How 'mommy instinct' outdid science by dmaanlileiltt

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

How 'mommy instinct' outdid science

POSTED BY: DMAANLILEILTT
UPDATED: Monday, February 7, 2011 10:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4176
PAGE 1 of 2

Friday, February 4, 2011 3:14 PM

http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/how-mommy-instinct-outdid-science-
20110204-1agui.html

An interesting piece. It's all in the link but here are a few choice quotes.

Quote:
Seth Mnookin's narrative got hijacked by its characters: among them the renegade and financially embroiled Dr Andrew Wakefield, popular culture queen Oprah Winfrey, and a down-on-her-luck glamour model called Jenny McCarthy.

The real story of a crisis of faith in arguably the greatest health breakthrough of the last century, the US author says now, is one of strong personalities fixated on their own distorted perspectives and of a media that abetted and inflated them by valuing colour and conflict ahead of scientific fact.

Quote:
''I think the media failed completely. As an institution it failed so enormously in this story,'' said Mnookin in an interview ahead of the release here next week of his book The Panic Virus: Fear, Myth and the Vaccination Debate.

Quote:
In the case of climate change, he said - which might apply also to the presentation of research into vaccines or tobacco - there was ''a tendency to balance, in the name of journalistic ethics, the views of scientists with those of climate change deniers''.

''If you had a scientific community which was divided on the issue,'' said Chubb, ''it would be perfectly reasonable for journalists to report on that division. When there is no division, and the only people opposed … don't have any scientific credibility in this area and mostly don't have any scientific credibility at all, and are motivated by extreme ideology, then the idea of using them for balance is [wrong].''

What do y'all think?

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 3:58 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
What do y'all think?

I think we have an intellectual elite who thinks people cannot be trusted to think and make decisions for themselves.

If they think journalists are wrong to pit physicians' expert opinions against those of laymen, then why not balance it with views of other physicians?

For example, the physicians found here would be happy to be interviewed.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/about/

http://vran.org/about-vaccines/general-issues/doctors-speak/

http://www.vaccinetruth.org/doctors_against_vaccines.htm

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/articles4.html

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think that people don't think for themselves unless they ARE scientists. Anyone else is just prey to disinformation campaigns, propaganda, and fear-mongering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

dbl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:23 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think that people don't think for themselves unless they ARE scientists. Anyone else is just prey to disinformation campaigns, propaganda, and fear-mongering.

Right. That is the same attitude as in the article. People can't/don't think for themselves unless they have purchased membership in the Letters-After-Your-Name Club. And even then, if they dissent, they must have ulterior motives and NOT be acting true to their science.

I once talked to a mom who had 3 sons. Her first son developed normally, then regressed shortly after a vaccine. He was eventually diagnosed with autism. She expressed some concern to her physician, who assured her it was simply a coincidence. So trusting her "scientist" consultant, she vaccinated her second son. Same thing--autistic regression after the vaccine. When she had her third son, she told the physician she did not want to vaccinate again. This time, the physician agreed with her, and gave her a medical exemption.

The medical exemption was deemed invalid by the state health dept, who said the overwhelming scientific evidence proved vaccines and autism were not related. There was no scientific reason for the exemption. She had to vaccinate, or her child could not attend either public or private school. As a single parent, she was not able to homeschool.

Now she has a choice. Vaccinate the third son, who was not autistic (yet), or uproot to a different state and try to get an exemption there. Please note that if she blindly obeys, and get yet another autistic son, she and she alone is responsible for the increased level of care and expenses of those children.

At what point should she start thinking for herself? At what point should physicians who see this pattern start thinking for themselves? It's not like they didn't TRY to think for themselves.

Or should they abdicate the power of independent thought and blindly resign themselves to the conclusions of the NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, and the Lancet?

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 9:00 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Yanno, that whole article both smacks of science-as-religion, and sounds like a press release from Big Pharma.

