OT: MMR vaccine not associated with autism, even in at risk children

[LC-88]

swine flu: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/27/science/sci-swine-history27

Anyone remember the Swine Flu Vaccine Program in 1976? I was 12. They had health teams in the parking lot of our high school (Chatham Township) injecting people in the arm with a multi-dose "injector gun" (don't know the correct term). My stupid Mom wouldn't let my brother and I get the shot because she felt that the whole swine flu program was rushed. They shut the program down after 10 weeks cause people died. She was no scientist, but her sister died at age 11 from an experimental flu drug back in the late 1930's. Doctors assured her parents (my grand-parents) that the drug was safe, and would cure the flu. It cured the flu, and destroyed her kidneys. She lingered for about three years, and died on December 7th, 1941. Her name was Nancy. I've inherited Mom's skepticism.

Just putting it out there for informational purposes.

Another tidbit concerning the first polio vaccine. Dr. Ochsner fully believed in the polio vaccine. So much so that he injected his two grandchildren with it. One died, the other contracted polio.

Here is the article from 1955. "... he and the other physicians did not believe that the vaccine was responsible for the boy contracting the disease"

Don't worry. It's safe. Tell that to the poor grand-children.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...wcrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TJgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2043,2589024

 

[Upstream]

SCIENCE DID say

This is a weird discussion. Science doesn't say anything. Science (or more specifically, scientific method) is a way of gaining knowledge through observation and experimentation. Scientists, who are individual people, interpret the data and draw conclusions. Sometimes those conclusions are right, and sometimes they are wrong.

You might have two groups of scientists look at the same data and draw different conclusions. And they might then conduct new experiments to generate more data to help support one of the conclusions. Or you might have a broadly-accepted conclusion, and then someone conducts a new experiment which produces data that doesn't support the broadly-accepted conclusion. So then that conclusion would be challenged and new conclusions drawn. And other scientist would conduct additional experiments to produce data that would support or contradict those conclusions.

In the case of vaccines and autism, if you had different scientists looking at the same data and drawing different conclusions, you'd have reasonable debate. But that is not the case. You have a handful of scientists saying they conducted experiments that produces certain data, and a large number of scientists saying they can't even reproduce the results.





It is like if you suggested that a heavier cannonball should drop faster than a lighter cannonball. So you drop a 10 pound cannonball and a 20 pound cannonball from the top of the Tower of Pisa. And you observe that the 20 pound cannonball hits the ground 5 seconds sooner than the 10 pound cannonball. You now have data to support your hypothesis. This creates a lot of excitement, so a scientist in England tries the same experiment at the Tower of London, and someone in France tries it at the Eiffel Tower. And everyone else who tries the experiment finds that the cannonballs hit the ground at the same time.

Some try the experiment at the Tower of Pisa, to rule out that maybe there was something special in Pisa which gave different results in the first experiment. And some try cannonballs of different composition, size, mass, and shape, to rule out that there was something special about the first set of cannonballs. And all the other cannonballs hit the ground at the same time.

So then your original results get questioned; maybe you did something wrong in the original experiment. And if 1 person in Milan then says they can reproduce the results, you still have everyone else failing to reproduce the results, so the Milan experiment gets questioned too.

And with hundreds of experiments saying the cannonballs hit the ground at the same time, and two experiments saying the heavier cannonball hits the ground 5 seconds earlier, most people draw the conclusion that two cannonballs of different mass will hit the ground at the same time, and the 2 experiments showing different results were flawed. And if you can show how the 2 errant experiments were flawed (maybe someone points out that in Milan, the heavier cannonball was just dropped and the lighter cannonball was tossed upward), then it is even easier to dismiss them.

But you will still have some people claiming that it just makes sense that a heavier cannonball should fall faster, and they'll search the internet and point to the Pisa and Milan experiments as proof, while ignoring all the other evidence, and claiming that pointing out the flaw is the Milan experiment is a conspiracy from the cannonball manufacturers.

 

[MikeRU1766]

This is a weird discussion. Science doesn't say anything. Science (or more specifically, scientific method) is a way of gaining knowledge through observation and experimentation. Scientists, who are individual people, interpret the data and draw conclusions. Sometimes those conclusions are right, and sometimes they are wrong.

