And yet another vaccinated/unvaccinated comparison study, this time funded by SafeMinds

13 Aug

A study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children is expected to be published soon. That study was mentioned at a meeting of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Commitee earlier this year. With that announcement one might reasonably expect much discussion in the online autism parent community. Instead I’ve seen only one response: SafeMinds (an organization focused on the failed idea that mercury in vaccines caused the rise in autism diagnoses) put an article on their website noting that they were “worried” by this study (a response I already discussed). Perhaps I missed it, but I did not see a statement in the SafeMinds article that they have their own vaccinated/unvaccinated study ongoing. Not only a vaccinated/unvaccinated study, but one which parallels the one about to be published. Both the about to be published study and the SafeMinds funded study focus on baby siblings of autistic kids. Parents of autistic children are more likely to delay or forgo vaccines than are other parents. Also, the risk of autism is high in the baby sibling population, giving a ” ‘window of opportunity’ to observe any potential interactions between vaccinations and the diagnosis of ASD”, as SafeMinds put it. But read for yourself. Under “Recently Funded SafeMinds Investigations“, SafeMinds lists:

The Early Identification of Infants and Toddlers at Risk for Autism Spectrum Disorders, Developmental Delay and Developmental Language Disorders
CAROLE SAMANGO SPROUSE, ED.D., THE FOCUS FOUNDATION
The siblings of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder have a 90% incidence of speech and language delay and an 11% increased risk for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). This proposal hypothesizes that the siblings who are not vaccinated will have a smaller incidence of ASD than the 11% already projected, as well as other developmental differences. The incidence of ASD in siblings will be lower in the unvaccinated population than vaccinated. The siblings of children with ASD provide a fertile ground to follow the neurodevelopmental progression of an at-risk population, and the effects of vaccinations on development. The siblings also provide a “window of opportunity” to observe any potential interactions between vaccinations and the diagnosis of ASD. It is very common for parents of children ASD to avoid vaccinating siblings in the first five years of life. This provides an interesting opportunity to observe and see possible correlations between vaccinations and ASD.

First, let me note the wording of that webpage: “Recently Funded SafeMinds Investigations”. Not Investigations Recently Funded by SafeMinds. Their choice of word order is poor. It implies that these are “SafeMinds Investigations” and not really independent. I will note that SafeMinds were more careful at the top of that page in how they framed the projects they have funded, but still, I would change the “SafeMinds Investigations” if I were they.

When I searched for information on the principle investigator for the SafeMinds study, I found a 2007 announcement for the study: Vaccinated/Unvaccinated Autism Baby Sibling Study, Carole Samango Sprouse, Ed.D., The Focus Foundation. Research does take time, something I wish SafeMinds made more clear in their public statements. It’s been seven years, though, and I haven’t seen this vaccinated/unvaccinated study published. The only payment I’ve seen in the SafeMinds tax forms to support this project was relatively small, $24,250 in 2006, so perhaps it wasn’t well enough supported to complete. Perhaps I missed the other support.

The principle investigator on the SafeMinds funded study has published a different study on autism and vaccines: Survey of Vaccine Beliefs and Practices Among Families Affected by Autism Spectrum Disorders, and remains active in disability research.

When we consider the question of studies comparing vaccinated/unvaccinated populations, there are at least 4 in various stages. Four. That, plus the number of statements one can find online calling for such a study and we see a very strong interest in this type of study.

Here are those four studies:

1) The self-named “National Vaccine Information Center” is funding a project at George Mason University. I believe this is being performed by a member of the NVIC.

2) Generation Rescue (and others) are funding a project at Jackson State University.

3) The SafeMinds funded study noted above.

and

4) the study about to be published.

Again, with this high level of interest, where was the response to the announcement that a vaccinated/unvaccinated study is nearing publication?


ByMatt Carey

Advertisements

54 Responses to “And yet another vaccinated/unvaccinated comparison study, this time funded by SafeMinds”

  1. Dave August 14, 2014 at 11:10 #

    Modern research techniques rely heavily on statistical analysis. As a result, it is pretty safe to say that if vaccines caused autism there would be solid statistical proof by now. In fact, if we could derive the cause from any single set of numbers, we would know it by now.

    Research should focus on “contributing factors”, since there is not likely to ever be a single “cause”. Also, since ASD has a known genetic component, we should be looking at the parents of ASD kids, rather than the kids themselves.

    If we are trying to find out if pesticides contribute to autism, we should be looking at the exposure level of the parents, not the kids.

