Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Libertarianism: For Adults Only?
Last month, Tina Carlsen was arrested last month for kidnapping her infant son, Riley Rogers. Her crime? Sneaking Riley out of a Seattle hospital in order to prevent surgery ordered by his doctors and a judge. Riley suffers from a congenital condition which is causing his kidneys to fail and the doctors want to install a catheter that would prepare him for eventual dialysis. Carlsen wanted to try alternative homeopathic treatments including ionic footbaths.
Doctors performed the surgery on June 30 and Riley was released into the custody of his father. Carlsen, who is out of jail on $500,000 bond, is being allowed state-supervised visits.
Just how bone-headed must parental decisions about a child's welfare be before the government should intervene is one of the toughest questions for philosophical libertarians. Generally I tend to bow to medical expertise (especially when the "alternative" is bogus homeopathic treatments), but medicine is not exact, so there are plenty of gray areas. It is true that Carlsen violated a court order, but is justice really being served now by prosecuting her?
|7.12.06 @ 11:57AM|#
Recently, my wife & I have been attending childbirth
classes. At the last one, the subject of childhood immunizations
came up. More than half of the upper-midlle class yuppies in the
class, including the midwife leading the thing, regard immunizing a
child as being identical to injecting the child with 50 cc of
retard juice.
I'm all for libertarianism, but then there are things that make me
question the rationality of a political philosophy based in part on
the majority of folks having at least a low to mediocre ability to
make good decisions.
Dan T.|7.12.06 @ 11:58AM|#
It is true that Carlsen violated a court order, but is
justice really being served now by prosecuting her?
Yes. We must be willing and able to enforce court decisions or else
the courts become useless.
|7.12.06 @ 11:59AM|#
Could it depend on the evidence for alternative treatments vs. allopathic treatments for whatever case we are talking about? Suppose it's one specific form of cancer (or some other disease heretofore resistant to western modern medical techniques) where the allopathic treatment success has been 0 to 5 percent. Maybe then a parents use of an alternative treatment would not seem like child abuse.
|7.12.06 @ 12:04PM|#
We must be willing and able to enforce court decisions or
else the courts become useless.
Dan T has it right...when everything is arbitrary, then you have
chaos...I don't think libertarianism = anarchy.
Having said that, one could argue that the courts are already
meaningless. In which case....
|7.12.06 @ 12:09PM|#
Dan T. What about prosecutorial discretion? Not every infraction that can be prosecuted is prosecuted, right?
|7.12.06 @ 12:11PM|#
From a libertarian perspective, it seems to me that allowing the state to dictate treatment (even if it happens to be the correct treatment) can only mean trouble in the long run -- i.e., further control over our lives.
Dan T.|7.12.06 @ 12:13PM|#
Dan T. What about prosecutorial discretion? Not every
infraction that can be prosecuted is prosecuted, right?
A fair point. But this appears to be a pretty severe case so I
think we must be willing to show that court orders must be honored
when a child's health or life is on the line.
|7.12.06 @ 12:13PM|#
I agree ... libertarianism is not anarchy. Don't libertarian
drivers appreciate traffic lights? If you have traffic lights, you
need cops and courts to enforce them ... otherwise it's not safe to
drive.
This case is a slam dunk. It would be different if it was a
religious circumcision, but in this case it's not. Homeopathy is
not accepted by modern medicine. That's not a statist plot. It's
science.
|7.12.06 @ 12:24PM|#
If she had just named the kid "Elian," the government would have gone into the hospital with assault rifles and pulled the kid out for her!
|7.12.06 @ 12:31PM|#
I suspect that we can go around in all of the same circles that
we've gone around in when similar issues have been discussed. I
won't try to answer any of the hard questions in this post, but
simply point out that some of the questions are in fact hard and
cannot be resolved by a simplified application of libertarian
philosophy. Parents have rights as well as responsibilities. We can
debate about where the lines should be drawn, but it's clear that
as long as parents have responsibilities for their kids then it
will, from time to time, be necessary for a court to intervene. Sad
but true.
One thing to keep in mind is that the father didn't seem to oppose
the surgery. He was very conflicted and seemed to think that both
the mother and the doctors should have handled it better. The
father's unease with the situation makes it murkier.
Also, Ron, you say that you usually come down on the side of
medical experts. You are also very big on defending the right to
engage in all sorts of medical procedures that at this point are
rather speculative. Now, I realize you would not want anybody to be
coerced into getting a speculative futuristic treatment,
but imagine this scenario:
What if, instead of some all natural homeopathic hippy dippy age of
aquarias alternative treatment, the mother had wanted to try a very
new and still experimental treatment that had such buzzwords as
"human enhancement" attached? (We'll assume that you own no stock
in the company selling it :)
Would you defer to the medical experts, or would you be all in
favor of trying the new frontiers of medicine?
|7.12.06 @ 12:38PM|#
The case is far more complex (and fucked up) then you
think:
From the Post:
"His mother, whose family has a history of kidney disease,
questioned why the operation and the dialysis could not wait until
the procedures were really needed.
Carlsen's doctor alerted Child Protective Services at least three
times after Carlsen sought to treat her son with natural remedies
instead of surgery. The child's parents asked to see another
physician, but Dr. Nicole Becker stayed involved, according to
Carlsen's attorney, Michael Shipley."
The doctor lied to the police and said that the child's life was in
danger, thus prompting the Amber Alert, when in fact the child may
not need the surgery EVER.
Ultimately, the doctor didn't want the mother to get a second
opinion (which is why he stayed involved in the case), and wasn't
about to let her do anything that he didn't okay.
I hope she sues the hospital into bankruptcy.
|7.12.06 @ 1:10PM|#
WSDave-
Based on what you're saying, it sounds like this case is pretty
simple based on the facts, and an appeal to principle is not really
needed here. If the doctor lied about the danger then the situation
is pretty straightforward.
That's what I get for skimming the article.
Still, Ron's willingness to go with the medical experts over
alternative medicine may run into problems if the medical experts
cast doubt on a speculative treatment.
Any comments, Ron?
Captain Holly|7.12.06 @ 1:16PM|#
This is a difficult question, but at the same time, one
shouldn't be so quick to assume that doctors and the social
services bureaucracies are inherently better than parents when it
comes to determining what's best for their kids.
And as an example, I give you the case of Parker Jensen, who was
diagnosed by a pediatric oncologist as having oral cancer and was
prescribed chemotherapy. When his parents requested a second
opinion and less severe, "naturopathic" treatments -- a perfectly
reasonable request -- the doctor turned them into the Utah child
protection bureaucracy, who in turn argued in court that Parker
would die within a year unless he got treatment. The
judge, without hearing any contrary arguments, agreed and ordered
him to be taken from his parents.
