Things often get very nasty for those who try to tell folks that vaccines have nothing to do with autism. The latest target of that nastiness is writer Amy Wallace, who authored an outstanding article in this month’s Wired called “An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All.” In it, Wallace exposes vaccine rejectionists’ junk science and fear-mongering rhetoric.
The typical response of the anti-vaccine camp when they hear this kind of sacrilege is to attack the messenger rather than the facts. There is no proof, after all, that vaccines cause autism, and whatever proof anti-vaccinationists do cite is about as accurate as a report about a celebrity in the National Enquirer.
So they smear people instead. In the most benign cases, people who disagree with anti-vaccine folks get accused of having ties to pharmaceutical companies or the CDC (I have relationship to neither, by the way). Others just shout expletives and call you names. If you want examples of this, just check out anybody who disagrees with David Kirby’s anti-vaccine rants on the anti-scientific Living section of the Huffington Post.
But the blowback against Wallace has been especially harsh. In a recent interview about her piece on NPR, she shared her experience. The nicest insults were being called “stupid,” ”greedy” and being accused of writing the piece to “get famous.” On the other hand, others have gone so far as to make veiled threats against her and resort to misogyny, calling her a ”whore,” a “prostitute,” and a “fking lib.”
Some of the crudest comments come from a man named JB Handley. Handley is the founder of the anti-vaccine group Generation Rescue, “Jenny McCarthy’s autism research and treatment advocacy organization.” Handley is famous for his vitriol against anybody who disagrees with him. But in a rebuttal to Wallace even he reached new lows by playing the misogyny card. He sent Wallace an essay he wrote called “Paul Offit Rapes (intellectually) Amy Wallace and Wired Magazine. ” In the article, Handley takes the ugly metaphor further, implying that Paul Offit, a pediatric infectious disease doctor in Philadelphia who developed the Rotavirus vaccine and the author of a 2008 book exposing the anti-vaccine movement, slipped her a date rape drug. “The roofie cocktails at Paul Offit’s house must be damn good,” he wrote.
While Handley later omitted his comments from his essay (posted at Age of Autism–another anti-vaccine group), his handiwork is an ugly, disturbing case study in how anti-vaccinationists think and behave. Whether it’s Jenny McCarthy yelling expletives on Larry King Live at the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, or the threats on Paul Offit’s life that required him to need a security detail, there is a pattern of behavior that is at best, irrational and at worst extremist. Whether or not you believe vaccines cause autism, you shouldn’t tolerate it.
More on these topics:
amy wallace, Generation Rescue, JB Handley, medicine, Paul Offit, rahul k. parikh, science, vaccines, wired magazine
lifeasthemotherof4 says:
Dear Dr. Parikh,
I just read your article and while I do not doubt that Amy Wallace was called inappropriate and vicious names, I find your position disingenuous. I assure you that people in the "anti-vaccine movement" have been called by vicious names as well. The ugliness that you refer to attaches to almost everyone -- governmental agencies, doctors, journalists and parents. Most people I've talked to and read who have concerns about vaccines take pains to state that they are not anti-vaccine but pro-safe vaccines. But I understand. If we are labeled "vaccine rejectionists" who believe in "junk science" and use "fear-mongering rhetoric" it's easier to marginalize, mock and ignore us.
I had two boys become autistic two weeks after routine vaccinations -- one at 13 months, the younger at 17 months. The same professional who told me my oldest was on the spectrum said that I didn't need to worry about my younger, he was fine. This was less than two months before he regressed into autism. Since that time I've spent thousand of hours reading studies, abstracts, and basically anything I can get my hands on about vaccines. And I am not unique!
We know too much about this topic to be patted on the head and sent away. It's frustrating to read articles written by journalists who clearly know little about their topic, and then they call us fools and parasites. It's unbelievable to read that Paul Offit is considered an expert on the causation of autism. These things are asserted in print as gospel truth and unassailable. And those of us who have delved into the subject call out ... but we are marginalized and mocked.
Are you elevating the discussion?
Dr. Snotfit says:
I'm pretty sure Handley's article, which you linked to, spelled out 10 specific lies he felt Ms. Wallace told in her article for Wired. This seems to contradict what you just wrote:
"The typical response of the anti-vaccine camp when they hear this kind of sacrilege is to attack the messenger rather than the facts."
