Vaccines don't cause autism (duh)

[Rick Wamsley]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Seriously, and I am. What substances are you worried about?

How does a Pharmacist not know the difference between injecting and digesting? I don't know the difference because I am stupid, but a pharmacist you would think would know the difference. Oh well, I guess we are all stupid.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by AcGold

are rates really climbing that much? Is it being caused by something in society, multiple factors or a misdiagnosis?

It has been suggested that a large factor in the increased prevalence of autism are changes in how it is diagnosed. Formerly, some kids were diagnosed with mental ######ation (what a terrible term) but now fall within the autism spectrum. Not to mention that there is generally a better understanding of what autism is, which probably leads to more diagnoses. The kid who was poor at communicating might now be autistic.

This doesn't rule out something environmental, of course, but it does explain at least some of the increase.

A brief snippet: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/5/1224.short

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

That is an alarming rate.

However, vaccinations aren't the cause. Could it be how we as a society diagnose, or perhaps we're better at identifying now, where we misdiagnosed in the past.

Perhaps it's something else? Increase in carbon consumption, BPA, I honestly don't know.

What I do know is when you eliminate one possible cause, you have to keep looking, ignoring the evidence and beating a dead horse doesn't help anyone.

Autism rates are climbing much closer in step with the increase in organic food consumption. Perhaps we have something else to blame now?

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by strombad

You're defending not vaccinating children on unfounded and questionable grounds,

Where did I do that? I'll be shocked if you can quote me on it. I'm defending the right to question it, pretty huge difference imo.

I think the evidence of extreme bias is right here for you, multiple people telling me what I did when it's not even close to true. So there you go, people wonder why I'm hesitant when asking questions gets me labelled and attributed to false actions.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Autism rates are climbing much closer in step with the increase in organic food consumption. Perhaps we have something else to blame now?

Lol I was just looking for that graph.

[burn_this_city]

I always knew a pesticide deficiency was bad for our health.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Rick Wamsley

How does a Pharmacist not know the difference between injecting and digesting? I don't know the difference because I am stupid, but a pharmacist you would think would know the difference. Oh well, I guess we are all stupid.

1. He didn't say there wasn't a difference, he asked why are you concerned about the difference.

2. If you don't know the difference, how do you know there is one?

[AcGold]

I think he meant why is it different injecting something as opposed to eating it

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Rick Wamsley

How does a Pharmacist not know the difference between injecting and digesting? I don't know the difference because I am stupid, but a pharmacist you would think would know the difference. Oh well, I guess we are all stupid.

Let me get through my stupidity to help you understand. What in these vaccines that you'll be injecting is more harmful than the many times you consume carcinogens and naturally occurring toxins by eating natural foods?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

1) Anaphylaxis is often a natural reaction to the naturally occurring antigen regardless of how it was produced.
2) It is extremely rare. About 0.05% of people will experience it and most of that is food/insect. On top of that, fatality is even rarer. When people get vaccinated they are instructed to stay by the healthcare practitioner for this reason
3) The rates of anaphylaxis to a vaccine are always orders of magnitude lower than morbidity from the disease.

This. Bees and peanuts are natural, yet I actually know people who have experienced anaphylaxis due to those things.

Cases of anaphylaxis from vaccines, one paper Pubmed they found 5 possible cases out of almost 8 million doses. None of whom died. Whereas kids DO die from influenza or influenza related causes.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by AcGold

While your willing to talk do you know much about autism

http://autismspeaksblog.files.wordpr...nce-graph1.jpg

are rates really climbing that much? Is it being caused by something in society, multiple factors or a misdiagnosis? Not saying I believe everything you say, but I like being to the point.

On of the reasons autism is on the rise is that due to changes in society, people who historically would have been loners, like those are good at math or eccentrically brilliant are more socially accepted than they have been in the past, and there are more and more places where these people work together (tech industry). This leads to more of these people getting married and having kids.

These people often have this great ability, and the predisposition to being a loner, because they have genetic traits related to Aspergers and Autism, and when 2 such people get married their kids will have an increased chance of having those conditions.

Now, I don't know of any study showing that link, but you can Google 'Autism in Silicon Valley" to get any numbers of articles on the phenomenon. If you do this, you will find that the incidence of Autism is something like 3 times higher in the area, but don't quote me on that because I might be remembering it incorrectly.

Are high-achieving parents who met at work behind rise in autistic children?

The Geek Syndrome

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

It has been suggested that a large factor in the increased prevalence of autism are changes in how it is diagnosed. Formerly, some kids were diagnosed with mental ######ation (what a terrible term) but now fall within the autism spectrum. Not to mention that there is generally a better understanding of what autism is, which probably leads to more diagnoses. The kid who was poor at communicating might now be autistic.

This doesn't rule out something environmental, of course, but it does explain at least some of the increase.

A brief snippet: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/5/1224.short

Not to sidetrack a conversation but mental ######ation isn't a bad term in itself from a medical perspective, it is only bad because people have #######ized its use into being an insult towards someone. It is akin to the term idiot which also actually used to be a medical term but due to the evolution of language it became more of an insult and consequently was stricken from medical lexicon.

Originally Posted by AcGold

^I feel strongly that even if you are right being condescending and arrogant about it is shameful. Even if I agree with someone and I see them speaking with that self-righteous tone it just makes me nauseated (not that I'm accusing you of that). That's the big issue I've had and why I didn't bring any sources. Anyways, I think we can move on, I want to see all information and opinions from all sides of the spectrum without having to defend something to a group of people.

...

While your willing to talk do you know much about autism

http://autismspeaksblog.files.wordpr...nce-graph1.jpg

are rates really climbing that much? Is it being caused by something in society, multiple factors or a misdiagnosis? Not saying I believe everything you say, but I like being to the point.

Don't take this the wrong way but please PM me your sources, I am directly involved in vaccinations and giving vaccinations, consequently I strongly believe in having a well rounded background. If there are peer reviewed studies that point towards vaccinations being anything other than a positive I would love to read them. That is how knowledge is developed.

As for rates of autism they are increasing, to what degree it is difficult to say, it is likely better diagnosis and increased awareness. Plus when there is a label, people (including physicians) are more likely to utilize that label, even when it may be inappropriate.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Not to sidetrack a conversation but mental ######ation isn't a bad term in itself from a medical perspective, it is only bad because people have #######ized its use into being an insult towards someone. It is akin to the term idiot which also actually used to be a medical term but due to the evolution of language it became more of an insult and consequently was stricken from medical lexicon.

Good point. It is terrible because we made it terrible, for sure. Just looking back with the modern day connotation is always interesting.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Where did I do that? I'll be shocked if you can quote me on it. I'm defending the right to question it, pretty huge difference imo.

I think the evidence of extreme bias is right here for you, multiple people telling me what I did when it's not even close to true. So there you go, people wonder why I'm hesitant when asking questions gets me labelled and attributed to false actions.

Ok, re-evaluate yourself for a moment here and you're going to see quite quickly where you've gone wrong. Use your two degrees and all 3 of your stats classes.

You're defending the right to question vaccinations. That's all well and dandy. But you know what you're also doing? Defending it against people who AREN'T ATTACKING IT. You yourself have claimed to be playing devil's advocate, but the problem here is that NOBODY is saying that it's wrong/stupid to question vaccinations, nobody. What people are saying is that whether you question them or not, all the evidence in the end points to getting your children vaccinated.

It's not about questioning those vaccinations, this "mob mentality" you're speaking down to is about NO vaccinations. It's about parents who REFUSE to vaccinate their children. If those same parents did exactly what you're "defending" and logically questioned vaccinations instead of writing them off, they would see the benefits and see that the large reasons for the anti-vax movement (autism, namely) are not scientifically supported.

Your problem is you. You are defending something nobody is attacking, and wondering why people are attributing what your defending to the actual conversation. Of course people are going to make leaps in judgement, because your current platform either A) isn't logical or B) isn't relevant to the conversation.

Anti-vaccination people aren't analysing the data and studying the benefits/effects of vaccinations. So yes, everyone has the right to question everything. Great, if you're done defending that, can we discuss anti-vaccination people? The cause for this "mob mentality"?

[photon]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I think the evidence of extreme bias is right here for you, multiple people telling me what I did when it's not even close to true. So there you go, people wonder why I'm hesitant when asking questions gets me labelled and attributed to false actions.

Someone being mistaken is an example of extreme bias? Communication is imprecise at the best of times, it's VERY easy to mistake what someone is saying.

If that's your evidence of extreme bias, I think you need to get a thicker skin. Some people are better ignored.

Either engage a claim if you think it's false, or ignore it, but using that as a basis to refuse to support your opinions, while simultaneously continuing to respond with your opinions and be critical of others', appears as trolling behaviour (that is posting for the purposes of eliciting a negative reaction).

Which is why so many people are frustrated with your posts. If it isn't intentional, then you have to choose how you respond more carefully and consider how it will be received.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Plus when there is a label, people (including physicians) are more likely to utilize that label, even when it may be inappropriate.

Especially since resources for help are often triggered by specific diagnoses. I've seen first hand where a diagnosis wasn't super strong, but was still given because it enabled resources to be accessed that in turn allowed for a better, more accurate, diagnosis.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by photon

Especially since resources for help are often triggered by specific diagnoses. I've seen first hand where a diagnosis wasn't super strong, but was still given because it enabled resources to be accessed that in turn allowed for a better, more accurate, diagnosis.

Exactly, rates are rising, I have little doubt about that, however there are a number of factors that are associated with that. Here is a news story which highlights that exact issue. There are always a number of factors and for people to look for the single smoking gun to point at and say that is responsible for an increase are overly simplistic in their approach.

They say 1 in 68 falls on the spectrum, however the spectrum is so vast that this number becomes murky when you are lumping everyone under the same umbrella regardless of the severity of the presenting symptoms.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/autism...-u-s-1.2589106

And just for the record, I don't think that people who refuse to vaccinate their children are stupid or have a low IQ, rather I just think that it is a sign of a failing in our healthcare system combined with the fact that scientists are awful, just awful at promoting science to the masses. They use jargon, don't have celebrity power behind them and never seem to utilize media well. Even the posters that are designed to improve vaccination rates are awful and don't get the message across well. Right now they are losing not on the science and evidence front, but rather in the media.

[Nage Waza]

I think the people who refuse to vaccinate are simply useful idiots. Whoever is feeding their mindset is likely laughing at them while making a lot of money. People like 'Dr Mercola' have made a killing off of useful idiots. Similar to lottery terminals and other scams to free people from their money.

I don't think blames lays on our health care system - useful idiots will always be preyed upon. This one sucks the most because it could potentially harm all of us.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Exactly, rates are rising, I have little doubt about that, however there are a number of factors that are associated with that. Here is a news story which highlights that exact issue. There are always a number of factors and for people to look for the single smoking gun to point at and say that is responsible for an increase are overly simplistic in their approach.

They say 1 in 68 falls on the spectrum, however the spectrum is so vast that this number becomes murky when you are lumping everyone under the same umbrella regardless of the severity of the presenting symptoms.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/autism...-u-s-1.2589106

And just for the record, I don't think that people who refuse to vaccinate their children are stupid or have a low IQ, rather I just think that it is a sign of a failing in our healthcare system combined with the fact that scientists are awful, just awful at promoting science to the masses. They use jargon, don't have celebrity power behind them and never seem to utilize media well. Even the posters that are designed to improve vaccination rates are awful and don't get the message across well. Right now they are losing not on the science and evidence front, but rather in the media.

The issue is bigger and much more nuanced than just an inability to communicate properly. It's more than science we are seeing this with, though it's the easiest example.

1) I don't have the quote anymore, but I believe it was Orwell that said something to the effect of fearing not that good information would be hard to find, just that too much bad information is confusing the search for good.

2) As has been said many times, come up with a viewpoint and I'll find research to defend it. People research to validate their stance rather than research to find one.

3) Scientific understanding of complex issues, especially regarding health are just that: Complex. It cannot be boiled down to simple emotional arguments. There is no two word phrase to argue against "Big Pharma". It takes more than three words to argue with someone saying "Vaccines contain formaldehyde".

4) Celebrities credibility is based on loosely obtained roles/performances and not intelligence or understanding in a particular field. Tom Cruise and mental health, McCarthy and Autism, Oprah and dieting.
5) There's simply more money in peddling false hope. What does it say when an intelligent respected heart surgeon makes hundreds of times more turning to selling his credibility by touting miracle weight loss products in Women's Weekly?



Sadly, it's not a war that will be won easily IMO

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The issue is bigger and much more nuanced than just an inability to communicate properly. It's more than science we are seeing this with, though it's the easiest example.

1) I don't have the quote anymore, but I believe it was Orwell that said something to the effect of fearing not that good information would be hard to find, just that too much bad information is confusing the search for good.

I agree, however at the same time it is how information is marketed to the masses, if you don't make the good information easy to find and comprehend it doesn't matter how much good information there is, it will get lost in the haze of misinformation. We as a school and education system do a very poor job of getting people to think critically, rather we are more interested in getting people to recite information.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

2) As has been said many times, come up with a viewpoint and I'll find research to defend it. People research to validate their stance rather than research to find one.

Agreed, then how does the scientific community encourage people to challenge their viewpoint? Can the scientific community encourage people to challenge their viewpoint?

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

3) Scientific understanding of complex issues, especially regarding health are just that: Complex. It cannot be boiled down to simple emotional arguments. There is no two word phrase to argue against "Big Pharma". It takes more than three words to argue with someone saying "Vaccines contain formaldehyde".

A picture of a kid with measles with the head line, didn't immunize. A radio spot of a kid wheezing and struggling for breath with pertussis for 20 seconds, with the radio announcer after saying, this is the sound of not immunizing your child. Simple, effective, to the point and accurate. They don't need to address the big phama arguments, they need to address the, this is what will happen. Have a video of a kid struggling to breath placed in daytime television. Then put the healthlink information up. Have a poster that has someone with polio and have it say, only a plane ride away.

It will offend people I am sure, but it will get people seeing what the costs are. We suck at that as healthcare providers, people don't know the consequences because they don't see the consequences. Hell have a poster that outlines birth defects in babies born t women who haven't been immunized against measles and who get the disease. People aren't aware of the risks.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

4) Celebrities credibility is based on loosely obtained roles/performances and not intelligence or understanding in a particular field. Tom Cruise and mental health, McCarthy and Autism, Oprah and dieting.

Agreed 100%. That being said, people listen to them for some unknown reason.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

5) There's simply more money in peddling false hope. What does it say when an intelligent respected heart surgeon makes hundreds of times more turning to selling his credibility by touting miracle weight loss products in Women's Weekly?

Sadly, it's not a war that will be won easily IMO

That is the sad truth, but one has to start battles somewhere and that is in my opinion in areas such as the internet, on message boards, social media and the like, because that is where people get their information from.