'Leaky Vaccines': Spreading more disease?

[donnay]

'Leaky Vaccines': Spreading more disease?

Dr. Mercola
Mercola.com
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:27 UTC


In 2001, Andrew Read, evolutionary biologist at Penn State University, and colleagues published a paper stating that imperfect vaccines, which protect the host from death but allow infection and disease transmission to other hosts, may actually trigger the evolution of more virulent forms of the disease.1

"Vaccines rarely provide full protection from disease," the study's abstract begins... and those that are imperfect or "leaky" may protect the host from succumbing to the disease while still allowing them to shed the virus into the community.

Ordinarily, a particularly lethal or "hot" virus is self-limiting because it will kill those it infects relatively quickly, before they have a chance to spread the virus to those around them. With leaky vaccines, this is no longer the case, as infected hosts may spread the lethal virus for weeks or more. In 2001, they wrote:2

The subsequent evolution leads to higher levels of intrinsic virulence and hence to more severe disease in unvaccinated individuals. This evolution can erode any population-wide benefits such that overall mortality rates are unaffected, or even increase, with the level of vaccination coverage."


The 2001 study was based on a mathematical model, and it was met with criticism and controversy, as are most studies that point out the imperfect nature of vaccinations or call for more research.

Now, however, Dr. Read and his colleagues have further proof of their leaky vaccine theory, this time based on the spread of Marek's disease in chickens.

'Leaky' Vaccines Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Virus Strains

The researchers speculated that vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow infection and transmission could allow very virulent strains of viruses to circulate in a population. This, they found, is precisely the case when chickens are immunized against Marek's disease caused by a herpes virus that is often lethal to chickens.3

In unvaccinated chickens, the most virulent strains of Marek's disease burn out on their own because the hosts are killed quickly and have little time to spread the disease.

However, when the researchers tested the virulent virus strains in vaccinated birds, they found they were infected and survived but shed the virus for much longer and therefore passed it on to far more birds. They wrote:

"Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication, or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist.

Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts."


This is added proof that long-term use and overuse of vaccines could present real problems for individual and public health by ultimately allowing highly virulent diseases to spread and persist in the community.

Continued...

[Zippyjuan]

Examples of "leaky vaccines" actually "spreading disease"?

It is theoretically possible with live attenuated vaccines only. There are only three in the US- the MMR, chickenpox, and nasal versions of the flu vaccine. Few if any examples of shedding spreading any of those to other persons (who must be non- vaccinated to get infected) are known. It just doesn't happen except in very rare circumstances.

Somebody who is not vaccinated and has the disease is much more likely to spread the disease. And the too will only be able to infect unvaccinated persons. If you are worried about somebody infecting you via shedding, getting vaccinated yourself can prevent it.

[donnay]

'Leaky' Vaccines May Create Stronger Viruses

By Jack Martinez 7/27/15 at 6:15 PM

An international team of scientists have confirmed that vaccines can contribute to the development of virulent virus strains.

The controversial “supervirus” theory, known widely from the 2011 Steven Soderbergh film Contagion, purports that vaccinations, when they fail to completely eliminate a disease in an individual or a population, can cause viruses to evolve new traits that make them more resistant to treatment. The new study, published in PLOS Biology, refers to these imperfect vaccines as “leaky vaccines.” Vaccines for diseases like smallpox and measles are considered “perfect” because they create lifelong immunity and prevent diseases from being spread. “Leaky” vaccines, on the other hand, which are used for diseases like malaria and avian flu and commonly given to livestock, immunize the individual but do not prevent viruses from spreading. In some cases, a disease can still spread even after the host has died.

A team of researchers led by Andrew Read of Penn State intentionally administered “leaky vaccines” for Marek’s disease, a strain of herpes that induces paralysis in poultry, to groups of chickens, and discovered that unvaccinated individuals coming into contact with the vaccinated subjects had been infected with a “hot” viral strain.

Continued...

[donnay]

Why vaccines spread disease and vaccine science is flawed

June 26, 2014 By Ethan Huff

The rising incidence of infectious disease illustrates the fact that vaccines spread disease. These are diseases the system insists have been mostly eradicated due to the advent of vaccines, but they are starting to reemerge. A deeper look into the history of vaccines, how they work and what level of long-term protection they truly provide reveals that these golden calves of modern medicine are actually the vehicles through which infectious disease is being spread, with vaccinated individuals as the primary disease carriers.

The notion that vaccines spread diseases is the opposite of what we have been told for decades about the nature of vaccines. One common claim has been that vaccines produce immunity to diseases that might otherwise kill you, and the assumption is that refusing vaccines leaves one prone to both catching and spreading otherwise uncommon infectious diseases. These and other modern medical myths about vaccines pervade mainstream thinking, and yet they have absolutely no basis in sound science.

In an extensive rebuttal to a 2012 article written by Forbes‘ Steven Salzberg that blamed a whooping cough outbreak in the Northwest on unvaccinated children, Dr. Paul G. King, Ph.D., of FAME Systems deconstructed the popular misconception that infectious disease reemergence is the result of people not getting vaccinated. On the contrary, it is the vaccination schedule itself, which the federal government has been coercing people into complying with for nearly the entire last century, that is ultimately leading to and driving these outbreaks.

“Salsberg is simply using a longstanding ‘straw man’ created long ago by his fellow vaccine apologists to divert the public’s attention from the reality that… the current pertussis vaccines are neither effective in providing those inoculated with them long-term protection from contracting whooping cough nor… cost effective,” explains Dr. King in his paper.

Vaccines spread disease by destroying natural immunity

One thing that few people, including many health professionals, fail to understand is that vaccines override the body’s innate, or mucosal, immune system. Also known as non-specific immunity, innate immunity is our bodies’ primary line of defense against all types of bacteria, toxins and other harmful invaders — the gatekeeper, if you will, that protects the body’s adaptive immune system from having to face these intruders directly.

Under ideal conditions, the innate immune system kicks into high gear at the first sign of a threat, blocking pathogens from getting past the nose, mouth, digestive tract or other bodily entry point. If for some reason the innate immune system fails at this task, the adaptive immune system picks up where it left off, adapting, as its name implies, to tackle the specific threat.

But this natural immune response is thwarted by vaccines, which intentionally bypass the innate immune system and go straight for the adaptive immune system. The resultant immune response is both unnatural and completely out of order, generating only temporary and often incomplete immunity as opposed to the lifelong immunity garnered from natural exposure.

“Whereas natural recovery from many infectious diseases usually stimulates lifetime immunity, vaccines only provide temporary protection and most vaccines require ‘booster’ doses to extend vaccine-induced artificial immunity,” says Barbara Loe Fisher, president and co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center.

The same is true for vaccines against pertussis, or whooping cough, which Dr. King, through his extensive research, found only provide a few years of limited protection as opposed to a lifetime of full protection in unvaccinated individuals who contract the disease naturally. The former have to continually get booster shots to maintain their immunity, while the latter are essentially immune for life after contracting the disease once.

“[A]t best, the current views are that the ‘protection’ provided by ‘pertussis’ vaccination lasts no more than 3 years in some percentage of those who are ‘fully’ vaccinated and initially protected,” wrote Dr. King. “In the pre-vaccination era, having a case of whooping cough and recovering from it conservatively provided 10 to 50 years of protection from a re-infection that resulted in a clinical case of whooping cough caused by either B. pertussis or B. parapertussis.”

In other words, unvaccinated individuals who contract mild whooping cough at a young age end up developing lifelong immunity to the disease without the need for a vaccine, and they also never become carriers of the disease. Vaccinated individuals, on the other hand, will never develop lifelong immunity, and will continually have to receive “booster” shots as protection, which the data shows is not always reliable or foolproof and can even lead to vaccine-induced health problems.

“Unlike the natural disease which appears to confer lifelong immunity, present day pertussis vaccines confer only partial and relative transient protection,” wrote Drs. James W. Bass and Stephen R. Stephenson in a 1987 study entitled The return of pertussis. “A high degree of protection persists for 3 years, decreasing thereafter for 12 years after which little or no protection is evident.”

Continued...

[Zippyjuan]

So no documented cases of shedding, huh?

(expecting more articles saying it "might" be able to happen).

[donnay]

The Vaccinated Spreading Measles: WHO, Merck, CDC Documents Confirm

By: Sayer Ji

20 years ago, the MMR vaccine was found to infect virtually all of its recipients with measles. The manufacturer Merck's own product warning links MMR to a potentially fatal form of brain inflammation caused by measles. Why is this evidence not being reported?

The Vaccinated Spreading Measles

The phenomenon of measles infection spread by MMR (live measles-mumps-rubella vaccine) has been known for decades. In fact, 20 years ago, scientists working at the CDC's National Center for Infectious Diseases, funded by the WHO and the National Vaccine Program, discovered something truly disturbing about the MMR vaccine: it leads to detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it.

Published in 1995 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology and titled, "Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients," researchers analyzed urine samples from newly MMR vaccinated 15-month-old children and young adults and reported their eye-opening results as following:

Measles virus RNA was detected in 10 of 12 children during the 2-week sampling period.
In some cases, measles virus RNA was detected as early as 1 day or as late as 14 days after the children were vaccinated.
Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination.

Continued...

[donnay]

The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines:
Vaccine Strain Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission
http://www.nvic.org/CMSTemplates/NVI...e-Shedding.pdf

[angelatc]

Rather than actually answer you, she just posts more nonsense. Some things never change. You are literally talking to a wall of misinformation.

[Zippyjuan]

The Vaccinated Spreading Measles: WHO, Merck, CDC Documents Confirm

By: Sayer Ji

20 years ago, the MMR vaccine was found to infect virtually all of its recipients with measles. The manufacturer Merck's own product warning links MMR to a potentially fatal form of brain inflammation caused by measles. Why is this evidence not being reported?

The Vaccinated Spreading Measles

The phenomenon of measles infection spread by MMR (live measles-mumps-rubella vaccine) has been known for decades. In fact, 20 years ago, scientists working at the CDC's National Center for Infectious Diseases, funded by the WHO and the National Vaccine Program, discovered something truly disturbing about the MMR vaccine: it leads to detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it.

Published in 1995 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology and titled, "Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients," researchers analyzed urine samples from newly MMR vaccinated 15-month-old children and young adults and reported their eye-opening results as following:

Measles virus RNA was detected in 10 of 12 children during the 2-week sampling period.
In some cases, measles virus RNA was detected as early as 1 day or as late as 14 days after the children were vaccinated.
Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination.

Continued...

Detecting RNA or DNA means that at some point you were exposed to it. Naturally, the kids who were vaccinated showed RNA from the virus. Anybody who got it naturally would also show RNA in their body. That is exactly what one would expect to find.

it leads to detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it.

[CPUd]

[Zippyjuan]

The same is true for vaccines against pertussis, or whooping cough, which Dr. King, through his extensive research, found only provide a few years of limited protection as opposed to a lifetime of full protection in unvaccinated individuals who contract the disease naturally. The former have to continually get booster shots to maintain their immunity, while the latter are essentially immune for life after contracting the disease once.

“[A]t best, the current views are that the ‘protection’ provided by ‘pertussis’ vaccination lasts no more than 3 years in some percentage of those who are ‘fully’ vaccinated and initially protected,” wrote Dr. King. “In the pre-vaccination era, having a case of whooping cough and recovering from it conservatively provided 10 to 50 years of protection from a re-infection that resulted in a clinical case of whooping cough caused by either B. pertussis or B. parapertussis.”

Continued...

The booster is a one- time thing. Then you are covered for the rest of your life. You don't need another shot every three years as long as you live.

I suppose you would rather see your child or grandkids go through this (it can last for three months- known as "the hundred day cough"):

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

That's like saying if you don't know how an internal combustion engine works you can't make a logical decision on what kind of car to buy. Logic fail.

[donnay]

Detecting RNA or DNA means that at some point you were exposed to it. Naturally, the kids who were vaccinated showed RNA from the virus. Anybody who got it naturally would also show RNA in their body. That is exactly what one would expect to find.

But the point is that the detection of measles virus RNA have been linked to vaccine.

Detection of measles virus RNA in urine specimens from vaccine recipients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228449/

Scientific evidence demonstrates that individuals vaccinated with live virus vaccines such as MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), rotavirus, chicken pox, shingles and influenza can shed the virus for many weeks or months afterwards and infect the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.1,2 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,19

Furthermore, vaccine recipients can carry diseases in the back of their throat and infect others while displaying no symptoms of disease.11,12,13

“Numerous scientific studies indicate that children who receive a live virus vaccination can shed the disease and infect others for weeks or even months afterwards. Thus, parents who vaccinate their children put others at risk,” explains Leslie Manookian, documentary filmmaker and activist. Manookian’s award winning documentary, The Greater Good, aims to open a dialog about vaccine safety.

Both unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals are at risk from exposure to those recently vaccinated.Vaccine failure is widespread; vaccine-induced immunity is not permanent and recent outbreaks of diseases such as whooping cough, mumps and measles have occurred in fully vaccinated populations.14,15 Flu vaccine recipients become more susceptible to future infection after repeated vaccination.16, 19

Source

[Zippyjuan]

All it means is that you were somehow, at some time, exposed to it. Whether from somebody infected with it or from a vaccine. That is all.

And still noting no evidence of people actually becoming infected via shedding- just more articles claiming the same thing- that it COULD happen. Man COULD fly to the moon, but how often does it actually happen?

Or just get the 100 day cough. No problem. Less suffering than a momentary vaccine jab.

Published on May 23, 2013
It has been one year since we nearly lost our son, Tyce, to Pertussis (whooping cough). He was only 2 weeks old and had a little cough. We were told by his Doctor that he looked okay and to just keep an eye out for a fever. We kept a close eye on him but he never got a fever. His cough got progressively worse and he started to have moments when he would gasp for air. My husband was determined to find out what was wrong and immediately started researching online. He came across Pertussis (whooping cough). As I watched the videos, I did not want to believe that my son was sick with Pertussis. He had not made the Whooping sound. Later that day, he had a coughing spell and while i was holding him his lips turned blue and he stopped breathing. It was a horrible and helpless feeling. We rushed him to the ER with our own video of Tyce in hand. My husband insisted that they test our son for Pertussis. But the hospital was hesitant because Pertussis is not common. My husband made sure everyone watched Tyce's video. As we waited in our ER room, Tyce had one of his scariest coughing spells. Laying in his Daddies arms, he coughed and gasped for air then his entire face turned blue and he went limp and passed out...not breathing. Calm on the outside....terrified on the inside, we thumped the bottom of his feet to get him to take a breath. Shortly after, some Pediatric Doctors walked in to ask us questions. The one question that helped us get our son admitted was "do you fear for your sons life". In which we answered, "YES!". We were admitted to the Pediatrics Ward where over night he continued to get worse. And eventually, was moved to the PICU. We had an amazing team of Doctors and Nurses that were assigned to Tyce. And our little warrior, Tyce, had an inner strength and will to fight. We were BLESSED that he recovered and a year later is doing well. My hope is this video helps another family in the way that other families videos helped ours.

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO GET VACCINATED. IT CAN SAVE A LIFE.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

What a load of crap, Zippy. Even if you want to give your child the vaccine for whooping cough, they don't get it until at least 8 weeks old, So it makes no difference. Furthermore, it was obviously a failure of the doctor giving a false diagnosis. And oh yeah, he didn't die.

[Zippyjuan]

So you are happy to see kids (and their parents) go through that? When in most cases it could be prevented? The kid had to be exposed to it from somebody else- who was probably not vaccinated. When a person chooses not be vaccinated they opt not just for themselves but also for those who cannot be vaccinated.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If the mother was ever exposed to it she already has antibodies which would be passed to the baby if she breastfeeds them, so that's BS.

