Personal reply to anti-vaxer
you wrote:
"It's not in your best interest to see mainstreammedicine take a huge blow when people realize that ourchildren have been exposed to large amounts of toxicmercury which caused a genetically susceptible subsetof our children to become autistic, as a result ofmandated vaccines."
"It's not in your best interest to see mainstream medicine take a huge blow..."
Why would I be worried about mainstream medicine taking a blow? What interests could I have outside avoiding some kind of cognitive dissonance at being wrong? What is really at stake over the vaccine=autism issue. What can be won, personally and realistically, by individuals advocating either side? I have nothing personally at stake, unless it's the real risk to my progeny no longer having the benefit of herd immunity against some very real, very deadly childhood diseases if/when enough are frightened into abstaining from vaccines.
"...our children have been exposed to large amounts oftoxic mercury..."
Even if we all concede on this one, overly-stretched point, it no where near validates anything in the rest of the bigger-issue statement. The fact that the point is disputed suggests there is not clear evidence for it.
"...mercury which caused a genetically susceptiblesubset of our children to become autistic..."
I speculate if one focuses efforts strictly to finding a relationship of mercury with genetic susceptibility with autism, that a clear association will evolve. But, it will be one that remains weak when placed among all that we know, and do not know, about these things separately. What about all the other countless, specutively harmful compounds and substances that are ending up in our man-made ecosystem? Traces of these elements used in the food manufacturing process, for example. What are these doing genetically to our children? I bet all kinds of correlations and associations can be scientifically made. Is something different, or are these next? There are traces of "poisons" all over the place. Shouldn't we then be able to trace ANY malady or health/developmental circumstance to a trace of poison somewhere? We could dig-up and find all kinds of associations and be able to blame someone, somewhere. Some Alt-med advocates champion this global theory ofdisease, but in reality, there is scant support outside pseudoscience.
"...autistic, as a result of mandated vaccines."
This statement clearly infers blame for autism. Would it matter as much if someone could not be made at fault? What can it change now that mercury is no longer used in vaccines like it was? Could it be that it's all about trying to get somebody to be made to pay? If so, it is unfortunate, because it takes away from sincere efforts of caretakers, clinicians and researchers who only want to make their loved ones, their patients, and the world better.
To me, it looks like the scientific community is trying to understand any vaccine=autism link. But, it's becoming increasingly difficult to be objectivebecause of the stakes involved. Stakes that Wakefield bared for all to see. As a result, and this is the sad part, it's become an issue of passion and politics.
dras
"It's not in your best interest to see mainstreammedicine take a huge blow when people realize that ourchildren have been exposed to large amounts of toxicmercury which caused a genetically susceptible subsetof our children to become autistic, as a result ofmandated vaccines."
"It's not in your best interest to see mainstream medicine take a huge blow..."
Why would I be worried about mainstream medicine taking a blow? What interests could I have outside avoiding some kind of cognitive dissonance at being wrong? What is really at stake over the vaccine=autism issue. What can be won, personally and realistically, by individuals advocating either side? I have nothing personally at stake, unless it's the real risk to my progeny no longer having the benefit of herd immunity against some very real, very deadly childhood diseases if/when enough are frightened into abstaining from vaccines.
"...our children have been exposed to large amounts oftoxic mercury..."
Even if we all concede on this one, overly-stretched point, it no where near validates anything in the rest of the bigger-issue statement. The fact that the point is disputed suggests there is not clear evidence for it.
"...mercury which caused a genetically susceptiblesubset of our children to become autistic..."
I speculate if one focuses efforts strictly to finding a relationship of mercury with genetic susceptibility with autism, that a clear association will evolve. But, it will be one that remains weak when placed among all that we know, and do not know, about these things separately. What about all the other countless, specutively harmful compounds and substances that are ending up in our man-made ecosystem? Traces of these elements used in the food manufacturing process, for example. What are these doing genetically to our children? I bet all kinds of correlations and associations can be scientifically made. Is something different, or are these next? There are traces of "poisons" all over the place. Shouldn't we then be able to trace ANY malady or health/developmental circumstance to a trace of poison somewhere? We could dig-up and find all kinds of associations and be able to blame someone, somewhere. Some Alt-med advocates champion this global theory ofdisease, but in reality, there is scant support outside pseudoscience.
"...autistic, as a result of mandated vaccines."
This statement clearly infers blame for autism. Would it matter as much if someone could not be made at fault? What can it change now that mercury is no longer used in vaccines like it was? Could it be that it's all about trying to get somebody to be made to pay? If so, it is unfortunate, because it takes away from sincere efforts of caretakers, clinicians and researchers who only want to make their loved ones, their patients, and the world better.
To me, it looks like the scientific community is trying to understand any vaccine=autism link. But, it's becoming increasingly difficult to be objectivebecause of the stakes involved. Stakes that Wakefield bared for all to see. As a result, and this is the sad part, it's become an issue of passion and politics.
dras
posted by nawledge at
10:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home