What would it take
Wed Apr 22 19:32:00 CDT 2009
a poster to the Age of Autism blog posted
Just to play devil's advocate here...
What, if anything, could get you folks to consider the possibility that vaccines don't cause autism?
I'll tell you what it would take... I would love for it to be something else. I would love for it to be...say...some other reason.
It would be interesting if it were a purely genetic phenom. Then we could test for it. Those who were carriers could chose to not reproduce and pass on the perpetrating genes. Very GATTICCA, but already done in today's age. That isn't it. We've found squat. Less than 8% 5% 2% of cases.
I would love for it to be an previously undetermined infectious agent. A virus, a bacteria, a yeast. For instance, a yeast that is using hepatitis or pertussis proteins. We aren't looking. This could be iatrogenic or not, vaccine-related or not. Don't know until we find it.
I would love for it to be an environmental chemical/toxin. That would be perfect. What have we found? Aluminum and thimerisol have been found to what? ah, to cause autism in monkeys. Not in little boys...just in monkeys. Sick monkeys. Hey! I'd love it to be BPA, estrogenoid's from microwaved plastics, or crisped Splenda from the BBQ.
I would love for it to be something, ANYTHING, that is testable and manipulable, and will allow us to save these kids, to save my son. Something that will put a 30° down-turn in the curve.
That's what it would take.
Until then, if you want to save the public's confidence, you better find what it is. Spread out your wings, cast your net wide, and position to be exposed to every possible black swan.
Find it!
Find it, damn you!