Genetic Test For Autism Developed By Australian Scientists: HuffPo

An article posted yesterday at the Huffington Post states "Australian scientists have developed a genetic test Molecular Psychiatry and they cover 237 genetic markers.
to predict autism spectrum disorder in children".  The findings were published in the journal

It is probably a good idea to reserve judgement until these findings can be verified and replicated, but if this holds true it could be a breakthrough on the path to find the actual cause(s) of autism itself.  Granted the study can only claim a 70% accuracy when predicting autism, but the fact they were able to identify specific genetic markers is promising, and in time the accuracy will most likely be vastly improved.

This type of research can help identify at-risk children far sooner in life which in turn can allow treatments to begin earlier in the child's life.  Early detection and treatment can make all the difference when it comes to autism, so this type of research can be invaluable.

The question now becomes - how can anti-vaccinationists spin this study to blame vaccines for autism?  It doesn't seem likely that they will suggest that vaccines are responsible for the manipulation of genetic code in a small child, thus I can think of two excuses we can expect to see from the antivaxxer community.

Number one, antivaxxers will claim that vaccines work in conjunction with these genetic markers to "trigger" autism in children.  This is an interesting theory of course, but it will be as equally interesting to see the data and research which supports this hypothesis.  Needless to say I can almost hear the antivaxxer community scurrying to come up with something - anything - they can use to suggest this is plausible.

Number two, antivaxxers will claim that vaccines cause genetic mutations which are then passed on to the offspring of those people who received vaccinations in the past.  Thus if two adults are fully vaccinated and they produce offspring, the child would then reflect these genetic markers that put him or her at risk for autism.  Again it will be interesting to see the science that shows the vaccination status of the parents if antivaxxers wish to push this theory.

Granted there could be several more excuses that I couldn't even begin to guess, but the one thing I am certain about is that the antivaxxers will NOT come out and claim that autism is a genetic disorder with no connection to vaccines... because that would be allowing the science to steer their views rather than backing into an opinion by discrediting the science.  The truth is, if we all let science guide our views rather than making assumptions, there would be no such thing as an antivaxxer in the first place.  However since that isn't the case, it is safe to assume this study will be ignored and overlooked by the antivaxxer community, just as all of the previous research that has shown a strong genetic component to autism has been ignored and/or manipulated.

Full article here:  Genetic Test For Autism Developed By Australian Scientists


Update 9/14/12:  As predicted, antivaxxers such as Lowell Hubbs have complained that I didn't link to the actual study, and therefore Mr. Hubbs has suggested I didn't actually bother to read it.  Obviously that is quite an assumption on the part of Mr. Hubbs, although true to form he is one again incorrect.

I didn't realize I had to spoon feed the anti-vaccinationists by giving them direct links therefore eliminating the confusion caused by using a search bar, but to humor Mr. Hubbs I'll go ahead and provide the link here.  Please note that eventually this study will most likely not be available for free viewing, and as such the link may stop working (which is why I didn't include it originally and instead merely linked to the journal which published the study).  However for the time being you may read the original study at the link below:

Molecular Psychiatry: Predicting the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder using gene pathway analysis

When the study is no longer available (aka: open) on the website, you should still be able to read the abstract by searching for the title of the study above and/or the primary author's name: Professor Christos Pantelis.

I should also note that Mr. Hubbs claims this study "actually in fact directly supports the ASD/Vaccine connection".  I of course predicted antivaxxers would take this route, but of course aside from his opinion Mr. Hubbs can offer no evidence to support this statement.  In fact, the study itself makes no reference to vaccines at all, and the term "vaccine" is found nowhere within the text of the study.  This is yet another example of antivaxxers seeing what they wish to see, with no time spent understanding the science, the methods, or the output of many hours of effort.  If anyone didn't bother to read a study, I'm guessing it was Mr. Hubbs as I can see not other explanation behind such a severe misunderstanding of the content.