Consider well that most of the innovators who did advance science were considered quacks and lunatics, folks like Pasteur, or Tesla - who were, respectively, an asshole and a bit loony, but they DID advance it, often in the face of opposition from the status quo.

You see, science, REAL science, marches on - and just cause grandaddy and daddy did it that way doesn't mean it's the only right way, the one true path, nor do medical qualifications automatically disqualify someone from ignorance, greed, or bias, this veneration is IMHO, quite ridiculous.

I will also note that article danced around ever introducing one whit of contradictory evidence, stuff like the SV40 contamination, the 1976 swine flu debacle, recent vaccine-induced polio outbreaks in africa, or the gardasil fiasco, nor did it mention how the medical establishment has impugned it's own credibility with constant fearmongering to sell products which may not be as effective as claimed, and suspicions of other even more nefarious doings, like Baxter shipping live virus mixed with vaccine materials, something that would have required a virtually impossible violation of BSL-3 procedures to do accidently, and this is not by far the first time that exact event has occurred, cause I recall posting here a while back a similar event caught out by canada, as well.

The problem is when you go "heretic" and express belief that maybe there might be another way, or question the conclusions of folk who's credibility is quite strained as of late, instead of a reasoned discussion you get a jihad calling for your head from a hidebound establishment which cannot even think to countenence anything but reverence and deference.

Sure, AT THE TIME, many vaccines did what they were supposed to do - so too did better sanitation and living conditions, education, a whole package, but at the time it was a novel solution and hell yes, it worked.

BUT SCIENCE MARCHES ON.

Think about this for a moment, we can make immunosuppressants, which are used in various treatments and I believe in cases of transplant rejection - could we not turn that in the other direction and assist the bodys OWN immune system, rather than burdening it with chems and weakening it's ability to fight ?
Oh Noes, HERESY!

Or the fact that virii are crystalline in structure, and may be susceptible to the same type of sonic wave effects used to address kidney stones ?
Oh Noes, HERESY!

Or how about that instead of pounding a tremendous multitude of chems on an undeveloped immune system all at once, maybe we should spread those out so that it can adapt and will not be weakened and run down at a critical point of life ?
Oh Noes, HERESY!

See a trend here ?
Cause that is prettymuch the response you get, no matter how reasoned your questions are, no matter how willing to discuss and debate you are, and I find that the greatest evidence that perhaps our current paradigm is more about turf-rights and protecting tenures and privledges than actual scientific advancement.

And I for one will never, EVER, accept the notion of "acceptable losses" in the concept that a certain amount of folk are going to take permanent damage or die from a medicine, and it's ok to kill them for the good of the whole - there's no way in hell you can ever make that anything but offensive to me, especially after losing one of my own in exactly that fashion BECAUSE they swallowed a bullshit story whole and didn't wish to question the establishment.

So far, despite tooth and claw resistance from the folks who SHOULD be advancing science, we've identified that a certain percentage of the population *IS* going to take harm from these things, and have considered several factors, so far none of which is conclusive (Thimerosal being potentially dangerous, but could not be isolated as sole cause, yet did point to Adjuvants as a potential issue) in efforts to try to isolate what factor may be the cause, or perhaps identify what specific folks might take harm - in short doing the JOB of medical science (and badly, often as not, having less education/info access) while medical science gnashes its teeth and wails at them for daring to question.

But consider well that it is that very KIND of heresy which lead to modern medical tech being what it is today, without which we would still be blaming night vapors and miasmia instead of bacteria and virii.

Oh, and regarding Wakefield - I notice that despite his unforgivably sloppy scientific method, most the criticism comes from the fact that he chose persons who were not full and loyal believers in the current medical establishment, oh noes, the heresy...
And while as far as I know, the study is not complete yet, you MIGHT think to take a look at this.

Quote:
Now a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel disease - and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the measles virus.

Last night the team's leader, Dr Stephen Walker, said: 'Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles.

'This research proves that in the gastrointestinal tract of a number of children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism, there is evidence of measles virus.

