pull down to refresh
27 sats \ 8 replies \ @028559d218 19h \ parent \ on: Over 300 Pages of Evidence from the CDC Show That Vaccines Cause Autism 🤯 science
Without evidence this is just a conspiracy theory.
I haven't seen any evidence, to date, that correlates certain childhood vaccinations with autism development.
Where is the evidence?
I'm agnostic, but there was a legal finding of liability in a court case that heard evidence presented on this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/
What I'm excited about are any and all disclosures we might get on medical corruption. Pharma has become the largest campaign donor and they aren't doing that because they're such great stewards.
reply
Well if there is any evidence, we need to see it and hear it.
However I am still waiting for the evidence.
The people saying this, that 'vaccines' in childhood cause autism never provide any evidence, or information to back up their claims. They cannot be taken seriously until they do.
reply
I'm very curious about such evidence. The initial study that linked autism to vaccines has been, in my opinion, reliably debunked. Several metastudies also found no link between the two, but who knows, the scientific method can be applied by everyone, not just big pharma or mainstream scientists, so one day I'll be convinced there is a link.
reply
That famous study, which I've heard was not the first (but this isn't my area), was debunked by demonstrating evidence of fraud (IIRC).
What bothers me is that people bring up this paper as evidence that vaccines have no connection to autism, when it is nothing of the sort.
reply
That's true. The fact that study got debunked is indeed, not proof of the opposite, i.e. that vaccines have no connection to autism.
It is studies like this one that better support this apparent lack of link between the two. And the conclusions of this study focusing on the MMR vaccines should also blindly extrapolated to other vaccines. Each vaccine, old, and especially new, should be subject to similar scrutiny to make sure we are not (un)willingly poisoning our kids.
reply
The other big issue is that they've never tested the combinations of vaccines or timing of injections. That's a lot of medical treatments to give children without looking into adverse interactions.
reply
Good thing there is a good incentive to study this. Maybe not from a big pharma perspective, but for a scientist, definitely (well, as much as allowed using the scientific method) showing such a link would be hugely beneficial for their fame as a scientist, and arguably, for their career. It might obviously not be an easy battle, but there are enough scientists who believe they are working for the greater good.
In these discussions, it would help that scientists regain some humility by admitting they don't know everything (#773731) while pushers of alternative theories gain credibility by choosing their battles wisely. It does not help when someone concurrently supports flat-earth theories and anti-vaccines theories. Because the former is provably wrong, it taints the credibility of the latter. While the latter is still a subject of debate for the reasons you mentioned above.
I'm simplifying of course, but we won't get anywhere if both sides do not try to understand where the other side is coming from.
reply
Agreed.
One of the things working against normal people is not really knowing how to do the data analysis that would demonstrate a link. Every so often, I see someone present interesting suggestive evidence that they take to be conclusive. Generally, they don't want to hear about all the extra work that has to be done to make a robust causal claim.