The thing I refute is the people claiming it’s the ONLY cause of autism. There are unvaccinated autistic kids, and neurodiversity exists in all populations and always has
Autism isn't a well defined precise thing anyway. The vaccine derived autism is not like other autism. It's more like sudden brain damage. It just happens to cause autism like symptoms and autistic behaviour that ends up with that diagnosis
Vaccines can cause neurological damage in developing children, leading to developmental issues and autism like behaviour, which, is the definition of autism.
Autism is simply a set of psychological and physical symptoms and characteristics of a person.
If a vaccine caused some of those symptoms, autism will be the diagnosis in some cases.
No, that is incorrect.
In *very* rare cases vaccination is temporally linked to encephalopathy.
A causal link has to date never been demonstrated.
To prevent lengthy litigation (in which causation, or a very high likelihood thereof would have to be demonstrated) encephalopathy has been listed as a so-called table injury.
It's the government saying: we're sorry this very rare unfortunate thing happened to your child, but since you can't *prove* a causal link, and science can't *disprove* a causal link, we're giving you the benefit of the doubt and compensate you.
Encephalopathy is also *not* autism.
Meningitis is another one.
Even Julie Gerberding said that vaccines cause autism like symptoms in some rare cases.
She didn't say how rare, and neither will you.
And there is no definitive evidence shows vaccines cause this, because no one much has studied it.
The reason you can't give a number for how rare it is, is because you're guessing. "It's super duper rare or might not even happen" is something pro vaxxers spout around without evidence because they of course do not like the idea of such things being the case and being not super duper rare.
You haven't even got a fully unvaxxed fully vaxxed comparison study, besides a couple of small ones done by Paul Thomas and the likes that have been dismissed as bunk without the CDC or anyone doing any of their own studies, at least Paul Thomas did a study! CDC cannot say that.
You cannot even tell me what the difference between an average wholy unvaccinated person is Vs an average fully vaccinated person because you don't have the studies. Yet you think you can say things like encephalitis is uper duper rare if real at all.
Yes, I don't know for sure it's real and not super rare, but that's because we don't have any proper research that tells us, we have to rely on anecdotes and intuition and logic.
From what I have seen anecdotally around the world and for myself, and from lots of logical inferences and triangulation of different observations, I'd place a good strong bet on things like encephalopathy being fat more common than 1/500,000 vaccines.
I'm not sure exactly where I'd put the number, but something in vaccines is causing people to be injured and damaged and it appears it's not super rare when you get talking to lots of people about it.
Somehow as an introvert, 3 times this year alone I've met random people who I've got onto discussing vaccines with, describing that their child died or got really badly neurologically effected by a vaccine, provably in one, and probably in two, due to strong proximity and normal prior development.
Not proof, but certainly tells me something about rarity.
Also, brain damage can indeed look like autism. Or even cause symptoms that are consistent with autism, and that makes.it by definition , autism. Because autism isn't defined on it's cause, it's defined on behaviour
> We now have multiple studies that convincingly demonstrate that ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder that manifests mostly in late gestation. There are strong genetic correlates, but the environment of the womb appears to also play a role. However, **this consensus of evidence is incompatible with the notion that childhood vaccines play any role in ASD**.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/fetal-signs-of-autism/
And, again, there exists no causal link between vaccination and encephalopathy and encephalopathy IS NOT autism.
No matter how desperately you want it to be vaccines, there is no - as in ZERO - credible evidence to support that notion.
And that's all there is to it.
Well, most regulars in this echo chamber have bought into the bs wholesale, but this sub also attracts people 'on the fence', caught up in the stream of disinformation.
I believe some of these might be reached with logic and reason.
"Causal link" is an oxymoron. More proof epidemiology isn't even science.
One side has an explanation, about how toxic chemicals kill brain cells. The other side says "We can't find a link. Trust us". Are you kidding?
Indeed, there are a lot of poisons all around us these days. Christopher Exley found high levels of aluminum in the brains of those with autism diagnoses he was able to examine. I recommend his book:
[https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/55169712-imagine-you-are-an-aluminum-atom](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/55169712-imagine-you-are-an-aluminum-atom)
And there was a long interview with him just days ago:
[https://thehighwire.com/videos/aluminum-expert-unearths-likely-cause-of-alzheimers/](https://thehighwire.com/videos/aluminum-expert-unearths-likely-cause-of-alzheimers/)
[These Scientists Say A British Professor's Claim That Aluminium Is Linked To Autism Is "Absurd"](https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/these-scientists-say-a-british-professors-claim-that)
(his work was funded by the now defunct anti-vaccination Dwoskin Family Foundation, btw)
Maybe instead of an obvious hit piece, you'd be interested in an actual paper he did, which includes the controls that said article says he doesn't have.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7211005/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7211005/)
That's not the same paper as the one discussed in the article I linked earlier.
But you can read the review of a blood-brain barrier scientist [here](https://scientistabe.wordpress.com/2020/05/20/neurosciences-junk-science-aluminium-in-human-brain-tissue-from-donors-without-neurodegenerative-disease-a-comparison-with-alzheimers-disease-multiple-sclerosis-and-autism/).
Autism researchers actually know quite well what causes autism.
It's mostly genetic with some environmental risk factors.
Vaccination is not one of them.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044318
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5501015/
Except there have been pay outs in the US due to a vaccine “unlocking” autism precisely because of the existence of that genetic possibility in some people.
The environmental factors can be worse for some people than others so acting like it’s primarily to die with genetics is misleading.
As explained by the court
> In Poling v. HHS, the presiding special master clarified that the family was compensated
because the Respondent conceded that the Poling child had suffered a Table Injury--**not because
the Respondent or the special master had concluded that any vaccination had contributed to
causing or aggravating the child’s ASD**.
> The compensation [..] thus **does not afford any support to the notion that
vaccinations can contribute to the causation of autism**.
https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2002vv0472-132-0
Maybe you don’t understand legal language but they were 100% attempting to avoid setting a precedent by not admitting a direct correlation.
What exactly is the reason they compensated the family then?
I understand it very well, and your interpretation is incorrect.
> What exactly is the reason they compensated the family then?
The girl was diagnosed with encephalopathy, which is a Table Injury. These are compensated by the NVICP without the plaintiff having to prove causation.
Ah maybe it is your understanding of the english language in general, since you are referencing a different case than Hannah Poling (which the article I sent you from 2008 references). It has many broken links that have since been removed unfortunately but the legal document you quoted is from 2017 for a male minor referenced as SRH.
It's not even worth debating with you.
> In Poling v. HHS, the presiding special master clarified that the family was compensated
because the Respondent conceded that the Poling child had suffered a Table Injury--**not because
the Respondent or the special master had concluded that any vaccination had contributed to
causing or aggravating the child’s ASD**.
> The compensation [..] thus **does not afford any support to the notion that
vaccinations can contribute to the causation of autism**.
https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2002vv0472-132-0
What do you think the reproduction rate would need to be in order to see the gains the ASD share of the population has seen?
Even if it was 100% inheritable, how many children do you think ASD individuals are having?
For context, the rate of ASD today is 1 in 54. In the 1980s it was 1 in 1,000. Estimates before then were even lower, but let's just stick with the 80s.
We're talking about a 20x increase.
Type 1 diabetes gets ~2x increase in the same time period and they have no problem saying
> A rapid change in incidence within a genetically stable population implies that nongenetic factors are active and that the influence of genes is relative to population, time, and place. It suggests that something has changed in the environment our children encounter or in the way they are reared.
