I'd really like to ask these dolts, if the vaccines are responsible for autism, and all a vaccine is is a dead version of the virus that causes the disease they are designed to prevent, does that mean the diseases cause autism? And that, regardless of whether we get vaccinated, or get the disease, we would become autistic, but at least with the vaccine we WOULDN"T DIE? Since the preservative thing has been thoroughly debunked, that is.

Also, I had a really good laugh at the indigo child BS a while back, if you haven't looked it up, it's basically the New Age Parents guide to raising a spoiled rotten brat.

Jenny McCarthy is an idiot, and perhaps as responsible for those bodies as Sarah Palin is for the six in Tucson.

"However, as the unofficial spokesperson for the United States anti-vaccination movement she may be indirectly responsible for at least some of these illnesses and deaths and even one vaccine preventable illness or vaccine preventable death is too many."

Haven't I heard something like this before? And recently?

Thimerisol - IIRC, this is an additive in some commercial eyedrops, which my eyes apparently do not like.

However, this has not made me autistic.

I read somewhere (if ya'll bitch I'll go look up a study or two) that it seems that the rash of autism is actually the fault of - OMG - fathers over 50.

Have 'em young, or don't have 'em.

I live by the Mother Nature rule - if you can't get pregnant without the help of modern medicine, then you should NOT get pregnant. Mother Nature knows a shitload more than you do.

Vaccines are neither safe (for everyone) nor are they effective.

More stories like this...

http://www.ocregister.com/news/whooping-102691-ocprint-cough-cases.html

...are appearing in mainstream media so parents can make informed decisions

"For whooping cough cases where vaccination histories were known, between 44 percent and 83 percent of the sick had been immunized, the report found."

Don't be sheep, do some actual research and you'll find a lot of interesting information.

There was a study published last June stating that autism is genetic and that they have identified several that are very common in autistic people. Apparently they have far more additions and deletions to various genes than thd unaffected population and further research is underway to try to narrow down which genes are the cause.

she may be indirectly responsible for at least some of these illnesses

Wow, strong words! Way to take a stand, guys.

I wonder how many people McCarthy has actually influenced, vs. how many have no idea she even had an opinion on this issue. I didn't, until I read this post.

The history of the fight for civilization is the story of the fight against stupidity. On the bright side, this might be a cause of people voluntarily removing 'stoopid genes' from our gene pool. On the downside though, they threaten herd immunity, hence us.

"I wonder how many people McCarthy has actually influenced, vs. how many have no idea she even had an opinion on this issue"

She was on Oprah, and cheered on by Oprah, pushing this drivel - so I would venture to guess, 'a lot'.

"Don't be sheep, do some actual research and you'll find a lot of interesting information."

Yes, because "ocregister.com" consists of "actual [scientific] research". Funny, because when I do "actual research", I read actual scientific articles in actual science journals. But anyway, that article, well I actually read it, and NOWHERE does it even REMOTELY suggest that vaccines are harmful - at the very worst it suggests that one particular vaccine may have become 'ineffective', meaning, it does nothing (due to a new more virulent strain), not that it causes harm. And it ONLY refers to whooping cough.

"I read somewhere (if ya'll bitch I'll go look up a study or two) that it seems that the rash of autism is actually the fault of - OMG - fathers over 50."

Please do 'look up a study or two', I'd like to see that - because if true it would INSTANTLY be the top and most amazing world news in the medical industry today, because so far the entire body of medical research has not found any reliable cause of autism, apart from genetic factors. In the meantime, if you're 50, DON'T WORRY, go ahead and have babies, because (for men anyway) that "Have 'em young, or don't have 'em" was total bullshit with no evidence.

For anyone who hasn't follow the news, this whole 'vaccines cause autism' drivel has been recently exposed as a complete fraud: The "doctor", Wakefield, who is no longer a doctor as he had his title revoked, was literally paid a big pile of money by some lawyers to manufacture completely false "evidence" so they could sue the vaccine companies. He got caught, and the whole thing has been exposed as a fraud - the amount of evidence that vaccines cause autism is: Zero, zip, nada, zilch, nothing, jack, sweet fuck-all.

