
Vaccines don't cause autism - bkudria
http://kottke.org/10/09/vaccines-dont-cause-autism
======
gte910h
So if you knew someone who never washed their hands after using the restroom,
would you let them in your home? Out and about socially with you?

In my opinion, anti-vaccine people should be tossed out of everyone's homes,
circles of friends, and businesses. This is for people who them OR their
children aren't properly vaccinated. Even IF autism or any of the plethora of
things were caused by vaccines, the diseases themselves which are prevented by
them _are much worse_ , all causing death or maiming.

Vaccinations aren't 100% effective, usually more like 70-85% effective. This
means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find
hosts to pass along to.

We should safeguard the people who are willing to get stuck by ostracizing
those who are foolish enough to not vaccinate.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to
find hosts to pass along to._

This is not correct. In an extreme case, if there is only 1 left unvaccinated,
the disease won't spread. If there are two left unvaccinated, the chances of
one having the disease and the other being initially uninfected and then
subsequently infected by the one possible vector is astonishingly small.

In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that
needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%.

Moreover, vaccines based on attenuated vaccines (e.g., the polio vaccine)
actually infect the recipient with an impotent version of the virus. _This_
virus will be transmitted to others in the community through normal contact,
thus conferring immunity to many that did not receive the vaccination
directly.

(this isn't intended to be an endorsement of those who refuse to get
vaccinated)

~~~
trunnell
_In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that
needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%._

Irrelevant. In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, public policy must
target 100% vaccination.

 _(this isn't intended to be an endorsement of those who refuse to get
vaccinated)_

You may not be endorsing it, but it's important to point out that this
argument is ethically dubious.

My favorite ethical test is Kant's categorical imperative, which is briefly
that an act is ethical if everyone else can act the same way. For example, if
you're wondering whether it's ok to slip onto the subway just as the doors are
closing, delaying the train by just a second, you can ask: what if everyone
boarded the train that way? Of course, the train would never depart, being
constantly delayed by each as-the-doors-close boarder.

If everyone thought that vaccines are ok for others but not themselves, then
no one would be vaccinated. Thus this argument is unethical. Let's go beyond
"not endorsing" it-- let us all actively condemn it.

~~~
fleitz
For a vaccine to be effective only one person needs to take it. That person
gets immunity and thus it's effective.

Secondly, according to your interpretation of Kant's categorical imperative
it's perfectly ethical for no one to get vaccinated because everyone can act
in that way. You may not like the outcome, but your gedankenexperiment
satisfies the categorical imperative because everyone holds the belief and
thus it is ethical.

Kant's categorical imperative is merely a way for a large percentage of the
population to force their ethics on others. Largely because the primary way it
is used is to justify policies rather than have policies stem from it. Since
not everyone can agree that everyone should be vaccinated policies to
vaccinate everyone are unethical according to Kant.

~~~
ugh
Certain people can’t be vaccinated (e.g. babies), they have to rely on herd
immunity.

~~~
infinite8s
Well, if the mother was exposed to either the disease or the vaccine, and she
is breastfeeding the baby, then the baby will have protection (another strong
argument in favor of breastfeeding babies) until they are old enough for the
vaccine.

~~~
cubulgaria
Please provide references. Last I read in the literature there was only some
immunity provided. Not every mom can breastfeed. Not every mom can breastfeed
enough to constantly transfer antibodies. Not every mom who breastfeeds may
have antibodies to the given illness.

------
moron4hire
When the 9/11 truthers were spreading their bull and it finally managed to
touch a few of my coworkers, I found my indignant attitude that anyone could
believe something so obviously false was far better at convincing people of
the truth than reasoned argument. Unfortunately, people are pack animals
before they are rational beings. Probably the best way to respond to such
claims as "vaccines cause autism" is to just say, "Wow, I didn't realize there
was anybody left who still believed that." It's mean, but it's for their own
good, and it works quickly. They don't get as upset as you think they would.

~~~
patrickgzill
They probably just put you on their internal "bozo" list and will quietly
killfile your views and opinions in the future, which is the price you pay for
expressing a strong opinion on another person's POV in that fashion.

~~~
mattmaroon
Yeah, I think he likely made them shut up about it rather than changed their
minds.

~~~
moron4hire
the net effect for me is the same

------
camworld
I am not anti-vaccine. However, my toddler had a very severe reaction to a
vaccine she was given at two years of age. This led my wife and I to decide to
not allow our daughter to have all of the vaccines at once. She is not
completely vaccinated but will have them all before she turns five. We feel
that staggering the vaccinations out as much as possible allows her immune
system to respond better without severe reactions that cause very high
temperatures, which could lead to brain damage and/or death.

~~~
dmm
I'm completely fine with this. We just need to internalize the externality.
You not vaccinating your child harms not only your family but potentially many
others around you.

We need some sort of legal construct that would hold those who do not
vaccinate responsible if there is an outbreak in the area. For example, you
don't vaccinate your daughter for whooping cough and my daughter(too young to
vaccinate) catches it. My daughter has to suffer months of terrible pain and
discomfort in addition to potential long-term consequences. I should be able
to seek compensation from you.

Of course there are other social alternatives, such as lychings.

As a side note, you probably don't know shit about vaccines. What makes you
think spacing them out will improve her reactions to them?

