More and more disorders have been included in the autism spectrum, most prominently Asperger’s. I’m not going to judge this right out, but this includes alot of kids (mostly boys) who would have been regarded as erratic and socially awkward years ago, but are now classified as a disorder. When we read of skyrocketing autism rates, the automatic reaction by many might be that there are now boatloads of kids that grind their teeth, don’t talk and have to be observed all of the time.

A little disclaimer – I’ve been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, and have done fairly well for myself, mostly because I’m very skilled in one area and am well liked by my friends. I’ve also worked with autistic children are really unable to function.

On conspiracy theories, or “conspiracy” and “theory”, there are several different concepts that arise to make a conspiracy. If you assume that a presenter of information and a conclusion is always implying that a Dr. Evil (to paraphrase) is the source of an action or movement or phenomenon, then your argument will almost always exclude an entire arena of facts to the audience. And every now and then there actually is a “Dr. Evil” behind it no matter how simple that may seem.

Finally, there are several situations in which Occam’s Razor would actually favor a conspiracy over chance.

While I say in my previous comment that science is a work in progress, there are certainly areas of crackpottery. Two of the authors I read made serious accusations against the entire germ theory of medicine. Here’s an example. The arguments are full of holes that anyone with moderate understanding of logic and the scientific method can drive trucks through. And the arguments are often used to suggest that vaccination is by its very nature ineffective, when all evidence points to the contrary. I see no harm in calling a crackpot a crackpot.

As for conspiracy theorists, I chalk most of them up to a natural human necessity to assign coordinated plan to things that do not require them. I don’t deny the existence of conspiracies, I simply withhold belief in specific conspiracies without some pretty solid proof. In the absence of evidence, Occam’s Razor often points away from conspiracies rather than towards.

And as such, why no one should listen to you either. Your constant use of how you “feel” and “believe” isn’t scientific at all, you’ve basically picked the path you want to take and taken it.

“Constant”? Let’s look at the critical four paragraphs where I discuss the decision-making process (the polio/HiB/rota paragraph up to the risks of my household). In those paragraphs I use “believe” once and “feel” once. Both sentences, the context they’re used implies that there is evidence for the belief/feeling.

Your “worry” about it causing bigger problems down the road is baseless.

At least with chickenpox, it’s well-known that contracting the disease later in life is typically more severe than as a child, and there is valid evidence that the varicella immunity (as provided by the vaccine) decreases over time in a way greater than through natural immunity. For MMR, we are talking about diseases with very low and very well-known risks naturally. In particular, mumps is dangerous for males after puberty (thus likely better to develop immunity in childhood), and rubella isn’t about protecting kids, it’s about protecting pregnant women. While that’s a laudable social goal, it doesn’t necessarily induce me to expose my children to the potential adverse reactions of the vaccine.

I honestly don’t see how this is any different to the zillion other people giving entirely unqualified medical advice, just on a smaller scale.

I don’t give anyone medical advice. I’m not a doctor, and have never claimed to be. My advice to people is that they should read as much of the evidence as they can stomach and make up their own minds. My advice is also that as a father, it is MY responsibility to make these choices, not the CDC. The risk/benefit calcuation made is an individual one; the CDC is balancing my personal individual risk/benefit calculations against those of the rest of society (i.e. “herd immunity”), and I’m not sure they weigh one vs. the other in the same way that I, as a parent, will.

The risks also aren’t static. With a large decrease in the rates of immunity, we’d likely see a rise back to pre-immunization days of several hundred thousand cases a year in the US (with hundreds of deaths).

This is true. I’m not arguing that herd immunity doesn’t exist. I doubt we’d get anywhere near the pre-vaccine levels, but if more people do as I do (again I object to your charactization of people “following my advice” when none is offered), we’d undoubtedly see the overall societal numbers of certain diseases rise.

There are plenty of parents who deny their child medical help due to religious or philosophical beliefs only to have their child die. It’s occasionally a crime, depending on how irrational their actions were and how contributory to their deaths the action was. But if we take your thinking at face value, as they are a parent and as they’ve made what they believe to be a rational decision, they’ve done nothing wrong.

They most assuredly might have done something wrong. I might be doing something wrong here, as I admitted in the post. If I am doing something wrong, all I can say is that I’m doing so in the best possible faith and with my eyes as open as I can make them.

But what is the alternative? Follow the government’s edict, or face the criminal justice system? While the choices I am making may be wrong, there is no guarantee that the government’s choices are right. After all, I could lather my kids up with sunscreen to prevent them from getting skin cancer, only to find out now that it might actually be causing cancer*?

I’m trying to do the right thing. The fact that the MMR/autism link has pretty definitively been blasted to pieces as shoddy research actually may cause me to change my mind on that one. I.e. that changes the risk/benefit calculation. I see no reason, though, to change the decision at this time on varicella.

It’s also worth noting that a virus will rely on immune response, no amount of healthy eating will prevent a child from contracting a virus. Not having a strong immune system due to lack of interaction with others isn’t much of a helper in that regard.

Agreed, and I’d be an idiot if I thought that being well-nourished meant that my kids wouldn’t contract a viral disease. What it will do, however, is make their bodies more successful at being able to fight that disease.

And I’d point out that they’re not insulated from the world, they’re just not exposed to the constant barrage of germs in a typical day care environment. I have no reason to suspect they’re not getting normal exposure to the environment to support a healthy immune system.

* Note — I am not taking the accusations that sunscreen may increase risk of cancer at face value — I’m only using as a timely reminder that “consensus” may be wrong, and most assuredly scientific and medical truth is quite usually a work-in-progress.

The risks also aren’t static. With a large decrease in the rates of immunity, we’d likely see a rise back to pre-immunization days of several hundred thousand cases a year in the US (with hundreds of deaths). So, ironically, the more people who listen to you, the less effective this method is.

There are plenty of parents who deny their child medical help due to religious or philosophical beliefs only to have their child die. It’s occasionally a crime, depending on how irrational their actions were and how contributory to their deaths the action was. But if we take your thinking at face value, as they are a parent and as they’ve made what they believe to be a rational decision, they’ve done nothing wrong.

It’s also worth noting that a virus will rely on immune response, no amount of healthy eating will prevent a child from contracting a virus. Not having a strong immune system due to lack of interaction with others isn’t much of a helper in that regard.