In a very smart (in my opinion) decision yesterday the ruling came down that Autism is NOT caused by vaccinations given as children. My eldest sister who is mother to two autistic boys, who I am sure will go on to later rule the world, was interviewed by her local television station on her thoughts about this ruling.
I personally have a real problem with believing that vaccinations are the sole reason, or a major cause of Autism. I question why it is that people have such a hard time believing that it is (again in my opinion) a genetically based issue. There seems to be such a stigma attached to the idea of it being genetically based. People are willing to believe that vaccinations that have been given to millions of people over generations are the cause of the autism, but balk at the idea that it may be caused by a genetic mutation. Right. Really?
It is my hope that with this ruling that people will stop looking for a scape goat and start really focusing on getting to the bottom of the issue, and also focus on providing better services for those who are autistic and the families and people who take care of them.
4 comments:
The genetic foundation of autism is not just your opinion but also the opinion of the scientists researching the issue. The website Autism Genetics attempts to catalog all of the studies that have found genetic variables related to autism.
Okay like autism didn't exhist before vaccinations. WTF. How in the sam hades does this get heard in the courts? Cuz Lawyers are not the scientific community. Just saying.
Well autism existed, but no one really had a name for it then. I believe that people would rather put the blame or cause on an outside entity rather than deal with the fact that it is genetic because they somehow feel that genetics would imply that it is their "fault" or something they did...
It was in the courts exactly because it is not the scientific community. The lawyers for these families were hoping to put a fast one over on the Special Masters (three individuals with little or no background in science) who decided the three cases. Their evidence was so shoddy that they failed miserably.
There is now talk of taking the cases to civil court before juries (who are notoriously simple minded) where the bar for proving your case is much lower.
Post a Comment