Bunny girl,

I would bet dollars to donuts it is genetic. My husband though the had epilepsy in his family but having known them for years I think his grandfather and mother had autism related seizures. A few of my kiddos show signs of being on the autism spectrum. I can guarantee you the littler ones aren't sue to vaccines because I haven't gotten their vaccines. The way I was treated when my oldest couldn't walk for 3 weeks after receiving her polio vaccine has led me to believe there is more going on than they are telling us. I was told to absolutely not take her to the hospital. She had a fever of 102 and couldn't stand on her own. I wanted to take but hubby being a do what doctor says kind of person didn't.

There is more going on here than we are being told and... These diseases are going to evolve around these vaccines. For Chicken pox we have taken cells from a baby aborted in the 70's with herpes, mutated the virus and injected it into children. When a perfectly reasonable solution of letting them get it naturally was available. Most of the the diseases that exist don't kill you just because you have it. When people were dying from these things it was dehydration, fever, swelling of the brain.. Things like that. Most of that we can treat.

And I will say it again. 2 of my sons have had whooping cough. One vaccinated and one not. Neither were hospitalized. Both were treated with a combo of anti-biotics and a pumped up 1998 version of mucinex. All these college kids who were getting the mumps.. They were vaccinated.

We will lose immunity. The virus' will mutate. It is just a matter of how many generation and due to the genetic tinkering we have done with these diseases we have no idea what it will look like on the other end.

littler ones aren't sue to vaccines

Aren't due to vaccines.. Wake up before I post..

"I live by the Mother Nature rule - if you can't get pregnant without the help of modern medicine, then you should NOT get pregnant. Mother Nature knows a shitload more than you do."

Sigh. Here's a question for you. Who or what is this "Mother Nature" you refer to? Do you have a telephone number for "Mother Nature" so I can call Her up and have a phone conversation with Her? What does Mother Nature use to think, does She have a brain? If so, where is this brain, is it somewhere in the depths of an idyllic rainforest somewhere?

Or is "Mother Nature" just a false anthropomorphization of 'overall natural processes'?

If so, then on what basis can the claim be made that it 'knows better', since it isn't anything other than the laws of physics of biology that we're all subjected to?

If "Nature" always "knows better", then why do we have modern hospitals and forgo "nature" in almost every way in our lives? Why do I wear glasses? Totally unnatural, I'll throw them away right now - Mother Nature knows best! (The rest of this comment might have some typos as I'm now typing blind.) I'll get rid of my car - it's totally unnatural. I'll switch off the electricity - it's totally unnatural. No more unnatural medicine, Mother Nature will cure my diseases.

If "Mother Nature" is so Great, then why is it that the death rates of both mothers and infants where births are carried out "as nature intended", are MASSIVELY higher than the death rates of mothers and infants where births are carried out completely unnaturally with the help of all these these completely unnatural things like modern hospitals, electricity, cesarians, epidurals, heart monitors etc.?

I just do not get this "Mother Nature religion".

"We will lose immunity. The virus' will mutate"

The anti-vaccination people will likely speed up the mutation process.

Mutations aren't an argument against vaccines. They're an argument to keep the vaccines up to date against new mutations (at least until we develop more advanced technology, e.g. nanobot immune-system assistants or something, for controlling virii).

@Lobster I think that Daghain is just trying to hijack the subject to take a poke at men. I've never seen any mention of what she's claiming.

She genuinely believed what she was saying and her intent was to raise awareness. Autism hits a family hard and some people try to find answers and make sense of it. No it was not scientific and no she was not correct. It still doesn't make her responsible for the idiots who look to her for medical advice instead of their own doctors. If I based everything in my life on what the celebrity of the moment recommended, I'd be in a deep pile of shit.

