But you seem to hold on to this lack of logic as a mainstay, now blaming providers of vaccines as culpable instead of the spurious scaremongerers who started these bizarre associations in the first place. I suppose the WHO is to blame for the scaremongering that polio vaccination in Africa is actually spreading HIV.

You know, Nathan, I suppose you are correct. Everyone is to blame for the spreading of unfounded ridiculous rumors except for the people who start and repeat them. And every denial of them plays into the conspiracy theories, so there should be no denials. Or critical thinking, since that also seems to feed the distrust. We all know that intellectuals can’t be trusted. They think too much.

So, so true, Nathan.

Distrust of vaccines is at a high, with correspondingly reduced vaccination rates. That didn’t happen by itself. Blaming “crazies” is disingenuous; “crazies” have very little effect on most facets of public life. The distrust was generated by the actions of people in positions of responsibility. Distrust will not be resolved by labeling people as crazies. Trust is earned by transparently scrupulous behavior. Fluffy astronomy bloggers posting behind exclamation marks does not qualify as transparently scrupulous behavior. Leveling random accusations at people concerned about high levels of distrust doesn’t help either.

To nitpick: not all ASD people have problems with language. Unless one considers pedantic usage or formality to be problematic, of course. As you might have guessed by now, I do not:)

The SBM article suggests that the unexpected rise in ‘autism’ diagonses is due to an expansion of the diagnosis rather than an increase in patients with particular symptoms, hence the expansion of the name from ‘Autism’ to Autism Syndrom Disorder (or something simular, been a while since I read it). The article points out correlating increases in ASD diagnoses with decreases in other language disorders. Same number of sick folks, just another name for what they have. Certainly, no offense meant.

If people in positions of responsibility were not so reflexively dishonest about vaccine problems, the distrust problem would not be so great. As it is, every study not finding a particular problem in a particular vaccine and a particular population has been promoted as vindicating all vaccines everywhere. Each such promotion is obviously false, and (assuming competence in the promoter) dishonest. Hey, guess what? Dishonesty breeds distrust.

My point on anthrax was that “people in positions of responsibility” were not reflexively dishonest. Risks exist, and on balance the weight is correct. Distance diminishes the perceived risk of polio only because we don’t see polio anymore. We still need the vaccine.

My point was also that you’d claimed the above: “…every study not finding a particualr problem in a particular vaccine and a particular population has been promoted as vindicating all vaccines everywhere. Each such promotion is obviously false and … dishonest.”

This is the classic moving the goalposts, and in response I cited that every vaccine doesn’t need to be evaluated for autism because evidence from before and after both widespread vaccination and mercury regulation did not bear out the assumed conclusion of cause-effect. You appear to eschew logic in looking at this issue in favor of a “vaccine cause of the gaps.” I apologize if I misconstrued the above statement as declaring you wouldn’t rule out vaccination in general until all vaccines had been withheld from control populations large enough and long enough so you could make sure. A suggestion breathtaking in its potential ethical consequences, but apparently the only one conclusive “enough.”

I just am quite certain that even that would not be enough to convince you, as you’d insist we hadn’t evaluated pollution plus vaccines plus television to rule out the combination.

Think about it. You never heard about autism before the early ’90s, just as that whole “world wide web” thing started taking off, now, did you?

@Jeff Licquia: I’m not sure if you’re serious, but you’re actually closer to the right track than you might think. I’ve written about this hypothesis before. The internet drives awareness. Pediatricians are not very good at recognizing autism, and they are not qualified to diagnose it. What is necessary for an autism diagnosis is parents who already suspect autism and take a child to an specialist.

I’ve actually graphed internet penetration vs. administrative prevalence of autism at the US state level, although I haven’t written about this yet. There is a clear trend. Even if you control for population density or wealth, there’s still a trend.

WScott: No, medical doctors typically are not qualified either. Most aren’t scientists at all, but technicians. (Not that theres anything wrong with that! Civilization would collapse without technicians, and technicians know much that scientists never will.)

Look, this is really not difficult to get. Phil really does understand this, despite his bluster. When you’re “familiar with the literature”, you’ve read a few hundred papers, particularly including the seminal ones everyone cites, and had the more difficult ones explained to you by your professor, and been savaged by referees. In some fields (not astronomy), you’ve performed lab experiments and discovered hundreds of ways to accidentally invalidate your own results.

Within a “literature”, much goes unsaid. When a paper says “X is Y”, it is often shorthand for “X is Y, which is to say not Z or W as some insist, but it might really be M which we can’t distinguish from Y yet.” Furthermore, X and Y are not the dictionary meanings of those words. The literature has its own, more precise, distinctly unintuitive meaning. No matter how godlike your intelligence, and how many years you’ve spent “doing science”, without a grounding in a particular literature you just don’t really know what a simple statement “X is Y” means. Therefore, Phil insisting he’s equipped to interpret medical studies all by his lonesome is just blowing smoke.

Now, survey articles are meant for a wider audience, but scientists steeped in a literature for decades really aren’t very good at rooting out all the unsaid assumptions they are used to relying on. So, even the conclusion of a survey article often means very different things to an expert than to somebody outside the field.

Phil’s self-assessment of godlike intelligence may or may not be correct. To interpret papers from any random literature reliably enough to put your interpretation behind an exclamation point, though, takes omniscience, which I doubt even Phil will claim.

And 76% of all statistics are made up on the fly.

And AOLers are responsible 4 tlkn lik tis lol.

Anyhoo, even if vaccines cause autism (and they don’t), autistic children are better than dead children unless you’re one of those CULL THE WORLD freaks.

Think about it. You never heard about autism before the early ’90s, just as that whole “world wide web” thing started taking off, now, did you?

And there are far fewer studies refuting the link between autism and the Internet than there are debunking the link with vaccines–none, in fact. That’s evidence you can take to the bank.

In fact, I have some honest-to-goodness scientific advice for all those people concerned about autism’s link to vaccines: forget about vaccines, and get off the Internet. Now. Don’t even finish reading this comment if you don’t have to. Cut the cord with scissors, sue your ISP, whatever it takes. Just get off immediately.

Your kids will thank you later, and I’m sure the people on this forum will endorse this course of action as well.

Don’t forget Guinea Worms. Yay! Life’s so much better in sub-saharan Africa, where crushing poverty denies people access to modern medicine!

“A measles epidemic (75% mortality in some groups) among the Yanomamo in Venezuela was apparently caused by ill-administered vaccination.”

This is exactly what Phil is talking about. Blaming the vaccine for the incompetence of some nurses is illogical.

BTW way to cite sources! I’m pretty sure Arthur Clarke died from complications around post-polio syndrome which means he actually had polio. While you could argue that his polio vaccination ended up giving him a full blown case of polio I was unable to find anything which stated so. Perhaps you care to cite the relevant info?

@ Jones

“If the parties who want to believe that ‘big Pharma’ manipulates the media to discredit a supposed link between say, the MMR vaccine and Autism; that is their choice. However, having refused such prevention, they should in turn be refused treatment for the disease (Such as Measles, Mumps or Rubella for example), or have it not covered by their personal health insurance.”

Excellent point….I completely agree! Let natural selection do it’s thing.

@ GrumpySilk
“Individuals have a right to refuse medical treatment and rights trump – at least over some range – bad consequences.”

I agree, however, the people that make that choice should then be forced to live with those bad consequences. They should not be expecting free service at clinics/hospitals or coverage from medical insurance providers.

@ Everyone/General
Overall I see this debate being kind of like the whole “do cellphones cause cancer/health issues” debate or “Mac vs PC”.

Arguing with the antivaxers is a no-win situation. It’s like arguing with creationists. Whenever they get close to the losing end of the discussion and whenever they get overwhelmed with facts contrary to their belief, they will start with ad hominem attacks. It does not matter how many scientific papers and studies you point them to.

It’s not worth it Phil. These people are not worth it.

For what it’s worth, you have exposed these people for what they really are: foaming at the mouth, stark raving lunatics.

Hey, maybe we need a hot celebrity (or three!) to promote the real facts about vaccines.

Me:

To argue with the true believer anti-vaxer is an utter waste of time, as you point out. They are equipped with all of their questionable studies, etc. and can appear to be knowledgeable about vaccines. Often, they shroud their anti-vax argument in some other issue, like the Thimerosal one.

Pointing them to studies and papers is pointless. They have their stock explanations of why facts that do not support their positions are not valid.

When debating them, knowing their hot buttons is useful, as pressing one often creates an eruption of spewing. Citing experts, like Paul Offitt, is one sure fire way to cause an eruption. Just mention that Offitt stated that a child can handle 10,000 antigens, and they will start to bubble. Be careful, though, as they will substitute vaccine for antigen, and, reminding them that they are playing word games will cause a full blown Mt. St. Helens.

And, the one thing that they cannot possibly answer, when they raise their conspiracy crapola to reject one or two epidemiological studies, is the simple fact that ALL epidemiological studies have reached the same conclusion, i.e. that there is no connection between vaccines, their contents, and autism.

My guess is that you

a. Ignore me.

b. do a ad hominen.

c. Actually supplies evidence. But this ain’t gonna happen or will it?

Anecdotal evidence also links vaccinations to atheism!

Vaccinations also unfairly shrink the market of faith-based remedies!

I disagree. No you won’t convince the true believers, but there are a mass of ordinary people out there who are ready to give credence to the anti-vaxers superficially convincing arguments. They are the ones the pro-science community needs to be reaching and that means answering the anti-vaxers convincingly and rationally wherever we can.

I mean, hey, wasn’t polio awesome? Yeah, let’s bring that back because autism signs generally start to show up at the same age as immunization.

But you’ve STILL never answered the question. Why are you an expert?

We KNOW you’re not, by now, but that’s only because you didn’t answer the original posting.

Be that as it may, I’d still rather laugh at you than “Time Cube Guy”, as he’s been “done” already (at MIT no less) ; you haven’t. Not in Long Beach anyway. I stand by my promise of a whole dollar if you actually speak in front of us. (Man, I can’t wait…) I’ll put up the buck myself, (hell between you and I, I’ll give you ten really, but don’t tell anyone, or I’ll be ruined)!

Now, would it be too much trouble for you to answer davidlpf’s original question? A question that I have repeated and you have been conspicuous in your insistence NOT to answer?!

I’m still holding out that we can get you INSTEAD of “time cube guy”, I’m outnumbered but I’m fighting the good fight!

Do you have any “fossils” that you’ve found in your back yard? That will help my cause mightily…

I’m really on baited breath here,

rod

Believe it or don’t, I *like* science, all kinds of science. I hate to see it abused and misrepresented, particularly by scientists. I have to admit my favorite scientists lately are biologists, because in my experience they are among the most scrupulous about what they know and don’t know, and what they know is very fun. (In that context, let me take the opportunity to promote Olivia Judson, http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/ .)