Why The Vaccines Cause Autism Myth Still Goes On

Post Reply New Topic

Heres some pretty good evidence of how vaccines help and what happens if you don't take them

Something from a genuine health news site not linked to the FDA, CDC, pharmaceutical company run or funded, or other government-funded (and therefore vested interest) websites, thanks. And with statistics, facts, and proof, taking into account rates of decline prior to the introduction of the vaccination in question, and the introduction of treatments such as antibiotics.

As a side note, I was vaccinated against rubella, as was the rest of my school, and we all ended up with rubella a few months later. There are dozens and dozens of documented outbreaks of 'vaccine-preventable' diseases amongst vaccinated populations. If they work so well, why are vaccinated people getting them?

People want something to blame. Seeing that all babies seem fine after they are born, the only medical thing that changes is getting a vaccine, unless the baby was sick and needed medication... but if that was the case, why don't parents blame the medicine the baby had while it was sick?

They do... there are plenty who believe high doses of antibiotics in conjunction with vaccines have a lot to do with it. Only that's not quite so contentious so you don't hear so much about it in the media.

Not really snake oil... vaccines are well-established enough that the burden of proof is really on you to prove that they don't work... we've got epidemiological studies going back a couple hundred years that support vaccination. "Build a decent immune system" sounds all well and good, but with some diseases you don't really get a chance to do that. Polio for example.

A "genuine health news site not linked to the FDA, CDC, pharmaceutical company run or funded, or other government-funded..." could you even give an example of a credible one of those? I'll throw in "peer-reviewed" as an extra criteria to block out "holistic medicine" crap. Just about all research money comes either from government or from pharmaceutical corporations... who else would be engaging in medical research? Frankly, you are assuming the existence of a massive conspiracy, which leads me to doubt your reasoning capabilities. It would be next to impossible to pull off such a hoax on such a massive scale.

BTW, if you trace the money behind Andrew Wakefield (the originator of the vaccine conspiracy theory movement) you will find some rather interesting connections...

Why should the onus be on me? You want me to take your potions, you tell me they're good, well show me the proof. You're selling it - why should it be any different to any other product being sold today?

The only thing Andrew Wakefield did was make mainstream via the media the suspicion that autism could be linked to vaccines. They've been damaging thousands of people for the past century, autism aside (as I'm undecided on whether or not there's any truth to it, discounting thimerosal) - he didn't start any movement or any 'conspiracy', he just made it better known.

I'd suggest looking to a medical journal study whose authors aren't funded or linked to Big Pharma/Govt (easier said than done). For a start. Otherwise a decent site such as naturalnews.com would be a good place to look for a more newsy type article (before you start on 'bias' etc, I suggest you read their 'Declaration of Journalistic Independence' and compare it to that of any other major news channel or website...). Besides that, I'd say a basic press-release news site like NZ's scoop.co.nz (where they host press releases as they're sent, regardless of content or source).

I'm not selling anything. I'm a student; I have no financial ties to the pharmaceutical corporations. You can look up the proof on your own- it's been shown to you before. Investigate things like smallpox eradication. Research polio. Or look at the measles outbreaks that resulted when paranoid nuts refused to have their kids vaccinated. Oh, I forgot, the data collected in regards to those measles outbreaks must have been a government fabrication.

Naturalnews.com is crap. A bunch of raving conspiracy loons from what I can tell. And where's the peer-review? Where's the original research? "Holistic medicine" isn't medicine at all, but dangerous snake oil. Frankly, if their "natural" remedies were better, modern medicine could never have developed. Really, your making this into a "no true Scotsman" exercise by dismissing pretty much all sources of actual research. You ask me for research, and then reject as a source all entities that conduct research. Well, of course I can't find any research to support my claims if we're operating under that framework. You seem to regard all studies that contradict your views as more evidence that the entities conducting that study are biased or involved in some type of conspiracy... as opposed to evidence that your views are simply a load of bull.

What conspiracy? You bandy the word around, but there aren't any conspiracies on that site that I can see, nor any 'raving loonies'... only news on healthcare that isn't in the form of a-pill-for-every-ail. It's probably the most reliable natural healthcare source around. The word 'conspiracy' is thrown out there far too often, as is the term 'snake oil', but you fail to give any evidence of either. Why is natural medicine snake oil? It's worked for tens of thousands of years, it's evolved a lot since then as science has learned more about it and practitioners have evolved more advanced techniques for utilising it... people survived for millennia without drugs and pills and vaccines, what makes you think you have to rely on them to survive? Especially now, when disease plagues us moer than at any other time in history? What's changed, other than your modern medical model?

Also, how is natural medicine - again, please define what you mean by it - dangerous? The vast majority has no side effects, and those few herbs that do tend to be minor. Compare this to the dozens listed on every drug available, and the fact that iatrogenic deaths (medical malpractise and drug reactions) are the number one cause of death in the US today, having recently passed heart disease and cancer, I'd question your definition of dangerous.

Also, you say modern medicine couldn't have developed if natural medicines worked... well, more than 85% of all your precious drugs are simply synthetic forms of natural herbs, plants and compounds. To name just a couple of the best-known ones, aspirin is from White Willow Bark or Meadowsweet, and Mylanta is simple psyillium.

Now, you're the one who obviously advocates vaccines, and wants everyone to vaccinate for your so-called 'herd immunity', so again, show me the proof that they work. It's my experience and my knowledge from extensive study that they don't. Give me a safe vaccine free from pretty much everything in the current ones and prove that it works, and perhaps I'll reconsider. But right now your best bet is to keep your natural defenses strong so you don't get things in the first place, and if you are unlucky enough to get them, you won't get such a severe case.

Go to their site right now and look at the story at the top of their page. Explain to me how it is NOT a conspiracy theory. If you are seriously unable to comprehend that, there is no use in debating you further.

You were the first to put the term "snake oil" in this thread. If you can use it, so can I. You have never provided any reason why conventional medicine is snake oil. Natural medicine is snake oil because it makes unrealistic and unsupported claims. Remember, the original "snake oil" remedies from which that term derives were touted as "natural" medicine. If natural medicine has worked for thousands of years, why were people not living to 70 or 80 years back then? Why did a large percentage of children routinely die at very young ages? And if those remedies did work, then there really is no way that modern medicine could have developed. People would have continued to do what worked. Natural remedies didn't, so people switched to things that did work. Vaccines were one of them.

Yes, the medical model has changed- which is why medical treatments should change. We realized disease isn't cause by an imbalance of the humors, and we stopped using bleeding as a therapy. Kind of a "duh" there. Medical should change in response to new things we learn about medical science... unlike your "natural remedies" which basically have a cult following.

As far as "herd immunity," increasing the immune percentage of the population helps to increase the effective CCS for a disease to be endemic. For measles, with an R-naught value upwards of 12-16, vaccine coverage has to be about 95% to raise CCS sufficiently. Once you have that level of vaccine coverage, the disease is more or less eradicated.

You want proof vaccines work? I'll say smallpox. I'll point to the fact that unvaccinated kids get measles and vaccinated kids don't. I would point to rigorous epidemiological studies, but you would reject them because they probably got some money from a government grant. How can I prove it to you if you reject every source of research? Do you simply reject the entire field of medical research?

Also, if you don't believe there's any conspiracy, why the refusal to allow CDC, FDA, and NIH studies?

Lekiwi the last vaccine thread you got your panties in a bunch about I posted how many people died of measles in a year, and asked you to please either find a post that says more people died of the measles vaccine than died of measles. You have never been able to. So unless you can prove your theory that "more people are hurt by vaccines than the diseases" I would kindly ask you stop flooding every vaccine-related thread with your conspiracy theories. You never have anything new, relevant or interesting to say and it just makes you look obsessive and paranoid.

A local doctor recently wrote a column about why he had his own children vaccinated, and why he firmly believes in the program. He can still remember the days before a few of the current vaccines, working in the emergency room, with children brought in unable to breath due to over-swollen throats (RSV?), etc. He commented that no one, NO ONE, who lived through those days could NOT be fully in support of the vaccine program. He gets frustrated by the insinuations that doctors are in the pockets of drug companies, etc. It isn't about money AT ALL. It's about lives.

All that said, he believes parents deserve answers, and that parents can and should question their doctors extensively about the pro's and con's of vaccination. Because he believes in a fully informed consumer public.

But I have to ask you, when you believe it's all a conspiracy, who are you going to believe? You won't even believe your own doctor, will you? Unless, perhaps, he is one of those that worked the emergency room in the old days? Would you believe him THEN?

That's the problem with conspiracy theories. They throw out all the normal reputable sources of information and force you to trust only other conspiracy believers. It's nuts, IMHO.

Vaccines have always carried a certain amount of risk. That is why a compensation program exists in the first place. But as the local doctor noted in his article, if you had seen what happened before vaccines, you would accept that risk.

1. Disease plagues us a lot less now than at any other time in history, largely de to modern medicine. You are an idiot if you think there is more disease now than there was in the Middle Ages.
2. People survived for millennia without drugs and pills and vaccines... but not all people. Plenty of people died of various diseases, all the time. The fact that humanity was not driven to extinction does not mean it is impossible for us to be healthier. I personally would most likely be dead several times over without modern medicine.

If I were to post deaths and/or life-long afflictions linked to the measles vaccine you'd reject them as incidental or 'unrelated' (ok, perhaps you personally wouldn't, but that tends to be the reaction of most vaccine advocates in my experience).

I'm not paranoid, I'm just astounded at how few people seem to examine the facts or care about what we're being pumped with. In between the toxins that pollute the air we breathe, the water we drink, the clothes we wear, the materials we build our homes with, and 95% of the food we eat, I'm kinda keen to be cutting back on as much exposure as I possibly can. Cancer is now likely to affect a third of the population at some point or other - does that not terrify you? Auto-immune diseases are growing so fast it's untrue - again, does that not tell you something's very, very wrong? And what is it that affects our immune systems most directly from the beginning of our lives, pumping them with all manner of toxins when they're not yet developed? 30 years ago it was around 5-7, depending on where you lived - now it's around 35!

I can't believe how blasé people on this site are, and again, that's not even bringing autism into it...

3. Do any of us really want to go back to the days when you had to give birth to a dozen or so children in the hope that "enough" would make it to adulthood?

What kind of an adulthood is it though, when diabetes, cancer, HIV, obesity, and mental illness are par for course for more or less everyone alive?