Help! Is my baby is showing signs of autism?

altruistica said:

FACT 1 - Over 95% of research into whether vaccinations cause autism has been undertaken by pharmaceuticals companies themselves. They are under no obligation whatsoever to provide information on negative aspects of their findings.

I do not know the figures, and though I very much doubt that 95% figure, I am willing to accept that it may indeed be fact.

However, what I do know to be fact is that studies have been done by wholy independant scientists and those studies found there to be no causal link between vaccines and autism.

It should also be noted that in all cases I have seen of people claiming a link between the two, the people making that claim have some kind of financial interest in the claim being true.

So if you disregard the however many studies by big pharma, and the claims of those who have a financial interest in there being a causal link between vaccines and autism, the vast majority of what you are left with is those studies by independent scientists who pretty much all state that there is little to no evidence to support even the weakest causal links.

altruistica said:

FACT 2 - No research has ever been undertaken listing the accumulative result of the whole vaccination program. If vaccines have proved to be 'safe', they have been tested in isolation to one another.

This is just plain wrong.

altruistica said:

FACT 3 - If someone receives a vaccination, who was otherwise healthy when they received the vaccination and ends up dead less than 48 hours later (other than being hit by a bus or similar), then in my own mind the circumstantial evidence points to the vaccine as being the cause of death. It doesn't matter whether the same vaccine given to 100,000 other people didn't cause death, in this individual it caused death. You won't however find any medical practitioner coming out directly and saying that....not because they don't believe it, but simply because they would be professionally crucified.

Rubbish. Any medical practitioner who didn't report the death of a person within 48 hours of them taking a vaccine would be prefessionally crucified. Not the other way round.

altruistica said:

If anyone responds to my posting please don't bother saying my FACTS are incorrect. I have studied the papers and irrespective of what you've been told, or read or come to the conclusion about, you will not change my mind about these things. When I say FACTS by the way, I mean them to be FACTS as I want to believe them as we all construct our world based on belief systems. Angelina Jolie has just had a double masectomy because she believes she has a gene make-up that will give her cancer. I've no idea if she follows a healthy diet of brocolli, turmeric, ginger, garlic and other anti-cancer type foods, but she is of the belief that no matter what other lifestyle changes she could make, a double masectomy was her best option in avoiding cancer. I wonder if she side-steps the scanner machines when she's globe-trotting around the world, or if she has routine mammograms.....you see, I believe you're much more likely to develop *** cancer if you're *** are subjected even to the tiniest of exposure if you're already inclined that way.....much like the vaccination program.

The problem here, altrusitica, is that "FACTS as I want to believe them" are not facts they are beliefs. The two should not be confused.

Angelina Jolie is of the belief that having a mastectomy is the best thing for her. And that's fine. Her decision affects no one but her.

However, when a decision affects others it is far be for it to be based on true, scientific, facts, than on mere belief.

altruistica said:

FACT 4 - Spring onions repeat on me whenever I eat them, sometimes for days on end. They don't affect 99.9% of the population in the same way, so spring onions cannot possibly cause me the gastronomical distress....it must all be in my mind.

Well, actually, it could all be in your mind (the mind can affect the body so if you believe spring onions repeat on you and you knowingly eat spring onions then they are more likely to repeat on you than not, even if they would not have if you didn't know had eaten them).

But, that aside, once again, your decision to eat spring onions, or not, affects no one, greatly, other than yourself.

So, this decision belongs, like Angelina Jolie's, in the realm of personal choice.

If your eating spring onions, however, affected a large population of people, then it would not belong in the realm of personal choice.

altruistica said:

FACT 5 - My sister (53) has been severly allergic to eggs ever since I've known her. She only has to touch something that has egg in it to come out in a rash and feel unwell. She now carries a solution around with her in case of anaphylaxis. Is it so unthinkable that a subset of the population has difficulty in dealing with all the different ingredients in a vaccine?

Once again, your sister's allergic reaction to eggs affects no one but herself.

Would it be right to suggest that no-one eat eggs simply because some people have an allegic reaction to them?

No it would not.

altruistica said:

FACT 6 - The whole vaccine program would fall down tomorrow if the population were given true figures over reactions to vaccines. Even if a figure was given that said MMR can cause a condition similar to autism in 1 in 100,000 (a very conservertive number), people would stop accepting the vaccine. Any rational thinking person given what I've just said about spring onion, eggs, disease in general (why do some people develop something and others don't.....look up figures of Swine Flu for example). This is the crux of the matter. For the vaccination program to keep going, health professionals have to carry on with the lie that vaccines are safe in all the population. If they don't?.....well ask Andrew Wakefield what happens.

Rubbish. Look at the recent events in Wales to see what actually happens when people learned the truth about vaccines. They rushed to get their children vaccinated because they saw it was the right thing to do.

Oh, and by the way, a 25 year old man died because of that measles outbreak.

And why did he die?

Because Andrew Wakefield incorrectly told people not to immunise their children, based on his belief, not on fact.

That's what happens when you ignore scientific fact.

People die.

altruistica said:

If my son Thomas was newly born tomorrow, knowing what I know now, he wouldn't receive any vaccinations. As older parents at the time, we were told that there was a chance of 1 in 2000 that he would be born with Down's Syndrome  (because of my wife's age, 37 at the time). If we had an amniocentesis test we could find out if the embryo was Down's but with a risk that the baby could be damaged. We opted not to have the test. With my daughter born 4 years later, the risk was now 1 in 100. We once again played the numbers game and it turned out that she didn't have Down's. We were prepared to risk Down's at a chance of 1 in 100 because without it there wouldn't have been life. I'm pretty sure other people wouldn't risk having a vaccine that purportedly stopped the risk of say measles, if the risk was autism even if the rate was 1 in 10,000.

Those were personal choices.

And it was fine for you to make that choices as it affected no one but yourselves and your unborn children.

It would not have been fine for you make those choices if it had affected a large population of people.

altruistica said:

OK.....I now need to stop delivering stuff about vaccines....there are some great websites out there where you can find this stuff out.

And most, if not all, of those websites that state that there is a causal link between vaccines and autism have a financial reason to do so.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, that is your right as an individual.

What you do not have the right to do, however, is present your beliefes as fact without having those beliefs challenged.

And people in the former Dr Wakefield's position certainly don't have the right to scare people into doing things that put large populations of both children and adults at risk based on their unfounded beliefs.

altruistica said:

FACT 1 - Over 95% of research into whether vaccinations cause autism has been undertaken by pharmaceuticals companies themselves. They are under no obligation whatsoever to provide information on negative aspects of their findings.

I do not know the figures, and though I very much doubt that 95% figure, I am willing to accept that it may indeed be fact.

However, what I do know to be fact is that studies have been done by wholy independant scientists and those studies found there to be no causal link between vaccines and autism.

It should also be noted that in all cases I have seen of people claiming a link between the two, the people making that claim have some kind of financial interest in the claim being true.

So if you disregard the however many studies by big pharma, and the claims of those who have a financial interest in there being a causal link between vaccines and autism, the vast majority of what you are left with is those studies by independent scientists who pretty much all state that there is little to no evidence to support even the weakest causal links.

altruistica said:

FACT 2 - No research has ever been undertaken listing the accumulative result of the whole vaccination program. If vaccines have proved to be 'safe', they have been tested in isolation to one another.

This is just plain wrong.

altruistica said:

FACT 3 - If someone receives a vaccination, who was otherwise healthy when they received the vaccination and ends up dead less than 48 hours later (other than being hit by a bus or similar), then in my own mind the circumstantial evidence points to the vaccine as being the cause of death. It doesn't matter whether the same vaccine given to 100,000 other people didn't cause death, in this individual it caused death. You won't however find any medical practitioner coming out directly and saying that....not because they don't believe it, but simply because they would be professionally crucified.

Rubbish. Any medical practitioner who didn't report the death of a person within 48 hours of them taking a vaccine would be prefessionally crucified. Not the other way round.

altruistica said:

If anyone responds to my posting please don't bother saying my FACTS are incorrect. I have studied the papers and irrespective of what you've been told, or read or come to the conclusion about, you will not change my mind about these things. When I say FACTS by the way, I mean them to be FACTS as I want to believe them as we all construct our world based on belief systems. Angelina Jolie has just had a double masectomy because she believes she has a gene make-up that will give her cancer. I've no idea if she follows a healthy diet of brocolli, turmeric, ginger, garlic and other anti-cancer type foods, but she is of the belief that no matter what other lifestyle changes she could make, a double masectomy was her best option in avoiding cancer. I wonder if she side-steps the scanner machines when she's globe-trotting around the world, or if she has routine mammograms.....you see, I believe you're much more likely to develop *** cancer if you're *** are subjected even to the tiniest of exposure if you're already inclined that way.....much like the vaccination program.