If I based everything in my life on what the celebrity of the moment recommended, I'd be in a deep pile of shit.

Which is one reason why so many other people ARE in a deep pile of shit!!

This anti-vaccine movement is damn dangerous to the rest of the population. Before vaccines, there was no way to control any kinds of epidemics or pandemics that affected humanity. Vaccines changed that.

And the "Mother Nature" thing, I think, is just a manner of speaking. I tend to agree with the idea, though, that if you can't get pregnant by natural means, maybe you shouldn't be trying to get pregnant. Survival of the fittest and all that. There's a reason certain peoples' genes shouldn't be in the pool. Best not to tinker with that reason, methinks.

Gspotted - take a basic physiology class, you moron. Vaccines don't totally prevent disease. A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe or its toxins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and "remember" it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.
So YES, it is absolutely possible to get mumps after you've had the MMR vaccine. The goal is to make it less virulent to your body.

Daghain -
I think it's a riot when people like you decide to follow the rules of 'Mother Nature' in such an arbitrary fashion. If you don't believe in things such as IVF as it's a tool of science, then you shouldn't use ibuprofen next time you get a headache. It wasn't designed by Mother Nature! Or hey, for that matter, don't ride in a car! Or use a computer! If you really embrace the rules set down by Mother Nature, sell everything you own, and move to a cave in the wilderness, sweetheart.

I have seen it. I'm not going to say it said it WAS from old dads, but they were looking at whether it could be correlated. They're looking at a lot of things.

I too think if your genes won't combine on their own, there's probably a (survival) reason, and forcing them to do so may not be doing the resulting kid a favor. That's my opinion, and not backed by any studies. The only affect my opinion has is that I would have gone the adoption route had I had difficulties.

Lobster, there was one study that showed an apparent link between fathers over 40 and autistic kids. See quote and link below.

I most certainly am not saying it's true or I believe it (further research seems to throw some doubt on it anyways), but it was in the news several years ago. The more recognized link, and the one the article I've linked to talks about, is mothers who are older.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100208102411.htm

"Advanced parental age is a known risk factor for having a child with autism. However, previous research has shown contradictory results regarding whether it is the mother, the father or both who contribute most to the increased risk of autism. For example, one study reported that fathers over 40 were six times more likely than fathers under 30 to have a child with autism."

Recent studies link poor parenting and childhoods deprived of proper family environment as key players in autism as well. Our modern, two job, high stress lifestyle may be contributing to this. I read a piece recently that made good argument for the vast majority of people alive today having at least mild PTSD simply because we're having to live like insects feeding off the industrialized, corporate teat.

"Lobster, there was one study that showed an apparent link

I've learned from an epidemiologist who helps me be better about assessing studies and being skeptical that you don't just go by one study but a body of work on a topic. "

Amy, I absolutely understand that, but I was just pointing out that this wasn't completely made up by another poster as was accused. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't saying that one study made it true.

We do know somethings that cause autism, or autism-like syndromes. Mothers exposed to rubella in the first trimester have high risk of babies born deaf, blind or retarded. Valproic acid or thalidomide taken in the first trimester can cause autism. The key steps in brain development happen long before birth and long before vaccination.

My autistic child was different from day one. Several adults in my family have autistic traits, and would have been diagnosed by today's criteria. With good speech therapy and great teachers, she is mostly in regular classes. The anti-vax nonsense is wasting time and money, and demeaning autistic persons.

I recommend the Science Based Medicine blog for detailed analysis of the autism-vaccine debate.

"I live by the Mother Nature rule - if you can't get pregnant without the help of modern medicine, then you should NOT get pregnant. Mother Nature knows a shitload more than you do."

Further to Lobster's comment, I applaud your fundamentalist, anti-modernity sentiments.

Accordingly, when you next get a mild bacterial infection in a small cut, I anticipate you refusing any treatment whatsoever, beyond the body's normal scabbing process.

