Do Vaccines Cause Autism?

In article .com,
wrote:
David Wright wrote:

The Evil Thimerosal Konspiracy is an example. After all, the anti-vac
people would have us believe that the Evil Moneyed Powers want us all
to get a vaccination, which costs a few bucks, but will prevent a very

Everybody isn't exactly as stupid as you seem to think.

Most of them are.

The reason for the conspiracy was supposed to the potential for
liability lawsuits, which could have bankrupted the responsible
company, and brought many others down.

Yep -- whether or not they were, in fact, guilty of anything.

This is no longer the case, as Bill Frist was bought on board and
worked verr hard to limit the liability issues, so I am not sure why
the conspiracy would continue to exist. Personally it's hard to
imagine someone risking developmental damage to thousands of innocent
infants, just to make some sort of point.

Well, this is where you and I (along with you and reality) part
company. You're utterly convinced that thimerosal is a horrible
substance that causes autism. It's your right to believe that,
but I'm not required to agree with you and it's clear right now
that the evidence does not back you up.

But then again, in the modern world, many people exist who are
extremely loyal to the corporation. A sort of "corporation as god"
mentality, which fills the vacuum as people no longer truly believe
in old time religions, cannot believe in humanity, cannot believe in
nature, cannot believe in science that they see as only a tool,
cannot believe in truth... leaving not much else than the
corporation. Such corporate priests naturally would rise to
influential positions within their organizations, and then would do
anything to maintain the "good name" of their organizations that
exists in their minds.

The trouble with this sort of absolute pronouncement is that it
implicitly denies that the corporation might, in fact, actually
be innocent of anything.

Don't get me wrong. I think the idea of corporations for limited
liability is a good one, but I'm a lot less comfortable with the idea
of this fictional corporate "person" being able to lobby for
legislation etc. On the other hand, when I see the looney anti-vac
organizations and the swill they push, I start to wonder whether it'd
be fair not to let the corporations push back.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your killfile."
-- Anon.

In article .com,
wrote:
David Wright wrote:


Basically, you have been campaigning viciously to help maintain the
SHELF LIFE of vaccines, nothing else.

Wrong. In developed countries, like the US, you can avoid the need
for preservatives by refrigerating a vaccine.

But what do we do in some third-world country where the electricity
might be on for a few hours per day, if they even have any?
Thimerosal can keep vaccines preserved (and thus free of bacteria)
for quite some time, even at room temperature.


What to do is easy to answer if you want to be honest about it.

You would research all sides in broad daylight,
and explain the potential risks/benefits to the third world
population, and let them make the choice of whether they
need the extended shelf life.

Except that you're u sing "potential risks/benefits" as a euphemism
for "vaccines cause autism! there's no question of this! there will
never be any question of this! nothing can change my mind!"

Btw, your example is not actually correct, single-shot packaging
technologies mean you don't have to make this either/or choice. It
does increase the price a little, but even the poorest third world
governments (when given facts) won't like to risk infants with great
abandon just to avoid a 50% higher price, or to help prove someone's
point.

You don't have a lot of experience with either governments or poverty,
do you?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your killfile."
-- Anon.

wrote in news:1124669137.967684.144840
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

David Wright wrote:


Basically, you have been campaigning viciously to help maintain the
SHELF LIFE of vaccines, nothing else.

Wrong. In developed countries, like the US, you can avoid the need
for preservatives by refrigerating a vaccine.

But what do we do in some third-world country where the electricity
might be on for a few hours per day, if they even have any?
Thimerosal can keep vaccines preserved (and thus free of bacteria)
for quite some time, even at room temperature.


What to do is easy to answer if you want to be honest about it.

You would research all sides in broad daylight,
and explain the potential risks/benefits to the third world
population, and let them make the choice of whether they
need the extended shelf life.

Btw, your example is not actually correct, single-shot
packaging technologies mean you don't have to
make this either/or choice. It does increase the
price a little, but even the poorest third world
governments (when given facts) won't like to risk
infants with great abandon just to avoid a 50% higher
price, or to help prove someone's point.

The problem here is that in underdeveloped countries, "reduction in shelf
life" and "50% higher prices" aren't just matters of convenience; they
can make the difference between kids being vaccinated and kids not being
vaccinated. Worrying about vaccine/autism connections is a rather
expensive hobby that can only be afforded by the Western middle class;
for people in the third world, the question isn't "will he be autistic
rather than neurotypical," it's "will he survive to adulthood."

Eric Bohlman wrote:

The problem here is that in underdeveloped countries, "reduction in shelf
life" and "50% higher prices" aren't just matters of convenience; they
can make the difference between kids being vaccinated and kids not being
vaccinated. Worrying about vaccine/autism connections is a rather
expensive hobby that can only be afforded by the Western middle class;
for people in the third world, the question isn't "will he be autistic
rather than neurotypical," it's "will he survive to adulthood."

All I said was, "provide the information and
let them make the choice."

You are saying that you feel you can guess at
their conditions, and make decisions for them.

That's some amazing hubris. (Though in fact, the source
of this idea is not hubris, but the small amount
of profits that would be realized by not
throwing away manufacturing equipment immediately.)

David Wright wrote:

Except that you're u sing "potential risks/benefits" as a euphemism
for "vaccines cause autism! there's no question of this! there will
never be any question of this! nothing can change my mind!"

You are lying, I never said or implied that.

David Wright wrote:

The trouble with this sort of absolute pronouncement is that it
implicitly denies that the corporation might, in fact, actually
be innocent of anything.

Yes, you are reading that right. It is possible (though
extremely unlikely) that somehow thimerosal is not responsible.
But the corporation is definitely and certainly not innocent,
for it's clearly guilty of an attempted cover-up of facts
and manipulation of the legislative system.

For otherwise, why is there a law of the land today, protecting
the corporation from liability?

wrote:
David Wright wrote:


The trouble with this sort of absolute pronouncement is that it
implicitly denies that the corporation might, in fact, actually
be innocent of anything.


Yes, you are reading that right. It is possible (though
extremely unlikely) that somehow thimerosal is not responsible.
But the corporation is definitely and certainly not innocent,
for it's clearly guilty of an attempted cover-up of facts
and manipulation of the legislative system.

For otherwise, why is there a law of the land today, protecting
the corporation from liability?



For one good reason...if they were not protect4ed from liability,
research and development will dry up.

The long term ramifications of the Vioxx suits have not been explored. I
hope that you are never in pain requiring medications that were NOT
developed as the result of the suits.

Mark Probert wrote:
wrote:
David Wright wrote:


The trouble with this sort of absolute pronouncement is that it
implicitly denies that the corporation might, in fact, actually
be innocent of anything.


Yes, you are reading that right. It is possible (though
extremely unlikely) that somehow thimerosal is not responsible.
But the corporation is definitely and certainly not innocent,
for it's clearly guilty of an attempted cover-up of facts
and manipulation of the legislative system.

For otherwise, why is there a law of the land today, protecting
the corporation from liability?



For one good reason...if they were not protect4ed from liability,
research and development will dry up.

The long term ramifications of the Vioxx suits have not been explored. I
hope that you are never in pain requiring medications that were NOT
developed as the result of the suits.

And why would that be different from being in pain from
medications that were developed because of irresponsible
behavior brought on by lack of accountability?

I'm opposed to vaccines in general so didn't want to dilute my points by
debating thimerosol. As Dr Stern says, maybe mercury/thimerosol is not the
"cause".

Not directly, that is. Mercury, thimerosol or in other form, is a
poison. If, as alluded to in Dr. Stern'sarticle, autism is a "genetic
disorder...which may be triggered by other components,"let us look at the
overall load these children have been subjected to. The mercury may be
only one environmental factor, but since it is known to be a neurotoxin,
why administer it to growing brains? Since we can't control the genes,
let's control the environment by not administering known neurotoxins to
children, and see what happens.

Nothing bad will happen, surely, by avoiding thimerosol.

wrote:
Eric Bohlman wrote:


The problem here is that in underdeveloped countries, "reduction in shelf
life" and "50% higher prices" aren't just matters of convenience; they
can make the difference between kids being vaccinated and kids not being
vaccinated. Worrying about vaccine/autism connections is a rather
expensive hobby that can only be afforded by the Western middle class;
for people in the third world, the question isn't "will he be autistic
rather than neurotypical," it's "will he survive to adulthood."


All I said was, "provide the information and
let them make the choice."

You are saying that you feel you can guess at
their conditions

Strawman.

HCN said nothing of the sort. In undeveloped countires there are
diseases which are rare in the US, etc. which are common there.

, and make decisions for them.

That's some amazing hubris. (Though in fact, the source
of this idea is not hubris, but the small amount
of profits that would be realized by not
throwing away manufacturing equipment immediately.)

Of course you substitute bull**** like that for real argument.