Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Garcia

Έκανα το εμβόλιο και μετά από μήνες μου ήρθε ένα αυτοάνοσο,να αυτομουτζωθω η να πάρω κεραλοιφη Βελόπουλου?

dna replication

dna replication

▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19106436
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3774468/
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3697751/
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21299355
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21907498
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339848
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17674242

dna replication

▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15780490
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12933322
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16870260
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043938
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12142947
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24675092
https://twitter.com/CartlandDavid/statu ... 4221067638

Libre arbitre

dna replication έγραψε: 16 Απρ 2025, 00:42 Dr David Cartland BMedSci MBChB MRCGP (2014)
@CartlandDavid
“There is no science that shows vaccines cause Autism”… except in these published studies which show vaccines cause Autism:
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878266/
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25377033
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/
▪ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17454560

Για να δούμε τι λέει και το chatgpt

The claim that vaccines cause autism has been extensively studied and repeatedly debunked by large-scale, peer-reviewed research. While some studies have suggested associations, these are often methodologically flawed or misinterpreted. Let's examine the studies you referenced:

---

###

Examination of Referenced Studies

1. **Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Autism**
This study observed a correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism diagnoses. However, correlation does not imply causation. Thimerosal was removed from most vaccines by 2001, yet autism rates have continued to rise, suggesting other factors are at play.

2. **Hepatitis B Vaccination and Autism Risk**
This research indicated a higher risk of autism in male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine before 1999. However, the study relied on parental reports and did not account for confounding variables, limiting its conclusiveness.

3. **Aluminum Adjuvants and Autism Prevalence**
This paper hypothesized that aluminum in vaccines could contribute to autism. However, it lacked direct evidence and was speculative in nature. Subsequent research has not supported this hypothesis.

4. **MMR Antibodies in Autistic Children**
This study found unusual MMR antibodies in autistic children. However, it did not establish a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The presence of antibodies alone is insufficient to prove causation.

---

###

Scientific Consensus
Extensive research has consistently found no link between vaccines and autism

-A comprehensive Danish study involving over 650,000 children found no association between the MMR vaccine and autism citeturn0news119

-The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that studies have shown no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD) citeturn0search5

-The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health emphasizes that vaccines do not cause autism and addresses the origins of this myth citeturn0search0

---

###

Misinformation and Public Health
The perpetuation of the vaccine-autism myth has led to decreased vaccination rates and subsequent outbreaks of preventable diseasesPublic health officials warn that promoting this false link offers "false hope" and can result in real harm citeturn0news46

---

###

Conclusion
While it's important to investigate all potential causes of autism, the overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that vaccines are not among the. Relying on well-conducted, peer-reviewed studies helps ensure public health decisions are based on accurate informatio.

---

dna replication

J Toxicol Environ Health A

. 2011;74(14):903-16.
doi: 10.1080/15287394.2011.573736.
A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population
Gayle Delong 1
Affiliations

PMID: 21623535 DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2011.573736

Abstract

The reason for the rapid rise of autism in the United States that began in the 1990s is a mystery. Although individuals probably have a genetic predisposition to develop autism, researchers suspect that one or more environmental triggers are also needed. One of those triggers might be the battery of vaccinations that young children receive. Using regression analysis and controlling for family income and ethnicity, the relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI. Neither parental behavior nor access to care affected the results, since vaccination proportions were not significantly related (statistically) to any other disability or to the number of pediatricians in a U.S. state. The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted.

Libre arbitre

dna replication έγραψε: 16 Απρ 2025, 01:14 J Toxicol Environ Health A

. 2011;74(14):903-16.
doi: 10.1080/15287394.2011.573736.
A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population
Gayle Delong 1
Affiliations

PMID: 21623535 DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2011.573736

Abstract

The reason for the rapid rise of autism in the United States that began in the 1990s is a mystery. Although individuals probably have a genetic predisposition to develop autism, researchers suspect that one or more environmental triggers are also needed. One of those triggers might be the battery of vaccinations that young children receive. Using regression analysis and controlling for family income and ethnicity, the relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI. Neither parental behavior nor access to care affected the results, since vaccination proportions were not significantly related (statistically) to any other disability or to the number of pediatricians in a U.S. state. The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted.

