Except, of course, for these ones:
Albizzati, A., Moré, L., Di Candia, D., Saccani, M., Lenti, C. Normal concentrations of heavy metals in autistic spectrum disorders. Minerva Pediatrica. 2012.Feb;64(1):27-31 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22350041
Abu Kuwaik, G., Roberts, W., Zwaigenbaum, L., Bryson, S., Smith, IM., Szatmari, P., Modi, BM., Tanel, N., Brian, J. Immunization uptake in younger siblings of children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism. 2014 Feb;18(2):148-55. doi: 10.1177/1362361312459111. Epub 2012 Oct 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23045216
Afzal, MA., Ozoemena, LC., O’Hare, A., Kidger, KA., Bentley, ML., Minor, PD.Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK. Journal Medical Virology. 2006 May;78(5):623-30.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16555271
Ahearn WH.What Every Behavior Analyst Should Know About the “MMR Causes Autism” Hypothesis. Archive of Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2010. Spring;3(1):46-50. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22479671
Allan, GM., Ivers, N. The autism-vaccine story: fiction and deception? Canadian Family Physician. Oct 2010; 56(10): 1013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2954080/
Allan, GM., Ivers, N. The autism-vaccine story: fiction and deception? Canadian Family Physician. Oct 2010; 56(10): 1013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2954080/
Andrews, N., Miller, E., Grant, A., Stowe, J., Osborn, V., & Taylor, B. (2004). Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics, 114, 584-591. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342825
Andrews, N., Miller, E., Taylor, B., Lingam, R., Simmons, A., Stowe, J., Waight, P. Dec 2002; 87(6): 493–494.Recall bias, MMR and autism. Archives of Disease in Childhood.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1755823/pdf/v087p00493.pdf
Baird, G., Pickles, A., Simonoff, E., Charman, T., Sullivan, P., Chandler, S., Loucas, T., Meldrum, D., Afzal, M., Thomas, B., Jin, L., Brown, D. Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders. Archives of Disease in Childhood.2008 Oct;93(10):832-7. doi: 10.1136/adc.2007.122937. Epub 2008 Feb 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18252754
Baron-Cohen, S. Autism and the technical mind: children of scientists and engineers may inherit genes that not only confer intellectual talents but also predispose them to autism. Scientific American. 2012 Nov;307(5):72-5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23120898
Berger, BE., Navar-Boggan, AM., Omer, SB. Congenital rubella syndrome and autism spectrum disorder prevented by rubella vaccination–United States, 2001-2010. BMC Public Health.2011 May 19;11:340. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-340. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21592401
Black, C., Kaye, JA. Relation of childhood gastrointestinal disorders to autism: nested case-control study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database. British Medical Journal. 2002;325(7361):419-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7361.419
Bower, H. New research demolishes link between MMR vaccine and autism.British Medical Journal. 1999. Jun 19;318(7199):1643. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116011/
Chen, W., Landau, S., Sham, P., & Fombonne, E. (2004). No evidence for links between autism, MMR and measles virus. Psychological Medicine, 34(3), 543-553. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15259839
Christie, B. Scottish expert group finds no link between MMR and autism.British Medical Journal, 2002. May 11;324(7346):1118. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172158/
Clements, CJ., McIntyre, PB. When science is not enough – a risk/benefit profile of thiomersal-containing vaccines. Expert Drug Opinion Safety. 2006.Jan;5(1):17-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16370953
Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines; Institute of Medicine. Stratton, K., Ford, A., Rusch, E., Wright Clayton, E. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012. (a review of more than ONE THOUSAND studies). http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13164
Dales, L., Hammer, S. J., & Smith, N. J. (2001). Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California. JAMA, 285(9), 1183-1185. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11231748
De Los Reyes, EC. Autism and immunizations: separating fact from fiction. JAMA Neurology. 2010;67(4):490-492. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2010.57. http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=799645
DeWilde, S., Carey, IM., Richards, N., Hilton, SR., Cook, DG. Do children who become autistic consult more often after MMR vaccination? British Journal of General Practice. 2001 Mar;51(464):226-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1313956/
Demicheli, V., Jefferson, T., Rivetti, A., & Price, D. (2005). Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4. (a review of 31 studies) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803
DeStefano, F. MMR vaccine and autism: a review of the evidence for a causal association. Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7 Suppl 2:S512. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12142951
DeStefano, F., Chen, RT. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: No epidemiological evidence for a causal association. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2000 Jan;136(1):125. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10681219
DeStefano, F., Bhasin, T. K., Thompson, W. W., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., & Boyle, C. (2004). Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics, 113(2), 259-266. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14754936
DeStefano F., Price CS., Weintraub, ES. Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism. Journal of Pediatrics. 2013 Aug;163(2):561-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.02.001. Epub 2013 Mar 30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23545349
DeStefano F., Thompson, WW.MMR vaccine and autism: an update of the scientific evidence.Expert Rev Vaccines.2004 Feb;3(1):19-22. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14761240
DeStefano F., Thompson, WW. MMR vaccination and autism: is there a link? Expert Opinion on Drug Safety. 2002 Jul;1(2):115-20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12904145
DeStefano, F. Chen, RT. Negative association between MMR and autism. Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):1987-8. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)00160-9/fulltext
DeStefano, F., Chen, RT. Autism and measles-mumps-rubella vaccination: controversy laid to rest? CNS Drugs. 2001. 2001;15(11):831-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11700148
D’Souza J., Todd T. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the development of autism or inflammatory bowel disease: the controversy should end. Journal of Pedatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2003 Jul;8(3):187-99. doi: 10.5863/1551-6776-8.3.187. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3469143/
D’Souza, Y., Fombonne, E., Ward, BJ. No evidence of persisting measles virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from children with autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics. 2006 Oct;118(4):1664-75. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17015560
Doja, A., & Roberts, W. (2006). Immunizations and autism: A review of the literature. The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 33(4), 341-346. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17168158
Elliman, D., Bedford, H. MMR: where are we now? Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2007 Dec;92(12):1055-7. Epub 2007 Jul 11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2066086/
Farrington, C., Miller, E., & Taylor, B. (2001). MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine, 19(27), 3632-3635. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11395196
Fitzpatrick, M. The end of the road for the campaign against MMR. British Journal of General Practice. 2007 Aug;57(541):679. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17688775
Fombonne, E., & Chakrabarti, S. (2001). No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella–induced autism. Pediatrics, 108(4), e58-e58. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11581466
Fombonne, E., Zakarian, R., Bennett, A., Meng, L., & McLean-Heywood, D. (2006). Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and links with immunizations. Pediatrics 118(1) e139-e150; doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2993. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/e139
García-Fernández, L., Hernández, AV., Suárez Moreno, V., Fiestas, F. Addressing the controversy regarding the association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. Revista Peruana de Medicine Experimental Salud Publica. 2013 Apr;30(2):268-74. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23949514
Gentile, I., Bravaccio, C., Bonavolta, R., Zappulo, E., Scarica, S., Riccio, MP., Settimi, A., Portella, G., Pascotta, A., Borgia, G. Response to measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in children with autism spectrum disorders. In Vivo 2013 May-Jun;27(3):377-82. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23606694
Gerber, J. S., & Offit, P. A. (2009). Vaccines and autism: a tale of shifting hypotheses. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 48(4), 456-461. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388/
Glasper, EA. New evidence reaffirms the safety of the MMR vaccine. British Journal of Nursing.2002 Jun 27-Jul 10;11(12):794. http://www.internurse.com/cgi-bin/go.pl/library/article.cgi?uid=10298;article=BJN_11_12_794_0
Halsey, NA., Hyman, SL. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autistic spectrum disorder: report from the New Challenges in Childhood Immunizations Conference convened in Oak Brook, Illinois. June 12-13, 2000. Pediatrics. 2001 May;107(5):E84. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11331734
Hayney MS. Vaccine Safety: no link between thimerosal and autism. Journal of American Pharmacists Association. 2003. 2004 Nov-Dec;44(6):725-6. http://japha.org/article.aspx?articleid=1039011
Hertz-Picciotto, I., Green, P., Delwiche, L., Hansen, R., Walker, C., & Pessah, I. (2010). Blood mercury concentrations in CHARGE Study children with and without autism. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(1), 161-166. doi:10.1289/ehp.0900736 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056569
