Excellent post Kevin. Very even-keel and well balanced. And interesting to hear about the volume of email feedback.

Hope you haven't just earned yourself another barrage :)

Yeah, but Julie Gerberding, head of the CDC said as much on camera: there is a connection. You can see her on youtube in an interview with Sanjay Gupta. She says that vaccines can indeed trigger autism in a vulnerable subset of children. This is the claim that many parents have been making since at least the 1980s, and they have been dismissed and even mocked for making it. So, no, no deal, and what's your interested anyway in funding research to prove your foregone conclusion. Bad science. Bad journalism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-nkD5LSIg

Deal... It was interesting reading the Corner the other day. John Derbyshire was getting hell from his readers for defending Darwin. Apparently some idiot made the Goldberg analysis that since the Nazis like Darwin, Darwin must be rejected. He was trying to point out that simply because someone bad uses a theory it doesn't make the theory wrong. (Too bad he didn't get to Jonah earlier.)

It was interesting to see how there are loons on both sides of the political spectrum who reject good science out of hand just because it offends their sensibilities.

BTW, the vaccination schedule isn't all that hard to keep up with. Basically you take your kid in for "well baby" check-ups the same time they give you the vaccine. I have two kids who are fully up to date on their vaccines and it hasn't been a problem at all. They tend to load up one needle with multiple shots so it isn't a big deal.

As long as Obama is just calling for more investigation, and not actually condemning vaccines for causing autism, I'm fine with this for all the reasons you mention.

From the perspective of the continuing need for yet more data to shut down the issue, calling for more investigation isn't really a pander, either.

"And when I surfed around some of the anti-vaccine sites, the evidence on display there was surprisingly thin too. "

What you are seeing here, Kevin, and I say this quite seriously, is this generation's version of a witchcraft scare.

The salient issue with witchcraft is always some sort of pollution of the human (autism in our case), together with a scapegoat, and some sort of theory as to causation that makes sense to the "burn the witches" crowd, even if it makes no sense to anyone else.

Witchcraft scares do not respond to reason. It didn't help the German & Italian Jews burned for causing the black plagues by poisoning wells that there *weren't* any jews in Britain or France yet those countries also suffered the disease. likewise it doesn't help to talk to someone obsessed with "cancer causing chemicals" about statistics, clusters, and uncertainties.

I honestly don't know what society can do about this sort of nuttiness.

Maybe I should save this comment for Friday, but I've pulled something in my elbow trying to manhandle (cathandle?) my cat into the cat carrier in order to take her for her shots. You complain that we can't convince humans vaccines are necessary? Try explaining why vaccines are necessary to pets, and see how far you get.

Vaccines *are* counter-intuitive: one minute you're fine, next minute you're in a an evil-smelling and scary place, someone is shooting needles into you, and that night you feel too sick to eat dinner. (Maybe human vaccines don't make the recipient feel sick, but cat vaccines certainly do.) It's natural to be suspicious.

Dana Goldstein at TAPPED reports that Clinton's completed this hat trick of campaign idiocy.

One of the problems with the dealing with the Goldberg technique of discrediting things like Evolution or vegetarianism or X is the fact that scientists are human and tend to do stupid things outside their realm of expertise. Darwin, for example, was a fairly primitive racist. Ergo, according to those unfamiliar with the Ad Hominem Fallacy, Evolution is a racist idea.

****

The most recent research discrediting thimerosal points to the rise in autism following the discontinuation in the use of thimerosal. Unfortunately, that naively assumes that autism has a single trigger and that the trigger is thimerosal. I don't believe there is a link between thimerosal and autism, but the link hasn't been completely disproven yet.

So perhaps there isn't a connection between thimerasol-based vaccines and autism. I can believe that.

But thimerasol is derived from mercury, for crying out loud. So long as there are thimerasol-free alternatives available (and it's my understanding that there are), why wouldn't we want to stop using thimerasol in vaccines entirely? It seems like a no-brainer.

And if McCain and Obama want to champion that, I see no harm in it. If it helps them win votes, then more power to them.

"But thimerasol is derived from mercury, for crying out loud."

How the fsck is this not a know-nothing "I'm not interested in science" argument?
The mere elements a compound is made from tell you NOTHING about whether it is toxic or not. I mean, christ, ever heard of salt, Sodium Chloride? You want to stop ingesting that because pure sodium and pure chlorine both happen to be poisonous? Or go in reverse. You want to fill up on some yummy cyanide because carbon and nitrogen are both non-toxic?

When it comes to most things these days it seems people in general don't want to let facts get in the way of a good story. You know talking snakes, the worlds only 6000 years old,WMDS,kinder gentler republicans,global warming my ass it just snowed in my city yesterday,trickle down economics,Tax cuts for the rich are good for everyone,unrestrcted capitalism will regulate itself,etc.,etc,etc.

Here’s what really has “caused� the uptick in autism. It’s a combination of a rediagnosis of a personality disorder from DSM-III to Asperger’s syndrome in DSM-IV plus an overdiagnosis of Asperger’s as full-spectrum autism.

Darwin was not a primitive racist. While that is, as you point out, immaterial when evaluating the quality of his ideas about evolution, it is not historically correct to make that assertion about his attitudes about race. He was vehemently opposed to slavery, of the opinion that England was superior to everyone, but that anyone could adopt the obivously (to him) superior English ways, and no more, and probably less racist than other's of his time. I'd say that he was fairly typical of well-heeled, Whiggish Victorians. Read Janet Browne's excellent biographies of Darwin. You'll learn.

We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."

--Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

"It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise among children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines."

--John McCain, Texas town hall meeting, February 29, 2008.

Is there any sane person who doesn't understand the difference between these two statements? Obama says he is suspicious of a possible link to vaccines, accurately states that the science is inconclusive, and says there should be research to find the cause of the increase in autism. McCain falsely says there's strong evidence that vaccines cause autism.

McArdle is trying to create a false equivalence to lower Obama to McCain's level of ignorant pandering. She's a dishonest hack.

Don't be so sure you know the answer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-next-big-autism-bomb_b_93627.html

Read this article and see if the route to autism is known. If the researchers are still struggling with the answers how can nitwits like McArdle know with certainty.

Just becasue someone has a soapbox to stand on doesn't make their statements more credible.

David Bailey: With a very few exceptions, thimoseral is no longer used in children's vaccines in the U.S., and hasn't been for years. It's really a shame that people don't know this, and the vagueness of the candidates' statements didn't help.

SocraticGadfly: Here’s what really has “caused� the uptick in autism.

Your argument is even weaker than the thimerosal hysterics. Your blog doesn't even have numbers for the rates of SPD, Asperger's and other ASD's diagnosis, at any time, let alone over time. Yet you claim that "most ‘autistic’ children probably have THIS [SPD] or similar [emphasis added]". Pure speculation at its worst.

I can understand why parents, especially those who have autistic children, are so adamant about the issue. For starters, emotions are running hot and when placed against cold science, sometimes, it's the emotion that wins out.

Further, autism rates have been rising significantly. There've been a lot of anecdotes about seemingly healthy children reacting to vaccines and developing autism afterwards. But that's not a "connect A to B" step, IMO. Is it thimerosal? (apparently not) Is it a genetic predisposition? (possible) Is it a caused by a fever spike? Are vaccines and autism COMPLETELY unrelated? There are still a lot of questions out there on the subject. Now combine that with the flip side of the argument where there is a very, very real consequence to not vaccinating children, and we have a very heated political situation.

