• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Autism :Anti vaxxers lose it over 1 in 59 figures : interesting article

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fridgemagnetman

I only have one
V.I.P Member
This is one of my go to blogs. Principally concerned with "woo" or false science.

I think this is the first time they have covered autism. It's a long article but worth it. It also touches on some things like trends in diagnosis which I posted about earlier. Also how misleading statistics can be.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/au...-to-1-in-59-and-antivaxers-lose-it-yet-again/

This is just a brief snippet :

One of the central narratives of the antivaccine movement is that we are in the midst of an “autism epidemic,” which I’ve sometimes heard called an “autism tsunami.” This narrative is essential to the idea that vaccines cause autism because of the expansion of the vaccine schedule in the 1990s that antivaxers blame for the “epidemic” that’s occurred over the last 25 years. Basically, no autism epidemic, no vaccine causation. Antivaxers know this. Unfortunately, what they either don’t know or refuse to acknowledge is that an increase in diagnoses of a condition is not necessarily the same thing as a true increase in prevalence. An increase in diagnoses without a true increase in prevalence (on a biological basis) can occur through, for example, changing of the diagnostic criteria over time or increased screening. My favorite example of the latter is, of course, DCIS, but there are others. For example, increased screening with ultrasound has led to a massive increase in the number of diagnoses of thyroid cancer, the vast majority of which are almost certainly overdiagnosis. Actually, there are issues with changing criteria for the diagnosis of thyroid cancer too. Indeed, diseases for which the prevalence is increasing often involve both increased screening and changes in the diagnostic criteria.
 
Saying vaccines cause autism is like saying food causes weight gain.
Blanket.
Some ingredients, if you want to call them that found in vaccines do cause autism. Do all vaccines? No. Not all.
Some foods will cause rapid weight gain while others won't.
Do i care enough to debate this or defend this position? No. What's done is done.
Interesting read though
 
Saying vaccines cause autism is like saying food causes weight gain.
Blanket.
Some ingredients, if you want to call them that found in vaccines do cause autism. Do all vaccines? No. Not all.
Some foods will cause rapid weight gain while others won't.
Do i care enough to debate this or defend this position? No. What's done is done.
Interesting read though

//lock

Yes, this could be said of a lot of threads on here! People agree, disagree, and post to 8nfinity. I was wondering if there are “rules” about certain topics being off limits. There are threads about “cures,” and diets, and so many controversial things. I wonder if we are not supposed to talk about an expressed list of “banned” topics? Tree, can you answer?
 
Yes, this could be said of a lot of threads on here! People agree, disagree, and post to 8nfinity. I was wondering if there are “rules” about certain topics being off limits. There are threads about “cures,” and diets, and so many controversial things. I wonder if we are not supposed to talk about an expressed list of “banned” topics? Tree, can you answer?

Good point. To my knowledge, such a rule was in place prior to the introduction of more controversial topics such as politics and religion which were once banned or discouraged as well.

It does seem pointless to ban much of any one topic under the present circumstances where more controversial discussions are contained in a specific area of the forum rather than being overtly being banned. Where the conduct of members' input is scrutinized as opposed to the topic itself.
 
Good point. To my knowledge, such a rule was in place prior to the introduction of more controversial topics such as politics and religion which were once banned or discouraged as well.

It does seem pointless to ban much of any one topic under the present circumstances.

I think in this instance the argument has most certainly been lost.

It was just a coincidence that the blog I sometimes read had this as the topic.

I am more interesting in how he analysised the statistics to show how they are "fudged" to represent the non scientific viewpoints put forward.
Normally to make money for some treatment or other.

An interesting blog imo, hopefully the topic does not put people off reading.

He always represents an objective case, and a detailed one. No matter the topic.
 
I think in this instance the argument has most certainly been lost.

It was just a coincidence that the blog I sometimes read had this as the topic.

I am more interesting in how he analysised the statistics to show how they are "fudged" to represent the non scientific viewpoints put forward.
Normally to make money for some treatment or other.

An interesting blog imo, hopefully the topic does not put people off reading.

He always represents an objective case, and a detailed one. No matter the topic.

IMO it's also a subject that for the most part has already "run its course" relative to controversy. Though I suppose there's always a few people out there still ready to shake a righteous fist about it. But then those same righteous fists are being shaken in other threads...which was my point.
 
I find it astonishing that there are whole factions of people online who still believe that vaccine cause autism. Thus, if people still believe it, why not continue to discuss it? Why make it an off limits topic? Just like the faction that believe that dosing their toddlers and older kids with bleach should be discussed. I feel that newbies to these forums come from everywhere.
 
Even if I believed that vaccines were responsible for every case of autism, I would still think that all children who are physically able to receive vaccinations should receive them.

A child developing autism is a far more acceptable thing to risk than a child dying from a completely preventable and extremely contagious illness, and possibly spreading that illness to other children and adults with insufficient/no immunity who might also die from it.

Autism is not worse than death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Top Bottom