You suggest that one reason for that the 'myth' persists is that claimants hope by appeal to the 'myth' to receive monetary compensation, and that purveyors of 'alternative' medicines and therapies hope to cash in on a wave of defectors from 'mainstream' medicine. But you completely ignore the exceedingly low rates of success on the part of complainants in receiving anything like true compensation. (Vaccine Act actions drag on for years, typically do not result in compensation's being paid, and in the rare cases that they do they only pay out very little; the Act was actually pushed through Congress by the vaccine manufacturers themselves.) And you ignore the gobs of money brought in by the vaccine manufacturers thanks to the law-mandated market they enjoy via requirements the all children be vaccinated.

You also suggest that all claims linking MMR vaccine to autism are grounded on the vaccine's containing traces of mercury, which latter you then say has not been shown in such small amounts to induce autism. But mercury is only one of the many, many mechanisms that have been proposed by way of attempting to explain in micro what has proved to be a stunning correlation in macro between receipt of the MMR and the nearly immediate onset of previously non-present symptoms -- in many cases autistic, but also in many cases other symptoms of an auto-immune disease nature. Indeed the most persuasive theory currently out there is that the move to use of live, attenuated viruses in modern vaccines, away from the previous use of dead viruses in older vaccines, is ultimately responsible, as the insufficiently attenuated live viruses proliferate and overwhelm some persons' immune systems.

We ought to be developing means of determining whose immune systems are likely to be especially vulnerable to which viruses, and then testing people for such vulnerabilities before vaccinating them, allowing them then to make their own judgments as to comparative risk and reward of vaccination. But so long as vaccine manufacturers control legislatures under cover of irresponsible opinion-mongering such as yours, that seems unlikely, and the curren holocaust will continue.

Robert:

Indeed the most persuasive theory currently out there is that the move to use of live, attenuated viruses in modern vaccines, away from the previous use of dead viruses in older vaccines, is ultimately responsible, as the insufficiently attenuated live viruses proliferate and overwhelm some persons' immune systems.

This "theory" is hardly persuasive for many reasons, not the least of which is that the underlying premise is flatly false. The notion that "modern" vaccines use live, attenuated viruses and "older" vaccines use dead viruses is just plain silly, and those of us who remember what we were taught in high school biology know it. The first successful smallpox vaccine ever developed (and still the only FDA-approved vaccine to protect against it) was the use of a live, attenuated version of the Vaccinia virus, which confers a cross-immunity to smallpox. This was developed in 1796 (NOT 1976!) by Edward Jenner. This was about 75 years before Louis Pasteur developed a vaccine against anthrax, which also was a live, attenuated vaccine.

Truly modern vaccines are neither live nor killed, but instead use recombinant DNA technology to produce protein molecules, and those proteins then elicit an immune response that is protective against the original target virus. The recently developed vaccines against certain strains of the Human Papilloma Virus family (HPV--the viruses that cause genital warts and cervical cancer) are good examples.

The conjecture that live, attenuated vaccines are the cause of autism may seem persuasive to you, but you have no evidence to back it up. The large number of studies done so far have found no link between MMR or any other vaccine and autism. Instead of prolonged explications full of conjecture and anecdotal evidence, please provide us with actual studies (peer-reviewed journals only, please) that show that your conjecture has any validity. Right now, your groundless statements seem to be the ones more appropriately called "irresponsible opinion-mongering".

In my opinion, the scientific community has gone to and continues to go to great lengths to ensure that the vaccines we give children are safe. The burden is on the naysayers and vaccine opponents to prove otherwise.

Your asertion that the burden of proof lies on the skeptics and parents of autistic children is patently offensive.

This is a government mandated program with government created monopolies for the lobbist intense industries who profit, all done in the holy grail of indirect public health benefits, in a system of regulatory paternalism and corupted fecklessness that is notorious across the board.

The burden of proof for this mandatory socialist program of enforced medicinal intervention of our infants lies with the government and financial beneficiaries, not the public.

Wow. Quite a few loaded words: "government created monopolies", "lobbist [sic] intense industries", "system of regulatory paternalism", "corupted [sic] fecklessness", "mandatory socialist program", "enforced medicinal intervention of [sic] our infants". Whew! Man, you must be right!

Here, I will try restating my point: the scientific studies published so far have, when taken together, found no link between vaccines and autism. The medical community has stepped up responsibly to justify the continued use of vaccines. The burden of proof now rests with those who claim there still is a link. Is that argument patently offensive? Hardly.

I would like to venture a few suggestions. Before your next reply, try first running your prose through a spelling and grammar checker. Even if your arguments don't make sense, at least they will be readable. Also, please leave the parents of children with autism out of it. Many of these families roll their eyes when they are "defended" by anti-scientific critics of MMR and other vaccines.

Please show me the science backing up that claim.

In addition to the above whopper, your "anti-science" remark shows that you are not above hyperbole and unfounded claims of your own.

Nice try at the high road though.

=====//=====

My posts in all their first draft glory are a tribute to the new and improved Fray - another example of a hammer looking for nails. You are free to not read them.

You are right, that was a bit of hyperbole. You can't think that I meant it literally that I saw all these families roll their eyes. But even a cursory examination of discussion groups about autism (see for example AutismSpeaks or AutismVox) shows that there are a number of parents of children with autism who either mildly or strongly doubt the link between vaccines and autism. And this despite the pressure reported by some parents to keep quiet about their doubts--one reported she couldn't tell her friends she got her child vaccinated against the flu because they wouldn't speak to her anymore! You do not speak for those families. So, please, leave the families out of it. They can post on their own.

Now, just because I dropped in a bit of hyperbole at the end, therefore everything I said is now invalid? Even if we members of the Fray are supposed to avoid correct spelling and grammar, must we also drop logic from our posts?

Here is another suggestion: Could we try to stick with the main thrust of the thread, rather than jumping on minor statements? Originally, I was pointing out a fallacy in the main post...

Is the tone, attitude, piousness, bullying, and hyperbole of the vaccine proponents.

The claims of these advocates is heavily weakened by their tendency to generalize, cherry pick, and extrapolate limited specific studies into unquestionable proof to the claim of the public welfare. The very thing they complain about in skeptics.

Advocates wrap themselves in the banner of "proof" where these no proof exists - it is you who overreach.

Skeptics merely ask for more transparency, less conflict of interest, and more study of the right things. Not to mention free choice.

In a government mandated system of intervention, the burden of proof is never with the recipients.

MarylandMD wrote the following post at 07-01-2007 11:57 AM:

"The burden is on the naysayers and vaccine opponents to prove otherwise."

Ok, you got a deal. Give me a $1,000,000,000 budget and I'll get started.

You are free to raise whatever funds you can to research whatever you want. Perhaps you could talk to "Generation Rescue". They blew $200K on an unscientific telephone survey. Perhaps they have more money they want to throw away. I choose to promote and support more productive lines of inquiry.

Something about this controversy that I do not understand. If, for example, an attenuated measles virus has such a strong and far-reaching impact on the body, wouldn't the full-strength virus actually causing one to have measles, have a much greater impact on the body? So why would a weakend virus cause autism and the full-strength virus not cause it?