Out of curiosity, do you think autism is genetic and that the number of cases haven't really risen in the past 20-30 years?
Curiously yours
Dr. Snotfit says:
Oh, and what about this other article Handley wrote on Dr. Offit?
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/10/dr-paul-offit-the-autism-expert-doesnt-see-patients-with-autism.html
John says:
here is the scientific vax autism evidence: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/vaccine_autism_proven.html
and here is the junk science/National Inq rubbish from your side http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html
I'd look at it if I were you and meditate on this quote:
"We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines.......Every doctor now essentially in this country has done something as heinous as the Nazis did, unknowingly."----Dr. Mayer Eisenstein
You and Wallace are a shoe in for unknowing.
reasonablehank says:
Dr Parakh,
Judging from the comments above, your article has already been vindicated. From someone who is involved in the campaign against anti-vaccination liars, I wish you all the best. There is nothing that the anti-vaccination cult will not stoop to, as witnessed in the verbal assault on Amy Wallace. I wish you all the very best, because it looks as though they have just started on you.
reasonablehank says:
@lifeasthemotherof4,
I call Scopies Law on anyone who continues to raise the thoroughly debunked autism/vaccine link. It is amusing that mums believe that they know more than immunologists, simply by studying the internets, and listening to TV personalities. If you infer the name "Wakefield", even if you don't even utter the word "Wakefield, then you have lost the plot, and the argument. Startling!
Mike Stanton says:
The mother of 4 raises the old canard about being pro-safe vaccines. Aren't we all? Modern vaccines are safe. They are safer than the old vaccines and they are safer than the diseases they protect against. One way to make them safer is to use adjuvants like aluminium and squalene so that they work at even lower doses. But these are the very things that pro-safe vaccine campaigner want to remove, along with a whole load of other ingredients which they categorize as toxins.
It is not a question of whether or not a vaccine is 100 per cent safe. Nothing ever is. It is whether or not a vaccine is safer than the consequences for an unvaccinated population. The pro-safe vaccine campaigners are in practise anti-vaccine if they refuse the present vaccines because they believe they cause more harm than good. This is not vicious name calling. It is an accurate description of your position.
Orac says:
You're absolutely right that the anti-vaccine movement always attacks the person rather than tries to refute the message. That's because attacking the messenger is all it's got. It can't win on the science; it can't win on the epidemiology; it can't win on medicine. So it attacks the messenger. This presents an interesting corollary for pseudonymous bloggers, as I found out a few years ago.
You see, anti-vaxers can't attack a pseudonymous blogger personally because they don't know who he or she is. Consequently, they (1) attack the use of the pseudonym without addressing the arguments and (2) go to great lengths to "out" the pseudonymous blogger so that they can attack him or her personally the way J.B. Handley attacked Amy Wallace. J.B., BTW, is a piece of work. This sort of misogyny is quite characteristic of his personality.
AutismNewsBeat says:
Snotfit, let's elevate the discussion. You wrote "do you think ...the number of cases haven't (sic) really risen in the past 20-30 years?" Please present evidence for an increase in the prevalence of one or more PDDs since the early 1980s. Do you agree with Handley's claim that the prevalence of "autism" was 1:10,000 in 1983? If so, please cite sources. Thanks in advance.
OhBoy! says:
Would you call someone injured in a car accident "anti-automobile" because they demand safer cars, and call for an end of the massive conflict of interest of the automobile industry?
Doctor, we DID vaccinate our kids. And their lives were forever changed because of it. Doctors like you shrug your arms and offer us nothing. Not even a "sorry about that". Then you call us angry anti-science losers. Nice.
But the good news is that many of our kids are making wonderful improvements because we are leaving doctors like you and finding much better ones that actually care about helping our kids reach their potential, more than they care about protecting the sacred cow of medicine: the vaccine program.
Yeah, a lot of us have a lot of anger about what happened to our kids and what they have to endure on a daily basis. I, for example, am not the type to fly off the handle. I don't engage in road rage, I don't let my blood boil over the economy, or taxes, or any of the other hundrends of lifes frustrations. But what has happened to our kids? Yeah, that makes me extremely angry. But you are bright enough to understand that. You just work with it to further your agenda.
Harold L Doherty says:
AutismNewsBeat
Your suggestion of raising the level of the debate is a good one. You then stated: "Please present evidence for an increase in the prevalence of one or more PDDs since the early 1980s."
