Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Autism Spectrum Disorders

Options
12467

Replies

  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Options
    mommarnurse wrote: »
    Going along with the probably accurate theory that it's genetic, how can we account for the obvious increasing number of diagnoses over the past 20 years or so? Yes, the broad diagnosis of ASD now in part accounts for 1.) many disorders (I.e. Intellectual disability, learning disability, add/adhd) are now encompassed into the ASD diagnosis and 2.) many people could have been diagnosed but the symptom set recognition and name wasn't there previously

    However, I still feel like aside from accounting for these circumstances, there's still probably an actual increase in cases. There's something there causing that, either directly or indirectly. It could be environmental causing gene damage, and I think it probably is. But, environmental doesn't just mean "chemicals" or "pesticides", etc. it's going to be very hard to narrow it down.

    This is quite simple - the increase is largely due to awareness and medical access. Same with other specific diseases such as cancer. The rate of cancer has not increased, but due to increased screening and improved detection methods it appears that way. What was previously written off as "quirky" behavior is now reviewed, studied, and diagnosed.

    As I previously stated I believe this to be 100% genetic. I suspect the largest cause of the increase to be due to lack of connection with parents due to all the distraction we have available to us - coupled with the increase of the two party income family. Many of these children who would previously be institutionalized are now getting the treatment and coping techniques to function.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    mommarnurse wrote: »
    Going along with the probably accurate theory that it's genetic, how can we account for the obvious increasing number of diagnoses over the past 20 years or so? Yes, the broad diagnosis of ASD now in part accounts for 1.) many disorders (I.e. Intellectual disability, learning disability, add/adhd) are now encompassed into the ASD diagnosis and 2.) many people could have been diagnosed but the symptom set recognition and name wasn't there previously

    However, I still feel like aside from accounting for these circumstances, there's still probably an actual increase in cases. There's something there causing that, either directly or indirectly. It could be environmental causing gene damage, and I think it probably is. But, environmental doesn't just mean "chemicals" or "pesticides", etc. it's going to be very hard to narrow it down.

    .
  • zamphir66
    zamphir66 Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    Most have probably seen this, but it's a glimpse into non-verbal autism:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDGvquzn2k

  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    Options
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    mommarnurse wrote: »
    Going along with the probably accurate theory that it's genetic, how can we account for the obvious increasing number of diagnoses over the past 20 years or so? Yes, the broad diagnosis of ASD now in part accounts for 1.) many disorders (I.e. Intellectual disability, learning disability, add/adhd) are now encompassed into the ASD diagnosis and 2.) many people could have been diagnosed but the symptom set recognition and name wasn't there previously

    However, I still feel like aside from accounting for these circumstances, there's still probably an actual increase in cases. There's something there causing that, either directly or indirectly. It could be environmental causing gene damage, and I think it probably is. But, environmental doesn't just mean "chemicals" or "pesticides", etc. it's going to be very hard to narrow it down.


    As I previously stated I believe this to be 100% genetic. I suspect the largest cause of the increase to be due to lack of connection with parents due to all the distraction we have available to us - coupled with the increase of the two party income family. Many of these children who would previously be institutionalized are now getting the treatment and coping techniques to function.

    This last paragraph seemed contradictory to me. It's 100% genetic, but the largest cause is lack of connection with parents? There's a lack of connection with parents due to modern lifestyles, but kids are receiving treatment now they wouldn't have received in the past? I'm not trying to be critical, your point was just genuinely lost on me.

    That being said, I've often wondered if my son's symptoms would have been worse (and mind you, I've never had him diagnosed, since it doesn't interfere with his education for the most part) had I not been home with him every day, providing lots of one-on-one attention and working with him daily (I am a SAHM and we home school). I am not trying to be judgmental of anyone's lifestyle at all- just genuinely wondering if it could be a factor?

