Letters to the Editor
-
'myth' definition
I don't understand the presumption you make (nor the tenor of the responses here) regarding this theory. I can tell you my nephew lives in a group home for autistic children in San Diego (and formerly attended that very school). My sister is a doctor, as is her husband (indeed he is a neurologist, relevant inasmuch as many versions of the vaccination theory suppose that the vaccinations elicit brain lesions). Neither are whole heartedly and utterly in support of the theories, but are more than concerned that it is possible there was an environmental influence. Being a pretty rational person my sister dates her son's sudden behavioral shift to within 2 -3 weeks of receiving a battery of vaccinations.
While you are welcome to your opinion, your presumption that it is, categorically, a myth is rather arrogant (especially given that your are not a physician nor a researcher). I would add that the results of a single, or even two studies, does not a solid conclusion make; not more than 2 years or so ago, the prestigious British Medical Journal published a study dismissing the effects of second hand smoke as, well, smoke. I am sure you would likely disagree that Second Hand Smoke is a 'myth,' as would any number of physicians.
You ought to examine the comprehensiveness of your positions before asserting they are fact as your opinion is no more founded than many of these parents (and believe me, they spend more time pouring over the data than you), or, for that matter, the obnoxious Salon posters here.