And one of those articles....
Jul. 12th, 2005 01:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Click if you like....
Notable quotes:
Just a decade ago, most Americans would have to be "Jeopardy" champions just to identify the substance, but parents today are more and more aware of it because many medical researchers believe it is linked to the astounding increase in autism.
Note that he doesn't mention how many more researchers have the data to show it is not linked to the "astounding increase in autism". Many people believe that the world was created in seven days, but reputable scientists don't give this theory much truck.
If you're in your 20s, you had a 1 in 10,000 chance of ending up autistic. Today, that chance in the United States is about 1 in 166 births, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The change in these numbers is statistically incredible, and indicates a health problem of epidemic proportions.
Well, it would if the statistics from 20 years ago were even roughly comparable with current statistics. Except they're not. The diagnostic criteria for autism have made it much more likely that your average child-with-problems will be diagnosed autistic instead of, say, childhood schizophrenic or mentally retarded. The concept of the autistic spectrum has expanded the definition of autism so much that people who could never have gotten a diagnosis back then now can. Additionally, since knowledge of autism has increased, even without the expanded diagnostic criteria, more children are likely to be identified as autistic than 20 years ago.
As almost every concerned parent now knows, autistic children -- many of them once normal infants and toddlers -- display heartbreaking social withdrawal, loss of speech, reduced eye contact, temper tantrums, repetitive hand-flapping, seizures, constant sleep disturbance, aversion to eye contact, a seemingly weakened immune system, and odd repetitive behaviors such as walking on their toes. The symptoms of infant mercury poisoning are almost exactly the same.
Aw, it's so heartbreaking. Just on a lark, I decided to copy Keven Leitch and look up the symptoms of mercury poisoning. Interesting stuff. If Wikipedia is to be believed, back 200 years ago, children routinely were given mercury as a laxative and dewormer. It was also given for such things as toothaches and even depression, such as it was back then. Hm. I don't remember hearing about all those poor autistic kids in the 1800s. Must've missed something.
Oh, right, the symptoms. Tremors (not the same as stimming, no matter how much you try to lump them together), headaches, short-term memory loss, incoordination (hm. That might fit), weakness, loss of appetite, altered sense of taste and smell (that might fit, maybe), numbness and tingling in the hands and feet, insomnia, and excessive sweating. Psychiatric effects are also seen after long-term exposure (mad hatters, anyone?). Acrodynia can result from repeated exposures to mercury-containing latex paint fumes. Acrodynia is usually seen in younger children. The symptoms include chills, sweating, body rash, irritability, sleeplessness, leg cramps, swelling of the cheeks, nose, hands and feet, light-sensitivity to the eyes and peeling skin layers on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet.
Yes, that sounds so much like autism. I am stunned and amazed. Really, am I missing something here? I must be.
(Russia, often described in the American media as abysmally backward in scientific matters, banned thimerosal from vaccines 20 years ago. So have Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Austria, Denmark and Japan.)
So, those countries should have a lower incidence of autism, right?
England's rate is about 60/10,000. That's, um, let's see.... 6/1,000 or 3/500 or 1/166. I worked that out in my head, maybe my numbers are wrong. I couldn't find information for Russia or Norway, and I was too lazy to look up the rest. It's probably just a fluke anyway.
Instead, from documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and an anonymous source who was present, Kennedy learned a CDC epidemiologist at the meeting had declared that 100,000 medical records of children in the CDC medical database had showed thimerosal was "directly related to the dramatic rise" in the autism epidemic.
I am *very* lazy today, but I did think I read something about how much of his article was exaggerated, or outright distortions...? If anybody can help me out here, amabo te.
For instance, the CDC and other thimerosal defenders keep pointing to one of the studies that allegedly shows a big increase in autistic children in Denmark after that country disallowed use of the substance in its vaccines. Wouldn't that show conclusively that thimerosal is not to blame for autism increases?
One would think so, until one learns from Kennedy that Denmark -- before banning thimerosal -- was used to registering in its studies only autistics who were hospitalized. That number represented only 20 percent of those truly afflicted. After banning thimerosal, Denmark began also counting out-patient children who showed autistic symptoms, four-fifths of the total autistic population. Apples and oranges, not scientific parallels. Of course, it appeared like the numbers spiked following the ban. A whole new category was being counted. The clever CDC, of course, never mentions this.
No, you didn't. No, you fucking didn't. You didn't just accuse people of doing the exact same thing you're doing here, right in this selfsame article! It's important to bring this up, sure - but not if you're also lying and pretending that the changed diagnostic criteria don't exist, not if you're ignoring the fact that some states used to estimate the number of autistic children they had, and surprise, surprise found the numbers went up when the children were actually counted.
Well, I just repeated what everyone else has said, and no doubt got it all wrong anyway. I'm funny like that. But man, that pisses me off. Not that some "I've got a Pulitzer!" can write an editorial with... well, blatant distortions, or ignorance, in some hack of a paper, but that other people believe things like this and don't do any research one way or another.
