I’ve seen the “amalgam” video. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to suspend my own disbelief long enough to enjoy it nearly as much as you seem to have. Better luck with the sequel.

“If I had a baby today, I would no way fuckin vaccinate it. Not with MMR. But odds would be, she’d get autism anyway, from me.”

Curious.

If autism is caused by vaccines, then it isn’t inheritable – right? That’s what the “vaccines-cause-autism” promoters claim, although a few of them “hedge” by claiming that autistic children have a “genetic susceptibility” to something (not otherwise specified) in the vaccines.

So which is it? Is autism inheritable – as “silky sienna” claims – or is it caused by “poisons” in the vaccines – as “silky sienna” claims?

Like many in the general public, “silky sienna” is conflating two “causes” of autism. This is where having a modest grasp of biology would come in handy.

If autism is purely genetic – meaning that if you have the genes for autism, you become autistic regardless of “environmental exposures” – then we shouldn’t see any difference in autism prevalence between children who were vaccinated and those who were unvaccinated (which is what the few studies looking at this have found).

On the other hand, if autism is purely “environmental” – meaning that the environmental exposure would cause autism regardless of your genetic makeup – then we should see no autism in the “unexposed” (in this case, “unvaccinated”) group and all autistic people would be in the “exposed” group. We don’t see this – there are plenty of unvaccinated autistic individuals.

In the third case – autism is an environmental exposure acting on a genetic susceptibility – then we still shouldn’t see any autism in the “unexposed” group, which, as I’ve already mentioned, isn’t true.

So, the data so far suggest that autism is a genetic disorder with no discernible environmental influence.

This doesn’t mean that some small fraction of autistic people can’t have an environmental influence on their autism, but nobody has shown that, yet.

So, before we do something rash – like stop vaccinating – let’s see the data that suggest vaccines are even correlated with autism prevalence. Until then, the previous studies showing vaccine safety stand.

Prometheus

Do you object to being called “anti vaccine”?

True, the name (“Oxidative Stress Relief”) and the promotional literature don’t mention chelation, but that’s only to keep them out of trouble with the FTC and FDA. It’s along the lines of how condoms initially had to be sold “to prevent disease” even though the majority were used for contraception. The condom makers didn’t “withold” the information about contraception, they simply couldn’t mention it because of the legal and regulatory tone of the times.

Even before CTI was formed – even before “OSR” was marketed – there was a concerted effort to “hype” the “new chelator” that Boyd Haley was “developing”. I first noticed it about a year before the “official” announcement that “OSR” was available.

As a marketing strategy, the way “OSR” was introduced was brilliant! The demand was pumped up for at least a year before the product was available, with Boyd Haley “leaking” tantalizing hints about his “new chelator” and disparaging the “old” chelators like DMSA and DMPS.

Morally, I think that CTI and Boyd Haley are in the same position as the Black Knight at the end of “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” (i.e. without a leg to stand on). They are promoting a chemical as a “dietary supplement” that has not been adequately tested and – unlike real “dietary supplements” – has no “track record” to back the claims of safety. If any harm results from their product, they should be held strictly accountable.

It is strange that the same groups that howl about how vaccines haven’t been adequately tested are willing to give Boyd Haley a free pass on his “dietary supplement”. I’d think that the cognitive dissonance would be agonizing.

Prometheus