Slashdot

"What I would like to know is just how much research have people like you done into the issue?" Ad hominem attack. I would note that, as conspiracy theories are an area of special interest to me, I take great pains to research not only the nutbag nonsense, but the real science behind any claims. "Because I know a hell of a lot people, including some within the vaccine industry, who, if they posted here, could destroy every single one of your arguments." Appeal to authority. If you can't make your own argument, then kindly keep your mouth shut. "Most of the so called "fallcies" you claim are far from that." Caught two already. "The people I know who are anti-vaccine generally tend to be more intelligent, better educated and questioning than the people who aren't." I'm a bit rusty on my fallacies, for I've misremembered the name of this one--but no, you cannot claim that because your particular group is somehow 'smarter' your argument is automatically correct. It's a non sequitur. "If you had a child who was suffering from autism" Appeal to emotion, another fallacy. "How many medical experts have you spoken to about vaccines?" Appeal to authority, again. Namedropping the various folks at various departments of health whom I've spoken with about this will not 'prove' anything. The argument should stand on its own, without recourse to celebrity. "How many books have you read? How many studies have you read?" Many, including those disproving the only study to have claimed the aformentioned alleged 'link'. "Anyone who is at least interested in educating themselves" ...would do far better to take a course in basic logic and biology, like I said before, rather than reading that crackpot bit of nonsense. "I realise I am wasting my time here," Then why post? " I am sick of uneducated people bashing those who are anti-vaccine when they're uninformed. " Ad hominem, again. "If you've done all the research and still feel it's bogus, then fair play to you." I have, thank you. " someone I know" Friend of a friend third-hand knowledge is not valid for consideration, thank you. "Please, educate yourself. READ studies on vaccines etc... And I mean government studies, not the PR material that the companies put out." Yes, and that's why I know the alleged link was disproved. For someone who claims not to indulge in fallacy, you've certainly a great deal of it in your post.

Indeed. If I had children who were suffering from autism, I would do anything I could to try to help them. But running around trying to find someone to pin the blame on would not help them at all; in fact, it would rob them of what they, like any other children, need most, which is their parents' time and attention and tender love and care.

Western society (and, it seems, the US in particular) has developed into a culture of blame. In some ways, it is understandable, as it is much easier to find someone to blame and from whom to demand retribution than to face up to the harsh realities of life, but it is not very productive. People need to understand that life is hard and often unfair, that they need to take responsibility for themselves and their kin, and that sometimes things get broken that you just can't fix - you have to cope and move on.

Autism is a very complex subject. Autism-spectrum disorders are actually much more common than one would think, and statistics seem to show they are on the rise. Part of the reason is that it was previously (and may still be) underdiagnosed due to social stigma and a poor understanding of the milder forms. Another part of it is that there seems to be a correlation between autism-spectrum disorders and other characteristics which are favorable to success and survival in an industrial society, which basically means that natural selection is currently working in favor of autism (just like natural selection works in favor of sickle-cell anemia in parts of Africa because it is linked with improved resistance to malaria). The most blatant evidence in favor of the latter interpretation is that autism-spectrum disorders seem to occur more often in children whose parents both work in IT or engineering.

Personally, I suspect that once we come to realize and accept that far more people thank we think suffer from varying degrees of autism, it will become clear that autism is in fact hereditary and that neither Thimerosal nor any other chemicals really have anything to do with it.

By the way, autism is far more survivable / treatable than was previously believed (or than many people still seem to think). Forget Rain Man; many autistic children who even thirty years ago would have been doomed to a life in an institution can actually be taught to function in normal life if you take the time to try to understand them (something medical professionals used to think was below their dignity). Elizabeth Moon (author of the Paksenarrion series) was told some twenty-odd years ago that her son was congenitally incapable of processing language, yet she taught him to speak, and to interact socially, and in the process developed a different idea of what autism is than what was prevalent at the time (in particular, she considers autism a developmental problem rather than a cognitive one). She has also written both fiction and non-fiction on the subject, which you may find worth your time to look up.

Autism symptoms don't develop at 2 months, the time when the first vaccine is mandated.

Or, heck, even at birth, now that Hep-B shots before leaving the hospital are all the rage.

And you are presenting this in favor of the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism? Seriously?

With "factual analysis" by morons like you backing them up, it's little wonder crap statistical analyses like "this doesn't cause Autism" is the major focus, when spending the money on finding out what *does* cause it would be real science, but that ain't happenin'.

And who told you this? The guys selling "vaccines cause autism" books and quack chelation therapy? I was at the Neuroscience meeting in San Diego last year, and I saw row on row of posters describing work on the causes of autism. Try this: go to PubMed [nih.gov] and type "autism" into the search box. There have been some important recent breakthroughs indicating a genetic basis for autism [harvardmagazine.com]. Identifying the genes is an important step toward figuring out what goes wrong and developing a therapy. What doesn't contribute is investing yet more time and money pursuing the long-rejected notion that mercury or vaccines causes autism.

If you had half a brain cell to rub together, you might also be interested in this article, which has not been refuted by anyone.

Oh wow, an article in the respected scientific journal Rolling Stone. And it has not been refuted by anyone? Not even here? [blogs.com] Or here? [blogspot.com] Or here? [aappublications.org] Or here? [neurodiversity.com]