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.'"

Comments

Litigious society

[religious freak]

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.

Re:Litigious society

[TwiztidK]

The parents shouldn't be given enough money to become rich but, in the case that the vaccines did cause the child to be autistic, they should be given money to assist with treating their child's autism.

Re:Litigious society

[jfengel]

If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated (and they do; you can't go to school without it), there is at least some burden on them to pay for the negative effects, no matter how well intentioned.

In the US there is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to handle precisely this sort of thing. Some people genuinely are harmed by those well-intended vaccines. They do help out everybody (herd immunity), and everybody pays into the compensation fund, to the tune of 75 cents per shot.

Clearly, that's a tempting pile of money, and desperate parents of autistic children are willing to ignore the data that says quite clearly that there's no connection in order to get to it.

Re:Litigious society

[spun]

It has been a central principle of legal systems world-wide, for several thousand years, that if one is wronged or harmed, one can expect to receive recompense from the perpetrator. When you buy a faulty product, do you expect to get your money back? If a drunk crashes into your car, would you not sue for damages?

What you are advocating is not justice. You are advocating for a complete lack of responsibility for wrongdoers.

Re:Litigious society

[Surt]

Problematic given that lawyers of differential quality have differential cost. So if I try to sue a big corporation, and they decide to run up the court costs into the millions, I'm screwed if I lose? I may as well not sue, no matter how legitimate my claim.

Re:Litigious society

[Martin Blank]

You are required in all US states to provide your child with an education that meets state guidelines. This is usually done via public and private schools, but some choose to home-school their children. In some states, home schooling is allowed only by persons with teaching credentials, meaning that parents must get such credentials if they wish to be their child's teacher, or hire a tutor.

Re:Litigious society

[Sponge Bath]

You have made an informative and unbiased post. Report immediately to the /. reeducation facility.

Re:Litigious society

[guytoronto]

If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated (and they do; you can't go to school without it), there is at least some burden on them to pay for the negative effects, no matter how well intentioned. Why? Look at seatbelts. Required by the government. What if it jams in an accident, and you can't get out of your car, and you are severely burned. Does the government owe you compensation because they required you to wear a seatbelt? Maybe you were burned badly, but if you weren't wearing a seatbelt, you would have been thrown through the windshield and killed in that accident. It's all a big numbers game, and the numbers support forced vaccinations.

Re:Litigious society

[Mister Whirly]

That is for everybody's safety. Could you imagine another outbreak of polio, or mumps, or any other disease that has virtually been stamped out (at least in countries that do immunizations) by immunizing? Sorry, but it is not a right for your child to go to a certain school. If you want to go to a specific school, you must adhere by their rules. I am sure there has to be some alternative schools out there that don't have immunization requirements. You can always home school your child if you really don't want to give them immunization shots as well. But acting like your rights have been violated because you have a medically unproven opinion about immunization, and pretending that public schooling is required by law (it isn't), is dishonest. What about the rights of the other hundreds or thousands of children at the school - the ones that have parents that understand the dangers of not immunizing, and who do adhere to the rules? What if you applied the same logic to another scenario? What if I decided that taking the driver license test would give me cancer, and I decided I could just start driving without ever taking the test. It would be ridiculous, and I would be putting others at risk through my behavior.

Re:Litigious society

[Chris Burke]

So if I try to sue a big corporation, and they decide to run up the court costs into the millions, I'm screwed if I lose? I may as well not sue, no matter how legitimate my claim.

"Loser Pays" only makes sense to people operating under the bizarre delusion that the "winner" and "loser" in a court case are always going to be the same as the one who was right and wrong. Frivolous lawsuits will result in the litigant losing their shirts, and just lawsuits will still prevail.

It's gotta be a lack of experience with the legal system, because just about the first thing any lawyer you hire will do is disabuse you of the notion that being right means being victorious. So even if you walked into the lawyer's office not concerned about paying the other side's fees, once they explain that at the end of it all you may have nothing to show for your efforts but wasted time and money, and that you'll have to pay the other side's costs too, you can bet that'll have a chilling effect on most rational people.

Oh and speaking of rationality, it seems like the "loser pays" advocates have a vastly different impression of what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit or what type of person pursues them than I. What I consider to be a frivolous litigant seems on average to be exactly the kind of person who would ignore the reality their lawyer tries to inject into their head. They're exactly the kind of person who wouldn't care about "loser pays", because they're just so damn sure that cell tower was causing their impotence, or that Three's Company reruns gave them cancer, and they just know that if they get Their Day in Court, then surely The Truth Will Out.

