A new study shows that the triple vaccine for measles, rubella and rubella does not increase the risk of having autism - and may even decrease the risk of the disease
A new study shows that the triple vaccine for measles, rubella and rubella does not increase the risk of having autism - and may even decrease the risk of the disease.
Eleven years ago, Dr. Andrew Wakefield announced at a celebratory press conference he organized that vaccines could cause autism. His determination was based on a study he conducted in eight children who were diagnosed as autistic only one month after receiving the triple vaccine for measles, rubella and rubella. Wakefield demanded that the English government split the triple vaccine into three separate vaccines, thus minimizing the possible harm to children. His demands were joined by parent organizations that were disturbed - and rightly so - by the serious accusations against vaccines. Since then, many have flocked to the anti-vaccination trend, ignoring much of the evidence that has accumulated against Wakefield in the years since he published his research. These include the fact that his study was funded by parents who wanted to sue the vaccine companies for alleged harm they caused to their children, as well as strong evidence that he falsified some of the data presented in the original study.
Since then, many more studies have been published that disproved the link between vaccines and autism. At least one of them repeated the same experiment that Wakefield did, but with a larger number of children - without finding even a hint of a link between vaccines and autism. Most of the studies were carried out on the statistical medical data collected from the entire population. The idea underlying such statistics is quite simple: if the triple vaccine does increase the risk of having autism, then the incidence of new autism cases in England and other countries should have increased as soon as the vaccine entered the health basket. Is he so?
Well, a study conducted in England on nearly 500 autistic children born between 1979 and 1992 showed that there was no increase in the incidence of autism even after the triple vaccine became part of the routine. The researchers also did not find that the administration of the triple vaccine results in more or fewer cases of autism near the time of administration of the vaccine, despite Wakefield's claim that the vaccine causes autism in a short time. Another study, which relied on all the electronic medical records accumulated between the XNUMXs and XNUMXs in Britain, showed that more and more children were being diagnosed with autism, even though the frequency of giving the triple vaccine remained constant. Similar statistical studies also came from Sweden, Denmark and the United States. In total, the medical data of almost a million children were examined, and it was proven that the prevalence of autism does not increase when the triple vaccine comes into use.
This is the place to point out that in at least one country - Japan - the use of the triple vaccine was discontinued in 1993, and the administration of individual vaccines was introduced instead. Because of this, Japan served as a perfect ``Petri dish'' for testing the claim that the triple vaccine causes autism. Indeed, when the prevalence of autism was examined in 30,000 children in one of the districts of the city of Yokohama, it became clear that the prevalence of autism cases continued to increase even after the triple vaccine went out of use. In other words, any link between the triple vaccine and autism is fundamentally disproved.
In recent weeks, another study was published that helps disprove the hypothetical connection between the triple vaccine and autism. This is a study published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal - and conducted by a group of researchers from Poland. The researchers examined 96 children between the ages of two and fifteen years, all of whom have autism. As children, some children received the triple vaccine, while others received the three vaccines in separate doses. For each of the autistic children who participated in the experiment, the researchers also added two healthy children as controls, who were identical as much as possible in terms of age, gender and the method of medical treatment. The big question was, therefore, how many of the autistic children developed the symptoms of the disease after receiving a triple vaccine, compared to the children who received separate vaccines, and all this according to the control children. The answer is consistent with all the statistical studies conducted so far: children who received the triple vaccine had no greater chance of having autism after receiving the vaccine, compared to children who received separate vaccines. In fact, they were less likely to have autism than the children who received separate vaccines!
Does the triple vaccine protect against autism? probably not. It is hard to believe that such an important finding would have gone unnoticed by the researchers who conducted the previous large statistical tests. It is likely that the study is also affected by side factors. A possible factor for example is raised by the researchers themselves, who believe that parents who noticed developmental problems in their children avoided vaccinating them with the triple vaccine, thus complicating the results of the study. Despite this, the fact that there is such a strong bias against the original research claim (which tried to confirm that the triple vaccine does cause autism) adds another layer to the mountain of studies refuting the link between vaccines and autism.
The article was first published on the blog ofRoey Tsezana - Other Science
In the same topic on the science website:
33 תגובות
In that there is no proof of finding aliens, of flying at a speed higher than the speed of light, and more. If we start to doubt basic data, where will we end up?
As you know, not finding a connection between A and B is not proof that we do not exist.
