I love this. I love this so much.
Jim Carrey and his anti-vax comrades know literally nothing about vaccines, how they are developed, and how they work. Vaccines do not cause autism.
... But... what if a vaccine *did* end up having a pretty 'bad' side-effect (outside of something expected, high fever, allergic reaction, etc)?
How would scientists know?
Would it be covered up by Big Pharma and the League of Evil Immunologists?
Would The Truth come out when some post-doc henchman has a change of heart and runs to the internet to write a blog post Expose?
This is what happens when vaccines have an unintended negative side-effect:
There was un uptick in cases of narcolepsy in people who had gotten an influenza vaccine. Not any/every influenza vaccine, but a specific formulation, intended to battle H1N1 influenza (aka swine flu).
If you were vaccinated with a specific flu vaccine, Pandemrix, and if you have a specific genetic allele, HLA-DQB1*0602, you were at risk of developing vaccine-induced autoimmunity.
Your antibodies see 'shapes', not specifically 'I am going to stop influenza!' or 'Im gonna blow up that E. coli!'. So when the shape of a component of the vaccine, influenza nucleoprotein, 'looks like' the shape of a normal human protein, hypocretin receptor 2, vaccination broke tolerance ('This is what me looks like. Dont make antibodies that look like me.'), and you get autoimmunity.
In this case, the influenza/you cross-reactive antibodies, sometimes, stuck to normal humanhypocretin receptor 2, and resulted in narcolepsy after vaccination.
Vaccine-->neurological disorder. This means vaccines COULD cause autism, a different neurological disorder, right?
Not at all.
The relationship between this vaccine, a very specific genotype, and an increased risk of narcolepsy was seen in independent groups where Pandemrix was used. Different countries. Different scientists. Same observations.
No one, anywhere, has 'evidence' vaccines cause autism.
The scientists in this study fully elucidated the specific vaccine component, the specific genotypes of patients, and the specific antibody responses capable of generating a 'narcolepsy' phenotype.
The 'vaccines cause autism' crowd blame random vaccine components (changing to another random component, or not changing, when their component of choice is exonerated). They ignore/deny the genetic component of autism. They have no viable hypothesis for the biochemical pathway that would lead from 'random vaccine component' to 'autism'.
Furthermore, the authors of this study in no way shape or form say 'Vaccines are bad!', even though they have evidence in hand that a vaccine did something 'bad'. Their conclusions are:
1) People with this genotype could have had a *worse* reaction if they were infected with the actual pathogen, rather than just the vaccine. Infection leads to prolonged exposure to more of the influenza protein, and results in more cross-reactive antibodies. Even if there were no other options, the vaccine would be a lower risk than actually getting sick.
2) There are other options. People with this genotype can can get one of the other vaccine formulations that had 73% less of the offending flu protein. Most of us got this vaccine anyway, just because of availability. But it is best if they get this alternative vaccine before they are infected with an H1N1 virus.
3) Other people need to get vaccinated to protect HLA-DQB1*0602 people from getting infected-->acquiring narcolepsy. The relationship between HLA-DQB1*0602 and narcolepsy is, as the authors say four times in this paper, 'tight'. If you have a different genotype, and you get the vaccine, you wont get sick/will have milder symptoms, and will lessen your chances of transmitting to a HLA-DQB1*0602 person. Classic herd immunity.
4) This data explains why there were cyclical cases of narcolepsy in China when H1N1 was simmering over there, before this flu variant went pandemic. Indeed, it might even explain "the observation of the seasonal “sleepy sickness” variant of encephalitis lethargica that followed the 1918 Spanish flu". But there is no way to test that one.
5) This is not a complete answer to Narcolepsy. You can have narcolepsy and not have antibodies to this influenza protein. And, just because you have the antibodies doesnt mean you will have narcolepsy. The authors also hypothesize that there needs to be an additional infection, something that causes inflammation and allows lots of the cross-reactive antibody to cross the blood-brain-barrier and 'attack' the receptor, and maybe that second event never happens in some people. But this is a potential answer for why some people developed narcolepsy after receiving the Pandemrix vaccine or infection with a specific kind of influenza.
