Rand Paul and Chris Christie believe vaccines should be optional

[Captain_Amazing]

Here, actually, is a Talking Point Memo on some of the various people floated as the Republican candidate in 2016 and their statements on the issue:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2016-candidates-vaccine-positions

With probably the strongest statement by Ben Carson (who was a pediatric neurosurgeon)

Although I strongly believe in individual rights and the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit, I also recognize that public health and public safety are extremely important in our society.

Certain communicable diseases have been largely eradicated by immunization policies in this country and we should not allow those diseases to return by foregoing safe immunization programs, for philosophical, religious, or other reasons when we have the means to eradicate them

Obviously there are exceptional situations to virtually everything and we must have a mechanism whereby those can be heard.

[Zakalwe]

@Terr

So, most “liberals” here are taking the position that vaccinations should be voluntary? If so, why are they outraged at Rand Paul saying the same thing?

Because Rand wants the choice without the price. Like I said socialized risk. Big thing in GOP circles these days.

And guess what, there is quite a lot of parents who report that children who were talking and developing normally withdraw and become autistic after the vaccinations - which is what Rand Paul said. But there is no causation - it is just that there are a lot of vaccinations that are given right around the time when autism usually starts showing itself.

(emphasis added) Yep. the bolded part is absolutely right. My son is one of them.

[GIGObuster]

@Terr

Initial Lancet’s retraction was in 2004.

What that showed was that indeed it was not until 2010 when the article was pulled, what happened in 2004 was only a partial retraction.

The Lancet retracts Andrew Wakefield’s article

But it’s OK to be wrong in science. There is no expectation that every potential finding will turn out to be true – in fact it is expected that most new finding will eventually be found to be false. That’s the nature of investigating the unknown. No harm no foul.

Andrew Wakefield, however, was apparently guilty of more than just getting it wrong, or even of being a sloppy scientist. He has been the subject of an ethics investigation by the General Medical Council who recently concluded that:

The General Medical Council ruled he had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly” in doing his research.

David Gorski has the full report on the GMC ruling, which I will not repeat.

What is also at issue, however, is the integrity of the published peer-reviewed medical research. Again – there is not the expectation that peer-reviewed research will always get the answer right. In fact, the published research stands as an important record of error – the blind alleys, red herrings, false correlations, and erroneous conclusions that are part of the history of science.

However, error should not include scientific fraud, or science that is thoroughly misrepresented. One aspect of the transparency demanded by science, and increasingly an issue, is disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. This is the issue that first got Wakefield in hot water with the Lancet – the journal that published his original research. Wakefield was being paid as an expert by lawyers who were suing over alleged vaccine injury. In fact some of the children in the study were the children of parents who were suing. This is a massive conflict of interest.

When this came to light the Lancet responded by contacting the co-authors of the article and essentially asking them if they still stand by the results of the study. Ten of the original 12 authors of the study retracted their support for the study and its interpretation. In 2004 the Lancet published a retraction. However, it was only a partial retraction, and the study remained as part of the published literature.

In the wake of the GMC ruling, however, the Lancet has once again reviewed the study and concluded that there is now sufficient evidence of wrongdoing on Wakefield’s part to print a full retraction.

When this came to light the Lancet responded by contacting the co-authors of the article and essentially asking them if they still stand by the results of the study. Ten of the original 12 authors of the study retracted their support for the study and its interpretation. In 2004 the Lancet published a retraction. However, it was only a partial retraction, and the study remained as part of the published literature.

It also showed how just a few researchers can cause harm for a long time when their conflict of interest papers are published in scientific journals that did not look carefully at what they were reviewing.

http://prospect.org/article/earth-last-0

[Terr]

@Zakalwe

Because Rand wants the choice without the price.

Cite?

[Terr]

@GIGObuster

What that showed was that indeed it was not until 2010 when the article was pulled, what happened in 2004 was only a partial retraction.

The Lancet retracts Andrew Wakefield’s article | Science-Based Medicine

Wakefield’s study was fully discredited by 2004. Obama couldn’t have thought it had any validity in 2008 - he had nothing to base it on. That’s just wishful thinking to cover up Obama’s stupid quote.

[GIGObuster]

@Terr

Wakefield’s study was fully discredited by 2004. Obama couldn’t have thought it had any validity in 2008 - he had nothing to base it on. That’s just wishful thinking to cover up Obama’s stupid quote.

No, even the article you cited shows that you are ignoring a lot, just scroll down and you will see that it also points at what took place in 2010.

The fact is that the study remained as part of the published literature until then.

