skeptigirl wrote:I remind the folks who continue to pursue vaccines as a cause of autism now that overwhelming evidence from research funded by multiple sources not connected to the drug companies has ruled out vaccines as a cause of autism,

Pardon me if I remain suspicious of the agendas of new members to the forum who sign up in the middle of the first night following the first appearance of an autism thread on here. Bad memories of the Israeli apologists 'truesoul' and jinquin', maybe.

Fweddy Mewcuwy is my favouwite Autist.

[sorry, couldn't resist].


fascinating thread, folks.

clocker bob wrote: You trust your government, and you think their studies that absolve the pharmaceuticals of blame are objective. You are just as biased as me, with less reason, because if you were a student of the Bush administration's amd the GOP congress' cooperation with corporate power and its desire to be unregulated and free from litigation, you would share my suspicion. This history is available- check the FDA, check the lies about global warming, check the refusal to sign the Kyoto accord, check how they treat the mining industry's willingness to kill a few miners every few months. You are the one who needs to wake up.

The government? Well, fine, some of the studies were funded by the government. Others took place in university research labs, and still others involved researchers in private practice and (yes) the Industry, including one study I cited above that appeared to support your thesis and not mine. A wide variety of researchers with a wide range of means of financial support have studied this issue, and the majority have concluded that vaccination does not cause autism.

But I will admit one aspect in which I am biased: a small percentage of people in our country eschew vaccination, either for religious reasons or for reasons based on half-baked pseudo science. These people are not likely to acquire measles or polio or rubella or mumps because the rest of us received vaccine. Vaccination is associated with some risk, but the risk pales in comparison to the benefit. So yes, I'm biased against people who want to be protected by the umbrella of herd immunity without also partaking in the risk. That is selfish behavior, pure and simple.

Incidentally, the global effort to eliminate polio took some hits a few years ago when conspiracy-minded Muslims suggested that Western countries were administering the vaccines to spread AIDS/destroy Islam. Like the eradication of smallpox, the eradication of polio is an unambiguous good, so it pisses me off when efforts to eradicate it get derailed by conspiracy theories.

Matthew Taylor wrote:How is that I'm overstating the toxicity and hazardous natures of Mercury?

You were, plain and simple.

kerble wrote:

Fweddy Mewcuwy is my favouwite Autist.

[sorry, couldn't resist].


fascinating thread, folks.

I proclaim that Kerble wins this argument.

Wood Goblin wrote: The government? Well, fine, some of the studies were funded by the government. Others took place in university research labs, and still others involved researchers in private practice and (yes) the Industry,

Those are all studies that know where their next meal is coming from- the industry they study. You think university studies are objective?

Those are all studies that know where their next meal is coming from- the industry they study. You think university studies are objective?

Please cite the objective, unbiased studies that show direct evidence that mercury in vaccines causes autism.

It's hard to prove a negative. But if mercury causes autism, I would think it would be fairly easy to demonstrate scientifically.

JREF is the James Randi Educational Foundation. It looks like Tobias posts a lot of stuff about Autism on there. It wouldn't surprise me that someone from this forum also goes on there, and gave Tobias a heads up about the discussion here.

I'm not going to argue the merits of anyone's evidence on this subject, but I don't think it is possible boil down the increase in Autism to any one particular agent. In all likeliehood, it is being caused by a mixture of different factors, such as genetic factors, environment, pre-natal disease in mothers, the increased use of psychoactive drugs in the last 30-40 years, and who knows what else.

If you really want to attack the validity of any particular study, you better have a degree in Bio-Statistics. I'm assuming the vast majority of the people posting about this don't, including myself. I do have a friend who has such a degree, and it a very complicated field, with a lot of nuances that lay people wouldn't understand. Also, a lot of people who do research studies don't necessarily have the training as Bio-statisticians, so they can come to false conclusions quite easily, albeit unconciously. My friend, who is very good in her field, has looked at studies and ripped them apart once she has actually looked at the raw data.

newberry wrote:

Those are all studies that know where their next meal is coming from- the industry they study. You think university studies are objective?

Please cite the objective, unbiased studies that show direct evidence that mercury in vaccines causes autism.

I have posted what I have, and you have rejected it. I reject your definition of 'unbiased'. I suspect there is a causal relationship, based on what I know about government's cozy relationship with the pharmaceutical companies. Just like I know that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK, and just like I know that intel was manufactured against Iraq, despite what the Pentagon reports.

I will editorialize about what I think forever and ever. I don't care what the official story is of thimoseral or of 9/11. I'm the opposition. Tough titties for you.

clocker bob wrote:

Wood Goblin wrote: The government? Well, fine, some of the studies were funded by the government. Others took place in university research labs, and still others involved researchers in private practice and (yes) the Industry,

Those are all studies that know where their next meal is coming from- the industry they study. You think university studies are objective?

Let's branch out a bit and include all studies, since the industry (and government, and NGO nonprofits) funds all sorts of studies.

Entirely and consistently objective? Obviously not, as there have been scandals involving industry-written articles, etc. But by and large, they are objective, and the world of medical research is remarkably effective at self-policing itself. For example, the majority of articles published in the journal I work for* mention antibiotics. Even though increased antibiotic use would benefit Big Pharma, almost every article on the subject recommends limiting and monitoring antibiotic use (to avoid the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, etc.).


*I should remind folks that I work on the publishing end, not the research end.

P.S. As bad as Big Pharma is, the "alternative medicine" industry is worse.