Thread: Vaccines Still Not Linked to Autism

If I wanted to wipe out the dissenting portion of my population, I think the easiest way to do so would be to spread the theory that vaccines are harmful, that way a good chunk of the population bent toward radical thinking would leave their children vulnerable to an outbreak.

Unfortunately a lot of seemingly intelligent people I know, with good skills in stuff like gardening and good values overall to instill in their children, will also be leaving those children vulnerable.

My Dad argues that parents should not be allowed to prevent their children from being vaccinated. What do you think? Out of principle I'm inclined to disagree but it's true that freedom over your own body shouldn't mean your stupidity should affect your kids.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The key word here is "still."

Vaccines Still Not Linked to Autism « Science-Based Medicine

Do you want to point towards the "still" implying possible future evidence, that they are linked after all?
And that it such is a pretty unfortunate choice of word?
I guess it is supposed to mean, that there never ever has been any evidence for this myth.

Or are you saying something else?
Pointing towards the "never ever has been" for example?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

If I wanted to wipe out the dissenting portion of my population, I think the easiest way to do so would be to spread the theory that vaccines are harmful, that way a good chunk of the population bent toward radical thinking would leave their children vulnerable to an outbreak.

Unfortunately a lot of seemingly intelligent people I know, with good skills in stuff like gardening and good values overall to instill in their children, will also be leaving those children vulnerable.

My Dad argues that parents should not be allowed to prevent their children from being vaccinated. What do you think? Out of principle I'm inclined to disagree but it's true that freedom over your own body shouldn't mean your stupidity should affect your kids.

Out of principle I'm inclined to disagree with your father as well, though as you imply there is a public safety issue to consider. But I'd rather have people willingly get themselves and their children vaccinated because they know it is safe and effective, not because they may end up losing custody of their children, or having to pay fines, or whatever some such mandatory vaccination law would require for violators. I think that way there would be less resentment and fewer people willingly violating that law just because that resentment may lead to widespread misinformation about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Then again, vaccines aren't mandatory by law right now, and we're having measles outbreaks in the U.S. Maybe such a law would exacerbate the problem, but the nonexistence of one doesn't preclude people being dumbasses and risking having their children contract, say, pertussis just because Andrew Wakefield fudged a study back in 1998.

Originally Posted by StephL

Do you want to point towards the "still" implying possible future evidence, that they are linked after all?
And that it such is a pretty unfortunate choice of word?
I guess it is supposed to mean, that there never ever has been any evidence for this myth.

Or are you saying something else?
Pointing towards the "never ever has been" for example?

The use of "still" means that in addition to past studies showing no link between vaccines and autism, the meta-analysis discussed in the article I linked shows no link either. In other words, with this new bit of information, there is yet again no reason to believe that vaccines cause autism.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Out of principle I'm inclined to disagree with your father as well, though as you imply there is a public safety issue to consider. But I'd rather have people willingly get themselves and their children vaccinated because they know it is safe and effective, not because they may end up losing custody of their children, or having to pay fines, or whatever some such mandatory vaccination law would require for violators. I think that way there would be less resentment and fewer people willingly violating that law just because that resentment may lead to widespread misinformation about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Then again, vaccines aren't mandatory by law right now, and we're having measles outbreaks in the U.S. Maybe such a law would exacerbate the problem, but the nonexistence of one doesn't preclude people being dumbasses and risking having their children contract, say, pertussis just because Andrew Wakefield fudged a study back in 1998.

Even though I do believe choosing not to vaccinate presents a problem, I agree that the viable option is not to make it mandatory, but something should be done. Like global warming, there's a problem of misinformation washing out the call to action.

We don't have mandatory vaccinations at the moment - and funnily a recent poll came up with 4 out of 5 people wanting to change that.
That also shows, that it's not really necessary - Germany doesn't have such a degree of anti-vaccination demagogy - in Europe in general this is by far less popular than in the USA. Despite originally stemming from Britain, if I am not mistaken - don't know how it's there.
But most other countries in the EU do have some of them mandatory.
Difficult situation - but of course it would be better to inform the public properly than breed new resentments.

This is also decidedly un-nice: CIA: In Future, We Won’t Derail Major International Public Health Efforts. (Thanks?) | Science Blogs | WIRED