~~~
patrickgzill
How exactly would you be able to prove that your daughter caught a disease
from any particular person?

For instance, if someone with whooping cough coughed hard, then left the room,
and 10 minutes later your daughter walked through the room on the way to
meeting the other person's daughter, how exactly could you tell that?

I think that there ought to be a law against people who think "there ought to
be a law against X" ...

~~~
dmm
> How exactly would you be able to prove that your daughter caught a disease
> from any particular person?

Set the standard of evidence to whatever the current technology can provide.
Right now I'm fine with unvaccinated people having responsibility for all
outbreaks in their area.

> I think that there ought to be a law against people who think "there ought
> to be a law against X"

I think there ought to be a law against people who don't know the difference
between civil and criminal law.

------
rmk
I just watched this documentary yesterday:
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/?utm_c...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid)

An eye-opening documentary.

Vaccinating a child is not a matter of choice, but compulsory, because unless
the parents of an un-vaccinated child can _guarantee_ that their kid will not
spread a terrible illness such as polio/whooping cough/ whatever, they should
be quarantined. If you watch the documentary, you will understand what I am
saying.

Also, the hope is that vaccination will become unnecessary in the future, for
example, smallpox vaccines are not being administered anymore, because it has
been eradicated completely. That is not the case with many other preventable
diseases (there are many areas in the world where they still occur, and so it
is necessary to exercise caution).

There might be some legit concern as far as simultaneous vaccination for
several diseases goes, though, but that is not sufficient reason to endanger
the larger population until the (possible) causal relationship between
vaccines and brain damage is firmly established.

------
pradocchia
So what's the prevailing wisdom today about the Hannah Poling case?

 _...the government’s Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation concluded that
five shots Hannah received in July 2000, when she was 19 months old,
“significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder” and resulted
in a brain disorder “with features of autism spectrum disorder.”_

[http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2008/03/06/...](http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2008/03/06/autism_0306.html)

Records were sealed at the time. Don't know if they have since been released.

EDIT: Summary of latest news, 2010-09-11:

 _US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) will pay over $1.5 million to
the family of a child whose parents allege acquired autism after routine
vaccinations in 2000....However, the payment does not acknowledge a vaccine-
autism link._

[http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/us_vacci...](http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/us_vaccine_payout_provokes_con.html)

The 27 August 2010 Decision Regarding Damages:
[http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSM...](http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSMITH.%20DOE77082710.pdf)

EDIT 2: You can't make this stuff up:

 _Then-director of the Centers for Disease Control Julie Gerberding (who is
now President of Merck Vaccines) stated: "The government has made absolutely
no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism. This does not
represent anything other than a very specific situation and a very sad
situation as far as the family of the affected child."_

<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html>

~~~
mattmcknight
It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms. Her condition
could have been triggered by any fever. The link to vaccines is tenuous. The
vaccine court is being widely lambasted for paying them off.

~~~
pradocchia
_It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms._

This sounds like a dodge, frankly. I am not encouraged.

EDIT: I am further discouraged by the voting here. I see an instance of
potentially non-conformed data. What do you do with non-conformed data?

As best I can tell, _nothing_ can be done with this data right now, since
details of the court's decision have not been released. The most you can do is
reserve a measure of judgement till further information is available.

Instead, I see a strong desire to dismiss the data. This is poor
epistemological form. _This_ is not encouraging.

Two questions, for now:

* What symptoms of classical autism were not present?

* More to the point, why would classical autism be the standard, rather than autism spectrum disorders?

~~~
mattmcknight
You do sort of get to the fundamental problem of autism not being an actual
disease, just a group of symptoms. The mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies
suffered by Poling have a distinct, but overlapping set of symptoms. So, the
reason I mentioned classical autism is that the symptoms of mitochondrial
encephalopathy[1] go well beyond those, never mind the milder symptoms of ASD.

Apparently, the court's justification for giving the award is that the fever
from the vaccine might have been one of the many fevers she suffered that led
to the particular expression of this condition. Sadly, her parents had already
given her the "autism" label, which only confuses the issue.

Here's the other side of the story:
<http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904>

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MELAS>

------
carbocation
A related article about the resurgence of pertussis in California:

[http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/17/california.whooping.cou...](http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/17/california.whooping.cough/index.html?hpt=T2)

------
billpg
I wonder if this will persude Jenny McCarthy and co.

(holding breath)

~~~
ewjordan
Based on the limited set of reactions I've seen so far (for instance,
[http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23104](http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23104))?

No. This won't change a damn thing.

When you're that committed to a cause, every scientific result that comes out
against your cause is easy to dismiss as either wrong, a deliberate lie,
incomplete, not 100% proof, etc.

This is especially troublesome in areas where the True Believers invert the
burden of proof: rather than asking for proof that vaccines cause autism,
they'd only be satisfied with proof that they _don't_ , which is a much more
difficult task (and don't get me wrong - I have no doubt whatsoever that even
if rock solid proof was offered, they'd still reject it outright).

------
Semiapies
I wish I could believe this would change anything.

~~~
pavel_lishin
No, but perhaps when non-vaccinated kids start dying of things that sounds
hilarious because we've eradicated them - things with names like "dropsy",
"whooping cough" and "cholera" - people will start thinking. It'll be a
terrible price to pay, though, for parents who just wanted to do the best for
their kids.

I wonder if truth-denial is genetic.

~~~
cabalamat
I suspect it has genetic components.

------
something
put best: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo>

------
patrickgzill
I can't believe the fascists on HN that would be fine with shunning,
punishing, or even suing the un-vaccinated.

There are risks to being vaccinated, and risks to not being vaccinated.

That (from the article) : \--- "The last result is a bit of an anomaly in that
it implies that exposure to TCVs from birth to 1 month and birth to 7 months
actually protects against ASD. The authors quite rightly comment on this
result thusly:

"In the covariate adjusted models, we found that an increase in ethylmercury
exposure in 2 of the 4 exposure time periods evaluated was associated with
decreased risk of each of the 3 ASD outcomes. We are not aware of a biological
mechanism that would lead to this result." \---

Should tell you that this cannot be said to be a completely conclusive study.

~~~
evgen
This is the sort of moronic ignorance that should be shamed. The anomaly
noticed by the researchers is one that does not have a known biological
explanation but that does not mean that exposure to a small amount of mercury
in infancy does not actually protect against ASD. It just means that the study
confirms previous studies that found no risk from these vaccines and suggests
that there might actually be an irony-laden protection provided by these
vaccines.

This study is, to date, the most complete and conclusive study available. It
shows that vaccines, and particularly those that used ethylmercury as a
perservative, do not cause autism or autism-spectrum disorders, just like
EVERY OTHER FUCKING STUDY OUT THERE!

~~~
patrickgzill
Do you deny that there are risks to being vaccinated?

~~~
pyre
I thought that the main topic here was about whether or not vaccines cause
autism. It seems petty to try and point to other risks/side-effects of
vaccines when the main point of the discussion has been disproven. i.e.:

    
    
      Person 1: Vaccines cause autism!
      Person 2: No they don't! Here's proof!
      Person 1: Well...it's still not 100% safe, so *there*! I win!
    

The risks of being vaccinated are less than the risks of _not_ being
vaccinated.

I have acquaintances who refuse to vaccinate their kids and you really can't
argue much with them (though thankfully, they are not the type to be preachy
about it). If someone wants to look it up, there is apparently some book about
the problems with vaccines, but (from my experience) the logic goes something
like:

* Vaccines aren't 100% effective. There are people that receive vaccines that still get the illness.

* Vaccines can give you the illness you are trying to prevent.

* There are various other side-effects associated with vaccines.

* [I added this one, though I've never heard anyone use it, and I still vaccinate my daughter] The companies that make the vaccines are immune to prosecution, so they don't have an incentive to produce a quality product.

* [the really crazies like this one too] The 'man' is putting things in vaccines to make poison us and/or make the 'lower classes' sterile as part of some sort of population-control method (See chem-trails and various other 'theories').

~~~
patrickgzill
I appreciate your reasoned response, though I was not trying to take a side on
vaccines and ASD; just addressing the idea that vaccination is a personal risk
you take with yourself or your children, and you weigh the risks and are
responsible for (not taking | taking) them. Riding a motorcycle is
demonstrably more risky than driving a car, yet I don't see people suggesting
we shun bikers.

I have many older relatives in their 70s and 80s, some are taking e.g. flu
vaccines and some do not; and as children, some received the standard
vaccinations and some had chickenpox, measles, mumps, etc.

At this point, being familiar with their medical histories, (though not a
doctor), I am not sure that I see a pattern of better health between the 2
groups.

Frankly choice of diet and amount of regular exercise seem to be a far better
predictor of who is in the best shape.

Example: my mother and her closest sister are 11 months in age apart, 81 and
80. One exercises with walking and swimming 3x a week, watches food portions
and needs only a mild sleeping pill for medication - still drives and has an
active social life; the other has had 2 heart attacks, is overweight by 50+
lbs (and yoyo dieted while younger) and has been on 2-3 heart meds for over 15
years.

~~~
pyre
The problem is that if a certain percentage of the population doesn't take the
vaccine then the risks associated with _not_ taking the vaccine greatly
increase.

For example, (as an unvaccinated person) your chances of catching the flu
while living in a city where 90% of the population is vaccinated is much lower
than if only 40% of the population were vaccinated.

Also you have to consider the risks to others. Even with the vaccine there is
still a chance of getting the disease, though one would need to come in
contact with the disease to get it. So someone that chose to be unvaccinated
is at a higher risk of catching the disease, and therefore transmitting it to
someone that was vaccinated (though I'll admit that the actually numbers in
this scenario are probably pretty low).

