A respected British medical journal, Tһе Lancet, retracted a study tһаt tһе childhood vaccine MMR triggers autism. Richard Roth reports οח tһе controversy debated fοr more tһаח a decade.

Please Pass This Information Along and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • connotea
  • email
  • Faves
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • MisterWong
  • muti
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Slashdot
16 Responses to “Vaccine Link to Autism Retracted”
  1. VaccineDoc says:

    My son received five vaccines when he was 12 months old. He is almost three years old now, and you can look at him for yourself at my “youngsatchmo” channel.

  2. ryuseabee says:

    Give your infant 4 or more shots in one visit, wait two years and post a opinion. You will know why 1 in 5 adults believes shots trigger autism. Especially if you have a small infant. FDA and CDC needs to do more group studies on military families, we are most consistant with the shot schedule.

  3. LarcheOsborne says:

    Every place has its nuts I agree, and Louisiana more than most. If you ask me to defend Louisiana on that point, it can’t be done. By the way, I left Louisiana two decades ago.

  4. truvelocity says:

    @LarcheOsborne Louisiana? I just finished an essay on Huey Long Jr. He was a man of the people. As far as poles and people believing in nonsense, I see it happening in the UK, too. Canadians have less of a populace, but you still have your nuts there, too.

    Take care.

  5. LarcheOsborne says:

    My friend don’t either, but those beliefs are shared by many Americans. I note you live in California. I recently saw polls stating that 11 percent of Californians and 36% of Republicans believe it likely that Obama was born in Kenya. A smaller but still considerable percentage of Republicans thought Obama might be the Antichrist.

    As I said, you seem to be a very rational person. I grew up in Louisiana, and you would be stunned at the nonsense adults I knew in my childhood believed.

  6. truvelocity says:

    My peers don’t think the way you are describing here in America. I’m sorry, but that’s so far out of line.

  7. LarcheOsborne says:

    The danger is that Americans aren’t as rational as you think. Half of Americans believe in UFOs and Creationism. Thousands believe in Truther, Birther, or Teabagger conspiracies. The numbers who believe in ESP, magic, witches, and that Haitians made a bargain with with the Devil in 1791 are stunning. And don’t get me started on the JFK assassination conspiracies.

    I’m am sure you are an intelligent and rational individual. I wish more of our fellow citizens shared those qualities.

  8. truvelocity says:

    The problem is that when a decision is fear based, people tend to respond with more conspiracy theories because, they feel like someone is trying to hide something form them.

    I give people the benefit of the doubt, that if they are not pig headed and open to education, they will come to better problem solving skills instead of sweeping issues under the rug until they explode like they have with a mass outbreak of measles.

    Also, I’m flattered that you called me youngster. Thanks.

  9. LarcheOsborne says:

    I don’t think it was before my time, youngster!

    Nevertheless, if legitimate issues exist — and well they might — I agree that scientist, doctors, and the media should speak up in a rational method.

    Unfortunately, I fear if this occurred, the anti-vaccination conspiracy nuts would gain a measure of support, and people people would begin refusing proven vaccinations, leading to the deaths of many such individuals and their children.

  10. truvelocity says:

    Yes, it was a win by just scientists who put their foot down, but it took ten long years of damage in our modern world, even though it was before our time. Its a really interesting case study on society and collusion and it happens quite frequently. Don’t worry, I’m not a conspiracy theorist nor an anti vaccine person. I am saying there are studies that are up for questioning that say “no connection” and so far the media has stone walled these legit questions.

  11. LarcheOsborne says:

    I know of no scientists other than those who worked for tobacco companies or for tobacco producing states who made such claims, and I know of none being published in real peer review journals, but I am sure there are some since you are probably in a better position to know that. However, I do know the issue was addressed and won by scientists who proved the dangers of tobacco — in peer review journals. I think the real battle arose over labeling tobacco products as harmful

  12. truvelocity says:

    @LarcheOsborne, Scientists, under peer review, said that smoking did not cause lung cancer and was healthy for you. These studies were distributed, published, and in the media for 10 years, before anyone finally said, “enough is enough.”

    I see history repeating itself.

    So, not all experts are out for our best interest when it comes to billions and billions of dollars at stake.

  13. watercolorz25 says:

    so are they retracting it now because they are losing money?this is a shame..if it causes autism then they need to come up with a new plan, too many are suffering with autism or families struggling to cope with it, people with autism are real people with real needs

  14. BeachedWhale09 says:

    I don’t trust people making money off a product to tell me its ok. Not to mention how many commercials on tv are from pharmaceutical companies? Search SherriTenpenny

  15. Younowkoed says:

    I hope it’s found out that it does, because I want my dad to sue the government for thousands, my life is a living hell because of my brother.

  16. LarcheOsborne says:

    What do you know — Scientists reject the frauds within their ranks. And the peer review system worked. Apparently, the British legal system does as well.

    For those of you who deny the peer review system, what experts do you experts do you think witnessed for the plaintiffs? On what body of evidence did the court make its ruling?

    Another victory for rational science.

Leave a Reply

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact

Switch to our mobile site