[Zippyjuan]

If that is true, then no kids should get whooping cough.

http://www.vaccinestoday.eu/faq/16-b...al-protection/

#16 Babies receive antibodies with breast milk. Why do they need vaccines if they already get this natural protection?

During pregnancy, antibodies are transferred from mother to child. Further immune factors are received through breast milk, particularly in the early months of life. This maternal protection is a crucial support for the infant immune system during its development – but it does not cover everything.

Mothers can pass on antibodies against diseases she herself has had in the past or those against which she has been vaccinated. Because antibodies are quickly degraded, the child is left without protection from 6-12 months after birth and also shortly after their mother discontinues breastfeeding.

Also, antibodies against certain infectious – like whooping cough, for example – are not transferrable so the baby cannot depend on maternal antibodies for protection in all cases. Premature babies are particularly vulnerable as their immune systems are not well developed and they are less likely to have benefited from passive protection. Vaccines can be particularly beneficial for premature births.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

That's vaccine propaganda bull$#@!. There's nothing special about whooping cough that antibodies from the breastmilk can't be passed to the child. If you don't want your baby getting whooping cough from someone, don't pass them around like a pet dog and keep them in relative isolation until they are old enough to get the shot or just have a stronger immune system in general.

You also neglect that there's still a lot of moms out there that don't breastfeed their kid. They buy baby formula and think it's the same, when it's not.

[CPUd]

That's vaccine propaganda bull$#@!. There's nothing special about whooping cough that antibodies from the breastmilk can't be passed to the child. If you don't want your baby getting whooping cough from someone, don't pass them around like a pet dog and keep them in relative isolation until they are old enough to get the shot or just have a stronger immune system in general.

You also neglect that there's still a lot of moms out there that don't breastfeed their kid. They buy baby formula and think it's the same, when it's not.

To refute his claim, show a case of passive immunity to pertussis in a 6-12 month child.

[Zippyjuan]

Claim bull$#@! but don't prove it is BS, eh?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

This wasn't about a 6-12 month child, this was about a 2 week old child that was too young to get the vaccine anyway, which Zippy responded by implying that the solution is mandatory vaccination for everybody so there's less of a chance a child of 2 weeks won't get whooping cough, to which I say $#@! that. 1 in 6 children have some type of mental disability now, so if you want to continue this science experiment with your children, go ahead, but I won't be a part of it.

[Zippyjuan]

1 in 6 children have some type of mental disability now, so if you want to continue this science experiment with your children, go ahead, but I won't be a part of it.

Can you support THAT claim (or any of your earlier ones)? And can you link it to vaccines?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Can you support THAT claim? And can you link it to vaccines?

cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

About 1 in 6 children in the United States had a developmental disability in 2006-2008, ranging from mild disabilities such as speech and language impairments to serious developmental disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, and autism.

Of course the CDC will never directly link autism to the mmr shot, but they have no problem listing brain swelling (which can cause BRAIN DAMAGE) as a symptom and admit that signs of autism typically occur around the same time they get the MMR vaccine. They admit 1 in 3000 children get seizures from the shot, coming from the CDC it's probably a lot more than that, but they insist these are safe seizures! Not much diff. than Obama saying no boots on the ground, just military advisers on the ground.

More difficult, I can never find a study done on children who have not received vaccines and their rate of getting autism. The closest thing I ever found was the exclusion of the MMR shot in Japan, but they claim no change in autism rates (even though instead of not getting the MMR shot, they got each shot separately, which is basically the same thing) One thing I did find though is there is a link between autism rates and breastfed children. Children that were breastfed had a lower rate of autism than those who didn't. All I can assume is I can't find a decent study because they are suppressed.

[Zippyjuan]

So you can't find evidence to support your theory means that the evidence is suppressed. Interesting.

What is "mental illness"? A kid who develops more slowly than their peers? Somebody who stresses out in certain situations? A bored kid (gets labeled ADHD) ? Depending on definition, we all can be considered mentally ill.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/m...lness-children

Identifying mental disorders in children can be tricky for health care providers. Children differ from adults in that they experience many physical, mental, and emotional changes as they progress through their natural growth and development. They also are in the process of learning how to cope with, adapt, and relate to others and the world around them.

Furthermore, each child matures at his or her own pace, and what is considered "normal" in children falls within a wide range of behavior and abilities. For these reasons, any diagnosis of a mental disorder must consider how well a child functions at home, within the family, at school, and with peers, as well as the child's age and symptoms.

Autism diagnosis has also suffered from expanding definitions. There is no definition of autism. It covers a huge range of conditions (and more and more get included). A kid who may have been considered "slow" is now autistic. Autism as a diagnosis basically didn't even exist 50 years ago. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahael...nds-new-study/

Majority Of Autism Increase Due To Diagnostic Changes, Finds New Study

Almost two thirds of the increase in autistic Danish children results from how autism is diagnosed and tracked, found a new study in JAMA Pediatrics, lending more support to the idea that the apparent rise in autism rates, or at least most of it, is unlikely to be “real.” That is, the increase is likely more about previously-unidentified autistic individuals getting an autism diagnosis than more individuals actually developing autism.

Although the term “autism” has been around for more than a century, it didn’t start taking on a meaning we would recognize today until the 1940s, and it remained linked to schizophrenia, a completely unrelated psychiatric disorder, until the 1960s. The definition has continued to expand and become more detailed, and thus autism prevalence has been adjusted accordingly over the years.

In Denmark in particular, the diagnostic criteria for autism expanded in 1994 to include a spectrum of disorders with a broader list of symptoms, thereby widening the definition of autism. Then in 1995, national data tracking began to include diagnoses made from outpatient patient visits rather than just diagnoses of those admitted to a healthcare facility. Since every Danish resident has a complete health record maintained by the Danish government, researchers can use this national health registry to study an entire population with lower likelihood of bias from those included or excluded in a study.

By examining the health records of all children born in Denmark from 1980 through 1991 – nearly 668,000 children – the researchers determined that 60 percent of the increase in autism rates in Denmark could be attributed to those two changes in the way Danish autistic children have been counted since the mid-1990s. The change in the diagnostic criteria accounted for a third of the increase in autism, and including outpatient diagnoses in the statistics account for 42 percent of the increase.

What makes this study strong is its size, with well over a half million children born over a decade, and the use of the national health registry for the data. “The authors have at hand a more exhaustive and thorough database than is available pretty much anywhere else, and their findings are echoed by some other studies,” said Glen Elliott, chief psychiatrist and medical director of Children’s Health Council in Palo Alto, Calif.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Ask the CDC, not me. They said 1 in 6. Autism rates in men are 1 in 42 which is still way too large of a ratio to begin with. Well you'd think with how long vaccines have been blamed as a cause of autism someone would do a a thorough study comparing children who received vaccines and children who did not.

Autism aside, the vaccines children take are anything but "very safe"

One common "side effect" of taking the MMR is diabetes.

nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Diabetes/diabetesmmrshots.aspx

Every day since 1982, the National Vaccine Information Center has been contacted by countless numbers of mothers and fathers reporting deaths, brain injuries and chronic health problems following routine childhood vaccinations. The names and ages of the children change, but the descriptions of what happens to them are always the same. Following are a few examples of what parents have told us in their own words happened to their children after they were injected with MMR or rubella vaccine and developed juvenile diabetes.

Diabetes at 15 Months Old

"My daughter, age 15 months, received her first MMR vaccine at a routine well-baby check-up. Prior to receiving the vaccine she had no health problems other than an occasional cold. Three weeks later she was diagnosed with Type I diabetes.

"At her check-up, the pediatrician warned me that in 7 to 10 days she might develop a fever and/or rash in reaction to the vaccine. Eight days later she developed a slight fever which I attributed to the vaccine.

"Over the course of that week she began drinking fluids to an excess degree. She was so thirsty that she drank 2-3 cupfuls at a time and then began wetting through her diapers, saturating her crib sheets. She also became lethargic.

"...her condition deteriorated rapidly...she had severe diarrhea and vomiting, which are signs of out-of-control diabetes...her weight had dropped from 21 pounds less than three weeks earlier to 17 pounds...after two days in intensive care, she was moved to a hospital room on the regular pediatric ward for five days while my husband and I were given a crash course on diabetes management."

"Today our daughter is 11 years old. She looks the picture of health and lives a seemingly normal life. She excels in school, baby-sits and is popular with school and neighborhood friends. But she is different. She is diabetic and diabetes does not go away.

She is rudely awakened every morning at 7 a.m. with a finger-prick to test her blood glucose levels and then receives her first injection of insulin. Four to five times a day she tests her blood sugar and twice a day she injects herself with insulin. This totals over 1600 finger pricks and 1100 injections each year (her dinnertime injection is really two injections since the two types of insulin she needs then cannot be mixed in one syringe).

She must eat regularly whether she is hungry or not in order to prevent insulin reactions. Occasionally she has experienced seizures during severe reactions. Common illnesses such as stomach viruses and strep throats demand a complete change in her regimen with the potential for hospitalization if her blood sugars go out of control."

"Diabetes-related medical expenses, for insulin, syringes, blood-testing materials, quarterly visits to a pediatric endocrinologist and an annual eye examination total over $1500 annually.

Although many diabetics are fortunate to live normal lifespans and lead full lives despite their illness, statistically speaking my daughter is at high risk as a diabetic for a number of health problems often experienced by diabetics after 10 or more years: blindness, nerve damage, kidney problems, circulatory problems (heart attacks and strokes), high risk pregnancies, amputation of limbs. On the average, diabetics' life expectancies are shortened by a third from the age of onset of diabetes.

Considering her young age at onset, 15 months, we can only pray that her regimen of insulin, diet, exercise and proper medical care will enable her to escape complications of diabetes and live a long life."

Diabetes at Nine Years Old

"My son received the rubella vaccine and within the reaction period he came down with diabetes mellitus.... My husband and myself feel very certain this vaccines caused diabetes in my son, who at the time was nine and a half years old."

High Fever, Seizures and Diabetes After MMR Shot

"Nine days after a MMR shot, my daughter suffered 105.6 degree temperature. She also suffered seizures periodically during the next 10 months. She then developed diabetes. I know the vaccine is directly related to her present medical condition."

Forced to Vaccinate 11 Year Old and Diabetes Follows

"Despite our protests, we were forced to comply with state law and have our 11 year old daughter re-vaccinated for rubella and measles. Up to the time that she was vaccinated, she was in good health. Within two months after the injection, she was admitted to the hospital with the diagnosis of juvenile diabetes mellitus. During those two months, there was no evidence of a viral infection or any other illness. I strongly feel that the shot triggered the diabetes and am aware of medical evidence supporting that."

You can look at the Merck safety info for MMR vaccine, diabetes is one of the first listed side effects. But I know your MO zippy, your next argument will be accepting the fact vaccines can be dangerous, but then justifying them by saying "Only one in 5 trillion children get x from vaccines."

[Zippyjuan]

Ask the CDC, not me. They said 1 in 6. Autism rates in men are 1 in 42 which is still way too large of a ratio to begin with. Well you'd think with how long vaccines have been blamed as a cause of autism someone would do a a thorough study comparing children who received vaccines and children who did not.

You would think that those who are convinced of a link would have been able to come up with some conclusive evidence to support the theory in that time.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/health...-autism-study/

Another study finds no link between MMR vaccine and autism

(CNN)The vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella doesn't bring an increased risk of autism, according to a new study of more than 95,000 children.

The study, published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, is the latest piece of research to debunk the myth associating the MMR vaccine with autism.

Using a claims database from a large commercial health plan, the researchers paid particular attention to children who had older siblings with autism, or ASD, which puts them at a higher genetic risk of developing autism.

"We found that there was no harmful association between the receipt of the MMR vaccine and the development of an autism spectrum disorder," said Anjali Jain, a pediatrician at the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm in Virginia, who worked on the study.

Age of parent does show some correlation (correlation is not necessarily causation) and people are having kids at older ages than they used to. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/parents-...s-autism-risk/

New study on parental age, child's autism risk

In the largest-ever international study of parental age and autism risk, researchers have found increased autism rates among children born to teen moms and among kids whose parents have large gaps between their ages.