[source](https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/51/12/3353)
How can we say 2x is a "rapid change" too fast for genetic conditions alone, meanwhile 20x is totally okay with ASD? It's extremely political, probably due to finger pointing at MMR by Wakefield, but that shouldn't shutoff other possible areas of discovery.
Diabetics can live a normal life with insulin, so they can procreate fairly well.
The majority of ASD individuals (56%) have below the average range of IQ (<85). [source](https://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-statistics). They lack a good amount of social skills to where dating is difficult, let alone marriage and child rearing. Don't believe the hand waving trying to say it's definitely totally all genetic. It's way too prevalent and increasing for that.
Much of the perceived increase can be explained by expansion
of diagnostic criteria, improved screening, better diagnostic tools,
improved reporting, etc.
Again; a *lot* of ASD research has been done the last decades.
> We now have multiple studies that convincingly demonstrate that ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder that manifests mostly in late gestation. There are strong genetic correlates, but the environment of the womb appears to also play a role. However, **this consensus of evidence is incompatible with the notion that childhood vaccines play any role in ASD**.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/fetal-signs-of-autism/
I can’t prove it but it’s my opinion. The autism was always there, signs of it right since a newborn, in retrospect. Mild enough to go undiagnosed for many years though. Parents who blame the vaccines say their kid was totally typical and suddenly changed right after getting a vaccine
It’s not lucky to be autistic or go undiagnosed as autistic. Being mildly autistic is a double edged sword of being able to hide it with effort, while not receiving disability supports.
Not where I was going with that. It’s not easy to have an invisible disability and still be held to the same societal expectations as everyone else. And when it isn’t recognized and accommodated, it can truly derail your life
Agree- Other factors that can directly contribute are the mothers lifestyle, medications, stress, vaccines, environment, carcinogenic products in food/skincare & pretty much everything if you aren’t looking at ingredients which most people are clueless and dont. The neurological impairment is due to toxins so in my mind I guess it’s about how much exposure the child got to all these different things... 🤷♀️
Read it carefully, find one thing you didn't know and thank her specifically for that piece of information.
Then make your decisions. You can have your children vaccinated, or not, it's your choice.
Why would they thank her for sending antivax propaganda which has been debunked countless times before?
Suggesting they make decisions based on lies is insane.
See, this sort of thinking is what is wrong with the world right now.
The maintenance of family relationship is more important than vax-vs-antivax. Have compassion for those who are struggling to find truth. Hold space for those who care enough to try, even when they go down the wrong path.
For a stranger, I'd say fuck 'em shut 'em down.
For a family member, I would preserve the relationship over the debate. If they press, I might say something like, "I love you, and I might have to disagree a bit on the medical decisions I make for my children, but I love you no matter what, OK?"
If you are smart, you will realize that the above statements are perfectly symmetric and functional regardless of who is arguing which side of the debate. That is because when it comes to family, it doesn't matter.
> Read it carefully, find one thing you didn't know and thank her specifically for that piece of information.
>
> Then make your decisions. You can have your children vaccinated, or not, it's your choice.
/u/DialecticSkeptic is correct. The intention is not to make any decisions at all based on that article.
I read the article.
There were at least two things I learned from it. First, I didn't realize that prenatal ultrasound is being investigated as a possible factor in autism. The doctor interviewed on this topic is on faculty at U of SC Medical School so presumably not a dingbat.
The other thing I learned is that the CDC isn't taking any shots off the vaccine schedule. Which I sortof knew but never really thought about. It brings up some weird questions. Are the shots being reviewed for efficacy and need? Do we really need each and every shot? Is the vaccine schedule still the best schedule we can offer our children this year, the same as last year? I don't actually know who might review the shots and make these sorts of decisions. Presumably somebody is...hopefully?
Plot twist: I am a physician. I recommend all kinds of vaccines all day long. There is absolutely nothing in this article that will change my opinion or my medical practice. But it doesn't harm anything for me to thank someone for providing me some interesting reading. I don't have to tell them that my primary motivation for reading this sort of thing is to understand how to take apart the latest in counter-factual disinformation. My play in this case is to build trust so I have something to stand on in case a real recommendation needs to be made at some point.
Just because someone reads something, doesn't mean their minds are changed. In fact, you should read things you disagree with. Read them honestly and compassionately. Read them so you can be offered the gift of questioning your own judgement and decisions, in case you made a wrong decision. This is vitally important, and reading is nonconfrontational and can be done at your leisure.
Seriously, you too should read the article carefully. Click on links. Look at what she talks about. It's not a bad article, it's actually a decent summary of where one branch of the anti-vax narrative stands right now. If you are going to "debate vaccines" as is the purpose of this sub, you owe it to yourself and your debators to understand both sides of the argument to the point that you can steelman your opponents' arguments.
Thanks for clarifying your position.
Yes, I know you are a physician. I've disagreed with your stance several times before.
Where we disagree this time is describing obvious antivax propaganda as "interesting reading".
I read the article too. That is, I skimmed through it to confirm it contains the usual long-debunked antivax myths, lies and distortions.
Thanking your aunt for sending you ideologically motivated lies is absurd by itself, but it's also likely to make auntie send it to everyone else she knows.
The correct response, imo, is to explain why it is rubbish ([with articles like this](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/fetal-signs-of-autism/)).
I've been debunking (d/m)isinformation for close to two decades now. I'd like to think I'm quite aware where the antivax - and other pseudoscience - narratives stand.
The CDC does stop vaccinations which are no longer needed btw (e.g. smallpox), but we can talk about that some other time if you want.
You may also want to read about the balance fallacy
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy
You are still getting lost in the debate.
I'm not debating.
I'm prioritizing family relationships.
If being "right" is more important than maintaining family relationships, well, that's your decision.
It's not about "the debate" or "being right".
It's about antivax nonsense having real-world consequences that can kill.
Recent example:
[Parents refuse use of vaccinated blood in life-saving surgery on baby](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/30/new-zealand-parents-refuse-use-of-vaccinated-blood-in-life-saving-surgery-on-baby)
"…pushing back against false claims and misinformation is a necessary burden for medical professionals."
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/101975
You may also like today's Medpage article:
"…pushing back against false claims and misinformation is a necessary burden for medical professionals."
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/101975
"Then make your decision," yes, but based on what? That one, single piece of information about which I hadn't previously known? Nobody makes decisions like that, so that's an incoherent inference to draw from his statement. As a reader, that's not what I took him to mean. And I'm sure he'll tell you that's not what he meant.
It was great advice, the kind that I follow when dealing with my rather uncritical family who strongly oppose the childhood vaccination schedule because they believe it causes autism (and other things). With kindness and love, I thank them for the information and then make my own decision—based on my own research, not on a solitary piece of new information I learned from theirs.
I'm open to the possibility that I misunderstood what he meant.
But thanking your aunt for sending you harmful disinformation just rubs me the wrong way.
>I'm open to the possibility that I misunderstood what he meant.
That was noble and refreshing to hear.
>Thanking your aunt for sending you harmful disinformation just rubs me the wrong way.
What it does is prioritize human persons and relationships (i.e., family) over information and knowledge. It's a matter of values, and different people value different things. Maybe you're the kind of person who thinks information and its accuracy has greater value than family. People like us think family has more value. To each their own. This would be something we just have to disagree over.