The parents took Parker and fled to Idaho. They were eventually
arrested and brought back to Utah, but the resulting outcry from
the public forced the state to back down. In the end, the state
gave in and allowed the parents to keep him and treat him as they
felt best. The Jensens just recently won a round in their lawsuit
against the state employees who engineered the whole fiasco,
although final payment is several years away.
And Parker? Well, almost exactly three years after he was nearly
forced into chemotherapy to save him from cancer, he is still
healthy and cancer-free.
Murray Rothbard's Ghost|7.12.06 @ 2:58PM|#
We can clearly deduce the answer from the non-aggression principle. The one true correct libertarian answer is ... ah, hell, this one's hard...
|7.12.06 @ 3:09PM|#
Deferring to medical conventional wisdom and overriding the
inclinations of parents is totalitarian and a recipe for disaster
for our children. Do we need any more proof than the appalling
explosion in autism coinciding with the expansion of the
state-mandated vaccine schedule (notwithstanding attempts to
vindicate vaccinations by government agencies)?
If the state could prove (to the satisfaction of a jury) that the
parents were abusive and/or negligent, then this type of
intervention might be justifiable. But to ASSUME abuse/negligence
because the parent does not agree with the bureaucrats as to the
appropriate treatment, basically says that you do not have the
right to raise your child as you see fit, that the state is the
real parent.
|7.12.06 @ 3:09PM|#
Damned server squirrels! I've been trying to post the below for
a while.
Thoreau: All of my discussions concerning advanced biotech
treatments (and enhancements) is premised on their being reasonably
safe. See, for example, my arguments against human reproductive
cloning now. Of course, what is "reasonably" safe will depend on
the specific treatments when they become available. Ask me about
them then.
One further note--my writing and reporting on speculative biotech
treatments is basically aimed at trying to persuade people to allow
the research to go forward rather than be pre-emptively banned on
grounds of "repugnance" a la Kass and others. Let's wait and see
what people will do when the time comes instead of assuming from
the get-go that the new technologies will be widely abused.
Now I have to go get a jumpstart for my car.
|7.12.06 @ 3:22PM|#
Damned server squirrels! I've been trying to post the below for
a while.
Thoreau: All of my discussions concerning advanced biotech
treatments (and enhancements) is premised on their being reasonably
safe. See, for example, my arguments against human reproductive
cloning now. Of course, what is "reasonably" safe will depend on
the specific treatments when they become available. Ask me about
them then.
One further note--my writing and reporting on speculative biotech
treatments is basically aimed at trying to persuade people to allow
the research to go forward rather than be pre-emptively banned on
grounds of "repugnance" a la Kass and others. Let's wait and see
what people will do when the time comes instead of assuming from
the get-go that the new technologies will be widely abused.
Now I have to go get a jumpstart for my car.
|7.12.06 @ 3:42PM|#
appalling explosion in autism coinciding with the expansion
of the state-mandated vaccine
Now let's hear about fluoridation of water as a
government-sponsored mind control method.
Bretigne|7.12.06 @ 3:49PM|#
fishfry,
Re: "Homeopathy is not accepted by modern medicine. That's not a
statist plot. It's science."
Actually, that's not true. In the mid-19th century there was a
pretty nasty political battle within medicine between the
homeopathic and the "allopathic" (what we now call conventional
medicine) camps. The allopaths won with the establishment of the
AMA which began to set the standards for medical schools -- with a
decidedly anti-homeopathic bent. This bias was not based on any
scientific studies or hard evidence, but on the political alliances
of those within the AMA. In fact, one of the major beefs the
allopaths had was that homeopathic doctors were making more money
than they were -- in other words, they were doing a better job of
satisfying their customers. The AMA, like any other union, was
trying to stifle competition to the benefit of its members. They
did a pretty good job.
To my knowledge, there has never been any scientific "showdown"
proving that conventional medicine works better than homeopathic
medicine. Medical intervention is responsible for at least 225,000
deaths annually in the US, according to JAMA (other estimates are
much higher), including 106,000 deaths due to "non-error, adverse
effects of medications." As far as I know, homeopathy has never
killed anyone. And there are plenty of peer-reviewed professional
journals documenting its successes.
My point here is not to argue that homeopathy is better than
allopathy, but to point out that the science is
not in on this, for the simple reason that the
science has not been done. (Then of course there?s the whole
question of the two systems having radically different ideas of
what it means to heal or cure a patient. But that's a topic all on
its own.) It amazes me that so many libertarians are so willing to
put their faith in conventional medical authority simply because it
is authority -- particularly when this industry is so
overwhelmingly characterized by statist intervention, rent-seeking,
politically motivated funding, etc.
Bretigne|7.12.06 @ 3:55PM|#
Abdul,
Re: "More than half of the upper-midlle class yuppies in the class,
including the midwife leading the thing, regard immunizing a child
as being identical to injecting the child with 50 cc of retard
juice."
So I guess you missed this: "Salon:
Deadly Immunity"? There is plenty of evidence showing vaccines
to be harmful. In fact, the medical community doesn't deny that
there are risks -- the only points of contention are precisely what
and how high those risks are.
"I'm all for libertarianism, but then there are things that make me
question the rationality of a political philosophy based in part on
the majority of folks having at least a low to mediocre ability to
make good decisions."
Yeah, wouldn't it be great if everyone made "good decisions." And
wouldn't it be even better if I got to be the one to decide what
that meant. But I'm all for libertarianism.
|7.12.06 @ 4:04PM|#
AC,
Nice try to discredit me.
Rather than dismiss these concerns out of hand as irrational
hysteria, why don't you do some homework and actually investigate
the science behind these concerns.
This article would be a good place to start:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller14.html
After reading this article and contemplating the matter, ask
yourself if you (and by extension, the average judge or bureaucrat)
really are so certain in your medical knowledge that you are
qualified to take away the parent's perogative to decide what is
best for their kids and put the life and well-being of another
parent's kid in your hands.
|7.12.06 @ 4:23PM|#
Rather than dismiss these concerns out of hand as irrational
hysteria, why don't you do some homework and actually investigate
the science behind these concerns.
I wouldn't be dismissing them as irrational if I hadn't already
researched them. I fully understand the concerns about immunization
from a libertarian point of view, but junk science is not necessary
to justify those concerns.
|7.12.06 @ 4:29PM|#
Well, we have enough cases when Christian Science parents (and
others) refuse medical treatment for their kids and rely on prayer.
