Vaccine - Autism link

[cptmarginal]

The only traction in this debate is the verifiable abuses that the medical establishment have, in the past, inflicted upon underprivileged groups without their knowledge. This is something that institutional science and medicine know about, and can't argue against. In other words, human subjects protection is the pivotal rhetorical point, the only one that has the potential to be heard.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15374

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/1/19/m ... history_of

JUAN GONZALEZ: — and exactly how these kinds of disparities began to manifest themselves. Could you talk to us a little bit about —especially about those early years, especially during the period of slavery?

HARRIET WASHINGTON: Right, the early years, it was quite chilling. First of all, it’s important to understand that there was a scientific animus called "scientific racism," which at that time was simply science, and it posited that black people were very, very different from whites, medically and biologically. And this provided a rationale and an underpinning not only for the institution of slavery — slavery probably could not have persisted if there hadn’t been this medical underpinning — but also for the use of blacks in research.

For example, it said that blacks were less intelligent, sub-human, perhaps not even quite human, that they didn’t experience pain, that they were immune to diseases like malaria and heat sickness that made it impossible for whites to work in the field, but made them perfect for labor in the field. So this set of beliefs, this set of scientific beliefs, was not buttressed by any real data, but only by the needs of the community. And this actually gave permission for doctors to acquire slaves for research.

They also had a variety of conditions for which — a good example is reproductive health. All of the early important reproductive health advances were devised by perfecting experiment on black women. Why? Because white women could say no. White women were not interested in having doctors looking at their genitalia during the Victorian era, and white women were not interested in undergoing painful surgery without anesthesia, but black women could not say no.

So this animus began, as you say, in the very early days of our republic, and it simply snowballed until, by the time of the Civil War, blacks were being used, almost exclusively in some venues and in very high proportion in others, for everything, from vaccine design, experimental surgeries. And they were never consensual; you never asked their permission, and rarely were they therapeutic. They were mostly to expand medical knowledge.

[...]

A lot of the abuse in African Americans has dissipated, but that kind of research is being conducted in Africa, where the people are in the same situation. They don’t have rights. They don’t have access to medical care otherwise, and Africa is being treated as a laboratory for the West by Western researchers. Very troublesome.

JUAN GONZALEZ: You mention specifically the EZ measles vaccine?

HARRIET WASHINGTON: Yeah, that’s a very good example. A vaccine that killed hundreds of children in Brazil and Africa was then used in Los Angeles on parents who had no idea that the vaccine was experimental. They were only told that their children were being vaccinated.

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-17/ ... es-vaccine

I often purposely avoid commenting on wedge issues, but just wanted to add this bit of history (that everyone here probably already knows about, even if only in a general sense)

[alwyn]

You know we're on the same side, yes? Here's the problem with the upper-middle-class demographic in this debate: they will always be characterized as over-privileged and under-educated in the woo-woo, new age sense. Since the woo camp and the scientific establishment basically do not talk to each other (even though there are isolated individuals such as myself who understand and are sympathetic to both camps) and the scientific establishment happens to have the media megaphone in this debate (note that on other issues the reverse is true, since whatever camp supports the elites' established, pre-determined decision is always the one whose message is amplified), the concerns of upper-middle-class white folks who oppose vaccination will never be heard. Never. The only traction in this debate is the verifiable abuses that the medical establishment have, in the past, inflicted upon underprivileged groups without their knowledge. This is something that institutional science and medicine know about, and can't argue against. In other words, human subjects protection is the pivotal rhetorical point, the only one that has the potential to be heard.

Human Subjects protection is the pivotal rhetorical point, the only one that has the potential to be heard ! THIS!!!!!!!! but it's a hard slog, you have to make it past the amygdala-driven limbic you are threatening my child circuit, and strike a resonant #allchildrenmatter in the heart space. (how's THAT for woo!) quantum entanglement....human subjects protection is where i drove the argument on the book of face tonite.

thanks, Slomo......

[alwyn]

great link on homeopathy. I have to say that homeopathy saved my boys' life, when western medical science was losing him. I've found that western medical science is without peer when it comes to trauma, but when you need healing and immune strengthening, oriental modalities, herbal medicines and subtle energy modalities such as reiki and homeopathy are better. Hopefully we'll have the sacred marriage between the two, and we can all get along ....

[Elvis]

For what it's worth, tonight's "Coast to Coast AM" radio show will cover this topic:

Various experts who have been on the front lines of the fight over vaccination will discuss the medical and ethical arguments both for and against the use of vaccination, and the legal and medical implications of mandatory inoculations for all.