This page is research from an award-winning investigation, concluding in 2011, by Brian Deer for The Sunday Times of London into a campaign linking the MMR children’s vaccine with autism based on fraudulent research by British former doctor Andrew Wakefield

2010

Lancet retracts ‘utterly false’ MMR paper

After medical council ruling last week that MMR doctor Andrew
Wakefield was dishonest, journal finally quashes paper

[Terr]

Another thing is, I see a lot of media articles that deliberately distort what Rand Paul said. Paul’s quote is:

“I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.”

That statement is just the truth. I have heard the same stories, from parents of autistic kids.

Note: no mention of whether there is causation involved. Here is media’s reporting on it:

Paul: Vaccines can **cause **‘profound mental disorders’

Rand Paul: Vaccines Can Lead to ‘Mental Disorders’

[Terr]

@GIGObuster

No, even the article you cited shows that you are ignoring a lot, just scroll down and you will see that it also points at what took place in 2010.

The fact is that the study remained as part of the published literature until then.

I guess you don’t understand what “discredited” means. By 2004, much less 2008, Wakefield’s study was discredited. Obama couldn’t have been relying on it in 2008 when he was quoted.

[GIGObuster]

@Terr

Another thing is, I see a lot of media articles that deliberately distort what Rand Paul said. Paul’s quote is:

“I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.”

That statement is just the truth. I have heard the same stories, from parents of autistic kids.

Note: no mention of whether there is causation involved. Here is media’s reporting on it:

Paul: Vaccines can **cause **‘profound mental disorders’

Rand Paul: Vaccines Can Lead to ‘Mental Disorders’

:rolleyes:

Then he should not had say that bit about “normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.” That is talking about causality, and while it could be true that parents told Rand Paul that, it remains a very gross mistake and an unsupported connection to continue talking about.

IMHO if Rand Paul wants to pretend that he is a leader, the least he can do is to lead the people with more up to date science and not to just be a follower of what misguided supporters or acquaintances are telling him.

[Terr]

@GIGObuster

:rolleyes:

Then he should not had say that bit about “normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.” That is talking about causality

No, it isn’t. Saying that it “leads to” is causality. Saying that it “causes it” is causality. But he didn’t say that.

while it could be true that parents told Rand Paul that

It’s not that that it “could be true”. It is true. Often with autistic children parents report that a normally developing, talking infant/toddler regresses into autism right after the time that vaccinations are given. Which is what Rand Paul said. That does not imply causation and in fact it has been shown in study after study that there is no causation. And Rand Paul never said that autism is caused by vaccinations, in spite of the reporting.

[GIGObuster]

@Terr

I guess you don’t understand what “discredited” means. By 2004, much less 2008, Wakefield’s study was discredited. Obama couldn’t have been relying on it in 2008 when he was quoted.

Nah, as usual you are only ignoring timelines just like many conservatives that want to ignore them when they do not fit a narrative.

Science Based Medicine reported on that partial move and the fact is that the study remained as part of the published literature until 2010 on February 3, 2010, not to cover up what Obama did.

[elucidator]

…Obama couldn’t have been relying on it in 2008 when he was quoted.

“Wakefield is a pimp. But I didn’t know until this day that it was Obama all along.”

[GIGObuster]

@Terr

No, it isn’t. Saying that it “leads to” is causality. Saying that it “causes it” is causality. But he didn’t say that.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

@Terr

It’s not that that it “could be true”. It is true. Often with autistic children parents report that a normally developing, talking infant/toddler regresses into autism right after the time that vaccinations are given. Which is what Rand Paul said. That does not imply causation and in fact it has been shown in study after study that there is no causation. And Rand Paul never said that autism is caused by vaccinations, in spite of the reporting.

And even that is still wrong.

Rand Paul is irresponsible by not telling the people that “even if it was true what they told me that they observed that” it is important to tell all that those parents were misled by false science.

Rand Paul should lead instead of tossing those big bones to people that are wrong and causing harm to others.

[Little_Nemo]

@Terr

Wakefield’s study was discredited way before 2008. In 2004, Lancet retracted the study, called it “fatally flawed”, and his paper co-authors published a retraction.

The 2004 retraction was a “partial retraction” which, as far as I can tell, does not include the phrase “fatally flawed”. The 2004 retraction said that the data was insufficient to establish the link between vaccination and autism.

The 2010 retraction was the “full retraction” which said the data used in the report had been falsified.

[GIGObuster]

As the BBC reports, even Republicans consultants think what is going on here is irresponsible:

Measles politics: Hillary Clinton says 'sky is blue and vaccines work'

Republican consultant Rick Wilson tweets that Mr Christie is being “wildly irresponsible” in his statements.