    Similarly, if we are trying to find out if vaccines contribute to autism, we should be looking at the vaccination frequency of the parents, not the kids.

    I still believe there is a small chance that a certain vaccination may have exaggerated some of my son’s symptoms. Evaluating that kind of minor discrepancy with statistics is like evaluating minor changes in the color of his eyes.

    Could early exposure to certain chemicals alter the shade of his eyes? Even with very good statistics, it would be impossible to prove. And also pointless.

    • lilady August 14, 2014 at 20:17 #

      “Similarly, if we are trying to find out if vaccines contribute to autism, we should be looking at the vaccination frequency of the parents, not the kids.”

      I disagree. That seems to be a “new” issue raised by certain anti-vaccine groups, which arose when multiple studies totally disproved that the vaccines, the ingredients in vaccines, the timing and spacing of vaccines that infants and children received…were not associated with autism…or any other developmental disorder…or autoimmune diseases…or allergies, etc., etc.

      “I still believe there is a small chance that a certain vaccination may have exaggerated some of my son’s symptoms. Evaluating that kind of minor discrepancy with statistics is like evaluating minor changes in the color of his eyes.

      Could early exposure to certain chemicals alter the shade of his eyes? Even with very good statistics, it would be impossible to prove. And also pointless.”

      That eye color change (and its supposed link to mercury “toxicity”) was posted by Teresa Conrick four years ago on Age of Autism. It’s pure comedy gold and so are the posted comments:

      http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/12/look-them-in-the-eyes-is-color-change-a-clue-to-mercury-in-autism.html

      There’s nothing too mysterious about eye color and the changes in eye color, if you know a wee bit about genetics and the structure of eyes:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

      • lowbudgetdave August 15, 2014 at 05:25 #

        When I was talking about eye color, I was actually kind of making a joke. I am perfectly aware that eye color is genetics. I didn’t realize I was bumping up against AofA quackery by talking about eye color, but it wasn’t my intention.

        The problem, I suppose, is that quackery is cheap, and research is expensive. Every time I toss out an offhand comment to qualify my personal opinion, real scientists grow fearful that I am quoting Jenny McCarthy. Rest easy: I couldn’t care less what “Age of Autism” thinks about eye color. Even if I had read it in the past, I would have gone back to ignoring it already.

        Theoretically, of course, there are a small number of people who have eye color that changes (a bit) over time based on certain hormones. Even before the exact gene was nailed down, this “color shift” was known to be genetically predetermined. Synthetic hormones could trigger the change, of course, but heavy metals could not. I was using that as an analogy to point to the genetic component of autism.

        On the subject of testing parents, I am never sure why this is such a forbidden topic. In epidemiological testing, it is pretty common to survey the target population, and then survey the parents.

        It is kind of a false argument to say that I only brought up the question about parents because my primary argument has been defeated. It implies that you know my motives, and it implies that all secondary (or “new”) arguments are obviously false. Neither is true.

        Numerous studies have proven that vaccines do not cause autism in a single generation. Once people start looking at the behaviors of parents, though, the opportunity to link those behaviors to autism rises dramatically. Links don’t prove causation, of course, but they sometimes warrant additional study.

        Statistically, of course, the average person is exposed to many pounds of pesticides, cleaning supplies, cigarette smoke, and lord knows what else. People still lay out in the sun to get tan, for heaven’s sakes. The fact that they had a few milliliters of vaccines ten years before becoming a parent seems like a lot less likely to cause DNA damage than spending spring break in Miami Beach the following year.

        The link could also be inverse. People who skipped the flu vaccine for 20 years might have caught the flu 20 times.

        It has long been known that older parents are more likely to have autistic children. The theory is that older parents accumulate DNA damage, which they pass on to their children. Until proven otherwise, that means that every trigger of DNA damage is a suspect.

        The biggest dangers are our old friends alcohol, tobacco, and the bizarre diet we eat. But let’s not let pesticides off the hook just because we lay out in the sun.

  2. Lauren Yaffe August 15, 2014 at 02:58 #

    I am conducting research on learning tools for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder with my student group at Northwestern University. If you are a parent of a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, please help the research by taking the survey in the link below. If you complete the survey, you will be entered into a raffle for a chance to win a $30 Target gift card! The survey will only take 5-7 minutes!

    http://kellogg.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_3gi3ErY4KfSG65T&mbr=ly&blog2=1

  3. LIz Ditz August 19, 2014 at 00:51 #

    I chased down the George Mason University study.