And in a breath of fresh air-- These authors do not close the door on this topic. This paper is not perfect, and the authors do not pretend it is. There are things they wanted to look at, but they couldnt due to the nature of the samples they had stored for this study. Those of us who work with patient samples are slaves to availability. It would be great to have samples X, Y, and Z, but if you dont have them, you dont have them. These folks say 'Hey, if you are making a cohort, these are the samples we wish we had, and could explain so much more.'
When scientists discover that a vaccine has actually resulted in a 'bad' side-effect, we analyze, in extreme detail, how and why the 'bad' thing happened so we can understand it and avoid it, while still protecting people from the pathogen the vaccine was designed for. Even better, in this case, figuring out what happened via the vaccine helped explain what was happening 'naturally' (increase in narcolepsy cases after H1N1 outbreaks), and how to stop those cases (alternative vaccines, herd immunity). They admit the limitations of this paper, and flesh out ideas they would like the field to investigate.
Anti-vaxers, on the other hand, have no idea how/why any vaccine could lead to autism. They have no evidence it does. They want all vaccines taken off the market. They have no viable alternative means of protecting anyone from pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and cancers. They have no answer for why people who havent had vaccines get autism. They admit no study weaknesses or limitations-- Sample size of two or questionable statistics are The Gold Standard-- while dismissing more rigorous data that doesnt agree with their claims.
Scientists cant explain everything, but anti-vaxers cant explain anything.
"The ‘vaccines cause autism’ crowd blame random vaccine components (changing to another random component, or not changing, when their component of choice is exonerated). They ignore/deny the genetic component of autism. They have no viable hypothesis for the biochemical pathway that would lead from ‘random vaccine component’ to ‘autism’."
You're missing something here.
Why couldn't there be an interaction between the "genetic" tendency to autism , resulting in actual autism (or "autistic-like symptoms", if you want to play with semantics) in a victim once the "insult" of vaccination is introduced, just like happened in these narcolepsy cases?
Eight hundred European kids were irrovicably damaged through their Pandemrix exposure, an unacceptable result regardless of what we learned from this.
I would also point out the cases of paralysis associated with enterovirus 68 that have been popping up among children. Many who become ill with it never become paralyzed. Some do, suggesting it has less to do with the illness than with individual immune response to it.
GBS as a reaction to illness or vaccination is another example. It has less to do with the agent and more to do with individualized immune response.
Unfortunately we don't currently have enough put into the actual "science" of vaccination to individualize them to each person receiving them. We don't care.... as long as the majority of the herd gets by with minimal damage.
More and more parents, are understanding that, especially as the medical industry is steadily increasing the number of vaccinations that they deem necessary.
"Why couldn’t there be an interaction between the “genetic” tendency to autism , resulting in actual autism (or “autistic-like symptoms”, if you want to play with semantics) in a victim once the “insult” of vaccination is introduced, just like happened in these narcolepsy cases?"
Absolutely no reason. Now all you have to do is show us the evidence that it is occurring. Because in this example the evidence came first and the reason came later. In autism anti-vaxxers there was never any evidence.
One specific strain of an anti-vaccine, caught very soon after its introduction, stopped and analysed because of evidence vs years and years of no evidence with regard to childhood vaccinations and autism. The point of this article was to show that when things do go bad they are caught and corrected.
So, where's your evidence?
"Absolutely no reason. Now all you have to do is show us the evidence that it is occurring. Because in this example the evidence came first and the reason came later. In autism anti-vaxxers there was never any evidence."
Of course there is. Personal observation of parents who witnessed the injury done to their children following vaccination.
"Scientists" are so quick to point out that autism is an inherited condition, genetically based, yet they can't tell where exactly the problem lies in the genes. Even less, tell us how injection of chemicals into the bloodstream could AFFECT those with a genetic-based tendency toward autism, or immune sensitivity.
Perhaps the evidence IS coming first, in the form of these vaccine-injured-with-autistic-symptoms children - just like it did with those 800 narcolepsy cases. The research just has to catch up with the evidence.
It's going to take a lot of parents/people putting their foot down and saying "no more", before "science" decides that genetics and the immune system as a whole is enough of a priority that personalized vaccination becomes a reality. Not just shooting all moving targets with one bullet, and then another, and then another; and then trying to shut up the claims of the outliers, of which there seems to be more and more as time passes and more "necessary" vaccinations are forced into the human body.
FYI: The anti-vaxers (I'm related to a few) have mostly given up on the autism link, and moved on. If you want to talk with them, you will need to let go of the autism argument as well. The fact is, you are never going to convince them or change their minds. But I won't disagree with you trying.
