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

[Buckeye737]

Sharly Attkisson is an Emmy award winning investigative journalist, formerly with CBS. In a new article she cites the many peer-reviewed medical journal articles suggesting links between vaccines and autism http://sharylattkisson.com/what-the-news-isnt-saying-about-vaccine-autism-studies/

I have a relative who works for a local branch of the Health Department. It's pretty much considered common knowledge to employees of the department that vaccines have caused neurological problems. As severe at autism? I don't know, but there are issues with vaccines. The question is one of cost/benefit analysis. Do any potential problems of vaccines outweigh the issues that would arise if everyone stopped getting vaccinated? Most would probably say yes, which is why the issues that have occurred are being minimized publicly.

It's not an issue that can be thrown out there delicately. Can you imagine a Health Department or CDC spokesperson saying "we think there might be some problems with vaccines, but we still prefer that you immunize your children". People would overract and it would be the same as giving a definitive statement.

 

[RcoasterA]

She has been with Jenny McCarthy pushing this stuff for half a decade and is practically a pillar in the vaccination-autism cause. Her arguments have been largely discredited as bias and based on the notion "since it's not been proven it must still be a possibility".

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/anti-vaccine-propaganda-from-sharyl-attkisson-of-cbs-news-2/

 

[RuRoman]

She has been with Jenny McCarthy pushing this stuff for half a decade and is practically a pillar in the vaccination-autism cause. Her arguments have been largely discredited as bias and based on the notion "since it's not been proven it must still be a possibility".

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/anti-vaccine-propaganda-from-sharyl-attkisson-of-cbs-news-2/

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.

 

[RU85inFla]

Thats one shitload of crappy research if she is a fraud.

 

[willisneverrana43]

Sharly Attkisson is an Emmy award winning investigative journalist, formerly with CBS. In a new article she cites the many peer-reviewed medical journal articles suggesting links between vaccines and autism http://sharylattkisson.com/what-the-news-isnt-saying-about-vaccine-autism-studies/

When opinion pieces like this are posted on the opinion-writers own website and not in science journals or respected news sources it raises the "is this BS?" antennae pretty high. But this particular opinion piece has the added assistance from the author's own website of opinion pieces on all the other conspiracies and scandals that the author has "uncovered."

Setting aside the background of nuttiness that the site itself offers, think about the fact that, once again, in a science discussion someone has cited a lay person.

I may have to start linking to the "9-11 was orchestrated by the US Gov't" websites. Boy do they ever cite lots of support.

 

[MADHAT1]

When minds are set one way or another, it is just about impossible to change that mind.
Without positive proof, either way, don't expect anyone in this discussion to change their mind.
Even if valid sources is used to prove a point by some , others will find their own proof to dispute it.

 

[RU85inFla]

When opinion pieces like this are posted on the opinion-writers own website and not in science journals or respected news sources it raises the "is this BS?" antennae pretty high. But this particular opinion piece has the added assistance from the author's own website of opinion pieces on all the other conspiracies and scandals that the author has "uncovered."

Setting aside the background of nuttiness that the site itself offers, think about the fact that, once again, in a science discussion someone has cited a lay person.

I may have to start linking to the "9-11 was orchestrated by the US Gov't" websites. Boy do they ever cite lots of support.

The Forbes article that started this discussion might be a perfect comparison to her article. Two blogs referencing peer reviewed research. Unfortunately coming to different conclusions.Talk about close mindedness.

 

[PSU_Nut]

See you have to be careful.... sure vaccines and autism may have no correlation.

But that doesn't mean that vaccine are effective.

The lead researcher of the vaccine Gardisil came out and said that and best Gardisil is practically useless and at worst the side effects are dangerous.
link is here...... http://www.naturalnews.com/041644_Gardasil_vaccination_scam_HPV_vaccine.html#

Seriously you are going to use naturalnews as a source? The owner of the site also claims AIDS doesn't exist and both 9/11 and sandy hook was government conspiracies.

 

[Upstream]

Thats one shitload of crappy research if she is a fraud.

I certainly don't have time to review all the research she mentioned. So I only looked at the first study on her list: the 1998 study which she says critics reject because it is "old".

But in looking up that paper, I found over 100 follow-up studies that referenced that study. I quickly looked through the abstracts on the follow-up studies, and didn't see any that confirmed the findings of the 1998 study. I looked at the full text of about 20 of the follow-up studies, and none of them could replicate the results of the 1998 study, and several suggested that the original researcher had made an error in the method he used to detect antibodies.