I expect you to continue refusing treatment even as an easily-treatable infection spreads and threatens to kill you. After all, if you cannot get better "without the help of modern medicine", then you should die, horribly and painfully, of an advanced bacterial infection that a simple round of anti-bacterial agents could address.

Mother Nature knows a shitload more about who should die, screaming and crying, from bacterial infections than you, right?

Snark aside, if someone wants to say that a 65 year old woman should not undergo rounds of fertility treatment in the hopes of bearing a child at that advanced age, there are likely some reasonable grounds for that view.

But if we are talking about a 36 year old woman with an easily treatable condition preventing pregnancy, your statement strikes me as something that a reasonable person would not say about that woman's options.

Who in their right mind depends on a celebrity for scientific or medical advice?

Most of these people have no training and little education in science, statistics or medicine. You wouldn't let them tell you where to invest your money (I hope.) Why would you let them influence choices with potential life altering consequences for your children? Did she play a doctor on TV?

Jenny McCarthy is responsible for her child. You are responsible for yours. Be an adult. Own your actions.

I would argue there's a big difference in killing bacteria, and in creating a being with genetics that did not work naturally. I'm not saying (can't speak for the others) that someone with a structural issue shouldn't get surgery to clear that up and enable pregnancy. I just think it's dumb to force into being faulty genetics.

For one, you aren't the one paying the price when those faulty genetics rear their heads. I am against making kids lab rats in any way.

I suspect that many of the correlations that can be made to age, income, profession, etc. arise from assortative mating, and that it's more likely the assortative characteristic that's the culprit. It isn't that someone is over 40, or has a degree in engineering, that causes autism, it's that they are mating among a similar cohort. In combination, these individuals may have a greater probability of producing children w/ autistic traits. They're also probably more likely to report, and seek treatment for, autistic traits in their children.

You'll notice that autism rates track assortative mating trends pretty well. We may simply be experiencing the effects of a new mating pattern. There may not be any outside agent causing increases in the prevalence of autism.

What is it with these women who bare it all for a magazine and later have a kid? Suddenly they want the whole world to know they're the greatest mothers in the world. McCarthy has a "Crystal Child" and she's an "Indigo Mom." Then she's the only one standing between the children of the world and the evil vaccinatino industry. Brooke Burke is all over the place telling people who to raise their children and be a super mom.

Jenny McCarthy is an idiot, and perhaps as responsible for those bodies as Sarah Palin is for the six in Tucson.

Apples-to-oranges, there. Sarah Palin did not advocate the action that led directly to the deaths in Tucson. Jenny McCarthy did advocate the action that led to non-vaccinated children catching a disease and dying.

Palin didn't advocate shooting a Congresswoman. McCarthy advocated foregoing vaccines.

Who in their right mind depends on a celebrity for scientific or medical advice?

You mean, like getting climatology advice from Al Gore and Laurie David?

If you're willing to take advice from someone like Jenny McCarthy concerning ANY issue, maybe you shouldn't reproduce anyway. We've got enough mouth-breathers walking around already.

One reason for the rise in autism diagnoses is that the criteria have expanded; there is now an "autism spectrum" which includes things like Asperger's. But it still doesn't completely account for the change.

The anti-vax folks have come a long way in the last 10 years, with special thanks to dupes like McCarthy. In some media, it's even been framed as a legitimate debate: "Is vaccination good or bad for your kids?" -- when it's really more like debating with a flat-earther.

And the Indigo Child crap is hilarious.

Dang, I'd totally forgotten about that "indigo child" horse shit. What an absolute pant load.

Ms. Alkon: "My friends adopted a beautiful Korean boy they named Milo. If your baby plumbing doesn't work, can't you order out for one? Must it really be a product of your genes?"

Good for them. Adoption can be a good thing.

But regarding your rhetorical question about genes, my response is: Their body. Their money. Therefore, their choice.

If your adopting friends have different preferences for their bodies and their money, as compared to parents interested in their own gentically-related offspring, I have no problem with each of them expressing those preferences as they wish, by adopting or not.

That is the libertarian sentiment, I think, in regards to most things.

(Also, I was sarcastically deriding the luddite sentiment expressed in this statement, not endorsing it: "Mother Nature knows a shitload more about who should die, screaming and crying, from bacterial infections than you, right?")

"...vast majority of people alive today having at least mild PTSD simply because we're having to live like insects feeding off the industrialized, corporate teat."

Really? I'm going to assume you are refering to the modern United States, but how the hell does that make sense?

We've got PTSD from taking weekends off, playing video games, watching movies, taking vacations, eating good safe food and traveling for fun, along with any other form of modern amusement available?
Wow...so heaven is hell huh?

Moronic.

Do you really think our "Modern 2 job lifestyle" is so much harder than the back breaking labor of the frontier life, or any period of human history?

Damnit this period of life is probably easier than anywhen anywhere. PTSD my ass. Bunch of spoiled brats bitching that life isn't as cushy as their childhoods.

Bunch of spoiled brats bitching that life isn't as cushy as their childhoods.

Right?? And my KIDS' lives are WAY cushier than mine ever was! Just image how stressed they're going to be when they're MY age!

/sarc

People who get their child-rearing & medical advice from celebutards are unfit to raise children, full stop, end of statement.

This site is a pleasant find! Nice to add an interesting, intelligent and attractive woman's site to my daily crawl. But enough shameless pandering...

I found out a couple of friends had prevented their three kids from being vaccinated because of the nihilist theology that seems to be flourishing these days. I had considered them enlightened and quite thoughtful for some years until accidentally learning of their insanity. Once I scratched the surface, all sorts of putrid thinking spilled out. I just can't fully grasp folks like that. I am amazed at just how many diseased minds I have discovered out there, now that I have a simple and effective way of screening for this sort of malignant personality. If you're unsure, just talk about the weather, and the whole works eventually comes out.

Nice site! I look forward to lurking extensively.

Cheers!

Dave

Again, and this happens occasionally, I find myself in agreement with Momof4. Vaccines are a very old and useful technology that have saved millions of lives world wide at a very low cost. On the other hand, some of the more elaborate reproductive technologies that have developed in the last few years are of questionable value in producing additional healthy human babies, something that most 15-30 year olds can do quickly and easily.
The problems have come with these over the top strategies for extending reproduction for women into their 40's and 50's or reversing permanent birth control measures such as tubal ligations, and vasectomies. This is about as far removed from treating simple infections with antibiotics as going to the moon is from walking down the sidwalk. Both are transportation but the first requires a massive application of expensive technolog in order to achieve a medical miracle. Two questions need to be asked after "can we do this"? The first is "should we do this?" and the second is "at what cost and to what benefit, as well as potential harms and unintended consequences"?

No one is suggesting that my 85 year old mother should be getting a heart transplant to cure her congestive heart failure because the costs outweigh any potential benefit. The same questions ought to be asked when egg donation, hormone treatments and in vitro fertilization are used to give a 50 year old power couple a "natural" pregnancy.

The national vaccine injury compensation fund was established in 1986. Every vaccine purchased has a tax,and the money from that tax goes into the NVICfund-- it's like buying insurance in case oneself or ones child is damaged or dies as a result of a vaccine (which happens.) Over two billion dollars has been paid out of this fund, and that's with most cases of damage being rejected, covered up, or never reported.

Here are the actual figures:

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm

I don't expect anyone to open their minds and stop clucking over the autism thing, which is such a buzzword right now, but anything's possible- adverse effects happen and not just to people with autism.

Lobster- My comment about doing actual research was in no way connected to my link to that little OC reg article. I was just making a point that people don't research these things and (a separate point) that the mainstream media (not journals) is actually "covering" both sides of the story. That's new.

