Read this ‘blog or the author gets it!
August 4th, 2009
In Mel Brooks’ comedy film Blazing Saddles (1974), there is a scene where Bart (played by Cleavon Little), the newly appointed black sheriff of Rock Ridge, is surrounded by a lynch mob. Seeing no way out, he points his pistol to his own head and shouts “Hold it! Next man makes a move, the n****r gets it!” After a few moments of quiet confusion, one of the mob leaders says, “Hold it, men. He’s not bluffing.” and lowers his rifle. Classic comedy, but not so funny when, as so often happens, life imitates art.
A few days ago, I had a commenter who made an essentially identical threat. She stated that if “mainstream science” wants to get the “huge and growing group” of “vaccine doubters” behind it, it needs to let the anti-autism advocacy groups like SafeMinds and Autism Speaks “design and control” a study comparing autism prevalence between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
Frankly, I don’t think that “mainstream science” (i.e. science that relies on data rather than belief) needs or even wants to have these people “behind” it. The safest place to keep people like this is in front of you – where you can keep an eye on them. However, the real question here – as it was in Blazing Saddles – is exactly who is being threatened by this threat.
Clearly, the autism researchers are not being threatened. They will either continue as before or – if their own research is “de-funded” in order to fund “vaccines-cause-autism” research – move on to other areas. Just as clearly, it is not “mainstream science” – the pursuit of knowledge about the laws governing the world around us – that will suffer, except in the short run. Eventually, the true causes of autism will be uncovered, despite the best efforts of the anti-autism advocacy groups. The detour into “vaccines-cause-autism”, if it occurs, will then be seen as yet another waste of time and effort in order to placate ignorance.
The only people who will have been hurt will be the autistic children and their families. Oh, and also the taxpayers, who will have funded this pointless research.
As for the demand that anti-autism advocacy group be allowed to “design and control” research studies, there is nothing standing in the way of SafeMinds or Autism Speaks (or any of the others) “doing” their own study of vaccines and autism. Nothing, that is, except the fact that they have nothing to gain by it - and everything to lose.
Think about it – these groups are supported by people who already firmly believe that vaccines cause autism despite an almost total lack of supporting data. Why should any of the anti-autism advocacy groups waste their time or money trying to get data when they’ve gotten this far without any? In addition, many of these people – including some of the founders and major players in the anti-autism groups – have gone on record saying that nothing will ever convince them that vaccines don’t cause autism. To actually do a legitimate study would run the risk of showing that vaccines don’t cause autism (and doing a “rigged” study couldn’t gain them any more support than they already have).
Granted, if they did a legitimate study and found data supporting their hypothesis that vaccines cause autism, it would be a boost to their cause, but they know (or should know) that one study that shows a vaccine-autism connection would have to stand against all of the studies that don’t show a connection. If you don’t think this is a concern for the anti-autism groups, think on how much time and effort – and money – they have spent trashing the reputations of researchers whose work has failed to show the “vaccine-autism connection”. They are definitely aware of the fact that their data – such as it is – is of lower quality and lower quantity than the data showing vaccines don’t cause autism.
Another concern, of course, is cost. While full-page advertisements in major newspapers aren’t cheap, a large-scale study of the type the anti-autism groups are clamoring for would be extremely difficult and expensive (see: “Let’s Put on a Study!” ). The bind here is that we already have a pretty good idea that the impact of vaccines on autism prevalence is very small – if it isn’t zero. Thus, a study that would detect any increased risk of autism caused by vaccines would have to be very large (lots of subjects) to detect this effect. As a result, it would be very expensive.
That’s not to say that a smaller study would be useless – a small-scale study looking at the autism prevalence in vaccinated vs unvaccinated children would be a useful validation of the epidemiological (ecological) studies done so far. A small study (”small” meaning a few thousand subjects) could put a “ceiling” on the portion of autism associated with vaccination, even if it showed no association. Since the groups behind the “vaccines-cause-autism” hypothesis claim that vaccines cause a large percentage of all autism cases, a small study is all that would be needed. If unvaccinated children had an autism prevalence of - for example - only 1 in 5,000 (0.02% - as opposed to the general population prevalence of 0.67%), a thousand subjects would show this difference easily. Yet the advocacy groups hesitate….