So, Atkisson lists several studies that she says support the link between vaccines and autism. You would figure the first study she lists would be the strongest to support her point, especially since she says the only criticism of the study is that it was old. But obviously her claim that age is the only criticism is a lie, since almost all the criticism is the study can't be replicated.

So I have to conclude you are right: that is a s**tload of crappy research and she's a fraud.

 

[MikeRU1766]

Seriously you are going to use naturalnews as a source? The owner of the site also claims AIDS doesn't exist and both 9/11 and sandy hook was government conspiracies.

Well everybody has their different ways of judging sources credibility so I added some more link for you that touch on the topic of the Lead Researcher for Gardasil coming out to expose dangers and/or inefficiencies.

As for NaturalNews I do not know specifically about their credibility as I do not follow and check their articles as I do sources I regularly use and trust. But I have seen this article/topic discussed many times in many different places so that is why I felt comfortable grabbing it from this source and it seemed the clearest. Anyway 4 different link from 4 different sources are provided below. Great and interesting material...while at the same time scary and upsetting.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...s-gardasil-dangers-exposed-by-judicial-watch/

http://healthwyze.org/index.php/com...ont-work-are-dangerous-and-werent-tested.html

http://tv.naturalsociety.com/lead-developer-hpv-vaccine-admits-useless-dangerous/

http://newswire.net/newsroom/financial/00078179-gardasil-vaccine-exposed-as-dangerous.html

 

[niarte]

More non-science. Here's a link related to a Canadian story that provides a pretty good summary of the Gardasil non-story.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.or...t-vaccine-safety-issues-toronto-star-edition/

 

[PSU_Nut]

Well everybody has their different ways of judging sources credibility so I added some more link for you that touch on the topic of the Lead Researcher for Gardasil coming out to expose dangers and/or inefficiencies.

As for NaturalNews I do not know specifically about their credibility as I do not follow and check their articles as I do sources I regularly use and trust. But I have seen this article/topic discussed many times in many different places so that is why I felt comfortable grabbing it from this source and it seemed the clearest. Anyway 4 different link from 4 different sources are provided below. Great and interesting material...while at the same time scary and upsetting.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...s-gardasil-dangers-exposed-by-judicial-watch/

http://healthwyze.org/index.php/com...ont-work-are-dangerous-and-werent-tested.html

http://tv.naturalsociety.com/lead-developer-hpv-vaccine-admits-useless-dangerous/

http://newswire.net/newsroom/financial/00078179-gardasil-vaccine-exposed-as-dangerous.html

Judicial Watch is a conspiracy theory website. Everything to them is a conspiracy. Then you include two natural stores that just happen to be fearmongers who will just conviently sell you natural cures to save you. The last is the most iron clad source. Newswire.net where anyone with an email address can write an article. It is the Bleacher Report of new sites. Why don't you find a peer reviewed journal? One that doesn't work in conspiracies or try to sell you cures.

 

[MikeRU1766]

Again, first off I do not work in black and white as it seems you do where either a source is a "conspiracy website" and therefore not credible or that a source is peer-reviewed journal and therefore is credible. You have to take every piece of information you can find and apply it to the topic at hand and then the hard part...you have to apply critical thinking and common sense to try to decipher what is really happening.

And additionally, here is a VERY eye-opening article about GlaxoSmithKline being sued for 3 billion dollars for bribing doctors/psychiatrists/scientists and for general corporate misconduct. It is 3 pages long, but the main point that you would/should be interested in is....

"GlaxoSmithKline also paid for articles on its drugs to appear in medical journals and "independent" doctors were hired by the company despite trials that showed it was ineffective, according to prosecutors."

Just because something appear in a medical journal some people then like to hold that up as an infallible source, while condemning other sources....which is obviously ludicrous because any source can be corrupted as shown by the above quote.

The one thing I do agree with you is that peer-reviewed journals can be very helpful as they show other doctors/scientists testing and confirming/denying the proposed hypothesis, but again even this can be corrupted all GlaxoSmithKline would have to do in this case would be to pay 2 or 3 doctors instead of 1.

 

[MikeRU1766]

And is the above article doesn't make you think twice about vaccines and the promises and "scientific" studies that we have been told about vaccines, then I don't know what does.

Again I AM NOT SAYING vaccines and autism have a connection or not.

But I AM saying that I don't think for a second that these big-pharma companies care about improving our overall health as a nation. They care about making money.

 

[Upstream]

Agreed. Chiropractors have a role in HC, but they need to keep quiet about playing the "I'm a doctor" card.

dream on fellas..those days are over
you had plenty of time to get things fixed
you'll still control the money for a while, but many people know the emperor has no clothes
stick to insults..that seems your specialty

Are you suggesting that the role of Chiropractors in health care extends well beyond treating things like musculoskeletal pain? Do you think in the future, chiropractors will provide the primary treatment for infectious diseases, cancer, diabetes, stroke, or coronary disease?

DC -- Still curious about your response to my request for clarification on your comment.

 

[MikeRU1766]

More non-science. Here's a link related to a Canadian story that provides a pretty good summary of the Gardasil non-story.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.or...t-vaccine-safety-issues-toronto-star-edition/

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.

 

[niarte]

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!).

No, science didn't tell us those things. Religion and pre-scientific notions told us the first two. Science corrected it. The last one was the tobacco companies and money. The nature of science is that it's self-correcting. If there was credible evidence that vaccines were associated with autism, I would certainly change my views. The true believers will never change, despite evidence. The lack of evidence for their beliefs are seen as further evidence for the conspiracy.

 

[RUGT]

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.

This is an extremely ignorant and uninformed opinion. No one is saying science is infallible. Just the opposite, actually: Science presents a body of evidence and draws conclusions and theories from this evidence. The validity of these conclusions are based on the strength of the evidence, current scientific understanding, and peer review. The fact that so much literature is currently present disassociating vaccines and autism that operates within the described framework heavily supports the conclusion there is no link. If a study were to come out that said the opposite AND it met the prescribed criteria, than that changes the calculus. However, that has yet to happen, and right now the quality of counter evidence presented are four articles on some quote a researcher made coupled with retracted papers and conspiracy theories. How any rational person with a blank slate on this topic can look at the two sides and have a hard time weighing the evidence is beyond me.

 

[derleider]

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.

Science didn't say any of that. Science in fact had shown that the Earth was round by Roman times. Religion and pre-scientific method theories said the Earth was the center of the universe - science in fact showed that it was not. Science showed as far back as the 1950s that smoking was bad for you, although certain monied interests did their best to muddy the research waters.

Either way - you havent really shown any real science that is a counter point to any of this. Thats the godo thing about science - it does a generally good job of debunking itself when its wrong.

 

[ClassOf02]

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.

I don't think you can say this and then practically apply it to all of our lives.

First of all, science did not tell us any of those things. Religion and tobacco companies were pretty much the culprits of those.

Secondly, if we approached every scientific conclusion with this same degree of skepticism, we may not have discovered (and accepted) penicillin, polio would still exist, and half of us would be keeled over in pain from some infection because we were afraid to take antibiotics.

 

[willisneverrana43]

I certainly don't have time to review all the research she mentioned. So I only looked at the first study on her list: the 1998 study which she says critics reject because it is "old".

But in looking up that paper, I found over 100 follow-up studies that referenced that study. I quickly looked through the abstracts on the follow-up studies, and didn't see any that confirmed the findings of the 1998 study. I looked at the full text of about 20 of the follow-up studies, and none of them could replicate the results of the 1998 study, and several suggested that the original researcher had made an error in the method he used to detect antibodies.

So, Atkisson lists several studies that she says support the link between vaccines and autism. You would figure the first study she lists would be the strongest to support her point, especially since she says the only criticism of the study is that it was old. But obviously her claim that age is the only criticism is a lie, since almost all the criticism is the study can't be replicated.

So I have to conclude you are right: that is a s**tload of crappy research and she's a fraud.

Yes, but she cited lots of stuff. And two blogs say different things. There's always a gray area, and you can't reach definitive conclusions. Science has gotten things wrong in the past. All I'm saying is that there is a debate in the community, the science is inconclusive, there is support on both sides, the world was once flat, the sun once circled the earth, and nobody can ever be sure about anything. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Upstream]

When opinion pieces like this are posted on the opinion-writers own website and not in science journals or respected news sources it raises the "is this BS?" antennae pretty high. But this particular opinion piece has the added assistance from the author's own website of opinion pieces on all the other conspiracies and scandals that the author has "uncovered."

Setting aside the background of nuttiness that the site itself offers, think about the fact that, once again, in a science discussion someone has cited a lay person.

I may have to start linking to the "9-11 was orchestrated by the US Gov't" websites. Boy do they ever cite lots of support.

Yes, but she cited lots of stuff. And two blogs say different things. There's always a gray area, and you can't reach definitive conclusions. Science has gotten things wrong in the past. All I'm saying is that there is a debate in the community, the science is inconclusive, there is support on both sides, the world was once flat, the sun once circled the earth, and nobody can ever be sure about anything. That's all I'm saying.

So your first post seems to indicate that you think Atkisson is BS'ing. Your second post seems to indicate that her claims have validity.

Did you change your mind? Am I missing a nuance? Did someone hijack your computer?

 

[RcoasterA]

Yes, but she cited lots of stuff. And two blogs say different things. There's always a gray area, and you can't reach definitive conclusions. Science has gotten things wrong in the past. All I'm saying is that there is a debate in the community, the science is inconclusive, there is support on both sides, the world was once flat, the sun once circled the earth, and nobody can ever be sure about anything. That's all I'm saying.

That's an ignorant thing to say is all everyone else is trying to tell you. You take a populist unsubstantiated argument, try to apply it to science, and fail. Sources you have cited like to cite a lot of things, it's a common tactic "news" sources like infowars and conspiracy people like to do. By citing a ton of information, it makes it harder to say "No you're wrong" because they try to overwhelm rather than convince. The subject reads an article, sees "Wow that's a ton of information that I can't possibly dig through, but those numbers speak volumes" and then you agree.

This type of argument style is fundamentally flawed, as it looks at quantity over quality and overwhelms an argument by putting the burden on the person the are arguing to counter-point all this worthless trash, which is impossible.

I can say that your populist form of argument is ridiculous and your burden of proof you arbitrarily require science to prove would mean we'd still be in stone age and nothing would ever be proven or accomplished. Remember, gravity is a theory, but you won't find many people who don't believe in it.

 

[derleider]

Yes, but she cited lots of stuff. And two blogs say different things. There's always a gray area, and you can't reach definitive conclusions. Science has gotten things wrong in the past. All I'm saying is that there is a debate in the community, the science is inconclusive, there is support on both sides, the world was once flat, the sun once circled the earth, and nobody can ever be sure about anything. That's all I'm saying.

The world was flat and the sun circled the Earth until people took observations and applied scientific reasoning to them.

And again - we are back to we cant really be sure of anything. Back to pizza and umbrellas.

 

[willisneverrana43]

So your first post seems to indicate that you think Atkisson is BS'ing. Your second post seems to indicate that her claims have validity.

Did you change your mind? Am I missing a nuance? Did someone hijack your computer?

No, see what I'm saying is that you can never ever be sure of anything. You can never prove anything. Maybe math. But that's it. So we haven't proved that vaccines don't cause autism, so we must always, always act as if they may. There's lots and lots of stuff that says that, you know, it could. Sure, you may think that Pluto is not made of green cheese, but I say that you better bring a bottle of wine and crackers when you go there because it just may be. Didn't you see all those studies listed by that blogger lady about autism and stuff? Lots and lots of stuff she cited. And she's not obsessed with only one subject, so don't try that attack. If you carefully review her site, you'll see that she has directed her powerful investigative talents at many other subjects and uncovered the cover-ups and uncertainties that some think are certainties. So another blog post disagreed with here. Big deal. That actually proves that there's no proof. Conflict in the science. Inconclusive. Gray area. Not sure. Can't say otherwise. Uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty.

 

[derleider]

No, see what I'm saying is that you can never ever be sure of anything. You can never prove anything. Maybe math. But that's it. So we haven't proved that vaccines don't cause autism, so we must always, always act as if they may. There's lots and lots of stuff that says that, you know, it could. Sure, you may think that Pluto is not made of green cheese, but I say that you better bring a bottle of wine and crackers when you go there because it just may be. Didn't you see all those studies listed by that blogger lady about autism and stuff? Lots and lots of stuff she cited. And she's not obsessed with only one subject, so don't try that attack. If you carefully review her site, you'll see that she has directed her powerful investigative talents at many other subjects and uncovered the cover-ups and uncertainties that some think are certainties. So another blog post disagreed with here. Big deal. That actually proves that there's no proof. Conflict in the science. Inconclusive. Gray area. Not sure. Can't say otherwise. Uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty.

Actually Godel I think showed that you can't even prove math.

But thats a cop out because no one is saying that things are 100% true or false (or they shouldnt be if they understand how science works). Just that they are true enough within the limits of statistical analysis and current scientific understanding that using limited resources to investigate them, or basing public policy or personal decision on them is a bad idea.

To use your Pluto example. Mass is expensive in rockets. You wouldn't waste it on wine and cheese instead of instruments just on the off chance that all of our known science is wrong, and it really is made of cheese.

 

[iReC89]

Here is a surprising statistic given the emotion on this one topic.

According to The World Bank, which has data on worldwide vaccination rates over time, the US vaccination rate for measles ticked up a percent the year the infamous Lancet paper came out, and has stayed within a percent of that ever since. While its true that rates declined in the UK after the study was released, they remained constant in the US at around 92% for 12-23 month old kids. US measles vaccination rates peaked in the late 80's, a decade before autism was a concern.

Please stop this thread. Its really unnecessary. If the topic of causation was less important to me I could ignore it, but I can't. If you want to hawk your company, promote public health, or flash your science minded allegiance, you need to relate your goals to something other then autism fears, because at this point, you are needlessly trolling autism awareness month.

There is real work to be done on the awareness front, people to thank, goals to set. Calmer heads know what still needs to be studied, and what doesn't, and those people don't give a rats ass about internet banter. If you want vaccination rates to return to 80's levels, you are going to have to go about it in a smarter way then you are now.

 

[TonyLieske]

I may be wrng, but guys I am pretty sure willisneverrana43 is being sarcastic.

 

[J.L. Gotrocks]

I may be wrng, but guys I am pretty sure willisneverrana43 is being sarcastic.

Haha, yeah I thought that was obvious right from the start with the "And two blogs say different things" comment.

 

[RU85inFla]

Actually Godel I think showed that you can't even prove math.

But thats a cop out because no one is saying that things are 100% true or false (or they shouldn't be if they understand how science works). Just that they are true enough within the limits of statistical analysis and current scientific understanding that using limited resources to investigate them, or basing public policy or personal decision on them is a bad idea.

To use your Pluto example. Mass is expensive in rockets. You wouldn't waste it on wine and cheese instead of instruments just on the off chance that all of our known science is wrong, and it really is made of cheese.

Der - you made an excellent point that Science eventually gets it right like it did with cigarettes. Unfortunately the tobacco companies were able to postpone that little finding for what 50 years and billions upon billions in profits. In the 1980's when I was at Rutgers I worked part time in the flavor lab at General Foods. General foods was right on the Turnpike just south of 8A and my dad who worked in packaging research got me the job. I used to make dilutions of chemicals to be used in natural and artificial flavors. I would make the dilutions, mix a bunch of them together, process them in a spray- dryer and wind up with a flavor affixed to a powder that could be mixed into Jello or Tang or Stove Top Stuffing etc. Frequently I would spill some crap that would eat thru the linoleum floor in moments but at 3 parts per billion it tasted just like grape. It was funny how all of these chemicals were known carcinogens but since they were used at such low levels they were all FDA approved for use in foods. I learned on the first day that if we harvested each and every strawberry in the world we could not produce enough strawberry flavor to satisfy the needs of strawberry Jello alone so we needed artificial flavors to make these Franken-foods taste good. At the same time Nutra Sweet was introduced as the new sweetener in Coke. These food scientists throughout General foods took one look at the chemical composition and the consensus was that no way in hell would they feed it to their own kids. However, it was the sweetener of choice in any diet food the company produced for the masses. 35 years later you correctly question what has crap like this done to our bodies and how might it impact our children via the genetics we pass them as adults.

Early in my career in financial services I worked at Household Finance. Their primary banking strategy was to send $5,000 live-checks to poor credit people that owned a home. When they signed the live-check they were effectively accepting a loan at the rate of 28.9% interest or so - depending on the state. After 2-3 years, most people were under water and owed close to or more than the original $5,000 so Household would offer these same people a personal home loan. This was not a mortgage but a loan up to about $15,000 with interest of 16-18% and a lien against you home. After a few years they would offer the homeowner the best deal yet, a mortgage. Wrap up the customers first and their personal home loan into a new 11% mortgage with six points and single premium mortgage insurance (the kind where the uneducated customer paid for 30 years worth of insurance premium when the average loan was for 5 years). BTW - Household was in business for over 100 years arguing in front of every state regulator in every state in the US how their business practices actually helped needy american consumers.

I really have no clue if there is a link or not between vaccines and autism. I do know that the scientists that work in Big Pharma all were educated in the same schools that the tobacco company scientists were educated at. They were educated at the same schools that the food scientists were educated at. The business schools that the guys from Household Finance went to were the same business schools that the guys from Merck go to and the same schools the guys from P&G go to etc. etc. etc.

One of the things mentioned on the Blog was the commentary from the last year or so where a current CDC scientist reported that he was forced to/chose to erroneously report numbers in a CDC study that if corrected would show a significant increase in the rate of Autism amongst African American children after vaccination. I regret that I have not followed this story more rigorously but at the time of its initial report expected to see actual reporting as to the conclusion as well as the cover-up. I recall noting the lack of neither was somewhat surprising.

At the end of the week I'll be 52 and just another old bastard but one thing I have learned in my life experience is that one's convictions about the truth are easily swayed by who is writing their paycheck.

 

[willisneverrana43]

Der - you made an excellent point that Science eventually gets it right like it did with cigarettes. Unfortunately the tobacco companies were able to postpone that little finding for what 50 years and billions upon billions in profits. In the 1980's when I was at Rutgers I worked part time in the flavor lab at General Foods. General foods was right on the Turnpike just south of 8A and my dad who worked in packaging research got me the job. I used to make dilutions of chemicals to be used in natural and artificial flavors. I would make the dilutions, mix a bunch of them together, process them in a spray- dryer and wind up with a flavor affixed to a powder that could be mixed into Jello or Tang or Stove Top Stuffing etc. Frequently I would spill some crap that would eat thru the linoleum floor in moments but at 3 parts per billion it tasted just like grape. It was funny how all of these chemicals were known carcinogens but since they were used at such low levels they were all FDA approved for use in foods. I learned on the first day that if we harvested each and every strawberry in the world we could not produce enough strawberry flavor to satisfy the needs of strawberry Jello alone so we needed artificial flavors to make these Franken-foods taste good. At the same time Nutra Sweet was introduced as the new sweetener in Coke. These food scientists throughout General foods took one look at the chemical composition and the consensus was that no way in hell would they feed it to their own kids. However, it was the sweetener of choice in any diet food the company produced for the masses. 35 years later you correctly question what has crap like this done to our bodies and how might it impact our children via the genetics we pass them as adults.

Early in my career in financial services I worked at Household Finance. Their primary banking strategy was to send $5,000 live-checks to poor credit people that owned a home. When they signed the live-check they were effectively accepting a loan at the rate of 28.9% interest or so - depending on the state. After 2-3 years, most people were under water and owed close to or more than the original $5,000 so Household would offer these same people a personal home loan. This was not a mortgage but a loan up to about $15,000 with interest of 16-18% and a lien against you home. After a few years they would offer the homeowner the best deal yet, a mortgage. Wrap up the customers first and their personal home loan into a new 11% mortgage with six points and single premium mortgage insurance (the kind where the uneducated customer paid for 30 years worth of insurance premium when the average loan was for 5 years). BTW - Household was in business for over 100 years arguing in front of every state regulator in every state in the US how their business practices actually helped needy american consumers.

I really have no clue if there is a link or not between vaccines and autism. I do know that the scientists that work in Big Pharma all were educated in the same schools that the tobacco company scientists were educated at. They were educated at the same schools that the food scientists were educated at. The business schools that the guys from Household Finance went to were the same business schools that the guys from Merck go to and the same schools the guys from P&G go to etc. etc. etc.

One of the things mentioned on the Blog was the commentary from the last year or so where a current CDC scientist reported that he was forced to/chose to erroneously report numbers in a CDC study that if corrected would show a significant increase in the rate of Autism amongst African American children after vaccination. I regret that I have not followed this story more rigorously but at the time of its initial report expected to see actual reporting as to the conclusion as well as the cover-up. I recall noting the lack of neither was somewhat surprising.

At the end of the week I'll be 52 and just another old bastard but one thing I have learned in my life experience is that one's convictions about the truth are easily swayed by who is writing their paycheck.

Unfortunately for your entire point, the arguments generated by the tobacco companies are akin to those used by those arguing the connection between vaccines and autism, or at least the lack of meaningful clarity in the science. Not the other way around.

 

[MikeRU1766]

This is an extremely ignorant and uninformed opinion. No one is saying science is infallible. Just the opposite, actually: Science presents a body of evidence and draws conclusions and theories from this evidence. The validity of these conclusions are based on the strength of the evidence, current scientific understanding, and peer review. The fact that so much literature is currently present disassociating vaccines and autism that operates within the described framework heavily supports the conclusion there is no link. If a study were to come out that said the opposite AND it met the prescribed criteria, than that changes the calculus. However, that has yet to happen, and right now the quality of counter evidence presented are four articles on some quote a researcher made coupled with retracted papers and conspiracy theories. How any rational person with a blank slate on this topic can look at the two sides and have a hard time weighing the evidence is beyond me.

This is an extremely misinformed statement. The poster I was responding to WAS holding up science as infallible. I gave 5 link to articles and his response was "More non-science" thereby insinuating that only "science" can be used to give credence to a point of view. So right off the bat you are speaking for yourself and not staying within the context of the conversation.

And also, I was never involved in the whole vaccine and autism conversation for the exact reason you stated....there is no evidence that I have seen that leads me to believe the 2 are correlated. So please feel free to discuss the vaccine vs autism argument with other posters who ARE saying there is a correlation, but save your typing with me because I had nothing to say about that. Again you did not stay within the context of the conversation which is something to work on because it messed up the whole flow of the discussion.thread.

 

[MikeRU1766]

No, science didn't tell us those things. Religion and pre-scientific notions told us the first two. Science corrected it. The last one was the tobacco companies and money. The nature of science is that it's self-correcting. If there was credible evidence that vaccines were associated with autism, I would certainly change my views. The true believers will never change, despite evidence. The lack of evidence for their beliefs are seen as further evidence for the conspiracy.

I don't think you even realize that you just became the PERFECT EXAMPLE of the point I was making. You just said that "Religion and pre-scientific notions told us the first two." That insinuates that what they were doing in the 1400 and 1500's wasn't "science" and only what we are doing in modern days in "correct science." THAT IS THE FUNNIEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD! Of course what they were doing back then was science, the notion that this was "pre-science" is literally laughable. Additionally, you are missing the whole point that the same way that we can look back at past "science" and see supposed serious flaws in their thinking and thought processes... that in 100 years people are going to be able to look back at our current "science" and laugh at some of the stuff we believe. That is why I say you cannot just hold up "science" as being infallible.

And please don't get confused. I LOVE the scientific method. Like I stated in my previous post I love to apply it as much as possible to my life. But there is a difference between going through life thinking skeptically and using critical thinking to come up with your views of the world compared to just say that because the CDC tells us something that is it "science" and therefore infallible.

 

[MikeRU1766]

No, science didn't tell us those things. Religion and pre-scientific notions told us the first two. Science corrected it. The last one was the tobacco companies and money. The nature of science is that it's self-correcting. If there was credible evidence that vaccines were associated with autism, I would certainly change my views. The true believers will never change, despite evidence. The lack of evidence for their beliefs are seen as further evidence for the conspiracy.

Additionally we are on the same page more than it may seem at first glance. You just correctly pointed out that tobacco companies and their money influenced "science" and we able to influence it so much to the point that the Surgeon General of the United States of America said that "Smoking does not pose health risks."

This is exactly why I am saying just because the CDC puts out the science of the day and says that vaccines and effective and safe...does not mean you should just blindly trust this because it is science. Obviously, like you correctly stated money can easily influence the scientific community. So in the same way tobacco companies back in the day influenced science, is it that hard to believe big-pharma is influencing science today. ESPECIALLY AFTER YOU READ THAT GLAXOSMITHKLINE article where they admit to PAYING SCIENTISTS TO POST FAVORABLE MATERIAL TO JOURNALS as well as to post "Independent studies" that are really just paid for op-eds by GlaxoSmithKline.

 

[MikeRU1766]

Science didn't say any of that. Science in fact had shown that the Earth was round by Roman times. Religion and pre-scientific method theories said the Earth was the center of the universe - science in fact showed that it was not. Science showed as far back as the 1950s that smoking was bad for you, although certain monied interests did their best to muddy the research waters.

Either way - you havent really shown any real science that is a counter point to any of this. Thats the godo thing about science - it does a generally good job of debunking itself when its wrong.

Again you are basically making the same mistake the other poster is making. SCIENCE DID say that the world was flat and that Earth was the center of the universe. A small minority of scientists did not just accept prevailing SCIENCE and thought for themselves and came up with opposing theories. And what thanks did they get? They were mocked, attacked, and called crazy for their new opinions.....

SOUND FAMILIAR?!

As well as the other poster....me and you agree more than I think you even realize. You just said the same thing that I was saying..... that science can be influenced by outside forces and therefore you must always keep a healthy amount of skepticism. Is it that hard to believe that big pharma money is influencing vaccine studies now.... the same way religion and money influenced science back in the day?

 

[MikeRU1766]

I don't think you can say this and then practically apply it to all of our lives.

First of all, science did not tell us any of those things. Religion and tobacco companies were pretty much the culprits of those.

Secondly, if we approached every scientific conclusion with this same degree of skepticism, we may not have discovered (and accepted) penicillin, polio would still exist, and half of us would be keeled over in pain from some infection because we were afraid to take antibiotics.

See above two posts lol.

And your second point is not correct. There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. What you are describing is unhealthy skepticism. You are describing a scenario that people are such skeptics that they throw out one of the KEY parts of the scientific method which is observation. If people are being such skeptics that they are making opinions based on random thought...rather than observation.... I would not describe that as skepticism.

 

[RU85inFla]

Unfortunately for your entire point, the arguments generated by the tobacco companies are akin to those used by those arguing the connection between vaccines and autism, or at least the lack of meaningful clarity in the science. Not the other way around.

Please explain why that's unfortunate? The point is that the almighty dollar makes the ethics and the unbiased interpretation of data a little fuzzy sometimes - I mean all of the time. There are many many examples of biased arguments on both sides of the equation.

In the world of data analysis there is a ton of grey. Sampling methodologies, dealing with missing data or incomplete data, unexpected external factors, etc. etc. etc. and there are smart people that have no problem making the necessary assumptions that will stear the analysis in their favor and then put their hand on the bible and defend those assumptions.

Unfortunately many don't understand this.

 

[MikeRU1766]

More importantly though to all this .... what do people think about GlaxoSmithKline being caught red handed and having to ADMIT that they were able to pay doctors to create tainted "independent studies" and that they were able to convince psychiatrists to throw away there morals and responsibility to their clients for a measly trip to the Bahamas?!

The first time I saw that article it blew my mind and I literally stopped in my tracks for a minutes to just fully grasp what that means for this country and humankind.

 

[niarte]

I don't think you even realize that you just became the PERFECT EXAMPLE of the point I was making. You just said that "Religion and pre-scientific notions told us the first two." That insinuates that what they were doing in the 1400 and 1500's wasn't "science" and only what we are doing in modern days in "correct science." THAT IS THE FUNNIEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD! Of course what they were doing back then was science, the notion that this was "pre-science" is literally laughable. Additionally, you are missing the whole point that the same way that we can look back at past "science" and see supposed serious flaws in their thinking and thought processes... that in 100 years people are going to be able to look back at our current "science" and laugh at some of the stuff we believe. That is why I say you cannot just hold up "science" as being infallible.

You really have this wrong. Anyone who believes in the scientific method would not hold science up as infallible. Scientists modify their thinking when new evidence comes along. However, the thinking that you are referring to really is pre-scientific. You certainly can find "learned scholars" of the day who would have made assertions that the sun revolved around our flat earth, but those ideas weren't science based. They were based in belief systems. When bona fide mathematical and astronomical observations, as opposed to magic, are used, the results are different and real. I'm sure the disciples of Mesmer, Hahnemann (homeopathy), D.D. Palmer (chiropractic) all thought of themselves as scientists (well maybe not Palmer), but they did not apply scientific principles to their work. Would you call astrology science? It's a magical belief system.

Even scientists can be fooled too. Look up N-Rays. That's why you need reproducibility in experiments, double-blinding, appropriate statistical analysis, and an understanding that one study doesn't make the literature.

It sounds like you have an interest in critical thinking. If you really want to learn more, have a listen to the podcast "The Skeptics Guide to the Universe." It's outstanding.

 

[MikeRU1766]

You really have this wrong. Anyone who believes in the scientific method would not hold science up as infallible. Scientists modify their thinking when new evidence comes along. However, the thinking that you are referring to really is pre-scientific. You certainly can find "learned scholars" of the day who would have made assertions that the sun revolved around our flat earth, but those ideas weren't science based. They were based in belief systems. When bona fide mathematical and astronomical observations, as opposed to magic, are used, the results are different and real. I'm sure the disciples of Mesmer, Hahnemann (homeopathy), D.D. Palmer (chiropractic) all thought of themselves as scientists (well maybe not Palmer), but they did not apply scientific principles to their work. Would you call astrology science? It's a magical belief system.

Even scientists can be fooled too. Look up N-Rays. That's why you need reproducibility in experiments, double-blinding, appropriate statistical analysis, and an understanding that one study doesn't make the literature.

It sounds like you have an interest in critical thinking. If you really want to learn more, have a listen to the podcast "The Skeptics Guide to the Universe." It's outstanding.

First, I just want to make it clear.... I did NOT hold up science as infallible... you insinuated it in a previous post. But anyway it seems that it happened inadvertently because you seem like you are a follower of the scientific method and therefore you would know science is definitely NOT infallible.

The other thing is that for some reason you seem to only think that "science" is exactly how we practice it now at that if anyone was doing anything else then it wasn't science or it was "pre-science."

What the people were doing back in the day to determine that the world was flat and the earth the center of the universe, etc WAS SCIENCE as per their understanding and methodologies of that time period. Of course now looking back it seems silly, but that is only because we have advanced our sciences to where our methodologies and understanding are drastically different.

And in 100 years... a lot of what we will think we know now... will be proved wrong by future "scientists," but that doesn't mean that we are doing today is "pre-science" as you would call it.

Anyway I just wanted to try and clear that somewhat obscure, but important point up. Thank you for the podcast I am always looking for good things to listen to while driving so that seems like an awesome option for me.. much appreciated.