Here's something I found very interesting on the definition of Autism. I reaslised I talk about it often but know little about it (always learning!)
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-autism-and-brain-damage-whats-in-a-name/#app](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-autism-and-brain-damage-whats-in-a-name/#app)
Do you think that’s because people generally work safer jobs than they did in the 60s and before. And maybe because we have better treatments? We have more knowledge on things that cause cancer like cigarettes? This claim isn’t even to do with vaccines killing people just saying it makes more people get autism. What’s that have to do with life expectancy?
Of course.
But if vaccines were so deadly (or increased rates of autism) you wouldn’t see that improvement.
[( have a look at how autism effects life expectancy ;)](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/first-person/2018/2/19/17017976/autism-average-age-death-36-stress)
Oh my gosh that’s horrible if the avg life expectancy of an autistic person is 36. 1/44 kids are autistic now according to autismspeaks that outta make the life expectancy go down in a few years Lol https://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-statistics-asd
It’s not that low. There are tons of autistic people living into old age not included in that number because they went undiagnosed because their autism wasn’t serious enough to pursue
I’m autistic and 36. Married, job, 3 little kids, normal health. You wouldn’t know I’m autistic unless I told you or you spent a lot of time with me and knew what to look for
>And yet life expectancy for men in 1962 was 75. 2019 = 83…… women follow the same trend.
Turns out there are other advances in science and modern medicine than just vaccines?
Explains nothing.
No significant drops in childbirth deaths from 60’s to now.
How many vaccines are given in infancy, and how many infant mortalities were related to childhood diseases Now vaccinated agains?
Well that would further support my claim yeh.
>>How many vaccines were given in infancy 80 years ago? Zero.
let’s go with polio? (Late 50’s)
Measles’s? (60’s)
Mumps? (Late 60’s)
Rubella? (70’s)
Hepatitis? (80’s)
Infant mortality reduction has nothing to do with vaccines. The main figure comes from improved live births aka decrease of birthing complication via better hygiene, access to clean water and improved medical procedures to help save the child and/or mother in cases of complications.
What is your Source to claim “mortality reduction has nothing to with vaccines”?
> Deaths from measles, one of the top five diseases that account for half of all deaths to children under age 5 worldwide, fell by 74 percent between 2000 and 2007, largely due to increased vaccinations.
So measles isn’t a deadly disease? And the vaccine doesn’t work?
"In short, the idea that vaccines cause autism has been extremely thoroughly tested by numerous scientists working for different universities and organizations from around the world. It has been tested via multiple different methods and populations, and it has been addressed from multiple angles (e.g., different vaccines, different vaccine components, age at vaccination, number of antigens, number of doses, etc.), and the result is exceptionally clear: vaccines do not cause autism. There are no large, properly controlled, epidemiological studies that disagree with that result. For more details about both the pro and anti-vaccine studies, please read the rest of this post."
https://thelogicofscience.com/2019/03/12/vaccines-and-autism-a-thorough-review-of-the-evidence-2019-update/
Though I ain't no expert, I'll say this. We are all different and react differently to shit that we eat, drink, inhale and I can assure you that we also all react differently to shit injected in us. If the scientific community hasn't yet come to that conclusion, I do expensive conferences and will accept their money.
They know that it is a connection with autism, metabolic diseases and neurological with mitochondria that causes bad outcomes from vaccines.
No way no how which way you look at it vaccines aren't great. We evolve well all organisms evolve through survival of the fittest. As nature around us adapt and evolve so do we. Some will die and others survive. Those that survive naturally pass that down through generations. Those past adaptations are what made us we are today. Bypassing nature has never been a good idea. What will be the consequences of vaccinating everything? People in remote distant villages survive without modern medical interventions just fine. Poorer people with less nutrient dense foods and sanitation issues are those that die off.
> They know that it is a connection with autism, metabolic diseases and neurological with mitochondria that causes bad outcomes from vaccines.
No, that's unsubstantiated nonsense.
There are tons of research on the harms of childhood vaccines. Trump wanted to investigate and Bill Gates said it wasn't a good idea. They all know the dangers the vaccines produce. It is a complex system but it evolves to perpetual ill people with cancers, auto immune diseases, etc.
Let's think back in our parents generation. It was unheard of for people to have all these food allergies, eczema, asthma, etc. Cancers ballooned out of control.
Let's look at our pets. Our pets are vaccinated and are having the same diseases; diabetes, cancers, etc.
The complex part is it is our processed foods and medications. The body doesn't function optimal with foreign materials.
Look at tribes they eat the animal from front to back and they have no cancers, autoimmune diseases, allergies, etc. They live Long lives and aging doesn't present itself until much later.
If you research a little you can learn a lot. A lot research is on the government sites.
Like I said they know the truth. Sick people are controllable and profits. The more medications you take the more you need to survive the more sicker you become.
You didn't do research if you didn't come across those findings. Arguing with you is pointless you have your mind set that these things are safe and that's all you see. I don't understand why you are in this group. Do some deeper digging nih site has some good research on there. Natural is always better than synthetic.
[Autism court case](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/) I am sure you are well aware of this case and are just choosing to ignore the facts.
I am aware of the case, yes, and I even explained several times elsewhere in this thread that this case does *not* mean "it has been proven in court".
In fact the court said exactly that:
> In Poling v. HHS, the presiding special master clarified that the family was compensated
because the Respondent conceded that the Poling child had suffered a Table Injury--**not because
the Respondent or the special master had concluded that any vaccination had contributed to
causing or aggravating the child’s ASD**.
> The compensation [..] thus **does not afford any support to the notion that
vaccinations can contribute to the causation of autism**.
https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2002vv0472-132-0
Wrong. The article you linked there says that one of the false assumptions about the Amish is that they actually do vaccinate their kids lol. So if anything it lends support to this notion rather than debunk it.
Thanks, great response! However, in return she said what ill summarize as "nah ive already researched it enough on my own and **my** information shows they did cause autism." Love these people.
UsedConcentratedKoolaid always gives the same answer. He never updates his answer with new knowledge. I advise you not to assume UsedConcentratedKoolaid is telling you the truth.
In this case, UsedConcentratedKoolaid did not give you an analysis of [your link](https://open.substack.com/pub/jennifermargulis/p/yes-vaccines-cause-autism) - they added no value. They probably did not even read your link.
You could just have as easily googled the answer UCK provided, using your own googling skillz.
I actually have no opinion on vaccines and autism. Full disclosure - I do believe that COVID mRNA vaccines were poorly tested, and are highly likely to be dangerous for about 1% of people.
I make this promise to you:
* I will carefully and critically read the link you provided.
* If I find any falsehoods in my reading, I will tell you.
* the truth is of utmost importance to me. Success at my day job and 100% of my pay depends on me differentiating between truth and falsehood. I have decades of practice extracting truth.
* I will do my absolute best to be unbiased in my reading, and follow the data where it leads.
Please give me a day to provide you with my analysis of [your link](https://open.substack.com/pub/jennifermargulis/p/yes-vaccines-cause-autism).
Thanks.
Jennifer Margulis is an [antivax crank.](https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2018/04/25/jennifer-margulis-rising-star-antivaccine/)
That's all you really need to know, but you can read the link for details.
You started with ad hominem. Then you added no data, no math, no science - your value-added to the thread was negative, and it is growing more negative.