“Vaccination is one of the most consequential scientific and medical advances in the history of mankind,” hewrites. “I’m as libertarian as it comes, but the social contract includes not letting your kids die of preventable diseases or spread them to others.”

The increased attention to Mr Christie’s recent views have had other writers rehashing 2009 remarks by the governor in which he told a radio interviewer he didn’t support mandating that children receive the flu vaccine and that parents who believe vaccines cause autism need “a voice in these debates”.** He also wrote a letter to anti-vaccination parents saying he stands by them “in their fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions that affect children”.**

They also point out that Mr Christie’s public health policies appear inconsistent, as just last year he instituted a mandatory quarantine for a nurse who had returned from treating Ebola patients in Africa despite no evidence that she had contracted the disease.

“It’s easy to forget, given Christie’s reputation as a no-nonsense pragmatist, but he often finds himself at odds with the medical establishment and basic common sense on issues of health,” writes the Daily Beast’s Olivia Nuzzi.

[China_Guy]

@Terr

Often with autistic children parents report that a normally developing, talking infant/toddler regresses into autism right after the time that vaccinations are given. Which is what Rand Paul said. That does not imply causation and in fact it has been shown in study after study that there is no causation. And Rand Paul never said that autism is caused by vaccinations, in spite of the reporting.

This is not what Rand Paul said from the above quote. It may not be what he meant, but Rand’s comments could very easily and without malice be read as implied causation. And Rand has plenty of opportunities to backtrack, explain he was taken out of context, “Correlation does not prove causation” and get your kids vaccinated.

Not hearing that which implies his comments deliberately had “plausible deniability” nudge nudge wink wink

And most of those parents missed the signs that their kids were not actually normally developing, talking toddlers. Parents, especially first time parents, are can easily miss subtle early warning signs of autism. While “parents know their own child best” is valid for a lot of things, austism probably isn’t one of them. In addition, a pretty common reaction to getting a formal autism diagnosis is to try find blame or a cause. And I speak based on medical literature, personal experience with my own child, mentoring other parents and more time on a daily basis than I would have liked in Autism centers and around autism professionals. YMMV

[Terr]

@China_Guy

And most of those parents missed the signs that their kids were not actually normally developing, talking toddlers. Parents, especially first time parents, are can easily miss subtle early warning signs of autism. While “parents know their own child best” is valid for a lot of things, austism probably isn’t one of them. In addition, a pretty common reaction to getting a formal autism diagnosis is to try find blame or a cause. And I speak based on medical literature, personal experience with my own child, mentoring other parents and more time on a daily basis than I would have liked in Autism centers and around autism professionals. YMMV

My 12 year old son is on the spectrum. I am quite familiar with all that. And no, I don’t see what Rand Paul said as indicating in any way that he thinks vaccines may cause autism.

[OldGuy]

Personally I’ve found that many people say stupid things after they come out of church and many children with Republican parents say stupid things as well.

[septimus]

@Terr

Another thing is, I see a lot of media articles that deliberately distort what Rand Paul said. Paul’s quote is:

“I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.”

That statement is just the truth. I have heard the same stories, from parents of autistic kids.

Yes, 100% true. The Gospel truth.

Just like
“Some people say … that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.”
Again, 100% true.

Read up on Weasel words or tergiversation. You’re welcome. Always happy to fight ignorance.

There are many forms of tergiversation; you can find other examples in this thread, e.g.

@WillFarnaby

Don’t ask stupid questions. Quite simply, I’m not going to engage in wildly speculative hypotheticals about biological trends.

[JKellyMap]

@Terr

No, it isn’t. Saying that it “leads to” is causality. Saying that it “causes it” is causality. But he didn’t say that.
It’s not that that it “could be true”. It is true. Often with autistic children parents report that a normally developing, talking infant/toddler regresses into autism right after the time that vaccinations are given. Which is what Rand Paul said. That does not imply causation and in fact it has been shown in study after study that there is no causation. And Rand Paul never said that autism is caused by vaccinations, in spite of the reporting.

No, he did not. But what he said was equally as pertinent and enlightening as if he had said:

“My sister wore red socks last Tuesday. On Wednesday – the very next day, mind you! – she received an email from a friend named Lisa!”

Why bother saying drivel like this? Obviously, “Dr.” Paul wanted to dangerously pander to a certain group of morons (without actually saying anything false – or anything at all, really). Well, at least he (and Christie) have put themselves out of the running early, and won’t even be joining this coming cycle’s spastic goat rodeo.