Hensley, E. Briars, L. Closer look at autism and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. Journal of American Pharmacist’s Association. 2003. 2010 Nov-Dec;50(6):736-41. doi: 10.1331/JAPhA.2010.10004. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21071320
Heron, J., Golding, J., ALSPAC Study Team. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics. 2004 Sep;114(3):577-83. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342824
Hessel, L. Mercury in vaccines. Bulletin of the National Academy of Medicine. 2003;187(8):1501-10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15146581
Honda, H., Shimizu, Y., & Rutter, M. (2005). No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 46(6), doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15877763
Hornig, M., Briese, T., Bule, T., Bauman, M.L., Lauwers, G., Siemetzki, U., Hummel, K., Rota, PA., Bellini, WJ., O’Leary, JJ., Sheils, O., Alden, E., Pickering, L., Lipkin, W.I. Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study. 2008. PLoS One, 3(9), e3140. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003140. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18769550
Hurley, A., Tadrous, M., Miller, ES. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism: a review of recent epidemiological studies. Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2010 Jul-Sep; 15(3): 173-181. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018252/
Hviid A., Stellfeld, M., Wohlfahrt, J., Melbye, M. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism – No causal relationship found.JAMA.2003 Oct 1;290(13):1763-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14519711
Insitute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee. Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autisms. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20669467
Iqbal, S., Barile, JP., Thompson, WW., DeStefano, F. Number of antigens in early childhood vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes at age 7–10 years. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety.2013 Dec;22(12):1263-70. doi: 10.1002/pds.3482. Epub 2013 Jul 12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847024
Jefferson, T., Price, D., Demicheli, V., Bianco, E., European Research Program for Improved Safety Surveillance (EUSAFEVAC) Project. Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine. 2003 Sep 8;21(25-26):3954-60. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12922131
Jick, H., Kaye, JA. Epidemiology and possible causes of autism. Pharmacotherapy. 2003 Dec;23(12):1524-30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14695031
Kaye, J. A., del Mar Melero-Montes, M., & Jick, H. Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis. 2001. British Medical Journal, 322(7284), 460-463. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071423/
Klein, K. C., & Diehl, E. B. Relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. 2004. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 38(7-8), 1297-1300. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15173555
Lazoff, T., Zhong, L., Piperni, T., Fombonne, E. Prevalence of pervasive developmental disorders among children at the English Montreal School Board. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.2010 Nov;55(11):715-20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21070699
Lingam, R., Simmons, A., Andrews, N., Miller, E., Stowe, J., & Taylor, B. (2003). Prevalence of autism and parentally reported triggers in a North-east London population. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 88(8), 666-670. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12876158
Madsen, K.K., Hviid, A., Vestergaard, M., Schendel, D., Wohlfahrt, J., Thorsen, P., Olsen, J., Melbye, M. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. 2002.The New England Journal of Medicine, 347(19), 1477-82. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421889
Madsen KM., Hviid, A., Vestergaard, M., Schendel, D., Wohlfahrt, J., Thorsen, P., Olsen, J. Melbye, M. MMR vaccination and autism–a population-based follow-up study. Ugeskr Laeger. 2002. Dec 2;164(49):5741-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12523209
Madsen, K.M., Lauritsen, M.B., Pedersen, C.B., Thorsen, P., Plesner, A.M., Andersen, P.H. & Mortensen, P.B. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. 2003. Pediatrics, 112, 604-606. doi: 10.1542/peds.112.3.204 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12949291
Madsen, KM. Vestergaard, M. MMR and Autism: what is the evidence for a causal association? Drug Safety. 2004;27(12):831-40. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15366972
Makela, A., Nuorti, J., & Peltola, H. (2002). Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Pediatrics, 110(5), 957-963. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12415036
Marin, M., Broder, KR., Temte, JL., Snider, DE., Seward, JF., (CDC). Use of combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recommendations and Reports. 2010 May 7;59(RR-3):1-12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20448530
Marwick, C. US Report finds no link between MMR and autism. British Medical Journal. May 5, 2001; 322(7294): 1083. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120232/
Meadows, M. IOM Report: no link between vaccines and autism. FDA Consumer.2004 Sep-Oct;38(5):18-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15595144
Meilleur, AA., Fombonne, E. Regression of language and non-language skills in pervasive development disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 2009 Feb;53(2):115-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01134.x. Epub 2008 Nov 27. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19054269
Miller, E. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the development of autism – epidemiologic evidence against such an association is compelling. Seminars in Pediatric Infectious Diseases.2003 Jul;14(3):199-206. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12913832
Miller, E., Andrews, N., Grant, A., Stowe, J., Taylor, B. No evidence of an association between MMR vaccine and gait disturbance.Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2005. Mar;90(3):292-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15723921
Miller, L., Reynolds J. Autism and vaccination – the current evidence. Journals for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing. 2009 Jul;14(3):166-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6155.2009.00194.x. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614825
Mrozek-Budzyn, D., Kiełtyka, A. The relationship between MMR vaccination and the number of new cases of autism in children. Przeglad epidemiologiczny. 2008;62(3):597-604. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19108524
Mrozek-Budzyn D, Kiełtyka A, Majewska R. Lack of association between MMR vaccination and the incidence of autism in children: a case-control study . Przeglad epidemiologiczny. 2009;63(1):107-12. Polish. PubMed PMID: 19522237. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19522237
Mrozek-Budzyn, D., Kiełtyka, A., Majewska, R. Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 2010 May;29(5):397-400. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e3181c40a8a.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952979
Mrozek-Budzyn, D., Majewska, R. Kiełtyka, A. & Augustyniak, M. Lack of association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. Przeglad epidemiologiczny. 2011, 65(3), 491-495. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22184954
Muhle, R., Trentacoste, SV., Rapin, I. The genetics of autism. Pediatrics. 2004 May;113(5):e472-86. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15121991
Nelson, KB., Bauman, ML. Thimerosal and autism? Pediatrics. 2003. Mar;111(3):674-9. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/3/674.long
Offit PA. Thimerosal and vaccines–a cautionary tale. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007. Sep 27;357(13):1278-9. PubMed PMID: 17898096. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17898096
Offit, PA., Coffin, SE. Communicating science to the public: MMR vaccine and autism. Vaccine. 2003. Dec 8;22(1):1-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14604564
Patja, A., Davidkin, I., Kurki, T., Marku, J., Kallio, T., Valle, M., Peltola, H. Serious adverse events after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination during a fourteen-year prospective follow-up. 2000. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal. 2000;19:1127-34. http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/MMR.pdf
Parker, S.K., Schwartz, B., Todd, J., Pickering, L.K. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autistic spectrum disorder: A critical review of published original data. 2004. Pediatrics, 114, 793-804. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342856
Parker, S. Todd, J., Schwartz., B., Pickering, L.K. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autistic spectrum disorder: A critical review of published original data. 2005. Pediatrics. Jan;115(1):200. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630018
Pichichero, ME., Cernichiari, E., Lopreiato, J., Treanor, J. Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: a descriptive study. Lancet. 2002 Nov 30;360(9347):1737-41. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12480426
Peltola, H., Patja, A., Leinikki, P., Valle, M., Davidkin, I., & Paunio, M. No evidence for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine-associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study. 1998. Lancet, 351(9112), 1327. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9643797
Price, C. S., Thompson, W. W., Goodson, B., Weintraub, E. S., Croen, L. A., Hinrichsen, V. L., DeStefano, F. Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism. 2010. Pediatrics, 126(4), 656-664. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20837594
Roehr B. Study finds no association between vaccines and autism. 2013. British Medical Journal. Apr 3;346:f2095. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2095. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23554072
Richler, J., Luyster, R., Risi, S., Hsu, W. L., Dawson, G., Bernier, R., … & Lord, C. (2006). Is there a ‘regressive phenotype’ of Autism Spectrum Disorder associated with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine? A CPEA Study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(3), 299-316. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16729252
