…and this is a 
This latest eruption of Wakefield's infamy has prompted a poll on vaccinations. The anti-vaxers have made a feeble effort, and Orac has already sent his minions, but I think we can push the evidence-based position even higher.
You know what to do.
Do you think vaccines are related to autism?
Andrew Wakefield, who touched off an international controversy by claiming a possible link between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism, has lost his medical license, but says he will continue to fight to prove his case. Do you think vaccines are related to autism?39.4% Yes. So many more cases, so many more vaccinations - it can't just be coincidence.
55.4% No. There is no scientific evidence the two things are related.
5.2% I'm not sure. There needs to be more research.
Comments
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
May 24, 2010 3:49 PM
The comments on that poll site are unbelievably depressing - parents basically saying "Yeah, but if it's not a Big Pharma conspiracy, why is Wakefield the only guy with a real study? Why doesn't Lauer provide the references for other studies?"
(Headdesk - repeat as necessary)
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 24, 2010 3:51 PM
What's important is that deep-felt democracy like this is how reality is determined. What do you think?
Just listen to the heartfelt plea of Carol Bender:
They should have a radio button indicating whether or not you're the parent of a child with autism and if so a box is enabled wherein you type a number indicating just how happy and plucky little Timmy was before the Conspiracy of Big Pharma stuck a needle in his arm and the light in his eyes went out, so they know by how much to inflate your vote.
Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger
|
May 24, 2010 3:51 PM
When I voted, it was more like 46%-47%-7%. Orac has done quite a bit so far.
And I tried commenting to reply to a particularly juicy bit of idiocy, but it required address verification, and the email never arrived...
Posted by: daveau
|
May 24, 2010 3:57 PM
Just about everyone has had a vaccination. And lots of people like ice cream. Therefore, vaccinations cause people to like ice cream. It can't be just a coincidence.
Sure it can. That's what "no correlation" means.
Posted by: tdcourtney
|
May 24, 2010 3:59 PM
Obviously. This is how we know that the internet, American Idol, and republican presidents cause autism as well.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 24, 2010 4:01 PM
I voted this morning when I first saw this on another thread. The anti-vaxer's could convince me they are right. But to do so, they would have to approach the problem the same way scientists do. Look at the data, not the results you want. Unfortunately, the data is against them. IIRC latest I saw for a possible scientific cause of autism was some developmental timing problem in the brain around month 7 in utero. This may be superceded by more recent and conclusive information.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
May 24, 2010 4:02 PM
Well, at least the parent that Brownian quoted has the first part of the scientific method right - first one noodles around and notices stuff. Unfortunately, the "form a hypothesis - test - revision - more noodling around" parts of the scientific method seems to have been amputated. I think part of the problem is that autism has a very short window in which interventions can be effective, and even then most of them aren't. It must be unbelievably painful to accept that one may have backed the wrong explanation and intervention, or even that there were no effective interventions when one's kid was in that window.
Somehow this reminds me of the theodicy discussion on the Air India plane crash thread - accepting the degree of randomness in life is pretty tough, even if it does beat being delusional.
Posted by: TrineBM
|
May 24, 2010 4:06 PM
Just voted and the 'no connection' is up to 69%. Some hordes must be doing their homework.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 24, 2010 4:06 PM
It's that type of flawed thought process that led to things like ritual human sacrifice...
"We've been throwing virgins in the volcano for 40 years and it hasn't erupted... it can't just be coincidence".
However, point out the flaw in that logic to stubborn, dug-in parents and watch them dismiss it as "not the same thing".
Also note how many of those parents are convinced that their child became autistic on the car ride home from getting the vaccine.
Having a place to lay the blame is a major component to the coping skills of may parents. It's a sad but true fact and one that is difficult to overcome.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk
|
May 24, 2010 4:12 PM
That's an understatement. There is plentiful evidence that the two things are not related.Posted by: mothwentbad
|
May 24, 2010 4:18 PM
Global warming, pirates... it can't just be a coincidence.
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
May 24, 2010 4:20 PM
The comments are mind-numbing.
People who know nothing of statistical methods base their argument on "My child got vaccinated and that child got autism."
I guess they think "anecdote" is what you take after getting a snake-bite.
Posted by: Stephen_P
|
May 24, 2010 4:24 PM
76% - that's pathetic!
Oh wait. You've only just posted this. (I'm so used to being late to the party.) Yes, 76% so far.
Posted by: batch.myopenid.com
|
May 24, 2010 4:27 PM
This is my favorite part of the site... breaking internet polls.
Oh, and the science stuff. That's neat, too.
But mostly breaking polls!
Posted by: Travis
|
May 24, 2010 4:33 PM
I was hoping Pharyngula would get their grubby little mits on this one. Orac has some power but this is the juggernaut. That'll learn 'em
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
May 24, 2010 4:37 PM
To which my autistic son and I say bull-fucking-shit.
Ok, I say that. He'd get in trouble for saying it.
But he sends the general attitude of bullfuckingshit in her general direction.
Posted by: Shadow
|
May 24, 2010 4:43 PM
80.4% and rising.
Posted by: ashleyfmiller
|
May 24, 2010 4:47 PM
These people always make me so sad. It's just so genuinely sad that they are so angry and deluded because something they don't understand hurt their kids. And they'd rather put all that energy into hating a vaccine than into the kids or treatment.
Posted by: Jonathan Figdor
|
May 24, 2010 4:47 PM
We are killing this poll...
Posted by: Ken
|
May 24, 2010 4:48 PM
I was vaccinated as a child.
Now every morning when I wake up I have a terrible debilitating headache and an upset stomach. Coincidence? I think not!
It worries me so much that I have to drink large amounts of alcohol each night just to get to sleep.
Posted by: Good Dr. Laura
|
May 24, 2010 4:50 PM
My son is mildly autistic and has had all of his vaccinations on the regular schedule. The thing that really got us moving on diagnosis and treatment was that he lost all of his language (all five words) between 12 and 16 months. The first actual diagnosis of ASD was at age two. I think that kind of delay between first hints and diagnosis is fairly typical.
A year is a very long time, plenty of time for you to go back and agonize over exactly what vaccinations he got when, whether he had an extreme reaction, and exactly when the language went away. It would be easy to construct a narrative in your mind that blames you, if you were inclined to think that was the cause. So I have sympathy for the parents who go that route. I have no sympathy for the celebrities and scare-mongers who profit from these fears.
My son, by the way, turned three today. He is now speaking in full sentences and will be attending a mainstream preschool this summer. There is a lot to be said for accepting the diagnosis and embracing the treatments as early as possible.
Posted by: ejwillingham
|
May 24, 2010 4:53 PM
The comments are depressing. But the poll is now at 81% NO.
Posted by: eleusis
|
May 24, 2010 4:53 PM
I love the wording of this option:
"Yes. So many more cases, so many more vaccinations – it can't just be coincidence."
How about: "So many more cases, so much better screening tests - it can't just be coincidence."
Or maybe these:
So many more autism cases, so many more internet users - it can't just be coincidence.
So many more autism cases, so many more cell phone users - it can't just be coincidence.