Good information, Abbie, and I think this may be useful in making our case, a) that science is self-critical and self-correcting, and b) that a finding can be extended into a prediction that turns out to be correct. Whereas c) the anti-vaxers have nothing substantial: contagious fear plus contagious conspiracy theory does not equal the ability to predict anything.
Emotions are chemicals, and the chemistry of fear and anxiety is well known. As with any psychoactive drug, fear and anxiety have half-lives and take time to wear off. A rational message meant to address a fear can't make the fear go away, any more than the rational need to drive oneself home from a party makes the effects of alcohol or marijuana go away. They have to wear off on their own.
The problem with conditioned fear responses is that the associated stimulus itself triggers a new episode of fear or anxiety: so the very act of trying to explain the facts to an anti-vaxer triggers the paranoia. The only way I can see to get around this is by building up an association of calm and trust for the messenger before s/he delivers the message. That would require reaching messengers who are already trusted, such as patients' GPs, or community leaders such as clergy and so on.
Lastly, so now we see more anti-vaxers showing up in comments in ScienceBlogs. They should recognize that they're in over their heads here, arguing with people who know far more than they do. Or perhaps they are here because they're having cognitive dissonance about their anti-vax beliefs, and they subconsciously want us to help them get over those beliefs?
"Of course there is. Personal observation of parents who witnessed the injury done to their children following vaccination. "
That's not evidence. That's "post hoc ergo propter hoc", a common logical fallacy.
Autism usually manifests near a certain age. That age lies fairly soon after the normal child vaccination schedule. The facts show that there's no correlation beyond the temporal - children who aren't vaccinated show signs of autism at the same rates and at the same times as those who are.
"Even less, tell us how injection of chemicals into the bloodstream could AFFECT those with a genetic-based tendency toward autism, or immune sensitivity. "
The fact that you use the word "chemicals" in such a fashion shows you're operating from a base of very low information. Water is a chemical. Every substance in the universe is a chemical. Calling something a "chemical" doesn't make it dangerous, just as calling something "natural" doesn't make it safe.
You don't know what evidence is. You don't know what scientists claim (the cause of autism is not known, and is suspected by varying scientists to be genetic or developmental). You don't understand risk.
Basically, you understand none of the things required for any person to take you seriously when you voice an opinion on vaccines.
The fact that you use the word “chemicals” in such a fashion shows you’re operating from a base of very low information.
"Injection ... nto the bloodstream" is always a good sign that one is not dealing with a particularly competent antivaccine crank.
"the fact that you use the word "chemicals" in such a fashion shows that you're operating from a base of very low information."
The fact that you choose to pick apart my simple words instead of addressing the thought processes and facts behind them highlights the arrogance of many within the medical and research communities.
CHEMICAL is an absolutely valid term for the items within a vaccine - if you are so stupid as to believe that I don't know what a chemical is, or perceive that I believe all chemicals are unsafe for the human body, that highlights your own ignorance, not mine.
Address what I actually said, and the ideas I put forth, and then maybe you can prove your own "superior" knowledge of the subject to me.
"“Of course there is. Personal observation of parents who witnessed the injury done to their children following vaccination. ”
That’s not evidence. That’s “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, a common logical fallacy."
Enough single anecdotes of the same phenomenon, over and over and over again, becomes valid data.
Data of vaccination (not a single anecdote, but stories, over and over again, by many parents), resulting in abnormal screaming, crying, pain symptoms, and finally withdrawal on the part of the victim becomes data that hopefully parents will listen to even if "scientists" won't.
This will have to be a grassroots movement at the parental level, because your science is so tainted by money, profits, and incestual relationships with the pharma industry and government (Hello, Rick Perry. Hello, Richard Pan).
The individual is of no concern to you. The herd is your interest. Our individual children are ours.
And lastly, I do understand risk. That's why my children are vaccinated. I balanced the risk against the benefit. I delayed and spaced out.
The only vaccines to date that I've consistently refused for my kids are the ridiculous and ineffective flu vaccine and Merck's big moneymaker, Gardasil (for obvious safety reasons).
But as parents, we're dealing with doctors who've been "persuaded" by years of intimate dealings with pharma salesmen (thanks, US government, for finally insisting on public reporting of all that fun stuff), and government officials who've been purchased by lobbyist money from ethically ambivalent pharma corporations.
