Over the last decade, autism has gone from a rare and misunderstood condition to a disorder that may affect as many as 1.5 million Americans. Without a clear explanation in sight, parents and doctors have worked tirelessly to pinpoint the cause of autism, but the answer remains elusive. Are vaccines the missing link?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Its a Question of Science and Must be Treated as Such
- From Kev Leitch
By Kevin Leitch - Parent and Autism Activist
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Industry Science is Not Science, it is Marketing
When drug companies bribe doctors to sign their names on bogus studies written by marketing hacks, your science is worthless. Your other points:
"1) Peer reviewed. This means an independent set of the authors peers judge if the paper passes basic standards of good science for the discipline in question."
Is this how thalidomide and Vioxx were approved? How about Vytorin and Zetia? The wonder drugs fen-phen, diethyl stilbestrol, they are all still available, right? Because they were PEER REVIEWED. How many thousands do you think die from peer-reviewed products annually?
"2) Published in a journal that is indexed by PubMed"
If so, your comments here are by your own admission, not valid.
"3) Published in a journal that ranks well on the Eigenfactor database."
If Eigenfactor ranking were a factor, why didn't it catch any of those recalled drugs I listed? Medical journals now allow advertising and run ghost-written studies by hacks. They have been bought out by the drug industry.
- tmaxredalia
August 12, 2008 5:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is neither marketing nor perfect
You seem to be expecting perfection. This is not possible. Of course mistakes occur. And as I say, the peer review process is the start of the process, not the end of it.
You seem to be suggesting some sort of conspiracy. Have you any evidence that the peer reviewed science that has been done to refute the vaccine/autism connection is written by 'marketing hacks'?
- Kev Leitch
August 15, 2008 4:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Simsonwood
Not perfection. Just a wee bit less criminality with my medicine , please. Or do you think Dr. Bruce Ivins was innocent?
It's all in the transcript of the June, 2000 meeting of the Scientific Review of the Vaccine Safety Datalink Study at Simsonwood Resort, Norcoss, Georgia. Available at Safeminds.org.
http://www.safeminds.org/government-affairs/foia/Simpsonwood_Transcript.pdf
If you read the doctors pushing to "dilute the signal" and "remove the bad groups from the study," it's obvious they are conspiring to conceal evidence of harm from the public. And marketing hacks are not the only frauds, there are doctors getting in on the fun too.
Read Melody Petersen's "Our Daily Meds" if you want a look at corporate sponsored fraud and baksheesh.
Oh, and more good news! Flu vaccines , 80 percent of which still contain mercury and other toxins, have been associated with a 10-fold increase in Alzheimer's and dementia .
Read about it at:
http://www.royalrife.com/flu_shots.html
It's not just the mercury that causes the autoimmune crash; it's all those poisons combined, injected into a baby's undeveloped immune system.
- tmaxredalia
August 21, 2009 12:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
sgbateman
How do you explain the transcripts of the secret Simpsonwood meetings? All the experts that were there agreed and verified that thimerosal indeed did cause developmental delays including autism, but in fact this evidence was "covered-up"! This is where the conspiracy begins. Have you read them? How do you explain the comments made by all these so called high ranking government scientists,and physicians? And you wonder why so many "smart" Americans know that there has been a cover-up.
- sgbateman August 29, 2008 10:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Simpsonwood Meeting
I'm sorry, nowhere in the Simpsonwood transcripts does it say that thiomersal caused autism. I've read all 200 plus pages. However, I cannot better the analysis given by my friend Skeptico here: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/robert_f_kenned.html
- Kev Leitch
August 29, 2008 11:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, and al Capone never said he killed anybody, either...
That's because he knew he was being watched by the cops. The doctors at Simpsonwood knew their remarks might be read. So they didn't admit to mayhem and murder . Qu'elle surprise.
Americans call it "ThiMERosal" and Brits call it "ThiOmersal." Does the different spelling give you deniability, like O.J. Simpson when he said he never killed his wife? It was true.
O.J. killed his EX-wife.
And you are right, the transcript does not say thimerosal caused autism , it just shows the doctors were scared that it did.
Do you really think doctors falsifying data to hide sick kids are going to admit, "Yep, I gave lotsa kids autism!" They knew the transcript would be available thru the Freedom of Information Act. They had to be careful not to incriminate themselves too badly. Even so, they tried to gather and destroy all copies of the report as a cover up. Which fortunately did not work.
But the 10 percent increase in pervasive developmental disorders in children TOO YOUNG TO BE DIAGNOSED WITH AUTISM (all under age six) should be a clue to anyone not painfully obtuse. Something in vaccines was making some children very ill. And the doctors tried to hide that fact. They are still trying to deny that fact. And you are, too.
Do the drug companies pay you to do this?
- tmaxredalia
August 21, 2009 12:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One doctor
"And you are right, the transcript does not say thimerosal caused autism , it just shows the doctors were scared that it did."
The doctors on the panel were asked to rate the possibility that thimerosal was causing autism... the average ranking was 1.8 out of six... the highest ranking was 4. That hardly shows that the doctors were somehow afraid that thimerosal was causing autism. The theory was put forth, examined, and discarded.
"They knew the transcript would be available thru the Freedom of Information Act. They had to be careful not to incriminate themselves too badly. Even so, they tried to gather and destroy all copies of the report as a cover up. Which fortunately did not work."
Can you cite that?
"Something in vaccines was making some children very ill. And the doctors tried to hide that fact. They are still trying to deny that fact."
Yet there has been no Scientific study showing a link between the increase in autism and vaccines. What has been show is an increase in diseases once thought to be all but eliminated in populations where vaccination rates have dropped below the herd immunity threshold.
- MrBook
August 22, 2009 3:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Efficacy
"What has been show is an increase in diseases once thought to be all but eliminated in populations where vaccination rates have dropped below the herd immunity threshold."
I find it striking that I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to a simple question; If vaccines are efficacious then why must we rely upon a statistical construct, herd immunity, to prevent illness?
- CulpeperMin
August 28, 2009 10:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
100%
"I find it striking that I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to a simple question; If vaccines are efficacious then why must we rely upon a statistical construct, herd immunity, to prevent illness?"
Because vaccines do not offer total protection to the population. Within a given population there will always be individuals without immunity who rely on herd immunity for their protection. Infants who have yet to be vaccinated are one group, as are those who cannot get vaccinated due to medical conditions , there are also those individuals that do not gain an immunity from the vaccine (for any number of reasons), and lastly are those who refuse to get vaccinated... all these individuals rely on herd immunity to protect them.
The reason why statistics are relied upon is because that is the only sound way to look at a population in these matters... how else would you propose to do it?
- MrBook
August 29, 2009 6:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
i just know from experience
My younger brother when he was little was the most normal kid. Happy, loving, and practically brilliant. Then, when he was three he got his MMR shot. He got a fever that skyrocketed past 105 and splitting ear aches. Unconcerned nurses said this was normal, there's usually reactions like this they said. And eventually his fever did go down, and his earache was treated and taken care of, but he was never the same. He shied away from hugs, and wouldn't make eye contact. When i tried to hug him he would scream and yell, and would look at me like I had a knife in my hands. He would sit on the floor, rocking back and forth, refusing to be distracted by blocks or legos.But the way he looked at me I can never forget. He'd look at me with wide-eyed terror and this intense confusion of unrecognition that broke my heart.
He's improved now, which no one ever expected, but he'll never be that carefree, happy boy he used to be. It doesn't seem fair or even possible that a shot could take that all away, but it did.
- zebrakin
November 23, 2008 9:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why is a measure of the control group wrong?
The medical community and a host of others claim that the proof is out there if we would only look. There is no connection between autism and vaccines . For those of us who have looked and for those of us who have not looked, the proof offered is statistical. As an engineer, I have learned about statistics and about the design of statistical experiments. So if I were looking to see if there is a relationship between autism and vaccines, (note I said relationship, not causal relationship) I would do the obvious experiment. I would compare the rate of autism among those the vaccinated population and the unvaccinated population.
I am always amazed at the reaction among the pro-vax community when I say that we should take statistics on the autism rate among unvaccinated children . Among the reactions are:
1. Nothing we say is going to convince you... At this point that is true. I will not be convinced that anything has been proven statistically when no data has been collected from the control group.
2. Leave science to the scientists, You know nothing, ... If you want to say that I do not know medicine , not a problem. I am an engineer, not a doctor. But I know what a control group is and I know what its purpose is. I know that it is fundamental in the statistical search for the truth. I know that the "scientists" have never taken a sample of the unvaccinated autism rate and published it. What puzzles me is why not. No, I am not a conspiracy nut. I believe in the addage "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by ignorance or stupidity." Missing this fundamental piece in the thesis that says that there is no connection between autism and vaccines is for me - really stupid.
3. It would be unethical .... No. It would not be. There are many parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. There are whole groups who do not vaccinate their children. This is being done without any coersion. Coersion would be unethical. (Though there are some who believe that all children should be vaccinated and that there should be laws enforcing this. That, of course is coersion.)
4. Mockery .... You really think I am stupid for wanting to know the autism rate among the control group, the unvaccinated population?
5. This was measured in the Japanese MMR study.... No it was not. The unvaccinated in the Japanese study were not vaccinated with the MMR. They were still vaccinated with other vaccines. That disqualifies that population from the control group.
6. It is way too hard.... I think it is too hard to get past the committees. It is hard to get the pro-vax community to take this simple step. It is hard to get the pro-vax community to see the obvious value of such a survey. It can be done and it is worth the effort.
7. It would be biased toward the poor, who can't get vaccines, who can't afford the wonders of modern medicine...... Since when is autism biased toward the very poor, or the very rich for that matter? The poor in this country are vaccinated. You can't exclude children from school because they can't afford the vaccines that are mandatory for participation for public schools and therefore there are programs everywhere to make sure it happens.
Hey you scientists, the ones I should leave this debate to, the ones who are smarter than I am, I am calling you. You understand - control group, science, they go together. Do you understand that the autism rates among the unvaccinated should have been collected at the beginning of the debate? Do you understand that control group measurements are scientific? Do you understand that any argument to the contrary is specious?
Some would say that I should have faith in the medical community and the vaccination program. Our children are hurt by being wrong saying that vaccines cause autism when it does not or by saying that vaccines do not cause autism when it does. There is too much at stake. I will not back off from saying that the autism rate among the unvaccinated should be scientifically measured.
- EdR77203
October 2, 2009 10:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.