Rumke, HC., Visser, HK. Childhood vaccinations anno 2004. II. The real and presumed side effects of vaccination. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde.2004 Feb 21;148(8):364-71. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15032089
Schechter, R., Grether, JK. Continuing increases in autism reported to California’s developmental services system: mercury in retrograde. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;65(1):19-24. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2007.1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18180424
Schultz, ST. Does thimerosal or other mercury exposure increase the risk for autism? A review of the current literature. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis. 2010;70(2):187-95.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628442
Shevell, M., Fombonne, E. Autism and MMR vaccination or thimerosal exposure: an urban legend? Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences. 2006 Nov;33(4):339-40. http://cjns.metapress.com/content/xqxx6ha3ufaeuunv/?genre=article&issn=0317-1671&volume=33&issue=4&spage=339
Singh, VK. Rivas, WH. Detection of antinuclear and antilaminin antibodies in autistic children who received thimerosal-containing vaccines – mercury as in thimerosal-containing vaccines is likely not related to autoimmune phenomenon in autism. Journal of Biomedical Science. 2004 Sep-Oct;11(5):607-10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15316135
Smeeth, L., Cook, C., Fombonne, E., Heavey, L., Rodrigues, L. C., Smith, P. G., & Hall, A. J. (2004). MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study. The Lancet, 364(9438), 963-969. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15364187
Smith, M. J., & Woods, C. R. On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes. Pediatrics. 2010. 125(6), 1134-1141. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20498176
Solt, I., Bornstein, J. Childhood vaccines and autism – much ado about nothing? Harefuah. 2010 Apr;149(4):251-5, 260. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20812501
Steffenburg, S., Steffenburg, U., Gillberg, C. Autism spectrum disorders in children with active epilepsy and learning disability: comorbidity, pre and perinatal backgound, and seizure characteristics. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2003 Nov;45(11):724-30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14580127
Stehr-Green, P., Tull, P., Stellfeld, M., Mortenson, PB., Simpson, D. Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2003 Aug;25(2):101-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12880876
Takahashi, H., Suzumura, S., Shirakizawa, F., Wada, N., Tanaka-Taya, K., Arai, S., Okabe, N., Ichikawa, H., Sato, T. An epidemiological study on Japanese Autism concerning Routine Childhood Immunization History. Japanese Journal of Infectious Diseases. 56, 114-117, 2003. http://www0.nih.go.jp/JJID/56/114.pdf
Taylor, B. Vaccines and the changing epidemiology of autism. Child: Care, Health and Development Journal. 2006 Sep;32(5):511-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16919130
Taylor, B., Miller, E., Farrington, C., Petropoulos, M., Favot-Mayaud, I., Li, J., & Waight, P. A. (1999). Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet, 353(9169), 2026-20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10376617
Taylor, B., Miller, E., Lingam, R., Andrews, N., Simmons, A., & Stowe, J. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study. 2002. British Medical Journal, 324(7334), 393-396. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11850369
Taylor, B., Lingam, R., Simmons, A., Stowe, J., Miller, E., Andrews, N. Autism and MMR vaccination in North London: no causal relationship. 2002. Molecular Psychiatry. 7 Suppl2:S7-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12142932
Thjodleifsson, B., Davidsdóttir, K., Agnarsson, U., Sigthórsson, G., Kjeld, M., Bjarnason, I. Effect of Pentavac and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination on the intestine. Gut.2002 Dec;51(6):816-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12427783
Thompson, WW., Price, C., Goodson, B., Shay, DK., Benson, P., Hinrichsen, BL., Lewis, E., Eriksen, E., Ray, P., Marcy, SM., Dunn, J., Jackson, LA., Lieu, TA., Black, S., Stewart, G., Weintraub, ES., Davis, RL., DeStefano, F., Vaccine Data Link Safety Team. Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007 Sep 27;357(13):1281-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17898097
Uchiyama, T., Kurosawa, M., & Inaba, Y. MMR-vaccine and regression in autism spectrum disorders: negative results presented from Japan. 2007. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(2), 210-217. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16865547
Uno, Y., Uchiyama, T., Kurosawa, M., Aleksic, B., & Ozaki, N. The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: first case–control study in Asia. 2012. Vaccine, 30(28), 4292-4298. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22521285
Verstraeten T., Davis, RL., DeStefano, F., Lieu, TA., Rhodes, PH., Black, SB., Shinefield, H., Chen RT. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics.2003 Nov;112(5):1039-48. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14595043
Whitehouse, AJ., Maybery, M., Wray, JA., Hickey, M. No association between early gastrointestinal problems and autistic-like traits in the general population. Developmental Medicine and Childhood Neurology. 2011. May;53(5):457-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.03915.x. Epub 2011 Mar 21. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21418197
Weisser, K., Bauer, K., Volkers, P., Keller-Stanislawski, B. Thimerosal and immunizations – evidence does not support the hypothesis of a potential relationship between neurodevelopmental disorders and thiomersal-containing vaccines. 2004. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. Dec;47(12):1165-74. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15583887
MMR vaccine is not linked to Crohn’s disease or autism. Commun Dis Rep CDR Weekly. 1998 Mar 27;8(13):113. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9592960'
Taylor LE et al. Vaccines are not associated with autism: an Evidence-Based Meta Analysis of case-control and Cohort Studies Vaccine (2014) http://autismoevaccini.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/vaccines-are-not-as sociated-with-autism.pdf
Showing posts with label idiots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label idiots. Show all posts
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Monday, September 13, 2010
Another reason why Anti-vaccination advocates are idiots
I shouldn't have to say this, but I do.
I receive no funding whatsoever from any pharmaceutical or biotechnology company in existence anywhere in the world.
None.
Zip.
I have never so much as seen a single penny from one in dividends, project support, or salary from any pharmaceutical company. Indeed, all funds I have ever worked for come from competitive grants from the NIH or the AHA. Currently, the entirety of my salary is paid by a postdoctoral fellowship from the American Heart Association. The AHA, in turn, is entirely funded by private donations which the individual donors can apply to their tax returns. I have no knowledge of who the individual donors are, and therefore can have no possible knowledge of their individual motivations or what they wish for my research to show, therefore, it is completely and utterly impossible for any pharmaceutical company to exert any influence upon me, even if I were performing any research which would motivate them to do so. I am not. The AHA has no say on whether, or what, I publish, and holds no power over my academic freedom.
Further, I receive no funding, support, or salary from any manufacturer of vaccines. See above.
Pretty much anybody who speaks out against the idiocy that is the anti-vaccination movement has to include a disclaimer like the above.
Now, here's why they shouldn't have to.
It takes a truly delusional mind to claim, with a straight face, that the reason pharmaceutical companies produce vaccines is to turn a profit. Yes, there are a few vaccines that have made quite a lot of money for the manufacturers. Gardasil, for example, made its manufacturers somewhere in the ballpark of 1.5 billion dollars.
Setting aside the fact that making money off of an exceptionally effective treatment which reduces a woman's chance of developing cervical cancer to nearly zero is not implicitly evil (as much as anti-vaccination advocates would like you to think otherwise), Gardasil is deep, deep in the minority.
In general, vaccine production is so ridiculously unprofitable, convincing manufacturers to make the vaccines is a challenge in itself. The single most-applied vaccine worldwide the BCG vaccine against tuberculosis. Its profit margin is, for all practical purposes, zero, once transportation to the needed areas is taken into consideration.
But for the moment, let us assume that that is not the case. Let's assume that all doses are created equal, profit-wise. A dose of viagra makes the exact same profit as a dose of the Tdap vaccine.
Which of the two will turn a greater profit: one dose of the vaccine, or a month's worth of drugs to keep the symptoms under control?
In short, if vaccine manufacturers were really the profit-grubbing evil entities that the anti-vaccine morons believed they were, they wouldn't make vaccines. They'd want as many of us to catch the disease as possible for one simple reason: it's vastly more profitable to treat a disease than it is to prevent it.
I receive no funding whatsoever from any pharmaceutical or biotechnology company in existence anywhere in the world.
None.
Zip.
I have never so much as seen a single penny from one in dividends, project support, or salary from any pharmaceutical company. Indeed, all funds I have ever worked for come from competitive grants from the NIH or the AHA. Currently, the entirety of my salary is paid by a postdoctoral fellowship from the American Heart Association. The AHA, in turn, is entirely funded by private donations which the individual donors can apply to their tax returns. I have no knowledge of who the individual donors are, and therefore can have no possible knowledge of their individual motivations or what they wish for my research to show, therefore, it is completely and utterly impossible for any pharmaceutical company to exert any influence upon me, even if I were performing any research which would motivate them to do so. I am not. The AHA has no say on whether, or what, I publish, and holds no power over my academic freedom.
