Nominations for the 2015 RationalMedia Foundation Board of Trustees election are open. Please go here to nominate candidates or if you've been nominated.

from Noisemobile (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 09:06, 24 January 2015

Talk:Anti-vaccination movement

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Talk:Vaccine hysteria)
Jump to: navigation, search
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here.
Icon pseudoscience green.svg

This denialism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please bear this in mind when editing the article

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



[edit] Canadian Public Health Association

Article on how to evaluate reliability of info on the net. [1] Focuses on vaccination info, but is obviously more broadly applicable. Pashley (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Now they're blaming peanut allergies on vaccines

It was only a matter of time before food allergies joined the list of evils purportedly spread by vaccines.

I just found this article on a website called "The Doctor Within". In it, the rise in serum vaccinations is correlated with the rise in peanut allergies. Coincidence? Or ... conspiracy!

Were the Vaccine Denialism article an ordinary article, I'd have added an entry about this topic immediately. But since it's a GOLD-quality article, I'd want someone else's take on the subject (preferably someone who's more knowledgeable about the subject matter in the linked website) before I add anything to the article.

--Tracer (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions of autistic individual

I've been scouring the web to attempt to find an opinion from somebody who actually has autism on this whole thing. Surprise surprise, I find nothing from any sites promoting denialism. Unfortunately (but not unexpected) I also didn't find much from any organizations dedicated to autism. I've read some autistic individuals who have written how they find it all very insulting, especially because it seems to be a bunch of parents, some of them with autistic children themselves, saying essentially, "Now that I personally believe that vaccines caused my child to get autism, if I could go back in time I would have not vaccinated and let them risk serious illness and death rather than have had them come out this way." I was wondering if anyone had a good source for something like this, since it's a gold standard article and I didn't want to just throw the claim out there that "Some autistic individuals feel..." --ShadowofLords (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Autism Speaks actually is in the anti-vexer crowd. Zero (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Is that really relevant though? POV is great and all but is it really needed on such an article? Firemylasers (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's definitely relevant. (Though I'm autistic myself, so perhaps there's a bit of a conflict of interest.) We want to show that the belief is not only untrue, but that it's ridiculous. The underlying premise is "I'd prefer my child to have polio over autism", which is an awful thing for any parent to think about their child. The angle should probably be less "this is offensive to autistic people" and more "they haven't thought of the implications of their belief". Kimberly (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not really a conflict of interest, more an inside view. If you want to add a comment saying what you just said here then go ahead. It needs saying. SophieWilderModerator 20:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant?

Found this on Reddit. Claims the anti-vax movement has over 1,100 victims. It blames them all on Jenny McCarthy though. But still, seemed relevant.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It could be relevant, but I don't think that's the right figure to use. The people that died of those "vaccine preventable" diseases might have actually gotten the vaccine (they're not always effective), they might not have been able to take the vaccine for health reasons, they might be opposed to vaccination for a religious reason even though they don't deny vaccines' effectiveness, etc. Kimberly (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccine safety concerns are to be separated from vaccine denialism

CAUTION Wiki newbie ...

I think it is important to point out that there are two issues. 1) Vaccines vs. no vaccines debate. 2) Unsafe vaccines vs. safe vaccines debate.

I am talking about unsafe vaccines vs. safe vaccines.

I have references to peer reviewed published scientific papers showing relation between vaccines/injections/tick bites and food allergies below.

I think denying such evidence would not be in line with rationalwiki's mission as I understand it.