People don't research, they don't know how vaccines are made (usually in the tissue of chick embryos and monkey kidneys or aborted babies), they don't know about the national vaccine injury compensation fund. They don't know and yet they trust so completely these gods in white coats and the media ( bill clinton, lambchop and shari lewis, etc.) who they are conditioned to trust. But hey, if that's all you need, then fine -enjoy your life that you've been spoon-fed by the truth-power regime...

...the stockholders of Merck and Phizer, will thank you.

BTW when I first heard that a friend of mine wasn't going to vaccinate her child, my knee-jerk reaction was to liken her lack of participation to neglect--then I actually did A LOT of research and was shocked at what I found.

Just to clarify:

"'Truth' is to be understood as a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and operation of statements.

'Truth' is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extend it. A 'regime' of truth."

-Michel Foucault

This is probably a dumb question, but what is a "crystal child"?

"People don't research, they don't know how vaccines are made (usually in the tissue of chick embryos and monkey kidneys or aborted babies), they don't know about the national vaccine injury compensation fund. "

Actually, I have known all of that since college, so over a decade. I happen to agree with the fund, because yes some people DO have reactions (just like some people are allergic to eggs) there is no way on the planet to avoid that, and since the people affected are 'taking one for the team" so to speak, I have no issue chipping in a little for the very, very few who draw the crap card there.

A lot of things are propagated in chicken eggs, one (one particular strain of polio) in a money kidney, a few in cells propagated from an aborted baby in 1966 (yes I'm prolife, but kids aren't dying for this now, and the cells now have about as much in common with the baby they came from as I do), a LOT in bacteria. Virus's can't reproduce without a living host, and one needs something that grows quickly and isn't sentient. They have better ways now than aborted fetus's. That's great for shocking with, though, that's true.

You want some truth Gspotted, here's some truth to lay down on you.

Before vaccinations, untold millions died of things that are now so preventable that their treatment is routine. The preventive measure is vaccination.

Do millions still die of these illnesses? Yes. Where? In places that do not or cannot vaccinate.

A basic cost benefit analysis tells any rational person the appropriate course of action.

Now, does it work 100% of the time? Of course not. Illnesses can change and mutate into new strains, or a rare individual may have an adverse reaction to the preventive measure.

However, opposing a verifiable nearly perfect preventive measure because it is not one hundred percent perfect is to fall into the logical fallacy of the magic bullet. The idea that we can come up with one single perfect solution to a problem.

The world is not that perfect.

And by the way, anything is not necessarily possible. But if it were, you'd still have to ask the question of what is PROBABLE and what is CERTAIN.

And what is certain is that absent vaccinations for large populations, large populations die of preventable illnesses. Where vaccinations occur, fatalities are few.

"'Truth' is to be understood as a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and operation of statements.

'Truth' is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extend it. A 'regime' of truth."

Sounds like Foucault likes to twist the definition of truth the way the creationists twist the meaning of "theory"
The problem here are "facts" and not truth. As William F. Buckley once said. "You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own set of facts".

It sounds like GSpotted thinks that vaccines are a giant secret conspiracy perpetrated by both the dems and the repubs. No one here is arguing that vaccines are 100% safe, anymore than airbags are 100% safe. What we are arguing is that they are infinitely safer than no vaccinations, and the raging epidemics of killer diseases that would ensue without them. The vaccine compensation fund exists for a reason. To shift damages from the inevitable injuries caused in a small percentage of cases to the government BECAUSE; If the pharmaceutical companies had to compensate people themselves, they would stop manufacturing the vaccines that THEY ARE NOT MAKING ANY MONEY ON ANYWAY. :-)

Side note: "Indigo child" "Crystal child"? Really?

How fucking moronic could these people be?

I was reading on wikipedia (yes I take it with a grain of salt, but it was well referenced) about that "indigo child" crap, and did get a laugh.

A reporter asked a child if he was an "Indigo child" and the boy responded, "No, I'm an Avatar, the next one won't appear for another hundred years."

