Comments
1
“Antivaccinationists get very indignant when it is pointed out to them that they are, in fact, antivaccinationists.”

On that note, a local group (IAS.org.nz) has in their Constitution, part 3 ‘Beliefs’: “c). We are for information choice about immunisation; we are not anti-vaccine.” The articles offered on their website consistently oppose vaccines. In a spirit of jest, it makes me wonder if they should be challenged for breaching their own constitution by being anti-vaccine! By way of example, currently the IAS are throwing brickbats at a current affairs program that, in my opinion, did a pretty good job of showing both sides of people’s views to the annual influenza vaccination program that is underway at the moment in New Zealand. (That is, without just being nasty to people in the ‘general public’ who have come to errant conclusions about the vaccine - it’s a hard thing to do well IMO.) Of course, the IAS are only opposing ‘pro-vaccine’ statements.

Now I have to go and reply to someone who looks to have read the IAS ‘concerns’ on my blog. Sometimes I wonder why I make the effort, given the time it takes... then I wonder how you, Orac, do it every night! :-)

Posted by: Grant | April 23, 2012 3:50 AM
2
Twin studies show that autism is not 100% genetic. Of the 11-45% that's not genetic, how much is caused by what?

How much 'the environment'?
How much 'the (potentially) autistic child's own choices and actions?'
How much 'the parenting'

Nobody dares to put numbers in that huge gap left by genetics.

Posted by: Anon | April 23, 2012 4:53 AM
3
I read Crosby's piece. The use of the Titanic to draw page views based on a key word was blatant. The writing was painfully bad as well.

If there are any other famous anniversaries of disasters this year, I wonder how many more "Autism Is Like ____" we are going to see.

Posted by: Anj | April 23, 2012 5:34 AM
4
I can't wait to see them tie it in to the Mayan Calendar Doomsday prophesies shite.

Posted by: Michael Hughes | April 23, 2012 6:26 AM
5
@Anon:
Twin studies show that autism is not 100% genetic. Of the 11-45% that's not genetic, how much is caused by what?

If we're talking vaccinations, 0%. This question has been looked at repeatedly with large scale studies. One study from Denmark looked at over half a million children (literally) and found no difference in the autism rates of the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Posted by: Julian Frost | April 23, 2012 6:55 AM
6
@anon
can you please provide details of the studies you mention? We wouldn't want to think you're making it up.

Posted by: meg | April 23, 2012 7:03 AM
7
How much 'the environment'? How much 'the (potentially) autistic child's own choices and actions?' How much 'the parenting'
Nobody dares to put numbers in that huge gap left by genetics.

WTF are you even talking about? How does parenting and the autist make them autistic? As to "nobody dares", why do you think that research is being conducted?

Posted by: Science Mom | April 23, 2012 7:24 AM
8
Someone please, please, please tell me "anon" is a poe.

He/she can't have SERIOUSLY written
...How much 'the (potentially) autistic child's own choices and actions?'
How much 'the parenting'

I mean - I have no words. This is too heinous to even comment about.

The "child's own choices and actions"? THE CHILD's????

And I thought we got rid of the parenting stuff when "refrigerator mom" was discredited.

Posted by: MI Dawn | April 23, 2012 7:34 AM
9
Is anyone even claiming that it's 100% genetic? Other than that guy made of dry plant stocks?

Posted by: ThickSantorum | April 23, 2012 7:36 AM
10
I can somehow understand where "Mountain Momma" is coming from...

I frantically push my way through the crowd screaming warnings, "Get off the ship. It's not safe. PLEASE get off the boat." The crowd is loud; they can't hear me. I know there aren't enough lifeboats. I know the ship is going down.
...and it is a very common position: "Vaccination can have side-effects, so it's safer to do nothing". The misconception is, of course, that doing nothing also has side-effects, namely leaving one (or the child) susceptible to diseases. "Sin of omission", one could say.

So in reality (well, still with way overblown risks, but relatively speaking), Mountain Momma's metaphor would have to be:

I know the boat is not (100%) safe. I know there will be casualties. But I also know that my city will be blown away by a hydrogen bomb. Doing nothing is not safer than getting on the boat.
Silly and way exaggerated, I know. But in my defense, I didn't start with that sort of rhetoric.

Posted by: Daniel | April 23, 2012 7:36 AM
11
Is anyone even claiming that it's 100% genetic?
I have no idea what "100% genetic" means.

Is hair "100%" genetic? Yet, identical twins that are just born will have differences in their hair, for example.

I think equal genes must lead to exactly the same outcomes is overly simplistic. I could easily see how very small differences at the molecular level at any point during the process could be enough to alter the expression of a phenotype. Maybe it's not just the actual gene, but also an issue of conformation at a specific time? If that is the case, then phase space theory is going to be in charge.

Posted by: Marry Me, Mindy | April 23, 2012 8:00 AM
12
Being vaccinated is like being on the Titanic, only good news, you're wearing a seat belt as you are driving a truck full of explosives around the deck and you've got to keep driving above 50 mph or you will never get to the capital where 1 in 88 are picked as tribute and if you take your seatbelt off, you sister Prim will get chosen to be autistic in the reaping and you'll be so depressed that you will tell Osama bin Llama and the Nazis where the New York is and they'll flying the Luftwaffe into the Statue of Liberty which will then topple over and cause a tsunami that will topple the World Trade Center. And you shoot an arrow at the apple in Hitler's mouth. So....get you vaccines?

Posted by: Poe2Go | April 23, 2012 8:13 AM
13
No Julian of course we're not talking vaccinations, that's not even a millionth of a percent.

Mindy please tell me more?

Posted by: Anon | April 23, 2012 8:30 AM
14
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick has anyone seen the photo Stagliano uses for her teeth-gnashing post comparing the Oklahoma City bombing with autism? The woman is truly vile.

Posted by: Science Mom | April 23, 2012 8:32 AM
15
@Science Mom - did your expect anything less than that from AoA?

Posted by: Lawrence | April 23, 2012 8:39 AM
16
What are these people going to do in about 10 years when data starts coming out that shows that non-vaccinated children also have a similar incidence of autism?

Posted by: matt | April 23, 2012 8:42 AM
17
@anon

Can you give us the PMIDs of the twin studies?

@Kim Stagliano, Ph.D. in Genetics:

"woman of childbearing years you should be quaking in your boots."

Apparently what, fathers shouldn't give a shit about their kids and autism?

Posted by: JohnV | April 23, 2012 8:48 AM
18
JohnV: 22139918, but that's not the actual question, is it?

If you think option 2, How much 'the (potentially) autistic child's own choices and actions?' is wrong do you even know what PDD stands for?

Posted by: Anon | April 23, 2012 8:58 AM

=====================ORAC SPECIAL EDIT==============================================

Comments
1
“Antivaccinationists get very indignant when it is pointed out to them that they are, in fact, antivaccinationists.”

On that note, a local group (IAS.org.nz) has in their Constitution, part 3 ‘Beliefs’: “c). We are for information choice about immunisation; we are not anti-vaccine.” The articles offered on their website consistently oppose vaccines. In a spirit of jest, it makes me wonder if they should be challenged for breaching their own constitution by being anti-vaccine! By way of example, currently the IAS are throwing brickbats at a current affairs program that, in my opinion, did a pretty good job of showing both sides of people’s views to the annual influenza vaccination program that is underway at the moment in New Zealand. (That is, without just being nasty to people in the ‘general public’ who have come to errant conclusions about the vaccine - it’s a hard thing to do well IMO.) Of course, the IAS are only opposing ‘pro-vaccine’ statements.

Now I have to go and reply to someone who looks to have read the IAS ‘concerns’ on my blog. Sometimes I wonder why I make the effort, given the time it takes... then I wonder how you, Orac, do it every night! :-)

Posted by: Grant | April 23, 2012 3:50 AM
2
Twin studies show that autism is not 100% genetic. Of the 11-45% that's not genetic, how much is caused by what?

How much 'the environment'?
How much 'the (potentially) autistic child's own choices and actions?'
How much 'the parenting'

Nobody dares to put numbers in that huge gap left by genetics.

Posted by: Anon | April 23, 2012 4:53 AM
3
I read Crosby's piece. The use of the Titanic to draw page views based on a key word was blatant. The writing was painfully bad as well.

If there are any other famous anniversaries of disasters this year, I wonder how many more "Autism Is Like ____" we are going to see.

Posted by: Anj | April 23, 2012 5:34 AM
4
I can't wait to see them tie it in to the Mayan Calendar Doomsday prophesies shite.

Posted by: Michael Hughes | April 23, 2012 6:26 AM
5
@Anon:
Twin studies show that autism is not 100% genetic. Of the 11-45% that's not genetic, how much is caused by what?

If we're talking vaccinations, 0%. This question has been looked at repeatedly with large scale studies. One study from Denmark looked at over half a million children (literally) and found no difference in the autism rates of the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Posted by: Julian Frost | April 23, 2012 6:55 AM
6
@anon
can you please provide details of the studies you mention? We wouldn't want to think you're making it up.

Posted by: meg | April 23, 2012 7:03 AM
7
How much 'the environment'? How much 'the (potentially) autistic child's own choices and actions?' How much 'the parenting'
Nobody dares to put numbers in that huge gap left by genetics.

WTF are you even talking about? How does parenting and the autist make them autistic? As to "nobody dares", why do you think that research is being conducted?

Posted by: Science Mom | April 23, 2012 7:24 AM
8
Someone please, please, please tell me "anon" is a poe.

He/she can't have SERIOUSLY written
...How much 'the (potentially) autistic child's own choices and actions?'
How much 'the parenting'

I mean - I have no words. This is too heinous to even comment about.

The "child's own choices and actions"? THE CHILD's????

And I thought we got rid of the parenting stuff when "refrigerator mom" was discredited.

Posted by: MI Dawn | April 23, 2012 7:34 AM
9
Is anyone even claiming that it's 100% genetic? Other than that guy made of dry plant stocks?

Posted by: ThickSantorum | April 23, 2012 7:36 AM
10
I can somehow understand where "Mountain Momma" is coming from...

I frantically push my way through the crowd screaming warnings, "Get off the ship. It's not safe. PLEASE get off the boat." The crowd is loud; they can't hear me. I know there aren't enough lifeboats. I know the ship is going down.
...and it is a very common position: "Vaccination can have side-effects, so it's safer to do nothing". The misconception is, of course, that doing nothing also has side-effects, namely leaving one (or the child) susceptible to diseases. "Sin of omission", one could say.

So in reality (well, still with way overblown risks, but relatively speaking), Mountain Momma's metaphor would have to be:

I know the boat is not (100%) safe. I know there will be casualties. But I also know that my city will be blown away by a hydrogen bomb. Doing nothing is not safer than getting on the boat.
Silly and way exaggerated, I know. But in my defense, I didn't start with that sort of rhetoric.

Posted by: Daniel | April 23, 2012 7:36 AM
11
Is anyone even claiming that it's 100% genetic?
I have no idea what "100% genetic" means.

Is hair "100%" genetic? Yet, identical twins that are just born will have differences in their hair, for example.

I think equal genes must lead to exactly the same outcomes is overly simplistic. I could easily see how very small differences at the molecular level at any point during the process could be enough to alter the expression of a phenotype. Maybe it's not just the actual gene, but also an issue of conformation at a specific time? If that is the case, then phase space theory is going to be in charge.

Posted by: Marry Me, Mindy | April 23, 2012 8:00 AM
12
Being vaccinated is like being on the Titanic, only good news, you're wearing a seat belt as you are driving a truck full of explosives around the deck and you've got to keep driving above 50 mph or you will never get to the capital where 1 in 88 are picked as tribute and if you take your seatbelt off, you sister Prim will get chosen to be autistic in the reaping and you'll be so depressed that you will tell Osama bin Llama and the Nazis where the New York is and they'll flying the Luftwaffe into the Statue of Liberty which will then topple over and cause a tsunami that will topple the World Trade Center. And you shoot an arrow at the apple in Hitler's mouth. So....get you vaccines?

Posted by: Poe2Go | April 23, 2012 8:13 AM
13
No Julian of course we're not talking vaccinations, that's not even a millionth of a percent.

Mindy please tell me more?

Posted by: Anon | April 23, 2012 8:30 AM
14
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick has anyone seen the photo Stagliano uses for her teeth-gnashing post comparing the Oklahoma City bombing with autism? The woman is truly vile.

Posted by: Science Mom | April 23, 2012 8:32 AM
15
@Science Mom - did your expect anything less than that from AoA?

Posted by: Lawrence | April 23, 2012 8:39 AM
16
What are these people going to do in about 10 years when data starts coming out that shows that non-vaccinated children also have a similar incidence of autism?

Posted by: matt | April 23, 2012 8:42 AM
17
@anon

Can you give us the PMIDs of the twin studies?

@Kim Stagliano, Ph.D. in Genetics:

"woman of childbearing years you should be quaking in your boots."

Apparently what, fathers shouldn't give a shit about their kids and autism?

Posted by: JohnV | April 23, 2012 8:48 AM
18
*trying not to sound sexist (and failing miserably)*
Cathy Jameson -- an excellent source for old wives' tales.

Posted by: machintelligence | April 23, 2012 9:09 AM
19
JohnV: 22139918

Posted by: Anon | April 23, 2012 9:14 AM