Autism

[JohnH]

Almost certainly they are NOT true. Or more precisely, we have no legitimate scientific evidence to believe they are true. Especially the vaccine nonsense which has been entirely discredited and was always fraudulent from the beginning.

Well, that's one opinion, but there are plenty of other opinions contradicting that. I personally do not promote the idea that vaccines are related to a higher incidence of autism, but I also do not completely write it off, call it "nonsense", or call people who promote such ideas as "fraudulent". It's important to be respectful of points of view other than my own.

[Soloist]

This sort of dismissal is exactly the problem medical have trying to communicate with these parents.

What appears as a genuine change may be caused by encephalitis. To an untrained individual it looks very much like autism and when I’ve read the accounts, it certainly comes across as though that’s exactly what happened.

We can hand wave away it as them being wrong or dismiss their genuine feelings or accept that maybe from their perspective it is autism.

[Ken]

Almost certainly they are NOT true. Or more precisely, we have no legitimate scientific evidence to believe they are true. Especially the vaccine nonsense which has been entirely discredited and was always fraudulent from the beginning.

Well, that's one opinion, but there are plenty of other opinions contradicting that. I personally do not promote the idea that vaccines are related to a higher incidence of autism, but I also do not completely write it off, call it "nonsense", or call people who promote such ideas as "fraudulent". It's important to be respectful of points of view other than my own.

I could claim that autism is caused by church attendance. And no doubt could even find some autistic children attending church every Sunday. But that doesn't make such a claim legitimate or scientific. In fact, you might even call it "nonsense." And if I manufactured data to support such a claim you would even call it "fraudulent" and correctly so. And no, it isn't important to be respectful of such views. Not all viewpoints are equally deserving of respect. Especially false ones that are not put forward in good faith.

The scientific connection between vaccines and autism is equally spurious. And from the very beginning was promoted by a scientist who knowingly falsified data and had a vested financial interest in making such a claim. No legitimate scientific study has since been able to replicate his claims. Despite that he continues to make a living by doubling-down and repeating his false claims.

[JohnH]

The scientific connection between vaccines and autism is equally spurious. And from the very beginning was promoted by a scientist who knowingly falsified data and had a vested financial interest in making such a claim.

I will simply leave for the record that claiming he had a "vested financial interest" and "knowingly falsified data" is itself a false claim (in my opinion), but let's just let this conversation rest that we can each have differing opinions about this. Those are pretty grave accusations to lob at someone.

[Ken]

Wakefield's falsification of data, abuse of disabled children, and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest where why his fraudulent autism-vaccine study was withdrawn by the Lancet. It was a study of only 12 children which is itself not nearly large enough to be statistically significant. And no legitimate subsequent research has validated his claims. There was tremendous coverage of this back in 2011 by the Sunday Times and many other newspapers and medical journals. Here is one short summary from the Washington Post:



The British General Medical Council (i.e. national medical board) investigated Wakefield and this is what they found:

On 28 January 2010, the GMC panel delivered its decision on the facts of the case, finding four counts of dishonesty and 12 involving the abuse of developmentally disabled children. Wakefield was found to have acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" and to have acted with "callous disregard" for the children involved in his study, conducting unnecessary and invasive tests. The panel found that the trial was improperly conducted without the approval of an independent ethics committee, and that Wakefield had multiple undeclared conflicts of interest.

On 24 May 2010, the GMC panel ordered that he be struck off the medical register (British-speak for losing his medical license)

[Valerie]

An autism diagnosis should be made by a medical professional... not somebody's boss.

Agreed. I’m just saying it was not my nieces idea- as said above a teacher can pick up on it, as did someone else in my nieces case. She may have been to doctor, I’m not sure yet.

I work with 3 people who are obviously high functioning but all 3 have specific things that they deal with from it.

