What the...!? What should I do about this?

Post Reply New Topic

Somebody just sent me a message on YouTube, about a comment I made on a video about autism.

Here's what she said:
"vaccines do cause autism, no one in my family has had it and no one in my family has got
theres been no traces of it in my family

i went autistic got epilepsy and renal sternosis of the kidneys when i had the mmr vaccine so dont tell rubbish saying that info was not right

your not that bright if you dont know the truth vaccines cause autism ok

think about it? if the goverment were to admit vaccines cause autism they would get sued by lots of people big time

plus think about it if doctors, the president and the rest admitted that vaccines cause autism they would be in big trouble and out of the job, so doctors can't tell you or admit it even if they knew, and plus no one would trust the government. once the government starts lying they have to keep lying just to cover there backs. plus look at the science

look up on youtube the dangers on vaccines or truth about vaccines.

i had to say that

if you want more info add me or send a message

bye for now take care
from
kirsty"

How should I respond? I want my argument against her statement to be effective and presented in an intelligent fashion. I don't want to come across as a pissed-off idiot.

Edit: Some online sources proving her wrong would be especially effective.

Why argue? You're not going to change her mind no matter what sources you cite.
Also, how do you know she's wrong?
Neither "side" has proven or disproven the claim that vaccinations may play a part in causing or exacerbating autistic features in children.
Let it go.

i would ignore it, if it were me.
But if you want to reply, do some research, put a good case together and be done with it.
she will never change her mind about the stance she is taking. (i suspect!)

when i was younger i would put a lot of effort into this kind of debate.
nowadays - in my mid 40's, i reserve my energy for what is important to me.

if it is very important to you - go for it and make a darn good job of it.
i wish you well and hope you enjoy the process.

This is a good article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7076

Youtube isn't a good source of information, tell her to look at more creditable sources. Most published scientific articles suggest no link.

Sometimes it just might be better to ignore her. Or make a canned response for everyone who wants to create a link.

I agree that there is no point in arguing. You will not be able to convince her. I would just ignore her reply or post something to the effect of "We'll have to agree to disagree. My opinion is based on research-based evidence as well. It appears the jury is still out on vaccines." Because really, it is. It's not known yet that vaccines play *no* role in autism, in either triggering it in susceptible individuals or exacerbating it. Vaccines may not do anything to the brain, but the immune system's response to the vaccines may trigger food sensitivities (which can be related to immune system reactions), which can definitely affect mental clarity, fatigue, ability to concentrate, etc. A kid who doesn't feel well due to food sensitivities is a kid who will have trouble learning. I'm not saying that this is or is not the case, but I just mean that even with mercury ruled out, vaccines may still have some influence on autism.

Ignore it. You can't talk to rocks.

Yeah. Anybody who cites conspiracy theories cannot generally be convinced.

I could see arguing with somebody who were reasoning on the basis of science (biology, psychology, developmental neuroscience, etc.), but when they start saying "they're making us autistic because they want money", I know it's time to stop arguing, because there's no way they'll learn anything from you.

Autism often does make itself dramatically obvious when there is some other problem present--in the comment, the poster mentions renal stenosis and epilepsy--and I am guessing that she had autism from birth, and her illness decreased her coping skills drastically, making the autism obvious. There is no way I could say that for sure, without looking at her medical records and interviewing her parents; but I have seen this pattern multiple times, and observed it in myself that whenever I have a physical or psychological problem, my autism becomes much more obvious... I think it's a good guess.

It is FACT that vaccines entail risk. It is outlined in the often illegally "presented" "disclaimer". So WHY would they say they could cause DEATH, SICKNESS, or an ALLERGIC reaction due to some INHERENT component, and NOT speak of the MMR that they can easily change? The last FLU vaccine I had had a statement in the "disclaimer" saying that I had the "option" to use a NON MMR vaccine.

BTW a disclaimer is SUPPOSED to, BY LAW, be presented openly to the one that must act on it. MY "disclaimer" was palmed to me secretly AFTER the vaccination.

Anyway, MOST Americans, and amny others, HAVE been vaccinated.

Personally, I agree with her. I came to the same conclusions. I learned that one should not trust the government. But I have no intentions of arguing with you. I would suggest you to ignore her.

Ignore it, you can't really change their mind and if they want to believe it, let them. Nobody knows for sure what causes autism, it could be the vaccine but at the moment we can't really prove whether it's true or not.

You're not arguing with the government, you're arguing with independent researchers.
Most children get the vaccine around the time that the symptoms of autism become noticeable. The immunization schedule can be delayed, but that would put children at risk or developing life threatening diseases.

It makes me laugh at how generally ignorant they are. If the MMR vaccine caused autism, EVERYONE who had it would be autistic.

My brother and I had the same vaccines as children, and I'm autistic, and he's NT. Isn't it also a belief that boys are more likely to be autistic than girls?

You know, I was talking with someone JUST today about such garbage.

Mercury IS dangerous! That has been known for HUNDREDS of years! http://www.seagrant.uconn.edu/HATTER.HTML EVENTUALLY, it was banned from many things. They STILL use it as a preservative, and "amalgam"(AEKA Silver) fillings!

LEAD IS dangerous! Known for a VERY long time. They outlawed it in many things in the 70s! And *****NOW***** they allow china to have special status EVEN as they send POISONOUS items to us!?!?!?!?(Outside of things that are REALLY illegal, it is only used in weights, some special applications(like lead acid batteries), and solder. It USED to be used in gas, as a fuel additive, paint,etc...)

UREA FORMALDEHYDE resin MUST have been known to be dangerous. *I* stated that in the early SIXTIES when I was a little kid! I just KNEW because of the stench, and how it affected ME. People IGNORED me until the mid 70s! AGAIN, OUTLAWED without warning labels!(Luckily, it seems to not really be used that much anymore. It WAS used in furniture, boats, homes, etc....)

ALUMINUM has been indicated as a POISON, and it is used ALL OVER! Watch that cake! Prior to 1950 it was probably OK but NOW, it may have ALUMINUM! It is also used in antiperspirants, etc....(used ALL OVER! It used to be used FAR less frequently, and used to be used only as a metal.)

And what do ALL of the above have in common? ALL are neurotoxins! They have been known to destroy intelligence(lead, aluminum), and make people crazy(mercury), or usually just give people headaches and general sickness, with a potential to destroy braincells(UFR).

Still, EVEN the mercury poisoning(to obvious madness) is due to higher exposure for a long time.

Vaccines are risky; but the risks are low.

The chemicals you mention are not in high enough doses to be dangerous.

The thing about toxins is that they are not "inherently toxic in any amount", but toxic above a certain concentration. Mercury, lead, formaldehyde, and other dangerous substances are present in the environment naturally. Given good equipment, I could detect these substances in organic produce, drinking water, clothing, and air. I could do it in the middle of a national park, where human influence is minimal. These "chemicals" are a part of nature.

The risks from not getting vaccinated are higher than the risks from the vaccinations themselves.

Childhood mortality started to drop when children began to be vaccinated, and has continued to drop as vaccination rates rise.

You can eliminate the risk of vaccine damage by not being vaccinated--but only by taking on the much higher risks that come from being vulnerable to the disease itself.

It's like refusing to wear a seat belt because it could trap you in the car, while ignoring the much greater risk of dying because you weren't wearing one.

I was vaccinated along with all 3 of my siblings. I am the only autistic out of all of them. My dad also showed signs of Autism.

I am sick of this suff. I would just ignore it.