You might have two groups of scientists look at the same data and draw different conclusions. And they might then conduct new experiments to generate more data to help support one of the conclusions. Or you might have a broadly-accepted conclusion, and then someone conducts a new experiment which produces data that doesn't support the broadly-accepted conclusion. So then that conclusion would be challenged and new conclusions drawn. And other scientist would conduct additional experiments to produce data that would support or contradict those conclusions.

In the case of vaccines and autism, if you had different scientists looking at the same data and drawing different conclusions, you'd have reasonable debate. But that is not the case. You have a handful of scientists saying they conducted experiments that produces certain data, and a large number of scientists saying they can't even reproduce the results.





It is like if you suggested that a heavier cannonball should drop faster than a lighter cannonball. So you drop a 10 pound cannonball and a 20 pound cannonball from the top of the Tower of Pisa. And you observe that the 20 pound cannonball hits the ground 5 seconds sooner than the 10 pound cannonball. You now have data to support your hypothesis. This creates a lot of excitement, so a scientist in England tries the same experiment at the Tower of London, and someone in France tries it at the Eiffel Tower. And everyone else who tries the experiment finds that the cannonballs hit the ground at the same time.

Some try the experiment at the Tower of Pisa, to rule out that maybe there was something special in Pisa which gave different results in the first experiment. And some try cannonballs of different composition, size, mass, and shape, to rule out that there was something special about the first set of cannonballs. And all the other cannonballs hit the ground at the same time.

So then your original results get questioned; maybe you did something wrong in the original experiment. And if 1 person in Milan then says they can reproduce the results, you still have everyone else failing to reproduce the results, so the Milan experiment gets questioned too.

And with hundreds of experiments saying the cannonballs hit the ground at the same time, and two experiments saying the heavier cannonball hits the ground 5 seconds earlier, most people draw the conclusion that two cannonballs of different mass will hit the ground at the same time, and the 2 experiments showing different results were flawed. And if you can show how the 2 errant experiments were flawed (maybe someone points out that in Milan, the heavier cannonball was just dropped and the lighter cannonball was tossed upward), then it is even easier to dismiss them.

But you will still have some people claiming that it just makes sense that a heavier cannonball should fall faster, and they'll search the internet and point to the Pisa and Milan experiments as proof, while ignoring all the other evidence, and claiming that pointing out the flaw is the Milan experiment is a conspiracy from the cannonball manufacturers.

I think we are discussing two different things.

When I say "science" I am referring to the prevailing opinion of the scientific community for time period we are discussing.

I AM FOR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD... I try to apply it in my life as often as possible. You are missing the context of the conversation. The whole "science" thing came up when I posted links to some articles and a poster responded with "More non-science." This started the whole discussion about "science." Without the proper context of the entire entire conversation within the thread then I could see how you would think it is a weird discussion. It is important to try to follow along from the beginning of conversation even though with this thread I would obviously understand why you didn't as the thread is 6 pages long now.

And for the record the conversation me and a couple people were having had moved away from the whole autism and vaccine thing... and more towards just having a healthy skepticism about what "science" says because there are many examples where big money and religion can influence the findings of supposed independent scientists.

Here is a link to a great modern day example where Glaxo Smith Kline had to admit that they had paid scientists to post in medical journals favorable findings about their medication even though the scientists and GSK KNEW they were lying. But they didn't care. Hence why people shoudl have a healthy skepticism.

 

[Ty Webb]

Lets please be careful about being naive enough to believe that "science" is infallible. "Science" also told us that the Earth is the center of the universe, the globe is flat, and that smoking isn't bad for your health. (Imagine being the Surgeon General!)

The scientific method is an excellent creation and one that I like to apply as much as possible to my own life. But let's be sure not to get lazy and just assume because something calls itself "science" that we automatically should hold that up as 100% correct and infallible.

The Earth being the center of the universe wasn't a scientific conclusion. It was more borne out of religious traditions. It wasn't until "science" was used that it was discovered people were wrong. Same with the globe being flat.

 

[Upstream]

I think we are discussing two different things.

When I say "science" I am referring to the prevailing opinion of the scientific community for time period we are discussing.

I AM FOR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD... I try to apply it in my life as often as possible.

Actually we are pretty much on the same page. (I quoted your post, because it was a convenient way to get into the discussion of scientific method vs the conclusions drawn by scientists.)

If one uses the term "science" to refer to the scientific method, it is meaningless to say it is right or wrong. The scientific method is a method to draw conclusions from observation, and to test those conclusions with more observations. While the conclusions can be right or wrong, the method is neither.