Kevin, sorry, but it's easy to see you don't have kids.

People go nuts about their kids. Most parents love them literally more than life itself. I didn't really "get" this until we had my daughter. Now I understand. It's one of the biggest shifts I've ever made in my life. It's like entering a secret society.

This doesn't really address the problem that you've identified--it's more a discussion of the background to why this makes people nuts. Basically I'm agreeing with the person above who compared this to witchhunting; it's not rational. On that basis I'd say, "No deal," even though I'm not one who believes that thimerosol, or any other vaccine-related compound, causes autism. Yes, I agree that vaccines get rid of far, far more problems (kid-killing diseases) than they cause. But when it comes to people's kids, you've entered a zone of pure emotion.

If you want to spend a ton of time showing how many of those diseases have been wiped out, you might get some parents with autistic kids to buy it. If you highlight the studies showing no link, you might get more parents of autistic kids on board. But there will always be a hard core who won't be convinced, no matter what.

And besides, you're dealing with *American* parents. They aren't going to passively accept that it's "God's will." They're used to understanding causation, so they know that there must be an identifiable reason, and of course they've identified it: vaccines.

Finally, your final paragraph asks "future leaders" to make clear that vaccines are good, but your previous paragraph makes clear that both left and right are suspicious of such leaders (either of science, companies, or government). Good luck...

And besides, you're dealing with *American* parents. They aren't going to passively accept that it's "God's will."

Given the number of people in the U.S. who identify themselves as being religious, I think this is an interesting comment. It would make for an interesting study. Exactly how many people in the U.S. would be willing to accept tragedy as "God's will"?

What Bob at 3.16 says!

This is a yet another perfect example why truly sensible and intelligent people see McArdle as worth nothing more than our disdain.

Great link Neal. I'd missed seeing that article over on Huffpost.

I think all the arm-waving going on here about the Autism statements made by the candidates is a wee bit overblown.

Autism is a horrible problem. Obama makes a more educated and rational statement than mis-informed McCain about the issue (no news there), but I think that's about all you can make out of it.

There are much bigger things to worry about if Mr. McCain becomes president.

Neal: Vaccine court trials had the rules of evidence changed several years back, from a "preponderance of evidence" standard just like any other civil suit to a 50-50 standard. That's the only reason the Polings and their pseudoscience, vaccine-chasing law firm, Shoemaker & Associates..

I've read recently about evidence that BPA from plastic bottles has adverse effects for infants and possibly older kids. This looks to me like a really important thing to be aware of.

I will admit to being a reformed believer in the autism-thimerasol link, but even if the link doesn't exist, why would we allow anyone to use thimerasol anyway? We monitor mercury levels in fish to keep people from getting sick, yet we choose to use mercury-based products to preserve vaccines that are injected into our children?

What am I missing?

"a lot of conservative parents have been taught to distrust the scientific establishment and a lot of liberal parents have been taught to distrust the government and the pharmaceutical industry."

I think you got this a little screwed up. It should read: a lot of conservative parents have been taught to distrust the scientific establishment and the government while a lot of liberal parents have been taught to distrust the pharmaceutical industry.

We may not trust THIS government, but in general we support an intelligent functioning government.

What people fail to understand is that every dollar you spend researching a possible "connection" is a dollar you don't spend reasearching a different possible connection.

Numerous solid studies ranging from epidemiological studies to double blind use of vaccines with/without thimerosal have found no link between thimerosal and autism. Moreover, Denmark eliminated thimerosal in vaccines in *1990*, and autism rates have continued to riso there in lockstep with the rest of the 1st world: that's an 18-year negative correlation.

What that means is that "examining it thoroughly" has already been done and continuing it now is stealing money from research that might find the real cause. Continuing to waste time and effort looking at thimerosal is therefore actively condemning more kids to suffer autism in the future because it is delying finding the true cause. The thimerosal nutjobs are directly responsible for prolonging the epidemic of autism!

Obama's statement is not as bad as McCain's, but it's still very harmful in its own way. Nobody with a head on their shoulders should be reinforcing this insanity.

Alex, I think my speculation is certainly much more reasonable than that of thimerosal hysterics. The first half is pure fact, that "Asperger's" wasn't even a diagnosis in DSM-III but was made one in DSM-IV.

The second half of the syllogism, that cases of "Asperger's," formerly known as schizoid disorder of childhood, have been diagnosed as full-spectrum autism, is, IMO given the amount of hysteria about autism, a reasonable guess.

For that matter, Neal’s HuffPost link shows that the diagnosis of “full-spectrum autism� is changing, evolving, muting into subtypes, etc.

You cannot argue that “autism is increasing dramatically� if the definition of what autism is, is changing.

That with full-spectrum autism is part of the problem, which I didn’t even notice.

Plus, given the Jenny McCarthys of the world, how many of these parents are getting an autism, or Asperger’s, diagnosis from a medical doctor rather than chiropractors, homeopaths, chiropractors and other quasi-voodoo practitioners?

Here we go again. The CDC finds itself in an odd place because some of the vaccines that it endorses making mandatory don't seem all that compelling from a public health perespective -- in other words, the chance that you will get the disease (Hep B) or that if you do you will suffer greatly from it as a child (Chicken pox) are sufficiently small that you wonder whether your kids should be exposed to any additional risks associated with a vaccine. There are other vaccines for which this is clearly not true: Diptheria, pertussis, polio, HIB. And then, in the middle: measles, mumps and rubella

Thimerosol is almost entirely out of vaccines, and to the extent that parents of autistic children don't know this or don't own up to it, they are not only being dishonest, they are getting in the way of creating momentum to find out WHAT IT IS that clearly IS causing an uptick in all kinds of childhood syndromes, like asthma, allergies, and autism. It may indeed be vaccine related for some kids, but the obsession with thimerosol won't get us closer to an answer.

I agree with what Obama said, so far as he went. However, it REALLY needs to be countered with "At the same time, the scientific evidence linking Polio, Mumps, Measles, and Malaria to death and sterility is abundant, and the scientific evidence for children left unvaccinated to these killers being both individual and public health risks is highly convincing. We should make every effort and spare no expense to make the most safe vaccines we can, but at the same time we need to protect our children from the known and real risks."

Without that, his words lead parents to believe there is reason to not get vaccinations. That is wrong.

I'm with Quinn. I have a child with sensory integration disorder, and it has been an incredibly difficult row to hoe, although not as difficult as I imagine Asperger's or autism is.

I'm willing to acknowledge that it may not be the vaccines, and my kid's shots are all up to date (and will continue to be).

But Kevin, if you must so summarily dismiss the link to vaccines, why the rise in autism? 1 in 150 kids is now diagnosed with it. Why is it mostly males? Is it better diagnosis, or something else that is causing it to show up more often? If you don't have answers, you should really stop being so dismissive of those parents who are trying to find some.

It is likely not the vaccines that is causing this, or else girls would be similarly afflicted. However, finding answers, rather than dismissing those who are suffering from these problems, seems to me to be far more important.

Vaccines and autism? I don't know.
Vaccines and Guillain Barre Syndrome? Proven.

