be vigilant. Why , because this is a single point of failure , one bad move could cause another generation of thalidomide baby or something similar.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by aulrich

I think a concept we need to drop is 100% safety, nothing is 100% safe. And both side are guilty of this and I think the because part of this problem was the dogmatic stance of the medical community that vaccinations are 100% safe, no side effects etc has in part made this anti-vac movement as much as anything. For myself, one of my sons and a nephew have nasty reactions to immunizations, my son would pop a nasty fever generally 2 weeks after the shot . The first time he such a high fever that he went into seizure he was still in the neo-natal unit about a week after they gave him his 3 month shot (him ad his brother were born at 27 weeks).

I'll tell you seeing your ~4 lb child go into seizures is more that a bit scary. A couple more more times about 2 weeks after the shot he would get fever seizures. After that we just gave Tylenol two times a day for the two weeks and it never happened again. But 20 years ago they refused to see any correlation and tried to treat him for epilepsy oddly now they do admit to a fever side effect.

If we give up the irrational idea that any medication is 100% safe we can then understand that there are risk but the overall benefits are so obvious that you still do it.

And the medical profession should be watching this like a hawk. Since immunizations affect basically everyone and logically we should assume that it is not 100% safe and be vigilant. Why , because this is a single point of failure , one bad move could cause another generation of thalidomide baby or something similar.

Completely agree. Willing to bet all medicines and immunizations have side effects. Can be something as simple as allergic reaction to major as in death. Some commercials are priceless when the medicine treats something minor yet lists a million side effects much worse than what is being treated.

[FCLightning]

Thought this was applicable

[sdb8440]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

Curious how do you prove that something exists that doesn't exist?

I will.

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2...article_inline

"Results:
During 5 025 754 person-years of follow-up, 6517 children were diagnosed with autism (incidence rate, 129.7 per 100 000 person-years). Comparing MMR-vaccinated with MMR-unvaccinated children yielded a fully adjusted autism hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.02). Similarly, no increased risk for autism after MMR vaccination was consistently observed in subgroups of children defined according to sibling history of autism, autism risk factors (based on a disease risk score) or other childhood vaccinations, or during specified time periods after vaccination."

Saying vaccination causes autism is like saying I got a flat tire right after I saw a squirrel run across the road, therefore squirrels are the cause of flat tires.

[AndrewM]

That is only one study. Willing to bet he wants a study on all vaccines.
Does the MMR vaccine contain aluminum adjuvant? Don't think it does.

[bossmansteve]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Thought this was applicable

Cute but not accurate. It's actually the strongly pro-vaccination people in this thread who have expressed their desire to kill me.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by sdb8440

I will.

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2...article_inline

"Results:
During 5 025 754 person-years of follow-up, 6517 children were diagnosed with autism (incidence rate, 129.7 per 100 000 person-years). Comparing MMR-vaccinated with MMR-unvaccinated children yielded a fully adjusted autism hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.02). Similarly, no increased risk for autism after MMR vaccination was consistently observed in subgroups of children defined according to sibling history of autism, autism risk factors (based on a disease risk score) or other childhood vaccinations, or during specified time periods after vaccination."

Saying vaccination causes autism is like saying I got a flat tire right after I saw a squirrel run across the road, therefore squirrels are the cause of flat tires.

Should post this part also

CONCLUSION:
The study strongly supports that MMR vaccination does not increase the risk for autism, does not trigger autism in susceptible children, and is not associated with clustering of autism cases after vaccination. It adds to previous studies through significant additional statistical power and by addressing hypotheses of susceptible subgroups and clustering of cases.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30831578

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by bossmansteve

Cute but not accurate. It's actually the strongly pro-vaccination people in this thread who have expressed their desire to kill me.

Do you mind quoting the people who said that? I don’t recall seeing that ANYWHERE.

[bossmansteve]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

It is a simple question. How do you prove something exists that doesn't exist?

Not sure I understand your question.

The way science works is by looking for evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be that there's no correlation between aluminum adjuvants and autism. If no statistically significant correlation is found in the data, we still can't conclusively say that it's because no correlation exists: there could be a correlation that wasn't detected because our statistical power was too low, confounding variables masked it, we had bad experimental design (ie. biases in the data), or even outright fraud (the Vaxxed documentary alleges that Merck modified the data to hide a correlation between MMR and autism, which would be fraud).

You can also find a correlation where one doesn't really exist, by accident or by fraud, if you have low statistical power or biased data.

Unfortunately, "science" doesn't work very well on politicized topics because results can be so easily skewed. Even in non-politicized areas, biases and incorrect results occur by accident. In politicized areas, those biases can occur intentionally. That's why science on vaccines and climate change, for example, both degenerated to the "mainstream" people (and governments) trying to force their belief while ostracizing anyone who disagrees with them. This is not how science is supposed to work, scientists are supposed to go in without bias and to operate in good faith. But yea, science has largely been corrupted and that's why it's so hard to know what to believe anymore. Too much $ on the line. In Physics, if you fake your study your rocket won't work and you'll be a failure. In health and medicine, if you fake it nobody will know for decades and you'll make billions.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by bossmansteve

Not sure I understand your question.

The way science works is by looking for evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be that there's no correlation between aluminum adjuvants and autism. If no statistically significant correlation is found in the data, we still can't conclusively say that it's because no correlation exists: there could be a correlation that wasn't detected because our statistical power was too low, confounding variables masked it, we had bad experimental design (ie. biases in the data), or even outright fraud (the Vaxxed documentary alleges that Merck modified the data to hide a correlation between MMR and autism, which would be fraud).

You can also find a correlation where one doesn't really exist, by accident or by fraud, if you have low statistical power or biased data.

Unfortunately, "science" doesn't work very well on politicized topics because results can be so easily skewed. Even in non-politicized areas, biases and incorrect results occur by accident. In politicized areas, those biases can occur intentionally. That's why science on vaccines and climate change, for example, both degenerated to the "mainstream" people (and governments) trying to force their belief while ostracizing anyone who disagrees with them. This is not how science is supposed to work, scientists are supposed to go in without bias and to operate in good faith. But yea, science has largely been corrupted and that's why it's so hard to know what to believe anymore. Too much $ on the line. In Physics, if you fake your study your rocket won't work and you'll be a failure. In health and medicine, if you fake it nobody will know for decades and you'll make billions.

But the counter argument is much easier to prove. Is there a conclusive study that any of these immunizations cause autism? One would think that would be much easier to prove. Hard to prove something exists that doesn’t exist. Not sure why that is hard for you to understand.

[bossmansteve]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

But the counter argument is much easier to prove. Is there a conclusive study that any of these immunizations cause autism? One would think that would be much easier to prove. Hard to prove something exists that doesn’t exist. Not sure why that is hard for you to understand.

