11/12/2009

3900 dead, but hey, let's keep harping on supposed, unconfirmed vaccine injuries

Instead of the estimated 540 children dead since April of this year from the H1N1 virus. Forget the 3900 overall dead, the 98,000 hopsitalized, the 22 million ill. Frak that. What we want is to keep on hammering anything vaccine related, because perspective-r-us. After all, we're the people who also deny the holocaust.

Color me silly, but it really irks me when people die needlessly and others minimize these deaths. We don't mean to be glib. Of course you don't. Not you of the sheoples and trolls fame. Never that.

Seriously, we've covered this territory before, but let's say it again. GBS cannot be transmitted from the flu vaccine. A person already had to have the virus, and the flu vaccine can reactive it. But it isn't giving it. It isn't causing it. (See http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/11/msnbc-reports-teen-boy-contracted-neurological-disorder-hours-after-h1n1-vaccine.html to understand part of my current irritation, and then Handley's latest attack on Orac-- the comments are the worst, really. We already know who and what Handley is; after all he suggested a female reporter must have been slipped a date rape drug and intellectually raped by Offit to write the piece). No one, no one, no one (Godsamighty these people wouldn't know the truth if God spoke it to them and smacked them in the forehead and told them to pull their heads out) says vaccines are without risk. The risk is small compared to the risk of the disease, but you get the vaccine aware of the risk, just like you swallow your NSAID aware that 14,000 people a year die from NSAIDS. And if you don't do these thigs with some awareness of risks, then you're almost as big a dumbass as the people who think adverse reactions to vaccines happen months after the fact.

Damnit. I'm tired of their crap. Tired of seeing good people hoodwinked and suckered into their pseudoscience and fearmongering. Tired of their ugliness, their pettiness, and tired of trying to remember that beneath the incredible crap they put out there they are people who hurt, who feel, who get up in the morning each day and do their best to get through it. It's a frakking shame they have to do it with falsehoods and nastiness.



Age of Autism doesn't care about vaccine safety. Doesn't care about proportionality, about making sure vulnerable populations are protected. They don't care about the 540 dead kids since April. They don't care about the 3900 DEAD people from this virus. Nope. They care about a young woman with a psychogenic condition. Not flu vaccine reaction. 10 days after. For frak's sake. 10 days. We've covered that, as well. Adverse effects occur much faster, within hours. But she's pretty and they can get traction; they can use this woman. How does it help them get to their truth about autism wherever it leads? It doesn't. Nothing they write about is about getting at the truth. Whale.to.

Am I being crystal clear here?

Age of Autism wants people to stop getting vaccinated. I don't know why. Maybe for the same reason they can deny the holocaust and make up other facts when reality doesn't suit them.

Good people of good conscience cannot wade through the moral wasteland of Age of Autism and its sister-arm whale.to and not walk away morally outraged. They cannot. They cannot stand with Age of Autism and support what they are doing. They cannot high-five those individuals. They cannot. They cannot stand in the midst of that and pretend that there are any good intentions there. There are not.

Perhaps these people are lovely in the real world. If they are, then it is their internet selves that are their true reflection. Perhaps they are Dorian Grays; I'll concede that. It makes the nastiness all the worse. It makes their sincere, intense desire to see vaccination stopped and people sick, and some of them die, all the more reprehensible.

You cannot read their site, cannot read whale.to, which they particpate in, and walk away thinking these people are in possession of any truth.

Make no mistake, Age of Autism is a moral wasteland. The people behind it, the majority of its regular commenters, are not about vaccine efficacy, about making things better for families impacted by autism. It is an ugly sharkfest there and I will not mince words about this. If you stand in the midst of that, if you participate in the dismantling of one of the most important preventatives we have against disease all in the misguided and very inaccurate belief that autism is caused by vaccines, if you reward, support, high-five, engage in the nastiness and the lies they spew forth, then you will have the deaths on your conscience.

There is a time to stand and say this is wrong. There is a time to look around at the company you keep, the beliefs you have, and critically examine both. Failure to stand against so much falsehood, so much hate, so much capacity to do harm is not acceptible. To participate in it, to be in the midst of that, is to be a part of that moral wasteland. To fail to stand against it is to take your place in the moral wasteland. It is a decision to choose anger over accuracy, to choose hate over hope, to choose ugliness over compassion.


Addendum
Craig writes at AoA (http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/11/are-we-becoming-a-majority.html#comments):
"Some deadly and communicable disease will happen. The vaccine defenders will blame people who are questioning vaccines. They won't wonder why the disease is affecting those that are vaccinated too."

This assertion that vaccine defenders (nice one, misses the point somewhat but makes your assertions calmer in comparison) won't wonder why diseases affect the vaccinated shows an incredibly poor understanding of herd immunity. You've got to get off of the woo and outright inaccurate information. Of course, when AoAers won't read mainstream scientific explanations for how vaccines work, how can they  understand that getting vaccinated is not a guarantee that one will have full immunity. This is something that has been explained ad nauseum to the "concerned parents"  over at Huff to no avail. Science-Based Medicine has an article on herd immunity: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=516. When you use AoA's inaccurate talking points, it hurts your arguments. Badly.

And we've been over informed consent here. Sigh. Call me a vaccine defender if you like, but you miss the point. If we were talking about parents like Craig who had children who had near immediate adverse reactions resulting in hospital stays and more than reasonable likelihood that there was in fact an adverse reaction, more attention might be paid, more credence given. However, these thousands of parents that AoA and the like are so certain got autism from vaccines didn't have adverse reactions. They are simply connecting dots based on the things they've heard.  And the science that can find fifteen (corrected number) cases of intussusception in infants receiving the original rotavirus vaccine and result in the vaccine being pulled from the market could surely find the 300,000 juveniles with autism if it were the vaccines.

Disappointing.

So very disappointing.

14 comments:

Mom26children said...

Age of Autism....
((((( yawn )))))

KWombles said...

Jeanette,

You started my day off with a surprised laugh. Maybe, maybe that's the way to go. :-)

cawill said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cawill said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KWombles said...

Craig, in the sense that I did not use your full, lengthy comment, I will agree that it is out of its context, but disagree with the notion that this altered its meaning. Think of it this way; I added as an addendum to the post (in other words, I had already written the post, went back to AoA to check something, and saw your comment) the relevant portion of your comment to point out a specific area where I felt your argument was inaccurate, and I rebutted that (not that this is the only area where I would quibble).

This is no different than your tendency to not address or ignore large portions of my posts. Truthfully, I wouldn't expect anyone to rebut my posts point by point, but there are specific parts of my posts that should provoke response from you and don't.

So, I'm sorry if you feel that was out of context and I'm glad you posted your whole comment here. I just strongly disagree with the idea that by doing so I changed the meaning of those words, because it did not. And that tends to be what we mean when we say someone took our words out of context. You know, sort of like how Offit never hears the end of the 100,000 vaccines thing. That couldn't have been repeatedly taken out of context, nah!

Seriously, if you got irked in reading that post, it really shouldn't have been me pointing out an inaccurate understanding of herd immunity.

The main reason I believe you are experiencing a rejection of your conclusions is that you take your real experience and surround it with the rhetoric of AoA, which has been shown to be inaccurate. You surround yourself with people who make a causal connection where there was no vaccine injury whatsoever, and you align yourself with cyberbullies who tell blatant falsehoods and get caught in them.

Perhaps if you didn't seem to be entrenched in an organization, well, I believe I've written several posts on that.

It's disappointing. Disappointing because the fanatics are not mainstream scientists, Craig, who move as the research moves. Nope.

KWombles said...

Ah, well, hadn't read the last one before posting.

So, I'll argue into the wind. I've not called you a liar, not said your experience didn't happen. And not particularly defended Orac or Ken.

I'll take your decision to not return as confirmation that you'd rather stay steeped in anger. Rather be where that anger can be stoked. Rather be aligned with holocaust deniers and believers in mind control because it lets you be angry and get high-fived.

It's a damn shame for several reasons. It will further eat at your credibility. It will do nothing to help you cope more adaptively. And it will do nothing to help you critically examine claims so that you truly make informed decisions. Instead everything will be filtered through the AoA rhetoric.


Ken pointed out that thousands believe they were abducted by aliens. I'll add that thousands believe that Elvis is alive. Thousands believe in scientology. Thousands believe aliens are amongst us. Just because thousands of people believe something doesn't mean it has any basis in reality.

Objective science is the best way to find the truth. And AoA is patently not about objective science. Maybe if you took a break from their site, quit conflating everything said about AoA as about being about you, really laid that anger aside for a minute and asked yourself where you might be wrong (and I'm not talking about the vaccine injury, but I'd argue on the intestinal issues being caused by adverse reaction), you might be able to use your formidable intellect to find your way out of the damn woods, Craig, and into a better place.

But that's just me whistling in the wind since you won't be back.

KWombles said...

Jenning's condition was not the result of a vaccine. For God's sake, man. It's not. 10 days. You are not using reason on this.

Connie said...

Here's where AoA gets you. It gets you to the world my sister is lives in.

A couple weeks ago, my niece mentioned that a classmate was in the hospital with the H1N1 virus. This barely got a reaction from my sister.

But last night, when niece told us that a girlfriend of hers was getting the vaccine today, sis jumped out of her skin: "O my Gawd! Can't you talk her out of it!!??"

Followed by a 15-minute rant about how terrible and dangerous the vaccine is.

Followed by her picking up the telephone to call this girl's mother to implore her not to let her child get the vaccine.

Sister didn't make the call only because niece tearfully begged her not to, as it would have been humiliating for her if her mom called another parent to harangue her about vaccines.

Why does my sister behave this way? Why is she terrified of the vaccine but not the disease?

In my opinion, because of AoA.

AutismNewsBeat said...

If Craig wasn't so busy cleaning up after all those pet peeves of his, he would find more time to exercise his formidable intellect.

Mom26children said...

Kim,
Can you say "beating a dead horse"
???
That is what I get out of AoA...same ol' shit every day !!!

Really, don't they get bored with themselves?

AutismNewsBeat said...

Kim, when you say "supposed" injuries, is that the same as calling Craig a liar?

Woof.

KWombles said...

Huh, Ken, I wouldn't have thought so. Since I've acceptd Craig's story and supported him, you wouldn't think he'd take that "supposed" and place himself there. I guess, though, he might have.

Doggie biscuit? Have you been Orac's lapdog, by the way? I must be missing you over there.

You know, it'd be able to deal with vaccine injuries responsibly, respectfully, and with all seriousness if people weren't conflating something that happened to them days, weeks, months after the flu shot or whatever vaccine and assigning the blame to the vaccine.

I keep trying to point that out to Craig, but I guess, unfortunately, Craig isn't interested in being taken seriously, or he'd correct the errors and avoid the bad company.

And Craig, again, on the herd immunity, where the vaccines themselves are only about 90% or so effective, all you need is one disease carrier. Yes, when there is an outbreak, the overall numbers are weighted towards the vaccinated (as they outnumber the unvaccinated) but the percentage who catch the disease is overwhelmingly higher in the unvaccinated. Where all are vaccinated, herd immunity (no possible disease carrier) kicks in.

Again, something you'd know if you'd quit filtering scientific information through the AoA lenses and the unreasonable hatred you have for medical bloggers.

AutismNewsBeat said...

My thoughts exactly. I guess that makes me your poodle. ; -)

cawill said...

"Jenning's condition was not the result of a vaccine. For God's sake, man. It's not. 10 days. You are not using reason on this."

But, Kim, the VAERS report that may or may not be hers says that the symtoms began within 3 days of the vaccine, not 10. And since Novella and Orac has never actually seen her medical records or even MET the girl, we're just supposed to take their word for it.

She needs to sue them for libel, in my opinion. And I do hope she takes them for everything they have. Orac, especially, deserves it.