And sorry Kevvy, my MDs and neurologists that tell me not to take any more vaccines unless absolutely required trump your youtube research parties.

And I figure if vaccines can cause GBS, and if researchers are motivated by grants, tenure, promotions, and patents for their research, then perhaps their research isn't as unbiased as we would like to think it is. And I'm a scientist and engineer. So if vaccines are linked to GBS, why not consider that vaccines are linked to autism? If vaccines are thought to hurt folks with vulnerable mitochondria, why not investigate that and concede the point?

And has science never made a mistake before? Especially science within a corporate demanded and Bush focused administration?

Do you still use Bextra? Vioxx? Celebrex? Thalidomide? Do you still think bran muffins are linked to lower cholesterol?

I'm a reality based scientist and engineer and there is shit loads of terrible, horrible science out there.

But I've had GBS, so you can toss my salad.

Oh, may I also say that Neal's HuffPost story, while not itself quackery, shows the huge variety of quackery out there on this issue?

They say that corn oil and syrup are inflammatory. Really? Then why didn’t Columbus and the Spanish conquistadors find a continent full of autistic American Indians? As for “childhood mitochondrial dysfunction,� that’s a new enough claim that Wikipedia doesn’t even have an entry for it, and even Google only has 721 hits.

Diana,

While pets do need to be vaccinated, the annual vaccinations are almost certainly overkill.

http://www.healthypet.com/library_view.aspx?id=143

The autism thing is a bunch of bad science from everything I've read. First off the thimerasol is really not used in much of anything at all these days, yet the autism rate has not shown any changes from discontinuing it. It wasn't even removed for safety per se so much as "better safe than sorry"; people just leaped to the conclusion it HAD to be bad because they got rid of it. Second, it's far more likely the "link" to vaccines and autism is because vaccines are given during or right before the same development period you can start to see autism show up. Finally, "need more research"? Do people really think NO scientists have investigated this? Even if the mainstream was that callous/stupid, there's plenty of funding that's been supplied by the anti-vaccine people for studies, and I'm aware of none of them showing any statistically significant link between vaccination and autism. I feel for the people looking for some "reason" why their kids have autism, but to put it bluntly I've yet to hear anything that's not the same kind of junk science supporting intelligent design. Check the link in my URL for a decent article on the subject.

The other real issue is that when you skip vaccination, it's not just YOUR kids you put at risk. Vaccines have a variable level of effect/length of time; not surprising since everybody has wildly different immune systems. The main way we stay safe is because if everyone has some level of immunity even those without perfect disease immunity will only develop weaker versions that don't spread well if at all. You have a nice un-vaccinated carrier grab a full strength version of the bug and you can spread a substantial amount of disease even to the vaccinated people. One study I read figured depending on how much population intermixing happened between un-vaccinated and vaccinated kids with measles, a mere doubling of the low number of kids not vaccinated currently could cause a 5-30% increase in disease among those who are vaccinated. So, paranoia or not about your kids, it's not fair to everyone else for you to endanger THEIR kids I think.

"But Kevin, if you must so summarily dismiss the link to vaccines, why the rise in autism? 1 in 150 kids is now diagnosed with it. "

What we have is a rise in DIAGNOSED rates.

Let's start with credible evidence that there actually is a rise in rates of autism, as opposed to a society that is simply more aggressive about looking for it, before we start arguing about what caused the supposed rise.

There are diseases where it is clear that there are more cases now than in the past --- examples are asthma and diabetes.
As far as I know, autism hasn't yet been proved to fall into this category.

Whatever happened to liberals demanding "government off my body?" Remember how the radfems used to demand that (and correctly so) until they decided that untested vaccines like gardasil should be made mandatory for prepubescent girls? And if we didn't agree we were religious fundies that hate women?

The vaccines you take and inject into your kids should be determined by a knowledgeable consent conversation with the child's MD. Period.

If you want to educate us, fine.

But stay the fuck off my body. Stay the fuck off my kids' bodies. Stay the fuck away from a conversation between me and my MD.

That's a progressive, liberal, civil rights point of view.

And my salad is still waiting.

Kevin Drum dismisses anything he perceives to be pro-Bush.

MeLoseBrain?

why would we allow anyone to use thimerasol anyway?

Three reasons. The first is that thimerasol is NOT mercury. It is a compound made from mercury.

You can die from Chlorine gas and you can get badly burned from Sodium, so who in their right mind would ever swim in a sodium chloride solution or even INGEST IT!

Second, thimerasol has a long history of human usage. Who knows if the replacement might turn out to be really bad?

Third, price. Yeah, here in rich America we think price concerns are for idiots but my daughter is in Kenya helping poor girls and guess what? Not only can they not afford the treatment for HIV they cannot even afford the vaccination for malaria. Many of them cannot even afford the cheap antibiotic treatment for malaria.

To many of them "why worry about the price" sounds like "let them eat cake."

"But stay the fuck off my body. Stay the fuck off my kids' bodies. "

Fine. And in your libertarian paradise, I assume I now have the right to sue you or your kid for making me or my kid sick with an infectious disease?

As for what may cause “childhood mitochondrial dysfunction,� this blog lists:

mercury, aluminum, pollution, pesticides, medicines
and prenatal alcohol exposure have all been shown to damage mitochondria.

Or, why don’t we ask how much they drank while they were pregnant?

And, this blogger has no link(s) as to where this is “shown,� sorry.

David Bailey: With a very few exceptions, thimoseral is no longer used in children's vaccines in the U.S., and hasn't been for years. It's really a shame that people don't know this, and the vagueness of the candidates' statements didn't help.

Actually, thimerosal is still in flu shots that are often given to babies and children. They just aren't in the other vaccines that are specific to children.

Maynard, let's name that paradise as it is, not libertarian, but Democratic.

When did we Democrats start allowing civil rights to be protected by the other parties? Why do we do that? Is it just to lose votes and rights or is there some ulterior motive?

Since I believe in humanity Maynard, unlike you, I believe that if we can make the case for a specific vaccination, that wise human parents and their doctors will make the right decision, and you will not have to fear.

And if we don't make that case, then you should consider why. Bad job educating people or wise people not putting up with junk science and bs?

People want to do the right thing, especially towards others, especially in health related matters.

If enough people are not getting vaccinations to keep up the "herd immunity" the problem is not that people are stupid, corrupt or libertarian.

Diana, I hate to tell you this, but your cats are much more correct to be afraid of getting vaccinated than you realize. Try googling "vaccine fibroscarcoma" and see what you find. Vaccinations absolutely, unequivocally have caused a massive epidemic of fatal cancer in pet cats. Annual vaccination of pets is an insane practice. If your cats live indoors, I'd suggest that you cease all vaccinations, though the veterinary establishment obviously disagrees.

This raises an obvious counter point to Kevin. The fibroscarcoma epidemic in cats is clear evidence that vaccines can cause unintended harm. Yes the thimerisol/autism connection has turned out to be bunk. But the current massive regimen of vaccines that children go through these days should rightly be looked at with suspicion. What sort of long-term consequences we'll see from this experiment we will only be borne out over time.

Skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry and of medical experts in general is always healthy.

Kevin,

Dozens of vaccinations? I've got four sprog and I can't even recall dozens of shots. Granted some shots are combos like DPT and MMR. Add in the flu shot and hepatitis B and what am I forgetting? Have they started doing polio again? And chickenpox is still optional, right?

