But ya gotta kinda wonder about those religious fanatical types.... some are accused of killing babes with defects at birth and not letting....


not restricted to any group.. plenty of people would drown a messed up kid if they thot they could get away with it,,

Hey, Tom,, Hows Martha? She have the kid yet? Uh, yea,, guess you didnt hear,, our baby was, uhh, stillborn,, yea,, thats it..

No, he's quite accurate.
Whether the parent's were knowing or willing or not doctors have euthanized babies that demonstrated physical defects in the past.

"Beginning in early 1939, babies born with birth defects or with congenital diseases were euthanized. Their doctors would admit these unfortunate infants to medical clinics, where they would be killed. The practice quickly became systematized. Regulations made it mandatory for midwives and doctors to notify authorities whenever a baby was born with birth defects. These cases would be reviewed by the euthanasia referees to determine if the children were eligible for euthanasia. Those deemed killable were usually dispatched via an overdose of a drug, most typically a sedative called Luminal. The euphemism of choice for this murder was "treatment." Most, but not all, of this killing was done in secret."

http://www.discovery.org/a/3384

My first search result was, unfortunately, Nazi Germany but that doesn't make it any less real. I have heard of this occurring in the states.


--Steve

I wouldn't be surprised when you see some of the folks where I live.  Jeff Foxworthy gets his material from country folk from the south.  I'm afraid the deep south is a bit different.

old_rider wrote on 12/07/13 at 07:52:56:





WEBSTER,, Thats what I was responding to.. I AM down to Earth

Nope, your point was well taken,, it just crosses that "religious" group line.  Infanticide isnt uncommon in history. Its not difficult to justify.
Look how hard life can be. Imagine tying to survive AND raise a child that you KNOW can never fend for itself, due to obvious birth defects. YOu suppose American indian tribes would raise a child that was born with some kind of deformity that meant that kid couldnt be a productive member of society?

A meta-analysis including nearly 1.3 million children posted online last week in the journal Vaccine has demonstrated, once again, that there's no causal link between vaccines and autism.

The paper is an online "uncorrected proof." That means it has already been through peer review and has been accepted, but there could still be a few tweaks to fix typos and such. From the abstract:

   Findings of this meta-analysis suggest that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. Furthermore, the components of the vaccines (thimerosal or mercury) or multiple vaccines (MMR) are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder.

The bullet-points provided by the authors in the paper's "highlights" section are remarkably straightforward:

• Five cohort studies involving 1,256,407 children and five case-control studies involving 9920 children were included in this analysis.
• There was no relationship between vaccination and autism (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.06).
• There was no relationship between vaccination and ASD [autism spectrum disorder] (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.20).
• There was no relationship between [autism/ASD] and MMR (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01).
• There was no relationship between [autism/ASD] and thimerosal (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.31).
• There was no relationship between [autism/ASD] and mercury (Hg) (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.07).
• Findings of this meta-analysis suggest that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder.

The OR there is the "odds ratio." Emily Willingham explains at Forbes:

   It's not that we didn't know that already. But a meta-analysis takes the existing research and grinds the numbers and gives the bigger picture of what the aggregate of the findings tells us. Indeed, looking a the odds ratios the authors report–in which 1 means no effect of vaccine or other variable on odds and less than 1 means reduced odds–the data suggest reduced autism risk among children who received the MMR vaccine.

The most interesting part may be an "Epilogue," written by one of the study's three authors.

   As an epidemiologist I believe the data that is presented in this meta-analysis. However, as a parent of three children I have some understanding of the fears associated with reactions and effects of vaccines. My first two children have had febrile seizures after routine vaccinations, one of them a serious event. These events did not stop me from vaccinating my third child, however, I did take some proactive measures to reduce the risk of similar adverse effects. I vaccinated my child in the morning so that we were aware if [sic] any early adverse reaction during the day and I also gave my child a dose of paracetamol 30 min before the vaccination was given to reduce any fever that might develop after the injection. As a parent I know my children better than anyone and I equate their seizures to the effects of the vaccination by increasing their body temperature. For parents who do notice a significant change in their child's cognitive function and behaviour after a vaccination I encourage you to report these events immediately to your family physician and to the 'Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System'.

So there you have it. 1,266,327 more data points that vaccines do not cause autism or autism spectrum disorder.

http://animals.io9.com/study-of-1-3-million-kids-reveals-vaccines-arent-assoc...


--Steve