Notable quotes:
Just a decade ago, most Americans would have to be "Jeopardy" champions just to identify the substance, but parents today are more and more aware of it because many medical researchers believe it is linked to the astounding increase in autism.
Note that he doesn't mention how many more researchers have the data to show it is not linked to the "astounding increase in autism". Many people believe that the world was created in seven days, but reputable scientists don't give this theory much truck.
If you're in your 20s, you had a 1 in 10,000 chance of ending up autistic. Today, that chance in the United States is about 1 in 166 births, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The change in these numbers is statistically incredible, and indicates a health problem of epidemic proportions.
Well, it would if the statistics from 20 years ago were even roughly comparable with current statistics. Except they're not. The diagnostic criteria for autism have made it much more likely that your average child-with-problems will be diagnosed autistic instead of, say, childhood schizophrenic or mentally retarded. The concept of the autistic spectrum has expanded the definition of autism so much that people who could never have gotten a diagnosis back then now can. Additionally, since knowledge of autism has increased, even without the expanded diagnostic criteria, more children are likely to be identified as autistic than 20 years ago.
As almost every concerned parent now knows, autistic children -- many of them once normal infants and toddlers -- display heartbreaking social withdrawal, loss of speech, reduced eye contact, temper tantrums, repetitive hand-flapping, seizures, constant sleep disturbance, aversion to eye contact, a seemingly weakened immune system, and odd repetitive behaviors such as walking on their toes. The symptoms of infant mercury poisoning are almost exactly the same.
Aw, it's so heartbreaking. Just on a lark, I decided to copy Keven Leitch and look up the symptoms of mercury poisoning. Interesting stuff. If Wikipedia is to be believed, back 200 years ago, children routinely were given mercury as a laxative and dewormer. It was also given for such things as toothaches and even depression, such as it was back then. Hm. I don't remember hearing about all those poor autistic kids in the 1800s. Must've missed something.
Oh, right, the symptoms. Tremors (not the same as stimming, no matter how much you try to lump them together), headaches, short-term memory loss, incoordination (hm. That might fit), weakness, loss of appetite, altered sense of taste and smell (that might fit, maybe), numbness and tingling in the hands and feet, insomnia, and excessive sweating. Psychiatric effects are also seen after long-term exposure (mad hatters, anyone?). Acrodynia can result from repeated exposures to mercury-containing latex paint fumes. Acrodynia is usually seen in younger children. The symptoms include chills, sweating, body rash, irritability, sleeplessness, leg cramps, swelling of the cheeks, nose, hands and feet, light-sensitivity to the eyes and peeling skin layers on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet.
Yes, that sounds so much like autism. I am stunned and amazed. Really, am I missing something here? I must be.
(Russia, often described in the American media as abysmally backward in scientific matters, banned thimerosal from vaccines 20 years ago. So have Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Austria, Denmark and Japan.)
So, those countries should have a lower incidence of autism, right?
England's rate is about 60/10,000. That's, um, let's see.... 6/1,000 or 3/500 or 1/166. I worked that out in my head, maybe my numbers are wrong. I couldn't find information for Russia or Norway, and I was too lazy to look up the rest. It's probably just a fluke anyway.
Instead, from documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and an anonymous source who was present, Kennedy learned a CDC epidemiologist at the meeting had declared that 100,000 medical records of children in the CDC medical database had showed thimerosal was "directly related to the dramatic rise" in the autism epidemic.
I am *very* lazy today, but I did think I read something about how much of his article was exaggerated, or outright distortions...? If anybody can help me out here, amabo te.
For instance, the CDC and other thimerosal defenders keep pointing to one of the studies that allegedly shows a big increase in autistic children in Denmark after that country disallowed use of the substance in its vaccines. Wouldn't that show conclusively that thimerosal is not to blame for autism increases?
One would think so, until one learns from Kennedy that Denmark -- before banning thimerosal -- was used to registering in its studies only autistics who were hospitalized. That number represented only 20 percent of those truly afflicted. After banning thimerosal, Denmark began also counting out-patient children who showed autistic symptoms, four-fifths of the total autistic population. Apples and oranges, not scientific parallels. Of course, it appeared like the numbers spiked following the ban. A whole new category was being counted. The clever CDC, of course, never mentions this.
No, you didn't. No, you fucking didn't. You didn't just accuse people of doing the exact same thing you're doing here, right in this selfsame article! It's important to bring this up, sure - but not if you're also lying and pretending that the changed diagnostic criteria don't exist, not if you're ignoring the fact that some states used to estimate the number of autistic children they had, and surprise, surprise found the numbers went up when the children were actually counted.
