jenny mccarthy wants your kid to get measles: autism, vaccines, and stupid idiots

I'm kind of thinking having Jenny McCarthy as a parent gives you autism, but the scientific method isn't going to help prove that very well.

Why bring science into this now?

Hahaha we actually had an autism lecture a couple days ago, and at some point somebody did a study to establish that "parenting defects" had no correlation to the incidence of autism, and quality of parenting had no correlation to the prognosis of the autistic child.

kingfish otm

Just saw this in a local paper:

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=127189135660662400

I guess Frontline is doing a special and using Portland for some examples. We've got a LOT of parents using this so-called “religious exemption” in local schools.

Sounds to me like one of those "hey, thimerosal is not in vaccines now but we're trying to claim it's still vaccines, so what's this glycerin thing? sounds scary!"

I've heard vaccines have dihydrogen oxide in them too, btw.

― mh, Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:36 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

otm and lol

― GREAT JOB Mushroom head (gbx), Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:54 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark

yeah mad lolz. i was actually referring to an article i had read (that my memory is now very shady on the details of) where the gist was that some (non-medical, i think??) research group created a model based on the relationships between brain chemicals that they claimed could be used to find the probable causal path of a disease or disorder. i think this was late 2009? anyway they used this base to build one of these models for autism and concluded something along the lines of autism being the result of a disruption in the homeostatic relationships of a specific set of variables and that the trigger was an imbalance between glycerol and glycine or maybe glutamine and glycine. i cant remember which of the two (because im not really sure what they are?) but the imbalance of these neurotransmitters (?) can be caused by whichever of these is in some vaccines. obv. noone is claimed this is proof of anything but I still thought the process, if not the outcome, was pretty interesting. so the whole point of this is that my best friend’s 3 y/o son is autistic and she is understandably interested in pretty much any research or opinion in this area whether she concludes its a load of crap or not (and no she doesnt believe vaccines cause autism). i tried to explain this study to her but like i said my memory is shady on the details and also im obviously in no way educated in science unless you count 10th grade biology. she wants to know more and i cant remember where i found the article (i thought it was a link from a link from a link on this thread but who knows). i cant find it on google and i figured at least one of you med students would have read about it? the model itself (unrelated specifically to autism), which is supposed to be applicable to all kinds of science, is apparently a pretty big deal?

Yeek, this isn't gonna help matters:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/reactions-to-flu-shots-baffle-health-experts-20100426-tncf.html

"WHY 55 toddlers in Western Australia had convulsions and a child in Brisbane died after having influenza jabs has so far baffled health authorities but they hope to have some answers by next week."

i think my BCG made me a bit aspie

sound like febrile seizures (a known complication). v v weird that they'd be so localized to one area, though.

Yeah I believe it was febrile ones. Indeed odd that its localized and so rampant - maybe a particular batch?

Glutamate and glycine are amino acids, and both are neurotransmitters. Glutamate is the most common excitatory neurotransmitter, found everywhere in the nervous system. Glycine is an inhibitory neurotransmitter that is found mostly in the spinal cord. I suppose someone could be looking at patterns of glutamatergic and/or glycinergic activity in autism. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what that would prove, and I don't know that it's any kind of standard model for analyzing the brain.

As I said upthread, one of the challenges in dealing with autism is that there's no clear-cut pathology, no specific damage to the brain that can be analyzed for clues as to a particular cause. Not to say the brain is entirely normal in autistic kids, but what abnormalities we've been able to appreciate so far have more to do with incomplete/impaired development. The hottest research into autism etiologies in recent years has looked at genetic influences on brain development, including the formation of microscopic synaptic connections. Nothing in that research so far would implicate anything in a vaccine as a cause of autism, not even as a "trigger" or as "part of the picture".

Meanwhile, glycerin/glycerol is a carbohydrate, and has nothing much to do with glutamate or glycine, either biochemically or neurophysiologically. It shows up in medical textbooks because it forms the "backbone" of triglycerides. It's sweet to the taste.

Btw, Plasmon - read Mad Travellers; its was great, thanks. You seem to go considerably (and fascinatingly) further in your extension of his theories than he would, is that fair to say? (this from a non-medicinal half-in, half-out lurker, so what do I know).

Thx for the explanation, plasmon. I did end up finding the article anyways.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/171457.php

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36730295

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG So tempted to post this on Facebook to prod my ding-dong vaccine denying, chiropractor ex into fabricating reasons why this is all BIG PHARMA's attempt to discredit "natural" medicine.

Off topic:

Choice quote from the Frontline episode:

Jennifer Margulis: "This is our neighborhood. We love it. Ashland is a very safe town compared to everywhere else in America."

Narrator: "It's a college town, home to an annual Shakespeare festival, where a well-off and educated populace has easy access to alternative medicines, an organic food co-op, and yoga centers. Jennifer Margulis, a writer with a Ph.D in English literature is the mother of four children."

I'm embarrassed by the scientific literacy in the United States. Moreover, I'm embarrassed that a PhD in English literature is used to indicate "educated." Together they foretell a troubling future.

But I'm hesitant to disparage her or her supporters because the antecedent to this opinion is widespread. Scientific education in the United States is dismal therefore no one should act surprised when this ludicrous argument is motivated. Furthermore, the illiteracy on this thread should also be noted and checked.

If I were the so-called benevolent dictator I'd establish strong disincentives for my people to pursue the humanities in favor of strong incentives to purse math and science. In the last decade, the humanities have exploded; the ICES reported there’s been a 25% increase in degrees awarded in both the humanities and social sciences. In this same time period, both engineering and physical science (with the exception of a small increase in biology) were stagnant and formal science declined.

pretty sure our current job market is becoming a strong disincentive for many would-be humanities majors

Also, on a more general point, a good humanities education shd include basic principles of scientific and critical thinking - credulousness is not a consequence of the humanities. (I guess this point is more a result of the 'fuckin humanities graduates misrepresentin science' schtick that seems part of the homeopathy/mmr/health scare journos v science dialogue in Britain, which I'm pretty tired of - don't know whether it's the same elsewhere.)

went to the Ashland Shakespeare festival several times as a young'n, would go again, A+ summer childhoods

Two friends of mine with young kids were in the pub today and, when chatting about vaccination were kinda nervous (which is perfectly understandable given the press a couple of years ago)but after a bit of a chat they seemed much happier about it (nb: they probably would have got them vaccinated anyway, just would have felt less happy.)

So thanks thread, for lots of info.

yeah those women in that frontline special were so goddamned infuriating

I hate to ask what may be an obvious question, but how much risk are unvaccinated kids posing to vaccinated children?

depends on how many there are!

each of these very special parents wants their kid to be the one not getting vaccinated, while everyone else does. it's like demanding to be the one guy to drive w/o a license while everyone else has to go to the DMV and fill out the forms so you can stay safe.

Yeah, that's what I figured. I'm curious as to when the ratios become really high risk and what diseases have the best chance of making a comeback.

from what i know things get dangerous at very low non-vaccinated percentages. but i'll let the real heads weigh in.

I'm studying right now, but the risk will depend on lots of factors: the underlying environmental risk of contracting the disease (human v animal reservoirs, just hanging around in nature, etc), the way it might spread, etc. Also some vaccines confer herd immunity---not just from safety in numbers, but from the fact that kids will poop out the defanged organism and passively vaccinate other kids in the community because, you know, kids are filthy.

Basically: If you're looking for some statistical loophole, there isn't one. That is, don't expect math to justify not vaccinating yr kids. While there may in fact be some threshold for "safe" levels of unvaccinated ppl in the herd, it's a fast moving target subject to a grip of variables.

other factor: pathogen variabilty. ppl may be protected against a particular strain of something, but if it gets a foothold in an unvaccinated pocket of a comunity, it might have the time/generations/pressures to become pathogenic to those already vaccinated.

also, just cuz I literally took an exam on infectious disease yesterday: anti-vaxx ppl ought to go to I dunno Africa and tell the people there that vaccines are just a terrible idea and that polio isn't so bad when you think about it, I mean you could be president some day!

Esp since you can now be born in Kenya and still become POTUS! I mean what are they complaining about, their chances are better than ever.

herd immunity for mmr stuff is usually reported to be around 85% but that's not important and could vary w/ strain - basically on a micro scale tho you're fucking up by not getting your kid vaccinated and increasing HIS risk of contracting a serious illness

xp what gbx said

haha im a little burnt out on this v topic right now but: the models behind herd immunity thresholds are dynamic so its just saying "15% of the pop can remain unvaccinated and were cool" sudden and specific changes in vax rates are going to affect the model differently

*lol morning exams: "its NOT just saying..."

where do insane clown posse stand on this issue?

vaccines are magic but scientists are lyin' motherfuckers

...and they're getting me pissed!

my wife and I made the mistake of getting involved in an online vaccination argument the other day... excuse me while this spleen is vented.

we have a two-year-old daughter, and are very much inclined towards the gentle, unconditional, attachment parenting end of the spectrum. however, being liberal, touchy-feely hippies, we find ourselves in the company of people who not only believe that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they immunise against, but do not accept that there is any reliable evidence that vaccines work at all, or that they ever have. all medical papers and reports are instantly dismissed as unreliable.

evidence of healthy scepticism, perhaps...?

no.

these same people require NO evidence whatsoever when it comes to the efficacy of homeopathy. it was absolutely fine to recommend homeopathic remedies as a viable alternative to conventional medicine on the basis of nothing at all. a couple of people (including myself) felt that administering placebos was not a particularly effective way of protecting an infant against measles, but in the spirit of polite discourse, asked for evidence in support of this treatment - at which point the entire discussion was deleted by a moderator (who had personally recommended homeopathy and repeatedly pressed the minority science advocates for verifiable scientific references).

nothing got heated, no insults were flung, but questioning homeopathy is a banning offence. brilliant.

it really pisses me off. these irresponsible fuckwits not only benefit from (but of course, deny) herd immunity, but encourage other people to negatively impact upon the very principle that keeps their kids safe by opting to immunise their kids with magic sugar pills. great. thanks a bunch. that's so helpful.

*deep breath*

I just shut them down with a curt "That's junk science" any time someone has started lecturing me against vaccination. Probably not the the nicest thing to do, but oh well.

fuck niceness, get science

there's a certain irony in people proclaiming their total lack of faith in science ON THE FUCKING INTERNET.

Ugh... that selective scepticism pisses me off SO much.

I don't want to overreact to this crap, but my current mindset is that the parents of unvaccinated kids need to "come out" to their community like sex offenders.

they're FAKE immunizing? o_O

and proud!

{but touchy}

no reason not to be rude to people like this (unless you like them for other reasons)

if they've rejected sustained reasoning and evidentiary argument, there's not much left.

Vaccines *are* miracles, man, ICP really dropped the ball by not including them. I should write them and ask them to do a sequel with this couplet:
Danky greens, caffiene, and all vaccines
Not getting deiseases we shouldn't be seein'

xp I'm inclined to agree, except that being hostile just guarantees that you'll be ignored.

people believe all kinds of things for powerful-but-wrong reasons. they rarely change their minds.

the one person i know who is into "energies" and homeopathy and other garbage like that also has a bunch of chronic health problems with no real remedy and no health insurance. i don't know if this individual is specifically a vaccine denialist but it wouldn't surprise me.

by "rudeness" i guess it could just be beginning with the conclusion, ie "get your kids immunized, otherwise you're endangering them and the rest of us." if you want to rail about fear and ignorance, well...

I found out last week my mom and/or dad never took me in for all my follow-up shots. So I'm in this fucked up non-immunity crowd for now, too. The irony of it is just painful.

whoa damn! there has to be a fix for that now, rite??

yeah I'm getting shots now, at age 26.

never too late for a good old vaccine.

sorry abbs but LOL

most, though not all, of the denialists in the above case were american, which made me wonder whether this prevalent mistrust is a consequence of the more direct and visible relationship (at least from the patient's perspective) between medicine and commerce in the states.

to use a clunky analogy, I know I find it hard to trust a mechanic when he tells me I need to give him several hundred quid to make my car's invisible and/or future problem go away... but even so I don't rely on infinite dilutions to fix my brakes.