Chatgpt said
Thanks for sharing the abstract from the **2011 paper by Gayle DeLong** published in *Toxicological and Environmental Health, Part A*. This study claimed a **positive statistical association between childhood vaccination rates and the prevalence of autism or speech/language impairments (AUT/SLI)** at the state level in the U.S. between 2001 and 2007.

However, it's important to contextualize this paper with key points from the broader scientific community and subsequent developments:

### 1. **Ecological Study Design**
This study is **ecological**, meaning it analyzed data at the population level rather than individual level. These kinds of studies are **prone to ecological fallacy**—drawing conclusions about individuals based on group-level data, which is widely considered a methodological limitation.

### 2. **Correlation ≠ Causation**
The study found a **correlation**, but it doesn’t prove that vaccines cause autism. Many things can be correlated due to confounding factors. For example, areas with better healthcare access may have higher vaccination rates *and* higher rates of autism diagnosis due to improved screening and awareness.

### 3. **Scientific Consensus**
Large-scale epidemiological studies involving **millions of children across multiple countries** have **consistently found no causal link between vaccines and autism**. This includes research from:

- The CDC
- WHO
- Institute of Medicine (now National Academy of Medicine)
- Numerous peer-reviewed studies from independent researchers

### 4. **Criticism of the Study**
This particular study has received **significant criticism** for its methodology and interpretations. Some concerns raised include:

- Use of limited covariates
- Inappropriate statistical controls
- Ignoring temporal sequence (vaccines given before diagnoses)
- Not adjusting for diagnostic changes or reporting trends

### 5. **Author Background**
Gayle DeLong was an economist, not a medical researcher or epidemiologist, which may have influenced the approach and interpretation of results.

### In Summary:
While this paper reports a statistical association, **it does not demonstrate causality**. The overwhelming **scientific consensus remains that vaccines do not cause autism**, and vaccines are a safe and essential public health tool.

If you'd like, I can point you to more recent and rigorous studies on this topic.

dna replication

το Deepseek είναι καλυτερο:

Okay, let's see. So this study from 2011 by Gayle Delong found a positive association between vaccination rates and autism prevalence. Hmm. First, I need to understand what the study actually did. They used regression analysis, controlling for family income and ethnicity, looking at each U.S. state's vaccination rates and autism or speech/language impairment (SLI) prevalence from 2001 to 2007. The conclusion was that higher vaccination rates correlated with higher AUT or SLI cases. For every 1% increase in vaccination, 680 more kids had AUT/SLI. They also mention that other disabilities weren't linked, and neither were the number of pediatricians, suggesting it's not about access to care.

Wait, but how did they measure vaccination rates? The abstract says "proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years." So that's the DTaP, MMR, etc.? The time frame is 2001-2007, which is after thimerosal was removed from most vaccines except some flu shots. The study suggests that even without mercury, other factors in vaccines might be culprits. The author calls for more research.

Now, possible issues here. First, ecological fallacy? Because they're looking at state-level data, not individual-level. Just because two trends correlate at the population level doesn't mean one causes the other. There could be confounding variables. They controlled for income and ethnicity, but maybe other factors like better healthcare access leading to both higher vaccination rates and better autism diagnosis. Wait, but the study says vaccination rates weren't related to the number of pediatricians, which might argue against that. But maybe states with better healthcare systems have more vaccinations and also more thorough screening for autism, leading to higher reported prevalence. That's a possible confounder they might not have accounted for.

Also, autism awareness and diagnostic criteria have changed over time. The 1990s saw the expansion of autism diagnoses to include milder cases, especially Asperger's. If states with higher vaccination rates are also states that implemented better diagnostic practices or had more awareness campaigns, that could explain the correlation. The study period is 2001-2007, which is when awareness was increasing. Did they control for year-over-year changes in diagnostic criteria? The abstract doesn't mention that. They might have just looked at cross-sectional data across states for those years.

Another point: The study found a correlation, but correlation doesn't equal causation. There might be a third variable linking both. For example, states with stricter vaccine requirements might have other policies that affect autism reporting. Or perhaps parents who are more health-conscious both vaccinate more and are more likely to seek special education services for their children, leading to higher reported autism rates. But the study says they controlled for family income and ethnicity, which are related to healthcare access, but maybe not other factors like parental education or health-seeking behavior.

Also, the study mentions that other disabilities weren't associated with vaccination rates, which they argue suggests it's specific to autism/SLI. But maybe autism is more sensitive to diagnostic changes compared to other disabilities. For example, SLI might be a category that overlaps with autism or is diagnosed differently. The abstract doesn't clarify how SLI is defined here. If SLI is a separate category, but in practice, some kids might be diagnosed with autism instead of SLI as awareness grows, that could complicate things.

The sample size: Using state-level data, there are only 50 data points (states) per year. But they looked at 2001-2007, so maybe 50 states over 7 years, giving 350 data points. But the analysis method isn't clear from the abstract. Did they pool all years together? If so, they might not account for temporal trends. For example, both vaccination rates and autism prevalence increased over time, so a time-lagged correlation could exist. But the study might have controlled for year as a variable. Without seeing the full methods, it's hard to tell.

Another consideration: The removal of thimerosal. The study mentions that mercury was removed from many vaccines, but they still found an association, suggesting other components might be responsible. However, subsequent studies have not found a link between vaccines and autism, even after thimerosal was removed. So how does this study fit into the larger body of literature? It's possible that this is an outlier or that methodological issues explain the result.

Potential conflicts of interest? The abstract doesn't mention funding sources. Sometimes, studies with certain results might have biases. But without that info, it's hard to say. The author, Gayle Delong, I should check if they've published other papers on this topic. A quick search shows she's associated with papers critical of vaccines, which might indicate a bias. However, that doesn't invalidate the study, but it's a factor to consider.

Also, the effect size: 1% increase in vaccination associated with 680 more cases. How does that translate in terms of population? If a state went from 90% to 91% vaccination, that's a 1% increase. The total number of children in a state varies, but 680 per 1% seems large. Wait, the abstract says "a 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI." Is that per state? Nationally? The wording is unclear. If it's nationally, then 1% of the population getting vaccinated more would lead to 680 more cases. But the abstract's wording is ambiguous. This needs clarification.

Moreover, the study uses "prevalence" of autism, which is a rate (per 1000 or similar). If vaccination rates are higher in states with higher prevalence, but the actual number of vaccinated children is higher, it's still a rate. But the analysis should use prevalence as the dependent variable, not counts. The abstract mentions "prevalence of AUT or SLI," so maybe they did use rates. But the 680 figure might be a translation of the regression coefficient into absolute numbers, which could be misleading if not properly contextualized.

Another point: Autism is typically diagnosed around age 3-4, but the vaccination rate is measured by age 2. So temporally, the vaccination precedes the diagnosis, which is necessary for a causal inference. However, ecological studies can't establish temporality at the individual level. Some kids might have been vaccinated after showing early signs of autism, but the study uses aggregate data, so that's not considered.

In terms of statistical methods, regression analysis controlling for income and ethnicity. But what about other variables? For example, regional differences in healthcare policies, maternal age, prenatal care, environmental toxins other than vaccines. If those variables are correlated with both vaccination rates and autism prevalence, they could confound the results. The study's ability to control for these factors affects the validity of the conclusion.

Also, publication bias. Studies finding a positive association might get more attention, even if subsequent larger studies contradict them. The fact that this is a single study from 2011, and the broader consensus is that vaccines don't cause autism, suggests that this study's findings might not hold up in the broader literature. But it's important to evaluate it on its own merits.

In summary, the study has several methodological limitations: ecological design, potential unmeasured confounding variables, possible diagnostic bias, and the lack of individual-level data. While it raises a hypothesis, the evidence isn't strong enough to establish causation, and the results conflict with numerous other studies that found no link. The call for further research is reasonable, but this study alone shouldn't change public health policy. However, it's crucial to address such studies to maintain public trust, by explaining their limitations and the weight of the overall evidence.

dna replication

https://twitter.com/newstart_2024/statu ... 4072594822

Kauldron

Για να δούμε τί λέει το Τσάτ Γουπουτου λέει το μποτάκι. Έλεος ρε.

Libre arbitre

dna replication έγραψε: 16 Απρ 2025, 01:56 το Deepseek είναι καλυτερο:

Okay, let's see. So this study from 2011 by Gayle Delong found a positive association between vaccination rates and autism prevalence. Hmm. First, I need to understand what the study actually did. They used regression analysis, controlling for family income and ethnicity, looking at each U.S. state's vaccination rates and autism or speech/language impairment (SLI) prevalence from 2001 to 2007. The conclusion was that higher vaccination rates correlated with higher AUT or SLI cases. For every 1% increase in vaccination, 680 more kids had AUT/SLI. They also mention that other disabilities weren't linked, and neither were the number of pediatricians, suggesting it's not about access to care.

Wait, but how did they measure vaccination rates? The abstract says "proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years." So that's the DTaP, MMR, etc.? The time frame is 2001-2007, which is after thimerosal was removed from most vaccines except some flu shots. The study suggests that even without mercury, other factors in vaccines might be culprits. The author calls for more research.

Now, possible issues here. First, ecological fallacy? Because they're looking at state-level data, not individual-level. Just because two trends correlate at the population level doesn't mean one causes the other. There could be confounding variables. They controlled for income and ethnicity, but maybe other factors like better healthcare access leading to both higher vaccination rates and better autism diagnosis. Wait, but the study says vaccination rates weren't related to the number of pediatricians, which might argue against that. But maybe states with better healthcare systems have more vaccinations and also more thorough screening for autism, leading to higher reported prevalence. That's a possible confounder they might not have accounted for.

Also, autism awareness and diagnostic criteria have changed over time. The 1990s saw the expansion of autism diagnoses to include milder cases, especially Asperger's. If states with higher vaccination rates are also states that implemented better diagnostic practices or had more awareness campaigns, that could explain the correlation. The study period is 2001-2007, which is when awareness was increasing. Did they control for year-over-year changes in diagnostic criteria? The abstract doesn't mention that. They might have just looked at cross-sectional data across states for those years.

Another point: The study found a correlation, but correlation doesn't equal causation. There might be a third variable linking both. For example, states with stricter vaccine requirements might have other policies that affect autism reporting. Or perhaps parents who are more health-conscious both vaccinate more and are more likely to seek special education services for their children, leading to higher reported autism rates. But the study says they controlled for family income and ethnicity, which are related to healthcare access, but maybe not other factors like parental education or health-seeking behavior.

Also, the study mentions that other disabilities weren't associated with vaccination rates, which they argue suggests it's specific to autism/SLI. But maybe autism is more sensitive to diagnostic changes compared to other disabilities. For example, SLI might be a category that overlaps with autism or is diagnosed differently. The abstract doesn't clarify how SLI is defined here. If SLI is a separate category, but in practice, some kids might be diagnosed with autism instead of SLI as awareness grows, that could complicate things.

The sample size: Using state-level data, there are only 50 data points (states) per year. But they looked at 2001-2007, so maybe 50 states over 7 years, giving 350 data points. But the analysis method isn't clear from the abstract. Did they pool all years together? If so, they might not account for temporal trends. For example, both vaccination rates and autism prevalence increased over time, so a time-lagged correlation could exist. But the study might have controlled for year as a variable. Without seeing the full methods, it's hard to tell.

Another consideration: The removal of thimerosal. The study mentions that mercury was removed from many vaccines, but they still found an association, suggesting other components might be responsible. However, subsequent studies have not found a link between vaccines and autism, even after thimerosal was removed. So how does this study fit into the larger body of literature? It's possible that this is an outlier or that methodological issues explain the result.

Potential conflicts of interest? The abstract doesn't mention funding sources. Sometimes, studies with certain results might have biases. But without that info, it's hard to say. The author, Gayle Delong, I should check if they've published other papers on this topic. A quick search shows she's associated with papers critical of vaccines, which might indicate a bias. However, that doesn't invalidate the study, but it's a factor to consider.

Also, the effect size: 1% increase in vaccination associated with 680 more cases. How does that translate in terms of population? If a state went from 90% to 91% vaccination, that's a 1% increase. The total number of children in a state varies, but 680 per 1% seems large. Wait, the abstract says "a 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI." Is that per state? Nationally? The wording is unclear. If it's nationally, then 1% of the population getting vaccinated more would lead to 680 more cases. But the abstract's wording is ambiguous. This needs clarification.

Moreover, the study uses "prevalence" of autism, which is a rate (per 1000 or similar). If vaccination rates are higher in states with higher prevalence, but the actual number of vaccinated children is higher, it's still a rate. But the analysis should use prevalence as the dependent variable, not counts. The abstract mentions "prevalence of AUT or SLI," so maybe they did use rates. But the 680 figure might be a translation of the regression coefficient into absolute numbers, which could be misleading if not properly contextualized.

Another point: Autism is typically diagnosed around age 3-4, but the vaccination rate is measured by age 2. So temporally, the vaccination precedes the diagnosis, which is necessary for a causal inference. However, ecological studies can't establish temporality at the individual level. Some kids might have been vaccinated after showing early signs of autism, but the study uses aggregate data, so that's not considered.

In terms of statistical methods, regression analysis controlling for income and ethnicity. But what about other variables? For example, regional differences in healthcare policies, maternal age, prenatal care, environmental toxins other than vaccines. If those variables are correlated with both vaccination rates and autism prevalence, they could confound the results. The study's ability to control for these factors affects the validity of the conclusion.

Also, publication bias. Studies finding a positive association might get more attention, even if subsequent larger studies contradict them. The fact that this is a single study from 2011, and the broader consensus is

Ακόμα και το deepseek αναγνωρίζει ότι αυτή η προσέγγιση έχει ένα σωρό flaws... σφάλματα, κενά και ατέλειες)

The Rebel

Kauldron έγραψε: 16 Απρ 2025, 02:02 Για να δούμε τί λέει το Τσάτ Γουπουτου λέει το μποτάκι. Έλεος ρε.

Ειδες προοδο ο Μητσοτακης, εμαθε το Chatgpt και ο https://www.phorum.com.gr/memberlist.ph ... ile&u=3105 στον Δενδροποταμο....

Libre arbitre

.

https://www.flash.gr/i-proti-fora-poy-e ... mqLra041qA

Η Δανία αναμένεται ότι μέχρι το 2040 θα έχει εξαλείψει τον καρκίνο του τραχήλου της μήτρας, χάρη στη συμμετοχή των πολιτών της στο πρόγραμμα εμβολιασμού κατά του ιού των ανθρώπινων θηλωμάτων (HPV, κονδυλώματα) και στην ανίχνευση, ανακοίνωσε σήμερα ο Δανικός Σύνδεσμος Μάχης Κατά του Καρκίνου.

...

Φραγμένος_Τελεστής

Πάλι αυτή η μαλακία με τον αυτισμό ρε μαλάκες; Νόμιζα πως είχε ξεχαστεί εδώ και αρκετά χρόνια. Λυπηθείτε μας, πόσους τόνους μαλακίας να αντέξουμε πια;

The Rebel

Garcia έγραψε: 15 Απρ 2025, 22:01 Έκανα το εμβόλιο και μετά από μήνες μου ήρθε ένα αυτοάνοσο,να αυτομουτζωθω η να πάρω κεραλοιφη Βελόπουλου?

Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων

Re: Συνέπειες εμβολίων