Studies supporting vaccine/autism causation

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Reg Griswold

2013-08-31 15:58:19 UTC

The following might help shed some light on the topic of autism and
vaccination

Studies supporting vaccine/autism causation

68 medical journal studies support the link between vaccination and
autism

http://wp.me/p2lsHN-m6

Reg

"Trust us, we're experts!"

Bob Officer

2013-08-31 17:08:34 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 01:58:19 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg

Post by Reg Griswold
The following might help shed some light on the topic of autism and
vaccination
Studies supporting vaccine/autism causation
68 medical journal studies support the link between vaccination and
autism
http://wp.me/p2lsHN-m6

this is going to be easy if the 1st listed study is like the rest.

1. no mention in the study of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated.

2. deals with comparing children which are already different. IT does
not deal with vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated.

Did anyone in the AVN ever take a class in critical thinking?

3. the URL reference to the Article leads to generation rescue web
site page which is a 404 error, not a Peer reviewed Medical Journal.

4. another generation rescue page which refers to the a article never
published in peer review journal. Generation Rescue is tainted with
Wakefield's lies. This "reference is also a 404 error on generation
rescue.

Carole you still do not read and check out the reference you post, do
you? Everyone here knows that you never read beyond the headers ...
and this is proof.

5. There is no reference #5. are you sure there are 68 studies. out
of the 1st 5 studies, not one exists which support the claim.

Because I started off assessing the 1st 5 references.

6. this is just being silly. Are people at AVN related to that drug
addicted huffing Canadian that is fixated on iron.

PMID: 7992310
No one is administered: <cite> "50 micrograms Hg/KG per body weight
PER DAY for 6, 12, or 18 months" <cite> . And no one is
<cite>"administered IHg (as HgCl2; 200 micrograms Hg/kg body wt/day)
by constant rate intravenous infusion via an indwelling catheter for
3 months" </cite>

This really doesn't support the claim of connecting Autism and
Vaccinations.

To make such a statement which is unsupported by the data and
evidence in the publication itself, could be considered enough to
loose a formal debate on the subject.

This thought is evidence that Carole doesn't understand enough of the
subject material to make a informed opinion which should be given any
weight at all.

AVN by use of such unsupported and misrepresented claims should be
required to by law to place plainly on their web site that claims on
their web pages are not the truth and may be intentional
misrepresentations or out right lies.

Does anyone want to look at the next five listed "studies" referenced
by this page carole is so proud of finding.

Five studies have been examined and not one of the five/six studies
listed have shown any linkages between autism and vaccines.

No wonder AVN is in deep do-do.

--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>

Clayton

2013-08-31 22:18:52 UTC

Permalink

Post by Bob Officer
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 01:58:19 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg

this is going to be easy if the 1st listed study is like the rest.
1. no mention in the study of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated.

Sorry old chap ... got to stop you right there.
That is one of the arguments used against VACCINATION SAFETY - that
there are no studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.

If that is your strongest point then its not worth reading the rest of
your rationalisations.

Clayton

"When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have
a thousand reasons to smile." - Anonymous

Bob Officer

2013-09-01 04:20:03 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 08:18:52 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by Clayton

Post by Bob Officer
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 01:58:19 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg

this is going to be easy if the 1st listed study is like the rest.
1. no mention in the study of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated.

Sorry old chap ... got to stop you right there.

So you could delete every point I made? LOL how cowardly of you
carole.

Post by Clayton
That is one of the arguments used against VACCINATION SAFETY - that
there are no studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.

Of the 1st study through study number six there ( that's a total of 5
studies, It seems the people at ADN do not do numbers any better than
you do carole.) was no comparisons between vaccinated and
unvaccinated children. I didn't read any more because I suspected the
rest of them were that same. either leads to empty references (2-404
Errors) or the other three had no comparisons made.

Post by Clayton
If that is your strongest point then its not worth reading the rest of
your rationalisations.

I guess you really didn't read the article and follow up the URLs's
references. I even have to dig the right article out of pubmed on
study number 6. Not one reference to vaccinations. There were no
rationalizations carole. Do you even know what that word means? I
read each article and there were Zero comparisons made between
vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Serious did you even read the amounts of ethyl mercury used in the
study number 6? The study was no way comparable to the amounts that
were in vaccinations.

You really need to read what you post.

--
Bob Officer
Carole Hubbard stuns the world showing her belief that 2+2 = 3 or 5 says to me
"And one day they might find a cause for your lack of cognitive ability in
putting 2+2 together and coming up with 4 instead of 3 or 5."
in Message-ID:
<f61b82a3-85de-43b2-8ca3-***@p7g2000prb.googlegroups.com>

Clayton

2013-09-03 22:31:54 UTC

Permalink

Post by Bob Officer
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 08:18:52 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by Clayton

Post by Bob Officer
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 01:58:19 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg

this is going to be easy if the 1st listed study is like the rest.
1. no mention in the study of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated.