Vinucube (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I could swear this article used to be called vaccine hysteria--"Shut up, Brx." 05:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This subject has been discussed in detail here: Vinucube (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
And you got woodshedded to hell and back by a bunch of people who were clearly bored with your PRATTfall. EVDebs (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Please provide evidence. Vinucube (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the links to Science Forums. I knew you were talking total bollocks and it was nice to see everything you said so completely debunked in one thread.
People like you have blood on your hands. Measles was all but dead - and now it's babies that are dead due to unfounded panics spread by morons. Vaccination works and the minuscule risks are far, far outweighed by the benefits but now we're having the old bogeymen resurrected with measles outbreaks clearly associated with panicmongers like you. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope I made myself clear. I am not anti-vaccine. I am pro-safe vaccines. Since the gap appears large between our positions, lets try smaller steps ...
Red meat allergy caused by tick bites
Tick bites result in the injection of a protein called alpha-gal (which is present in red meat) into the blood stream causing red meat allergy.
Food allergies caused by proton pump inhibitors (PPI)
When acidity in the stomach is reduced by acid reducing medications, food proteins are not broken down. They travel to the intestine intact and get absorbed into the blood stream causing food allergies.
Gelatin allergy caused by gelatin in the DTaP vaccine
Gelatin in the vaccine injected into the blood stream causes gelatin allergy. Nakayama T, Aizawa C, Kuno-Sakai H. A clinical analysis of gelatin allergy and determination of its causal relationship to the previous administration of gelatin-containing acellular pertussis vaccine combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:321--5.
If you disagree with the above, counter-evidence of comparable quality will be greatly appreciated.
Vinucube (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Usually, people who are anti-vaccine try to disguise their qualms with some JAQing off over safety. The rub is that "safe" is such a relative term and prone to misuse. Questions over allergies and adverse reactions aren't denied by the pro-vaccine 'side', but they are significantly overblown and misrepresented by the anti-vax movement. Trying to say that "safety concerns" are legitimate is to give a lot of false legitimacy to the anti-vax movement by claiming the pro-vaccine crowd ignore them. This is patently false. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
All medical treatments carry a risk. Putting on a sticky plaster (Band Aid) carries a risk - there are a number who are allergic to the glue. However we still use sticky plasters because the benefits outweigh the risks by several orders of magnitude. Similarly with a treatment like the MMR, one of the anti-vax bogey men, there is an associated risk. A risk that is well known, well understood and well documented. However, when this risk is measured against the risk to the health of children from these diseases then the benefits outweigh the risk by several orders of magnitude.
But scaremongers like Vinucube, for whatever reason, are putting populations at risk. People die because of anti vax scares. Distorting the facts by wildly exaggerating the risks is plain evil. Am I being harsh? Ask the family of Gareth Colfer-Williams. Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, we are discussing vaccines/injections causing life-threatening food allergies. Vaccines/injections causing anaphylaxis is a secondary concern.
As far as I know, vaccine inserts and CDC documentation do NOT list the development of food allergies as a possible side effect. is an example where food allergy is induced in mice. Mice are injected with food proteins along with alum as an adjuvant and the mice develop food allergies.
Food proteins are injected into humans via vaccines/injections and they too can contain alum as an adjuvant. All the evidence above from varied and independent sources demonstrate in both humans and animals, Charles Richet's Nobel Prize winning discovery that proteins injected into the blood stream, causes the organism to develop an allergy to the protein.
Nakayama et al., reads "In the preliminary
results investigating the immunogenicity of gelatin in
DTaP, a trace amount of gelatin in DTaP was immunogenic.
We examined 165 paired sera obtained before the
first dose of DTaP and 1 month after the third dose of
DTaP. Of 165 paired sera, 62 were obtained from the
recipients of gelatin-free DTaP, and IgE antibodies to
gelatin developed in none. In 103 recipients of gelatincontaining
DTaP, IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in 2
So 2% of gelatin containing DTaP recipients developed allergy to gelatin. Food proteins levels vary widely in vaccines as shown here:
MMR has 10000x more gelatin than DTaP.
"In the gastrointestinal tract of babies born by c-section, there is a pattern of "at risk" microorganisms that may cause them to be more vulnerable to developing the antibody Immunoglobulin E, or IgE, when in contact with allergens" - Christine Cole Johnson, Ph.D., MPH, chair of Henry Ford Department of Health Sciences.
Nakayama et al. looked at the effect of only one vaccine. Vaccines are given in multiple doses with each dose increasing the percentage of population that develops immunity. One can expect the same result for food allergy development. Today not only are kids receiving 20-30 or more shots, they also receive as many as 5 shots in one sitting. That's 5 times the amount food proteins and adjuvants at one time.
Number of C section deliveries have been going up.
Number of vaccines shots have been going up.
Number of simultaneous shots per sitting have gone up to 5
Number of Americans with food allergies have gone up to 15 million.
Given all the evidence I cited, what are the odds that all of the above is a mere coincidence?
Regarding benefits vs. cost, we are talking about the cost of developing vaccines free of food proteins vs. the benefit of saving the lives of children lost to life-threatening food allergies.
To clarify again, my goals are as follows:
Intermediate goal:No more than one vaccine a month to reduce risk of developing food allergies.
Final goal: Eliminate food proteins from vaccines/injections.
BTW:Nakayama et al., I cited is reference 78 in CDC's own document called "Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)".
Vinucube (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Kuno-Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP-an ultimate solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy.Biologicals 2003;31:245-9. Vinucube (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Vinucube you have a point that there appears to be a correlation (and potential mechanism seen in the sources you've provided) that merits further study. There are so many factors at play though, I would suggest at MOST a brief mention that there is no literature available that proves or disproves the possibility of vaccine-acquired immunogenicity to common food allergens. Then again, that's more fuel for the Jenny McCarthy's of the world to use in their quest to spread preventable childhood disease and hysteria, so it would most likely be best to wait until a study is released to make any claims. Does anyone know of any current studies of a bonafide link? For all we know this "increase" in allergies really could just be genetics, non-clinical misdiagnosis, or overly protective parents who keep their kids "safe" from immunity-building encounters with said allergens. Beatgroover (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this moved from vaccine hysteria?

