A controversial post

Post Reply New Topic

I don't believe in any link between autism and vaccines. But I'm still opposed to vaccination.

I personally don't stand any benefit from receiving a vaccination. Thanks to the crippling PTSD and anxiety allistic society has seen fit to inflict upon me, I hardly ever even step outside my cottage. My personal infection risk is minimal. So there's very little benefit to me personally in vaccination.

There's also an enormous detriment. The whole point of vaccination is to establish "herd immunity." And if anything, autism is the state of not being a herd beast. And the herd can tell when you don't belong in it, and they'll trample you and stomp you to death if they can. So as an autistic person, the absolute last thing that I want is a healthy human herd.

RhodyStruggle,

Yes, herd immunity is somewhat an unfortunate term, but I think you're reading too much into it.

This presumes that I would have a contagious or communicable disease. If that were true, I would self-quarantine under the laws of my state. I have written here and elsewhere that my life is largely quarantined anyway. So, how would I likely infect anyone let alone a neighborhood child? I am 53 years old, I have exactly zero contact with children regardless of where they live. Though, I suppose that there must be at least one contagious or communicable disease which could infect others through brick walls and outdoor environments of about 50 feet in size.

But, at what point do you believe that an individual becomes ethically, legally and morally responsible for his or her own self, including his or her own actions or inactions? Do you expect as much responsibility from the child (or its parents or legal guardians) in your example as you do from me? All things being equal, you should.

Yeah well, two years of incarceration and torture on the taxpayers' dime will do that to you. Not trying to derail the conversation though. Point I'm getting at is, "herd immunity" only appeals to those who see themselves as members of the group, the "herd" in question.

Obviously I'm an extreme case, in that most people wouldn't feel a personal sense of retribution and gratification at seeing an entirely preventable oubreak of disease wipe out two-thirds or so of their own country's population. But in the more usual cases, you see that people opposed to vaccination tend to have what could be described as a tribalistic view of society, whereas the pro-vaccination folks bothering to argue with them tend to have more of a "we're all in this together" view.

Thus the pro-vaccination folks often feel justified in calling for punishment for opposing vaccination - since they see it as we're all in this together, they see such punishment as attempts to "police our own" and thus not in any way an unjustified encroachment.

The anti-vaccination folks, on the other hand, see the "herd" not as a group we're all in together, but as a loose affiliation of multiple tribes whereby inter-tribal hostility and violence is reduced but by no means eliminated. And they would probably see talk of mandating vaccination not as intra-group policing but as inter-tribal aggression.

The predictable result of such is going to be further compounding such tribalistic views, and a portion of such people are going to go off-grid, have unregistered births, never get the kid a social security number, homeschool them, etc. Aside from that reinforced tribalism further exacerbating the ills of this society, some of those kids are going to end up being abused, and with nobody to turn to for help.

How so?

This is an example of selection bias. You've isolated a single confirmed instance out of a massive group to confirm your preexisting beliefs regarding vaccines.


In the US, thimerosal (the mercury containing ingredient in vaccines) has been disallowed in vaccines since 1999. In the 16 years since it was removed as an ingredient, autism diagnosis rates in the US have more than doubled. Your belief that autism is caused by mercury is verifiably wrong.

Meaning what? How are they going to end up being abused? Because kids of every background are abused.

How are they going to have nobody to turn to for help? Because I'm stipulating a hypothetical situation in which society makes it impossible to be both unvaccinated and a participating member of said society, and further stipulating that even still some parents will choose not to vaccinate; ergo they divorce themselves of society. Who then is such a child to turn to if being abused by their parents? There isn't anyone else; such parents would of necessity be going to some lengths to evade detection by anyone looking to help abused children, as the choice not to vaccinate would itself be considered child abuse by this point.

Only the thimerosal in some vaccines has been removed. In the United States, "[t]himerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine ..." ( http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccin ... /UCM096228 ). However, several vaccines, which are intended for administration to adults and children older than 6 years of age, include thimerosal (see tables at FDA.gov).

Yes, thank you. I apologize for not asking specifically. But, if all children are abused, as you claim, why include them in your statement which was limited to unvaccinated children? Your statement implied causation.

Nevertheless, that I think disproves pretty definitely the whole thimerosal-autism connection, if thimerosal is limited to those age 6 and over.

The implication was that those instances of child abuse would be an unintended consequence of legislation mandating the vaccination of children.

Edit: Or rather, not those instances of child abuse themselves, but the isolation and inability to end the abuse which those children would suffer.

Thank you for the correction. Nevertheless, I think the conclusion remains the same. If thimerosal effects autism rates, then any meaningful reduction in thimerosal should lead to a reduction in autism prevalence. Instead we have the inverse relationship. At "best" you could perhaps argue that the effect of thimerosal is trivially small, and vastly outweighed by other factors like diagnosis procedures.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been numerous studies since the Wakefield one, pretty much unanimously disproving the link between autism and vaccines. I'm assuming at least a few of these took into account the thimerosal issue.

Beyond your "thimerosal-autism connection" example, vaccine adjuvants, preservatives and other additives are believed to have detrimental effects on the individuals who receive them in vaccines. If they are completely harmless, why did German Chancellor Angela Merkel, her cabinet members and ministry civil servants, among others, receive in 2009 an influenza vaccine which excluded such additives while the general population of Germany received another vaccine which included an "adjuvant, as well as a preservative containing mercury" according to at least four German, U.K. and U.S. news reports ( http://www.thelocal.de/20091018/22649 http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 56028.html http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/f ... child-dies http://content.time.com/time/health/art ... 66,00.html)?

This is wrong. Brains are constantly re-wiring. There -are- certain milestone ages in development where if there is not the right stimulus, that sensory perception will not develop naturally later on. That doesn't even mean that the person will not eventually gain use of that sense with proper intervention. Eg: raise a child (or frog or cat or whatever animal this is true for) with a box on their head that blocks out all light, they will not develop sight naturally past a certain age.


If we expect as much responsibility from AspieUtah as we do a child, then you also forgo the right to choose if you get vaccinated or not.

Yes, of course I do. Why wouldn't I?

Hm. It seems that forced-vaxxers have touched a nerve with the employers of some legislators.

Ahhh, representative democracy in action.

#MyBodyMyChoice