white paper polio revised-Aime Lonsdorf

Posted on February 6, 2012 by aimelonsdorf

In the early 2000s, a British study was released, announcing the link between the measles and mumps (MMPR) vaccination could cause early onset autism or interfere with a preexisting condition. However, recent studies by Columbia University researcher Ian Lipkin and Irish pathologist and co-author of the previously released study have proved that the MMPR vaccination does not affect children with autism. The original study is now believed to have been misrepresented. The overall conclusion is that the fear of vaccinations caused a rise in both the MMPR virus and an unrelated rise in autism; there is no link between the vaccine and autism.

This is a definitional claim– it changes the way people can look at vaccinations and autism.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/06/autism.vaccines/index.html

There are some substances that are still believed to have altering effects on autism. Many autistic children have GI or other digestive issues, so doctors urge those with the disease to eat foods that will improve digestion. Items to avoid: gluten rich foods, dairy based products and other common allergens such as tree nuts. Other suggestions are to add vitamin and mineral substitutes. For example, iron and vitamins D, C, and B4 have had proven effects that can alter moods and even severe depression and digestive issues that coincide with various forms of autism.

definitional claim– How to treat eating habits.

http://www.foodforthebrain.org/content.asp?id_Content=1632

This entry was posted in White Paper Polio. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to white paper polio revised-Aime Lonsdorf

  1. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:
    February 7, 2012 at 6:02 am

    I see improvements here, Aime, but also ambiguities.

    1. Did the link cause autism or was it the vaccination?
    2. Does “interfere with” mean trigger? disrupt? delay?
    3. Do you mean Lipkin plus an Irish pathologist? Or is Lipkin an Irish pathologist? One person or three: researcher, pathologist, co-author?
    4. What does “affect children with autism” mean? Cause them to develop autism? Change their autistic symptoms? Cure them of autism?
    5. Did someone misrepresent the study (by quoting its results out of context, for instance), or did the researchers misrepresent their own data?
    6. Whose overall conclusion?
    7. The fear of vaccinations might cause fewer vaccinations which might lead to more measles and mumps, but if fear of vaccinations caused a rise in autism, that rise is not unrelated.

    I don’t mean to pick on you, but even small assignments are chances to practice clarity, Aime.

    Like

    Reply
  2. aimelonsdorf's avatar aimelonsdorf says:
    February 14, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    i will continue to clarify my assignments; however i think that 1,2 and 7 are already clear when reading. However, for the future i will make sure that all of my information is clearly stated in a way that cannot confuse anyone.

    no, i do not think you are picking on me.

    Like

    Reply
    • davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:
      February 14, 2012 at 9:13 pm

      You may be right, Aime. I hope you are. Let’s look.

      1. Did the link cause autism or was it the vaccination?
      You say: “the link between the measles and mumps (MMPR) vaccination could cause early onset autism or interfere with a preexisting condition.” I’m not saying you meant it this way, Aime, but your syntax says “the link . . . could cause . . . autism.” See what I mean?

      2. Does “interfere with” mean trigger? disrupt? delay?
      You say: “the link between the . . . vaccination could cause early onset autism or interfere with a preexisting condition.” This might mean what I think you mean, that the vaccination could somehow hasten or trigger a case of latent autism, not exactly cause it but turn it from inactive to active perhaps. The “pre-existing condition” then would be, perhaps, a genetic pre-disposition to develop autism if the right conditions presented themselves. The vaccination might be such a condition. If that’s what you mean, then maybe: The MMPR vaccination might be the sole cause of autism or trigger a latent case of autism.

      7. The fear of vaccinations might cause fewer vaccinations which might lead to more measles and mumps, but if fear of vaccinations caused a rise in autism, that rise is not unrelated.

      You say: “The overall conclusion is that the fear of vaccinations caused a rise in both the MMPR virus and an unrelated rise in autism; there is no link between the vaccine and autism.”

      If, as you say, “fear . . . caused a rise in the . . . virus and . . . in autism,” those rises are clearly related. What you most likely mean is the opposite, that fear caused a rise in the MMPR virus, but that the rise in autism was unrelated.

      This, however, makes no sense to the argument. The “vaccine causes autism” supporters believe that avoiding the vaccine would avoid autism.

      Like

      Reply
  3. aimelonsdorf's avatar aimelonsdorf says:
    February 16, 2012 at 10:13 am

    thanks for clarifying! should i repost this and make it more clear?

    Like

    Reply
    • davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:
      February 16, 2012 at 12:42 pm

      It’s not an assignment that calls for a rewrite, Aime, but if you want the exercise, you can certainly revise this post and let me know it’s ready for another look. Who knows? Your grade might improve too. I certainly applaud your asking for clarification! 🙂

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to aimelonsdorf Cancel reply