The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Donald Trump thinks vaccines cause autism! They don't. Thoughtsin Politics

whiteflame

Fredsnephew said:

@Pogue ;

1) There is a stack of information online regarding this issue, if you can be bothered to read it.

2) There is no actual proof that vaccines do cause autism disorders.

3) There is no actual proof that vaccines do not cause autism disorders.

4) It is widely regarded that vaccines may be associated with autism disorders. (Information freely available online)


I have not for one minute, stated that there is an undeniable link between vaccines and autism.  


Whereas, you continue to state unequivocally that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

You have absolutely no way of unequivocally validating your statement.

If you have information on this, present it. Don't just say "go find what I've read." The Internet is a large place with a lot of sources that are largely biased and unscientific. Provide what you view as evidence that vaccines may be associated with autism.

When you're stating that there may be a link, that's a positive claim that a link has been established somewhere, or at least that there's some clear correlation that should make us ponder a link. You're very quick to dismiss any statement that there's no link, yet the evidence is strongly against any such link. Is it unequivocal? I suppose not, in the same way that germ theory can't be considered absolutely unequivocal despite a litany of evidence behind it. There's always the possibility that there are cases that the scientific community is somehow missing that don't line up with what they've seen before. That being said, when the present evidence is overwhelming and there is no clear counter example, yes, you can state that there is solid proof that no such link exists. 

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

Trump was clearly inferring a link between autism and vaccination, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered stating, in the exact same sentence, that the child received the vaccine, got a fever, and became autistic. It may not be a direct claim of cause and effect, but when you state it the way he did, it's pretty clear that you're inferring more than just a coincidence. If that is not the case, then why did he bother stating it in this way?

Trump didn't infer anything in his statement.  He may have implied a link, you apparently inferred a link, but Trump didn't infer anything. What it doesn't show is that Trump is certain that vaccines cause autism, which Pogue stated in the OP.

whiteflame said:
Trump was clearly inferring a link between autism and vaccination, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered stating, in the exact same sentence, that the child received the vaccine, got a fever, and became autistic. It may not be a direct claim of cause and effect, but when you state it the way he did, it's pretty clear that you're inferring more than just a coincidence. If that is not the case, then why did he bother stating it in this way?

As for your latter claim... I've actually read this study before, and it's not particularly favorable to the claims you're trying to make. You're trying to establish that there's some reason to believe in a link between autism and vaccination. I would contend that that cannot be proven by legal means. In fact, the paper itself is quite specific about this:

"This assessment of compensated cases showing an association between vaccines and autism is not, and does not purport to be, science. In no way does it explain scientific causation or even necessarily undermine the reasoning of the decision in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding based on the scientific theories and medical evidence before the VICP."

This is expanded upon in the conclusion, though I think it's even more important to note how exactly they defined autism.

"Because autistic disorder is defined only by an aggregation of symptoms, there is no meaningful distinction between the terms "autism" and "autism-like symptoms." This article makes the distinction only to accurately reflect the terms that the Court of Federal Claims, caregivers, and others use. It is not a distinction to which the authors attach significance."

That's pretty important because, even if we assume that all of these 83 cases fall into the "autism" category, the lack of a meaningful distinction means that designating them as autism is problematic and arbitrary.

"...the DSM-IV provides fairly clear diagnostic criteria for autism. If the child doesn’t have enough of these criteria to be diagnosed as autistic, that child could have “autism symptoms” but not autism. In other words, if a child shows a number of odd behaviours but not the classic triad of impairments, then they might have ASD or Asperger’s Syndrome or HFA, but they don’t have autism because the diagnosis of autism depends upon a specific set of diagnostic criteria, and the child doesn’t meet those criteria. If he did, he’d have a diagnosis of autism. It’s just that simple, but Holland et al try to obfuscate by trying to make terms like “autism-like symptoms and similar terms mean what they want them to mean...

I don’t think the parents of the children who have been brain-damaged by vaccines really care about the nuances between autism and autistic spectrum disorders. Let me restate; 1,300 cases in which vaccine-related brain damage has been compensated in court over 20 years that have cost us over $3,500,000,000.

There can be no denying that there is a problem. The one thing that is certain is that a lot more investigation is needed.

whiteflame said:
Nor are diagnostic criteria for a condition like autism spectrum disorders a difficult concept for most people; certainly they aren’t for doctors. Apparently, however, they represent a very difficult concept indeed for Holland et al, who seem to be arguing that any child with autism-like symptoms must have autism. This is akin to arguing that anyone who has a belly ache or diarrhea must have irritable bowel syndrome or that someone who experiences a headache must have migraines. In addition, such an argument assumes that all symptoms are equal when it comes to making the diagnosis of autism."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/when-you-cant-win-on-science-invoke-the-law-2/

Thus spake Big Pharma;

In 2008, Sanofi-Aventis announced that it would be collaborating with Wayne State (as well as other partners) and could be making up to $39 million in payments over a five-year period to these partners. Gorski was chosen as the guy to conduct a series of clinical trials involving the company's drug, riluzole.

In short, Gorski and his team stand to earn millions from riluzole medication for autism, illustrating a great incentive to quiet vaccine skeptics about the link between immunizations and autism. If this isn't a blatant conflict of interest, than we don't know what is.

http://medicine.news/2016-04-18-pro-vaccine-shill-dr-david-gorski-linked-to-cancer-fraudster-in-cahoots-with-pharma-to-develop-lucrative-autism-drug.html

… but that seems par for the course;

Health officials caution that no vaccine is 100% safe, but they sponsor studies that conclude the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks. Yet conflicts of interest (COls) cloud the study of adverse effects of vaccines, and public skepticism about vaccine safety information is widespread (ASTHO, 2010). Investigation into the possible link between childhood vaccines and autism provides an illustration of the competing interests that sponsors of vaccine safety research face that could affect their objectivity in choosing which studies to support. Much research is sponsored by vaccine manufacturers and public health bodies, who have financial and bureaucratic interests that could impede the objective study of vaccine safety. These companies and agencies adamantly deny a link between vaccines and autism, and argue that vaccines are one of the most important innovations in disease reduction in the 20th Century (CDC, 1999). They cite several studies that conclude a link between vaccines and neurological disorders cannot be established (Offit,2008). Such research is often disseminated by medical journals that have financial reasons to promote the views of the research sponsors.

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/conflicts_of_interest_in_vaccine_safety_research_gayle_delong1.pdf

whiteflame said:
And their poor methods don't stop at redefining what autism is. 

"All the authors did was search a database for specific terms and compiled the search results together, then try to report a causality link, while acknowledging that the legal standard of causation is not the same as the scientific standard. Using their method, I could pick any word I wanted, one that I know is in the database, then create a paper designed to show causation."

https://www.wired.com/2011/05/is-the-vaccine-injury-compensation-program-covering-up-an-autism-vaccine-link/

I find this citation quite humorous. It raises more suspicions than it allays. Wired has a lot of writers; tech writers, journalists, hackers, former politicians, but no one from the medical field. The article appears to be written by Jules Sherred.

Jules Sherred is a parent, author, radio personality, blogger and freelance writer, gamer, tech enthusiast, website designer, science nerd, sci-fi freak, hard core Trekker, and has an unnatural obsession with Optimus Prime. He/him/his.

https://geekdad.com/author/jules/

Notice anything missing? Yep, you guessed it, nothing even approaching medical training. Looking over Jules’ articles, there are a bunch of about Star Trek, a few book reviews, a geeky-queer wedding planner, but nothing else that delves into medical issues. I strongly suspect that this article was written by either a government official or someone from Big Pharma and given to Jules to publish under his/her name.

whiteflame said:
Even if we assume their results are accurate, we've got another problem: they don't tell us anything interesting.

"83/2,500 results in an estimated prevalence rate of approximately 3.3%. On the surface, this seems to support the claim that the prevalence of autism/ASD is three-fold higher in VICP-compensated children than it is estimated to be in the general population (around 1%). Of course, there’s at least one problem. The authors are even forced to admit it. Specifically, of these 83 children, Holland et alcould only find documentation of autistic symptoms for only 39. The rest of those 83 were “diagnosed” solely on the basis of a parental questionnaire. This lower number results in an estimated prevalence of autism of around 1.6% in the VICP-compensated population, an estimate that is falling into the range of what we would expect in the general population."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/when-you-cant-win-on-science-invoke-the-law-2/

This is pointless and misleading. We aren’t discussing a random sample. The study was of children who suddenly developed autism and autism spectrum disorders shortly after being vaccinated and were determined in court to have been brain-damaged by the vaccines. Anything above 0 should cause concern.

whiteflame said:
Lastly, the whole thing is tainted by bias.

"...two of the authors represent clients who have claims on behalf of family members in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This is not an independent study. The authors are biased. The authors have a vested interest in the outcome. Also, all authors are on the board of the Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy, which is an autism advocacy group."

https://www.wired.com/2011/05/is-the-vaccine-injury-compensation-program-covering-up-an-autism-vaccine-link/

Once again, I’m dismissing this biased claim of bias for bias.

whiteflame said:
So yeah, I have a hard time believing that the study presents anything meaningful. The authors go out of their way to state that they cannot make any definitive claims about causation of autism based on this work, they use legal and not scientific data to establish anything akin to scientific causation, their numbers are deceptive, and they aren't exactly clean in their assessment of the data to begin with.

As for your last question... I'm really just puzzled by it. It's not as though there's a lack of research on improving vaccine safety and efficacy, particularly through improved vaccine delivery (both through private and public research) and subsequently testing for shedding of virus after vaccination. Beyond that, I'm not clear precisely what could be done. The formulations have largely been optimized, and many vaccines require injection with a very low probability of causing harm, otherwise they're either practically useless or they require people to get many more injections. So, while I agree that we should be looking for "a better way," I don't see what Trump is seeking to accomplish, particularly not as he's trying to slash the budget of nearly every agency that would fund such work.

Trying to muddy the waters? Tsk, tsk. Trump’s budget was a starting point in the negotiation not what anyone was expecting to be passed. Regardless, show me the cuts to vaccine programs in the president’s proposal. He wants to reorganize some relevant agencies and reduce administrative overhead, which is probably a good idea, but there is NOTHING in there that would even suggest cuts to vaccine programs.

whiteflame

@CYDdharta

Alright, for the sake of condensing this down a little, let's drop the issue of what Trump meant by his statement. I think it was at least an attempt at inference, but his train of thought is rarely clear to me, so I'll just concede that it was an implication. I don't think that's much better, but maybe that's just me.

Now, as for what you're doing, I think you're at least trying to infer based on the evidence that exists that vaccines have caused some form of brain damage in some children. I don't think any of the evidence you've furnished actually proves that, but let's go through your responses.

To start, it actually does matter quite a bit that there's a difference between autism and autism-like symptoms (note that the latter is not autistic spectrum disorders - experiencing some of the symptoms associated with autism does not automatically place you on the spectrum). And, while parents might not care, it matters for any kind of analysis like the one you're trying to use because part of what they're trying to do is show that taking vaccines is tied with higher rates of autism spectrum disorders. If they expand that to all symptoms even partially resembling autism, then the numbers you should be using for comparison are no longer just those of autism spectrum disorders in the general population. I'll get to the actual number comparison on that point, but treating these as though they're functionally equivalent skews the results of the study.

Second, no one has argued or will argue that vaccines bear absolutely no risk. There are risks, and those can include brain damage. Many of those cases that received compensation, if not all of them, had significant merit. The question is this: are the medical harms that rarely result from vaccines capable of causing autism? None of those 1,300 cases has ever concluded that vaccines have caused autism or autism-like symptoms.

Third, the vast majority purported rise in autism prevalence has not been linked to increased incidence (i.e. more people getting autism). In fact, the note at the bottom of the graph hints at this, admitting that at least 25% of the increase over time is the result of changes in the diagnostic process. Intellectual disability was a common misdiagnosis of people with autism, and as a result of these changes, the numbers for this disability have decreased. It doesn't help clinicians weren't allowed to diagnose patients with both autism and ADHD. The definition of autism has also changed over the years, and awareness of autism has also increased, both of which increase the apparent amount of people who are autistic without more people actually having it. There's also incentive for clinicians to diagnose a child with autism, even when they are on the borderline of the clinical criteria because they get access to specialized services and special education. Lastly, African-Americans and Hispanic children have historically had lower rates of diagnosis because of a lack of access to services. 

Nonetheless, I agree that there is some increase in autism prevalence that can only be explained through increased incidence (though it's far less than that chart indicates). As for where it comes from, we actually do have some explanations that are supported by research. Having older parents boosts the risk, as does premature birth.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-real-reasons-autism-rates-are-up-in-the-u-s/

There may well be other factors that are increasing the incidence of autism, but it seems like you are implying that vaccines may be to blame for the increase in autism rates when there's no evidence to support such a conclusion.

Fourth, you indicate that the research supporting a link between autism and vaccination have been actively suppressed. I don't doubt that companies have incentive not to generate negative press regarding their medications, but that hasn't stopped the FDA from removing vaccines from the market when there are clear medical harms that result from their usage. I'm not sure why this particular issue is a step too far, but severe adverse events are common reasons for the removal of biologics from the market, and vaccines are particularly prone to it.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/fda-vaccines-more-than-other-drugs-most-likely-to-be-removed-from-the-market-due-to-safety-issues/

Fifth, you indicate that the research that is produced is biased in such a way that it's essentially untrustworthy. That's a fine article that lays out a great deal of problems with the research being produced on both sides of the debate. So, what do we do with the information we have? I would argue that we have to determine if the methods used in each study produce reliable data and result in reasonable conclusions. You have a habit throughout this post of just straight up dismissing arguments because you view them as biased, but bias alone is not sufficient reason to ignore a logical argument or an extensive study. You have to address the substance of those publications, otherwise you're just making a blanket claim that bias inherently makes every paper flawed, regardless of the methods used (even in blinded studies). There's no doubt that bias in a study requires greater scrutiny of that study, but it doesn't invalidate it. Similarly, a link you don't like because of bias isn't automatically invalid because of that bias, particularly if that source provides a great deal of external support and provides substantial internal logic. The same holds true for concerns that an article might be published by someone else. If you have an actual response to the arguments made in the Wired piece, I'd love to hear it. If your only response is that you don't trust it, then you're ignoring the substance of the article in a fallacious attempt to dismiss it entirely.

Sixth, you do actually address some of the substance, but where you do, you're not actually hitting at any distinct problems. The study wasn't just of children who suddenly developed autism and autism spectrum disorders shortly after being vaccinated. It was a study of all cases where families were compensated based on vaccine-associated brain injury. There's no specific time frame associated with all of these cases, almost all of them have nothing to do with autism (even your own citation says 83 out of that 2500 cases), and even among those that do, only 39 had documented autistic symptoms. The study assumes that all of those were actually diagnosed with autism, and that all 39 were awarded damages based on those autistic symptoms, none of which is adequately supported assumptions. So only by making these assumptions are we able to rise to the level of autism actually seen in the total population, and that's still assuming that all of these cases presented actual new cases of autism that had not existed in any form before vaccination. That's the reason why the comparison to the general population matters: it's really difficult to establish that vaccination has actually increased the number of people with autism when the percentage of this population of damaged kids has a similar prevalence. In fact, this is a special population, as these are deeply investigated cases of actual brain damage among kids who were vaccinated. If there is some link between vaccination and autism, this is the population where it should be the most obvious, yet it mirrors the general population. And that's not to mention that absolutely none of these cases established any conclusive causation between the child being vaccinated and their becoming autistic.

Lastly, let's revisit the issue of Trump. You didn't address the fact that improving vaccine safety and efficacy is already a substantial research avenue, and yet he's apparently seeking out a better way to vaccinate. I don't see how he's accomplishing that any better than anyone is seeking to do that now. And regarding the budget, I can't help but notice that you didn't counter any of the actual numbers in that link. I agree, Trump's budget is a starting point in the negotiation. It's also a clear layout of what Trump wants the budget to be - it's effectively his wish list when it comes to budgeting. That's how every president has used it in the past, and Trump is doing the same. That doesn't exactly furnish any kind of confidence that he wants to fund any kind of research in some substantial way, since absolutely no research agency is going to be receiving extra money to pursue research under his budget. It doesn't show any effort on his part to refocus these agencies either, since all he's doing is telling them that they should get tens of millions less in funding than they do now. Does he specifically target vaccine programs? No. In reality, will his policies have any effect whatsoever on the efforts to improve vaccines or produce new vaccines? Absolutely. Research funding is already at a premium, and fewer and fewer labs are receiving it. Restricting that funding more only ensures that more research ideas get shelved.

Fredsnephew

@whiteflame ;

I am not attempting to prove or disprove anything.

I am merely pointing out that the questioners position is untenable.

They make an unequivocal statement. Which cannot be substantiated.

It is in correct to say, that vaccines "don't" cause autism.

Just as it would be incorrect to say, that vaccines do cause autism.


This is a debating point, that is easily deduced and does not require substantiation.

whiteflame

Fredsnephew said:

@whiteflame ;

I am not attempting to prove or disprove anything.

I am merely pointing out that the questioners position is untenable.

They make an unequivocal statement. Which cannot be substantiated.

It is in correct to say, that vaccines "don't" cause autism.

Just as it would be incorrect to say, that vaccines do cause autism.


This is a debating point, that is easily deduced and does not require substantiation.

It certainly seems like your responses were aimed at providing details that muddy the waters on the question of whether or not vaccines cause autism. But if your claim is that unequivocal proof cannot be furnished, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that nothing can be absolutely, 100% proven? I suppose that's accurate, since there's always the possibility that a counter-example will become apparent. I'm just not clear as to why it is untenable to argue that, given the data that exists right now, it's unequivocal that such a link does not exist based on the evidence.