vaccines may cause autism.

Thank you for providing your arguments, Pro. The first thing I shall note is that my opponent has plagiarized her argument from an a CBS article-- “Vaccines and autism: a new scientific review”[8] by “failing to put a quotation in quotation marks” and/or “copying words and ideas from someone else without credit” [1]. For this, I ask voters to deduct points of conduct from her, though it remains for me to refute her “argument”. Moreover, my opponent has provided such an article as the only proof for her case. I will be trying to refute it and make my own arguments in regards to other aspects of the theory. Moreover, I will be addressing Helen V. Ratajczak's own article first and then the excerpt Pro has provided. Rebuttal to Ratajczak and my opponent______________________________________________________________________ Since both the article—and my opponent's case—hinges on Ratajczak's article as proof for their stance, I will take time to deconstruct her argument—to the best of my ability. This will also serve as my general arguments as I refer to the three common arguments for Pro's position, in contrast to my specific rebuttal to the article—and to Ratajczak's statements.:) Helen V. Ratajczak's article-- “Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A Review” [2] is, as its title stated, a presentation of the wide range of proposed links; while it certainly does not challenge the genetic base of autism, the article speculates on the causes—whether “by a defective placenta, immature blood-brain barrier, the immune response of the mother to infection while pregnant, a premature birth, encephalitis in the child after birth, or a toxic environment”, as well as theories related to the vaccine and pertaining to metabolism, and etc. Ratajczak's article thus, not as implied by Pro's arguments, is not necessarily groundbreaking and presents an overview of previous theoretical claims that have been shown to be discredited and false. Ratajczak, in perhaps a reference to the popular theory-- that the simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms or weakens the immune system, notes that it is possible that the immune system's performance may be compromised by such. Evidence however is contrary [4]; studies have already demonstrated that, while particularly sensitive and weak at such an age, as stated by Ratajczak, the immune system is still capable of generating protective responses and is not overwhelmed by vaccines [3]. Other factors, whether the lack of relevance of the extent of susceptibility to infections by vaccinated and un-vaccinated children that suggest no true suppression of the immune system (that would, otherwise, create a discrepancy), the irrelevance of such a matter compared to the factor of genetic variation (which something Ratajczak herself writes about the “genetic component” of autism), and so forth also undermine both Ratajczak's and the theory's statement. Moreover, she refers (again, this is not a comprehensive rebuttal to the section devoted to vaccines) to both information about Therimosal and mercury poisoning, extending her review to sources of metal and so forth. Ratajcak's own statement, which refers to the theory that “thimerosal, an ethylmercury-containing preservative in some vaccines, is toxic to the central nervous system”, of the harm of thimerosal, can be viewed as odd: thimerosal itself has been poorly documented, in terms of its effects on humans, and whatever can be accrued about its toxicity was derived from reports of poisoning by accidental exposure or intended suicides [7]. Thus, it is somewhat odd to read Ratajczak's statement on the effect of Thimerosal on the immune system. Like many proponents, Ratajczak also relies on the similarities of autism with mercury poisoning induced by exposure to Thimerosal: she writes of similarities in psychiatric disturbances, neurobiological structures, and so fortht that enable her to state that “due to the extensive parallels between autism and mercury poisoning, the likelihood of a casual relationship is great” (p. 70). Unfortunately, it should also be noted—from my rough research—that such similarities, while not non-existent, are glossed over by dissimilarities. It is true that mercury is neurotoxic as Ratajczak writes—and perhaps responsible for stimulating such effects; however, Ratajczak, in attempting to establish –or imply a casual relationship, fails to mention the fact that “children with mercury poisoning show characteristic motor, speech, sensory, psychiatric, visual, and heads circumference changes...fundamentally different...or absent in children with autism” [4] or distinguishable aspects absent in children with autism. Apart from the distinction between the repetitive behaviors (stereotypes) and the more varied findings of mercury poisoning, one may also note the discrepancy. As for the final matter, the posited metal metabolism disorder, which rests solely on supposed high concentrations of “heavy metal...in the blood and urine of autistic subjects”, is unfortunately refuted by the fact that the very authority that Ratajczak sources—Bernard--fails to explicitly provide references to anything in literature “that reported an abnormal body bruden of mercury, or an excess of mercury in hair, urine, or blood” [9], even in a paper that seeked to establish a link or association between the two variables. Thus, with both a biological implausibility and failure to manifest as a sympton, the concept that Thierosmal is responsible for autism is largely discredited. As for an actual response to the article and in regards to the Measles Mumps Rubella Vaccine “These changes [suggested by an examination of the continuing prevalence of autism] could contribute to increases in incidence of autism. Another change was....vaccine” (p. 71-72). This is what is alluded in the excerpt of the article. Unfortunately, a simple causation-correlation fallacy can be seen there: while the two variables may occur, in trends, at the same time, she has not set any evidence to imply a link of causation between the two, and neither has she given evidence to corroborate her speculation. In fact, one can dispute her later speculation: how could the homologous recombination turn the cell into an “altered self” (it should still be human DNA making human proteins) and yet, how would produce an autoimmune disease? As one response to such an article details [5], numerous conditions—arrival into the neural system and undergoing homologous recombination at a detectable scale, would need to be fulfilled, making her statement highly implausible. It is also unfortunate that my opponent has chosen this article to represent her view. Note that while the concept of a link between vaccines is uphold, in its variant forms, Ratajczak however, does support the very notion that factors in coalition procure such a result, writing that “It is possible that autism results from more than one cause, with different manifestations in different individuals that share common symptoms” (p. and even suggesting an incorporation of the theoretical cause(s) explored—environmental agents, the chiefly genetic component, conditions explored therein—the blood barrier, pregnancy, and so forth. My opponent has named only one cause of autism that is viewed, even here, as secondary to other aspects; in essence, there is a difference between what my opponent emphasizes as a chief and sole cause and what her argument supports as being only one force in understanding the theoretical cause of autism. And with that, I rest my case. I also remind my opponent that she should restate her case while rebutting mine in the final round.For the background and sources, see: http://www.debate.org...