I doubt I will listen to it myself, and I don't like promoting C2C, but am mentioning it here in case some folks might want to hear tonight's discussion.

update:

Guests include research scholar Mary Holland, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, author Howard Bloom, editor John Stone, Dr. Gary Ridenour, and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny.

[Sounder]

Wombaticus Rex » 11 Feb 2015 09:35 wrote:

Still, when more informed commentators -- facts are facts, no offense intended, and some folks here actually do science for a living –

It does not necessarily follow that ‘scientists’ are the more informed commentators. Generally scientists are very well informed in their specialty and what is required to get grant funding. Beyond that, they are not likely to be any better informed than the rest of us. (Although, in-formed can also on one level be seen as being brainwashed, but we won’t go there.)

slomo replied to Wombat...
Some of us do science for a living, and are therefore distrustful of science as an institution.

Thanks slomo, My wife is in science, she trained PHD students in lab procedure back in the day. I have also been a science enthusiast all my life, with an early hobby of reading original works of noted scientists.

It is a category error to think that criticism of certain expressions of science is the same as having a negative stance toward science in general. Real science is built on criticism, and science can handle it.

[Wombaticus Rex]

It is a category error to think that criticism of certain expressions of science is the same as having a negative stance toward science in general. Real science is built on criticism, and science can handle it.

Amen, but I'm more concerned about the category error that reifies "Science" into a monolithic institution capable of being discussed as a singular noun. That's where the real brain damage gets done.

[Luther Blissett]

I found the chapter on homeopathy in the book "13 Things That Don't Make Sense" pretty interesting. This isn't that chapter, but it's from the same author:

Homeopathy: Sometimes a dose of nothing can do you a power of good
Homeopathic remedies such as essence of crop circle and 'F sharp minor' may sound daft but they have a vital role to play in modern medicine, writes Michael Brooks

Michael Brooks
Friday 6 February 2009 09.49 EST

Should homeopathy be available on the NHS? Absolutely – it's possibly the safest, most ethical and most effective placebo there is. Where money is truly wasted is in trying to find evidence that homeopathy works.

If you think that what passes for homeopathy today can be properly assessed by modern science, it should only take a visit to a homeopathic pharmacy to change your mind. As part of my research for my book 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, I did just that. On the shelves I found remedies made from "F sharp minor", "Gog and Magog, Oaks at Glastonbury", "Flapjack" and "Crop Circle".

Also stored somewhere at that pharmacy - I didn't see it, but I had read about it - was a homeopathic remedy made from the blood of an HIV positive man. There were remedies made from more conventional substances too, plants that any herbalist might use. But where do you draw the line when trying to assess this field? Whatever you do, there is going to be a hell of a lot of noise in the data.

The same is true for the legions of people who say homeopathy works for them. During my research I came across perfectly sane people whose initial scepticism had been blown away after their reluctant use of homeopathic treatments was followed by dramatic improvements in their symptoms. But anecdote, however impassioned, is not scientific evidence – there are always too many unknowns behind each success story.

Having said all that, you might think that I'm against homeopathic treatments being funded on the NHS. I would certainly agree with the vast majority of scientists who say that homeopathy is almost certainly no more effective than placebo. But there are two qualifications I should make about that statement – and they make all the difference.

The first qualification is that the claim homeopathy doesn't work is a prejudice, not a scientifically proven fact. The second qualification is much more important. I don't actually know what "no more effective than placebo" means. And neither does anyone else.

In fact, the phrase's negative connotations are undeserved. Let's not forget that placebos are medically useful, and doctors know it. Let me give you some figures to support that heresy.

In 2003, a survey found that 48% of Danish GPs use what they regarded as a placebo intervention – mostly antibiotics for viral infections or vitamins for unspecified fatigue – 10 or more times per year. A 2004 study of Israeli doctors, published in the British Medical Journal, found that 60% had prescribed placebos. Of those, around two-thirds did so once a month or more, and lied to the patient about the "medication". Some 94% of these doctors found placebos to be an effective means of treatment.

Roughly half of US physicians admit to regularly prescribing placebo – usually vitamins or analgesics – in their clinical practice, and believe this to be ethical. The American Medical Association has advised doctors that it's OK to use placebos if they can avoid the deception that tends to go with it.

Homeopathy is perfect for this. In fact, its consultation process, combined with the homeopath's and the patient's faith in it, can make it an extremely powerful placebo.

The placebo effect, you see, kicks in on a sliding scale. Last year, a Harvard Medical School study compared the efficacy of various methods of consulting with patients suffering from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

It found that patients given "extreme placebo" – basically, they were listened to at length, and fully consulted about their symptoms, feelings and treatments – reported an improvement that was equivalent to that achieved by drugs commonly used to treat IBS. The irony is that, in order to be licensed, those drugs would have had to performed "better than placebo" in standard clinical trials.

Giving a placebo is not the same as doing nothing, which means that sometimes prescribing a placebo is better than doing nothing. People are not biochemical versions of computer programs, where a particular input will give a particular output. Being a doctor isn't about being handcuffed by evidence-based medicine, it's about using skilled judgement in tandem with the best available evidence – including evidence about the efficacy of placebos.

Perhaps it's time to restate that medicine should be considered an art, not a science.

Using placebos effectively is difficult, however. Regulations governing cost and evidence-based prescribing prevent a pharmacy from dispensing something recognised as a placebo. Curiously, the Americans are ahead of us here, too. A 2001 article in the Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association provides a script for the pharmacist's role in the deception which neatly deflects any responsibility. Realising that a doctor has prescribed a placebo, the pharmacist should deliver the medication with these words: "Generally, a larger dose is used for most patients, but your doctor believes that you'll benefit from this dose."

With homeopathy, that problem is side-stepped. Homeopaths tend to believe in what they are doing, so there's no deception – and their conviction reinforces the placebo effect. It costs money, but so do IBS drugs, which are no more effective.

And even opponents of homeopathy must concede that, if the remedies are essentially nothing more than water or lactose pills, adverse side effects are pretty unlikely.

So, yes, I think doctors should be allowed to refer patients to small homeopathic practices, with fee caps, if the doctor believes a placebo is the best course of action. I would point out, though, that even placebos can be taken too far. I'm not keen on funding hugely costly "homeopathic hospitals", for example. To me, they just seem silly.

Michael Brooks is a consultant for New Scientist and the author of 13 Things That Don't Make Sense. You can hear Michael discuss his book in next week's Science Weekly podcast

[slomo]

It is a category error to think that criticism of certain expressions of science is the same as having a negative stance toward science in general. Real science is built on criticism, and science can handle it.

Amen, but I'm more concerned about the category error that reifies "Science" into a monolithic institution capable of being discussed as a singular noun. That's where the real brain damage gets done.

Sure, it's a mistake to reify "Science" as one monolithic institution. However (and it seems repetitive to mention this on RI), others here have observed (sometimes with the surprise of a belated epiphany) that you pretty much have to be a sociopath to be offered a leadership position in government and media institutions. The same is true of scientific institutions.

Of course there are always rare examples of sociopaths who use their powers for good rather than evil. However, the fact remains, you still need to be a sociopath to "get ahead".

Anti-anti-vaxxers may wish to ponder on this.

[slimmouse]

Thought experiment.

A few thoughts on vaccines and stuff.

Our current healthcare systems worldwide are essentially predicated on by Wall St. They plan to make it all bigger, if you look at the recent TISA proposals

Which means that if there are no sick people, there is no healthcare systems.
There goes cure out of the window.

Instead we are left with treatment. An even cursory glance at what Wall Streets version of Treatment is, doesnt exactly encourage the informed mind.

Nature bad, Wall st Dow 500 Good.

So if someone were to suggest to me that adjuvent-laden vaccines, being pumped into babies under compulsion in some cases was in the best interests of that child, then you must pardon my skepticism when it comes to that belief or indeed any kind of vaccine being offered by Dr Wall st..

This is probably what muddies my own personal waters on this.

[BrandonD]

Amen, but I'm more concerned about the category error that reifies "Science" into a monolithic institution capable of being discussed as a singular noun. That's where the real brain damage gets done.

In my experience, that is a category error that the establishment proponents tend to use, rather than the critics. Which makes sense, a blanket designation makes criticism of the individual "branches" more difficult, as it installs the idea that by criticizing a piece you are denouncing the whole.

(edit: spelling error!)

[Sounder]

Wombaticus Rex » Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:13 am wrote:

Amen, but I'm more concerned about the category error that reifies "Science" into a monolithic institution capable of being discussed as a singular noun. That's where the real brain damage gets done.

In my experience, that is a category error that the establishment proponents tend to use, rather then the critics. Which makes sense, a blanket designation makes criticism of the individual "branches" more difficult, as it installs the idea that by criticizing a piece you are denouncing the whole.

Pretty neat how 'climate denialism' becomes as if by magic, science denialism in the hands of skilled propagandists as evidenced in the following quote pulled from the branded and global warming threads.

Thanks to Iam for posting this gem over at the Global Warming thread.

Scientific denialism has crept into other aspects of modern life, of course, manifesting itself as creationism, anti-vaccine ideology and the opposition to genetically modified crops, among other doctrines.

[Searcher08]

Wombaticus Rex » Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:13 am wrote:

Amen, but I'm more concerned about the category error that reifies "Science" into a monolithic institution capable of being discussed as a singular noun. That's where the real brain damage gets done.

In my experience, that is a category error that the establishment proponents tend to use, rather then the critics. Which makes sense, a blanket designation makes criticism of the individual "branches" more difficult, as it installs the idea that by criticizing a piece you are denouncing the whole.

Pretty neat how 'climate denialism' becomes as if by magic, science denialism in the hands of skilled propagandists as evidenced in the following quote pulled from the branded and global warming threads.

Thanks to Iam for posting this gem over at the Global Warming thread.

Scientific denialism has crept into other aspects of modern life, of course, manifesting itself as creationism, anti-vaccine ideology and the opposition to genetically modified crops, among other doctrines.

Excellent points.
I remember reading some of the posts in the Pie Documents thread and seeing this type of process
happening


The people who are anti-Science will sink to any depth.
It is ok when they are fruitcakes
like flat earth people,
not ok though when they are serious
like 9/11 Truthers or child "abuse" pedos everywhere scammers

This article has been viral on Facebook and I think it's massive popularity is quite chilling.
It triggers really primal mammalian circuits (baby protection)

<<pic of baby>>


This is my son Griffin, and he may have measles.

On February 9th, I received a phone call from York Region Public Health, informing me that Griffin, alongside my mother and I, was potentially exposed to the measles virus while attending a newborn weigh-in appointment at my doctor’s office in Markham on January 27th.

Griffin was 15 days old at the time.

I was informed that someone who later developed measles sat in the doctor’s waiting room between 1 hour before and 30 minutes before we arrived. I was also informed that measles is regarded as “airborne” and can stay in the air and on surfaces up to 2 hours after the infected person has left.

I was then asked if I had had the measles vaccine. I had.

Griffin. Griffin had not. Can not.

I was advised to not be around small children. If I worked in such an environment I would be written off work. I do work in such an environment; my home. Where I now sit with Griffin and my 3 year old, Aurelia, who has only been able to get one MMR vaccine so far. She is now, technically, exposed too. We are to sit tight and watch for symptoms: fever, cough, runny nose. If we develop any of these we are to call my doctor and arrange to come in under official medical precautions. We are to wait at home, in isolation, until February 17th, after which the 21 days of possible incubation will have passed and we are clear.

So, Griffin is now Schrödinger’s baby. Simultaneously with measles, and without it. Until he develops symptoms, or until a further 7 days pass. One or other.

And I’m angry. Angry as hell.

I won’t get angry at or blame the person in the waiting room. I would have likely done the same thing...you get sick, you go to the doctor. I have no idea what their story is and I will never know. But I do know one thing:

If you have chosen to not vaccinate yourself or your child, I blame you.

I blame you.

You have stood on the shoulders of our collective protection for too long. From that high height, we have given you the PRIVILEGE of our protection, for free. And in return, you gave me this week. A week from hell. Wherein I don’t know if my BABY will develop something that has DEATH as a potential outcome.

DEATH.

Now, let’s unpack this shall we. All out on the table.

You have NO IDEA what this “potential outcome” means. NO IDEA. I do. Unfortunately, I do.

You think you are protecting your children from thimerosal? You aren’t. It’s not in their vaccine.

You think you are protecting them from autism? You aren’t. There is no, none, nada, nothing in science that proves this. If you want to use google instead of science to “prove me wrong” then I am happy to call you an imbecile as well as misinformed.

You think you are protecting them through extracts and homeopathy and positive thoughts and Laws of Attraction and dancing by candlelight on a full moon? You aren’t. I PROTECT YOUR CHILD. We protect your child. By being concerned world citizens who care about ourselves, our fellow man, and our most vulnerable. So we vaccinate ourselves and our children.

You think you are protecting them by letting them eat their shovel full of dirt and reducing antibiotics and eating organic? You aren’t. As an unvaccinated person you are only protected by our good graces. WE LET YOU BE SO PRIVILEGED thanks to our willingness to vaccinate ourselves and our children.

You know what vaccines protect your children from? Pain. Suffering. Irreparable harm. Death.

And you would be the first to line up if you had an inkling of what the death of a child feels like. You would be crawling through the streets on your hands and knees, begging, BEGGING to get that vaccine into your precious babies because that is what I would have done, if I could, to save my daughter.

The fact is, there was no vaccine for her. Not for her illness. And she died. She died at age five and a half, and she is gone.

And I watch these arguments trotted out on Facebook and twitter citing false science and long discredited“studies” that just won’t stop and Jenny McCarthy quotes and “it’s MY choice” to not vaccinate...and I think...what would you have done if your child lay dying? Would you give them a scientifically proven, safe and effective vaccine and risk the minuscule likelihood of a side effect? Or would you let them go, knowing that at least they won’t develop autism (which they wouldn’t even develop anyway because SCIENCE)?

And don’t you DARE tell me that you wouldn’t vaccinate them then. Don’t you dare. You have no idea what it feels like to go through what we went through.

So, look at Griffin. Tell me why he gets to bear the brunt of your stupidity and reckless abuse of our protection? Tell me.

Contrasts inn

Seven more days until I know that my baby is safe. Seven more days.

How is your week going, anti-vaxxers?

This to me is a deeply toxic brew of primal genuine mother-baby-safety-love and well TBH a bunch of statist, Orwellian BS.

[nashvillebrook]

wow -- just want to praise RI for being here and having a rational discussion about this. i've also been wondering why the hell "vaccines" suddenly popped up after the Super Bowl, and also WTF is going on the so-called "progressive" community as it seems like they're ready to build concentration camps for "anti-vaxxers."

it didn't occur to me until today to come here for sanity...and i'm glad i did just to have some little bit of faith restored in our ability to call bullshit on obvious bullshit. i was starting to worry there for a while.

i have lots more to say about it but i have to go and enjoy valentines with my sweetie. here's a thread at DU that kinda shows where that place is at these days.

gah.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?c ... id=6220605

[alwyn]

Papers anyone? Can it get any more fascist than this? Is this what it's about, to shoot us all up with stuff that will KO our immune system, and make us stupid? Because I swear t god, all those vaxxers are fucking idiots. I didn't think i would call them the names they call me but this could do it.

http://examiner.com.co/airlines-conside ... ir-travel/



Traveling by air may get even more complicated if a reported plan by major carrier airlines requiring passengers to be vaccinated comes to fruition. After the increasing problem of unvaccinated individuals contracting and spreading communicable diseases, airlines hope to be a stopgap solution to preventing larger outbreaks. An inside source with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) suggests that, “Multiple major carriers have begun discussing requiring vaccination records for all passengers before allowing them to board a flight.”

The FAA source, speaking on condition of anonymity explains that many of the airlines have, “had it with the anti-vaccination arguments and don’t want to be left with the guilt and partial responsibility when a preventable disease spreads by way of air travel.” It is assumed that a valid vaccination record will be required upon check in before travelers embark on their journey. “It’ll add another step to the flight process, but the airlines, so far, are willing to absorb any costs associated with it,” said the FAA source. It is not expected to impact the already beleaguered Transportation Security Administration as this would be an elective requirement and not a federally mandated change.

The 2014 – 2015 U.S. measles outbreak spread to seven states and is widely believed to have been tied to vacationers at the Disneyland amusement park in Anaheim, California. Many speculate the spread of the disease outside of California was exacerbated due to vacationing families traveling by air. By requiring a valid vaccination record, the airlines would hope to minimize the wanton spread of infectious disease by keeping potential disease carrying individuals off all flights originating and terminating in the United States.

“The airlines are using the term ‘at risk individual’ up to this point to describe who they are targeting,” explains the FAA source. “I take that to mean individuals who are unvaccinated themselves or those who refuse to vaccinate their children. They (the airlines) realize this is a hot button issue at the moment, however, they allegedly feel this is the only way they can do their part to help keep their customers and employees safe and healthy. One ‘higher up’ with a major carrier said something to the effect of ‘this is the responsible thing to do’.”

Speculation is that the airlines would consider an option for frequent fliers to pre-register their vaccination status to avoid any further delays. The FAA source wants to make it clear that, “Again, this isn’t a federal mandate so the FAA is just paying attention to the discussion and giving our views when asked.”

The source at the FAA wouldn’t commit to a statement on whether other mass transit carriers, such as railroads or bus lines, would follow suit if this new tactic is implemented by the airlines

[Sounder]

wow -- just want to praise RI for being here and having a rational discussion about this.

That might be because the pro-vax folk here have decided that discretion is the better part of valor, so far.

i've also been wondering why the hell "vaccines" suddenly popped up after the Super Bowl, and also WTF is going on the so-called "progressive" community as it seems like they're ready to build concentration camps for "anti-vaxxers."

I have an opinion here but that discretion bugger tells me to hold the tongue.

it didn't occur to me until today to come here for sanity...and i'm glad i did just to have some little bit of faith restored in our ability to call bullshit on obvious bullshit. i was starting to worry there for a while.

Unfortunately it seems we need much more practice with the obvious bullshit before we will get to the subtle bullshit.