Vaccines and Autism

[Fargo]

It was. If you are reading more into it, then you are projecting again.

C'mon man, you were responding to the parent of an autistic kid who wanted thoughts on an article he read; not some uppity cop on the stand persistently fudging that he can smell alcohol through a door.

Do you really maintain that your response should be characterized as "kind"?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This is what I said:

Good grief, is Danny Olmsted still at it? Now it's the Mennonites?

This started as the Amish, now it's the Mennonities. Next the Hutterites?

Amish Autism Clinic: An Advocate for the Amish at a Very Special Clinic - DNA Science Blog

How is telling the OP where this nonsense comes from "unkind"?

Wouldn't it be unkind to give him the false hope and nonsense answers that the hucksters give? The truth cannot be unkind.

There's too much projection going on at INGO.

not some uppity cop on the stand persistently fudging that he can smell alcohol through a door.

Telling the OP the origin of vaccine hucksterism is hardly tearing a cop a new one because he is shining on the jury.

 

[Fargo]

This is what I said:



How is telling the OP where this nonsense comes from "unkind"?

Wouldn't it be unkind to give him the false hope and nonsense answers that the hucksters give? The truth cannot be unkind.

There's too much projection going on at INGO.



Telling the OP the origin of vaccine hucksterism is hardly tearing a cop a new one because he is shining on the jury.

If you had told the OP where the misinformation comes from and explained where it came from, no one would have perceive that as unkind.

Something like:

"OP, these claims that the Amish don't get autism have been refuted repeatedly, they were spread about 10 years ago by a guy named Danny Olmsted who claimed the same thing about the Mennonites.

Here is a link to an article about the Amish and the autism issues they suffer because of a closed gene pool."

Instead, we get unexplained name dropping and an unexplained link. Then repeated reference to the OP's article as nonsense.

Being correct, and being kind not the same thing.

I know I can come off abrasively and as a prick, it comes way too easy with the job that we get paid to do. It is something I constantly struggle with and try to avoid. Let's not pretend that we are being kind when we are really letting the lawyer side do the talking.

 

[ViperJock]

Autism absolutely causes vaccines. The science is incontrovertible.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Being correct, and being kind not the same thing.

The truth can never be unkind especially the truth delivered in a manner than fosters further research and without profanity or even references to Star Wars characters or hot, hot, hot models who peddle false hope from Autism with phony cures.

Being unkind is bombarding the OP with anti-vax hucksterism.

 

[steveh_131]

Here is an actual study that she published: http://www.ms.academicjournals.org/article/article1409245960_Deisher et al.pdf

I see two potential conflicts of interest on her part.

1) If she is planning on selling a competing vaccine, or
2) If she has ethical issues with the use of the aborted cell lines

I haven't yet found evidence of either, but they should be explored further and considered when weighing the impact of her research.

She still posits an interesting hypothesis and I appreciate the OP sharing the link for consideration and education.

 

[steveh_131]

Kirk, Fargo has a pretty good point. Not only is he correct, but he's being kind about it.

 

[Fargo]

The truth can never be unkind especially the truth delivered in a manner than fosters further research and without profanity or even references to Star Wars characters or hot, hot, hot models who peddle false hope from Autism with phony cures.

Being unkind is bombarding the OP with anti-vax hucksterism.

C'mon man, don't BS a fertilizer salesman. "Fosters further research", really?

You and I both know that your initial response was a basic cross examination setup of a person who has stated a position on a topic which the cross examiners knows he has superior knowledge of.

It goes roughly like this with variations:

1. You get a witness who makes a statement you know is vulnerable/wrong. See the OP.

2. You NEVER say it is wrong or God-forbid explain why, instead you reference something about the topic you know he likely will not know of or understand. is Danny Olmsted still at it? Now it's the Mennonites?

3. The witness is then compelled to admit ignorance of what you reference, thereby establishing your credibility as superior to his in the eyes of the jury. See post 8.

4. You then hit on any other points you think he can't answer, and leave him hanging there. This finished up around post 51.

5. At that point, it doesn't matter if the witness concedes he is wrong or not, the jurors have witnessed his intellectual humiliation and are quite convinced that he is wrong. They then don't pay much attention to whatever else he actually said.

I know a certain C.D. Prosecutor who says you do it really effectively to cops all the time on firearms cases.

It is effective and it is part of the job description. It is a great way to win arguments and make points.

It, however, is not a "kind" way to address a parent of an autistic kid who is genuinely trying to figure out why this befell his son.

 

[mbills2223]

I apologize if i was out of line earlier, but this IS a life and death issue for some children, including my child.

 

[steveh_131]

 

[BugI02]

Here is an actual study that she published: http://www.ms.academicjournals.org/article/article1409245960_Deisher et al.pdf

I see two potential conflicts of interest on her part.

1) If she is planning on selling a competing vaccine, or
2) If she has ethical issues with the use of the aborted cell lines

I haven't yet found evidence of either, but they should be explored further and considered when weighing the impact of her research.

She still posits an interesting hypothesis and I appreciate the OP sharing the link for consideration and education.

I will try one last time: From the link in OPs post

"She is also founder of AVM Biotechnology, which is dedicated to the discovery, development, and commercialization of safe, effective, and ethical stem cell technologies for regenerative medicine, oncology, and fully human biologics."

She is not developing vaccines, competing or otherwise. She is developing competing stem cell lines to the ones in common use in research and has developed a theory that those stem cell lines in use in research pose risks because they are derived from fetal tissue. The conflict of interest is that discrediting or raising skepticism about the currently used stem cell lines will directly benefit her company when it begins selling competing, 'uncontaminated' cell lines to researchers.

 

[Fargo]

I will try one last time: From the link in OPs post

"She is also founder of AVM Biotechnology, which is dedicated to the discovery, development, and commercialization of safe, effective, and ethical stem cell technologies for regenerative medicine, oncology, and fully human biologics."

She is not developing vaccines, competing or otherwise. She is developing competing stem cell lines to the ones in common use in research and has developed a theory that those stem cell lines in use in research pose risks because they are derived from fetal tissue. The conflict of interest is that discrediting or raising skepticism about the currently used stem cell lines will directly benefit her company when it begins selling competing, 'uncontaminated' cell lines to researchers.

How exactly is it a conflict of interest to try to develop a better product because you see a problem with the current one? Unless funding/employment is undisclosed, I'm not really seeing the issue here. Every scientific researcher does this. It is how research is both funded and rewarded.

 

[steveh_131]

I understand what she is developing, but these are used for far more than just vaccines. Do you know for certain that hers will be for vaccines in particular? Or could it be for a different use in the same industry? Regenerative medicine and oncology certainly don't seem to fit the bill. Fully human biologics? I'll have to look that one up. I'm looking for a specific link to cell lines used in vaccines.

And even if she is, that is still part for the course in medical research.

 

[BugI02]

Caution. This is not a gentle refutation. You may find it presented in a condescending and infuriating manner. Provocation is not my intent. He knows his stuff.

Religious fundamentalists try to prove fetal DNA in vaccines causes autism and fail ? Respectful Insolence


And to address who this blogger actually is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski

 

[Fargo]

Caution. This is not a gentle refutation. You may find it presented in a condescending and infuriating manner. Provocation is not my intent. He knows his stuff.

Religious fundamentalists try to prove fetal DNA in vaccines causes autism and fail ? Respectful Insolence


And to address who this blogger actually is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski

I have no idea who is right on this, as apparently neither author believes in cites and I don't have a background in the field.

A PHD holds one position, a surgeon/PHD the other. I'm not taking either as gospel.

 

[BugI02]

Although one of my dearest friends has a son with Asperger's, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I'm going to stop arguing now. I can only speak to my own motivations. I feel some things that people grasp at are damaging down the road. Like seeking a cure for cancer in Laetrile was harmful to the people taken in by the hype. But I also know that the human spirit needs hope and by being relentlessly scientific sometimes my only accomplishment is to snuff out that hope. 1DOWN4UP I'm sorry for my part in turning this thread into something more about us than about you and yours. I surely hope science gets a grasp on the underlying why of autism so that progress can follow in treatment of it. A part of me hopes that a breakthrough IS just around the corner. God bless.

 

[steveh_131]

David Gorski (Orac) is such a blustery blow-hard that I have great difficulty taking him seriously on any topics.

apparently neither author believes in cites

Actually, if you read her actual study that I linked (not the verbal interview from the OP) you'll see cites in nearly every sentence.

I haven't had a chance to read the study in detail yet, but when I get time I'd like to read it and Gorski's response and see what I think of it. I'm not sold on the vaccine-autism link and I doubt this will sell me either, but who knows.

 

[chezuki]

David Gorski (Orac) is such a blustery blow-hard that I have great difficulty taking him seriously on any topics.

I know a couple people like that...

 

[1DOWN4UP]

To everyone one on this thread,I am not hurt in any way. I am a newbie,and I am guessing that this topic has come up before.I know that no one was laughing. Please don't take this too seriously. I do enjoy the varied takes on the subject.Thanks again.

 

[CountryBoy19]

It was. If you are reading more into it, then you are projecting again.

The Mennonite nonsense is clearly nonsense.

So you found her study and have debunked it then? Provide us the links and your following research that debunked it, we're curious...

The truth can never be unkind especially the truth delivered in a manner than fosters further research and without profanity or even references to Star Wars characters or hot, hot, hot models who peddle false hope from Autism with phony cures.

Being unkind is bombarding the OP with anti-vax hucksterism.

Give it a rest, it wasn't just a select 1 or 2 people that thought your response was harsh... you came out in typical kirk fashion* right from the start.

* Typical Kirk fashion = I'm a lawyer, I know more than you, you're mentally inferior and I'm going to show you how... even though a lot of what you spew as "fact" is nothing more than your personal opinion or just re-spewed stuff from other sources which you may or may not actually have any first-hand knowledge of...