They are kind of one and the same. Someone needs to study correlation between aluminum adjuvants and autism. Based on those results, we'll have an idea. Whatever their result is, but especially if they failed to find a correlation (since it's much easier to get a false negative than false positive), people will challenge the study since it's politically sensitive. More studies will need to be done to build confidence.

So, who is going to do the studies? Who is going to fund them? The vaccine manufacturers have no incentive to do more than the minimum required research as they only stand to lose. I think we will get answers soon.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by bossmansteve

They are kind of one and the same. Someone needs to study correlation between aluminum adjuvants and autism. Based on those results, we'll have an idea. Whatever their result is, but especially if they failed to find a correlation (since it's much easier to get a false negative than false positive), people will challenge the study since it's politically sensitive. More studies will need to be done to build confidence.

So, who is going to do the studies? Who is going to fund them? The vaccine manufacturers have no incentive to do more than the minimum required research as they only stand to lose. I think we will get answers soon.

What about all the ones without aluminum? Good to go on those then? Or your belief on survival of the fittest makes any immunization not viable?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by bossmansteve

Not sure I understand your question.

The way science works is by looking for evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be that there's no correlation between aluminum adjuvants and autism. If no statistically significant correlation is found in the data, we still can't conclusively say that it's because no correlation exists: there could be a correlation that wasn't detected because our statistical power was too low, confounding variables masked it, we had bad experimental design (ie. biases in the data), or even outright fraud (the Vaxxed documentary alleges that Merck modified the data to hide a correlation between MMR and autism, which would be fraud).

You can also find a correlation where one doesn't really exist, by accident or by fraud, if you have low statistical power or biased data.

Unfortunately, "science" doesn't work very well on politicized topics because results can be so easily skewed. Even in non-politicized areas, biases and incorrect results occur by accident. In politicized areas, those biases can occur intentionally. That's why science on vaccines and climate change, for example, both degenerated to the "mainstream" people (and governments) trying to force their belief while ostracizing anyone who disagrees with them. This is not how science is supposed to work, scientists are supposed to go in without bias and to operate in good faith. But yea, science has largely been corrupted and that's why it's so hard to know what to believe anymore. Too much $ on the line. In Physics, if you fake your study your rocket won't work and you'll be a failure. In health and medicine, if you fake it nobody will know for decades and you'll make billions.

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/co...s-cause-autism

Do Vaccines Cause Autism?
Boy with Measles
Boy with measles
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Boy with Measles
Autism rates in developing countries have risen remarkably in the past 20 years. For children born in 1992, according to the U.S. CDC, about 1 in 150 would be diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). For children born in 2004, about 1 in 68 children would receive an ASD diagnosis.[1] It is difficult to compare autism rates from the 1990s and later with rates from the 1940s through the 1980s: in earlier years, autism was associated primarily with very severely affected individuals and the rate of autism was estimated to be only about 1 in 10,000 people.[2] Beginning in the 1990s, our understanding of the spectrum of autism has expanded greatly, and now individuals who would most likely previously not have been thought of as having autism may be classified with one of a variety of ASDs.[3]

Whether the high rates of autism today are due to increased diagnosis and reporting, changing definitions of autism, or an actual increase in development of ASD is unknown.[4],[5] Regardless, researchers and worried parents alike have speculated about causes of autism, and the issue has been widely studied. The role of vaccines has been questioned, along with other possible risk factors for ASD, such as genetic predisposition, advanced parental age, and other environmental factors. Vaccines have perhaps received more scrutiny that any other speculated cause of ASD, and the great majority of scientists, physicians, and public health researchers have come to the conclusion that there is no association between vaccines and autism.[6] Some, however, still question whether vaccines play a role in ASD development, and so the public health and medical establishments continue to address these concerns.

The MMR Hypothesis

The story of how vaccines came to be questioned as a cause of autism dates back to the 1990s. In 1995, a group of British researchers published a cohort study in the Lancet showing that individuals who had been vaccinated with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) were more likely to have bowel disease than individuals who had not received MMR.[7] One of these researchers was gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, MD, who went on to further study a possible link between the vaccine and bowel disease by speculating that persistent infection with vaccine virus caused disruption of the intestinal tissue that in turn led to bowel disease and neuropsychiatric disease (specifically, autism). Part of this hypothesis – that vaccination was associated with autism – had been suggested previously a few researchers. For example, Fudenberg, in a small pilot study published in a non-mainstream journal, posited this relationship[8], as did Gupta in a review of possible treatments for autism.[9] This hypothesis had not been systematically investigated when Wakefield began to interrogate it.

In 1998, Wakefield, along with 12 co-authors, published a case series study in the Lancet claiming that they found evidence, in many of the 12 cases they studied, of measles virus in the digestive systems of children who had exhibited autism symptoms after MMR vaccination.[10] Though in the paper they stated that they could not demonstrate a causal relationship between MMR vaccination and autism, Wakefield suggested in a video released to coincide with the paper’s publication that a causal relationship existed between the MMR and autism: “…the risk of this particular syndrome [what Wakefield termed autistic enterocolitis] developing is related to the combined vaccine, the MMR, rather than the single vaccines.”[11] He then recommended that the combination MMR vaccine be suspended in favor of single-antigen vaccinations given separately over time. (Wakefield himself had filed for a patent for a single-antigen measles vaccine in 1997 and so would seem to have a potential financial interest in promoting this view.[12])

Reaction to the Wakefield publication was immediate. Press outlets covered the news widely and frightened parents began to delay or completely refuse vaccination for their children, both in Britain and the United States. MMR vaccination rates in Britain plummeted.[13]

Over the next twelve years, the possibility of a link between MMR and autism was studied exhaustively. No reputable, relevant study confirmed Wakefield’s findings; instead, many well-designed studies have found no link between MMR and bowel disease or MMR and autism.[6],[14]

In 2004, then-editor Dr. Richard Horton of the Lancet wrote that Wakefield should have revealed to the journal that he had been paid by attorneys seeking to file lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.[15] In television interviews, Horton claimed that Wakefield’s research was “fatally flawed.”[16] Most of the co-authors of the study retracted the interpretation in the paper[17], and in 2010, The Lancet formally retracted the paper itself.[18]

Three months after the retraction, in May 2010, Britain’s General Medical Council banned Wakefield from practicing medicine in Britain, stating that he had shown “callous disregard” for children in the course of his research. The council also cited previously uncovered information about the extent to which Wakefield’s research was funded by lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers on behalf of parents of children with autism.[19]

On January 6, 2011, the BMJ published a report by Brian Deer, a British journalist who had previously reported on flaws in Wakefield’s work. For this new report, Deer spoke with parents of children from the retracted study and found evidence that Wakefield committed research fraud by falsifying data about the children’s conditions.[20]

Specifically, Deer reported that while the paper claimed that eight of the study’s twelve children showed either gastrointestinal or autism-like symptoms days after vaccination, records instead show that at most two children experienced these symptoms in this time frame. Additionally, while the paper claimed that all twelve of the children were “previously normal” before vaccination with MMR, at least two had developmental delays that were noted in their records before the vaccination took place.