The problem here, altrusitica, is that "FACTS as I want to believe them" are not facts they are beliefs. The two should not be confused.

Angelina Jolie is of the belief that having a mastectomy is the best thing for her. And that's fine. Her decision affects no one but her.

However, when a decision affects others it is far be for it to be based on true, scientific, facts, than on mere belief.

altruistica said:

FACT 4 - Spring onions repeat on me whenever I eat them, sometimes for days on end. They don't affect 99.9% of the population in the same way, so spring onions cannot possibly cause me the gastronomical distress....it must all be in my mind.

Well, actually, it could all be in your mind (the mind can affect the body so if you believe spring onions repeat on you and you knowingly eat spring onions then they are more likely to repeat on you than not, even if they would not have if you didn't know had eaten them).

But, that aside, once again, your decision to eat spring onions, or not, affects no one, greatly, other than yourself.

So, this decision belongs, like Angelina Jolie's, in the realm of personal choice.

If your eating spring onions, however, affected a large population of people, then it would not belong in the realm of personal choice.

altruistica said:

FACT 5 - My sister (53) has been severly allergic to eggs ever since I've known her. She only has to touch something that has egg in it to come out in a rash and feel unwell. She now carries a solution around with her in case of anaphylaxis. Is it so unthinkable that a subset of the population has difficulty in dealing with all the different ingredients in a vaccine?

Once again, your sister's allergic reaction to eggs affects no one but herself.

Would it be right to suggest that no-one eat eggs simply because some people have an allegic reaction to them?

No it would not.

altruistica said:

FACT 6 - The whole vaccine program would fall down tomorrow if the population were given true figures over reactions to vaccines. Even if a figure was given that said MMR can cause a condition similar to autism in 1 in 100,000 (a very conservertive number), people would stop accepting the vaccine. Any rational thinking person given what I've just said about spring onion, eggs, disease in general (why do some people develop something and others don't.....look up figures of Swine Flu for example). This is the crux of the matter. For the vaccination program to keep going, health professionals have to carry on with the lie that vaccines are safe in all the population. If they don't?.....well ask Andrew Wakefield what happens.

Rubbish. Look at the recent events in Wales to see what actually happens when people learned the truth about vaccines. They rushed to get their children vaccinated because they saw it was the right thing to do.

Oh, and by the way, a 25 year old man died because of that measles outbreak.

And why did he die?

Because Andrew Wakefield incorrectly told people not to immunise their children, based on his belief, not on fact.

That's what happens when you ignore scientific fact.

People die.

altruistica said:

If my son Thomas was newly born tomorrow, knowing what I know now, he wouldn't receive any vaccinations. As older parents at the time, we were told that there was a chance of 1 in 2000 that he would be born with Down's Syndrome  (because of my wife's age, 37 at the time). If we had an amniocentesis test we could find out if the embryo was Down's but with a risk that the baby could be damaged. We opted not to have the test. With my daughter born 4 years later, the risk was now 1 in 100. We once again played the numbers game and it turned out that she didn't have Down's. We were prepared to risk Down's at a chance of 1 in 100 because without it there wouldn't have been life. I'm pretty sure other people wouldn't risk having a vaccine that purportedly stopped the risk of say measles, if the risk was autism even if the rate was 1 in 10,000.

Those were personal choices.

And it was fine for you to make that choices as it affected no one but yourselves and your unborn children.

It would not have been fine for you make those choices if it had affected a large population of people.

altruistica said:

OK.....I now need to stop delivering stuff about vaccines....there are some great websites out there where you can find this stuff out.

And most, if not all, of those websites that state that there is a causal link between vaccines and autism have a financial reason to do so.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, that is your right as an individual.

What you do not have the right to do, however, is present your beliefes as fact without having those beliefs challenged.

And people in the former Dr Wakefield's position certainly don't have the right to scare people into doing things that put large populations of both children and adults at risk based on their unfounded beliefs.