Posted on 04/20/2005 8:26:42 AM PDT by agsloss
Lancaster, PA, Apr. 18 (UPI) -- Part 1 of 2. Where are the autistic Amish? Here in Lancaster County, heart of Pennsylvania Dutch country, there should be well over 100 with some form of the disorder. I have come here to find them, but so far my mission has failed, and the very few I have identified raise some very interesting questions about some widely held views on autism. The mainstream scientific consensus says autism is a complex genetic disorder, one that has been around for millennia at roughly the same prevalence. That prevalence is now considered to be 1 in every 166 children born in the United States. Applying that model to Lancaster County, there ought to be 130 Amish men, women and children here with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Well over 100, in rough terms. Typically, half would harbor milder variants such as Asperger's Disorder or the catch-all Pervasive Development Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified -- PDD-NOS for short. So let's drop those from our calculation, even though "mild" is a relative term when it comes to autism. That means upwards of 50 Amish people of all ages should be living in Lancaster County with full-syndrome autism, the "classic autism"...
-snip-
I have identified three Amish residents of Lancaster County who apparently have full-syndrome autism, all of them children. A local woman told me there is one classroom with about 30 "special-needs" Amish children. In that classroom, there is one autistic Amish child. Another autistic Amish child does not go to school. The third is that woman's pre-school-age daughter. If there were more, she said, she would know it. What I learned about those children is the subject of the next column.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
There is definitely a conenction between lazy eye (strabismus) and fragile X syndrome (while fragile X is not "autism" but rather retardation, a significant percentage 15-20% are also autistic). Google is our friend -- use Google advanced search to search for the phrase "lazy eye" and the word "autism", or better yet (for more scientific stuff) the words strabismus and autism -- you'll get plenty of hits.
http://www.autism.org/fragilex.html
This may be a life-changer for me. I think I am about to have one of those looking-at-your-whole-life moments re: our son. It doesn't change what happened or even what I plan to do for him, but it's like climbing onto a higher hill and seeing how far you've really come now. I don't know why that should be the case -- I've really known there was a genetic connection for us and that that does not, in itself, constitute autism without the damaging effect of a labor hurt by Pitocin -- but I feel a little light in the head at the moment -- kind of like clearly seeing the hand of God in it all when you always sensed and hoped it was there.
Perhaps I would have gotten to interposing those two things in a search engine eventually -- probably -- but I've been so overwhelmed with other responsibilities for the last three years that it hadn't happened yet. This is a tremendous gift; thank you.
Mennonites are not Christian? What do they believe?
Having a vested interest in finding a solution can also make you more likely to jump to conclusions.
Where did I say I only recognized the pharms and AMA as reputable? I only accept peer reviewed and willing to give the full set of data rather than just the conclussions as reputable, don't care where it comes from I want to see how open they are with the data. the fact that you're jumping to conclussions tells me everything I know about your willingness to analyze the data on its own merits.
Where did I say all of nothing? Once again you're jumping to conclussions and inserting positions I haven't taken. We won't be covered by herd immunity if too many people stop getting the vaccines, herd immunity is only as good as the immunity of the herd. No reputable study has found anything wrong with the vaccines, there's nothing to fix.
And what you said is a clear cut case of the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. You are uninterested in the input of people who don't match your preset criteria, that is the definition of poisoning the well.
You do NOT need a personal investment in order to read the studies, they're clear and easy to understand. And the studies show quite clearly that there is no known causative link between vaccines and autism. None.
True, that is a danger. Not having a vested interest is likely to cause you not to form any conclusions at all, or go looking for any to start with.
I only accept peer reviewed and willing to give the full set of data rather than just the conclussions as reputable, don't care where it comes from I want to see how open they are with the data. the fact that you're jumping to conclussions tells me everything I know about your willingness to analyze the data on its own merits.
And you've done this? Why would you? You have no interest in the subject, one way or the other.
Data doesn't have merits. Data relating to other data has merits. I've seen nothing from the "reputable" studies on either side that leads me to a conclusion. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence that points to a problem with vaccines that needs to be looked at.
The "earth is flat, dammit" society that you seem to be a member of refuses to partake in any study that isn't designed to clear itself.
No reputable study has found anything wrong with the vaccines, there's nothing to fix.
Well, there you go. Sleep soundly tonight then.
I'm interested in all kinds of subjects, all part of that heinleinian "specialization is for insects" mentality I have. It's part of what makes FR great, any subject that even mildly interests you will come up in the threads every couple of months.
Data does have merits, if nothing else it allows you to review how they got to their conclusions. Of course part of the problem is that you can't prove a negative so it's not actually possible to prove vaccines definitely don't cause autism, but so far none of the studies that are more than anecdotal conclusions hunting for data have been able to show any possible link. The plural of anecdote is not fact.
Got it the wrong way around, I refuse to believe any study that is designed to cherry pick data in an attempt to back up a predetermined conclusion. That's why I only pay attention to studies that give their background data, that allows me to reveiw what they used to draw their conclusions.
I sleep very soundly, and will sleep more soundly when the crowd trying to banish vaccines is finally kicked back to the 19th century where they belong so they'll no longer be trying to destroy our herd immunity and render us defenseless against diseases we should be able to consider conquered.
In addition, all your postings state what you do; you are really an expert on stating your ideals posed for others to follow as opposed to arguing the actual points you are setting forth.
It's not really the merits of the case at issue you are arguing; it's only the "principles" of how you perceive yourself to apprehend the topic and your castigating of others' approach that doesn't appear to use your "ideal" approach that you are arguing. In other words, you are not really arguing your case but you are arguing how others should argue their case -- while you fail to follow your own advice. So all we gain is what you want us to perceive as your superior position as an "ideal" proponent when nothing could be further from the truth. It's a classic example of the blind attempting to lead "the blind."
I think the common vernacular for that is "hypocritical" and is characteristic of someone who can't really argue their case.
Well, your 100% logical mind seems to have again discerned my/our intentions, my/our statements to the contrary. Way to analyze the data!
Those of us actually interested in determining the cause and the solution can take comfort in the fact that it will benefit even the skeptics and their families.
No it IS the merits of the case I'm arguing. And the "studies" that show a link between vaccines and autism have no merits, they cherry pick data, refuse to give a full accounting of how they got their information, don't even try to establish HOW vaccines would cause autism, and serve no purpose other than trying to foment panic in the general populace. The studies that are open with their data and methods show no statistical or causative link.
Everything else is because YOU insist on making this debate about me. If you don't want to discuss me then STOP. You're the one that keeps trying to poison the well by attacking me, I'm merely defending myself, if you don't want to hear my defense of myself then stop attacking me. I'm trying to, but you don't seem to like that, instead attacking all those that disagree with you and then claiming they're insulting you.
Here are the facts: the studies that are open enough to be even remotely trustworthy show no link, the "studies" that show a link are not open and show an obvious preconceived conclusion in a desperate search for supporting data. They read a lot like pro-global warming studies and I don't believe any of them either.
Did I say those were your intentions? Again NO, you really excel at reading stuff that isn't there. I clearly said "they" which is not necessarily "you" unless you've decided you're part of they; and you can't deny there is a section of the people trying to link autism and vaccines that are just plain anti-vaccine. There's a crowd of luddites in this world that likes to attach themselves to these kind of emotionally charged issues, and they're all pigs because they play with the emotions of people put in unfortunate circumstances to get backing and cover.
So far the only cause that's pointed to at all by the data is genetics. A lot of people don't like that answer because they think it reflects on them in some way, it doesn't, we don't get to pick our genes or how they'll divide and combine with our spouses genes. But some folks blame themselves anyway, and the only way for them to stop is finding some external cause no matter how tenuous the evidence.
Now we know where you've got those of us with a vested interest -- without yet admitting that you've specialized in protecting your own.
you can't prove a negative so it's not actually possible to prove vaccines definitely don't cause autism
This is redolent of the hypocrisy I mentioned, which is more likely to take place if you don't have a vested interest or are not being honest about what it is.
will sleep more soundly when the crowd trying to banish vaccines is finally kicked back to the 19th century where they belong so they'll no longer be trying to destroy our herd immunity and render us defenseless against diseases we should be able to consider conquered.
Look how much wasted verbiage went back and forth before you finally come out with your actual vested interest; your opposition already knew it was there and what it is, but it took an inordinate amount of effort to extract it from you.
And here is finally some valuable meat from you even if it's only about your reasoning for your approach to your version of research. This was of some value, even instructional:
Data does have merits, if nothing else it allows you to review how they got to their conclusions. Of course part of the problem is that you can't prove a negative so it's not actually possible to prove vaccines definitely don't cause autism, but so far none of the studies that are more than anecdotal conclusions hunting for data have been able to show any possible link. The plural of anecdote is not fact. Got it the wrong way around, I refuse to believe any study that is designed to cherry pick data in an attempt to back up a predetermined conclusion. That's why I only pay attention to studies that give their background data, that allows me to reveiw what they used to draw their conclusions.
In the future, with such valuable insights to share, please be up front with your vested interests and argue your case on the points -- which you have still failed to do. If you had done these four things: acknowledged your true bias; admitted what is undeniable (proving a negative); justified and promoted what you consider a valuable approach, with specifics; and, in addition, actually argued your case -- which possibility is very doubtful and may be the reason you never really attempted to do so -- we'll all be ahead.
What of my own am I protecting?
There's no hypocricy in that, you can't prove a negative. Doesn't matter what the negative is, negatives can't be proven, it's one of the most basic concepts of logic. I can't prove I'm not an alien, you can't prove you're not approaching this emotionally, nobody can prove there is no possible even slight link between autism and vaccines. But what we can establish is that no link has been proven so far and that there've been enough studies unable to establish a link that at this juncture it would be highly unlikely for there to be a link.
I have no more vested interest than any other person that thinks the world is a better place without rampant polio and small pox and whooping cough running around thanks to vaccination.
I still don't know what "vested interest" you're accusing me of. I don't work for any pharm or the AMA or anybody else making money on vaccines, to the best of my knowledge (who can really say where your 401k money is) I'm have no investments in any of these companies. I have no vested interest, other than not wanting to see polio make a comeback in the 21st century.
On your 4 "points":
I have no bias
Negatives cannot be proven, it's one of the basic concepts of logic handed down from Aristotle
I justified and promoted what I consider a valuable approach (peer reviewed studies with open data) from the start
And I've been arguing my case as much as I can when dealing with a person that is obsessed with making the discussion about the discussors rather than the actual topic
Nothing approaching this was stated by you until very recently, and you give no citations (references).
Here are the facts: the studies that are open enough to be even remotely trustworthy show no link, the "studies" that show a link are not open and show an obvious preconceived conclusion in a desperate search for supporting data. They read a lot like pro-global warming studies and I don't believe any of them either.
Please cite some examples. That will be more educational than telling everyone else what they're not doing right.
It's what I've been saying from the beginning, when I got the chance to actually discuss the topic, and the cites are all over this thread.
Did you post the studies cited on this thread that you point to?
No, I trust others have the links handy, but I've read most of the studies pointed to by both sides on this thread and many others previous (this isn't even close to a new topic of discussion on FR).
But IF the Amish do not routinely vaccinate, this gives greater credance to the theory.
My daughter feels the vaccines did have something to do with Adam's autism.
That may not necessarily be correct. My understanding is that there were many, many doses in the pipeline.
I've let some of my bitterness about being raised in the Mennonite faith seep through and into my post. Maybe I shouldn't have.
Mennonites do believe as most Christians do that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ, and with his forgiveness. They also believe in adult baptism. And the (seemingly) most important thing is pacifism. Young men were (are) brought up to believe they should register as conscientious objectors. I came of age when the Vietnam war was raging, and only escaped the draft because my number didn't come up. Some refuse to pay the portion of tax they figure goes to support the military.
Only after I moved away from our Mennonite town (age 35) did I begin to see how impractical the Mennonite stand on the use of force is in a world that is governed by the use of force.
The Mennonites opposed US involvement in WWII (yeah, try and reconcile THAT in light of Pearl Harbor) and I imagine they opposed invading Iraq.
Opposing wars that will liberate enslaved and tortured people. Figure that out...........in order the be a good Christian Mennonite (something that seems to be an oxymoron) you need to oppose the very thing that will finally put a stop to people being thrown into shredders. How is that Christian?
That's where my line about no longer being a Mennonite once I became a Christian came from.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.