After examining the records for all twelve children, Deer noted that the statements made in the paper did not match numbers from the records in any category: the children having regressive autism; those with non-specific colitis; or those showing first symptoms within days after receiving the MMR vaccine. The Lancet paper claimed that six of the children had all three of these conditions; according to the records, not a single child actually did. (See a table entitled “Comparison of three features of the 12 children in The Lancet paper with features apparent in the NHS records, including those from the Royal Free hospital” that breaks down the comparison between the Lancet numbers and the medical records in the Deer article here.)

In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor in chief Fiona Godlee and co-authors Jane Smith and Harvey Marcovitch examine the damage to public health caused by a tiny study based on parental recall with no control group – a study that turned out to be almost entirely fraudulent, but whose impact continues to this day.[21]

Although the findings of Wakefield’s paper have long been discredited by scientists, the evidence that the data itself was falsified makes this report by the BMJ a landmark moment in the history of vaccines. Evidence is strong that the original study should not have been published not merely because it was poorly conducted, but also because it was a product of research fraud.

The Thimerosal Hypothesis

MMR is not the only vaccine or vaccine component that has been targeted for scrutiny by those who suspect vaccination might be related to autism. After the MMR controversy died down, critics turned their questions to thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines. (Thimerosal had never been used in MMR, as antimicrobial agents are not used in live vaccines.[22])

In the late 1990s lawmakers, environmentalists, and medical and public health workers became concerned about environmental exposures to mercury, particularly from consumption of fish. With heightened attention to known and potential harmful effects of such exposures, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1999 requested that drug companies report on amounts of mercury in their products. The results for mercury in vaccines, in the form of thimerosal, exceeded FDA guidelines for exposures to the kind of mercury found in fish. Mercury in fish appears in the form of methylmercury, which is not readily metabolized and excreted in the human body. It is known to cause, at certain levels of high exposure, harmful neurological effects. The mercury in thimerosal metabolizes in the body to ethylmercury, a compound that, while not widely studied at the time, was thought to be much less harmful than methylmercury.[23]

The FDA had a dilemma: there were no recommendations for exposure to levels of ethylmercury. Should they apply the methylmercury guidelines to ethylmercury? Was there cause for concern about exposure to mercury in childhood vaccines? Unable to answer these questions immediately, together with the American Academy of Pediatrics and other groups, they called for vaccine companies to reduce or eliminate the use of thimerosal in vaccines. Additionally, studies were planned to investigate whether there were harmful effects in children exposed to the amount of mercury in vaccines.

Activists and others became concerned about the safety of thimerosal at this point, and they posited that autism could be an outcome of exposure to mercury in vaccines. The Institute of Medicine undertook a comprehensive safety review of the issue. Their preliminary report, published in 2001, stated that the committee did not find enough evidence to support or reject a causal relationship between mercury in vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders.[24] However, their final report, published in 2004, came to the conclusion that the large body of evidence gathered on the question since 2001 favored rejecting the hypothesis that mercury in vaccines was associated with neurodevelopmental disorders.[6] Since then, evidence from many studies has continued to support rejecting an association between thimerosal and autism.[25], [26]

Today, thimerosal is no longer used in most childhood vaccines, though some forms of influenza vaccine available in multi-dose vials may contain the preservative.[23]

Other Hypotheses

After thimerosal was removed from most vaccines, autism rates did not drop. Rather, they continued to rise.[1] Some vaccine critics shifted their attention from a hypothesized mercury exposure/autism connection to other targets. One such target is the number of vaccines given to children. Many vaccines have been added to the childhood immunization schedule since the 1980s, and some critics have voiced concern that this increase in vaccine exposure results in autism. However, no evidence of an association between increased exposure to vaccines and autism has appeared.[27] Others have focused on the aluminum adjuvant in some vaccines as a potential cause of autism. Yet the amounts of aluminum used in vaccines are small in comparison to other exposures to aluminum, such as in breast milk and infant formula. Aluminum in vaccines has not been implicated in any infant or childhood health problems.[28]

Conclusion

Most scientific and medical experts are satisfied that no connection exists between vaccines and autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Still, critics continue to question the issue. Not only do they question the relationship between MMR and thimerosal and autism, they bring up further culprits they believe might play a role in development of autism. Researchers continue to examine these questions, but there is no evidence that these factors play a role in autism development. Most autism researchers hold that the causes of autism are many and include genetic and environmental factors, but do not involve vaccines.[4],[5]

Sources

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Autism Spectrum Disorder: Data & Statistics. Accessed 01/25/2018.
Rice, C.E., Rosanoff, M., Dawson, G., Durkin, M., Croen, L.A., Singer, A., Yeargin-Allsopp, M. Evaluating changes in the prevalence of the autism spectrum disorders (ASDs).Public Health Reviews. 2012; 34(2): 1.
Hertz-Picciotto, I., Delwiche, L. The rise in autism and the role of age at diagnosis. Epidemiology. 2009; 20(1): 84.
CDC. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Research. Accessed 01/25/2018.
National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Autism spectrum disorder fact sheet. Accessed 01/25/2018.
Immunization Safety Review Committee, Institute of Medicine. Immunization safety review: vaccines and autism. National Academies Press, 2004. Accessed 01/25/2018.
Thompson, N.P., Pounder, R.E., Wakefield, A.J., & Montgomery, S.M. Is measles vaccination a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease? The Lancet. 1995; 345(8957): 1071-1074.
Fudenberg, H.H. Dialysable lymphocyte extract (DLyE) in infantile onset autism: a pilot study. Biotherapy. 1996; 9(1-3): 143-147.
Gupta, S. Immunology and immunologic treatment of autism. Proc Natl Autism Assn Chicago.1996;455–460
Wakefield A, et al. RETRACTED:—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998; 351(9103): 637-641.
Deer, B. Royal free facilitates attack on MMR in medical school single shots videotape. No date. Accessed 01/25/2018.
Deer, B. Revealed: Wakefield’s secret first MMR patent claims “safer measles vaccine.” No date. Accessed 01/25/2018.
Offit, P.A. Autism’s False Profits. New York: Columbia University Press; 2008. See Chapters 2 and 3.
See a list of such studies in this Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Vaccine Education Center document.
Horton, R. A statement by the editors of The Lancet. The Lancet. 2004; 363(9411): 820-821.
Laurance, J. How was the MMR scare sustained for so long when the evidence showed that it was unfounded? The Independent. September 19, 2004. Accessed 01/25/2018.
Murch, S.H., Anthony, A., Casson, D.H., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A.P., ... Walker-Smith, J.A. Retraction of an interpretation. Lancet. 2004; 363(9411): 750.
The Editors of The Lancet. Comment: RETRACTION:—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet. 2010; 375(9713): 445. Accessed 01/25/2018.
Meikle, J., Boseley, S. MMR row doctor Andrew Wakefield struck off register. May 24, 2010. Accessed 01/25/2018.
Deer, B. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ. 2011; 342: c5347. Accessed 01/25/2018.
Godlee, F., Smith, J., Marcovitch, H. Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ. 2011; 342: c7452. Accessed 01/25/2018.
World Health Organization. Thimerosal in vaccines. July 2006. Accessed 01/25/2018.
Most of this narrative refers to the facts and chronology outlined in the Food and Drug Administration’s Publication Thimerosal in Vaccines.
Immunization Safety Review Committee, Institute of Medicine. (2001). Immunization safety review: measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. National Academies Press. Accessed 01/25/2018.
CDC. Science summary: CDC studies on vaccines and autism. Accessed 01/25/2018.
American Academy of Pediatrics. Vaccine safety: examine the evidence. (122KB). Updated April 2013. Accessed 01/25/2018.
DeStefano, F., Price, C.S., Weintraub, E.S. Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2013; 163(2): 561-567.
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Vaccine Education Center. Vaccines ingredients: Aluminum. Accessed 01/25/2018.
CDC. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Research. Accessed 01/25/2018.
National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Autism spectrum disorder fact sheet. Accessed 01/25/2018.
Last update 25 January 2018

