![]() |
They announced on the morning news that some study that had linked autism to some kind of vaccines, they had changed their mind and now want to take that back. This was a short blurb on the local morning news. I don't have any details other than that.
|
That was classicman's link. The Lancet, the journal that originally published the study, is retracting it.
|
I saw that on the morning crawl on MSNBC, Flint.
Wait what They retracted it already? |
The journal is retracting the original 1998 paper.
|
A complete dissection of every issue surrounding the ruling, written by a man with both a PhD and a JD. It's long, but of course if this situation were simple enough to be explained by a run-of-the-mill AP article, it wouldn't have remained controversial for the last 11 years.
|
The way this story broke (and has continued to break) in the 90s has been damaging to everyone, on both sides. For a start we now have 'sides'. The initial story frightened thousands of parents into not vaccinating their children and we've consequently seen an exponential rise in dangerous childhoos illnesses, which had previopusly been all but wiped out. The way the rebuttal occurred (not helped by the shortcuts the original researcher took) has led people who should be looking at it dispassionately to batten down the hatches and 'take a side'. Anybody attempting to look into it properly, is labelled a crackpot and effectively becomes a pariah in scientific and medical circles.
It shouldn't be a matter of 'sides'. There are two 'needs' at play here and there is no logical reason for them to be mutually exclusive. There is a 'need' to prevent the high levels of infant mortality caused by such illnesses as measles and Rubella. Tackling that has to happen at a massified, societal level: vaccinations work against this need. There is also a 'need' to ensure that individual children are not adversely affected by those vaccinations. Now we have a situation where the vaccination is suspect enough, to enough people, that levels of vaccination have fallen below the 'critical mass' required for them to be effective at a mass level. And at the same time, all research into the individual effects of vaccination seems stymied. The same people who advocate mass vaccination should be at the forefront of investigating how to ensure it is safe at an individual level. mass vaccination is beneficial at a mass level; but if yours is the child who is harmed so that we as a society can reduce infant mortality; that's pretty cold comfort. |
Quote:
Quote:
Whooping cough in NJ Quote:
|
From the BBC news site in 2008:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jinx
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
and paper cups
|
@ Jinx: the option to use singlew vaccines is available but not on the NHS. One of the problems with it has been that parents have started out getting the single vaccines, but not completed the programme.
Personally, i think if the single vaccine were available on the NHS and parents better supported in that option we could have saved a lot of trouble. As it is the medical profession are so completely wedded to the idea that the MMR vaccine is safe and does not cause autism that all parents who have concerns ion that area are treated as if they're an over-credulous, superstitious awkward squad. It was specifically the MMR vaccine that was linked to autism originally, I believe. |
Let me know if anyone wants the full article.
Quote:
|
Would love to see one that compares vaccinated kids to unvaccinated kids, instead of differently vaccinated kids if you come across one.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.