Slashdot Mirror
Thimerosal Does Not Cause Autism
jamie found an article over at Washington Monthly discussing the recent finding that there is no link between thimerosal and autism. It seems that after the mercury-based vaccine preservative was withdrawn from use in 1999, no drop in autism rates has been observed in a large California study. Here's the Science Daily writeup on the study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.
That chemical preservative isn't used anymore because of Autism fears...
Because of that our vaccines are significantly les stable and have shorter shelf lives!
Parents of autistic kids look for someone else with a lot of money who they can blame ...
And this news comes just minutes after I bought a case of Anti-thimerosal cream!
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Given that the folks shrieking the loudest about the thimerosal-autism 'link' (as if a single study that's since been discredited many, many times can be called a 'link') tend to be parents of autistic children who also tend to go in for bogus new-age nonsense like 'chelation' and 'collodial silver' treatments, I don't think the whole nonsense is quite over yet. It's definitely a nice step in the right direction, but no amount of proof will really convince conspiracy theorists that their pet paranoia is without merit--they merely will claim that the 'truth' is being 'covered up' by the Big Pharmaceutical companies, and that the government is out to poison your children with the evil vaccinations that 'confuse your immune system' leaving you 'open to illness.' Most of them would benefit from a good solid course in basic logic (to overturn the fallacies they base their 'theories' on) and in basic biology and chemistry. The best we can hope for, I suppose, is that they'll select themselves out of the gene pool by applying nonsensical and hazardous treatments to themselves and their offspring.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
While it may very well claim 1999, that was when it ceased being PRODUCED. They still used the old stock and THAT wasn't cleared until at least 2001. Also the flu shot contains mercury, and is administered to pregnant women now.
Thimerasol has NOT been ruled out in causing individual cases of autism. Just that it is not the SOLE cause of autism. It's still a documented fact that US infants exposure to thimerosal increased starting around 1990, and that correlates with a huge spike in autism rates.
It doesn't say thimerosal is safe, the study just shows it's not the ONLY cause of the tenfold increase in the rates of autism.
No it wasn't. It was the consensus of fear mongering anti-vacationists.
It was a weak Hypothesis that has hurt the health of this nation by taking it serious.
Why would someone hate vacations?
"fear mongering anti-vacationists."
Yeah, we have a bunch of those here at work. I'm still taking my alloted time off.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
"Anti-vacationists" huh? Luckily they should be completely burnt out in a couple years... Incidentally, I'm not sure I see how this does anything to "hurt the health of this nation"...
After all, other countries have eliminated or dramatically reduced mercury in vaccines with zero effect on autism rates, and the mercury fanatics never batted an eye. Nor are they troubled by the fact that the neurological effects of actual mercury poisoning don't resemble autism.
It's a bit like homeopathy in reverse. Many of these guys have a superstitious fear of "toxins," and no matter how low the level might be, they will be convinced that it is poisoning their kids.
Of course, the real problem is that the age at which autism symptoms develop is about the same as the age when kids normally get their shots. A reasoned explanation of the difference between correlation and causality is often beyond the grasp of parents who are desperate for an explanation, or better yet, somebody to blame.
Through spreading fear, life-protecting resource was made unavailable, as result putting human lives at risk.
Doesn't the act meet definition of terrorism by a chance?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The link between thimerosal and autism has already been pretty thoroughly disproven. (Link to a blog rather than the paper because 1) it's a good summary and 2) I'm not sure whether the link is freely readable.) Whatever merit this hypothesis had in the past, any future work on it that "activists" manage to force clearly comes at the expense of projects that might be genuinely useful.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
It's like saying gluten causes autism because autism can be controlled through a gluten-free diet -- so we should all stop eating bread. Or better, it's like saying Nintendo causes epilepsy, so we should all stop playing videogames.
The people who really believe this have already reacted to the study and shifted their rhetoric to blaming some unknown factor in the vaccine. Because this issue is very personal to them, and they've invested a lot of personal energy in blaming the doctors/scientists, they won't let it go at this. Sadly, this diverts attention from actually doing reseach into real autism causes without some conspiracy-theory group breathing down your neck.
No, it never was.
But don't let that little fact get in the way of your chance to try to craft a superficial anti-science troll.
Just a thought.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Currently, pediatricians are calling for autism screening to be standardized and performed at 18 and 24 months of age. However, there is no current standard for testing or for the age to test.
Taking screening at 24 months (autism can take up to 19 months or so before it becomes evident), that means the test is using 6 years of data -- 6 years during which the testing times for screening autism have changed and the tests themselves have changed. This means that a lot of children who would not have been flagged as having autistic tendencies prior to 2001 (when the test results would have begun being relevant) are now found. Added to this, in 2001 I believe the age for testing was closer to 3 years, which means the data is not as useful there either.
Based on the above, we should be finding that the number of reported infant cases has increased over the past 9 years -- the fact that it hasn't seems to me to point to a drop in actual cases of autism.
In another 5 years we will probably have enough data to make a conclusive statement; right now the margin of error is still quite significant.
No, the scientists and physicians who claimed a link have been in a very small minority. Nice attempt to discredit the climate science by implication, though.
The anti-thimerisol movement has been driven largely by parents of autistic children looking for an explanation (I'm not unsympathetic, but that shouldn't affect the scientific method) and the anti-vaccination lobby, which is a mix of paranoiacs and people who can't see that a small number of vaccine-caused deaths is preferable to a larger number of disease-caused deaths.
There are actually legitimate health concerns related to the use of mercury as a preservative, but since they are not as dramatic or emotionally charged as the subject of autism, they seldom enter the discussion.
Furthermore, even in the case where scientific consensus MAY be wrong, it's most sensible for those not directly involved in research challenging the consensus to proceed as if it is correct, unless doing so were demonstrably damaging. For instance, it is pretty sensible to respond to climate change by increasing energy efficiency wherever possible. Worst case scenario is improved productivity, competitiveness, and profit. If, on the other hand, increased efficiency came at the cost of infecting every person with leprosy, then global warming denialists might have more of a point.
'no statistical correlation' != 'doesn't cause'
'statistical correlation' != 'causes'
I know enough people who have observed a direct correlation between their children being injected with mercury and an observable shift in behaviour to be concerned about injecting mercury into my children. I also know enough people who have observed a correlation between chelation and improvement in the child's intelligence, even in later years, to try chelation if I ever have an autistic child.
I know that some people, when they consume a high-protein diet, they feel sick. I feel weak and tired if I don't. I know people who are very sensitive to bleach. If I spend any time around paint fumes, I get very upset, light-headed, and sick, in contrast with everyone else I work with. A small percentage of people who do cocaine have an aneurysm in their nasal passage and they die. I'm sure you know people who've done cocaine. I do (know people).
So the point here, people, is that if you want to call bullshit on something because it doesn't happen that often, the WTC attacks never happened (only once in 16 billion years, or whatever). Condoms never break.
I know a child who was fine before the vaccines, and a retarded biter who cried all the time immediately after. Now, maybe he is not the norm. Maybe he's got a genetic mutation similar to sickle cell anemia (low benefit to most people, but prevails in some) that makes him very sensitive to mercury poisoning. And maybe, just maybe, he's not retarded, and he's living a very productive life just like the rest of us. But I wouldn't fucking count on it.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
No, infallibility is reserved for God and His religion. (Which one? Why all of them of course.)
LOL
Damn wasting all my mod points earlier today...this is by far the most intelligent response to the article...unfortunately, the /. crowd is hard pressed to read the articles that are linked here...there's no way the majority of them are going to go off and do actual research in *gasp* books
I sometimes work with autistic children.
IMHO There is a genetic component. Many things "cause" autism - Its never one cause for a particular individual case.
In Soviet Russia ^H^H^H America, The bank finances YOU!
"I do (know people)." - Sure, you're "friend" right? *wink*
"the WTC attacks never happened (only once in 16 billion years, or whatever)." - Twice actually...but who's counting
Yup, any contradictory beliefs must be beaten down, that has been my experience.
Just as in any beliefs or criticism that go against the large cooperate republican conservative mentality these days, all opposition will be beaten down, disrespected, humiliated, disregarded, labeled as crackpot, conspiracy theory or fringe.
Even this message I am sure will be labeled as flame bate, but I urge you to give this post some consideration that there is something more I am trying to point out, maybe a lesson to be learned.
Every post I have ever made on this subject gets hastily berated.
History has shown that there has been more to some of following then first meets the eye:
Global Warming.
Increasing gas mileage and alternate energy
Voting machine fraud, WMD's, Kennedy, John Lennon, Ghandi, Tim Leary,
GM vs. Organic food. Smoking causing or not causing cancer, Marijuana
Tesla, Laithwaite, Hutchinson, Darwin, Galileo, Copernicus, Columbus
Perendev, Searl, Cold Fusion, The Earth Being round, String Theory, E8,Quantum Physics , Roswell
Jesus, Moses, Noah, The Ark of the covenant, the chalice, Troy, 12/12/2012, the holocaust, revelations.
Yet all have been flamed, ripped on and disregarded without any logic.
Study the history of these things, and maybe you will start to see a different perspective of the world.
But for most these days, what's the difference, if it doesn't agree with your world view, Kill it rather then take a serious look and logical debate. So much for the hopes and efforts of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, these now seem like dead ideals.
So what ever happened Live and Let live. Or as someone I met in passing put it, What ever floats your boat.
If anything things like Charlie Wilson war and Iran Contra and Air America demonstrate that things can go down on much larger scale then you could ever imagine. Worse you'd never know or never believe it if told and shown absolute proof. You need to keep an open mind, both sides. Or are we just Lemmings doomed to follow our crowd where ever it leads?
Look, something is causing it, either come up with better suggestions, logical debates or back the (insert derogatory of choice) off.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
It's a commie plot to make us all autistic, I tells ya!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
For evidence of a causal link, clearly we've got all we need and we're right.
For evidence that disproves a causal link, clearly there's not enough time/evidence to reach a conclusion.
Do I have your, um, logic right?
For sale: one sig space, gently used. Inquire for details.
That's for sure. My nephew is autistic, and I have met some of the other children who receive IBI therapy with him. I know that autism is a continuum and not a binary variable, but I think that calling some of those kids autistic is a bit of a stretch. Admittedly, I an no expert in such matters, and for all I know, the expanded diagnosis criteria is correct.
Still, I wonder if doctors aren't diagnosing some children with autism who would have been diagnosed as mentally disabled a few years ago. Either analysis would be very difficult for a parent to hear, but autism would be the least traumatic assessment.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Regardless of the Autisim link (which was thin at best) ethylmercury hasn't had the sort of widescale toxicity tests that bioaccumulating mercury compounds (e.g methylmercury) have had.
Until that point, I'm not big on the idea of injecting a solution containing a large amount of ethylmercury into my body. Most mercury compounds aren't really anything that anyone would want to inject.
It's no better to be irrationally pro-ethylmercury just because it's a good preservative...The reason the uninformed freak out so easily is because we leave ourselves open to this crap by not doing to full research.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I met an Autism specialist who works for the school districts here in NY. She had some very interesting things to say about the increased rates. She said Autism wasn't increasing, just more children are being labeled Autistic. This is because children labeled autistic get all kinds of extra aid from the government that children who are just deemed learning disabled or have psychological problems don't get. So parents with mentally disabled children are increasingly encouraged to have their child autistic. It made sense to me, instead of some bogey man vaccine.
I wouldn't necessarily assume that. There are so many things he could have been attempting to discredit - why do you assume climate change?
For instance, it is pretty sensible to respond to climate change by increasing energy efficiency wherever possible. Worst case scenario is improved productivity, competitiveness, and profit.You need to explain what you mean by "increasing energy efficiency" then. If we are talking about product design, then increasing energy efficiency could very well mean LESS productivity, competitiveness, and profit. If you are talking about lifestyle changes, well, bicycling to work rather than driving would definitely decrease my productivity, and moving closer to work would decrease my profit.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
Curiously though I think there is a distinct lack of studies that show how the use of multiple vaccines at earlier ages affect autism. Given that a child's immune system is at best only partially developed before the age of six months, it's somewhat irritating to me that doctors regularly inject 7 vaccines at a time into children as young as 1 month of age. My own son developed infantile spasms (a degenerative seizure disorder) a week after his 3 month checkup where he was inject with the MMR, DtAP, and Varicella vaccines (MMR and DtAP each are combinations of 3 vaccines, giving him 7 total).
Anecdotally, of the 6 children in my son's special education kindergarten class, 3 of the children developed seizure disorders within a week of similar vaccinations, one of which was administered at one week of age. Most countries wait until at least 6 months of age before beginning the injections of MMR and DtAP vaccines.
Personally I think that thimerisol is a red herring distracting folks from considering any contributing factors of age and volume of vaccines administered. I think we'd do well to compare current vaccinations correlation to autism versus a program that staggers vaccinations with individual vaccines starting at 6 months of age to see how much that contributes to the rate of autism.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
I have no idea why these earlier tests aren't being used (looking for rapid excessive head growth, lack of eye contact, etc) - especially since they don't require fancy equipment or major investments.
I find the head growth particularly fascinating (here's a link to the abstract)
http://jcn.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/22/10/1182
It makes me wonder what Google would predict to be the major causes. It might give us a few places to start looking.
As the incidence of autism spectrum disorder diagnosis has increased so too has the incidence of mental retardation diagnosis decreased. Essentially children who would have formerly been diagnosed as mentally retarded are now being diagnosed as autistic. That or we've all but cured mental retardation. Yay science!
We willna be fooled again!
So correlation equals causation? If it causes 12 cases of autism per year, then that would not register in their statistics. What was their statistical tolerance? Was it zero?
References? How about it? Let us know, please.
Holding my breath,
Nathan
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Honestly, will you put your son or daughter on the altar of science to prove a theory? Could you live with yourself if you were wrong?
I'm a recent parent who insisted on a thiemerasol-free vaccine for my child. Note that I'm not against vaccines -- I just asked for the one without the mercury. They're available and didn't cost anything extra.
Why? Because if there was even a 1/1000th of a percent of a chance that it could cause irreparable harm I wasn't going to take the risk. I don't put much stock in anecdotal data, but if I have the option I'll choose to be sure. I'm sure science will someday discover the true cause of this terrible disease, but until they know for sure then I'll make the choice that doesn't give me any doubts.
I know I can't protect my child 100% of the time, but this was an easy choice. Even in light of this report, I'll still insist against the mercury-based preservative. Not because I distrust science, but because it's one less risk to take.
Does mercury cause autism?? The real question is do I vaccinate my kids or not. I don't know which side is correct, but if I don't vaccinate, 100% they won't get autism from vaccines. If I do vaccinate, where's the upside?
It's a popular topic, and his signature line is: "Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!"
http://outcampaign.org/
The rate of deadly infectious diseases is far below the rate of autism. That's plenty of reason to make "radical" choices. A child can be vaccinated later if circumstances change, and the likelihood of the child developing autism goes down drastically with age. But a child's brain is very delicate in the first 4 years. I may get my children vaccinated at age 8.
And yes, I don't think that vaccinations are likely to be the greatest factor. The fluorination of city water supplies is something I consider an even greater factor.
As much as researchers, well-intentioned doctors, pushy friends and neighbors and jackass strangers try to tell me I have nothing to fear from vaccinations and that I'm killing my children by refusing to vaccinate them, I'm going to make my own decisions. Life doesn't happen in a vacuum, or a in test-tube. A parent's instincts may not always be right, but as long as this is still a free country (I expect at least another year or so), these are my choices and no one else's to make. Sadly, this diverts attention from actually doing reseach into real autism causes without some conspiracy-theory group breathing down your neck. I doubt we'd even be having this research without this "conspiracy-theory group". Last time I tried to find information about it, I couldn't find any exhaustive studies on the relationship between autism and vaccinations.
Caveat: I'm not an expert at all. I just have one datapoint.
That datapoint is a boy whose family is friends with my family. He seemed to be pretty normal as a baby. Then he got a vaccination--sorry, I don't know which one. He promptly had what appeared to be a bad allergic reaction; went into a coma. He came out it a couple days later, but never completely recovered, and demonstrated clear signs of autism afterwards; he's about twelve now, and very definitely autistic.
I think that's the kind of thing that causes these families to think there's a link; it's not just "well, the shots and the onset of autism happen at about the same age," it's that they have a normal, healthy kid, the kid gets a shot, the kid spends a couple days at the hospital, and comes back damaged. I can hypothesize all day about genetic predispositions and different vaccine components, and those hypotheses can be shot down all day, but saying "it's all in your imagination, there's no link" doesn't make sense either.
(And, yeah, I got my kids vaccinated. But I thought about it a bit, first.)
I very much doubt that this study will dissuade "Mothers against mercury" (http://www.momsagainstmercury.org) from picketting my workplace every couple of months... a firehose and teargas might be a better approach.
The term you're looking for is "power". Obviously the study didn't have 100% power, and some tiny effect might have gone undetected. As the authors say (I don't know why you're demanding "references" so angrily, as if the link here didn't contain a thorough summary and more than enough information to find the original article) what can be excluded is that thimerosal had any major effect.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I bet if you read the studies, they will state their accuracy.
Correlation is, roughly, necessary but not sufficient for causation. Two variables that are statistically correlated are correlated, but they may not have a causal relationship. Two variables that have a causal relationship will be correlated. Two variables that are uncorrelated have no causal relationship.
Correlation is the clouds and causation is the rain, if you will.
The rest of the ggp is all anecdotal, which is not the same as correlation. (Also, nobody's children are injected with mercury. It's a substance containing mercury. A blood transfusion is not an injection of iron.) As autism has an onset (meaning children are fine beforehand) that is around the same time as many vaccinations, observing the onset of autism after vaccinations is hardly surprising.
Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream!
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
Agreed! This is not a phenomenon unique to medicine, but the medical profession does have a long history of promoting procedures or therapies that later turn out to be harmful. Consider the ads from many years ago of doctors promoting the health effects of smoking, or the initial indescriminate use of X-rays. Or the use of mercury-containing teething powders up into the 1950's. (see http://shm.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/2/291)
I doubt that we are now all of a sudden so perfect that no procedure, no matter how widely administered, could not be found to have unintended consequences. No doubt vaccines have done a lot of good over the years. Lately, however there seems to be a push to vaccinate for everything. It would not surprise me to find out in a few years that there is a statistically significant link between the combined effects of multiple vaccines (including the adjuvants in them), especially when administered to infants and very young children and autism or any of a large number of other disorders. The immune system is still not well understood. You can expect that if such a link is proven, any such information will be repressed or delayed as much as possible due to the huge amount of money, liability, and organizational pride invested in the status quo.
It is developing countries that suffer for it. In the developed countries, you have a much shorter time to market as well as refrigeration that takes care of most of this. OTH, the developing countries tend not to have refrigeration and their transportation takes a long time.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But I had NO issues with the vaccine having thiemerasol. WHy? Because there has been NOTHING credible about it in 10 years. In fact, 2 of the 3 scientist who wrote the ONLY real paper on it, now refute it. Were either of my children injected with it? I have no idea. There are FAR more important issues to worry about rather than something as ridiculous as that.
BTW, children can die by water, even in a bath. ANd that is fact, not just "alter" of science. I know. I have pulled them from the bottom of a lake. You going to keep your children out of the tub as well as not allow them to drink water?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
While I can agree that any research that gives us information is a good thing, I think that our research time might have been better spent elsewhere, since it appears to have confirmed what the experts have been saying all along. Would I welcome a study that shows that good oral hygiene doesn't lead to cancer? I suppose so. Would it be a good thing if a bunch of panicked lay people forced the medical research community to do it in lieu of useful research? Probably not.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Point missed in a very major way. We really need some better education standards, paticularly simple science that describes the difference between elements and compounds. What we are seeing here is the stupid alzheimer's disease vs aluminium debate dumbed down a notch and instead of misleading evidence (was contamination by a preservative in that case) we have no evidence.
You apparently fail to understand that the form of argumentation does not necessarily affect its truth value.
Perhaps your response would have been satisfactory and appropriate on a fallacy-identification exam in a college course on debate or formal logic. In a casual discussion on a social forum - actually, even in a formal debate this would be true - your response is inappropriate and nearly meaningless.
The fact that someone modded you up for posting a 300-word version of "bad form!" is ridiculous. This isn't class and you aren't the teacher. Grow up.
Not only is this statement true, but side from flu vaccines it is hard to find a vaccine with thiemerasol these days (which incidentally is the point of the article).
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
'no statistical correlation' != 'doesn't cause'
'statistical correlation' != 'causes'
Correlation does not prove causation, however it is necessary condition for causation. If there is no correlation there is no causation.
Now you can argue the accuracy of the experiment involved and make a statement like "given the expected rate variability of sample size xyz we can place a 99% confidence interval on the causation being no higher than one case every 100 million vacinations" at which point it becomes far more sensible to spend your time and resources worrying about things far more likely to harm your child like riding in automobiles or getting E.coli in bad beef.
Because vacations lower productivity. Get back to work!
testing out my trending skills
Altered diagnosis from other categories is insufficient - to my recollection the per capita rate of autism now exceeds the TOTAL diagnosis rates from all even mildly similar categories.
Perhaps we're diagnosing a lot of kids who previously we only would have called 'weird' and never taken to a doctor...
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Regardless of what has happened with thimerosal, which is poison, the increased vaccine schedule is still an issue.
.....and I love all you idiots who have made statements like "I knew it all along" or some such other crap about thimerosal. Unless you're a neurologist or related field, you're clueless.
There has never been any real tests done on the effect of all of the vaccines that a child receives, combined.
The fact still remains that regressive autism usually sets in right after certain vaccines. Is it just a bad combination of vaccines that is the catalyst for those with autism in their genes?
Ever wonder why no real research has been done on that?
yes, I can.
Worrying doesn't get a damn thing done. It makes sense to not inject things into your children that you feel uncomfortable injecting into them. My parents ignored the medical advice they got when I was a child, and they didn't put me on Ritalin. Good for them, good for me.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
if you look at it closely, beside hearing the plane over your heard going swooooshhhhh, you`ll see they`ve been referring to people not wanting anyone to take vacations...
It's not a conspiracy theory if the theory isn't about a conspiracy.
In other words, software piracy is not software piracy if the tenants of piracy are not being observed in its execution.
And copyright infringement is not stealing.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Generally it's only for the old and health care workers.
..........FULL STOP.
For instance, it is pretty sensible to respond to climate change by increasing energy efficiency wherever possible. Worst case scenario is improved productivity, competitiveness, and profit.
... think of the children!
Yeah, because no one would ever decide to increase his "productivity, competitiveness, and profit" voluntarily.
Responses to climate change are damaging by definition. You're doing something you wouldn't otherwise choose to do without the climate change factor. Since folks choose to do things or not do things to make themselves better off, eliminating that choice makes those folks worse off. Eliminate enough choices and poverty is the inevitable result.
If, on the other hand, increased efficiency came at the cost of infecting every person with leprosy...
I'll take leprosy over slavery. Leprosy is easier to cure -- at least until someone decides that the cure for leprosy has Thimerosal in it or that manufacturing and transporting that cure results in CO2 emissions and we have to stop curing leprosy right away because
it's only ad hominem if it's rhetorical. and it didn't read that way to me. And calling something a "Conspiracy Theory" when it has nothing to do with a conspiracy is like saying evolution is just a theory: it's using semantic bias to preempt the need for a premise.
let's drop the links from TFA, then, no?
You caught one.
Right, if he'd dropped the "intelligent" part, this statement stands fine on its own.
Right, it should have read, "It makes sense that a parent of a child suffering from autism..." A fallacy doesn't in a prepositional clause doesn't invalidate the rest of the sentence. What fallacy is that?
Right, but it could be argued that he's trying to establish that you are just a mechanical logician who possesses no facts and purely argues based on form. But that would be ad hominem abusive, huh?
My lord. You CAN answer a question! Ahem... Appeal to authority. If you can't make your own argument, shut up.
See, this is straight up ad hominem abusive, and adds zero content to the argument. BRAVO!
At the point he wrote that, he had admittedly gotten pretty far into his post. Maybe he's obsessive-compulsive. Whatever. Anyway, your rhetorical question smacks of another passive-aggressive ad hominem attack. Thanks again.
Nope. Or at least it contains content that the OP was communicating, unlike all of your ad hominem attacks, which exist solely to discredit OP without adding anything to your message.
That's all, I'm tired. And the rest of it is innocuous enough. Have a good one. Inject your children. It's at worst quite improbably dangerous. Whatever you please.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I have a very close family member who has been into alternative medicine for some time, but in recent years has become more fervently anti-vaccination/anti-medication. She refuses to take vaccines, and told me that she "couldn't sleep" after she heard that I had taken a flu vaccine this past year. Last time I saw her, she gave me some rubbish literature she had gotten from her chiropractor about how vaccines are full of evil nasty chemicals that will cause various diseases. She refuses to take most medications; recently a doctor diagnosed a potassium deficiency as the cause of heart problems she's suffered for years, but she's refused to take the potassium supplement prescribed to her. The family member also refused to have a diagnostic cardiac catherization performed, saying that she would rather die than go through the procedure. She's also an advocate and seller of products by Mannatech, a multi-level marketing company that sells (literally) sugar pills which its proponents claim cure cancer, Down syndrome, HIV/AIDS, etc.
Does anybody have advice for dealing with people with such a set of beliefs? Of course, one might suggest just ignoring the situation, but I care deeply about this person and very much wish for her to stay alive and well. My attempts so far at discussing things with her have largely just led to her telling me that I'm just repeating what the pharmaceutical companies want me to believe.
It's also worth noting that my family member is a practicing nurse, so her refusal to take vaccines isn't just risking her own health, but that of her patients. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Uh no, no "statistical correlation", provided there aren't any problems with the study design or the statistics, DOES mean "does not cause." A statistical correlation, on the other hand, does not mean "causes." However, it does mean "linked in some way." Possibly by a third factor.
It's tough... people who are really into alternative medicine will often go to any lengths, including dying. You could try explaining the principles behind evidence based medicine. It's really a remarkable system (I taught a grad lecture on it last semester). Try a look at badastronomy.com. Maybe you can pull off something (except more platonically, of course) like this story: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/12/20/reality-your-bridge-to-marital-bliss/
She probably shouldn't be a nurse. If nothing else sick people are vulnerable and don't need someone in a position of trust telling them stuff like that.
I forget where I first read this (I think it was one of the Quackwatch articles). Credit to whomever first said it.
Oxygen and hydrogen are explosive and flammable gasses. Water is made of oxygen and hydrogen. It is obviously wrong, though, to posit that drinking water will cause a person to catch fire and explode.
It's not a completely parallel situation, natch, but it's vivid enough an example that people might actually listen.
Well, some diseases are communicable. That means you can pass them on to someone else. Sometimes people with such diseases go to hospitals. Often the medical staff are exposed to them. If you're not vaccinated for a particular disease then you might catch it. If you're one of those medical people then you tend to come into contact with lots of other people, many of whom aren't the picture of robust health. You could then pass on that disease to them.
Sarcasm aside, there are a few vaccinations that medical staff would be crazy not to have. Hepatitis is one. It's easy to catch, and easy to spread.
Aside from that, even a flu vaccination, even though it's not effective against all types of flu, will reduce the chances that you're carrying an infection that you can unknowingly infect patients with compromised immune systems with.
Do not conflate the MMR theory with that of thimerosal as a cause of autism. The two are totally different: the former postulates that, for a subsection of the population, the immune system is overwhelmed by the sudden introduction of 3 viruses, causing damage to the intestinal tract and possible crossing of the blood-brain barrier and neurological damage. The latter theory postulates that, for a different subsection of the population, an inability to properly flush out toxic mercury leads to its accretion in the brain, also causing similar neurological damage. Different causes (although both potentially arising out of vaccination), same symptoms (symptoms which, not incidentally, resemble those of heavy metal poisoning), both very hard to test for (since they require both genetic predisposition and particular causes).
It's very hard to prove a negative, and since the mercury theory is just one of many possible contributing causes to the autism explosion (numbers not sufficiently explained by better diagnoses, since we would otherwise see the same percentage of undiagnosed adults in the general population with untreated autism spectrum disorders of similar severity, and we just don't), the fact that thimerosal has been eliminated but a continued rise is seen does *not* therefore disprove the thimerosal hypothesis. All it says is that, for the population tested, those specific individuals may have had their autism brought on by other factors besides thimerosal.
Whether or not the autism link is significant, I am personally thrilled (as a parent of one child on the spectrum and others who aren't) that we are eliminating mercury from injections given to our children--why put a known neurotoxin into their bloodstreams, particularly at such a young age? As for the MMR, the easiest approach (which we followed) was to find a pediatrician willing to seek out the vaccines in single form rather than bunched, to allow potentially sensitive children to get one at a time, absorb it, and then get the next. It also makes sense to actually test children for immunity rather than giving boosters blindly. {ProfJonathan}
(P.s. My son who is on the spectrum is a budding animator. See his stop motion, Flash and mashups here.)
Tough love. Does she work for a hospital? Tell the infectious disease control department what you told us. They are better educated and better equipped than you and I are to explain things to her. Additionally, they may also reassign her to a less patient-oriented position if they believe it's in the best interests of her and the people she cares for.
Yes, this would probably suck for her during the transitional phase. I don't think there's really a way around that. But look at it this way: if it takes 2 years to get her back into the swing of things, then this time two years from now she'll be back on track. If you do nothing, then 2 years from now she'll be no better off than she is today.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I should stay out of this but the original comment that "'no statistical correlation' != 'doesn't cause'" is in fact true. First it is claimed that mercury levels in vaccines have not drop to zero. If it is proven that vaccines still contain mercury regardless of it being from Thimerosal or not then recent studies have no statistical basis. Second removal of a single cause of something does not necessarily mean the occurrence will subside as other causes can appear in the same time. Specifically in the case of autism the diagnostic criteria has changed, and continues to change, on a fairly regular basis causing there to be a potentially more lenient definition of autism.
I'm not supporting the Thimerosal/mercury connection to Autism as I happen to be one of the few that believes it's quite possible that autism is not a disease in need of curing. I'm only saying that just because there is "no statistical correlation" does it mean that Thimerosal or mercury exposure is not a potential cause of autism.
The point you make is that a person who chooses not to receive a vaccination opens themselves up to the possibility of contracting said disease. However, isn't that their fundamental human right to practice their religious and philosophical world views? If truly indeed you yourself have your faith in the vaccinations you receive, and you truly indeed believe that these vaccinations will immunize you from said disease, what right is it of yours (the proverbial "yours", not you personally) to force, mandate, or criticize another for holding a different view and choosing not to vaccinate?
That said, you point out that the non-vaccinated individual might carry the said disease to a patient and commute the disease to them. That would require a prerequisite understanding that said patient was not in fact themselves vaccinated for said disease. Is it not then their own doing for contracting said disease? Since that individual did in fact choose not to vaccinate themselves? If it is said that the individual may, however, contract said disease in spite of previous vaccination, then for what remedy was the vaccination originally obtained? That argument in itself would invalidate reasonable claims for vaccinating.
It can be argued back and forth regarding the effectiveness of vaccinations, health concerns and the pros/cons regarding the vaccines, and a whole plethora of debatable material when it comes to vaccinations. Many of these arguments are logical, some scientific, and others more on the philosphical/religious side. The fact remains, however, if you truly have faith in vaccinating, then what the non-vaccinated people do is upon their own heads, and should effectively only apply to their health. If you say it risks the health of those who were vaccinated as well, then there could be no faith in the vaccination process, as that argument already invalidates the claimed reason for vaccination.
The point is, if vaccinations accomplish what is generally touted to the public, in that they create an immunization to the said vaccinated disease, then the individual choice not to vaccinate (for whatever reason there be) should be of no concern to, and certainly not forced upon by, those who do choose to vaccinate. To use an argument that there is the possibility of communicating the disease to those who are vaccinated (and thus showing a distrust and ill-faith towards the reliability of vaccines to begin with) holds, in my opinion, less authority than the clear fact that people smoking in public causes me ill health, or that a person drinking and driving endangers my life, or that bald pony-tailed (I know, oxymoron) men selling flowers and Krishna at the airports violated my privacy.
The point is (I said that already, didn't I), is that if you (the proverbial you, not you personally) truly believe in the effectiveness of your vaccinations, then this is all but a non-issue. When I read through the posts, it is all rather interesting how hot-headed people get on both sides of the issue. Anything like this always seems to become a "science vs. religion" issue when it is far from it. And very little logic is ever seen in the attack posts. People need to step back and look at things objectively. Science is not all logic, and religion is not all faith. There is a little bit of faith in things scientific, and there is a little logic in things religious.
Both sides, when properly argued and debated, have viable pros and cons with regards to the issue of vaccinations. And when one gets down to the core of the issue, logic mandates that neither side has an excuse not to tolerate the other side, and as one side would say, "live and let die."
First, we're talking about a medical professional. Many of the people in hospitals don't have fully functioning immune systems. Vaccines aren't magic, they require that your immune system be in working order.
Second, many vaccines are only effective for a certain period of time. I think tetanus boosters are recommended every ten years, for example. For a lot of things adults simply aren't routinely given the boosters because the disease tends to be more common, or more dangerous in school age children. That disease may be dangerous to someone in hospital. Additionally, diseases are (of course) more common in hospitals. It's often not worth keeping adults going on their boosters in the general public, but if you're going to be in a particular environment (Costa Rica, an elementary school, a hospital, an animal care facility) where such diseases are concentrated that changes the equation. You can't give people a battery of vaccinations when they're carried into a hospital because they're sick, vaccinations take time to take effect, and you have to have a healthy immune system. So the caregivers, who have the greatest chance of infecting patients, should be immunized to block that vector.
It's quite common for certain rights to be curtailed by necessity when you're engaged in particular jobs. While a private citizen may be able to say certain things under their right of free speech, a police officer, for example, should not. A school teacher has the right of freedom of religion, including preaching that religion, but should not be permitted to do so while at work in a public school. For that matter, you are allowed to walk around with the flu if you want to, but you are not permitted to come to work as a health care professional if you are sick.
I bet you'd be right in line to sue if you got hepatitis in a hospital.
Sorry I have no points. Great post. I'm really surprised at giving so many shots to an infant. What was the logic in speeding up the timetable of when a child vs an infant gets their shots?
I have conveniently hacked your response into three main phrases. It is true that many (if not most) vaccinations are only effective temporarily. However, how many people actually know this? How many people understand that the HAV and HBV (HepA and HepB vaccines) are generally effective for up to 20-23 years? Knowing this, where is the logic in not obtaining boosters for HAV and HBV? It is a person's own responsibility to make sure that they are properly protected, whether it is during sex, in regards to personal health (vaccinations and preventive medicine), in person or effects, and so forth.
We live in a society where people simply do not want to take responsibility for themselves. That is why politicians are hailed by the sheeple for passing intrusive (and many times unconstitutional) laws because they just want to "think of the children." That is why sole proprietorships wane to the more "secure and protected" LLC and INC which are "entities of the State." That is why people (literally) get away with murder because some game or program made them do it (even "the Devil" doesn't have as much sway). Because, generally, people do not want to take responsibility for themselves.
If you know that your HBV may not be effective after 23 years, then booster it. The vaccine is available. Doctors are able to do it. Or is it that people don't really have faith in the vaccine? Or possibly, people have too much faith in science, and do not use enough logic and intellect to know that they may have a need to booster? In any case, however, it is still the responsibility of the individual to take care of their own health in this regards. If they choose not to booster their vaccination, then that is their problem. They are no different from the ones who do not vaccinate at all.
And if physicians are not educating their patients about these issues, then what the hell are they being paid so damned much for? This is one point in which it IS someone else's responsibility, because you (or your insurance) are paying them to do so. If a person truly believes that vaccination will keep them from contracting a disease, then let them vaccinate. But do not shift responsibility to another. People need to grow up! Unfortunately, (I think I can safely say) we can both agree that this is not going to happen, and people will continue to shift responsibility on to others.
Although your response does hold merit in the "real world", as what you pointed out is general practice, realistically, people should take responsibility for themselves (especially medically), and when/if they choose not to perform a procedure, take a medication, utilize recommended techniques, or inject various foreign elements (including vaccines), then what happens to their health should fall on them.
Most people take enough responsibility to pay their car insurance every month, because they understand the need to keep their license and the unreasonable requirements of law that force them to support an outdated and otherwise failing industry. Most people understand the need for electricity, and thus pay their municipality their per kw usage tax (I call it a tax because many States require you to pay for generating your own electricity), and are thus responsible in that manner.
Yet, for some reason, people not only seem to believe that "someone else" should be responsible for their health, but also believe that anybody who does not believe in the manner that they do, and act accordingly, that these people are "endangering" others. Well, if the shoe fits...
If you're (not you personally again...that
Most countries wait until at least 6 months of age before beginning the injections of MMR and DtAP vaccines. First off, its DTaP, not DtAP (which becomes important below.)
Second your statement is quite untrue. If you look at the WHO's vaccine information, you can see the vaccine schedules for various countries. http://www.who.int/vaccines/globalsummary/immunization/scheduleselect.cfm
If you search for DTaP, you will indeed find that many countries list the first time they give this as a much older age than we do in the US. However, this is not because they leave their kids vulnerable, but because the first diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccinations are often given with DTwP which is cheaper. In older kids, if you use the whole cell pertussis component they have worse side effects (which are rare in infants and younger children). So you use the cheap DTwP first, then the DTaP later in childhood. So stating that 'most countries' give DTaP at a much later age is misleading at best.
Anecdotally, The plural of anecdote is 'not data'.
Even if it does not cause Autism, it is known to cause other problems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)#Safety
So I'd really like to avoid exposure unless it's inevitable. Shorter shelf life in vaccines does not qualify as "inevitable".
C - the footgun of programming languages
... this story has been up for about 20 hours, and NO ONE has put together the fact that, while Thimerosal was withdrawn in 1999, George Bush started his bid to become president that same year, which should explain everything! Isn't that the standard answer here on /. for every world problem?
That /is/ a sticky situation, and one I've encountered once or twice myself. My best suggestion would be to point her toward alternative therapies that are actually valid, i.e. the teas, plants, and extracts that contain the active components that modern medicines synthesize. Maybe point out that many natural remedies can be bought cheaply or grown for free and that most people selling a cure-all at a premium are con-artists and that she has no more reason to trust their pills than those from big pharma. If she doesn't want to take a potassium pill, then she can eat some bananas. Diet modification is a long-standing all natural therapy. Basically, try to set her right without coming off as thinking that modern Western medicine is the only solution and that all alternative therapies are false, since that will just make her more defensive. That she holds such extreme beliefs as a medical professional is disturbing; my mother is an RN and I currently work as a caregiver, and infection and contamination control are of extreme importance (as you already seem to know). If you have reason to think that her beliefs are interfering with her work to the point of endangering anyone, it's time to consider talking to the nursing board (you call anonymously and just ask questions without giving out her name, if you wish).
It's never easy to change someone's mind, and it's not easy to see a loved one disregard logic at every turn. My advice may not help much, but I wish you the best of luck all the same.
Don't trust school district specialists for anything regarding special needs kids. Personal experience - the districts hire specialists who keep costs down. Although Fed funds help, states must foot most of the cost of teaching special needs kids, and federal law (IDEA - Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act) does not permit "lack of resources" (money) as a reason for not meeting kids' needs. So the districts hire and promote "specialists" who have track records for low "positive" rates. The result is kids who have minor needs (like ADHD and High Functioning Autism) are treated as behavioral or "emotionally disturbed" and are shunted off to juvenile detention as soon as the district can engineer it. Before trusting a govt agent with an agenda, read the research yourself. YES, there is a rising number of kids with autism, and no one good explanation yet.
"This is because children labeled autistic" versus "children who are just deemed learning disabled" and So parents with mentally disabled children are increasingly encouraged to have their child [labelled?] autistic."
Autism IS a learning disability, and it's what the f**king law is there for.
It is NOT necessarily a "mental disability", in that it does not necessarily cause a child to have lower IQ scores, nor (with training) does it cause a child to have extremely unacceptable behaviors. However, a teacher that treats an HFA kid as purely a discipline problem can cause all kinds of punishable behaviors.
Please take some time to learn a little more about this - your understanding of the topic seems quite muddled.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
#1: FDA "grandfathered" a lotta medicines and treatments as it took control over drug regulation. Most grandfathered drugs did not require safety testing, even to this day. I'm not saying that was good or bad - but was thimerosal one of the 'grandfathered' drugs? Aspirin is a good example of why "we've always done it that way" is NOT a good safety policy. (aspirin can trigger seizures in children). ..."
Autism is neither a fad disease nor is "mild retardation". Please study a topic before spouting on it.
Autism is diagnosed more because: several syndromes that were thought unrelated have been shown to be related; Better techniques for diagnosing "minor" versions of Autism (like Asperger's, ADHD) are available; Doctors are becoming better educated on the subject. But the rise in diagnoses far exceeds the combination of all these effects.
Please note the article is highly biased: "many autism advocates still aren't convinced. I'm not surprised. I suspect that the emotional investment in
The writer immediately dismisses those who disagree as being "emotionally invested" and doesn't mention whether those who study the problem are "financially invested".
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Alarmist moms that feed their kids only organic food from keeping their kids away from the doctor and refusing to vaccinate them.
The segment that believes in the thimerosal hype will never really stop believing it.
+++ATH0
Sadly, it is next to impossible to reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. No amount of fact will straighten out a person with an irrational belief.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Look it up.
I really hope that, if a succussful gene therapy program is ever discovered to reverse or prevent the development of autism, the medical industry will refuse to offer it in any form other than a thimerisol-preserved shot as the ultimate fuck-you to all these people who have wasted so much of everybody's time and money.
While I agree that people do need to be better educated, including being taught to think critically about things, in this case that's not necessarily the primary reason.
Take hepatitis for example. Hep A and B are so rare in the industrialized countries that there really isn't any point in immunizing the population. Vaccinations do carry some risks, slight as they are, so you want to make sure that you're not giving them unless they confer a statistical benefit. Plus they cost money, so if you're vaccinating against something that the person has almost no chance of being exposed to you're wasting money that could be spent to improve health in other ways.
Now, there ARE lots of places in the world with Hep A and B are so common that it's hard NOT to be exposed to them. A small percentage of the population will travel to those places and be exposed. IF they've gotten their vaccinations then they're fine, and they won't bring back either disease. However, if they haven't, because of the abrogation of personal responsibility you mentioned, then they will. Even then, usually that's not a problem. BUT, if that person is in the food service industry, he or she can spread the disease widely. It happened here last spring. Alternately, if that person gets sick and goes to a hospital then the disease might get transferred to a doctor or nurse treating him (patients usually don't have close contact with each other). The doctors and nurses can then pass that disease on to all their other patients.
Vaccination is a type of preventative medicine. Some preventative techniques are worth giving to absolutely everyone. Others are best applied in places where they'll do the most good. The study of which is which is a well respected scientific discipline.
And I'm sure you could find a whole lot more subjects of research that are far more useless to complain about wasting time.
It would be a better comparison to say, research about tooth-whitening creams leading to cancer.
And have you forgotten about human radiation experiments? With so many "experts" these days talking about diminishing the world's population, how much SHOULD you trust them?
My child got his shots. My child became autistic. So the autism must have been because of the shots.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
I think that the digestive trouble that correlates with autism spectrum disorders combined with the modern Western diet (American in particular) is helping to amplify autism symptoms. In short: the inside of the intestines is considered to be outside of the body. If intestinal permeability is increased (leaky gut), larger molecules start entering the bloodstream. How bad that is depends on what is being consumed and the genetics of the person in question. The petrochemicals that make up most artificial coloring, flavoring and preservatives do Bad Things and are the likely cause of the rise in ADHD (Lancet published a study about that). Large proteins like gluten and casein (wheat and dairy protein) that are unlikely to fully digest entering the bloodstream will trigger all sorts of immune responses. A high refined sugar (or simply high carb) diet feeds yeasts that will puncture intestinal walls, and broad spectrum antibiotics will kill off competitors to those yeasts. Carbonated beverages are intestinal irritants by definition and are usually loaded with synthetic chemicals as well (says the recovering Diet Coke addict).
Anyhow, a whole foods (versus processed foods) diet free of synthetics often goes a long ways towards reducing autism (and other) symptoms, and it's something we all should be doing anyhow. It takes time but it doesn't cost much, if anything. GFCF (Gluten Free Casein Free) is well worth trying for combating autism and maybe for people with poor digestion in general.
Epigenetics looks like a very interesting topic to study.
One more thing: anyone with an autism spectrum disorder should get their ammonia level checked. It's often high. Calcium butyrate combined with a proper diet will fix this. The medical textbooks still say that hyperammonemia is acute and fatal and never persistent. If you're just fuzzy-headed all the time and can't figure out what's going on it's worth getting the simple blood test, if only to rule it out.
I would be concerned that she would offer her "medical advice" to patients (solicited or unsolicited). "Oh, I forgot to ask the doctor, does your office give flu shots?" "Oh, darlin', you don't want to do that. Let me tell you about vaccines..."
Could it just be that when two geeky parents breed, the geek factor is just over-enforced in the genes of their kids. I think there was a good treatment of this years ago in Wired's article on "The Geek Syndrome: Autism in Silicon Valley".
You point out that our understanding improves with every day, but continue to justify the fact that it's not perfect as a reason to distrust it? It will never be perfect, but it's the best/most accurate knowledge we have. Feel free to come up with your own studies and conclusions, but I guarantee that they're going to be right more often than you. It's not about putting absolute trust in someone or something, it's about trusting the right authority and their conclusions, even as they change over time.
All that research that gets done on medicines to establish safety and effectiveness, when they could just ask you 'do you feel comfortable injecting this into your child' and save all that time and effort...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I appreciate your point, but what little experience I have had with doctors doesn't make me want to trust them. And the extensive experience I've had second-hand through my brother and ex-girlfriend is even more damning. So really, the research is great, and I can take it with a grain of salt if I don't trust it. We end up being fed and injected with a lot of things that turn out to not be so good for us.
Be your own primary care physician, and treat everyone else as a specialist, and you'll be a lot safer than not. Especially if you are good at perceiving the limits of your abilities, and the limits of others. For the most part, doctors know more than I do, but couldn't give a rat's ass. I find that caring is oftentimes a more crucial component to treating someone than posessing a mass of dormant, apathetic book-learning.
I never said research was no good, however. Just because a study concludes something is safe, doesn't mean you're stupid for not eating it.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I find that caring is oftentimes a more crucial component to treating someone than posessing a mass of dormant, apathetic book-learning.
That homeopath may care deeply for you or your child, but if you/they were uninfected previously, they wont be able to stop you/them being infected with measles or diptheria without a vaccination.
Da Blog
I meant that 'autism is not retardation' solely in regard to the person's actual mental abilities. I wasn't considering the actual diagnostic history of the two. Sorry for the miscue.
Actually, Asperger's syndrome was first described clinically in 1944. It didn't make it into the DSM IV until 1994.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.