Documented cases where the kid has died.
What's the libertarian view on that?
|7.12.06 @ 4:37PM|#
AC,
Please enlighten us as to how junk science is being used to justify
concerns regarding vaccination.
|7.12.06 @ 4:58PM|#
Oh great, a fucking pile of shit anti-vaccination woo.
Go sell your snake oil elsewhere, Weinier.
|7.12.06 @ 5:02PM|#
Go sell your snake oil elsewhere, Weinier.
It's snake oil to point out that there are legitimate risks with
vaccines (like with any types of medication)? Good to know...
Let's just ignore truths because they don't fit our world
view....just like the religious dogmatists you are so found of
attacking....hyppocrite
|7.12.06 @ 5:06PM|#
Akira,
Now that you have argued the point so thoughtfully and
persuasively, I don't know what I was thinking! I don't know what
we would do without all of the rational commentators on the Reason
blog to set the story straight!
|7.12.06 @ 5:08PM|#
When the "risks" arereply to this
|7.12.06 @ 5:11PM|#
Edit:
When the "risks" of vaccination are bullshit?
You bet your ass it's snake oil!
|7.12.06 @ 5:14PM|#
Also, since when does being a libertarian for some now include being an anti-science knuckle-dragger? (e.g. "Global Warming is a myth!" "Evolution is just a 'theory!'" "Vaccines do more harm than good!" "AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus!" )
|7.12.06 @ 5:19PM|#
"...but medicine is not exact, so there are plenty of gray
areas."
I hate to break it to you Ron, but "homeopathic
medicine" would have eventually killed the kid surer than shit.
That's an absolute.
slightlybad|7.12.06 @ 5:24PM|#
I don't have any particular knowledge about vaccines and autism
(nor, since I am currently childless, do I really give a shit). I
do, however, have a friend who is a pediatrician with one of the
top teaching hospitals in the country. She also has a stepson who
is autistic. I asked her if there was any connection between autism
and vaccination and she said there was absolutely no evidence with
any basis in science. I also asked her if she was planning on
vaccinating her own children and she absolutely is going to do
so.
Again, no personal knowledge on my part, but when weighing her
judgement against the quacks who inject themselves with silver
iodine or whatever and turn themselves blue, I know who I'll take
everytime.
|7.12.06 @ 5:26PM|#
I wouldn't be at all shocked if it should turn out that vaccines
carry more risks than we realize.
But....
1) I doubt that those risks come anywhere near the risks that we
assume in lots of other daily activities.
2) The risks of not getting vaccinated against certain diseases are
known, and the only reason those risks are so low is because
everybody else is getting vaccinated.
By all means, if you don't want to do something I'm all in favor of
your right to not do it. But don't kid yourself into thinking that
you're the sharpest tool in the shed for not getting
vaccinated.
|7.12.06 @ 5:37PM|#
But don't kid yourself into thinking that you're the
sharpest tool in the shed for not getting vaccinated.
I really don't mind if they continue to think of themselves as
tools, though.
|7.12.06 @ 5:47PM|#
Akira,
Let me get this straight....
There are absolutely NO health risks associated with any
vaccinations? None! Zip! Zero! Zilch! No one has ever had an
adverse reaction to vaccinations ever? And anyone who even mentions
a potential risk is a snake oil salesman correct?
That is your position correct?
Because no one here seems to be taking the position that the risks
outweight the benefit or that they are a bad/stupid move....Just
pointing out that there are risks to weigh and decisions to be made
(even if they are a no-brainer to such wise people as yourself and
Mr. Bailey)
Captain Holly|7.12.06 @ 5:49PM|#
2) The risks of not getting vaccinated against certain
diseases are known, and the only reason those risks are so low is
because everybody else is getting vaccinated.
Or because the vaccine is more for parental convenience than for
preventing significant public health hazards.
Such as the chickenpox vaccine that I recently refused for my five
year-old daughter. Not because I have anything against vaccines,
but because:
1) The risk of getting complications from chickenpox for healthy,
normal children is almost zero;
2) There have been questions about how long the vaccine provides
protection, and chickenpox is something you don't want to get as an
adult;
and
3) I wanted to piss off the powers-that-be. :-)
If she doesn't get it by the time she hits adolesence I'll probably
have her vaccinated. By then there should be a clearer picture of
how long the vaccine lasts.
But trust me, the folks at the Health Dept./School District were
not pleased.
|7.12.06 @ 5:52PM|#
Akira,
Now I understand. Since an organization called "Quackwatch" (which
is dedicated to attacking any practices or philosophies which
compete with allopathic medicine) discounts the risks of
vaccinations, I should believe them and accept their whitewash
research and dismiss all evidence presented by respected doctors
and scientists who I might otherwise find credible. Sure.
Don't you realize that there are statists at many think tanks who
spend all their time trying to undermine libertarian philosophy and
those who would like to see changes to the status quo in the
political sphere? It's all about preserving the status quo. And
quackwatch performs the same function for conventional medicine.
Open your eyes Akira and you might discover that you're the one
who's been buying the snake oil!
|7.12.06 @ 5:59PM|#
"appalling explosion in autism coinciding with the expansion of
the state-mandated vaccine"
Two pieces of information:
The appallling explosion in autism is coincident with a change in
the diagnostic criteria, and improved efforts to identify
cases.
Prior to the change in definition, there were not good data as to
the incidence of autism in the population...this makes it
impossible to compare current rates with historical rates.
And just for the record, all epidemiological efforts (and there
were many) to establish a link between vaccination and autism found
no evidence to support the link.
It is scientifically plausible that there is an extremely small
number of children who develop autism due to mercury in
vaccinations, but this would be the rare (very, very rare)
exception, not the rule. This means that, if it ever happens at
all, it is rare that a child with autism (an already extremely rare
condition) has autism due to a vaccination.
(I did an extensive review of the literature for an epidemiology
class recently, this is based on pretty much all the available
studies in English as of last year...I will refrain from posting
the multiple pages of references).
|7.12.06 @ 6:07PM|#
Captain Holly-
Chicken pox is one case where I agree with you. If at all possible
I would refrain from vaccinating a kid until the teen years. Not so
much because I'm worried about side effects, but rather because I'm
worried about the protection wearing off as you point out.
|7.12.06 @ 6:07PM|#
Now I understand. Since an organization called "Quackwatch"
(which is dedicated to attacking any practices or philosophies
which compete with allopathic medicine)...
Ah, there it is, allopathic. I almost pissed myself
anticipating it.