So I don't want to hear about the scientific "illiteracy" of America's parents who are wary of any of your claims of safety or necessity. You guys brought this s**** down on yourselves and you've dug a really deep hole. Have fun with that.
"Autism usually manifests near a certain age. That age lies fairly soon after the normal child vaccination schedule."
Really. So most autism is regressive?
Now WHO doesn't know what they're talking about?
True regressive autism makes up 1/3 of autism cases.
CHEMICAL is an absolutely valid term for the items within a vaccine – if you are so stupid as to believe that I don’t know what a chemical is, or perceive that I believe all chemicals are unsafe for the human body, that highlights your own ignorance, not mine.
And.... that's a wrap.
"Enough single anecdotes of the same phenomenon, over and over and over again, becomes valid data. "
The problem wasn't with the observation count but with the assertion, ss.
Your claim is identical to the old wives' tale that thunderstorms cause curdled milk.
Autism cannot be found in early children because they aren't developed enough to exhibit signs that aren't comensurate with autism but aren't a normal consequence of their developement state.
It's like you can't claim incontinence or stomach upset on a nursing infant because babies don't know how to control their bladder and their digestive system has not built up the gut flora yet, so these effects cannot be discerned in very young babies, whereas they CAN be found in children and adults because they HAVE learned bladder control and HAVE developed a fully operational digestive system.
So you can't diagnose young children with autism because normal children act the same way as autistic adults do.
By the time they've developed enough to control themselves and thereby show a diversion from the norm, they're old enough to have been vaccinated.
Since the age discrepancy of autism diagnosis is found in VASTLY more numbers than autism AFTER vaccination, the balance of evidence lies heavily on the side of vaccination being unrelated to autism.
"I balanced the risk against the benefit. "
So what is the risk your children could become autistic from being vaccinated? One in a hundred? One in a thousand? Or was it undefined and "not proven there was no risk", in which case why did you bother vaccinating your children, since there was a risk that an infinite number of problems would occur, therefore a GUARANTEE that SOME risk would arise?
"“Autism usually manifests near a certain age. That age lies fairly soon after the normal child vaccination schedule.”
Really. So most autism is regressive? "
Do you not know what "age" means? Do you not know what "regressive" means? Because either one or both must be true since nowhere in the quote you made did the word "regressive" appear.
s.s. and all parents everywhere, that isn't YOUR child, that's THEIR PERSON.
Just because you're responsible and you have to look after them DOES NOT make them your property.
YOUR right over that child's future is no more yours than it is anyone else's.
And, since there are more "anyone else" than there are you, THEIR multitude interest outweights your singular interest.
The ONLY one whose interests outweight that of "everyone else" is the child themselves.
“Even less, tell us how injection of chemicals into the bloodstream could AFFECT those with a genetic-based tendency toward autism, or immune sensitivity. ”
Since you admit when pushed that chemicals include ones that are absolutely fine being put into your body, your comment is pointless, since it doesn't show what chemicals are problematic and how.
Since you made the claim without any point, THAT is why everyone here with half a brain is telling you you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Not that you don't know what a chemical is, but that you don't know what you're actually saying, since every valuable bit of information is missing from your claims and YOU DO NOT REALISE THIS.
Vaccine-induced autism is REGRESSIVE autism, Wow.
It happens when a normally-developing child receives a vaccine and REGRESSES, usually with fevers, screaming, crying, and other symptoms. They then withdraw and lose the abilities that they once displayed.
That's why I commented on regression. It's NOT the most common form of autism, and most cases of autism usually can be diagnosed before the age that vaccinations are received.
That's why our government keeps telling parents that early detection and intervention is best - as early as 6 months. Early symptoms.
That is NOT the same as true regression, when your child is hitting ALL their milestones until the time of (vaccination).
And dude, my children ARE my responsibility, and I WILL continue to act, as all parents do, as I think will best ensure their health and wellbeing until they can make health choices themselves. At the age of majority - 18, in most cases.
Since science STILL cannot tell us how to PREVENT autism, then parents WILL continue to listen to the observations of other parents and try to prevent autism by avoiding (early) vaccination, if they must.
Deal with it.
"“I balanced the risk against the benefit. ”
So what is the risk your children could become autistic from being vaccinated? One in a hundred? One in a thousand? Or was it undefined and “not proven there was no risk”, in which case why did you bother vaccinating your children, since there was a risk that an infinite number of problems would occur, therefore a GUARANTEE that SOME risk would arise?"
Do you happen to know what the condition of autism is, Wow?
A condition that we are being told whose number of cases increases exponentially, almost yearly?
Do you know what it financially and emotionally does to families who are trying to rescue their children from the worst aspects of the disorder? Those who can't speak, who can't even take care of themselves, and who never will? EVER?
Besides the condemnation of that child for an entire lifetime, you have parents who will be forced into caretaking and/or education and development attempts until they die, when that child is passed along to other family members or warehoused (at the cost to SOME OTHER family member) until THEY die???
Parents are now beginning to TRULY realize the implications of willingly taking that "small risk" of autism/brain damage through vaccination.
This condition has societal implications has it grows larger and larger and more families become financially and emotionally unstable in its wake. You ALREADY hear stories of parents who feel so cornered and trapped they kill themselves as well as their autistic children because they can't take anymore.
And when does larger society step in to combat this growing problem? Since, you know, it WILL become a problem for ALL of us, not just the unfortunate victims and their immediate families. We'll all pay for this, eventually.
Why the hell WOULDN'T a parent choose to forego this risk in any way they have in their grasp? Science can't give us the answers right now.
Only other parents, who've had the experience and seen what happens when vaccinations go "bad", can share their knowledge and observations. That's all we parents got right now.
"Vaccine-induced autism is REGRESSIVE autism, Wow. "
No it isn't. Autism isn't vaccine induced.
"It happens when a normally-developing child receives a vaccine and REGRESSES,"
Nope. It doesn't happen.
"usually with fevers, screaming, crying"
Which aren't symptoms of autism.
"That’s why I commented on regression. It’s NOT the most common form of autism,"
Yes, not occurring at all is much less than the rate of appearance of something that DOES happen.
"and most cases of autism usually can be diagnosed before the age that vaccinations are received."
But the number of autism cases soon after immunisation is already small, so how do you know that any hypothetical possible autism would be diagnosable before the age they can be immunised?
You don't. preferring to beg the question rather than make a proof.
"Do you know what it financially and emotionally does to families who are trying to rescue their children from the worst aspects of the disorder?"
Yes. My parents and my sister's family. This, however, does not constitute proof that vaccinations cause autism. An appeal to emotion is a technique to hide the fact that you have nothing.
"And dude, my children ARE my responsibility"
And dude, go back to school and learn to read, I said they were your responsibility. I said they are not your property.
"and I WILL continue to act, as all parents do, as I think will best ensure their health and wellbeing until they can make health choices themselves"
Not if your choices are bad ones. And who decides that? Everyone else in society when they make their social rules.
E.g. regarding vaccinations and school attendance.
Or, in the case of religious objectors who refuse surgical procedures on their children, they can have their children taken away and ignored.
"Since science STILL cannot tell us how to PREVENT autism"
Since that doesn't mean vaccines cause autism, who the hell cares? What the hell is it supposed to mean? It certainly doesn't justify the following statement of bigoted ideology from you.
"by avoiding (early) vaccination, if they must. "
Since you don't know how vaccines cause autism, nor even that they do, you cannot claim that protecting the children from autism will be accomplished by avoiding vaccines.
And note that the child is the one who forfeits if you are wrong.
Pretty brave when someone else's life is on the line, bub...
"Do you happen to know what the condition of autism is, Wow?"
Do you happen to know that wasn't anything approaching an answer to the question, ss?
Do you know what an answer to the question is?
Because it appears you believe a response is an answer, when in fact it isn't necessarily. All answers are responses, not all responses are answers.
So answer the question.
"Why the hell WOULDN’T a parent choose to forego this risk"
There isn't a risk.
You yourself don't know that there IS one, hence your refusal to answer what the risk actually was, so therefore there is no risk.
"Deal with it."
Yes, though one way to deal with it is to remove the child from your abuse and put them in a family that won't see them harmed because they're fatuously misinformed and alarmist.
You endanger that child and you no longer have the right to make that child's decisions for them.
That's one way to "deal with it".
Since you were happy with me dealing with it, this will likewise be fine.
If not, tough shit. Deal with it.
I think I have you pegged, Wow.
