Vaccines and Autism

[steveh_131]

From Forbes, April 2015

This is sort of a typical psuedo-scientific propaganda piece, I didn't see anything useful in there.

Journal of the American Medical Association

JAMA Network | JAMA | Effectiveness of Salk Vaccine:*Analysis of Virologically Confirmed Cases of Paralytic and Nonparalytic Poliomyelitis

This one is more useful. I appreciate you digging it up, now let's discuss it.

The sample size is 100 patients, which is fairly tiny. And I have only the abstract so I can't look at their methods. However, I've mentioned several times that I think vaccine science is legitimate so I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt for now.

Keep in mind that I am not arguing that vaccines can't be effective. I am arguing that the polio 'epidemic' may not have been largely caused by the polio virus, and additionally, the polio virus was already declining for reasons other than the vaccine.

If you recall, I argued that changes in mis-diagnosis numbers is part of the reason. This study backs me up fully. Out of 251 'clinically diagnosed' patients, only 100 were confirmed in the lab to be infected with the polio virus. That's less than a 40% positive diagnosis of polio virus compared to the clinical diagnosis.

Also keep in mind that this was in 1961, when the clinical diagnosis was far more strict than it was in 1954 (before the vaccine was introduced). The diagnostic requirement in 1954 was two examinations at least 24 hours apart showing partial or complete paralysis. In 1955, this was modified to require paralysis lasting at least 60 days. This is a HUGE reason for the drop that occurred in 1955 when the vaccine was introduced.

So if at least 60% of the polio diagnoses were false (even more must have been prior to 1955), how could they have been lowered by the polio vaccine? They couldn't. Something else lowered them because something else caused them.

The 'polio epidemic' and its subsequent 'eradication' is a farce, in my opinion. And to suggest that we will return to such an epidemic thanks to people who don't vaccinate is equally farcical.

 

[jbmayes2000]

We're thinking. We're asking questions. We're discussing alternate motivations. I like it. Let's just make sure that we are equal-opportunity skeptics.

And here is the end of the line.

Everyone agrees with this statement. And by definition, we should be skeptical of the lady that posted this.

There comes a point in every human where, when confronted with a bunch of evidence, toppled with the fact that the majority of scientist agree with it, the person says "I take this on good faith they aren't lying to me", OR they find any reason to not believe them.

If we were talking about brand new claims that don't already have a body of evidence then you should always be skeptical. But in the case of autism and vaccines and even polio. It's been done. Most people agree with the scientists and the evidence and others have found other reasons not to.

Autism can be tragic and hard to understand for people, including myself. The only thing I could think to do is, instead of asking "why?", I would just commit to giving them the best life possible because they deserve that just like everyone else.

 

[steveh_131]

It's been done. Most people agree with the scientist and the evidence and other have found other reasons not to.

By this logic, would I be correct to assume that you agree that humans are causing global warming? The 'majority' of scientists believe it, right?

The only thing I could think to do is, instead of asking "why?", I would just commit to giving them the best life possible because they deserve that just like everyone else.

Is there some reason I can't do both?

 

[jbmayes2000]

By this logic, would I be correct to assume that you agree that humans are causing global warming? The 'majority' of scientists believe it, right?

Thankfully this thread is not about global warming. And seeing as you keep changing the subject (discussing polio in an autism topic?) I won't be a part of it changing again.

Is there some reason I can't do both?

No I don't think so.
However, it's tough to give to someone fully when you think "how they are" is something someone should be blamed for. I wouldn't go damning my in-laws because of some gene I don't like passed on to my wife.

 

[Alpo]

This is sort of a typical psuedo-scientific propaganda piece, I didn't see anything useful in there.

Let me get this straight, a current Forbes article looking back on 60 years is propaganda....but a yellow-dog Chicago Tribune article written in the 50's is NOT?

My o my.