This is all the research proves: that the authors of the article did not find such a connection.
https://journals.lww.com/pidj/Fulltext/2010/05000/Lack_of_Association_Between_Measles_Mumps_Rubella.3.aspx
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19952979/
Who did this research? which proves otherwise than that there is a steep increase in autism after vaccinations and who finances the campaign of this article.
In the meantime, they also took away Mr. Wakefield's appointment as a doctor and his license to practice medicine, because he harmed thousands of children who did not receive vaccines. Unfortunately, it continues to harm.
Argon Hason translated Dr. Wakefield's article into Hebrew. Here is the link where you will find his words:
http://www.hisunim.com/Andrew_Wakefield.htm
To all those who are undecided - it turns out that Dr. Wakefield's research is the fruit of bribery and fraud. Below is a quote from an article published today in Ynet:
The hoax of the connection between vaccines and autism: the shameful end
In an unusual, dramatic and mostly embarrassing move, yesterday the prestigious journal Lancet deleted from its archives an article it published 12 years ago, linking the triple vaccine given to one-year-old babies to autism - an article that caused global hysteria at the time. The study, it turned out, was misleading, the researcher was bribed and in fact there is no connection between the vaccines and autism. about the case that stirred up the medical community all over the world
Dr. Itai Gal Published: 04.02.10, 00:17
In 1998, parents all over the world were alarmed: an article published by a British doctor named Dr. Andrew Wakefield in the prestigious journal Lancet, a link between the triple vaccine (MMR) and autism. Since then, 12 years have passed, a significant number of studies that contradicted Wakefield and one serious journalistic investigation - all of which put the findings of that study under the microscope, and finally led to its complete refutation. A particularly dramatic development took place yesterday (Tuesday), when in an unusual and rare move the Lancet, considered the most prestigious medical magazine in the world, deleted the article from its archives, saying that it was misleading and misleading.
Studies conducted since then, as mentioned, failed to replicate Wakefield's findings, and an extensive investigation in the "Sunday Times" raised accusations that included, among other things, a conflict of interest on the part of the researcher and poor ethics in conducting the research. In 2004, the GMC (British National Medical Council) opened an investigation, with the aim of finding out the serious allegations made against the study. Three years later, the GMC held a hearing for the researcher, and this year already determined: Wakefield's research is riddled with deception.
Maybe it's a little too late and no one will read, but still. For anyone who wanted a theory about why vaccines are harmful and/or cause autism. I am the father of a 4-year-old autistic child. I am a normative person, with an academic education, like my dear wife, I believe in science and I also studied statistics, and in my wickedness, I even teach at a university.
My dear son, was a normal and happy baby, a little before he was a year old he started to deteriorate and stopped talking (he already said "dad", "mom" and a few other words), stopped looking straight ahead and started to develop severe eating problems (refused to eat solid food that he was already eating), started To develop phobias of strange people and strange places and in general to deteriorate before our eyes. In a drop of milk and the developmental doctor of a drop of milk said that everything is temporary and everything is fine and everything will return to the best. So that's it it didn't come back. Only after about a year, we were referred for more in-depth diagnoses and it was diagnosed that he is autistic with a wide range of developmental disorders. Today, after about two years of crazy investment in treatments (in terms of quantity and financial investment) his condition is better, but mentally and behaviorally he is closer to two years old than to four years old.
What did we learn from a medical point of view (no gibberish, purely medical)
A. There is no known genetic factor in our family that supports autism. We did all the tests known in Israel and the world.
B. The child has no ability to get rid of heavy metals, probably due to deficiencies in the lymphatic and liver systems. He has today and probably has been like this since he was a year old, chronic inflammation of the brain in several locations caused by mercury and aluminum.
third. Treatments designed to remove metals partially succeeded in improving his condition.
What did we learn in general?
A. Pediatricians have no clue about the connection between the child's deterioration and metal poisoning.
B. Appropriate treatments that can be performed at an early age can greatly alleviate the condition.
third. Splitting vaccines may make these types of symptoms more difficult since the problem with the vaccine is not the bacteria but the preservatives (thimerosal) and the adjuvant (aluminum).
d. It probably has nothing to do with the triple vaccine, but with vaccines in general and, as I mentioned, with the preservatives in them. The amount of vaccines is the issue. Postponing some of the vaccines to later ages may well prevent these types of problems.
What else did I learn about vaccines?
A. The vaccine for hepatitis B is the most unnecessary of the vaccines. A simple blood test of the mother will show whether or not the mother is infected with jaundice and will clarify whether the baby needs a vaccine or not. If it is not necessary - you can save three completely unnecessary injections. I will mention that hepatitis B is transmitted through sexual contact or through the use of a shared syringe with another person who is infected with the disease.
B. There are other vaccines that are not mandatory in the modern era to be given in advance and can only be given if necessary. Tetanus is just like that.
Painful for an injured child, whose life has been destroyed, I advise every parent to reduce and delay most or all vaccinations until after the child's communication system is well developed, that is, after the age of two. Then it will be possible to better understand where there are problems and what they arise from.
Last: It is important to remember that the interest of public medicine and statistics are also an important matter, but my child is the absolute 100% and the ultimate representative sample. It is no longer interesting to me as a parent that the chance or risk is 1 in ... it doesn't matter how much. After being hurt, I will no longer give vaccines at a very young age. No one can guarantee me that this will not happen again to my second son. Kids, you know, it's not a matter of statistics.
By the way, the chance of having autism, be it one in a hundred or one in three hundred, is a very, very, very high chance.
After I wised up - I want to see the clear research that will say - the vaccines are safe even for children who do not know how to handle heavy metals.
Gidi.
For a pseudo-scientist, Cezana, statistics are worthless. I'm sorry to tell you this.
Look for the studies comparing the autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations and then talk to me again.
Mor Segmon - sorry for the mistake. I recently discovered that the name Moore is not a woman's name, but a man's.
Moore, thanks for the correction. I took the internationalism there to heart.
I already wrote in a previous answer:
The Canadian Ministry of Health states that today:
International studies indicate that about one in every 150-160 children has autism. Approaching the figures of one in a hundred - which you report on.
To Avi Blizovsky: 3 per thousand mentioned by Mor Segmon is also 1 in 333. Very close to the figure of 300 in 13 that you did not believe in your answer number XNUMX.
Avi,
But 1 in a hundred is like 100 in ten thousand...
Three to a thousand and thirty to ten thousand is exactly the same.
Witness,
In the CEO's circular of the Ministry of Health that you brought, the incidence of 2-5 per 1000 people refers to the whole world, not Israel.
However, this is a low figure.
See my previous response. The CDC reports 1 per hundred children today.
In Israel, the findings show over 30 per 10,000 (in the area reported in the aforementioned CEO's circular).
To Avi Blizovsky: Here is a link taken from the Ministry of Health website, it talks about an incidence of 2-5 cases per 1000 people. Hope you now believe the data.
http://www.health.gov.il/download/forms/a3028_mk13_07.pdf
To Roy Cezana:
I think everyone would like to know the truth and maybe the truth about autism.
I agree with you that today the diagnosed autistic spectrum is wider than before. The lack of data from previous years in so many countries, and in the WHO, is still troubling.
Sorry to tell you that autism is diagnosed today as in the 19th century - according to symptoms!
In addition: today, most autistics are diagnosed at a young age. Asperger's syndrome is unusual, and a parent who does not know or look for the symptoms, will not necessarily understand that his child has a problem, and will assume that it is a matter of the child's character.
On the other hand: why does the number of people diagnosed with autism continue to rise all over the world? Apparently.
The puzzling thing is this: even because of the mere doubt, of the effect of thimerosol - it would have been advisable to split the vaccine again into three separate vaccines, and give them at reasonable time intervals (one month? two months?) from each other.
What happened? why not? Why the firm insistence not to do so?
The higher financial cost does not explain the strong opposition.
The cost of state support for autistics in many countries, later in their lives, is also not cheap.
A paradigm shift is allowed. It's not so bad. The change is simply to be less certain about what causes what. New studies only confirm - they do not guarantee correctness. And to ignore the fact that pharmaceutical companies have influence, and have an interest - and perhaps other factors as well - is to close one's eyes.
I belong to a generation that believes in vaccines of all kinds.
But a cocktail of vaccines is another matter.
We will see what will happen in this area, once the rights of the pharmaceutical companies expire. (of one of the relevant companies soon, apparently).
Imagine that you had a baby - a son, a grandson, and the like (the incidence of autism in boys is higher). Will you lightly decide on his vaccination, if he shows sensitivities to food for example? And even more, will you rush to vaccinate him immediately, at the time specified in the vaccination record, instead of waiting for him to reach the age of 6-7 for example?
I know doctors who advised their families to delay giving the vaccine to such an age.
Autism is no longer a theoretical issue and may affect any home.
I don't understand much about the subject, but I read the comments and don't really understand the nature of the discussion. The whole discussion is about 'statistics'!
Not that I disdain a research approach that is also 'statistics', but I didn't get to see any reference to an essential point - is there any opinion, even only theoretical - regarding a factual causal connection between the vaccine (Duka) and autism?
This is important, because basically, even if it is assumed that there is an increase in the rate of born autists - it is possible to make many different hypotheses - more distant or closer - based on modern reality.
Just for example: it is conceivable that there is a connection between the radiation of the cellular device and the biological processes involved in the brain, in particular in the brain whose tissues are in the process of development, like that of an embryo. A pregnant woman who talks for hours on a cell phone (which is not uncommon), especially during a fast intercity trip (when the radiation is tens of times stronger than the normal level) may cause brain damage to the fetus she is carrying, and the likelihood of autism increases, apparently.
The same goes for radiation from the computer screen, or from any small transformer in close proximity.
So why suspect a vaccine more than radiation, for example?
It seems that Roy didn't even bother to read Wakefield's original article and is spewing it down the throats of others, who made it their goal to eliminate Wakefield.
Read the full article in which Wakefield explains his side (in Hebrew): http://www.hisunim.com/Andrew_Wakefield.htm
The only study that can strengthen or weaken the connection between vaccines and autism is a study in which two groups will be compared, vaccinated and non-vaccinated. To separate the triple vaccine into three vaccines and conclude that the vaccines are not associated with autism is a distorted scientific approach, just as the safety of a new vaccine is measured against another vaccine as the placebo, instead of a true neutral placebo.
If Roy already mentioned Japan, then it is worth noting that the data from Japan actually show a correlation between vaccines and autism:
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxautism/
In general, the studies that supposedly ruled out such a relationship were found to be at a very poor level. On the other hand, there are other scientific evidences that reinforce such a connection. The following site shows both sides of this equation:
http://www.14studies.org
As stated in previous responses to the article you referred to, the connection between autism and vaccines was clearly stated by scientists who choose to be true to their conscience and not be a servant in the hands of various interests. Fletcher has already been quoted above, as has Brandin Healey. You should also listen to Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor and Chairman, Department of Chemistry, University of Kentucky:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=boyd+haley+&search_type=&aq=0
In addition, in the US, compensation was awarded in two cases by a judge that linked vaccines to autism: the case of Bailey Banks and the case of Hannah Pauling.
Banks ruling:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BANKS_CASE.pdf
The case of Hanna Pauling was highly publicized so you won't have any trouble finding it.
The claims heard here about the rate of autism as if it has not changed, only the diagnosis has changed, etc., when today there is no more debate about the skyrocketing rates of autism. The CDC published a rate of 1 in 100. High rates were also found in Israel:
http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar09sep-17.pdf
The question of the connection between vaccines and severe damage in general and autism in particular is a political and not a scientific question. The facts there, the scientists who say it - here and the parents of these autistic children - will forever bear on their conscience the condition of their child, which could have been avoided if they had not blindly trusted the recommendations of the Ministry of Health.
Roy
You are probably not up to date - the discussion was already closed 10 years ago.
In June 2000, a group of senior scientists and government health officials met at the isolated Simpsonwood Convention Center in Norcross, Georgia.
Quote (from the original protocols released under the Freedom of Information Act):
Federal officials and industry representatives gathered to discuss troubling new research that has raised serious questions about the safety of a line of childhood vaccines given to babies and young children. According to Tom Verstraten, the CDC's epidemiologist, who analyzed the authority's huge database that includes the medical files of 100,000 children,
Tamirosl - a mercury-based preservative found in vaccines - appears to be responsible for the dramatic increase in autism and a number of other neurological phenomena in children.
"I was really shocked by what I saw," Verstraaten told the crowd at Simpsonwood, as he cited the staggering number of early studies that linked thimerosal to speech delay, ADD, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and FDA recommended adding three more vaccines with the preservative to vaccines given to very young babies—in one case, within hours of birth—the estimated number of autism cases has increased 15-fold, from 2,500 in 166 children to XNUMX in XNUMX children .
Continued
http://www.emetaheret.org.il/?p=2196
The Amish vaccinate their children, and they also have quite a few autistics of their own, usually with additional genetic problems.
http://autism.suite101.com/article.cfm/autism_among_the_amish
Witness,
Most likely the reason you are having trouble finding accurate statistics is the change in the definition of autism that has taken place in the last decades and complicates the ability to compare the data.
Some claim that the prevalence of autism is increasing, but this claim is not supported by unequivocal evidence. The prevalence of -=diagnoses=- autism is increasing, side by side with a -=decrease=- in the prevalence of diagnoses of other neurological problems. What does this imply? Probably because due to the change in the definition of autism, more and more neurological and behavioral problems are diagnosed as autism.
Another problem with the claim regarding the increase in the prevalence of autism is that the number of autistics increases in each age group in the same way. If there really was an increase in the incidence of autism as a result of vaccines/toxins/air pollution, etc., then we would expect to see a jump in the younger ages, and almost no effect in the later ages. The fact that the frequency of diagnosis increases to the same extent in all age groups also indicates to a large extent that the frequency of autism has not really changed.
Last but not least, even if there is such an increase, it could easily be a result of the later age of birth accepted today, and could cause more common genetic problems in the fetus.
Roy.
-----
My blog - Another science
my father
Ask and it shall be given
Here is a senior scientist
Dr. Peter Fletcher, former Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health in the UK
He was asked about the connection between vaccines and autism
His answer
"I have always thought since I first heard about the Somali children that this really proves the causal role of vaccines. The Amish children who have no vaccines have no autistic-like disorders and the Somali children who are newly exposed to aggressive vaccine programs have exceptionally high levels! What more evidence is needed?"
"the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history".
He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents' lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see.
He said he has seen a "steady accumulation of evidence" from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.
But he added: "There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/former-uk-science-chief_b_146717.html
Amazing. It's amazing that people only look for data to put in tables to "see the big picture" and don't go and read the articles themselves. Everything is there: procedural methods, drawing conclusions. If there is a problem in the article, point it out but not based on rumors and fourth hand.
Because in science, as in science, whoever believes is forever a prisoner of the current paradigm, and if he is good, he will be judged.
For the scientist, skepticism is a necessary and not a sufficient condition, which of course means that all those who shout "conspiracy conspiracy" without doing proper research do not meet the criteria of a scientist. But at least they are interested which I think is important... Most people believe or not but are quite indifferent to science and it's a shame.
And we'll end with a quote from a rather interesting type: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being chased..."
(Or something like that).
Why can't there be one response here where they believe the scientists and don't always look for conspiracy theories?
The increase in autism cases was simply because in the past only the most severe cases were treated and the milder cases were not treated. Today, the whole spectrum is treated, so it seems as if there are more autistic people.
I also doubt if one out of every 300 Israelis is autistic. On propaganda sites you can write whatever you want, they have no obligation to tell the truth but not an agenda.
Thank you Yael Petar.
I have now spent several hours trying to find statistical information on autism in the world, starting in the years say 1965 and continuing until say 1980. I have not been able to find such information, or even information that comes close to it. including on the World Health Organization websites.
Israel's pre-vaccination data reported 1 in 2500 cases of autism. According to an article.
The post-vaccination data reported 1 in 300 cases of autism.
The Canadian Ministry of Health states that today:
International studies indicate that about one in every 150-160 children has autism
Of course, the reason for the increase in autism victims is not clear.
Of course, it is always possible to argue that the methods of diagnosis, and the definitions for autism are the reasons for the increased identification of the number of victims.
Please one-who-doesn't-know: stop jumping to conclusions not based on the knowledge of the writers on the subject.
In addition, there is no point in bringing examples from other fields, and jumping to conclusions about knowledge, following your own words.
This way we can also talk about the effect of gamma rays on the cat's nails.
The problem is medical - statistics is the side of the subject of the article.
"More children were diagnosed with autism, even though the frequency of giving the triple vaccine remained constant."
Can someone explain this sentence?
Does this mean that there are children who were not vaccinated and yet were defined as autistic? If this is what is meant, there is definitely room for numerical data.
And another puzzling point: again a quote
"A study conducted in England on nearly 500 autistic children born between 1979 and 1992"
Why only 500 children for 13 years?
How were the children chosen?
Also, the comparison should be with children who were not vaccinated at all.
I'm actually more inclined to the opinion of "Kan Ada" here. It will be interesting to see the whole picture, and not just the final conclusion, which is the product of statistical models combined with interpretations.
Just to remind you that the "statistical models" with which they analyzed the financial markets around the world, did not foresee at all the trend that led to an international catastrophe in the economy. As I imagine, the same statistical models are used even when conducting studies of the type discussed in the article above.
Statistics is an area to be wary of.
It's not that I'm against the claim that you should get vaccinated (absolutely not!), I'm just saying that it would be nice to have some raw data, so that everyone can judge for themselves.
This is Ada, hello. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, so example:
Some claim that there has been an increase of one degree Celsius in the average temperature on Earth in the last 150 years. They have tables and graphs. Those who know understand that this is a standard deviation in total which is partly due to the inaccuracy of the instruments from 150 years ago. Therefore there is no global warming. Today, we know that the data was fabricated and revised upwards so that the apparent increase was not there either.
Conclusion: you don't know what statistics are. You may have studied, but you certainly didn't bother to remember.
Here is Ada,
What will a simple table give you? I will be amazed! Those who don't know talk about tables as if they themselves invented Excel. Those who know are talking about statistical tests and indicators for the exam. The table lies and sometimes a decrease is only apparent. It's called statistical inference for beginners. High school stuff.
An anonymous user knows how to quote TV shows very well. What's next? A poignant investigative program on Facebook?
Money talks, talks without knowing anything. Producing drugs costs money. a lot of money. tons sometimes even more. Since one doctor is corrupt, you conclude that all the others are corrupt? It's like suppose I conclude that one idiot who writes talkbacks about money without referring to the specific study for which we gathered is indicative of the other writers (and it's good that she isn't).
Conclusion: if you have an agenda you will push it even if it is a "research" done on 8 children (and ignores the millions whose lives were saved as a result of vaccinations).
Conclusion 2: If you have a hammer as a work tool (or table) the whole world is full of nails.
Conclusion 3: People risk their lives, the lives of their children and others because someone is making money from it.
Conclusion 4 (follows from 3): Not all people know basic logic.
One who does not know - response number 4:
You have no idea what I know or don't know about statistics.
But to see if the number of autistic children has increased - or decreased - since the introduction of the triple vaccine, no knowledge of statistics is necessary. We need numerical data of the countries mentioned in the article before and after.
A simple table by years, will allow each and every one to check and get an impression.
Every vaccine involves financial considerations, not always ethical ones. See, for example, the European Parliament's investigation into the World Health Organization and swine flu.
The pharmaceutical companies make huge sums of money from the vaccines,
And they will lose huge sums if it turns out that they are harmful.
Here is a lecture by Dr. who examined the subject, and explains precisely
How the pharmaceutical companies "produce" the desired results for studies
theirs. worth to see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7_xfUV4kSo
Wow - not only does it not increase, but if it decreases - how beautiful!
Now just to prove that mercury increases the power...
The health authorities and the pharmaceutical companies claim for decades that "there is no connection between vaccines and autism". Opponents of vaccines have always said that this connection has never been seriously tested because the establishment wants to hide it.
This connection of silence has now been revealed in an interview given by Brendin Healy, the former head of the American NIH, to the CBS network. The NIH is the government body in charge of funding and approving medical research.
Please note, in this interview - only 5 minutes, Brandin Healy said the following:
- The health establishment ignored the claims of the families of autism victims that vaccines cause autism.
- The establishment maintains that these claims are "irrational" even though it is clear to him that there are not enough studies that have really been done to check the aforementioned connection. - The health establishment prevents studies that will prove that there are children who are more sensitive to vaccines than others and who become autistic as a result of the vaccines.
- The reason the establishment hides the connection between vaccines and autism: the fear that the public will not want to get vaccinated if they know the truth.
This is what we have been saying all this time - the establishment hides and whitewashes.
The link to the interview:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4088138n
Here Ada, this is not the plan as you requested. Data in the table will not give anything if you do not know how to perform a statistical test. The need for lay people to form an independent opinion on a subject they have no idea about except what they read in the press and in the e-mail that passes between the guys is not amusing, it's sad and it causes damage.
The main argument is not against a particular vaccine but against all vaccines, so it makes sense that if you split one vaccine and turn it into three vaccines, there is a greater chance of autism. The previous evidence also spoke specifically about the triple vaccine and again this is not the claim.
To do a real test, a group that receives vaccines must be compared to a group that does not receive vaccines.
It doesn't matter what they found in the research. The vaccine deceivers have established a fact for themselves and they adapt reality to it. Kind of like religion. Talk about it in the forum between New Age and Science...
Hello Roy, in order to seriously consider the above assertions, I would appreciate it if you could provide autism data for the countries in question from the years before the triple vaccination, and from the years after.
A simple table will help to form an independent opinion, more than new studies, which are questionable as to their interests.
Well done to the Japanese.