Perhaps the reason is that we’ve all become too used to the idea that ”the government” should do all the research - even though the anti-autism advocacy groups have a long history of mistrusting “the government” (you know, the CDC, the FDA, etc.). But there is a very good reason why they should “do a study” on their own.
I’d like to share a little-known (outside of scientific research circles) secret with those who want a study on the “vaccine-autism connection”. When you’re asking for funding for a new hypothesis – or if you’re asking someone else to do the work for you – it works better if you first “prime the pump”.
By that, I mean that you need to have some data supporting your hypothesis before you ask for a grant. You need to show the granting agencies that there is a better than remote chance that your research won’t be another dead end and a waste of their limited resources. So, if the anti-autism advocacy groups want “someone” to “do the study”, they’re going to have to show some real data supporting their hypothesis - not the stuff they have now. And that means that they’re going to have to actually do a legitimate study and they’ll have to pay for it themselves.
For those who still think that “the government” could simply do the study if they only had the political will to do so, let me break it to you gently – “the government” has a very limited number of researchers and facilities. The NIH and the national labs don’t have enough resources to do even 1% of the research funded by “the government”. If the advocacy groups manage to apply enough political pressure to get “the government” to direct the NIH to “do the study”, some other medical research – heart disease, cancer, etc. – will have to be put on hold while the NIH researches – yet again – the “vaccine-autism connection”. And the advocacy groups for those disorders are much more organized - and have better data - than the anti-autism advocacy groups.
This brings us to another important point. The people agitating for a study of vaccines and autism have shown – many times – that they are not going to “believe” any study results that fail to show an association. If you doubt that, see this, this or this. What is the point of “doing a study” intended to placate a “skeptical” minority if that group has repeatedly shown that they will not accept any results that disagree with their dogma? Does anybody reasonable - anybody with an open mind – want this study? If not, then why should we waste the time and money?
Let me take a few moments to recap.
The “threat” that large numbers of people - parents of autistic children - will turn their back on “mainstream science” (or even “mainstream medicine”) is not a credible threat to “mainstream science” (or “mainstream medicine”). Your belief in a fantasy doesn’t hurt the people researching reality - it just hurts you.
For all of their rhetoric, the anti-autism advocacy groups should be terrified by the threat of a legitimate study into the effect of vaccines on autism prevalence. They have indicated that they are aware of this problem in several ways:
First, the fact that the anti-autism advocacy groups haven’t done even one (legitimate) small-scale study shows a distinct lack of interest. They don’t lack the money to do a pilot study, just the will. If the money they have spent on advertising and “infommercials” had been directed to a small-scale pilot study of good quality, they would have the answer they claim to want.
Secondly, a legitimate study would entail the risk of showing that there isn’t an association between vaccines and autism. This would be a disaster for these groups, as they have already repeatedly and emphatically told parents that it is 100% certain that vaccines cause autism. Even asking for a study put this claim in a very dubious light; the results of such a study would - at best - simply confirm what they have already been claiming as fact. At worst (and, in light of present data, the most likely outcome), their claims would be revealed as false.
Finally, If the anti-autism advocacy groups had complete control over the design and execution of the study, they wouldn’t be able to later claim that the results were “flawed”, “biased” or “corrupt”. They would have to either “rig” the study - and face the inevitable criticism - or take the (very high) chance that their own study would show them to be wrong. They would have to be crazy to take the risk.
Although the clamor for “a study” of vaccines and autism is a dogmatic part of many anti-autism advocacy groups’ rhetoric, it is a hollow claim. Most of the leaders of the movement are irretrievably invested in the received wisdom of “vaccines-cause-autism” and could no more change their minds about this than the Pope could stand up and say that the Virgin Mary was just an unwed mother. No matter what any study might show, these people will not change their minds.
The question that remains is this:
How much do we want to spend, how much of our limited research resources do we want to use, to convince ourselves that the “vaccines-cause-autism” believers can’t be convinced?
Just grist for the mill…..
