Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Against Vaccine-Autism Claims Again
barnyjr writes "According to a story from Reuters, 'Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal cannot cause autism on their own, a special US court ruled on Friday, dealing one more blow to parents seeking to blame vaccines for their children's illness. The special US Court of Federal Claims ruled that vaccines could not have caused the autism of an Oregon boy, William Mead, ending his family's quest for reimbursement. ... While the state court determined the autism was vaccine-related, [Special Master George] Hastings said overwhelming medical evidence showed otherwise. The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf "was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported," Hasting wrote.'"
Not only that, but why should the parents be entitled to "reimbursement" even if the immunization did cause the autism? Yes, the product should be immediately pulled, but do they have a right to get rich because of some hitherto unknown side-effect of a well intentioned vaccine? I don't think so.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
This won't stop the paranoid from preventing their children from being immunized because some of these same people have interesting theories about how the vaccines are deliberately nefarious in other ways (going as far on out there as mind control, etc). These people and their little theory have done more to damage public health in a short amount of time than a lot of other things...
The use of vaccines is a public health necessity; vaccines are by far the most cost effective tool we have for preventing the spread of communicable diseases.
There have always been controversies about vaccines: there is non-zero risk to individuals from any medical treatment, and significant benefit to the population as a whole. As a single individual, you remove the (very small) risk by not having the vaccine, and you gain most all of the benefits if most everyone else around you has been vaccinated.
Spreading fear and misinformation about the safety of vaccines can cause direct, measurable and irreversible harm. Measuring the connection between a medical treatment and possible harmful effects is something drug companies can do very well, and the FDA approvals process (when it works) keeps the companies honest. We have solid, irrefutable and repeatable scientific evidence that shows vaccines do not cause these diseases, like autism.
The best article covering this was in the Bad Astronomy blog from Discover, aptly titled Antivax Kills.
I can understand these parent's hurt and anger, and why they would seek to find a cause, a reason, someone to blame for their troubles. It's a natural human reaction in such a case, where so little is known of the real causes. And big Pharma has certainly proven, over and over, that it feels no responsibility towards it's customers and will choose 'making a buck' over 'doing the right thing,' pretty much all the time. But this is still ridiculous. At this point, you either have to buy into a full-blown whackadoodle conspiracy theory, or admit that vaccines do not, and never have caused autism.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
...because Jenny McCarthy can't read.
the amish don't get vaccinated so autism is virtually unknown amongst them
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted.html
I personally find the abundant anecdotal evidence . . .
You could have put that in your first sentence and saved us the trouble of reading the rest.
Not a typewriter
If somebody sues a drug company, then it's made a matter for the courts. That's just the way it works.
Not a typewriter
Vaccines aren't as simple as people think.
Many, many vaccines can cause seizures, and not all seizures result in physically obvious symptoms. Once a person experiences a seizure, regardless of the cause, they are significantly more likely to have seizures in the future.
Various vaccines are being promoted by their manufacturers, not because they have actual benefits, but because it's a money making position to have a vaccine that will be forced onto the general population. Look into the HPV vaccines, actual risks. The HPV vaccines may have future benefits, but the promotion by the manufacturer has been mostly to school boards and politicians; not the public. The current commercials are based on fear mongering, not education.
Many vaccines are simply about money, not health.
There is way for them to cope.
If i had an autistic kid, when he hit, say, three, I'd put a deck of cards in his hand and grandually build up to ten decks or so and teach him how to remember and calculate the odds for BlackJack. I would also buy him underwear from K-Mart. Then, in about 15 years when he's old enough to be in a casino, profit!
In a Jim Gaffigan whisper: "He's so insensitive!" He hates handicapped people! Hooooot pockets!"
Those parents are just too short sighted. I mean, just exactly what is a healthy kid? Normal?
That people are so quick to blame pharmaceuticals for everything that may happen post vaccination. I understand that a lot of it comes from people not knowing whats in the vaccination - they don't know what they are putting into their children and they realize "Hey this could be cause" after something harmful happens. Don't get me wrong, I agree that its a problem, I don't ever go and get my flu shot because the local health regional offices won't tell me what's in the vaccine. [tinfoilhat] How do I know they aren't adding some kind of emotional suppressant that makes me less angry about taxes being raised [/tinfoilhat].
I think the ridiculous part of it though is that they only do this with the drugs. People don't think to blame the food, or the beverages, or anything else they are introducing into their system. They heard a smear campaign on the radio saying that a Vaccine might be linked to a disease or syndrome - time and time again these reports turn out to be faked. But for whatever reason, this kind of stuff continues.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: Stop trying to push the laws to treat a symptom of the problem. Transparency is the issue here - without having complete ACCURATE transparency, laymen (like myself) have an even tougher time determining what is true and what is false. If I had my way, everything we drink, every menu we read, every swimming pool you enter, anything that we interact with would have a label somewhere telling you -exactly- what goes into it. And don't get me started on current Nutritional labels - those things are a disgrace.
Let me be crystal clear about this, vaccines do not cause autism nor is there any decent study that is statistically and/or scientifically valid which shows such a provable correlation.
And we're running studies of autism here, led by one of my colleagues who has an autistic child herself.
You really need to move on.
The problem is that, for most people, they grasp at straws and try to find some observable "cause" they can link with autism. It's quite possible that it has more to do with environmental and/or emotional stresses on the mother but people try to put the cart before the horse and "prove" that a vaccine - which may have been due to travel (hint - enviro/emo stress) or bad health conditions (same) - was the cause.
