Bioethics My Ass

I guess, I expected more from a Harvard page (blog or not) and perhaps I thought that a professor of ethics wouldn’t have such a biased view of vaccination. Alas, the world is again, not what you’d expect. From a callous and clearly confused bioethics director, comes this atrocious piece. One, which I intend on replying to.

Arthur Caplan has his fingers in many things, has written a few pieces and even has a single quote up on sites. I’m not convinced though, that ethics is his best fit, seeing as he is certainly biased on numerous topics. I’m tempted to discuss many of his papers and articles, but for now let’s talk about this latest one.

From the start you notice a severe lack of links and references; there are a few, but most is simply hearsay. As you read on, it becomes clear that Mr. Caplan is clearly suffering confusion, as to his view on the vaccination topic. By the end of the piece you can see that Mr. Caplan isn’t interested in science; he is fearful and out to place blame. This is not what we should be expecting from someone who is involved in anything to do with ethics.

Scared of the measles, Mr. Caplan throws out scare tactics over small incidences, also claiming near hysterical that “measles are breaking out all over Britain”. Like, oh my god, hide your kids, the measles are everywhere! Fear the measles, it will steal your children away, no one is safe!  Despite the blame game, measles can happen to both the unvaccinated and vaccinated; there are many factors that put both at risk. If you do indeed get measles, there is a very, very huge chance that you will…………..drumroll…………………be ok and go back to your daily life. Now even though Mr. Caplan himself had measles and turned out fine (during a time when vaccination was available) he continues to spread fear; of death and the small minority that are apparently risking everyone else’s lives.

Confusion erupts when Mr. Caplan claims both that, “there should be a right to decide not to vaccinate your child” and that there should be a penalty if they choose not to. Further brow-raising occurs, when you realize he has written papers on mandatory vaccinations; in favour of it. This guy is a director of bioethics and he is for mandatory vaccinations? This is a very big problem. Those who are in support of mandatory vaccinations, or any other product for that matter, are a very vile bunch. Especially knowing that; there are side effects, our reporting system is severely flawed and that vaccination isn’t very effective. Mr. Caplan is all for pharmaceuticals, not only supporting the idea that even healthy people should be taking medication, but also claiming that the HPV vaccines have had the least amount of reactions. Really? Is that why there are websites solely dedicated to girls who have suffered extensively from the HPV vaccines, why VAERS has numerous death reports, tens of thousands of irregular pap smears, women reporting spontaneous abortions after, genetic mutations or deletions in children after injection while pregnant and those are only about 1% of what actually occurs; because barely anyone knows about the reporting system and doctors regularly dismiss parent’s concerns. I guess after several years in the game, you learn to turn a blind eye more easily.

Let’s move on though shall we, to the point of order; unvaccinated people are the cause of disease. Mr. Caplan clearly ignores the fact that vaccinated people can acquire the disease they tried to prevent and this can happen without any unvaccinated persons to blame. Outbreaks have occurred in groups with 100% vaccination status, with no unvaccinated person in sight to point at. He also goes on to compare drunk driving and unshovelled sidewalks to failing to vaccinate. Never occurring to him, that they are entirely different and comparing them makes him look like a complete moron. One is required by law, the other is not. One requires you to inject a lab made product of questionable materials and the other, doesn’t require you to lose your constitutional rights. Not even close to comparable.

So, to summarize, before I rebuttal; A person who acquires an illness with any harmful results, should hold liable the unvaccinated person, that transmitted it to them.

Mr. Caplan, has missed many very important factors in his pitch for liability and several hundred people have taken notice already. The first concept that was missed; vaccinations are not law, are not mandatory, are a product and constitutionally, cannot be forced upon anyone. It would take away a freedom that we are all entitled to and penalizing someone for using that right of freedom, is equivalent to not having that right to begin with.

The second concept clearly missed was; the person suing is essentially doing so, because another did not purchase the same product as them. They would also be suing someone unrelated to their own products failure, because obviously the vaccine didn’t work if you were so easily infected. It’s not possible to do that though, as pharmaceutical companies receive a certain amount of cleverly worded protection against lawsuits. Blame has to be placed somewhere though, right Mr Caplan? Let’s blame someone other than the people at fault, that’s what ethics is all about eh?

The third concept which I consider a big one is; how are we going to prove who is to blame. Would it be the transmitter directly related to you, would it be the very initial infection, could you blame the outdoors, the air for carrying the virus, what if the transmitter was fully vaccinated and what if the strain is not wild and in fact vaccine derived? I’m sure Mr. Caplan would find it ethical to just simply blame an unvaccinated person, whether they are responsible or not. A second part of this is the amount of harm done. The degree of effects of an illness are greatly due to your own personal health, if you don’t take care of yourself, live in poor conditions or have pre-existing ailments; you are more than likely going to be affected worse. So as an ethics director, I find it insane that he would be all for blaming someone else, because we cannot properly take care of ourselves?

The fourth concept missed; who is to be liable when it is the vaccinated spreading the illness? Are the unvaccinated allowed to sue a vaccinated person, who causes them illness or are they dismissed because they didn’t buy the product? Not very ethical there now is it.

The fifth and final concept never even mentioned; if we can now hold liable those that make us sick, why are companies not held in the same regard. If their product fails; why can’t they be liable? If someone suffers a reaction from their product; why can’t they be liable? Why is an innocent person going to be liable instead of a company with an ineffective, perhaps dangerous, product? I’d like to know the answer, but I doubt this tiny blog will reach him.

 

It is clear that Mr. Caplan has questionable ethics, that he is for mandatory product injection and that he believes those who do not follow the herd, should receive penalty for exercising their right of choice. If I see a herd walking in line off a cliff, am I wrong for not getting in line? Mr. Caplan, director of bioethics seems to think so and that is why the title of this is so apt. 

By jabwatchdog

The Illusion of Autism in the Womb

Image

 

 

The theory that autism is genetic, hereditary or starts only in the womb, is the biggest misconception in the entire mess that is autism. Further perpetuated by Health Organizations heralding ‘reputable’ status, without actually earning it first. For over 30 years, leading researchers have done numerous studies examining genetic, hereditary and in utero causes for autism. Every study, though claiming a significant discovery, has turned up inadequate results. The most significant study turned out a 15% genetic find. 15%. Wow, sure sounds like genetics play a major role in autism. Sarcasm aside, people need to know that this is all science can turn up and that we are wasting time believing the lie that autism is genetic. 

Recently this came across my newsfeed and I was pretty interested so I took the time to look into it. Now first the news page didn’t have a link to the study or even had the decency to name it. Thankfully they saved me a bit of extra searching by providing the University that conducted the study. Their webpage didn’t turn up a link but it did name the study and thankfully google was able to help out again.Unfortunately only the abstract is available and not the full study, but we work with what we can.

So the study containing 1,105 participants was done by using ultrasounds from back in the 80’s and follow up diagnosis in later life. The small cohort consisted of low birth weight infants, a good group to use as these infants are more susceptible to many issues. Now I’ll be honest, every time I see a headline like the news pages are carrying for this one, I get excited, hoping for some really good data. I fall for it each and every time, but thankfully I don’t rely on the headline as it is usually very deceiving. Only 14 of 1,105 participants were diagnosed with autism. What was singled out as the cause was Ventricular Enlargement and is detectable through ultrasound. Thus giving the idea that this method can help diagnose autism early on, can you say hello extra ultrasounds on babies. This is not the greatest idea since the science isn’t exactly clear on the risks of ultrasounds. That aside, news reports are also using this to pass around the idea that autism occurs in the womb, especially for low birth weight babies. The articles are coming out biased and even the definitions of autism used are not current. The articles bias shows by indicating that autism is strictly a brain issue that occurs in the womb. Is it any wonder to discover that the grant for this particular study is from none other than The National Institutes of Health (NIH). Without blathering on, the NIH has shown it’s ineptitude when it comes to autism and you can catch a bit of it for you own eyes. Just watch this Autism Congressional Hearing, I know it’s long but I promise, it is worth it. 

Now I do have several problems with this study and the original report on it. Several are speculation questions as I don’t have access (and am certainly not paying for) the full study details. The first is whether the participants diagnosed with autism were the only ones with Ventricular Enlargement or were several others in the group undiagnosed that also had it.Secondly and I’m doubtful on this, were the mother’s history and pregnancy observed to determine the cause of the Ventricular enlargement. What are the control numbers for children with Ventricular Enlargement without autism, at least for a general comparison. The next issue is that this study hasn’t really determined anything. There are alot of ‘mays’ and ‘suggests’ and the only 3 prominent facts are; low birth weight, Ventricular Enlargement and autism. We know low birth weight gives infants a tougher time the first bit of life and that Ventricular Enlargement is being implicated as the cause, namely because it is a seen effect on the brain. Now this brings me to my last and most important issue with this study. The study and original article have completely missed a very important factor. One I saw within five minutes of looking up what Ventricular Enlargement was. Why did I notice it and not the researchers who performed the study. I can only speculate but I have two ideas; The NIH has a bit more control in this study than should be allowed or because my son has autism, that we live with everyday and that I observe the shit out of. I certainly would hate to believe that these researchers didn’t consider something that I did in five mins. Right?

Whatever the reason, they missed it. Inflammation. Those who know why this is so important, I applaud you. Inflammation occurs because of our immune system, which usually gets activated by infections or by vaccination. Inflammation is a part of Ventricular Enlargement and while focusing on finding some way that it causes autism (which it make in fact not), thus finally proving their autism/brain/genetic theory; they again miss an opportunity to produce something useful, something helpful. What caused that original inflammation/VE in those infants, this should be the question. The answer could help define  a risk factor for children who will experience a reaction to vaccines. It could help pregnant mothers with steps to reduce the risk of autism in their children. This small study had the possibility of reducing the insanely growing autism numbers. Yet it flopped. I guess 1 in 29 isn’t low enough to care yet. 

Mainstream reporters are regurgitating original source information and very rarely does one investigate any more. Alternative media once laughed at, is now turned to for accurate news. It really is up to us to dispel the myths being spread and halting the progress that could help millions of people. When parents are the driving force behind the progress in autism and leading health organizations are still scratching their heads; you know we have a problem. 

There is no test for autism here, 14/1,105 and only low birth weight cohorts is not enough to promote some test, especially when the mechanisms are greatly unknown. But hey, it is a commercialized world out there and with ultrasounds being used less (because of more people asking questions) this would be a great boost for lost profits.

Whatever comes from this study one thing is for sure, inflammation was a factor in those diagnosed and it should not be left out.