The reporter, being suitably impressed by this seemingly mystic reference, reported the matter in due course...only for readers to point out that the child was more likely refering to the main character of Avatar, the Last Airbender, a kids cartoon popular at the time.
------------------------

Look I'm not saying there is nothing we can get from children, but all this "We must learn from our children" is a bunch of touchy feely crap that totally ignores the fact that it is the parents' job to instruct and guide their children, not the other way around.

My head hurts just being exposed to that combination of sensitivity and stupidity.

Anyone who takes advice from talentless twit Jenny McCarthy deserves precisely what they get.

If you have a problem with parents exercising their right to refuse to have their children innoculated, you have a simple solution: innoculate yours. Your problem is now solved.

Patrick, the problem becomes EVERYONE'S when those parents who don't vaccinate their children send them to school, thereby exposing other people's children to potential harm. Note that I said potential. Because not all vaccines protect against all strains of diseases. Just because my kids are innoculated doesn't mean that they won't get something from someone who isn't. There's less of a chance, yes, but there still is a chance.

*****And the "Mother Nature" thing, I think, is just a manner of speaking. I tend to agree with the idea, though, that if you can't get pregnant by natural means, maybe you shouldn't be trying to get pregnant. Survival of the fittest and all that. There's a reason certain peoples' genes shouldn't be in the pool. Best not to tinker with that reason, methinks.*****

Exactly. And this:

*****Again, and this happens occasionally, I find myself in agreement with Momof4. Vaccines are a very old and useful technology that have saved millions of lives world wide at a very low cost. On the other hand, some of the more elaborate reproductive technologies that have developed in the last few years are of questionable value in producing additional healthy human babies, something that most 15-30 year olds can do quickly and easily.
The problems have come with these over the top strategies for extending reproduction for women into their 40's and 50's or reversing permanent birth control measures such as tubal ligations, and vasectomies. This is about as far removed from treating simple infections with antibiotics as going to the moon is from walking down the sidwalk. Both are transportation but the first requires a massive application of expensive technolog in order to achieve a medical miracle. Two questions need to be asked after "can we do this"? The first is "should we do this?" and the second is "at what cost and to what benefit, as well as potential harms and unintended consequences"?

No one is suggesting that my 85 year old mother should be getting a heart transplant to cure her congestive heart failure because the costs outweigh any potential benefit. The same questions ought to be asked when egg donation, hormone treatments and in vitro fertilization are used to give a 50 year old power couple a "natural" pregnancy. *****

There's a reason some people can't have kids. And quite honestly, if it was really about being a parent and not about having a little DNA replicant running around, people would adopt. And no, they wouldn't care that the kid was 2 or 3 instead of a baby.

And, here's one study for you (and yes, I know it's ONE STUDY, but it's one link per post): http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/4/334?etoc

"For example, one study reported that fathers over 40 were six times more likely than fathers under 30 to have a child with autism."

And, fathers over 40 are likely having babies with older women than fathers under 30. So it's a little silly to say that something could be due just to 'fathers over 40'. I saw that too, it was in TIME magazine last year I think. I don't remember them saying that there was something wrong with men's sperm over 40, although you'd think there would have to be for it to cause autism.

Another report came out just a while ago, stating that a certain fertility drug could be the cause...now that would make a lot more sense, as the autism rate has risen at the same time the number of IVF pregnancies has also risen.

Short article-

http://www.suite101.com/content/ivf-linked-to-autism-a251071

There are comparative rates of autism in countries where thimerisol was never used in vaccines, I guess Ms. McCarthy doesn't look very far for answers...

*****And, fathers over 40 are likely having babies with older women than fathers under 30. So it's a little silly to say that something could be due just to 'fathers over 40'. I saw that too, it was in TIME magazine last year I think. I don't remember them saying that there was something wrong with men's sperm over 40, although you'd think there would have to be for it to cause autism.*****

Well, I'd say there's probably a good reason in general that fertility declines with age. I'm not advocating that all the sixteen-year-olds go out and reproduce, but I think the over forty set might want to reconsider. I'd also be willing to believe fertility drugs could play a part. At any rate, I'll never be convinced it's vaccines that are the cause.

