Jenny McCarthy and the Autism Dilemma

When I watch Jenny McCarthy on CNN or when I read the blogs (and comments) on autism, I keep wondering: What is this debate about? Yes, the parents of autistic kids are more "emotional" than the aloof doctors before them. But why are they met with anger, rather than compassion? If their concerns are heard, how does that harm other citizens? As a health journalist, and recent newcomer to this issue, I'm trying to understand the passion on the "pro-vaccination" side.

The underlying fear and anger towards these parents suggests that it's somehow heretical to question any proffering of scientific "proof" even when it squares off with experience--in this case, parents' tragic and oft repeated experience of watching hundreds of thousands of children immediately deteriorate upon vaccination.

As these two different and valid kinds of evidence collide, the collision should awaken the spirit of scientific inquiry. Instead it's viewed as a threat.

Leading material scientist, Rustum Roy, currently co-launching the Journal of the Science of Healing Outcomes, maintains that throughout the history of science, most discoveries originate in similar circumstances, in the need to explain evidence not understood by current scientific theory. The dilemma of autism leads us to that threshold.

Over the last fifty plus years, what we have come to call health "science" developed as a research method to target single agents as angels or devils-- cures or causes. Pharmaceutical companies use reductive research to find and patent drugs. They typically pay the high costs of such research, but even when they don't, that research model prevails. Both the medical establishment and the general public assume that this narrow research model is the be-all and end-all of "science."

Unfortunately, there's much that this research focus fails to address. The totality of the human being, the complexity of human health factors, the wide range of health stressors, the multiplier effect when all of these variables interact, not to mention the biochemical individuality of each human being. Yes, each of us is unique.

Testing single vaccine ingredients to refute vaccinations as a major autism contributor is inconclusive, especially given the poor nature of the studies. Vaccines are not single agents.

Imagine consuming several different type of cocktails at once. Each cocktail contains multiple infectious agents, microbes, and metals acting together and creating new and unexamined synergies in interaction with each individual. Our research model doesn't assess those synergies or predict which individuals are vulnerable.

So when science repeatedly proffers findings that "No, it isn't this single agent," rather than proving that vaccinations don't precipitate autism, what's demonstrated are the limitations of the modern reductive research approach.

Falling outside this research model, the many real factors and variables are treated as non-existent because the study design cannot account for them. As a result, every single autistic child serves as a living human reminder that we need to account for individual differences, multiplier factors, and human complexity--and adjust our scientific model and attendant belief systems accordingly.

Without that kind of re-evaluation and readiness to explore where the human evidence leads, pediatricians will continue to draw a line in the sand as they did on the Larry King show, where they said (in effect): Your child's reaction is your problem.

With a near mandatory requirement and universal recommendation to vaccinate, shortfalls in the scientific model can result in tragic outcomes for individuals, not to mention financial burdens for which both government and industry refuse accountability. The New York Times recently reports that a current case in court could potentially provide drug manufacturers with a "legal shield," indemnifying them from financial accountability for harm from any drug, approved by the FDA, depositing their profits while those suffering harm from a drug are left to pay the piper.

Stay tuned as current and future generations of parents assess their risk tolerance in the lottery of vaccine and drug recommendations for which manufacturers disclaim responsibility. If the autistic children's parents' outcry turns out to be justified, thousands of future newborns yet to be vaccinated could soon join the ranks of "evidence.'

Like Jenny McCarthy, many parents with autistic children seek out treatment approaches that account for individuality and multiplier effects. Some report success in recovering autistic children. Yet according to parents, pediatricians often deny the cure, arguing that the child wasn't autistic to begin with.

Facing this dilemma with their doctors, the government, and the drug manufacturers, it's no wonder parents of the autistic don't sound calm. Their experience recalls the story about the woman who walked in on her husband in bed with another woman.

"Who are you going to believe?" he asked, "Me, or your lying eyes?"