 

[HoughMade]

 

[steveh_131]

Thankfully this thread is not about global warming. And seeing as you keep changing the subject (discussing polio in an autism topic?) I won't be a part of it changing again.

It's a completely legitimate question. You're implying some sort of majority consensus standard when it comes to science and I'm curious if you apply this equally to other scientific topics such as global warming. If you do, then at least it's consistent.

However, it's tough to give to someone fully when you think "how they are" is something someone should be blamed for.

I would disagree. To me, it's more about preventing it happening to others.

Let me get this straight, a current Forbes article looking back on 60 years is propaganda....but a yellow-dog Chicago Tribune article written in the 50's is NOT?

I apologize if that came across more harsh than I intended. It was an OK article, but it was the same rhetoric you hear on a regular basis from the mainstream media. There wasn't really anything new or interesting that was worth discussing. The writer wasn't intimately involved in the events of the 1950's polio 'epidemic' like the scientists that were quoted in the article from the 50's.

Hopefully you'll weigh in on my analysis of the other, more interesting study that you posted.

 

[jbmayes2000]

It's a completely legitimate question. You're implying some sort of majority consensus standard when it comes to science and I'm curious if you apply this equally to other scientific topics such as global warming. If you do, then at least it's consistent.

And it would still be irrelevant to this topic.

I would disagree. To me, it's more about preventing it happening to others.

Well it's not happening to 99% of other 8 year olds (Autism: Cases on the Rise; Reason for Increase a Mystery). So even though it's rising, statistically it's not happening to others as much as it's being played out.

Whats your stance/feelings on the fact that autism seemingly has a broad date range of when it starts to become noticeable?

 

[steveh_131]

And it would still be irrelevant to this topic.

It is perfectly relevant. If majority consensus is your scientific standard, then you have to acknowledge man-made global warming as a scientific reality. The big-bang and evolution as well, most likely.

I get that you don't want to admit the inconsistency, so I'll let it go.

Well it's not happening to 99% of other 8 year olds (Autism: Cases on the Rise; Reason for Increase a Mystery). So even though it's rising, statistically it's not happening to others as much as it's being played out.

Whats your stance/feelings on the fact that autism seemingly has a broad date range of when it starts to become noticeable?

I honestly can't quite follow what you're saying or what you're asking me. Please clarify a bit. I am aware of the a wide variety of ages at which it is diagnosed; this is due to many factors. Parental awareness, the age at which it presents itself, where exactly on the spectrum it falls. I'm not sure where you're going with this, though.

 

[Alpo]

Not sure where all this is headed or how it relates to the original question. Is it possible, steve, for you to re-iterate your position on the subject at hand in one or two sentences?

Please make sure you specify the subject. If it includes the big-bang, evolution, and human-induced global warming as examples, I'm afraid you've strayed well off the path of the initial arguments.

 

[steveh_131]

Alpo, jbmayes suggested that a majority consensus is the scientific standard by which we should judge any scientific debate. I am asking him if he also accepts the majority consensus on man-made global warming, because his standard would certainly require him to.

I suspect that he does not agree with the majority consensus on global warming, and doesn't want to answer the question because then he knows the followup that I'll ask: Why do you reject the majority consensus on man-made global warming, but not vaccines?

As to a quick summary:

I think that the dangers of these diseases are overstated given the advances in modern medicine and the dangers of vaccines are understated and/or actively concealed. I think that the medical establishment is so intertwined with the CDC and funding / cronyism from pharmaceutical companies that they continue to perpetuate this dishonesty. I think that the choice of whether or not to utilize a certain vaccine is far more complex than we are led to believe and that parents should educate themselves in spite of the propaganda and bullying that demands that we accept them blindly.

Sorry, that's three sentences. Best I could do.

 

[Alpo]

As a kid born in the late 40's I can remember a few things in the 50's that adults in my life (at school and home) worried about: Nuclear War and Polio. We didn't worry about PCB's, heavy metals or other toxins until a decade or so later, even though companies were producing and dumping those chemicals or their byproducts into the groundwater and watershed. We dumped millions of tons of lead into the atmosphere per year so that our car engines didn't knock. We had pesticides that REALLY WORKED, of course they caused a bit of collateral damage too.