    According to the George Mason University website, as of the reporting period ending November 15, 2011, Vicky Debold had received a total of $105,000 in grants, including $70,000 from the National Vaccine Information Center for a study, “Child Health Outcomes, Vaccination Patterns and Familial Genetic Risk”. The study is GMU # 112173 and fund # 222060 .

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=osp.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/FY12.Q2.NewAwardsIncrements.xls

    No further information is available on the study.

  4. niceday March 6, 2015 at 04:52 #

    All these BS studies dont change the fact that any autistic childs mother will tell you the problem started right after the MMR vaccine. Any thing with potency has side effects. To deny that so many moms KNOW this by stating non-sense studies is more suspicious than agreeing to investigate further. 1 in 25 now at risk. The failure of medicine is in its prophets. (pun intended)

    • Chris March 6, 2015 at 07:41 #

      Please provide the reports on the MMR causing issued during the 1970s and 1980s. Make sure they are all dated before 1998, so we know they are not tainted by Dr. Wakefield’s now withdrawn fraudulent paper.

      Thank you.

    • Chris March 6, 2015 at 07:42 #

      Missing word: ” MMR causing autism issued “

    • novalox March 6, 2015 at 12:02 #

      @niceday

      Have you ever heard of the phrase “Correlation does not equal causation?”

      Apparently, you haven’t, so it seems you aren’t having such a nice day, lying to push your “assertions”

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 6, 2015 at 13:32 #

      For many years now there have been researchers watching kids grow up, especially younger siblings, with the specific goal of recording how autistic kids develop. There hasn’t been a report of “kid was non autistic, got MMR and next day was autistic”.

      “Any thing with potency has side effects.”

      Given. But that doesn’t say the side effect is autism.

      Being a parent does not give one the ability to understand the biology of one’s child. One might suspect something, but when over a decade of research has been focused on answering that question, and the answer keeps coming back no, it’s time to move on.

      The failure of autism is in it’s false prophets. They sell guilt. They make parents even more vulnerable than they already are. And they do this with a lie.

  5. Roger Kulp March 6, 2015 at 17:32 #

    I don’t think parents who worship at The Shrine of Saint Andrew are ever going to move on.Look at how Wakefield is continually invited back to speak at conferences like Autism One year after year,and the rock star treatment he gets at such places.Amazing for a doctor who has had his license revoked,and his big study retracted.Even if you do believe there has been a real increase in autism since the 1990s,not just better diagnosis,it is time for everybody to look beyond vaccines and move on.I doubt this will ever happen.I think we may see parents not yet born blaming vaccines for their kids autism 50,100 years from now.

    One factor that is not taken into consideration at blogs like LBRB or Respectful Insolence,is the amount of time and work it takes to get from an autism diagnosis to a diagnosis of mitochondrial disease,or an unusual autoimmune disease like PANDAS.Take it from someone who has done it.Most doctors write off any medical problems as “just a part of autism”,and that is it.Often no further tests are done.It is the same for most people with autism,be it adults or children.Underlying autoimmune or metabolic causes for conditions like seizures are never looked into,even if the patient responds poorly to standard antieplieptics.Or if there are unusual (for autism) medical issues besides seizures and GI disease.

    As someone who has gone from “just” autism to autism and mitochondrial disease,I can tell you it takes a lot of time,a lot of work,and a decent sized outlay of cash at the start to get to where you or your child have collected enough tests for the specialists in diseases like mitochondrial disease or PANDAS to be interested in you or your child.One you get to one of the top research institutions,you usually do not have to pay,but getting there is the hard part.

    Getting a doctor to do any real tests may be out of your insurance network,or in another state.Travel expenses,lab work,etc. are mostly out of pocket.Not to mention time off from work for parents,or school for children.I could do it as an adult,who had always been on Social Security for my autism since I was a teenager,and I had family to help me financially,but most families do not.This could very likely be just one reason,of many,parents with kids that have both autism and complex medical issues cling to the false hope of “vaccine damage” as an explanation for their child’s problems.It is all they have,even if it’s a pack of lies.The medical system.by and large,has completely failed people with autism.

    What is even more shameful is there are many,like Wakefield,who profiteer off these desperate families worse than any of those in “Big Pharma” they rail against.

    • krishnamurphy54 September 18, 2015 at 20:01 #

      FYI, the Wakefield study has been completely replicated, multiple times – “science”, right? So Andy is now vindicated, and his attackers have been shown to be liars from beginning to end. His co-author, John Walker-Smith, went to the trouble of forcing a court decision reinstating him with the GMC (Andy has moved to the USA, so why bother?)