Prometheus
Filed under: Autism Policy, Autism Science, Critical Thinking
August 4th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
It is always a pleasant surprise to discover a new post in this blog.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
it needs to let the anti-autism advocacy groups like SafeMinds and Autism Speaks “design and control” a study comparing autism prevalence between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
If they were capable of designing and controlling a valid study, they would be expected to be capable of recognizing other studies that meet the criteria to be valid.
If they understood study design, they would be able to see that these studies have already been done. They would be satisfied that there is no connection or that the connection is minuscule.
You are correct in using a religious metaphor for this. We might just as well demand a study to prove/disprove the existence of God. Aside from the impossibility of such a study, the results would not change many minds, regardless of the results. Each religion would likely state that the researchers did not understand what their God is. Therefore the results do not apply. The same would be true of many atheists if the results were to prove a God.
And then there is the Catch-22 of dealing with irrational people. To modify another quote from Blazing Saddles, “Oh no, don’t do that, don’t do that. If you reason with him, you’ll just make him mad.”
August 4th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Prometheus you said - “The people agitating for a study of vaccines and autism have shown – many times – that they are not going to “believe” any study results that fail to show an association. If you doubt that, see this, this or this. ”
You citing this study as an example of a study that fails to show a relation between autism and vaccinations but that simply is not the case.
This study looked for a relationship between thimerosal exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders but autism was explicitly excluded from the study.
If you read the text of the study you will see that the authors mention this fact in three separate places -
“We did not assess autism-spectrum disorders.”
“Our study did not examine the possible association between autism and exposure to mercury from vaccines and immune globulins.”
“Since the CDC is conducting a separate case–control study of autism in relation to mercury exposure, a measure of autism was not included in the test battery.”
I am going to go out on a limb and say that, beyond any reasonable doubt, this study has nothing to do with the autism.
If you notice in last quote there is mention of another study that the CDC is performing that will be directly on the topic of autism and mercury exposure - this would be a relevant study but to the best of my knowledge has not yet been released.
August 4th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
In one post that I wrote, I suggested that Tom and Sally Bernard pick up the tab for a study of unvaccinated versus vaccinated. I think their net worth is more than the funding that comes from autism speaks, the NIMH and other organizations combined. If it is true they are worth about 300 million bucks, SAFEMINDS, which Sally Bernard I think was president of at one time can certainly afford to do such a study. If they claim vaccinated versus unvaccinated would settle the issue, I wonder why such a study has not been done financed by the Bernards.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Not only all of the anti-vax groups, but also all of the anti-vax voodoo practitioners lack the will to do a study themselves.
With all of the money being made by “alternative medicine” practitioners, one would think that they would want to solidify the scientific basis of their treatments (or at least the basis of the “disease” process that they’re trying to treat).
Yet they don’t. Which speaks volumes.
Joe
August 5th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
MJ is correct that the Thomas et al did not cover autism. It, in fact, specifically excluded autism. My point in including it, however, is that the researchers took the extraordinary step of included Sallie Bernard (founder of SafeMinds) in the study design process. Ms. Bernard has no scientific education or training and has no discernible insight into the proper design of research studies. As far as I can tell, her inclusion was a vain attempt to forstall the inevitable denouncement if (when?) the study failed to show a connection between thimerosal and neurological disorders.
When the results of the study failed to support SafeMinds’ agenda (i.e. that thimerosal in vaccines leads to neurological injury), Ms. Bernard denounced the study, anyway. Curiously, she did not denounce the study when it was getting underway - when all of the “flaws” she complained about were just as apparent, but only after the results were in.
I can only imagine what she will say when the study of thimerosal and autism is published.
If you want an excellent example of the anti-autism advocacy groups’ response to autism research that doesn’t support their agenda, look at the “14 Studies” nonsense. I won’t provide a link to it, but you can read about it at:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/04/generation_rescue_and_fourteen_studies.php
To date, I haven’t seen any of the anti-autism advocacy groups admit that any of the studies finding no connection between vaccines and autism are anything but “flawed”, “biased” or “corrupt” (what I have labeled the “FBC response”). Strangely, they fail to see that the few studies they point to in support of their hypothesis are much more “flawed”, “biased” and “corrupt” (by their own criteria).