So many more autism cases, so many fewer pirates - it can't just be coincidence.
Posted by: JB
|
May 24, 2010 4:58 PM
Arch Dis Child 2002;87:493-494 "Recall bias, MMR, and autism."
N Andrews et al
Added this as a comment to the poll (which I find quite interesting) and a suggestion that people posting their Autism/MMR anecdotes are contributing to the deaths and ill-health of other parents' children.
My comment is now deleted, as is another one with a similar messsage. I guess it's OK to promote an epidemic or two, but not to point out reality to the irrational mum of an autistic child.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
May 24, 2010 5:00 PM
82%...
More, please.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
May 24, 2010 5:05 PM
@#23
I blame rockets. So many rockets poking holes in the atmosphere. It can't POSSIBLY be a coincidence, could it? Darn that space shuttle!!
Or maybe television. So many more TV channels. It MUST be related.
Or maybe expansion of major league baseball. Or the number of years since Cleveland had a World Championship team of any stripe.
Sadly, argument from ridicule - no matter how on-point -- merely results in you being accused of "being mean".
Posted by: eleusis
|
May 24, 2010 5:06 PM
BTW, I am heartened by the pro-science responses on the Today Moms web site, like this one which lists a bunch of studies debunking the autism-vaccine link: http://j.mp/clSsUW
Posted by: rni.boh
|
May 24, 2010 5:08 PM
Oh, that poor poll. Getting both respectful insolence and Pharyngulation.
Posted by: Duckbilled Platypus
|
May 24, 2010 5:09 PM
I must admit I feel that the reaction of these parents is quite understandable. I mean, the cause-and-effect association is a deeply rooted survival trait of most of the successful branches of life today, we're lucky to have it, but we're unlucky to have it kick into action at unfortunate moments. It's not as if watching your kid developing autism all of a sudden will have you sit back in a relaxed manner to investigate all likely causes without getting your emotions entangled. It's going to be very, very difficult to link the symptoms with some vague genetic issue in your ancestors.
What I would find interesting is to see the likely chance for any autistic child to develop symptoms around the time of vaccination. I think it's not stressed enough just how high that chance may actually be, and possibly account for the perceived connection among autism diagnoses.
Posted by: Screechy_Monkey
|
May 24, 2010 5:17 PM
Travis @15: "I was hoping Pharyngula would get their grubby little mits on this one"
I think you mean "grubby little tentacles."
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
May 24, 2010 5:20 PM
Also, in cases of very mild autism the symptoms often aren't noticed until the child falls noticeably behind his/her peers, which happens as they age. And it's not easy to really know what to look for. We were grasping at everything as my son aged into school, seeing that he went from "a handful" to "kid with problems" to "school says we have to figure this out NOW". When he was diagnosed, the clinician referred to things we had said about him from birth on that altogether formed a pretty coherent narrative pointing directly at Asperger's. And it didn't start at the time of vaccination; once the symptoms were identified, it was easy to see that many of them had been there at 1 year, at 8 months, at 6 months, at 3 months. We just didn't know that's what they were.
Posted by: Doug Little
|
May 24, 2010 5:21 PM
Reading the comments I think that there is a link between parents that have kids with autism and belief in conspiracy theories. I guess when your life is thrown into turmoil like that you become highly susceptible to any snake oil salesman that can give closure and an enemy to rail against. It really is quite sad.
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
May 24, 2010 5:22 PM
Using the "American Idol" method is a poor way for determining what's real.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/
Posted by: DNAmom
|
May 24, 2010 5:25 PM
I'm a mom of 2 healthy kids. I understand the agony parents must be going through when their kids are diagnosed. However, I think that parents who don't vaccinate are being selfish and irresponsible. They are asking their kids to incur risks that they cannot incur because the parent is probably vaccinated. As a parent, how can you ask your child to risk health and possibly life? I consider this child neglect and pretty close to child abuse, if not to their own child then to the children they are endangering.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
May 24, 2010 5:28 PM
Yep, them thar are some depressing comments.
Baloney detection training needs to be arranged earlier. And made better. And made more generally available. Idiots like these who still a decade into the 21st century continue to fail to grasp that correleation doth not make causation, and whose ignorance of this simple precept may in fact cost lives, it just strikes me it shouldn't have to be this way.
I find I wish I could shake them. (Is there a remote shaking protocol that works over TCP/IP?) Want to say to them: hey, stupid, I get that you're all well-meaning and shit, but can you please try to grasp your stupidity here is contributing to a general ignorance whose ultimate cost is measured in lives? Please? Pretty please?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/3flOCoJ.qYcjCjxYRXJN.QzvOUSh_YMm6xk-#ed740
|
May 24, 2010 5:29 PM
I loved the "reference list" one of them put up. One of my favorite journals was prominent Medical Hypothesis. When I was writing my thesis I kept finding all kinds of fun articles in my lit search. "Schizophrenia linked to shoe size' was the one I will never forget.
Definitely a quality research journal there.
Posted by: Ken
|
May 24, 2010 5:38 PM
There are several TCP/IP=based vibrators on the market right now, but I fear that's not the kind of shaking you were referring to...
Posted by: s.d.mortimer
|
May 24, 2010 5:41 PM
Man the comments on that site are depressing. Such immensely ignorant and fallacious statements, "my wonderful, happy, bright eyed, playful, innocent helpless boy was gang banged by vaccines now he's DOOOMED!" I'm sorry that's not science.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
May 24, 2010 5:42 PM
OMG the comments. My brain hurts.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 24, 2010 5:43 PM
I think it's not stressed enough just how high that chance may actually be, and possibly account for the perceived connection among autism diagnoses.
wouldn't that be fleshed out in the studies that have looked at autism with and without vaccinations?
it's possible the sample sizes aren't large enough, I haven't read the paper, but it would seem the method would provide an answer to your question, no?
I think there is a link to one of those studies in the thread under the poll.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 24, 2010 5:46 PM
"Schizophrenia linked to shoe size'
HA!
my own major prof showed that article to us when we were grad students, just to check if we really understood the old correlation /= causation
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 24, 2010 5:48 PM
Stupidity is holding fast at 13%. Gee, if that were representative of the population of anti-vaxxers, we're screwed. Time to round them up and put them on Anti-vax Island; I'm not sure what to do about the kids though.
Posted by: eleusis
|
May 24, 2010 5:49 PM
Vaccines are a scapegoat. Parents don't want to feel personally responsible for their genetic contribution to their kids' illness. On that Today Moms site, there's a commenter called "There Are No Genetic Epidemics," which contradicts basic evolutionary biology -- that biological systems are sufficient but not optimal for any environment. Genetic defects exist, sometimes in epidemic proportions, like Tay-Sachs did in the Jewish population before tests were developed.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 24, 2010 5:51 PM
....and then there was recently this:
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-parenting/2008/03/31/autism-and-schizophrenia-linked
I rather think this might end up being a promising avenue of research.
it seems obvious, but of course looking at genetics and early brain development seems a likely key to unraveling just how things like autism come about.
Posted by: Westcoaster
|
May 24, 2010 5:55 PM
@32
Fuck you Doug. I have an autistic child, and I don't beleive in conspiracy theories. Neither does Good Dr. Laura (#21) or Carlie (#16).
Posted by: Duckbilled Platypus
|
May 24, 2010 5:55 PM
No, it's not *quite* what I meant. I'm not interested in showing whether or not autism is linked with vaccination. The thing is that many of the more emotional stories perceive the first symptoms of autism having started very short after the vaccination. I was thinking about the likely chance, should a child be autistic, that the symptoms are discovered at the time of the vaccine.It's actually rather straightforward - investigate between which days (on average) in a lifetime the first symptoms become apparent. If it spans n days, there is a 1/n chance of seeing seeing the first autism symptoms the day after. Chance will change if you account for vaccinations only being given during weekdays. Then gradually extend the perceived cause/effect dates - the likeliness that the first symptoms are detected within 1, 2, 3 etc. weeks from vaccination. Same for the actual diagnose itself.
Posted by: Mikko
|
May 24, 2010 5:58 PM
No. There is no scientific evidence the two things are related.
6,666 votes
Posted by: Doug Little
|
May 24, 2010 6:00 PM
Westcoaster,
I didn't mean the comments here, I meant on the other board where the poll is, plus I was riffing off of the fact that correlation does not mean causation.
Posted by: Westcoaster
|
May 24, 2010 6:07 PM
Doug, I'm sorry but my (probably over the top) reaction to your post was to your lumping of parents of children with autism in with anti-vaxers. I know lots of parents of autistic children who are not anti-vaxers and lots of anti-vaxers whose children are not autistic. It just rubbed me the wrong way.
Posted by: black-wolf72
|
May 24, 2010 6:20 PM
"Ladies, you won't get the names of the large studies because there aren't any. They have everything to gain by not telling the truth. The Immunization Act was put into place for a reason....to save the pharmaceutical companies and doctors from any liability. They aren't held accountable for the damage the vaccines caused to our children. If vaccines are so safe....why aren't doctors and the pharmaceutical companies okay with being held responsible for damages? too many questions and NO answers!!"
Aaaaaargh! The studies were posted in that very fucking same thread! How twisted, evil and mendacious can a person be to just pile lie upon lie just to throw around the favorite conspiracy theory du jour?
Register and post, people, I just don't have the energy after discussing Mohammed drawings all day.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
May 24, 2010 6:26 PM
Let me repeat comment 10.
Also...
Posted by: James F
|
May 24, 2010 6:27 PM
#36
And yet it's better than BIO-complexity.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 24, 2010 6:29 PM
I'm not interested in showing whether or not autism is linked with vaccination.
no, you missed my point.
the parts of the studies doing the statistics on autism developed in children not exposed to vaccinations would give you a baseline to work from to figure out if there is an age bracket where it is likely to develop, eliminating vaccines as even a potential variable.
clearer?
Posted by: black-wolf72
|
May 24, 2010 6:29 PM
The poll is backsliding now. Someone has turned the kill-the-children propaganda wheel back on.
Actually, sacrificing your children to prevent Big Pharma from eating you up has a distinctly Aztec ring to it.
Sorry, this stuff makes me cynical.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
May 24, 2010 6:32 PM
The comments... the comments make me very very sad.
I'm glad there's people arguing for rationality, though. It gives me some hope that we're not completely and utterly fucked.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
May 24, 2010 6:38 PM
Registration... do I want my content to appear anywhere? I'm supposed to enter a "valid Newsvine Home Page" or have one automatically generated from my name. What is that?
Posted by: Argama
|
May 24, 2010 6:43 PM
@ #55
Agreed.
Who is Horse? If you're here and in case you haven't noticed, you rock! :)
Posted by: James F
|
May 24, 2010 6:45 PM
Has the number of irrational conspiracies gone up in the internet age? You have old standbys like the Holocaust deniers, the Moon Landing-was-a-hoax crowd, and, of course, the creationists (believers in the Global Darwinist Conspriacy™). But now, we've also got:
anti-vaxxers (latest incarnation starting circa 1998)
9/11 truthers (2001)
birthers (2008-ish)
And there will be a core of diehards who will never give up on them.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 24, 2010 6:56 PM
Has the number of irrational conspiracies gone up in the internet age?
LOL
...or is it just a correlation noticed because of the increased level of attention garnered by the internet?
Posted by: Doug Little
|
May 24, 2010 7:10 PM
James F,
You forgot the global warming denialists.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
May 24, 2010 7:13 PM
James:
And the flat-earthers.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
May 24, 2010 7:30 PM
I am rather appalled by the way they cast the question - as if Wakefield "lost his license" by having it fall under the refrigerator, or something - not that he lost his license for performing fraudulent, dangerous, and unethical experiments so disgraceful to the medical profession that they had to disown him. Even "big pharma" doesn't seem to want Wakefield anymore; it's too bad because he's obviously for sale, cheap.
Posted by: DominEditrix
|
May 24, 2010 7:40 PM
Another thing that contributes to the anti-vaxxers sense of security is that they're generally far too young to remember what it was like when measles and whooping cough were not a rarity. [Not to mention polio.] They have no sense of the danger of not vaccinating.
I remember the kid who didn't come back to third grade because his brain was fried by the uncontrollable high fevers [I am, I admit, interpolating from 'Bobby was very, very sick and he had a very, very bad fever and it hurt how he thought']. I have another friend whose husband caught the measles at 29; they subsequently had to use a sperm donor for their second child. Yes, those are anecdotes, and happened decades ago - but that certainly affected my thoughts on vaccination when I got the Offspring his jabs as an infant.
I wonder, as autism is now the new "in" condition, much the way ADD was some years ago, how many kids are diagnosed by the insufficiently trained? My neighbour's daughter was diagnosed as being autistic on the basis that, when she came into class in preschool, she said 'Hi!' to everyone, hugged them, and then went off to play by herself. She also had a speech impediment - but so did my son, which he outgrew; the language specialist said it was nothing more than a fine motor control deficit, which was not infrequent in adoptees from abroad. We'd already been told by our pediatrician to deduct every month the Offspring had been in the orphanage [7] from our "progress" timeline. The ND spent a full year in an orphanage, and, like my son, wasn't even crawling when she arrived.
Posted by: robert.terlevic
|
May 24, 2010 7:43 PM
Congrats on your civility people on answering those crazy soccer moms. I know I couldn't keep my cool.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 24, 2010 8:03 PM
Congrats on your civility people on answering those crazy soccer moms. I know I couldn't keep my cool.
can we quote you the next time someone comes here to claim that "New Atheists are the problem because they are so UNCIVIL."?
seriously, thanks for the nod.
Posted by: Yubal
|
May 24, 2010 8:04 PM
JamesF #58
What are "birthers"?
Posted by: James F
|
May 24, 2010 8:08 PM
Doug Little (#60),
Blast, I knew I was forgetting something - and they've arguably gotten the most support from mainstream media, too.
OurDeadSelves (#61),
They're the ur-conspriacy theorists.
Posted by: James F
|
May 24, 2010 8:10 PM
Yubal #66,
Birthers are those who believe that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen.
Posted by: Pitini
|
May 24, 2010 8:18 PM
Man I love what you do......
Posted by: csreid
|
May 24, 2010 8:20 PM
@#58, #60, #61:
I'm gonna go ahead and throw solipsists in there, too. Denying reality is, like... their MO.
Posted by: Duckbilled Platypus
|
May 24, 2010 8:30 PM
Clearer, cheers. =) I'll agree it is cleaner research, although it does skew the sample somewhat.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 24, 2010 8:34 PM
gotta start somewhere.
frankly, if you can apply for the the cash to do an independent study, you'd probably STILL have to work with pre-existing data like that to justify it to the granting board.
I don't know, but suspect a day or so spent in your local uni library would turn up a study that has the results you are looking for specifically.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
May 24, 2010 8:40 PM
I have seen studies on this; IIRC parents associated the autistic symptoms as happening "shortly around vaccination" only when prompted with the connection, sort of like false memories. I can't find the links at the moment, though. The bigger thing, though, is that autism symptoms can fairly reliably now be seen as early as 6 months old here. And this was done in home videos of kids whose parents did not notice symptoms for over a year later, when they were being vaccinated, so if the knowledge of those symptoms can be widely distributed, the "link" with vaccines ought to disappear entirely.
Also - google's autofill for "autism study" now returns retracted, fraud, and revoked. Heh.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
May 24, 2010 8:44 PM
So I spent most of a flight to Chicago trying to work out how maybe this could actually work...
'Yeah, see, if you can just demonstrate to me you grasp basic reason, here, you can haz several remotely-administered orgasms... So how 'bout it, huh?'
(/Okay. So it's probably a bad idea. Call it 'in development'... Anyway... leave it with me.)
Posted by: raven
|
May 24, 2010 8:47 PM
Lots of studies have been done on vaccinated and unvaccinated children and autism. This one had over 1/2 million children.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 24, 2010 8:56 PM
is this the paper you were thinking of, Carlie?
Recall bias, MMR, and autism
http://www.fetalneonatal.com/content/87/6/493.abstract
Posted by: Ken
|
May 24, 2010 9:02 PM
AJ Milne OM
I never thought of using positive feedback instead of negative feedback. I guess I'm just naturally more violent.
I salute you for being more humane than I!
Posted by: Ken
|
May 24, 2010 9:06 PM
robert.terlevic
I've already lost my cool a few times over there and have probably done more damage than good. It is amazing, however, how many good people (several from here I'm sure) have managed to stay rational in the face of so much stupidity.
Posted by: Marella
|
May 24, 2010 9:08 PM
Raven@#75
Wow that's one hell of a study!
I left a comment on TODAYmoms. There is quite a bit of sense being spoken but I'm not sure how much will sink in. Andrew Wakefield should be up for crimes against humanity as was suggested recently on another thread.
Posted by: Yubal
|
May 24, 2010 9:08 PM
Reading the concerned mums, I only got one issue left. Some of them state that the numbers of autism raised from somewhat 1 in 10.000 to 1 in 110. Is there something to it? Did the definition for autism changed? I mean, 1 in 110 seems very high to me.
@ JamesF
Thanks!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 24, 2010 9:10 PM
hey,
antivaxers appear to be circulating this list of papers that supposedly have replicated the original results of Wakefield's Lancet paper.
....but I can't even find the damn journals some of these are supposedly published in! let alone the articles.
maybe someone with better access than I can do a pub med search for these:
Posted by: Fri
|
May 24, 2010 9:15 PM
I think that if someone raised the question (and I'm NOT talking of Wakefield) it is a civic duty of scientists to study the issue and give reliable and independent (from BigPharma) answers. Well, maybe I'm a dreamer but I still (want to) believe that science should serve people (and answer to their questions) and not multinational companies.
Posted by: Good Dr. Laura
|
May 24, 2010 9:17 PM
I don't think the perception that vaccinations cause autism is entirely irrational.
My son is mildly autistic and generally bright, vocal and playful. But when he isn't feeling well, he displays a lot of autistic traits - staring at wheels, unable to form words, and completely flat affect. Often kids don't feel well for a day or two after getting a vaccination. It could be that the parents never noticed the autism until it was exacerbated by malaise.
Also, I recall a theory that autism can be triggered by stress on the body - through vaccination, illness, or other insult. This would explain both the parents' observation that their child was suddenly autistic after receiving a vaccine and also the statistic that unvaccinated children are just as likely to be autistic. It's just that the unvaccinated children were triggered by something else.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
May 24, 2010 9:20 PM
That was it, Ichthyic - thanks!
Posted by: Ken
|
May 24, 2010 9:21 PM
Yubal #80
Check out:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4726
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 24, 2010 9:25 PM
Fri the shithead
How about showing these scientists some respect by not implying they are in the pockets of big pharma. Most work at universities, and being correct and reliable with the data means more for tenure/promotion/prestige than being considered a flak for big pharma. Besides, it is up to you to prove they are unethical with hard physical evidence. They are considered ethical until you prove otherwise with hard data. Here's a tip: drugs do work, and will cure/alleviate problems. Home remedies/alt medicine is the Placebo Effect, and are reported as such if studied honestly. Vaccines work and are excellent and cost effective public health measures.Posted by: Frank b
|
May 24, 2010 9:28 PM
My son had febrile seizures when he was a toddler, so I worried that those seizures caused his learning disabilities, discovered in 1st grade. I was assured by professionals that wasn't the case. His condition seems like a mild form of asperger's syndrome. Just last week my son received his Masters Degree in Applied Mathematics, and is trying to get a doctorate. I think too few pirates is the cause.
Posted by: raven
|
May 24, 2010 9:43 PM
Just from looking at the titles, I doubt it. Kooks lie a lot. The AIDS deniers do the same thing. They'll site an obscure paper from decades ago that is hard to find. If you read it, it says no such thing. They also quote mine. They also take quotes and edit them so they say the opposite, i.e they flat out lie.
The Madsen article certainly contradicts their delusions. I just posted essentially the same study above.
Posted by: raven
|
May 24, 2010 9:52 PM
Theories without data aren't all that useful. Might just as well theorize that it is because not enough chickens have been sacrificed to the Voodoo gods.
We've got a huge amount of data and have had it for years, that autism has a strong genetic component. We've gone on to identifying what genes and alleles are involved and how they produce autism spectrum disorders. This will take a while, the best guess is over 100 genes with small effects in various combinations.
What is pathetic is that we do know what causes autism. It shows a high genetic component and this has been known for years.
The exact details haven't been worked out because they are complex. It is like schizophrenia, probably involving a 100 or more different genes with small effects and some combinations of alleles predisposing or causing autism spectrum conditions.
People babbling on about gluten intolerance, vaccines, thimerosal, demons and so on, are just ignoring information that they could look up on pubmed in 60 seconds, which is how long it took me to grab that abstract of a review article.
FWIW, thimerosal was taken out of vaccines years ago. Didn't make a damn bit of difference in autism occurrences. The reality deniers are just like the creationists. They just move the goal posts and play wack-a-mole.
Posted by: raven
|
May 24, 2010 9:55 PM
There is a vast literature on the genetics of autism. I guess few people outside of science/medicine bother to even look for it.
Posted by: Harbo
|
May 24, 2010 10:03 PM
Dear Fri,
You want to question the integrity/ethics of scientists!
Why is so little effort made by your ilk, and the media, to question the ethics or integrity, (or financial links) of every single issue twat with a barrow to push.
Posted by: Emefen
|
May 24, 2010 10:03 PM
As an aside, the anti-vaccine votes are beginning to creep up. The "yes" vote has gained about 2% in the last hour. I think as the kids go to bed, the North American TVs are turned on and the news broadcasts come on... Just a WASG here, but it seems the votes are coming from sides that use different forms of media as their primary sources of information - the "no" side is Internet-based and perhaps more critical of their sources, while the "yes" side trusts the authority of mainstream broadcasts...
Posted by: raven
|
May 24, 2010 10:03 PM
Does the Danish Epidemiology Science Center, Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Arhus, Denmark sound like a Big Pharmaceutical company to you?
It should be the civic duty for moron trolls to learn to read and think before they screw up any more.
Posted by: Usagichan
|
May 24, 2010 10:06 PM
Like several other parents posting here, we have a son diagnosed with mild ASD (He is giving the student speech at middle school graduation - the diagnosis helped us get proper support from his school and helped us to deal with his difficulties in an informed manner - we couldn't be more proud of him).
When it came to vaccinating our daughter, we heard about the controversy, looked at the research decided the controversy had obviously been manufactured. One of the studies that helped convince us was the H Honda, Y Shimizu, M Rutter study based in Yokohama.
Fri - there are a lot of unbiased studies out there. The illnesses vaccines prevent are serious, potentially life threatening. The links between vaccination and ASD seem to have been manufactured for commercial reasons. I am constantly amazed at the gullibility of people regarding conspiracy theories (Big Pharma manages to buy off the scientific community over vaccines, but Big Oil fails over AGW?) How about assuming the scientific community provides independent answers, and sometimes these coincide with the interests of business.
Posted by: Betelgeuse
|
May 24, 2010 10:47 PM
Some of the comments on the poll site are bordering on hysterical.
Some gems:
'There is no scientific proof that shows vaccines saved us from disease.'
What?
Measles? Polio? What?
And they're attributing 'diabetes, allergies and asthma' to vaccines as well. Unless I completely misread that.
Along with calling their children 'vaccine injured'.
Sounds a bit dramatic, like somebody came after children with a syringe shaped dagger and tried their best to plunge it in.
Its sad. There's tons of literature out there on it, accessible within a five minute search.
If only it would be easy for people to be rational.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 24, 2010 10:55 PM
Along with calling their children 'vaccine injured'.
yeah, that seems to be the current favored term amongst the antivaxers.
Posted by: Ohnhai
|
May 24, 2010 11:17 PM
eep.....
the anti-vac-ers are mounting a fight back... the YES vote has climbed from 11%to 15% in the last hour!!!
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
May 24, 2010 11:18 PM
Dastardly, Bastardly,
Andrew--unethical,
Lied to his legions and
Basked in their praise
Practiced his dangerous
Megalomania;
Playing with matches, he
Started a blaze
Yearningly, burningly,
Well-meaning innocents
Read about Wakefield, and
Swallowed it whole
Choose not to vaccinate,
Uncomprehendingly,
Fearful and tearful and
Not in control.
Recently, decently,
GMC councilors
Looked at the evidence,
Started to scoff;
Tales of misconduct were
Incontrovertible;
Guilty of charges,
They've stricken him off!
Mournfully, scornfully,
Cognitive dissonance
Keeps his supporters from
Seeing the light
Changing their minds would be
Counterintuitive--
Thinking him guilty is
Reason to fight.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/05/wakefield-case.html
Posted by: Ken
|
May 25, 2010 1:00 AM
Our lead in the poll keeps steadily slipping, and the arguments are getting more moronic. Now homeopathic remedies are being trotted out as a "cure" for the vaccines.
Posted by: Betelgeuse
|
May 25, 2010 1:31 AM
Something I just saw seems to be heading in the wierdest direction.
Q- If autism is genetic, how do these genetic defects originate?
A- Genetic defects originate from, and are 'caused' by the substance of the vaccine.
Following the laws of inheritance, genes that are already defective due to vaccines are transferred down through generations, and their effects in children are compounded by 'environmental causes'- i.e. more vaccines. :X
Vaccine caused genetic defect + 'environmental' vaccine = worse Autistic spec disorders.
Pssshh.
Sorry about the posting of comment fragments, but I'm just feeling really taken aback.
Posted by: Ken
|
May 25, 2010 1:54 AM
Some of the real head-spinning ones are those who claim that you are still carrying heavy metal toxins that your grandfather and great grandfather picked up and passed on to future generations as if they were genes.
I've had as much as I can handle tonight. I've tried, poorly but doing my best, to provide rational counterpoints there. Others from this blog are doing the same. Hopefully a few parents will have been swayed by some of the rational arguments.
Posted by: DebinOz
|
May 25, 2010 2:12 AM
Count me in as well. My family is rife with Asperger's individuals. I am an epidemiologist, and I do certainly not hold with conspiracy theories.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 25, 2010 2:14 AM
I've had as much as I can handle tonight. I've tried, poorly but doing my best, to provide rational counterpoints there.
Indeed. I too felt like I was warning a bunch of salmon that the stream they were swimming up was an irrigation creek.
Salmon just don't listen.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
May 25, 2010 2:26 AM
Currently:
Yes. So many more cases, so many more vaccinations – it can’t just be coincidence: 17.1%
No. There is no scientific evidence the two things are related: 81.1%
I’m not sure. There needs to be more research: 1.8%
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 25, 2010 2:39 AM
there are a LOT of antivaxers.
frankly, it would not surprise me a bit to see this poll end up at around the 50/50 mark.
more's the pity.
Posted by: jamesbond1217
|
May 25, 2010 3:21 AM
I have found a fatal flaw in this poll. That flaw being that it tracks your vote through cache/cookies and not IP address so if you clear your cache and cookies you can vote infinitely. Get in there and get us up to 90+%.
Posted by: OnePumpChump
|
May 25, 2010 3:25 AM
Video games cause autism. The timing is perfect, so many more kids playing video games, it can't be coincidence.
Posted by: Fri
|
May 25, 2010 7:49 AM
First of all I would like to thank n. 86 (shithead), n. 93 (stupid troll - moron trolls), and n. 94 (gullibible). It's always nice to enter in a blog of scientists, freethinkers, humanists, and being offended and personally insulted for raising questions about the mainstream opinion. In this attitude you are not better than the trolls that you hate so much.
Second, I would like to reply to n. 91. Yes, I want to question the integrity of scientists because I want them to be the spinal cord of society, I want people to believe in them and in their words. Too many times in the past we saw scientists involved in not-clear business and supporting ideas then found dangerous or even deadly.
Obviously, I question the ethics, integrity AND scientific basis of "every single issue twat with a barrow to push.". That's why I'm asking more experiments, more research on this and other critic topics. I never said I believe in the connection between autism and vaccination! I just think more research is needed. What's wrong with this? How can I be a troll asking for more scientific data?
Some posts claim that there are already enough data. If this is true the problem is that scientists failed to make them available to the people, in an easy, comprehensible and convincing way.
Finally, being a scientist myself, I see how difficult it is to convince people that science is not evil. But as scientists we cannot reply to them just saying "you are a moron, you are a gullibible". This is not respectful for them nor for the work of the scientists.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 25, 2010 8:11 AM
No shithead, you impugned the integrity of scientists.Then you don't understand science and scientists, just like the idjit you sound like. Scientists must be honest in their professional behavior and writings, since the kiss of death for their career is being found to actually falsify (makeup) data. That just isn't done, and science is fairly effective about such things, since repeatability is key goal of science.You can ask without impugning the integrity of scientists. That just makes you look like an idjit crank. And the science is ongoing. Science is looking hard into the cause of autism, but it isn't vaccines. They have been ruled out.When the conclusive evidence has been found, like the several large scale no-link between autism and vaccination, then the funding for further research in that area becomes hard to justify. Why don't you personally fund such research? Finite dollars and finite resources, which must be prioritized, and go where there is more bang for the buck. Repeating conclusive results is a low priority.Sorry, you don't think. I suspect the research, run several places with the same result, didn't show the conclusion you wanted. Hence your fundless claim for more research. If you mean more research into the cause of autism, but you are unaware it is being carried out, that just makes you ignorant.I find that hard to believe, given your attitude and ignorance. I have practiced science for 30+ years now, and know that you aren't showing the signs expected from a scientist. You are may be a lab tech at best. Otherwise, you would not impugn the integrity of scientists in such a callus manner.Posted by: Fri
|
May 25, 2010 8:37 AM
"You are may be a lab tech at best. Otherwise, you would not impugn the integrity of scientists in such a callus manner."
I question my own integrity every single day I enter in my lab. It is the first thing a scientist should do for him/herself and for the society.
PS: thanks again for showing me what kind of scientist (and person) I DON'T want to be.
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
May 25, 2010 8:41 AM
Hahahaha! Citation please? Just kidding.
The lengths these idiots will go through to delude themselves and others seems to know no bounds. Just completely make shit up to support your cause because, hey, you know it's all a conspiracy by Big Pharma, aided and abetted by those money grubbing scientists driving around in Ferraris purchased courtesy of all the kickbacks.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 25, 2010 8:43 AM
You don't want to be a scientist who accepts the evidence presented in peer reviewed studies.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 25, 2010 8:46 AM
You don't get it. Scientists are trained to be honest. But every other scientist than you isn't? That is a bad attitude problem. You need to fix it. As I said earlier, if you want more research done, get the funding available for it. Cranks like you expect other folks like myself to do your bidding. It isn't going to happen.Likewise loser. I don't question the integrity of my colleagues, and they do act like I don't need to by being brutally honest with the data, as I am, as a matter of habit. You should do the same, and stop impugning your colleagues and betters.Time for breakfast, and then head to the lab.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
May 25, 2010 8:46 AM
I'd love to rip into Fri, but I have to get to work early today so I can leave to collect my child out of his in-school suspension resulting from a bad social interaction yesterday and take him to an appointment with his therapist, who is someone who uses an actual research-based approach to treating and dealing with autism as opposed to "ideas I pull out of my ass and then try and claim that everyone else ought to research my 'theory' because I can't be arsed to look at the metric fuckton of research that already exists and disproves my shitty ideas".
So all I have time to say is do some research before you spout off your ignorant mouth, Fri. You are not original, you are not sensible, and you have no idea how to do science no matter how many test tubes you've washed.
Posted by: jblumenfeld
|
May 25, 2010 9:14 AM
The comments on that survey site make me angry and sad - this is the worst thing since James Van Praagh talking to the dead. These people will never let go of their anti-vax insanity.
Look, I have 3 kids, and they've got their share of problems - my oldest has tourettes, a very difficult problem with a diagnosis based only on symptoms and treatment with talk therapy and medication. All very apporximate.
Every day - every day, I challenge myself as to whether he is getting the best treatment, the right treatment, etc. I challenge his doctor, and I challenge him, too, to think about these things. I am open to new work, to good science, to the shifting playing field of meds and treatment.
WHY DON'T THESE ANTI-VAX PARENTS WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH? They are so invested in their insane conspiracy theory that they no longer care about their children - they are sacrificing their own children on the altar of their obsession. It is sick and disgusting, and their children and others will be paying for it for decades.
Posted by: triskelethecat
|
May 25, 2010 9:32 AM
@Yubal (#80), yes, the diagnosis of autism has gone up to about 1 in 100. However, a lot of that is due to diagnostic substitution (children who would have a mental retardation diagnosis are now being diagnosed as autistic), a change in the diagnostic criteria for autism, and an inclusion of Ausperger's Syndrome and PDD-NOS in the group. It's also thought to be increased due to an increase in "unofficial" diagnosis - children who are diagnosed by their schools, etc, to improve access to services under the ADA act.
The other thing is that people with autism are more visible in public now. It used to be they were put in special ed rooms, or institutionalized, or considered "weird" or (in the case of a child I went to school with) "scary" (he had violent tantrums in school often).
There are plenty of adult autistics, if you look for them (unlike what AOA and many other sites claim). I can point to several family members who now would probably have a diagnosis of at least PDD-NOS, if not Ausperger's; however, in the family they were/are only "just like their father" or "just like cousin/uncle/aunt whomever". No official diagnoses until a young cousin a few years ago.
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
May 25, 2010 9:38 AM
The relatively small number asking for "more research" is telling. When anti-vaxers are confronted with information that autism and MMR are not linked, they cry for "moar reesurch!" But when you ask them honestly, they've already made up their minds.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
May 25, 2010 9:40 AM
The call for more research is fine, as long as the existing research isn't ignored or dismissed which is typically what you discover in these types of instances.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
May 25, 2010 10:00 AM
I read some of the Today commenters. I can't think of the last time I felt genuine pity and disgust at the same time.
I empathize with their anguish over the affliction suffered by their children. At the same time, I am equally disgusted by their single-minded willful ignorance about autism.
It must be psychologically crushing to learn that one's child has autism. I can understand the need for easy answers, to "why me" and "who did this to my child"? But at some point these parents need to ditch the scapegoats and the conspiracy theories that make them feel better and accept reality and deal with it in the most informed way possible.
How do these parents best help their children if they refuse to inform themselves or even read the information given to them by the people here who have spoon fed the latest and best science-based information.
It is truly patheric (in the original, moves one to sympathy and pity sense.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 25, 2010 10:04 AM
When I hear the words "more research", I usually get a couple of pictures in my mind.
The first is that the data, often conclusive, doesn't support the speakers ideas. If more research was done with "an open mind", their woo would be proved.
The second, people are really ignorant of the amount of research going on, and they often expect quick results. We've had an ongoing war on cancer for forty years and have made tremendous progress, but still have a long ways to go.
The third is real pie-in-the-sky stuff, where areas like instrumentation, materials science, and just plain theory need to progress before anything can happen.
Posted by: Fri
|
May 25, 2010 10:10 AM
Well, I knew my comment would have raised some discussion, but I didn't think I would have been personally offended and my words denigrated in such a vulgar way. It is not useful to discuss with people whose only way to address a topic is through insults and vilification. Maybe I'm wrong, but offending me is not a good way to convince me (nor anyone else) that it is your opinions to be correct.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
May 25, 2010 10:13 AM
jblumenfeld @115
expressed my 119 while I was writing, just better and from experience.
Why don't the anti-vaccers want to know the truth? They appear to prefer their worldview to reality. They appear to prefer a cartoon villain that "did this" to their children rather than the cold reality that it may not be anyone's fault, it just "is".
The anti-vaccer approach certainly takes less courage than jblumenfeld's approach.
Posted by: Isaac Sherman
|
May 25, 2010 10:19 AM
@121
What about the legitimate questions raised? What about credibility? You sidestep the actual arguments raised and respond to a perceived ad hom like any other troll.
You're wrong. I'm convinced now that you're either a troll or incapable of dealing with people on the internet.
Posted by: Fri
|
May 25, 2010 10:24 AM
"What about the legitimate questions raised?"
What questions? I just said I think more research is needed. Isn't this legitimate enough?
"I'm convinced now that you're either a troll or incapable of dealing with people on the internet."
I just don't like to be called shithead, moron, troll, ignorant... Do you?
Posted by: Doug Little
|
May 25, 2010 10:42 AM
Learn what fucking satire is!
Posted by: Isaac Sherman
|
May 25, 2010 10:45 AM
Fri, What questions? How about the numerous studies showing not only no connection to vaccines but the ongoing research in the actual cause of ASD (Like #89 et al)? How about #93? How about reading the thread and getting some idea of the research that already exists before saying that more research is necessary?
Nope. So I don't act like an ignorant moronic shithead troll.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 25, 2010 10:58 AM
No, it's not legitimate. There have been several large scale studies which show no correlation between vaccinations and autism. What you're really saying is "I want research which contradicts all the other research and supports my discredited theory." We've seen the "more research" pleas from homeopaths and other altmed folks when real science has exposed their woo as woo.
Autism has been shown to have a genetic factor. More and more I'm getting the impression from the "vaccinations hurt my child" fanatics that they're not willing to accept "it might be something in me, I'm not a perfect mommy or daddy" reason for their child's autism and prefer to put the blame on an external source.
Some time ago I wrote a parody of the "more research" people: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/scattered_shots_against_fodor.php#comment-2297769. It seems appropriate now.
Posted by: Doug Little
|
May 25, 2010 11:03 AM
No one's trying to convince you of anything, The studies show no link it is not a matter of opinion but of fact. If you cannot grasp this concept it doesn't bode well for you.To ask for more research into a non-existent link is taking resources away from other areas that show more promise, so shame on you for that. This horse has been well and truly flogged to death there is no link, period.
Don't act like one and you won't be called it.Posted by: raven
|
May 25, 2010 11:10 AM
It is a waste of time to discuss anything with stupid trolls. You are just being passive-aggressive. Say something stupid, illogical, and insulting. When everyone insults you back claim persecution and whine a lot.
You aren't here to be convinced. You are here to disrupt the thread and be an asshole troll. Pointing out your intent and agenda to disrupt things because you have mental problems or whatever is a good way to convince you to go bother some other website. Of course, this also feeds the trolls and sometimes they just start hanging around.
Posted by: raven
|
May 25, 2010 11:25 AM
This is triple quackery. Homeopathy is nonsense, most "growth factors" such as FGF, EGF, IGF, VEGF, NGF, and so one are proteins and must be administered by injection, and most won't cross the blood brain barrier. The chance that these studies exist is none.
The antivaxxers are desperate people with sad and difficult situations to cope with. This makes them easy prey for con artists and quacks.
A few years ago, the magic potion was secretin, a pancreatic hormone (proven not to work), chelation therapy to wash out heavy metals, and various highly restrictive diets. Not sure what the latest in quack remedies is. One thing for sure, whining on the internet and blaming vaccines, Big Pharma, and modern medicine, isn't going to help anyone.
Posted by: Fri
|
May 25, 2010 11:43 AM
"You are here to disrupt the thread and be an asshole troll."
No, you are disrupting the thread considering my issue stupid and replying with offenses instead of reasoning. Someone could have asked me why I think we need more research, or why I have doubts, or any other relevant question. Instead you preferred to label me as a troll and close your ears, continuing to repeat the same mantra all over again. Well, this is not the way I am used to discuss.
"aWhat you're really saying is "I want research which contradicts all the other research and supports my discredited theory." "
I don't have any theory! I know there are genetic causes for autism (I have a few friends working on this field) but I also think there are growing evidences of environmental effects on this kind of mental diseases. Is that really too much to ask for more research in this field? And, I know very well how difficult it is to have funds for science so my request is not directly directed to scientists but to society, politics, fund raisers.
Anyway, I've already lost too much of my time in trying to talk with people that don't want to talk. It is pointless for me as, it seems, it is for you.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 25, 2010 11:58 AM
What makes you think there isn't ongoing research in that area already? I just think you are totally clueless to the forefront of science. That just makes you sound stoopid. Do some research (Google Scholar can be your friend) before you open your mouth, and you will sound more intelligent. Also, what are you doing to fund more research in that area? If scientists aren't funded, they can't do much more than write review articles.Giving you an education, which you sorely seem to lack, on how science works and the present state of research, is not a waste of time for us. You showing us your ignorance is a waste of time for you.Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
May 25, 2010 12:15 PM
I've heard all of these topics discussed at professional conferences on autism. The problem is that someone comes up with an interesting or plausible idea and does some preliminary research, and some members of the general public get fixated on that particular idea. Then when further research doesn't support a particular idea, it's a conspiracy, instead of just the scientific method at work.
Another problem is that autism is probably the result of numerous different environmental and genetic factors, so it is possible (not necessarily likely, but possible) that dietary modifications can affect behavior for individual kids in fairly idiosyncratic ways. I tend to be a bit more tolerant of the weird diet intervention woos than of invasive or expensive versions of woo.
Posted by: Yubal
|
May 25, 2010 12:27 PM
@ Ken
Thank you for the link, was a great read!
@ triskelethecat
Hm, yeah. I see. Maybe I would also fall into one of these mild-autism categories. actually I am pretty sure I have some PDD-NOS or asperger symptoms, but do not see the point in professional diagnosis or stuff like that.
And yes, I got all vaccinations available when I was a child, which was a good thing to have back then.
Posted by: raven
|
May 25, 2010 12:27 PM
The idiosyncratic diets are at least probably harmless as long as they contain all necessary nutrients for growing children.
The chelation therapy looks a bit dangerous and can be fatal.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
May 25, 2010 12:28 PM
But I think those are probably attacking comorbidities, not the autism symptoms themselves. Sure, kids who are autistic often have other GI-based problems, but I think it's pretty unclear right now whether that's because they are linked somehow (maybe one genetic mutation is linked to another) or if it's that those parents dig so deeply into their children's health that they discover sensitivities that other parents may have otherwise overlooked. Maybe those kids happen to have extra sensitivities that those parents notice. Heck, maybe yellow dye #17 makes all kids a little wonky, but only some parents of autistic kids have specifically eliminated it and noted it as a behavioral change.
My kid has allergies. Maybe he's acting out more because his nose is stuffed and his head hurts, and when I give him antihistamines he stops hitting his head so much. But it's not that antihistamines are treating the autistic symptom of hitting his head. I'm a little tolerant of some of those diet interventions etc. for that reason, but it does make me see red when they are then claimed to be somehow related to autism specifically.
Posted by: JPS, FCD, Death's Statistics Coach
|
May 25, 2010 12:54 PM
Voted "No" on the poll, then posted a reply to Ms. Bender's first comment; said I sympathised with her troubles but felt I had to say that anecdotes aren't data. Then I told my own anecdote -- about my own experience with rubeola at age six -- worse for me than any other disease before or since, and worse still for my younger sister, an innocent bystander who caught it from me. But we have both survived with no obvious permanent ill effects, except possibly that my eyes seem to be much more sensitive to light than most people's.
Then I confessed, in terms that might hve been offensive but weren't intended to be so: as a relatively well-informed layman, I've long believed that I'm clearly in the "approaching autistic" half of the Asperger's spectrum.
Got a response from the site saying that my comment would be held until I acknowledged receipt of a confirmati9on email.
That was over an hour ago. Still waiting for their email.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
May 25, 2010 1:23 PM
@Carlie -
That's a really good point - parents of special needs kids can definitely be more focused on the links between diet and behavior. My son was unbelievably sensitive to some phenols and to yellow food dye. As a result, I'm a bit more sympathetic to the diet interventions, but the distinction between etiological factors and aggravating factors should be made more explicitly in autism-spectrum forums.
Posted by: Samantha
|
May 25, 2010 2:04 PM
Carlie @ 136:
My kid has allergies. Maybe he's acting out more because his nose is stuffed and his head hurts, and when I give him antihistamines he stops hitting his head so much. But it's not that antihistamines are treating the autistic symptom of hitting his head.
Exactly what I was going to say, only better put. I think it's extremely likely that an ASD child with a GI issue is likely to appear better when on a diet that eliminates or deals with his GI issue. However, I think this is most likely because any child (regardless of illness or lack thereof) is going to perform better mentally when they're not experiencing malnutrition. To automatically assume that the GI issues are a symptom of autism and closely linked to the mental symptoms... well, it just shows even more of those parents' tendencies to want to apply causation to a correlative relationship without adequate scientific proof.
I concur with you and raven in saying that they can try all the weird diets they like as long as they're nutritionally complete, but I'd like to see such things being marketed for "GI issues" (even if they'd like to call them ones commonly associated with autism) rather than just "for autism".
Posted by: Samantha
|
May 25, 2010 2:08 PM
OK... not sure what caused the blockquote fail in 139 but the paragraph starting "My kid has allergies..." is still Carlie's. I don't have a kid, never mind one with allergies.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
May 25, 2010 7:28 PM
The comments on that poll by parents of autistic children are distressing. They're all using the dishonest emotional appeal argument along the lines of "My kid has autism and it's a horrible situation to be in - therefore I am more qualified than you to determine the cause of this horrible situation. How dare you tell me that I'm not expert on the cause of autism. My kid has autism and therefore I'm medically qualified to speak with authority on it. Because watching my kid develop autism was emotionally traumatic that means you have give me a pass when I indulge in spreading harmful information about it that will ensure even more kids develop autism (*)".
(*) - By delaying the search for the actual cause(s) of autism by insisting that the entire medical community should stay stuck on the failed hypothesis of "it's vaccines" and not move on to research other causes, these people are ensuring more parents have to go through this horrible experience than otherwise would have to.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 26, 2010 10:55 PM
I also think there are growing evidences of environmental effects on this kind of mental diseases.
the question is...
WHY.
what is the source of your reasoning that makes you conclude this?
you have references, or "gut instinct"?
if the latter... you need to work on your decisionmaking processes.
Posted by: Fri
|
May 27, 2010 10:28 AM
# 132
"What makes you think there isn't ongoing research in that area already?"
So you are saying that there actually IS more research on going. That there are scientists thinking that we NEED MORE data on the correlation between autism and environmental factors (among which I list the additive in vaccines, medicines, foods, etc). Well... well... exactly as I said in my very first comment!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 27, 2010 10:45 AM
Post #82, first instance of Fri I found:This is where you impugned the integrity of scientists by saying they were in the pocket of "big pharma". Not that more research is needed. It started your career as a liar, because scientists are honest, and they were looking into possible environmental factors for autism prior to your post. In fact, they have for years. But you are too lippy to do actual research before you open your mouth and appear stoopid. Since your first post didn't mention more data. That came later.Posted by: Fri
|
May 27, 2010 10:47 AM
#132
"Giving you an education,"
by the way, you should study a little bit of pedagogy: offending people is not a very good method of educating them!
Posted by: Fri
|
May 27, 2010 10:55 AM
# 144
you know as much as I do that not all scientists are honest and that some of them might be pushed, even against their willing, to release data with little evidences or those supporting the BigPharma interests. Every once in a while there are papers (peer reviewed)withdrawn. So to make scientists as much reliable as possible to the big public it is necessary that those that are truly honest raise their voices. This is what I'm strongly asking since my first post.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 27, 2010 11:07 AM
Fri, still playing a losing hand. We treat those who insult us with insults. You insulted first, with your post #82, so shut the fuck up on your treatment until you apologize, which based on #146 is unlikely to happen.
And Fri, papers may be withdrawn for various reasons. Not all have to do with deliberate lying as honest mistakes happen, and science corrects itself eventually. We know that. But the scientists who work for Pharma companies are not dishonest until proven otherwise.
You appear to have a real bee in your bonnet, but you obviously don't have a real clue how science works, how science funding works, and why science has to allocate its scarce resources over many areas. Science could double the amount of funding for the cause of autism, but that money will have to come from another area. Are you going to tell cancer or MS patients they get less research? If you want more research, we aren't your problem, but rather the need for the president and congress to allocate more funds for scientific research. Take your anger there.
Posted by: Fri
|
May 27, 2010 8:41 PM
There's none so deaf as those who don't want to hear
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 27, 2010 8:43 PM
Then why don't YOU try listening. Or show us your plan, or shut the fuck up.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 27, 2010 8:53 PM
Oh, and Fri the troll, be specific. Give dollar amounts and how you will reprioritize funding. Don't just just say more research. That is the position of an ignorant loser.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 27, 2010 10:54 PM
There's none so deaf as those who don't want to hear
project...
aw fuckit; what's the point?