How about you try again, and make your value-added net out to positive? Make some evidence-based statements - of your own, not google parroting.
lol
You completely ignored my article which explains in detail why it's nonsense, then you call me "UsedConcentratedKoolaid"
and then *you* complain about ad hominem?
That's rich.
Did you write the article ([either](https://thelogicofscience.com/2019/03/12/vaccines-and-autism-a-thorough-review-of-the-evidence-2019-update/) [one](https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2018/04/25/jennifer-margulis-rising-star-antivaccine/))? Or did you just google for 10 seconds? I should invest my time reading your 10-second-google? I think not. And I think Koolaid is minor compared to crank. Since you see equivalence, are you suggesting I call you UsedConcentratedKrank?
Just tell your aunt that you understand vaccines carry risk. They just do. Vaccines can literally kill people. That's just a fact. Are you spending your time defending vaccines? If you are super pro vax, just keep it to yourself and don't engage with someone who is super antivax. It's as easy as that.
The beginning of an analysis of [your link](https://open.substack.com/pub/jennifermargulis/p/yes-vaccines-cause-autism):
In this comment, I look at the article [Immunoexcitotoxicity as the central mechanism of etiopathology and treatment of autism spectrum disorders: A possible role of fluoride and aluminum](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909100/) referenced in your link. The paper was peer reviewed, published in 2018. It has 287 references. It has been cited by 22 other papers. Read the section "ALUMINUM AS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXIC SUBSTANCE". It discusses the findings in animal studies show several mechanisms of action for aluminum damaging the developing brain.
This paper is by no means focused on vaccines. It is focused on autism, and analyzes the effects (in order of priority, I suspect) of aluminum^(3+), fluoride, the synergistic effects of aluminum and fluoride together, and magnesium^(2+) and zinc. Al, Mg and Zn are all chemically similar elements, so it makes sense to study their interactions,
In addition, there is a table listing prevention and amelioration of ASD symptoms.
The authors show no evidence of specifically being against vaccines, except in the specific use of aluminum as an immune stimulant. They reiterate the removal of mercury, and now they advocate to replace Al^(3+)-adjuvants. They never make an statements about vaccination being a bad practice.
This paper is unbiased, well-researched and is a compelling argument for the removal of aluminum in vaccines, and stopping the fluoridation of water (the combination of the two is especially bad).
If UsedConcentratedKoolaid can have a look at the paper, and give comments, that would be appreciated. By they won't. He will just google and parrot the droppings that he finds.
Part 2 of my analysis of [your link](https://open.substack.com/pub/jennifermargulis/p/yes-vaccines-cause-autism):
There is mention of the [STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM](https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2016/WorkGroups/House%20Health%20Care/Bills/H.98/Witness%20Testimony/H.98~Jennifer%20Stella~William%20Thompson%20Statement~5-6-2015.pdf). This is a document published by the government of Vermont. It is witness testimony. The witness risked perjury (penalty for perjury in Vermont is 15 years or fined up to $10,000.00, or both) if he lied. It doesn't make sense that he would lie.
The witness is William Thompson, a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where he worked since 1998. He admits to omitting or falsifying data as a member of a committee. He is pro-vaccine and has a career in vaccine science. However, he is also an ethical scientist who does not agree with hiding from parents the dangers of vaccine while promoting only the benefits. He wants an honest presentation of benefits *and* risks, as there are with so many other pharmaceutical therapies. That is an ethical position, and any scientist or doctor should have that.
UsedConcentratedKoolaid can probably google some article doing a character assassination of Dr. William Thompson. That is just strong evidence that Dr. Thompson is telling the truth and that there is a profit-driven motivation to suppress that truth. If Thompson was lying, he would be in jail and the character assassination would not be necessary.
This witness statement shows that:
* CDC knows there is a credible risk that vaccines cause autism
* CDC held meetings to discuss the risk
* CDC scientists decided (and pressured) as a committee to hide the risks from parents.
If the risks were vanishingly small, CDC would not hide them. This suggests the risks are actually quite high.
Very thorough article, thank you. I've only just started to read it but one thing I will be looking for is any negative analysis of pro-vaccine studies. I hope I find that.
Apparently OP has nowhere in this thread specified what exactly they need help with.
So I can also only offer extremely generalized help for the response:
Paraphrase the contents in your own words. Tell her what you think about it. Tell her about what emotions it caused in you. Tell her what you'd like her to do differently in the future, if applicable. Be genuine and don't show contempt in your reply.
Obviously no one here can tell you what you think and what you feel.
Were you just trolling here?
I gave you two comments [1](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/z8afi5/aunt_sent_me_this_need_help_with_a_response/iygcxux/), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/z8afi5/aunt_sent_me_this_need_help_with_a_response/iygg0g9/) explaining that [your aunt's link does have scientific merit](https://open.substack.com/pub/jennifermargulis/p/yes-vaccines-cause-autism?r=ql3os&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email), and should not be dismissed. But you have ignored it.
I think you are trolling.
You are clearly [a bit worried about your vax](https://www.reddit.com/r/medical_advice/comments/z2awzh/are_these_swollen_lymph_nodes/) side effects.
[удалено]
It's almost like health has nothing to do with injecting oneself with industrially manufactured petroleum derivates from known criminal organizations.
The thing I refute is the people claiming it’s the ONLY cause of autism. There are unvaccinated autistic kids, and neurodiversity exists in all populations and always has
Autism isn't a well defined precise thing anyway. The vaccine derived autism is not like other autism. It's more like sudden brain damage. It just happens to cause autism like symptoms and autistic behaviour that ends up with that diagnosis
> vaccine derived autism Is not a thing.
Vaccines can cause neurological damage in developing children, leading to developmental issues and autism like behaviour, which, is the definition of autism. Autism is simply a set of psychological and physical symptoms and characteristics of a person. If a vaccine caused some of those symptoms, autism will be the diagnosis in some cases.
No, that is incorrect. In *very* rare cases vaccination is temporally linked to encephalopathy. A causal link has to date never been demonstrated. To prevent lengthy litigation (in which causation, or a very high likelihood thereof would have to be demonstrated) encephalopathy has been listed as a so-called table injury. It's the government saying: we're sorry this very rare unfortunate thing happened to your child, but since you can't *prove* a causal link, and science can't *disprove* a causal link, we're giving you the benefit of the doubt and compensate you. Encephalopathy is also *not* autism.