I take it I can assume that you believe that autism has not increased since the early 1980's? If that assumption is correct, what does it mean for the study (Madsen) which is used to indicate that autism continued to rise in Denmark after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines?
Joseph says:
Would you call someone injured in a car accident "anti-automobile" because they demand safer cars, and call for an end of the massive conflict of interest of the automobile industry?
I would, provided they put forth arguments like "before cars, people could commute to work just fine, but really, I'm not anti-car, I swear."
The fact is that there is no anti-car movement, but there obviously is an anti-vaccine movement. At the extreme, it involves claims that the New World Order is using vaccines for population control and so forth.
I think the difference is that vaccination is seen as something imposed by the establishment, whereas getting on a car is a personal choice; even though getting on a car is far more dangerous than getting vaccinated, clearly.
Joseph says:
I take it I can assume that you believe that autism has not increased since the early 1980's? If that assumption is correct, what does it mean for the study (Madsen) which is used to indicate that autism continued to rise in Denmark after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines?
It means that Madsen et al. relied on a passive system to determine autism prevalence, namely the Danish psychiatric registry. This is pretty basic, Harold.
When case-finding is good, a lot more autism will be found, of course. A good example is the recent NHS study that found a prevalence of 1% among adults living in private households across the UK.
Harold L Doherty says:
Joseph your answer ducked the question I posed to ANB. The authors of the Madsen study stated in their report that:
"The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism. Our ecological data do not support correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism". See the conclusion section of their paper at:
See: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/3/604
Were the Madsen authors wrong in concluding that there was an increase in incidence of autism following the removal of thimerosal? If so is it fair to say that the Madsen study should NOT be used to promote the opinion that a thimerosal autism connection has been disproved?
If ANB or Dr. Parikh wish to comment on the Madsen study I would be interested. Surely there must be more to "science" and "medicine" blogs then simply bashing concerned parents?
OhBoy! says:
Vaccination SHOULD be a personal choice. People who are against this most basic human right call those who support that right "anti-vaccine". There are so many ways to be labeled anti-vaccine. Question the safety of any single vaccine or manufacturer, question the lack of choice, question the conflicts of interests in the vaccine program. The list just goes on and on. Tens of thousands of ordinary, everyday parents are now anti-vaccine zealots for having the nerve question what goes into their children.
But that is probably a knee jerk reaction from docs like this one since he knows any parent that scratches the surface of how the vaccine program works will be outraged by what they find. Parents are much easier handled when they don't ask questions and don't nose around where they are not wanted.
Matt says:
I certainly condom JB Handley's methods in trying to intimidate and insult Amy Wallace. If only this were an isolated incident.
JB Handley doesn't speak for or represent the autism community. He may represent his own organization, Generation Rescue. I suspect even amongst the Generation Rescue membership there are many who feel that JB Handley crossed a line here.
Joseph says:
Were the Madsen authors wrong in concluding that there was an increase in incidence of autism following the removal of thimerosal?
No, they were not, Harold. They are clearly talking about incidence determined through a passive system. This did increase. Anyone reading the paper can see that.
Does this mean that the "true" incidence of autism increased? Of course not. I'm sure the authors would agree as well.
That paper cannot answer the question as to whether the "true" incidence of autism increased or not. It's not equipped to do that. All it tells us is that removal of thimerosal had no discernable effect on the incidence of autism as recorded in a passive system. And it didn't.
Matt says:
Yes, that would be a spelling mistake on my part. Shoulda looked closer at what the spell checker was suggesting.
Mike Stanton says:
OhBoy!
you said
"Would you call someone injured in a car accident "anti-automobile" because they demand safer cars, and call for an end of the massive conflict of interest of the automobile industry?"
I would call them anti-automobile if they refused to use cars after that and called for all cars to be withdrawn and replaced with 100 per cent safe cars, guaranteed never to have an accident.
I am also getting a little tired of people who turn up on message boards claiming their children were vaccine damaged as if that settles the argument. We know there are adverse reactions and some people are severely affected by these. That is why we have compensation programmes. There are approximately 60 million children in the USA who must have had 100s of millions of shots between them. Add in the adult population and compare to the number of claims for vaccine injury over the last 20 years.
There have been over 7000 non autism claims and about a third have been upheld by the court. These are compensated at an average rate of three quarters of a million dollars. Out of 5605 autism claims none have been upheld. 569 cases were dismissed and most of the rest are pending the outcome of the Autism Omnibus Proceedings and will probably go the same way.
I draw three lessons from this.
1. The number of serious adverse effects are tiny compared to the overall level of vaccination
2. Most claims of vaccine injury turn out to be wrong.
3. Genuine cases are severely disabled and receive large sums to compensate for their disability. They are not "making wonderful improvements" to "reach their potential."
Autism is not caused by vaccines. Just like the rest of the population, a tiny number of autistics may suffer vaccine injury. But that does not prove that vaccines caused their autism. And most autistic children show improvements throughout their lives with or without the dubious benefit of untested remedies for unproven vaccine damage delivered by alternative medical practitioners.
Harold L Doherty says:
Joseph, once again you did not really answer my question. The Madsen study, despite the author's own comments contra, and despite the belief by some, including you, that there has been no real increase in autism is cited by some as proof that thimerosal has not causal or triggering effect with respect to autism. That questionable claim is made on the basis that autism continued to rise after removal of thimerosal. That can not be the case if there is no REAL incease in autism. If the DSM and ICD definitions changed as they did then the study has no value at all in determining whether thimerosal is related to vaccines. See also the Verstraeten studies 2003-2004 where mixed outcomes were interpreted by the lead author in subsequent AAP comments as indicating a neutral outcome and requiring more study.
Thank you for the discussion, it has been helpful for me, as a neutral in the vaccine-autism war, in understanding the limitations of Pro-Vax side.
Harold L Doherty says:
"Autism is not caused by vaccines"
- Mike Stanton
I guess someone should send out the message. Tell the world that Mike Stanton has spoken. The debate is over.
carolita says:
Hey, I've been called a "f*king whore" and instructed to "burn in hell" for reasons only the commentors on my blog could ever know. I still have no idea why. People just like to call ANY woman with ANY strong opinion about ANYthing vicious names, especially if they are in any degree, small or large, a public figure or have any public access (like a blog with a comments section). Just look at any women's blog, or any comments section of any strongly worded article written by a woman. I don't think that kind of name-calling needs to be brought to the fore, any more than it needs to be paid attention to by the target. You pipe up, you get pelted by haters. It's human nature, it seems.
That said, my dad is autistic (Asperger's), and though he's not a joy to be around, he's been a decent father, a good provider, and a tax-paying law-abiding citizen all his life. If a vaccine made him autistic, it didn't ruin his life, or mine. And with all my friends producing offspring these days, I'm pretty darn happy I've been vaccinated against all the diseases they could potentially pass on to me.
lifeasthemotherof4 says:
@reasonablehank
I don't believe I know more than an immunologist, but I have often been in the position of knowing more about specific vaccines and autism than my childrens' pediatrician. Dr. Parikh's article was about the incivility demonstrated by, to quote you, "anti-vaccination liars." Dr. Parikh said specifically "The typical response of the anti-vaccine camp when they hear this kind of sacrilege is to attack the messenger rather than the facts."
It is disingenuous to deride in others the behavior you engage in yourself.
Regards
Broken Link says:
Yes, Mike I agree with your statement: "I am also getting a little tired of people who turn up on message boards claiming their children were vaccine damaged as if that settles the argument."
The Cedillos also claimed up and down that their child was perfectly normal until she received her MMR. In fact, they still claim this:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EOHarm/message/97839
However, if you read the transcripts of the autism omnibus hearings (as summarized here)
http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2007/06/omnibus-hearing-fombonne.html
it is very clear that they had very selective memory.
Mike Stanton says:
Harold L Doherty says:
"Autism is not caused by vaccines"
- Mike Stanton
I guess someone should send out the message. Tell the world that Mike Stanton has spoken. The debate is over.
It looks like Harold finally got something right. I am curious as to how you can be neutral while exclusively posting criticism of the pro-vaccine position and never criticising the anti-vaccine position.
As regards thiomersal I have two questions.
1. If the increase in thiomersal from 75 micrograms to 187.5 micrograms at the start of the 1990s is what triggered the growth in autism prevalence in the USA, why did it also go up in countries like the UK which kept to the old levels of thiomersal?
2. Why did recorded levels continue to rise after the thiomersal was removed from the US childhood vaccine schedules?
OhBoy! says:
A generation ago autism was blamed on cold and distant parenting known as "refrigerator mothers". All the smart and smug doctors of that time declared that as scientific fact. When they were proven wrong, was there any humility on their part? Any remorse about the families destroyed? Not that I have ever heard of. I don't expect any humility on this topic either. Much easier to steer the topic to parents who stopped vaccinating, to gloss over the reasons WHY they stopped vaccinating. Pediatricians don't want other families to know what happened to the kids that were vaccine injured or how their families were treated. They are affraid other families will realize that what happened to us, can happen to them. When their beautiful, healthy kids decend into the hell of autism within days of their vaccines, they are told it was all a big fat coincidence. They are told that there is nothing to be done to help those kids. Take them home and love them is the advice they get from these doctors. They are let down by these doctors in every possible way a doctor can let you down. Then they berate you and try to place blame on you.
No thanks, I don't think I need that type of medical professional anymore.
John says:
ORAC: "You're absolutely right that the anti-vaccine movement always attacks the person rather than tries to refute the message. That's because attacking the messenger is all it's got. It can't win on the science; it can't win on the epidemiology; it can't win on medicine. So it attacks the messenger."
Living in pharmaland, as usual:
1. Science http://www.whale.to/vaccine/vaccine_autism_proven.htmld
2. Your junk/fraudulent epidemiology taken apart and disposed of: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html
3. Your 'medicine' can only cure bacterial infections after 200 years of trying. Your alleged success with smallpox is a pack of lies http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox.html along with the rest of them. While you kill 800,000 people every year http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html BEFORE you factor in all the psychiatric drug addictions (tens of millions), vaccine deaths and disease, cancer & AIDS drug deaths etc
4. While your Numero Uno argument is a logical fallacy, you call Scopie's Law http://www.whale.to/b/appeal_to_incredulity.html
"Whale.to is one of the biggest repositories of altie woo, pseudoscience, conspiracy mongering, and New Age nonsense you'll ever be able to find anywhere. Anyone who uncritically cites anything from Whale.to as evidence to bolster his position clearly has a problem with critical thinking skills."--Orac (displaying illogical 'thinking')
5. As for attacking the messenger, you lot excel at that http://www.whale.to/vaccine/propaganda3.html
One from your Blog: "I agree the guy appears to be actually, for real, insane. But so was Charlie Manson. That excuse can only take a person so far. I'm shocked anyone can take the nutjob seriously at all, but apparently some actually manage it. You'd think the overt antisemitism (not to mention the gibbering insanity) would be more of a turnoff than it actually appears to be. I just don't know anymore if it's possible to have too little faith in humanity."
6. Not forgetting your lies about our argument being full of water. But then you lot excel at lies, had 200 years of practice, these are just the vaccine ones http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ploy5.html
7. And we know you can't take any argument as you banish the likes of me off your blog.
Top marks for self delusion though, Gorski!
DawnCrim says:
MedImmune's Nasal Spray leaves you contagious for at least 3 weeks. See page 19 of their package insert. The medical community is responsible for these outbreaks because this is the very first vaccine that became available. These ingredients are very disturbing and they are also found in many common vaccines.
http://vactruth.com/2009/10/02/fda-approved-h1n1-vaccines-contain-ingredients-known-to-cause-cancer-and-death/
Read "Fear of the Invisible" by Janine Roberts. You will then understand why the entire world is facing an utterly devasting crisis. It is just a matter of time before the majority of the population is infected. These vaccine contaminants are sexually transmitted and genetic. After reading the book, you will also understand why cancer now affects 1 in every 200 children under the age of 10. 25% of these children will die despite treatment.
Neurotoxins do not cause Autism. They simply add fuel to the fire and allow these contaminants to cross the blood-brain barrier.
Joseph says:
The Madsen study, despite the author's own comments contra, and despite the belief by some, including you, that there has been no real increase in autism is cited by some as proof that thimerosal has not causal or triggering effect with respect to autism. That questionable claim is made on the basis that autism continued to rise after removal of thimerosal. That can not be the case if there is no REAL incease in autism. If the DSM and ICD definitions changed as they did then the study has no value at all in determining whether thimerosal is related to vaccines.
@Harold: I think the results of the study are clear, and you seem to be trying to find an inconsistency that would invalidate it. You haven't, however. Science is not solved as you would a word game.
The Madsen et al. study is rarely cited, first of all. There are several newer, bigger and methodologically superior studies. Second, strictly speaking, it's not cited as "proof" of a negative. That terminology is just not accurate.
As I noted, Madsen et al. finds that the passively-determined incidence of autism continued to increase after removal of thimerosal. If you don't think this finding is of interest, you would need to explain why removal of thimerosal would not affect the passively-determined incidence trend. It seems clear that if thimerosal is an important risk factor, incidence (even passively-determined incidence) should be affected to some extent. Your claim that the finding has no value at all because of changes in criteria is extraordinary. You need to elaborate further.
Free Will says:
If the pharmaceutical companies admit their vaccines can harm people, why are many doctors, pharma employees, writers and individuals so quick to exonerate them? We all can pull up vaccine inserts and read their list of "side effects". These companies are being forthright in admitting their products can harm some people. I just don't understand how a doctor can make it sound like vaccines cannot possibly cause or contribute to autism - especially when an official cause for the disorder has never been announced.
Antibiotics harm some people who take them. Peanuts can kill some individuals who eat them. Cars have injured many men and women who ride in them (or are near them). What is "safe" for some, is not "safe" for all.
Our society has become too fear based and simplistic. We need to look beyond our own backyards and see what's going on around us. Just because things appear to be "fine" for you, doesn't mean that this is the case for your neighbors. And, anytime we need to "scare" people into doing something (getting a vaccine - for example), we need to question what is really going on. If you like vaccines, then get them. People who don't want them shouldn't be forced to submit to them.
Joseph says:
All the smart and smug doctors of that time declared that as scientific fact
Name three. Were there scientific studies showing that the hypothesis had merit? Don't confuse pseudo-science with science. Yes, pseudo-science can be popular at times; just look at astrology or homeopathy.
OhBoy! says:
That would be a question for the "refrigerator mothers" themselves. I am sure they would never forget those supposed professionals:
http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/refrigerator_mothers/
Some of these same professionals prescribed isolation therapy for autistic children.
John says:
"pseudo-science can be popular at times; just look at astrology or homeopathy."
The real pseudo-science is Allopathy, only diseases cured in 200 years are bacterial infections, while Nutritional medicine has the cure for them and viral infections--had for 50 years, with Vitamin C, which also reverses Heart disease http://www.whale.to/a/vit_c_cons.html
Just Nutritional medicine could replace 98% of Allopathic medicine, which is why Allopathy constantly attacks Alternative Med, they don't want people to see the writing on the wall. Then you have Homeopathy, naturopathic herbalism, electronic medicine, oxygen therapy, and so on.
And notice how nutritional med is NEVER mentioned, they know the Vitamin C cure for infections has over 1,200 medical citations to back it up.
As for psychiatrist (Allopath) Ben Goldacre: how is this for pseudo/Bad Science: “The time when psychiatrists considered that they could cure the mentally ill is gone. In the future the mentally ill have to learn to live with their illness.”----Norman Sartorius, president of the World Psychiatric Association 1994
But they are quite happy to dish out the useless, highly addictive and highly profitable pills day in day out, while claiming the real cures are Bad Science. You couldn't make it up, could you, unless you are an Orwell or Kafka.
Kate says:
Orac,
Are you kidding me? All you've done in your comments is attack anti-vaccination people, calling them names. If that's not the pot calling the kettle, I don't know what is.
Have you gone back and read any of the comments by anti-vax people? Have you read any of the LINKS they posted to studies proving their point? Have you bothered to look into the matter at all or do you just blindly believe anything people tell you?
I am not pro-safe-vaccine. I am anti-vaccine. I don't understand how anyone who's done any research at all could believe that injecting toxins into our bodies could possibly produce better health. That is absolutely ridiculous and I reject it outright. I won't bother showing you the science (though I have plenty of documented evidence, papers published in medical journals) saved, because you won't read it, and then you'll just go on a tirade about how I have "no evidence." Pretty easy to say if you refuse to look!
Shame on you for propagating the hatred towards the reasonable, rational, FACTUAL anti-vaccinators, Dr. Parikh.
Nika says:
After receiving and MMR+Hepatitus B my 13.5 m.o; son developed signs of Rubella. Pediatrician called vaccine producer, but they said it is not because of their vaccination. "In worst case, your son were sick with Rubella". Now, 8 years later, we found that his immune status is low and he should not receive any MBL-dependant vaccinations, but nobosy thinks to do any Immune System check before vaccinating. I asked many parents - nobody did it! Even that it is written in instruction for vaccination, even basic checkup, taking into the account that chidren's immune system is different from adults' one.
Why? If vaccination is safe - why in the instruction is written "do not administrate in case of weak immune system", but no more details - HOW weak, which types of weakness (different viruses are eliminated from the body by different paths)? Why they do not presice - because they did not make any tests and just give general suggestions?
What is the reason to vaccinate children without even checking if they COULD have this vaccinations? Why not oblige doctors to check the immune status before vaccine administration? Because then the percent of kids with contre-indication would be very high (definitely, yes, if we judge the increasing level of auto-immune responses, allergies, etc in kids)?
Before telling "vacinate your kids, it's safe" - pharma companies needs to do research on every vaccine, verify every virus separately, test them together, give clear contre-indicatinos, and not just "anything". Then after checking if this particular child is able to receive it, his parents would believe it is safe.
In our case my son had rubella FROM vaccination, when he was vaccinated in order to AVOID rubella. And it happened because someone did not do his job properly. Who was it - pharma producer, doctor, government - we do not care. As we see, none of them were capable to make sure that vaccination is safe. Then it's our parental obligation to make sure our children would be safe in case someone who is paid for this is not capable to manage it.
Dr. Speculate says:
Fun Fact! Thiomersal is toxic.
I doubt it gave your kids autism, though. If that were true, than boys wouldn't be like 1000 times (? [haha]) more likely to have autism than girls. My theory is that it has something to do with the parenting style and culture of well-to-do Caucasians who are raising boys.
Joseph says:
Have you gone back and read any of the comments by anti-vax people? Have you read any of the LINKS they posted to studies proving their point? Have you bothered to look into the matter at all or do you just blindly believe anything people tell you?
@Kate: I can assure you that Orac has read nearly all the anti-vax studies and commented on them; at least the most relevant and recent ones. You can search his blog for authors and titles.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence
A study per se doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a piece of evidence that needs to be considered in the context of all existing evidence, with all its relative strenghts and shortcomings.
I don't understand how anyone who's done any research at all could believe that injecting toxins into our bodies could possibly produce better health. That is absolutely ridiculous and I reject it outright.
Your comment is ridiculous and I reject it outright. Here's an example: Eating fish can be shown to result in certain better health outcomes. Yet, fish contains relatively large amounts of mercury. All food you eat contains "toxins" including heavy metals.
Joseph says:
If vaccination is safe - why in the instruction is written "do not administrate in case of weak immune system", but no more details - HOW weak, which types of weakness (different viruses are eliminated from the body by different paths)?
Think about it for a minute. Is eating peanuts safe?
Liz Ditz says:
My goodness, Dr. Parikh, you hit a trifecta! J. B. Handley (under the pseudonym "Dr. Snotfit") John Best, and Dawn Crim -- three of the most extreme anti-vaccination...er, commenters.
I've been compiling responses to Amy Wallace's article and specifically posts on the misogynist nature of J. B. Handley's response. I've added this post to the list.
Zar says:
I'm glad someone is noticing how much certain anti-vaxers hate women. If only there were more press on how much anti-vaxers hate autistic people. Anti-vaxers call people with autism "soulless", "broken", "poisoned", "shadows", etc. They would rather their children die of easily prevented diseases than be autistic.
Ottoschnaut says:
Dr. Parikh:
1) Dr. Bernadine Healy is on the public record that vax are not exonerated in asd. When I post this fact, JOSEPHIUS/ORAC/ANB attack Dr. Healy as "political hack" do not answer her statements of concern.
2) Bailey v HHS
3) Poling V HHS
4) University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Journal Neurotoxicology Hep B primate study October 2009 is troubling.
5) Annals of Epidemiology October 2009 Hep B results are troubling.
Jake Crosby says:
Ugliness of pharma tools like yourself who poisons babies is more like it.
Jake Crosby says:
Just to add, you said:
"people who disagree with anti-vaccine folks get accused of having ties to pharmaceutical companies or the CDC (I have relationship to neither, by the way)"
You're a fellow of the AAP; the AAP's headquarters was built on pharma dollars and it jointly recommends the childhood vaccine schedule with the CDC. You are a liar, and trying to conceal your COI.