Are the Autism/vaccination people any different than Creationist?

[edhopper]

I saw a Research Pediatrician on TV who said how every study done has found no correlation between vaccinations and autism and that there is absolutely no scientific controversy about this.
So if scientific study has determined that there isn't a link are those who still advocate for a stop to vaccinations based on the autism threat any different than the anti-science creationist.

My post is in the form of a question because I'm still thinking this comparison over myself.

[msongs]

1. umm if the vaccines are the fault, then there should be NO autism in unvaccinated kids. nt

[varkam]

2. Not really.

For both people it is an article of faith. The mercury-militia believes that vaccines cause autism - and they won't be swayed by any mount of scientific data. They already know the truth, so what more is there to know?

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Faith and belief are not the same, but neither of them...

apply strictly to religion.

They do, however, seem to be hardwired into us.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

4. Research

Interesting comparison you suggest. A number of research projects have looked into this, the most notable in Europe with the results released a couple of years ago. It was a study involving tens of thousands. The results noted that the hypothesis of autism spectrum disorder being linked to vaccinations was not supported. Then you have someone like Jenny McCarthy say as of late that her son was cured of autism. A person with autism spectrum disorder isn't cured, they are treated and educated. It gives new meaning to McCarthyism. So yeah, I could see the metaphorical association of vaccinationsits and creationists.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. I'm one of those kooks! Hear me out.

Vaccines, along with many other medicines, have forms of MERCURY. Why do they have mercury? Because it's a very good preservative, and a very cheap one. Mercury is a TOXIN. It's a MAJOR, FIRST CLASS TOXIN. It is a NEUROTOXIN.

Now I don't know if there's direct evidence between autism and mercury, but there is direct evidence that mercury has caused MAJOR neurological damage in human beings.

There are lots of websites you could go to.

I have a friend who is a scientist who says I'm trying to demonize him. I'm not. I do research everything! I trust nothing these days. And I also know that science has to rely upon the funds provided them by corporations. We already know corporations have only one bottom line and they don't care a rat's ass what happens to anyone on their way to making money. SO while a scientist might be a very nice guy, he might very well find himself in a situation where he has to agree with the corporation (say, pharmaceutical, or vaccine producing), in order to have a job at all.

That's my whole shpiel. Nothing else.

[Warpy]

6. Why hasn't there been a steep decline in autism afflicted children

since thimerosal was removed from all mandatory vaccines?

Why was the MMR the most consistently blamed vaccine when it never contained mercury preservatives in the US?

Hasn't it yet occurred to you that you might be the one who's wrong here?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. I don't know. I'm not a scientist. I'm just someone who know mercury is a neurotoxin

It could be that autism is not caused by mercury, but mercury IS a neurotoxin. It causes all manner of symptoms which are irreversible.

What's most horrible about this is that vaccine companies kept producing mercury-ridden vaccines for children despite their being asked to stop it. They continued because they had huge batches and wanted to use them all up... on children.

[Kali]

14. " I'm not a scientist."

yes that is part of the problem. Not enough real scientists, science education, or the ability of the extant scientific community to try and converse with less educated lay people.

[TZ]

17. Unfortunately when real scientists do communicate their knowledge

they are dismissed as shills as this person has done to a friend.
Critical thinking skills are needed as well.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. True, but I want nothing with mercury in my body, mouth, or anywhere near me. It's a neurotoxin. nt

[Kali]

34. okaaay

you do realize that there are degrees of exposure right? The simplistic example would be water toxicity.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

36. Gee I don't know how to say this. How about this....

I don't want exposure to it even in a "Light" form. Keep "Mercury Light" to yourself.

[TZ]

56. Don't go outside EVER again

The sun has dangerous radiation! OMG! POISON.
What you actually KNOW certainly can fit in a teacup as compared to what is actuall scientific fact.
You are the perfect model for the arrogant fear mongering narrow minded anti-science poster.
The more FACTS are thrown at you..the more you scream I'm RIGHT AND NO LITTLE SCIENTIFIC FACT can convince me otherwise-
You have made the OP's case perfectly..you behave EXACTLY like an evolution denying fundie being faced with facts.

[trotsky]

65. Newsflash

You can't even go outside and breathe without being exposed to mercury. You can't eat ANYTHING without being exposed to mercury.

The good news is, our bodies DO have the ability to excrete small amounts.

Plus you need to educate yourself on the differences between elemental mercury, methyl mercury, and ethyl mercury. Chlorine gas will kill you. Sodium metal is explosive. But you sprinkle a combination of both on your food if you add salt to it. So why aren't you dying or exploding? When you understand the answer to that, you can come back to the thimerosal issue.

[kestrel91316]

86. Best not to eat, breathe, or consume water, then. Mercury is ubiquitous.

Oh, and don't allow batteries within 100 yards of you. And your electricity use results in coal burning and mercury entering the environment, so by your logic you are just as evil as the vaccine manufacturers. Probably worse, since YOUR mercury enters people unwillingly whereas vaccines are voluntary.

See where this type of black and white thinking gets us?

[Kali]

15. dupe

that was a strange hiccup

[TZ]

16. its not toxic in small doses.

Its rather obvious you are NOT a scientist. You do realize that the mercury from a broken thermometer is a much higher concentration yet I and millions of other people have been exposed to that and do fine.
And I have to tell you that <.01% mercury is NOT "MERCURY RIDDEN".
You have NO science credibility. None. I suggest you actually READ a science book before posting in this scientific forum.
Read about the scientific method. You obviously don't know it.

[Kali]

21. well, while I agree with you 100%

verbal spanking isn't always the best way to educate (of course I have no idea if this is lack of education or willful ignorance - if the latter I tend to get aggressive too)

[TZ]

23. I've encounter this poster before (health, GD)

Its willful ignorance, IMHO.

[edhopper]

25. You are talking about

Sarah and not me the OP?

[TZ]

58. Yes.

BTW, your OP is 100% right.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. OY VEY. So you want me to drink mercury or have it injected in small doses?

You do that. Thank you very much I'd rather not.

[Random_Australian]

47. Radioactivity is also not harmful in small doses. I will assume you'd rather not

be exposed to small doses of radiation so I will have to advise you to remove your skeleton.