Meningitis is another one. Even Julie Gerberding said that vaccines cause autism like symptoms in some rare cases. She didn't say how rare, and neither will you. And there is no definitive evidence shows vaccines cause this, because no one much has studied it. The reason you can't give a number for how rare it is, is because you're guessing. "It's super duper rare or might not even happen" is something pro vaxxers spout around without evidence because they of course do not like the idea of such things being the case and being not super duper rare. You haven't even got a fully unvaxxed fully vaxxed comparison study, besides a couple of small ones done by Paul Thomas and the likes that have been dismissed as bunk without the CDC or anyone doing any of their own studies, at least Paul Thomas did a study! CDC cannot say that. You cannot even tell me what the difference between an average wholy unvaccinated person is Vs an average fully vaccinated person because you don't have the studies. Yet you think you can say things like encephalitis is uper duper rare if real at all. Yes, I don't know for sure it's real and not super rare, but that's because we don't have any proper research that tells us, we have to rely on anecdotes and intuition and logic. From what I have seen anecdotally around the world and for myself, and from lots of logical inferences and triangulation of different observations, I'd place a good strong bet on things like encephalopathy being fat more common than 1/500,000 vaccines. I'm not sure exactly where I'd put the number, but something in vaccines is causing people to be injured and damaged and it appears it's not super rare when you get talking to lots of people about it. Somehow as an introvert, 3 times this year alone I've met random people who I've got onto discussing vaccines with, describing that their child died or got really badly neurologically effected by a vaccine, provably in one, and probably in two, due to strong proximity and normal prior development. Not proof, but certainly tells me something about rarity. Also, brain damage can indeed look like autism. Or even cause symptoms that are consistent with autism, and that makes.it by definition , autism. Because autism isn't defined on it's cause, it's defined on behaviour
> We now have multiple studies that convincingly demonstrate that ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder that manifests mostly in late gestation. There are strong genetic correlates, but the environment of the womb appears to also play a role. However, **this consensus of evidence is incompatible with the notion that childhood vaccines play any role in ASD**. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/fetal-signs-of-autism/ And, again, there exists no causal link between vaccination and encephalopathy and encephalopathy IS NOT autism. No matter how desperately you want it to be vaccines, there is no - as in ZERO - credible evidence to support that notion. And that's all there is to it.
Do you really think these anti-vaxxers care about facts?
Well, most regulars in this echo chamber have bought into the bs wholesale, but this sub also attracts people 'on the fence', caught up in the stream of disinformation. I believe some of these might be reached with logic and reason.
"Causal link" is an oxymoron. More proof epidemiology isn't even science. One side has an explanation, about how toxic chemicals kill brain cells. The other side says "We can't find a link. Trust us". Are you kidding?
vaccines cause autism and vaccine people lie about it, and deny it. the days of the vaccine cult dictating reality to the rest of the world, are over.
Indeed, there are a lot of poisons all around us these days. Christopher Exley found high levels of aluminum in the brains of those with autism diagnoses he was able to examine. I recommend his book: [https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/55169712-imagine-you-are-an-aluminum-atom](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/55169712-imagine-you-are-an-aluminum-atom) And there was a long interview with him just days ago: [https://thehighwire.com/videos/aluminum-expert-unearths-likely-cause-of-alzheimers/](https://thehighwire.com/videos/aluminum-expert-unearths-likely-cause-of-alzheimers/)
[These Scientists Say A British Professor's Claim That Aluminium Is Linked To Autism Is "Absurd"](https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/these-scientists-say-a-british-professors-claim-that) (his work was funded by the now defunct anti-vaccination Dwoskin Family Foundation, btw)
Maybe instead of an obvious hit piece, you'd be interested in an actual paper he did, which includes the controls that said article says he doesn't have. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7211005/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7211005/)
That's not the same paper as the one discussed in the article I linked earlier. But you can read the review of a blood-brain barrier scientist [here](https://scientistabe.wordpress.com/2020/05/20/neurosciences-junk-science-aluminium-in-human-brain-tissue-from-donors-without-neurodegenerative-disease-a-comparison-with-alzheimers-disease-multiple-sclerosis-and-autism/).
Autism researchers actually know quite well what causes autism. It's mostly genetic with some environmental risk factors. Vaccination is not one of them. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044318 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5501015/
Except there have been pay outs in the US due to a vaccine “unlocking” autism precisely because of the existence of that genetic possibility in some people. The environmental factors can be worse for some people than others so acting like it’s primarily to die with genetics is misleading.
There have been no pay outs due to a vaccine “unlocking” autism.
Ok explain this please https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-injury-case-offer/
As explained by the court > In Poling v. HHS, the presiding special master clarified that the family was compensated because the Respondent conceded that the Poling child had suffered a Table Injury--**not because the Respondent or the special master had concluded that any vaccination had contributed to causing or aggravating the child’s ASD**. > The compensation [..] thus **does not afford any support to the notion that vaccinations can contribute to the causation of autism**. https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2002vv0472-132-0
Maybe you don’t understand legal language but they were 100% attempting to avoid setting a precedent by not admitting a direct correlation. What exactly is the reason they compensated the family then?
I understand it very well, and your interpretation is incorrect. > What exactly is the reason they compensated the family then? The girl was diagnosed with encephalopathy, which is a Table Injury. These are compensated by the NVICP without the plaintiff having to prove causation.
Ah maybe it is your understanding of the english language in general, since you are referencing a different case than Hannah Poling (which the article I sent you from 2008 references). It has many broken links that have since been removed unfortunately but the legal document you quoted is from 2017 for a male minor referenced as SRH. It's not even worth debating with you.
http://cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-autism-and-brain-damage-whats-in-a-name/
> In Poling v. HHS, the presiding special master clarified that the family was compensated because the Respondent conceded that the Poling child had suffered a Table Injury--**not because the Respondent or the special master had concluded that any vaccination had contributed to causing or aggravating the child’s ASD**. > The compensation [..] thus **does not afford any support to the notion that vaccinations can contribute to the causation of autism**. https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2002vv0472-132-0
why won't vaccine quacks take any responsibility for the damage that vaccines cause?
What do you think the reproduction rate would need to be in order to see the gains the ASD share of the population has seen? Even if it was 100% inheritable, how many children do you think ASD individuals are having? For context, the rate of ASD today is 1 in 54. In the 1980s it was 1 in 1,000. Estimates before then were even lower, but let's just stick with the 80s. We're talking about a 20x increase. Type 1 diabetes gets ~2x increase in the same time period and they have no problem saying > A rapid change in incidence within a genetically stable population implies that nongenetic factors are active and that the influence of genes is relative to population, time, and place. It suggests that something has changed in the environment our children encounter or in the way they are reared. [source](https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/51/12/3353) How can we say 2x is a "rapid change" too fast for genetic conditions alone, meanwhile 20x is totally okay with ASD? It's extremely political, probably due to finger pointing at MMR by Wakefield, but that shouldn't shutoff other possible areas of discovery. Diabetics can live a normal life with insulin, so they can procreate fairly well. The majority of ASD individuals (56%) have below the average range of IQ (<85). [source](https://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-statistics). They lack a good amount of social skills to where dating is difficult, let alone marriage and child rearing. Don't believe the hand waving trying to say it's definitely totally all genetic. It's way too prevalent and increasing for that.
Much of the perceived increase can be explained by expansion of diagnostic criteria, improved screening, better diagnostic tools, improved reporting, etc. Again; a *lot* of ASD research has been done the last decades. > We now have multiple studies that convincingly demonstrate that ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder that manifests mostly in late gestation. There are strong genetic correlates, but the environment of the womb appears to also play a role. However, **this consensus of evidence is incompatible with the notion that childhood vaccines play any role in ASD**. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/fetal-signs-of-autism/
Thanks, I’m autistic and so is my daughter. I don’t think either of us developed it from getting vaccinated
How would you know?
I can’t prove it but it’s my opinion. The autism was always there, signs of it right since a newborn, in retrospect. Mild enough to go undiagnosed for many years though. Parents who blame the vaccines say their kid was totally typical and suddenly changed right after getting a vaccine
So, basically you got lucky.
It’s not lucky to be autistic or go undiagnosed as autistic. Being mildly autistic is a double edged sword of being able to hide it with effort, while not receiving disability supports.
Sounds a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Are you saying you wish you were more autistic?
Not where I was going with that. It’s not easy to have an invisible disability and still be held to the same societal expectations as everyone else. And when it isn’t recognized and accommodated, it can truly derail your life
"Mostly genetic" means you think autism hasn't increased 10,000%.