[Sundancefisher]

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2...e-cohort-study

Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study FREE

Anders Hviid, DrMedSci; Jørgen Vinsløv Hansen, PhD; Morten Frisch, DrMedSci; Mads Melbye, DrMedSci
Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
FULL ARTICLE
Abstract
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Figures
Tables
Supplements
Summary for Patients
Comments
MORE
Abstract

Background:
The hypothesized link between the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism continues to cause concern and challenge vaccine uptake.

Objective:
To evaluate whether the MMR vaccine increases the risk for autism in children, subgroups of children, or time periods after vaccination.

Design:
Nationwide cohort study.

Setting:
Denmark.

Participants:
657 461 children born in Denmark from 1999 through 31 December 2010, with follow-up from 1 year of age and through 31 August 2013.

Measurements:
Danish population registries were used to link information on MMR vaccination, autism diagnoses, other childhood vaccines, sibling history of autism, and autism risk factors to children in the cohort. Survival analysis of the time to autism diagnosis with Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios of autism according to MMR vaccination status, with adjustment for age, birth year, sex, other childhood vaccines, sibling history of autism, and autism risk factors (based on a disease risk score).

Results:
During 5 025 754 person-years of follow-up, 6517 children were diagnosed with autism (incidence rate, 129.7 per 100 000 person-years). Comparing MMR-vaccinated with MMR-unvaccinated children yielded a fully adjusted autism hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.02). Similarly, no increased risk for autism after MMR vaccination was consistently observed in subgroups of children defined according to sibling history of autism, autism risk factors (based on a disease risk score) or other childhood vaccinations, or during specified time periods after vaccination.

Limitation:
No individual medical charts were reviewed.

Conclusion:
The study strongly supports that MMR vaccination does not increase the risk for autism, does not trigger autism in susceptible children, and is not associated with clustering of autism cases after vaccination. It adds to previous studies through significant additional statistical power and by addressing hypotheses of susceptible subgroups and clustering of cases.

Primary Funding Source:
Novo Nordisk Foundation and Danish Ministry of Health.

The hypothesized link between the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism continues to cause concern and challenge vaccine acceptance almost 2 decades after the controversial and later retracted Lancet paper from 1998 (1), even though observational studies have not been able to identify an increased risk for autism after MMR vaccination. In a 2014 meta-analysis, 10 observational studies on childhood vaccines were identified: 5 cohort studies and 5 case–control studies (2). Of these, 2 cohort studies and 4 case–control studies specifically addressed MMR and autism, all reporting no association. This is consistent with more recent studies of note (3, 4).
We previously addressed this issue in a nationwide cohort study of 537 303 Danish children with 738 cases of autism spectrum disorders (5). In our cohort, MMR vaccination was not associated with autistic disorder (rate ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.24]) or other autism spectrum disorders (rate ratio, 0.83 [CI, 0.65 to 1.07]).
In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association again in a more recent and nonoverlapping cohort of Danish children that has greater statistical power owing to more children, more cases, and longer follow-up. A criticism of our and other previous observational studies has been that these did not address the concern that MMR vaccination could trigger autism in specific groups of presumably susceptible children, in contrast to all children (6); the current study addresses this concern in detail. We evaluate the risk for autism after MMR vaccination in subgroups of children defined according to environmental and familial autism risk factors. Another criticism has been that MMR is associated with a regressive form of autism, leading to a clustering of cases with onset shortly after MMR vaccination (7). We evaluate the risk for autism after MMR vaccination in specific periods in detail.
Methods

Ethical approval is not needed for register-based research in Denmark. The Danish Data Protection Agency approved the study.
Cohort

We conducted a nationwide cohort study of all children born in Denmark of Danish-born mothers from 1 January 1999 through 31 December 2010. We sourced the study cohort from the Danish Civil Registration System, which assigns a unique personal identification number to all people living in Denmark and keeps track of basic demographic information for each individual (8). This unique identifier is used in all other national registries and allows for individual-level linkage of health-related information, including vaccinations and autism diagnoses.
MMR and Other Childhood Vaccinations

The Danish childhood vaccination program is voluntary and free of charge. The mainstays of the early part of the Danish program are MMR and a diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, inactivated polio, and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTaP-IPV/Hib) combination. A first dose of MMR vaccine is offered at 15 months (MMR1), with a second dose (MMR2) at 12 years of age or, since 2008, at 4 years of age. The DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccine is offered in 3 doses at 3, 5, and 12 months. Boosters are offered later in childhood. General practitioners administer all childhood vaccinations and are reimbursed when reporting these to the National Board of Health; these reports are included in the Danish National Health Service Register (9).
We obtained individual-level information on MMR1 and MMR2 vaccinations and other childhood vaccinations administered in the first year of life. There were no thimerosal-containing vaccines in the Danish program during the study period. The specific MMR vaccine used in the study period contained the following vaccine strains: Schwarz (measles, 2000 to 2007) or Ender's Edmonton (measles, 2008–2013), Jeryl Lynn (mumps), and Wistar RA 27/3 (rubella).
Autism