Bretigne|7.12.06 @ 6:09PM|#
Re: "Since an organization called "Quackwatch" (which is
dedicated to attacking any practices or philosophies which compete
with allopathic medicine)"
Likewise Akira's link to Skepticwiki's page on homeopathy -- it
would appear that these "skeptics" are very selective in
determining to whom they apply their skepticism. For a more honest
appraisal, try wikipedia's page.
|7.12.06 @ 6:12PM|#
Soooo... We are suppose to disregard peer reviewed and tested
(and retested, and retested) evidence from doctors, biologists, and
other professionals from related scientific disciplines in favor of
faith healers, crystal worshipers, herbalists and other con artists
who have never shown any scientific evidence that they can heal
shit?
Riiiiight.
|7.12.06 @ 6:16PM|#
For a more honest appraisal, try wikipedia's
page.
Ahem:
"The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is
disputed."
Fucktard.
|7.12.06 @ 6:23PM|#
We are suppose to disregard peer reviewed and tested (and
retested, and retested) evidence from doctors, biologists, and
other professionals from related scientific disciplines in favor of
faith healers, crystal worshipers, herbalists and other con artists
who have never shown any scientific evidence that they can heal
shit?
No we are supposed to look at the results, weigh the risks /
rewards and make those decisions for ourselves and our families
without being called rubes by people who think they are smarter
than everyone else.
I know a few people who have forgone vaccinations for their
children and have had no health problems other than typical colds
and stuff....so from a financial perspective it might make sense to
forgo them -- since everyone else is getting them maybe I dont need
to.
And again -- you ignore my question -- are you asserting that there
exactly ZERO risks associated with vaccinations. NONE at
all???
If the answer to that is no, then is low-risk the same as no-risk
-- and should you really be judging other people's risk tolerance
like those statists everyone deplores?
Bretigne|7.12.06 @ 6:24PM|#
Mainstreamman,
Re: "The appallling explosion in autism is coincident with a change
in the diagnostic criteria, and improved efforts to identify
cases.
Prior to the change in definition, there were not good data as to
the incidence of autism in the population...this makes it
impossible to compare current rates with historical rates."
Improved diagnosis doesn't explain the increase -- if it did, we
would be able to see the same rate of autism in older people after
1943 (who would have been children before autism was first
identified) as in children. I don't think that has been the case.
It also doesn't explain why communities (such as the Amish) that
don't vaccinate have near-zero rates of autism.
"And just for the record, all epidemiological efforts (and there
were many) to establish a link between vaccination and autism found
no evidence to support the link."
Not true. The studies cited in the Salon article I mentioned
earlier ("Salon:
Deadly Immunity") establish a very strong link between vaccines
containing thimerosal and autism. So much so that the CDC and
others tried to repress the results.
I'd be really interested to hear what the pro-vaccine folk here
think of the Salon article. I've seen some attempts to rebut it but
they've been pretty weak. If the article is correct, then the link
seems indisputable.
|7.12.06 @ 6:24PM|#
I just posted this on the other health related thread...
http://www.compmed.umm.edu/Cochrane/index.html
Is a group who are collecting the scientific evidence for
alternative medical practices...
They have links that allow you to assess the evidence
yourself...
Click over to the Child of the Stars thread for more
details...
Wikipedia is not a good resource in areas of controversy, much more
reliable in areas where matters are pretty much settled.
|7.12.06 @ 6:32PM|#
I have no idea if autism rates are increasing, but (1) I know to
be very skeptical because the criteria were changed and (2)
comparisons with the Amish, however interesting they may be, could
never be used to establish that vaccines are the cause of any
discrepancy. Consider all of the other lifestyle and environmental
factors that differ, and it should be obvious why such comparisons
would be useless for establishing any sort of causality.
Being libertarian doesn't mean you have to buy into any and all
wacky theories that come down the pipeline with no real evidence.
Otherwise, libertarians would have to embrace communism.
Bretigne|7.12.06 @ 6:39PM|#
For a more honest appraisal, try wikipedia's
page.
Ahem:
"The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is
disputed.".
I'd say that's being pretty honest. (Unlike the site you linked to
that contained only a smattering of information supporting only one
side of the issue.)
|7.12.06 @ 6:42PM|#
It also doesn't explain why communities (such as the Amish)
that don't vaccinate have near-zero rates of autism.
Actually, the improved diagnostics theory pretty handily explains
that, if you consider it a moment. And it would make perfect sense
if autistic adults didn't generally undergo the same tests as
potentially autistic children.
Bretigne|7.12.06 @ 6:49PM|#
Actually, the improved diagnostics theory pretty handily
explains that, if you consider it a moment. And it would make
perfect sense if autistic adults didn't generally undergo the same
tests as potentially autistic children.
Sorry, I must be missing something. How does the improved
diagnostics theory explain the lack of autism among the Amish? And
why would potentially autistic adults not undergo the same testing
as potentially autistic children?
|7.12.06 @ 6:50PM|#
Unlike the site you linked to that contained only a
smattering of information supporting only one side of the
issue.
As if there IS another side.
OK, What is your peer reviewed and testable evidence that
alternative medicine works?
|7.12.06 @ 6:53PM|#
Bretigne,
Well, when you believe that the evidence was suppressed it is
difficult to refute your position using the lack of evidence, but
here is a quick summary of some of the findings from the basic
science--
In a systematic review of 42 studies on the prevalence of Autism
Spectrum Disorders (ASD), Williams, Higgins, & Brayne (2005)
found the overall random-effects estimate of prevalence across
studies of typical autism (TA) to be 7.1 per 10,000 (95% CI: 1.6,
30.6, based on 37 estimates) and of all ASD to be 20.0 per 10,000
(95% CI: 4.9, 82.1, based on 23 estimates). The extremely wide
confidence intervals (e.g., over 1900% difference for TA) found in
this review highlight the difficulty involved in providing
convincing evidence for or against a true increase in the number of
individuals with autism.
In their review, Williams et. al found several factors were
significantly associated with differences in prevalence estimates.
Sixty-one percent of the variation in prevalence estimates for TA
was explained by three factors which included the diagnostic
criteria used (OR=3.36�95% CI: 2.07, 5.46), how old children were
when screened (OR=0.91 per year of age difference�95% CI:
0.83-0.99), and where the study was conducted (e.g., Japan vs.
Denmark; OR=3.60�95% CI: 1.73, 7.46). For all ASD, it was found
that diagnostic criteria was the most important factor associated
with differences in prevalence estimates, while age of the sample
explained 50% of the variance, and urban or rural location
explained 53% of the variance in estimates. For both TA and ASD
estimates, the authors found �the time variation in prevalence is
so closely linked to changes in diagnostic criteria, the two could
not be examined separately (pg. 12).� The confounding between time
and diagnostic criteria across these studies makes it difficult to
support an argument that true prevalence is increasing. This
problem has been recognized for a number of years (see Fombonne
2001, 2003, McCormick, 2003, Lingam et. al 2003) and has led to a
call for better monitoring systems to allow for comparison across
time by holding case-definitions and case-ascertainment
methodologies constant (for instance, Fombonne 2001, also see
Honda, Shimizu, Imai, & Nitto, 2005, Lawler, Croen,
Grether,& Van de Water, 2004).
...
While it seems it should be clear that the current state of affairs
does not allow for unequivocal statements about the change in the
true prevalence of autism, prevalence research has been used in
many studies to examine potential causes of autism. The most heated
debate surrounds whether or not autism may be related to children�s
exposure to certain childhood vaccinations. This debate was
initially sparked by a study showing a potential association
between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccination and regressive
autistic symptoms in 12 children referred for gastroenterology
consultation (Wakefield et. al, 1998). In their report, Wakefield
et. al suggest that their findings would predict a rise in the
frequency of autism diagnosis in the years following the
introduction of MMR in the United Kingdom in 1988. The study to
test this hypothesis was conducted in the UK (Taylor et. al, 1999)
and other countries with negative findings (see for instance,
Fombonne, & Chakrabarti, 2001, Madsen 2002). This focus on MMR
vaccinations, which are a nearly universal exposure to children in
Europe and the United States, led to a broader concern with the
safety of all childhood vaccinations. A hypothesis developed that
autism may be the result of an interaction between genetic
vulnerability and mercury exposure via the preservative thimerosal
(see Bernard et al, 2001). Arguments both for and against the role
of thimerosal in autism have used prevalence data to bolster their
argument (see Geier &Geier, 2004, Verstraeten et. al, 2003, for
instance). Because the predicted effect sizes involved are small,
these studies have necessarily utilized prevalence estimates with
high precision so that small effects would not be swamped by large
confidence intervals. But, as was discussed, these are the very
studies with the most likelihood of bias, and poorest accuracy of
estimation.
In 2001 the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institute of
Health, and the Institutes of medicine put together the
Immunization Safety Review Committee (ISRC) to examine the
hypothesis that vaccines, specifically MMR and
thimerosal-containing vaccines, are causally associated with
autism. In their final report (ISRC 2004), the committee concluded
that the evidence favored a rejection of a causal link between
these vaccines and autism. The report highlights, however, the
difficulty of using epidemiological methods to answer etiologic
questions in autism research.
�There are many examples in medicine of disorders defined by a
constellation of symptoms that have multiple etiologies, and autism
is likely to be among them. Determining a specific cause in the
individual is impossible unless the etiology is known and there is
a biological marker. Determining causality with population-based
methods such as epidemiological analyses requires either a
well-defined at-risk population or a large effect in the general
population. Absent biomarkers, well-defined risk factors, or large
effect sizes, the committee cannot rule out, based on the
epidemiological evidence, the possibility that vaccines contribute
to autism in some small subset or very unusual circumstances.
However, there is currently no evidence to support this hypothesis
either (p.11).�
For parents worried about whether or not their child might be part
of that small subset, or in very unusual circumstances, this
information may not help them feel comfortable about the
vaccinations their child is getting. This is particularly true in
the current information environment where parents can find endless
media sources warning them of the dangers of vaccinations, many
hosted by seeming �experts� in the field (see
http://www.mercola.com/, for instance). Most of these sources will
cite the alarming increase in autism prevalence as a reason for
parents to worry, a clear misuse of the data available.
Fortunately, however, a natural experiment is underway in the
United States that may be able to answer questions regarding
thimerosal. Thimerosal is being removed from most vaccines in the
United States at a time when better monitoring systems have been
put in place, and the diagnostic criteria for autism has
stabilized. Using these improved monitoring systems to track the
prevalence of autism as the exposure to thimerosal decreases
provides an opportunity to use epidemiological methods to answer a
question of causation. This research would need to be careful
monitor other environmental sources of mercury exposure at the same
time to avoid the potential confounding effects.
|7.12.06 @ 6:53PM|#
Orac of Respectful
Insolence at Science Blogs writes frequently about the
thimerosal-autism controversy and the Geiers.
Last year, he
wrote about the case of a 5-year-old autistic boy who died
while receiving an 'alternative treatment' for autism (chelation
therapy).
|7.12.06 @ 7:03PM|#
Well, when you believe that the evidence was
suppressed...
Just like we faked the moon landing, or have the 500
miles-per-gallon car locked up next to the Ark Of The Covenent and
Roswell Grey corpses in the Pentagon basement, right?
Bretigne|7.12.06 @ 7:12PM|#
RFK Jr's Salon junk science has been thouroghly
debunked.
Um... not really. All this guy does is attack RFK's "conspiracy
theories" and his presentation of the meeting where the CDC et al
supposedly decided to keep information on a thimerosal-autism link
under wraps. Nowhere does he even address the validity of the
studies involved. In particular, the Verstraeten study where an
epidemiologist looked at the medical records of 100,000 children
and did find a link between thimerosal exposure
and multiple developmental problems. His research also shows a
fifteen-fold increase in autism since 1991 (when three more
Thimerosal vaccines were added to the recommended infant
regime.)
The Salon article also mentions other studies supporting a
Thimerosal-autism link. I don't see any of these studies debunked
on the site you linked to.
I'm perfectly prepared to believe that these studies are all bunk,
if that's the case. So far though, I haven't seen any criticism
that even addresses the question.
Bretigne|7.12.06 @ 7:16PM|#
OK, What is your peer reviewed and testable evidence that
alternative medicine works?
For one, there's the British Medical Journal study looking at 25
years of clinical studies on homeopathic medicine, that found that
in 81 out of 107 trials, homeopathic medicines were
effective.
There have also been clinical trials on some of the over-the
counter homeopathic remedies for specific ailments that have shown
them to be effective.
This is all in addition to the peer-reviewed studies appearing in
homeopathic journals (at least one of which is the journal of an
association made up solely of practitioners who are also MDs.)
|7.12.06 @ 7:18PM|#
There are a lot of things Amish avoid besides vaccinations: TV,
radios, automobiles, buttons. By Bretinge's... ahem... "logic," I
suppose these too must be reasons that the Amish have allegedly
lower rates of autism.
Basic logic: Correlation is not causation. Nor are anecdotes
"evidence."
|7.12.06 @ 7:21PM|#
If Verstraeten is your source, then maybe Verstraeten's word on
his findings will help you clarify the issue...
Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of
Computerized Health Maintenance Organization Databases
Thomas Verstraeten, MD*,{ddagger}, Robert L. Davis, MD, MPH�, Frank
DeStefano, MD, MPH{ddagger}, Tracy A. Lieu, MD, MPH||, Philip H.
Rhodes, PhD{ddagger}, Steven B. Black, MD�, Henry Shinefield, MD�,
Robert T. Chen, MD{ddagger} for the Vaccine Safety Datalink
Team
* Epidemic Intelligence Service Program, Epidemiology Program
Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta,
Georgia
{ddagger} Vaccine Safety and Development Activity, Epidemiology and
Surveillance Division, National Immunization Program, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
� University of Washington and Group Health Cooperative of Puget
Sound, Seattle, Washington
|| Center for Child Health Care Studies, Department of Ambulatory
Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Harvard
Medical School, and Division of General Pediatrics, Children�s
Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
� Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, California
Objective. To assess the possible toxicity of thimerosal-containing
vaccines (TCVs) among infants.
Methods. A 2-phased retrospective cohort study was conducted using
computerized health maintenance organization (HMO) databases. Phase
I screened for associations between neurodevelopmental disorders
and thimerosal exposure among 124 170 infants who were born during
1992 to 1999 at 2 HMOs (A and B). In phase II, the most common
disorders associated with exposure in phase I were reevaluated
among 16 717 children who were born during 1991 to 1997 in another
HMO (C). Relative risks for neurodevelopmental disorders were
calculated per increase of 12.5 �g of estimated cumulative mercury
exposure from TCVs in the first, third, and seventh months of
life.
Results. In phase I at HMO A, cumulative exposure at 3 months
resulted in a significant positive association with tics (relative
risk [RR]: 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05�3.38). At HMO
B, increased risks of language delay were found for cumulative
exposure at 3 months (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01�1.27) and 7 months
(RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01�1.13). In phase II at HMO C, no significant
associations were found. In no analyses were significant increased
risks found for autism or attention-deficit disorder.
Conclusions. No consistent significant associations were found
between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results
were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving
the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental
assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal
exposures are needed.
|7.12.06 @ 7:22PM|#
Really? The same British Medical Association that has just published in The Lancet "an all out attack on homeopathy?"
Bretigne|7.12.06 @ 7:24PM|#
There are a lot of things Amish avoid besides vaccinations:
TV, radios, automobiles, buttons. By Bretinge's... ahem... "logic,"
I suppose these too must be reasons that the Amish have allegedly
lower rates of autism.
Actually, I didn't say that the lack of vaccines were responsible
for the lack of autism among the Amish. What I said was that
improved diagnostics didn't explain that phenomenon.
|7.12.06 @ 7:26PM|#
Whoops! Here's the right link:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,1114166,00.html
Bretigne|7.12.06 @ 7:27PM|#
Really? The same British Medical Association that has just
published in The Lancet "an all out attack on
homeopathy?"
Check it out yourself Akira.
|7.12.06 @ 7:28PM|#
But in all the anti-vax screeds I've read, the "connection" is
certainly implied.
Stop dancing around the issue.
|7.12.06 @ 7:30PM|#
What are the theories behind how homeopathics work? Treating
like with like, right?
Have there been advances in the "science" since it was thought up?
If it works, how does it work?
|7.12.06 @ 7:31PM|#
And in case you don't have access to this...
Verstraeten directly addresses the issue in a letter to the
editor.
Thimerosal, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
GlaxoSmithKline
Thomas Verstraeten, MD, MSc
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals
1330 Rixensart, Belgium
To the Editor.�
I am the first author of a recent article on a study undertaken by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to screen for
a potential link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and
neurodevelopmental delays.1 The article has been subject to heavy
criticism from antivaccine lobbyists. Their criticism basically
comes down to the following two claims: the CDC has watered down
the original findings of a link between thimerosal-containing
vaccines and autism, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has hired me away
from the CDC so as to convince me to manipulate the data further
before publication. Because I was responsible for nearly all
aspects of this study, including study design, data gathering, data
analysis, and writing of the article, I wish to give my opinion on
these claims. These are my personal opinions and do not represent
the opinion of the CDC or GSK.
Did the CDC water down the original results? It did not. This
misconception comes from an erroneous perception of this screening
study and other epidemiological studies. The perception is that an
epidemiological study can have only 1 of 2 outcomes: either an
association is found (or confirmed), or an association is refuted.
Very often, however, there is a third interpretation: an
association can neither be found nor refuted. Let�s call the first
2 outcomes "positive" and "negative" and the third outcome
"neutral." The CDC screening study of thimerosal-containing
vaccines was perceived at first as a positive study that found an
association between thimerosal and some neurodevelopmental
outcomes. This was the perception both independent scientists and
antivaccine lobbyists had at the conclusion of the first phase of
the study. It was foreseen from the very start that any positive
outcome would lead to a second phase. Whereas the original plan was
to conduct the second phase as a case-control study, we soon
realized this would be too time consuming. The validity of the
first-phase results needed urgent validation in view of the large
potential public health impact. Did the CDC purposefully select a
second phase that would contradict the first phase? Certainly not.
The push to urgently perform the second phase at health maintenance
organization C came entirely from myself, because I felt that the
first-phase results were too prone to potential biases to be the
basis for important public health decisions. Health maintenance
organization C was the only site known to myself and my coauthors
that could rapidly provide sufficient data that would enable a
check of the major findings of the first phase in a timely
manner.
Because the findings of the first phase were not replicated in the
second phase, the perception of the study changed from a positive
to a neutral study. Surprisingly, however, the study is being
interpreted now as negative by many, including the antivaccine
lobbyists. The article does not state that we found evidence
against an association, as a negative study would. It does state,
on the contrary, that additional study is recommended, which is the
conclusion to which a neutral study must come. Does a neutral
outcome reduce the value of a study? It may make it less attractive
to publishers and certainly to the press, but it in no way
diminishes its scientific and public health merit. A neutral study
carries a very distinct message: the investigators could neither
confirm nor exclude an association, and therefore more study is
required. The CDC has taken its responsibility and is currently
undertaking such additional study. The focus of all attention now
should be on ensuring that these new studies are conducted under
the most optimal conditions. Continuing the debate of the validity
of the screening study is a waste of scientific energy and not to
the benefit of the safety of US children or of all children
worldwide that have the privilege of being vaccinated. All the
discussion on how and why the results presented at different stages
of the study may have changed slightly is futile for the same
reason. The bottom line is and has always been the same: an
association between thimerosal and neurological outcomes could
neither be confirmed nor refuted, and therefore, more study is
required.
Did GSK hire me away to manipulate the data before publication?
Definitely not. This suggestion could be viewed as simply silly,
were it not that it offends the ethical integrity of both the
company and myself. Although I have been involved in some of the
discussions concerning additional analyses that were undertaken
after my departure from the CDC, I did not perform any of these
additional analyses myself, nor did I instigate them. GSK was at no
point involved in any discussions I had with former CDC colleagues
on the study, nor were details of these discussions ever discussed
between myself and GSK. The company and I had a very clear deal
from the very start of my employment that I would finalize my
involvement in the study on my own time and keep this involvement
entirely separated from my work at GSK. I regard myself as a
professional scientist who puts ethical value before any personal
or material gains. I believe that I am currently employed by a
company that has the same high ethical standards as myself.
Therefore, any suggestion that GSK intended to have me manipulate
this data is nothing short of an insult to both my and the
company�s integrity. Although I deeply regret such statements, I
call on any party that truly has the safety of our children and the
advancement of the health of the world�s children at heart to move
beyond such pitiable attitudes and focus on the future of the
ongoing research.
Bretigne|7.12.06 @ 7:43PM|#
Akira, what you don't seem to understand is that I am not
pretending to have certainty about this issue. I am actually
interested in finding out the truth about it.
There was actually a time when I was pretty well convinced that
there was no Thimerosal-autism link, because of some studies that
came out a few years ago. I have since gone back to thinking there
probably is (because of further studies, such as the ones mentioned
in the Salon article), but am certainly open to being wrong about
that.
As for the Amish, yes, I believe it is possible
that the lack of vaccines is responsible for their nearly
nonexistent rates of autism. That is a far cry from asserting that
it is fact. I think it is a question worth looking
into -- which, by the way, seems to be a much more scientific
approach than simply dismissing the possibility because it sounds
unorthodox.
|7.12.06 @ 8:01PM|#
Bretigne: You might be interested in this news report of a study
in Canada which casts considerable doubt on the purported link
between mercury in vaccines and autism at URL:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1813682,00.html
New study shows no MMR link to autism
Sarah Hall
Thursday July 6, 2006
The Guardian
Further evidence has emerged to disprove a link between MMR jabs
and autism.
Scientists in Canada found that more children developed the
disorder after MMR take-up decreased and thimerosal - a compound
that is 49% mercury and was thought to have been linked to autism -
was eliminated from vaccines.
The study, by researchers at McGill University Health Centre,
confirms the findings of a Japanese study last year. The new
research, which assessed 28,000 children, found that after
thimerosal was phased out in Quebec in 1996, the autism rate rose
from 52 per 10,000 to 70 per 10,000.
Bretigne|7.12.06 @ 8:06PM|#
Mainstreamman,
Thanks for all the info. It is very helpful. And seems to directly
contradict what is presented in the Salon article.
...Unless of course Verstraeten was just covering up in the second
phase what the CDC didn't want released. ("The CDC screening study
of thimerosal-containing vaccines was perceived at first as a
positive study that found an association between thimerosal and
some neurodevelopmental outcomes.")
And no, Akira, I am not asserting that this is the case. I am
putting it forth as a reasonable possibility, given the interests
(and conflicts of interests) involved and the fact that corruption
in medical research is not unheard of. I don't have enough
information right now to know what to think about Verstraeten's
statements and the second phase of the study, but I will look into
it. Thanks again for the info.
I'm signing off for now, as I realize I've spent much more of my
day on this than I had intended.
|7.12.06 @ 8:12PM|#
Nice catch Ron.
It seems this would reflect evidence of an increasing
identification of autism in Canada...the kind of epidemiological
evidence of a prevalence change that was unavailable earlier.
In the most recent look at risk factors for autism, Larsson et. al
(2005) found autism risk was associated with breech presentation at
birth (risk ratio (RR) � 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18,
2.26), low Apgar score at 5 minutes (RR � 1.89, 95% CI: 1.10,
3.27), gestational age at birth
Tobias|7.12.06 @ 8:14PM|#
I'm just jumping in here before going to sleep, so i haven't
read all the comments, just want to make a few things clear.
1) It has already been shown the mother can take care of her child.
The reason that the state is deciding this and not her is becuase
she has been shown to be incompetent. The child wouldn't even be
with her if the child weren't in the hospital. That child is going
to a foster family.
2) There is no proof, no evidence, what so ever that vaccines cause
mental retardation. Vaccinations have been proven to work. And the
whole "MMR/Thimerosal causes autism" has by now been shown to be
totally false. And i would like to add that it has never really
been believed in the scientific circles.
The reason for the link between Thimerosal and autism have been
made is because the vaccination is given shortly before the autism
is diagnosed. That is a correlation, not a causation. That is like
saying "more icecream is sold during the summer, more people have
heat strokes during the summer, thus icecream causes heat
strokes".
It is rarely possible to diagnose autism untill a certain age, and
that age is a bit after the vaccination has been given.
Also, in both japan and denmark mercury have been removed from the
vaccination, and in both countries the number of children diagnosed
with autism INCREASED afterwards.
Further more. Any and all cases about the british MMR vaccination
causing autism can safely be ignored. The british MMR does not now,
has never, and will never contain thimerosal. Please read that
again. THERE WAS NEVER MERCURY IN MMR.
There have been numerous proper peer-reviewed studies that couldn't
show that mercury causes autism.
There have been no proper peer-reviewed studies that show that
mercury causes autism.
There have been a few proper peer-reviewd studies saying "maybe
there is something, it should be checked out". And it has been, and
no link was found.
Sincerely
Tobias
Ps. I have autism myself, so trust me, i know what i'm talking
about on this issue.
Tobias|7.12.06 @ 8:23PM|#
Sorry, I must be missing something. How does the improved
diagnostics theory explain the lack of autism among the Amish? And
why would potentially autistic adults not undergo the same testing
as potentially autistic children?
-------------------------------------
Easy enough.
There is autism in the Amish community, it is just harder to detect
because the problems an individual with autism meet in the world
today are big, but the problems an individual with autism met in
the world of 200 years ago (or in amish community) are fewer and
far between.
In an amish community a kid with autism will be told what to do
more often than in normal society. The kid won't have to make as
many decission as in normal society. The normal everyday life won't
be as stressfull as in normal society. Because of all that the
autism won't be as easily seen, and won't be as big a handicap, but
it will still be there.
To summarize. There is autism in the amish community, it is just
easier to live with it (undetected) in the amish community.
Sincerely
Tobias
|7.13.06 @ 1:32AM|#
A couple problems with the reasoning on this thread. People
attack alternative medicine without ever defining it - kind of like
trying to defend the No Aggression Principle without ever really
defining the boundaries on what counts for aggression.
Many types of treatments come under the rubric of alternative
medicine. The failure, or lack of evidence, for one does not
discount the efficacy of another. "Crystal worshiping" does not
equate with acupuncture for just one example. The World Health
Organization lists numerous conditions that have been proven to
have been successfully treated by acunpuncture through clinical
trials. Then it lists a number of other conditions where there is
some evidence but not enough to qualify as demonstrable proof. But
there are quite a few conditions that fall into the former
category. Allergic rhinitis is one. Suppose a parent were to reject
an allopath's suggested treatment in favor of acupuncture. This
would hardly seem like a case of parental irresponsibility where
the state should step in.
Two other conditions that have been successfully treated with
acupuncture are headaches and depression. In the case of the
former, a parent who gave their kid daily doses of aspirin or
something stronger like parafon forte is risking kidney illnesses
that could show up eventually. Acupuncture is the safer treatment -
in this case, would it be fair then to say the state should step
in? Afterall, the parents are taking a greater risk with daily
doses of aspirin treatments. For depression, ADD, and
hyperactivity, there's been a great deal of controversy over how
much parents have been over-medicating their kids, and the possible
damage this can do. Personally, I'm not arguing the state should
automatically step in (when the state believes it's always wiser)
but to base the argument on whether the treatments are
'alternative' or not, no matter the specific treatment, or the
nature of the condition, or any evidence for the relative efficacy
of either the specific alternative treatment or the specific
allopathic treatment, does not seem like a reasonable argument to
me.
Another poster mentioned that homeopathy cured his excema. I had a
similar experience, though not with homeopathy. Allopathic
treatments only provided temporary relief for this condition of
mine. Then the creams I tried had other undesirable effects. After
awhile I became fed up and wanted to try an alternative. Through a
variety of different kinds of treatments, my excema was largely
cured, but not by the AMA's recommended treatments.
None of this is suggesting that allopathic medicine is "not" as
effective as any alternative treatments. For most cases and
conditions, it's largely the demonstrably better option. But to
reflexively throw anything that is not 'allopathic' under the same
blanket and call it 'junk science' hardly seems reasonable
either.
I'm curious why it is that Reason regularly, and reflexively rolls
its eyes, when it comes to the topic of any medical practice or
treatment not endorsed by the official body known as the AMA.
Reason has long raised issues of possible political bias or self
interest that at least possibly finds its way into the scientific
practices or theories of the various groups in question. But when
it comes to the AMA, there seems to be just a knee jerk acceptance
of any position coming from on down high - to the point where
instead of evaluating the claims of any specific practice or
theory, as long as it fits the label of 'alternative' it must
automatically be quackery.
|7.13.06 @ 2:24AM|#
I realize my anecdotal evidence above does not qualify as a
well-reasoned argument, but...doesn't it seem reasonable if
someone's child's condition has not been successfully treated by
numerous allopathic treatments, and months or years of such
treatment trials have been attempted and failed, that he or she
should be allowed to seek out an 'alternative treatment' for such
child? Or if the prognosis for recovery, whether a terminal illness
or no, under an allopathic condition is very low shouldn't the
parent be allowed to go outside the establishment?
And I'm just saying, why does the AMA get a pass when the FDA or
other official political-scientific bodies don't?
|7.13.06 @ 12:41PM|#
For those of you complaining about lack of evidence in
scientific studies, read this and weep.
http://www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf
|7.13.06 @ 1:34PM|#
Sorry, I must be missing something. How does the improved
diagnostics theory explain the lack of autism among the
Amish?i>
I'm disappointed that this needs to be spelled out, but it would
stand to reason that people less likely to receive vaccinations are
also less likely to undergo formal diagnostic testing.
And why would potentially autistic adults not undergo the same
testing as potentially autistic children?
The entire purpose of diagnosing children with autism at a young
age is to better tailor their education, etc. to their needs. Once
you or a loved one has lived with the condition for 30 years,
what's the point of getting it officially diagnosed?
|7.13.06 @ 1:44PM|#
D. Saul Weiner
You obviously haven't been paying attention.
A nice link regarding the Greier's lack of scientific rigor was
provided above.
Here it is again.
Search around, the very paper you cite is critiqued in detail. This
article is not only correlational, but poorly done. No causal link
could be made using it.
Bretigne|7.13.06 @ 2:42PM|#
Sorry, I must be missing something. How does the improved
diagnostics theory explain the lack of autism among the
Amish?
I'm disappointed that this needs to be spelled out, but it
would stand to reason that people less likely to receive
vaccinations are also less likely to undergo formal diagnostic
testing.
The study in question was one in which someone actually went into
Amish communities and tested for autism. So, no, your answer does
not explain this phenomenon.
The entire purpose of diagnosing children with autism at a
young age is to better tailor their education, etc. to their needs.
Once you or a loved one has lived with the condition for 30 years,
what's the point of getting it officially diagnosed?
That's interesting speculation. And may well be how many people
react to their situation. But a quick Google search reveals autism
support sites like this
that indicate many adults do seek a diagnosis.
Anyway, this is all a little beside the point, since the real
question is: are there any reliable statistics on autism in
adults/older children who would have missed out on childhood
vaccinations containing Thimerosal?
|7.13.06 @ 2:59PM|#
Well, you got me, I didn't even skim the study in question about
the Amish people. Do you have a link to that? I thought you were
talking about a general trend over the past few decades with
regards to the subject. Needless to say a single study might be
less than conclusive when we're talking about a large group of
people over a long period of time, but again, I didn't read
it.
That's interesting speculation. And may well be how many people
react to their situation. But a quick Google search reveals autism
support sites like this that indicate many adults do seek a
diagnosis.
The relevant question is whether they did as soon as
modern diagnostic techniques were introduced. Probably these tests
were undergone with gradually increasing frequency like everything
else.
Anyway, this is all a little beside the point, since the real
question is: are there any reliable statistics on autism in
adults/older children who would have missed out on childhood
vaccinations containing Thimerosal?
Agreed, and I don't really know much about the subject and am going
to default to the scientific consensus on this one. I was just
responding to your critiques of the "improved diagnostics theory"
because they didn't add up in my mind.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245