The question is which of these to skip. Maybe chickenpox although one son got terribly sick from a secondary bacterial infection with chickenpox. Granted that is rare. I had measles, mumps, and rubella as a kid which IIRC are not that fatal, although those vaccines have been around a VERY long time too.

Sure, a few people can skip the vaccines for their kids and be pretty safe as long as everyone else get vaccinated but that is NOT fair and if enough people skip vaccinations then chances are the diseases will spread like before.

Rob Mac,

What sort of long-term consequences we'll see from this experiment we will only be borne out over time.

This sounds like you want to keep thimerasol, with it's long track record, instead of switching to something newer, is that correct?

So far the short-term consequences of my kids getting vaccinated are no measles, no mumps, no rubella, no diptheria, no pertussis, no tetanus, and very light chickenpox for those who got that vaccine.

Weigh those short term consequences against oogie boogie long term scares and tell me what your decision as a parent would be?

It all strikes me as part of the general rebellion against reason we see today, alas.

Last week in my class on the late Middle Ages, we learned about the early origins of witchcraft denunciations. Most denunciations were initiated by someone who had undergone a tragedy that seemed inexplicable -- e.g. the death of a loved on due to disease or a crop failure or, most commonly, the death of a child. It seems to be part of human nature to find something or someone to blame, and in this case people latched onto the least sympathetic, most marginalized people around them (often widowed women) and accused them of witchcraft as the cause for their tragedy.

The parallels, to me, are striking. I think it is the same motivation, with only the target changing (now drug companies are the unsympathetic ones). The only real difference is that we have in fact added a positive feedback to this point of human nature, by creating a tort system dominated by sympathy over reason, which tends to pay off on such wild accusations of witchcraft.

this is obviously hot territory, but i will wade in. i agree that the part kevin doesn't get is the love for your children angle. i have a kid and it is a secret society and it changes everything. it is no small thing to watch a child less than 24 hours old be injected with a hypodermic needle--this juice is being shot directly into their blood stream, with no buffer, and standing there you have to wonder if it's a good idea--ie, better than not doing it. see hippocrates "first do no harm."

but there are two more troubling aspects to the vaccine problem, neither having anything to do with thimerasol. one-for vaccines to be effective public health officials have to strive for one hundred percent compliance. EVERYONE MUST BE VACCINATED! Since this is goal number 1, it is obvious that they have little incentive to acknowledge problems with side-effects or efficacy, as any problem they cop to lowers the chance they will get 100% compliance. So they just say it's better to vaccinate than not, and take your chances with the side-effects (as a parent you pray your kid is not the one in ten thousand and you close your eyes and hope for the best). but it's not just the doctors and public health officials opinion you are relying on--you are also depending on the drug companies to make a good, safe product, and to be fair and transparent about trials. and we all know the drug companies routinely "fix" their trial numbers, and then lobby to stop bad news about drug side effects and efficacy, when the FDA or CDC manages to find a problem (usually after thousands of complaints and a lot of pooh-poohing from the drug companies). as a parent the thing i fear is not thimerasol, which i know is being lifted from vaccines. the thing i fear is waking up to the "whoops, you know that "X" vaccine we said was safe, well it's been recalled for unknown reasons due to spoilage or mercury levels and oh yeah the trials that we based our recommendation on are all BS and so we're sorry we injected that directly into your kid but you'll all understand we were just doing it for the public good" article. read that, look at your kid and try and feel good about vaccines and public health pronouncements and the drug companies. and by the way, a vaccine we held out on my kid was just recalled last year--for exactly those reasons. am i happy he didn't get it, even though it was "recommended"--you bet.

and the other big issue is the number of vaccines. it is way out of control, and they are injecting way too many vaccines, many for diseases that you would be better off having as a child, and there can't be enough trials to know that they are all safe, and safe in the combinations they are being used in.

there are pretty safe and sane ways to give your child the right number of vaccines for the deadliest diseases, that have a long history of low side-effects and seem to have held those diseases at bay. but you have to be your child's advocate, and slowing down the schedule and reducing the number of vaccines you are willing to give your child seem well within the rights of all parents.

this is obviously hot territory, but i will wade in. i agree that the part kevin doesn't get is the love for your children angle. i have a kid and it is a secret society and it changes everything. it is no small thing to watch a child less than 24 hours old be injected with a hypodermic needle--this juice is being shot directly into their blood stream, with no buffer, and standing there you have to wonder if it's a good idea--ie, better than not doing it. see hippocrates "first do no harm."

but there are two more troubling aspects to the vaccine problem, neither having anything to do with thimerasol. one-for vaccines to be effective public health officials have to strive for one hundred percent compliance. EVERYONE MUST BE VACCINATED! Since this is goal number 1, it is obvious that they have little incentive to acknowledge problems with side-effects or efficacy, as any problem they cop to lowers the chance they will get 100% compliance. So they just say it's better to vaccinate than not, and take your chances with the side-effects (as a parent you pray your kid is not the one in ten thousand and you close your eyes and hope for the best). but it's not just the doctors and public health officials opinion you are relying on--you are also depending on the drug companies to make a good, safe product, and to be fair and transparent about trials. and we all know the drug companies routinely "fix" their trial numbers, and then lobby to stop bad news about drug side effects and efficacy, when the FDA or CDC manages to find a problem (usually after thousands of complaints and a lot of pooh-poohing from the drug companies). as a parent the thing i fear is not thimerasol, which i know is being lifted from vaccines. the thing i fear is waking up to the "whoops, you know that "X" vaccine we said was safe, well it's been recalled for unknown reasons due to spoilage or mercury levels and oh yeah the trials that we based our recommendation on are all BS and so we're sorry we injected that directly into your kid but you'll all understand we were just doing it for the public good" article. read that, look at your kid and try and feel good about vaccines and public health pronouncements and the drug companies. and by the way, a vaccine we held out on my kid was just recalled last year--for exactly those reasons. am i happy he didn't get it, even though it was "recommended"--you bet.

and the other big issue is the number of vaccines. it is way out of control, and they are injecting way too many vaccines, many for diseases that you would be better off having as a child, and there can't be enough trials to know that they are all safe, and safe in the combinations they are being used in.

there are pretty safe and sane ways to give your child the right number of vaccines for the deadliest diseases, that have a long history of low side-effects and seem to have held those diseases at bay. but you have to be your child's advocate, and slowing down the schedule and reducing the number of vaccines you are willing to give your child seem well within the rights of all parents.

jerry,

Since I believe in humanity Maynard, unlike you, I believe that if we can make the case for a specific vaccination, that wise human parents and their doctors will make the right decision, and you will not have to fear.

You do understand that 25% of the American population does NOT believe in evolution. Your premise that everyone is wise or even persuadable by facts is sadly flawed. Like it or not (I promise not to use the authoritarian follower label) 25% of the American population will simply follow what their leaders tell them.

And where in the world did you get the idea that Democrats or liberals support individual rights over everything else? I mean come on. For example we support taxes for the overall good. That is about as far from individual rights as you can get.

Considering our medical/political history, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were side effects from our vaccine regimens, including possibly very serious side effects, and I don't see that as wacky conspiracy theory at all, more like responsibility and frank acknowledgement that profit and medicine don't always synergize, especially in the pharmaceutical realm.

