Heckenlively admits that AoA is anti-vaccination ***Updated***

Well, go read his post about them becoming the majority and see if it doesn't show clearly that this isn't about safe vaccination; it's about no vaccination.

Now, tell me that doesn't mean pro-infectious disease out of a misguided, inaccurate fear of any vaccines at any age causing autism?

Seriously. It's one thing to make sure parents know and understand the relative risks and make informed decisions based on accurate evidence (and that included medications like CHELATION and treatments like HBOT); it's completely another to do what AoA is doing.

Supporting AoA's agenda means supporting a return to increased childhood mortality. Period.

***The comments over there confirm this is about reducing the number of vaccinated people. Not so much out of a fear that everyone who gets one will get autism, but because getting vaccinated appears to mean you've bought into some governmental/pharma conspiracy.

In other words, where the whale.to connection used to be quieter, more hidden, where the crazy was ensconsed elsewhere for plausible deniability, they've brought it front and center and wear it proudly.

I'm going to say it again in case any one missed my point: supporting AoA's apparently now open agenda to reduce vaccination is to support increased childhood mortality. It isn't about the autism any more, folks, it isn't about reducing autism. It isn't about helping people with autism or autistic children. It's about ending vaccination.

And I'm invoking Thelma. Anyone who wants to eliminate vaccination and see a return to the previous mortality rates we had in the 40s and 50s and earlier, anyone who wants more children to suffer with preventable illnesses, is a dumbass. I don't do that with malice. I don't say that with any sort of derision or scorn. These people are dangerous and they are wrong. And I do believe I'd begin to distance myself from their dangerous nonsense that will see children and others die because of their arrogant ignorance.


Clay said...

I got my regular flu shot last Friday, along with 6 tabs of Azithromycin, for my 2 month bout with bronchitis. The VA didn't have the H1N1 flu shot yet, I'll probably get it next month when I have my regular checkup.

What most people don't realize is, if H1N1 had shown up a few months earlier, it would have been included in this year's regular flu shot. There just wasn't enough time to include it.

NightStorm The Aspiewolf said...

AoA supports painful death of children from infectionous easily preventable dieases. Got it.

kathleen said...

They are finally being up front about it..I wonder what this portends?

Nostrum said...

And this, people, is why I'm so rabidly pro vaccine in the face of doubters. Those people are dangerous. Their attitudes endanger their children, my children, and your children.

AutismNewsBeat said...

Kent Heckenlively is a science teacher. I'm not kidding.

KWombles said...

Yes, Ken, I know. I had a student tell me all she needed to be a teacher was a 2.0 average. There you go, some of our children's teachers were C students. That means there's 30 percent of the material they didn't master. Is that really want we want in our children's teachers? C students?

I want people well-versed in critical thinking with a commitment to the truth and to accuracy, not someone who stands behind the holocaust-denying whale.to site.

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

Craig, there is absolutely no way in which his post and other posts detailing conversations with other coworkers can be interpreted as promoting informed consent. I'm sorry but there is not. He may not say outright that he wants to wipe out vaccinations, but it is crystal clear that his idea of informed consent is that vaccination is bad. You seriously want me to think he means AoAers are becoming a majority of folks who understand the risks and then vaccinate? No. He means a majority of people who believe vaccines are dangerous. That isn't informed consent. That isn't being knowledgeable. It's scaring people with inaccurate information.

Craig, contrast that to what I ocnsistently say about vaccination, about being aware of the relative risks, of the need for certain individuals to avoid vaccination and the need for the community to be vaccinated to protect those vulnerable.

Go read whale.to, Craig, see the connections between the writers there and the editors and writers at AoA. Really critically, objectively, look at the content of the words. Really look.

Maybe the work that AoA set out to do was admirable and noble at the beginning. It is no longer a noble endeavor. And, I repeat, they must be held accountable for their words at whale.to. You cannot just take their words at AoA, you must take their words at whale.to into account.

Is their pursuit the truth? Is their pursuit the betterment of those with autism? Is their goal to be supportive (I'm not talking their rallying behind bullies, which is a whole lot of what they do in the comments).

I look forward to discussing this further with you; I'm writing this on the fly before running to work. I'll be happy to go back through his piece and quote from it where I think it's absolutely clear what he means. Also, look to the Olmsted piece I wrote yesterday for further evidence of their agenda.

Hope you have a good day, Craig. :-)

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

It looks like Olmsted communicated with Specter over the weekend, which gave him a heads up that an allegation of plargiarism would be made. That gave Specter enough time to get ahead of the accusation, and post his apology ahead of the AoA post. That was smart.

But Specter was stoopid in other ways. I don't care what his excuse was, you just don't use somebody else's words as your own. I failed a student once for that very thing.

That fact that Dan "Clinic for Special Children" Olmsted caught the mistake makes Specter's mistake doubly embarrassing.

AutismNewsBeat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AutismNewsBeat said...

Craig, what do you mean by informed consent? Are you saying doctors aren't clearly informing parents of the risks?

One of the arguments against the Sear's schedule is that it exposes children to more needle sticks and office visits than are necessary, thus increasing the risk of vaccination for no proven benefit. Should Sears do a better job of informing his patients of the slightly increased risk of following his schedule? I'm not writing this to throw you into another tizzy, as Kim would say. It's more of a thought exercise. Humans are really bad at assessing risk. There's also the fallacy of believing that harm from inaction is preferable to harm that follows action.

davidbrown said...

The argument against vaccinations, reduced only to accurate statements of fact, would be more or less Darwinian/eugenics. The choices are many deaths in early childhood from disease, or the social and genetic burden of treating weak immune systems and other genetic defects among those that the vaccines save. And in those terms, I personally could respect an anti-vax position.