For more information on whole person health, please sign up at: www.health-journalist.com.

Follow Alison Rose Levy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Alirosewriter

Comments

[maxwell105]

One additional detail: The "scientific" studies which supposedly exonerate the single ingredient you refer to, thimerosal (the mercury-containing vaccine preservative which has still not been completely removed from all vaccines), all have major flaws. Each and every one of these studies are questionable in their supposed results and have serious shortcomings. Some even show signs of possible manipulation of data.

None of them were funded by independent bodies or conducted by independent researchers. Most of them were funded by the CDC and/or pharmaceutical companies, both of which have inherent conflicts of interest associated with this issue. Many of the involved researchers were CDC employees and/or past, present or future employees of vaccine manufacturers.

Yet for some reason, when doubters of the autism/thimerosal theory promote these studies they never mention any of the above information. I wonder why?

[LindsE]

Just for clarification, who would you consider a truly independent researcher? Obviously, research done by pharma is the most likely to biased, but all research is funded by someone or some entity (gov't or other). I guess I'm just trying to point out that there's always going to be money coming from somewhere.

[maxwell105]

Ok let's have some no-strings-attached NIH grants given to independent minded toxicologists for example. These need to be people with absolutely no connections to vaccine manufacturers or the CDC.

See that was easy.

Btw: We have one from 2005 by Dr. Thomas Burbacher from the University of Washington. He got an NIH grant to study the effects of thimerosal on the brains of primates. His study, which has been ignored by the CDC and IOM, showed that injection with thimerosal results in more than twice as much inorganic mercury remaining trapped in the brain when compared to an equal dose of the supposedly more toxic methylmercury given orally.

[DrSaveLives]

The issue from the "pro-vaccination" side is that if enough people stop vaccinating, some kids will die. It has happened twice in England - in the 70's&80's with a newspaper report of permanent brain damage with Pertussis vaccine and the 80's & 90's for the now-felon Dr Wakefield who fabricated a study about the MMR vaccine. It is pretty easy to show a fairly dramatic increase in Pertussis and Measles with subsequent needless deaths.
Unfortunately it is never predictable exactly who will get the complications from the vaccine preventable disease - But is it very likely it will NOT be the people promoting cessation of vaccination. So they never pay the price of their advice. It is always possible - not probable - that someone could have a bizarre reaction to any injection. But if it is more likely to suffer from NOT being vaccinated than from being vaccinated.
I have practiced without Hib vaccine and Prevnar and I certainly do not want to do that again. I have never seen a complication from thousands of vaccinations, but I have seen complications and deaths from those two diseases.
Clearly Ms. McCarthy's son has a medical problem - but it does not sound like Autism. I have never had an Autistic patient present with a seizure - and the probability of two conditions independently happening at the same moment is - unlikely. Let Jenny release some real medical evaluations so we can learn from her miracle - not just say It

[CraigWilloughby]

None of us are asking to get rid of vaccines. We are asking for safer vaccines....just like Dr. Wakefield. Did you never seen a complication from thousands of vaccinations, or have you never reported on?

There are quite a few parents out there (myself included) who perceived their child go into a high fever, convulsions, uncontrollable screaming, and, in my son's case and in Hannah Poling's case, encepalopathy and eventually Autism. All within a few hours after receiving a vaccine.

Remember, Galileo was nearly beheaded for his theories.