"Illegal seizure" of your money is one thing, mandating chemicals get injected into your body for the good of the nation is completely different.

Yeah, I think we can be a pretty stupid country. I still think most people are good and will do the right thing when properly educated.

Right now in many states, but not in all states, people can opt out of vaccines for any reason. Most people still vaccinate. Most people do like we did, and talk to our doctor and opt in for most and opt out of one or two that don't seem to apply, or seem to risky for one reason or another.

Making vaccines mandatory should only occur for zombie causing diseases like rage, or the Omega Syndrome.

And yeah, having had a potentially crippling and life threatening disease that is definitely linked to vaccines makes me sensitive to this subject.

Oh, and I also think it's goddam smart not to trust big pharma and our government, especially when it comes to health issues.

If someone doesn't want an injection, I don't see how it can be moral or ethical to force one on them.(*)

(*) Except for anti-zombie vaccinations.

thanks everyone ....I will check out the info on pet vaccinations (although my cats do go outside so I suspect some vaccinations are necessary). Believe me, both the cats and their human would like to skip them.

Actually, GBS is most commonly acquired after someone has a viral infection. It has been linked to vaccinations and other medical procedures in only very rare circumstances.

It is correct that someone who has suffered with GBS should NEVER get a vaccination as it is obvious that their immune system is not functioning in the "normal" fashion.

MeLoseBrain?: even if the link doesn't exist, why would we allow anyone to use thimerasol anyway? We monitor mercury levels in fish to keep people from getting sick, yet we choose to use mercury-based products to preserve vaccines that are injected into our children? What am I missing?

Very few vaccines currently contain thimerasol. You can find out which ones at the FDA. They use it because it's a really good disinfectant for vaccines, and for some vaccines it's enough better than other options to make it worth using, especially since the evidence suggests it's not harmful.

maynard Handley: Let's start with credible evidence that there actually is a rise in rates of autism, as opposed to a society that is simply more aggressive about looking for it, before we start arguing about what caused the supposed rise.

Let's start with credible evidence that there is no rise in rates of autism, because the rise in the reported incidence of autism puts the burden of proof on the naysayers who want to chalk it all up to greater awareness and modified diagnostic criteria.

And if there is no increase in its incidence, then it means that we've had a serious problem for a long time and misdiagnosed it. That's just as good a reason to look at causes and treatments. To say otherwise is like saying that we've had infectious disease X for a long time, so let's not look at causes and treatments.

Tripp... I think you're understating things, if anything; it's probably more than 25 percent nonbelievers in evolution.

Alex, per my earlier posts, re your comments to Maynard, you have the burden of proof on you, scientifically speaking.

So, no, if you want to approach this the right way, let's start with Maynard, not you.

Tripp: thimerasol is NOT mercury. It is a compound made from mercury. You can die from Chlorine gas and you can get badly burned from Sodium, so who in their right mind would ever swim in a sodium chloride solution or even INGEST IT!

Using similar reasoning, I note that the human body contains (amongst other things) hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen, so I guess inhaling HCN is ok? Oh, hold it, I had some almonds yesterday. So if a little is good, more is better? This is so complicated!

Of course, unlike cyanide, heavy metals are cumulative toxins, and the whole process of metabolizing thimerasol into ethylmercury and other products, and their excretion, is not as well understood as was once blithely claimed, so why don't we just stop mainlining this utterly nonessential garbage? Oh, that's right, mostly we have.

Second, thimerasol has a long history of human usage. Who knows if the replacement might turn out to be really bad?

There is no replacement. Using nothing at all works fine in single dose vials.

Third, price. Yeah, here in rich America we think price concerns are for idiots ...

In America and other wealthy countries, price concerns of the minuscule level of leaving out thimerasol is for idiots.

in Kenya ... To many of them "why worry about the price" sounds like "let them eat cake."

Which may explain why no one is advocating that Kenya require vaccines to be thimerasol free.

Do you still use Bextra? Vioxx? Celebrex? Thalidomide?

My dad used Thalidomide until a few months ago when they put him on Velcade. He was on it for a year or two. What's your point?

My dad used Thalidomide until a few months ago ... What's your point?

That would be that you should check to see if you have flipper where others grew brains.

I've been following the research on autism for years and the most intriguing explanation I've found is also iatrogenic....Vitamin D deficiency. For a compelling - though circumstantial- case for the Vitamin D- autism link
see http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/

I've been following the research on autism for years and the most intriguing explanation I've found is also iatrogenic....Vitamin D deficiency. For a compelling - though circumstantial- case for the Vitamin D- autism link
see http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/

That would be that you should check to see if you have flipper where others grew brains.

Well, seeing as how he's not a pregnant woman, and he didn't start on it until about 32 years after I was born, I think safe.

It was clear to all of us that you were safe from the effects of your thalidomide from your first post, but your post was so stupid that I do think you should check to see if you have flippers where we have brains.

Jerry, if we could invent an anti-stupidity vaccine, you bet I'd be shoving you to the front of the line. (Stand aside there, Alex.)

All you parents of small children out there:
When you take your kids in for vaccinations, are you told that none of the vaccines (except for flu) contain thimerasol, or are you told that thimerasol-free versions of your vaccines exist if you want them?
Sources I've read are not clear on this point.
Thanks,

SocraticGadfly: per my earlier posts ... you have the burden of proof on you

Good point. The prevalence rate of classic autism has increased at five fold since 1996. An epidemic? No! A random blogger has noted that fourteen years ago a new edition of the DSM added AS (which is at most 40% as common as classic autism) and guesses that that accounts for "most" of the observed increase in ASD. And random blogger does it all with without reference to numbers!

if you want to approach this the right way, let's start with [the skeptical approach to increased prevalence]

Of course I want to do this the right way. Hmmm, let's see, either the prevalence of this serious problem is increasing, or we've had about the same prevalence of this problem all along and failed to recognize it for what it is. Obviously the right approach is wait and see whether it's increasing, or it's been there all along. Hey, no harm in waiting, right? Why waste effort looking for causes and treatments of a problem that may be increasing, or may have been a serious but unrecognized problem all along.

And from other skeptics and contrarians, we have the observation that AGW hasn't actually been proven. Hey, even the greatest proponents of this theory admit that they can't prove that it will continue. So, in the same spirit of "no harm in waiting until it's absolutely proven", we should just wait until you can comfortably skinny dip at the North Pole.

Thanks for sounding more reasonable, Kevin. Those of us who follow the issue have just found that the digger you deep, the more pharmaceutical companies seem to be behind all the positive --- yet easy to detect flawed --- studies. It really may not be thimerasol in the end, but I'd like to see a study that I felt was really conducted correctly on the matter, and I'd feel better knowing that the AMA wasn't aggressively trying to stand in the way of real scientific enquiry. (I was a little startled in my recent research to discover that certain vaccines actually do carry known serious risks. My cousin has been institutionalized since he was a preschooler and I only recently read that it is because one child in a million experiences brain damage or death as a result of the vaccine --- and he was that one. Clearly, this is a case where the risk is worth taking, versus the risk of actually having the disease naturally, but I'd hate to be that parent...