'What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct. That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine. If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR.'

I notice in the rush to discredit wakefield, behavior that evokes a certain suspicion - much like the rush to shovel gardasil evoked a suspicion that the folks pushing it knew something was wrong with it (and at least three of us here were PRESENT when I did voice that suspicion, loudly, and was brushed off) and they meant to make as much cash off it as possible before the damage started piling up...

Would anyone care to tell me I was wrong about that, in light of the evidence which has come out since ?

And I tell you now that the storm-rush to condemn wakefield, and the method and manner speaks to me of guilty consciences, shadenfreude, and a certain hatefulness of that which questions the established order, in much the same fashion as the overblown, hysteric, melodramatic denials of a caught red-handed crook.

And finally, you *DO* know that I have exactly ZERO med-science credentials of any kind, right ?
Yet, how *much* do I know about abuse, treatment and prevention, the involved psychology and even as much of the neurology as my education and understanding allows, plus a lifetimes worth of field work.
Plus when a topic goes beyond my effective competence or comprehension, I either shut the hell up, or admit right up front that ignorance, something the educationally-lettered OUGHT to have sense enough to do, by often don't.

So I find the insinuation that one MUST be a scientist to critically examine a topic without bias patently offensive, especially in light of overwhelming evidence that if anything, such people are MORE susceptible to it in the manner of fat wads of cash from pharmaceutical and medical technology companies.
Cause I don't see em lining up to bribe ME!

Of course, to interject some badly needed humor here, the one question I must ask, if one has to be a scientist to play ball in your court, by your rules - although in truth I have no intention to do so...

Does mad science count ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 9:11 AM

BYTEMITE

I'm a scientist and my paranoia makes me susceptible to all three. Pride is also a significant problem I contend with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 9:36 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Frem,

Rants like these are why I love ya. Come here, you big lug.

But I have to defend Wakefield. His scientific method wasn't unforgivably sloppy, not any more than other clinical case studies. He did a small pilot study with 12 kids. That's it. He found what he found. He didn't make any unsupported claims. He didn't say vaccines caused autism.

All the accusations against him have been strawmen.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 9:45 AM

CANTTAKESKY

I'm gonna put this on its own thread, but it is worth a mention here, for all those people who think regular people can't think for themselves if they aren't "qualified."

The complaint here is that the citizens' argument is TOO good. The public might be misled by the "engineering level" work done by people who aren't licensed engineers.

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/02/04/looks-to-me-like-youve-done-some
-unlicensed-figurin-here/

Quote:

A citizen in Raleigh, North Carolina presented the city a proposal to install traffic lights near his home. One city official responded by calling for the citizen to be investigated for what basically amounts to doing math without a license.

Cox and his North Raleigh neighbors are lobbying city and state officials to add traffic signals at two intersections as part of a planned widening of Falls of Neuse Road.

After an engineering consultant hired by the city said that the signals were not needed, Cox and the North Raleigh Coalition of Homeowners’ Associations responded with a sophisticated analysis of their own…

The eight-page document with maps, diagrams and traffic projections was offered to buttress their contention that signals will be needed at the Falls of Neuse at Coolmore Drive intersection and where the road meets Tabriz Point / Lake Villa Way.

It did not persuade Kevin Lacy, chief traffic engineer for the state DOT, to change his mind about the project. Instead, Lacy called on a state licensing agency, the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, to investigate Cox…

Cox has not been accused of claiming that he is an engineer. But Lacy says he filed the complaint because the report “appears to be engineering-level work” by someone who is not licensed as a professional engineer…

Lacy said he had told the group last year that it should hire an engineer to make its case. He said he was surprised to see engineering-quality work in a report that was not signed by a licensed professional.

“When you start applying the principles for trip generation and route assignment, applying judgments from engineering documents and national standards, and making recommendations,” that’s technical work a licensed engineer would do, Lacy said.

