Lest we forget about the long list of environmental contaminants that have been pointed out going back to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the AP just released its own investigation that found a wide array of pharmaceuticals in tap water across America. A potent reminder that while important, the vaccination story is only one part of a bigger issue.
Schulman is right about one thing: when we simplify science to “yes” or “no” questions the repercussions can be dangerous. And simply because a few scientist are in the minority does not mean their careers and their work should be dismissed with the wave of a hand.
We may never find an answer to the autism-vaccine debate that satisfies everyone—and that’s okay. Science pushes on, and the myriad questions about autism will continue to be researched long after the last mercury-containing inoculation is administered.
- 1
- 2
We all know that something changes in these children after their vaccinations. Whether it is that they are bunched up unnecessarily, being given to children with immature immune systems, or contained mercury, the whole process needs to be examined because something is causing it. Vaccination schedules should be based on the likelihood of a child being exposed to the disease that they are being vaccinated against. We need an “unbiased” governing body to oversee the entire process, from determining necessity to setting the schedule for a healthy baby (without a fever.)
Posted by echochicago![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Thu 13 Mar 2008 at 07:39 AM
One of your credible dissenting scientists, Mady Hornig, was lead author of a Columbia University study, published in Sept., 2008, that found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Hornig's team replicated Andrew Wakefield's flawed research that touched off anti-vaccine hysteria in the UK, before spreading to the US.
Posted by AutismNewsBeat on Thu 5 Feb 2009 at 11:33 AM