Obama and McCain: Both Wrong on Autism

[Brainster]

The Washington Post delivers a slapdown to both candidates.

"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."
--Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

"It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise among children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines."
--John McCain, Texas town hall meeting, February 29, 2008.

I'm disappointed in both candidates on this one.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

..sigh.


Good going there. The two candidates I'd actually vote for reveal they are idiots about this.

 

[T.A.M.]

yah, Barack needs to read a little more of the evidence on this one...as does McCain.

What did Billary have to say on it?

TAM

 

[Darth Rotor]

The Washington Post delivers a slapdown to both candidates.

I'm disappointed in both candidates on this one.

Is autism a threat to national security? If so, please explain.

DR

 

[daredelvis]

Is autism a threat to national security? If so, please explain.

DR

Sigh... Autism is not a threat to national security, but having a bonehead for a president that states opinions on scientific issues that are in stark conflict with the scientific consensus on said issues, could be seen by many (myself included) as a threat to national security. Has to do with that whole "enemies foreign and domestic" thingy.

Is national security the only issue worth discussion in a presidential campaign?

Daredelvis

 

[BPSCG]

Is national security the only issue worth discussion in a presidential campaign?

No. Here's an edited list of the issues, ranked in order of importance:

1) National security
2) Social Security/Medicare funding crisis
3) The economy
...
...
...
...
683,463) What happened to Amelia Earhart?
683,464) Which is worst, Bud Lite, Miller Lite, or Coors Lite?
683,465) Preservatives in vaccines
683,466) Why is catsup so hard to pour?
683,467) Are nipples on men proof that the intelligent designer isn't?

You can fill in rows nos. 4 - 683,462 at your leisure.

 

[WildCat]

This can only mean one thing... they are both courting the trial attorney vote.

 

[dudalb]

Is autism a threat to national security? If so, please explain.

DR

Some of us are just sick of having a Scientific Illiterate as President, and were hoping for something better this time around.Considering the answers of McCain and Obama on the Autism issue, no such luck.

 

[T.A.M.]

I'm guessing, the politics of never answering anything one way or the other, Billary would have the same answer.

TAM

 

[TheJim]

Make this a perfect trifecta, Hillary is on these nonsense too. http://autism2008.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/hillary-clinton-a-champ-responses/

 

[BPSCG]

Y'know, I'll bet 90% of people on the street have never heard about the vaccine preservative/autism nonsense (I'll bet 50% have never heard of autism at all). I guess if a candidate were honest and said, "I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this controversy, but it sounds interesting and I'm going to have my staff investigate it and if it's as serious an issue as you say it is, as president, I'll see to it it gets the proper attention," his opponents' people would quickly research it and give their man a one-minute talking point on it. And everyone would think the guy who pled ignorance was a doofus, and the guy whose staff did his research was so well-informed. Too bad.

 

[Puppycow]

Argh. I can't and won't defend Obama on this. I just hope he learns the truth, admits he got it wrong and corrects himself, ASAP, but I'm not holding my breath because this is one of those issues where most people who care about it believe the woo (hence some actual votes probably ride on paying lip service to the anti-vaxers).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Ugh, pandering to the crazy vote. Obviously it was either support the vaccine theory and appease the 10% of woos and piss off this 1% of people who actually know what the science says, or piss off 10% and please 1%.

This is why Democracy doesn't work .

 

[T.A.M.]

The only part Obama got right is that more research (on the cause(s) of Autism) is needed.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

The reason Autism rates are going up are:

1. We are better at picking it up.
2. We have broadened the definition of the disease, so it includes many more people under the label.

TAM

 

[Darth Rotor]

Sigh... Autism is not a threat to national security, but having a bonehead for a president that states opinions on scientific issues that are in stark conflict with the scientific consensus on said issues, could be seen by many (myself included) as a threat to national security. Has to do with that whole "enemies foreign and domestic" thingy.

Is national security the only issue worth discussion in a presidential campaign?

Daredelvis

Relative importance: low.

A president can do bloody eff all about autism. The both of them trying to play know-it-all is indeed silly. It matters not who is president for the various efforts to deal with autism to go forward. Hilly, Billy, Ron Paul, W, Obama, it matters not.

I will agree with you and dubalb, in terms of disappointment, that the perception on scientific literacy of the two of them just took a tumble.

DR

 

[icerat]

Make this a perfect trifecta, Hillary is on these nonsense too.

Clinton made no claims about autism being linked to vaccines. As far as I can see in that article the closest she came was supporting removal of mercury from vaccines to ensure it was "a safe as possible". That's fine, and given public concern a good idea. Even if the public is wrong, if possible it's better to allay fears and have them using vaccines than to limit vaccines effectiveness for all by having large numbers shun them. Clinton actually went out of her way to state the need for evidence-based research.

 

[Puppycow]

Clinton made no claims about autism being linked to vaccines. As far as I can see in that article the closest she came was supporting removal of mercury from vaccines to ensure it was "a safe as possible". That's fine, and given public concern a good idea. Even if the public is wrong, if possible it's better to allay fears and have them using vaccines than to limit vaccines effectiveness for all by having large numbers shun them. Clinton actually went out of her way to state the need for evidence-based research.

Yes. I didn't see anything to fault her for there. In fact she passed up some opportunities to pander. Such as:

Would you support a federal right for families and individuals to choose for themselves which vaccines they will use?

As President, I will support efforts to ensure that vaccines are safe and effective, including
independent reviews and large-scale studies. All Americans should have access to accurate and comprehensive information about vaccinations.

I.e., no.

Are you satisfied that the federal vaccine approval process is free of conflicts of
interests, transparent and rigorous?

I believe that we need independent, thorough, and comprehensive testing of all drugs, including vaccines, to make sure that they are safe and effective. I will ensure that the process of approving vaccines is based on science and research - not ideology or other motives. I will do everything I can to protect the health and well-being of American families.

That's not a direct answer to the question, but she didn't take the bait (seriously, only an expert in the subject could answer that, and she didn't pretend to be an expert).

 

[corplinx]

I expect politicians to get the answer wrong when it comes to vaccainations. After all, there is a strong correlation between entering politics and becoming mentally retarded.

 

[Puppycow]

There is now an update to the article which casts' Obama's statement in a different light. Apparantly he was pointing to a questioner when he said "this person" rather than referring to himself. So I guess he's sort of off the hook, although one could still quibble with the statement "The science right now is inconclusive." On the question of whether vaccines cause autism, I don't think it is inconclusive. But if he simply meant that more science on the causes of autism remains to be done, that is correct.