Vaccines and Autism

[chezuki]

This correlation is backed by science, hence the difference in how it is accepted.

This should be you from this thread...

 

[HoughMade]

This should be you from this thread...

[thread crossover]

If that had been an F-35, he wouldn't have had to eject.

 

[david890]

So here is what is important Kirk freeman do u have kids? If so did u vaccinate them? If so good for u they are your kids and chose to do what u think is right. On the other hand this is a free country and everyone should be able to decide what they want to do with there own kids. LEt them chose freely. You vaccinated yours so now u think there safe from the diseases don't worry about any one else's

So, the kids have no say in what happens? Obviously, kids can't advocate for themselves, so it's left to the rest of society to defend them against parents who turn against accepted scientific practices. Yes, this is a free country, but there are social contracts that shouldn't be ignored. Some kids can't be vaccinated due to existing health issues, and we shouldn't let them suffer because a group of parents decided to rely on herd immunity instead of the vaccine.

 

[Denny347]

This should be you from this thread...

 

[Alpo]

I don't see you guys superimposing silly things on this polilo chart:

Does this correlation mean anything to you? Or do you summarily dismiss it the same way you dismiss any that question your worldview?

Even though Germ Theory had been around for over 100 years, that didn't penetrate down to the level of 1950's moms very well. There was a great hue and cry about swimming holes and polio. And then there was the polio scare in the late 50's that closed many chlorinated public pools for a summer.

So, a correlative statistic, in arrears, might be swimming activities over the period.

 

[steveh_131]

So, a correlative statistic, in arrears, might be swimming activities over the period.

So would I be correct to say that you reject that correlation as evidence that vaccines 'eradicated' polio?

 

[mbills2223]

I would really appreciate it if you would detail what you mean by 'backed by science'.

Vaccine science. We know how the immune system works. I'm happy to elaborate further, just let me know

 

[steveh_131]

Vaccine science. We know how the immune system works. I'm happy to elaborate further, just let me know

Great, I actually agree. We're finding common ground.

So we see a correlation. Is that correlation meaningless? No, it's not meaningless but it's also not conclusive. But we need to understand the system in order to form a hypothesis to explain that correlation. In the case of the Polio chart, vaccine science explains that correlation, as you have stated.

Similarly, this doctor found a correlation between aborted fetal cells and autism rates. She understands the system and she formed a hypothesis to explain that correlation. She has the same scientific standing with her claim that we have with the 'vaccines eradicated polio' claim. We have a correlation and a scientific mechanism to explain it.

Is this conclusive yet? No. Next we need to study the statistical analysis and account for and control any and all confounding variables that could also explain the correlation.

Has this happened with the claim that aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines are causing autism? No. Has it happened with the claim that the polio vaccine eradicated polio? No. This leaves me unconvinced of both claims.

What am I missing that causes you to have such complete confidence that vaccines eradicated polio, but to reject the study that I posted earlier?

 

[Alpo]

So would I be correct to say that you reject that correlation as evidence that vaccines 'eradicated' polio?

No you would not. Shame on you.

 

[steveh_131]

No you would not. Shame on you.

Explain why.

 

[Alpo]

I assume we don't have to have a correlation/causation discussion. The Salk vaccine development included a blind test on 1.8 million children. I don't have the details (or a reference to cite) on that test, but there was a high degree of confidence that the vaccine was effective.

Many other reporters, MD's, scientists, etc., describe other environmental factors also resident at the time, such as the conversion of cesspool/well systems to centralized public water/sewer systems. But while these systems did in fact improve overall water quality, there was no "blind" at the time. The only method to draw conclusions on the implications of such systems is after-the-fact statistical analysis.

The Salk and Sabin vaccines worked. They can be tested today and their results are repeatable. That is science. The results are not falsifiable.

 

[steveh_131]

I assume we don't have to have a correlation/causation discussion.

That is exactly the discussion we are having.

We have a correlation. We have a hypothesis of a causative mechanism. But we haven't controlled the variables.

I agree with you that vaccines can be effective at preventing disease. But that isn't the point in contention. The argument made by the pro-vax crowd is that polio will return in those high levels if everybody doesn't get vaccinated. To demonstrate that, you'd have to demonstrate quite strongly that the polio vaccine is solely responsible for the disappearance of Polio. And even highly regarded scientists of Jonas Salk's time didn't agree that it was.

 

[Alpo]

Are we talking about polio? If so, the blind study IS a causative analysis. If you are talking about autism, your doctor has no discrete evidence of her theory. She has a statistical model which might be indicative of something, but I'm not sure what. She has no lab work supporting her results that I can see.

 

[steveh_131]

Are we talking about polio? If so, the blind study IS a causative analysis. If you are talking about autism, your doctor has no discrete evidence of her theory. She has a statistical model which might be indicative of something, but I'm not sure what. She has no lab work supporting her results that I can see.

Yes, we are talking about Polio. Yes, it shows that the mechanism is effective. Does that mean the vaccine campaign was effective? Scientists at the time questioned it. Much of it was done poorly, and some kids were even infected with Polio by the vaccine.

So yes, the vaccine can work. However, there are many good reasons to question the assertion that it is solely responsible for the decline of polio - and in questioning that, you must question the assertion that if the 'herd' doesn't all vaccinate, we'll have another 'epidemic' on our hands.

 

[JettaKnight]

I don't think that is what he was/is saying. I also think you know exactly what he was saying and you're just trolling ...

Oh yes he was!

Steve's mindset is, "I do what I want as long as I don't direct impact others. Every person for himself and his family."

You get to choose what company your child keeps.

If that is your greatest concern, then man up and take control.

What crap? If you're concerned with the lifestyles of others, don't allow your child around people with those lifestyles.

Seems simple to me.

If your fear of germs is really this crippling, keep them home. You have every right to do so. You will never be able to control and/or assess the immune system function of other children. Do they eat enough vitamins? Do they eat too much sugar? Do they get enough sun? Exercise? All of these affect the immune response.

As if everyone else should hide, take extra precautions or suffer. It's the same libertarian BS - I'll do what I want as long as there's not a provable connection to others harm or lost prosperity. ...And I seriously don't understand the gratuitous nobility of questioning authority.


My biggest complaint is the hypocrisy of his "weigh the pro's and con's" statement. It carries the air of being so open minded and so defiant of blind authority, yet is myopic as a shrew. All of his posts are anti-vax. He may make claims about being open minded, yet he refuses to accept that there's a very, very real possibility vaccines are safe. Why else would someone hold so vehemently to a position? Saying, "I don't know the answer" while at the same unleashing an attack on those that critique the scientific papers isn't congruent.

Weighing the pro's and con's of vax'ing is like weighing the pros and cons of snake handling. With Black Mambas. Sure, it's a deadly, aggressive snake that injects a huge amount of poison. And sure that poison will lead to agonizing death, or at least an agonizing hospital stay and some permanent damage. However, on the other hand, it's possible that handling Black Mambas can give you Xray vision.

I don't think I'm exaggerating too much. Seriously, these are some bad diseases that threaten to make a comeback. Polio can kill more than Autism...


Me? I'm closed minded here. I've seen enough, read enough, know enough to be convinced there's no link. At some point the possibility is so infinitesimal that it's not even worth considering.

 

[steveh_131]

Study up on some history, if you're interested: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1961/03/05/page/62/article/the-truth-about-the-polio-vaccines

 

[JettaKnight]

Yes, we are talking about Polio. Yes, it shows that the mechanism is effective. Does that mean the vaccine campaign was effective? Scientists at the time questioned it. Much of it was done poorly, and some kids were even infected with Polio by the vaccine.

So yes, the vaccine can work. However, there are many good reasons to question the assertion that it is solely responsible for the decline of polio - and in questioning that, you must question the assertion that if the 'herd' doesn't all vaccinate, we'll have another 'epidemic' on our hands.

So in order to prop up your argument that vaccines are dangerous you now feel to need to reduce their viewed effectiveness?


You can't make your team score anymore points, so to even out the playing field you want the scorekeeper to take away points from the home team?

 

[steveh_131]

Steve's mindset is, "I do what I want as long as I don't direct impact others. Every person for himself and his family."

That is incorrect. I do what I believe the Bible instructs me to do. Every person for God, then family. Himself last. That is my personal moral code. Let's not confuse that with my stance on the role of government.

As if everyone else should hide, take extra precautions or suffer.

Yes, I do believe that people should take responsibility for themselves and their children. Expecting everyone around you to have top-notch immune systems is unrealistic, especially with decline of nutrition in our nation.

My biggest complaint is the hypocrisy of his "weigh the pro's and con's" statement. It carries the air of being so open minded and so defiant of blind authority, yet is myopic as a shrew. All of his posts are anti-vax. He may make claims about being open minded, yet he refuses to accept that there's a very, very real possibility vaccines are safe. Why else would someone hold so vehemently to a position?

I hold vehemently to it because I believe in transparency and truth, and I oppose propaganda and dishonesty. Especially from our government and its cronies.

This topic has become to one-sided that it is almost laughable to attempt to have a discussion about it. "Vaccines are safe and effective. Repeat after me. Vaccines are safe and effective."

You want to chant it with the rest of the herd? Go ahead. I want to see the proof. I don't trust someone because he's a doctor any more than I trust the guy fixing my car because he works at a shop. Neither one of them has my, or my children's best interests at heart. And protecting them is my job, and a far more important job than protecting my car.

Saying, "I don't know the answer" while at the same unleashing an attack on those that critique the scientific papers isn't congruent.

I'm not 'attacking' anyone. This is exactly the kind of religious fervor I'm talking about. When did I 'attack' anyone? Because I ask questions? Because I request reason and evidence when people make assertions?

 

[steveh_131]

So in order to prop up your argument that vaccines are dangerous you now feel to need to reduce their viewed effectiveness? You can't make your team score anymore points, so to even out the playing field you want the scorekeeper to take away points from the home team?

I don't have a team, this isn't a game, and vaccines are not an object of worship, too sacred to be questioned.

A simple question is at play: Should I give my child _______ vaccination?

How do I decide that? Just like I decide anything else. I weigh the pros and cons. In order to do so, I need to determine the following things:

-How dangerous is the disease that this should prevent?
-How likely is my child to contract that disease?
-How effective is the vaccine?
-How dangerous is the vaccine?

All of these questions are fair game, and I encourage everyone to explore them instead of letting your doctor decide for you.

 

[Alpo]

Yes, we are talking about Polio. Yes, it shows that the mechanism is effective. Does that mean the vaccine campaign was effective? Scientists at the time questioned it. Much of it was done poorly, and some kids were even infected with Polio by the vaccine.

So yes, the vaccine can work. However, there are many good reasons to question the assertion that it is solely responsible for the decline of polio - and in questioning that, you must question the assertion that if the 'herd' doesn't all vaccinate, we'll have another 'epidemic' on our hands.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence in your statements, which I'm sure you are aware. The polio vaccines have been tested for over 60 years. Yes, there was a batch of live virus that went out during the initial Salk vaccination that caused polio in some children. Those processes were corrected. Was the campaign effective? Yes. Prove otherwise, please. With data and test results. Not anecdotes. Sabin's test showed that the live virus would result in 1 child in 1 million developing the disease. It was one of the reason that the USA returned to the Salk vaccine in the 90's. However, where injections aren't the optimum delivery method for certain parts of the world, the Sabin vaccine is still used.