Whooping cough -- pertussis -- is even more troubling, however. One study surveying 215,000 Swedish children whom had received DPT shots showed a rate of permanent brain damage or death in 1 in 17,000 children. The odds are still in the vaccine's favor. Before vaccines, an average of 157 cases per 100,000 persons were reported in the U.S. So we have 157 lost to disease versus about 6 lost to injection. Hard to comment on this, except to say that I know I didn't take my child in to get her shots knowing there was any risk whatsoever. We'd have still gotten the shots, but some of the precautions people suggest, like making sure they child hasn't been sick for a month, recognizing any family history of difficulties, and spreading vaccines over more visits ....well, I'm just glad my family has turned out safe.

Look, alex, no-one is claiming we shouldn't research into the causes of autism. Find one person who says otherwise.

What we are claiming is that using, as the starting point of your research the argument
"autism incidence has increased, so let's look for what has changed over modern times that correlates with this increase"
may well be a pointless waste of time if this increase doesn't actually exist.

Why do you have a problem with this argument?

Jerry, if we could invent an anti-stupidity vaccine, you bet I'd be shoving you to the front of the line. (Stand aside there, Alex.)

Yeah, and I'm sure you'll blog whore fifteen posts telling how you did exactly that! Gotta get your traffic up past you and your mom!

Maynard Handley: a pointless waste of time if this increase doesn't actually exist. Why do you have a problem with this argument?

I've no problem with that argument, but it's far from shown that the increase doesn't exist. Certainly we can't define away the problem using smug hand-waving non-numerical arguments like SocraticGadfly's.

As to whether the increase exists, there is reasonable debate. Yes, there is probably some overdiagnosis of now fashionable ASD's, but no study or reasonable authority believes that's more than a part of the problem. Amongst the arguments that a real increase exists is the increase in the severe classic autism diagnosis rate. That's something that it's hard for even an amateur to miss, let alone a trained diagnostician. It's not something that readily falls into a gray area.

Furthermore, some studies, such as the Danish study that largely disproved the thimerasol and MMR links, also look at expanded diagnostic criteria as a reason for observed increases. They applied both the new and the old diagnostic criteria, and found a dramatic increase even using the old, narrower criteria.

From what I've read, most parents who report a sudden onset of symptoms after vaccination saw it arise dramatically and very close to the vaccination event(s). Therefore, it should be ridiculously easy to track. What's the correlation? How is the diagnosis made? What are the variations interms of vaccine type and symptoms. Anyone familiar with the disease ought to be able to come up with a good study.

The question I have is why hasn't this been done? Second, what has been successful in terms of treatment? Above, I noticed a sneering reference to "chiropractors, homeopaths, chiropractors and other quasi-voodoo practitioners". That's hardly open-minded. If you are looking for a cure, and medical science doesn't provide one, would you, as a loving parent, whose loving child has suddenly morphed into a unrecognizable monster, stop short of investigating any lead?

As someone who suffered from a serious, long-term and difficult to diagnose disease, I can well understand the challenges of going against socially and medically orthodox ways of thinking. You would really like medicine to have answers, but sometimes it doesn't. That throws you back on your own resources, your own research, and the research of others. Sometimes you even meet someone who has a helpful treatment or a cure. In my case, the doctor who finally helped me the most was a chiropractor with a long track record of successfully treating not only what ailed me, but autistic children and adults as well. And I mean really helping, as in no more violent episodes, learning to speak, being able to work, etc. And I probably wouldn't have believed it if my own cure wasn't so immediate and dramatic.

So please folks, no hysterics and demonization of anyone who doesn't have a MD after their name. Different folks for different strokes, different keys for different locks. In some cases, an MD is just what you need, and my doctor is one of the best. At the same time, she could only take me so far, and I needed other people to help fit other pieces of the puzzle. Fortunately, she was extremely open to this and supported me in figuring things out for myself.

Final word: the future of medicine is integrative. Take the best and leave the rest. Find me any discipline and I will find you both heros and quacks. We all want to BELIEVE in someone or some system or some thing 100%. But real life doesn't work that way. So we are all responsible to pick and choose. If you are casting stones at someones else's choice, you probably aren't ready to take on the responsiblity of making your own choices. If you find that you have done that, do yourself a favor and ask yourself: why am I so vehemently objecting to that? Is it what I've been told or is it based on fact? If fact, what are the facts? And how is my own choice so perfect? e.g. are there no doctors who kill people? Who has a greater kill rate? What has a greater cure rate? Does it vary from disease to disease? If so, what kind of medicine is best for what illness? People are very complex creatures, and so are the diseases they suffer from, and the people who heal them.

Michele,

I think part of the problem is that while parents notice something very soon thereafter, it may not be for six months or later before they can recognize real cognitive deficits in their kids, or get an MD to take them seriously about it.

But with respect to "sneering", well this is the "reality based" "liberal" blogosphere. We leave open-minded, accepting, laid-back, integrative, non-judgmental to (pardon my french) asshole fucktard right wing websites.

Over here on the left, if we don't agree with you, we tell you you're an idiot, and probably a troll. Depending on circumstances we may also call you a racist, or a sexist, or an anti-semite, a rape-apologist, a wife-beater, and a pedophile.

I hope that helps.

My collie Abby died of autoimmune hymolytic anemia. At 7 years of age, she got very sick, very quickly and was dead in 3 days, right before Christmas. Great present! I am convinced that it is because we renewed her vaccinations about 35 days before she died. Vet thinks it could be the cause too.

My collie Abby died of autoimmune hymolytic anemia. At 7 years of age, she got very sick, very quickly and was dead in 3 days, right before Christmas. Great present! I am convinced that it is because we renewed her vaccinations about 35 days before she died. Vet thinks it could be the cause too.

My collie Abby died of autoimmune hymolytic anemia. At 7 years of age, she got very sick, very quickly and was dead in 3 days. I am convinced that it is because we renewed her vaccinations 35 days before she died.

My collie Abby died of autoimmune hymolytic anemia. At 7 years of age, she got very sick, very quickly and was dead in 3 days. I am convinced that it is because we renewed her vaccinations 35 days before she died.

My collie Abby died of autoimmune hymolytic anemia. At 7 years old, she got very sick, very quickly and was dead in 3 days. I am convinced that it is because we renewed her vaccinations 35 days before she died.

My collie Abby died of autoimmune hymolytic anemia. At 7 years old, she got very sick, very quickly and was dead in 3 days. I am convinced that it is because we renewed her vaccinations 35 days before she died.

Jerry, I'm sooooo hurt by your last comment. Not. I'd rather be a blogwhore than a conspiracy whore or a stupidity whore any day.

Alex, nice try at comparing apples and hockey pucks, but it doesn't fly.

You all have interesting opinions. Me -- I'm a little skeptical, but I think it worthy of investigation.

In fact, there was an investigation under way that Big Pharma (via Sen. Frist) put the ka-bosh on - litigation vs. Eli Lilly, et al.

I think everyone who thinks it is bunk -- and many of you seem quite convinced! -- should wonder why Lilly got a provision snuck into the 2002 Homeland Security bill freezing all the lawsuits.

This strikes me as Telecom Immunity -like -- If there's no liability because there's no science, then why not just win fair and square in court? Why get a legislative "get out of jail free card?"

I think everyone who feels they should comment on this issue get to know a parent with an autistic child. You would quickly see that this is not just over-diagonis of previously under-reported syndrome--these children would not have escaped notice 20 years ago, or even 100 years ago. The rate of autism HAS changed.