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 05:55 #

        Really? (I ask even though I know the answer–“no”.) Give a link to what you consider a replication, please.

        Here’s his study where he claims a new syndrome. And says that it’s a “syndrome”. He later called this “autistic enterocolitis”. Please, show us the replication (especially from someone who is not a collaborator with or person funded by Wakefield)

        http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.htm

        Of course, the real paper one needs to show replication of is his paper claiming that there is persistent measles virus in the gut tissues of the kids he used for his uncontrolled experiment.

        http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)73676-X/abstract

        Then you can discuss how this paper plays into your discussion.
        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003140

      • krishnamurphy54 September 19, 2015 at 08:00 #

        I’m pretty sure that Wakefield never claimed he did a controlled study; he was reporting a “case series,” I believe. Not that I expect that to mean anything to you, Sullivan (Matt Carey). It most DEFINITELY was not an “experiment!”

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 08:38 #

        So, the links to the studies that replicated Wakefield?

      • krishnamurphy54 September 19, 2015 at 08:12 #

        Since the title of this post brings up the issue of funding as a primary consideration of the impartiality of the research outcome, maybe we should not regard that PlosOne link as anything other than propaganda.

        It was paid for by the CDC, who are notorious for not only convincing researchers to skew the methodology to produce favorable outcomes (equivalent to suborning perjury in the scientific world), but to LITERALLY LIE about those results, in a criminal fashion that injured and killed thousands of little kids (admission of guilt by Dr. Thomspon, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9nHuXLSSw)

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 08:29 #

        Go ahead and read the many, many articles I’ve written here about William Thompson. You have been duped. Seriously, there is no admission of guilt other than an admission that he lost a scientific argument.

        And as to the plos one article, one of the many sites used was the same one Wakefield used for his studies. So if you are saying that guy is bought, then Wakefield had a corrupt team.

        Gotta love people who throw around “notorious” like you just did. Demonstrates that they get their information from highly credulous sources.

      • krishnamurphy54 September 19, 2015 at 09:52 #

        NO!!! It was quite literally a CONFESSION of wrongdoing, a knowing manipulation of the data after the trial was complete (completely contravening the study design) to “cook the books” and cover up a MASSIVELY significant correlation between MMR shots in black boys under 3 y.o. – a 340% higher rate! But don’t let the FACTS sway your OPINION!

        No equivocating, he makes it perfectly clear in the video linked below when he says “Oh my God, I can’t believe we did WHAT WE DID!” Thompson KNEW he was breaking all the rules, he KNEW they were condemning THOUSANDS of little kids to suffer and/or die, and he was ashamed and horrified by his own, and his co-workers, actions. So much so that he secretly copied all the records and kept the paper copies in his own office so it couldn’t be hushed up when he eventually got the courage to confess (too late for the first ten years of kids, though.) QED

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 19:41 #

        Quote what you consider a “CONFESSION”.

        Because, you see, I have looked into this MUCH closer than you. I know you are wrong.

        “Oh my God, I can’t believe we did WHAT WE DID!” ”

        What is that quote in context? Do you know? Did you bother to find out?

        He was talking about not doing more vaccine autism research. He thought–incorrectly–that we should have spent more money and time on that. It wasn’t a confession of doing wrong. You can read it in the book of transcripts. Go ahead.

        He didn’t say he manipulated data. Here is his public statement.
        http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

        “Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information”

        Here’s the exchange where Brian Hooker tried to get Thompson to admit wrongdoing.

        Dr. Hooker: And then you basically deviated from that particular plan in order to reduce the statistical significance that you saw in the African American Cohort.

        Dr. Thompson: Well, we, um, we didn’t report findings that, um…All I will say is we didn’t report those findings. I can tell you what the other coauthors will say.

        See how Thompson doesn’t do it? Did Brian Hooker and Andrew Wakefield tell you that? Nope. They made up a story and you wanted to believe so you did. They KNOW they can fool you. They count on it. You are just one of the masses to them. Another follower who doesn’t check on the facts. They can tell you pretty much anything and you will believe and repeat it. Because, why should you be responsible? You are creating fear and doubt about vaccines, why should you actually do your homework?

        Wakefield and Hooker KNOW people like you will just repeat what they say. And you do.

      • krishnamurphy54 September 19, 2015 at 21:28 #

        “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”

        What that means, in plain English, is that they looked at the result they got, didn’t LIKE it, and then POST HOC changed the selection criteria to exclude inconvenient facts. If he doesn’t actually feel the remorse over the thousand of lives destroyed as I had understood him to, so much the worse for him. Moral turpitude at a bare minimum, but now he’s got immunity so he’ll never spend a day in jail. And he got a bonus!