Further, I receive no funding, support, or salary from any manufacturer of vaccines. See above.
Pretty much anybody who speaks out against the idiocy that is the anti-vaccination movement has to include a disclaimer like the above.
Now, here's why they shouldn't have to.
It takes a truly delusional mind to claim, with a straight face, that the reason pharmaceutical companies produce vaccines is to turn a profit. Yes, there are a few vaccines that have made quite a lot of money for the manufacturers. Gardasil, for example, made its manufacturers somewhere in the ballpark of 1.5 billion dollars.
Setting aside the fact that making money off of an exceptionally effective treatment which reduces a woman's chance of developing cervical cancer to nearly zero is not implicitly evil (as much as anti-vaccination advocates would like you to think otherwise), Gardasil is deep, deep in the minority.
In general, vaccine production is so ridiculously unprofitable, convincing manufacturers to make the vaccines is a challenge in itself. The single most-applied vaccine worldwide the BCG vaccine against tuberculosis. Its profit margin is, for all practical purposes, zero, once transportation to the needed areas is taken into consideration.
But for the moment, let us assume that that is not the case. Let's assume that all doses are created equal, profit-wise. A dose of viagra makes the exact same profit as a dose of the Tdap vaccine.
Which of the two will turn a greater profit: one dose of the vaccine, or a month's worth of drugs to keep the symptoms under control?
In short, if vaccine manufacturers were really the profit-grubbing evil entities that the anti-vaccine morons believed they were, they wouldn't make vaccines. They'd want as many of us to catch the disease as possible for one simple reason: it's vastly more profitable to treat a disease than it is to prevent it.
Monday, October 26, 2009
If there is a Hell, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey will spend eternity in an Iron Lung
Okay, let me start with a full disclosure of my own biases:
The anti-vaccination movement is potentially the single greatest threat to public health.
Note that I don't qualify that as "in America," or "in the third world" or "in westernized countries." They are potentially the single greatest threat to public health, period.
Let me go a step further, if you do not get your child vaccinated, or worse, you convince someone else not to get their child vaccinated, you are guilty of child abuse by any reasonable (if not legally-actionable) definition of the term. You're playing roulette with their lives and hoping that they're fortunate enough never to be exposed to any of the diseases which vaccines will protect them from.
Also in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention the following: vaccines are, collectively, the lowest-cost, highest effectiveness, most portable, dispersable, and long-term solution to most of the world's diseases. This, incidentally, is not a matter of my own opinion, it's a matter of track record. Small pox, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, measles, rubella, and other diseases which, in Canada and the US, are little more than a distant memory. It's estimated that one in five people would not now be alive if not for this medical miracle.
Now, let me add a one last statement to the preceding ones. If you do not get your child vaccinated, you are abusing the children that child will go to school with. Morally, I see the refusal to get your child vaccinated as the equivalent of taking a baseball bat to a baby, then walking over to the houses of the children that child will go to school with, and taking a baseball bat to them, too. This, unfortunately, is the leap that the anti-vaccination movement never makes. By not getting vaccinated, you are not only harming your own child, you're harming someone else's.
By that standard of evidence Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey have been brutally bludgeoning countless millions of children.
Metaphorically speaking.
Let's start with the basics:
Vaccines do not cause autism. The one study which has ever presented a link between vaccination and autism was shown to be fraudulent.
In the interest of completeness, here is that particular citation.
Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoidnodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998;351:637-641
By contrast, however, we have papers showing no link between vaccines and autism:
Dales L, Hammer SJ, Smith NJ. Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California. JAMA. 2001;285:1183-1185.
Davis RL, Kramarz P, Bohlke K, et al. Measles-mumps-rubella and other measles-containing vaccines do not increase the risk for infl ammatory bowel disease: a casecontrol study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink project. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:354-359.
DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Boyle C. Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics. 2004;113:259-266.
DeStefano F, Chen RT. Negative association between MMR and autism. Lancet. 1999;353:1986-1987.
Farrington CP, Miller E, Taylor B. MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine. 2001;19:3632-3635.
Fombonne E, Chakrabarti S. No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella-induced autism. Pediatrics. 2001;108:E58.
Fombonne E, Cook EH Jr. MMR and autistic enterocolitis: consistent epidemiological failure to fi nd an association. Mol Psychiatry. 2003;8:133-134.
Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M. No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005;46:572-579.
Kaye JA, del Mar Melero-Montes M, Jick H. Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis.
BMJ. 2001;322:460-463.
Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, et al. A populationbased study of measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1477-1482.
No link between Thimerosol (a preservative found in vaccines) and autism (or, for that matter, any ill-effects):
Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, Stowe J, Osborne V, Taylor B. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics. 2004;114:584-591.
Fombonne E, Zakarian R, Bennett A, Meng L, McLean- Heywood D. Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations. Pediatrics. 2006;118:E139-150.
Heron J, Golding J. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association.
Pediatrics. 2004;114:577-583.
Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. JAMA. 2003;290:1763-1766.
Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, et al. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Pediatrics. 2003;112:604-606.
Schechter R, Grether J. Continuing increases in autism reported to California’s developmental services system: mercury in retrograde. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65:19-24.
Stehr-Green P, Tull P, Stellfeld M, Mortenson PB, Simpson D. Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25:101-106.
Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al. Study of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics. 2003;112:1039-1048.
And, just for good measure, studies showing no link between vaccines and inflammatory bowel disease:
Peltola H, Patja A, Leinikki P, Valle M, Davidkin I, Paunio M. No evidence for measles, mumps and rubella vaccine-associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study. Lancet. 1998;351:1327-1328.
Just to be clear on this.
So, why do people still claim that vaccines cause autism?
Well, let's start with the issues that they have with the above studies. You never, ever, ever hear them go after the actual studies themselves. On the contrary, they always, always, go after the authors. If they got funding from, or were employed by, a manufacturer of vaccines, they clearly could not be trusted (but, for some reason, when one deliberately falsifies their data, that article is gospel). See for yourself: from Generation Rescue's own website, they never once, ever address the science. They present the scientists as if, because they had jobs which involved making vaccines, created a bias in their data. Even if that is true, they never explain, ever, how that alleged bias produces an error in their results.
By contrast, they offer no argument in favor of their own position.
Again, from their own website:
Clearly, nobody ever told them that correlation does not denote causality. For example, consider the following argument:
Ridiculous? Exactly. And it's the exact same argument that Operation Rescue is attempting to make with regards to vaccination. One could just as readily claim that Netscape (which did not exist in 1983) causes autism, or that M. C. Hammer pants suppress it.
Put simply, the fact that two events occur concurrently is not evidence that there is a causal relationship, or for that matter, any relationship at all.
That's not to say that correlative data is not very valuable. Often, you can establish causality using correlative data. However, there are a few things which need to be established first.
1) a mechanism of causality must be established. In the case of vaccines, no causal mechanism by which children could even be potentially harmed has any evidence to support it.
2) We must be able to predict ahead of time what will happen, given a set of criteria. I'll come back to this in a second.
3) confounding factors, where present, must be addressed and accounted for. This last one can be very difficult, which is part of the reason why Project Rescue's data is complete bullshit. They make the claims that a) the US has the largest vaccine schedule, and b) the US has one of the highest rates of autism. There are an enormous number of confounding factors here, not the least of which being the fact that autism is a random affliction with an ill-defined pathology, and a tendency to be over diagnosed.
Let's address that second criteria for a moment.
Let's take Project Rescue's own numbers and consider the hypothesis of vaccines resulting in early infant mortality.
Now, first things first. Note that their numbers are the total mortality rates for children under five.
In other words, every child under five who dies in a car accident, every child who ever dies of diseases not included in the vaccine schedule, every child who dies in a plane accident, of cancer, or of any other of the millions of possible afflictions or accidents that can befall a child, is counted in that number.
In other words, while vaccines are a medical miracle, they won't protect your child from an automobile accident, or from drowning in the bathtub, or from falling off of a playground slide. When counted against those causes of death in the countries listed, the number of children who die from diseases which vaccines prevent pales to insignificance. The reason it pales to insignificance is that as long as assholes like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are having a relatively minor effect on vaccination rates, most people in the US are still vaccinated against these diseases.
