Government admits in court autism thimerosall link

Post Reply New Topic

If the article is written like your summaries, I'm glad I didn't bother reading it.

They "called" seven people (definitly a significant sample size), from a pre-biased population (kinda turns the idea of a control group a little slanty)... That is most assuredly NOT science. Also, your formula does not look accurate... (1/(150*7))*.2. You apparently forgot the "vaccines may be involved in the 10-20% of autistics who have mitochrondrial disorders". Only 10-20% of autistics with mitochondrial disorder are relevant, at best. At worst, the numbers you are pulling are biased, and there is absolutly no causation established between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders, and/or autism.

Assuming the data was there to support a link between vaccines and autism, there would still be no way to determine if it caused it or merely aggravated it. And if you established that there is a link, and it's aggravating autism, which in turn is linked to mitochondrial disorders, you have no way of knowing if vaccines cause autism by causing mitochondrial disorder; cause autism by aggravating mitochondrial disorders; or aggravate autism by aggravating mitochondrial disorders. More to the point, you have no way of knowing if vaccines aggravate mitochondrial disorders that are not related to "naturally occuring" autism, and cause a secondary type.

In other words, a certain type of mitochondrial disorder could cause some cases of autism, and vaccines cause another type of mitochondiral disorder, which in turn creates another type of autism. Since we have no way of estimating how many that is from the data present (...well, we could hazard a guess of 6 people within the United States, based on the skewed survey), we'd just be pulling numbers out of thin air.

Your numbers are the worst case scenario with worst case numbers. I've revised my number to show the best case scenario with your worth case numbers... Somewhere between 0.019% and 0.000000000% (adjusted to use only your numbers)...

Assuming there is any link between vaccines and autism, non-scientific "evidence" that is nothing more than hear-say, cheery-picked numbers, and biased summaries there-of only sway the weak minded. I can only hope you're on the wrong forums for that.

Vaccines have helped rid the world of some horrible diseases like polio, which killed people and the effects of which are felt by survivors all their lives. Smallpox killed a lot of people. Other contagious diseases can kill people or cause physical problems. Some can cause problems to unborn kids if their mom happens to get the illness.

Most of these things are much worse than autism (and here I am saying this, someone who isn't happy to be autistic! But I'd rather have AS than the effects of polio!) , and it hasn't even really been proven that vaccines cause autism. Furthermore, haven't they stopped using thimerosol in vaccines, and wasn't it thimerosol that was linked to autism, not just vaccines in general?

It seems like I've read somewhere that some of these diseases are starting to come back because of the

People with kids or who are thinking about having kids, please really think about all this. Find out what preservatives they are using in the vaccines that your child would be given, and if they have been linked to autism or any other possible problems. find out what the effects of the diseases being vaccinated against would be if, heaven forbid, your child should get one of them after not having had the vaccine.

So why does it work the other way around? When they said that Autism was genetic in court, due to common belief of the majority of the scientific community, they in effect put it into law.It's the argument of choice about Autism and being genetic. They refer back to that legal decision, about a scientific matter.

To me, it looks very hypocritical. Does it seem that way to you at all?
Just curious.

Frankly, no clue what you're referring to. If you're suggesting, however, that I got AS from me mum and pop cause the government said so, that would be falicious.

The government makes policy based (occasionally) on science, such as whether a condition can be discriminated against, whether people can recieve aid, etc. They also obviously have the power to dictate removal of ingrediants from vaccines or ban them. To some degree, they can even force parents to have their children undergo medical procedures. All of these are policy and have no bearing on whether there is a link between vaccines and Autism. If you want to know if there's a link, don't ask a government lawyer. If you want to know what will happen if there's a link, don't ask a scientist. It's really not a difficult concept.

1 in 150 have ASD
1 in 7 with ASD (15%, average of 10-20%) has mitochondrial disorder

That makes 1/150 * 1/7 = 1/1050 or 0.1% that are ASD with mitochondrial disorder that may have some symptoms of autism due to vaccines.

Sciences does NOT = conclusive proof. The information is valid science although I would never think of it as definitive proof of anything. There is still a lot more research needed because hardly anyone researched autism before the 1990s when it seemed to start increasing rapidly.

Joeker, you are right. You seem objective and evaluate information fairly. I think many people have one standard for information and studies they agree with and another standard for things they disagree with. I'd call it hypocritical and it's very frustrating for me to discuss anything with people who have double standards.

roguetech, if you're reading this, I'm not referring to you. There are a few people on this site that I've noticed this pattern with. I haven't read enough of your posts to know if you're one of them.

It's actually 1/500 to 1/150 with an ASD depending on the study done (demographics, professional diagnoses compared to education system ones, etcetera). People seem to forget the former number.

Even if all your numbers are based on solid, repeated, properly controlled, stastically valid numbers, all you've done is establish a link. You are still a step - a large step - from establishing a causal link.

Obviously your numbers are highly suspect. The 1-in-150 is questionable for ASD, and utter crap for low-level Autism. These court cases are not based on Asperger's (which is included in the 1-in-150 number). Your 1-in-7 Mt among Autism number is also based on a single study (that I suspect is flawed, but frankly I haven't bothered to check). The "study" for 1-in-1 Mt in vaccine related Autistism is laughable. The medically accepted procedure for diagnosing Mt does not consist of calling someone and asking if their child has it. It's actually an involved, and invasive, procedure that is never completely certain, and usually cannot be completely performed on low-level Autistics. The "sample" is horredously small - even among the population of 4,900 court cases, it's too small. Your "sample" is extremely biased, and there is no control group. And you provide no source that I see.

And just to drop the anchor on your sunken arguement, there's nothing firm to establish whether the seven surveyed even have Autism, or how many of the 4,900 other children have it. As a number of others have pointed out, the plainteff refered to in the article that you source does not have Autism. Despite it being biased, it still relatively clearly says that, even if it completely ignores it for the rest of the article.

Quite simply, the survey is about as scientifically valid as me saying any children you may father have a 92% chance of leaky bowel syndrom, because I called my mother, and she said something about Virgo. Or maybe it was Libra. Either way, your kids are screwed.

Many of us get "stuck" on something, I'm sure I have my double-standands. Hopefully, I'll take note when and if someone points it out

I know what I'm talking about. It would take too long to explain it all in detail. I never intended the information I posted to be definitive proof of a causal link.



autism vs. ASD. I hope you also make a distinction when looking at twin studies. When one twin has autistic disorder, studies found that there is only a 36-50% chance that the other identical twin has it. The rate is 60% or higher if AS is included but, as you stated, AS isn't the same.



Actually, it's based on several studies. 1 in 7 is about 15%, the middle of the 10-20% that the studies found.



Where do I begin? I never stated a 1-1 connection. I simply mentioned vaccines may be involved in those with Mt disorders. The disorder wasn't diagnosed over the phone. They simply asked whether they had already been diagnosed. The sample size of 7 was sufficient. I'll refer you to a statictics class if you want to learn more about it. There was no control group because none is needed.



I don't think that's relevent. I think it's important that they have all the autism symptoms, not whether they are allowed to be diagnosed with it.

You're right that the information I posted doesn't prove anything. However, I wasn't trying too. I simply commented that vaccines may be involved in possibly up to 10-20% with ASDs

Well here's your problem, Zendell - you have been preaching the casual link from the moment I first came across you. You do NOT know what you are talking about.



But it's still included in the figures. and if you included ALL the Spectrum disorders the figures would be 100 percent or very close to it. Most studies (erroneously) concentrate on Autism and as a consequence fudge the figures.



It's perfectly relevant - because Autistic symptoms do NOT mean they are Autistic. You have been claiming all along that having the symptoms means we are dealing with Autism - WHEN WE ARE NOT! No diagnosis = not Autism. Especially in the eyes of the legal system.

And that last sentence can be shot to bits. May now? Instead of is? Good - we're progressing with you at last.

Well, the Mt link, if based on solid science, is certainly suggestive of something. Not sure what, but something. Beyond that, all you've done is pass along hear-say. It's no more says that "vaccines may be involved in possibly up to 10-20% with ASDs", than me finding seven co-workers who do not have ASD or Mt and have innoculations and make the claim that "vaccines may be involved in possibly up to 100% with NT".

The attempted cures for long-term mercury poisoning that have been used have caused so much pain and suffering, rarely even death in Autistics they've been tried on. This is just a way for people to have something to blame, I believe. Yeah, some symptoms are similar, that's all they have to go off. Other symptoms are strikingly very different.

You keep mentioning this so I'll explain it. Many people seem to think that there are two groups of people, the ASD group and the NT group. I see things differently. I believe it's more of a continuum where a few are very autistic, a few are very NT, and everyone else is somewhere in between. This would mean some people are 1/4 AS & 3/4 NT, some are 1/2 AS & 1/2 NT, and some others are 3/4 AS & 1/4 NT. If autism were 100% genetic, this could be explained by multiple genes causing autism. If 10 genes were involved, then people could have anywhere from 0 to 10 of them that would cause varying degrees of autism. 1 or 2 might make someone still NT, 3 or 4 might lead to AS, and 5 or more varying degrees of classic autism. If environmental factors are involved, it could push some with 1 or 2 of the genes into the AS group and make those with more of the genes more autistic. If my view is correct, someone who is NT with autism symptoms could have those symptoms caused by some of the same genes and/or environmental factors that cause an autism diagnosis in others.

In this case, the vaccine could have caused an NT to develop autism symptoms. Someone else with a few more autism genes who gets vaccinated could develop enough symptoms to qualify for a diagnosis.

That's my opinion. I'm not trying to convince anyone or state that there is any evidence to support it. It's just what I think about it.

And this is why you are getting into trouble with a lot of us on this forum. There is NO middle ground. If you aren't on the Spectrum, you are NT.



Well you could have fooled me at least! What was the point of all these links then - promotion?