Sorry old chap ... got to stop you right there.

So you could delete every point I made? LOL how cowardly of you
carole.

Post by Clayton
That is one of the arguments used against VACCINATION SAFETY - that
there are no studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.

Post by Clayton
If that is your strongest point then its not worth reading the rest of
your rationalisations.

I guess you really didn't read the article and follow up the URLs's
references. I even have to dig the right article out of pubmed on
study number 6. Not one reference to vaccinations. There were no
rationalizations carole. Do you even know what that word means? I
read each article and there were Zero comparisons made between
vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Serious did you even read the amounts of ethyl mercury used in the
study number 6? The study was no way comparable to the amounts that
were in vaccinations.
You really need to read what you post.

Your first point was one the alties make, that there are no studies
comparing health of vaccinated to unvaccinated.

You put that as number 1 on your list, showing how you wish to head
off any challenge on this point which is one of the main sticking
points for scientific inclusion of vaccines.

Any studies done to compare health of vaccinated to unvaccinated show
unvaccinated to have less general childhood health issues than
vaccinated, translated to mean that vaccination against one disease
may have side effect of causing other diseases - asthma, allergies,
poor general health, hypo-allergic reactions etc.

You have never answered that question, but now wish to use that
argument to bolster your position as a pharmaceutical pawn in favour
of more vaccinations for everything and anything, despite the fact
there are no studies to support it.

Shame fred, shame.

Clayton

"This is America"

Bob Officer

2013-09-03 23:34:47 UTC

Permalink

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 08:31:54 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by Clayton

Post by Bob Officer
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 08:18:52 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by Clayton

Post by Bob Officer
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 01:58:19 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg

this is going to be easy if the 1st listed study is like the rest.
1. no mention in the study of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated.

Sorry old chap ... got to stop you right there.

So you could delete every point I made? LOL how cowardly of you
carole.

Post by Clayton
That is one of the arguments used against VACCINATION SAFETY - that
there are no studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.

Post by Clayton
If that is your strongest point then its not worth reading the rest of
your rationalisations.

I guess you really didn't read the article and follow up the URLs's
references. I even have to dig the right article out of pubmed on
study number 6. Not one reference to vaccinations. There were no
rationalizations carole. Do you even know what that word means? I
read each article and there were Zero comparisons made between
vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Serious did you even read the amounts of ethyl mercury used in the
study number 6? The study was no way comparable to the amounts that
were in vaccinations.
You really need to read what you post.

Your first point was one the alties make, that there are no studies
comparing health of vaccinated to unvaccinated.

And not one of the 1st six studies made any comparison between the
two groups.

<snip of worthless blather>

Did you even read and do any follow up reading any of the actual
URL's, carole?

george152

2013-08-31 20:17:10 UTC

Permalink

Stop lying Carole

Sylvia Else

2013-09-01 09:57:41 UTC

Permalink

For a good many of those studies, there isn't even a mention of
vaccination in the descriptions given. It's as if the anti-vaxers think
that any study that determines anything about autism somehow vindicates
their position.

Sylvia.

Bob Casanova

2013-09-01 19:04:20 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 19:57:41 +1000, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else

Post by Sylvia Else

I have yet to see any evidence that they actually think.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Bob Officer

2013-09-01 19:19:29 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 12:04:20 -0700, in sci.skeptic, Bob Casanova

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 19:57:41 +1000, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else

Post by Sylvia Else

I have yet to see any evidence that they actually think.

Not following and checking the links themselves forces loosing
points. The fact those studies I could find has Zero comparisons
between Vaccinated v. Non-Vaccinated, shows a seriously lack of
ability to read and understand what the read.

Study number 6 stunned me. How could any scientist exposed living
created to 50 mircograms/kg of body weight Ethyl Mercury for 18
months? Then have an idiot misstate the results and claim it was
comparable to vaccines is unbelievable.
--
Daffy Duke stated on 12May2008, in
Message-ID: ***@4ax.com
This bit of irrationality at his best:
"The Church is totally composed of man and man sins, not the Church.
In fact, the Church can't sin. It is God's gift, and God can't sin."
If the church is made up of men,
and men in the church sin,
then the church must be made of sin.
if Sin seprates man from god,
and the church is made of sin,
then the it is the church
which seprates man from god.
the church can not be a gift from god.
unless god wants to seperate himself from man

Sylvia Else

2013-09-02 00:14:59 UTC

Permalink

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 19:57:41 +1000, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else

Post by Sylvia Else

I have yet to see any evidence that they actually think.

Yes, there is that.

Sylvia.