AIBU to remind everyone that the MMR vaccine does NOT cause autism?

[TheHodgeoftheHedge]

Seeing as this worry comes up so many times on MN and in wider life, I feel obliged to post this and remind everyone that MMR has not link to autism whatsoever, as yet another HUGE study has found.

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/mmr-vaccine-autism-antivax-measles-study-andrew-wakefield-a8808086.html

Thanks.

I didnt make any assumptions ffs.
Her beliefs:
Cancer is caused by negative energy causing bad vibrations in the body and can be cured by herbal potions
Chemo causes cancer, not cures it.
Vaccines are full of poisons and diseases like meningitis, measles and polio can be avoided by eating a healthy diet.

monstrance, your friend isn’t Noel Edmonds, are they?! ;)

It’s a bit like me telling an anecdotal story on this thread about a pro who also believes in fairies at the back of the garden... it’s a lazy insinuation that sonejoecthe two are related

And for the record chemo is known to cause cancer www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/physical-side-effects/second-cancers-in-adults/chemotherapy.html

No not Noel Edmonds, Just a fucking idiot.

Chemo is known to cause cancer? Is it fuck.

I presume all the "healthy diet" airy fairy types have never used a doctor? Wouldn't call an ambulance in an emergency? Have never used medicine?

So you didn’t read cancer.org’s link then?

Acute trauma..Yeap I’d call an ambulance. As for my general health, I take responsibility for that

There's a difference between "sometimes chemo can cause secondary cancers" and "chemo causes cancer".
If you can't tell the difference...

I said chemo is known to cause cancer... I didn’t quantify it as sometimes, occasionally or whatever ... I said it is known to cause cancer which is correct
Do you understand

And that was in response to the poster who thought the notion of chemo causing cancer was ‘crazy’

what a load of sanctimonious tripe = `I can't be dealing with real scientific facts'

Ah Gilead with another ‘intelligent’ contribution to the debate

First saw this on MN a few years ago - it explains the arguments and research around vaccines and autism very clearly.

’Gilead with another intelligent contribution’

I fixed that for you. See how leaving out a few bits of pertinent information can give a misleading impression?

Cath I will ask again- if you or one of your family members had cancer, what treatment would you recommend. You haven’t responded to my question upthread. I am genuinely intrigued.

Jemima if you genuinely want to know then pm me. I’ve mentioned before I used to work within oncology so I have a reasonable knowledge on this. I’m not going to say what I would do on this thread as people are so vile about different viewpoints... and no I don’t believe in herbal potions or ‘wonder cures’ either before I get accused of that

people are not vile about different viewpoints, people have genuine concerns about the health of their families. People with partners and children with reduced immunity who necessarily have to rely on the goodwill of others. You choose to put their lives and those of their loved ones in jeopardy then you should expect a backlash. It's neither unreasonable nor vile.

I said it is known to cause cancer which is correct

Not strictly. It conveys the idea that it's a common event.

`I can't be dealing with real scientific facts'

Now, this is strictly correct. Because you haven't.

The other issue with "chemo causes cancer" is that chemo is not given in the absence of cancer. Like radiotherapy is ordinarily dangerous as radiation can cause cancer too.
Both are nasty and potentially dangerous, but when the alternative is certain death they're worth it.

When a pp comments on someone who thinks "chemo causes cancer" it means that the person thinks people with cancer only have it because they had chemo. That if people didn't have chemo they wouldn't have cancer. (which is mindboggling in itself)
So, if in response you just say that chemo is known to cause cancer you're seen as supporting the claim that cancer doesn't exist without cancer.
You should be more clear about what you meant, if you only meant to say that, yes, it can happen that people can develop secondary cancers when undergoing chemo for an already existing cancer.

So…this post is not directed to anyone in this thread who is genuinely trying to question and debate the use of the MMR vaccine.

This post is solely to @Cathmidston who is very obviously an AIDS DENIALIST, and also seemingly a denialist of many other things like cancer/treatment. So this post is not just about AIDs denialism, it is about other denialism too.

Done a bit of research and talked to others who have encountered this sort of thing. General consensus is DO NOT ENGAGE IN DEBATE WITH PEOPLE LIKE CATHMIDSTON. There is absolutely no point as there’s simply is no debate with people like her.

There are a lot of articles on this but this link explains things a little and is quite a good explanation of denialism in general newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2165/how-to-spot-an-aids-denialist
There is also a Hall of Shame in there – you might recognize a few names Cath has mentioned. Just to point out a few things mentioned other posters might recognize in Cath’s posts (try interchanging HIV/AIDS with things like cancer to get the idea)

1. AIDS denialism tells us what anyone would want to hear – that HIV does not cause AIDS and that if you live a “healthy lifestyle” (whatever that is) you won’t get AIDS.
2. AIDS denialism is one of several incarnations of denialism. All denialism is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is none
3. The more sophisticated efforts of AIDS denialism, like the “documentary” House of Numbers, are most disturbing because they use every trick in the denialist playbook to juxtapose pseudoscience with established science. The best way to recognise AIDS denialism is to know their common tricks of persuasion.
4. There are two sides to every debate. But just asserting there is a debate does not mean there is one. AIDS denialists rely on a small band of fake experts, mostly retired academics who proclaim that HIV does not cause AIDS. There is not a single instance of an “expert” offered by AIDS denialism that has ever actually done research on AIDS. (then goes on to mention so called experts referenced by Cath and explains why thy are not experts in this field – Mullis for example, never did any research on AIDS)
5. For AIDS deniers, everything old is new again. AIDS denialists rely on selected research findings from the days when not much was known about AIDS.
6. Unfortunately, outdated scientific literature is not purged when new knowledge emerges. AIDS deniers use this information to create the illusion of a live debate. Denialists select old findings that support their flawed logic because they have no evidence of their own. Cherrypicking is another favourite rhetorical technique of denialists. This involves selecting a lone scientific finding, presenting the results out of context, and deploying it as evidence for their own conclusions.
7. AIDS denialists will also demand even more specific evidence, only to change the demand once the evidence is produced.
8. But while some denialists are clearly charlatans out to make a quick buck out of other people’s misery, many are perfectly genuine, which is what makes them especially dangerous (Cath – this is you) They can be persuasive because they actually believe what they say. Evidence means nothing to them. Their thought process resembles what psychiatrists call an “encapsulated delusion”, where despite what appears to be otherwise rational thinking there is an intractable maladaptive belief system that is impermeable to contrary evidence
9. And finally, hard as it might be for believers in free speech and open debate, if you encounter AIDS denialism, do not enter into a debate. AIDS denialists want to create the impression that there is a debate regarding HIV causing AIDS and debating feeds the illusion. This debate was exhausted years ago

As said above, there is NO point debating anything with Cath. The only “good” thing is, she CANNOT and WILL NOT recommend that we all believe as she does and actively cease any medication/vaccination that in her eyes will do more harm than good and instead lead a healthy lifestyle. This is because she is NOT SURE (and doesn’t dare!) So there is hope yet for her family!
So the gist of this is…DO NOT ENGAGE IN DEBATE WITH CATHMIDSTON. SHE IS DANGEROUS AND SPOUTS ABSOLUTE CRAP. TO DO SO WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME.

Brilliant post HIVpos. Engaging with folks who deny the vast scientific consensus just gives them an excuse to post their crap. Unfortunately this will sometimes mean people will believe it. If you come up with evidence to disprove their crap they just move onto the next thing until either you lose the will or you come full circle again.

Brilliant post HIVpos

I thought Lweji's "Good morning. Bad night? " said it just as well actually and made me giggle. Just added a bit more detail!

Well done HIVpos

Amazing post.