Re:Litigious society

[uncqual]

Ways to address some of the problems of "loser pays" include:

• Limit the amount the loser pays in expenses to be the lesser of what the loser and the winner spent on the case. (This mitigates the "imbalance of resources" problem)
• Allow any party to "opt out" of "loser pays" (and the expense reporting requirements below) but if they lose they still have to pay the full expenses of other parties that didn't opt out (even if those expenses are greater than what they would have paid if they had not opted out) and if they win, they get no reimbursement for their expenses. (This allows one party to mask their expenses and/or avoid the overhead of reporting - but at potential cost)
• Require that each party file weekly "detailed expenses to date" reports electronically with the court and all parties can see the total (but not the detail) of other parties' reports.
• If a lawyer charges their client any contingency fee, that party is ineligible for reimbursement of their legal fees if they win, but if they lose, the lawyer, not the client, pays for the winners' legal expenses. Each party must make an declaration in the initial filing if they will/will not be charging their client an contingency fee. (It should be possible to alter this decision later at the court's discretion, but some "pro rata" rules would need to be established to limit the % contingency and reimbursement based on what was spent before and after the change in this decision.) (This would discourage frivolous lawsuits where the lawyer is willing to spend his/her time in hopes of lucky jackpot)
• Lawyers in "loser pays" cases can not charge their client anything if they win and the loser actually pays all the expenses filed with the court. If a loser defaults on their obligation to pay, perhaps the prevailing party's lawyer can, by prior arrangement, take part of the judgment. (This encourages accurate reporting by all parties).
• Subject expenses to audit by a court approved auditor and limit expenses reimbursable to the winner to "reasonable and necessary" However, "unreasonable" expenses by the loser are still counted for the "lesser of winner and loser expense calculations" - they shouldn't have recorded or incurred any unreasonable or unnecessary expenses. (This will discourage unnecessary expenses and motions)
• If expenses are not recorded in a timely fashion, they would be disallowed for "loser pays" calculations IFF the party that records them late wins (i.e., such expenses won't be reimbursed). (This discourages "late reporting" to game the other party's expectations of their risk).
• Expenses that are recorded and later reversed would be counted (even though subsequently reversed) for "loser pays' calculations IFF the party that records them and reverses them loses. (This discourages reporting of charges "early" to intimidate the other party).
• Parties that intentionally misrepresent expenses or manipulate the timing of their reporting would be subject to sanctions (including being found in contempt of court, fines, removal from the bar, etc).
• If a party sues for $X and ends up being awarded $Y where $Y<$X, only $Y/$X of their expenses will be reimbursed by the loser. (This will discourage exaggerating claims)
• The final "loser" is determined when the last appeal is resolved or the period for filing an appeal has elapsed - intermediate "wins" have no bearing on the final settlement of legal expenses.
• If a defendant makes a financial offer to settle with no other restrictions (such as gag clauses) except that acceptance of the offer completely resolves all claims being litigated, the defendant's liability to pay legal expenses of the plaintiff (because the plaintiff prevails) will be limited. If any settlement amount offer made was greater than or equal to the amount of the final judgment, the defendant would only be liable for the prevailing parties' legal expenses up to the time the first such of

Re:Litigious society

[religious freak]

Let's just carry out your opinion to its logical conclusion. You say people are entitled to millions of dollars each for loss of "quality of life"...

* If each individual were afforded the right to sue for millions of dollars, what would be the effect on the cost to produce a vaccine? Answer: costs rise
* With costs and unknown risk of lawsuits rising, if you were a manufacturer facing lawsuits, would you still make this stuff? (Ignorant people above reference "huge profits", but generic vaccines don't have huge profits, the profits are pretty minimal, and not worth the risk of unknown and massive lawsuits). Answer: Companies exit the market. As prices rise, new ones may enter, but they'd only be willing to sell at the new, higher prices
* With costs rising from lawsuits, supply crunched from manufacturers exiting and lawyers scaring the bejesus out of the public, what do you believe would happen to the percentage of people vaccinated as a percentage of the overall population? Answer: Less people vaccinated
* With less people vaccinated, what are the implications for overall public health? Answer: ??? Well, what do you think?

You're not just damned ignorant, you just don't think from anyone but your own perspective.

I think you may be the one that needs to think past your emotions and consider the wider implications of your position with a logical, economic, public health oriented mentality.

When companies and/or governments get sued the money is not pulled from a magic hat, it raises the cost of the product or service. I wish we in the USA could be as smart as the Euros are on this - this is an area where they're spot on correct. Your mentality is exactly what I was referring to when I referenced a "litigious society". When something like a vaccine goes bad for an individual, I think they should be provided public health and educational assistance, but a "quality of life" allowance in the form of cash is completely inappropriate, IMO.

Re:Litigious society

[compro01]

Umm.. they will be immunized and will therefore not be part of the epidemic?

You assume everyone can get vaccinated, that vaccines are 100% effective, that they do not wear off over time, and that the virus is an unchanging constant that will not mutate around the vaccine.

Re:Litigious society

[budgenator]

I'm sorry, but a vaccine that gives people autism is pretty much the definition of 'defective in design or manufacture.' Not that there is such a thing, but if there were, the company that produced it would be at fault.

Well let's see

Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a British-born surgeon and researcher best known for his discredited work regarding the MMR vaccine and its possible connection with autism and inflammatory bowel disease.[1] Wakefield was the lead author of a 1998 study, published in The Lancet, which reported bowel symptoms in twelve children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, to which the authors suggested a possible link with the MMR vaccine. Though stating "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described," the paper tabulated parental allegations, and adopted these allegations as fact for the purpose of calculating a temporal link between receipt of the vaccine and the first onset of what were described as "behavioural symptoms". Andrew Wakefield

His "test subjects" were attending a birthday party hosted by a lawyer suing drug company over immunizations causing "autism". Wakefield was one of the last authors of the paper published in the Lancet, 10 of the 12 Co-Authors had had their names removed from the paper and finally the Lancet took the almost unprecedented action of officially retracting the paper.