(Your bones are radioactive).

Also, never go near concrete. It is also slightly radioactive.

Furthermore, there are muons striking you from high-energy collisions in the upper atmosphere. So you'd better live under a lead bunker. Just be sure not to use that radioactive concrete.

But yes, anything to avoid doses of something that is known to be harmful when the dosage is far below the amount required to be dangerous.

Which is why you don't need an vaccines. Dying of preventable diseases (and infecting others with them) is a small price to pay for being able to miss a miniscule dose of mercury.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. I can't remove my skeleton, but I can stay away from harmful things....

... which is what I have been talking about.

I only have control over what I have control over.

[Random_Australian]

54. But you can control never going near concrete, and living under a lead shelter to avoid cosmic rays,

right?

If no, then it would seem there are some risks you're ready to take. Like being exposed to something harmful at way below a harmful dose if there is some greater benefit you get from it. You know, like shelter from going near concrete buildings, or not dying of a preventable disease because you are vaccinated.

[kestrel91316]

87. You are eating and drinking and breathing it every day.

Have you ever eaten fish?

Oops. Well, guess you're gonna die.

[gtar100]

52. Hey, those of us who don't want it only leave more for you.

So why the complaint? If you have a choice between a solution with a little toxin that you know about and a solution you know that doesn't contain it, why would you choose the toxin?

Are you so sure you're doing fine after the exposure? Maybe it made you more cranky with non-scientists.

[TZ]

60. I've not had thimerosol shot since I was little

and I've had plenty of vaccines. I get cranky with idiots. Non-scientists and scientists alike (but the proportion of idiotic scientists is much smaller than the general population).
BTW, by your rational don't ever eat table salt again! Its got TWO toxic substances! EEK!

[gtar100]

67. LOL! We are so screwed. I fear death is inevitable.

On the other hand, we'll be fine as long as we don't drink the water, breath the air, or eat the food.

[DireStrike]

83. Is that the same thing?

Sodium and chlorine are dangerous substances. Sodium Chloride is necessary. It's a different substance.

Are you saying that the mercury in vaccines is bound to something else in such a way that it's no longer a toxin? Or are you saying that, like alcohol for example, it only causes a negligeable amount of damage?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. ...

"Are you saying that the mercury in vaccines is bound to something else in such a way that it's no longer a toxin?"

The mercury in vaccines is too dilute to be toxic.

There are no toxic chemicals. Only toxic concentrations of certain chemicals.

[kestrel91316]

88. Can't drink water either. She'll rust and explode.

[Warpy]

31. Try to do some reading that isn't on anti vax sites some time

Read about which forms of mercury are toxic and at what levels toxicity occurs.

Then let me know when the number of autism cases declines. Mercury has been out of vaccines in the US for some years now, despite your tinfoil hat protestations to the contrary.

Eventually you might even come to admit you were wrong.

It's not so hard.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. Here's my answer: mercury is a neurotoxin. I don't care that some forms are less toxic...

I don't want it.

[panzerfaust]

40. In your brain - right now - killing brain cells is ...

... Glutamate.

Yes glutamate. In your brain. Now. Even if you don't dump MSG on your noodles, it is in your noodle and it is causing excitotoxic brain cell death - every moment a few more neurons succumb.

There is no escape, for glutamate is the primary excitatory neurotransmitter in the mammalian CNS, and is also likely the single greatest cause of neuronal cell death. In spite of this your brain makes it constantly. Hard to avoid neurotoxins when you make them yourself.

Anyhow, no one here has argued that mercury is good for you, however, the damage that mercury causes, which in high-enough doses can be severe, is not autism.

The cause of autism has not been found; But, it has been shown that vaccination is not it. Likely it will prove to be genetics+environmental trigger (as yet unknown, to be repetitive).

Drinking mercury is bad for your health, getting vaccinated is (almost always) good for it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

48. Okay, I'll do some research on glutamate....

SO, if I'm screwed as it is, what's the reason again I would want to add mercury to my body in any of its "Neurotoxin Light" forms? Tell me again.

[FiveGoodMen]

68. You are about the brokenest record I've ever seen.

[Warpy]

41. Thank you for proving the OP's point

[Sarah Ibarruri]

49. Which is what? That people who refuse neurotoxins, even in light form, are nuts? nt

[TZ]

61. LD-50

You have not studied chemistry. Botulism is a neurotoxin in large doses. In small doses not only is it used cosmetically but it is used to save people's lives medically.
Anti-venom to save peoples lives. You DO know that its a small amount of the snakes venom, right? Hope you never get bit by a snake god knows what evil neurotoxin-light forms the doctors might push into you.
Face it..you don't have a clue..and the sad part is, you don't even want to try. You think you know all the answers when you know none. Go back to reading your bible..er googling whatever woosite you get your information from and let the scientifically oriented people have a science discussion in the SCIENCE forum. You don't belong here, period.

[kestrel91316]

89. Aren you aware that the deadly neurotoxin, botulinum toxin, has a valid

medical use in quelling muscle spasms, like in people with cerebral palsy?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. Dihydrogen monoxide is a neurotoxin.

In high concentrations, it prevents oxygen from reaching the brain.

[Tesha]

77. Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating the same thing over and over again...

...only demonstrates your willful ignorance; it certainly won't win
any debates around here.

Tesha

[stopbush]

43. Bingo! Good analysis.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. In the clinic where I work we see older folks who are having

a wide range of health problems. As part of our protocol, we check to see if they have any toxic metals in their system--the test scans for lead, mercury, and a host of others. Many times the people who are sick have a huge amount of mercury in their system. What we often find is that these folks had extensive dental fillings with mercury in them. We have a protocol for detoxifying them. What we find in our clinic is that mercury CAN be a factor in health deterioration, but it isn't always a factor.

Doc works with a lot of autistic kids, but on an individual basis. She orders lots of labs to check for toxic metals, but also for food allergies, absorption problems, and more. Her treatment of each child is individualized, based upon the lab results for that child. She continually monitors their situation and adjusts protocol accordingly.