Lacy is right. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if we let just regular, unlicensed people use sophisticated arguments when petitioning their government.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 10:51 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think that people don't think for themselves unless they ARE scientists. Anyone else is just prey to disinformation campaigns, propaganda, and fear-mongering.

I'm pretty much with signy on this one. But I feel sad that everything is so polarised these days, even medicine. Caution over vaccines turns into rampant paranoia and fearmongering, and those who support them become evangelists for the cause. To me that was the point of the article, and how people have lost faith in science and scientific thinking. It demonstrates how differently scientists need to impart there message to convince people, rather than expect them to believe stuff 'coz I said and I'm clever'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 11:46 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
To me that was the point of the article, and how people have lost faith in science and scientific thinking.

I love science. I have lost faith in medicine. They are not the same thing.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 11:49 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

seems to me you pick and choose your science to love, just as you pick and choose which medical practitioners to listen to.

You enter into the 'my science is right and yours is wrong' along with everyone else as far as I can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 11:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I love science

No, you don't. You have no commitment to looking at ALL of the facts, only the ones you agree with.

BTW- I didn't say that one needs a degree to be a scientist. One needs to LOOK AT THE DATA.

Being as my daughter is brain-damaged, I knew quite a few of her classmates. So I knew two children personally who were brain-damaged by the pertussis vaccine. It was VERY CLEAR what did the damage, and brain damage IS a risk with vaccines... the cellular pertussis especially, but also the MMR.

However kids with autism are born that way. So while the data shows that vaccines can- and do- cause brain damage, they are not the cause of autism generally. Those are the facts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:08 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, you don't. You have no commitment to looking at ALL of the facts, only the ones you agree with.

And this is true because YOU said so. Cause you know me better than I know myself.

Quote:
One needs to LOOK AT THE DATA.

Parents who think for themselves DO look at the data. They just look at ALL the data, not just the data published in NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, and the Lancet.

Quote:
So while the data shows that vaccines can- and do- cause brain damage, they are not the cause of autism generally. Those are the facts.

Those are the interpretations of SOME of the data. Not facts.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, those are the facts. I've followed this way too closely for you to dismiss the science and have me just smack myself on the forehead and say "BY GOLLY! She's right! It's all a matter of interpretation!"

It's not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Dang, this thing isn't working.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:59 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, those are the facts. I've followed this way too closely for you to dismiss the science ...

You mean this kind of science?

http://freedom2question.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-is-pseudoscience.htm
l

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 1:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, that's not what I meant. CTS, you're just downright insulting, yanno that?

I happen to agree with some theories that most scientists think are a little far out. For example, I think that we evolved at the seashore, not the savannah. I have all kinds of reasons for thinking so... for example, our extraordinary need for omega-3 (fish oil) compared to other primates, our subcutaneous fat, the fact that we have a diving reflex, our upright stance, anatomic ability to hold our breath and so forth. I also don't buy into the Big Bang theory because it's just too dang complicated. Cosmologists have to keep adding fudge factors to the cosmos to get their theory to work out. I happen to like The Mismeasure of Man by Gould, who exposes the influence of bias on science. So I'm hardly the droid-like slave to establishment science, no matter how hard you try to paint me into that box.

OTOH, I'm not a slave to anti-establishment viewpoints, either. Just because someone claims there is a big establishment conspiracy to make us all think the same way doesn't make it so. Newton wasn't wrong about gravity and the earth really is roundish. it's not a conspiracy.

If this sounds a little snarky, it's because you have the same answer to anyone who disagrees with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 1:51 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Ah yes - Dr Andrew Wakefield - who falsified data and misrepresented a substantial amount of the rest of it in order to sell what he said was a 'treatment' for the 'cause' of autism through vaccination, who's had his 'research' invalidated, been removed from the medical register, and is under criminal and civil investigation --- Do you mean THAT kind of science, CTS?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 2:04 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, that's not what I meant. CTS, you're just downright insulting, yanno that?

Why is it insulting?

The article defines pseudo-science, then uses a paper as an example to illustrate each of the points. This paper (by a Danish guy named Madsen) happens to be often cited as "science" that refutes the link between autism and vaccines. It makes the point that these "facts" you may be referring to may be based on pseudo-science, and not real science.

Now, if you take issue with any point in this article, we can discuss it. If the "facts" on which you rely does NOT include Madsen's paper, we can discuss it. But the link was on topic and germane to the point *I* was making, which is that it is based on interpretation of SOME of the data.

There was no insult in it. It was an argument.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 2:13 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Ah yes - Dr Andrew Wakefield - who falsified data and misrepresented a substantial amount of the rest of it in order to sell what he said was a 'treatment' for the 'cause' of autism through vaccination, who's had his 'research' invalidated, been removed from the medical register, and is under criminal and civil investigation --- Do you mean THAT kind of science, CTS?

Just because he is accused of doing whatever doesn't mean he actually did them. He has explained every accusation to my satisfaction, and I believe he is innocent.

He did a pilot study. The paper's conclusions were very limited and were all supported by the data. Observation is the first step of scientific method, and he did it well. It is by far incomplete, just the first baby step in a new direction, so nothing can be concluded from it beyond that we need more studies. Still, the first baby step, no matter how small and insignificant, is still necessary before larger scientific steps can be taken.

The science I love is the actual experimentation and data collection and analysis. But yes, the type of study Wakefield did, clinical case studies, are part of the science I love.

ETA: To my knowlege, Wakefield is not, and has never been, under either civil or criminal investigation.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 2:33 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The article defines pseudo-science, then uses a paper as an example to illustrate each of the points. This paper (by a Danish guy named Madsen) happens to be often cited as "science" that refutes the link between autism and vaccines.

If it were just one paper, you'd have a point. But there are MANY papers. Furthermore, there is some really definitive work on neonatal blood... blood taken just after birth... which shows biochemical markers for autism. I hope I don't have to point out that this is well before vaccination?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 2:45 PM

CANTTAKESKY

(Sorry, major edits to this post.)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But there are MANY papers.

And most of them are like this one. I mean the epidemiological ones.

Quote:
Furthermore, there is some really definitive work on neonatal blood... blood taken just after birth... which shows biochemical markers for autism.

The biochemical studies are much better. Many people in the vaccine-autism community like to use the analogy: "Genetics load the gun. Environment pulls the trigger."

BTW, I would never say vaccines cause autism. There is simply no proof of it. But I think the scientific community is remiss in not looking at the issue closer.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 2:52 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

I've never heard that there was NO chance that brain damage and other side-effects could occur from having a vaccine. Just that it was FAR more likely that you would get the disease if you didn't get the vaccination then having side-effects if you did.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 2:57 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
For example, I think that we evolved at the seashore, not the savannah.

I like this one. It's a good explanation that fits some of the data we have so far.

Quote:
I also don't buy into the Big Bang theory because it's just too dang complicated.

Exciting! I do believe the big bang theory, mostly because I'm not very familiar with the others, but also I think if you approach the theory from a quantum mechanical angle it makes some more sense. The main argument I have here is that if there was no singularity, then does that mean the universe is cyclical, or does it not have to be?

I'm not prepared to comment on vaccines, all I know is that thimerosol is probably not great for you in general just looking at the chemistry and adjuvants may be dangerous. Vaccines themselves minus the additives seem to still be a viable approach to disease prevention, assuming there isn't contamination or live virus in the vaccines. I have doubts against the pharm industry, that they're careful enough or care enough.

Someone mentioned measles virus and the lining of the stomach, and that made me think of a friend who's little girl has an inflamed GI tract. We're hoping it's h. pylori.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 4:16 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

CTS how dare you question the scientific integrity of your betters? Who are you to determine how holds scientific integrity? You have clearly shown that layman such as you and your 'ilk' cannot be trusted and are not capable of making informed decisions.

If you had any scientific integrity whatsoever, you'd spends copious amounts of dollars on fancy sheets of paper from 'accredited' institutions of study and apply an impressive force of suction upon the appropriate genitalia, after which point you can get approval from a better mind and freedom to scientifically pursue any course of study, so long as you do not disagree with your betters that made this all possible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 4:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
apply an impressive force of suction upon the appropriate genitalia

Also known as "Peer Review", as it has fallen to these days, instead of the critical analysis it was intended to be.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 5:44 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The medical exemption was deemed invalid by the state health dept, who said the overwhelming scientific evidence proved vaccines and autism were not related. There was no scientific reason for the exemption. She had to vaccinate, or her child could not attend either public or private school. As a single parent, she was not able to homeschool.

Now she has a choice. Vaccinate the third son, who was not autistic (yet), or uproot to a different state and try to get an exemption there.

Someone should have told her to start attending a Christian Science church or something. Religious exemptions are offered in 40+ states and so far can't be questioned. A few states also allow for philosophical exemptions, parents just have to sign a thing that says they object. Only two of them will only accept medical exemption.

Vaccination rates are up around 98% at the lowest. People screaming that too many people are refusing to vaccinate their kids when there's a reaction... Well, that's kind of objectionable to me, and most reasonable people I know. Anything else with those sort of rates would be celebrated by advocates.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:02 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Actually, my Dad claimed he was a "Christian Scientist" throughout college to avoid being hassled for vaccines and medical records. I tried to do the same, but Mom wouldn't hear of it lol.

Concerning Autism and Vaccination, my personally opinion is more Autism is over diagnosed than vaccines are responsible, but I also believe the parents or patients should have the choice not to vaccinate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:20 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by LiLi:
Only two of them will only accept medical exemption.

She lived in one of those 2 states. She DID get a medical exemption, but the state wouldn't honor it. They also "investigate" doctors that listen to their patients and grant medical exemptions, to discourage them from thinking for themselves and on behalf of their patients.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:21 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Happy and Frem, you made me smile.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:30 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
BTW, I would never say vaccines cause autism. There is simply no proof of it. But I think the scientific community is remiss in not looking at the issue closer.

The biochemical markers also point to cerebral palsy and other neurological problems besides autism.

One of the aspects of "autism" that you overlook is in your very own link: the role of genes. Three children, one family. Now, I happen to decry the whole investigation of genes into every possible disorder, from obesity to criminality. We're more obese than ever... have our genes changed??? NO! More kids than ever have autism... not a genetic change, an environmental one. But YOUR particular example is not autism, its BRAIN DAMAGE. Likely a quirk in the immune system which confuses pertussis with one of the brain proteins. BUT THIS IS NOT AUTISM. I have a child with brain damage. It looks a shitload like autism, but was caused by a brain bleed. A very mechanical cause, BUT NOT AUTISM.

BTW, the immune system is NOT mean to be active in the brain. The compounds which have an immune role in the body have a neuroactive role in the brain: calcineurin acts as an immune component in the body but promotes synaptic development in the brain; vasocative intestinal peptide promotes intestinal development in the body but is one of the biochemical markers of autism in the brain; and phosphatidyl serine which calls the macrophages to clean up dead cells also promotes memory in the brain.

One of the interesting things I find is the link between schizophrenia and immune problems. An old study found a link between Rh factor incompatibility between mother and fetus and the development of schizophrenia. A more recent study found a link between neonatal jaundice and schizophrenia. Now, babies with ABO incompatibility develop jaundice. MAYBE one of the issues is the increase in travel and the greater mixing of blood types and more incompatibility. Or maybe its the fact that Catholics no loner eat fish on Fridays. For god's sake, stop being so stuck on vaccines.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
BTW, I would never say vaccines cause autism. There is simply no proof of it. But I think the scientific community is remiss in not looking at the issue closer.

The biochemical markers also point to cerebral palsy and other neurological problems besides autism.

One of the aspects of "autism" that you overlook is in your very own link: the role of genes. Three children, one family. Now, I happen to decry the whole investigation of genes into every possible disorder, from obesity to criminality. We're more obese than ever... have our genes changed??? NO! More kids than ever have autism... not a genetic change, an environmental one. But YOUR particular example is not autism, its BRAIN DAMAGE. Likely a quirk in the immune system which confuses pertussis with one of the brain proteins. BUT THIS IS NOT AUTISM. I have a child with brain damage. It looks a shitload like autism, but was caused by a brain bleed. A very mechanical cause, BUT NOT AUTISM.

BTW, the immune system is NOT mean to be active in the brain. The compounds which have an immune role in the body have a neuroactive role in the brain: calcineurin acts as an immune component in the body but promotes synaptic development in the brain; vasocative intestinal peptide promotes intestinal development in the body but is one of the biochemical markers of autism in the brain; and phosphatidyl serine which calls the macrophages to clean up dead cells also promotes memory in the brain.

One of the interesting things I find is the link between schizophrenia and immune problems. An old study found a link between Rh factor incompatibility between mother and fetus and the development of schizophrenia. A more recent study found a link between neonatal jaundice and schizophrenia. Now, babies with ABO incompatibility develop jaundice. MAYBE one of the autism issues is the increase in travel and the greater mixing of blood types and more incompatibility. Or maybe its the fact that Catholics no loner eat fish on Fridays. For god's sake, stop being so stuck on vaccines.

Anyway, I don't pay much attention to what you say on many topics because you keep grinding your agenda in the absence of facts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:37 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by LiLi:
Only two of them will only accept medical exemption.
She lived in one of those 2 states. She DID get a medical exemption, but the state wouldn't honor it. They also "investigate" doctors that listen to their patients and grant medical exemptions, to discourage them from thinking for themselves and on behalf of their patients.

We're in agreement that this is wrong. You made it sound like she couldn't count on getting an exemption in another state, but she could have gotten personal exemption in a dozen states that wouldn't have responded quite so fascistly.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:53 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by LiLi:
You made it sound like she couldn't count on getting an exemption in another state, but she could have gotten personal exemption in a dozen states that wouldn't have responded quite so fascistly.

Oh no. What I actually said was:

Quote:
CTS:
Now she has a choice. Vaccinate the third son, who was not autistic (yet), or uproot to a different state and try to get an exemption there.

She was forced to choose between vaccinating or move. It's a hard choice for a single mother with 3 young children, 2 of whom were autistic.

ETA: Oh I just realized you were probably talking about my use of the word, "try." It is a caution out of habit; even religious exemptions are not 100% guaranteed.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:54 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway, I don't pay much attention to what you say on many topics because you keep grinding your agenda in the absence of facts.

By all means, I don't lose any sleep if you ignore me. :)

But just as an aside, I read what you say with interest and consideration. Yet you are the one who accuses ME of being dismissive. Interesting.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:59 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

NOT AUTISM, CTS. Brain damage. Vaccines are known to cause brain damage. As a matter of fact, so are whooping cough, measles, EBV, syphylis, platelet incompatibilty and a host of other factors. Please, for the love of god, take some B12 and stop perserevating.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:01 PM

DREAMTROVE

What kind of brain damage?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:04 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
CTS:
BTW, I would never say vaccines cause autism. There is simply no proof of it.
For god's sake, stop being so stuck on vaccines.

Didn't I just say I *wasn't* stuck on vaccines? Are you attacking a position I made clear I *didn't* hold? You even quoted me on it.

Tsk. Tsk.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Lesions. Acute necrotizing encephalopathy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Didn't I just say I *wasn't* stuck on vaccines? Are you attacking a position I made clear I *didn't* hold? You even quoted me on it. Tsk. Tsk.

May I quote you?

"She was forced to choose between vaccinating or move. It's a hard choice for a single mother with 3 young children, 2 of whom were autistic."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:10 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
NOT AUTISM, CTS.

They were diagnosed with autism, Siggy, by people with letters after their names. Now I know you believe you know better than physicians who have examined the children in person. And you are probably right.

But I am not going to state YOUR suspicion of misdiagnosis as FACT. You made your point so everyone can keep that in mind. I am going to tell the story as true to the mom's account as I can, thank you very much.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:14 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS... having been involved with the moms, I can tell you they pursued a diagnosis of vaccine damage through the courts AND WON. Did you know there is a special fund for children who are brain damaged as a result of vaccine damage? But in order to get treatment, the moms went for a diagnosis of autism because it was the closest to what would do best for their children. And yes, I DO know better than many peeps with alphabet soup behind their names. I diagnosed my daughter myself, and I pursued treatment by running roughshod over her doctors.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:24 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Didn't I just say I *wasn't* stuck on vaccines? Are you attacking a position I made clear I *didn't* hold? You even quoted me on it. Tsk. Tsk.
May I quote you?

"She was forced to choose between vaccinating or move. It's a hard choice for a single mother with 3 young children, 2 of whom were autistic."

Moving is a hard choice for someone with 3 young children, two of whom were officially diagnosed as autistic. Yes. I stand by that. And?

How does that prove I am stuck on vaccines as the cause of autism?

This mother had two autistic and/or brain damaged children. The damage occurred after vaccination. She did NOT want to take the chance that vaccination could possibly damage her 3rd son. She had to choose between ignoring her experience with the first two as coincidence, or moving. I used her example as a lay non-scientist person who thought for herself, something you said non-scientists didn't do.

Post-vaccine regressive autism IS considered by the vaccine-autism community AS brain damage, you know. There are different TYPES of autism. With the introduction of the spectrum, autism has become a very heterogeneous diagnosis.

It seems to me YOU are hung up on a very narrow definition of congenital autism when "autism" is simply a clinical syndrome, a collection of the same symptoms.

No, I am not stuck on vaccines. I am OPEN to the possibility that vaccines may play a role in some types of autism. Big difference.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:26 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And yes, I DO know better than many peeps with alphabet soup behind their names.

That's why I said, you're probably right. But I am still not going to elevate your suspicion to fact.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
How does that prove I am stuck on vaccines as the cause of autism?

May I quote you?

"She was forced to choose between vaccinating [and have one more child with autism] or move."

Your point was very clear, CTS. If there were not a presumed causal effect, she would not be "forced" to move. Please, treat us as the intelligent people we are.

I'm done with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:24 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"She was forced to choose between vaccinating [and have one more child with autism] or move." Your point was very clear, CTS.

By not having the option of NOT vaccinating, her choices were reduced to only 2. Either ignore the pattern she observed for herself in favor of full trust in authorities (and risk repeating said pattern) OR moving. Yes, she was forced to choose between the two. Your point is?

You inserted words in brackets that I didn't say. It was never a certainty that vaccinating would have produced another autistic child. Really, resorting to strawmen so early in the night?

Quote:
I'm done with you.

I can't say I'm disappointed.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:39 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
Just that it was FAR more likely that you would get the disease if you didn't get the vaccination then having side-effects if you did.

The official mantra is, "The benefits outweigh the risks."

Do they really? I haven't seen any "scientific" proof that they do or don't. So I don't know.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 9:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS: You usual responses as characterized by Rue:
-----------------
You're part of establishment conspiracy.

I didn't say THAT, exactly.

You're picking on me.
-------------------

I have to say, she had you dead bang on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 6, 2011 12:08 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS: You usual responses as characterized by Rue:
-----------------
You're part of establishment conspiracy.

I didn't say THAT, exactly.

You're picking on me.
-------------------

I have to say, she had you dead bang on.

Rue/Signym, I think you have stated "I'm done with you" to CTS five or six times in this thread....and here you are back for more...what gives? Actually, don't answer that. Watching you getting brain fucked and seeing your blood pressure rise...is hilarious.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE