- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I'm tempted to respond line by line to Dr. Hyman's mischaracterizations of my article. But a couple simple points should suffice. Nowhere did I indicate that Dr. Vargas's findings were irrelevant because prior studies hadn't revealed these findings. Instead, I commented that, if proven, these findings still don't distinguish between cause and effect. To date, many theories of autism exist, but there is no agreed-upon mechanism or mechanisms.
At the same time, Dr. Hyman makes the rather circular argument that he never stated that inflammation is the "cause" but the "mechanism" common to so many chronic diseases. What is the point of emphasizing the role of inflammation as a mechanism if you aren't inferring causation?
I appreciate Dr. Hyman's response. But I stand by my view that if "the 20th century ideas of reductionist medicine," in which I am supposedly steeped, "no longer represent the fundamental understanding of biological laws and principles emerging in the genomic era," then it is the obligation of the public TV stations to tell unsuspecting viewers.