Speaking as someone associated with a doctor "on the ground" with these kids, I think this is the way to go, rather than arguing about vaccines and their impact.

[TZ]

18. autism is genetic based

Less to do with toxic metals.
Scientific research has proven this.
Your assumptions is classic correlation does not equal causation. Older folks tend to have health problems because of genetic deterioration, along with some environmental toxins.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. There's nothing conclusive to indicate that, so where did you get it? nt

[TZ]

57. Bullshit. I got it from scientific studies.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080108091119.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080110144803.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080109173839.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080319150615.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080413161104.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080110123933.htm

Thats only the tip of the iceburg.
Nothing conclusive?HAHAHAHAHA..only in that narrow rigid ill informed mind of yours.

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. Cherie Blair declined to answer whether she had had her youngsters vaccinated with the

MMR vaccine. Whatever their failings, I don't think the Blairs would have failed to seek the best medical advice on the matter.

Soon after, the Health Minister, I think it was, spoke about parents being kind of "commandos" on the front line of medical progress!

[TZ]

13. Umm you are TOTALLY WRONG, woo.

Thimerosol is no longer in 99.99% of vaccines. And those they are in (flu shots) thimerosol is .01% of the vaccine. Mercury is even less than that.
Have you ever taken a chemistry course to understand what LD50 means. Chemicals are toxic only in certain amounts. Mercury is not as toxic as most people used to think...If it was ANYONE who has eaten fish (which has MUCH MUCH higher concentrations of mercury than ANY vaccine) would have severe neurological problems.
I'm a scientist and I can tell you you are speaking PURE BALONEY. You are demonizing your friend.
And btw, reading paranoid conspiracy articles on the internet ISN'T a substitute for a science education.
Have you even BOTHERED to read the reports from NIH, WHO and other interantional science based organizations that totally debunk that?
You reinforce the idea of the internet as DISINFORMATION highway.
Oh and your paranoid rant has no place in the SCIENCE forum by the way.
:tinfoilhat:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

33. You're 100% right! Know why? Because the vaccine companies finally used up all their mercury....

and didn't buy anymore due to the constant protests against it.

The problem now is, that if you look at medications in general, they, too, have mercury. The pharma company LOVES mercury. There are other preservatives but they're more expensive. Better to use a cheap product even if it is a neurotoxin, than have the CEOS get 1 million less in bonus.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Oy vey.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. I'll tell you what. We'll agree to disagree. You take Neurotoxin Light, and I.....

..... WON'T. How would that work for you?

[beam me up scottie]

53. You can be as willfully ignorant as you like, but don't expect a pass to spread the stupid around.

"Because the vaccine companies finally used up all their mercury...."

Egad.

You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

Get a grip.

[TZ]

59. Okay typhoid mary

Since only flu vaccines have thimerosol in them. I sure hope you feel good about walking around and spreading infectious diseases in your little imaginary world. You and those like you are indeed the reason why we haven't been able to rid the world of more diseases.
I wish people like you remembered small pox or polio.
I'd write you off with a trite "survival of the fittest" comment except it makes me sad to realize how many peoples lives you will take with you.

[kestrel91316]

85. If you had done your homework more thoroughly you would know that

only SOME vaccines contain mercury. Not most. Certainly not all.

The mercury is there as a preservative, and by repackaging from multi-dose tanks to single-dose vials they have eliminated the need for the preservative. They have done this a lot with human vaccines and they have also, interestingly, done it with at least one veterinary vaccine that I am aware of.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Well, for starters, what I'd do was to check this out for myself

rather than rely on a "Research Pediatrician on TV". Just for fun, I googled "Autism" and "JAMA", which is the acronym for Journal of the American Medical Association. Here's what I found:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/13/1763

Note please that the study was comparing children taking a thimerosal-containing vaccine with " children vaccinated with a thimerosal-free formulation of the same vaccine."

Note the study's conclusion: "The results do not support a causal relationship between childhood vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccines and development of autistic-spectrum disorders."

However, I feel this conclusion is overly broad. After all, they were comparing two groups of children who were vaccinated, NOT vaccinated and non-vaccinated children.

I think it is very important to read about a study and what exactly was being compared rather than to simply accept a generalization from a conclusion. Just because someone with a title says something is so doesn't mean it is.

Another place that I feel offers some very good discussion on the topic is Opposing Views:

http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/jama

I especially like some comments posted there about peer review and the "publish or perish" atmosphere nowadays:

I read JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine myself. Peer reviewed is not enough. You need to consider what the study is reviewed in. In a publish or perish environment you end up with a lot of "peer reviewed" junk.


*
toxouts
And the rest

Agreed. Peer-review alone is not sufficient to ensure objectivity and reliability -- funding, sponsorship, affiliations, alliances, obligations, expertise, and other aspects influence bias in the reported outcomes and conclusions of research.

PubMed is simply a database including articles published in JAMA, NEJM, and thousands of others.

Since you are familiar with JAMA, NEJM, and how to spot bias, I'm guessing it should be relatively easy for you to check on "mercury AND inflammation" (results at http://tinyurl.com/533u6a ).

Have you looked through these and personally concluded whether there is a link between mercury and illness?

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. "I think it is very important to read about a study and what exactly

was being compared rather than to simply accept a generalization from a conclusion. Just because someone with a title says something is so doesn't mean it is."

Bear in mind you're speaking to some secular fundamentalists.

[TZ]

19. You are not citing objective sites.

You need to go to NIH, WHO and other sites to catch actual scientific data. Or perhaps you wish to cite Rolling Stone and RFK as proof?
BTW, I work for an immunological company...mercury isn't the be all devil people think it is. There are alot of other things including the fact that young children are being too protected and never having their immune system develop correctly, leading to lifelong health issues.
I suggest you read up on modern medical theory which now down plays the role of mercury as a toxin in small doses.
Even children who have been exposed to larger amounts have been surprisingly healthy. (playing with the liquid mercury)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. I didn't take sides in this conflict, you realize

I merely responded to the poster--and you diss this, and say that the Journal of the American Medical Association is on a par, when it comes to medical reporting, to Rolling Stone? Very strange.