The reality is the study surrounds genetic variants and the ability to predict autism and other autism spectrum disorders.  It has to do with genetic classification and prediction - nothing more.  The researchers did not in any way broach the subject of what "causes" autism, but rather they are focused upon detection methods.  Much more must be done to expand upon this data to learn the root causes of the genetic markers identified within this study, but we are a long, long way from being able to make any statements pertaining to causation.

Far be it from an antivaxxer to wait until the science leads them down a path before they proudly proclaim they have all the answers.  In the mind of an antivaxxer like Lowell Hubbs, research can be interpreted any number of ways... provided all of those ways result in someone or something blaming vaccines for autism.

The Vaccine Song

A recent comment added to the blog by "Dakota James" provided a link to the Vaccine Song.  Not only is the song rather entertaining (and the graphics are great as well), but the website also includes several useful links to other websites of interest, many of which have been mentioned here before.

Check it out - http://thevaccinesong.org/

Is Lowell Hubbs' "Vacfacts.info" Anti-Vaccination Website Gone?

You may recall back in June 2011 that Lowell Hubbs' personal website "lowellsfacts.com" was taken down.  At the time it appeared it was a takedown notice from ICE - Homeland Security, but Mr. Hubbs later claimed it was merely a prank instigated by hackers.

Soon thereafter, Mr. Hubbs started a new website and the old "lowellsfacts.com" website was never active again.  The new website is ironically called vacfacts.info and was essentially a dumping ground for anything and everything that Hubbs collected from his hours on various anti-vaccination websites.  Think of it as a place where someone would paste paragraphs of random vaccine conspiracy theories, links to antivaxxer websites, images, YouTube videos, and piles of other antivaxxer nonsense in no particular order which made it entirely useless to anyone other than Hubbs himself - and you pretty much have an idea of what the website is (or perhaps was).

So fast forward to present day and once again Mr. Hubbs appears to be having difficulties with his website.  If you try to visit the website today, this is what you see:

Click to see full size image

I would guess this is simply a matter of Mr. Hubbs failing to pay his annual fee for hosting his website, but who really knows.  Even though it appears entirely harmless, something tells me we will be hearing a myriad of excuses and conspiracy theories from Hubbs as he claims "black hat hackers" were responsible for his website disappearing.

Oh well - at least he still has Facebook!

Is the Age of the Father a Risk Factor For Autism?

A recent article published in The Washington Post, as well as a related article published on the Nature

website (and in the journal Nature) both discuss a recent study which has found the older a father is, the greater chance they will pass on genetic mutations to their children.  This means as the father ages, there is an increased risk for certain types of mutations, and as such an increased risk for conditions such as schizophrenia and autism.

The study itself is interesting, and it seems to confirm what others have said about de novo mutations in the past, but it is hardly conclusive and nobody should be proclaiming anyone has found the cause for autism.  This is but one more piece of the puzzle, but it is nice to see scientists and researchers continuing to search for the root cause(s) - and making progress.  

This new research coupled with previous research pertaining to the weight of the mother during pregnancy, and other studies which show a strong genetic component may not be a smoking gun per se, but they are helping to shine light on the root cause.

The question remains - will antivaxxers start to acknowledge the science that continues to show these many genetic factors contribute to conditions such as autism, or will they once again ignore the studies since they don't align with their views?  Will they again try to claim vaccines are the biggest factor leading to autism even though they have no studies showing such a link?  Will they start trying to back-peddle and claim that vaccines in adults are causing genetic mutations which are then passed on to children?

The reality is, we don't have to guess because organizations like Age of Autism have already gone out of their way to minimize the study as they attempt to place blame upon environmental factors rather than genetics.  In Robert Krakow's article entitled, Paternal Age Study Implicates Environment Not Genes, Krakow immediately switches to defense as he claims "there exists no explanation how de novo mutations relate to autism" within the study.  Krakow might be right, but that is because that subject has been discussed elsewhere - it is not included within this particular study.  It is background data that wasn't central to what the study is about, and Krakow is merely using this as a smokescreen.