        This leaves aside the decision taken by the group to cover up their crimes, the destruction of evidence, and his secret preservation of it. I say, their morals are pretty suspect, somewhere between the prostitute and the hitman. Disgusting, and evidently not all that uncommonly so in the CDC.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 20, 2015 at 00:50 #

        “What that means, in plain English, is that they looked at the result they got, didn’t LIKE it, and then POST HOC changed the selection criteria to exclude inconvenient facts.”

        Nope. Doesn’t mean that at all. Where in that sentence does it say that they changed the selection criteria? (Answer–nowhere)

        You can’t even interpret a single sentence correctly. More precisely, you just accepted the story given by Wakefield and Hooker.

        Once again–here’s the exchange where Brian Hooker tried to get Thompson to say that.

        Dr. Hooker: And then you basically deviated from that particular plan in order to reduce the statistical significance that you saw in the African American Cohort.

        Dr. Thompson: Well, we, um, we didn’t report findings that, um…All I will say is we didn’t report those findings. I can tell you what the other coauthors will say.

        Hooker couldn’t get Thompson to say what he wanted to hear.

        So, when were the selection criteria set? And when was the first data showing anything broken down by race? Do you even know? Do you even care?

        Because, Brian Hooker lied. Pretty simple. The criteria were set down in September 2001. Including the birth certificate sub analysis. The first race based analyses were presented in November of that year. This by the information put out by Brian Hooker himself.

        Have you read the protocol that was supposedly changed? Have you? Don’t you find it interesting that Hooker and Wakefield didn’t release it? But I did.

      • krishnamurphy54 September 19, 2015 at 10:50 #

        My objection is not to the site, it’s to the funding source. Straw-man arguments need not apply for consideration! (See the link for an explanation of the logical fallacies often employed by Pharma trolls.) http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/10-commandments-rational-debate-logical-fallacies-explained/

        If the CDC pays for it, then you can BET that they will make sure that they get something they like for their money. And you better believe that they have a LOT of money at stake – if vaccines were truly evaluated and found unacceptable, their budget (and thus the Big Pharma post-CDC meal ticket the executives are counting on) would go to almost nothing.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 20:22 #

        You don’t understand or you willfully misuse the terms you are using. I pointed out that one of the authors that on the paper you claimed was bad was also a collaborator on the key Wakefield paper. Just because you didn’t know that you were making a mistake doesn’t mean I’m building a straw man argument.

        What you just did was dodge a direct point. You claimed that one group of researchers was corrupt. One of them being a key collaborator of Andrew Wakefield. So, how do you defend Wakefield’s results when he was using someone who is, in your view (only), corrupt?

        Thing is, you don’t know the literature. You are just copying and pasting arguments from elsewhere. Such an approach works when people don’t know the facts. Having spent 10 years following the actions of Andrew Wakefield, I do know the facts.

        “If the CDC pays for it, then you can BET that they will make sure that they get something they like for their money”

        Really? Because you say so?

      • krishnamurphy54 September 19, 2015 at 21:53 #

        I make no claim to follow all the literature. That is not my intention, whatsoever, I just attempted to give you what you seemed to need. Sorry it didn’t meet your need.

        I think perhaps we’ll never come to a meeting of the minds, because you seem committed to supporting a process of tinkering with the immature immune system that I will NEVER support. Too many (even one is too many!) lives have been destroyed by the toxins and the reactions of the body to them, and the damage to the innate system (very real damage that is compensated, very minimally, by over $2 Billion of vaccinee tax money.)

        That innate system constitutes 98% of the possible defenses against pathogens, versus the 2% that could be ‘trained’ by exposure to a vaccine, to possibly help out a LITTLE during only the earliest part of the overall response. That’s a damn poor reward for risking a lifetime of debilitation or even death, let alone the certainty of more subtle damage.

        And by the way, measles went way down at the same time as scarlet fever, long before the measles vaccine was introduced, and which never had a vaccine created for it. Smallpox was not eradicated by vaccination, either – but you’ll never hear that, I don’t think, and I have more important things to do with my life than hassle with you – it’s not an easy thing to understand, and since that is not your intent anyway, it’s pointless.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 20, 2015 at 00:45 #

        So, you just make claims without even bothering to check facts.

        You just wander the internet saying that Wakefield has been replicated, but you don’t follow the literature?