My point (which you apparently didn't get) was that it is wise for a person to look up things for themselves rather than take the word of a self-described "expert". I took a few moments to google an article just to show how quickly this could be done. You have a problem with this?

[KT2000]

10. Absolutely

People who say that their children became autistic immediately after vaccinations are communicating empirical evidence - but of what?
That is the question.
Research can only limit itself to the known mechanisms and ultimatley say that autism was not caused by the vaccines through those known mechanisms.
(The on-going debate about the existence of Gulf War Syndrome is locked in a similar dispute)

One might explore the question by asking - how is the genetic makeup of children who seemed to become autistic after their vaccines different from those who remain healthy.

Is it possible the children were mildly autistic before their vaccines and triggered into a more serious case by the over stimulation of immune system?

We are in the infancy of even understanding what autism is and how it is caused.
The debate though is locked in emotions on both side. Science, through its representatives, refuses to concede there are many unknowns. That defies logic and instills distrust among parents.
Parents have been presented with evidence they may be afraid to ignore and are not finding adequate explanation from science. This causes them to be identified as ignorant, as your post implies.

[edhopper]

20. ?

"Science, through its representatives, refuses to concede there are many unknowns."

That sentence could be one of the most ignorant statements I have seen on this forum.

[KT2000]

27. I thought

you posted your question for the purpose of discussion.
This response of yours does not serve anything but your ego.

[edhopper]

42. It's hard to have a discussion

with someone who has no understanding of how science works.
To think that scientist don't accept how much is not known is ludicrous.

[KT2000]

45. Please read my post

more carefully.
Scientists do not make comments such as the one put forward by the pediatrician in your original post. That is why I referred to him/her as a representative - of which there are many in the vaccine/autism debate. Unfortunately the real scientists do not generally go on tv shows and state the unknowns and ambiguities that exist. People such as the pediatrician fill the void.

A good scientist would say something like "within the parameters of the research conducted so far there has not been found a link to vaccines."

There still exists the problem of explaining why some children exhibit extreme symptoms of autism after their vaccines - something that needs more research.

Sorry edhopper, I know several scientists - the published kind - and I am familiar with how science works. Your first post to me was more emotional than well considered, which in a way demonstrates very well the nature of many controversies.

[edhopper]

46. Please read your post.

"Science, through its representatives, refuses to concede there are many unknowns."
Is that all of science that refuses to concede that there are unknowns, or only their representatives, who may or may not be part of "Science. Still an ignorant statement.

And this one;
"within the parameters of the research conducted so far there has not been found a link to vaccines."
Could they include " as opposed to the utter complete lack of any evidence whatsoever that there is any link between vaccines and autism"

As the Dr. I saw said "There is no controversy"
Just as there is no controversy on evolution. Thus my OP.

[TZ]

22. You are right and yet wrong

Scientists and health workers have ALWAYS said that vaccines CAN hurt people that have underlying health conditions..This is why patients with Lupus NEVER EVER get vaccines.
No vaccines don't cause autism, but its true they can trigger underlying medical conditions..like the mitochondrial conditon that causes a form of autism that.was recently talked about.

[TZ]

24. To answer the question. No difference.

And I have plenty of experience arguing with these people. They refuse to listen to reason..when you do post scientific data its answered with SHILL! BIG PHARMA SELL OUT! And the disingeniousness of the tactics definitely smacks of the creationists.
They are the left version of fundies, IMHO.

[Kali]

29. definitely some overlap

extreme health conspiricists seem to have the same ability to ignore evidence and drive to convert.

[panzerfaust]

37. 242,000 dead from measles in 2006

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

Measles remains a leading cause of death among young children, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine for the past 40 years. An estimated 242 000 people, the majority of them children, died from measles in 2006, the latest year for which figures are available.

Measles is one of the most contagious diseases known. Almost all non-immune children contract this respiratory disease if exposed to the virus. Measles is an acute illness caused by a virus in the paramyxovirus family. Measles virus normally grows in the cells that line the back of the throat and in the cells that line the lungs. It is a human disease not known to occur in animals.

Vaccination has had a major impact on measles deaths. From 2000 to 2006, an estimated 478 million children aged nine months to 14 years received measles vaccine through supplementary immunization activities in 46 out of the 47 priority countries with the highest burden of measles. These accelerated activities have resulted in a significant reduction in estimated global measles deaths. Overall, global measles mortality decreased by 68% between 2000 and 2006. The largest gains occurred in Africa where measles cases and deaths fell by 91%.

Vaccination deniers will simply say “but consider the source, the WHO." I say, consider the other source - people who, no matter what large, well conducted, published studies show (that there is no correlation of vaccination with autism) insist that there is.

There are lots of places to look for information. Not all of them of equal value. Might want to look at the experience in Japan where panic over the belief that MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccination caused autism led to a fall off in vaccination/re-vaccination rates which in turn lead to severe measles epidemics.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/japanese-measles-epidemic-brings-campuses-to-standstill/2007/05/27/1180205052602.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Japan is the only developed country to still experience large measles epidemics. The US, which introduced a double vaccination program in 1989, and Australia, which phased in a booster shot for measles from 1994, have largely eradicated the disease.

In Japan, however, the government bowed to strong public pressure in 1994 by repealing laws that made childhood immunisations mandatory. In 2000 there were an estimated 200,000 cases of measles and 88 deaths.

Measles is not, as many anti-vaccination people assert, “just like a bad cold”. Measles can be lethal, both immediately, and years later: http://breathspakids.blogspot.com/2007/07/measles-is-trivial-illness-theres-no.html

A coherent and extensive, if pro-vaccination, blog notes:

Certainly there is plenty of evidence to refute the notion that vaccines cause autism. Fourteen epidemiological studies have shown that the risk of autism is the same whether children received the MMR vaccine or not, and five have shown that thimerosal-containing vaccines also do not cause autism. Further, although large quantities of mercury are clearly toxic to the brain, autism isn't a consequence of mercury poisoning; large, single-source mercury exposures in Minamata Bay and Iraq have caused seizures, mental retardation, and speech delay, but not autism.

