[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
One of my jobs is screening Cecil’s incoming e-mail, and there have been a couple of notes of interest. My favorite is the guy who says that it’s not vaccines that cause autism, it’s fluoridation of water.
[/QUOTE]
Nonsense—it’s caused by zinc deficiency.
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
One of my jobs is screening Cecil’s incoming e-mail, and there have been a couple of notes of interest. My favorite is the guy who says that it’s not vaccines that cause autism, it’s fluoridation of water.
[/QUOTE]
I wonder if Cecil is going to do a follow-up?
Cartooniverse
Gee, I wonder where **quondam ** went? I guess facts disagree with his digestion.
I would laugh at people like this if their scaremongering weren’t costing lives. But since it is, I despise them.
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
One of my jobs is screening Cecil’s incoming e-mail, and there have been a couple of notes of interest. My favorite is the guy who says that it’s not vaccines that cause autism, it’s fluoridation of water.
[/QUOTE]
But you didn’t send him over here? Why don’t you want us to have fun? 
[QUOTE=quondam]
Well, if you inject enough mercury into a tiny infant, isn’t it possible that neurological problems could ensue?
[/QUOTE]
If we indiscriminately beam radio signals into outer space, isn’t it possible that we will attract the attentions of malevolent Lobster People from Alpha Centauri who will visit the Earth in indetectable spacecraft and busy themselves kidnapping people and installing laser-guided mind control devices in their taints?
Yes, and because it’s possible, obviously that is proof that it happened. Quick! Cover your taint in tinfoil!
So if mercury in vaccines is causing autism, why is a male four times more likely to get autism than a female? Are we to believe males get vaccinated four times more frequently?
Meanwhile, these pleasant young fellows, whose parents did not believe in vaccination, exposed numerous people to measles, one by flying, one by disobeying a request (to which he’d agreed) to stay at home so as not to infect others.
[QUOTE=Mort Gage]
So if mercury in vaccines is causing autism, why is a male four times more likely to get autism than a female? Are we to believe males get vaccinated four times more frequently?
[/QUOTE]
Ha ha! Nice try. For the vaccine haters, the statement that vaccines cause autism is unfalsifiable. They would explain away this datum by saying something like, “Well, it just goes to show that males are more sensitive than females to thimerosol.”
[QUOTE=W.V.O. Quine]
Any statement can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=quondam]
How about 87 times the amount that would be considered acceptable from eating fish?
87 TIMES THE AMOUNT.
“The March 1991 memo, obtained by The Times, said that 6-month-old children who received their shots on schedule would get a mercury dose up to 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daily consumption of mercury from fish.”
[/QUOTE]
So over a period of many months, an infant would get 87 times the recommended limit for daily consumption of fish? And this overlooks the small detail of how toxic the different forms of mercury are - the mercury found in fish is in a methylmercury molecule, which seems to be more persistent and toxic than the ethylmercury molecule that Thimerosal breaks down into.
The levels involved appear to be relatively safe, especially compared to the known risks of these diseases that children are being vaccinated against. Further, the epidemiological data seems to rule out a link between vaccines and autism. Still it’s a good idea to reduce mercury exposure whenever we can, and in the case of infant vaccines, that’s what they did. Flu shots still contain Thimerosal, and I’ve given those to my kids without worry.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Ha ha! Nice try. For the vaccine haters, the statement that vaccines cause autism is unfalsifiable. They would explain away this datum by saying something like, “Well, it just goes to show that males are more sensitive than females to thimerosol.”
[/QUOTE]
Would Spinozas Law would be applicable here? “If the facts do not support the theory…the theory must be changed to support the facts” or something like that…btw, this is a great site…I used to think that the only fix for my angst was watching Dr.Strangelove and The Wages of Fear. :smack:
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Ha ha! Nice try. For the vaccine haters, the statement that vaccines cause autism is unfalsifiable. They would explain away this datum by saying something like, “Well, it just goes to show that males are more sensitive than females to thimerosol.”
[/QUOTE]
That identical argument was made in discussion in an anti-vax forum on a messageboard where I am no longer welcome.
The other counter is ‘well, we don’t know what other things in vaccines trigger autism, so we need to play it safe and not vaccinate.’
:rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
Folks, the fact that there is a prevalence of autism in males doesn’t exonerate Thimerosol. If the underlying genetic issue that can result in the condition predominates in males, and is simply triggered through environmental contact with the various compounds that are contained in the preservative, there would still be a predominance of male cases, even though the vaccinations are being given to both genders at an equal rate.
The evidence against the Thimerosol connection is much stronger than that, and much more sophisticated.
I guess Spinoza might have said it, but I think you mean William of Occam (who, in any event, would have said it first). Occam’s Razor, or the principle of parsimony.
[QUOTE=Shoshana]
I guess Spinoza might have said it, but I think you mean William of Occam (who, in any event, would have said it first). Occam’s Razor, or the principle of parsimony.
[/QUOTE]
I think you’re confusing two different things. Occam’s Razor involves not unnecessarily multiplying entities, or “All other things being equal, simpler explanations are preferable,” in common usage. symbo’s quote is about evidence overruling theory if the theory and evidence don’t match up.
Okay, so enlighten me with a Spinoza cite. I couldn’t find one this morning, but that means very little given the amount of time I had available to look.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
The other counter is ‘well, we don’t know what other things in vaccines trigger autism, so we need to play it safe and not vaccinate.’
:rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Good one! “Getting our child vaccinated might increase our child’s risk for autism, but not getting our child vaccinated demonstrably raises the risk that our child (and his/her playmates) will get a fatal or crippling disease. So the obvious thing to do is…”
(If you guessed, “Not get the vaccine,” you win the VHAA (Vaccine Haters’ Association of America) coveted Tinfoil Hat Award.)
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Folks, the fact that there is a prevalence of autism in males doesn’t exonerate Thimerosol. If the underlying genetic issue that can result in the condition predominates in males, and is simply triggered through environmental contact with the various compounds that are contained in the preservative, there would still be a predominance of male cases, even though the vaccinations are being given to both genders at an equal rate.
The evidence against the Thimerosol connection is much stronger than that, and much more sophisticated.
[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps the people who believe that this ‘evidence is strong’ are so happy following their own particular pet theories that they are uninterested in trying to assist in discovering more plausible ones. I’ve heard some health professionals suggest that autism could be triggered by a virus or viruses in people born with a weakness of some sort. I think this is the research theory worth following.
[QUOTE=Shoshana]
Okay, so enlighten me with a Spinoza cite. I couldn’t find one this morning, but that means very little given the amount of time I had available to look.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have any idea if Spinoza actually said it or not. I’m just saying that the concept under discussion isn’t Occam’s Razor, but a more general philosophy of science – if the evidence and the theory disagree, you have to reformulate your theory rather than discounting the evidence.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Folks, the fact that there is a prevalence of autism in males doesn’t exonerate Thimerosol. If the underlying genetic issue that can result in the condition predominates in males, and is simply triggered through environmental contact with the various compounds that are contained in the preservative, there would still be a predominance of male cases, even though the vaccinations are being given to both genders at an equal rate.
The evidence against the Thimerosol connection is much stronger than that, and much more sophisticated.
[/QUOTE]
This is correct, of course. It is possible to have varying reactions to environmental factors that are gender-related - males characteristically develop heart problems earlier in life than females, for instance, and women survive longer in cold water than males.
What I should have made clear is that it is taken for granted by anti-vax types that differing rates of autism must necessarily be based on differing reactions to thimerosol for males vs. females. I believe this was Quiddity Glomfuster’s point.
I should have been more clear. One of the annoying things about the anti-vax forum I mentioned earlier is that it was impossible to communicate distinctions like this. They simply ignored detailed explanations and clarifications in favor of endless repetition of whatever they decided was the simplest distortion they could come up with.
Anyway, I don’t want to do the same thing, so DSYoungEsq is correct, and I appreciate his input.
Regards,
Shodan