        No wonder you came to the wrong conclusion.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 20, 2015 at 01:03 #

        We can come to a “meeting of the minds” if you back up your claims with facts. But you don’t. You don’t even claim to have any.

        Since you don’t follow the literature, how can you say that vaccinations are “tinkering” with an “immature” immune system?

        By the way, measles went away because of vaccines. But it didn’t go all the way away. Hence the outbreaks this past year. Or are you going to say that Disneyland lacks adequate sanitation or some such rubbish?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 20, 2015 at 01:03 #

        “Smallpox was not eradicated by vaccination, either – but you’ll never hear that,”

        I hear it all the time. But I also can understand nonsense like that when I read/hear it.

      • krishnamurphy54 September 21, 2015 at 11:59 #

        Well, you say you “hear it” all the time, but I say, you’re not listening. The bottom line is this – anyone who really wants to know the truth can investigate, look in depth at the underlying science beyond the Big Pharma lie machine (a rare skill today), and then will HAVE TO conclude that the whole thing is nothing but a nightmare. You, Matt, have proven yourself to be incapable of making the necessary transition, a logical leap outside the herd mentality, either because you’re one of the liars whose livelihood depends on NOT understanding, or simply too long immersed in the boiling water to be able to jump out before it cooks your insides.

        Anybody else who is drilling down this far (not you, Matt), who thinks that smallpox was eradicated by vaccinating less than 10% of the world population (which their own PR says is impossible) – and in the process killing and maiming enormous numbers of people – have a look at this graph showing the effect of vaccination historically on smallpox death rates, showing that the vaccine is not only useless, but counter-productive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwylelj8GMc4LVMzRU1yQ0F6b1U/view?usp=sharing

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 21, 2015 at 18:15 #

        “anyone who really wants to know the truth can investigate,”

        Hear this–I have. More than you, as I actually check the facts.

        Please keep saying that vaccines don’t work. It is the clearest way for you to telegraph to everyone what you don’t know what you are talking about.

      • krishnamurphy54 September 21, 2015 at 20:49 #

        No, I’m afraid you haven’t. This is the last time I waste a life breath on trying to deal with you, but here goes.

        Did you know that Cuba uses only 3 vaccines from Big Pharma (plus eight of their own) and has a rate or only 1 in SIXTY THOUSAND for autism? It’s not because they don’t know what people who can’t function at a normal level are like, either – Cuba has more doctors per capita than the USA even dreams of having. Compare that to an accelerating increase in autism in the USA that currently has little boys (the most vulnerable group) with a rate of 1 in THIRTY-EIGHT! And Cuba has enviable success in public health because they use measures that don’t just funnel money into the pockets of Big Pharma.

        Did you look anywhere outside of Big Pharma’s funding pattern for information that contravenes the conventional wisdom – NO! You just parrot their tripe and act superior, like real research and the idolatry practiced by sycophants of the CDC should be considered in the same light. The best way to detect whether a study is going to be biased is to look at who’s paying for it.

        So, I am content to have you think I’m a fool, because I know you can’t help it. It’s fine for me that you continue to buy their BS and re-sell it, or worse, sell it knowing that it’s BS. Correct information about vaccination is available, and I’ve seen it; I don’t need to look at that which is intended obfuscate and pretend it’s anything else.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 22, 2015 at 00:36 #

        Please–present me with a study that has looked at the autism rate in Cuba, using the same methods and understanding of autism that is behind the U.S. prevalence estimates.

        You can’t because it doesn’t exist. You are just making statistics up (or, more likely, quoting someone else who made them up). Here is the pubmed search for autism and cuba. None of those studies give a prevalence. And that’s before we consider if the methods were anything close to that in the U.S..

        You will not waste your breath here, but you will continue to waste your breath. Because you don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t consider you a fool because I can’t help it. I consider you a fool because you’ve been fooled.

        “Correct information about vaccination is available, and I’ve seen it”

        Then why do you chose to present the information you do? Because you don’t present correct information.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 22, 2015 at 01:08 #

        “The best way to detect whether a study is going to be biased is to look at who’s paying for it.”

        Ironic that you state that, and yet probably accept the study discussed in the above article as “unbiased”.

        You should have left this conversation sooner. Your last comment is pretty telling. It is amazing how vaccine antagonistic people start out with a thin veneer of reasonableness but quickly loose it. Seriously, “idoltry practiced by sycophants of the CDC”? And you probably think you kept your cool and come across as being the polite one.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 22, 2015 at 00:49 #

        “Well, you say you “hear it” all the time, but I say, you’re not listening”

        I listen. But you fail to provide a convincing argument. Listening is not “well, whatever you say I will accept as true without checking any facts”.

        And now we see the classic posture of the vaccine antagonistic–“you are all a bunch of sheep. I am an individual.”

        Funny how all these “non sheep” are alike.

      • krishnamurphy54 September 19, 2015 at 10:21 #

        Wakefield’s case series was indeed replicated – link below to one with 143 cases, no attempt made or claimed at a control group, and definitely not an experiment. There was some speculation in Wakefield’s original study that it might be related to the COMBINED shot for MMR, but they stated that it needed further study to show it.

        Also, Wakefield stated that the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE (taught during the first year in most if not all pre-medical courses around the world!) dictated that rather than blindly continuing to use a suspect combination vaccine, that the public would be best served by returning to single shots (which had been discontinued to protect GSK profits in the UK.) Wakefield was a pro-vaxer! I think he still is, more’s the pity.

        http://www.rescuepost.com/files/f_1816-aui-clinical-presentation-and-histologic-findings-at-ileocolonoscopy-in-ch-pdf_25401.pdf

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 19:48 #

        Quote the part of that paper that says that

        By the way–who wrote that paper? Arthur Krigsman. Who paid Krigsman? Andrew Wakefield. So, funding only counts when you want it to?

        What precautionary principle is there in creating a fear that would enrich you? Wakefield had MANY business plans in place to benefit from the fear he was creating.

      • Chris September 19, 2015 at 20:14 #

        “Wakefield’s case series was indeed replicated ”

        There is a very important word that is missing from that phrase. Let’s fix that: “Wakefield’s case series was indeed independently replicated …”

        Studies done by friends and previous colleagues do not count. So papers by Krigsman, Singh (who was associated with Fudenberg), etc do not count. You might try reading the link I provided which goes through each of those claimed “replications.”

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 20:28 #

        And it wasn’t replicated. No mention of regression post vaccination in the paper that was cited. Not a replication of Wakefield’s case series.

      • brian September 21, 2015 at 18:47 #

        krishnamurphy54 wrote: “have a look at this graph showing the effect of vaccination historically on smallpox death rates, showing that the vaccine is not only useless, but counter-productive.”

        Wow! That certainly looks like an impressive spike in smallpox-associated mortality in 1973 following the enforcement of vaccination laws, unless you understand that there were only TWO smallpox-related deaths in England and Wales in the decade between 1966 and 1976 and those were imported cases that cannot be attributed to UK vaccination policy,

        [Galbraith NS, Forbes P, Mayon-White RT. Changing patterns of communicable disease in England and Wales: part II-Disappearing and declining diseases. Br Med J. 1980 Aug 16;281(6238):489-92.]

      • krishnamurphy54 September 21, 2015 at 20:16 #

        BRIAN:That’s the EIGHTEEN seventies, not the NINETEEN seventies!

      • brian September 22, 2015 at 05:16 #

        krishnamurphy54: It’s interesting that the UK Public Health Act of 1872 was explicitly designed to combat the importation of virulent pathogens into the world’s shipping hub precisely because at that time virulent strains were circulating in the rest of Europe–just when your graph peaks–and when smallpox was epidemic in UK ports. It’s even more interesting that you attribute to vaccination the mortality associated with the importation of virulent viruses despite the failure of the 1872 Vaccine act to achieve uniform vaccination of children (over seven percent of children in London and four percent of children in England and Wales were unvaccinated in the first decade following the passage of the Act) and revaccination of adults in an era of rather incompetent vaccination was entirely voluntary.

      • Narad September 22, 2015 at 08:42 #

        That innate system constitutes 98% of the possible defenses against pathogens, versus the 2% that could be ‘trained’ by exposure to a vaccine, to possibly help out a LITTLE during only the earliest part of the overall response.

        Just because I know this one off the top of my head (it was a favorite of Philip Hills, Hope Osteopathic Clinic Essex), it’s a comedy of errors.

    • krishnamurphy54 September 19, 2015 at 10:35 #

      I agree that it is not ONLY vaccines that are responsible. Toxins in the body, whether from inoculation, GMO consumption, residual Roundup weedkiller on food crops, or about 100,000 other sources can ALL cause the REAL condition that needs to be addressed – encephalitis. “Autism” is just a label that was made up to describe a cluster of symptoms, compensating behaviors, really, and nothing more.

      Encephalitis, on the other hand, is a well-known medical condition that can be caused by MANY things (drugs, infections, etc.), and then, further, causes the BRAIN DAMAGE that results in ASD symptomology.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 19:56 #

        You don’t “agree” with anything. Don’t put words into people’s mouths. It’s is a very cheap debate tactic.

        Mr. Kulp didn’t say vaccines were even partly responsible. Claiming him as an ally is cheap.

  6. krishnamurphy54 September 18, 2015 at 20:06 #

    If anyone still cares, there’s a good article about “Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated” (the original topic.) It takes in both studies favoring vaccination and those with a different outcome, and looks at how they reach their conclusions. http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/science/studies-comparing-vaccinated-to-unvaccinated-populations/

    • Chris September 18, 2015 at 20:55 #

      That is some real amusing cherry picking. I especially love the inclusion of a study done in Guinea-Bissau. I expect you would do well if you moved there and lived on the economy.

      Oh, and it is also hilarious that the self-selected survey by a homeopath was compared along side a real German study.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 06:32 #

      Well, you’ve put that link out twice. How about discussing what the link says?

      For example–the first study is a survey. Not a study
      Findings of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents

      Here’s a discussion. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/11/for-the-anti-vaccinationists-out-there-t/

      So, I guess you agree that vaccines work, right? Because the paper states “The proportion of children and adolescents who had had pertussis, measles, mumps, and/or rubella was much higher in unvaccinated children than in those who had been vaccinated against the respective disease to a sufficient extent.”

      Shall we go on? Or did you do a hit and run comment?

      • krishnamurphy54 September 19, 2015 at 07:53 #

        No, actually – vaccines prevent no illness, IMHO, and in fact CAUSE the illness they’re intended to prevent many times. Witness the CDC’s own admission that measles in induced in 99+% of vaccinees – some of whom become symptomatic with the “atypical form” (rash spreads from bottom to top instead of the other way ’round.) This is a MUCH more dangerous condition, occurs ONLY in the vaccinated who have received “live” vaccines (measles, chicken pox, etc.), and does NOT confer any immunity, but rather predisposes the recipient to a lifetime of chronic illness.

        This is not health care – it is insanity.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 08:41 #

        I love it when people admit they don’t believe vaccines work. Such an admission demonstrates how far the individual has gone from accepting clear evidence.

        Vaccines work.

        Polio? Just magically disappeared or are you going to claim its still here but called something else?

        Measles epidemics? It’s just good sanitation or some other nonsense?

        Funny how diseases go away just when the vaccine is introduced but there’s always some strange explanation for why.

      • Chris September 19, 2015 at 20:19 #

        “No, actually – vaccines prevent no illness, IMHO, and in fact CAUSE the illness they’re intended to prevent many times.”

        Oh, really? The following is USA census data on measles incidence during the 20th century. Please tell us why measles incidence dropped in the USA between 1960 and 1970, and never came back up again in later decades. Some rules: do not mention deaths (this is about morbidity not mortality), do not mention any other decade, do not mention any other disease and do not mention any other country (England and Wales are not American states). Just answer the question as asked:

        From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
        Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
        1912 . . . 310.0
        1920 . . . 480.5
        1925 . . . 194.3
        1930 . . . 340.8
        1935 . . . 584.6
        1940 . . . 220.7
        1945 . . . 110.2
        1950 . . . 210.1
        1955 . . . 337.9
        1960 . . . 245.4
        1965 . . . 135.1
        1970 . . . . 23.2
        1975 . . . . 11.3
        1980 . . . . . 5.9
        1985 . . . . . 1.2
        1990 . . . . .11.2
        1991 . . . . . .3.8
        1992 . . . . . .0.9
        1993 . . . . . .0.1
        1994 . . . . . .0.4
        1995 . . . . . .0.1
        1996 . . . . . .0.2
        1997 . . . . . . 0.1

  7. Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2015 at 08:33 #

    Wakefield was and is guilty of medical misconduct.

    He was in the US when he did the first hearing. The one that found him guilty of multiple instances of misconduct. He spent months on that.

    An appeal would have taken a small fraction of that.

    So, why bother? He bothered a great deal. Even though he was in the U.S.

    Which is to say, your defense fails.

  8. shay September 21, 2015 at 19:28 #

    “No, actually – vaccines prevent no illness, IMHO.” Opinions are not facts.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies – Vaxopedia - September 14, 2016

    […] And yet another vaccinated/unvaccinated comparison study, this time funded by SafeMinds […]

  2. Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated – Smallpox Edition – VAXOPEDIA - June 19, 2018

    […] And yet another vaccinated/unvaccinated comparison study, this time funded by SafeMinds […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: