ABC show prepetuates autism/vaccine link

[robinson]

Take MMR for instance. You have decided through your searching that the studies performed are inadequate and in epidemiological terms they are barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not sure why you say that. I never mentioned MMR, and thought that whole MMR caused autism thing was researched already. I keep trying to point out the obvious fact, MMR, or any other vaccine can not be the cause of autism. It just can't. Too many people get vaccines who never show any sign of autism. I don't think you can even create autism with injections of mercury, even if you tried.

As has been pointed out to you, one cannot morally justify the type of studies you would ideally like to see. You counter this by saying why don't people look at groups who are vaccinated against those who have chosen to remain unvaccinated. The statistical noise generated from such a comparative study would be so much that I doubt adequate conclusions could be drawn from them - there are too many variables and confounders.

I started off by saying compare the two groups. I never suggested experimenting on children. I said experiment on animals. The fact that we have huge populations of people who have obvious differences, one has had a set of vaccines, the other has not, just begs for research.

This kind of research is going on right now with many other factors. It doesn't seem to stop scientist from doing studies. In fact, long term, large scale studies seem to be one of the most valuable tools we have for advancing our understanding.

Because it is mostly data gathering, it is cheap. It can also be reviewed and looked at in many ways. It is far less expensive than a lawsuit. If you pool the companies that profit from vaccines, you have an enormous amount of money as well. With more rolling in each day.

To not do studies is, well, it seems criminal to me.

 

[robinson]

I see Orac has blogged on the Eli Stone programme.

I thought it ironic that he didn't actually watch the show, yet commented on it.

Of course because the parents knee jerk reaction is just wrong.

Don't be dumb. Spreading out vaccines instead of getting the three in ones is done when children have immune system problems, or other health issues. It can even be done just to sooth a concerned parent.

I think it is almost Fascist the way people assume things some times. This thinly veiled assumption that the people who pay for medical treatment, you know, the "patients", are not in charge of their health, or their medical treatment.

That Doctors are always right, and parents are dumb. The stories I could tell, but don't, because I run into too many childless idiots online, who have nothing better to do than be insulting and stupid.

If a parent wants to spread vaccines out, because their child has reactions to vaccines, that is a right. If they insist on mercury free medicine, they are simply smart. There is no reason to use mercury in medicine. It is only about money, there is no benefit to mercury being injected into a human being.

Do multiple childhood vaccines cause long term problems? What are the risks? We just don't know, because the research has not been done.

Now back to that show we didn't watch ...

 

[David Wong]

...
I think it is almost Fascist the way people assume things some times. This thinly veiled assumption that the people who pay for medical treatment, you know, the "patients", are not in charge of their health, or their medical treatment.

You need to look up the word "Fascist." It doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[robinson]

I'm sure you are correct. What would the correct word be?

 

[robinson]

In regards to the subject that just doesn't want to be discussed, how do we know what happens to kids who do not get vaccinated? The number of illnesses, the life span, the health problems, risks, all that stuff that people are so concerned about, in regards to the fools who refuse vaccinations?

I hear people claim that if you don't get vaccinated, this and that can happen, you might die, it puts everybody at risk, all kinds of claims.

Where is the evidence for any of it? If there are no large scale, long term studies to study what happens, how do you know? We have populations that have never had a single vaccine, living in the same area as people who had every vaccine.

Where is the science about the difference between the groups? The polio vaccine is pretty well studied, we know Polio is almost gone from countries that vaccinated everybody. I think. That was studied, right?

Did religious people and crazy people also refuse the polio vaccine?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Robinson, FWIW I don't agree with skeptigirl that you post bad science/badmedicine/quack data. I think you are usually pretty objective in your attempts to make something from the medical literature available to you. The problem is that you may not know how to discriminate between good and bad quality data, and you place unmerited significance on poor studies that have undue weight in terms of their clinical relevance or influence. Most importantly, you do not know what you do not know. The breadth of medicine is vast, and there is no way you can know the total sum of relevant work in one field of medical science, and you don't know how or why consensus has been reached on a particular topic.

Just how does this differ from what I've said? You perhaps assume an underlying motive of good intent but I've not stated any underlying motive or reason for his choice of cited references. I said the same thing as you merely with less praise for meaning well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Robinson, I enjoy questions (yours included) - they make me constantly reappraise my own ideas on matters, and question my own thinking.

Robinson and kellyb both keep us on our toes. I definitely agree with that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Don't be dumb. Spreading out vaccines instead of getting the three in ones is done when children have immune system problems, or other health issues. It can even be done just to sooth a concerned parent.

It is needlessly costly, it means the child builds up more anxiety re health care visits getting shot after shot, and it delays vaccine immunity sometimes increasing risks. And according to the evidence, it is unnecessary. So the parent may mean well, but evidence based medicine says the parent is needlessly reacting to bad medicine.

I think it is almost Fascist the way people assume things some times. This thinly veiled assumption that the people who pay for medical treatment, you know, the "patients", are not in charge of their health, or their medical treatment.

That Doctors are always right, and parents are dumb. The stories I could tell, but don't, because I run into too many childless idiots online, who have nothing better to do than be insulting and stupid.

If a parent wants to spread vaccines out, because their child has reactions to vaccines, that is a right. If they insist on mercury free medicine, they are simply smart. There is no reason to use mercury in medicine. It is only about money, there is no benefit to mercury being injected into a human being.

Do multiple childhood vaccines cause long term problems? What are the risks? We just don't know, because the research has not been done....

Here is a classic example of the errors in your thinking and the errors parents make who believe this line of reasoning.

Show me the evidence. I am an educated reasonable provider. I am not acting as a dictator, I'M GOING BY THE BLOODY EVIDENCE!!!!! No one is being a fascist. No one is saying the provider is right and the parents wrong. I, for one, am saying this is what the evidence shows.

You are confusing someone's choice to believe crap with their right to make their own medical decisions for their children. Of course it is their right to decide for their kids. But if they are doing so based on crap evidence then I am going to say so. And they are wrong and I am right. But present some valid research and I have no issue changing my recommendation.

You, robinson, are essentially saying whatever crap anyone believes makes it an evidence based decision. No it isn't. It is a decision based on crap. No person is better here, the provider or the parent or the patient. But the evidence is better. Valid evidence is better than crap evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In regards to the subject that just doesn't want to be discussed, how do we know what happens to kids who do not get vaccinated? The number of illnesses, the life span, the health problems, risks, all that stuff that people are so concerned about, in regards to the fools who refuse vaccinations?

I hear people claim that if you don't get vaccinated, this and that can happen, you might die, it puts everybody at risk, all kinds of claims.

Where is the evidence for any of it? If there are no large scale, long term studies to study what happens, how do you know? We have populations that have never had a single vaccine, living in the same area as people who had every vaccine.

Where is the science about the difference between the groups? The polio vaccine is pretty well studied, we know Polio is almost gone from countries that vaccinated everybody. I think. That was studied, right?

Did religious people and crazy people also refuse the polio vaccine?

Just because you are unaware of this evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist. Vaccine recommendations are based on volumes of research including what happens to unvaccinated kids.

There is a lot of medicine we practice based on paltry evidence. Vaccinations are one of the best studied interventions of just about anything we do.

 

[Deetee]

Just how does this differ from what I've said? You perhaps assume an underlying motive of good intent but I've not stated any underlying motive or reason for his choice of cited references. I said the same thing as you merely with less praise for meaning well.

Our hymn sheets are very similar, sure. I am just making the point that robinson is quite different from some of our woo posters who post bad medicine/quackery. They pluck any citation irrespective of provenance, quote mine, cherry pick and god knows what else in blatant attempts to suit their preformed agendas.

Robinson isn't like them. He studies the literature quite widely and usually spends a lot of time considering the evidence. (One of his deficiencies IMHO lies in how he considers this evidence). He is the sort of poster I enjoy disagreeing with, since he doesn't cut and run or play whack-a-mole like the woos, and I am forced to justify my own opinions and conclusions and ensure they are backed up by evidence too. I learn more this way. It's good to debate stuff actively in this way rather than become entrenched in a cosy group of sycophants all mindlessly parroting the same credo (cf JABS forum etc). That's why JREF is one of my favourite haunts.

OTOH Robinson can be quite a pain, and is by no means perfect. His ability to spend several posts skirting round an issue expecting us to guess his agenda before coming to the point is one of his worst traits. But I guess I am just a bit more charitable towards him and his intentions than you/others might be. (He's hardly in the mould of someone like skeptidoc for example!)


PS - Robinson - I have tracked some other "research" on comparisons of vaccinated vs unvaccinated - will post stuff when I've considered it all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree that robinson and kellyb take great care to actually look for evidence. They don't however, understand the difference in actual scientific research and someone simply making claims of fact. Nor do either of them trust that providers are capable of looking at evidence rather than simply being old fools unable to see anything the 'establishment' doesn't dictate to us. Somehow if there is non-evidence based assertions made that suggest 'the establishment' is ignoring the evidence, both kellyb and robinson are eager to buy into that lie. It is their ignorance of the fact that the health care community practices evidence based medicine for the most part that makes both kellyb and robinson just as much woo believers as the rest. They just base their woo on erroneous preconceived beliefs about the medical establishment rather than outright non-evidence based beliefs. It's still all woo beliefs when you expose the core.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I agree that robinson and kellyb take great care to actually look for evidence. They don't however, understand the difference in actual scientific research and someone simply making claims of fact. Nor do either of them trust that providers are capable of looking at evidence rather than simply being old fools unable to see anything the 'establishment' doesn't dictate to us. Somehow if there is non-evidence based assertions made that suggest 'the establishment' is ignoring the evidence, both kellyb and robinson are eager to buy into that lie. It is their ignorance of the fact that the health care community practices evidence based medicine for the most part that makes both kellyb and robinson just as much woo believers as the rest. They just base their woo on erroneous preconceived beliefs about the medical establishment rather than outright non-evidence based beliefs. It's still all woo beliefs when you expose the core.

And coming out with comments like the one above, I really don't think you're going to win them over.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not trying to win him over. And I don't expect robinson to make big changes in his belief system anytime soon. When he presents an argument that might sound good to someone unfamiliar with the quality of his sources, it can be important to address that matter. So, I am merely pointing out what I have observed on numerous occasions with robinson's posts, conclusions and usual sources.

In case you care, I find your sources reasonable the majority of the time. We've disagreed on values, but less on basic science. I should point out as well that kellyb posts scientifically sound sources most of the time. It's her conclusions which aren't always based in fact. I should be careful to be accurate if I'm going to be generalizing about people.

I have plenty of my own faults. You've correctly noted one of them. And I'm certainly not always right about everything I post. It is difficult, however, for anyone to discuss things which they know a lot about with people who draw conclusions without an understanding or an awareness of the broader facts. I run into the same problem on the other end when people with a lot more expertise than I have can see that I don't know what I'm talking about. You can either say, you don't know what you are talking about, or you can try to address all the deficiencies in their understanding or knowledge. When it happens over and over, trying to address broad deficiencies a person has in the basic understanding of a subject grows old.

 

[robinson]

Our hymn sheets are very similar, sure. I am just making the point that robinson is quite different from some of our woo posters who post bad medicine/quackery.

Oh stop it Deetee! You are going to give me a swelled head.


OK, probably too late for that, but you know, such damning praise only encourages me.

I also tend to expect the same from "woos" when I encounter them here. If you are going to claim something, either source it, or at least explain why you believe it. Just repeating something, or stating something that is debatable, doesn't educate anyone. Turning to insults rather than evidence is what I consider woo style conversation.

Robinson isn't like them. He studies the literature quite widely and usually spends a lot of time considering the evidence. (One of his deficiencies IMHO lies in how he considers this evidence). He is the sort of poster I enjoy disagreeing with, since he doesn't cut and run or play whack-a-mole like the woos, and I am forced to justify my own opinions and conclusions and ensure they are backed up by evidence too. I learn more this way.

Considering this crowd, I find I learn far more by being the DA than one of the choir.

It's good to debate stuff actively in this way rather than become entrenched in a cosy group of sycophants all mindlessly parroting the same credo (cf JABS forum etc). That's why JREF is one of my favourite haunts.

Amen brother! Amen! I just can't stand any board where everybody agrees, pats them selves on the back, and then go on, with nothing new or interesting ever said. It is just boring.

PS - Robinson - I have tracked some other "research" on comparisons of vaccinated vs unvaccinated - will post stuff when I've considered it all.

Sweet. I found multiple studies on issues where they did large studies to find out if something is effecting peoples health and well being, and most of it from other topics being discussed here. Of all things, aircraft fuel pollution was/is being looked at due to health concerns. Mostly workers at airports and people who live near airports. They take large samples of people who breathe jet exhaust all the time, and compared them to people who don't breathe much jet ful exhaust.

As you might imagine, if you are a skeptic, some people don't like studies like that. Because they know if it turns out jet fuel exhaust (JFE) is killing people, there is going to be trouble. The people exposed to JFE are, as you might expect, keenly interested in evidence based science in this regard.

And coming out with comments like the one above, I really don't think you're going to win them over.

I rarely read dumb stuff, so I don't even know what you are talking about, but I can imagine. Yet, if she says something smart, like in the ear wax topic, I will read and agree with her. I try to avoid being personally insulting here. For one thing, I get warnings if I am. (Yes, I made the mistake of pissing off some Mods). Second, dumb people love to fight, rather than contribute stuff.

OK smart people do as well, but I am trying to not waste time with unscientific stuff. Yeah yeah, I know, I just did. Sue me.

What topic is this again?

Oh right, a TV show one. Like many of the people who commented on it, I didn't see it. But who needs to actually look at something to know everything about it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is a current event.

Flight spreads measles from San Diego to Hawaii

In less than a month, the outbreak -- San Diego County's 1st since 1991 -- began in Switzerland and has spanned about half the globe. The case demonstrates how quickly, extensively and silently the potentially lethal virus can spread. "(It) speaks to the highly infectious nature of measles," Wooten said. San Diego County health officials have confirmed measles in 5 patients, and they are investigating 5 suspected cases. All these children, from infants to a 9-year-old, were not vaccinated because they were younger than 1 -- the minimum age for measles inoculation -- or because their parents objected to having them vaccinated. The health experts worry that hundreds of other individuals who may have contracted the virus will start to exhibit symptoms for weeks to come. More than 30 officials in San Diego County are working into the night trying to notify parents of hundreds of potentially exposed children from at least 5 schools, programs and a clinic, Wooten said. The affected sites include a day care center and swim school in Pacific Beach; a toddler program and a school in Clairemont; and a public charter school in Linda Vista....

The outbreak began when a 7-year-old, infected with measles, returned from a family vacation in Switzerland on 15 Jan 2008. More than 400 cases of measles occur in Switzerland each year, about triple the total in the United States. The 7-year-old goes to the San Diego Cooperative Charter School in Linda Vista. The child set off a chain reaction that has infected 2 siblings, one of whom was a fellow charter student, and at least one classmate. The 7-year-old's parents took the youngster to the Children's Clinic of La Jolla, on La Jolla
Boulevard in Bird Rock, CA, on 25 Jan 2008. The child may have coughed and sneezed in the office, potentially infecting 4 other patients. Those 4 patients returned to the clinic between 5 and 8 Feb 2008, possibly spreading the virus to 60 other children. One of the infants who became infected on 25 Jan 2008 at the clinic is the 11-month old whose family flew to Hawaii. Another is a 10-month-old child who was hospitalized Friday [8 Feb 2008] with measles symptoms, but whose test results have not been confirmed. This baby went to the Baldwin Academy day care center and the Murray Callan Swim School, both in Pacific Beach. A 3rd child suspected of contracting measles 25 Jan 2008 at the clinic is a 2-year-old who attended Alcott Elementary School's Infant & Toddler Development Program in Clairemont, CA. On 6 Feb 2008, the youngster also briefly visited the School of the Madeleine, also in Clairemont....

..This is an intriguing account of transmission of measles virus from Switzerland through California to Hawaii via a chain of susceptible children, unvaccinated as a consequence of young age (less than 12 months) or presence in a community with relatively low vaccine uptake for fear of autism. The outbreak was amplified by the exposure of several infants to infection through attendance at a the same doctor's office.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Where is the evidence for any of it? If there are no large scale, long term studies to study what happens, how do you know? We have populations that have never had a single vaccine, living in the same area as people who had every vaccine.

Allow me to use your own logic as a counter argument...

How do you know that green space-aliens from Pluto aren't causing these issues with children by beaming nastiness at them from across inter-planetary space?

Where is your research that such is NOT the case? I mean, hey, without serious research, how do you know this isn't the case?

Isn't there some logical fallacy about attempting to prove a negative... ?

Robinson, I'm not trying to be a jerk. It's just that your reasoning on this point is flawed and many here are attempting to point it out to you. Similar arguments are often made with respect to cell phones supposedly causing cancer (they don't, btw) and whatnot - rather than offering positive evidence that cell phones DO cause cancer, many people assume that they do cause cancer and advocate doing long-term studies to prove that they DON'T cause cancer. And when these studies find no causal connection between cell phones and cancer, the argument is that even longer term studies are needed, and so it goes...

Cheers - Mattus

 

[robinson]

Let's stick to reality, shall we? We could talk about radium, but everybody knows that story.

Cathode Ray tubes, when invented, nobody knew they made x-rays. They didn't even know x-rays existed. After x-rays were discovered, they started using x-rays for all kinds of cool stuff. It was a more primitive time, and the scientist and techs who made and used cathode ray tubes, as well as some unfortunate others, were subjected to x-rays.

According to sketchy history, Tesla and others suspected danger, but even when the first scientist was convinced x-rays had dangers, almost nobody listened. Men who made x-ray tubes would still test them on their own hands, unshielded x-ray devices were used all over, like radium, it was a marvelous discovery, would change the world, it was embraced and used, without any animal testing.

People were the guinea pigs. No doubt at the time critics who insisted doing proper science were greeted with the same sort of nonsense we see in regards to vaccines.

Eventually when enough people developed cancer, and the two could be connected so that nobody could doubt it, x-rays were known to have dangers. Nobody doubts it now. The blindness of "science" I spoke of was at work. When nobody knows the unknown, they don't investigate it.

Multiple childhood vaccines are an unknown. If science and medicine don't investigate, the woos will.

 

[MattusMaximus]

And you have artfully dodged my challenge.

The reason why we know those things (radium, x-rays) are dangerous is because positive evidence had been brought forth that shows they actually DO cause afflictions in humans. The cause-effect relationship has been clearly established. At best, the only thing shown in relation to vaccinations is a correlation - but you, as a skeptic, should know the difference between the two.

You are putting the cart before the horse. You are challenging people here and in the medical community to prove a negative. When repeated studies of vaccines shows them to basically be safe, you argue that "we just don't know about the long term effects!" and demand more tests. And when more tests show no cause-effect, you shift the goalposts and demand more tests...

This is precisely what the anti-mercury woos are doing. Recent, carefully controlled and researched studies show that thimerisol clearly isn't responsible for autism, so the woos shift gears and say "Wow, it must be something ELSE in the vaccines! You haven't proved to me that it isn't!"

Sadly, the thought that they might be just plain wrong doesn't occur to them.

And speaking of well-documented long-term effects, here's a long term effect for you: the near complete eradication of polio and smallpox in the Western world. And there is a definite cause-effect relationship to that one.

Cheers - Mattus

 

[robinson]

I have aways supported vaccinations, and firmly believe they have reduced or eliminated many childhood diseases, as well as saved countless lives. I mentioned Polio and Tetanus as good examples of vaccines that we have irrefutable proof they work, and we know most of the side effects.

In another topic or two somebody posted a link to a anti-vaccine site, and a study, or survey, done by activist.

Why would anybody listen to such a survey? Why not counter with good science, evidence based medicine? If Doctors, experts, people who know how to a study right, would just do the basic science, and discover what is happening, what has happened, it would defeat the forces of ignorance, bolster the claims of good Medicine, and put an end to this mess.

That people object, claim it can't be done, is utter horsecrap. Of course such studies can be done. They are done all the time. Do they prove anything? I don't know.

But if you combine that dubious data with animal experiments, you learn stuff, and rather than having the woos hold the high ground, Medical Science steps up and reveals the truth, as much of it as we can know.

I didn't realize woo sites were so interested in this, and since I tend to avoid them, I didn't know such a survey had been done. Is it bad science? Then rip it to shreds, explain how to do it right.

Saying it can't be done, because the results won't be perfect, is nonsense. No study is perfect, and the problems with them are well known and every good study accounts for them.

This isn't unknown territory.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Robinson,

Please write out, in single sentences, the various hypotheses you want to see tested with vaccination status the independent variable.