To dare speak about Vaxxed on MN?

[thegoodfight]

NC for this but a regular.

So I've just watched the documentary Vaxxed. I know how vaccine threads unfold on MN, so I'm ready to be told IABU however I feel like everyone should see this whatever your views - it's about the cover up around studies into autism and MMR

There is an admission from a CDC insider that he worked on the study and hid data which proved a link (a strong an quite frankly astounding one) and the data was sent to an external biologist who saw it for himself. There are first hand accounts from parents, scientists, doctors and politicians. The CDC haven't denied anything or called their lawyers despite it being an allegation of the biggest medical fraud ever (not exact words but something along those lines)

I just can't believe it's not been in the news! AIBU to ask if anyone else is planning to watch it??

These children are non-verbal, have seizures daily, and some have died. In every case in the film the symptoms started almost instantly after the vaccine.

Wtf, being non verbal, having seizures and dying are not features of autism.

The vast majority of autistic people lead worthwhile lives which are well worth preserving. Without autism, you wouldn't have all the fucking scientific and technological advances that you do. Have you ever thought of that?

Is my life worth preserving or should I just be euthanised right now?

Scientists are one thing. The scientific process is something different and it's that that people have faith in. The fact that ppl on this thread can't differentiate between science and scientists kind of proves why laypersons can't be trusted to make these decisions for everyone

thegoodfight what piece of evidence would change your mind? Specifically?

Really, he owns up to being struck off for writing a fraudulent paper?

I suppose it adds to his expert credentials in spotting other people having done the same.

ASD has been a comorbid diagnosis alongside many other conditions. For example epilepsy. These conditions also exist in people in isolation also. The children you refer to have a number of conditions and being non verbal meant they could not explain because it is a fight to get basic help for many with disabilities so please present an article by someone neutral and I will happily watch. But I will not waste time better spent helping my child communicate her needs or helping others going through the diagnosis process watching something made with heavy influence or a discredited child abuser!

www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/vaxxed-guide-wakefield-fraudulent-film/

Also -

Autism detectable in brain long before symptoms appear
Brain scans can detect autism long before any symptoms start to emerge, say scientists. earliest that children tend to be diagnosed at present is at the age of two, although it is often later. ... The study also pours further cold water on the debunked claims that the MMR jab causes autism. One of the reasons the link took hold was that autism tends to be diagnosed around the time that the vaccine is given to children.

They couldn't bring themselves to admit vaccines mainly cause autism in young African American boys.

You have to state what your study is looking for up-front. You're not allowed to go fishing about in your data looking for subgroups which are statistical anomalies, because you will find them, that's how statistics work. You're not going to get each subgroup having exactly the same autism rate as the average. If you looked further into the data you would also find subgroups who had a lower incidence of autism than the average, than you would statistically expect.

I doubt that they also used the study to argue that the MMR has a protective effect against autism for other subgroups, did they?

Some scientists are just shit at statistics.

Sorry should say with heavy influence of

I actually can't believe I'm arguing with someone who can't understand why watching one doc directed by the person in the centre of the scandal doesn't give you the full picture of a huge and complex issue.

I would rather a autistic child than a dead child so I think I'll take my chances thanks

noble giraffe it's like firing a gun into a wall then painting a target round it, claiming you hit it. Basic knowledge of the scientific process is lacking with a worrying amount of ppl.

Polio vaccine causing cancer....er, no. Read up on skeptical raptor.

Exactly, blackcherries. Look how far they had to dig into the data until they found something they could roll with.
African Americans? Nope
African American boys? Nope
Young African American boys? Bingo!

Let's not think too hard about how likely it is that a vaccine would have a particular effect on young African American boys but not older ones, or not girls, or not young Caucasian boys, we found our inevitable statistical anomaly and we're going to pretend it's important!

Black cherry - about what? I'm speaking specifically about the documentary. Which I'm guessing you haven't seen. If you watch it and then come back with counter evidence I'll listen. Saying you can provide evidence against something you haven't seen is ridiculous. I am open minded and have always been interested in both sides of this very complicated argument, but it seems like very few people are!

Helpimitchy - but again I'm speaking about the people in the film - not all autistic people?!! These are the injuries caused by the vaccine in the documentary and have come alongside autism.

Noble - yet again!!! This is all addressed in the film - the CDC are accused of falsifying the study because they didn't stick to what they claimed they were looking for at the beginning of the study, they manipulated it along the way. This is the CDC - not some random independent group. They police their own studies and what they say effects vaccine programs across the world.

Thegoodfight, I've watched it. I based my massive first post on that.

The evidence of African American boys was shaky at best, and certainly not a good example to base anything on.

The documentary I felt was incredibly emotive but did nothing to change my opinion of Andrew Wakefield. I certainly didn't come away feeling my eyes had been opened to fraud. It was propaganda and he scraped the barrel with the easily researchable and debunkable evidence he used, and the Drs who appeared whose specialism wasn't ASD or neurology. You wouldn't trust a dermatologist to diagnose and treat a brain tumour, would you? I felt he must think his viewers were gullible.

Like I've said in previous posts, I think the way some parents have been treated has enabled Wakefield to continue this, which unfortunately will mean that the general scientific opinion will remain a firm "vaccines do not cause autism".

Like I also mentioned, I also have personal, negative experience of possible side effects, which has led me to be slightly open minded about the possibility of something going on, or at least to be sympathetic towards parents who believe their children were vaccine damaged.

I have a confused stance on this and work myself in knots trying to work out how I feel about it all.

Noble - YOUNG because the recommended age is 12 months!!! The study found that after 3 years the risks dropped significantly.

I've read the study, thegoodfight and I understand statistics. Why would I want to watch some propaganda shit by a man known to lie?

Noble - also the doc looks at the general population, but it's African American boys under 3 years which has the most standout stats.

Unless there is new credible data in the film that they didn't present in scientific journals then it is there to emotionally manipulate and misrepresent the truth. There is a well known psychological bias they are tapping into.

The study found that after 3 years the risks dropped significantly.

No it didn't. You don't understand statistics. As I said previously, if you take any set of real data and fish around in it long enough, you will find subgroups with anomalous results. I expect if they looked even more closely they would find the 'risk dropped significantly' if you were a young African American boy whose birthday was before the 20th February or something. That doesn't make that finding meaningful.

I have utter faith in science. Not individual studies or scientists. Scientific method is by far the best method we have to looking for the truth in medicine.

"The study also pours further cold water on the debunked claims that the MMR jab causes autism. "

As already stated several times now - nobody is saying that the MMR is the one and only cause of autism. Some people claim that it triggered their child's regression. This study is not going to 'pour cold water' on that.

Noble, it depends on the size of the subgroup that is identified. Stratified medicine pretty much depends on identifying subgroups within large data sets that may/may not respond to certain treatments. So 'fishing around' in the data isn't necessarily a bad thing.

It was at the same time as, is not the same as 'caused'. Correlation does not prove causation. As any first year science student could tell you.

just read this op sciencebasedmedicine.org/andrew-wakefields-vaxxed-antivaccine-propaganda-at-its-most-pernicious/

it explains why a film made my a discredited Dr, full of other discredited Dr's might now actually represent the truth

I was referring to the withdrawal of the singles vaccine six months after the initial scare. Of course you were dear! Look, more quibbling!

Mimi I posted the BBC list to demonstrate that a number of studies had been done, not all were simply statistical analysis. Why would I have the original study? Why, given the info in the article could you not look for it yourself?