Second, there is a strong reason for parents to consider environmental factors (such as vaccines) to have a role to play in the development of autism. There are numerous instances where an apparently normally developing child, with speech and cognition developing along normal lines, suddenly going into a decline where speech and cognitive functions that they did have are lost forever.

If you found yourself with an autistic child, you would be looking pretty hard for causes, treatments and prevention.

My point exactly, Neal. The stories are heart-wrenching. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by them. These parents really deserve a break -- and any possiblity of a cure.

Thanks for your comments, Jerry. They made me laugh. I guess people are people no matter which side they are on. There are wide-eyed fanatics on both sides of the political divide. But I'd give the brainwashed/cynicsm award to the wingnuts.

My point exactly, Neal. The stories are heart-wrenching. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by them. These parents deserve a break, and any possible chance of a cure.

Jerry, thanks for the laugh. You're right, the blogs are the last refuge of free-spoken opinion, no matter how arrogant, misinformed or stupid. Are the left blogs truly worse than the right? I can hardly believe it, given all the petard being flung from the television every day. Maybe the right wing has just learned to sound learned. It's all based on lies, anyway.

PS to Sheltiman. So sorry about your collie. Shelties are so sweet. My cat died shortly after I took him for vaccines. He was my best friend and a mourned for him deeply, so I can well understand your distress. I wish you peace.

To the cynics out there, please ignore the sentiment - 'twas not for your ears.

A few quick points from a parent of a kid with autism who also works quite a bit with toxicological principles in his day job:
--Absence of evidence and evidence of absence are not the same thing. Studies that fail to show a link between thimerosol and autism are not the same thing as studies demonstrating the absence of such a link. Accordingly, there's a huge difference between Obama suggesting that further investiation is warranted and McCain saying the link has been proven.
--The dose makes the poison. It's important to look at the magnitude of the exposure.
--Finally, it's not paranoid or unreasonable for parents of autistic children to point out that the interests of indivudual parents and the government are different with respect to vaccination rates. The government's interest is, of course, in reducing the overall risk of disease among the entire population, even if a small subset of the population will be harmed by the vaccine. If you're the parent of a kid among that small subset, you recognize the differing interests.

I've neither declined to vaccinate my kids nor pursued a claim in the vaccine court, but I think -- even on scientific grounds -- the venom directed at parents who suspect a link is misdirected.

Chris,

Well put. I'd just like to point out that where you refer to the "government" I think, in this case, you mean the general population.

Public health officials must always weigh the individual risks against the general benefits to the entire population. This is not an easy task. This is also no solace for those who last children.

Michele - as a parent of four I sympathize with any parent who has lost a child, or has a child stricken with a terrible illness. I don't sneer at those parents. They are completely vulnerable at that time. Unfortunately that is what makes them open to fraud.

It is a fact that there are flimflam artists who prey on these desperate people. I don't fault the parents for seeking answers. I fault the con artists who pretend to provide answers.

Being as old as Kevin I don't recall widespread epidemics as a child, why has the intensity and scope of vaccinations increased to the level it is today?

Is it even remotely possible that we over-inoculating our kids like doctor's have been over-prescribing medications because of the marketing pressure from pharmaceutical companies?

Tripp:

By "government" I actually did mean "public health officials," but the same point holds true if the statement is changed to say "general population," as you suggested. My point was merely that it's reasonable for individual parents to view with some skepticism statements by public health officials that vaccines are safe, etc. Their job is to ensure the overall safety of the general population by maximizing the number of kids who are vaccinated, even if vaccination turns out to have negative consequences in the rare, individual case. What's good for society as a whole is not necessarily what's good for any particular member thereof. Indeed, the whole reason we have special liability protections for vaccine makers is that we want to ensure that vaccines are available for the general population, despite the fact that we recognize in individual cases things can go terribly wrong.
In that regard, it's appropriate to view with a critical eye the statements of public health officials, just as one does with other experts with a particular interest or point of view. Nobody is surprised when scientists funded by the tobacco lobby proclaim the absence of a proven link between smoking and cancer, or when scientists funded by the energy industry deny any link between human activity and global warming. Likewise, although the comparison is a bit unfair, nobody should be surprised when scientists for the government -- whose interest is in maximizing vaccination rates -- proclaim there's no link between mercury-derived preservatives and autism. Sham artists peddling miracle cures are not the only ones with a motivation to portray the science in a particular light.
I don't know whether there is a link btween vaccination and autism or not, although like many parents of autisic kids my son first displaued symptoms just after a vaccination. Proximity in time does not demonstrate causation, of course. And reasonable people can disagree about whether the existing science affirmatively disproves a link, or merely fails to demonstrate one. That being the case, I think it's a mistake for commentators (and by no means do I include you in this category) to deride all those who are unconvinced by the existing scientific literature as desperate morons clinging to false hope. At least some of us are in the business of assessing the weight and quality of scientific evidence on a daily basis, and simply think the jury is still out on this topic. Best, Chris

A friend of mine has been anti-vaccination from day one. Now his daughter has whooping cough. Not only has she been projectile vomiting her meals for two and a half weeks, but she has infected several (vaccinated) children at her school because she interfered with their herd immunity. My friend is now bitterly sorry and ashamed that he did not get his child vaccinated. So when we talk about loving our children, let's also talk about some of the harm that can happen when you DON'T vaccinate your kids--both to your kids and the other children who will be harmed by your selfishness.

Complicated topic.

My thoughts:
1. Someone said that studies that fail to show a link between autism and vaccines are not the same as studies that prove there is no link. I’m trying to think of how you can prove such a thing?

2. To me the big question is: since vaccines have largely been Thimerosal-free since 1999-2001 and autism rates [may be] increasing, how does it make sense that Thimerosal is still being blamed for autism?

{Looking at a list of Thimerosal containing vaccines, it turns out most vaccines given to children have never had ANY Thimerosal. And the ones that did have not had more than trace levels ( 3 of the 4 available flu vaccines have some Thimerosal, though one is Thimerosal-free (one has trace amounts, one has 12.5 micrograms Thimerosal per 0.25ml dose and one has 25 micrograms per 0.5 ml dose).}

3. I saw a study in which the rate that mental retardation was going down was adversely proportional to the rate in which autism was going up (obviously suggesting, but not proving, that there are a steady number of kids with a particular problem, say Asperger, it’s just that we have put them in a different category, autistic spectrum as opposed to MR. So, yes, you can accurately say that the rate of autism is going up... it just doesn’t necessarily mean what you say it means).

4. Some comparison of the risk of disease vs risk of vaccine:
MMR Vaccine:
Encephalitis or severe allergic reaction: 1 in 1,000,000
Disease:
Measles
Pneumonia: 1 in 20, Encephalitis: 1 in 2,000, Death: 1 in 3,000
Mumps
Encephalitis: 1 in 300
Rubella
Congenital Rubella Syndrome: 1 in 4 (if woman becomes infected early in pregnancy)

DTP Vaccine: Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 100, Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 1,750, Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000. Death: None proven
Disease:
Diphtheria
Death: 1 in 20
Tetanus
Death: 3 in 100
Pertussis
Pneumonia: 1 in 8
Encephalitis: 1 in 20
Death: 1 in 200

Now, granted, if your child is the 1, you don’t care so much about the other 999,999. I agree your doctor SHOULD inform you (admit?) that there are some risks to vaccines. Surely there are. But you should understand that your child probably has a greater risk of harm driving to and from the doctor’s office than he/she has from most vaccines.