  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Options
    try2again wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    mommarnurse wrote: »
    Going along with the probably accurate theory that it's genetic, how can we account for the obvious increasing number of diagnoses over the past 20 years or so? Yes, the broad diagnosis of ASD now in part accounts for 1.) many disorders (I.e. Intellectual disability, learning disability, add/adhd) are now encompassed into the ASD diagnosis and 2.) many people could have been diagnosed but the symptom set recognition and name wasn't there previously

    However, I still feel like aside from accounting for these circumstances, there's still probably an actual increase in cases. There's something there causing that, either directly or indirectly. It could be environmental causing gene damage, and I think it probably is. But, environmental doesn't just mean "chemicals" or "pesticides", etc. it's going to be very hard to narrow it down.


    As I previously stated I believe this to be 100% genetic. I suspect the largest cause of the increase to be due to lack of connection with parents due to all the distraction we have available to us - coupled with the increase of the two party income family. Many of these children who would previously be institutionalized are now getting the treatment and coping techniques to function.

    This last paragraph seemed contradictory to me. It's 100% genetic, but the largest cause is lack of connection with parents? There's a lack of connection with parents due to modern lifestyles, but kids are receiving treatment now they wouldn't have received in the past? I'm not trying to be critical, your point was just genuinely lost on me.

    That being said, I've often wondered if my son's symptoms would have been worse (and mind you, I've never had him diagnosed, since it doesn't interfere with his education for the most part) had I not been home with him every day, providing lots of one-on-one attention and working with him daily (I am a SAHM and we home school). I am not trying to be judgmental of anyone's lifestyle at all- just genuinely wondering if it could be a factor?

    I should have spent more time constructing this and appreciate the critique.

    The cause is 100% genetic. The coping mechanisms are 100% environmental. Genetics establishes the parameters and we can either choose to life with those or attempt to break past the boundaries through innovation and experimentation - this is behavioral.

    The problem is so multifaceted it is impossible to address root cause in something as brief as a forum post.

    I don't believe there is any sort of an increase due to genetics. Western lifestyle has led to a decay in social interaction and connections. Many children have lost the model of behavior to act on.
  • Fuzzipeg
    Fuzzipeg Posts: 2,298 Member
    Options
    Speechless.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    try2again wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    mommarnurse wrote: »
    Going along with the probably accurate theory that it's genetic, how can we account for the obvious increasing number of diagnoses over the past 20 years or so? Yes, the broad diagnosis of ASD now in part accounts for 1.) many disorders (I.e. Intellectual disability, learning disability, add/adhd) are now encompassed into the ASD diagnosis and 2.) many people could have been diagnosed but the symptom set recognition and name wasn't there previously

    However, I still feel like aside from accounting for these circumstances, there's still probably an actual increase in cases. There's something there causing that, either directly or indirectly. It could be environmental causing gene damage, and I think it probably is. But, environmental doesn't just mean "chemicals" or "pesticides", etc. it's going to be very hard to narrow it down.


    As I previously stated I believe this to be 100% genetic. I suspect the largest cause of the increase to be due to lack of connection with parents due to all the distraction we have available to us - coupled with the increase of the two party income family. Many of these children who would previously be institutionalized are now getting the treatment and coping techniques to function.

    This last paragraph seemed contradictory to me. It's 100% genetic, but the largest cause is lack of connection with parents? There's a lack of connection with parents due to modern lifestyles, but kids are receiving treatment now they wouldn't have received in the past? I'm not trying to be critical, your point was just genuinely lost on me.

    That being said, I've often wondered if my son's symptoms would have been worse (and mind you, I've never had him diagnosed, since it doesn't interfere with his education for the most part) had I not been home with him every day, providing lots of one-on-one attention and working with him daily (I am a SAHM and we home school). I am not trying to be judgmental of anyone's lifestyle at all- just genuinely wondering if it could be a factor?

    I should have spent more time constructing this and appreciate the critique.

    The cause is 100% genetic. The coping mechanisms are 100% environmental. Genetics establishes the parameters and we can either choose to life with those or attempt to break past the boundaries through innovation and experimentation - this is behavioral.

    The problem is so multifaceted it is impossible to address root cause in something as brief as a forum post.

    I don't believe there is any sort of an increase due to genetics. Western lifestyle has led to a decay in social interaction and connections. Many children have lost the model of behavior to act on.

    whoa

    I'm another SAHM, who has always stayed with my children, who has homeschooled them their entire life. They are with people who care for them, family, friends, work groups, whatever, all day. My oldest son, who is most likely an aspie, is ahead by a couple of grades in a couple of subjects, is learning two languages (largely self taught), does soccer, baseball and martial arts, participates in a demo team for martial arts, and volunteers teaches at the same martial arts studio with young students - the youngest students ever allowed to do this. He also has a job shoveling snow for seniors, dog walking for family in the neighbourhood, and is excited to try highschool so he can join their RAK club - Random Acts of Kindness club...

    So the western lifestyle has led to a decay in social interaction and connections? That's what has caused my son to seek quiet and stim when he is overwhelmed? Even as a 2 year old? That's why as a toddler he was happy to sit quietly in a restaurant if he was able to play with/organize the sugar packets?

    He just handles his challenges in a different way than a more outspoken, less quiet aspie would. How he loses his control (stim or quiet crying) just happens to be in a different manner than other aspies, or other regular children or adults for that matter.
  • triandtry
    triandtry Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    @SideSteel
    I'd actually be interested in references if you don't mind. I only ask because my 5 year old son has autism and so this topic is close to me.

    Thanks for offering and for replying, I do appreciate it!

    Here are some of the key papers in the field...technical, sorry...
    1. Iossifov I, et al. (2012) De novo gene disruptions in children on the autistic spectrum. Neuron 74(2):285–299.
    2. Neale BM, et al. (2012) Patterns and rates of exonic de novo mutations in autism spectrum disorders. Nature 485(7397):242–245.
    3. O’Roak BJ, et al. (2012) Sporadic autism exomes reveal a highly interconnected protein network of de novo mutations. Nature 485(7397):246–250.
    4. Sanders SJ, et al. (2012) De novo mutations revealed by whole-exome sequencing are strongly associated with autism. Nature 485(7397):237–241.
    5. Ronemus M, Iossifov I, Levy D, Wigler M (2014) The role of de novo mutations in the genetics of autism spectrum disorders. Nat Rev Genet 15(2):133–141.
    6. Iossifov I, et al. (2014) The contribution of de novo coding mutations to autism spectrum disorder. Nature 515(7526):216–221.
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,182 Member
    Options
    I don't suspect the environment of presenting anything that causes ASD. The thing I do suspect is the process of brain development during gestation. Parts get hooked up wrong in there. I don't think we can know why.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    triandtry wrote: »
    @SideSteel
    I'd actually be interested in references if you don't mind. I only ask because my 5 year old son has autism and so this topic is close to me.

    Thanks for offering and for replying, I do appreciate it!

    Here are some of the key papers in the field...technical, sorry...
    1. Iossifov I, et al. (2012) De novo gene disruptions in children on the autistic spectrum. Neuron 74(2):285–299.
    2. Neale BM, et al. (2012) Patterns and rates of exonic de novo mutations in autism spectrum disorders. Nature 485(7397):242–245.
    3. O’Roak BJ, et al. (2012) Sporadic autism exomes reveal a highly interconnected protein network of de novo mutations. Nature 485(7397):246–250.
    4. Sanders SJ, et al. (2012) De novo mutations revealed by whole-exome sequencing are strongly associated with autism. Nature 485(7397):237–241.
    5. Ronemus M, Iossifov I, Levy D, Wigler M (2014) The role of de novo mutations in the genetics of autism spectrum disorders. Nat Rev Genet 15(2):133–141.
    6. Iossifov I, et al. (2014) The contribution of de novo coding mutations to autism spectrum disorder. Nature 515(7526):216–221.

    Thank you!
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    Options
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    This is from Autism speaks...

    Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.

    Is the information I posted incorrect?
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    Options
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    This is from Autism speaks...

    Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.

    And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.

  • unsuspectingfish
    unsuspectingfish Posts: 1,176 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    This is from Autism speaks...

    Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.

    And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.

    Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.

    I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    This is from Autism speaks...

    Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.

    And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.

    Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.

    I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.

    Do you have any evidence of the bold?

    It seems to me they don't, at least based on what I've seen.

    https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism
  • unsuspectingfish
    unsuspectingfish Posts: 1,176 Member
    Options
    SideSteel wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    This is from Autism speaks...

    Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.

    And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.

    Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.

    I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.

    Do you have any evidence of the bold?

    It seems to me they don't, at least based on what I've seen.

    https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism

    https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/02/09/autism-speaks-vaccines/20040/
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    This is from Autism speaks...

    Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.

    And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.

    Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.

    I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.

    Do you have any evidence of the bold?

    It seems to me they don't, at least based on what I've seen.

    https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism

    https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/02/09/autism-speaks-vaccines/20040/

    Thanks, then it seems they no longer believe vaccines cause autism?
  • unsuspectingfish
    unsuspectingfish Posts: 1,176 Member
    Options
    SideSteel wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    This is from Autism speaks...

    Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.

    And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.

    Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.

    I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.

    Do you have any evidence of the bold?

    It seems to me they don't, at least based on what I've seen.

    https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism

    https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/02/09/autism-speaks-vaccines/20040/

    Thanks, then it seems they no longer believe vaccines cause autism?

    That's what their statement says, but at the end of the article, it says that their current Strategic Plan includes the following:

    "Autism Speaks is funding studies on the underlying biology of autism, including studies to better understand medical and genetic conditions that are associated with autism that could potentially be linked to adverse responses to immunization"

    Basically, yes, they may actually no longer believe that the two are linked, but it seems to me that they're just trying to do some PR damage control while quietly continuing to pursue the idea that vaccines cause autism.
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    Options
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    This is from Autism speaks...

    Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.

    And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.

    Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.

    I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.

    Do you have any evidence of the bold?

    It seems to me they don't, at least based on what I've seen.

    https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism

    https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/02/09/autism-speaks-vaccines/20040/

    Thanks, then it seems they no longer believe vaccines cause autism?

    That's what their statement says, but at the end of the article, it says that their current Strategic Plan includes the following:

    "Autism Speaks is funding studies on the underlying biology of autism, including studies to better understand medical and genetic conditions that are associated with autism that could potentially be linked to adverse responses to immunization"

    Basically, yes, they may actually no longer believe that the two are linked, but it seems to me that they're just trying to do some PR damage control while quietly continuing to pursue the idea that vaccines cause autism.

    It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but it seems to me you're reading an awful lot into that statement. I take it more as they are leaving no stone unturned, or possibly even a concession to those that have a strongly held belief about such that they are not ignoring their concerns.
  • unsuspectingfish
    unsuspectingfish Posts: 1,176 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    try2again wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    unsuspectingfish wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    This is from Autism speaks...

    Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.

    And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.

    Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.

    I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.

    Do you have any evidence of the bold?

    It seems to me they don't, at least based on what I've seen.

    https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism

    https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/02/09/autism-speaks-vaccines/20040/

    Thanks, then it seems they no longer believe vaccines cause autism?

    That's what their statement says, but at the end of the article, it says that their current Strategic Plan includes the following:

    "Autism Speaks is funding studies on the underlying biology of autism, including studies to better understand medical and genetic conditions that are associated with autism that could potentially be linked to adverse responses to immunization"

    Basically, yes, they may actually no longer believe that the two are linked, but it seems to me that they're just trying to do some PR damage control while quietly continuing to pursue the idea that vaccines cause autism.

    It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but it seems to me you're reading an awful lot into that statement. I take it more as they are leaving no stone unturned, or possibly even a concession to those that have a strongly held belief about such that they are not ignoring their concerns.

    Study after study after study has proven that there is no link, and the only people this sort of thing is pandering to are those who think a child having autism is worse than a child contracting a deadly yet entirely preventable disease. Furthermore, it has real-world consequences, which is precisely what caused them to change their position, even if only superficially. Herd immunity has been compromised enough by anti-vaxxers that there are now outbreaks of diseases that were all but dead. People are dying because there might possibly be a link between autism and vaccines in a handful of otherwise perfectly healthy children.

Categories