Wife: Our son was actually diagnosed as moderate to severe, more severe on some things, but was still verbal. It’s actually a pain to get the psychological diagnosis because the wait list is six months to a year and a half (at least in Oregon). He did get diagnosed with something by early childhood education before that at least, so he was in a special preschool that worked on speech/occupational therapy stuff, and I think we were able to get his other therapy with just the school diagnosis. I also have a deaf brother that some teachers were thinking was autistic, but my dad never got him officially diagnosed, and I don’t know if it’s also just that he didn’t really have anyone to communicate with the first several years of his life.

https://www.esc20.net/apps/pages/index ... ID=1819418Here is a website that might have some resources, and you can also check out Reddit autism and ask on there. I don’t know enough about your niece to give you much advice.

Thank you!

[Judas Maccabeus]

Almost certainly they are NOT true. Or more precisely, we have no legitimate scientific evidence to believe they are true. Especially the vaccine nonsense which has been entirely discredited and was always fraudulent from the beginning.

Well, that's one opinion, but there are plenty of other opinions contradicting that. I personally do not promote the idea that vaccines are related to a higher incidence of autism, but I also do not completely write it off, call it "nonsense", or call people who promote such ideas as "fraudulent". It's important to be respectful of points of view other than my own.

No, it is not an option; it is a fact. The entire country of Denmark, which has a national health system, has data on everyone who did or did not get the MMR vaccine in question, and who has been diagnosed with autism or ASD.

The result: No correlation.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

Facts and data matter. A link just does not hold up.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The scientific connection between vaccines and autism is equally spurious. And from the very beginning was promoted by a scientist who knowingly falsified data and had a vested financial interest in making such a claim.

I will simply leave for the record that claiming he had a "vested financial interest" and "knowingly falsified data" is itself a false claim (in my opinion), but let's just let this conversation rest that we can each have differing opinions about this. Those are pretty grave accusations to lob at someone.

Which have been adjudicated by a competent tribunal to be true. If he disagreed or had evidence that the panel's judgment was incorrect, he had the right of appeal, all the way up to the Law Lords within the judicial system. He did not choose to exercise that right. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts, as adjudicated within the system of law HE AGREED to be subject to.

[Soloist]

Wife: Obviously, our son was not a vaccine related statistic. I’ve had one or two friends who have told me about a reaction their child had that might have been encephalitis or something like that, and I don’t feel like it’s my job to decide that they are wrong. I don’t think it’s nearly as common as some people make it sound though. Most people I know with autistic children don’t have something they can point to that “caused” their child’s autism. There was one lady I knew back in Oregon who had several children, and at least two or three of them were on the spectrum ranging from mild to severe.

One marker my son had that they kept bringing up at well baby checkups was his large head, although that could’ve just been genetics. my youngest son has a monster head and is off the charts in his height as well, but he’s talking a little already and very good with using his fork and playing normally. I remember the autistic one always lagging behind his cousin on those things when I talked to my grandma.

[Ken]

Almost certainly they are NOT true. Or more precisely, we have no legitimate scientific evidence to believe they are true. Especially the vaccine nonsense which has been entirely discredited and was always fraudulent from the beginning.

Well, that's one opinion, but there are plenty of other opinions contradicting that. I personally do not promote the idea that vaccines are related to a higher incidence of autism, but I also do not completely write it off, call it "nonsense", or call people who promote such ideas as "fraudulent". It's important to be respectful of points of view other than my own.

No, it is not an option; it is a fact. The entire country of Denmark, which has a national health system, has data on everyone who did or did not get the MMR vaccine in question, and who has been diagnosed with autism or ASD.

The result: No correlation.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

Facts and data matter. A link just does not hold up.

Denmark has a population of 6 million

Wakefield's fraudulent study had a sample size of 12 children. Which were not even randomly selected. I could do a study of twelve children with autism who are all 10 years old. And discover that all of them attended the 2nd grade. That doesn't mean that attending the 2nd grade gives you autism. Yet that is essentially the level of analysis that they did.