11 ms·

Vaccines don't cause autism

80 points by bkudria 16y ago

patrickgzill 16y ago
I can't believe the fascists on HN that would be fine with shunning, punishing, or even suing the un-vaccinated. There are risks to being vaccinated, and risks to not being vaccinated. That (from the article) : --- "The last result is a bit of an anomaly in that it implies that exposure to TCVs from birth to 1 month and birth to 7 months actually protects against ASD. The authors quite rightly comment on this result thusly: "In the covariate adjusted models, we found that an increase in ethylmercury exposure in 2 of the 4 exposure time periods evaluated was associated with decreased risk of each of the 3 ASD outcomes. We are not aware of a biological mechanism that would lead to this result." --- Should tell you that this cannot be said to be a completely conclusive study.
- evgen 16y ago
  This is the sort of moronic ignorance that should be shamed. The anomaly noticed by the researchers is one that does not have a known biological explanation but that does not mean that exposure to a small amount of mercury in infancy does not actually protect against ASD. It just means that the study confirms previous studies that found no risk from these vaccines and suggests that there might actually be an irony-laden protection provided by these vaccines. This study is, to date, the most complete and conclusive study available. It shows that vaccines, and particularly those that used ethylmercury as a perservative, do not cause autism or autism-spectrum disorders, just like EVERY OTHER FUCKING STUDY OUT THERE!
  - patrickgzill 16y ago
    Do you deny that there are risks to being vaccinated?
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      Do you deny that there are risks to not being vaccinated, and that the risks of not being vaccinated are many times greater than the risks of being vaccinated?
    - pyre 16y ago
      I thought that the main topic here was about whether or not vaccines cause autism. It seems petty to try and point to other risks/side-effects of vaccines when the main point of the discussion has been disproven. i.e.: Person 1: Vaccines cause autism! Person 2: No they don't! Here's proof! Person 1: Well...it's still not 100% safe, so *there*! I win! The risks of being vaccinated are less than the risks of not being vaccinated. I have acquaintances who refuse to vaccinate their kids and you really can't argue much with them (though thankfully, they are not the type to be preachy about it). If someone wants to look it up, there is apparently some book about the problems with vaccines, but (from my experience) the logic goes something like: * Vaccines aren't 100% effective. There are people that receive vaccines that still get the illness. * Vaccines can give you the illness you are trying to prevent. * There are various other side-effects associated with vaccines. * [I added this one, though I've never heard anyone use it, and I still vaccinate my daughter] The companies that make the vaccines are immune to prosecution, so they don't have an incentive to produce a quality product. * [the really crazies like this one too] The 'man' is putting things in vaccines to make poison us and/or make the 'lower classes' sterile as part of some sort of population-control method (See chem-trails and various other 'theories').
      - patrickgzill 16y ago
        I appreciate your reasoned response, though I was not trying to take a side on vaccines and ASD; just addressing the idea that vaccination is a personal risk you take with yourself or your children, and you weigh the risks and are responsible for (not taking | taking) them. Riding a motorcycle is demonstrably more risky than driving a car, yet I don't see people suggesting we shun bikers. I have many older relatives in their 70s and 80s, some are taking e.g. flu vaccines and some do not; and as children, some received the standard vaccinations and some had chickenpox, measles, mumps, etc. At this point, being familiar with their medical histories, (though not a doctor), I am not sure that I see a pattern of better health between the 2 groups. Frankly choice of diet and amount of regular exercise seem to be a far better predictor of who is in the best shape. Example: my mother and her closest sister are 11 months in age apart, 81 and 80. One exercises with walking and swimming 3x a week, watches food portions and needs only a mild sleeping pill for medication - still drives and has an active social life; the other has had 2 heart attacks, is overweight by 50+ lbs (and yoyo dieted while younger) and has been on 2-3 heart meds for over 15 years.
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  It has been very interesting over the course of the afternoon to watch the score the parent post (about "fascists on HN") by me has been getting. I have seen it rated as high as 4 and as low as -1 (as of this moment it gets a 0, which is a downvote from 1 person). Would seem to indicate that there is a lot of disagreement over the POV I posted.
  - lotharbot 16y ago
    I agree with much of your previous post. However, I chose to downvote because you expressed yourself in a way that invites hostility and discourages reasoned exchange of ideas. Both the use of the derogatory term "fascist" and the implied assumption of unworthiness from "I can't believe" gave me the impression that you weren't interested in engaging those who expressed alternate views, only in insulting them. Had you instead stated "there are risks to being vaccinated as well as to being unvaccinated. We should not punish or shun those who have decided the first set of risks outweigh the second" I'd have upvoted you instead. The ideas are the same, but the expression invites discussion. EDIT: compare to your response to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702199 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702199 . Downvotes are the price you pay for "expressing a strong opinion on another person's POV in that fashion."
gte910h 16y ago
So if you knew someone who never washed their hands after using the restroom, would you let them in your home? Out and about socially with you? In my opinion, anti-vaccine people should be tossed out of everyone's homes, circles of friends, and businesses. This is for people who them OR their children aren't properly vaccinated. Even IF autism or any of the plethora of things were caused by vaccines, the diseases themselves which are prevented by them are much worse, all causing death or maiming. Vaccinations aren't 100% effective, usually more like 70-85% effective. This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find hosts to pass along to. We should safeguard the people who are willing to get stuck by ostracizing those who are foolish enough to not vaccinate.
- GrandMasterBirt 16y ago
  This is ridiculous. There have been less "alleged" cases with vaccine caused autism than there are deaths by swimming pool accidents in kids. The greater good must be served, EVEN IF IT DID CAUSE AUTISM in a super ultra rare instance. Vaccinations are important. End of story.
- kabuks 16y ago
  I totally agree with you. That is, until my son was born, and people started sharing horror stories for both sides of the argument. As a father, some other part of me kicked in that wasn't very logical. This is much harder decision than it seems. My mother in law shared with me her first-hand experience of 'watching-the-lights-go-out' in a healthy 3-year old minutes after she was vaccinated. It's not autism, and it's anecdotal evidence, but it made me dig deeper, and doubt any certainty on either sides. Studies are NOT conclusive. Dozens of studies where done defending the use of mercury in amalgam fillings for example, and just now the dentist community is coming around to admitting that it does negatively impact patients' health. Years after many people were saying that, and were called naysayers. I didn't vaccinate my son. It wasn't an easy decision. And I'm not certain of it. He will receive a shorter list of vaccines, on a longer less-stressful schedule than the one recommended by the govt. Anybody who assumes certainty for either side of this argument hasn't given this enough thought imho
- mattmaroon 16y ago
Semiapies 16y ago
I wish I could believe this would change anything.
- pavel_lishin 16y ago
  No, but perhaps when non-vaccinated kids start dying of things that sounds hilarious because we've eradicated them - things with names like "dropsy", "whooping cough" and "cholera" - people will start thinking. It'll be a terrible price to pay, though, for parents who just wanted to do the best for their kids. I wonder if truth-denial is genetic.
  - cabalamat 16y ago
    I suspect it has genetic components.
billpg 16y ago
I wonder if this will persude Jenny McCarthy and co. (holding breath)
- hugh3 16y ago
  The point of stuff like this isn't to convince Jenny McCarthy, it's to convince fair-minded yet ignorant parents who might have heard Jenny McCarthy talking on Oprah and lack any other information. (I don't know whether Jenny McCarthy has ever talked on Oprah, but she must be talking somewhere.)
- sabat 16y ago
  You're going to turn blue waiting for that. In their world, facts != 'truth'.
- ewjordan 16y ago
  Based on the limited set of reactions I've seen so far (for instance, http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23104 http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23104)? No. This won't change a damn thing. When you're that committed to a cause, every scientific result that comes out against your cause is easy to dismiss as either wrong, a deliberate lie, incomplete, not 100% proof, etc. This is especially troublesome in areas where the True Believers invert the burden of proof: rather than asking for proof that vaccines cause autism, they'd only be satisfied with proof that they don't, which is a much more difficult task (and don't get me wrong - I have no doubt whatsoever that even if rock solid proof was offered, they'd still reject it outright).
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  It wasn't logical, scientific reasoning that brought them to that conclusion in the first place, so why would it change their minds?
- CamperBob 16y ago
  My understanding is that McCarthy has actually recanted. Very, very quietly.
camworld 16y ago
I am not anti-vaccine. However, my toddler had a very severe reaction to a vaccine she was given at two years of age. This led my wife and I to decide to not allow our daughter to have all of the vaccines at once. She is not completely vaccinated but will have them all before she turns five. We feel that staggering the vaccinations out as much as possible allows her immune system to respond better without severe reactions that cause very high temperatures, which could lead to brain damage and/or death.
- gte910h 16y ago
  You are getting vaccinated though. You get they are important and are going through a very harsh trial (high temperatures are very scary in young children, especially to them) to get them all. You should be given a medal.
- carbocation 16y ago
  I'm sorry that this happened to you. However, the question that you pose is empirical and has been studied extensively. To my knowledge, no benefit has ever been shown from spacing out vaccinations. Staggering vaccinations is unlikely to be helpful or harmful, but in general would reduce adherence, so should be discouraged on a population scale without evidence supporting it.
  - Poiesis 16y ago
    Our pediatrician recommends spacing the vaccinations. It turns out that when you give them very early, many require a booster later because the infant immune response isn't as strong. If you give it a bit later, no booster needed. So then if there are risks they are less by virtue of having only one immunization. Never been thrilled with the insistence of infant immunization of Hep B either. Main vectors: sewage an sexual contact. I think we an safely rule those out for a few years at least.
    - carbocation 16y ago
      A professor at my medical school likes to say that, "The entire world is covered in a thin fecal veneer."
moron4hire 16y ago
When the 9/11 truthers were spreading their bull and it finally managed to touch a few of my coworkers, I found my indignant attitude that anyone could believe something so obviously false was far better at convincing people of the truth than reasoned argument. Unfortunately, people are pack animals before they are rational beings. Probably the best way to respond to such claims as "vaccines cause autism" is to just say, "Wow, I didn't realize there was anybody left who still believed that." It's mean, but it's for their own good, and it works quickly. They don't get as upset as you think they would.
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  They probably just put you on their internal "bozo" list and will quietly killfile your views and opinions in the future, which is the price you pay for expressing a strong opinion on another person's POV in that fashion.
  - mattmaroon 16y ago
    Yeah, I think he likely made them shut up about it rather than changed their minds.
    - moron4hire 16y ago
      the net effect for me is the same
rmk 16y ago
I just watched this documentary yesterday: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/?utm_c... An eye-opening documentary. Vaccinating a child is not a matter of choice, but compulsory, because unless the parents of an un-vaccinated child can guarantee that their kid will not spread a terrible illness such as polio/whooping cough/ whatever, they should be quarantined. If you watch the documentary, you will understand what I am saying. Also, the hope is that vaccination will become unnecessary in the future, for example, smallpox vaccines are not being administered anymore, because it has been eradicated completely. That is not the case with many other preventable diseases (there are many areas in the world where they still occur, and so it is necessary to exercise caution). There might be some legit concern as far as simultaneous vaccination for several diseases goes, though, but that is not sufficient reason to endanger the larger population until the (possible) causal relationship between vaccines and brain damage is firmly established.
carbocation 16y ago
A related article about the resurgence of pertussis in California: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/17/california.whooping.cough/index.html?hpt=T2 http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/17/california.whooping.cou...
pradocchia 16y ago
So what's the prevailing wisdom today about the Hannah Poling case? ...the government’s Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation concluded that five shots Hannah received in July 2000, when she was 19 months old, “significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder” and resulted in a brain disorder “with features of autism spectrum disorder.” http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2008/03/06/autism_0306.html http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2008/03/06/... Records were sealed at the time. Don't know if they have since been released. EDIT: Summary of latest news, 2010-09-11: US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) will pay over $1.5 million to the family of a child whose parents allege acquired autism after routine vaccinations in 2000....However, the payment does not acknowledge a vaccine-autism link. http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/us_vaccine_payout_provokes_con.html http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/us_vacci... The 27 August 2010 Decision Regarding Damages: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSMITH.%20DOE77082710.pdf http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSM... EDIT 2: You can't make this stuff up: Then-director of the Centers for Disease Control Julie Gerberding (who is now President of Merck Vaccines) stated: "The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism. This does not represent anything other than a very specific situation and a very sad situation as far as the family of the affected child." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html
- mattmcknight 16y ago
  It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms. Her condition could have been triggered by any fever. The link to vaccines is tenuous. The vaccine court is being widely lambasted for paying them off.
  - pradocchia 16y ago
    It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms. This sounds like a dodge, frankly. I am not encouraged. EDIT: I am further discouraged by the voting here. I see an instance of potentially non-conformed data. What do you do with non-conformed data? As best I can tell, nothing can be done with this data right now, since details of the court's decision have not been released. The most you can do is reserve a measure of judgement till further information is available. Instead, I see a strong desire to dismiss the data. This is poor epistemological form. This is not encouraging. Two questions, for now: * What symptoms of classical autism were not present? * More to the point, why would classical autism be the standard, rather than autism spectrum disorders?
something 16y ago
put best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

80 points by bkudria 16y ago

I can't believe the fascists on HN that would be fine with shunning, punishing, or even suing the un-vaccinated. There are risks to being vaccinated, and risks to not being vaccinated. That (from the article) : --- "The last result is a bit of an anomaly in that it implies that exposure to TCVs from birth to 1 month and birth to 7 months actually protects against ASD. The authors quite rightly comment on this result thusly: "In the covariate adjusted models, we found that an increase in ethylmercury exposure in 2 of the 4 exposure time periods evaluated was associated with decreased risk of each of the 3 ASD outcomes. We are not aware of a biological mechanism that would lead to this result." --- Should tell you that this cannot be said to be a completely conclusive study.

evgen 16y ago
This is the sort of moronic ignorance that should be shamed. The anomaly noticed by the researchers is one that does not have a known biological explanation but that does not mean that exposure to a small amount of mercury in infancy does not actually protect against ASD. It just means that the study confirms previous studies that found no risk from these vaccines and suggests that there might actually be an irony-laden protection provided by these vaccines. This study is, to date, the most complete and conclusive study available. It shows that vaccines, and particularly those that used ethylmercury as a perservative, do not cause autism or autism-spectrum disorders, just like EVERY OTHER FUCKING STUDY OUT THERE!
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  Do you deny that there are risks to being vaccinated?
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    Do you deny that there are risks to not being vaccinated, and that the risks of not being vaccinated are many times greater than the risks of being vaccinated?
  - pyre 16y ago
    I thought that the main topic here was about whether or not vaccines cause autism. It seems petty to try and point to other risks/side-effects of vaccines when the main point of the discussion has been disproven. i.e.: Person 1: Vaccines cause autism! Person 2: No they don't! Here's proof! Person 1: Well...it's still not 100% safe, so *there*! I win! The risks of being vaccinated are less than the risks of not being vaccinated. I have acquaintances who refuse to vaccinate their kids and you really can't argue much with them (though thankfully, they are not the type to be preachy about it). If someone wants to look it up, there is apparently some book about the problems with vaccines, but (from my experience) the logic goes something like: * Vaccines aren't 100% effective. There are people that receive vaccines that still get the illness. * Vaccines can give you the illness you are trying to prevent. * There are various other side-effects associated with vaccines. * [I added this one, though I've never heard anyone use it, and I still vaccinate my daughter] The companies that make the vaccines are immune to prosecution, so they don't have an incentive to produce a quality product. * [the really crazies like this one too] The 'man' is putting things in vaccines to make poison us and/or make the 'lower classes' sterile as part of some sort of population-control method (See chem-trails and various other 'theories').
    - patrickgzill 16y ago
      I appreciate your reasoned response, though I was not trying to take a side on vaccines and ASD; just addressing the idea that vaccination is a personal risk you take with yourself or your children, and you weigh the risks and are responsible for (not taking | taking) them. Riding a motorcycle is demonstrably more risky than driving a car, yet I don't see people suggesting we shun bikers. I have many older relatives in their 70s and 80s, some are taking e.g. flu vaccines and some do not; and as children, some received the standard vaccinations and some had chickenpox, measles, mumps, etc. At this point, being familiar with their medical histories, (though not a doctor), I am not sure that I see a pattern of better health between the 2 groups. Frankly choice of diet and amount of regular exercise seem to be a far better predictor of who is in the best shape. Example: my mother and her closest sister are 11 months in age apart, 81 and 80. One exercises with walking and swimming 3x a week, watches food portions and needs only a mild sleeping pill for medication - still drives and has an active social life; the other has had 2 heart attacks, is overweight by 50+ lbs (and yoyo dieted while younger) and has been on 2-3 heart meds for over 15 years.
patrickgzill 16y ago
It has been very interesting over the course of the afternoon to watch the score the parent post (about "fascists on HN") by me has been getting. I have seen it rated as high as 4 and as low as -1 (as of this moment it gets a 0, which is a downvote from 1 person). Would seem to indicate that there is a lot of disagreement over the POV I posted.
- lotharbot 16y ago
  I agree with much of your previous post. However, I chose to downvote because you expressed yourself in a way that invites hostility and discourages reasoned exchange of ideas. Both the use of the derogatory term "fascist" and the implied assumption of unworthiness from "I can't believe" gave me the impression that you weren't interested in engaging those who expressed alternate views, only in insulting them. Had you instead stated "there are risks to being vaccinated as well as to being unvaccinated. We should not punish or shun those who have decided the first set of risks outweigh the second" I'd have upvoted you instead. The ideas are the same, but the expression invites discussion. EDIT: compare to your response to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702199 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702199 . Downvotes are the price you pay for "expressing a strong opinion on another person's POV in that fashion."

gte910h 16y ago

So if you knew someone who never washed their hands after using the restroom, would you let them in your home? Out and about socially with you? In my opinion, anti-vaccine people should be tossed out of everyone's homes, circles of friends, and businesses. This is for people who them OR their children aren't properly vaccinated. Even IF autism or any of the plethora of things were caused by vaccines, the diseases themselves which are prevented by them are much worse, all causing death or maiming. Vaccinations aren't 100% effective, usually more like 70-85% effective. This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find hosts to pass along to. We should safeguard the people who are willing to get stuck by ostracizing those who are foolish enough to not vaccinate.

GrandMasterBirt 16y ago
This is ridiculous. There have been less "alleged" cases with vaccine caused autism than there are deaths by swimming pool accidents in kids. The greater good must be served, EVEN IF IT DID CAUSE AUTISM in a super ultra rare instance. Vaccinations are important. End of story.
kabuks 16y ago
I totally agree with you. That is, until my son was born, and people started sharing horror stories for both sides of the argument. As a father, some other part of me kicked in that wasn't very logical. This is much harder decision than it seems. My mother in law shared with me her first-hand experience of 'watching-the-lights-go-out' in a healthy 3-year old minutes after she was vaccinated. It's not autism, and it's anecdotal evidence, but it made me dig deeper, and doubt any certainty on either sides. Studies are NOT conclusive. Dozens of studies where done defending the use of mercury in amalgam fillings for example, and just now the dentist community is coming around to admitting that it does negatively impact patients' health. Years after many people were saying that, and were called naysayers. I didn't vaccinate my son. It wasn't an easy decision. And I'm not certain of it. He will receive a shorter list of vaccines, on a longer less-stressful schedule than the one recommended by the govt. Anybody who assumes certainty for either side of this argument hasn't given this enough thought imho
mattmaroon 16y ago

Semiapies 16y ago

I wish I could believe this would change anything.

pavel_lishin 16y ago
No, but perhaps when non-vaccinated kids start dying of things that sounds hilarious because we've eradicated them - things with names like "dropsy", "whooping cough" and "cholera" - people will start thinking. It'll be a terrible price to pay, though, for parents who just wanted to do the best for their kids. I wonder if truth-denial is genetic.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  I suspect it has genetic components.

billpg 16y ago

I wonder if this will persude Jenny McCarthy and co. (holding breath)

hugh3 16y ago
The point of stuff like this isn't to convince Jenny McCarthy, it's to convince fair-minded yet ignorant parents who might have heard Jenny McCarthy talking on Oprah and lack any other information. (I don't know whether Jenny McCarthy has ever talked on Oprah, but she must be talking somewhere.)
sabat 16y ago
You're going to turn blue waiting for that. In their world, facts != 'truth'.
ewjordan 16y ago
Based on the limited set of reactions I've seen so far (for instance, http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23104 http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23104)? No. This won't change a damn thing. When you're that committed to a cause, every scientific result that comes out against your cause is easy to dismiss as either wrong, a deliberate lie, incomplete, not 100% proof, etc. This is especially troublesome in areas where the True Believers invert the burden of proof: rather than asking for proof that vaccines cause autism, they'd only be satisfied with proof that they don't, which is a much more difficult task (and don't get me wrong - I have no doubt whatsoever that even if rock solid proof was offered, they'd still reject it outright).
mattmaroon 16y ago
It wasn't logical, scientific reasoning that brought them to that conclusion in the first place, so why would it change their minds?
CamperBob 16y ago
My understanding is that McCarthy has actually recanted. Very, very quietly.

camworld 16y ago

I am not anti-vaccine. However, my toddler had a very severe reaction to a vaccine she was given at two years of age. This led my wife and I to decide to not allow our daughter to have all of the vaccines at once. She is not completely vaccinated but will have them all before she turns five. We feel that staggering the vaccinations out as much as possible allows her immune system to respond better without severe reactions that cause very high temperatures, which could lead to brain damage and/or death.

gte910h 16y ago
You are getting vaccinated though. You get they are important and are going through a very harsh trial (high temperatures are very scary in young children, especially to them) to get them all. You should be given a medal.
carbocation 16y ago
I'm sorry that this happened to you. However, the question that you pose is empirical and has been studied extensively. To my knowledge, no benefit has ever been shown from spacing out vaccinations. Staggering vaccinations is unlikely to be helpful or harmful, but in general would reduce adherence, so should be discouraged on a population scale without evidence supporting it.
- Poiesis 16y ago
  Our pediatrician recommends spacing the vaccinations. It turns out that when you give them very early, many require a booster later because the infant immune response isn't as strong. If you give it a bit later, no booster needed. So then if there are risks they are less by virtue of having only one immunization. Never been thrilled with the insistence of infant immunization of Hep B either. Main vectors: sewage an sexual contact. I think we an safely rule those out for a few years at least.
  - carbocation 16y ago
    A professor at my medical school likes to say that, "The entire world is covered in a thin fecal veneer."

moron4hire 16y ago

When the 9/11 truthers were spreading their bull and it finally managed to touch a few of my coworkers, I found my indignant attitude that anyone could believe something so obviously false was far better at convincing people of the truth than reasoned argument. Unfortunately, people are pack animals before they are rational beings. Probably the best way to respond to such claims as "vaccines cause autism" is to just say, "Wow, I didn't realize there was anybody left who still believed that." It's mean, but it's for their own good, and it works quickly. They don't get as upset as you think they would.

patrickgzill 16y ago
They probably just put you on their internal "bozo" list and will quietly killfile your views and opinions in the future, which is the price you pay for expressing a strong opinion on another person's POV in that fashion.
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  Yeah, I think he likely made them shut up about it rather than changed their minds.
  - moron4hire 16y ago
    the net effect for me is the same

rmk 16y ago

I just watched this documentary yesterday: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/?utm_c... An eye-opening documentary. Vaccinating a child is not a matter of choice, but compulsory, because unless the parents of an un-vaccinated child can guarantee that their kid will not spread a terrible illness such as polio/whooping cough/ whatever, they should be quarantined. If you watch the documentary, you will understand what I am saying. Also, the hope is that vaccination will become unnecessary in the future, for example, smallpox vaccines are not being administered anymore, because it has been eradicated completely. That is not the case with many other preventable diseases (there are many areas in the world where they still occur, and so it is necessary to exercise caution). There might be some legit concern as far as simultaneous vaccination for several diseases goes, though, but that is not sufficient reason to endanger the larger population until the (possible) causal relationship between vaccines and brain damage is firmly established.

carbocation 16y ago

A related article about the resurgence of pertussis in California: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/17/california.whooping.cough/index.html?hpt=T2 http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/17/california.whooping.cou...

pradocchia 16y ago

So what's the prevailing wisdom today about the Hannah Poling case? ...the government’s Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation concluded that five shots Hannah received in July 2000, when she was 19 months old, “significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder” and resulted in a brain disorder “with features of autism spectrum disorder.” http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2008/03/06/autism_0306.html http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2008/03/06/... Records were sealed at the time. Don't know if they have since been released. EDIT: Summary of latest news, 2010-09-11: US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) will pay over $1.5 million to the family of a child whose parents allege acquired autism after routine vaccinations in 2000....However, the payment does not acknowledge a vaccine-autism link. http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/us_vaccine_payout_provokes_con.html http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/us_vacci... The 27 August 2010 Decision Regarding Damages: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSMITH.%20DOE77082710.pdf http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSM... EDIT 2: You can't make this stuff up: Then-director of the Centers for Disease Control Julie Gerberding (who is now President of Merck Vaccines) stated: "The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism. This does not represent anything other than a very specific situation and a very sad situation as far as the family of the affected child." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html

mattmcknight 16y ago
It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms. Her condition could have been triggered by any fever. The link to vaccines is tenuous. The vaccine court is being widely lambasted for paying them off.
- pradocchia 16y ago
  It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms. This sounds like a dodge, frankly. I am not encouraged. EDIT: I am further discouraged by the voting here. I see an instance of potentially non-conformed data. What do you do with non-conformed data? As best I can tell, nothing can be done with this data right now, since details of the court's decision have not been released. The most you can do is reserve a measure of judgement till further information is available. Instead, I see a strong desire to dismiss the data. This is poor epistemological form. This is not encouraging. Two questions, for now: * What symptoms of classical autism were not present? * More to the point, why would classical autism be the standard, rather than autism spectrum disorders?

something 16y ago

put best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]