"I just think it's dumb to force into being faulty genetics."

(1) Most of our genes are 'faulty' in that 99% of us only exist at all thanks to technology's triumphs over 'Mother Nature' - your genes *already* just don't cut it for self-survival without technology. There's no real difference between applying that principle to yourself or your offspring - either technology-assisted survival is OK, or it isn't.

(2) Within just a few generations, we will have the technology to re-engineer the genetics of our offspring to almost whatever degree we please, and that will include (at a basic level) repairing any heritable genetic "faults", and (at a more complex level), not just greater diversity and strength within the phenotype, but even the divergence and creation of new genotypes, unimaginable to us now. Thus your whole point about so-called 'faulty genes' will soon be completely moot.

(3) Like it or not as a species we're already heavily partnered with technology for our survival, and if we ever lose technology, then 99% of us 'faulty' will die *anyway*. And if we don't lose technology, then it won't be a problem anyway. So why worry?

(4) A larger population with greater genetic diversity than a smaller population with lower genetic diversity is actually better and stronger, from a species survival perspective. 'Genetic strength' does actually come through diversity. What you call a 'faulty gene' today, may in fact be the very gene that provides protection against a disease of tomorrow that wipes out absolutely everyone else .. that's how genes work. And that is not even assuming genetic engineering; once we're in the age of genetic engineering, our genes will be more robust and more diverse than ever. Genetic engineering (and what you call 'faulty genes') actually do the opposite of what you claim they do: They actually increase, not decrease, our genetic strength and therefore survival capabilities against multiple possible threats. In a thousand years, we'll probably have entirely different engineered vaguely-human-like genotypes, who live as cyborgs / tech/bio 'hybrids', engineered for the conditions of living and creating civilizations on entirely different planets.

(5) Guys like Stephen Hawking have what you would probably call "faulty genes" and yet he has contributed more to humanity than most of us, should he rather not have existed? And survives purely thanks to technology, in fact he is a human-technology hybrid.

Anti-technology types are 'welcome' to embrace the past though, just like the Amish. In effect this 'nature knows best' stuff is just another Amish-like mini sub-cult.

"and yet they trust so completely these gods in white coats and the media ( bill clinton, lambchop and shari lewis, etc.) who they are conditioned to trust. But hey, if that's all you need, then fine -enjoy your life that you've been spoon-fed by the truth-power regime"

Lol.

"If you get a brain tumor do you just let it kill you or do you maybe go for a few rounds of chemo or whatever the cancer doctors think might save you?"

Go to the doctors and get chemo?! Amy, you clearly have been "spoon-fed" by the "truth-power regime" to "blindly trust" the "gods in white coats". Lol.

"we're having to live like insects feeding off the industrialized, corporate teat"

Okaaaay, um. That's a pretty strange way of looking at a world in which we are safer than we've ever been, live longer than we ever have, have lower infant mortality than ever in human history, can cure more diseases than we've ever been able to and often for relatively low cost thanks to the 'industrialized teat', can feed more people than ever on the planet at low cost thanks to industrial and/or corporate agriculture, mostly get to live in nice houses, have our choice of millions of different items of musical entertainment or thousands of high quality television entertainment, get to sleep in the most comfy advanced-engineering beds ever in our history as a species, can watch countless amounts of porn at the click of a button, can pick up a phone and talk to anyone in the world anywhere anytime, mostly get to own comfortable private transportation devices that allow us to personally travel anywhere across a continent at low cost with comfort features like air conditioners and heated seats, have our choice of almost any kind of food, anytime, with high safety standards, and can even have our groceries delivered to our door.

I'm not yet sure which part of this constitutes "living like insects" but it sounds like a pretty good life to me, on the whole, which parts would you change?