If you actually plot the infant mortality rate against the number of vaccines, you get something which shows no clear correlation at all. None. It's a blob of data points.
Which is pretty much to be expected, since the overwhelming majority of children who die under five don't die of something that a vaccine could have prevented. Largely because a vaccine prevented them from dying of it.
But, let's try the other side of the coin. What happens if, suddenly, we stop vaccinating? Let's consider a single disease: diptheria.
Remember, in order to establish causality, we need to make sure that three important concerns are addressed: a mechanism of causality is established, prediction of the outcome in advance based upon that mechanism of causality, and a minimum of confounding factors. The reason I picked diptheria is because it is a disease which is primarily fatal to children under five years old.
So, if we were to look at a country where diptheria vaccinations suddenly dropped off what would we predict?
Remember, we have a proposed mechanism of action: the reason that diptheria rates are so low is because most people are being vaccinated against it. Most children have immunity to the disease from childhood and are therefore not being infected. Therefore, we can predict what would happen if the rate of vaccination suddenly dropped off. Not immediately, but within ten years, we would see a massive increase in the rate of the disease.
In the Soviet Union, in 1991, 2000 cases of diptheria were reported. As the soviet block disintegrated, vaccination rates went into free-fall.
Now, another reason I chose diptheria is because it significantly reduces the number of confounding factors. Transmission is virtually always directly person to person. Break-down of infrastructure would have very little effect upon its transmission.
So, what would the prediction be for diptheria, if the vaccinations stopped?
Well, a number of people carry diptheria asymptomatically, which is what makes it such a dangerous disease. They're contagious, but they don't look like they are. In a population of individuals which is largely immune due to vaccination, these carriers are of no real concern. This is due to something called herd immunity. I'll get to that in a second.
However, if, for some reason, the level of immunity in a population drops, not only can more people catch it, but it can spread more easily through a population.
Sure enough, in the Soviet Union in 1991, 2000 cases of diptheria were reported. That was when the vaccination against it dropped precipitously. Within eight years, over 200,000 cases, with 5000 deaths reported from it. That's a hundred-fold increase.
Now, consider the criteria I laid out before.
1) a mechanism of causality has to be established. Vaccines provide an immunity from disease.
2) we can predict, in advance, the outcome of a specific perturbation, based upon the mechanism of causality. If the above is correct, we should observe a resurgence of the disease after immunization is cut off.
3) confounding factors are reduced. In this case, we're dealing with the exact same population over eight years, and the transmission vector of the disease is well-understood.
And it's not just that. The opposite was observed in the case of Pertussis in the United states. Immediately after the introduction of the pertussis vaccine, cases plummeted into freefall.
We are now seeing the same thing happening in the United States, as a direct consequence of the anti-vaccination movement. People are dying, and people like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are killing them.
Now, here's the side of things that anti-vaccination advocates don't realize. They're not just harming themselves. They're harming everyone else. That's the side of the equation you never, ever hear from Generation Rescue, or any of the other anti-vaccination movements. A critical component of the vaccination schedule is herd immunity. If enough people in a population are immune to a disease, they are individually better protected against it. You get better protection if you are completely unvaccinated, and are surrounded by a herd, friends and neighbors, who are protected than you are if you are completely protected, and surrounded by a herd which is not. This is a non-trivial point, and something you never hear Jenny McCarthy mention in any of her interviews or press conferences. Every single person who gets convinced not to vaccinate harms not only themselves, but those around them.
In the case of childhood vaccinations, we're talking about children. Children at the Kindergarten level and younger. Even if those children are vaccinated, if enough individuals in their herd are not, they're less well protected.
Seriously. Get vaccinated. If you don't care about your own kid, the least you could do is care about someone else's.
The anti-vaccination movement is potentially the single greatest threat to public health.
Note that I don't qualify that as "in America," or "in the third world" or "in westernized countries." They are potentially the single greatest threat to public health, period.
Let me go a step further, if you do not get your child vaccinated, or worse, you convince someone else not to get their child vaccinated, you are guilty of child abuse by any reasonable (if not legally-actionable) definition of the term. You're playing roulette with their lives and hoping that they're fortunate enough never to be exposed to any of the diseases which vaccines will protect them from.
Also in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention the following: vaccines are, collectively, the lowest-cost, highest effectiveness, most portable, dispersable, and long-term solution to most of the world's diseases. This, incidentally, is not a matter of my own opinion, it's a matter of track record. Small pox, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, measles, rubella, and other diseases which, in Canada and the US, are little more than a distant memory. It's estimated that one in five people would not now be alive if not for this medical miracle.
Now, let me add a one last statement to the preceding ones. If you do not get your child vaccinated, you are abusing the children that child will go to school with. Morally, I see the refusal to get your child vaccinated as the equivalent of taking a baseball bat to a baby, then walking over to the houses of the children that child will go to school with, and taking a baseball bat to them, too. This, unfortunately, is the leap that the anti-vaccination movement never makes. By not getting vaccinated, you are not only harming your own child, you're harming someone else's.
By that standard of evidence Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey have been brutally bludgeoning countless millions of children.
Metaphorically speaking.
Let's start with the basics:
Vaccines do not cause autism. The one study which has ever presented a link between vaccination and autism was shown to be fraudulent.
In the interest of completeness, here is that particular citation.
Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoidnodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998;351:637-641
By contrast, however, we have papers showing no link between vaccines and autism:
Dales L, Hammer SJ, Smith NJ. Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California. JAMA. 2001;285:1183-1185.
Davis RL, Kramarz P, Bohlke K, et al. Measles-mumps-rubella and other measles-containing vaccines do not increase the risk for infl ammatory bowel disease: a casecontrol study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink project. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:354-359.
DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Boyle C. Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics. 2004;113:259-266.
DeStefano F, Chen RT. Negative association between MMR and autism. Lancet. 1999;353:1986-1987.
Farrington CP, Miller E, Taylor B. MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine. 2001;19:3632-3635.
Fombonne E, Chakrabarti S. No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella-induced autism. Pediatrics. 2001;108:E58.
Fombonne E, Cook EH Jr. MMR and autistic enterocolitis: consistent epidemiological failure to fi nd an association. Mol Psychiatry. 2003;8:133-134.
Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M. No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005;46:572-579.
Kaye JA, del Mar Melero-Montes M, Jick H. Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis.
BMJ. 2001;322:460-463.
Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, et al. A populationbased study of measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1477-1482.
No link between Thimerosol (a preservative found in vaccines) and autism (or, for that matter, any ill-effects):
Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, Stowe J, Osborne V, Taylor B. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics. 2004;114:584-591.
Fombonne E, Zakarian R, Bennett A, Meng L, McLean- Heywood D. Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations. Pediatrics. 2006;118:E139-150.
Heron J, Golding J. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association.
Pediatrics. 2004;114:577-583.
Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. JAMA. 2003;290:1763-1766.
Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, et al. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Pediatrics. 2003;112:604-606.
Schechter R, Grether J. Continuing increases in autism reported to California’s developmental services system: mercury in retrograde. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65:19-24.
Stehr-Green P, Tull P, Stellfeld M, Mortenson PB, Simpson D. Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25:101-106.
Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al. Study of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics. 2003;112:1039-1048.
And, just for good measure, studies showing no link between vaccines and inflammatory bowel disease:
Peltola H, Patja A, Leinikki P, Valle M, Davidkin I, Paunio M. No evidence for measles, mumps and rubella vaccine-associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study. Lancet. 1998;351:1327-1328.
Just to be clear on this.
So, why do people still claim that vaccines cause autism?
Well, let's start with the issues that they have with the above studies. You never, ever, ever hear them go after the actual studies themselves. On the contrary, they always, always, go after the authors. If they got funding from, or were employed by, a manufacturer of vaccines, they clearly could not be trusted (but, for some reason, when one deliberately falsifies their data, that article is gospel). See for yourself: from Generation Rescue's own website, they never once, ever address the science. They present the scientists as if, because they had jobs which involved making vaccines, created a bias in their data. Even if that is true, they never explain, ever, how that alleged bias produces an error in their results.
By contrast, they offer no argument in favor of their own position.
Again, from their own website:
In 1983, autism rates were 1 in 10,000 and there were 11 vaccines in the pediatric schedule. Today there are 36 pediatric vaccines and autism rates are reported as high as 1 in 80 in local school districts in Oregon and New Jersey.
