My response
Firstly, thanks for your interest in my humble little blog. I certainly don't get much traffic over here, and I appreciate the attention. As the parent of four young children, I am as interested in the vaccine debate as anyone, especially since my two youngest have not even had all their shots yet. Please accept my dialog in the spirit given. That said...
The problem with the analogy you gave, while I see what you're getting at, is that diet guidelines and principles have been established, proven, and verified. Not so with the autism-vaccine link. For instance, sweets don't make you fat at all. Eating more calories than you burn for extended periods of time does. In fact, if you eat all your calories sugar, provided you eat the correct AMOUNT of calories, you won't balloon overnight, over a week, maybe even over a couple of weeks like you might if you ate 1500 calories too many each day in whole wheat pasta, whole grain breads, starchy vegetables, and lean meat. Grant, your health would begin to suffer by the end of day 1 on the sugar diet, and that would have a longterm adverse effect on your weight control, but that's another topic altogether. Like medicine, nutrition is complex.
Again, the difference is in evidence. That obese lady in your example has been seen in REALITY time and again, by the entire country. Up until last season I watched Biggest Loser each week and 90% of the stories were the same: "I've tried everything. Diet, excersize machines, pills, shakes, programs, shots, and nothing works." Right. Everything but eating well and being active. And under the guidance of a professional who has expectations and knowledge of sound principles, these folks drop 4,15, and some even 30 pounds in one week.
Where I'm going with this is that the vaccine debate is in fact like that obese woman, but from the other side of the coin. Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence as to what even causes autism, never mind whether or not it is something in the vaccines. When a well founded theory, or more usually, a not-so-well-founded theory of what it might be surfaces, it is investigated and tried. The last best hope for the autism-vaccine link was the thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines. When over half of 20 or so children in the 20s died from a vaccine, doctors realized the need for preservatives to stabilize the vaccines. Of those available, thimerosal was the only one that didn't render the vaccine less effective. Unfortunately, there wasn't and still isn't any information on the effects of thimerosal in humans. It seems to be metabolized rather quickly in the body into a compound containing ethylmercury, which is also still not very understood, but there was plenty of data on the inorganic methylmercury. A couple of concerned individuals noticed how toxic ethylmercury was, bent some observations to say that mercury poisoning is similar to autism (it isn't) and voila, quacks came out to make a quick buck. Unfortunately, two things happened.
First, several countries, including the USofA phased out thimerosal from vaccines for children under 2 as a precaution. This isn't unfortunate. What is, is that the incidence of autism CONTINUED TO INCREASE. This leads to the conclusion that something other than thimerosal is increasing autism in children. My favorite hypothesis is that it's the increased awareness of autism. The second is that the WHO studied children in countries that still used the thimerosal vaccines and found that there was no significant risk of toxicity from the thimerosal in the vaccines or the vaccine schedules. Look here. Also look here. Note the result that mercury levels return to normal within 30 days, and that the halflife of ethylmercury is less than 4 days. Trace the originating link from thimerosal to the vaccine research that "exposed" it, and you'll find a doctor sponsored by a drug company; a doctor who stood to make a mint if his thimerosal-free vaccine gained precedence in the field.
I realize that you aren't arguing against vaccines for thimerosal. My point is that when even a slightly plausible, but for a few facts, theory is published in peer reviewed literature, it is taken seriously, and for the sake of our children, action was taken. This guy Dr. Andrew Moulden hasn't published anything for peer review. He hasn't established plausibility of white blood cells "blocking up" blood vessels. After all, they aren't platelets, right? In fact, I couldn't find where he pointed to any evidence of what he claims. Just a few analogies about transports and some stories. What I DID find was a program he was trying to sell for $2500 to try and mop up a bit on the shirt tales of the antivaccine movement. When I see a payday for the originating scientist, forgive me for being on guard.
I would really like to read some studies pointing food allergies to vaccines, since this is the first I've heard of it. I'll reserve comments for now.
At least we're on the same page about disclosure. I agree that we SHOULD be able to know what we are allowing into our bodies. The caveat is that we have to be responsible about what we do with the information and not go listening to every quack who has an opinion, and that's a real danger. I'm not sure where the middle ground is, but I'm positive it involves a lot of education.
As an aside, you may be interested in this post about peanut allergies. Something suggests that the body doesn't react the same way to measles as it does peanuts. After all, people get injections all the time that the body doesn't send white blood cells out to destroy.
Thanks for taking the time to slug through this long, long post.
The problem with the analogy you gave, while I see what you're getting at, is that diet guidelines and principles have been established, proven, and verified. Not so with the autism-vaccine link. For instance, sweets don't make you fat at all. Eating more calories than you burn for extended periods of time does. In fact, if you eat all your calories sugar, provided you eat the correct AMOUNT of calories, you won't balloon overnight, over a week, maybe even over a couple of weeks like you might if you ate 1500 calories too many each day in whole wheat pasta, whole grain breads, starchy vegetables, and lean meat. Grant, your health would begin to suffer by the end of day 1 on the sugar diet, and that would have a longterm adverse effect on your weight control, but that's another topic altogether. Like medicine, nutrition is complex.
Again, the difference is in evidence. That obese lady in your example has been seen in REALITY time and again, by the entire country. Up until last season I watched Biggest Loser each week and 90% of the stories were the same: "I've tried everything. Diet, excersize machines, pills, shakes, programs, shots, and nothing works." Right. Everything but eating well and being active. And under the guidance of a professional who has expectations and knowledge of sound principles, these folks drop 4,15, and some even 30 pounds in one week.
Where I'm going with this is that the vaccine debate is in fact like that obese woman, but from the other side of the coin. Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence as to what even causes autism, never mind whether or not it is something in the vaccines. When a well founded theory, or more usually, a not-so-well-founded theory of what it might be surfaces, it is investigated and tried. The last best hope for the autism-vaccine link was the thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines. When over half of 20 or so children in the 20s died from a vaccine, doctors realized the need for preservatives to stabilize the vaccines. Of those available, thimerosal was the only one that didn't render the vaccine less effective. Unfortunately, there wasn't and still isn't any information on the effects of thimerosal in humans. It seems to be metabolized rather quickly in the body into a compound containing ethylmercury, which is also still not very understood, but there was plenty of data on the inorganic methylmercury. A couple of concerned individuals noticed how toxic ethylmercury was, bent some observations to say that mercury poisoning is similar to autism (it isn't) and voila, quacks came out to make a quick buck. Unfortunately, two things happened.
First, several countries, including the USofA phased out thimerosal from vaccines for children under 2 as a precaution. This isn't unfortunate. What is, is that the incidence of autism CONTINUED TO INCREASE. This leads to the conclusion that something other than thimerosal is increasing autism in children. My favorite hypothesis is that it's the increased awareness of autism. The second is that the WHO studied children in countries that still used the thimerosal vaccines and found that there was no significant risk of toxicity from the thimerosal in the vaccines or the vaccine schedules. Look here. Also look here. Note the result that mercury levels return to normal within 30 days, and that the halflife of ethylmercury is less than 4 days. Trace the originating link from thimerosal to the vaccine research that "exposed" it, and you'll find a doctor sponsored by a drug company; a doctor who stood to make a mint if his thimerosal-free vaccine gained precedence in the field.
I realize that you aren't arguing against vaccines for thimerosal. My point is that when even a slightly plausible, but for a few facts, theory is published in peer reviewed literature, it is taken seriously, and for the sake of our children, action was taken. This guy Dr. Andrew Moulden hasn't published anything for peer review. He hasn't established plausibility of white blood cells "blocking up" blood vessels. After all, they aren't platelets, right? In fact, I couldn't find where he pointed to any evidence of what he claims. Just a few analogies about transports and some stories. What I DID find was a program he was trying to sell for $2500 to try and mop up a bit on the shirt tales of the antivaccine movement. When I see a payday for the originating scientist, forgive me for being on guard.
I would really like to read some studies pointing food allergies to vaccines, since this is the first I've heard of it. I'll reserve comments for now.
At least we're on the same page about disclosure. I agree that we SHOULD be able to know what we are allowing into our bodies. The caveat is that we have to be responsible about what we do with the information and not go listening to every quack who has an opinion, and that's a real danger. I'm not sure where the middle ground is, but I'm positive it involves a lot of education.
As an aside, you may be interested in this post about peanut allergies. Something suggests that the body doesn't react the same way to measles as it does peanuts. After all, people get injections all the time that the body doesn't send white blood cells out to destroy.
Thanks for taking the time to slug through this long, long post.
Comments