Comments on: Popular Delusions VIII: Anti-Vaccine Hysteria http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:51:25 +0000 By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-33954 Ebonmuse Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:10:26 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-33954 <blockquote>It is one thing to be paranoid about the world around you, abusing children by not giving them vaccines; it is quite another, as in the case of the MMR vaccine and several others, to label caring and loving parents who are concerned for their child's health as "delusional."</blockquote> Those two traits are completely orthogonal. Unfortunately, being deeply loving and concerned about a child's health does not prevent parents from holding factually unfounded and deeply dangerous false beliefs about the best way to care for them - whether in this case, in the case of parents who forsake all medicine in favor of prayer, or otherwise. I do not consider "delusion" to be too strong a word for such beliefs.

It is one thing to be paranoid about the world around you, abusing children by not giving them vaccines; it is quite another, as in the case of the MMR vaccine and several others, to label caring and loving parents who are concerned for their child's health as "delusional."

Those two traits are completely orthogonal. Unfortunately, being deeply loving and concerned about a child's health does not prevent parents from holding factually unfounded and deeply dangerous false beliefs about the best way to care for them - whether in this case, in the case of parents who forsake all medicine in favor of prayer, or otherwise. I do not consider "delusion" to be too strong a word for such beliefs.

]]> By: The Apostate http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-33918 The Apostate Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:18:57 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-33918 Any person who had the audacity to call another "delusional" in this situation, on either side, either does not have children or is simply an ass. It is one thing to be paranoid about the world around you, abusing children by not giving them vaccines; it is quite another, as in the case of the MMR vaccine and several others, to label caring and loving parents who are concerned for their child's health as "delusional." The fact is that in the case you describe above, their is little correlation between people who are generally "anti-vaccines" and those who are confused about the autism connection. Parents are doing everything they can to keep up with the studies, but different research centers in different countries are confusing the situation. I, for one, will not trust anything coming out of the American drug and pharmacy industry - not because I am a conspiracy theorist or a delusional troglodyte, but because I know where the money flows. It is one thing to try to inform and educate the public, it is quite another to lambast them for not being up to date with whatever the drug companies are now telling them or which ones they should be trusting. Any person who had the audacity to call another "delusional" in this situation, on either side, either does not have children or is simply an ass. It is one thing to be paranoid about the world around you, abusing children by not giving them vaccines; it is quite another, as in the case of the MMR vaccine and several others, to label caring and loving parents who are concerned for their child's health as "delusional."

The fact is that in the case you describe above, their is little correlation between people who are generally "anti-vaccines" and those who are confused about the autism connection. Parents are doing everything they can to keep up with the studies, but different research centers in different countries are confusing the situation. I, for one, will not trust anything coming out of the American drug and pharmacy industry - not because I am a conspiracy theorist or a delusional troglodyte, but because I know where the money flows.

It is one thing to try to inform and educate the public, it is quite another to lambast them for not being up to date with whatever the drug companies are now telling them or which ones they should be trusting.

]]> By: Chris Swanson http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-33792 Chris Swanson Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:47:08 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-33792 You know, I wrote something on my blog yesterday about this topic. To my surprise, people actually commented on it (rare). Of course the people who commented on it seemed to think I was quite naive on the issue. Interestingly enough, since it was World Autism Day (yet another feel-good thing to go along with the lights-out thing from a few days ago), CNN has been covering the issue to death. Apparently Jenny McCarthy has more knowledge on these things than doctors (at least that's what Larry King would have us believe). You know, I wrote something on my blog yesterday about this topic. To my surprise, people actually commented on it (rare). Of course the people who commented on it seemed to think I was quite naive on the issue.
Interestingly enough, since it was World Autism Day (yet another feel-good thing to go along with the lights-out thing from a few days ago), CNN has been covering the issue to death. Apparently Jenny McCarthy has more knowledge on these things than doctors (at least that's what Larry King would have us believe).

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-33769 Alex Weaver Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:37:46 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-33769 An addendum: I recently saw a psychiatrist for re-evaluation and was diagnosed with "Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified" (replacing the earlier misdiagnosis of cyclothymia). This is in spite of both the strong general resonance I've felt with the descriptions I've read of Asperger's Syndrome, and the specific matching details. Previously I had been diagnosed with a variant of bipolar due to exhibiting symptoms of depression and a tendency to act excitedly, enthusiastically, and unwittingly very inappropriately in certain social situations (which was mistaken for a hypomanic state based on descriptions), simply ignoring my repeated observations that there was <i>absolutely nothing cyclical or "phase-like" whatsoever about my peculiarities</i>, and because of the psychiatrists I had seen summarily refusing to consider Asperger's Syndrome when my mother suggested it. Now, even this psychiatrist has shied away from a diagnoses of Asperger's despite acknowledging the ASD pattern-fitting that his predecessors ignored, essentially because I'm not as obviously hobbled in social interaction as some Asperger's patients (I have taught myself to use gestures and some non-verbal cues reasonable appropriately, enough to come off as anxious/reserved/wooden rather than "screwy" in unfamiliar face-to-face social settings) and because the "narrow, focused interests" component was not as pronounced as it had been in other Asperger's patients (or in my childhood, as my mother commented with genuine surprise at hearing about the diagnosis). Similarly, after my daughter was diagnosed with high-functioning autism by a psychiatrist specializing in the condition, her pediatrician at the time summarily "blew off" the diagnosis after observing, to paraphrase, that Joey did not display a complete and total lack of any affection or responsiveness whatsoever towards her mother. Needless to say, we found a different pediatrician afterward. I mention this because, while I'm aware that "the plural of anecdote is not data," in my experience your impression is 180 degrees wrong. I've seen no evidence that ASDs are casually overdiagnosed, and plenty of evidence that many specialists seem to have a strong, even almost phobic, aversion of these specific diagnoses except in the most undeniably blatant cases. An addendum: I recently saw a psychiatrist for re-evaluation and was diagnosed with "Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified" (replacing the earlier misdiagnosis of cyclothymia). This is in spite of both the strong general resonance I've felt with the descriptions I've read of Asperger's Syndrome, and the specific matching details. Previously I had been diagnosed with a variant of bipolar due to exhibiting symptoms of depression and a tendency to act excitedly, enthusiastically, and unwittingly very inappropriately in certain social situations (which was mistaken for a hypomanic state based on descriptions), simply ignoring my repeated observations that there was absolutely nothing cyclical or "phase-like" whatsoever about my peculiarities, and because of the psychiatrists I had seen summarily refusing to consider Asperger's Syndrome when my mother suggested it. Now, even this psychiatrist has shied away from a diagnoses of Asperger's despite acknowledging the ASD pattern-fitting that his predecessors ignored, essentially because I'm not as obviously hobbled in social interaction as some Asperger's patients (I have taught myself to use gestures and some non-verbal cues reasonable appropriately, enough to come off as anxious/reserved/wooden rather than "screwy" in unfamiliar face-to-face social settings) and because the "narrow, focused interests" component was not as pronounced as it had been in other Asperger's patients (or in my childhood, as my mother commented with genuine surprise at hearing about the diagnosis).

Similarly, after my daughter was diagnosed with high-functioning autism by a psychiatrist specializing in the condition, her pediatrician at the time summarily "blew off" the diagnosis after observing, to paraphrase, that Joey did not display a complete and total lack of any affection or responsiveness whatsoever towards her mother. Needless to say, we found a different pediatrician afterward.

I mention this because, while I'm aware that "the plural of anecdote is not data," in my experience your impression is 180 degrees wrong. I've seen no evidence that ASDs are casually overdiagnosed, and plenty of evidence that many specialists seem to have a strong, even almost phobic, aversion of these specific diagnoses except in the most undeniably blatant cases.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-31010 Alex Weaver Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:57:18 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-31010 <blockquote>The symptoms of autism, and there are many claimed "symptoms", are very similar to those "symptoms" that got kids put into "special ed" classes that I observed back in the 70's and early 80's.</blockquote> So, what are the characteristic symptoms of autism, then (specifically, which symptoms are considered diagnostic of autism rather than related ASDs - do you even recognize the significance of that term - any of the psychotic disorders, or mental retardation)? Can you even list them? Want me to? While autism is accompanied by cognitive disability in some cases, it manifests in specific, if pervasive ways, primarily in terms of social functioning, which is quite distinct from, but easy for the ignorant to confuse with, general "slowness." The fact that autistic symptoms are now recognized as a separate disorder from "mental retardation" is not a result of an effort to "make parents feel better", it's the result of the difference being recognized and that information being disseminated. Additionally, there is no concerted effort to label genuinely mentally retarded children "autistic." Quite the opposite, actually: since autism can be successfully treated to varying degrees with various behavioral therapy approaches that teach the autistic child the skills and realizations they need to function in society in a way that they can understand - therapies that aren't cheap - there is significant pressure from entities like school districts (who would be legally obligated to pay for them) to label autistic children "retarded" if they think they can get away with it, since there's much less that can be done to help a retarded child and a correspondingly lower price tag. (The Folsom-Cordova Unified School District is notably unforgivable in this area).

The symptoms of autism, and there are many claimed "symptoms", are very similar to those "symptoms" that got kids put into "special ed" classes that I observed back in the 70's and early 80's.

So, what are the characteristic symptoms of autism, then (specifically, which symptoms are considered diagnostic of autism rather than related ASDs - do you even recognize the significance of that term - any of the psychotic disorders, or mental retardation)? Can you even list them?

Want me to?

While autism is accompanied by cognitive disability in some cases, it manifests in specific, if pervasive ways, primarily in terms of social functioning, which is quite distinct from, but easy for the ignorant to confuse with, general "slowness." The fact that autistic symptoms are now recognized as a separate disorder from "mental retardation" is not a result of an effort to "make parents feel better", it's the result of the difference being recognized and that information being disseminated. Additionally, there is no concerted effort to label genuinely mentally retarded children "autistic." Quite the opposite, actually: since autism can be successfully treated to varying degrees with various behavioral therapy approaches that teach the autistic child the skills and realizations they need to function in society in a way that they can understand - therapies that aren't cheap - there is significant pressure from entities like school districts (who would be legally obligated to pay for them) to label autistic children "retarded" if they think they can get away with it, since there's much less that can be done to help a retarded child and a correspondingly lower price tag. (The Folsom-Cordova Unified School District is notably unforgivable in this area).

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-30995 Ebonmuse Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:59:10 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-30995 <blockquote>The symptoms of autism, and there are many claimed "symptoms", are very similar to those "symptoms" that got kids put into "special ed" classes that I observed back in the 70's and early 80's. </blockquote> Yes, that's very likely why the reported numbers of autistic children are rising: clusters of symptoms that were previously ignored, or that were once assigned to non-specific diagnoses such as mental retardation, are now recognized to be symptoms of autism. This is a good thing, since now we have a better idea of how to treat these children.

The symptoms of autism, and there are many claimed "symptoms", are very similar to those "symptoms" that got kids put into "special ed" classes that I observed back in the 70's and early 80's.

Yes, that's very likely why the reported numbers of autistic children are rising: clusters of symptoms that were previously ignored, or that were once assigned to non-specific diagnoses such as mental retardation, are now recognized to be symptoms of autism. This is a good thing, since now we have a better idea of how to treat these children.

]]> By: velkyn http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-30969 velkyn Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:10:17 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-30969 hello alex You asked "Given that many parents who've Drunk The Kool-Aid on this seem to be more anguished about having vaccinated than the parents who accept that it's genetic are about their genes, I doubt this is the main factor. I suspect it's more a matter of clinging to anything that promises an answer, whether or not it can actually deliver." This doesn't make much sense as a response to what I wrote. I was saying that those parents want an excuse. They want to blame vaccines rather than their genes. Of course they are more "anguished" about it. It is easier to be more "anguished" if you are just working from baseless assumptions rather than facts that can't be budged with emotion. You also asked ".......and what, exactly, is it about the symptoms of autism that you think supports that assertion?" The symptoms of autism, and there are many claimed "symptoms", are very similar to those "symptoms" that got kids put into "special ed" classes that I observed back in the 70's and early 80's. These kids were generally called "mentally retarded". I have a friends who's son has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. I knew plenty of kids like him and they were considered "slow" or in more severe cases (the gluten-free diet seems to be working for my friend's son) "retarded". It is not a difference of symptoms, it is a difference of what parents want to think. That gluten-free diet may have helped the kids decades ago like how keeping certain chemicals from those who have phenylketonuria. hello alex

You asked "Given that many parents who've Drunk The Kool-Aid on this seem to be more anguished about having vaccinated than the parents who accept that it's genetic are about their genes, I doubt this is the main factor. I suspect it's more a matter of clinging to anything that promises an answer, whether or not it can actually deliver."
This doesn't make much sense as a response to what I wrote. I was saying that those parents want an excuse. They want to blame vaccines rather than their genes. Of course they are more "anguished" about it. It is easier to be more "anguished" if you are just working from baseless assumptions rather than facts that can't be budged with emotion.

You also asked ".......and what, exactly, is it about the symptoms of autism that you think supports that assertion?"

The symptoms of autism, and there are many claimed "symptoms", are very similar to those "symptoms" that got kids put into "special ed" classes that I observed back in the 70's and early 80's. These kids were generally called "mentally retarded". I have a friends who's son has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. I knew plenty of kids like him and they were considered "slow" or in more severe cases (the gluten-free diet seems to be working for my friend's son) "retarded". It is not a difference of symptoms, it is a difference of what parents want to think. That gluten-free diet may have helped the kids decades ago like how keeping certain chemicals from those who have phenylketonuria.

]]> By: Dominic Self http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-30836 Dominic Self Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:51:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-30836 Oh, I remember this well. (The conspiracy theories were especially odd: what possible motive would the government have for knowingly administering a dangerous vaccine? Especially since parents were clamouring for separate vaccines for each of the three viruses as an alternative, so it's not as if drug companies would have lost out, and it would be the government paying for any potential medical care to autistic children!) It really spiralled out of control because the media saw it as a question of 'balance'. There was quite a bit of soul-searching afterwards (see, for example, this <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf" rel="nofollow">BBC Report</a> which reiterated "impartiality does not mean that the BBC should accord lone dissenters equivalence with the full weight of scientific opinion. Equal scrutiny – yes. Equal weight – no".) Oh, I remember this well. (The conspiracy theories were especially odd: what possible motive would the government have for knowingly administering a dangerous vaccine? Especially since parents were clamouring for separate vaccines for each of the three viruses as an alternative, so it's not as if drug companies would have lost out, and it would be the government paying for any potential medical care to autistic children!)

It really spiralled out of control because the media saw it as a question of 'balance'. There was quite a bit of soul-searching afterwards (see, for example, this BBC Report which reiterated "impartiality does not mean that the BBC should accord lone dissenters equivalence with the full weight of scientific opinion. Equal scrutiny – yes. Equal weight – no".)

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-30835 Alex Weaver Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:32:26 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-30835 Additionally, there are numerous cases of autistic children who had never been exposed to TV in general or cartoons in particular prior to diagnosis, or even at all (why would cartoons be worse than other kinds of TV, anyway? Someone's bias is showing....). Clearly television exposure is not causing all of the cases of autism; on what evidence (aside from the personal axes-to-grind of certain parents and activists) should we assume it causes <i>any</I> of them? Additionally, there are numerous cases of autistic children who had never been exposed to TV in general or cartoons in particular prior to diagnosis, or even at all (why would cartoons be worse than other kinds of TV, anyway? Someone's bias is showing....). Clearly television exposure is not causing all of the cases of autism; on what evidence (aside from the personal axes-to-grind of certain parents and activists) should we assume it causes any of them?

]]> By: RollingStone http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-30833 RollingStone Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:05:24 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/popular-delusions-viii.html#comment-30833 Soft_guy: You need to read MrDomino's post about how correlation does not equal causation, because you seem to be buying into this theory yourself. "The article" that you read - and you did not specify where it came from or who wrote it, which is very important in determining whether or not you should believe what you read - is assuming that just because the popularity of Nickelodeon and the apparent rise of autism rates (which might simply be the result of increased diagnosis) have happened at about the same time, then one must be causing the other. This is a ridiculous assumption. The author of the article you read also made the error of somehow assuming that Nickelodeon has the only shows aimed at kids. The children who watch the cartoons on that particular channel now probably switched over from watching cartoons on other channels. Although I'm glad that you are limiting TV for your children, I think that you are doing it for the wrong reason. There is no evidence that autism is caused by TV, or, by extension, bad parents who let their kids watch too much of it. Although no one knows the exact cause of autism, the scientific evidence indicates that it is most likely a physical one - it isn't anyone's "fault." TV and bad parenting are merely convenient scapegoats for people who are faced with the frustration of unanswered questions and go out looking for someone to blame. Soft_guy:
You need to read MrDomino's post about how correlation does not equal causation, because you seem to be buying into this theory yourself. "The article" that you read - and you did not specify where it came from or who wrote it, which is very important in determining whether or not you should believe what you read - is assuming that just because the popularity of Nickelodeon and the apparent rise of autism rates (which might simply be the result of increased diagnosis) have happened at about the same time, then one must be causing the other. This is a ridiculous assumption. The author of the article you read also made the error of somehow assuming that Nickelodeon has the only shows aimed at kids. The children who watch the cartoons on that particular channel now probably switched over from watching cartoons on other channels.
Although I'm glad that you are limiting TV for your children, I think that you are doing it for the wrong reason. There is no evidence that autism is caused by TV, or, by extension, bad parents who let their kids watch too much of it. Although no one knows the exact cause of autism, the scientific evidence indicates that it is most likely a physical one - it isn't anyone's "fault." TV and bad parenting are merely convenient scapegoats for people who are faced with the frustration of unanswered questions and go out looking for someone to blame.

]]>