Information on autism spectrum disorder diagnoses in the study period was obtained from the Danish Psychiatric Central Register (10). Child psychiatrists diagnose and assign diagnostic codes for this register, which contains information from psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric wards (inpatients and outpatients in the study period). The coding classification used in the study period was the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision; we used the codes F84.0 (autistic disorder), F84.1 (atypical autism), F84.5 (Asperger syndrome), F84.8 (other pervasive developmental disorder), and F84.9 (unspecified pervasive developmental disorder). We defined our main study outcome of autism as a diagnosis of any of these autism spectrum disorders.
From the Danish National Patient Register comprising diagnoses from all somatic departments, we obtained information on several syndromes and conditions with an inherent increased risk for autism (fragile X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, Angelman syndrome, Down syndrome, DiGeorge syndrome, neurofibromatosis, Prader–Willi syndrome, and congenital rubella syndrome) (11). Children with any of these conditions were excluded from the study if the condition was diagnosed before their first birthday or censored at date of the diagnosis if it was made when the child was older than 1 year (14).
Autism Risk Factors

We included many autism risk factors for stratification and confounder adjustment, on the basis of a literature review on environmental autism risk factors and availability of data in our registers (12); these were maternal age, paternal age, smoking during pregnancy, method of delivery, preterm birth, 5-minute Apgar score, low birthweight, and head circumference. For variables with missing values, we included a missing value category in the analyses. Table 1 of the Supplement provides a complete list of variables with categorizations). These variables were obtained from the Danish Medical Birth Registry, which includes information on the parents and the newborn, pregnancy, date of birth, multiple births, gestational age, and vital status and other physical characteristics of the newborn (13).
From the Danish Civil Registration System, we obtained parental links to identify siblings (defined as common father and mother) for each cohort child. Cases of autism among siblings were identified similarly to the main study outcome.
Statistical Analysis

The main goal of our modeling strategy was to evaluate whether the MMR vaccine increases the risk for autism in children, subgroups of children, and time periods after vaccination. We defined subgroups according to 1) sibling history of autism (“genetic susceptibility”), sex, birth cohort, and prior vaccinations in the first year of life and 2) a summary index estimated from a disease risk model combining multiple environmental risk factors. The motivation for a summary index was that the combination of several factors each associated with only a moderate risk increase in autism had the potential of identifying children at higher risk through multiple risk factors, in contrast to many stratified analyses of single moderate risk factors.
We analyzed the study cohort by using survival analysis (14). Children in the cohort contributed person-time to follow-up from 1 year of age and until a first diagnosis of autism, death, emigration, unexplained disappearance from the source registers, diagnoses of autism-associated conditions or syndromes, or end of the study on 31 August 2013.
The MMR vaccination status was considered a time-varying variable; children could contribute time as both unvaccinated and vaccinated in our study. Using the cases of autism among siblings, we constructed a time-varying variable summarizing each child's sibling history of autism with the states “no siblings,” “siblings without autism,” or “siblings with at least one case of autism”; a missing value category covered the children who had unknown fathers. We used sibling history at study entry unless otherwise specified.
In a preliminary analysis based on maternal age, paternal age, smoking during pregnancy, method of delivery, preterm birth, 5-minute Apgar score, low birthweight, and head circumference, we estimated a disease risk score (15) (termed “autism risk score” throughout) for each child in the cohort. The autism risk score was derived in the complete study cohort by fitting a proportional hazards model of autism risk with attained age as underlying time-scale comprising the preselected variables as covariates. For each child, a score (in the form of a hazard ratio [HR] relative to a child with reference values for all variables included) was calculated as the exponential of the sum of the estimated regression coefficients corresponding to the characteristics of the child. The score was categorized according to deciles which were combined into 4 risk groups: very low (first to third decile), low (fourth to sixth decile), moderate (seventh to ninth decile), or high (10th decile).
Survival times were then analyzed by using Cox regression with attained age as underlying time scale, producing HRs according to vaccination status. For fully adjusted models, the baseline hazard function was stratified on birth year, sex, other childhood vaccines received, sibling history of autism and autism risk score (in deciles). We evaluated the proportional hazards assumption of the main analysis by a joint test of homogeneity allowing the effect of vaccination to vary between the age intervals 1 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, 5 to 7 years, 7 to 10 years, and more than 10 years (16).
We estimated autism HRs (aHRs) according to MMR vaccination status (yes or no), overall in the cohort and in several subanalyses: 4 analyses, each restricting risk time to young children by censoring observed survival times at 3, 5, 7, or 10 years of age; in subgroups characterized by sex, birth cohort, other childhood vaccines received, autism risk score, or autism history in siblings (joint tests for homogeneity of aHRs between levels of each factor were carried out [16]); and in specific periods after vaccination (comparing the hazard rates of autism in the first, second, third, and fourth year after vaccination and more than 4 years after vaccination, respectively, with the rate among unvaccinated children. A test for homogeneity of aHRs between intervals was conducted using a type 3 test (16).
We conducted several sensitivity analyses. To increase the validity of our autism case definition further, we conducted a main analysis with a case definition requiring at least 2 autism diagnosis registrations; an event was defined at date of second autism diagnosis. We evaluated specific autism phenotypes by conducting main analyses of autistic disorder and other autism spectrum disorder separately (with right censoring of other autism spectrum disorder when analyzing autistic disorder and vice versa). We conducted a dose-dependent fully adjusted analysis taking the second MMR dose into account by estimating the increase in HR per vaccination. Instead of adjusting for birth year, sex, other childhood vaccines received, sibling history of autism, and autism risk score by stratification of the baseline hazard, we included these as covariates. Finally, we replaced the autism risk score of the previous model with the 8 variables on which it was based.
Crude associations between variables included in the analyses and autism were estimated in proportional hazards models with attained age as underlying time-scale and autism as outcome, including only the specific variable of interest as a covariate.
Data management and statistical analyses were conducted by using SAS, version 9.4; the figures were created by using R, version 3.5.1. All Cox regressions were fitted by using the SAS PHREG procedure with the Breslow option for handling ties. Cumulative risks were calculated from the Kaplan-Meier estimates using the survfit function in R with the log-log option for confidence limits.
Role of the Funding Source

The study was supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Ministry of Health. The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. Dr. Hviid had full access to all of the data in the study and had overall responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Results

We identified 663 236 children born to Danish-born mothers from 1 January 1999 through 31 December 2010 (Figure 1). We excluded 5775 children; 1498 had no registration in the Danish Medical Birth Registry, and 4277 were unavailable for follow-up at study entry (1 year of age) because of death (n = 2673), emigration (n = 770), unexplained disappearance from the source registers (n = 203), an autism diagnosis (n = 11), or an exclusionary diagnosis (n = 620). This resulted in a study cohort of 657 461 children contributing 5 025 754 person-years of follow-up during 1 January 2000 through 31 August 2013.
FIGURE 1.
Study flow diagram.

During follow-up, 6517 children were diagnosed with autism (incidence rate, 129.7 per 100 000 person-years), and 6518 children were censored (335 had an autism-associated syndrome or condition, 628 had died, 5537 had emigrated, and 18 had disappeared from the source registers for unknown reasons). The number of children and autism cases in the study according to age and vaccination status are presented in Figure 1 of the Supplement.
The mean attained age in the study was 8.64 years (SD, 3.48). The first autism-related diagnoses among included autism cases were autistic disorder (n = 1997), atypical autism (n = 537), Asperger syndrome (n = 1098), other pervasive developmental disorder (n = 576), and unspecified pervasive developmental disorder (n = 2309). The mean age at first autism diagnosis was 7.22 years (SD, 2.86), and the mean age among autistic disorder cases was 6.17 years (SD, 2.65). Uptake of the MMR1 vaccine was 95.19%, with a median age at vaccination of 1.34 years (interquartile range, 0.24 years). There were no appreciable differences in vaccine uptake according to sex, birth cohort, autism risk score, or autism history in siblings; MMR vaccinations were more common among children previously vaccinated in early childhood (Table).
Table. Study Population Characteristics*

The variables used to construct the autism risk score are presented in Table 1 of the Supplement. The largest single risk factors for autism were an older or unknown father, an older mother, poor Apgar score, low birthweight, preterm birth, large head, assisted birth, and smoking in pregnancy (Table 1 of the Supplement). The crude hazard ratios associated with the deciles of the autism risk score ranged from 0.73 (first versus fifth decile) to 1.62 (10th versus fifth decile) (Table 2 of the Supplement). The Harrell C-statistic for the autism risk score was 0.57.
Comparing MMR-vaccinated with MMR-unvaccinated children yielded a fully adjusted aHR of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.02). The test for homogeneity of aHRs in the age intervals 1 to 3, 3 to 5, 5 to 7, 7 to 10, and more than 10 years of age yielded a P value of 0.138. Crude cumulative incidences of autism in MMR-vaccinated and MMR-unvaccinated children are presented in Figure 2. Ending follow-up at 5, 7, and 10 years of age produced similar aHRs (0.97 [CI, 0.81 to 1.15], 0.96 [CI, 0.84 to 1.09], and 0.97 [CI, 0.87 to 1.07], respectively). Ending follow-up at 3 years of age yielded a slightly lower aHR (0.73 [CI, 0.53 to 1.00]).
FIGURE 2.
Cumulative incidences of autism (unadjusted and with 95% CI bands) in 657 461 children born in Denmark between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2010, by vaccination status and age.

We compared MMR-vaccinated with MMR-unvaccinated children in subgroups characterized by sex, birth cohort, other childhood vaccines received, autism risk score, or autism history in siblings (Figure 3). Receipt of MMR vaccination reduced the risk for autism in girls (aHR, 0.79 [CI, 0.64 to 0.97]) and in the 1999–2001 birth cohort (aHR, 0.84 [CI, 0.73 to 0.96]). The MMR vaccination did not increase the risk for autism in children characterized by other early childhood vaccinations, high risk for autism, or having autistic siblings (Figure 3). When sibling history of autism was treated as a time-varying covariate, MMR vaccination was also not associated with autism among children with autistic siblings (aHR, 1.15 [CI, 0.71 to 1.87]). Cumulative incidences of autism according to age and MMR vaccination status, stratified by sex and sibling history, are presented in Figure 2 of the Supplement. Cumulative incidences of autism according to age stratified on autism risk score groups are presented in Figure 3 of the Supplement.
FIGURE 3.
Association between measles, mumps, rubella vaccination and autism in subgroups of 657 461 children born in Denmark between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2010.
Fully adjusted autism hazard ratios comparing children who received measles, mumps, rubella vaccine with those who did not. The hazard ratios are depicted on a logarithmic scale, with bars representing 95% CIs. P values are from a test of homogeneity of effect. DTaP-IPV/Hib = diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, inactivated poliovirus, and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine; NA = not applicable.

The crude effect sizes of sex, birth cohort, other early childhood vaccinations, sibling history of autism, and autism risk score are presented in Tables 2 and 3 of the Supplement. The highest risk for autism was conferred by being a boy (HR, 4.02 [CI, 3.78 to 4.28]), being born in a late birth cohort (2008-2010; HR, 1.34 [CI, 1.18 to 1.52]), having no early childhood vaccinations (HR, 1.17 [CI, 0.98 to 1.38]), and having siblings with autism at study entry (HR, 7.32 [CI, 5.29 to 10.12]). The autism risk score had a modest effect on autism risk compared with sex and sibling history of autism (highest-risk group versus moderate-risk group; HR, 1.38 [CI, 1.28 to 1.48]).
We evaluated HRs in 1-year risk periods after MMR vaccination; we identified no period after MMR vaccination with an increased aHR (Figure 3).
The analysis requiring at least 2 autism diagnosis registrations for case ascertainment resulted in similar results as the main analysis (aHR, 0.99 [CI, 0.88 to 1.11]). Using autistic disorder cases or other autism spectrum cases only resulted in aHRs of 0.96 (CI, 0.81 to 1.13) and 0.91 (CI, 0.82 to 1.02), respectively. In an analysis taking the second MMR dose into account, there was no evidence of a dose-response (increase in aHR per dose, 0.90 [CI, 0.85 to 0.95]). Adjustment for the potential confounders as covariates instead of stratification of the baseline hazard function did not affect the result (aHR, 0.93 [CI, 0.84 to 1.02]). Replacing the autism risk score with the individual covariates used to estimate it in the above model yielded an aHR of 0.94 (CI, 0.85 to 1.03).
Discussion