If one uses the term "science" to mean "the prevailing opinion of the scientific community during a certain time period", that is often wrong. That is the whole point of the scientific method, to support or contradict existing theories through observation and experimentation. That is how theories are refined and new theories are created. If the prevailing opinion of the scientific community were never wrong, then the body of human knowledge would be frozen in time.

And you are right that the data from experiments, and the conclusions drawn are often wrong. Sometimes it is just because individual scientists draw the wrong conclusions. Sometimes it is because the study is flawed in some way (such as my example above of the experimenter in Milan dropping the heavier cannonball while tossing the lighter one upward). And sometimes it is because the study is just faked.

So I agree that you need to be skeptical of individual studies. That is why reproducibility of studies is so important. And it is the lack of reproducibility which causes most to dismiss the studies claiming to link vaccines to autism.

 

[willisneverrana43]

. . . . if you had different scientists looking at the same data and drawing different conclusions, you'd have reasonable debate. But that is not the case. You have a handful of scientists saying they conducted experiments that produces certain data, and a large number of scientists saying they can't even reproduce the results. . . . .

You don't understand. This is what we call a gray area. Science is full of gray. And once we step into the gray area, you can make no definitive conclusions. That's science.

 

[MikeRU1766]

The Earth being the center of the universe wasn't a scientific conclusion. It was more borne out of religious traditions. It wasn't until "science" was used that it was discovered people were wrong. Same with the globe being flat.

Yes it was. It was the prevailing majority opinion of science for that time period.

 

[RU4Real]

The last page of this thread got really weird. At this point we should probably just start posting Hot Chicks.

And the argument over which sources are credible in reporting the efficacy of Gardisil is just plain stupid. If you're really interested in the topic (as opposed to just picking something to argue about) then just read the damn clinical trial results.

 

[RU5781]

Big plus one here. I am a big pharma skeptic, but Attkisson (along with McCarthy) are unequivocally frauds that are exacerbating the situation and causing serious harm.

Attkinson is making tons of money with certain endorsements, and even by being paid so she does not speak against certain products.

Pharma skeptic? You're an attorney. Big shock there.
:rolleyes:

 

[Son of Red]

I have four friends with autistic children. All four of them were normal until receiving their "shot schedule" when they were 12 months old. Got a rash near the injection site, erratic behavior and fever, next day not the same. Was it MMR or the mercury preservative, or coincidence? Just anecdotal evidence on my part I guess.

My friends had twin boys in 1991. Low birth weight but otherwise fine. At three months they started having issues. Dr.'s ran a bunch of tests. Discovered very high levels of mercury in both boys. Told their parents "We have no idea in the world how they could have this much mercury in their systems. Can't be the vaccines we gave them at birth and two months." Well turns out they were wrong. They are still both autistic.

Not calling anyone crazy or stupid. Just sharing info. Alot of these studies are either directly or indirectly funded by the drug companies. Go look at the who's who in the CDC and FDA, and you will find it populated by many former pharmaceutical execs and doctors. No conflict of interest.

Did you know that there is more mercury ( a LOT more) in a can of tuna than there ever was in any dose of vaccine?

 

[TonyLieske]

Did you know that there is more mercury ( a LOT more) in a can of tuna than there ever was in any dose of vaccine?

To be fair, probably not a lot of 12-18 month olds eating whole cans of Tuna...

 

[LC-88]

Did you know that there is more mercury ( a LOT more) in a can of tuna than there ever was in any dose of vaccine?

so where did two three MONTH old boys get high levels of mercury in their bodies? it was either the vaccines or their formula. Too young to do tuna. Never heard of mercury in baby formula. To my knowledge the formula wasnt made in China.

 

[RU4Real]

so where did two three MONTH old boys get high levels of mercury in their bodies? it was either the vaccines or their formula. Too young to do tuna. Never heard of mercury in baby formula. To my knowledge the formula wasnt made in China.

What kind of mercury?

 

[MikeRU1766]

What kind of mercury?

The poisonous kind DUH!

Haha only kidding around... don't mind me please continue on with the thread.

 

[RU205]

Hey look!!! This discussion is still going on.

 

[50 yd line RR]

I don't believe this thread is still going.There is a lot of information out there you just have to look for it. Gary Null has three documentaries on the relationship between vaccines and autism: Autism Made in the USA,VACCINE NATION,and SILENT EPIDEMIC you can watch them on youtube.. He also hosts the Gary Null show on wbai 99.5 FM noon time Monday through Friday.His archived shows on 4/8,4/9,/4/13 and 4/20 cover vaccines in depth.
Suzanne Humphries is a MD and also covers the relationship between autism and vaccines you can look her up on youtube also.
When it comes to controversial subjects like this I find you can't tell people one way or another. The information is there you just have to find it for yourself.

 

[50 yd line RR]

Gary Null's archived shows can be found at gary nulls prn website. There are also countless articles
on vaccines and many other topics as well.

 

[coldsprings]

Dr. Kelly Brogan asks some hard questions about vaccine safety and the one-size fits all approach. She provides links to many studies. http://kellybroganmd.com/article/cdc-youre-fired-autism-coverup-exposed/

 

[Abro1975]

Gary Null is a Nut Job.

http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/null.html

http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=8076.0

 

[MikeRU1766]

So what does everyone think about the article about GlalxoSmithKline admitting guilt and being fined 3 billion because they bribed doctors into falsifying their conclusions about GSK's drugs and that they pushed the doctors to prescribe it to people that did not need it. I feel like it got lost in the mix when I posted it on the previous page so many people didn't really respond to it which surprised me because after I read that article MY MIND WAS BLOWN and I have never looked at the healthcare system and medications with the trusting view I used to. Here is the link if you need it... http://www.theguardian.com/business...thkline-fined-bribing-doctors-pharmaceuticals

 

[niarte]

So what does everyone think about the article about GlalxoSmithKline admitting guilt and being fined 3 billion because they bribed doctors into falsifying their conclusions about GSK's drugs and that they pushed the doctors to prescribe it to people that did not need it. I feel like it got lost in the mix when I posted it on the previous page so many people didn't really respond to it which surprised me because after I read that article MY MIND WAS BLOWN and I have never looked at the healthcare system and medications with the trusting view I used to. Here is the link if you need it... http://www.theguardian.com/business...thkline-fined-bribing-doctors-pharmaceuticals

It's awful. Not new news though. You see much more of an emphasis nowadays on disclosure of conflicts of interest and limitations on drug reps presence in healthcare. We haven't had one in my facility in over five years.

 

[50 yd line RR]

Ambro, You site an article written be Stephen Barrett, have you taken a look at his track record? not to good.Did you look at any of Gary Null's work?I listed three full length films he produced and all you can come up with is an article from quack busters?.What about Suzanne Humphries? did you check out her story?
This is how the argument always goes, whenever someone sites per reviewed information showing the relationship between vaccines and autism( or information on any controversial subject). The name calling starts:" he is a quack","he's a nut job","she doesn't know what she is talking about",etc.etc.
Look I know it is a multi billion dollar industry,and they are going to do whatever they have to do to protect it. I get it, but have you ever read the ingredients listed in these vaccines?
Like I said in my original post, the information is there if anyone wants to take the time to look for it.
I prefer to stay out of these arguments people have to look for themselves.I would check out vactruth for starters.

 

[vm7118]

humphries is a nephrologist turned homepath, and a moron. null is a talk show host, and a moron.

the beautiful thing about our society is that you are free to read all you want of their moronic work, and to follow it if you so desire. or you could read and follow hundreds of years of evidence-based medicine, and the doctors that dedicate their lives and careers to it. notice i didn't say "western" or "conventional" medicine, i said evidence based. because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any link between vaccines and autism, or for homeopathy. in fact, the evidence points against it. do you have any doctors in your friends/family? ask them their opinion. there is nobody you know who is more qualified to make a judgment on this.

so do what you want - but keep your unvaccinated kids away from those who truly can't take vaccines for medical reasons. they would be putting the health, safety, and lives of others in danger.

 

[PRH_RU]

As someone who has worked on and made over 13 different vaccines over 15 years and knows ever raw material going into them...this thread makes me laugh...

A child can get as much Mercury from Breast feeding or through the placenta (via the can of tuna their mother ate) as from a vaccine....

If people should be worried about anything...it should be the nutritional supplement industry worth move then vaccines, unregulated and actively working against the CDC/FDA.