The observation, then, is that we have done one heck of a lot of very harmful things in the last century to our environment. Some of those "things" have been studied and researchers have concluded that they have modified gene expression to some degree. Some causal relationships have been identified; however, no one can reasonably forecast the epigenetic effects on the human genome with the tools we have today. Who can truly say that the aluminum you spray/rub in your armpits daily doesn't have some downstream consequences on our genome when we interact with so many different forms of metals, chemicals and radiation on a daily basis?

That's the downside. And one could develop a very pessimistic view of humanity therefrom.

But, I don't. In the long run and in the grand scheme of things, I believe the microbiologists and virologists who are studying disease and infection have the appropriate objectives. I don't believe that science has been ruined by capitalism....it has certainly been damaged by placing profit ahead of science, but I don't believe it has corrupted most scientists.

It would be difficult to argue against what you have said. Certainly there are corrupt organizations and individuals in pharma, government and the medical fields. Egos get in the way of optimum decisions. Money does too. But underneath it all, I have to believe there are many good people doing the right things for the right reasons. Otherwise, we as a species have outlived our usefulness.

 

[steveh_131]

It would be difficult to argue against what you have said. Certainly there are corrupt organizations and individuals in pharma, government and the medical fields. Egos get in the way of optimum decisions. Money does too. But underneath it all, I have to believe there are many good people doing the right things for the right reasons. Otherwise, we as a species have outlived our usefulness.

I think you're right that many of these people begin their work with good intentions. But there is no stopping the influence of money. Here is a study of how funding affects research results: Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review

Look at this example that I brought up a while back: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ssion/357037-latest-cdc-vaccine-cover-up.html

This CDC research team did a study with a fairly small sample size. There were results that could have been interpreted as an autism/vaccine link in black kids. The link was pretty dang tenuous. I certainly didn't find it convincing. Nevertheless, the pressure was there from above to hide those results; and that's exactly what they did. They altered the study criteria until those results disappeared.

If they felt the need to conceal a link as weak as that one, can you imagine the pressure they would be under to conceal something that was more credible?

Interestingly, their boss at the time went on to become the president of Merck's vaccine division. Surprising? No. It happens quite often.

 

[Alpo]

Well, it's one of the reasons that I think the free-marketeers wear rose-colored glasses. When the bad people outnumber the good people, or only bad people run organizations and influence politics, we should start praying for a zombie plague.

 

[steveh_131]

Well, it's one of the reasons that I think the free-marketeers wear rose-colored glasses.

Here's the thing, though: This is all enabled and enforced by the government. Those were CDC researchers. And if that isn't enough, guess who isn't held financially liable for vaccine damages? Pharmaceutical companies. The government has taken on that liability.

There is nothing 'free market' about this nonsense.

 

[Alpo]

To me, there is no difference between big business and big government. A distinction without a difference.

 

[steveh_131]

A big government comes with the force of men with guns.

Big business does not, if a correctly-sized government is doing its job properly.

 

[Alpo]

The "if" proviso isn't reality.

It's hard to say who's the puppet or the puppetmaster when big business and government officials revolve through the same door.

 

[jbmayes2000]

It is perfectly relevant. If majority consensus is your scientific standard, then you have to acknowledge man-made global warming as a scientific reality. The big-bang and evolution as well, most likely.

I get that you don't want to admit the inconsistency, so I'll let it go.

No.
I'll try this again. this thread is about specific topic: Vaccines and how they related to autism. Whether *I'M* inconsistent or consistent *(which you don't know)with science has no bearing on what I've stated about the science majority for this topic. Surely you can see how my views on other subjects don't affect what scientists say about this specific subject?

I honestly can't quite follow what you're saying or what you're asking me. Please clarify a bit. I am aware of the a wide variety of ages at which it is diagnosed; this is due to many factors. Parental awareness, the age at which it presents itself, where exactly on the spectrum it falls. I'm not sure where you're going with this, though.

Sure, to be fair the question didn't seem to have much aim. I could go through a line of questioning that would get to you to where i'm going but I'll just skip to it. If signs of autism has such a broad range of when it's noticed, could you really make a stance with any correlation to vaccination that I couldn't do with any other such event that may happen to a baby between the ages of 0-14 months?

Alpo, jbmayes suggested that a majority consensus is the scientific standard by which we should judge any scientific debate. I am asking him if he also accepts the majority consensus on man-made global warming, because his standard would certainly require him to.

I suspect that he does not agree with the majority consensus on global warming, and doesn't want to answer the question because then he knows the followup that I'll ask: Why do you reject the majority consensus on man-made global warming, but not vaccines?

I think the point I'm making is, it's a fact that the majority of scientists agree on this issue and just because *I* personally can acknowledge this one doesn't mean that whatever I do or do not acknowledge with other subjects has any relevance to a fact that was stated. At best, you can call me inconsistent. That still does nothing for the argument at hand.

I think that the dangers of these diseases are overstated given the advances in modern medicine and the dangers of vaccines are understated and/or actively concealed. I think that the medical establishment is so intertwined with the CDC and funding / cronyism from pharmaceutical companies that they continue to perpetuate this dishonesty. I think that the choice of whether or not to utilize a certain vaccine is far more complex than we are led to believe and that parents should educate themselves in spite of the propaganda and bullying that demands that we accept them blindly.

Sorry, that's three sentences. Best I could do.

I think you did a great job just FYI.

I do not suggest blindly doing anything. I'm actually not even against questioning vaccines. However, your questions have widely been discussed and answered by leading scientists, not to mention peer reviewed studies to show a lack of a connection between the two. You don't really acknowledge that and you sort of lead people on to believe these studies MUST be cronyism but then in the same breathe believe a different scientist who happens to agree with you.

EDIT: Just wanted to say this was a good discussion. Hopefully everyone has noticed the lack of name calling! ha

 

[CountryBoy19]

Thankfully this thread is not about global warming. And seeing as you keep changing the subject (discussing polio in an autism topic?) I won't be a part of it changing again.

Pointing out your potential hypocrisy is completely relevant to this thread. His use of an analogy to do so is perfectly acceptable. Why do you keep dodging the question unless you really are being a hypocrite and you just don't want to admit it?

Well it's not happening to 99% of other 8 year olds (Autism: Cases on the Rise; Reason for Increase a Mystery). So even though it's rising, statistically it's not happening to others as much as it's being played out.

Yeah, damn the 1% that will be diagnosed with autism... odds are your child won't get it so lets damn anybody that wants to find links/causes/culprits and develop cures & prevention...

On a serious note I hope that isn't how you really feel... this is a VERY prevalent issue today. 20 years ago I hadn't even heard of autism until my cousin was diagnosed. I now have several other relatives that are diagnosed as well; all under the age of 5. I don't stand on either side of the fence, I'm trying to keep an open mind to the fact that vaccines or components of vaccines COULD be related to autism. Is it so wrong to have an open mind and consider things that experts may say even if it is contrary to what the "general consensus" among experts is?

It's funny that so many people have absolutely zero foresight; in the grand scheme of things humans don't know squat compared to what we think we know. At one time the world was square and every scientist claimed so; anybody that gave a contrary opinion was ridiculed, and here were are hundreds of years later and the world is, in-fact, round. Pretty easy to look back and call the square-earthers fools, but they were the "general consensus" of their day. It only takes one smart person to prove them all fools...

To be clear, I'm not saying there is or is not a link, I'm saying it is foolish to be so closed-minded that you can't even consider what a scientist has to say and only parrot what the "general consensus" told you was true...