The Autism-Vaccine Myth-nova

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/autis ... -myth.html

A good way to determine the veracity and sincerity of any physician who claims that vaccines are safe is to ask the physician to sign a written statement assuming all legal and financial liability if the vaccine results in any permanent side effects (such as autism) to the patient. Watch how fast the physician relunctantly admits "some problems" actually do exist under "certain conditions," and declines to sign such a statement. Hehe.

In fact, it is also a good way to steer a conversation with anyone about vaccine safety back to where it should be: that all vaccines have risks and whether those risks are acceptable to the patient or the parents of the patient. Finally, the informed decision of the patient should always be honored and supported by the physician, not doubted, ridiculed and dismissed. After all, most U.S. states have laws which make such informed decisions the ultimate trump card in the game of vaccination. Physicians who doubt that risk their professional careers.

Of the problems that doctors are afraid might accompany vaccinations, autism isn't one of them.
A friend once told me about a doctor who had recalled during an interview how he had been about to vaccinate a child, when said child suddenly had a seizure. As the doctor said, had he given that vaccination to the child prior to the seizure, there was nothing he could have said or done to convince the parents that the vaccination had nothing to do with it.

My argument was semantic to help illustrate the often unstated risks involved in certain medical procedures such as vaccination, not a recommendation to resist and oppose any or all medical procedures such as life-saving surgery. Too many physicians today don't understand or appreciate the necessity to achieve informed consent from their patients, and, instead, simply dictate to their patients or bully them with the logical fallacy of appealing to (medical) authority. Most states have laws protecting personal and religious beliefs in medical care, but the medical industry would have us believe that such protection is harmful to the "greater good." That is a dangerous attitude. The patient who asks questions, even of the physician's own personal and religious beliefs (by asking for illustrative purposes that the physician guarantee its safety personally), is simply exercising the protected rights of any patient. The physicians who belittle that right should find work elsewhere.

Where exactly are all these "no-risk" cheerleaders? The medical community has stated that there are risks. The FDA and CDC have both stated there are risks. Even the manufacturers and distributors have stated there are risks. The thing is, none of those risks include autism any more than a risk of the flu shot is getting the flu (a biological and physiological impossibility that millions believe anyway).

And before anyone says traumatic brain injury of one sort or another causes autism: it doesn't. If it did there would be massive numbers of veterans who "develop" autism.

That, when put to the direct question of "Dr. Doe, are you so certain of the safety of this particular vaccine that you are willing to guarantee that safety with your own word and risk all possible legal liability?" I have never met a physician who would agree to that challenge, but instead backs down and begins to admit things like "there are always risks," "you know your facts" and "I wish more people would research their own health care as much as you have." To me, this proves that most physicians are quite aware that there are always risks involved and that the "safety" propaganda that is promoted by Big Pharma and the commercial news media is exaggerated at least.

I amn't saying that all people are this vigilant, but that they should be. And, those that are have this effective tool (among others) to make their case that the patient has informed-consent rights.

Doctors are being responsible by admitting there are risks to anything, from a simple vaccination to surgery, but that doesn't mean the doctor believes that vaccination will lead to autism.

I didn't specify vaccines which might cause autistic reactions. If we can get physicians generally to volunteer the benefits AND risks about all vaccines (as they do with surgeries and other medical procedures), then maybe the doubts about vaccines causing autistic reactions might not be so prevalent. The trouble is that, without using logical/legal kung fu with most physicians, they never admit (let alone volunteer) the risks involved with vaccines. Change that little professional attribute by increasing the trust that patients expect to have with physicians' forthrightness, and much of this ongoing scandal would vanish, wouldn't it?

Is your question rhetorical?

^^^

All established anti-vaxxer questions on internet forums in this day and age are rhetorical.

I think a major meta analysis study, conducted in the University of Sydney (here in Oz), has found no evidence of association between autism and vaccination. The anti-vaxxers are punching above their weight talking about causality when research can't even draw an association between vaccines and the risk of autism.

However there always remains a lingering doubt when almost all vaccines have a small to moderate probability of side effects that include fever, headache and in some cases brain damage. Humans aren't gods and we still don't know what the mechanism of environmental triggers that are supposed to impact on the developing brain during onset of autism.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 095619.htm