In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.
The Editors of The Lancet The Lancet, London NW1 7BY, UK

Furthermore the British General Medical Council detremined that Wakefield was dishonest, irresponsibile and showed callous disregard for the distress and pain of children.
Autism Spectrum Disorders are genetically based and the rates of diagnosis are increasing long after thimersol has been discontinued in vaccines. It's just coincidence that the symptoms of profound Autism become unavoidably obvious at the same time the MMR is given to toddlers.

Re:Litigious society

[ipquickly]

Could you imagine another outbreak of polio, or mumps, or any other disease that has virtually been stamped out

You do realize that in the US more children get sick from the polio vaccine than from the actual disease.

If suddenly there was an outbreak of polio, I support vaccinating children who have come into contact with that child. But there has been NO naturally ocuring polio in the US for decades. All cases were acquired from the vaccine itself. There is no need for it unless you actually travel to an affected country and meet some of the couple thousand of people still having this disease.

parents that understand the dangers of not immunizing

I find most people to be completely ignorant about immunizations. Many of them just have a religious zeal that if you don't immunize, you must be a 'bad' and 'evil' parent.

medically unproven opinion about immunization

It's proven - immunizations can stop diseases from spreading.
It's proven - immunizations can cause disease.
Is it proven that cigarettes cause cancer?
A few decades ago even doctors were in cigarette ads.

Medical history is filled with cases where the treatment actually caused harm, and those who proposed alternate research and treatment were shunned and laughed at while a few decades later being vindicated as everyone adopted their procedures.

What if I decided that taking the driver license test would give me cancer, and I decided I could just start driving without ever taking the test. It would be ridiculous, and I would be putting others at risk through my behavior.

Why would you think that?
You're ability to drive does not change with a piece of paper in you wallet. The driver's test is there to weed out those who can not drive safely. It does not make you a better driver.

There are people out there without a drivers license who can drive better than most other people. It's just illegal to do so. There are also bad drivers with a license who passed the test because the dmv employee was incompetent. Those people can be a far greater danger than an unlicensed - good driver who drives illegally.

It's misinformed opinions about the reasons behind vaccinations that keep the drug companies happy.
If you want to think that it's "for everybody's safety" - go ahead, but this statement, which is more often than not a "blind faith" statement is the cause that those anti-vaccine zealots (who believe that all vaccines are bad) don't get along with the pro-vaccine zealots (who think that vaccines are the best thing in the world and you are evil if you don't give them to your kids).

Vaccines work. They have stuff in them that is bad. They are overused. They make their companies alot of money.
But they have saved many lives. And hurt others.

I am pro-safe vaccines that are necessary.
Polio is not necessary. But we should have localized supplies just in case, and we should eradicate polio like we did smallpox.
And get those damn chemicals out of vaccines so that I don't have to worry about 'non-medically-proven' side-effects.

Re:Litigious society

[Martin Blank]

It has been pressed, and it has been found to be constitutional in most cases, as least in California.

In re Rachel L., et al., v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles dealt with this. The 2d. District Court of Appeals, in a 3-0 opinion written by Justice Croskey, noted that "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." The opinion addressed several points, including claimed religious exemption, and found that the parents' assertion that they can home school the children due to "sincerely held religious beliefs" doesn't hold up, in part because the assertions (which were not made under penalty of perjury) were too sparse to be taken as conclusive evidence of their beliefs. The sparseness may have included an apparently long string of reasons the parents gave to officials, religious reasons being added only fairly late in the game.

They do make note of an exception for Amish children under the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, decided by the US Supreme Court in 1972. The Amish are able to make limited religious exemption to going to school. However, the Amish in that case still accepted compulsory external education through the eighth grade. It was only after eighth grade that an exemption applied, and only because the Amish way of life rests on "deep religious conviction, shared by an organized group, and intimately related to daily living" which is centuries old. That case involved witness testimony that compulsory education past the eighth grade, at which point Amish children begin learning a trade and incorporating fully into Amish society, would "ultimately result in the destruction of the Old Order Amish church community as it exists in the United States today."

In summary, compulsory education under the tutelage of credentialed teaching professionals is currently seen by the courts, at least in California, as constitutional. The case was remanded to the trial court for factual findings, but the opinion was appealed to the state Supreme Court. I can't find any listings for it there, so I can only presume that it was denied certiorari and the trial courts are sorting it out. If it is still going through the trial courts, the appeals court ruling would hold sway throughout the state.

Re:Litigious society

[luwandah]

Have you ever stopped to wonder why polio is so uncommon in the US? Yep, vaccines.

We are currently seeing a resurgent of measles cases in kids BECAUSE parents are not vaccinating their children due to concerns for vaccines causing autism. This will happen with polio as well. You assume a steady state of population in the US (or other country) without influx of unvaccinated, exposed people.

You fail to realize that not every vaccine works as a post-exposure prophylaxis. There are some that do and some that don't. I don't recall if polio is one of them, but a quick pubmed search could probably find out.

Modern medicine is a field of balanced risks. Every medication I prescribe for a patient has a potential to cause harm. I and the patient have to balance this risk versus the risk of not treating the disease. Absolutely no treatment in medicine is "safe". For most, the benefit outweighs the risk. Even supplemental oxygen can be disastrous in a patient with lung disease.