As a result, I feel that the argument that we need to “do a study” to convince these folks that autism isn’t caused by vaccines is disingenuous, at best. By their own admission, there is nothing that will convince them they are wrong - not one study and not even one thousand studies. If we show that thimerosal isn’t associated with autism (as has been done), they will argue that it is the aluminium, formaldehyde, “anti-freeze” (which isn’t in vaccines, by the way), bacteria, viruses, or other “toxins” yet to be named.
If we were able - through diligent work and the expenditure of trillions of dollars - to show that none of these “toxins” were the cause of autism, they would complain that we didn’t study a particular combination or that it wasn’t any particular component of the vaccines, just “too many, too soon” (sound familiar?).
It’s clear to me that there is nothing - not even the finger of God writing in letters of fire a mile high “IT’S NOT THE VACCINES!” - that will ever convince these folks that vaccines don’t cause autism. So why should we even try?
Prometheus
August 5th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Prometheus:
You are misrepresenting Autism Speaks as an anti-vaccine organization. 2% of Autism Speaks funding is given to vaccine research. The lions share goes to genetic research with its large data base of thousands of multiple incidence families who have provided their DNA which is available to any qualified research group including the Autism Genome Consortium of research institutes throughtout the world.
[link deleted]
They are the only group funding multi center trials of therapies that can quickly test the efficacy of a treatment with its network of research centers throughout the US.:
[link deleted]
August 6th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
RAJ,
Can you point to where I said that “Autism Speaks” was an “anti-vaccine organization”? [hint: No]
OK, can you at least point to where I said that “Autism Speaks” was pursuing an anti-vaccination agenda? [hint: No]
How about the place where I said that “Autism Speaks” was researching the “vaccine-autism connection”? [hint: No]
It’s very post-modern of you to claim that I am representing “Autism Speaks” as an “anti-vaccination organization” in the absence of any such statements in my post. I suppose that you were able to determine this “hidden meaning” through “textual deconstruction”?
Anyway, “Autism Speaks” was brought into the discussion by a person commenting on my previous ‘blog entry. She stated she would trust “Autism Speaks” to “design and control” a study of vaccines and autism. Frankly, they wouldn’t have been on my short list (or long list) of organisations I’d trust to design and run a study, but it wasn’t my comment, was it?
I should also mention that “Autism Speaks” isn’t the only anti-autism advocacy group - although that isn’t due to any lack of effort on their part. Many of the other groups are much more vocal about their belief that vaccines cause autism - “Autism Speaks” has generally limited itself to vaguely worded statements along the lines of “we don’t know everything, yet”. A true statement, if ambiguous.
Prometheus
August 7th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
First you state:
“it needs to let the anti-autism advocacy groups like SafeMinds and Autism Speaks “design and control” a study comparing autism prevalence between vaccinated and unvaccinated children”.
Then you state:
“I should also mention that “Autism Speaks” isn’t the only anti-autism advocacy group - although that isn’t due to any lack of effort on their part. Many of the other groups are much more vocal about their belief that vaccines cause autism - “Autism Speaks” has generally limited itself to vaguely worded statements along the lines of “we don’t know everything, yet”. A true statement, if ambiguous”
So why do you lump Safeminds with Autism Speaks. Autism Speaks actually does more to fund researching into causes and prevention and treatment than the NIH does, or does prevention and treatment cause you to describe Autism Speaks as an anti-autism advocacy group as opposed to the neurodiversity crowd who trivialize a profoundly handicapping condition as nothing more than ‘different’ wiring and whose main advocates are either self diagnosed or shopped around till they found a psychologist willing to give them a fashionable label of ‘autism’ and then claim they represent pro-autism advocacy.
August 7th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
@RAJ:
Till recently, your comments on Autism Speaks were fairly accurate. However,
“Second Resignation from Autism Speaks Reflects Concerns Over Vaccine-Related Research
Wednesday July 1, 2009
I received a press release yesterday, signaling the resignation of a second major player at the huge non-profit Autism Speaks. Last time, the resignation letter came from Alison Singer, Executive Director of Autism Speaks. This time, the letter of resignation (published in Singer’s new Autism Science Foundation blog) comes from Dr. Eric London, co-founder of the National Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR). NAAR, along with Cure Autism Now, merged with Autism Speaks several years ago.
