It seems that the Amish communities in the USA generally don’t go in for vaccination. The media has begin investigating what is the extent of autism in these communities. I have seen on the Internet figures suggest that in Michigan the incidence of autism is something like 1 in 15,000 compared with 1 in 166, the average for the USA. The difference is less marked elsewhere but still of the order of several factors.

It doesn’t seem that any fully scientific studies have been undertaken yet, but these figures are based on the tesitmony of local medical professionals.

Of particular interest perhaps is that a high proportion of those few autism cases in the Amish community involve children who HAVE been vaccinated – unlike the great majority of Amish.

Boris, I think you should take a look at this sort of evidence before clinging to the coat tails of the big pharmaceuticals on this issue and trying to bamboozle us into thinking that vaccines containing mercury were or are safe .

Rate This: 0  0

Rate This: 0  0

Mac: I concur entirely.

By the way, I was quite interested to read Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’ column in the Guardian on Melanie Phillips Daily Mail article on MMR.

jaq: I looked up the Hitchens book on Amazon. Lots of interesting comments which make me think it could well be worth a critical read.

Nuff said. Looking forward to David vs David tomorrow.

Rate This: 0  0

Rate This: 0  0

If these mothers feel so strongly as to wish to pay for specialised , individual treatment, different from that offered free on the NHS, there should be a recognised way for them to proceed , in order to avail themselves of such treatment. Information for such deviation from the NHS norm should be freely available. A disclaimer should also be prepared and signed, releasing the NHS from any subsequent resulting responsibility. In this way, everyone would be satisfied, and a satisfied customer is a repeat customer.

Rate This: 0  0

2. Whilst there are tens of thousands who can comprehend the broad thrust of Hawking’s work, there are probably only a few hundred who have sufficient knowledge and skill to have a detailed understanding of how it comes to be (I’m looking for a better phrase to describe the concept of a theory’s origin and nature) and I’d stand by there only being a tiny handful who can disect it with the intellectual rigour needed to make progress in the field.

3. Stats are a very powerful tool in the right hands. In the hands of a scientist they can be used to understand what is going on. In the hands of the marketing charlatan they can be used as a tool to persuade and convince. Sometimes, unfortunately, these hands are the same.

With Iceland, the population is very homogenous (the same is true of other parts of Scandinavia too) and exceptionally good records have been kept. Such a poputlation excludes by its very nature a lot of confounding variables. However, the appliccability of the study will diminish the further one is away from that genepool (I didn’t say that it would be worthless). Smaller studies (the icelandic one has a strong statistical power) have more confounding factors and are weaker statistically. One should be aware of this weighting when considering the applicability of the study to the current population as a whole and ourselves as unique individuals.

I think I am going to leave it here. There was a quote from a senior scientist in the civil service to some politicians: ‘ I hate having scientists on my committess. You give them more data and they change their minds’. He was being sarcastic, but from what I heard, the politicians didn’t notice..

Rate This: 0  0

I agree that there may be people here who can expound the detail of very complex issues. I think it is reasonably likely that there are extremely few with the tools and inclination though.

In the end it is down to choice. You do have a choice. You can a) take the MMR offered on the NHS. b) not have your child immunised or c) pay yourself for separate jabs.

If you HAD to take the MMR irrespective of desire, then that would be outrageous. Being given false information about medical treatments would also be wrong. By false I mean information that is intended to deliberately mislead. But when the vast weight of the evidence is on one side, why should we (the tax payer) pay for your choice when there is what is considered to be a perfectly acceptable treatment? You may not like it, but you have the choice to spend your money as you wish.

Rate This: 0  0

Rate This: 0  0

I think this thread is gradually coming to the end of its natural life, but just a few finals for me to make:

1. You seem to have misunderstood my point about surveynig people born in 1950. I don’t mean see how they were categorised as infants – I mean see what percentage NOW show signs of autism. According to the medical establishment it should be roughly comparable to now (making due allowance for the higher mortality rate of autistic people). But I don’t think it is.

2.I think more than 12 people understand what Hawkings is on about and I can read the opinions of those people who do understand his opinions. Further, I can, where legitimate, apply rational tests to what people are saying. For instance theorists who argue for a “Multiverse” cosmos are always vague on how many multiverses there are potentially and on the process by which any particular multiverse comes into being. I can quite legitimately query this from a philosophical point of view. The key point is that Hawkings’ cosmological theorising has not even established a consensus in the scientific community.

3.Regarding the use of statistics, I am not against their use, but one has to be assured that they are being used in an honest and disinterested way. I really do not feel this has been done with vaccination. One can see why this has been so – in order to maintain high levels of vaccination – but it is not jsutifiable.

I seem to recall the Iceland study as well, but one fact immediately leaps out at me. Icelanders are from a very limited gene pool – that is precisely why they are used in a lot of scientific studies. But it could be very misleading when considering the effects of vaccination or mercury on the body.

If one wants to know why it is so difficult to trust what we are told, take a look at the NHS website. It discusses the risks of vaccination and then says IN BOLD thiomersal is not used in MMR. This is completely disingenuous since it was used in MMR until v. recently as far as I am aware.

Rate This: 0  0

I’m sure I would bore myself to death if I covered every point made in this discussion I could take issue with. Suffice to say that

your qoute
I would suggest that there are probably less than a dozen people who can explain why Hawking’s theories may be correct or may be wrong /unqoute

does not mean they are not here, commenting on Boris’s blog. Neither does it mean that Hawkings theories or your argument cannot be proved wrong simply because the argument/discussion is here, with us.

Whatever you protest to be true I disagree for the reasons stated and MY point was that I should be allowed by this government to exercise my right of choice. I hope Field will allow me to say that all the long words and statistics in the world can’t detract from the bleedin’ obvious, which I think is part of his point. I’ve been around this blog long enough to have the UPMOST RESPECT for Field and Mac and Jack Ramsey et al. As Mac so beautifully points out, we all have our own opinions, I’ve stated mine and there endeth my lesson. But you really should read Peters book – ISBN 0 7043 8117 6. He describes the effect that scientists with their own agendas can have on society. As Jack Ramsey has previously pointed out – the law of unintended consequences can be catastrophic. Really, you should read Peter Hitchens.

Rate This: 0  0