Holy Shit! Robbin Williams died!!!


Recommended Posts

Since I live this problem of wondering whether vaccines had anything to do with Sean's condition (he's my stepson), I always find it odd that lots of people on the "science" side like to state CATEGORICALLY there is no causality, there could never be any causality, those who wonder if there is are just stupid dumb fucks who can't read and bumpkin religious and they don't like them anyway.

On the other hand, lots of people on the "conspiracy" side (so to speak) claim giant corporations are in collusion with the government and making a massive cover-up to protect their greedy immoral evil callous stupid-fuck people-as-livestock profits or stuck-up know-it-alls who wouldn't know an autistic kid if they stepped on one.

I know the propaganda campaigns on both sides have to do this, but I am struck by how religiously fanatical both sides get--how they swallow the propaganda whole.

Kat goes to a lot of seminars and studies a great deal about autism. Her stated goal is she wants to fix her little man. I find the people she hangs out with when she goes into this world the most objective I have come across and their goal is identical toward their children. They look at all possibilities. Everyone I have met--every single one--claims the problem is too complex to attribute to any one cause--or deny any plausible cause at this stage.

On the vaccination issue, instead of making blanket statements of corporate greed or wagging a finger in someone's face while intoning "correlation is not causation," they wonder if different metabolisms might react to a high barrage of vaccines at the tender age of 0-to-6 months--some babies resisting and some reacting in different manners. They wonder if mercury affects different people in different ways. They tell expecting parents to become as informed as possible and make decisions based on what they find the most convincing. If there is a bias, it is to cut down on the number of vaccines (not cut out vaccines altogether) and stagger inoculations over a longer timeline.

And they move away from vaccines and study the gut, behavior modification and all kinds of other paths. Some go the big-medicine route with lots of chemicals, too.

There are sporadic successes in improving autism in ALL the treatments, standard medicine and alternate, and no one treatment gives universal positive results, so the general consensus among the parents Kat hangs out with is try this, try that, and try something else until you hit on something that works. They don't trust anybody on either side who starts demonizing.

And speaking of people who demonize, those thoroughly committed to one side of this discussion or the other generally don't live with the goal of "fixing their little man" in their hearts (or little woman, although females are much less prone to this condition). They either harbor a religious attitude about science or a big honking resentment about what they believe--that their kid was treated as a lab rat without their consent while they drew the booby-prize.

I'm with Kat on this 1,000%. I, too, want to help her fix her little man. So I help her try this and try that. I will keep doing it, too. I don't give a fuck about who's right or who's wrong in debating points in this topic. That discussion is not what interests me because those folks don't want what I do. They want something else unrelated and it is not called Sean.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is "Vaccine" a peer reviewed scientific journal?

To find out the answer, you need to click on the link provided.

Why have a publication with a name like that if it wasn't a shill for the vaccination industry?

Okay, Brant. If you refuse to consider findings published in a specialist scientific journal sight unseen -- without bothering to read anything of the study, then my arguments and questions are wasted on you.

Using a term like 'shill for the vaccination industry' is poisoning the well, evasive and fallacious.

It's a peer reviewed journal of the Edward Jenner Society "for vaccines." I'm for vaccines too. Just differently than in any blanket way. I don't know why you're pissed. Of course they're a "shill" for the industry. How could they not be? It goes back to cowpox against smallpox. It's probably de facto. The point is vaccination per se has become something of a matter of unquestioning faith, so why a journal "for" vaccines? Let's say you're right to be pissed at me, but over a misuse of these words? All my statements on vaccines have been conservative and considered. I'll go research the matter further when I decide I want to be a father.

--Brant

how could they accept any paper for review and publication if it was "against" a vaccine?--who would think of submitting it even if flushed with data?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can make a case against (most) psychotropics by invoking religious and moral dicta: "Your body is a temple. Do not defile God's house with poisons" "Psychotropic drugs merely mask symptoms" "Psychotropic drugs harm more than they heal" "Only bad things can come from psychotropic drugs."

There is a specific reason I purposefully do not make that case. It's better to leave your quotes of what you think I'm saying, and the paraphrasing of how you think I'm arguing out of this as they only cloud the real issue. I'd much rather to speak for myself in my own words without needing to backtrack trying to correct the misassumptions.

I fully realize that I my tiny minority view runs completely contrary to the view of the dominant narcoculture in America. I don't care if everyone else on the face of the earth bends the knee at the altar of the pharmaceutical industry... I simply don't buy into their religion of dope worship.

And I'll just skip past all of rest to the bottom line

what are the mechanics, how would it work?

As I see it, there is one basic attitude which precedes and leads to all of the evil done in this world:

blaming others

Within this context, I define blame as:

The angry unjust accusation of others for the just and deserved consequences of our own failure to do what's morally right.

The most powerful weapon we possess is our ability to observe the thoughts which pass through our head and the emotions we feel as the result of being immersed in those thoughts. Quiet calm self awareness. The willingness to see ourselves as we truly are. The realization of the truth that our emotional pain is self inflicted... and that what we send out to others returns to us.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find it odd that lots of people on the "science" side like to state CATEGORICALLY there is no causality, there could never be any causality

It's fair to say that no correlation has been found between infant vaccination and autism. That's cold, hard reality.

I find the people she hangs out with the most objective I have come across and their goal is identical toward their children. They look at all possibilities. Everyone I have met--every single one--claims the problem is too complex to attribute to any one cause--or deny any plausible cause at this stage.

It's fair to say that the cause of autism spectrum disorders is currently unknown.

On the vaccination issue ... They tell expecting parents to become as informed as possible and make decisions based on what they find the most convincing.

There is a problem here and there in America (fewer outbreaks in Canada) of local childhood disease outbreaks that can be traced to lack of immunization. I don't envy new parents who are fearful of vaccines, who fear autism, who are faced with moral decisions. It's not an easy issue to navigate. As you point out, there is plenty of passion and a hard dose of extremism (or perhaps better called extreme disempathy) in a few pockets, and the passion on either 'side' is not an indication that this position or that position is credible or ratified by scientific investigation.

And speaking of people who demonize ... They either harbor a religious attitude about science or a big honking resentment about what they believe--that their kid was treated as a lab rat without their consent while they drew the booby-prize.

I don't want to be part of the demonizing culture. I want to use the tools of reason as best I can to sift through the chaff for the most reliable information. I don't know what other tools we have but reason to solve the mysteries of autism.

I do think it is important to give sober hard looks at the best studies to date, so that we and parents are reliably informed about risk of autism from vaccinations.

don't give a fuck about who's right or who's wrong in debating points in this topic. That discussion is not what interests me because those folks don't want what I do. They want something else unrelated and it is not called Sean.

I do give a fuck about what is right and what is wrong ... and I think a passion for finding truth and eliminating error is a fine passion to have. Married with reason, humbled by mysteries, allied with patience and determination, this passion for reliable knowledge about the world is what I think unites me, you, Michael, and most other folks here. Perhaps we can do better in using passionate reason here, learning from each other, criticizing illogic, discarding canards and unsubstantiated claims, analyzing and integrating facts and theories, but I don't know how.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few autism facts:

According to the CDC the current rate (2014) of autism is 14 to 15 per 1,000.

In Alabama, it's 5.7 per 1,000.

In New Jersey, it's 22 per 1,000.

Greg

And you conclude by this _____?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using a term like 'shill for the vaccination industry' is poisoning the well, evasive and fallacious.

It's a peer reviewed journal of the Edward Jenner Society "for vaccines." I'm for vaccines too. Just differently than in any blanket way. I don't know why you're pissed. Of course they're a "shill" for the industry.

Sure, they are a shill for the 'industry' in the same way that Cardiology Journal is a shill for 'industry,' or Pediatrics a shill for industry ... or any other specialized journal. Every journal in, say, pediatric oncology shills for Cancer ('We need more cancer! More attention needs to be paid to my area of research! No, mine!"). Journals on Geophysics, Astrobiology, Statistics, Pharmacology, and on and on, Shillerama. On a lesser footing, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies shills for Objectivism. The editors just circle and jerk the same way every journal's circle jerk themselves into a frenzy of shilling for the Ayn Rand industry.

(I am being ironic -- a subject of study does not automatically make its corps of studiers into shills for this or that industry; a subject of study is a subject of study)

What you haven't mentioned is the devil of the details. When you examine a few instances and the range and type of articles printed in Vaccine, you will see that the normal process of science is underway. Hypotheses are tested. Claims are tested. Vaccines safety studies are published. Shitty vaccines register disappointing results. Cancer vaccines work here and there. Gene-therapy vaccines are detailed, probed, established as efficacious or not.

Brant, I am not pissed, just disappointed to think you may curb your inquiries by fallacious reasoning.

how could [Vaccine] accept any paper for review and publication if it was "against" a vaccine?--who would think of submitting it even if flushed with data?

This doesn't make sense. The study in question was neither for nor against vaccines. It put a hypothesis to a test, a rigorous test, and it found it wanting.

The small point I was hoping you would see, Brant, was that it was a study worth examining -- it is not long -- and worth at least the usual questions you ask of any research whatsoever: is it interesting, is it properly constituted, is it valid, is it reliable, is it warranted, is it free from bias, does it support its conclusions with its data ... and so forth.

Ultimately, if you accepted that the study may have been done in good faith and to a good purpose (answering a topical and important question), we could examine its conclusions and have a good discussion.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fair to say that no correlation has been found between infant vaccination and autism. That's cold, hard reality.

William,

That's not fair to say.

To me that's spin.

The simple fact that a drastic increase in both occurred at the same time is a correlation.

I don't understand the need to deny that, but I see people do it.

It's fair to say that the cause of autism spectrum disorders is currently unknown.

That is fair to say.

With two qualifications. This is like addiction or heart disease. What causes heart disease? What causes addiction? There are different kinds and trying to attribute them all to one cause is silly. So I believe your statement would be more accurate like this: "It's fair to say that the causes of autism spectrum disorders are currently unknown."

The second qualification: In some cases for certain types of metabolisms and autistic disorders, certain treatments have been promising. (That gut thing has been really promising in Sean's case.)

So if you find a treatment that will work consistently in the majority of cases of that slice (and, obviously, this needs time to accumulate data), I think it would be fair to say that you will be close to finding the cause of that slice. So, in that sense, it is fair to say that some kinds of autistic disorders are understood a lot more than others. I prefer that than the blanket "currently unknown cause" statement for the whole enchilada, which gives an impression that nothing at all is known about the causes.

As to the rest of your post, we are basically on the same page.

Maybe with one exception. We will probably disagree on an element of reason, the one that relies on induction and split testing, like I mentioned what Kat and I are doing. I don't think you would call that reason. I base this on the fact that you see no correlations at all between vaccines and autism. But they're there. Declarations of nonexistence won't make them go away. All they will do, if presented with enough intimidation, is inhibit good scientists from probing. (I realize some research has already been done.)

In my understanding, scientists use correlation as a starting point, as one parameter for deciding on what and how to test. That's better than snatching ideas out of thin air. But for some reason, it's different for autism. The correlation has to be denied altogether. I'm at a loss as to why, but I see that happening all the time.

I'm out of time to write further.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am interested in now are the next steps in Greg's notion of therapeutic alleviation of depression, how he suggests the underlying anger be dealt with. Ie, what are the mechanics, how would it work?
If he has faith in his understanding of depression and depressive syndromes -- potentially self-healing, deadly serious but perhaps not chronic or intractable -- it would be cool to see what kind of conversations or dialogues he would recommend for the sufferer, how he would humanely handle someone in the midst of this state of pain. It could be that his interventions would accord with the most common and useful non-drug interventions. I think there would be a lot of overlap with recommendations made by mainstream medicine.
-- Greg, you suggest you have indeed seen enough (or felt enough) real serious depression to understand it well. What were the outcomes, were any successful outcomes due to your intervention or handling? How did you manage to beat your own depression, if you were referring to your own?

As I see it, there is one basic attitude which precedes and leads to all of the evil done in this world:

blaming others

Within this context, I define blame as:

The angry unjust accusation of others for the just and deserved consequences of our own failure to do what's morally right.

The most powerful weapon we possess is our ability to observe the thoughts which pass through our head and the emotions we feel as the result of being immersed in those thoughts. Quiet calm self awareness. The willingness to see ourselves as we truly are. The realization of the truth that our emotional pain is self inflicted... and that what we send out to others returns to us.

These are nice preliminary notes. I'll tell you though that I won't be sending any depressive folks to you for counselling or advice just yet. It doesn't seem you have much to say to them but that they need to find their own way, that their emotional pain is self-inflicted. Perhaps you could add some more notes and put them in order of steps you would take to effectively counsel someone away from failing to do what's morally right.

On the topic of the Big Bad Narks and their fiendish psychoactive drug-peddling, I wonder: what do you think of Lithium for manic-depression? If that's too specific for you, what do you think of manic-depression in general?

If you had any helpful tips for manic-depressive folks cycling madly, they would sure be interesting to review.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few autism facts:

According to the CDC the current rate (2014) of autism is 14 to 15 per 1,000.

In Alabama, it's 5.7 per 1,000.

In New Jersey, it's 22 per 1,000.

Greg

And you conclude by this _____?

No conclusions other than the obvious.

One out of every seventy is a lot of f***ed up kids.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are nice preliminary notes. I'll tell you though that I won't be sending any depressive folks to you for counselling or advice just yet.

Angry unjust accusation of others is at the root of every evil. That's my answer regardless of whether you like it or not. Understanding that moral principle on a personal level is the approach that works for me. But it would be completely useless to you because of how you chose to live.

Go to your narcoculture. That's where you'll find all of the answers you're looking for.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will probably disagree on an element of reason, the one that relies on induction and split testing, like I mentioned what Kat and I are doing. I don't think you would call that reason.

I'd call it reasoned and reasonable. If there are efficacious interventions that could improve the quality of life for someone like Sean, the only way to test them in this individual case is by trial and error -- though of course you will keep track of the general efficacy or particular efficacy claimed and delivered in other cases like Sean's.

I base this on the fact that you see no correlations at all between vaccines and autism. But they're there.

Correlation of gross longterm upward movement of metrics in autism diagnosis and increase of infant vaccinations may be assumed, but of course that isn't the real question at issue, is it? -- the question is whether vaccinations are causally related to Dxes of autism. The research I noted answers in the negative -- and it is only the largest and most comprehensive review to date. I think studies like this that look large and assess sold prospective data sets are very useful, good indications that I can safely set aside the hypothesis that autism is caused by vaccination.

I will tell you what changed my opinion on the whole etiology question from a rather distant agnosticism -- the case of Andrew Wakefield.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using a term like 'shill for the vaccination industry' is poisoning the well, evasive and fallacious.

It's a peer reviewed journal of the Edward Jenner Society "for vaccines." I'm for vaccines too. Just differently than in any blanket way. I don't know why you're pissed. Of course they're a "shill" for the industry.

Sure, they are a shill for the 'industry' in the same way that Cardiology Journal is a shill for 'industry,' or Pediatrics a shill for industry ... or any other specialized journal. Every journal in, say, pediatric oncology shills for Cancer ('We need more cancer! More attention needs to be paid to my area of research! No, mine!"). Journals on Geophysics, Astrobiology, Statistics, Pharmacology, and on and on, Shillerama. On a lesser footing, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies shills for Objectivism. The editors just circle and jerk the same way every journal's circle jerk themselves into a frenzy of shilling for the Ayn Rand industry.

Not cardiology--"for bypass surgery."

Not pediatrics--"for vaccines."

Etc.

Not the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies--"for a closed system (of Objectivism)."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how could [Vaccine] accept any paper for review and publication if it was "against" a vaccine?--who would think of submitting it even if flushed with data?

This doesn't make sense. The study in question was neither for nor against vaccines. It put a hypothesis to a test, a rigorous test, and it found it wanting.

The study is "for vaccines." That was the result. You are only saying it wasn't before the study was done.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read the "meta-analysis" William linked to for a peer review of such would not be an analysis of the data of the studies studied, but only a review of whether those studies' data were properly represented therein. I'm also not qualified to peer review scientific studies since I'm not a scientist in any field whatsoever. As an expectant father I would review all vaccinations the doctors would want to give my child and what good they are expected to do and how many at one time and when after birth, etc., etc. Then I would decide what, when and anything else apropos to its health (along with the expectant mother too, natch). I would decide, not any medical authority.

This has been my whole approach to this discussion. I have absolutely no intention of peer-reviewing any "meta" something and peer-reviewing the peer-reviewing of the original studies and then in turn peer-reviewing all the way down to the bottom and then seeing if Andrew Wakefield's work can be replicated or not by putting on my lab coat and going to work. Andrew Wakefield, of course, whatever he is and was about is quite tangential to all this. From my layman's perspective he's only ad hominem this or ad hominem that.

Autism, of course, would be only one possible expectant father concern and if I'm to be argued into a position I don't hold it will be by the explaining doctor--and he better be a damn good explainer.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correlation of gross longterm upward movement of metrics in autism diagnosis and increase of infant vaccinations may be assumed, but of course that isn't the real question at issue, is it? -- the question is whether vaccinations are causally related to Dxes of autism.

William,

Actually that is the question. That is why I used the term correlation and not causation.

Your comment about Wakefield at the end showed what I expected--the demonization of Wakefield is far more important than precision of language.

I consider it sloppy to say, "It's fair to say that no correlation has been found between infant vaccination and autism. That's cold, hard reality," when you actually mean "It's fair to say that no causation has been found between infant vaccination and autism. That's cold, hard reality."

That "cold hard reality" emphasis comes off ironic in this use since, fact-wise, denying correlation is not even remotely connected to reality.

Now if you really meant, "I need to demonize Wakefield so much that it is OK to fudge words and even lie when needed so his speculations are not considered by anyone anywhere at any time, thus it's fair to say that no correlation has been found between infant vaccination and autism. That's cold, hard reality," I can live with that.

That's part of the core story involved in the polarity of a dichotomy I do not participate in and, like I said, it's name is not Sean. So I just don't give a fuck. Let me emphasize that. I don't care about the Wakefield controversy one way or the other. I have no interest in that, nor the apostate-defending/apostate-trashing passions it provokes.

I prefer to evaluate these things with my own mind and the more people yell, the less I want to hear them. I certainly don't need peer-reviews to see if I am capable of using my own brain, moreover, I reject peer-pressure from any side.

I do care about precision in using my words and I care about my kid. There are lots of people who feel like I do, too. They are sick of the shoving.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now