Finally, vaccine makers removed thimerosal from vaccines routinely given to young infants about six years ago; if thimerosal were a cause, the incidence of autism should have declined. Instead, the numbers have continued to increase. All of this evidence should have caused a quick dismissal of these cases. But it didn't, and now the court has turned into a circus. The federal and civil litigation will likely take years to sort out.

http://www.scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/06/the_autism_omnibus_when_you_dont_have_sc.php
This would be a good place to start, as it does provide references to both points of view – whilst making it clear on which side the evidence falls.

So, my answer to your original question “Are the Autism/vaccination people any different than Creationist?” is that they are not. Both creationists and autism-from-vaccination groups have strong emotional reasons for their views, but no compelling data.

Sadly, while there is no replicable evidence that halting vaccination would decrease the incidence of autism, it has been demonstrated that decreasing vaccination has increased death and disease.

[caraher]

38. There's a big difference

What they share is that both maintain beliefs contrary to the scientific evidence. But the creationists are utterly uninterested in empirical evidence; their mind is made up because their core worldview places religious belief at the center.

The autism/vaccination folks do appeal to all sorts of empirical facts. They do say things that have a fair amount of plausibility, and they construct causal explanations for autism based on the evidence they consider. To claim that autism is caused by the presence of something in vaccines is a hypothesis, not a rejection of science per se. It may be an incorrect hypothesis, and those people may be selectively blind to evidence opposed to their hypothesis. But I think it's unfair to equate clinging to a pet theory with saying, "Magic man done it."

[joshcryer]

39. They're significantly worse.

Creationists don't *necessarily* use their arguments to avoid something that will *kill people*.

[FM Arouet666]

55. A common thread, Holocaust denial, intelligent design, anti-global warming.

All the same. The nut jobs have a stink about them which you can smell a mile off.

[mainegreen]

62. Yes. It's magnitudes greater a form of delusion.

The sort of self delusion required to believe in creation is far greater than that required to believe that some vaccines contribute to autism. I'd put it more on the level of cryptozoology. Bad, but nowhere near as crazy as creationism.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Creationism, pray the gay away, holocaust denial...

Anything were a person believes something despite all the evidence to the contrary is a valid analogy.

[laconicsax]

66. They're different

Creationists have been known to kill people who disagree with them.

[kestrel91316]

90. People who refuse vaccines or won't vaccinate their children can and do

spread deadly diseases. They may as well be burning their victims at the stake.

[laconicsax]

93. Fundementalist nut-jobs will kill you for blasphemy.

I doubt that the anti-vax crowd refuses vaccinations for the express purpose of spreading disease.

[kestrel91316]

94. Nope, but it's the logical, predictable outcome of their refusal,

and they can't plead ignorance of it.

[Posteritatis]

69. This thread suggests that no, they aren't (nt)

[Mark Baker]

70. Interesting transatlantic difference

Your loonies seem convinced that mercury in vaccines, and particularly MMR, causes autism.

Our (I'm British) loonies believe that MMR causes autism, but don't think mercury has anything to do with it.

[TZ]

72. The loonies here can't even keep their facts straight

since MMR never had thimerosol in it. So not only are they loonies but sadly misinformed loonies...

[Jim__]

71. A former Director of the NIH says "Yes, they are different!"

Watch the video. About 3 to 4 minutes into the video, Dr. Healey discusses a 2004 report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM). She states that in that report, the IOM discourages research into whether or not there are subgroups susceptible to serious harm from vaccines. The reason the IOM does not want this studied is that they believe that this type of information will discourage people from getting vaccines. In this report, the IOM acknowledges that there may well be such susceptible groups.

If you have looked into this at all, you are familiar with the Hannah Polling case in which the US government conceded that vaccine contributed to her autism. Her father is a doctor, her mother was a nurse (now a lawyer). Her case was exceedingly well documented, which is partially why the government conceded. Listen to an interview of her father.

I think Dr Healey has it right. The government fears that any admission of a connection between autism and vaccines will discourage people from getting their children vaccinated; so, they deny any possible connection. The numbers that I see with respect to this is that the danger is to about 1 in 10,0000 people. That's a small number (not likely to show up as statistically significant in most studies) and that's why Dr. Healey asks for studies to be done on an identified subgroup, e.g. children who have autism whose parents connect it to receiving a vaccine.

[TZ]

73. I'm going to call bullshit here.

Doctors already know and TELL people NOT to be vaccinated if you have certain immunological conditions like say Lupus (one of the most common chronic conditions) here. And yes, I do beleive that some people have underlying genetic defects (like that autism case) which a vaccine MAY trigger.
But you have to understand that if a vaccine can trigger a health condition the likelyhood of that condition NEVER appearing is small. After all a vaccine is only a immune trigger. Even the simple act of being exposed to a potential allergen could do it. This is an education issue more than anything else.
As for the argument from authority from NIH..having worked there for a short time, I can say there are plenty of cranks there. Even that autism case..the vaccine did NOT cause the autism..it triggered it...which is a whole different thing.

[Jim__]

74. Exactly what are you calling bullshit on?

Are you denying that the video of Dr Healey, a former director of the NIH, states that more study needs to be done? Are you denying that Dr Healey states that the IOM discourages research into this area because it could discourage people from getting vaccines?

You claim that this is merely an education issue. Are you claiming that Hannah Polling's parents, the doctor and nurse, were not educated about disease or vaccines? What do you base that claim on? Is it your claim that the general populace should be more educated about vaccines than Hannah Polling's parents were? Are you claiming that Hannah Polling would have been autistic even if she hadn't been vaccinated? What do you base that on?

Dr Healey does not make an argument from authority. She makes very explicit claims about the type of research that should be done and why it should be done. Are you claiming that this research should not be done? You say there are plent of cranks at NIH. Are you claiming that Dr Healey is a crank? Can you provide some documentation to support that? If you're not calling Dr Healey a crank, what is the purpose of raising the claim that there are plenty of cranks at NIH? If Dr Healey is not a crank, why does it matter that there are cranks at NIH?

[TZ]

75. I'm saying that Dr. Healey is flat out WRONG

Correlation is NOT causation! And shame on a researcher for not knowing that! The reason why Lupus patients can't get vaccines isn't the vaccines themselves but the patients immune system. The people with this mitochondrial form of autism already HAVE the disease--its genetic for gawds sake. The vaccine is a trigger NOT THE CAUSE!
Yes, some people have possible genetic markers that might predict if they will react badly to a vaccine and unless I'm mistaken there is research in this area...and perhaps one day we can predict who will have a side effect from a vaccine and who will not.
Before you get a vaccine everyone should get an info packet (and shame on doctors who don't educate their patients) that explains all the risks and who should think twice (you should see the LONG info packet you get for a smallpox vaccine).
Another way to put this my sister inherited a genetic tendency to Lupus..from my grandmother. But nobody knew that. She went on birth control pills which TRIGGERED the disease..So, should we blame the birth control pills? Of course not..however if a genetic test had been available which showed her risk than she probably would have not taken them. Would she have gotten Lupus if she had never taken those pills? Probably from some other stressor but its impossible to know.
Anyone who thinks that a vaccine can cause a disease in an otherwise perfectly healthy person doesn't quite have it straight..Its like saying pollen causes cancer...Pollen can cause allergies which can cause multiple infections which can lead to cancer eventually- but there are a lot of IF's involved. Its just not that simple
Dr. Healey is waaaay oversimplfying the situation based on the public mistrust of vaccines generated by the vaccine cause autism woos.

[Jim__]

76. Where is Dr Healy wrong? Please be precise.

Yes, it's extremely well-known that correlation is not causation. If you are claiming that Dr Healy claims it is, please point out the part of the interview where she does that. Dr Healy's contention is that we have available a subgroup that can be studied for a vulnerability that can be triggered by vaccines; but that many public health officials are opposed to this type of study because the result of the study may undermine public policy. Namely the policy that everyone should be vaccinated. She cites the 2004 IOM report as one example of this.

Dr Healy's contention is not that this subgroup is perfectly healthy. It is that, if we can identify susceptible subgroups, we should do it. And, she contends, certain public health officials are opposed to trying to discover this.

[Orrex]

78. Hannah Poling was not diagnosed with autism

Instead, she demonstrated "autism-like symptoms" caused by encephalopathy resulting from mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Even this sad malady wasn't diagnosed until months after her vaccinations, so there is no real way to pin that diagnosis on the vaccines.

The government absolutely did not concede that vaccines caused her autism. On this point you are either deliberately lying or innocently misinformed; I assume that it is the latter.

Read this piece, please:

The recent agreement by the US government to pay the family of a nine-year-old girl for injury caused by vaccines has only added fuel to the fire in the eyes of the many parents and autism advocacy groups that believe vaccines can cause autism. In the case, the girl’s parents contended that five simultaneous vaccinations that she received as an infant either triggered or severely worsened her autism-like symptoms. Although the symptoms could have been triggered by a fever or infection, the CDC agreed to pay the family from a federal fund that compensates people injured by vaccines. As stated by Wendy Fournier, parent and president of the National Autism Association, many parents and autism advocacy groups see this ruling as a confirmation that “vaccines can and do cause children to regress into autism” (9). However, Julie Gerberding, head of the CDC, pointed out that “this does not represent anything other than a very special situation” (10). Indeed, the girl at the center of the story has a mitochondrial disorder, and as Edwin Trevathan, a pediatric neurologist who is Director of the CDC National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said, “Most children with autism do not seem to have a mitochondrial problem, so this association . . . is probably relatively rare” (10). Other experts agree that this ruling is unlikely to set a precedent for others seeking to link their child’s autism to vaccinations they received as an infant, and Paul Offit, an expert in pediatric vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, was keen to highlight to the JCI that the CDC conceded this case without an evidentiary hearing, meaning that there was no burden of proof (i.e., no proof that the vaccines had caused the girl’s autism).

From http://jci.org/articles/view/35821 (red emphasis mine)

You base a considerable amount of your argument on Ms. Poling's case, but her case has nothing to do with autism supposedly incuded by vaccines, and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

[Jim__]

79. Dr. Jon Poling, the neurologist, and Hannah's father, states very clearly, she has autism.

I included his interview in my post. He states this very clearly in the interview. Before telling me he's wrong, please recall that he is a neurologist.


Instead, she demonstrated "autism-like symptoms" caused by encephalopathy resulting from mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Even this sad malady wasn't diagnosed until months after her vaccinations, so there is no real way to pin that diagnosis on the vaccines.

Do you know what autism is?

Here:

Autism is a pervasive developmental disorder. Its symptoms include differences and disabilities in many areas including social communication skills, fine and gross motor skills, and sometimes intellectual skills.

Autism is also a “spectrum disorder.” In basic terms, this means you can be a little autistic or very autistic. At the highest end of the spectrum is Asperger Syndrome, sometimes called “The Little Professor” syndrome. At at the lowest end of the spectrum is the disorder that’s most often called “classic autism,” which often includes mental retardardation. In between are a variety of pervasive developmental disorders including Rett syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS).

Not only is autism a spectrum disorder, but recent studies suggest that there may be more than one type of autism. While some autistic people have additional symptoms such as gastrointestinal issues, seizures and even mental illness, others have no such symptoms. The jury is still out on the question of "many autisms," so for now the term "autism spectrum" covers a very wide set of differences and disabilities.

So, she has autism symtoms. Is she a "little autistic", "medium autistic". That's not the point of the discussion.


As to: Even this sad malady wasn't diagnosed until months after her vaccinations, so there is no real way to pin that diagnosis on the vaccines. I have to ask, Are you at all familiar with this case? The goverment document has been online for over half a year now. Have you read it? she wasn't diagnosed until months after her vaccinations. Read the Document A brief quote from the governemnt's documentation:

According to her mother's affidavit, CHILD developed a fever of 102.3 degrees two days after her immunizations and was lethargic, irritable, and cried for long periods of time. Pet. Ex. 2 at 6. She exhibited intermittent, high-pitched screaming and a decreased response to stimuli. Id. MOM spoke with the pediatrician, who told her that CHILD was having a normal reaction to her immunizations. Id. According to CHILD's mother, this behavior continued over the next ten days, and CHILD also began to arch her back when she cried. Id.

Read the document. The fevers, the withdrawal, the doctor visits continue until she is finally sent to a clininc that diagnoses her. It is a sad grasping at a straw to claim the time between the vaccination and the diagnosis as some vindication for vaccines.

Now, lest you miss the obvious, let me quote from the article you referred me to:

Although the symptoms could have been triggered by a fever or infection, the CDC agreed to pay the family from a federal fund that compensates people injured by vaccines.

And, from the government document:

CHILD developed a fever of 102.3 degrees two days after her immunizations ... MOM spoke with the pediatrician, who told her that CHILD was having a normal reaction to her immunizations.

Those 2 simple facts refute your argument.

And, as to: You base a considerable amount of your argument on Ms. Poling's case, but her case has nothing to do with autism supposedly incuded by vaccines, and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Again, from the government's document:

Dr. Zimmerman referred CHILD to the Krieger Institute's Occupational Therapy Clinic and the Center for Autism and Related Disorders ("CARDS"). Pet. Ex. 25 at 40. She was evaluated at the Occupational Therapy Clinic by Stacey Merenstein, OTR/L, on February 23, 2001. Id. The evaluation report summarized that CHILD had deficits in "many areas of sensory processing which decrease her ability to interpret sensory input and influence her motor performance as a result." Id. at 45. CHILD was evaluated by Alice Kau and Kelley Duff, on May 16, 2001, at CARDS. Pet. Ex. 25 at 17. The clinicians concluded that CHILD was developmentally delayed and demonstrated features of autistic disorder. Id. at 22.

The examining medical personnel, along with her father, the neurologist, disagree with your "analysis".

The parents of children who have suffered the onset of autism, or autism symptoms or autism spectrum disorder if you prefer, (almost immediatley) following a vaccination, don't really care what you label it. The children have largely lost the ability to communicate. They want to understand why. They want to eliminate or at least minimize the possibilty of this happening. According to Dr Healy, a former head of the NIH, certain public health officials do not want this looked into; because they fear that may harm public policy. She cites a report of the IOM as evidence of this.

I do not consider Dr Healy, Dr Poling, Dr Zimmerman, nor the clinicians who examined Hannah Poling to be like creationists.

Your argument about labels is nonsense and completely avoids the point of the debate.

[Orrex]

80. Your argument is indistinguishable from all other anti-vax nonsense

Gerberding identifies Poling's case as effectively unique and unfit for use as a precedent for addressing other claims of vaccine-induced autism. If you (and other anti-vax crusaders) wish more research to be done, by all means do the research.

And in any case, there is no evidence that the vaccines had anything whatsoever to do with her mitochondrial enzyme deficit. None. As in none. As in zero.

All we have is the exact same crap that anti-vaxers always have: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Wait, that's not all we have. We also have a standard appeal to emotionalism:

The parents of children who have suffered the onset of autism, or autism symptoms or autism spectrum disorder if you prefer, (almost immediatley) following a vaccination, don't really care what you label it.

That's not clinical and it's not empirical. It's a desperate--and entirely understandable--effort to assign blame for an inborn neurological condition, and parents and anti-vax advocates take aim at the closest target they can find: in many cases that means vaccines, because the onset of autism coincides with a certain round of vaccines.

There are two reasons that Creationists are like the Vaccines-cause-Autism crowd:

1. Supporting evidence is cherry-picked from a range of source, many (or most) of dubious veracity or authority
2. Contradictory evidence is dismissed outright, no matter how well-verified or authoritative

As evidence of #1, I cite your ardent embrace of Dr. Healy et. al.

As evidence of #2, I cite your dismissal of Turtlensue's posts, despite her years of experience in this field.


You bring nothing new to this discussion.

[Jim__]

81. You label my response "anti-vax nonsense". You fail to back up your claim.

You claim: All we have is the exact same crap that anti-vaxers always have: post hoc ergo propter hoc. and that claim is pure nonsense. In the first place, what we have is government medical personnel conceding the case.

In the second place, I cited the statement from the article that you cited: ... the symptoms could have been triggered by a fever or infection ...

And the statement by Hannah Poling's pediatrician that fever was a normal reaction to the immunizations she received: CHILD developed a fever of 102.3 degrees two days after her immunizations ... MOM spoke with the pediatrician, who told her that CHILD was having a normal reaction to her immunizations.

As to your statement about anti-vaxers, I'm not anti-vaccine, never have been. But, name-calling seems to be one of the stronger points of your "argument".

As to your claim about an emotional appeal:

The parents of children who have suffered the onset of autism, or autism symptoms or autism spectrum disorder if you prefer, (almost immediatley) following a vaccination, don't really care what you label it.

That's not clinical and it's not empirical. It's a desperate--and entirely understandable--effort to assign blame for an inborn neurological condition, and parents and anti-vax advocates take aim at the closest target they can find: in many cases that means vaccines, because the onset of autism coincides with a certain round of vaccines.

It's not an emotional appeal at all. It is a simple statement of fact. Your "argument" about labels is completely beside the point. And yes, the pain invovled makes it clear that the parents are not concerned about labels.

As evidence of #1, I cite your ardent embrace of Dr. Healy et. al.

I cited Dr Healy as an expert who has said pertinent research has not been done, and certain public health officials don't want this research to be done. I'm waiting for any evidence that she is wrong in her statement.

As evidence of #2, I cite your dismissal of Turtlensue's posts, despite her years of experience in this field.


I didn't dismiss turlensue's posts, I asked her to tell, specifically, where Dr Healy was wrong. I'm still waiting for an answer.

As to my bringing nothing new to the debate, of course I'm not. I'm merely citing well-known facts and statements by other people. I haven't seen any evidence that the facts and statements I've cited are incorrect.