No doubt your parents are dealing with the ramifications of aspergers, aren't they?
Lucky for them, unlike so many, if that's as bad as it gets for them.
"I think I have you pegged, Wow. "
Either think or have me pegged. See, I'm open minded enough to give you multiple options!
"No doubt your parents are dealing with the ramifications of aspergers, aren’t they?"
No doubt you think that this is relevant.
Nobody knows why. Not even you.
But what we CAN all see is that you have nothing other than insinuation and personal attacks to hide the fact that you have no data or facts to back up your petulant claims.
Have I got you pegged?
I give as good as I get, Wow.
But I won't argue with an Aspie. You've got enough problems.
No, you get it good.
Pants at giving it, though.
This is not entirely your fault, because there really isn't anything other than emo on your side.
But what IS entirely your fault and proof positive you don't give, let alone "give as good as you get" is the fact that you've managed, what, a half-dozen posts avoiding answering "what is the risk of autism, then? one in a hundred, a thousand?".
I gave that question, you gave nothing.
Because you have nothing.
Other than feels.
"You’ve got enough problems."
I may have 99 problems, but a bitch like you ain't one.
The problem isn't whether I'm an aspie (your claim, not mine), but that you can't answer the questions nor support your claims with evidence.
Hence you try to make out that your failures are due to you being "too nice" to make any sort of case.
Oh, by the way, do YOU know what it financially and emotionally does to families who are trying to rescue their children from the worst aspects of the disorder?
If yes, then you must be an Aspie, therefore you must be condescended to as you already have too many problems.
If no, then you cannot make any claims as to whether it's risky to let your children be vaccinated.
Do you happen to know what the condition of autism is?
If yes, then you must be an Aspie, therefore you must be condescended to as you already have too many problems.
If no, then you cannot make any claims as to whether it's risky to let your children be vaccinated.
"What is the risk of autism" especially in vaccination-injury cases is an unanswerable question, Wow.
In case you haven't figured that out.
Parents are told over and over (for DECADES now) that their child's condition can in no way be related to the vaccination they've received in any way. Since no one in the (rather corrupted) medical research field collects and quantifies the data that parents have been told for years is invalid.
No one knows what the risk is. Even you.
So parents are filling in the gaps themselves.
"“What is the risk of autism” especially in vaccination-injury cases is an unanswerable question, Wow. "
Then you don't know there is any risk at all.
And since you seem to be unaware of how to calculate risk vs reward, you have to know what the risk IS before you can make a calculation on whether that risk is worth it.
So your claims of assessing risk is shown to be completely self-serving tripe.
"Parents are told over and over (for DECADES now) that their child’s condition can in no way be related to the vaccination they’ve received in any way."
"So parents are filling in the gaps themselves."
No they aren't. They're making things up.
Ah yes, the snake that consumes his own tail.
"We in the medical industry refuse to accept the data given to us and therefore ignore it, so we can't calculate the risk involved from it."
"So therefore, this is no risk".
That the day should come when the general public understands the absurdity of ths more than the scientists. You know the world must be ending soon.
"They're making things up."
Sure, Wow. (that was sarcasm, in case you didn't get it).
I understand. It hasn't happened to YOU so you can't possibly envision it happening to anyone.
"Ah yes, the snake that consumes his own tail."
You appear to be running off on a tangent hoping that your avoidance and lack of information will go unnoticed.
Just pointing that out.
"That the day should come when the general public understands the absurdity of ths more than the scientists. "
Why? And what would be the proof it is absurd?
"It hasn’t happened to YOU so you can’t possibly envision it happening to anyone."
Uh, did you just forget what made you claim I was an aspie?
Are you a severe sufferer from Alzheimers at an advanced stage?
Or are you, like the Guiness director jailed for fraud, just pretending to have it?
But I note that you're still attempting to rush off at tangents with much screaming and waving the arms about in a desperate attempt to hide the fact that you've been unable to support your claims at all.
But at least you're not making the same dumb claim that "there's a risk, and parents are weighing that risk" in your desperation to hide your flawed argument.
"Regressive". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Oh, right, I knew that "s.s." had mortified itself previously, but the show was so dull that it took a while to recall.
Over there, ss demands "Show me your evidence that any recent research has confirmed intussusception after rotavirus vaccination is “sheer coincidence”. "
From the wikipedia on rates:
> The condition is diagnosed most often in infancy and early childhood. It strikes about 2,000 infants (one in every 1,900)
From the Rotovirus rates from Lawrence:
> If I recall correctly, it was over 1 more case per 10,000 doses that caused the recall.
In a rate of 1 in 2000, your variation around the meanwould be something of the order of 1 in 4000. Therefore a rate of occurrence changing by less than half that is completely statistically insignificant and entirely explained by "sheer coincidence".
By the way, did you notice that ss didn't believe that there was any such thing as regressive autism for years until someone on this site made a statement they took to mean it did exist, and even then didn't come round to believing it existed until somewhere between post #12 on 24th and post #19 on the 25th on this thread.
"Enough single anecdotes of the same phenomenon, over and over and over again, becomes valid data."
Never all your anecdotes, ss, let's just think about your logic.
- vaccines cause autism
- therefore children who are unvaccinated will have a much lower risk of autism.
And yet....chilldren who are unvaccinated have a slightly *higher* rate of autism.
Ergo, not only do you have no evidence that vaccinations cause autism and are repeating the lies concocted by a fraudulent medical researcher who faked his research to cast doubts on the MMR jab and was trying to patent his own vaccines to make money out of this faked research, but additionaly, simple, basic logic demonstrates your contention is absolute crap.
Having said that, the flu jab is medical overservicing which poorly addresses a low risk, and carries (as do all medical procedures) a variety of risks with it.
As the flu jab is so ineffective and has to be repeated every year - and repeated with a new vaccine that has been developed in a rush and is untested - the cumulative and special risks associated with this vaccine mean that you would have to have rocks in your head to volunteer for it.
"And yet….chilldren who are unvaccinated have a slightly *higher* rate of autism."
Super. Because you said, it must be true?
Please cite your source(s) for that one.
And I'm speaking specifically of the rate of "regressive" autism, Craig.
Show me your figures that specify that children who are unvaccinated have a greater rate of "regressive" autism. Where they are hitting all milestones and SUDDENLY lapse into withdrawal and loss of previously-exhibited skills.
That is my premise, and the claims of parents who've seen it happen - that vaccination, in their specific child's case, results in brain damage that exhibits with the sudden development of autistic-like symptoms.
"Having said that, the flu jab is medical overservicing which poorly addresses a low risk, and carries (as do all medical procedures) a variety of risks with it.
As the flu jab is so ineffective and has to be repeated every year – and repeated with a new vaccine that has been developed in a rush and is untested – the cumulative and special risks associated with this vaccine mean that you would have to have rocks in your head to volunteer for it."
And yet, Craig, the pharma and medical industries are every bit as vehement about forcing their crappy yearly flu vaccines on the population as any other vaccine that's out there. The infant rotavirus vaccine is another example of that kind of BS.
What you're suggesting is actually medical mutiny in the eyes of the pharma/medical community, in even HINTING that people actually use critical thinking in deciding which vaccine is valid for themselves or their children, rather than handing it off for their doctors to decide.
"Super. Because you said, it must be true? "
Well, you've been satisfied with that for your own "arguments" What's wrong with it now? Is it merely you're not using it?
"And I’m speaking specifically of the rate of “regressive” autism, Craig."
Which is zero.
"That is my premise,"
Well it's ours too. Show evidence.
"As the flu jab is so ineffective and has to be repeated every year"
No, because evolution is true it has to be repeated every year.
“As the flu jab is so ineffective and has to be repeated every year”
No, because evolution is true it has to be repeated every year."
No, it's ineffective because it only protects about 50% of people who receive it every year. This last year it only protected about 20% of people who received it.
"Well it’s ours too. Show evidence."
Science has yet to show ANY evidence of ways that autism can be avoided.
Anecdotal evidence from parents who've had the experience of seeing their children regress following vaccination are offering an alternative for those hoping to avoid the condition for their kids.
They're offering the benefit of their tragic experiences. They're not just going to shut up and go away.
Again, until your tainted and corrupt (or even just limited and undeveloped) "science" can offer something concrete to solve this catastrophic problem, to give some answers as to how and why, and ways to avoid it, truly concerned and thinking parents will continue to look elsewhere for ways they can to protect their children.
"Ergo, not only do you have no evidence that vaccinations cause autism and are repeating the lies concocted by a fraudulent medical researcher who faked his research to cast doubts on the MMR jab and was trying to patent his own vaccines to make money out of this faked research, but additionaly, simple, basic logic demonstrates your contention is absolute crap."
BTW, Craig - you are aware, of course, of others who are now beginning to research and sell their own vaccines based exactly on the premise of the gut-flora-and-brain connection that Wakefield theorized.
Here's the info on it:
Here's more research on the gut-brain connection, especially among "late-onset" (regressive) autism subjects:
Additionally, this recent discovery between the gut and the brain has been hailed as groundbreaking:
"Last week, researchers announced they had discovered a physical connection between the immune system and the brain’s blood supply. The finding gives researchers a novel approach to understanding diseases ranging from autism to multiple sclerosis, and strengthens the bridge between neuroscience and immunology...."
"No, it’s ineffective because it only protects about 50% of people who receive it every year. "
No, it's ineffective because evolution is real.
Your claim has also morphed. 50% protected year one, 75% protected year two. And so on. Each year getting more and more protected.
If your claims were the reason, then we'd already be fully protected.
But they're not.
"Here’s the info on it:"
Which appears to be a completely different claim you were holding before and were supposed to support with evidence...
"Additionally, this recent discovery between the gut and the brain has been hailed as groundbreaking:"
Yeah, but it still doesn't support your conspiracy claims.
I guess the brain rot is so advanced you can't remember what you claimed and what you are supposed to support with evidence.
"Science has yet to show ANY evidence of ways that autism can be avoided. "
100% irrelevant. It shows ZERO link between vaccines and autism.
"Anecdotal evidence ..."
Is irrelevant since they have ZERO ability to diagnose the problem, nor proves a causation.
"Your claim has also morphed. 50% protected year one, 75% protected year two. And so on. Each year getting more and more protected.
If your claims were the reason, then we’d already be fully protected."
Sigh. Is it even worth it to point out that yet again, you are showing your lack of reading comprehension, or just outright lying now?
So much for intelligent discussion on a science blog site.
"Is it even worth it to point out that yet again, you are showing your lack of reading comprehension, or just outright lying now?"
I don't know. There's usually no point in making shit up and claiming it. Even if you put an "or" in there to make it appear like you're "open minded".
Nope, I read everything fine. The response isn't one that agrees with you nor one that you have a valid claim against, so you just insinuate a problem without giving one.
And here I was thinking that you'd decided after all you accepted proof was needed, not mere claim.
Seems like it only belongs as a requirement for people not agreeing with your prejudice.
"They’re offering the benefit of their tragic experiences. They’re not just going to shut up and go away. "
They don't have to.
What they DO have to do is not make hysterical claims based on lack of knowledge or evidence that will lead to even more death and tragedy amongst children.
Have you ever seen the "survivors" of Polio? One of my teachers was such a one.
Anyone who had seen what Polio does to children would NEVER let vaccination stop it being prevented.
They sure as hell might if they have to choose between that or permanent mental incapacitation for their children.
... bringing the conversation back around, how many parents would have chosen to vaccinate with this swine flu vaccine, knowing AHEAD OF TIME their child's risk for permanent and debilitating narcolepsy would increase 12-fold upon receipt of the vaccine?
"They sure as hell might if they have to choose between that or permanent mental incapacitation for their children."
Vaccination doesn't mean choosing permanent mental incapacitation for their children, but choosing NOT to is.
"how many parents would have chosen to vaccinate with this swine flu vaccine"
All of them who knew that no vaccination means death for their child.
I had a question for Abbie. Is it possible that viruses or DNA existed on or before the origin of life? The reason I ask is because viruses have their own DNA. And, yet viruses seem to not necessarily qualify as a life form, and appear to be some kind of a precursor stage to the existence of life. I don't know. I hear people kick this question around and debate it, and I was wondering if Abbie has an opinion. Thanks
Potholer54 has a beginner set of videos on this.
Short version: DNA today is highly evolved. It was most likely an RNA planet before a DNA planet, and that they evolved into DNA when they found that having more information allowed more complex processes to be maintained and these processes led to higher survival rates.
And before RNA, it was likely carbon based fragments that were catalysed on clay soils.
And before that, chemistry.
But the short answer to your question is, yes, DNA would have occurred before what we currently call life, but it would contain replication with modification of descent, which is all that is required for *evolution*.
And RNA have the same feature.
And catalysed reactions too.