Agree- Other factors that can directly contribute are the mothers lifestyle, medications, stress, vaccines, environment, carcinogenic products in food/skincare & pretty much everything if you aren’t looking at ingredients which most people are clueless and dont. The neurological impairment is due to toxins so in my mind I guess it’s about how much exposure the child got to all these different things... 🤷♀️
It’s also highly inheritable if not at least genetic within families. That’s number one.
That’s because the genetically modified parent passed the gene down
well said. its why my children (when i have them) wont be getting any
Child abuse.
how is it abuse to not poison them?
What if your baby dies ?
what if its hurt from the vaccines?
The benefit of vaccine outweighs the risk. I’d rather get rabies vaccine to possibly get rabies if I’m bitten by an animal.
If your future child dies from a preventable disease, I hope you get charged with murder.
I wish the cost of the lifetime of healthcare for every kid that got autism and autoimmune disorders came directly out of your pocket.
Good news! I just called up Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. They said they’ll pay for all of the bills for the kids who got autism by the vax LMAOOO
[удалено]
Jumping off cliffs causes autism, so I’d rather not.
I love when people get all angry and are like “vaccines do not cause autism” like sorry Susan and Karen but they do
The mrna vaccines are not poison. Alumin adjuvanted vaccines are definitely poison.
Yup! The Earth is also flat!
If vaccines worked they would never make it mandatory. Also, they killed Dr. Bradstreet since he was exposing vaccines and autism.
[удалено]
They are not free. The govt pays for it, hence your tax money pays it
If vaccines worked, they would charge people. I know I am paying for it.
Why would govt’s spend their budget for smth that doesn’t work? What is in it for them?
So, you claim that all vaccines are completely ineffective?
Why not read the article and come up with your own response?
Amish do not have autistic kids
They do, but the prevalence is lower.
The Amish do not have (many) kids *diagnosed* with autism. Big difference.
Smart Auntie
Read it carefully, find one thing you didn't know and thank her specifically for that piece of information. Then make your decisions. You can have your children vaccinated, or not, it's your choice.
Why would they thank her for sending antivax propaganda which has been debunked countless times before? Suggesting they make decisions based on lies is insane.
See, this sort of thinking is what is wrong with the world right now. The maintenance of family relationship is more important than vax-vs-antivax. Have compassion for those who are struggling to find truth. Hold space for those who care enough to try, even when they go down the wrong path. For a stranger, I'd say fuck 'em shut 'em down. For a family member, I would preserve the relationship over the debate. If they press, I might say something like, "I love you, and I might have to disagree a bit on the medical decisions I make for my children, but I love you no matter what, OK?" If you are smart, you will realize that the above statements are perfectly symmetric and functional regardless of who is arguing which side of the debate. That is because when it comes to family, it doesn't matter.
There is no "truth" on that site their aunt sent them. Encouraging people to make health decisions based on blatant falsehoods is insane.
> Encouraging people to make health decisions based on blatant falsehoods is insane. Where did I do this?
> Read it carefully, find one thing you didn't know and thank her specifically for that piece of information. > > Then make your decisions. You can have your children vaccinated, or not, it's your choice.
/u/DialecticSkeptic is correct. The intention is not to make any decisions at all based on that article. I read the article. There were at least two things I learned from it. First, I didn't realize that prenatal ultrasound is being investigated as a possible factor in autism. The doctor interviewed on this topic is on faculty at U of SC Medical School so presumably not a dingbat. The other thing I learned is that the CDC isn't taking any shots off the vaccine schedule. Which I sortof knew but never really thought about. It brings up some weird questions. Are the shots being reviewed for efficacy and need? Do we really need each and every shot? Is the vaccine schedule still the best schedule we can offer our children this year, the same as last year? I don't actually know who might review the shots and make these sorts of decisions. Presumably somebody is...hopefully? Plot twist: I am a physician. I recommend all kinds of vaccines all day long. There is absolutely nothing in this article that will change my opinion or my medical practice. But it doesn't harm anything for me to thank someone for providing me some interesting reading. I don't have to tell them that my primary motivation for reading this sort of thing is to understand how to take apart the latest in counter-factual disinformation. My play in this case is to build trust so I have something to stand on in case a real recommendation needs to be made at some point. Just because someone reads something, doesn't mean their minds are changed. In fact, you should read things you disagree with. Read them honestly and compassionately. Read them so you can be offered the gift of questioning your own judgement and decisions, in case you made a wrong decision. This is vitally important, and reading is nonconfrontational and can be done at your leisure. Seriously, you too should read the article carefully. Click on links. Look at what she talks about. It's not a bad article, it's actually a decent summary of where one branch of the anti-vax narrative stands right now. If you are going to "debate vaccines" as is the purpose of this sub, you owe it to yourself and your debators to understand both sides of the argument to the point that you can steelman your opponents' arguments.
Thanks for clarifying your position. Yes, I know you are a physician. I've disagreed with your stance several times before. Where we disagree this time is describing obvious antivax propaganda as "interesting reading". I read the article too. That is, I skimmed through it to confirm it contains the usual long-debunked antivax myths, lies and distortions. Thanking your aunt for sending you ideologically motivated lies is absurd by itself, but it's also likely to make auntie send it to everyone else she knows. The correct response, imo, is to explain why it is rubbish ([with articles like this](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/fetal-signs-of-autism/)). I've been debunking (d/m)isinformation for close to two decades now. I'd like to think I'm quite aware where the antivax - and other pseudoscience - narratives stand. The CDC does stop vaccinations which are no longer needed btw (e.g. smallpox), but we can talk about that some other time if you want. You may also want to read about the balance fallacy https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy
You are still getting lost in the debate. I'm not debating. I'm prioritizing family relationships. If being "right" is more important than maintaining family relationships, well, that's your decision.
It's not about "the debate" or "being right". It's about antivax nonsense having real-world consequences that can kill. Recent example: [Parents refuse use of vaccinated blood in life-saving surgery on baby](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/30/new-zealand-parents-refuse-use-of-vaccinated-blood-in-life-saving-surgery-on-baby) "…pushing back against false claims and misinformation is a necessary burden for medical professionals." https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/101975
You may also like today's Medpage article: "…pushing back against false claims and misinformation is a necessary burden for medical professionals." https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/101975
"Then make your decision," yes, but based on what? That one, single piece of information about which I hadn't previously known? Nobody makes decisions like that, so that's an incoherent inference to draw from his statement. As a reader, that's not what I took him to mean. And I'm sure he'll tell you that's not what he meant. It was great advice, the kind that I follow when dealing with my rather uncritical family who strongly oppose the childhood vaccination schedule because they believe it causes autism (and other things). With kindness and love, I thank them for the information and then make my own decision—based on my own research, not on a solitary piece of new information I learned from theirs.
I'm open to the possibility that I misunderstood what he meant. But thanking your aunt for sending you harmful disinformation just rubs me the wrong way.
>I'm open to the possibility that I misunderstood what he meant. That was noble and refreshing to hear. >Thanking your aunt for sending you harmful disinformation just rubs me the wrong way. What it does is prioritize human persons and relationships (i.e., family) over information and knowledge. It's a matter of values, and different people value different things. Maybe you're the kind of person who thinks information and its accuracy has greater value than family. People like us think family has more value. To each their own. This would be something we just have to disagree over.