Please, move on, you're just embarrassing yourselves.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
From the summary and article:
[blockquote]The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf...[/blockquote]
Who are these "experts"? Are their identities in the public record? I want to know how these fools can possibly considered qualified, expert witnesses when they clearly lack the medical and scientific judgment to critically and objectively evaluate and analyze the facts in front of them. Really. How is it that these people still have jobs?
Because, if it were true then the drug's manufacturer would be, directly, responsible for the child's medical condition and would have to compensate the parents.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
correlation does not imply causation
I agree. The paranoid parents are going to ignore this, not get their kids immunized, and thereby put them at real risk for neurological damage from measles.
Sadly, this won't even balance out the recent discovery that Poul Thorsen, one of many scientists disputing the link between autism and vaccines, was a fraud. Figure one: a random blog post on the subject reheadlined "The vaccine autism link is real".
So one study and one researcher disputing the link has been invalidated, there are many more that remain, and there are plenty of studies claiming a link between vaccines and autism that have been shown false.
It's kind of like those leaked global warming e-mails. They didn't show that global climate change was a fraud, but that's what people wanted to hear, and that's what they remember, not boring things like the facts or court findings.
There were some fascinating correlations about autism rates before and after the mixed injections. And the same data was replicated in England. There was even a piece on 60 minutes about this. Of course, this is only correlation, not proof that the mixture causes autism.
You'd be surprised. There's a lot of people out there with no knowledge on a particular subject area, but who are quick to come up with a 'theory' and pass it off as fact and themselves as 'experts' in that area. Financial advisers, anyone?
I drink to make other people interesting!
I personally find the abundant anecdotal evidence of such a link quite disturbing, requiring thorough investigation, though this is unlikely to happen due to the above reason.
The thorough investigation has happened. Several times. See for example here and here. Or you could read the CDC article. Oh, but wait, they're all government institutions! They would all be devastated by that link! That's why they lie! They all lie! The cake is a lie! Wait, wrong channel...
The point is that the anti-vaxxers - and yes, the derogative term is appropriate - are about as concerned about truth and as scientifically literate as all the Moon-hoaxers. There is nothing that scientists can do to change the minds of the anti-vaxxers, because the anti-vaxxers do not operate on a scientific basis. I just hope this blows over before too many people stop vaccinating.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Small amounts of mercury have been used for ages in the silver amalgam used for fillings in teeth, with no dangerous side effects. Just a counterpoint about the mercury. Under certain conditions its perfectly safe.
Dunno if you know this or not, but there have been radical developments in greed and corruption over the last couple of decades,
People are just as corrupt as they ever have been. If you think people are more corrupt now than in years past you are either very naive or very stupid. Go pick up a history book. The methods (sort of) change but people don't.
It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words; loser pays. That would likely flush out 80% of the crap clogging the system today.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Because it sounds vaguely logical? Yes loser pays would solve some problems but it would create others. It would reduce some of the more frivolous lawsuits but it would also make some needed lawsuits too risky to attempt. Loser pays strongly tilts the playing field towards those with the most money - even more so than it already is. I don't necessarily have a problem with the general concept of loser pays but please recognize that it isn't something that is going to cure every ill in our legal system.
Frankly if you want to reduce the load on our legal system, stop the ridiculous "war on drugs" - at least the portion related to user and possession charges. The US incarcerates a percentage of the population on minor drug charges that is way out of proportion with other industrialized nations. The war on drugs has FAR more to do with our clogged legal system than frivolous torts.
When someone says something like this, I don't know whether to giggle or be scared.
its a retarded argument!
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
we had evidence based medicine. Now we have court based medicine?
Remind me exactly when were politicians, judges and lawyers given a license to practice medicine again?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Shoulda known better that the research into Amish autism rates had already been done...
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Health Canada (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/merc-eng.php) seems to think that all mercury exposure is bad (since small amounts add up to be a problem) and even mention how the use of these fillings (on their own pretty much harmless) is one more exposure to a dangerous chemical. "you may want to consider using a product that does not contain mercury."
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The Lancet didn't retract that ridiculous paper from 1998 until last month and it pretty much started all this ridiculous BS. It's absolutely unconscionable that they didn't retract it sooner. Ten of the original 13 authors retracted back in 2004. That should have been a hint.
The problem with vaccines is that being vaccinated as an individual isn't what makes you safe. It's the vaccination of the herd that protects. That is, for a particular disease that you might be vaccinated against, let's say measles, it's safer to be the only person in a crowd who isn't vaccinated than to be the one person in the crowd who is vaccinated. Vaccines aren't 100% effective and what makes them truly effective, is having everyone take them.
Back in 2006, some girl in Indiana got measles on a trip to Romania. She came back and shared that gift with the people in her church, simply by showing up. Roughly 10% of the 500 people present weren't vaccinated and 32% of those people developed the measles. One person who got the vaccine also got the measles, but 94% of the cases were unvaccinated people.
The problem these days is that people don't bother to learn history. Anyone who's been to an old cemetery (I live in Arkansas, and we have tons of them) pretty much can't miss the fact that there are tons of kids aged 10 and under buried. Why? In the early 1800s, infant mortality was about 20%. Think about that. One in five infants (1 year old and younger) died. A lot more died before the age of 5. Not all of that is vaccines, but a lot of it is! Before the vaccine, smallpox alone was killing 400,000 Europeans a year.
Personally, I think vaccines ought to be required by law because they're a public safety issue and people who won't do it should go to jail.
Has anybody actually done any research to figure out what causes autism other than vaccines? Has the whole epidemiological process been derailed by the vaccine connection controversy? This is a serious question that now seems to be have become one of these taboo science topics that nobody wants to investigate because its history has been so controversial.
I just hope this blows over before too many people stop vaccinating.
Too late. There are areas where the collective immunity has declined enough that outbreaks are more common, and the fatality rate has climbed. Because many of those who were not vaccinated never will get the shots, it will be some decades before the risk is reduced back to its old level even if the practice if vaccinating young children were to return to prior levels, and the mortality rate for these diseases will progress through the age groups over the next 60 or so years.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Perhaps widespread vaccination increases autism rates because the diseases vaccination prevents cause fever in children, and fever in children fights autism symptoms. Or perhaps the children more prone to autism were also more prone to dying from childhood infections, and now, due to vaccination programs, more of them are surviving long enough to be diagnosed with autism.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Oh my god! You've figured it out!
The obvious thing to do here is listen to what the medical community says, and then do the exact opposite!
I anxiously await your findings.
Thimerosal was removed from vaccines years ago after the hysterical anti-vaccination claims. It had no effect on the autism diagnosis rates which continued to rise gradually due to ongoing improved medical awareness. this proved conclusively that Thimerosal was NOT a cause of Autism. If it was, even if traces remained in a few vaccines, we would still have seen a dramatic reduction in autism. The anti-vaccination crown still go on about vaccines as a cause and about Thimerosal though. It is idiotic, having made up their mind they will not listen to reason.
A vaccine has about as much mercury in it as a tin of tuna. Mercury is indeed cumulatively toxic, but the amount in all the vaccinations a person will ever have is irrelevantly tiny.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
I think it wouldn't be this way if much (all?) of the pharmaceutical oversight wasn't government controlled. The pharmaceuticals do have an incentive to do things right, but when the public has no recourse against any drugs that the FDA has approved already, then they are shielded from any retaliation, and can indeed put out crappy products as long as their lobbyists are in place.
If it's more cost effective to put out crap+lobby than good meds+no lobby, then they go for the former. The more corrupt the regulating agency is, the cheaper it is to lobby, also. The article for me ended where it said that the vaccine makers can't be sued for damage. If they can't be sued.. certainly they will do a crappier job than if they could, at least marginally.
So... down with the FDA and whatever other agencies are involved.
'Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal cannot cause autism on their own, a special US court ruled on Friday'
While I tend to agree with the statement, the idea that a court can somehow "rule" on whether or not something is true seems a bit strange. What happens next Friday? Will they rule that the value of Pi is precisely 3.14 and not a penny more? Physical reality doesn't care about court rulings. Courts rule on matters of human law, not physical law.
No matter what the court or the pharmacorp sponsored studies may say autism went from 1:10,000 to 1:120 in the span of a decade at the same time that new vaccination protocols where implemented.
Riiight. And absolutely nothing else in society has changed in the same period of time. Says the Slashdot reader.
Now that thimerosal is being replaced it will be interesting to see if the autism rate changes.
Scientific evidence says it won't.
Breakfast served all day!
It is idiotic, having made up their mind they will not listen to reason.
Doesn't do any good for your cause calling the other side idiotic and not listening to reason... we all have different sets of evidence we know, that leads us to believe one thing or another. You yourself could have made your mind as well.
Could you please elaborate when where and how was thimerosal removed? Why is it illogical to think that after so many years (at least a few decades? idk) of using this preservative, the vaccine makers wouldn't continue using it anyway? Has there been a government mandate, with tough enforcement preventing them from doing so? Were people able to sue them if they found it in the vaccines?
I don't know much about this, am only coming at it deductively, but I'd like to know what you know.
Yes, that will be interesting to see.
If I understand you, you are saying that the primary culprit behind the rate of autism increasing 80-odd fold is mercury poisoning in children (personally, I think differences in diagnosis are probably far more significant, much like how we have FAR more ADD kids than we did 20 years ago)?
That would be easy enough (if inhumane) to test. Or for a less "evil" testing mechanism, we could try to see if other potential sources of mercury exposure are connected to autism rates?
So is the assumption that mercury causes autism (in the sense that a virus causes smallpox) or that we can have magical uncaused cases of autism, but in kids that are vaccinated vaccination is the cause?
You don't appear to be new here, but I'm going to go ahead and say this anyway:
CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION
The problem is that, for most people, they grasp at straws and try to find some observable "cause" they can link with autism. It's quite possible that it has more to do with environmental and/or emotional stresses on the mother but people try to put the cart before the horse and "prove" that a vaccine - which may have been due to travel (hint - enviro/emo stress) or bad health conditions (same) - was the cause.
OK - as a parent of a six-year old with "primary" autism (e.g. low-functioning), I'd like to clear the air on a few points:
Please, move on, you're just embarrassing yourselves.
I have met a number of other parents of autistic kids. Those that are desperate enough to by into these theories are (often) otherwise rational, intelligent people. They are desperate for hope, and feel they owe it to their child to attempt some kind of cure. Whether this is due to denial (of the permanent disability) or unrelenting hope and a moral code that says "anything is better than nothing", I don't know. I do know I can relate to this, to a point, and was frustrated at the limited medical treatments available for my own son. Please have some sympathy for these misguided parents, as the real culprits are the alt-medicine charlatans who claimed to have found the cure, and the DAN doctors who really ought to know better.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. -- James Klass
It is not necessary to wonder. This study was already done. In the places where thimerosal was replaced, autism rates did not decrease. In fact they continued to INCREASE.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107181551.htm
Both sides in this are ignorant. The "experts" are totally clueless as to what even causes Autisim. Mankind currently knows jack schitt about biology despite the massive world wide investments being made in the area.
Parents see their kids getting sick or worse after getting their shots and refuse to see anything else.
The vaccination adverse reaction reports in the US at least are public knowledge anyone interested can download the raw datasets and do their own analysis. At the end of the day even if some kids are getting sick or dead as a direct result of the vaccines statistically their still MUCH better off taking them.
We know for a fact mercury makes people retarded so injecting it in any amount into a few day old baby is also retarded. Sometimes captin obvious really needs to fly in and save us all from our own rank nonsense.
The correlation between autisim and vaccination is like the correlation between cancer and insert arbitrary substance here. With 1/5th of the worlds population dieing of cancer there is just too much noise in the signal to make any definitive conclusions. Especially when there is huge potential for disruptive negative consequences be it the cell phone industry or people not getting vaccinated. The signal if it exists will simply be ignored.
This should **NOT** give industries and people a license to act stupidly and lack conservative approach WRT things mankind is currently just too clueless to fully understand.
Use of mercury is stupid. The massive scope creep of vaccinations from must have life saving to the recent laundry lists of nonsense in the current schedules in many areas is also stupid.
Taking a few pictures of myself with an x-ray camera is a safe bet.. It is very unlikely to give me cancer and is great fun for halloween. but if I repeat the process say use an orbting high power satellite to take an x-ray picture of every living person then there is a good chance that some of those people will get cancer and die as a direct result. Statistically you'll never see it so don't sue me, you can't prove it you'll loose in court.
That its even possible for lawsuits against people who are in good faith trying (and succeding by any measure) to help people is the real problem here. People are both stupid and greedy and they get what they deserve for making no effort to rid themselves of such attributes.
It's very frustrating for parents of autistic children. And not surprising that people might latch onto limited observations they can make, even if their conclusions have no scientific or statistical value.
Some of the diseases we do research on have very long gestation periods - people incorrectly think they "did" something recently to cause the disease to occur, and frequently the parents beat themselves up over "causes" they imagine to exist, but which are very very unlikely to have anything to do with what caused the disease.
Of course, nowadays, the Internet gives people an equal voice, which sometimes lets those spreading theories a louder voice than those who actually study the problems scientifically.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It would increase demand...
Some but I think probably not as much as you fear. People who want illegal drugs can get them now. It's not exactly a secret that only a small percentage of the drugs are ever caught by the authorities and the rest obviously get sold. Jail hasn't proven to be a strong enough deterrent and it certainly has a huge opportunity cost.
People who aren't interested in drugs pretty much aren't going to use them no matter what the price. I'm certainly capable of legally buying a cigarette which contains the addictive drug nicotine but I never will. I think anyone who does smoke or uses recreational drugs is utterly retarded but I recognize the futility of trying to stop people from seeking to get high. The only question is how to shape policy so it does the least damage possible.
If you want to bring economics into the argument, the demand curve for illegal drugs is highly inelastic. Changes in price have relatively small effects on demand. Those who are interested will remain so, those who aren't will mostly remain so.
Societal pressures are generally much more effective than legal ones to shape behavior. Cigarettes and those who smoke them have been steadily ostracized in the US and the number of smokers has steadily declined for many years now.
...but the only way to get the drugs would be through organized crime networks.
That is no different than right now. Depending on what changes one makes to the laws though this does not have to remain the case. See my argument below.
The only thing to do is make it completely legal.
Legal or freely available? Very different things. There are some drugs and chemicals that never can be made freely available - they simply are too dangerous. There is a reason Lipitor is legal but restricted. However it is quite possible to make substitutes for recreational drugs available.
For whatever reason we allow tobacco and alcohol but prohibit most other recreational drugs. Perhaps a big part of the problem could be eliminated by permitting restricted access to a few new relatively benign recreational substances. It remains stupid to use any of them but then you don't have to throw people in jail for possession most of the time. Spend our resources on something other than jails. This is of course not a cure all answer, but it might be a start. Never will fly politically though I'm sure.
Now that thimerosal is being replaced it will be interesting to see if the autism rate changes.
Being replaced? Thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines in 1999.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I think this http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Campbell-Smith%20Mead%20Autism%20Decision.pdf is the right one, the court of claims website has several http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/5026/ The principal evidence against the parents are several large studies (> 100,000 children) where they compared autism in groups with and witout mercury vaccines (thimerosol). There was no difference. further, the scandinavians have looked at autism rates before and after useage of thimerosol; no difference. This is probably the best data we can hope to get showing htat mercury in vaccines doesn't cause autims. to get around this, the parents argued that thimerosol causes a special, rare kind of autism (regressive autism), and that studies on large numbers of children are meaningless because they don't have the statistical power to see a change in a small percent of the population (if you have 100,000 kids with thimerosol, and 100K without, and the general autism rate is 1% and the regressive autism rate is 0.1%, you won't have statistically sign numbers for the rare form of the disiease. the master dismissed this argument concluding that there was no evidence for a distinct disease called regressive autism. there was a lot of stuff about how mercury enters the brain and what it does; sort of inconclusive; the parents didn't really have any good data to support their theorys, eg although distinct, measurable changes occcur ain humans and animals at levels of mercury much higher then what childrne are exposed to, the parents argued that their children have a genetic makeup that makes them hypersensitive to mercury; the problem with this is that they dind't have any data to support this theory, which is perfectly plausible; the parents brought up wilson's disease, which is hypersensitivity to copper. aused the childs autism; he said that there was no plausible theory or data after reading the pdf
That's easily shown to be nowhere near as major a factor as you think it is.
Think back and consider the 1970s. Nutrition and sanitation were effectively the same in developed countries as it is now. Measles was a disease that nearly everyone caught at some time. Now it is rare. Go back a bit further and there's still pretty good nutrition and sanitation but there were also a lot of children with polio.
Talk to someone old enough and they will be able to tell you about someone they knew with polio, it was common enough that everyone I've met in their 70s knew someone with polio. Then ask that older person what they think about vaccination. You'll get a better perspective on what you are writing about and realise that you are advocating a lot of suffering and premature death.
Uh huh. And that bit about the "pharmacorp sponsored studies" implies you are absolutely sure that the vaccines didn't cause autism, right? And you find yourself having to explain yourself over and over because your position is so convincingly crystal clear... right?
Did you follow all that or should I start drawing pictures?
Well I don't know. Can you draw? 'Cause you sure can't argue a point.
Breakfast served all day!
If that “medical evidence” came from Elsevier, or Monsanto, etc, it’s worth shit.
Huh? Apples and oranges, as far as I know; they're two entirely different companies.
Elsevier, AFAIK, is just a publishing company which owns a number of academic journals; those journals are peer-reviewed in the usual manner (by academics -- who, if not always competent, are at least basically independent in my (limited?) experience). It's not a pharmeceutical company or anything. So while there might be a lot wrong with the academic publishing system, I don't see any reason to look at a journal that happens to be owned by Elsevier any differently from any other. Unless you really know something I don't.
Monsanto on the other hand is a giant chemical/agriculture/pharmaceutical corporation, and I'd be inclined not to trust anything with their name on it (or money funding it) -- in large part because, IIRC, they've been caught committing various kinds of fraud in the past...
when the public has no recourse against any drugs that the FDA has approved already
I'm confused; what do you mean? In what way does FDA approval shield a company from liability? And, if such a regulatory structure did not exist, what recourse would patients have? The civil courts?
I'm really not seeing your argument...
I was basing my comment on an article I read a few years ago stating that thimerosal was still found in some vaccines being administered at the time but that it was in the proccess of being completely phased out. Thank you for the updated info.
Another poster has provided me with a link to a report that even in the areas where thimerosal was not used the autism rate was still climbing, haven't read it yet.
I am amazed at how one comment about the claim of a thimerosal/autism link has stirred up a hornets nest of responses.
When the FDA approves a product the product also becomes a liability of the FDA, since they were the responsible people at testing it. The companies knowing that basically offset those testing costs to it, and lobby it like I said before.
If the FDA approves a product I think it makes it impossible to sue the company for it, in a governmental court, because it would be akin to discrediting the FDA on its job, a governmental agency. The chances of government prosecuting government in any major way is very unlikely, even more so if its corrupt.
There's nothing special about medication or food that makes it warrant a governmental regulatory body to oversight it. What recourse do you have against a bad shoe-maker? Against a fraudulent car dealer? Do we need oversight agencies for those as well? Maybe we already do have them, idk.
does not say "the vaccine did not cause autism" rather it said "there is no evidence that it caused autism" (paraphrasing is mine). So does it? Well we still don't know. This sounds like a victory for the scientific method to me. Oh, hang on was there any chicken guts in the research? No? Then throw out all the research and find someone to blame. Did I have my children vaccinated? Yes, because the risks of not dong so far outweigh the risks from the vaccines.
Amazing. Mercury, a known neurotoxin, can't be what caused neurological damage. Next, they'll probably say carbon dioxide is bad even though it's used in photosynthesis to generate the oxygen we breathe.
Oh, wait, they've done that. Well, at least the pharma industry will be happy with all this.
ASD is a fairly new, evolving field, where even some basic questions are as yet unsettled. Awareness of ASD as well as the diagnostic methods have been evolving over the last 2 decades. My very vague understanding is that this is the most likely explanation for the change in diagnosis rates.
Finally, if you're the kind of person who likes to go to the sources for medical studies, I'm surprised you were not already long aware that the original study that set off the whole vaccine-autism scare was discredited. It's not like Dr. Wakefield hasn't been in the news...
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
the rate is over 1:100 now
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Thanks for the update, I was just about to use the 1:120 in another reply.
At this rate its going to be 1:1 soon. I wonder if there is some kind of environmental factor like population density that flips some switch to reduce a species population that has become too successful? Kind of like lemmings.
Could you please elaborate when where and how was thimerosal removed? Why is it illogical to think that after so many years (at least a few decades? idk) of using this preservative, the vaccine makers wouldn't continue using it anyway? Has there been a government mandate, with tough enforcement preventing them from doing so? Were people able to sue them if they found it in the vaccines?
I'm not the person that you're replying to, but just thought I'd share this link:
Thimerosal in Vaccines. If you look at the table of contents, there is a table there that shows a list of vaccines and the amounts of Thimerosal in them. The majority of them are free of it. It also shows the date as to when the non-Thimerosal version was approved by the FDA.
The section "Recent and Future FDA Action" also discusses what the FDA has done to remove or limit the amounts of Thimerosal in vaccines.
I'm not going to copy and paste from the article, because I think the article should be read in its entirety. My take on it is that the FDA has not found any strong links between Thimerosal and neurological disorders, but there still needs to be research done into it, so they erred on the side of caution and asked manufacturers to remove it completely, or limit it to trace amounts.
Best "String" Ever!
As to why I'm not totally up to speed, I don't watch TV and lately haven't been keeping to to date on whats happening in ASD research, or most other fields really, too much crap going on in my life distracting me lately.
I think your right about how the diagnosis rate is also impacting the total, but considering the numbers, how did it go from 1:10,000 to 1:100 so fast? Then there is also the mis-diagnoses that happens where a child who gets slotted into the niche of autistic because they are just a little "slow" or "think differently", That might also be throwing the numbers off a little but the rest is just staggering, just the high functional children are going to need a new school systems that can work with their needs, never mind the one who completely cut themselves off from the world.
Just from the range of responses my comment generated it is a very touchy issue for everyone. And they all completely ignored the main point of my comment, that smallpox is has not been eradicated. Funny how people lock on to things that trigger emotional responses and ignore everything else. Kind of makes me wonder if the ASD ratio is going to end up 1:2 or 1:1 for some populations when all is said and done.
I'm so glad the courts came to the conclusion that mercury-based preservatives in vaccines do not cause autism. I guess they should teach scientists a few things about the scientific method? Just make a declaration and the facts will follow!
(FWIW, I don't think it does since the mercury levels are so minute. How many of our parents played with mercury as young children and are just fine (well, as healthy as the American diet of the time allowed ;))?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Healthy can be relative.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Indeed, a classic troll. It is a plainly stated sentiment, not overtly outrageous, yet so easy to pick apart as to attract maximum angry responses.
Try caps next time. It's like yelling.
And hey, idiot mod, He's posting a perfectly valid point in an emotionally neutral language. Go re read the FAQ about moderating.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Maybe the mod is one of the people I ticked off.
Boy, I sure stirred up a hornets nest with just the suggestion that there may have been a link between autism and the vaccines. Another poster pointed me at a report that blows that correlation out of the water, its one of the other reply's to my first comment that started this all off if your intersted.
Also thanks for the stand up, though this is a first, I've never been modded "Flamebait" before. I better get some fireproof underwear if this keeps up.
What is even funnier to me is that not one reply had anything to say about my main comment, that smallpox had not been wiped out.
Scary ignorance?
The other replies had a few good points(yes polio vaccine can eliminate polio, and VAPP disappears when a country switches from OVP to IVP). But your reply... doesn't.
Scientific method: testing a hypothesis. And retesting, and making perturbations and retesting more. Mistakes are made and assumptions are disproved; it is part of the learning process.
No. I'm not talking about testing hypotheses. I'm talking about pens and pizza and doctors washing their hands.(quote:"Despite special education and monitored observation, hand-washing rates were as low as 30% and never went above 48%")
The chemicals prevent secondary infections and are medically proven to not harm the patient.
Say what?
This is the worst post I've ever read on slashdot; what happened to the moderators?
While I can't comment on what you would view as a good post, I hope that those that mod will view my posts in a positive manner.
It's old people having kids. Pretty simple really. There are more people cheating nature and having kids past 30 than ever before. Autism rates go up with older parents, especially the father.
Who the hell said anything about mercury? When I was like 1 or 2 or something, I got a vaccine shot, had an allergic reaction to it, and now I have mild aspergers (and mad programming skills! woohoo). Every other article I've read about this said it was bad reactions to t he vaccines, not some stealthy ingredient that could affect anyway without you knowing it. Plus, I just saw a documentary proving that mercury only makes Johnny Depp crazy. Kudos to anyone who actually gets that joke.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
You raise a valid point, though I really wouldn't call it "cheating nature" since both human male and females are fertile into their forties, with males able to father a child well into their nineties, without any intervention by medical technologies.
I've heard about some studies that show that the older a man gets the more genetic abnormalities are present in his sperm. This would also substantiate your point.
Normaly in nature as males age they loose the ability to procreate not because of their age but due to younger males displacing them in the gene pool, this does not happen as much in humans where fitness as a mate is not governed by physical ability alone but also, and in some cases supplanted by intelligence or just the ability to provide for a family. As exemplified by the older males who are wealthy enough to attract and hold a younger mate that would otherwise go be with someone younger and stronger.
But its not consistent across the board, even couples under 30 are having autistic children, so while the age of the parents does appear to be a factor it does not preclude other factors as well from causing the sudden and drastic increase observed over the last 20 years.
Since increased age has been linked to genetic abnormalities there may also be other environmental factors that cause similar, or identical, damage to the reproductive cells, thus the general increase can be seen as representative of both the "normal" genetic abnormalities found in older parents and the genetic damage caused by some environmental factor or factors.
No mater the final cause there is still much research that must be done on the matter and also the issue of how society is going to deal with the huge influx of autistic people into the general population, it is a simple fact that while some autistic people can adapt and learn to function in society at large their are also many who can not, and society must adapt to them, or deal with the issue another way.
As I indicated earlier, its going to be interesting to see how it all plays out.
My point, which you seem to have missed, was that the autism rate changed, and it occurred around the same time the number of vaccines containing thimerosal given to children was increased. This fact is not changed by any of the medical reports saying there is no connection or what a court may decide.
So? Cell phone use increased in the same period. Why aren't you stating that cell phone use causes autism? There's as much of a link shown as vaccines, and if a random correlation with technology is all you need, that'll do it.
Plus, the rates have remained the same with places that changed 5-10 years ago from the ones with any mercury in them, so while "vaccines" have been not been cleared, there is statistical "proof" that mercury was unrelated to autism. So again, what's your claim? That we don't know, so we should abandon progress until we are sure? That we don't know so it must be vaccines? That we don't know, so we should suspect everything, including cell phone use, DVDs, and anything else that changed, and vaccines are just what you are talking about today, but tomorrow you'll be talking about how a mother's consumption of Starbucks is correlated with autism?
Really, other than random scare-mongering, what is your point?
Just in cased you missed it, I never claimed that the correlation of the change in autism and the use of thimerosal containing vaccines was proof of causation.
You are "fair and balanced" which means you give equal time to nutjobs as the people that are correct. And you complain when people think that's giving validation to the nutjobs. An "open mind" when the vast majority of the evidence points one way is direct support of the nutjobs. So don't defend them then complain when people attack you for defending them...
Learn to love Alaska
Just from the range of responses my comment generated it is a very touchy issue for everyone. And they all completely ignored the main point of my comment, that smallpox is has not been eradicated.
The smallpox, as a disease, has been eradicated in the US. When is the last time someone in the US got it?
Learn to love Alaska
I am amazed at how one comment about the claim of a thimerosal/autism link has stirred up a hornets nest of responses.
That's because there is not now, and has never been, any evidence that thimerosal did anything bad. There is not now, nor has there ever been any causal process for it causing autism. And to assert so when the only study that even hinted at that result was produced fraudulently causes people to get annoyed. It's only emotional idiots looking for something to blame for an illness that ever started this mess. When Jenny McCarthy is the smartest person championing a cause, you know it's not intellectually based.
The real problem is that the US is rooted in blame. Blame others, blame the government, blame blame blame. Anything that happens that's bad needs someone to pay for it. Things don't "just happen" so someone should be held accountable. With that mindset, irrational blame was placed on vaccines. If they'd blamed cell phones or power lines or something that didn't hurt others with their actions, we'd be ignoring them. But they are hurting everyone with their actions. And with absolutely no evidence at all. That's why it causes the rational people to spew venom.
Learn to love Alaska
Try injecting a tin can of tuna .... There might be complications. I prefer the vaccination thankyouverymuch.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Autism Spectrum Disorders are a very diverse set of symptoms ranging all the way from profoundly Autistic, Low Functioning Autistics, LFA, and Rett Syndrome and being completely nonverbal and have almost nonexistent motor skills to PDD-NOS Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified who would appear to be slightly clumsy, not real social, and dislikes being interrupted when concentrating on something.
If Einstein were alive today, he'd probably be diagnosed as Asperger's or PDD-NOS. Many aspects of or modern society actually favor an Autistic cognitive style, Michael Burry is a good example, Scion Capital made 300% while the S&P 500 made 10%. With the computer and Internet, Face-to-Face socialization isn't as necessary as it was twenty years ago.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I took care of some Amish people a few years ago. They generally don't see doctors a lot. THey also have some pretty severe untreated illnesses. Much of the purported increase in Autism is from over diagnosis.
The Amish also don't use plastic much (less exposure to oily plasticizers in their food after microwaving), don't use Teflon coated pans, don't drink bottled water, don't use caffeine, don't use Tide detergetnt, don't watch TV, etc
And since vaccines haven't contained Hg in them since 1999-2000 , why hasn't the rate dropped?
..........FULL STOP.
See this nih.gov article:
Acetaminophen (paracetamol) use, measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, and autistic disorder: the results of a parent survey
The theory is that after they started giving children Tylenol with their vaccinations instead of aspirin due to the Reye's Syndrome scare in the 1980's, that caused the autism rate to spike. Tylenol impairs the liver's ability to purge the additives in vaccines (not just the minuscule amount of mercury but some aluminum-based ones designed to boost immune response so that they can use less vaccine), increasing the risk of side effects. The child will probably run a mild fever if you don't use a med such as aspirin or Tylenol. I'm not clear on whether the fever reducer is simply for the child's comfort or if it's medically necessary.
It's a THEORY. It looks promising. But if we simply shout down people who make logical observations and use "correlation is not causation" as an excuse for not thinking we won't get anywhere. An observation can still be correct even if the reasoning is wrong. Meanwhile, using ibuprofen or naproxen with vaccines, if any fever reducer at all (aspirin allergy is nontrivial), and spreading out vaccinations over time to the maximum recommended extent seems prudent. It does appear likely that immune system dysfunction is key to understanding autism. That's likely why changing diet sometimes helps: most of your immune system is in your gut. Antibiotic overuse could be a factor. Which particular set of problems is affecting a given autistic individual will vary but the immune system appears to be the common theme.
The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf "was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported," Hasting wrote.'" So they didn't present a theory at all.
OP; "Smallpox is wiped out", as in gone completely.
Me:"It still exists, in labs", amending OP's statment.
Now I think I should have titled my comment "Amendment".
You are correct that there have not being any cases anywhere in the WORLD for over 20 years, but that does not mean that the virus no longer exists and could never resurface. If it was truly a non-threat why do they still inoculate US service personnel against it? Maybe because the Smallpox virus has not been wiped out.
I wasn't claiming anything other than facts can not be changed by reports and court rulings.
Thanks to the more rational responses to my comment I was given information I did not having, links to peer reviewed studies on the matter, unlike the other responses.
Over what time span did the autism diagnosis rates jump? And a cite?
Diagnoses exist today for disorders which weren't even recognised less than 30 years ago, e.g. Aspergers, high-function autism, etc. 30/20 years ago autism would only be diagnosed for individuals who were having fairly severe problems interacting with the rest of the world, today we recognise there are individuals who are pretty functional but not quite as capable socially, etc.
I.e. the reason the rates jumped is because the definition of the condition has expanded to cover a wider range of symptoms... You can't directly compare autism diagnosis rates from a significant number of years ago with rates today cause they're not measuring the same thing anymore. (Is my understanding of what the likely explanation is).
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Agreed. Based on the dearth of information available right now, my pat answer is "old people having kids". I'm sure my answer will change as more research is done, or at least become more nuanced.
That doesn't explain autism itself, but it would/could explain why the rates are going up.
I wasn't claiming anything other than facts can not be changed by reports and court rulings.
..." and you'll get much more civility. There are plenty of nutters that believe vaccines are evil, no matter what you tell them or show them in studies and such, and you sounded just like them because you were wrong and appeared very sure of it. Just back off the opinions stated as fact, add in a little self depreciating statements and you'll be fine.
No one, ever, has ever claimed otherwise. That's why you get rude responses. The court holds that to be true. Not that they declare it to be true. One is a finding of fact binding in court, useful only to those that wish to bring a lawsuit in the future, and the other is a statement of fact about the natural world. No one has ever said that a judge could make a ruling and that ruling would have any effect on the natural world. This just shifts the burden of proof from lawsuits. Before, the court held that "vaccine causes autism" and "vaccine doesn't cause autism" to be equal because the court didn't know any better. Now, the standard is "the court will hold that vaccines don't cause autism (unless proven otherwise with clear, consistent, and irrefutable evidence shows the court was in error)." There is no "fact" in that, other than what assumptions the court makes for the burden of proof.
Thanks to the more rational responses to my comment I was given information I did not having, links to peer reviewed studies on the matter, unlike the other responses.
You posted like an ass. You posted your opinion as fact. The "facts" were wrong. And you got indignant when others corrected you. It's your fault for posting something you didn't know enough about, misunderstanding what it means and still adding in your false opinion, and that you are still defending your original posts, even if by justification of ignorance.
Next time, try reading other's responses more, preface your posts with "I haven't followed this in a while, but last I looked
Learn to love Alaska
Not that I'm too concerned with thimerosal, but actually it's just that the US stopped adding it to the MMR vaccine given to children in 1999. It's still used in other vaccines in the US, and continued to be administered to children for many years after 1999, because it was in the stockpiled batches.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Huh? Apples and oranges, as far as I know; they're two entirely different companies.
No shit, Sherlock? How could you possibly thing I would mean that they are the same??
As the rest of your “comment” is based on that misunderstanding, there’s no need to answer it.
They were examples for criminal global companies, that walk over dead bodies like nothing, for their own profit.
Elsevier with publishing lies in fake magazines, as if they were scientific evidence, and using that, to get doctors to prescribe drugs (the addictive but not healing kind) to patients, to hook them on a life-long addiction that won’t heal anything but just hide the symptoms of the disease that now only gets worse faster.
And Monsanto for thinks like genetically altered crops that only survive when you buy Roundup Ready. So the farmers have to buy it. Like extortion. And if they don’t, Monsanto sues them to 10 years in jail for “copyright infringement”. Yeah, you read that right! Because they have a “copyright” on those seeds. And if the wind blows them over to a non-licensed field, you gonna get sued! Also the crops can’t reproduce. So you have to buy new seeds! And the worst of all: Roundup Ready is one of the worst toxic substances on planet earth. If you spray it on your fields, and let goose run trough it, weeks later, they will die nearly instantly. And that is just one of their crimes. The toxic Aspartame, that was once designed as a substance for biochemical war, and then found to be sweet in smaller (but still very dangerous) doses, is another one. It causes cancer and a multitude of other diseases. And the list goes on endlessly.
Of course there are many other companies. But those are the two that are most prominent for creating fake medical “facts”, and killing people with it. They are literally mass-murdering for money. On the Hitler scale.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Right, but the parent was discussing mandatory vaccination because you must get vaccinated to go to school. But since you don't have to go to mandatory vaccination school, you do have options.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Of course now the question is what is causing the increase in autism, if it wasn't the mercury then what else changed?
Sorry, a bit late to the party here.
As another poster mentioned, I think those "autism cases increased from 1:10,000 to 1:100" figures are very suspicious. For one, we've gotten much better at diagnosing autism itself. Better diagnosing means more cases will be found that would have been previously missed. Second, these days people are more likely to get mental health issues checked out, especially developmental issues. And third, the standard for "what is autism" has changed over time, and more symptoms are being classified as autism. Asperger's Syndrome for example is now considered a mild form of autism. Decades ago people with autism might just have been referred to as "a bit slow." It sounds insulting, but you can sort of think of it as over time, lowering the bar to classification. That allows for more people under the umbrella and growing numbers.
If we could somehow apply today's standards to all the cases 50 years ago, I wonder what the numbers would look like.