We found no support for the hypothesis of increased risk for autism after MMR vaccination in a nationwide unselected population of Danish children; no support for the hypothesis of MMR vaccination triggering autism in susceptible subgroups characterized by environmental and familial risk factors; and no support for a clustering of autism cases in specific time periods after MMR vaccination.
We previously addressed this issue in a similar but nonoverlapping nationwide cohort study of 537 303 Danish children (5). Reassuringly, the main results are similar between the 2 studies, which supports the internal and external validity of both. The major difference between our studies is a significant increase in statistical power and additional susceptible subgroup and clustering analyses. In a 2014 meta-analysis of MMR vaccination and autism studies, 2 cohort and 4 case–control studies were identified from Denmark (5), Poland (17), Japan (4, 18), the United Kingdom (19), and the United States (20), with no support for an association—for example, a pooled odds ratio from cohort studies of 0.84 (CI, 0.70 to 1.01) (2).
A concern about observational studies is that they do not often take into account the possibility of MMR vaccination triggering autism in susceptible subgroups of children. The large number of cases in our study allowed us to define subgroups with sufficient statistical power for useful inference. Specific definitions of susceptible subgroups have been lacking. We defined subgroups according to environmental and familial risk factors for autism. We are only aware of 1 previous study taking a similar approach: A U.S. study by Jain and colleagues (3) evaluated the association between MMR and autism according to sibling history of autism. Those researchers found no support for an association in children with a sibling history of autism, but identified lower MMR uptake rates in children with affected siblings, a potentially important public health issue with increasing autism prevalence and supported by other studies (21).
Another frequent criticism of observational studies of MMR vaccination and autism is a perceived failure to take into account the existence of specific autism phenotypes associated with vaccination, such as regressive autism. Our analysis of specific time periods after vaccination does not support a regressive phenotype triggered by vaccination with excessive clustering of cases in the subsequent period, and no other studies have been able to substantiate the existence of this phenotype (22).
A general criticism of observational vaccine effect studies is that they do not include a completely unvaccinated group of children (23). The number of children completely unvaccinated throughout childhood will be low in a country such as Denmark. We evaluated the association between MMR and autism in children with no DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccinations in the first year of life; we found no support for an association in this vaccine-naive subpopulation.
Our study has several strengths. Comprising 6517 cases, it is by far the largest single study to date and adds significantly to our knowledge on the issue, in that it allows us to conclude from one study that even minute increases in autism risk after MMR vaccination are unlikely, assuming unbiased results. We evaluated the hypothesis in an unselected setting with a nationwide cohort from an ethnically and socioeconomically homogenous population. We obtained independent and prospectively collected information on vaccination and autism from nationwide health registries with mandatory reporting reducing concern about ascertainment and recall bias. We included information on a range of environmental and familial risk factors, which allowed us to consider their potential confounding effect.
We obtained autism cases from the Danish Psychiatric Central Register, which has previously been used extensively for autism research in Denmark. This register has a high degree of validity; an earlier medical record review revealed a positive predictive value of 92.5% (5), and our study prevalence of 1.0% is similar to that found in other studies (24) and the estimated general U.S. prevalence of 1.5% (25).
A limitation of our study is that we used date of first diagnosis of autism, which is probably delayed compared with the age at onset of symptoms. This can be a source of information bias—for example, in the case where symptoms precede vaccination and diagnosis occurs after vaccination. This will result in misclassification of autism cases as vaccinated, biasing the hazard ratio toward an effect. If onset of symptoms results in avoidance of vaccination, or conversely if symptoms increase the probability of vaccination through increased health care utilization, bias in either direction is possible. During the study period, the measles strain in the vaccine changed in 2008 from Schwarz to Ender's Edmonton. However, birth cohort–specific HRs were homogeneous, suggesting that the change in composition had no effect on autism risk.
Measles outbreaks are not uncommon in Europe and in the United States, and vaccine hesitancy or avoidance has been identified as a major cause (26). In a mathematical modeling study, U.S. researchers concluded that even a 5% reduction in vaccination coverage would triple measles cases, with significant health economic costs (27). A main reason that parents avoid or are concerned about childhood vaccinations has been the perceived link to autism (28). Our study adds to previous studies through significant additional statistical power and by addressing hypotheses of susceptible subgroups and clustering of cases. We believe that our results offer reassurance and provide reliable data on which clinicians and health authorities can base decisions and public health policies.
In conclusion, our study does not support that MMR vaccination increases the risk for autism, triggers autism in susceptible children, or is associated with clustering of autism cases after vaccination.

[bossmansteve]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

What about all the ones without aluminum? Good to go on those then? Or your belief on survival of the fittest makes any immunization not viable?

Would have to look at them individually, their other ingredients. I haven't done that as we just opted out of all.

[bossmansteve]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Others have focused on the aluminum adjuvant in some vaccines as a potential cause of autism. Yet the amounts of aluminum used in vaccines are small in comparison to other exposures to aluminum, such as in breast milk and infant formula. Aluminum in vaccines has not been implicated in any infant or childhood health problems.[28]

There we go again with the claim that eating aluminum is safe, therefore injecting it into your muscle is too. Wrong. Very little aluminum is absorbed from food and is then excreted, while there's evidence aluminum from vaccines can accumulate in brain tissue.

Someone just needs to test these hypotheses. I find it disturbing that vaccines are declared safe while so untested and poorly understood.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by bossmansteve

There we go again with the claim that eating aluminum is safe, therefore injecting it into your muscle is too. Wrong. Very little aluminum is absorbed from food and is then excreted, while there's evidence aluminum from vaccines can accumulate in brain tissue.

Someone just needs to test these hypotheses. I find it disturbing that vaccines are declared safe while so untested and poorly understood.

Says you who knows nothing against all the scientists and doctors and history of it being safe.

This evidence you state...fictitious and/or not reputable.

We are going in a circle.. you make unproven statements. I provide studies and facts.

Your kids have a 1 in 500 chance of dying from measles or a 1 in 1,000,000 of a serious complication from a vaccination.

Your beliefs are seriously flawed to your children’s detriment. Good luck and hopefully have a great ice fishing season.

[bessiedog]

With all due respect bossman.

Discounting opposing scientific findings to your belief because ‘the science process is corrupt by nefarious world governments’.... is now conspiracy theory ludicrous.
Omitting non aluminum vaccines is bizarre..... no? You have no justification to do so.

It seems to me you are playing fast and loose with your kids health. And you are doing eexactly what you are accusing the ‘mainstream’ of doing.
Namely discounting-ignoring any science that does not reinforce your hunch.


Please, for your kids sake, try to see the other side.


And don’t think I’m taking side wit Sundance.... I’m very suspicious of Sundance

He seems to only like little perch....... sketchy man...

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

With all due respect bossman.

Discounting opposing scientific findings to your belief because ‘the science process is corrupt by nefarious world governments’.... is now conspiracy theory ludicrous.
Omitting non aluminum vaccines is bizarre..... no? You have no justification to do so.

It seems to me you are playing fast and loose with your kids health. And you are doing eexactly what you are accusing the ‘mainstream’ of doing.
Namely discounting-ignoring any science that does not reinforce your hunch.


Please, for your kids sake, try to see the other side.


And don’t think I’m taking side wit Sundance.... I’m very suspicious of Sundance

He seems to only like little perch....... sketchy man...

Perch...giggle giggle. Perch...giggidy...giggidy

[bossmansteve]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

We are going in a circle.. you make unproven statements. I provide studies and facts.

You keep asserting to me how safe aluminum adjuvants are, yet, despite my asking numerous times, you have not provided a single study into their safety.

[bossmansteve]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

With all due respect bossman.

Discounting opposing scientific findings to your belief because ‘the science process is corrupt by nefarious world governments’.... is now conspiracy theory ludicrous.

I was musing about the state of science. I haven't discounted any scientific findings provided by anyone here, because none have been provided.

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Omitting non aluminum vaccines is bizarre..... no? You have no justification to do so.

The hypothesis that aluminum adjuvants are correlated with increased risk of autism is one example I've used to show how poorly tested and understood vaccines are, despite being called "safe".

Yes, some vaccines do not use aluminum adjuvants and this hypothesis obviously doesn't apply to them. However, the same general poor testing does apply to them and by association I prefer to steer clear of the whole lot.

[bessiedog]

YeAaaa... imma thinkin you have.

Sundance got lil reading fer ya... didja check it out?

Would it be logical for me to automatically discount your other posted research because you posted one that was faulty and thus you have poor research scrutinization skills?

Or would I be doing you a disservice...?

[bossmansteve]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Sundance got lil reading fer ya... didja check it out?

I looked at the long lists of studies on the websites he posted. I did a Cntl+F and none of them had aluminum or adjuvant in the title, so I gather that none of them are relevant to this question. I keep asking him for a study showing that aluminum adjuvants are safe to administer to infants and he keeps failing to provide one, while continuing to re-assert that they are in fact safe because the government said so.

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Would it be logical for me to automatically discount your other posted research because you posted one that was faulty and thus you have poor research scrutinization skills?

Slow down there, you haven't shown the paper I posted to be faulty. You showed that some people criticized the journal for having poor ethics (all complaints post-dating publication of the paper). As I said, the paper is mostly a summary of other papers posted in numerous other peer-reviewed journals, so are they all untrustworthy too?

The problem with claims that a journal or paper is unethical is that those claims themselves could be unethical. Look at this wikipedia page, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(journal)

Since then, thanks to the Monsanto papers, Keith Kloor the author of the Discover piece accusing the article of pseudo-science has been shown to be closely connected to the now defunct Glyphosate selling Monsanto[9].

As I opined, it's hard to find the truth about these heavily politicized topics where big $$$ are at stake. Hence why I tread extra cautiously and don't accept any appeals to authority.

[sdb8440]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

That is only one study. Willing to bet he wants a study on all vaccines.
Does the MMR vaccine contain aluminum adjuvant? Don't think it does.

Yes it does. He will beleive what he wants, just like Greta. I re-Greta jumping in. Fools only suffer other Fools. I am out.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by bossmansteve

You keep asserting to me how safe aluminum adjuvants are, yet, despite my asking numerous times, you have not provided a single study into their safety.

Lol

Key ones don’t and you still refuse to give them to your kids.

Here is a study for you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122

2011 Nov 28;29(51):9538-43. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.09.124. Epub 2011 Oct 11.
Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination.

Mitkus RJ1, King DB, Hess MA, Forshee RA, Walderhaug MO.
Author information
1
Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, USFDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 1401 Rockville Pike, HFM-210, Rockville, MD 20852, United States. Robert.Mitkus@fda.hhs.gov
Abstract
Aluminum is a ubiquitous element that is released naturally into the environment via volcanic activity and the breakdown of rocks on the earth's surface. Exposure of the general population to aluminum occurs primarily through the consumption of food, antacids, and buffered analgesics. Exposure to aluminum in the general population can also occur through vaccination, since vaccines often contain aluminum salts (frequently aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate) as adjuvants. Because concerns have been expressed by the public that aluminum in vaccines may pose a risk to infants, we developed an up-to-date analysis of the safety of aluminum adjuvants. Keith et al. [1] previously analyzed the pharmacokinetics of aluminum for infant dietary and vaccine exposures and compared the resulting body burdens to those based on the minimal risk levels (MRLs) established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. We updated the analysis of Keith et al. [1] with a current pediatric vaccination schedule [2]; baseline aluminum levels at birth; an aluminum retention function that reflects changing glomerular filtration rates in infants; an adjustment for the kinetics of aluminum efflux at the site of injection; contemporaneous MRLs; and the most recent infant body weight data for children 0-60 months of age [3]. Using these updated parameters we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by sdb8440

Yes it does. He will beleive what he wants, just like Greta. I re-Greta jumping in. Fools only suffer other Fools. I am out.

There is no aluminum in MMR vaccine.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

YeAaaa... imma thinkin you have.

Sundance got lil reading fer ya... didja check it out?

Would it be logical for me to automatically discount your other posted research because you posted one that was faulty and thus you have poor research scrutinization skills?

Or would I be doing you a disservice...?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30139653

2018 Sep 18;36(39):5825-5831. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.08.036. Epub 2018 Aug 20.
Aluminum in vaccines: Does it create a safety problem?

Principi N1, Esposito S2.
Author information
1
Emeritus of Pediatrics, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
2
Pediatric Clinic, Department of Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy. Electronic address: susanna.esposito@unimi.it.
Abstract
For almost a century, aluminum (Al) in the form of Al oxyhydroxide (a crystalline compound), Al hydroxyphosphate (an amorphous Al phosphate hydroxide), Al phosphate, and Al potassium sulfate has been used to improve the immunogenicity of vaccines. Al is currently included in vaccines against tetanus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, human papillomavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and infections due to Streptococcus pneumoniae and Neisseria meningitidis. Official health authorities consider the inclusion of Al in most of the presently recommended vaccines to be extremely effective and sufficiently safe. However, the inclusion of Al salts in vaccines has been debated for several years because of studies that seem to indicate that chronic Al exposure through vaccine administration can interfere with cellular and metabolic processes leading to severe neurologic diseases. Children, who in their first years of life receive several vaccine doses over a reduced period of time, would be most susceptible to any risk that might be associated with vaccines or vaccine components. The main aim of this paper was to discuss the data presently available regarding Al neurotoxicity and the risk for children receiving vaccines or other pharmaceutical preparations containing Al. Analysis of the literature showed that no apparent reason exists to support the elimination of Al from vaccines for fear of neurotoxicity. The only problem that deserves attention is the suggested relationship between Al oxyhydroxide-containing vaccines and macrophagic myofaciitis or myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Currently, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn on these risks and further studies must be conducted. Until then, Al remains the best solution to improve vaccine efficacy.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Bossman

Before you jump on their other point. Remember 1 in 500 risk of your kid dying from measles. 1 in 1,000,000 having a serious complication from the vaccination. You seem like an odd s guy.