The study, funded by the advocacy organization Autism Speaks, also confirmed that children of either older moms or older dads have a higher risk of autism.

Researchers looked at the national health records of more than 5.7 million children in five different countries - Denmark, Israel, Norway, Sweden and Western Australia - including more than 30,000 with autism.

"There's no other data set like this out there," study co-author Michael Rosanoff, Autism Speaks' director of public health research, told CBS News. "We've seen in previous literature that older parents are at a higher risk of having a child with autism, but what we're unsure of is if it's the father's age that increases the risk, if it's the mother's age, or if it's both. This study was able to look at the effects of maternal age and paternal age both independently and jointly."

The results, published today in the journal Molecular Psychiatry, found that autism rates were 66 percent higher among children born to dads over 50 years old, as compared to dads in their 20s. Autism rates were 15 percent higher when moms had children in their 40s and 18 percent higher for children of teen moms, when compared to those born to women in their 20s.

CBS News medical contributor Dr. Holly Phillips explained that "paternal age - the age of fathers when they have children - showed the strongest link. Children who were born to fathers over 50 had a 66 percent higher rate of having autism. If the fathers were in their 40s, there was a 28 percent higher risk of autism."

Phillips added, "One of the more shocking aspects of the study is, we're seeing these links on both sides of the spectrum," with increased risks among teen mothers as well.

Autism rates also rose when both parents were older and when there were wider gaps between the two parents' ages. These rates were highest when fathers were between 35 and 44 and their partners were at least 10 years younger, and when mothers were in their 30s and their partners were 10 years younger or more.

While the higher risk of autism among older parents has been linked to genetic mutations in the sperm or egg cells, there is currently no explanation for the increased risk among children of teen moms and those born to parents with a wide age gap.

The older a person is, the greater chance for mutations in their cells to occur. Older parents may have more mutated genes to pass doen to their children.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The CDC is a better source than CNN, LOL. Someone saying "There's no link" isn't scientific evidence.

[Zippyjuan]

The CDC is a better source than CNN, LOL. Someone saying "There's no link" isn't scientific evidence.

Those were huge studies- not just "somebody" and they had lots of scientific evidence. However, since you do consider the CDC a reliable source: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

There is no link between vaccines and autism.
Some people have had concerns that ASD might be linked to the vaccines children receive, but studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing ASD. In 2011, an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on eight vaccines given to children and adults found that with rare exceptions, these vaccines are very safe.

A 2013 CDC study[PDF - 204 KB] added to the research showing that vaccines do not cause ASD. The study looked at the number of antigens (substances in vaccines that cause the body’s immune system to produce disease-fighting antibodies) from vaccines during the first two years of life. The results showed that the total amount of antigen from vaccines received was the same between children with ASD and those that did not have ASD.


Vaccine ingredients do not cause autism.
One vaccine ingredient that has been studied specifically is thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used to prevent contamination of multidose vials of vaccines. Research shows that thimerosal does not cause ASD. In fact, a 2004 scientific review by the IOM concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism." Since 2003, there have been nine CDC-funded or conducted studies[PDF - 316 KB] that have found no link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ASD, as well as no link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and ASD in children.

Between 1999 and 2001, thimerosal was removed or reduced to trace amounts in all childhood vaccines except for some flu vaccines. This was done as part of a broader national effort to reduce all types of mercury exposure in children before studies were conducted that determined that thimerosal was not harmful. It was done as a precaution. Currently, the only childhood vaccines that contain thimerosal are flu vaccines packaged in multidose vials. Thimerosal-free alternatives are also available for flu vaccine. For more information, see the Timeline for Thimerosal in Vaccines.

Besides thimerosal, some people have had concerns about other vaccine ingredients in relation to ASD as well. However, no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and ASD.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I already said they don't link it to autism, but they admit to many other side effects which is good enough reason not to take the vaccination anyway. "Well I got diabetes, but at least I didn't get autism!"