A minor quibble, surely, but I think categorically vaccine hysteria would be the better title for the article. Denial doesn't really fit all the stuff the page discusses. ADK moved it at some point,] but I don't know why.

I support making it hysteria again.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a fair consensus, lead by Trent if I remember rightly, that nowhere else refers to the anti-vaccine movement as "vaccine hysteria". There were a few alternatives given, but "denialism" stuck because of its relative relation to most other denialism topics. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 11:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, re-reading it, it appears consensus that both titles were a bit shitty. Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Article

Worth a look & a link: The Facts In The Case Of Dr. Andrew Wakefield Pashley (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit] How about people claiming vaccines simply don't work?

This page does a good job of debunking the "vaccines do harm" theories, but how about the (related) claim that vaccines don't work and/or don't have anything to do with reduction in disease rates? I'm talking about stuff like this: where the claim is that disease rates were declining before the introduction of vaccines. Joakim Ziegler (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This should be discussed too.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 15:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Rename? (again?)

OK, we've had this debate before, but what is really the harm in renaming this to "anti-vaccination movement?" Most people who are searching for this topic are going to search for it under that title, and it is the title that would, in all probability, get the most hit from google, yahoo, etc. Vaccine denialism, while a classic RW-esque title, isn't likely to bring the internet searches for this topic here. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I support a rename. I like vaccine hysteria, but RNS' is okay too--"Shut up, Brx." 12:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Anybody else? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Denialism is better IMO but I would never get in the way of some good SEO. Can this be done with redirects, or does this not work? (I was not born with the ability to understand the magics of the internet) Tielec01 (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
By default, MediaWiki will leave redirects unless the person moving it turns the option off. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

[edit] No Known Cause for Autism is a totally false statement.

The statement there is no known cause for autism is totally wrong. There are MANY known causes of autism. Probably dozens. A bunch of genetic defects, prenatal conditions, etcetera. There are many large scale studies showing on the average vaccines do not cause autism and may even be a little bit neuroprotective - not surprising considering we've got vaccines for some types of meningitis, a known cause of brain problems, whooping cough, ditto for that, etcetera.

But there are MANY known causes for autism.

[edit] Known side effects - flawed risk analysis

The article says:

"complications are more likely to arise from illness than from vaccination."

and cites as evidence:

"The current impact of vaccines on health is very simply stated here. Children who get measles have a 1 in 20 chance of developing a serious complication; however, serious complications from the vaccine number 1 or 2 per million"

Those of us who have studied probability can quickly spot the fallacy here:

1. The 1:1,000,000 of getting a complication from a vaccine applies to all vaccinees.
2. In contrast, the 1:20 probability of a measles complication doesn't apply to all non-vaccinated persons, but only to a percent of them that contracts measles, which is ...?

So the author is not being honest here by comparing apples and pears. This risk analysis is totally bogus. (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty clear. Somebody is more likely to contract a serious problem from measles than vaccines. How is that hard to discern? Zero (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You have no idea of probability calculus. You need to know the percent of non-vaccinated persons that get measles before you can discern. (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
That being said you have no idea about calculus either since this isn't even calculus! But maybe this will satisfy your curiosity: "Nearly Universal." Zero (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If by "this" isn't calculus then let's remove the bogus probability comparison from the page and the corresponding bogus conclussion.
Your CDC link does not address the missing data of what percent of non-vaccinated people get measles, so it adds nothing to the debate. (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Fuck it. Seriously. If I show you the CDC saying "Nearly Universal" and that's not good enough for you then I'm not wasting my time satisfying a BoN. Zero (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Infection with measles virus was nearly universal" does not imply clinical measles was universal. It is clinical measles that has complications, obviously, while infection can go subclinical. (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, lets try this - and I've biased the figures as far as possible against vaccination.
  • Pre vaccine prevelence of measles was 'near universal' - let's call that 80% to be on the safe side - and ALL measles is clinical.
  • Of that 80% 5% get serious complications - so that's 4% of the population get serious complications
  • Even in a measles outbreak the risk of vaccinated children getting measles is <5% (If there weren't vax deniers then there would be no measles but that's another story)
  • Of those 5% 5% get serious complications - that's 0.25%
  • Plus, of course the 2 per million from vaccination complcations - so we've got to raise that to 0.2502%
  • So, by vaccinating your child you reduce the risk of serious complications by a factor of 16.
  • So anyone who doesn't vaccinate their child is putting him or her at a stupid and uneccessary risk - not to mention the whole herd immunity thing. We no longer need to vaccinate for smallpox because we vaccinated it out of existence.
Placeholder (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You say: "Pre vaccine prevelence of measles was 'near universal'", but the CDC say: "infection with measles virus was nearly universal", which includes subclinical. Then you claim "ALL measles is clinical", but the CDC is talking about infection with measles virus which can be subclinical:
Seroconversions in unvaccinated infants: further evidence for subclinical measles from vaccine trials in Niakhar, Senegal.
"...One-fifth (n = 53) of the placebo controls seroconverted..."
You're shifting goals and trying obfuscation. (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You say "Of that 80% 5% get serious complications " but the CDC says: "Acute encephalitis occurs in approximately 0.1%" an this is the most serious complication mentioned by the CDC.
Regarding the vaccine, the CDC says " additional febrile seizure occurred 5–12 days after vaccination per 2,300–2,600 children who had received the first dose of MMRV vaccine". So we have a vaccine complication akin to encephalitis in 0.04% of vacciness. That's a lot more then the pretended 1 in 2,000,000.
The whole risk/benefit analysis of vaccines is a chimp's tea party where vaccine dangers are downplayed and measles complications exaggerated. (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Good to know that you are here to restore objectivity. Your hostile certitude inspires confidence. I'd point out that in the linked CDC article "Nearly Universal" seizures occur as a complication of measles in .6%-.7% of cases, or about 1 in 167 infected. If you want to count febrile seizures as a serious complication on par with death, we can do so, but it would probably not be favorable to your position. Note that encephalitis occurs ten times as often among the infected as compared with the vaccinated, .1%. Yes, a complete analysis in terms of mathematical probability needs to recognize that not all people who go unvaccinated contract the disease, but infection rates vary depending on the population that you live in. In the pre-vaccine world measles was nearly universal, though, and not at all close to 1 in 10.
And looking at your actual quote on febrile seizures, it looks like you may be failing to comprehend. Here's the full quote:
Two postlicensure studies indicated that among children 12–23 months of age, one additional febrile seizure occurred 5–12 days after vaccination per 2,300–2,600 children who had received the first dose of MMRV vaccine compared with children who had received the first dose of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine administered as separate injections at the same visit. Data from postlicensure studies do not suggest that children 4–6 years of age who received the second dose of MMRV vaccine had an increased risk for febrile seizures after vaccination compared with children the same age who received MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine administered as separate injections at the same visit.
Emphasis is of course mine. What is your actual argument? If you are talking about why we should or shouldn't avoid vaccinating for measles, which is what I thought we were talking about at this point, then this information doesn't do much to advance your position. It merely points out that there are problems with a particular strategy for vaccinating for both measles and chickenpox in one visit to the doctor. Both groups in this comparison were immunized against measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox. Some receiving the combined vaccine had an unexpected worrisome outcome in comparison to the long-standing, more conservative immunization strategy, and this is a relatively worrisome thing about the new-fangled MMRV vaccine. Shirtsleeves (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] MMR South Wales Backlack

Is this worth mentioning in the article? Hobby (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Scandinavian Narcolepsy cases

I'd like to point out a stopped clock case. In Sweden and Finland, the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix was linked with an increase in the risk of narcolepsy in the 4-19 year age group, around 9-fold in Finland ( and 4-fold in Sweden ( The risk wasn't all that big to begin with, so this was 60 cases out of the 70 percent of the age group vaccinated in Finland, and around 4 out of 100 000 vaccinated in Sweden, and something like 600 total in Europe. Hertzy (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless somebody objects, I'll go ahead and add this in the "In the news today" section, with the references and other markup properly done:
In August 2010, Finnish National Institute of Health and Welfare recommended that Pandemrix vaccinations be discontinued, pending investigation into 15 cases of narcolepsy in recently vaccinated children and adolescents in the previous year[2]. At the same time, the European Medicines Agency and the Swedish Medical Products agency launched their own investigations to the vaccination. Far from being quashed by Big Pharma, these studies were completed in early 2011, and concluded that there was indeed an increased Relative risk of developing narcolepsy in children and adolescents vaccinated with Pandemrix. A number of follow-up studies have given various relative risks, ranging from around threefold risk [3] to as much as 7.5 [4]. Because narcolepsy is so rare to begin with, relative risks are hard to estimate, and the confidence intervals mentioned in the studies reflect this, generally giving a range of half to one and a half times the cited risk.
As is usual with Stopped clock cases, these findings did not result in widespread adoption of vaccine denialist notions in mainstream medicine. Instead, the scientific method carried on and, two years later, produced a model that explains these findings. As might be expected, the cause was not any of the vaccine additives anti-vaxers malign, but the fact that a certain surface proteins of the H1N1 virus resemble hypocretin, a neurotransmitter that transmits the "wake up" signal. [5]
I'd feel better if there were peer reviewed refs to this. Also, this narcolepsy relationship seems to also occur in actual cases of swine flu. Is it higher/lower in the vaccine than in the disease? Also, with the base rate so small, it's hard to get precise measurements of the actual relative risk, hence the big range of reported values. Even the 3-9 CI is pretty wide. I'd prefer a statement that takes the most conservative estimate (I saw one as low as 2) and describes it as "2 or more" or some similar construction. In short, could you increase the science depth and/or present the uncertainty? Early/casual results are fine as long as their early/casualness are clear. MarmotHead (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As for peer reviewed studies, here's a few links: British Medical Journal,, and Journal of internal medicine, vaccine, giving various relative risks and confidence intervals for slightly different age groups. I got the three from Journal of internal medicine and the nine from the Finnish press release. Also, here's the study referenced in the New Scientist link: Hertzy (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I did a rewrite, how does it look now? Also, is there an article on this wiki I could link to that explains the concept of confidence interval. Hertzy (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Better. There's no CI article but there's a small bit in Statistical significance that may or may not be relevant. FYI, it's bad ratwiki form to alter talk pages for more than typos. The fossil record shows everything but it's hard to see the conversation as a whole. MarmotHead (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Got it. I'll wait a bit more for any more comments before I go and add the section. Hertzy (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Does this include morality of not innoculation, if we pretend a link between autism and vaccines did exist?

Basically, autism is generally better than dying a slow, painful, agonizing death. So, even if they did cause autism, it's the more moral option to risk autism than to risk torture and murder of a child. Hppavilion1 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with Asperger's Disorder, I agree. The "vaccines cause autism and ought to be BANNED" scare is almost a tacit admission that the proponents think we'd be better off dead (of easily prevented diseases, no less), and frankly, does nothing for my state of mind except make me angry at such glaring (and frankly, insulting) irrationality. Least that's how I see it <_<.Sensual Endeavor, the sexy pony ;) (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions on inclusion of article suggesting MMR vaccine has reduced one cause of autism

There is a study that I want opinions on before incorporating into the article-it actually flips things around on the anti-MMR vaccine people specifically. It is a medscape article based on epidemiological rates of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) and its relationship to autism spectrum cases. CRS is a known contributor to cases of severe autism among other horrible things. The logic of the article seems good and Medscape is typically a good scholarly source, but I am a bit iffy on the methodology. Arachne1988 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't get to your linked article. Was it based on the Berger paper inBMC Public Health? MarmotHead (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is that one. I am surprised you couldn't get to it-Medscape is free to access online, more so than most academic journals. Arachne1988 (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It wanted me to login and I just didn't wanna.
The article was interesting. Methodologically, it's based on mathematical models which work differently from traditional statistical studies. This version is a kind of simulation study where the authors make a few assumptions, based on the literature, and compute the results under several scenarios. It's a kind of what-if, rather than what-did-we-observe. It doesn't seem wrong, but something based on original data collection and a hypothesis is often considered higher quality. FWIW, I've been published using both this method and statistical analyses so ... MarmotHead (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay so I guess I will incorporate it with some qualifiers. Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't sure how sound the methodology was due to the lack of original data.Arachne1988 (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's a link to the study the medscape article references for the connection between Autism and CRS[[6]]. 10 out of 243 CRS children had full blown autism and eight partial autism, compared to one or two out of a thousand in the rest of the population. Hertzy (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
"Partial autism"? I wasn't aware people used that terminology. (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It's from 1971. "Partial syndrome of autism" was apparently a diagnosis back then. Hertzy (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
D'oh, I put in the wrong prevalence number, it's one in a thousand worldwide, 1.5% in the developed world.
So the vaxxers have actually made their offspring more succeptible to severe autism by increasing the odds for congenital rubella syndrome? Yikes, talk about irony. (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] How the hell is there even a debate on this?

It's utterly baffling to me that so many people don't understand the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific article published in an accredited journal, and something some crackpot posted on their blog which "sounds" true.

There is literally zero debate on this "issue" from within knowledgeable scientific circles in the scientific community. The facts (and they are facts) have been analyzed and examined by qualified professionals from a plethora of various medical fields, and the results are in: autism is not linked to vaccines.

It really is as simple as that, but it's not even open to debate, as the people willing to debate this have no credible evidence and are unable to cite literally one single valid piece of evidence from any legitimate scientific journal that suggests otherwise.

It's as simple as an "I'm right, you're wrong" kind of issue. For more information on why you need to shut the fuck up about vaccines being harmful, here is a list of just a FRACTION of the studies that have concluded in no uncertain terms that vaccination is safe: Parogar (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You're talking as if everybody is in the habit of reading peer-reviewed accredited scientific journals. Most people actually aren't. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools