Vaccines and Autism

[CountryBoy19]

And something tells me the same of you.

You are aware that, regardless of your stance on the subject and whether you "keep an open mind", so far the facts have shown no link. And that remains a fact, whether your support it or not. Again..there is a difference between "being open minded" and disregarding facts.

And I'm sorry I happen to agree with the majority of the worlds smartest human beings and don't believe that thousands of people are just in it to screw us all.

Clearly the thing that you don't understand is that "no link has been shown/proven yet" =/= "there is no link"

To say with absolutely certainty that THERE IS NO LINK like you said up-thread is foolish at best. If, OTOH, you were to say, "There is no proven link and I'm not confident one will ever be found", I could certainly understand the position you're coming from, and I would mostly agree with you. But to say "THERE IS NO LINK" when clearly it's very plausible that a link may be found in the future, would be pretty ignorant... do you understand the difference between the two?

Medical research and technology is continuously improving. For you to imply that "the methods of the past haven't led to the discovery of something therefore there is nothing out there to discover" isn't even worth a response, yet here I am, explaining to you the basics of how history continually repeats itself... people that buck the "general consensus" are losers, hucksters, fools, etc and are ridiculed, until just one of those people discovers something new, the course of history changes, and the fools were the ones doing the ridiculing ...

 

[steveh_131]

I would concede the perception of correlation but I didn't see where tests on these stem cells concluded to the causation of it, was that in there?

I can't imagine how you would perform such a test without purposely damaging human beings, unfortunately.

And I'm sorry I happen to agree with the majority of the worlds smartest human beings and don't believe that thousands of people are just in it to screw us all.

Sometimes that gets you to the answer, it really does. Sometimes there is no profit to be made in pushing propaganda. Unfortunately, in this instance, there is. Did you read my link about the now-proven fraud at the CDC? Those folks threw evidence in garbage cans to hide it.

It's not that every single scientist is in it to 'screw us all'. But scientists have a sense of self-preservation just like the rest of us. And when your boss is angling for a job high up in Merck's vaccine division, publishing research that is harmful to Merck is not going to be high on your bucket list - even if you're a good scientist who genuinely cares about people, as I would bet many do.

Hope that makes some sense. It's been a good discussion, I appreciate the back and forth.

 

[jbmayes2000]

Clearly the thing that you don't understand is that "no link has been shown/proven yet" =/= "there is no link"

To say with absolutely certainty that THERE IS NO LINK like you said up-thread is foolish at best. If, OTOH, you were to say, "There is no proven link and I'm not confident one will ever be found", I could certainly understand the position you're coming from, and I would mostly agree with you. But to say "THERE IS NO LINK" when clearly it's very plausible that a link may be found in the future, would be pretty ignorant... do you understand the difference between the two?

Medical research and technology is continuously improving. For you to imply that "the methods of the past haven't led to the discovery of something therefore there is nothing out there to discover" isn't even worth a response, yet here I am, explaining to you the basics of how history continually repeats itself... people that buck the "general consensus" are losers, hucksters, fools, etc and are ridiculed, until just one of those people discovers something new, the course of history changes, and the fools were the ones doing the ridiculing ...

Oh i'm sorry. To me it's semantics but I won't pretend to act like those statements can't be perceived differently. So to that I'll give it to you.

I do take issue with the bolded though because I'm curious to see your examples of such people. I would agree that over history people with revolutionary ideas were mocked in the beginning (Hawking's ideas were even a little too much for some) but most of those people were never discredited like the people we are referring to. They were challenged by the status quo but were never "exiled" in a way that we see happened to the false study that has since been retracted.

I can't imagine how you would perform such a test without purposely damaging human beings, unfortunately.

Yeah, I don't know enough about getting that in depth with testing but I imagine the hard evidence is somewhere in there and just noticing two trends happening concurrently isn't enough for me to say "it must be correlation".

Sometimes that gets you to the answer, it really does. Sometimes there is no profit to be made in pushing propaganda. Unfortunately, in this instance, there is. Did you read my link about the now-proven fraud at the CDC? Those folks threw evidence in garbage cans to hide it.

It's not that every single scientist is in it to 'screw us all'. But scientists have a sense of self-preservation just like the rest of us. And when your boss is angling for a job high up in Merck's vaccine division, publishing research that is harmful to Merck is not going to be high on your bucket list - even if you're a good scientist who genuinely cares about people, as I would bet many do.

Hope that makes some sense. It's been a good discussion, I appreciate the back and forth.

And I think you would agree we can't label them all bad because there are a few that are. I wouldn't deny there are corrupt people but I would believe that the majority of the majority are in it for the right reasons. I couldn't prove that of course but I like to think optimistically and that we are all trying to help.

 

[steveh_131]

I do take issue with the bolded though because I'm curious to see your examples of such people.

I would ask that you read my thread about Wakefield (with an open mind) and tell me, honestly, if you think the hysterics surrounding him are merited. Not that he was necessarily correct, I'm not arguing that. But is he truly the evil villain that he has been portrayed to be?

Yeah, I don't know enough about getting that in depth with testing but I imagine the hard evidence is somewhere in there and just noticing two trends happening concurrently isn't enough for me to say "it must be correlation".

It is certainly correlation, I think perhaps you meant to say causation. She did propose her theory of the mechanism by which it could be happening. Perhaps further research should be done.

And I think you would agree we can't label them all bad because there are a few that are.

Yes I definitely agree with this, but it does mean that I am forced to search and ask questions because I know for a fact that I can not trust them by consensus alone. So when someone says to me, "The science is settled. There is no question that vaccines are safe and effective." I can not simply accept that at face value. So when I consider the pros and cons of any given vaccine, I must weigh that uncertainty in my decision.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Oh i'm sorry. To me it's semantics but I won't pretend to act like those statements can't be perceived differently. So to that I'll give it to you.

I would offer up an analogy to demonstrate that it's not just semantics, the 2 statements do, in fact, mean very different things... but I fear you will determine my analogy irrelevant to the topic because it would be inconvenient to your position... so I'll just let you wallow in your mudhole of pride believing you've conquered me through superior knowledge...

I do take issue with the bolded though because I'm curious to see your examples of such people. I would agree that over history people with revolutionary ideas were mocked in the beginning (Hawking's ideas were even a little too much for some) but most of those people were never discredited like the people we are referring to. They were challenged by the status quo but were never "exiled" in a way that we see happened to the false study that has since been retracted.

Really? I shouldn't need to provide examples, history is FULL of them and you can't come up with any?

Galileo from wikipedia:

Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[SUP][9][/SUP] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[SUP][9][/SUP] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[SUP][9][/SUP] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences. Here he summarized the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.[SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP]

You're trying to tell me that scientists have never been exiled for opposing the "general consensus" when this one in particular spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Galileo was one of the greatest scientists in all of history, yet he was exiled to house arrest for the rest of his life for his views that bucked the "general consensus". Do you think Galileo is the only one? You'd be a fool to believe that...

 

[indiucky]

I hear you, and I completely understand. Some parents aren't so blessed. Some have to wrestle their adult autistic children to the ground to avoid getting beat up. Some have to put them in homes. They're still a blessing to be sure, but I wouldn't want it to keep happening if it could be avoided. That said, and I think this bears repeating, I do not think that vaccines are a major factor in autism.

I have done my share of wrestling brother...One day you and I will get together and share....(A very rough day happened here, fill in the blanks)

And that's the day I told dad his granddaughter is Autistic and we got some unusual circumstances that were not covered by Dr. Spock's book....

Your are always in my thoughts whenever we have "spells"......Hell of a club huh????

 

[jbmayes2000]

I would ask that you read my thread about Wakefield (with an open mind) and tell me, honestly, if you think the hysterics surrounding him are merited. Not that he was necessarily correct, I'm not arguing that. But is he truly the evil villain that he has been portrayed to be?

No i'm sure it's an overreaction but his paper was retracted and that's never good.

It is certainly correlation, I think perhaps you meant to say causation. She did propose her theory of the mechanism by which it could be happening. Perhaps further research should be done.

Sure.

Yes I definitely agree with this, but it does mean that I am forced to search and ask questions because I know for a fact that I can not trust them by consensus alone. So when someone says to me, "The science is settled. There is no question that vaccines are safe and effective." I can not simply accept that at face value. So when I consider the pros and cons of any given vaccine, I must weigh that uncertainty in my decision.

Fair enough.

I would offer up an analogy to demonstrate that it's not just semantics, the 2 statements do, in fact, mean very different things... but I fear you will determine my analogy irrelevant to the topic because it would be inconvenient to your position... so I'll just let you wallow in your mudhole of pride believing you've conquered me through superior knowledge...

Again, I'm not denying that. *To me* saying, ""There is no proven link and I'm not confident one will ever be found",", you might as well be saying there isn't a link. If i'm confident none will ever be found and indeed, none is found, then "There is no link" would be true, no? I guess i'm living with my conviction without giving possibility.

I'm pretty sure I conceded this to you so i'm not sure how this makes me seem like I conquered anything?

Really? I shouldn't need to provide examples, history is FULL of them and you can't come up with any?

Galileo from wikipedia:

You're trying to tell me that scientists have never been exiled for opposing the "general consensus" when this one in particular spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Galileo was one of the greatest scientists in all of history, yet he was exiled to house arrest for the rest of his life for his views that bucked the "general consensus". Do you think Galileo is the only one? You'd be a fool to believe that...

Yeah except at that time people used bible verses to discredit him and now we actually use real science. I wouldn't call that a fair comparison at all.

 

[churchmouse]

Just reading the thread and having some corn.

 

[steveh_131]

No i'm sure it's an overreaction but his paper was retracted and that's never good.

It's not just an over-reaction. It's propaganda. The very definition.

Yeah except at that time people used bible verses to discredit him and now we actually use real science. I wouldn't call that a fair comparison at all.

This debate isn't scientific. It's political.

 

[mbills2223]

Just reading the thread and having some corn.

I should probably go that route myself

 

[churchmouse]

I should probably go that route myself

Root beer float?????

 

[mbills2223]

Root beer float?????

I wont say no...

 

[churchmouse]

I wont say no...

Me either. I have been thinking about one lately

 

[steveh_131]

I wouldn't want to step into the ring with me either

 

[Expat]

Me either. I have been thinking about one lately

haven't had one of those in a long time...

 

[CountryBoy19]

No i'm sure it's an overreaction but his paper was retracted and that's never good.

Galileo was forced to recant his position as well, did that make his assertions any less true or credible? At the time he was considered a fool, fast forward a couple hundred years and all of the sudden he was a genius ahead of his time. Do you not see the potential correlation?

Again, I'm not denying that. *To me* saying, "There is no proven link and I'm not confident one will ever be found", you might as well be saying there isn't a link. If i'm confident none will ever be found and indeed, none is found, then "There is no link" would be true, no? I guess i'm living with my conviction without giving possibility.

Again, critical reading and comprehension skills are required.

A lack of confidence that a link will be found is NOT the same thing as having confidence a link will not be found. Having confidence is having a reasonable certainty of something.

If we put this all on a spectrum on the right there would be a "confidence a link will be found", on the left would be a "confidence a link will not be found" and in the middle-ground would be "a lack of confidence that a link will be found" or "a lack of confidence that a link will not be found". One has a reasonable certainty, the other does not have reasonable certainty.

Let me better emphasize my position on the issue to help you better understand the difference. My position is that there may be a link between the two, and certainly this doctor's hypothesis sounds plausible. Unfortunately due to the VERY complex nature of microbiology and cellular genetics it's extremely difficult to adequately control all variables in order to PROVE a link. Therefore I'm not confident that a definitive link will be found, I'm hopeful it will be found (a link to what causes autism, not necessarily a vaccine related link), but not confident. Maybe it's semantics to you, I see a clear difference.

That being said, none of this can change the fact that there could be a link and that we just haven't found it yet. Confidence or lack there-of doesn't change a thing. If we never find a link that also doesn't mean there IS NOT a link, it merely means we can't find the link...

Yeah except at that time people used bible verses to discredit him and now we actually use real science. I wouldn't call that a fair comparison at all.

The point is still valid. A scientist, that had reason to believe things were NOT as the current "general consensus" held based upon scientific reasons was ridiculed and 'exiled' because he went against the grain. The people that ridiculed and exiled him were only using what they knew at present to discredit his scientific theory and/or hypothesis. It wasn't until science and technology advanced further were they proven fools. What makes you believe this isn't a repeat of said events? The general consensus of scientists say there is no link, even if their studies are 100% true they are only using what is known to them TODAY, at present. Don't you think it's a bit short-sighted to say, "today's evidence says this, so it must be true and anybody that feels otherwise is a fool"? Certainly you don't believe that we're at the end of discovery and there is nothing left for humans to discover do you?

 

[HoughMade]

I wouldn't want to step into the ring with me either

It reminds me of this:

(hint- you ain't Arthur)

[video=youtube;RG1P8MQS1cU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG1P8MQS1cU[/video]

 

[Alpo]

CB19:

What you cannot say is: Vaccines cause autism.

What people hear with anything less than shoe-pounding-table emphasis: Vaccines cause autism.

There is no proof that autism is caused by any as yet identified agent. To those of us at least somewhat adept in the perusal of research papers, that is significant.

I know Steve is leaning with the lady Doc, but thinking about it, would you award a PhD candidate their doctorate based on that work? I sure wouldn't.

 

[Expat]

Where's 88GT... she was always good in these vax threads.

 

[steveh_131]

It reminds me of this:

(hint- you ain't Arthur)

I would heartily disagree. If you ignore the straw-man misrepresentations of my arguments, nobody has really even touched them.