6 ms·

Vaccines don't cause autism. That should be the first sentence of every story about this topic. Many people will die because of this bullshit.

electromagnetic 17y ago
The true risk isn't to the children who haven't had the vaccines, it's to the immunocompromised that are quite literally being murdered because of some parents ignorance. It isn't the 16-65 age bracket that's being affected here, the immunodeficient can typically be any child under 16, any senior over 65, pregnant women, people with existing infections (even as simple as a cold) and those with HIV/AIDS. In my honest opinion, and this one is quite a rare one for me, this is a subject where the UK health services should take a page out of the US' book. MMR vaccines should be mandatory for attending school. This would place these parents in a serious catch 22, as home-education in the UK is exceptionally harder to do than in the US (as in it's virtually unheard of). It will place these parents in a position where they have a choice inoculation, segregation (no admission to public schools until immunisation) or prison (in the UK parents are fully responsible for placing their child into an educational institute and ensuring they attend, if they don't they can face jail time).
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  >home-education in the UK is exceptionally harder to do than in the US (as in it's virtually unheard of) It may well be harder in the UK, I'd be interested in the reasoning there, but I'd dispute that it's [virtually or actually] unheard of. I think you're being too tough here. Latest reports that I've looked at are that the Thiomersal used in vaccines that was associated with autism has been removed from US vaccines and that studies have since shown that there has been no corresponding decline in autism cases. In order to learn this though I had to do some research and look at some quite complex discussions. The US studies have not been popularised by the likes of the BBC that widely reported on the MMR controversy. Indeed I was studying the swine flu vaccine, http://alicious.com/2010/swine-flu-vaccine-safe/ http://alicious.com/2010/swine-flu-vaccine-safe/ , as we were offered it for our son. The NHS did have a very thorough FAQ on it. I'm still reticent about the swine-flu vaccine - they've probably had it (we all had a couple of flu like episodes in autumn-early winter), it's normally not severe, infections are declining, next season it will have mutated and this vaccine will likely provide no benefit AND most importantly this vaccine has not undergone the extensive testing that drugs normally do. We probably will have the vaccination as I have to trust our health care workers here. If we don't vaccinate and someone catches swine-flu from my son, him having nothing more than a sniffle, will I be a murderer in your eyes?
  - warfangle 17y ago
    "...since shown that there has been no corresponding decline in autism cases." They've also seen no decline in autisim among the unimmunized. What's your point?
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      That removing the factor, thought to have been causing autism to appear, did not change the incidences of autism appearing. Thus falsifying the initial hypothesis.
pkulak 17y ago
People tend to believe the opposite when you say things like that, though. Obama is not a Muslim!
- CalmQuiet 17y ago
  True, sadly. Headline-writing seems to be its own domain - and one charged primarily to be effective baiters (i.e., marketing specialists). So those who care enough about the impact of news-reporting have to develop some of the same (marketing) skills. The OP here seems to have done a good job with it (i.e., "Damning verdict...") Similarly, for a truth-supporting effect, "Obama is not a Muslim" might have to be rewritten something like, "Media distortions conceal Obama's Christianity" - but rather more clever than I can pen.
dschobel 17y ago
There's a reason you'll never see that. The problem is that there's no scientific evidence for the causation for the same reason that there's no scientific evidence that smoking causing various cancers as in either case it would be unconscionable to conduct a trial to see if it truly is possible to induce autism with a vaccine or induce cancer via smoking. That's why the strongest statements you'll ever see from health organizations (who usually care about things like scientific rigor) is that there is "no known link". Which obviously is totally uncompelling to a lay person and taken advantage of by the conspiracy theorists much like the tobacco companies continued to use the "no scientific evidence" line until the landmark settlement of 1998. So no, there continues to be no evidence that vaccines cause autism. And people still remain unconvinced until they hear something stronger.
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  You're obviously correct. You are also 3 sigma out in your understanding of the issue. The response to bad science should be in the same dumbed down language that the bad science used.
  - dschobel 17y ago
    I disagree. You can see the repercussions from that in things like the Global Warming stories where everyone at HN collectively cringes when terms like "scientific consensus" are tossed about. There's no short-cut to good science and dumbing it down fundamentally diminishes it. Honest people still care about facts and science.
    - ivankirigin 17y ago
      Global warming is a perfect example. There are way too many people that point to a cold day and say: see?! The message should be: there are huge changes going on right now, on a huge scale, beyond today's temperature. The debate is also often linked to a proposed solution, which is a big mistake. Cap & Trade or a carbon tax are two of dozens of potential solutions. ThatSmugFucksPrius™ is not a solution, but way too often involved in the messaging. Do you think there would be a big global warming debate if the proposed response was $200B a year in research? I don't. That is chump change with a bunch of positive externalities.
pwhelan 17y ago
Sigh... this reminds me of the old saying -- "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts". Death, disease, despair, and enormous expense could be avoided if these pseudo scientists would be shut out by population.

