I’ve worked with autistic people for 15 & I’ve not met one parent who believes that a vaccination caused their child’s autism. In fact, most parents feel they can trace it down family lines & therefore belive it to be somehow linked to genetics.
As parents to autistic children we also feel
there is a genetic link. I’d love to know if there are autistic people who have not been vaccinated. How do their parents explain that I wonder.
Interesting question Re, I'd like to hear that too. I think the vax link is a dangerous myth that plays on the fear and stress of parents and in RFK's case - and many others- monetizes them. Autism is definitely genetic. You're born autistic. The environment intersects with your genes, and there's changes across the trajectory because of that but autism is in the brain you start with.
How likely is for 5 years old to turn severely autistic overnight?
"5-Year-Old Develops Autism After Being Forced to Get 18 Vaccines in 1 Day
As part of a custody battle, a Tennessee judge ordered a family to vaccinate all three of their children, all of whom had never been vaccinated. Five-year-old Isaac immediately became ill and was eventually diagnosed with severe regressive autism."
I don't know anything about Isaac's case, but as stated in the newsletter above, correlation is not causation. There's a wealth of misinformation on the internet. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920122/
Can you answer the simple question above: How likely is for 5 years old pretty verbal and communicative kids at that age, easy to note the difference) to turn severely autistic overnight?
Can you run any statistics/odds, any numbers? How many kids, you sound like it is super common even, so nothing to worry about?!
You did not say anything about that specific case, did you read linked content at all?
When you go and visit medical professional, and you ate/did something that gives you trouble, do you expect them to send you home while they tell you "correlation is not causation, your condition is random event"
If not, you are hypocrite!
Or to you expect from them to be inquisitive about prior events?
You posting unrelated article about misinformation is definitely not arguing in good faith, but typical gaslighting attempt!
Do you understand the mechanism by which they believe this neurodiversity unfolded post vaccination? I’d be keen to explore your understanding of this.
There is no single unifying conclusion as to why people have autism other than it is an inherited neurodevelopmental condition. Environmental factors play a part. I think the main reason that the vax connection was so believable is that commonly autism symptoms begin to be mappable at around the same point in childhood that the vax is given.
Because you first need to understand the myth to enable you to debunk it. I see no comprehension or correlation of understanding here as to why these “myths” are so “sticky”. Only stabs that they’re wrong. I am learning, not attacking.
I'll take your comment in good faith. The idea that the MMR vax caused autism meets all the criteria listed above for a 'sticky' myth: it's a falsehood that 'feels real' and so becomes over time, believed by many. There's nothing to inherently 'understand' about the vax/autism link. It's a wrong conclusion perpetuated by bad science.
I also took your post in good faith. Which is why I just wanted to make sure that you didn’t know anything about why this myth holds such strength, I thought maybe you had information to contradict the facts ascertaining to their assertions. Maybe that will come yet.
Do you recognise that an overwhelming majority of those who conduct the experiments in this field do not conclude that there is any relationship between vaccines and autism? The technological and medical advances since the Enlightenment - and particularly the explosion of the last 100 years - have relied upon the scientific method. Within this there are massive incentives to seek and disseminate truth. Individuals in any field may be deceptive or craven, but the scientific method is perpetual self-correcting. To be able to describe an experiment and have it replicated at any time and any place is the core of the scientific method. There's a universality to it. There's also social gravitas and a positive feedback loop to having a validated theory - the simpler it is, the more replicable it is, the greater the status is awarded to the individual scientist. There is reason to be sceptical of people in authority, who have incentives to crush popular dissent, but the scientific world has correcting forces. A time machine transporting you for a brief visit to a time before the wonders of modern science might be a sobering journey for you. I can't engage with your position on this, but I respect your right to hold it. Let's leave it there. Happy Friday!
Again on the link you have valid analysis of 2 experiments in the field with nuanced explanations, and you have Offit's claim/"interpretation"? Is his claim valid?
Please use scientific method to disprove my claim, i will gladly accept your logic argument based on data presented, even if i am wrong!
If not, then we have a problem, you have faith in false system!
Another problem is you base all your argument on your faith!
That is dogma not science!
You are not engaging on data, zero engagement, all you are doing is using appeal to authority fallacy, of course you can't engage, seems to me you lack capacity to engage, so you refer to, agan, Argumentum ad verecundiam followed by ad hominem.
I’ve worked with autistic people for 15 & I’ve not met one parent who believes that a vaccination caused their child’s autism. In fact, most parents feel they can trace it down family lines & therefore belive it to be somehow linked to genetics.
As parents to autistic children we also feel
there is a genetic link. I’d love to know if there are autistic people who have not been vaccinated. How do their parents explain that I wonder.
Interesting question Re, I'd like to hear that too. I think the vax link is a dangerous myth that plays on the fear and stress of parents and in RFK's case - and many others- monetizes them. Autism is definitely genetic. You're born autistic. The environment intersects with your genes, and there's changes across the trajectory because of that but autism is in the brain you start with.
Can you comment on Isaac's case?
How likely is for 5 years old to turn severely autistic overnight?
"5-Year-Old Develops Autism After Being Forced to Get 18 Vaccines in 1 Day
As part of a custody battle, a Tennessee judge ordered a family to vaccinate all three of their children, all of whom had never been vaccinated. Five-year-old Isaac immediately became ill and was eventually diagnosed with severe regressive autism."
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/isaac-ihben-autism-vaccine-injury/
I don't know anything about Isaac's case, but as stated in the newsletter above, correlation is not causation. There's a wealth of misinformation on the internet. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920122/
Can you answer the simple question above: How likely is for 5 years old pretty verbal and communicative kids at that age, easy to note the difference) to turn severely autistic overnight?
Can you run any statistics/odds, any numbers? How many kids, you sound like it is super common even, so nothing to worry about?!
You did not say anything about that specific case, did you read linked content at all?
When you go and visit medical professional, and you ate/did something that gives you trouble, do you expect them to send you home while they tell you "correlation is not causation, your condition is random event"
If not, you are hypocrite!
Or to you expect from them to be inquisitive about prior events?
You posting unrelated article about misinformation is definitely not arguing in good faith, but typical gaslighting attempt!
Do you understand the mechanism by which they believe this neurodiversity unfolded post vaccination? I’d be keen to explore your understanding of this.
There is no single unifying conclusion as to why people have autism other than it is an inherited neurodevelopmental condition. Environmental factors play a part. I think the main reason that the vax connection was so believable is that commonly autism symptoms begin to be mappable at around the same point in childhood that the vax is given.
I’ve recently come to believe there is more to it than that sadly. Time will tell all. Thanks.
There's so much left for us to understand about autism. I have no doubt my own knowledge is minimal. Good luck with your research.
Because you first need to understand the myth to enable you to debunk it. I see no comprehension or correlation of understanding here as to why these “myths” are so “sticky”. Only stabs that they’re wrong. I am learning, not attacking.
I'll take your comment in good faith. The idea that the MMR vax caused autism meets all the criteria listed above for a 'sticky' myth: it's a falsehood that 'feels real' and so becomes over time, believed by many. There's nothing to inherently 'understand' about the vax/autism link. It's a wrong conclusion perpetuated by bad science.
I also took your post in good faith. Which is why I just wanted to make sure that you didn’t know anything about why this myth holds such strength, I thought maybe you had information to contradict the facts ascertaining to their assertions. Maybe that will come yet.
She is refusing to explore any information that is in opposition to her Implicit bias, definitely not a sign of good faith!
I.E is this comment from one of the most influential people in the field (Paul Offit) done in good faith? https://fastscience.substack.com/p/paul-offit-on-dr-mike
Let me know, is Paul right? is it 1 in 45? Or was he cherrypicking the facts to create misinformation?
Do you recognise that an overwhelming majority of those who conduct the experiments in this field do not conclude that there is any relationship between vaccines and autism? The technological and medical advances since the Enlightenment - and particularly the explosion of the last 100 years - have relied upon the scientific method. Within this there are massive incentives to seek and disseminate truth. Individuals in any field may be deceptive or craven, but the scientific method is perpetual self-correcting. To be able to describe an experiment and have it replicated at any time and any place is the core of the scientific method. There's a universality to it. There's also social gravitas and a positive feedback loop to having a validated theory - the simpler it is, the more replicable it is, the greater the status is awarded to the individual scientist. There is reason to be sceptical of people in authority, who have incentives to crush popular dissent, but the scientific world has correcting forces. A time machine transporting you for a brief visit to a time before the wonders of modern science might be a sobering journey for you. I can't engage with your position on this, but I respect your right to hold it. Let's leave it there. Happy Friday!
Again on the link you have valid analysis of 2 experiments in the field with nuanced explanations, and you have Offit's claim/"interpretation"? Is his claim valid?
Please use scientific method to disprove my claim, i will gladly accept your logic argument based on data presented, even if i am wrong!
If not, then we have a problem, you have faith in false system!
Another problem is you base all your argument on your faith!
That is dogma not science!
You are not engaging on data, zero engagement, all you are doing is using appeal to authority fallacy, of course you can't engage, seems to me you lack capacity to engage, so you refer to, agan, Argumentum ad verecundiam followed by ad hominem.