[keytohealth]

Imagine consuming several different type of cocktails at once. Just so you know this info came from pHarma Package Inserts. Do you think your childs DNA will ever be the same?
***Give this to your newborn child and see what happens to his/her brain.
Toxic Vaccine Ingredients: Varicella virus/ human diploid lung cells, Embryonic Guinea pig cell cultures, Beef heart infusion/ fetal bovine serum, Ammonium Sulfate, Glutamate, Neomycin, Diphtheria, Tetanus Toxoids, & Acellular pertussis endotoxin, beef heart infusion/fetal bovine serum, aluminum, formaldehyde, Thimerosal (mercury derivative), phenol/phe­noxyethano­l, polysorbate 80 (Tween 80), dry natural latex rubber, Hepatitis B virus gene / yeast protein, Aluminum, Formaldehyde, Thimerosal (mercury derivative), Diphtheria Toxoid, Tetanus Toxoid, Haemophilus influenza type b antigen, Neisseria meningitides serogroup B, Ammonia Sulfate, Aluminum, Thimerosal (Mercury derivative), Dry natural latex rubber, Hepatitis B virus gene / yeast protein, Haemophilus influenza type b antigen, Neisseria meningitides serogroup B, Aluminum, Formaldehyde, Mumps virus / chick embryo culture, Rubella virus / human diploid lung cells, Beef heart infusion / fetal bovine serum, Human albumin, Sorbitol/sucrose, Glutamate, Neomycin, Diphtheria toxoid, Streptococcus pneumonia/ soy peptone broth/ yeast, Ammonium Sulfate, Glutamate, Neomycin, Polio virus/ monkey kidney cell, beef heart infusion/fetal bovine serum, formaldehyde, phenol/phe­noxyethano­l, dry natural latex rubber, neomycin. All Vaccines are TOXIC

[DannysVoice]

First, my son has full blown Autism AND a seizure disirder. There are many, many , many kids who have both.

Secondly, I believe vaccines ARE contributing to the cause of Autism. The 27 vaccines kids receive between birth and 3 years old are over wheliming the immune sytems of a subset of kids and the result for many is Autism. Vaccines do save many lives and are important in preventing disease, but giving 1 in every 150 kids born today brain damage in the process is not right and should NEVER be an acceptable compromise for disease prevention. Vaccines must be made safer. We can't continue to sacrifice the minds of all these children so the CDC can reach a goal of 99% vaccinated USA population. Vaccines MUST be SAFE as well as effective!

[ARealConservative]

What do you mean by "I have never seen a complication from thousands of vaccinations"? Have you followed the health and well being of thousands of children post vaccination? Can you say for certain that there was no negative related health problems in those thousands. If so, that it is quite profound as it contrary to many studies of the population. However, it is consistent with the NIH findings that doctors routinely under-report vaccine related issues. Thus when the CDC asserts that vaccines have extremely low incidence of complications, that information is false and misleading.
Not to say that for 99.4% of the of the population that it isn't safe. But the 0.6% of the population that ends up autistic, the parents don't accept your attitude of - too bad get over it.

[Orac]

Oh really.

Which specific studies are "flawed"?

What are the specific scientific flaws in these studies. Please list them.

What? You can't? Then why should I take you seriously?

[CraigWilloughby]

Oh, I don't know...the fact that the Denmark study added and removed children from the study at random...maybe it was because they didn't have the right kind of autism, as another blogger likes to put in. Or the fact that the California study found that after "removing" thimerosal from vaccines, the autism rate didn't go down. What they didn't tell you was that the thimerosal was still in the vaccines.

And why should we take you seriously?

[linlou34]

I appreciate your post Allison. We really do need REAL scientific studies and REAL answers. I am so tired of people discrediting us parents. When my son was diagnosed, I was told by doctors and school professionals that your best source of information about autism will be with other moms and dads. Yes, doctors told me that they do not know enough about it and referred me to other parents. Pretty sad that they did not want to offer anything other than, so sorry join a support group. Just wonder why parents are losing faith in the pediatric profession.

[Olerist]

Look into why the "scientific community" avoided letting anyone review and test their VSD data so they could confirm the basic tennant of science - it must be testable and repeatable.

Talk about unscientific!