 

[50 yd line RR]

PRH have they ever done a double blind study with kids who had the vaccines and kids who didn't?
Let me help you, no they didn't. The only kids in the country who seem to have escaped autism are the amish 0 cases. They do have 8 known cases and the kids were adopted and vaccinated.
You have mercury and aluminum and who knows what.So it is more than one toxin.
Vm71,always when anyone brings a researcher who is investigating the link between vaccines and autism,or any controversial subject the name calling commences.
Again if anyone is interested, Gary Null archives 5/14/15 a2 hour with Bonnie Faulkner,check it out.

 

[Upstream]

Hey look!!! This discussion is still going on.

 

[PRH_RU]

PRH have they ever done a double blind study with kids who had the vaccines and kids who didn't?
Let me help you, no they didn't. The only kids in the country who seem to have escaped autism are the amish 0 cases. They do have 8 known cases and the kids were adopted and vaccinated.
You have mercury and aluminum and who knows what.So it is more than one toxin.
Vm71,always when anyone brings a researcher who is investigating the link between vaccines and autism,or any controversial subject the name calling commences.
Again if anyone is interested, Gary Null archives 5/14/15 a2 hour with Bonnie Faulkner,check it out.

We do double blind studies all the time in pediatric vaccines. Do you know what they look for? Try safety and efficacy.

Get a clue...Autism is a broad spectrum neurological disorder that 30+ years ago most people would have deemed the children as disabled or the "R" word. It has been around a long time we just call it something different and can now "officially" diagnose it.

 

[50 yd line RR]

PRH I got a clue. The info is there.Facts are there. I'm still waiting to hear why the Amish kids have 0% vaccination rate and 0% autism .Why toxicologist say that vaccines are detrimental to a child's development and doctors say their safe. Why, if vaccines were so safe, the gov't exempts vaccine manufacturers form lawsuits due to vaccine injuries.
Look,all I hear from the pro vaccine people on this board is "I have years of experience,it's all good", and so and so, is a "moron" a "quack", an "idiot" etc.etc. but no facts. All I'm saying if you look at the vactruth website or the vaccine library all's you read is one story after another of how vaccines have harmed kids.Check it out.

 

[mal359]

Holy crap there is no way people are this stupid.

Vaccines cause autism the same way that circumcision stops boys from masturbating.

 

[50 yd line RR]

stupid,idiot,moron,etc.etc.

 

[Upstream]

The info is there.Facts are there. I'm still waiting to hear why the Amish kids have 0% vaccination rate and 0% autism .

Facts are more useful if you use real facts.

 

[coldsprings]

Look,all I hear from the pro vaccine people on this board is "I have years of experience,it's all good", and so and so, is a "moron" a "quack", an "idiot" etc.etc. but no facts.

And let's add the baseless chant on this thread that the "science is settled." The great physicist Richard P. Feynman wrote:

“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt...If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”

An interesting question for me is why are so many on this board and elsewhere threatened by those who want to make their own health decisions?

They would respond that they are trying to protect the public health.

But how interested are they really in the public health? Have they given up eating, for example, animals that have been fed antibiotics? Few have. If not they are contributing to the spread of drug-resistant bacteria that is a major health menace.

Here is why I think many react so viscerally to those who make their own health decisions. They are simply not comfortable with making health decisions and thus it is easier to call names then to confront the fact that life is messy and choices need to be made.

Here is an example. Remember when the science was settled about taking a PSA test? Most did what the doctor instructed. Yes, some lives were saved but the evidence is now that the routine PSA test did more harm than good.

 

[derleider]

Facts are more useful if you use real facts.

And let's add the baseless chant on this thread that the "science is settled." The great physicist Richard P. Feynman wrote:

“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt...If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”

An interesting question for me is why are so many on this board and elsewhere threatened by those who want to make their own health decisions?

They would respond that they are trying to protect the public health.

But how interested are they really in the public health? Have they given up eating, for example, animals that have been fed antibiotics? Few have. If not they are contributing to the spread of drug-resistant bacteria that is a major health menace.

Here is why I think many react so viscerally to those who make their own health decisions. They are simply not comfortable with making health decisions and thus it is easier to call names then to confront the fact that life is messy and choices need to be made.

Here is an example. Remember when the science was settled about taking a PSA test? Most did what the doctor instructed. Yes, some lives were saved but the evidence is now that the routine PSA test did more harm than good.

No one is saying the science is settled. What they are saying is that the topic has been extensively researched and no link found. That it would be stupid to not get vaccinated because you think your kid is going to get autism, and that it would be a waste of money to continue researching this particular link.

But of course the same people who dont vaccinate are the ones who spend oodles of money on organics because they think they are pesticide free. Or wont eat GMOs because they think they are evil. Or use nutritional supplements that are usually untested, and frequently dont even contain the ingredient that is supposed to be doing the work.

And yes - of course people dont feel comfortable making healthcare decisions. There is a reason we have doctors and medical researchers. Its the same reason we have mechanics, plumbers, IT security providers, and lawyers - because ultimately its better to have a few people specialize than to have most people try to learn a little bit about everything.

 

[RU4Real]

PRH I got a clue. The info is there.Facts are there. I'm still waiting to hear why the Amish kids have 0% vaccination rate and 0% autism .Why toxicologist say that vaccines are detrimental to a child's development and doctors say their safe. Why, if vaccines were so safe, the gov't exempts vaccine manufacturers form lawsuits due to vaccine injuries.
Look,all I hear from the pro vaccine people on this board is "I have years of experience,it's all good", and so and so, is a "moron" a "quack", an "idiot" etc.etc. but no facts. All I'm saying if you look at the vactruth website or the vaccine library all's you read is one story after another of how vaccines have harmed kids.Check it out.

You're not going to hear it because it's not true. The Amish do not have a 0% vaccination rate (the CDC did a study which disproved this myth) and they do not have a 0% autism rate.

What is true is that their autism rate is roughly 70% below the national average. Because all of the direct linkage, cause & effect studies related to autism have pointed to genetics - and because the Amish are a genetically closed population - it is fully expected that they will have lower-than-normal rates of some condition, just as it is fully expected that they would have higher-than-normal rates of other conditions (such as dwarfism).

Bottom line - you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Loyal_2RU]

Until they have the reason for the dramatic rise in autism than statements like this are completely stupid. Nothing has been eliminated. ..period!

7

The data suggesting teh link was fraudulent, made up, fake. It wasn't real. it was a criminal act. There is no controversy about that. So why would you say this. Someone poisoned the minds of millions of people by making $hit up and publishing it as if it were legitimate data.


I have spoken to the author of the JAMA study that found that the link was not there and discussed in depth her methodology. Her work is solid.

This is evidence that the link is not there.

Strong evidence.

Loyal

 

[coldsprings]

No one is saying the science is settled. What they are saying is that the topic has been extensively researched and no link found. That it would be stupid to not get vaccinated because you think your kid is going to get autism, and that it would be a waste of money to continue researching this particular link.

But of course the same people who dont vaccinate are the ones who spend oodles of money on organics because they think they are pesticide free. Or wont eat GMOs because they think they are evil. Or use nutritional supplements that are usually untested, and frequently dont even contain the ingredient that is supposed to be doing the work.

And yes - of course people dont feel comfortable making healthcare decisions. There is a reason we have doctors and medical researchers. Its the same reason we have mechanics, plumbers, IT security providers, and lawyers - because ultimately its better to have a few people specialize than to have most people try to learn a little bit about everything.

Back to calling names: "stupid to not get vaccinated." That tells me that despite what you say "No one is saying the science is settled" you believe it is.

I eat organic when available and I avoid GMOs. More evidence, I suppose, that I am "stupid." About GMOs why not label ingredients, and let the consumer decide? I know the answer that some who would restrict choice give--"There is no evidence that GMOs are harmful. The science is settled. Monsanto scientists and government regulators know best and the public is too stupid to decide." That should sound familiar. More name calling. More appeals to authority as a substitute for informed choice. And yes, these "same" scientists and regulators told us to eat margarine with hydrogenated oil as a healthy food.

Yes, you are correct, modern society is built on the specialization of labor. It is also built on freedom of choice and informed consent. It was not built on the tyranny of "experts".

 

[derleider]

Back to calling names: "stupid to not get vaccinated." That tells me that despite what you say "No one is saying the science is settled" you believe it is.

I eat organic when available and I avoid GMOs. More evidence, I suppose, that I am "stupid." About GMOs why not label ingredients, and let the consumer decide? I know the answer that some who would restrict choice give--"There is no evidence that GMOs are harmful. The science is settled. Monsanto scientists and government regulators know best and the public is too stupid to decide." That should sound familiar. More name calling. More appeals to authority as a substitute for informed choice. And yes, these "same" scientists and regulators told us to eat margarine with hydrogenated oil as a healthy food.

Yes, you are correct, modern society is built on the specialization of labor. It is also built on freedom of choice and informed consent. It was not built on the tyranny of "experts".

Heres an idea. When I type words, read them as I type them (corrected for typos and bad grammar of course).

You are stupid if you think organics dont contain pesticides and thats why you buy them or you dont eat GMOs because they or the companies that make them are evil. You are stupid if you dont get your kids vaccinated because you think they will get autism. Its only name calling if you think Im doing it lightly or arbitrarily. But Im not. Im making a judgement call that people who make these claims are in fact ill informed or non-intelligent.

Science is never settled, but in this case, there is no reason to suspect that its incorrect. The original claim was bogus. Nothing in the large amount of follow up research has suggested that it might have even been accidentally right.

Yep. Scientists have messed up before. But you know whats even less likely to be right then scientific experts - gut feelings. Evidence based claims are more likely to be right then what you think if right based on your feeling about the world.

How do you make an informed choice by the way? You either have some faith in experts and authority (just different ones than me), or you are just going with your feelings and saying that you are making an informed choice, when in fact you arent. So which is it? You trust other people than I do (people who usually have less evidence, and an equal set of reasons to be biased), or you are just BSing about informed choice, and really you are just making an ideological choice with a veneer of information?

 

[coldsprings]

Heres an idea. When I type words, read them as I type them (corrected for typos and bad grammar of course).

You are stupid if you think organics dont contain pesticides and thats why you buy them or you dont eat GMOs because they or the companies that make them are evil. You are stupid if you dont get your kids vaccinated because you think they will get autism. Its only name calling if you think Im doing it lightly or arbitrarily. But Im not. Im making a judgement call that people who make these claims are in fact ill informed or non-intelligent.

Science is never settled, but in this case, there is no reason to suspect that its incorrect. The original claim was bogus. Nothing in the large amount of follow up research has suggested that it might have even been accidentally right.

Yep. Scientists have messed up before. But you know whats even less likely to be right then scientific experts - gut feelings. Evidence based claims are more likely to be right then what you think if right based on your feeling about the world.

How do you make an informed choice by the way? You either have some faith in experts and authority (just different ones than me), or you are just going with your feelings and saying that you are making an informed choice, when in fact you arent. So which is it? You trust other people than I do (people who usually have less evidence, and an equal set of reasons to be biased), or you are just BSing about informed choice, and really you are just making an ideological choice with a veneer of information?

I do indeed have faith in experts when they place my interests as being as important as their own. That only occurs when there is accountability driven by choice.

My wife and I needed new Nordic skis this winter. I am far from an expert so I trusted LL Bean to select skis to sell that were good value/good quality. Then a conversation with their specialty shopper helped me choose the best ski for our needs. Then when my pair came with a bad binding, Bean shipped a new pair overnight express.

LL Bean has earned my trust and the trust of millions because they are accountable to consumers who have a choice.

Monsanto/ Big Pharma uses the coercive power of government to prevent choice. They are not accountable and consumers have no choice. It is wise to not trust their agenda. And yes, I have no trust in the authorities who are on their payroll through campaign contributions and the revolving door between the regulated and the regulators.

 

[LocalDC]

I am not an expert on statistics, so I wanted to ask the experts...does this study prove it is impossible for a single person to develop autism as a result of the vaccine or is it just talking about probability
also is it discussing all vaccines or just the one mentioned in the headline
because this thread seems to imply that it is blanketing all vaccines and that no one can get autism from vaccines

 

[derleider]

I am not an expert on statistics, so I wanted to ask the experts...does this study prove it is impossible for a single person to develop autism as a result of the vaccine or is it just talking about probability
also is it discussing all vaccines or just the one mentioned in the headline
because this thread seems to imply that it is blanketing all vaccines and that no one can get autism from vaccines

All science is probability. Everything has an error bar. You could never prove that one thing cant cause another thing. You can heavily suggest it. You could even come up with causal mechanisms that eliminate it. But no one is alot of people, and never is a long time.

Its best summed up like this - the concensus of research into the vaccine/autism link shows that their is no statistically relevant link between the two, and that the risk of suffering or causing damage from getting or spreading disease due to NOT vaccinating is in fact much higher than the risk of getting autism by getting it.