[TZ]

82. I told you why Dr. Healy was wrong

You never answered my question. HOW THE FUCK DOES A VACCINE CAUSE A GENETIC MUTATION? Please answer that question. You can't. VACCINES DIDN'T CAUSE THIS DISEASE...It was already there. It may have been a trigger..but it didn't cause it.
And how the fuck am I supposed to "prove" that researchers don't want to research something? You are asking me to prove a negative.
And as for these people working for NIH..some of the most dogmatic IDIOTIC scientific woos I met were PhD's at NIH. Some of them were quite brilliant people...and having worked directly with a brilliant vaccinologist at NIH, I assure you, I can tell the difference.
And I can assure you despite Dr. Healy's tinhat claims, vaccine safety studies are on going and quite varied.
But I would like to ask you, this mitochondiral disease is quite rare. So how do you suggest we get a study going on such a rare disease? Do you really think parents are going to volunteer their children to be guinea pigs?
Anything a vaccine can cause is just as likely to be triggered by various environmental stressors (like getting the flu!) and a doctor ought to know that!

[Jim__]

84. You certainly did not respond when I asked you where Dr Healy was wrong.

Previously you had stated the obvious that correlation is not causation. I did not see that as relevant to the discussion; I asked if Dr Healy had said that, please point out where, in the referenced interview, she said that. You didn't.

What I asked you to demonstrate was that Dr Healy had said something wrong. Dr Healy was very explicit in referencing the 2004 IOM report as to evidence that certain public health officials were discouraging this. How to prove that incorrect should have been obvious to anyone with even a scintilla of research experience. However, let me save you the trouble of looking. From the 2004 IOM report:

While the committee strongly supports targeted research that focuses on better understanding the disease of autism, from a public health perspective the committee does not consider a significant investment in studies of the theoretical vaccine-autism connection to be useful at this time. The nature of the debate about vaccine safety now includes the theory by some that genetic susceptibility makes vaccinations risky for some people, which calls into question the appropriateness of a public health, or universal, vaccination strategy. However, the benefits of vaccination are proven and the hypothesis of susceptible populations is presently speculative. Using an unsubstantiated hypothesis to question the safety of vaccination and the ethical behavior of those governmental agencies and scientists who advocate for vaccination could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines and inevitable increases in incidences of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough, and Hib bacterial meningitis.

It took me all of about 5 minutes to find that. I believe that sufficiently supports what Dr Healy said.

As to the implication that the disease was caused solely by her (mitochondrial) DNA, that is, of course, incorrect. Her mother is a full functioning adult, never displayed autistic symptoms and has the exact same mitochondrial DNA and a mitochondrial DNA malfunction (I believe it is the same as Hannah's). Yes, her mitochondrial DNA played a role. The government has conceded that the vaccine also appears to have played a role. As to what the exact role was, no one knows. However, there are indications. Hannah was given an high number of immunizations (5 shots against 9 diseases). That is higher than normal, as she had missed a previously scheduled vaccination appointment. At least one immunoligist believes that this high number of vaccinations could have triggered the response - from Time:

But there are circumstances that make Hannah's case a bit unusual. For one thing, she received an unusually large number of vaccines in 2000 (when thimerosal was still in use). Because of a series of ear infections, Hannah had fallen behind in the vaccine schedule, so in a single day she was given five inoculations covering a total of nine diseases: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae. "That was just too many vaccines," says Terry Poling. "I didn't find out for several months that they had thimerosal, which contains mercury, a powerful neurotoxin. Had I known, I never would have allowed it to be injected into my child."

...


It's difficult to draw any clear lessons from the case of Hannah Poling, other than the dire need for more research. One plausible conclusion is that pediatricians should avoid giving small children a large number of vaccines at once, even if they are thimerosal-free. Young children have an immature immune system that's ill-equipped to handle an overload, says Dr. Judy Van de Water, an immunologist who works with Pessah at U.C. Davis. "Some vaccines, such as those aimed at viral infections, are designed to ramp up the immune system at warp speed," she says. "They are designed to mimic the infection. So you can imagine getting nine at one time, how sick you could be." In addition, she says, there's some evidence, that children who develop autism may have immune systems that are particularly slow to mature.

The point of all this is that a large number of very informed scientists and medical personnel believe that the vaccine may have played a causal role in Hannah's autism. I believe that clearly demonstrates that people holding this position are not "like creationists".

[Orrex]

92. Just to clarify...

Are you willing to confirm that you happily embrace experts whose opinions support your views, while rejecting those experts whose opinions do not?

From all that you've written, I can't see any other way to describe it.

[Jim__]

95. Essentially you're asking about source material.

Given the claims you've made in this thread, e.g. (e)ven this sad malady wasn't diagnosed until months after her vaccinations, so there is no real way to pin that diagnosis on the vaccines, which is a half-truth that distorts the underlying whole truth - Hannah's symptoms manifested 2 days after the vaccine; and your citing of an article by Karen Honey, that actually undermines your claim (the symptoms can be triggered by fever which is a normal reaction to the immunizations); source material is probably worth some discussion.

The best source material is primary source material. In this case that would be the actual medical records - which, of course are not available. After primary source material, the best sources are those as close to primary source material as possible. In this case, the government document which has been on the internet since the day the Hannah Poling case became public is the best document that I've been able to find. The government document could have disabused you of both the above cited errors. After getting as close to the primary document as possible, I search out more information on the issue; preferring the opinion of people who are expert on some aspect of the issue to non-expert opinion; but ignoring anyone who makes a claim that contradicts reliable primary document(s) that I've found. Expert opinion tends to broaden your perspective of the issue.

In some cases, of course, you cannot get very close to the primary source. In that case, I try to find opinions by people, preferably experts, I've found to be reliable in the past.

[Marrah_G]

96. I know 2 kids with Autism

Both are one part of an Identical Twin pair.

One female, one male.

It's wierd. These are the only two autistic kids I know.

I always wonder- why just one twin and why are both kids I know a twin?

[Jim__]

97. Here's an article that says twins may be 12 - 14 times more likely than general population to ...

... be autistic. But, that's based on 2 small studies. It also notes that both twins are not necessarily affected. article If the 12 - 14 times more likely isaccurate, that may help explain why both kids you know with autism are twins.

[Marrah_G]

98. Thank you !!!

I always thought it must mean something. Seems such an odd coincidence. Both are identical twins also, one being part of Quadruplets (two identical boys, two fraternal girls)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. Um, Marrah.

If one's male and the other's female, they're not identical twins.

:shrug:

[Orrex]

100. Maybe they look a whole lot alike

:rofl: