Italian court PROVES MMR causes Autism.

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

They've done it. They have finally done it. They have proven the link we have all so long suspected and that the the government has covered up in one of the greatest and most despicable displays of junk science fueled capitalism THE WORLD has ever known. Thank you, Italian courts. Thank you for proving that MMR causes autism.


http://www.naturalnews.com/036255_MM...#ixzz1ydSgTJe9

NOW MY BABY HAS TACACARDYA FOR TEH LAST 2 YEARS ITS FROM THESE SHOTS AIN'T IT

i am just vaguely aware of the background, but ruling against it in court and scientifically proving it are two different things

Originally Posted by rollelephants

i am just vaguely aware of the background, but ruling against it in court and scientifically proving it are two different things

That's why I emphasized it.

Pretty sure the whole situation further proves that they really don't know much about science.

The comments section in that article makes me nauseated.

Ignorance is contagious

From what I can gather about the 3 expert witnesses it looks like they went with the old Correlation == Causation move. Solid.

Originally Posted by jcu

The comments section in that article makes me nauseated.

The fact that they are all so sure they're the ones that are educated on the subject and that everyone else has been brainwashed by medical/pharmaceutical propaganda is the most tragic and infuriating part.

Wow...just wow. This judge should be sacked.

The comments section frightens me as well. How/why do people come up with this stuff?

Originally Posted by dr zaius

From what I can gather about the 3 expert witnesses it looks like they went with the old Correlation == Causation move. Solid.

My current data is showing spaghetti causes autism.

Originally Posted by Alvarez13

My current data is showing spaghetti causes autism.

I think this sums it up nicely.

nm

Some of those comments are ****ing hilarious.

Originally Posted by Rothbard

They're saying the same thing about the kind of people in this forum.

Let's face it, most of us in this forum here are not familiar with the literature, we believe the things we believe because people we trust have told us to believe them. There's really no difference between our group and theirs.

Just just two groups of people trying to out-appeal-to-authority each other, convinced that they're right, but only slightly familiar with the data.

No its not even close assuming you have made it through 2nd year of med school.

Our group is taught how to interrupt literature from a fundamental level (i.e. study design, bias, basic statistics). The lay person doesn't even have the correct framework to read an abstract/paper and understand its implications.

I don't need understand all the research, but from the few outlandish abstracts I have read, I can quickly identify what is scientifically important and what is heavily biased.


People with no training in interpreting data, research, or study design can quickly make ridiculous conclusions where they end up with 1=0. Its not their fault, they just dont have the correct training to interrupt.

FWIW, "Natural News" is a cesspool of misinformation, and I wouldn't take anything posted on that website to be representative of the general media. Just go to the homepage and look at the top 5 headlines if you're looking to raise your blood pressure.

"If the parents had mmr vacines and there children have mmr vacines could it possibly be a connection to the inheritance of a defense immune response inherited from the parents immune response. Could the bodies defense create autisum just like hypertension was inherted in the black population due to lack of salt in there diet."

Either there is some brilliant epigenetic, lamarckian inheritance pattern at play here that I'm unaware of.

Or this woman is a complete dumb*ss.

nm

I had never heard of such a thing..and I really don't know what to say :/

ohmagawd finealy sum1 haz teh prewfz

Originally Posted by Rothbard

Meh, we get a 4 week class on statistics that an 8th grader could pass. The average 4th year med student probably would have a hard time telling you the difference between an odds ratio and a risk ratio. But that's not my point.

How many of us in this forum are familiar with the literature surrounding this autism debate? All we know about it comes from those one or two lectures on the subject at the end of immuno.

What I know is that the whole thing started with a 1998 study in the Lancet suggesting MMR was linked to autism, a study in which data was falsified and the PI later admitted to this. The study has since been redacted, but the damage is done. Since then we have spent tremendous amounts on huge studies trying to find links between vaccination and autism. None have been found in any reliable peer-reviewed source. The systemic reviews and epidemiologic studies that are out there show no link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.newproxy...?term=12860782
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.newproxy...?term=11231748
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.newproxy...?term=12421889
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.newproxy...?term=11222420

Many others can be found with little effort if you find this sample unconvincing.

Originally Posted by dr zaius

From what I can gather about the 3 expert witnesses it looks like they went with the old Correlation == Causation move. Solid.

All this autism stuff has increased directly with the value of my Apple stock. Boycott Apple NOW! Dump the stock! Think of the children!

Cheers!

Originally Posted by Rothbard

Meh, we get a 4 week class on statistics that an 8th grader could pass. The average 4th year med student probably would have a hard time telling you the difference between an odds ratio and a risk ratio. But that's not my point.

How many of us in this forum are familiar with the literature surrounding this autism debate? All we know about it comes from those one or two lectures on the subject at the end of immuno.

I mean it is one of the topics on step 1...so you were suppose to learn about all that stuff at some point.

Most of the "research" i have seen supporting the autism-vaccine link has studies with less than 20 patients with many many confounding variables and poor study design.

Five thoughts:
1. There are very very feel studies reporting a link.
2. Those which do are far from a meta-analysis and closer to a case report.
3. I'd hope a 4th year med student could see what is a statistically significant difference, and understand the ramifications.
4. The generally public is going to "interrupt" a feel studies indicating "the link" far differently that anyone with a basic understand of bias, sample size, etc.
5. I never claimed to be an "expert" on vaccines, but I have read a few abstracts from studies claiming a link....they have left me very skeptical.


P.S. I doubt the majority of the population could help their kids with 8th grade math homework. So I dont think its far to assume even the majority of people have a 8th grade level statistics understanding. The general population ain't all that smart...

Originally Posted by IlDestriero

All this autism stuff has increased directly with the value of my Apple stock. Boycott Apple NOW! Dump the stock! Think of the children!

Cheers!

Ah, two birds/one stone.

Originally Posted by IlDestriero

All this autism stuff has increased directly with the value of my Apple stock. Boycott Apple NOW! Dump the stock! Think of the children!

Cheers!

Be a good Democrat and share that Apple-generated wealth with us. Remember: wealthy people are evil (well, at least those wealthy people that don't contribute millions to your re-election campaign).

Originally Posted by facetguy

Be a good Democrat and share that Apple-generated wealth with us. Remember: wealthy people are evil (well, at least those wealthy people that don't contribute millions to your re-election campaign).

No.

This thread is about the proven link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Go pick a fight elsewhere.

Originally Posted by DrSnips

What I know is that the whole thing started with a 1998 study in the Lancet suggesting MMR was linked to autism, a study in which data was falsified and the PI later admitted to this. The study has since been redacted, but the damage is done. Since then we have spent tremendous amounts on huge studies trying to find links between vaccination and autism. None have been found in any reliable peer-reviewed source. The systemic reviews and epidemiologic studies that are out there show no link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.newproxy...?term=12860782
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.newproxy...?term=11231748
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.newproxy...?term=12421889
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.newproxy...?term=11222420

Many others can be found with little effort if you find this sample unconvincing.

Most of the effort has been toward MMR and thimerosal. Extrapolating beyond that gets hazier.

Originally Posted by dr zaius

No.

This thread is about the proven link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Go pick a fight elsewhere.

Yikes! My post was a stab at humor. And even before I posted anything vaccine related. Easy on that hair trigger there, big fella. I wasn't even addressing you.

Originally Posted by Rothbard

They're saying the same thing about the kind of people in this forum.

Let's face it, most of us in this forum here are not familiar with the literature, we believe the things we believe because people we trust have told us to believe them. There's really no difference between our group and theirs.

Just just two groups of people trying to out-appeal-to-authority each other, convinced that they're right, but only slightly familiar with the data.

I think this is a sound point.

Originally Posted by facetguy

Yikes! My post was a stab at humor. And even before I posted anything vaccine related. Easy on that hair trigger there, big fella. I wasn't even addressing you.

Well in that case LOL

Originally Posted by facetguy

Be a good Democrat and share that Apple-generated wealth with us. Remember: wealthy people are evil (well, at least those wealthy people that don't contribute millions to your re-election campaign).

"From my cold dead hands..."

Cheers!

Id nominate anti vaxers for the darwin awards, since they are effectively promoting the removal of their genes from the pool, but it is no fun when innocent children are the ones to suffer. I just dont get the whole "9verwhelming the fragile neurological system" bit. Children are exposed to more new antigens in a single infection than the entire vaccine schedule combined.

IlDestriero, I'm a bit J if you actually had the foresight to buy Apple stock.

Originally Posted by mmmcdowe

Id nominate anti vaxers for the darwin awards, since they are effectively promoting the removal of their genes from the pool, but it is no fun when innocent children are the ones to suffer. I just dont get the whole "9verwhelming the fragile neurological system" bit. Children are exposed to more new antigens in a single infection than the entire vaccine schedule combined.

That's just what the medical machine wants you to believe. These people have done literally hours of research (reading forums on the internet), so they are experts and know the real truth. Pull the wool from your eyes, sheeple.

Originally Posted by Shnurek

Ignorance is contagious

if only we could vaccinate against it.....

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

if only we could vaccinate against it.....

Monetize it to a great enough extent and perhaps...

Originally Posted by Rothbard

They're saying the same thing about the kind of people in this forum.

Let's face it, most of us in this forum here are not familiar with the literature, we believe the things we believe because people we trust have told us to believe them. There's really no difference between our group and theirs.

Just just two groups of people trying to out-appeal-to-authority each other, convinced that they're right, but only slightly familiar with the data.

One major difference is that the people in their group argue using information that is in direct contradiction to modern science. One does not need to know every paper published on a topic to identify when the rationale used to support an opinion is based on faulty assumptions.

Originally Posted by Rothbard

Meh, we get a 4 week class on statistics that an 8th grader could pass. The average 4th year med student probably would have a hard time telling you the difference between an odds ratio and a risk ratio. But that's not my point.

How many of us in this forum are familiar with the literature surrounding this autism debate? All we know about it comes from those one or two lectures on the subject at the end of immuno.

well 1) no, an 8th grader wouldnt pass it. 2) the stats you cite are commonly tested on boards and show up constantly throughout med education (at least at our school) 3) you are still assuming that 1 must be familiar with all of the current literature to combat an ignorant statement. Ironically, I am proving this part wrong at this very moment

Originally Posted by DrSnips

What I know is that the whole thing started with a 1998 study in the Lancet suggesting MMR was linked to autism, a study in which data was falsified and the PI later admitted to this. The study has since been redacted, but the damage is done. Since then we have spent tremendous amounts on huge studies trying to find links between vaccination and autism. None have been found in any reliable peer-reviewed source. The systemic reviews and epidemiologic studies that are out there show no link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.newproxy...?term=12860782
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.newproxy...?term=11231748
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.newproxy...?term=12421889
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.newproxy...?term=11222420

Many others can be found with little effort if you find this sample unconvincing.

This is the biggest counter-argument in existence. The entire debate wouldnt even exist if not for this 1 random d-bag who was paid off by a law firm looking to get some money out of a pharm company. Vaccines were the arbitrary scapegoat. Therefore there still exists no rational or defensible reason to attack them except that some random dude said it one time. We might as well blame autism on living under powerlines (in addition to causing cancer ) Correlation does not equal causation and it saddens and scares me that I continually have to point this out among people in the medical realm.

Originally Posted by facetguy

Monetize it to a great enough extent and perhaps...

have you ever looked up stats on vaccinations and the % of the pie that they bring in for pharm companies? If not for the safety and efficacy of vaccines there would be little to no reason for them to make them. It is actually in big pharma's best interest to not make them and treat you for the recurring illnesses that they prevent

This also is a perfect segway (if I anticipate your retort correctly) to discuss herd immunity. The fact that we do not see a lot of a disease at the moment is not a good reason to suddenly cut vaccinations. It is, in fact, the worst reason to

IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE. I had an MMR booster on Friday and I feel so withdrawn today!

Originally Posted by BHaus9

IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE. I had an MMR booster on Friday and I feel so withdrawn today!

lmao

I like that they list Google as a source for the article

Originally Posted by Rothbard

They're saying the same thing about the kind of people in this forum.

Let's face it, most of us in this forum here are not familiar with the literature, we believe the things we believe because people we trust have told us to believe them. There's really no difference between our group and theirs.

Just just two groups of people trying to out-appeal-to-authority each other, convinced that they're right, but only slightly familiar with the data.

No, not at all. I've reviewed the literature quite a bit, and their side is "supported" by an article that was withdrawn from the publishing journal after all the other authors rescinded their support for it. The lead author was recommended to be stripped of his medical license for scientific misconduct. Ensuing studies did not support its original conclusions, and it turns out that Wakefield had financial motives to lie/falsify his data.

Have you guys looked at the home page for that site? Hilarious. Seriously must be owned by The Onion. You can literally take every headline, make it say the opposite, and that will be closer to the actual truth.

But Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey SAY that vaccines are dangerous and cause autism! They know what they're talking about right? They're celebrities!!

UGH...

Originally Posted by Acoustic

Have you guys looked at the home page for that site? Hilarious. Seriously must be owned by The Onion. You can literally take every headline, make it say the opposite, and that will be closer to the actual truth.

Except the part about Obama data mining us. That has to be true! If you don't believe me just read the article!!1!one!

Originally Posted by Acoustic

Have you guys looked at the home page for that site? Hilarious. Seriously must be owned by The Onion. You can literally take every headline, make it say the opposite, and that will be closer to the actual truth.

It is one of the most terrifying things on the internet, and the health ranger may very well be the antichrist.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

have you ever looked up stats on vaccinations and the % of the pie that they bring in for pharm companies? If not for the safety and efficacy of vaccines there would be little to no reason for them to make them. It is actually in big pharma's best interest to not make them and treat you for the recurring illnesses that they prevent

This also is a perfect segway (if I anticipate your retort correctly) to discuss herd immunity. The fact that we do not see a lot of a disease at the moment is not a good reason to suddenly cut vaccinations. It is, in fact, the worst reason to

I'm not disagreeing with you about the value of vaccines. However, that sector of the industry is not without profits.

From Business Wire:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/s...81&newsLang=en

"By 2016, the Global Vaccines Market is Expected to Generate More Than Twice the Annual Revenue of 2009.
The global vaccines industry was valued at $24 billion in 2009 and is expected to reach $52 billion in 2016 at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 11.5%. The vaccines market, which was once considered a low-profit segment of the top players' portfolios, showed a turnaround after the resounding success of Prevnar, the first blockbuster vaccine. The ability of vaccines to generate high revenue and profits despite being priced at a premium has proven attractive to both existing players in the market and to big pharmaceutical companies who have been watching the development of the market with interest....The success of premium priced vaccines such as Prevnar, Gardasil, and Cervarix has prompted big pharmaceutical players such as Pfizer and AstraZeneca to invest in the vaccines industry which promises safe revenues due to a lack of threat from generics."

"Vaccines such as Prevnar and Gardasil, which are generating more than $1 billion a year, are being extended for preventing more related diseases with the aim of adding to the existing revenue streams."

$1B/yr is some decent scratch. It's hard to not come off a bit conspiratorial with this, but money drives certain aspects of medicine, and when vaccine manufacturers are looking for ways "of adding to the existing revenue streams" one can only hope that these vaccines get the scrutiny they deserve (like any new drug). Vaccines enjoy a special status in our healthcare system; I wouldn't want to see that status exploited.

I don't see how they're exploiting anything. If there's solid evidence that gardasil provides protection against anal and oropharyngeal HPV, then it should be an option for your patient. Capitalism and good medicine aren't necessarily opponents.

Originally Posted by ijn

I don't see how they're exploiting anything. If there's solid evidence that gardasil provides protection against anal and oralpharyngeal HPV, then it should be an option for your patient.

I didn't say anyone was exploiting. I said I hope it doesn't go that way in the name of profit seeking. If a vaccine has real value with little risk, then great. But when there's a blockbuster involved, funny things can happen and next thing you know there's another vaccine or two or three added to the mandatory vaccine schedule.

Andrew Wakefield is a disgrace whose nonsense probably ended up killing a bunch of kids.

vaccines are like seat belts.

there is nothing factual to argue about and some people really dont want to use them.