Vaccine related autism study?

[Bells]

I was flying high overhead, and I spied you all down here,

Does this mean that we are about to see a post in the UFO sub-forum where you claim that you were kidnapped by aliens and the UFO had windows?

huddled together with your torches and pitchforks, grinning at each other and cursing me and the antivaxxers, and it occurred to me, "How appropriate. A raving conspiracy in the conspiracy subforum." You all really shouldn't hate so much. It only makes you more miserable.

You are absolutely mistaken. See, our position is backed by science. Your position is backed by woo and conspiracy theories, falsified studies, lies and misrepresentation and the absolute fear that the government is trying to give children autism.

 

[paddoboy]

Honestly, this entire thread is a fiasco. Despite Magical Realist being quite reasonable and polite, a number of posters (including moderators) have saw fit to gang up on him, belittling and misrepresenting his arguments.

Magical Realist posts for one reason...To create as much controversy as he can, by posting as near fact, any anti science, or anti mainstream diatribe that comes into his head, or that he finds from the dregs of the Internet.
Then cries "victim" when other members to use your language, "gang up on him" when In effect, that's what he does it for.
Gives him then the impetus to then cry "conspiracy" by the mainstream science gang.
You forgot a couple of Important facts. This is a science forum, first and foremost, and any anti science goons, any fanatically religious God trolls that see fit to denigrate science, without reasonable reputable evidence, is totally deserved of whatever comes his way.
Just to give you an example...
It was only a couple of weeks ago, he was pushing the line that science does not benefit and has not benefited mankind.
Now you may say he has the right to spew whatever garbage he likes, and you would be correct. But in spewing that garbage he should be man enough to know that while he dabbles in such nonsense, along with his other well known nonsensical stuff like UFOs, ghosts, goblins, paranormal events etc etc etc, he will cop the flack that he has set out to get.

I'm sure there are other pseudoscience sites that would be pleased to have him without holding him to account for what he says.
That won't happen here...sorry.

 

[paddoboy]

It seems the USA isn't the only place where these anti vaccination nuts have been pushing their nonsense.
A group in Australia have claimed [get this] that it is a scheme to implant microchips!
HERE......
http://stopavn.com/
ABOUT STOP THE AVN
The Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), formerly known as the Vaccination Awareness Network, is an Australian anti-vaccination lobby group registered in New South Wales.

It is dedicated to the idea that one's health can be maintained without the use of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The organisation has lobbied against a variety of vaccination-related programs, downplayed the danger of childhood diseases such as measles and pertussis, championed the cause of alleged vaccination victims, and promoted the use of alternative medicine such as homeopathy and chiropractic.

The AVN has been described as a provider of "misleading, inaccurate and deceptive" vaccination information by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission and has been heavily criticised by Doctors and other experts on immunisation. The group has been called the "stronghold of the anti-vaccination movement" in Australia and is subject to widespread criticism from medical professionals, scientists and other proponents of vaccination.

AVN representatives have stated that vaccination is used to implant microchips, (See"Meryl Dorey's Trouble With The Truth Part 2" Items 10 and 11)

They have credulously reposted the insane conspiracy rantings of David Icke in their official blog. AVN members also sent hate mail to the grieving parents of a 4 week old baby who died of pertussis, with AVN President Meryl Dorey attempting to access the child's medical records in a vain attempt to prove the baby's death was not from pertussis, labelling the Director of Public Health at the North Coast Area Health Service a liar.

On October 14, 2010, the organisation's right to fundraise was stripped from it by the New South Wales Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, stating that its appeals had "not been conducted in good faith for charitable purposes".
http://stopavn.com/

Fair dinkum, they need to be ranked right up there with them other conspiracy nutters like the faked Moon landings claimants, or the 9/11 was an inside job Idiots.

Nuts, nuts, brazil nuts, hazel nuts, walnuts, nuts nuts, nuts!

 

[zgmc]

What is the motivation for all of the falsified anti-vaccine studies?How many different scientists are involved in these studies?

 

[Russ_Watters]

I was flying high overhead, and I spied you all down here, huddled together with your torches and pitchforks, grinning at each other and cursing me and the antivaxxers, and it occurred to me, "How appropriate. A raving conspiracy in the conspiracy subforum." You all really shouldn't hate so much. It only makes you more miserable.

I don't think you know what the word "conspiracy" means. Also, are you saying you are on drugs? That would explains some of this. And it is ok -- proper and healthy even -- to hate evil. In this case, a vigorous response will save lives and save people from preventable diseases.

 

[Russ_Watters]

What is the motivation for all of the falsified anti-vaccine studies?How many different scientists are involved in these studies?

Most of the studies aren't falsified, they just aren't verified. Most rely on a weak statistical association with no causal link. Motivation? Just getting in on the action. And yes, there are a lot of them. Hundreds, probably. But nothing that was convincing.

 

[zgmc]

Most of the studies aren't falsified, they just aren't verified. Most rely on a weak statistical association with no causal link. Motivation? Just getting in on the action. And yes, there are a lot of them. Hundreds, probably. But nothing that was convincing.

Basically, since such a large percentage of the population is vaccinated, it is easy to say that vaccines are the cause of certain health concerns?

On the other hand it would also make sense, that if the anti vaccine research has any merit, there would be a push to discredit it by the pharmaceutical industry, and the govt. The benifits to society outweigh what detriments might be had by a few.

 

[Kittamaru]

Basically, since such a large percentage of the population is vaccinated, it is easy to say that vaccines are the cause of certain health concerns?

On the other hand it would also make sense, that if the anti vaccine research has any merit, there would be a push to discredit it by the pharmaceutical industry, and the govt. The benifits to society outweigh what detriments might be had by a few.

Indeed... it's akin to saying that because my Grandfather went into cardiac arrest when he was given Morphine (he was severely allergic) that Morphine should be outlawed...

 

[Russ_Watters]

Indeed... it's akin to saying that because my Grandfather went into cardiac arrest when he was given Morphine (he was severely allergic) that Morphine should be outlawed...

That is a real, causal link, though. Most of the anti-vax studies aren't even that. For example, relating vaccination rates with autism rates(MR's first link). The corellation is probably just caused by the fact that conscientious parents are more likely to both vaccinate and screen for autism.

 

[Kittamaru]

That is a real, causal link, though. Most of the anti-vax studies aren't even that. For example, relating vaccination rates with autism rates(MR's first link). The corellation is probably just caused by the fact that conscientious parents are more likely to both vaccinate and screen for autism.

No doubt it is causal - however, it's a rarity. Most people tolerate Morphine just fine - for my Grandfather, the solution was simple - he got one of those Med-Alert bracelets that stated he had a severe allergy to morphine.

Was never a problem again

I guess it's easier nowadays for people to raise a huge fuss over what is essentially a non-issue rather than take the responsibility themselves... it's like banning Peanuts in high schools because a few kids are allergic - seems to me that, by that time, you should know what a peanut looks like and know to check the ingredients before eating something new... *shrug*

 

[Russ_Watters]

Basically, since such a large percentage of the population is vaccinated, it is easy to say that vaccines are the cause of certain health concerns?

There is a little more to it than that.

If memory serves, back in the '70s there was a study that looked for health impacts of nuclear power. Power plant workers were surveyed and found to be healthier than average. Do nuclear plants prevent illness or is there another cause?

On the other hand it would also make sense, that if the anti vaccine research has any merit, there would be a push to discredit it by the pharmaceutical industry, and the govt. The benifits to society outweigh what detriments might be had by a few.

Perhaps, but what makes a conspiracy a conspiracy is COORDINATION. That doesn't exist here.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Honestly, this entire thread is a fiasco. Despite Magical Realist being quite reasonable and polite, a number of posters (including moderators) have saw fit to gang up on him, belittling and misrepresenting his arguments.

Good point.
I wouldn't say that people are misrepresenting him, but some of his arguments are misunderstood.
I don't agree with him, but it's been an informative thread apart from occasional ad homs.
If someone is making an argument that is wrong, you have to oppose it with counter-argument, not call the person an idiot or a troll.

 

[zgmc]

Kittamaru-

Peanut allergies can be very dangerous. If someone is highly allergic, I think it overrides your need for a peanut butter sandwich. There are alternatives which are just as good, if not better.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Good point.
I wouldn't say that people are misrepresenting him, but some of his arguments are misunderstood.
I don't agree with him, but it's been an informative thread apart from occasional ad homs.
If someone is making an argument that is wrong, you have to oppose it with counter-argument, not call the person an idiot or a troll.

That would be reasonable if not for the fact that virtually everything he posted was trolling, including all of his first few posts. You overstate his reasonableness: his arguments (and they barely qualify as "arguments") were much more than just wrong, which makes reasonable replies difficult if not impossible. Probably the most reasonable response would have been to cesspool the thread after his second post, which was nothing more than a flood copy/paste of an entire anti-vax crackpot webpage. With such a huge volume of crap spewed in on post, a coherent discussion became immediately impossible. Instead, he should have had a full discussion of the first study, to determine its merits or lack thereof.

 

[billvon]

I guess it's easier nowadays for people to raise a huge fuss over what is essentially a non-issue rather than take the responsibility themselves... it's like banning Peanuts in high schools because a few kids are allergic - seems to me that, by that time, you should know what a peanut looks like and know to check the ingredients before eating something new... *shrug*

Problem there is that there are peanuts in a lot of stuff. If a child is offered a cookie with no visible peanuts, he might not think to check the ingredients before eating it (or might get "assurances" from the other child that there are no peanuts in it.) For someone with a peanut allergy, that could be fatal.

 

[billvon]

Good point.
I wouldn't say that people are misrepresenting him, but some of his arguments are misunderstood.

I disagree there. His arguments are pretty straightforward; they are just incorrect, misleading or based on fabricated data.

If someone is making an argument that is wrong, you have to oppose it with counter-argument, not call the person an idiot or a troll.

Agreed there.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Peanut allergies can be very dangerous. If someone is highly allergic, I think it overrides your need for a peanut butter sandwich. There are alternatives which are just as good, if not better.

The problem is that unless we ban peanuts altogether, the nannyism has to end sometime. So in my opinion, high school is the perfect time to transition kids into taking personal responsibility. Otherwise, the kids go on to college never having to learn how to feed themselves.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Problem there is that there are peanuts in a lot of stuff. If a child is offered a cookie with no visible peanuts, he might not think to check the ingredients before eating it (or might get "assurances" from the other child that there are no peanuts in it.) For someone with a peanut allergy, that could be fatal.

At what age should a child learn to ask "are there peanuts in that?" and be prepared for the consequences of an inaccurate answer?

 

[billvon]

At what age should a child learn to ask "are there peanuts in that?" and be prepared for the consequences of an inaccurate answer?

Depends on the child. At 4 (preschool age) almost all children will have trouble with that. At 10 (5th grade or so) almost all children will be capable of that.

 

[zgmc]

The problem is that unless we ban peanuts altogether, the nannyism has to end sometime. So in my opinion, high school is the perfect time to transition kids into taking personal responsibility. Otherwise, the kids go on to college never having to learn how to feed themselves.

That isnt the point. The allergen can be transferred to objects that the allergic individual might be exposed to. In a public school, every student has a right to a safe environment.