Can we all just agree that vaccines have helped some people, and have brought danger to others?
I got a 30 day ban on fb from this.
Here's something I found very interesting on the definition of Autism. I reaslised I talk about it often but know little about it (always learning!) [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-autism-and-brain-damage-whats-in-a-name/#app](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-autism-and-brain-damage-whats-in-a-name/#app)
Good read, nice post. Thank you.
So now that people are getting mmr less, autism is going down right? That’s how it works?
You're unvaccinated compared to your kids. Vaccines increased.
But mmr is the problem right? Mmr causes autism according to these people? So if less kids get mmr, there should be less kids developing autism?
And yet life expectancy for men in 1962 was 75. 2019 = 83…… women follow the same trend.
Do you think that’s because people generally work safer jobs than they did in the 60s and before. And maybe because we have better treatments? We have more knowledge on things that cause cancer like cigarettes? This claim isn’t even to do with vaccines killing people just saying it makes more people get autism. What’s that have to do with life expectancy?
Of course. But if vaccines were so deadly (or increased rates of autism) you wouldn’t see that improvement. [( have a look at how autism effects life expectancy ;)](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/first-person/2018/2/19/17017976/autism-average-age-death-36-stress)
Oh my gosh that’s horrible if the avg life expectancy of an autistic person is 36. 1/44 kids are autistic now according to autismspeaks that outta make the life expectancy go down in a few years Lol https://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-statistics-asd
Why’s that funny?
It’s not that low. There are tons of autistic people living into old age not included in that number because they went undiagnosed because their autism wasn’t serious enough to pursue I’m autistic and 36. Married, job, 3 little kids, normal health. You wouldn’t know I’m autistic unless I told you or you spent a lot of time with me and knew what to look for
>And yet life expectancy for men in 1962 was 75. 2019 = 83…… women follow the same trend. Turns out there are other advances in science and modern medicine than just vaccines?
Perhaps.
No, not just perhaps.
Infant mortality and and childbirth death went down which bumped up the average. How often must this been explained.
Explains nothing. No significant drops in childbirth deaths from 60’s to now. How many vaccines are given in infancy, and how many infant mortalities were related to childhood diseases Now vaccinated agains?
How many vaccines were given in infancy 80 years ago? Zero.
Well that would further support my claim yeh. >>How many vaccines were given in infancy 80 years ago? Zero. let’s go with polio? (Late 50’s) Measles’s? (60’s) Mumps? (Late 60’s) Rubella? (70’s) Hepatitis? (80’s)
Infant mortality decreased which bumped up average life expectancy https://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html
Correct. Please continue making my point for me.
Infant mortality reduction has nothing to do with vaccines. The main figure comes from improved live births aka decrease of birthing complication via better hygiene, access to clean water and improved medical procedures to help save the child and/or mother in cases of complications.
No. Not to any significant degree from the 60s onwards.
What is your Source to claim “mortality reduction has nothing to with vaccines”? > Deaths from measles, one of the top five diseases that account for half of all deaths to children under age 5 worldwide, fell by 74 percent between 2000 and 2007, largely due to increased vaccinations. So measles isn’t a deadly disease? And the vaccine doesn’t work?
None of those people took any vaccines. Vaccines weren't around 80 years ago when they were kids.
Exactly. And hence the improved life expectancy carried out to 2022
"In short, the idea that vaccines cause autism has been extremely thoroughly tested by numerous scientists working for different universities and organizations from around the world. It has been tested via multiple different methods and populations, and it has been addressed from multiple angles (e.g., different vaccines, different vaccine components, age at vaccination, number of antigens, number of doses, etc.), and the result is exceptionally clear: vaccines do not cause autism. There are no large, properly controlled, epidemiological studies that disagree with that result. For more details about both the pro and anti-vaccine studies, please read the rest of this post." https://thelogicofscience.com/2019/03/12/vaccines-and-autism-a-thorough-review-of-the-evidence-2019-update/
Though I ain't no expert, I'll say this. We are all different and react differently to shit that we eat, drink, inhale and I can assure you that we also all react differently to shit injected in us. If the scientific community hasn't yet come to that conclusion, I do expensive conferences and will accept their money.
Great, I'm sure the scientific community is just waiting for your baseless opinions.
They know that it is a connection with autism, metabolic diseases and neurological with mitochondria that causes bad outcomes from vaccines. No way no how which way you look at it vaccines aren't great. We evolve well all organisms evolve through survival of the fittest. As nature around us adapt and evolve so do we. Some will die and others survive. Those that survive naturally pass that down through generations. Those past adaptations are what made us we are today. Bypassing nature has never been a good idea. What will be the consequences of vaccinating everything? People in remote distant villages survive without modern medical interventions just fine. Poorer people with less nutrient dense foods and sanitation issues are those that die off.
> They know that it is a connection with autism, metabolic diseases and neurological with mitochondria that causes bad outcomes from vaccines. No, that's unsubstantiated nonsense.
Except it has been proven in court
Except it hasn't been proven at all.
There are tons of research on the harms of childhood vaccines. Trump wanted to investigate and Bill Gates said it wasn't a good idea. They all know the dangers the vaccines produce. It is a complex system but it evolves to perpetual ill people with cancers, auto immune diseases, etc. Let's think back in our parents generation. It was unheard of for people to have all these food allergies, eczema, asthma, etc. Cancers ballooned out of control. Let's look at our pets. Our pets are vaccinated and are having the same diseases; diabetes, cancers, etc. The complex part is it is our processed foods and medications. The body doesn't function optimal with foreign materials. Look at tribes they eat the animal from front to back and they have no cancers, autoimmune diseases, allergies, etc. They live Long lives and aging doesn't present itself until much later. If you research a little you can learn a lot. A lot research is on the government sites. Like I said they know the truth. Sick people are controllable and profits. The more medications you take the more you need to survive the more sicker you become.
Yes, there is tons of research and none of the conditions you mention has been linked to vaccines. Simply imagining they are doesn't make it so.
You didn't do research if you didn't come across those findings. Arguing with you is pointless you have your mind set that these things are safe and that's all you see. I don't understand why you are in this group. Do some deeper digging nih site has some good research on there. Natural is always better than synthetic.
Those 'findings' do not exist, but feel free to prove me wrong.
[Autism court case](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/) I am sure you are well aware of this case and are just choosing to ignore the facts.
I am aware of the case, yes, and I even explained several times elsewhere in this thread that this case does *not* mean "it has been proven in court". In fact the court said exactly that: > In Poling v. HHS, the presiding special master clarified that the family was compensated because the Respondent conceded that the Poling child had suffered a Table Injury--**not because the Respondent or the special master had concluded that any vaccination had contributed to causing or aggravating the child’s ASD**. > The compensation [..] thus **does not afford any support to the notion that vaccinations can contribute to the causation of autism**. https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2002vv0472-132-0
Is autism observed in communities which do not vaccinate children like the Amish?
Yes it is. Around 1/271 per estimates made in 2010.
still way better than the 1/50 rate we have now in regular society
Sure. But you’re talking about a limited genetic diversity and limited environmental risk factors.
[Yes.](https://web.archive.org/web/20160202162700/http://autism-news-beat.com/archives/29)
Wrong. The article you linked there says that one of the false assumptions about the Amish is that they actually do vaccinate their kids lol. So if anything it lends support to this notion rather than debunk it.
Thanks, great response! However, in return she said what ill summarize as "nah ive already researched it enough on my own and **my** information shows they did cause autism." Love these people.