electromagnetic 17y ago

The true risk isn't to the children who haven't had the vaccines, it's to the immunocompromised that are quite literally being murdered because of some parents ignorance. It isn't the 16-65 age bracket that's being affected here, the immunodeficient can typically be any child under 16, any senior over 65, pregnant women, people with existing infections (even as simple as a cold) and those with HIV/AIDS. In my honest opinion, and this one is quite a rare one for me, this is a subject where the UK health services should take a page out of the US' book. MMR vaccines should be mandatory for attending school. This would place these parents in a serious catch 22, as home-education in the UK is exceptionally harder to do than in the US (as in it's virtually unheard of). It will place these parents in a position where they have a choice inoculation, segregation (no admission to public schools until immunisation) or prison (in the UK parents are fully responsible for placing their child into an educational institute and ensuring they attend, if they don't they can face jail time).

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
>home-education in the UK is exceptionally harder to do than in the US (as in it's virtually unheard of) It may well be harder in the UK, I'd be interested in the reasoning there, but I'd dispute that it's [virtually or actually] unheard of. I think you're being too tough here. Latest reports that I've looked at are that the Thiomersal used in vaccines that was associated with autism has been removed from US vaccines and that studies have since shown that there has been no corresponding decline in autism cases. In order to learn this though I had to do some research and look at some quite complex discussions. The US studies have not been popularised by the likes of the BBC that widely reported on the MMR controversy. Indeed I was studying the swine flu vaccine, http://alicious.com/2010/swine-flu-vaccine-safe/ http://alicious.com/2010/swine-flu-vaccine-safe/ , as we were offered it for our son. The NHS did have a very thorough FAQ on it. I'm still reticent about the swine-flu vaccine - they've probably had it (we all had a couple of flu like episodes in autumn-early winter), it's normally not severe, infections are declining, next season it will have mutated and this vaccine will likely provide no benefit AND most importantly this vaccine has not undergone the extensive testing that drugs normally do. We probably will have the vaccination as I have to trust our health care workers here. If we don't vaccinate and someone catches swine-flu from my son, him having nothing more than a sniffle, will I be a murderer in your eyes?
- warfangle 17y ago
  "...since shown that there has been no corresponding decline in autism cases." They've also seen no decline in autisim among the unimmunized. What's your point?
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    That removing the factor, thought to have been causing autism to appear, did not change the incidences of autism appearing. Thus falsifying the initial hypothesis.

pkulak 17y ago

People tend to believe the opposite when you say things like that, though. Obama is not a Muslim!

CalmQuiet 17y ago
True, sadly. Headline-writing seems to be its own domain - and one charged primarily to be effective baiters (i.e., marketing specialists). So those who care enough about the impact of news-reporting have to develop some of the same (marketing) skills. The OP here seems to have done a good job with it (i.e., "Damning verdict...") Similarly, for a truth-supporting effect, "Obama is not a Muslim" might have to be rewritten something like, "Media distortions conceal Obama's Christianity" - but rather more clever than I can pen.

dschobel 17y ago

There's a reason you'll never see that. The problem is that there's no scientific evidence for the causation for the same reason that there's no scientific evidence that smoking causing various cancers as in either case it would be unconscionable to conduct a trial to see if it truly is possible to induce autism with a vaccine or induce cancer via smoking. That's why the strongest statements you'll ever see from health organizations (who usually care about things like scientific rigor) is that there is "no known link". Which obviously is totally uncompelling to a lay person and taken advantage of by the conspiracy theorists much like the tobacco companies continued to use the "no scientific evidence" line until the landmark settlement of 1998. So no, there continues to be no evidence that vaccines cause autism. And people still remain unconvinced until they hear something stronger.

ivankirigin 17y ago
You're obviously correct. You are also 3 sigma out in your understanding of the issue. The response to bad science should be in the same dumbed down language that the bad science used.
- dschobel 17y ago
  I disagree. You can see the repercussions from that in things like the Global Warming stories where everyone at HN collectively cringes when terms like "scientific consensus" are tossed about. There's no short-cut to good science and dumbing it down fundamentally diminishes it. Honest people still care about facts and science.
  - ivankirigin 17y ago
    Global warming is a perfect example. There are way too many people that point to a cold day and say: see?! The message should be: there are huge changes going on right now, on a huge scale, beyond today's temperature. The debate is also often linked to a proposed solution, which is a big mistake. Cap & Trade or a carbon tax are two of dozens of potential solutions. ThatSmugFucksPrius™ is not a solution, but way too often involved in the messaging. Do you think there would be a big global warming debate if the proposed response was $200B a year in research? I don't. That is chump change with a bunch of positive externalities.

pwhelan 17y ago

Sigh... this reminds me of the old saying -- "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts". Death, disease, despair, and enormous expense could be avoided if these pseudo scientists would be shut out by population.