DISQUS

Is it wrong that now I'm craving salsa?

Amazingly, it appears there is an unrelated case today in an unvaccinated 23-month-old from Milwaukee. Who also went to daycare and exposed everybody there. The Long Island child was too young to have received measles vaccine yet, but the Milwaukee kid certainly should have.

It wouldn't be so bad if the unvaccinated-by-choice only affected adults who have rejected vaccines. But this isn't true for multiple reasons. First, the kids of anti-vaccinationists shouldn't have to pay for their parents' neuroses. Second, some people either can't get certain vaccines because of medical contraindications or won't experience the usual immune reaction that makes the vaccine take. Those groups surely shouldn't be made to suffer for the irrational choices of others.

Maybe the answer to the push to eliminate lawsuits against drug manufacturers is to form a specialized court on the model of the vaccine injury compensation program. I know it's been suggested before that it would help to have jurists with some amount of training on the types of evidence in these cases.

It seems like this is an artifact of the ambiguity in whether something should be called autism if its cause is identifiable, like in fragile X syndrome or, apparently, mitochondrial disease or tuberous sclerosis complex. I would guess that these conditions would be considered part of the autism spectrum for therapeutic purposes but separated out for purposes of studies on etiology. Not a distinction that most people are prepared to appreciate, unfortunately.

When the mercury mommies don't like the facts, they just make up their own. How resourceful.

I wonder whether they know that repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, no matter how many capital letters and exclamation points you use.

Next the anti-vaccine types will be attempting to spin their activities as a defense of apple pie as well.

This is such an important distinction, and one that can't be effectively addressed as long as the parents and their representatives are the only ones allowed to speak on the case. From what I can tell, Hannah Poling is not really autistic now, which adds doubt to the contention that she was ever really autistic to start with, "autistic symptoms" or no.

No judgments on those who choose to terminate, but it's a little sad that this is happening just as treatment is getting so much better for CF. With fewer patients out there, the incentive to continue research on it may dwindle and efforts may stall.

It's really disappointing that McCain didn't take the time to think two steps out and consider the effect of telling the American people that their pediatricians have been lying when they said it was safe to immunize their kids.

If he has poor enough judgment to accept what some anti-vaccine zealot tells him without checking it against any kind of expert, it's pretty scary to think of how he would make decisions as president.

Sounds like the mistake was in focusing on style rather than substance. Who knows how much Dr. Gerberding has really had to do with all of this - presumably her hand is forced at some level - but I hope whoever gets the job next notices what DIDN'T work and it's not too late to get back that focus on the mission.

Brant,

Maybe you don't know that eight large studies conducted on vast populations of children in Europe and the U.S. have looked for evidence of an association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. None of them has found any such indication.

You refer to a CDC study. After adjustment for various confounding factors, that study found no link between TCVs and autism. It is one of those eight studies.

You refer to a secret meeting. If you are referring to the discussion of the CDC paper above held at the Simpsonwood conference center, this meeting involved fifty scientists and their support staff; a transcript was generated; and it occurred at a place of public accommodation. That doesn't sound very secret to me. Also, there may have been a handful of representatives of vaccine makers there, but the vast majority of participants were from academia and government.

I'd urge you to think critically about the claim that childhood vaccines are a moneymaker. Except for the newest vaccines, they are so low-priced that there has been a constant danger of manufacturers finding the cost to produce them unjustified.

I really have to wonder if the people making these decisions don't understand the wider implications, or do understand them and just don't care. Troubling either way.

The producers of the show probably think it's brave of them to buck the medical establishment. Will they still be so proud of themselves when a parent sees this show, hears the implicit message, decides vaccines are too scary, and ends up with a very sick child?