Re:Litigious society

[_LORAX_]

"You do realize that in the US more children get sick from the polio vaccine than from the actual disease."

That is hard considering US use of the Oral Polio Vaccine was discontinued in 2004 and even then it was not recommended unless the patient in question was at risk because it's known to carry a tiny risk. IVP has been the recommended way to receive the vaccination which has no significant risk except as an egg allergen.

Re:Litigious society

[winwar]

"What public health risk is there really?"

You are kidding, right? Right?

Okay. I am going to assume that you are merely extremely ignorant. The reason for the low public health risk is vaccines and their heavy use.

"Even un-immunized the risks of most sicknesses are quite low to cause any real damage. Measles, Mumps and Rubella generally are low-mortality when generally speaking."

Ever hear of the flu? You know, that seasonal illness that is estimated to kill about about 36K a year. I think you would consider the flu to be a rather low mortality and low risk disease. I wonder what the dead think. That doesn't count the lucky ones who just got to be hospitalized.

For measles: One in 1000 cases of measles results in encephalitis, with a high rate of permanent neurological complications in those who survive. Approximately five percent develop pneumonia. The fatality rate is between one and three per 1000 cases. Without vaccination most people would catch it. What's a couple million cases a year times a few per thousand....

"Yeah, a few kids might be really sick, but if treatment is quick enough, it is easy to contain and cure."

See above.

Re:Litigious society

[AK Marc]

You do realize that in the US more children get sick from the polio vaccine than from the actual disease.

When no one has the disease, then that's a tautology.

If suddenly there was an outbreak of polio, I support vaccinating children who have come into contact with that child.

And that's why I don't want a nutcase like you making decisions that affect others. Vaccinating people after exposure is like insurance companies offering a free oil change with every claim for a totaled car. Too little, too late. You have to vaccinate *before* exposure for there to be an effect. But then, ignorant fools that make policy decisions based on fake emotions grounded in bad data and incurable ignorance are a dime a dozen in the US.

But there has been NO naturally ocuring polio in the US for decades. All cases were acquired from the vaccine itself. There is no need for it unless you actually travel to an affected country and meet some of the couple thousand of people still having this disease.

Then we should stop all vaccinations for everything in the US. After all, it's your own damn fault for coming into contact with them, and you can always wait until you have the disease to get your vaccinations, right?

Medical history is filled with cases where the treatment actually caused harm, and those who proposed alternate research and treatment were shunned and laughed at while a few decades later being vindicated as everyone adopted their procedures.

Yeah. So? You aren't proposing alternate treatment. You aren't advocating any new procedure. We tried "don't get vaccinations" back before we had vaccinations, and guess what? People died. Lots of them. And people were crippled. Lots of them. And you are advocating that. Sure, it may not happen for a generation, but in two generations, when polio was "hiding" in remote locations for 30 years, it'll come back as bad as it was in the early 1900s. There can't be any other option. Unless you eradicate it from the surface of the planet, someone, sometime, will manage to make it to contact an American without immunization who will be in the US or bring it home, and we'll be back where we were. The manner and patterns of travel are such that immunizing after it happens will necessarily kill some people, and you'll have caused that which you are saying here you are opposed to.

I am pro-safe vaccines that are necessary.

That's a meaningless statement. That's true whether you are a pro-vaccine zealot or an anti-vaccine zealot. The only distinction is the definition of "safe" and "necessary." The pro-vaccine nuts think "safe enough" is safe and "necessary" means anyone on the planet has it. The anti-vaccine nuts think "safe" means 1000 years of testing and no person ever dying within 10 years of taking it and "necessary" meaning your neighbor has the disease. But both would agree with your stance, so it's a meaningless statement because it's its own opposite.

Re:Litigious society

[AK Marc]

I'm not sure if you didn't understand me, or purposefully chose to ignore what I said and answer something else. I'll make it more clear. No one has gotten polio in the US from someone infected by polio in the time frame in question. You seemed to only support my statement, and said nothing that contradicted it at all, but did so as if you were correcting me.

A disease, any disease, that has a 100% vaccination rate (and the vaccine is reasonably effective) will have more people harmed by the vaccine than the disease. That's the tautology. There is no "disease" if there is a 100% vaccination rate. Yes, I'm making the obvious distinction that someone harmed by the "disease" is harmed from getting it in the wild, while someone harmed by the "vaccine" is harmed by something related to receiving it, whether an infection from those given by shot, or the disease itself from those vaccines where that's possible. But if everyone's vaccinated, then no one will get it (from the wild). So the vaccine will *always* be worse than no vaccine. Always, in every case. You are using the logical conclusion of vaccines to argue against them. Or, are just having fun arguing against people regardless of what they say.

Nevertheless, for those 144 cases, the cure was worse than the disease.

And the 21,269 in 1952 were better? The sum of all injuries by the vaccine still doesn't add up to one year of the disease in the years before the vaccine. 144? Those particular individuals may be worse off than if they hadn't taken the vaccine, but the millions saved in that time by the vaccine probably outweigh those 144. Or are you not saying that, and you are just bringing them up to prove the point that no one has ever argued against, that vaccines carry risk? Apparently, the only person that ever says "vaccines are 100% safe" is the person that immediately attributes that statement to someone else, then attacks it.

Polio wasn't hiding and only 8 'wild' cases have come to the US in 30 years(reported cases), all of them in the last century.

Again, you must have your mind so closed to what I say that you can only take it in a manner that makes your pre-conceived ideas correct. It's "hiding" outside the US. There were 8 that came in 20 years. All it takes is one and a population that's completely unimmunized. We have proof that people with it come to the US.

Oh I would love it there :)

I left Alaska for some place better. But I keep the link up because that site is run by a friend. That and Alaska isn't bad and I don't want anyone else moving here. ;)

Re:Litigious society

[Ginger Unicorn]

I'll keep an open mind - I'm not sure vaccines either do or don't cause autism.

if you have a genuinely open mind you owe it to yourself to dig a tiny bit deeper and it'll quickly become blindingly clear that they don't. Seriously - the claims of the noisy minority in this issue are absolutely paper thin, and have been conclusively and empirically refuted time and time again.

This won't stop...

[jgreco]

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...

Re:This won't stop...

[martas]

darwin award, perhaps?

Re:This won't stop...

[thms]

That is the mean thing here, the vaccination system can support a certain number of freeloaders, so on an individual level these do not select themselves out of the genepoop. They can rest their hands and still reap the benefits from those who actually take the really really small risk of complications stemming from an inoculation. Risk of catching and dying from an infection c*X%, risk of vaccination complications Y%. But after a vaccination quota of Z% the c modifying the X% outweights the Y% - so you are an egoist and don't go, perfectly logical!

Classical game theory, the Tragedy of the Commons subtype to be precise. The fact that rational individuals all acting in their own self interest (which you can show mathematically) can ruin it for everyone is a very good for cause for government to step in and fix this if the egoism becomes too prevalent.

Now, back to Darwin, on a larger level this can of course endanger an entire species, but also drive selection towards a new species which has the rules of cooperation, i.e. altruism, written into their genes, voilá, social animals!

Re:This won't stop...

[uglyduckling]

The probability is 0%. There is no causal link between the two. They are unrelated disease processes, and have no more link than if you walked under a ladder, had a black cat cross your path, then got bowel cancer. The only thing that has ever raised the possibility of a link is a very small, very biased study by a crackpot doctor who wasn't even a specialist in the field, funded by a group of parents who had an a priori wish to have a link proven. You might as well pick any other unrelated medical intervention in your child with no biologically plausible relation to autism (e.g. having the umbilical cord to less than 5cm length at delivery, to pick something random from thin air) and then refuse to have the umbilical cord cut short in any subsequent children you may have until someone relents and does a study.

Re:This won't stop...

[uglyduckling]

Then your pediatrician and physician need to get a better understanding of basic science. There's about 25 micrograms of mercury in 0.5mL of a vaccine preserved with thimerisol (see FDA & Thimerisol under heading 'Thimerisol as a preservative'). The EPA recommendation is 0.1 micrograms/kg/day maximum mercury ingestion (see Mercury in Fish under heading 'Step 1'.) That means for a 6 year-old child, their weight is estimated as (age + 4)*2=20kg. So 2mcg/day. That means a single dose of an average vaccine would give about 2 weeks worth of mercury ingestion, so unless your child goes and eats a swordfish steak the next day, they're perfectly safe.

I understand the desire to avoid ingesting toxic substances, but it's not necessary to avoid ingesting substances in safe levels. To do so really borders on superstition, where you believe that any amount of a 'bad' substance could be harmful.

Re:This won't stop...

[budgenator]

At the time, it appeared that getting autism from the vaccine was a higher probability than getting the disease itself. For most of these diseases, Autism is more life altering the actual disease (assuming access to first world health care, which I have).

Autism is a spectrum disorder that is almost certainly genetically inherited. What you've actually done was to endanger your child because it's far more likely that an vaccine preventable illness would cause a fever sufficient to cause brain damage than it would for an immunization to have a similar adverse reaction. Many people and organizations have a vested interest in scare-mongering on this and other topics for example

, Autism Speaks has grown into the nation's largest autism science and advocacy organization, dedicated to funding research into the causes, prevention, treatments and a cure for autism Autism Speaks History

yet when you look at their IRS Forms 990 for 2008 you see things like
Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits $17,756,876.
Total fundraising expenses $14,178,307 = 31,935,183 ;
Contributions and grants 65,826,629. ; 31,935,183/ 65,826,629 = 48 % of their revenues goes into salaries and fundraising! The only way you can pull those kind of number is to portray Autism in it's most devastating forms.

Re:This won't stop...

[AK Marc]

The original study hadn't been debunked yet.

It was a study that found what the person doing the study was paid to find, was done by one person finding what they want to find, and wasn't confirmed by anything else ever done before. It was "debunked" long before the fraudster was caught and the paper withdrawn. That you are incapable of evaluating the study, but feel the need to follow it anyway demonstrates something inherent in your personality.

That's the trouble with real studies vs. junk science. The junk science is so much faster to test and publish. The original study was plausible sounding, and I fell for it.

The trouble with real studies is people that want to hear something hear it, and ignore everything else. "Fell for it" indicates that you not only believed the fraud without question, but when hundreds of people claimed it was fraud, you didn't believe them. That's not a problem with science, that's a problem with you personally. You put your children at risk (and others, which is worse) because you believed one man's fraud over hundreds of people with equal pedigrees who spoke against it. Why?

The casual link between the two is within the statistical margin of error, but it does not mean it's 0.

There is no "causal link" at all. It is zero. There is no process ever stated where it could possibly cause what's being asserted it's doing. There have been assertions of "it contains mercury and we know mercury is bad" and such. But nothing where anyone's stated "mercury can cause autism by ..." As such, no "causal link" has ever been indicated by anything other than fraudulent studies, and even then, it was, at most, a correlation that the fraud weakly indicated.

If the problem is so weak that it can't be shown beyond the margin of error, how can it ever be proven? And, if it's so low, why worry?

It does mean that my initial caution was wrong and it put my children at a (very slightly) higher risk.

"Caution"? You irrationally put your children at risk because you are an idiot who believes one fraudulent scientist (and Jenny McCarthy, the poster child for the idiots that are anti-vaccine) over hundreds of scientists and thousands of experts who disagreed. I guess if you have to justify your abuse as "caution" that's ok. But it's a shame that you procreated. The world is worse for it.

"antivax" people

[drDugan]

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.

Re:"antivax" people

[CheshireCatCO]

there is non-zero risk to individuals from any medical treatment,

Yep, something to always remember about any drug you might take or any treatment you might undergo. But it's also worth remembering that there's a non-zero risk to eating food (could be tainted), driving a car, or sticking your face in a fan*. Life is all about balancing the risks, not eliminating them entirely. In some ways, we're victims of our own success at risk mitigation: we've come to view risks as optional rather than a matter of course. (Applies to not just medicine, but also space travel, the way we raise our kids, and pretty much everything else.)

* With a tip of the hat to Frank Drebin, Police Squad.

Re:"antivax" people

[Duradin]

"Chicken pox also has a vaccine, but if you get it as a child you only risk a week at home, some itching, and maybe a scar if your parents can stop you from itching too much."

Actually chicken pox can lead to shingles later on, so it's not just an itchy week at home.

Re:"antivax" people

[NeutronCowboy]

You can still die from chicken pox. Despite the vaccine, about 100 Americans die from it per year.

Re:"antivax" people

[NeutronCowboy]

As does the vaccine. In this case, shingles is tied to the virus itself. Since the vaccine consists of live, but attenuated viruses, the vaccine can lead to shingles just as much as getting chicken pox can.

Re:"antivax" people

[PCM2]

Of course there's a question. It pops up semiregularly. Here in the United States, the most recent debate arose because some schools began to require vaccination for HPV (human papilloma virus). This was controversial because:

1. Only girls can be vaccinated; there is not yet any vaccine for boys.
2. HPV is vilified in our culture as the virus that causes genital warts. It's believed to cause a lot of other things besides, but this is the most widely known effect.
3. Antivax people think vaccinations are dangerous.

The fact that only girls can be vaccinated was an issue for some, but a very minor one. (If a medicine exists that can lower blood pressure but which only really works on people of African descent, that's not racism, no matter what anyone says.)

Most of the vocal complaints tended to focus on the third point: that parents were afraid that more vaccines exposed their children to greater risks. While some dissenters actually believed this, however, this argument also tended to conceal the debate over the second point.

HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. Vaccinating girls against a sexually transmitted disease is tantamount to implying they will be having sex. Vaccinating very young girls, therefore, is absolutely abhorrent and -- to conservative Christians, in particular -- only underscores the moral depravity of modern society.

Now, just to be clear, the reason you want to vaccinate girls against HPV is not to keep them from getting unsightly genital warts when they go out having sex with strange men while they're in primary school. The reason you vaccinate them at a young age is because they're not having sex then, and a vaccine only works before you catch the disease. (Some studies suggest that up to 90 percent of the adult population carries some form of HPV.) And the reason you vaccinate them at all is not to enhance their sex lives, but because if they do catch a certain form of HPV it can lead to papillomas that can be very hard to detect until they turn into cervical cancer, which, if not detected, can kill them stone dead. In other words, this is a vaccine you give someone as a girl to aid her chances of living to become an old woman.

The problem for some, though, is that removing the threat of sexually transmitted disease tends to undermine abstinence-only sexual education programs in the United States, which are a key component of the platforms of the Christian Right and anti-abortion activists. That's right; for some people, the real problem is not that vaccination gets you autism. The problem is that vaccination gets you abortions. They don't like to talk about that, though, because abortion is such a hot-button issue and many on the Left immediately tune out at any whiff of a religious undercurrent in politics. So instead they jump on the bandwagon claiming all vaccinations are "untested," "experimental," "have unknown side effects," etc. Even people who don't believe in religion can fall for junk science.

This is just one example of how these issues can quickly become clouded by politics, but it also demonstrates why we must continue to emphasize the science and the science alone. Vaccines save lives. If you get vaccinated and it doesn't directly save your life, it still might have saved mine (through effects such as herd immunity). People shouldn't die young of any disease, be it mumps, measles, polio, of cervical cancer caused by HPV.

Smallpox is wiped out, should we still immunize for it?

Interestingly enough, in the United States we don't. So I guess the "pro-vax" folks aren't as crazy as the antivax folks want to believe.

Re:"antivax" people

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

As a scientist I recognise the power and safety of vaccines, and I also recognise the logic in your arguments. Most of what you say I do agree with. However, I also recognise the implicit argument in your post--that vaccination should be mandatory and or the antivax crowd should be silenced--and as a human being I'm going to tell you to shove that point of view up your ass.

If you don't like the antivax crowd, you're going to have to tackle them with argument and reason, not with the iron hand of majority rules.

Re:"antivax" people

[ilsaloving]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but isn't the point of an attenuated virus the fact that it is NOT as virulent as it's regular version?

While yes, technically it could mutate and become virulent again, it's significantly less likely to cause shingles as a regular chicken pox virus, for the same reason it's significantly less likely to cause a full outbreak of chicken pox to begin with.

Re:"antivax" people

[NeutronCowboy]

Good grief people, troll isn't a mod for disagree. For anyone interested, here's the CDC link: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/varicella/faqs-nipinfo-varicella.htm
In a nutshell, vaccinated people have had shingles. Whether the risk is identical is unclear at this point, and requires more study.

Re:"antivax" people

[ajlisows]

As a scientist it is likely you work around other scientists. Scientists usually respond to reason.

The types of people who are really against vaccination do not respond to reason. You can show them a scientific paper in a major peer reviewed scientific/medical journal and they will say either "This isn't really a reliable source", "Scientists don't know everything", "Scientists are IN ON IT TOO", or "This video that my friend Matt, who is like so smart, gave me said that this isn't true so it is obviously not true" or "This is just a THEORY. See, it says hypothesis right here. Hypothesis means they are making crap up."

My Sister in law is a really awesome person. She is intelligent, awesome to converse with, and reasonable most of the time. However, she falls for all the "You'll die soon without organic foods", "Vaccines kill thousands", "Don't drink tap water, the government is trying to poison us", "we didn't REALLY land on the moon" or whatever the latest anti-establishment type thing is out there. She is a voice of reason in most discussions but when one of these topics comes up, all semblance of logic fails her. I know another guy with similar tendencies who won't speak to me for weeks if I bring any evidence against his theories.

This is what you are up against with your plan to use argument and reason. Although, I do agree with you that MANDATORY vaccines are a bad thing and could end up being a slippery slope (wildly fictional example: Look! We've found a vaccine to purge the homosexual gene! Put it on the mandatory vaccine list so we can purge this hideous disease from humanity!) At the end of the day I believe individuals SHOULD maintain the right to determine what goes into their bodies, even if they are making what appears to be a poor and misinformed decision.

To tell the truth, I think the constant barrage of scientific studies reported by the mainstream media is to blame. "Eggs are good for you, no wait...Eggs are bad for you, No wait...Eggs are good for you." The content in each of those studies may be COMPLETELY different, but the headlines show scientific studies contradicting each other quite often. This type of thing makes ALL science less credible in the eyes of many. "Bad" Scientists like the idiot who really started this whole vaccine/autism thing make things even worse....especially in regards to what "Peer Reviewed" means. Unfortunately I do not have a solution to this creeping distrust of science.

The urge to lay blame

[spun]

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.

Re:The urge to lay blame

[19thNervousBreakdown]

It's not simply urge to blame, it's also the human tendency to believe something and then do anything possible to not have to change your belief.

Although we've been blessed with the power of rational thought that allows us to override such urges, most people seem loathe to use it in that way.

This won't change anything...

[silverpig]

...because Jenny McCarthy can't read.

Re:vaccines

[hardburn]

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.

Re:look at the amish

[hardburn]

The Amish also don't drive cars. Maybe your mom driving a car while pregnant with you causes autism!

Let me be crystal about this

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Re:Let me be crystal about this

[benjamindees]

You don't think getting jabbed with a needle constitutes environmental stress?

Re:look at the amish

[timmarhy]

ok i'll bite.

1. there are many other factors that are different in the amish lifestyle that could be the reason

2. they are too much of a small sample size compared to the rest of the nation to be useful.

3. the only reason they aren't being wiped out by preventable illness is because WE are protecting them through herd immunity.

Re:"Expert" witnesses for the plaintiffs? WTF?

[thegrassyknowl]

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?

Re:vaccines

[NeutronCowboy]

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.

Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think

[Anonymous Coward]

Look into the HPV vaccines, actual risks.

Yes, let's look at them.

Odds of dying of cervical cancer: 500 to 1.

Odds of dying from the HPV vaccine: 145,000 to 1.

Greed is nothing new

[sjbe]

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.

Re:look at the amish

[GameMaster]

Also, the number of Carribean pirates has dropped since the 1800's. Obviously, it's the lack of pirates that is causing global temperatures to increase.

And the Amish do vaccinate

[NeutronCowboy]

Shoulda known better that the research into Amish autism rates had already been done...

Blame the Lancet

[Pedrito]

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.

Re:Blame the Lancet

[avilliers]

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.

I heard a nice interview with the Lancet editor on this matter. I can't remember where--some podcast, probably AAAS or On the Media.

Anyway, it wasn't unconscionable at all. It's actually a change in the role of scientific journals, and kind of a sad one.

The idea that a scientific journal has a duty to retract a paper just because it's wrong is new ground. As all scientists know, a lot of papers are wrong. The most interesting ones are the most likely to be wrong. Being published by "The Lancet" (or "Science" or "Nature" or "Cell" or whatever) doesn't mean anyone thinks you're right--not the editors and not even the peer reviewers. It means (in addition to "noteworthiness") that you meet certain editorial standards about what data you've presented and how you've communicated it, and what conclusions you've drawn.

As I understand it, the original paper wasn't convincing, but it was interesting. Small group of patients, a surprising correlation, no real mechanism--exactly the sort of thing that warrants further study but means nothing on its own. And scientists in the field would have known exactly how to interpret it. The simple lack of further confirmatory papers--you don't even need debunking papers--would have been a signal to experts that there wasn't any "there" there.

Unfortunately, in between aggressive lobbying by advocacy groups, poor understanding of the scientific process by laymen, a worship of the phrase "peer reviewed paper" and IMHO horrible scientific reporting standards in most non-scientific outlets, a single peer reviewed paper gets weight in policy debates. Examples of using papers to misinform comes up in global warming, creationism, GM foods, and anything else that gets people riled up.

In this particular case, the primary author apparently committed phenomenally bad work, if not outright fraud, his co-authors were embarrassed, and the Lancet withdrew it a few months after the misconduct/fraud was established. Fair enough.

What's sad is what the editor said about future papers--they've learned their lesson, and can no longer assume they are publishing for a scientific audience. The "interesting but probably wrong" hypothesis can no longer be printed, at least not in certain topics. As that happens, the end result of all this is going to be less visibility into the process and more isolation--scientists will communicate interesting ideas verbally at conferences, over e-mail, and through their social networks. People with groundbreaking hypotheses will find it harder to get published, and the non-expert, the scientist on the margins of the field (maybe in industry, maybe in a different field) will find it even harder to learn about the latest thinking.

Re:I find it funny

[techno-vampire]

That people are so quick to blame pharmaceuticals for everything that may happen post vaccination.

The parents in this case are suffering from the logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc, or, "after this, therefor because of this." That is, they believe that the fact that their child developed autism after being vaccinated is proof that the vaccine was the cause of the autism. This makes as much sense as saying that if you get hungry for breakfast after sunrise, the Sun's rising must have caused you to get hungry.

Re:It's not like someone just made this up

[Mr Otobor]

Uh, please tell me you are not referring to the Lancet article by Dr Whackjob (Wakefield for the interested) The one that all the co-authors pulled out of, the Lancet withdrew it's endorsement from, and the author was discredited for not only cooking data but for not revealing that he has both direct and indirect financial conflicts of interest (including, if I remember correctly, a patent application outstanding for a new vaccine... or vaccine preservative... something, I forget.)

All the big, peer reviewed studies have revealed only one, single fascinating correlation between autism rates before and after both mixed and "mercury-containing" vaccines... 0 (or, technically, 0, since I believe in the big British one autism rates continued to climb in the non- or different vaccine group... which the above mentioned Dr. Whackjob then attempted to explain as being because there were still stockpiles of the old vaccine, a claim that was also resoundingly discredited... and so forth.)

Re:look at the amish

[Locke2005]

The US stopped using thimerosal in vaccines in 1999. If it was causing autism, we should have seen a drop in the autism rates to Amish levels by now, 10 years later. Instead, the rates are still going up! Perhaps the increase in autism cases diagnosed since the beginning of the use of thimerosal have more to do with newer diagnostic procedures than with vaccinations.

Re:So what causes Autism anyway?

[seebs]

Tons of research has been done, mostly pointing to combinations of environmental factors and genetics. Last I heard, the big interesting "cause" to look at was Vitamin D -- because while autism isn't more common in Somalia than it is anywhere else, it's much more common among Somalians in Oregon and Sweden than ... Which hints at Vitamin D issues.

Keep in mind that there's no evidence at all that the incidence of autism is increasing, only the diagnosis -- which is to say, obviously, before the notion of "high-functioning autism" or "Asperger's Syndrome" was widely known in the US, obviously very few people were diagnosed as such... So there's probably nothing here to begin with.

Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think

[Pronkzilla]

Many vaccines are simply about money, not health.

If you think preventing cervical cancer is not about health, then you need some of this education you are referring to.

thimerosal removed and did not affect autism rate

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Vaccine Related?

[bcmm]

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.

Some != Most (except for large values of some)

[Thorrablot]

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:

• "Most" of the parents of autistic kids don't buy into the vaccine-causes-autism bunk - only a very vocal minority, which unfortunately our media amplifies
• The mechanism behind autism is, as you undoubtedly know, not well-understood. In the absence of a good understanding, this kind of uninformed speculation thrives.
• Lives have been lost as a result due to botched "Chelation" therapies, and money is being made by the self-styled DAN doctors who tell desperate parents what they want to hear

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.

Re:Correction

[the eric conspiracy]

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

Re:Legalization versus freely available

[phantomfive]

Legal or freely available?

You need to make the supply chain legal, this will break the organized crime supply chains and fix a lot of problems in some of our neighboring countries (and our own). Decriminalization of use without decriminalization of supplying the stuff will only cause more problems. It's one thing if we want to make drugs illegal, but it's not really fair to export all these problems to our neighbors.

Re:I find it funny

[budgenator]

Actually most parents of ASD kids, once they work through all of the denial and bargaining phases knew the child was different from day one; especially if the child wasn't a first child.