Letters to the Editor
-
And we laugh
At those 3rd worlders who claim that such and such will make your penis fall off.
-
Darwin in action
I guess it's not very compassionate to say this is natural selection? All the people I care about have their shots. If the children of the stupid people die, will there be fewer people who don't believe in science in the next generation?
Okay, I am kidding - but only barely. Even children of people who can't read a friggen' study deserve a chance at life. But I do have one question about these idiots: why aren't there advocates saying, "Hey, I didn't get my kid immunized and he almost died, don't be this way!" to oppose the "My kid is autistic and I've decided it must have some external cause, I read somewhere that some random people who aren't scientists thought it might be vaccine-related, and that's a very comforting belief since it's definitely not my genes or anything I did wrong - so don't vaccinate your kids!" people?
-
No dumber than the idiots who inhabit Glenn Greenwald's blog.
Stupid is as stupid does.
-
I'm with Allie
I can't fathom the folks who don't get their kids vaccinated. To me it seems a manifestation of "I'm concerned about me and mine and never mind about the rest of folk".
Sorry state of affairs.
-
Thank you! The pandering is outrageous
I was extremely disappointed by all candidates' pandering on this issue.
The candidates aren't dumb. Clearly they figure that supporting the demonstrated reality that there is no such link will got get them votes. They probably know that the anti-vaccine crowd is incredibly motivated and would pounce on them if they didn't pander.
Still, it is unfortunate. Clearly, part of the problem is the fact that no one understands science anymore. The idea that belief trumps science is not new, but it seems to be on the upswing. When politicians and news media go along for the ride, it is difficult to knock sense into the irrational throngs.
Looking forward to reading your book Farhad.
-
More research? Yes - but real science, not conspiracy theories.
The Big Problem is that too many folks don't really understand how science works. Ideas like "correlation does not prove causation" and "you cannot prove a negative assertion except in certain specific cases" are simply foreign to them.
There's also the problem of assuming things that aren't necessarily true. For example, do we *really* have "a skyrocketing autism rate", or are we just getting better at diagnosing autism? How many of those now being diagnosed would have gotten the same diagnosis 20 years ago for the exact same symptoms?
There's also the squeaky-wheel effect. Under current laws, a child with a certain diagnosis can be eligible for a lot more programs and funding than one without the diagnosis. So it can be in the child's best interest to err on the side of caution and get the "worst" possible diagnosis in order to get the "best" therapy.
-
Yes, but if you are running for office...
It's true the science is in and this myth is being propagated by a bunch of overactive busybodies.
It's also true that even if you have gotten a vaccine, there is still a small chance you can contract the disease, so the more people who don't get vacinated, the more chances there are for the disease to spread. There's a good discussion of this on Slate V.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid988327350/bclid1037705321/bctid1507761223
But, if you are running for public office, do you really want these dip-wards bringing their wrath againts you? No! Give 'em the standard politician statement about funding research and looking into it, kiss their autistic baby, and move on to the next question.
-
Just read about this...
I read an article on Hannah Poling a while back, and I'm not sure it's quite as simple as, "All these people are complete nutjobs and they are wrong, case closed." If I had kids I'd sure as hell get them vaccinated, but it's simply not right to assert that all the science that needs to be done has been done, that we have all the answers on this issue, because we don't. There are still questions that we need to find answers for.
Is there is a demonstrable link between vaccination, mitochondrial disorders, and autism? I don't know. In fact, I kind of doubt it. But far be it from me to ridicule politicians and non-scientists from suggesting we keep looking into it when there are actual scientists who are suggesting the same thing.
-
Not all three candidates answered identically
Thank you so much for highlighting this issue and helping to dispel the vaccine myth that many in the progressive media have helped perpetuate. Robert Kennedy Jr.'s pronouncements have gotten way too much attention without appropriate challenge and fact-checking. You are absolutely correct to highlight the cost to society from the decrease in immunization rates because of the panic created around thimerosol.
Having said that, I don't think it's fair to lump McCain and Obama and Clinton all together as being part of the problem. Based on the statements in your article, yes, all three fail to repudiate the thimeresol myth. But McCain's and Obama's statements actually help perpetuate the myth by seeming to give it credence while Clinton's statement does not. She merely includes vaccines among those areas where further funding for studies would be helpful.
Why the distinction? Because, having worked in immunizations in public health in the past, I know this issue has been going on for well over a decade and the anti-vaccine forces are well-funded and spread far and wide. Their cause is emotional to many and the government's bungled response to the early concerns didn't help the case. As a result, the fear-mongering has ratcheted up and a rational debate has ceased. The only shot we have in debunking the thimerosol myth once and for all is greater education AND greater funding for all-inclusive studies on the actual causes of autism. We may say that the studies have already been done and have concluded no link but due to the overall underfunding of autism research, these findings are not enough for parents who have lost faith in the government's ability to respond to autism.
True, Clinton was very politic to include vaccines in her list of things needing more study but, frankly, in the current atmosphere, it's good politics to acknowledge that more study of ALL the potential causes of autism is the only way to regain trust and get back on the path to finding the causes of autism, finding appropriate treatments while keeping immmunization rates up. If she simply shot down the myth, her questioner would remain polarized and untrusting of a rational government response.
Last, I think it's important for your readers to know that we don't necessarily know for a fact that there is a dramatic increase in the incidence of autism. Awareness of autism and the reclassification of lots of developmental anomalies has increased the actual reporting of autism but that doesn't necessarily mean that it hasn't always been around to the degree that it is currently being monitored. But whether we're simply more aware of autism than we were 30 years ago or if, indeed, the incidence is increasing, Clinton's approach -- more research -- is clearly the best approach and she deserves credit for it. Whether we trust in the current science around thimerosol or we remain suspicious of vaccines, more research can only help.