5 ms·

It's sad, but my first thought at seeing yet another weak "link" between something and autism was, "well, better to have wacko parents shield their children fro

by Legion 16y ago

It's sad, but my first thought at seeing yet another weak "link" between something and autism was, "well, better to have wacko parents shield their children from PVC floors than from vaccines."

pyre 16y ago
IIRC, linoleum floors have BPA in them, but I don't think that really has an effect on anything.
- gcb 16y ago
  as I don't think sun has any effect on skin cancer. We can think anything. the article talks about scientific rigorous way to test something.
  - pyre 16y ago
    > the article talks about scientific rigorous way to test something. The article is about a specific study. It does not 'talk about scientific rigorous way to test something.' Nowhere in my post did I mention that we should all abandon the scientific process, or just disregard it when we 'believe' something different than what the results say.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>'It's sad, but my first thought at seeing yet another weak "link" between something and autism was, "well, better to have wacko parents shield their children from PVC floors than from vaccines."' I guess you'd call me a wacko parent then. When we were offered the swine flue vaccine I looked at the medical literature as, to my mind, using an untested (long-term tests) vaccine against an unknown risk seemed a bit chancy. My research showed that there were associated with one of the factors (Thiomersal) apparent risks of elevating occurrence of autism. I ruled out the risk based on the evidence from the USA that removal of this factor over the last few years had not lead to a consequential reduction in the number of children suffering from autism. This seemed sufficient evidence for me to rule out the link and go on to look at the other constituents. Once an intial, if now discredited, link between the chemical factor and autism was established, lacking refuting evidence, it doesn't seem "wacko" to me to exercise caution. A large part of this is that the vaccines have been successful in reducing incidence of the once common diseases making them known smaller risks to weigh against the then unknown risk of inducing autism. The evidence in the OP shows a correlation. Phthalates certainly interact in negative ways with human biology already and so are a good thing to test - if I were fitting a floor I'd be more inclined to something phthalates-free given this result. But I guess I'm just a wacko ...?
- ikitat 16y ago
  So, you'll depend on the rest of the world to vaccinate so you can benefit from herd immunity and not chance the impossible odds that anti-vaccine conspiracy theories are correct? No, maybe not a wacko, just selfish and uninformed. Vaccine preventable diseases coming back. Children are dying at the hands of the anti-vaccine movement.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >So, you'll depend on the rest of the world to vaccinate so you can benefit from herd immunity It's easy to make a remark about "anti-vaccine conspiracy theories" now that we have evidence to show - but to expect me or anyone else simply to trust the medical establishment has not erred in creating a new vaccine is too much. Selfish? My children have both been immunised for the standard spread of common [childhood] disease in my country using the established vaccines. The swine flu vaccine was offered to us the week before vaccination was stopped - the reports were already in that it had been vastly overstocked, that vaccination wouldn't be effective against next seasons mutations, that other countries had ceased immunisation, that there were barely any new cases being reported, that it was far less virulent than expected and in addition I had a strong suspicion that our youngest (the only one offered the vaccine) had actually had the virus already. FWIW I've also donated to charities that make medical interventions such as vaccination of children. Uninformed? I've attempted to ascertain the risks involved in the vaccines offered to us. Most have been widely tested over several years but the swine-flu virus had not; as you saw I did rely on past empirical data to establish some of the risk factors. I am in no way part of an "anti-vaccine movement" I'm simply trying to use available knowledge to reduce the risk of harm to my own family. This does bring us back to the question of selfishness - I would let others be guinea pigs first before risking the health of my own children. Part of the problem is that from an immunological perspective you can expect a lot of deaths from a vaccine and still make the call that to save the population it's better to vaccinate. Do you really believe that I was risking the lives of other children by not immunising against swine flu in January of this year? ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/8645477.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/8645477.stm shows there were no further deaths in reality in my region).

by Legion 16y ago

It's sad, but my first thought at seeing yet another weak "link" between something and autism was, "well, better to have wacko parents shield their children from PVC floors than from vaccines."

pyre 16y ago

IIRC, linoleum floors have BPA in them, but I don't think that really has an effect on anything.

gcb 16y ago
as I don't think sun has any effect on skin cancer. We can think anything. the article talks about scientific rigorous way to test something.
- pyre 16y ago
  > the article talks about scientific rigorous way to test something. The article is about a specific study. It does not 'talk about scientific rigorous way to test something.' Nowhere in my post did I mention that we should all abandon the scientific process, or just disregard it when we 'believe' something different than what the results say.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

>'It's sad, but my first thought at seeing yet another weak "link" between something and autism was, "well, better to have wacko parents shield their children from PVC floors than from vaccines."' I guess you'd call me a wacko parent then. When we were offered the swine flue vaccine I looked at the medical literature as, to my mind, using an untested (long-term tests) vaccine against an unknown risk seemed a bit chancy. My research showed that there were associated with one of the factors (Thiomersal) apparent risks of elevating occurrence of autism. I ruled out the risk based on the evidence from the USA that removal of this factor over the last few years had not lead to a consequential reduction in the number of children suffering from autism. This seemed sufficient evidence for me to rule out the link and go on to look at the other constituents. Once an intial, if now discredited, link between the chemical factor and autism was established, lacking refuting evidence, it doesn't seem "wacko" to me to exercise caution. A large part of this is that the vaccines have been successful in reducing incidence of the once common diseases making them known smaller risks to weigh against the then unknown risk of inducing autism. The evidence in the OP shows a correlation. Phthalates certainly interact in negative ways with human biology already and so are a good thing to test - if I were fitting a floor I'd be more inclined to something phthalates-free given this result. But I guess I'm just a wacko ...?

ikitat 16y ago
So, you'll depend on the rest of the world to vaccinate so you can benefit from herd immunity and not chance the impossible odds that anti-vaccine conspiracy theories are correct? No, maybe not a wacko, just selfish and uninformed. Vaccine preventable diseases coming back. Children are dying at the hands of the anti-vaccine movement.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >So, you'll depend on the rest of the world to vaccinate so you can benefit from herd immunity It's easy to make a remark about "anti-vaccine conspiracy theories" now that we have evidence to show - but to expect me or anyone else simply to trust the medical establishment has not erred in creating a new vaccine is too much. Selfish? My children have both been immunised for the standard spread of common [childhood] disease in my country using the established vaccines. The swine flu vaccine was offered to us the week before vaccination was stopped - the reports were already in that it had been vastly overstocked, that vaccination wouldn't be effective against next seasons mutations, that other countries had ceased immunisation, that there were barely any new cases being reported, that it was far less virulent than expected and in addition I had a strong suspicion that our youngest (the only one offered the vaccine) had actually had the virus already. FWIW I've also donated to charities that make medical interventions such as vaccination of children. Uninformed? I've attempted to ascertain the risks involved in the vaccines offered to us. Most have been widely tested over several years but the swine-flu virus had not; as you saw I did rely on past empirical data to establish some of the risk factors. I am in no way part of an "anti-vaccine movement" I'm simply trying to use available knowledge to reduce the risk of harm to my own family. This does bring us back to the question of selfishness - I would let others be guinea pigs first before risking the health of my own children. Part of the problem is that from an immunological perspective you can expect a lot of deaths from a vaccine and still make the call that to save the population it's better to vaccinate. Do you really believe that I was risking the lives of other children by not immunising against swine flu in January of this year? ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/8645477.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/8645477.stm shows there were no further deaths in reality in my region).