Both Singer and London resigned over the same basic issue: vaccines. For a long time, the scientific and administrative leadership at Autism Speaks kept clear of vaccine-related research, based on existing epidemiological research showing no connection between vaccines and autism. But pressure from celebrities and advocacy groups, supported by Katie Wright (daughter of Autism Speaks’ founders Bob and Suzanne Wright) have pushed the organization to take up vaccine-related research as a “biologically plausible” cause of some cases of autism.”
see the rest of the article at http://autism.about.com/b/2009/07/01/second-resignation-from-autism-speaks-reflects-concerns-over-vaccine-related-research.htm
Dr. London’s resignation letter is quoted in the blog. It appears that Autism Speaks is becoming one of the organizations like SafeMinds and DAN! that assume that there is a causal relationship between vaccination (or some vaccines) and ASD, and will spend its limited resources that are to fund research looking for a connection that is not indicated by extensive research.
August 7th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
OK, RAJ - I think I see the source of your confusion. Although I considerately provided a link to the comment in question, you apparently have not used it. Let me provide the entire quote in question so that you can see what I’m talking about.
Now, as you can see, I’ve substituted “Autism Speaks” for “Age of Autism”, (and placed that outside of the inverted commas, as it is not a direct quote) since I think that’s what she meant (”Age of Autism” is a ‘blog, not a “group”). I don’t see how I’ve “lump[ed] SafeMinds with Autism Speaks” except to state that they are both anti-autism advocacy groups and - I suspect - groups that this commenter would “trust”.
Or do you think that someone who would trust “SafeMinds” wouldn’t trust “Autism Speaks”?
Since you seem to be so “up” on “Autism Speaks”, RAJ, maybe you can answer the question:
Why hasn’t “Autism Speaks” sponsored a study looking at the autism prevalence in vaccinated and unvaccinated children?
If you simply want to excoriate me because I’ve mentioned “Autism Speaks” in the same sentence with “SafeMinds”, I think you’ve done your job. Be happy that I didn’t mention them in the same sentence with some of their other co-travelers.
If, on the other hand, you don’t feel that “Autism Speaks” is an anti-autism advocacy group, perhaps you would provide me with some information supporting that assertion. From where I sit, “Autism Speaks” seems to be working to eliminate autism through prevention and treatment (as you state above) - that would be “anti-autism” to most people.
RAJ, you clearly have your knickers in a twist about the “neurodiversity crowd”, but this isn’t a place for you to vent your angst. Maybe you should start your own ‘blog.
Prometheus
August 8th, 2009 at 5:05 am
As for the demand that anti-autism advocacy group be allowed to “design and control” research studies, there is nothing standing in the way of SafeMinds or Autism Speaks (or any of the others) “doing” their own study of vaccines and autism.
This is just speculation, but I think that the reason they don’t due their own study is this: they fear that any study done by themselves will be dismissed by mainstream scientists as flawed or rigged. They think the only way a study finding an autism/vaccine link would be believed by mainstream scientists is if the mainstream scientists do it themselves. And since, for them, the entire point of doing such a study is to convince mainstream science that vaccines cause autism, there’s no point in the autism-advocacy groups doing those studies themselves.
August 8th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Mr. Cline,
If “SafeMinds” or “Autism Speaks” designed and ran their own study, “mainstream science” would judge it on its merits. The “genetic fallacy” that “bad” organisations can only produce “bad” studies is just that - a fallacy.
The idea that “mainstream science” is some monolithic, hierarchical entity like the Illuminati is also a fallacy. Scientists - as a group - are some of the most fiercely (even quixotically) individualistic people I’ve ever met. About the only thing they all agree on is that the data “rule”.
If the data don’t support your position, “mainstream science” will find your conclusions “flawed” or “rigged”. Even if you are from Oxford University or the NIH, if the data don’t support your conclusions, “mainstream science” will dismiss your results.
But enough about philosophy. Right now, the data do not support the “vaccines-cause-autism” hypothesis. Enough data have been collected that the grand majority (about 99.999%) of scientists who have an opinion on the matter think that it is a “dead” issue. Thus, it will be exceedinginly hard to convince a researcher to waste his or her time on it.
If the anti-autism advocacy groups want “someone” to do a study of the “vaccine-cause-autism connection”, they need to first show some data that suggest that there is a connection. This is what I meant by “priming the pump”. It wouldn’t have to be a large study or even a “perfect” study, but I would have to be legitimate (not another phoney survey) and it would have to show a connection.
As I’ve pointed out before, if vaccines realy were causing a significant percentage of the autism cases, it wouldn’t take a huge study to show that.
For example, if we assume that vaccines cause half of the autism in the US, it would take 5,000 subjects to show this. If vaccines cause 75% of autism in the US, it would take only 1,800 subjects. These are numbers that are within the reach of the major anti-autism groups.
What may not be within their reach is the will to take the risk. If the NIH or a university researcher does this study and finds no connection, the groups can cry “flawed”, “biased”, “corrupt”. If they do the study and find no connection, who can they blame?
In summary, Mr. Cline - “mainstream science” isn’t going to do the study because there is no data suggesting that it is a fruitful line of inquiry. Political pressure may lead to a study being done, but only at the cost of some other (probably more useful) research.
If the groups that feel vaccines cause autism want to get the most “bang for their buck” (”explosion for their euro”?), they should sponsor a trial study of their hypothesis.
If they find an association between vaccines and autism (and if the study is legitimate), they won’t have to spend another dime on advertisements or lobbying - the researchers will be lobbying the NIH and Congress for money to research vaccines and autism.
All it takes is for these groups to have the courage of their convictions.
Prometheus
August 10th, 2009 at 5:22 am
Hey, I wasn’t saying that they’re right, just it’s likely what they believe. They themselves believe in the genetic fallacy, given that who funded and/or conducted a study is often a reason they give for not believing it, so the likely think that scientists believe it too (projection). And many people believe that scientists form a monolithic entity, so the members of groups like SafeMinds are probably especially likely to believe it. So to get them to do their own study you’d have to first convince them that scientists don’t hold to the genetic fallacy and that scientists don’t form a monolithic entity, and it’s pretty unlikely anyone would be able to convince them of those things.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:43 am
I think this meshes very well with your post on numbers needed from a while back. While there are not enough cases for mainstream science to disprove the hypothesis with a decent confidence interval, it doesn’t take nearly as many cases to show a correlation. Which is exactly why they won’t fund any such study, they know their business model is safe from science as long as they demand the disproof instead of actively working on a proof themselves.
August 10th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Mr. Cline,
Sorry about that. I should have known that you were playing “Devil’s Advocate”. “My bad”, as the kids say.
As you suggest, the same folks who “trash-talk” studies and researchers who “disagree” with them would imagine that “mainstream science” would automatically dismiss anything they did. I believe the psychologists call this projection.
Even without projection, the groups that are trying to advance the “vaccines-cause-autism” agenda will be reluctant to do a pilot study because it can’t help them and would probably hurt their cause.
Prometheus
August 10th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Sorry about that. I should have known that you were playing “Devil’s Advocate”. “My bad”, as the kids say.
Not your fault. I wasn’t even trying to play Devil’s Advocate, I was just failed to make it clear that I was describing my suspicions as to what they think.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:36 am
Hello! Our selection committee compiled an exclusive list of the Top
Autism Blogs, and yours was included in the Top 100!Check it out at http://thedailyreviewer.com/top/Autism
You can claim your Top 100 Blogs Award Badge at http://thedailyreviewer.com/pages/badges
August 22nd, 2009 at 7:12 am
I have pointed so many people to your blog, in hopes that they’ll be shamed out of their bizarre beliefs about what ’causes’ autism. I don’t know how many actually do…
I digress, but have you read “Boy Alone”? Fantastic book for realists who ‘get’ autism… we must continue to get speak out for our children with autism, and our adults with autism who are low-functioning, (and our future children who will become adults with low-functioning autism)!
with gratitude,
Wilhelmina H
September 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I originally wrote:
********************
I’m flattered that my take affected you so much as to make it a feature on you blog. Thank you.
Just in case you missed the built-in assumptions to the back-story, my kids HAVE BEEN fully vaccinated, so I’m not sure how I would be potentially “harming” them and myself, coming from you perspective of course. The trigger has already been pulled.
The Blazing saddles scene to which you refer alludes to a discriminatory time when relevant rights and perspectives were ignored and trounced upon, so you’ve got the right scene, just a glib and take on it with an innacurate comparison. Yes, relevant perspectives are being silenced in this situation, so there is merit to your scene choice.
Many of your followers commonly suggest that position such as mine (which is Healy’s position as well, of questioning the role of vaccines in triggering autism in a subset of children) is harmful to others in that is discourages mass vaccination. So, I’ll happily point out that you’ve let me off the hook on that one in your little side by side comparison. So again, thank you for my not having to address that other than saying that even if you did, we all know that concerned parents are not the problem of plummeting vaccination rates, the PROBLEM is the problem (Jim Carrey). The problem, as one quick point, is insufficient research into children such as my own, so I stand up for the rights of a minority. So you would suggest that I am doing “harm”… ?
My take is irrelevant to the scientific world, correct? Yes and no. I will tell you that I listen to the expert Dr. Bernadine Healy. I’m sure you and most of your followers are familiar with her and her positions. So I have respect for scientists with integrity and an open mind.
Your inherent supposition is that parents don’t matter and naturalistic observations don’t matter. If scientists functioned in the manner you are suggesting, then we would have never made any progress. Scientific inquiry begins with observations and then they are scientifically tested. Don’t act on empirical observations? Really?
Anyway, I’d rather KNOW the real answers through science that is as pure as possible.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Marni,
Thank you for your reply. Althought you seem to think that I was “assuming” that your children were not vaccinated, that was not either assumed or stated. Your statement - “I saw my son regress before my eyes. I know (feel very strongly) it was related to the vaccines he just had.” - made that pretty clear.
While you and your children may not be at direct risk from vaccine-preventable illnesses due to your belief in the “vaccines-cause-autism” hypothesis, they are at risk from any therapies (such as “supplements” - see today’s [8 Sept 2009] Wall Street Journal) they may receive in an attempt to “cure” them of their autism using a non-validated “model” of autism.
In addition, your family will suffer loss of money, time and other finite resources caused by your pursuit of this unsubstantiated hypothesis.
Your reliance on the meager support Dr. Healy has given to your hypothesis is misplaced. Not only has Dr. Healy done no research on autism or vaccines, she was an undistinguished NIH administrator - a political appointee of the Bush administraction. Her area of expertise - such as it is - is cardiology. Additionally, all she has said is that, in her opinion, the “vaccines-cause-autism” hypothesis needs more research. She has not - to my knowledge - ever said that vaccines cause autism.
I did not say that “parents don’t matter” - although it may comfort you to think I did. What I did say and have said is that parents are too close to the action to give objective evaluations. This was shown in the recent Autism Omnibus Proceedings, when the parents’ own videotapes showed that they were wrong about the onset of autism symptoms.
It’s not that parents are “stupid” or “lying” - memory is a slippery thing, especially when there is a lot of emotional pressure.
You are correct that “scientific inquiry begins with observations and then they are scientifically tested” - absolutely true!
The “vaccines-cause-autism” hypothesis started with an “observation” that children showed the first signs of autism at about the same time as their MMR vaccination. Another, unrelated observation was that the prevalence of autism - as reported by educational and social services records - had begun an upward trend at about the same time as the number of vaccines was increased.
Both of these observations were investigated and - to date - the data show that there is no reason to believe that there is a connection. Scientific inquiry often starts with subjective observations (”Gee, that’s odd.” being the most common), but it has to then be based on careful experimentation and evaluation.
Fortunately, you conclude with a statement that I can completely agree with:
From that, I will assume that you agree that vaccines-cause-autism research done by people with a direct interest in perpetuating the “biomedical” interventions they provide is as suspect - if not more - as the “research” on lung cancer produced by the Tobacco Industry.
Still, I will reiterate my previous conclusion that the best thing the “vaccines-cause-autism” advocates could do would be to do their own study - just to show that they are serious.
There isn’t an infinite amount of research money and there aren’t an infinite number of researchers able (and willing - an even bigger hurdle) to do autism research. If we divert money (and other resources) to study the unsupported “vaccines-cause-autism connection”, then we have to take it away from other research. And the people crying for research into cancer, MS, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, etc., will be justified in insisting that the money come from other autism research.
So, who does it hurt? Send not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Prometheus
September 9th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
What you did there with your dismissive comment about Dr. Healy is called leveling in the Psychology world. I’d take her credentials over yours in a heartbeat. I refer to your quote, “(She has done) no research on autism or vaccines, she was an undistinguished NIH administrator - a political appointee of the Bush administraction [sic]. Her area of expertise - such as it is - is cardiology…”. She’s qualified to make such a judgment and she is credible.
***********************
Harold Doherty has an excellent post today about this topic:
Read the post “Wednesday, September 09, 2009 Offit and Insel Fear Real Vaccine Autism Research”. If you want to know the real science, as you claim to, then stop pleading for its suppression.
Hmmm, I do wonder why the IACC doesn’t want to do a comparative observational study with the existing population of unvaccinated children. IT’S TRULY A MYSTERY. ahem.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Marni,
I’m not a psychologist, but I seem to remember that “leveling” involves one person saying - wrongly - that their character, qualifications, etc. are equal to another’s. I didn’t say that I was the “equal” of Dr. Healy, simply that she lacked any relevant education, training or experience in either autism or vaccine research.
This is relevant because people who do have education, training and experience in autism research are saying that there is no indication that autism and vaccines are in any way “linked”.
Perhaps you could point out what in Dr. Healy’s professional career has qualified her to make the assertions she has about autism and vaccines? Or are you engaging in a bit of “leveling” yourself - saying that Dr. Healy’s credibility is equal to (or greater than) the people with real expertise?
On the one hand, we have a large (and growing) number of studies showing no association between vaccination and autism and on the other hand we have Dr. Healy - who has done no research even remotely connected to the field - saying that the “vaccine connection” hasn’t been adequately researched.
Who’s “leveling” now?
As for why the IACC doesn’t want to “do a study” using “the existing population of unvaccinated children”, I refer you to:
http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=154
and
http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=121
Enjoy!
Prometheus
September 9th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
All food for thought there.
It’s been fun talking “‘n’irty” with you.
I’ve got a child with autism to raise and fight for so I’m done here.
Peace and keep an open mind all. Maybe we’ll learn a new way and all be better off.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Best explanation on why NIH and other major sources of grant money don’t want to do a “vaccine causes autism” study? See, How Much Longer? 9 Sept 2009 at http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=3013
(Hint: It’s not because such a study would be a complete waste of money and would (again) show no causation — NIH wastes money all the time on studies that it is known, in advance, will show nothing).
December 19th, 2009 at 1:31 am
it’s interesting to me, the idea that someone can suddenly “develop” autism as the result of a vaccine. isn’t autism by definition present from birth? it seems unlikely to me that a vast number of children begin–very abruptly— to exhibit autie traits out of the blue (coincidentally following vaccination, of course.) more likely that the observers are biased.
also, individual traits do tend to shift over time. (ex: i had balance and coordination problems as a child. now they’re considerably less severe. apparently this isn’t entirely uncommon.)
i think it’s odd to attribute a complex collection of traits to one single event (i.e.: a vaccine.) if it were a simple matter of “toxicity”–how would you explain the various strengths that are seen in autism as well? (unless the existence of strengths is completely denied–a possibility i find a little disturbing.)
i really can’t speak for someone who’s non-verbal–especially not in regards to what kind of interventions that person might find useful or not. but i do suspect that the focus on vaccine-as-cause is really doing more harm than good all around. a too-simplistic idea of cause often leads to a too-simplistic idea of cure (ex.: chelation therapy.) it seems more reasonable to me that people quit wasting both their money and their children’s time, and start looking for more realistic ways of addressing challenges—and nurturing strengths. too often the idea that a child with autism might in fact have strengths as a result is completely left out of the picture. i find that sad.
December 19th, 2009 at 2:37 am
ps: poor sentence construction, very confusing–i apologize. i meant to say that someone might have strengths as a result of autism–not despite it. i don’t understand why the “vaccine-as-cause movement” is so incredibly “strength-blind” and focuses only on “what needs to be fixed.” (or at least, this is how it appears to me.)