So is the absence of background scientific data enough to claim the study suggests environmental factors are the true cause rather than genetics?  According to Krakow... yes - as he writes: "rather than showing that autism or schizophrenia may be primarily genetic, the paper supports the argument that the significant operative variables are environmental".

Putting aside the fact that Krakow seems to have reached conclusions that the authors of the study did not, this is one of the problems that exists when you present science to those with predetermined viewpoints.  People like Krakow aren't about to let the science guide them, but rather they engage in confirmation bias and selective reporting because they are convinced vaccines are the one and only true cause to autism and as such everything else needs to be ignored.

Granted Krakow isn't a scientist, nor is he a researcher, nor is he even a journalist.  Krakow is actually a lawyer who just happens to specialize "in the representation of individuals injured by exposure to vaccines".  Thus it stands to reason why Krakow would prefer that science not suggest that genetics are to blame for autism... because that would make it much more difficult for vaccine lawyers like Krakow to win their cases and it would be a direct hit to their incomes.  

Antivaxxers are always quick to pull out the "big pharma profit" gambit when they are presented with something they disagree with, but it sort of makes you wonder why they seem to feel lawyers who profit from "vaccine injury" cases can be considered to be unbiased when it comes to reporting the facts surrounding scientific studies.  There doesn't appear to be any financial incentive for the authors of this study to suggest de novo mutations are the contributing factor, yet there is a clear financial incentive for vaccine lawyers like Krakow to deny it.  Who should we consider to be unbiased here?

Whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions of the study is one thing, but for those who are honestly interested in finding the root cause(s) of autism they owe it to themselves to look at every study from an unbiased perspective.  This doesn't mean they automatically need to agree with the authors nor do they need to accept every conclusion at face value, but they also should not rush out to attach the study unless they have science and facts that show the study's conclusions to be in error.  In this case, it seems antivaxxers are much more interested in circling their wagons to protect their views than they are in learning... and I find that incredibly disappointing.

Full Washinton Post article here:  Children of older fathers may be more at risk of autism, other disorders

Full Nature Article here: Fathers bequeath more mutations as they age

The actual study on Pubmed:  Rate of de novo mutations and the importance of father's age to disease risk.

Is There Really an Autism Epidemic?

Spend a few minutes researching the subject of autism, and you will most likely come across someone who

will remind you that the rates of autism in the 1930s and 40s was somewhere around one in 10,000 (when the term "autism" was originally coined).  Then in the 1980s and 90s as visibility started to increase and when people started talking about autism, we were told the rates were one in several thousand children.  According to more recent CDC data, today the number is commonly quoted as one out of every 88 children has autism or an autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Some may argue about the numbers saying they are slightly lower or slightly higher, but clearly the rate of autism is increasing and it isn't a gradual increase.  So what are the major reasons for this?  Antivaxxers are quick to point their fingers at vaccines as they claim the rise in the number of vaccines correlates with the rise in autism.  The correlation is true, but you could make the same argument surrounding increased use of cellphones, the spread of satellite television, the rising sales of bottled water, the usage of sonograms during pregnancy, or even the increasing popularity of Will Smith.  Does this mean we are going to blame the rising rate of autism upon the Fresh Prince?  Does this mean we should ban the sale of bottled water or mandate that the FDA perform studies proving it doesn't cause autism?  Of course not - because correlation does not equal causation, and correlation is not proof.

What we do know is that to date there have been no reputable peer-reviewed scientific studies that are able to prove a link between vaccines and autism in children, so even though antivaxxers are quick to point fingers, when pressed for evidence they come up short time and time again.  It isn't that nobody has tried to prove such a link, and many studies have been performed, but the reality is nobody has been able to tie vaccine usage to a rise in autism.  The science just isn't there.

So if we don't have any science proving vaccines cause autism, and if we don't yet have the science to prove autism is caused by any other environmental factor (including Will Smith)... what exactly is responsible for the alarming growth of autism diagnoses?

The simple answer is that we really don't know.  Scientists, doctors, and researchers are spending a great deal of energy trying to better understand autism, but the fact is to date there just hasn't been any definitive evidence to suggest any one particular "thing" is to blame.  Studies have focused upon vaccines and vaccine ingredients, but they have come up empty.  They have examined genetics and although some progress has been made, it is far too early to point fingers on any one root cause, or even several different causes.  Even things such as birth order, geography, age of the mother, and even the amount of rainfall in a region have been examined with some minor trends being noticed, but nothing which shouts "THIS is the cause of autism!".

However most experts in the field seem to continually remind us that the rising rate of autism really isn't as bad as it may seem.  The truth is, most of these experts chalk up the bulk of the increase to nothing more than increased awareness of the disease, and as such a greater understanding and familiarity results in more diagnoses.  We have actually discussed the awareness issue in the past, and if you couple the increased awareness with changing criteria for diagnosis over the years, you can start to see why it isn't so shocking that the number of children diagnosed with autism has grown so quickly.

The reality is, until 1980 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) didn't even have criteria for diagnosing autism, and it wasn't considered a separate diagnosis within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  Then in 1980 with the publication of DSM III, Infantile Autism was first mentioned... but the criteria for diagnosis required the onset to occur prior to 30 months of age.  Ask many parents of autistic children and you will soon find that in many cases the child didn't start exhibiting autistic symptoms until they were three, four, or five years old.  So if it couldn't be called "autism", what diagnosis was attached to these children prior to 1980?

In 1987, DSM III-R was released which was a revision to DSM III.  In the updated text, Autistic Disorder was finally classified alone, and it included criteria for diagnosing the condition after 36 months of age.  Then in 1994, DSM IV was released which changed the criteria yet again and which created even more visibility of the condition.

So if the criteria for diagnosing autism wasn't even fully defined until the 1980s, and if the criteria have evolved several times since... do we really think it is feasible that the veritable 'explosion' of autism diagnosis is entirely legitimate, or could it be nothing more than simply a greater understanding of the disease, increased visibility, and a shifting of diagnoses from other mental disorders?

Regarding the last point, there have been several studies published which are trying to determine if that is the case.  Mark Roth of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a piece a few years ago entitled Studies raise questions about increase in autism cases, and in his article he cites two separate studies which could contribute to the autism epidemic:

A 2006 study in the journal Pediatrics found, for instance, that the national increase in identified autism cases in elementary schoolchildren between 1984 and 2003 had been paralleled by a similar decrease in the number of children labeled as retarded or learning disabled.  

Paul Shattuck of Washington University in St. Louis, the lead author of the study, wrote last year that "in 44 of 50 states, the increase in autism was completely offset by a decrease in the prevalence of children considered 'cognitively disabled' or 'learning disabled.' "

[...] In a 2004 study, Lisa Croen of the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute in California and her team found that the increase in children diagnosed with autism in that state between 1987 and 1994 was almost exactly paralleled by a decrease in those diagnosed with retardation.

In case you actually care to read the complete studies, they can be found here:

Paul T. Shattuck, PhD - The Contribution of Diagnostic Substitution to the Growing Administrative Prevalence of Autism in US Special Education

Lisa A. Croen et al -  The changing prevalence of autism in California


I'm certain we all wish we knew the reason why autism seems so prevalent in today's society, but I'm as equally certain it isn't fair to blame the rise on environmental factors, vaccines, or yes even Will Smith.  I know it is easy to point fingers, but the science simply doesn't support such conclusions and it is dishonest to attempt to create a link when the evidence and legitimate science doesn't support it.  I understand the subject of confirmation bias, but when it comes to placing blame for a disease such actions can be incredibly dangerous.

So is the increase in autism really due to greater awareness and a expanded criteria for diagnosis?  Well, as much as I would love to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer, the truth is we simply don't know.  We do know that a large percentage of the increase can be attributed to awareness and a better understanding / better diagnosis of mental disorders, but I'm not about to go so far as to claim it is 100% responsible for the increase, because the data is inconclusive.

The problem lies when people make claims they can't support, and unfortunately there are a lot of self-proclaimed experts running around on the Internet spreading falsehoods and distorting the facts.  Most often those guilty of such distortions are associated with the anti-vaccination movement and they are quick to present their opinions as fact as they attempt to blame vaccines and pharmaceutical companies for 100% of the increase in autism even though the antivaxxers have been unable to produce one single peer reviewed study to support this claim.

This isn't to suggest they need a mountain of evidence, but wouldn't you think if someone was so convinced they have an answer, and if they are so willing to cite various doctors and 'experts' that they claim have come to the same conclusion... wouldn't you think they could at the very least cite one specific study that has been performed anywhere on the globe and published in a reputable medical journal which is able to prove a link between vaccines and autism?  Perhaps "prove" is too strong of a term, but wouldn't you expect them to be able to produce such a study which would even go so far as to make a bold assertion or which results in a strong relationship between the two?

Oddly enough when pressed for this evidence, antivaxxers make claims that such research "wouldn't be allowed" or that big pharma and/or the CDC would prevent it from being published.  They might also claim that such studies have been produced and that Andrew Wakefield was a pioneer when it comes to this subject, yet they conveniently ignore how Wakefield was caught falsifying data, modifying test results, and engaging in unethical behavior which resulted in not only his 'study' being retracted, but in him losing his license to practice medicine.

So when you really boil it down, antivaxxers use nothing more than excuses to explain why they don't have any data.  They make wild claims about how drug companies and the CDC control information yet they don't explain how Wakefield's study lasted for over a decade in a legitimate and respected medical journal before his fraud was finally exposed.  Antivaxxers make claims about how others are prevented from speaking, yet they ignore several prominent antivaxxer doctors and 'experts' who make their living from the anti-vaccination seminar circuit.  They make claims about how they would never be allowed to publish a study that proves autism is caused by vaccines, yet they ignore that none of these supposed anti-vaccination experts have made claims that reputable journals have rejected their studies.  Thus either these antivaxxers aren't willing to perform legitimate studies, or they have attempted to perform them and the results weren't what they had hoped, thus they sweep the results under a rug.

The truth is, antivaxxers have come to depend upon random conspiracy theories mixed with excuses, and they all but ignore logic and common sense.  They would rather spend time convincing the public that vaccines cause autism by the way of conspiracies and accusations as opposed to putting their reputations on the line and submitting a real medical study with their names on it.

I'm not going to fault anyone for having an opinion or even a theory.  I also wouldn't fault someone for being ignorant, because when people acknowledge they are ignorant it drives them to learn.  They seek answers, and if they strive to find the answers they will come out wiser and with a greater understanding of the facts.  However when people choose to remain ignorant, or when they are intellectually dishonest on purpose, or when they attempt to present wild unsubstantiated theories as facts... then they lose any right to have a place at the table, and they only serve to harm society with their desire to confuse via misinformation.

So the next time you hear about an antivaxxer making claims about how the rise in autism is directly related to the rise in the number of vaccines given to our children, go ahead and remind them prior to Will "Fresh Prince" Smith coming into the rap scene in the 1980s nobody had even heard of autism, and by the time Smith started starting in movies, autism was much more common.  Now that Smith is considered one of Hollywood's most successful leading men and one of the largest box office draws of our era, autism rates are at all-time highs!

Coincidence?  Correlation?  In the mind of an antivaxxer, it just mind be enough to claim causation.

Star Tribune: Vaccination Fears Are Only Upping Danger

This is a great article written by Annette Meeks who is the CEO of the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota.  It was published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune and surrounds the subject of how misinformation has resulted in increased risk of vaccination-preventable diseases.

Minnesota has experienced several outbreaks of vaccine preventable disease in the past few years.  As the article mentions, in 2011 Minnesota had the largest outbreak of measles in the entire nation which resulted in 14 children being hospitalized, but thankfully there were no deaths as a result.  Minnesota has also recently experienced a surge in the number of cases of Pertussis, due in no small part to the number of children who have not received their complete dosage of vaccinations.

The article is a good read, and it serves as a reminder how previously generations had to deal with diseases such as smallpox and polio and how vaccines were seen as life-saving miracles.  Although we are grateful that children today don't need to fear these diseases, many parents who grew up without the fear associated with a disease such as polio may not completely understand the many benefits of vaccines, and due to the ignorance surrounding vaccines, and the misinformation spread by anti-vaccinationists, Internet-educated "experts", and celebrities who have spent more time posing for topless photos than they have time in a laboratory or classroom, we are now seeing first hand some of the effects.

Full Article Here: Vaccination Fears Are Only Upping Danger

Germ Theory Denialism

If you mention the phrase "scientific theory" during a debate with someone who is fairly ignorant regarding matters of science, they will almost always focus upon the term "theory" as if this suggests the concept is just someones opinion. It doesn't matter if you are speaking about the theory of relativity, gravitational theory, the theory of evolution, climate change theory, atomic theory, or yes even the germ theory of disease - as soon as the term theory is heard, people come out of the woodwork to claim these theories are not fact because if a concept was able to be proven it would no longer be considered to be merely a theory.

Because of this, it is probably a good idea to explain what a scientific theory actually is. Per the United States National Academy of Sciences, scientific theory can be described as follows:

In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

In this respect it seems clear why many scientific theories can never be considered scientific fact because the areas of study are constantly evolving and research is ongoing. We may never fully understand gravitational theory, but we do know how an object will react if we toss it into the air.

Similarly, the American Association for the Advancement of Science has stated the following surrounding scientific theory:

Scientists strive to make sense of observations of phenomena by constructing explanations for them that use, or are consistent with, currently accepted scientific principles. Such explanations—theories—may be either sweeping or restricted, but they must be logically sound and incorporate a significant body of scientifically valid observations. The credibility of scientific theories often comes from their ability to show relationships among phenomena that previously seemed unrelated.

In fact, scientific theory "are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form" of scientific knowledge that humans possess. Scientists aren't treating these theories as hypotheses nor are they considering them to be nothing more than educated guesses. Scientific theories require specific criteria to be met including the requirement that the theory be well supported by independent strands of evidence rather that by one lone source and that the theory be makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy.

Thus with this in mind, one can only shake their head in disbelief when someone proclaims that they don't accept a mutually accepted scientific theory. Believe it or not there are those among us who deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun (heliocentrism), just as there are those among us who deny that an apple will fall from a tree and strike the ground beneath it (gravity). In most cases these people are simply ignored because most people have accepted these theories as scientific fact.

However in some cases, due in no small part to simply ignorance of the subject matter and/or ignorance to the entire concept of microbiology, you find people who deny that microbes cause disease (germ theory), and they often choose to travel back in time to the 1800s as they attempt to rewrite history to proclaim that Louis Pasteur's germ theory was a sham and that Antoine Béchamp's theory was the correct one.

Obviously much has been written about germ theory, but the simple version is Pasteur believed the microbe caused the disease while Béchamp believed the disease caused the microbe. Béchamp simply did not accept the belief that bacteria could create disease in a host and instead he felt the disease would in turn produce the bacteria which could then be detected.

In the 1800s there was room for debate, because they lacked many of the tools and techniques afforded the modern day scientist, and even though Béchamp's theories rendered him to the shadows of obscurity, with modern methods science has shown Pasteur's theory to be the correct one. The book is closed, the jury has ruled, the facts are in, and surely nobody would bother to challenge accepted scientific theory right?

Wrong.

In fact, there are those on the lunatic fringe who do exactly that. Many anti-vaccinationists have latched on to the idea that Béchamp's germ theory is the correct one whereas Pasteur was wrong all along. If there was any doubt, Lowell Hubbs is one of these people... because where would a great medical or scientific conspiracy be without our good friend Mr. Hubbs.

I'm not posting this to debate germ theory, because frankly it is accepted science, and there is no use in trying to engage in a debate over accepted science. Rather, I post this because it shows an anti-vaxxer has no shame. I use this as but one example of how anti-vaxxers will go out of their way to ignore even the most basic scientific facts in order to push their own viewpoints.

Don't bother asking these people how diseases are spread from person to person because if you don’t believe in the accepted germ theory, and if the bacteria are caused by the disease itself, how exactly would it be transmitted to another host? Perhaps even more curious is how a simple cut on one's finger could become infected if it were not for the transmission of bacteria?

If these germ theory denialists are to be believed, then antibiotics shouldn't actually help treat or cure any disease, because they would simply attack the microbe itself and never touch the underlying condition which was producing the microbe. So how exactly can they describe antibiotics or antibacterial agents?

How does a germ theory denialist explain how entire groups of people become sick by eating tainted tomatoes or spinach. The whole thing makes me wonder if these people head to Central America on vacation and dare to drink the water. Hey... if microbes are a symptom rather than a root cause, what is there to be afraid of?

I challenge any germ theory denier, including but not limited to Lowell Hubbs, to listen to the following video and not come away with it questioning their silly ideas.

Ahhh... who am I kidding? We all know anyone who denies the most basic scientific premise is not likely to use logic as part of their thought process.

Blog Transition

I recently broke one of my own rules and visited Mr. Hubbs blog.  No it wasn't so that I could read about his latest posting and it wasn't to mock him.  Instead, it was to leave a comment for him since believe it or not I don't even have a current email address for him.

You see, even though I will never agree with Mr. Hubbs on the subject of vaccinations, there are certain things we might be able to agree upon, and therefore I have extended the olive branch so to speak to determine what Mr. Hubbs would think about me renaming this blog to remove his name from both the URL as well as from the title.  He has expressed "concern" about this blog using his name in the past, and recent events have made me question whether it is appropriate.

Of course in return I would hope that Mr. Hubbs would agree to do the same for his own blog.  Perhaps he could rename it to "ProVaccineBabyKiller" or something equally as clever, but I'll leave that up to him.  I'm not talking about removing existing content nor am I speaking about further blog posts - the only point of discussion here is the removal of the name "Lowell Hubbs" from the blog name and URL.  It is possible that Mr. Hubbs would like to use his name on his own blog which is fine by me.... that is his call.

I left my comment on his blog several days ago but it has yet to be published, so as of now I have no idea what his opinion on the matter might actually be.  I would envision this blog transforming into a general blog about vaccine conspiracy theorists rather than simply focusing upon Mr. Hubbs, but before I take any action I would like to get Mr. Hubbs' opinion.

Now it is possible he simply has not read the comment yet, and it is possible he really doesn't have a response, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt in the hopes he will reach out to me and let his opinion be known.  That is part of the reasoning behind this post since I know he does read this blog so I'm sure he will (eventually) see this post and be able to offer his opinion.

So with all of that said, if anyone has any ideas for a new name for the blog, by all means leave them in the comments.

Edit (07/27/12): The blog has officially been renamed to The Vaccine Conspiracy Theorist and the new url is http://vaccineconspiracytheorist.blogspot.com/.  Unfortunately this means old bookmarks, favorites, shortcuts, and links will no longer function properly, but in time I hope those who have visited the blog in the past will be able to find it again.

Facts, More Facts, and Persistent Facts

On an almost daily basis, I'm reminded of the John Adams quote "facts are stubborn things", and I am reminded of how accurate those words are.  Facts tend to get in the way of opinion, they shatter falsehoods, and they destroy dishonesty.  However, it seems often when facts are presented, those who find their opinions to be threatened merely ignore the facts rather than accept them.  This is often true with anti-vaxxers including Lowell Hubbs, because even after showing him evidence that disputes his statements, he refuses to accept reality.

Let me give an example.  Mr. Hubbs continues to make claims that the Amish are not vaccinated and that they don't get autism.  He has made these statements in the past, even though I showed him evidence which absolutely destroys that baseless claim including several different articles which served as sources.  Do you think Mr. Hubbs would drop the assertion that the Amish don't vaccinate?  Do you think he would back down from the claim that Amish children don't get autism? Do you think he would go back and modify his websites and blogs to remove any statements which make claims that the Amish don't vaccinate or that they don't get autism?  If your answer was no to any of the above questions, give yourself a gold star.

In fact, Mr. Hubbs continues to believe the Amish are autism-free, and he is still making claims about how they aren't vaccinated even though there is no legitimate evidence to support these claims.  Even if either of those two statements were true it still does not in any way suggest vaccines cause autism.  It is a classic misunderstanding of correlation and causation, and Mr. Hubbs is deliberately trying to blur the line between the two in order to support his worldview.

If someone actually has a desire to learn the truth about the Amish, there are more than enough sources that exist to prove that they do in fact vaccinate.  These include the articles mentioned above, news reports, and even studies. In fact, in one study it was found that 84% of Amish households with children reported that all of their children had received vaccinations and another 12% of Amish households with children reported that some of the children had received vaccinations. Only 4% of these households reported that none of the children received vaccinations.

That same study found that when it comes to older members of the Amish community who knew their own vaccination status, 90% reported that they had in fact received vaccinations as children. When broken out by age and looking at only respondents aged 45 years or less, this number swells to 96% which is actually higher than the general population in some cases. Does that sound like the Amish don't vaccinate?

As to the original author that made the claims about the Amish (Dan Olmsted), even he has had to backtrack and admit his reporting was "anecdotal" rather than scientific, and he seems to have backed down from his suggestions that a perceived lack of autism within the Amish community had a relation to vaccines. Of course he is still beating the drum trying to claim the Amish have a lower rate of autism (which very well could be true due to environmental and genetic factors) and he is still trying to confuse correlation and causation as all good anti-vaxxers do, but it does appear to some degree he is avoiding the "vaccines cause autism" nonsense primarily because he cannot support that hypothesis with any available data or research.

This is one of the primary issues I have with anti-vaccinationists. Even when presented with data that clearly shows their statements and opinions to be wrong, they simply ignore the data and continue to make the same false statements in the hopes they might be able to get away with it. It is one thing to form a hypothesis when you don't know the facts, but when the facts are in and when they seem to contradict your original opinion, it is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty to continue down the same path as if the facts don't matter.

Let's be clear - the Amish community isn't limited to one small group nor is it isolated to one area of the country. There are at least 25 states in the US with Amish populations, there are various subgroups and sects, so it stands to reason that what may be the case in one Amish community may not transcend across all. It would not be fair to make a blanket statement that all Amish communities vaccinate nor would it be fair to claim that none of the Amish are autistic, because the truth is there are both vaccinated and un-vaccinated Amish just as their are Amish children who have autism.

If anti-vaxxers really wish to be honest and if they are sincere in their desires to learn about the root causes of autism, they would be well advised to stop repeating fallacies and instead focus on what we really know instead of merely what we want to believe.

Lowell Hubbs Hacking Failures

We have discussed Lowell Hubbs' fondness for talking about "hackers" several times in the past, but it generally has involved him accusing others of hacking his websites or blogs.  Recently I received a tip about Mr. Hubbs recent activities where he actually admits he has attempted to "hack" this blog in order to prevent me from speaking about him.

It is abundantly clear based upon previous comments made by Mr. Hubbs that he has very little understanding of technology and thus is incapable of "hacking" anything, so I will admit I was skeptical at first, but as you can see below, Mr. Hubbs even admitted his attempts on his own facebook page (the comments were in reference to a post on this blog):

Now that being said, I honestly have no idea what Mr. Hubbs is talking about here.  Yes I know I tend to say that often, but the fact is this blog has never been "hacked" and has never been "down".  As far as Google goes they have my name, email address, mailing address, and phone number so I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to contact me.  As far as I can tell, this seems to be yet another example of Mr. Hubbs making wild claims that don't resemble reality in any possible way... but what else is new.

What I find so amusing is that Mr. Hubbs acts as if he is just an innocent person who is merely interested in getting his message out there, but the reality is rather than countering real science with facts and logic, he is more interested in simply preventing people from learning the truth about him.  That speaks volumes.