[DannysVoice]

The CDC finally did let the Drs. Geirs (father and son) see the "supposedly misplaced" VSD Data in 2004. The Geirs tests of the VSD Data showed a connection between thimerosol and Autism, learning disabilities, language delay and more. Those results were nearly identical to the intital results Dr. Verstraeten of the CDC got when he studied the data, and subsequently brought it to the attention of the CDC. The CDC didn't like the outcome because it would hamper their precious vaccine program, so they massaged the data until it showed no link. Look up the CDC's Simpsonwood meeting in 1999.

[CraigWilloughby]

DannysVoice.

If you don't mind, I would really like to read up some more on the study you mention. Do you have the link still? Thanks :)

[Keys2UA]

If the scientists and the CDC are feeling a bit nervous that vaccine rates should drop, then maybe they should have listened to the parents a long time ago. This issue is not new to them. Congressional testimony on this very topic began 8 years ago. But they continue to hedge their bets and say if we ignore this the people will go away. They will give up. But we won't. We won't give up saying what happened to our kids and if we have to do that one parent by one parent encouraging them to research vaccines on their own so that they can, at a very minimum, make the educated decisions that we unfortunately did not make because of our blind faith in the medical establishment, we will do that....in the WalMarts, in the airports, at the gas stations and wherever else we see pregnant women and little babies. They have had years to develop safer methods of vaccination and restore the faith of the American public. I have absolutely no sympathy for their fears now. If these diseases return because people choose not to vaccinate the blood is on their hands, not ours for telling what happened to our children. We alerted them to a problem that they have repeatedly chosen to ignore.

[CraigWilloughby]

Excellent post! I have no sympathy for them when the cat finally gets out of the bag. I will say this, I'm almost afraid to see what's going to happen. These monsters at the CDC need justice, but what will this do to our people here in the US and our government?

I said this on another post. If they have been guilty of this all this time, they need to fess up. I strongly believe that the American public will be more willing to forgive them than if the truth is released through an internal whistle-blower. I think with the latter, there will be a lot of hell to pay.

Thank you for your post.

[Heraldblog]

The above post is the exact reason why these people shouldn't be taken seriously. Their arrogance and their personal attacks (calling a group of civil servants "monsters" is an attack), I think, hurt them more than help them. I think we should let them continue to spew their hatred and condescension. It will help the cause of evidence-based medicine.

If you were a little more respectful to others, and stuck to facts, we would be more open to listening to you.

[CraigWilloughby]

Uh oh, everyone! Wooks wike I hurt his wittle feewings.

[CraigWilloughby]

Uh oh, everyone. I think I pushed a button. It appears as if Ken or whateverhisnameis is offended by my comments. Maybe he can ask for comfort from one of his other accounts.

However, it seems as if my attempts to reflect his attacks on us back upon him, while entertaining, are only encouraging him. It looks as if he can dish it out, but he can't take it. Typical of a bully. I will refrain from further encouragement, and continue to ignore his useless chatter. Maybe then, he'll finally leave.

Either that, or he'll make up a new name and try to start all over again.

[mfb]

There's a risk in giving establishment science too much credit here, for assuming they've actually done their job. The truth of the matter is that what passes for "autism science", especially around the vaccine issue, is simply awful: poorly designed, poorly reasoned and completely politlcal. Anyone who walks around with the illusion that (largely ) American "science" is some kind of unified, truth-seeking, apolitical wisdom dispenser is not living in the real world. Establishment scientists today are far too concerned with where their next grant is coming from, what their tenure prospects are and what there buddies at the next XYZ conference are going to say about them than they are about dealing with inconvenient problems like autism. The real issue in autism is not "parents vs. science" but rather "truth vs. self-interest." That's not to say the truth is clear in autism, far from it and we need more and better science to get closer to the truth about autism. But let's not pretend that the scientific community is functioning well here. Most of the science on this issue is pathetic.

[CraigWilloughby]

mfb, very well written, and I couldn't have said it better myself. Most of these "studies" these people you speak of cling to is full of holes and poorly disguised tampering. Truth vs. self interest is very much in conflict here.

Thanks so much for your post.

[Orac]

Which specific studies that failed to show a link between thimerosal­-containin­g vaccines and autism are "poorly designed"?

What are the SPECIFIC scientific flaws and how do they rise to the level to invalidate the studies. Again, be specific about the science. No conspiracy­-mongering­, no hand-waving, no broad generalizations. I want specifics.

[DannysVoice]

Amen, mfb!! And if the CDC and FDA were not in bed with the pharmaceutical companies and their lobbiests all vaccines and Rx drugs would be much safer and more trusted by the public.

[Lon]

It is hard to see how one could undercut ones post more than is done in the above post by beginning with a paragraph challenging the motives of scientists on this issue. I have not seen much anger at the parents of autistic children, although there clearly has been at advocates like Kirby who have made a lot of money off of the contraversy pushing a view that scientists consider unscientific.

But to answer your question, scientists are afraid that the people linking autism to immunization will lead to more children not getting immunized. This would result in more children getting diseases that could be prevented by immunization. And this would lead to more children dying unnecessarily. Scientists do not like children dying unnecessarily. Does that explain why scientists might get angry at unscientific linking of vaccines to autism?

[Heraldblog]

Hard to argue with that.

Scientists also don't see the sense of studying something that's already been settled. Hence the reluctance to expose healthy children to preventable diseases just so we can compare autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

[Orac]

Precisely. The common antivaccinationist canard about "randomized double-blinded" trials of vaccinated versus unvaccinated is just that: a canard. The reason is that such a study would be highly unethical, as it would expose the control group of children to vaccine-preventable disease.

[S1m0n]

"So when science repeatedly proffers findings that "No, it isn't this single agent," rather than proving that vaccinations don't precipitate autism, what's demonstrated are the limitations of the modern reductive research approach."

Arguments don't come any more circular than this.

[Lon]

Why is this supposed to be so circular? If what needs to be tested is something about combinations of agents, then tests of particular agents will not be effective. (Although one would need a somewhat complex relationship here as if the problem was the use of A B and C, the removal of A would show an effect. So presumably what is being alleged is a problem with A and B, or B and C, or A and C so removal of A or B or C doesn't have an effect.) Given that we quite reasonably do not test by stopping vaccinations altogether to watch children get sicker, there are limits to the tests we are willing to run.

[S1m0n]

Because she assumes that the cause of autism is in vaccines, takes the failure of science to confirm her belief as proof that science doesn't work, and then cites this fallacy in an article which claims that the cause of autism is vaccination.

[Orac]

Ah, yes, the antivaccinationist toxic myth about vaccines:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9

You know, the same one Levy was mindlessly parroting in her post.

[jlu626]

Thanks for writing about such a crucial topic. I am the mom of a little boy who is four and who is extremely challenged.

Another fear I have is that autism will become some sort of airbrushed disorder in the eyes of the world. Jenny McCarthy is brave, beautiful and articulate and the recovery of her son is amazing. But her life and her experience are very different from mine and many other families I know. We have been struggling for almost three years now just to teach my son to speak. (He is non-verbal.) He is starting to eat (finally!) and is beginning to work on toileting skills. But the challenges we face haven't been so easily overcome.

There's so much more to the story ...

[CraigWilloughby]

Only parents of severely autistic children like ours really understand what we are going through. We live with this every day. We have to try to calm them down when they go into fits, banging their heads against the wall. We have to clean up the feces that they smear all over the place. Autism IS our fight

What is very sad is the lack of compassion of many people. I remember taking my son to the store. He got overwhelmed and had a meltdown, so I just grabbed what I could and headed to the checkout line. One very rude lady (she kind of reminds me of Ken) says in a very snotty tone of voice "Can you shut your kid up?"

I gave her my best cold stare and replied, "He's Autistic, what's our excuse."

We get this from our neighbors (they called the cops on me because my son was having one of his fits. Luckily, the police who came to our house were very cool and understanding), we get this from our doctors (A 105 temperature, high pitched shrieks and back arching, along with encepalopathy is "perfectly normal" after a vaccine), and, worst of all, from our government.

[RedInGeorgia]

Part 2: Additionally, Levy states, "Some [treatments] report success in recovering autistic children. Yet according to parents, pediatricians often deny the cure, arguing that the child wasn't autistic to begin with." Let me state categorically: THERE IS NO CURE FOR AUTISM. The pediatricians don't have a cure to deny a family. Yes, there are various treatments available to children and adults with autism to help circumvent and ameliorate the social, language, and cognitivie disabiliites associated with the condition, and some treatments have various success with different people. As to the statement that the child wasn't autistic to begin with, it's possible. Many state-sponsored services become automatic when the diagnosis is made. Every state has doctors and psychologists who will make a diagnosis so a family can receive services and benefits regardless of the child's actual condition.

[CircleofHealth]

While there may not be a "cure," there are children even those who have been severely afflicted who are able to recover function completely-- and restore a whole range of bodily functional areas.

It's not easy to do obviously, but motivated parents who connect with certain treatments are able to help their children turn this around.

Just because you have not seen it or because it falls outside of your experience does not mean that it isn't so.

And these recoveries suggest that something is going on that can be treated by those who are able to look outside of the box.

[Heraldblog]

I think there's good reason to be skeptical of recovery stories. Autism is a developmental disorder, which means the children continue to develop and grow and learn. In the absence of a control group, and given enough time, tap water can take on the appearance of a miracle cure.

[RedInGeorgia]

Part I: Let me start by saying I work with children of autism. I work on the treatment side, and not the genetic side. I am, however, trained in the scientific method and medical research. That being said....

"So when science repeatedly proffers findings that "No, it isn't this single agent," rather than proving that vaccinations don't precipitate autism, what's demonstrated are the limitations of the modern reductive research approach." The problem with this statement is that it is impossible to prove something in the negative. No research will ever be able to prove that "X does NOT cause Y." For those who believe that vaccines are the cause or a contributing cause of autism, the burden of proof is on them to show, in a controlled study, that this is the case. The most common response given to the "vaccinate-theory advocate" is that, to date, there has been no study that prove vaccines "guilty" of causing or triggering autism.

[RedInGeorgia]

Part 3: My personal belief based on my experience in the field (take this for 2cents worth and not necessarily more): Autism is a condition that affects a child's development, showing significant deficits in language, social, and sometimes cognitive abilities. There will not be found a "single cause" for all cases of autism. Some children are pre-disposed to the condition, and some external/e­nvironment­al factor will "trigger" this disposition and cause a child to be autistic. There will never be a "cure" for autism. We may learn how to avoid "triggering" the condition, and we will learn how to work with children to overcome the deficits associated with autism so they can lead more normal lives.

[Heraldblog]

The plural of anecdote is not data. It doesn't matter how many people say something is true. History of full of examples where the general consensus proved to be wrong. Spontaneous generation comes to mind.

The anger coming from the pro-evidence side is anchored in watching public opinion and news media being co-opted by clueless celebrities and agenda-driven "journalists". Honestly, who cares what Jenny McCarthy thinks? Her claim on Larry King Live that "anecdotes are scientific method" is pure nonsense. She probably thinks correlation always proves causation, too.

[maxwell105]

If you don't know exactly what causes autism, then why are you so certain that there can never be a cure. This is not logical.

It could certainly be that autism is caused by a variety of toxicological insults via certain environmental toxins combined with genetic predisposition. And depending of the exact toxic agent, we may very well be able to treat or even cure a child if we are able to remove all or most of the toxin from the child's body. This is done every day in treating cases of heavy metal poisoning, for example. And if you eliminate the source of exposure, there is often a total recovery.

The problem we have is that the powers that be don't seem too interested in finding out what causes autism. That leads me to think that they already know or that they just don't care because they are feeding off the system.

[evenstar]

My 4 1/2 year old son is on the autism spectrum (probably Asperger Syndrome), and our experience was that he was unusual from the very first few days of life - he was very sensitive to light, sound and touch and when he got a little older had an amazing attention span for things like putting a digital thermometer back in its sheath. Given this experience, I sometimes wonder if certain cases of autism thought to be regressive actually had signs much earlier on. I'm not willing to say that all cases of regressive autism are like this.

Experience is a useful tool, but can't overwhelm science. Experience is tainted by emotion and explains the placebo effect: that a sugar pill can "cure" depression or the like. Just because a parent observes autistic symptoms after a vaccination does not mean that the child got autism from the shot. I personally could have correlated a period of regression in my son with shots, but think it is more likely that he was confused and upset by my pregnancy and the subsequent birth of his brother.

I personally am a neurodiversity advocate and believe that the world is a better place because of autistic people, including my son (a master Lego builder and early reader). They have a very unique perspective on the world that allows them to contribute in ways that others cannot.

[ubermensch]

I have a two year old daughter. I understand and worry about all these so called vaccinations. What surprises me the most, is that no one has commented on this article before me...and I'm usually the last to read. People need to wake up and start questioning science before it becomes the new religion. You read it hear first.

[jvarga]

I used to read the various autism posts here, first because as a scientist I felt compelled. Then I realized there were great lessons about persevering and the like (in particular they kept me from feeling sorry for myself). However, after the second or third time that I spent over an hour working on a post complete with references to peer reviewed journals, only to have it never show up, show up and get deleted, or to be personally attacked as a shill for "big pharma" I gave up. Having legit questions be completely ignored by the pitch-fork and torch wielding mob got old, quickly.

The flip side to "questioning science before it becomes the new religion" is the fact that reckless questioning of science makes you the old religion. You can question motives ("Do you have a financial conflict of interest?", you can question techniques ("Why did you use a two tailed ANOVA instead of a one tailed ANOVA?", but if you question science because you don't like what it says ("I don't care about those studies in Europe, someone has to pay and it has to be the drug companies" [an answer I was given once here]), you're no better than someone who insists that earth is 6,000 year old.

[CircleofHealth]

Well-- good on you as a scientist for staying open minded on this issue. So I have a question for you.

Are there scientific studies that show how the various ingredients in vaccinations interact when combined? Is there any routine monitoring of mercury levels prior to or following vaccination to determine and track when they exceed safe levels? How are safe levels defined? Are there studies that show which individuals may be more at risk for negative impacts to either specific ingredients or combinations in vaccines? For example, it's known that eczema is a higher risk factor for those with family histories of allergies and immune compromise. Do we have similar information on vaccine reactions? Is anyone looking into it?

Before implying that people questioning the science are functioning as a throw back to creationism, or some such, with these negative outcomes, it would seem warranted for serious scientists like you to dig deeper, and look into some of these questions.

[CraigWilloughby]

jvarga, there is a lot of passion on both sides of the debate, so its nice to see someone on the opposite side of the curtain who is willing to discuss this without malice.

I do have a question for you, though.

We all know that science follows a paradigm until there is a large enough "shake-up" for them to alter that paradigm. For instance, at one time, the mainstream science community thought that the earth was the center of the universe. This was proven wrong by Copernicus in his Heliocentricity theory. Then, the world was thought to be flat, and several people, the most famous being Columbus, proved this wrong. All of these individuals were ridiculed, reviled from the main-stream science community, and in some cases, nearly beheaded or burned at the stake.

Could it be possible that the vaccine-autism connection is the new Heliocentricity? We have so many scientists on one side of the debate who say that vaccines don't cause autism, but more importantly, they don't say that they DON'T cause autism. On the other side, there are many doctors and scientists who are outcast from the "science club" so to speak for simply inferring that there might be a connection. I'm just genuinely curious about you opinion. Thanks.