pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 10h \ parent \ on: Over 300 Pages of Evidence from the CDC Show That Vaccines Cause Autism 🤯 science
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.
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.
reply