• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Another new study links Autism to vaccines

wdb

Senior Member
Messages
1,392
Location
London
Needs saying again, correlation is not causation. Think of all the things that have increased in recent times like say organic food sales, all of these might just as well be linked to autism.
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
@wdb they're saying the slope of the graph showing autism diagnoses increases sharply whenever vaccines manufactured using human fetal cell lines are introduced. This pattern is allegedly seen in US, UK, Western Australia and Denmark data. At that point it's a hard to say that it's a spurious correlation.
 

adreno

PR activist
Messages
4,841
Direct causation is difficult to prove without control groups in similar environments. However, I do think the results of this study look very worrisome, and at least grounds for further investigation.
 
Last edited:

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
We need to see the actual paper. Press releases are notoriously inaccurate and can hype things up or down depending on editorial policy, though hyping things up is usually the way it goes.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
@A
Similar issues occur with discussing whether or not ME is on the increase. Stable diagnostic criteria, and large population sampling would eliminate much of the potential biases. This all costs money however.

Yup and therein lies part of the problem.

Barb
 

adreno

PR activist
Messages
4,841
It should be noted that the journal is not respectable and of the type were the author pays to publish (poor peer review).

Also, it seems the author has an agenda. She is against abortion and might be fishing for evidence against it.

The use of references in the paper are scarce.
 

natasa778

Senior Member
Messages
1,774

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
No. Vaccines don't cause autism. It is just not true. The evidence against this claim is overwhelming.

As far as I know (I'm admittedly not well informed) there has never been a study on the cumulative effects of vaccines in infants. A single vaccine is one thing, but 20+ is another.

Claiming that the evidence of safety is overwhelming is a bit ridiculous. Without such a study, I would say we have no idea what is really happening.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
As far as I know (I'm admittedly not well informed) there has never been a study on the cumulative effects of vaccines in infants. A single vaccine is one thing, but 20+ is another.

Claiming that the evidence of safety is overwhelming is a bit ridiculous. Without such a study, I would say we have no idea what is really happening.
Scientists into vaccine research do not claim vaccines are safe. Their claim to safety rests on them being much safer than the disease they confer protection to, not absolutely safe. Its a relative safe.
 

cigana

Senior Member
Messages
1,095
Location
UK
It is funny how I've always thought those scientists with competing interests are the least likely to help us.
Maybe the fact that these researchers (in the above mentioned study) do have reasons for being biased could actually go in our favour for a change (despite it being an unscientific incentive).

Clearly the CDC have very obvious reasons for being biased, but you can't list "National Security" as a competing interest, so they don't need to mention it :)
 

adreno

PR activist
Messages
4,841
It is funny how I've always thought those scientists with competing interests are the least likely to help us.
Maybe the fact that these researchers (in the above mentioned study) do have reasons for being biased could actually go in our favour for a change (despite it being an unscientific incentive).

Clearly the CDC have very obvious reasons for being biased, but you can't list "National Security" as a competing interest, so they don't need to mention it :)
Biased researchers are never in our interest, doesn't matter which way the bias goes. We are not looking for a particular result, but where the facts lead us.