My thoughts, part II.
5. For those that don’t trust the pharmaceutical industry… actually, I don’t either. However, I don’t have to in order to be pretty comfortable with the risk from vaccines. Has anyone heard of Rotavirus?

Rotavirus is the most common cause of severe gastroenteritis in the United States, resulting in approximately 500,000 physician visits, 50,000 hospitalizations, and 20--40 deaths annually; worldwide, rotavirus accounts for an estimated 600,000 deaths annually among children aged My thoughts, part II.
5. For those that don’t trust the pharmaceutical industry… actually, I don’t either. However, I don’t have to in order to be pretty comfortable with the risk from vaccines. Has anyone heard of Rotavirus?

Rotavirus is the most common cause of severe gastroenteritis in the United States, resulting in approximately 500,000 physician visits, 50,000 hospitalizations, and 20--40 deaths annually; worldwide, rotavirus accounts for an estimated 600,000 deaths annually among children aged In the mid-1990’s a vaccine was developed against Rotavirus, called Rotashield.
Apparently in testing it seemed safe and was approved in infants.

After about a year or so, and many millions of doses (20 million, I seem to remember), a total of 15 cases of intussusception were linked to vaccination with Rotashield. Intussusception is a bowel obstruction in which the bowel telescopes into itself – potentially fatal if untreated and sometimes requiring surgery to correct.

Back up and read that again – 15 cases out of millions of doses of vaccine given. And they pulled the product completely off the market. You cannot get it today (at least in the US, I’m not sure about worldwide).

Do I trust big Pharma? Not remotely. But, do I think they are afraid enough of lawsuits to pull a harmful product? Yes, I do.

Look up the VAERS system, operated by CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is a national passive surveillance system that monitors the safety of vaccines. Overall it has proven to be pretty effective.

If vaccines did a fraction of what the anti-vaccine people said they did (and it could be proven), you can bet the vaccines would be off the market and the companies would be paying out huge settlements. Think juries have a hard time finding against the evil pharmaceutical companies?

Finally,
6. Another common concern is that vaccines, especially multiple vaccines given at once, expose children to more than their immune system can handle.
That sounds like it makes sense but is likely not the case.
Our bodies have the ability to differentiate self from ‘not self’. When something ‘not self’ is injected or ingested or inhaled or in some other way makes it into our bodies, in many cases our bodies are able to recognize that substance as ‘foreign’ (not self) which (often) triggers an immune response. One response is generating antibodies to attack the foreign substance. A substance (or part of a substance) that generates an immune response is said to be antibody generating, so is called an antigen.

Children are exposed to many foreign antigens (not self, antibody generating substances) every day, such as bacteria. Eating food introduces new bacteria into the body. Breathing can introduce bacteria into the mouth and nose, exposing the immune system to still more antigens. A viral upper respiratory infection exposes a child to 4 - 10 antigens, and a case of Strep Throat to 25 – 50.
As explained to me in my training, the first time a kid goes to the park and chews on dirt, rocks and/or sticks, he or she is exposed to probably 100’s of foreign antigens. Do we panic that we’ve overloaded their immune systems? Not if it’s your second kid.

[aside: first kid, pacifier falls on the floor, parents carefully wash it off before giving it back. Second kid, rinse it off if able to, if not, wipe it on your pants. Third kid… whatever, wipe it on the dog.
For those without kids… they crawl all over the floor, anything they can get their grubby hands on goes into their mouth, they touch EVERYTHING, then put their fingers in their mouths. Talk about exposing them to foreign antigens… shopping carts. Blah. BTW, that’s why they get sick so much more that adults, that and that they haven’t built up their immunity.
I also notice that, for the most part, we don’t blame shopping carts for autism.]

Anyway, going on -
When vaccines are made, often they find the most immunogenic bit of a particular bacteria or virus, purify that specific antigen and concentrate multiple copies of that particular bit (antigen) to make the vaccine.
So, in a vaccine, there tend to be a low number of antigen types, represented in very high numbers.

Wait, isn’t that the same thing as “too much?� Is there a difference between high numbers of a few antigen types and low numbers of multiple types?
Huge difference. Why?

Well, the way antibodies work is that there are several parts to each antibiody, called subunits, that can be mixed and matched. Think of it like a bike that can have different wheels (skinny or fat), seat (banana seat, wide seat or no seat) and handlebars (curly or ‘chopper’ handle bars).
You can make lots of different bikes by shuffling all those different parts and putting each individual bike together with different components (ie: skinny wheels, banana seat and chopper handlebars is one; skinny wheels, no seat and curly handlebars is another, etc, etc).

In that way our bodies can make antibodies to most foreign antigens we encounter. That’s a huge variety! And when a particular antibody is triggered, our bodies make millions on copies of that particular configuration.

Obviously it’s a little more complicated than that but this is a general idea. Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody

Getting back to the original point – it isn’t harmful to have millions of copies of a foreign antigen in a vaccine, since the immune system pumps out millions of antibodies to that antigen.
A healthy immune system doesn’t even break a sweat with a typical 5 shot immunization schedule.
Fortunately for parents, the immune system also seems to do pretty well when exposed to multiple antigen types in ‘natural numbers’, ie: that kid going to the park.

I've been diagnosing and treating autistic kids and their families since the 1950s. There been a lot of progress since then. Phenylpyruvic oligophrenia ans Lesh-nyhan disease are no more. Those kids were intially diagnosed as autistic.Celiac and Sprue (which used to sometimes cause very serious psychlogical problems)are understood and properly treated.
My general feeling is that autism has multiple causes. Certain correlations, like really low birth weight, difficult delivery and measles in infancy crop up too often to be coincidental. Too, I'm convinced that quite a few autistic kids can be diagnosed in the first 2 weeks of life on the basis of neurological responses.
That being said, it's conceivable that a small set of autistic children are made autistic by vaccine. If so, I doubt it's more than one percent of autistic kids. Honestly the stir reminds me of the outcries about microwave ovens or high voltage power lines.

To the previous anonymous comment: Isn't one of the emerging theories regarding the uptick in asthma and allergic reactions that for some reason, some children are having difficulty recognizing the difference between "not-self: highly dangerous" and "not-self: mostly benign," and even, in some cases, between self and not-self? There is nearly a straight line correlation between emergence of these conditions and the stage of industrial development -- whether it's not being exposed to enough "not self" benign substances early in infancy, or something else altogether, the correlation is fairly evident.

::What that means is that "examining it thoroughly" has already been done and continuing it now is stealing money from research that might find the real cause. Continuing to waste time and effort looking at thimerosal is therefore actively condemning more kids to suffer autism in the future because it is delying finding the true cause. The thimerosal nutjobs are directly responsible for prolonging the epidemic of autism!::

Not to mention the deaths of children who contracted fatal measles, mumps, and pertussis because their monstrous parents refused to vaccinate them or their herd immunity was interfered with by sickened non-vaccinated children. All deaths that were 100% preventable.

What I want to know is how many children are these people willing to murder to supposedly protect their speshul little snowflakes from a danger that doesn't exist?