Clearly, nobody ever told them that correlation does not denote causality. For example, consider the following argument:
Since 1988, there has been a dramatic increase in the importation of oranges from Mexico. Also since 1988, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of traffic fatalities. Therefore, we should increase our importation of oranges in order to eliminate traffic fatalities.
Ridiculous? Exactly. And it's the exact same argument that Operation Rescue is attempting to make with regards to vaccination. One could just as readily claim that Netscape (which did not exist in 1983) causes autism, or that M. C. Hammer pants suppress it.
Put simply, the fact that two events occur concurrently is not evidence that there is a causal relationship, or for that matter, any relationship at all.
That's not to say that correlative data is not very valuable. Often, you can establish causality using correlative data. However, there are a few things which need to be established first.
1) a mechanism of causality must be established. In the case of vaccines, no causal mechanism by which children could even be potentially harmed has any evidence to support it.
2) We must be able to predict ahead of time what will happen, given a set of criteria. I'll come back to this in a second.
3) confounding factors, where present, must be addressed and accounted for. This last one can be very difficult, which is part of the reason why Project Rescue's data is complete bullshit. They make the claims that a) the US has the largest vaccine schedule, and b) the US has one of the highest rates of autism. There are an enormous number of confounding factors here, not the least of which being the fact that autism is a random affliction with an ill-defined pathology, and a tendency to be over diagnosed.
Let's address that second criteria for a moment.
Let's take Project Rescue's own numbers and consider the hypothesis of vaccines resulting in early infant mortality.
Now, first things first. Note that their numbers are the total mortality rates for children under five.
In other words, every child under five who dies in a car accident, every child who ever dies of diseases not included in the vaccine schedule, every child who dies in a plane accident, of cancer, or of any other of the millions of possible afflictions or accidents that can befall a child, is counted in that number.
In other words, while vaccines are a medical miracle, they won't protect your child from an automobile accident, or from drowning in the bathtub, or from falling off of a playground slide. When counted against those causes of death in the countries listed, the number of children who die from diseases which vaccines prevent pales to insignificance. The reason it pales to insignificance is that as long as assholes like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are having a relatively minor effect on vaccination rates, most people in the US are still vaccinated against these diseases.
If you actually plot the infant mortality rate against the number of vaccines, you get something which shows no clear correlation at all. None. It's a blob of data points.
Which is pretty much to be expected, since the overwhelming majority of children who die under five don't die of something that a vaccine could have prevented. Largely because a vaccine prevented them from dying of it.
But, let's try the other side of the coin. What happens if, suddenly, we stop vaccinating? Let's consider a single disease: diptheria.
Remember, in order to establish causality, we need to make sure that three important concerns are addressed: a mechanism of causality is established, prediction of the outcome in advance based upon that mechanism of causality, and a minimum of confounding factors. The reason I picked diptheria is because it is a disease which is primarily fatal to children under five years old.
So, if we were to look at a country where diptheria vaccinations suddenly dropped off what would we predict?
Remember, we have a proposed mechanism of action: the reason that diptheria rates are so low is because most people are being vaccinated against it. Most children have immunity to the disease from childhood and are therefore not being infected. Therefore, we can predict what would happen if the rate of vaccination suddenly dropped off. Not immediately, but within ten years, we would see a massive increase in the rate of the disease.
In the Soviet Union, in 1991, 2000 cases of diptheria were reported. As the soviet block disintegrated, vaccination rates went into free-fall.
Now, another reason I chose diptheria is because it significantly reduces the number of confounding factors. Transmission is virtually always directly person to person. Break-down of infrastructure would have very little effect upon its transmission.
So, what would the prediction be for diptheria, if the vaccinations stopped?
Well, a number of people carry diptheria asymptomatically, which is what makes it such a dangerous disease. They're contagious, but they don't look like they are. In a population of individuals which is largely immune due to vaccination, these carriers are of no real concern. This is due to something called herd immunity. I'll get to that in a second.
However, if, for some reason, the level of immunity in a population drops, not only can more people catch it, but it can spread more easily through a population.
Sure enough, in the Soviet Union in 1991, 2000 cases of diptheria were reported. That was when the vaccination against it dropped precipitously. Within eight years, over 200,000 cases, with 5000 deaths reported from it. That's a hundred-fold increase.
Now, consider the criteria I laid out before.
1) a mechanism of causality has to be established. Vaccines provide an immunity from disease.
2) we can predict, in advance, the outcome of a specific perturbation, based upon the mechanism of causality. If the above is correct, we should observe a resurgence of the disease after immunization is cut off.
3) confounding factors are reduced. In this case, we're dealing with the exact same population over eight years, and the transmission vector of the disease is well-understood.
And it's not just that. The opposite was observed in the case of Pertussis in the United states. Immediately after the introduction of the pertussis vaccine, cases plummeted into freefall.
We are now seeing the same thing happening in the United States, as a direct consequence of the anti-vaccination movement. People are dying, and people like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are killing them.
Now, here's the side of things that anti-vaccination advocates don't realize. They're not just harming themselves. They're harming everyone else. That's the side of the equation you never, ever hear from Generation Rescue, or any of the other anti-vaccination movements. A critical component of the vaccination schedule is herd immunity. If enough people in a population are immune to a disease, they are individually better protected against it. You get better protection if you are completely unvaccinated, and are surrounded by a herd, friends and neighbors, who are protected than you are if you are completely protected, and surrounded by a herd which is not. This is a non-trivial point, and something you never hear Jenny McCarthy mention in any of her interviews or press conferences. Every single person who gets convinced not to vaccinate harms not only themselves, but those around them.
In the case of childhood vaccinations, we're talking about children. Children at the Kindergarten level and younger. Even if those children are vaccinated, if enough individuals in their herd are not, they're less well protected.
Seriously. Get vaccinated. If you don't care about your own kid, the least you could do is care about someone else's.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Sometimes, truth really is stranger than fiction.
Oh, my God.
It rather shocks me that someone went to the trouble of making a website like this. It's a website specifically put together to send out a mass Email when the rapture comes, to explain to your friends and relatives where you've gone; assuming that you're Christian.
Huh. Raises the obvious questions: a) how does the guy who's running the site know that he's not gonna be left behind when the rapture shows up, and b) what if the guy running the site gets run over by a runaway steamroller?
And, of course, prominently displayed on the website's page is a link to make a donation.
I have no issue with religion; but using religion to make a cash grab, or to exert influence over those who have no association with that particular religion is something I find to be somewhat, well, evil.
It rather shocks me that someone went to the trouble of making a website like this. It's a website specifically put together to send out a mass Email when the rapture comes, to explain to your friends and relatives where you've gone; assuming that you're Christian.
How is this accomplished, you might ask. It's a dead man switch that will automatically send the emails when it is not reset.
Huh. Raises the obvious questions: a) how does the guy who's running the site know that he's not gonna be left behind when the rapture shows up, and b) what if the guy running the site gets run over by a runaway steamroller?
And, of course, prominently displayed on the website's page is a link to make a donation.
I have no issue with religion; but using religion to make a cash grab, or to exert influence over those who have no association with that particular religion is something I find to be somewhat, well, evil.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Fun with Fanaticism
So, I'm at home after work, and I'm tired. I'm just about to start making dinner, when there's a knock at my door. I open it.
On the opposite side of said door stands a young woman in her mid-to-late 30's, blonde hair, wearing a long, dark trenchcoat; along with a young man in roughtly the same age bracket. He was wearing a toque, so I don't know what colour his hair was. They were both standing there looking awfully self-righteous, and I immediately thought: "aw, crap. Not again."
"Excuse me, sir, we were wondering if we could borrow a few minutes of your time."
"That depends; how are you planning on giving them back?"
"Pardon?"
"Never mind. What can I do for you?" I replied, deciding on the spot that these people had had their senses of humor amputated.
Which meant that I could have a lot of fun with them.
"As I'm sure you're aware, the Dover Pennsylvania School Board has made Intelligent Design a part of its science curriculum as an alternative evolutionary theory."
I wasn't actually aware of it, but I chose not to interrupt him.
"We were wondering," he continued, "if you would support a motion to make similar changes to Calgary's public school curriculum."
"Well, public schools do not generally have religion classes," I pointed out.
"No, we would like to include it in the science curriculum."
"Really?"
"Absolutely, sir. Evolution is a theory (and you could actually hear him stress the word) whose time has passed. It is time to consider alternatives." The man told me.
I glanced down at my watch. I decided that I could spare a few minutes, so I said: "I'm afraid I'm not terribly familiar with that theory. Could you please explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?"
"Intelligent Design suggests that as opposed to a Big Bang..."
"Wait a minute," I held up my hand, "back up a bit. I thought you were talking about Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution. Why are you discussing the Big Bang?"
"Well, Evolutionary theory (and yes, he stressed it again) states that the universe began with the Big Bang and..."
"No it doesn't."
"Excuse me?"
"Evolution is a biological concept; the idea that we developed and became more complex organisms over a process of mutation and propagation of beneficial genes. The Big Bang is a cosmological concept; the idea that all energy of the universe once occupied a single point in space. Two very different concepts. So, are you suggesting that Intelligent Design is an alternative to Evolution, or an alternative to the Big Bang?"
"Both."
"I don't understand. You just said that you wanted to teach it in the science curriculum as an alternative to Evolution. Since I have never read any textbook on evolution which claims to have all the steps between the Big Bang and an Otter, I think it's somewhat silly to be talking about the Big Bang in terms of Evolution."
"But sir, don't you think that students should..."
"Tell you what, how about we start in an area where Evolution actually does make some claims: say, the first appearance of life on earth."
He seemed a little flustered now, and I couldn't help but note that the blonde hadn't spoken since she asked if she could borrow a few minutes of my time, she was just standing there looking pious. "Well, Intelligent Design theory suggests that a supreme being (for some reason, throughout this conversation, he avoided actually mentioning God) created all life on earth approximately 6000 years ago and that life has been unchanged since that time."
"Okay, explain the scientific approach you used to develop this theory," I told him, "start with your falsifiable hypothesis, and move on from there."
"Well, we merely suggested an alternative explanation to the existing data..."
"Oh, so what predictions does Intelligent Design make about future observations?"
"Excuse me?"
"Well, the whole point of a scientific theory is to make reasonable and evidence-supported predictions about what we will observe in the future. That's what makes science a continuous process. Each question we answer raises more questions. So what unanswered questions does Intelligent Design leave?"
"None. It's a complete system which explains everything."
"Then it's not a scientific theory."
"What?"
"The whole point of a scientific theory is that it doesn't have all the answers; it's a jumping off point for people to add to or modify that theory. As such, the theory of evolution has been tested quite possibly more than any theory in scientific history."
"Well the Intelligent Design theory (and notably, he didn't stress the word this time) doesn't have that problem."
I shrugged, "it's not a problem. This is how science is done. We make observations about the world around us, we provide an hypothesis which explains those observations, then we perform experiments to determine if our hypothesis is supported by further data. So, by your own admission, you don't have a scientific theory here; the absolute best that you can claim is that you have a hypothesis, and considering that it requires the action of a Supreme Being, it may well not be falsifiable; and even if it *were* falsifiable, you wouldn't allow it to be falsified. So, I'll tell you what, when you have a falsifiable hypothesis, and you have performed some kind of experimentation which supports that hypothesis, then I'll most definitely support a motion to permit the teaching of intelligent design in science class. Until then, I'm sorry, but no. If you want to have it taught in some kind of comparative religion class, on the other hand, that's a different matter."
"But sir," he held up a hand before I closed the door, "do you really want our children to be taught as fact that we descended from monkeys?"
"Apes."
"Pardon?"
"Apes. We descended from apes, not monkeys; and if you're going to lecture people on biology, you should at the very least know that distinction." (just for the record, yes, I am aware that the claim not that we descend from Apes, but rather from an Ape-like common ancestor, but I figured, judging by the level of scientific knowledge they'd demonstrated, that distinction would likely be lost on them)
"But my point stands, sir. Do you want our children to learn that we descended from apes?"
"You prefer the idea that we descended from dirt?" I shrugged.
"Excuse me?"
"So in addition to an ignorance of the scientific process, biology, and the theory of Evolution, you also lack an understanding of the book of Genesis; the very documentation you're proposing as an alternative?"
"But sir..."
"Thank you for your time. I'm hungry and I need to make dinner." I closed the door.
I stood there for a few minutes to see if they would knock again. They didn't.
I don't know if this was an actual serious motion on their part, or if they were just sending out feelers to see what public opinion was; but I tell you, I was in the absolute best mood for the rest of the evening.
On the opposite side of said door stands a young woman in her mid-to-late 30's, blonde hair, wearing a long, dark trenchcoat; along with a young man in roughtly the same age bracket. He was wearing a toque, so I don't know what colour his hair was. They were both standing there looking awfully self-righteous, and I immediately thought: "aw, crap. Not again."
"Excuse me, sir, we were wondering if we could borrow a few minutes of your time."
"That depends; how are you planning on giving them back?"
"Pardon?"
"Never mind. What can I do for you?" I replied, deciding on the spot that these people had had their senses of humor amputated.
Which meant that I could have a lot of fun with them.
"As I'm sure you're aware, the Dover Pennsylvania School Board has made Intelligent Design a part of its science curriculum as an alternative evolutionary theory."
I wasn't actually aware of it, but I chose not to interrupt him.
"We were wondering," he continued, "if you would support a motion to make similar changes to Calgary's public school curriculum."
"Well, public schools do not generally have religion classes," I pointed out.
"No, we would like to include it in the science curriculum."
"Really?"
"Absolutely, sir. Evolution is a theory (and you could actually hear him stress the word) whose time has passed. It is time to consider alternatives." The man told me.
I glanced down at my watch. I decided that I could spare a few minutes, so I said: "I'm afraid I'm not terribly familiar with that theory. Could you please explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?"
"Intelligent Design suggests that as opposed to a Big Bang..."
"Wait a minute," I held up my hand, "back up a bit. I thought you were talking about Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution. Why are you discussing the Big Bang?"
"Well, Evolutionary theory (and yes, he stressed it again) states that the universe began with the Big Bang and..."
"No it doesn't."
"Excuse me?"
"Evolution is a biological concept; the idea that we developed and became more complex organisms over a process of mutation and propagation of beneficial genes. The Big Bang is a cosmological concept; the idea that all energy of the universe once occupied a single point in space. Two very different concepts. So, are you suggesting that Intelligent Design is an alternative to Evolution, or an alternative to the Big Bang?"
"Both."
"I don't understand. You just said that you wanted to teach it in the science curriculum as an alternative to Evolution. Since I have never read any textbook on evolution which claims to have all the steps between the Big Bang and an Otter, I think it's somewhat silly to be talking about the Big Bang in terms of Evolution."
"But sir, don't you think that students should..."
"Tell you what, how about we start in an area where Evolution actually does make some claims: say, the first appearance of life on earth."
He seemed a little flustered now, and I couldn't help but note that the blonde hadn't spoken since she asked if she could borrow a few minutes of my time, she was just standing there looking pious. "Well, Intelligent Design theory suggests that a supreme being (for some reason, throughout this conversation, he avoided actually mentioning God) created all life on earth approximately 6000 years ago and that life has been unchanged since that time."
"Okay, explain the scientific approach you used to develop this theory," I told him, "start with your falsifiable hypothesis, and move on from there."
"Well, we merely suggested an alternative explanation to the existing data..."
"Oh, so what predictions does Intelligent Design make about future observations?"
"Excuse me?"
"Well, the whole point of a scientific theory is to make reasonable and evidence-supported predictions about what we will observe in the future. That's what makes science a continuous process. Each question we answer raises more questions. So what unanswered questions does Intelligent Design leave?"
"None. It's a complete system which explains everything."
"Then it's not a scientific theory."
"What?"
"The whole point of a scientific theory is that it doesn't have all the answers; it's a jumping off point for people to add to or modify that theory. As such, the theory of evolution has been tested quite possibly more than any theory in scientific history."
"Well the Intelligent Design theory (and notably, he didn't stress the word this time) doesn't have that problem."
I shrugged, "it's not a problem. This is how science is done. We make observations about the world around us, we provide an hypothesis which explains those observations, then we perform experiments to determine if our hypothesis is supported by further data. So, by your own admission, you don't have a scientific theory here; the absolute best that you can claim is that you have a hypothesis, and considering that it requires the action of a Supreme Being, it may well not be falsifiable; and even if it *were* falsifiable, you wouldn't allow it to be falsified. So, I'll tell you what, when you have a falsifiable hypothesis, and you have performed some kind of experimentation which supports that hypothesis, then I'll most definitely support a motion to permit the teaching of intelligent design in science class. Until then, I'm sorry, but no. If you want to have it taught in some kind of comparative religion class, on the other hand, that's a different matter."
"But sir," he held up a hand before I closed the door, "do you really want our children to be taught as fact that we descended from monkeys?"
"Apes."
"Pardon?"
"Apes. We descended from apes, not monkeys; and if you're going to lecture people on biology, you should at the very least know that distinction." (just for the record, yes, I am aware that the claim not that we descend from Apes, but rather from an Ape-like common ancestor, but I figured, judging by the level of scientific knowledge they'd demonstrated, that distinction would likely be lost on them)
"But my point stands, sir. Do you want our children to learn that we descended from apes?"
"You prefer the idea that we descended from dirt?" I shrugged.
"Excuse me?"
"So in addition to an ignorance of the scientific process, biology, and the theory of Evolution, you also lack an understanding of the book of Genesis; the very documentation you're proposing as an alternative?"
"But sir..."
"Thank you for your time. I'm hungry and I need to make dinner." I closed the door.
I stood there for a few minutes to see if they would knock again. They didn't.
I don't know if this was an actual serious motion on their part, or if they were just sending out feelers to see what public opinion was; but I tell you, I was in the absolute best mood for the rest of the evening.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Boiling a frog
We've all heard the metaphor of the boiled frog. You throw a frog into boiling water and it jumps right out, but if you put a frog into cool water, then slowly heat it up, the frog will stay there until it boils to death.
Okay, so I bring this up because it's coming to my attention that the US is in serious danger of turning into a theocracy. Granted, this won't affect me that much, because I don't actually live in the US. But I am an American. I'm proud to be American. I'm proud of my country and what it stands for, and I am, frankly, afraid of where this could go.
One of America's founding principles is the separation of church and state. The country exists on the principle that no person should be forced into a specific set of religious beliefs, and that the government should act free of any religious bias.
The fact is that this is less the case than it was five years ago.
There's been an increasing movement in the states to rewrite national policy based upon Religious docterine. It is one thing to have strong religious beliefs. I have nothing against people with religious beliefs. It's quite another to use those beliefs to dictate law and policy. This, I do take issue with.
Take our not-too-bright president, for example. When one is unseating a dictator in a primarily Islamic country (and for the moment, I don't really want to get into whether or not it was right or wrong to invade Iraq), and fighting a war on terrorism against a group of Islamic Fundamentalists who follow an extreme interpretation of the Koran, about the dumbest thing you can do is to claim that your actions are taken in the name of God. Thousands of Christians are killed every year by Islamic extremists, simply for being Christian. 9/11, the Holocaust, the Crusades... All justified, to some extent or another, as being in the name of a given deity. None of them turned out terribly well. To claim that your actions are "in the name of God" makes you no better than the people who perpetuated those atrocities.
Now, one of the issues that I personally feel very strongly about is gay marriage (which confuses some people who have very strong fundamentalist beliefs, since I'm not gay); I'm completely in favor of it.... at least until someone can give me a non-religiously grounded reason why I should be against it. Nobody has yet; and I can think of no reason, either philosophically, scientifically, or legally why the right to marry should be denied to homosexual couples. Even the Religious arguments against it are based upon very questionable translations and interpretations of the Bible. Yet, in a country where the Church and State are supposed to be completely separate entities, a motion was successfully proposed (and, thank God, struck down) to define marriage according to biblical statutes. However, I don't think it's going to end that easily. I think that we're likely to hear a lot more about the Federal Marriage Amendment. It should be noted that the last person attempting to protect the sanctity of marriage by constitutional amendment was Seaborn Roddenberry in 1912. I'm not going to give any links here, I'm just going to leave it to you to look him up. Suffice it to say that anti-gay-marriage activists seem convinced that this time, it's somehow different.
There have also been quite a few cases in the courts in the past years (some of which have made it as far as the US Supreme Court) to force science classes in public schools to teach what has been (rather unscrupulously) called "creation science," and to present the arguments against evolution (none of these motions suggest presenting the arguments against creation "science;" apparently that would be too even-handed). All of these motions have been struck down, so far, on the grounds that "creation science" has no scientific basis whatsoever. The proponents of creation "science" have made a big deal about the fact that the scientists themselves say that Evolution is just a theory. While true, this ignores two other facts: 1) Gravity is also a theory, but nobody's gluing their feet to the floor and 2) creation "science" doesn't even have a scientific theory; for that matter, it doesn't even have a falsifiable hypothesis; all it has is the assumption that the Bible is literally true. I'm reminded of a scientist by the name of Gallileo who came up with the outlandish suggestion that the Earth was not the center of the universe...
Ladies and gentlemen, the water's boiling. I just hope that we, the frogs, have the wisdom to move it off the stove.
Okay, so I bring this up because it's coming to my attention that the US is in serious danger of turning into a theocracy. Granted, this won't affect me that much, because I don't actually live in the US. But I am an American. I'm proud to be American. I'm proud of my country and what it stands for, and I am, frankly, afraid of where this could go.
One of America's founding principles is the separation of church and state. The country exists on the principle that no person should be forced into a specific set of religious beliefs, and that the government should act free of any religious bias.
The fact is that this is less the case than it was five years ago.
There's been an increasing movement in the states to rewrite national policy based upon Religious docterine. It is one thing to have strong religious beliefs. I have nothing against people with religious beliefs. It's quite another to use those beliefs to dictate law and policy. This, I do take issue with.
Take our not-too-bright president, for example. When one is unseating a dictator in a primarily Islamic country (and for the moment, I don't really want to get into whether or not it was right or wrong to invade Iraq), and fighting a war on terrorism against a group of Islamic Fundamentalists who follow an extreme interpretation of the Koran, about the dumbest thing you can do is to claim that your actions are taken in the name of God. Thousands of Christians are killed every year by Islamic extremists, simply for being Christian. 9/11, the Holocaust, the Crusades... All justified, to some extent or another, as being in the name of a given deity. None of them turned out terribly well. To claim that your actions are "in the name of God" makes you no better than the people who perpetuated those atrocities.
Now, one of the issues that I personally feel very strongly about is gay marriage (which confuses some people who have very strong fundamentalist beliefs, since I'm not gay); I'm completely in favor of it.... at least until someone can give me a non-religiously grounded reason why I should be against it. Nobody has yet; and I can think of no reason, either philosophically, scientifically, or legally why the right to marry should be denied to homosexual couples. Even the Religious arguments against it are based upon very questionable translations and interpretations of the Bible. Yet, in a country where the Church and State are supposed to be completely separate entities, a motion was successfully proposed (and, thank God, struck down) to define marriage according to biblical statutes. However, I don't think it's going to end that easily. I think that we're likely to hear a lot more about the Federal Marriage Amendment. It should be noted that the last person attempting to protect the sanctity of marriage by constitutional amendment was Seaborn Roddenberry in 1912. I'm not going to give any links here, I'm just going to leave it to you to look him up. Suffice it to say that anti-gay-marriage activists seem convinced that this time, it's somehow different.
There have also been quite a few cases in the courts in the past years (some of which have made it as far as the US Supreme Court) to force science classes in public schools to teach what has been (rather unscrupulously) called "creation science," and to present the arguments against evolution (none of these motions suggest presenting the arguments against creation "science;" apparently that would be too even-handed). All of these motions have been struck down, so far, on the grounds that "creation science" has no scientific basis whatsoever. The proponents of creation "science" have made a big deal about the fact that the scientists themselves say that Evolution is just a theory. While true, this ignores two other facts: 1) Gravity is also a theory, but nobody's gluing their feet to the floor and 2) creation "science" doesn't even have a scientific theory; for that matter, it doesn't even have a falsifiable hypothesis; all it has is the assumption that the Bible is literally true. I'm reminded of a scientist by the name of Gallileo who came up with the outlandish suggestion that the Earth was not the center of the universe...
Ladies and gentlemen, the water's boiling. I just hope that we, the frogs, have the wisdom to move it off the stove.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