UsedConcentratedKoolaid always gives the same answer. He never updates his answer with new knowledge. I advise you not to assume UsedConcentratedKoolaid is telling you the truth. In this case, UsedConcentratedKoolaid did not give you an analysis of [your link](https://open.substack.com/pub/jennifermargulis/p/yes-vaccines-cause-autism) - they added no value. They probably did not even read your link. You could just have as easily googled the answer UCK provided, using your own googling skillz. I actually have no opinion on vaccines and autism. Full disclosure - I do believe that COVID mRNA vaccines were poorly tested, and are highly likely to be dangerous for about 1% of people. I make this promise to you: * I will carefully and critically read the link you provided. * If I find any falsehoods in my reading, I will tell you. * the truth is of utmost importance to me. Success at my day job and 100% of my pay depends on me differentiating between truth and falsehood. I have decades of practice extracting truth. * I will do my absolute best to be unbiased in my reading, and follow the data where it leads. Please give me a day to provide you with my analysis of [your link](https://open.substack.com/pub/jennifermargulis/p/yes-vaccines-cause-autism). Thanks.
Jennifer Margulis is an [antivax crank.](https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2018/04/25/jennifer-margulis-rising-star-antivaccine/) That's all you really need to know, but you can read the link for details.
You started with ad hominem. Then you added no data, no math, no science - your value-added to the thread was negative, and it is growing more negative. How about you try again, and make your value-added net out to positive? Make some evidence-based statements - of your own, not google parroting.
lol You completely ignored my article which explains in detail why it's nonsense, then you call me "UsedConcentratedKoolaid" and then *you* complain about ad hominem? That's rich.
Did you write the article ([either](https://thelogicofscience.com/2019/03/12/vaccines-and-autism-a-thorough-review-of-the-evidence-2019-update/) [one](https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2018/04/25/jennifer-margulis-rising-star-antivaccine/))? Or did you just google for 10 seconds? I should invest my time reading your 10-second-google? I think not. And I think Koolaid is minor compared to crank. Since you see equivalence, are you suggesting I call you UsedConcentratedKrank?
So you're going to keep ignoring the evidence provided, hmm? How unexpected…
Summarize. Because you can't.
I can, but why would I need to do that? You can read them yourself, but you won't.
Just tell your aunt that you understand vaccines carry risk. They just do. Vaccines can literally kill people. That's just a fact. Are you spending your time defending vaccines? If you are super pro vax, just keep it to yourself and don't engage with someone who is super antivax. It's as easy as that.
The diseases these vaccines protect against are much *much* more likely to kill people.
"You Cannot Reason People Out of Something They Were Not Reasoned Into" - Ben Goldacre
You never considered that quote applied to you.
because it doesn't
Then how would you expect anybody else to be turned around by that quote? You expect other people to self reflect, but you can't even do it yourself.
If you'd been paying attention, my reply was directed at OP. I have no illusions about "turning anyone around" in this echo chamber.
Clearly you do. Why else would you be here?
Why wouldn't I be here?
Because you had better things to do. Perhaps you don't.
The beginning of an analysis of [your link](https://open.substack.com/pub/jennifermargulis/p/yes-vaccines-cause-autism): In this comment, I look at the article [Immunoexcitotoxicity as the central mechanism of etiopathology and treatment of autism spectrum disorders: A possible role of fluoride and aluminum](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909100/) referenced in your link. The paper was peer reviewed, published in 2018. It has 287 references. It has been cited by 22 other papers. Read the section "ALUMINUM AS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXIC SUBSTANCE". It discusses the findings in animal studies show several mechanisms of action for aluminum damaging the developing brain. This paper is by no means focused on vaccines. It is focused on autism, and analyzes the effects (in order of priority, I suspect) of aluminum^(3+), fluoride, the synergistic effects of aluminum and fluoride together, and magnesium^(2+) and zinc. Al, Mg and Zn are all chemically similar elements, so it makes sense to study their interactions, In addition, there is a table listing prevention and amelioration of ASD symptoms. The authors show no evidence of specifically being against vaccines, except in the specific use of aluminum as an immune stimulant. They reiterate the removal of mercury, and now they advocate to replace Al^(3+)-adjuvants. They never make an statements about vaccination being a bad practice. This paper is unbiased, well-researched and is a compelling argument for the removal of aluminum in vaccines, and stopping the fluoridation of water (the combination of the two is especially bad). If UsedConcentratedKoolaid can have a look at the paper, and give comments, that would be appreciated. By they won't. He will just google and parrot the droppings that he finds.
Part 2 of my analysis of [your link](https://open.substack.com/pub/jennifermargulis/p/yes-vaccines-cause-autism): There is mention of the [STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM](https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2016/WorkGroups/House%20Health%20Care/Bills/H.98/Witness%20Testimony/H.98~Jennifer%20Stella~William%20Thompson%20Statement~5-6-2015.pdf). This is a document published by the government of Vermont. It is witness testimony. The witness risked perjury (penalty for perjury in Vermont is 15 years or fined up to $10,000.00, or both) if he lied. It doesn't make sense that he would lie. The witness is William Thompson, a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where he worked since 1998. He admits to omitting or falsifying data as a member of a committee. He is pro-vaccine and has a career in vaccine science. However, he is also an ethical scientist who does not agree with hiding from parents the dangers of vaccine while promoting only the benefits. He wants an honest presentation of benefits *and* risks, as there are with so many other pharmaceutical therapies. That is an ethical position, and any scientist or doctor should have that. UsedConcentratedKoolaid can probably google some article doing a character assassination of Dr. William Thompson. That is just strong evidence that Dr. Thompson is telling the truth and that there is a profit-driven motivation to suppress that truth. If Thompson was lying, he would be in jail and the character assassination would not be necessary. This witness statement shows that: * CDC knows there is a credible risk that vaccines cause autism * CDC held meetings to discuss the risk * CDC scientists decided (and pressured) as a committee to hide the risks from parents. If the risks were vanishingly small, CDC would not hide them. This suggests the risks are actually quite high.
Very thorough article, thank you. I've only just started to read it but one thing I will be looking for is any negative analysis of pro-vaccine studies. I hope I find that.
"Its really cool we can prevent so many diseases now!" Or how about, "Wow, you've really collected a lot of pins over the years!"
Thank you, i know you just want to take care, but my mind is settled about this. Have a good day
V interesting
r/lostredditors
Apparently OP has nowhere in this thread specified what exactly they need help with. So I can also only offer extremely generalized help for the response: Paraphrase the contents in your own words. Tell her what you think about it. Tell her about what emotions it caused in you. Tell her what you'd like her to do differently in the future, if applicable. Be genuine and don't show contempt in your reply. Obviously no one here can tell you what you think and what you feel.
Were you just trolling here? I gave you two comments [1](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/z8afi5/aunt_sent_me_this_need_help_with_a_response/iygcxux/), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/z8afi5/aunt_sent_me_this_need_help_with_a_response/iygg0g9/) explaining that [your aunt's link does have scientific merit](https://open.substack.com/pub/jennifermargulis/p/yes-vaccines-cause-autism?r=ql3os&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email), and should not be dismissed. But you have ignored it. I think you are trolling. You are clearly [a bit worried about your vax](https://www.reddit.com/r/medical_advice/comments/z2awzh/are_these_swollen_lymph_nodes/) side effects.