Well, I just repeated what everyone else has said, and no doubt got it all wrong anyway. I'm funny like that. But man, that pisses me off. Not that some "I've got a Pulitzer!" can write an editorial with... well, blatant distortions, or ignorance, in some hack of a paper, but that other people believe things like this and don't do any research one way or another.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-12 12:54 am (UTC)I don't know how much stock, I put in a direct cause and effect but I'm not going to dismiss it, out of hand. In our family, we've tried to strike a balance. We've tried to limit the number of vaccines and at the same time, we've tried to limit the number of things mixed together. I have seen what appears to be a correlation between processed foods, artificial colors and ADD. This is another thing about which the activists warn and to be honest, I don't really trust the pharmaceutical industry, I know too many chemists who argue against their claims.
As I said, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. Everything with me is an attempt at balance and thus far, both of my kids seem fine. I'm sure for selfish reasons, you probably have seen a lot more information than a guy who is just trying to do right by his kids. As to the subject of mercury, I don't know what I believe, but I am willing to consider both sides.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-12 01:19 am (UTC)I'm going to try to take your points here in order, please excuse how formal I sound, it's late. I must go to bed soon - like a few hours ago soon.
1. The processed foods and artificial colors can create mental/emotional problems in people who are allergic to them. You'll see no argument from me about that.
2. If it were just the pharmaceutical companies saying that their vaccines or medicines were safe, I wouldn't believe them. However, the vast weight of evidence shows that there's simply no connection between the vaccines and autism. I agree, if anybody has been harmed by vaccines it's a horrible thing - but I don't see that it's autism. In addition to scientific studies, I have anecdotal evidence, and, well... I trust my anecdotal evidence more than I trust their anecdotal evidence.
People are very good at picking up patterns. When two things happen at the same time, or near the same time, we consider them associated, even when they're not. So when your child starts displaying obviously autistic characteristics after the get the MMR, or when you first notice autistic characteristics then, the obvious connection is that the shot caused the autism.
This is a logical fallacy. If somebody dies right after eating tomatoes, it does not mean that tomatoes are poisonous, or even that those tomatoes were poisoned. It could just mean that they had a weak heart, and suffered a heart attack, or that they had a bad case of the flu. Yes, it is possible that the tomatoes killed them, but that's not the only explanation.
When a child is diagnosed as autistic after getting the MMR, that could mean that the MMR caused the autism. However, the evidence seems to show that it's more likely that some children don't act obviously autistic until they're toddlers, or that some parents don't see the signs of autism in their children until they're so old it can't be ignored anymore.
I recognize that there are those who say "my kid changed so drastically after the shot". I don't know these people personally, nor their children. I would like to meet somebody like that. If it's not one of the two categories above, or the two categories above combined with an honestly bad reaction to the shot, I'd be interested in seeing it. All we have, though, is the statement that "they were normal before!", and there's no proof of that. People remember the truths that make them look good. Our memories are notoriously faulty.
3. I have nothing against delaying vaccines. Unless you live in an area where you are likely to catch a dread disease, I don't even have anything against avoiding vaccines. In fact, since I believe, based on my history and that of my family, that autism is genetic, and I don't want a cure, I'm more than happy to see people chasing after mercury in vaccines. Whether or not it causes autism, it shouldn't be there anyway.
What I do have a problem with are people who manipulate the data, no matter which side they're on. I also have a problem with people who don't seem to do any research - I'm guilty of that myself, but I recognize it as a character flaw. And I have a big problem with the fact that expensive, dangerous ,nd unproven treatments such as chelation are presented as a cure-all for mercury-caused-autism when mercury hasn't even been shown to be responsible for a single case of autism. I also have a problem with the fact that every cent going by parents for treatment for the so-called mercury poisoning is money not spent on helping autistics. It's a snake oil.
Of course, ranting about chelation gets me nowhere if I don't tackle the problem at the root, which means I guess I mind seeing about mercury after all.
4. I'm sure you want what's best for your kids. I don't have kids. And while I know a lot about a lot of things, I'm not an expert on anything. I can direct you to people who know much more than I on this subject, though.
5. I'm going to bed as soon as I take out the garbage. My apologies for how incoherant this is.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-12 01:21 am (UTC)Man, that *is* illogical of me. I still *do* trust my own anecdotal evidence more, since I can trace back through my family many people who had autistic traits.
But I do need to go sleep, if I'm tossing out nonsensical statements like that. True statements, to be sure, who doesn't trust their own mind most, but stupid.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-12 03:14 am (UTC)Your example concerning cause and effect is similar to that which I've been making in regards to the recent television study. Yes, they studied people over thirty years to measure childhood viewing against achievement, but they allowed no input as to the quality of the programming or whether it could be classified as "educational". To me and as I've been saying; This would be similar to declaring eating as a cause of obesity, without taking into consideration the components of the diet.
One other thing, back to your idea about the historic intake of mercury; History may not note an epidemic, but that's not to say that one did not exist and simply was masked by class divisions. We don't really know a lot about what happened, because if nobody knew to measure or chose to write things down, it would not mean that it didn't exist.
But that's a minor point and on those of consequence, we appear to agree.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-12 06:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-12 01:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-12 05:47 am (UTC)