I don't know who wrote the article about this that I just read, but I am furious with the obvious slant against parents who have been dealing with this for numerous years. To call our children "unruly and unresponsive" just shows the ignorance inherent in this piece. My son has Aspergers Syndrome on the autistic spectrum, and is anything but that. He is 16 now, and quite brilliant. His problems are sensory for the most part, and of course social. He is not violent or unruly, and definitely not unresponsive.

I can tell you as a parent that all I want is for the mercury/autism link to be exposed and not covered up by the drug companies who have all the money in the world to do so. Maybe the author of this piece is the one who is quite taken in by the myth that there is not a link. I can show pictures of my son before and after the vaccines which show a night and day difference. Also, I could see he completely changed and knew something was terribly wrong. The kids who were exposed to mercury (87 times higher than normal the year my son got his vaccines) obviously have a sensitivity or predisposition of some sort to be affected. Did your author even think of that? I've never read such hogwash in my life.

My e-mail is vkaymartin@gmail.com. By the way, have you read Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s article on this subject?

V. Martin, Lubbock, Texas

This kind of post is exactly the problem with this "theory". The only people that will go on record with this absurd claim are either parents of autistic children grasping at straws, or bizarre nature freaks who hate the idea of vaccinations.

This sounds unduly mean, but look lady - your anecdotal 'evidence' is scientifically worthless. It is ethically irresponsible to tell parents not to vaccinate children. For a child to die from a disease that is entirely preventable because a parent has deluded themselves into rejecting hard science in favor of conjecture is unspeakable.

Robert Kennedy is an environmentalist, not a scientist or psychologist, his musings on this or any other medical subject are totally irrelevant.

I know that this person has already totally gone off the deep end, but I implore other readers not to do the same.

Go read Pediatrics magazine, or Psychology Today.

Why Pediatrics Magazine & Psychology Today?

Neither are medical publications...

GrammaKnows

That may be so, but each has published several articles by M.D.s about this issue.

Autism is a neurological disability - it is not a psychiatric disorder as was once thought 50 years ago. Some of its 'symptoms' have a psychological basis, but the affects of autism for many cannot solely be mitigated by psychologically-based therapies.

And as a parent of 3 (twins who are on the autism spectrum), I can tell you that pediatricians know very little about autism (to this day) because theirs is a generalized education that doesn't begin to scratch the surface of autism's complexity.

I would also argue that, as an environmentalist, Robert F Kennedy Jr is more than qualified to discuss the potential effects of mercury on the neurological development of children per-birth forward.

There is fairly convincing epidemiology excluding vaccines as the etiology of autism. To suggest otherwise is just wrong.

RFK jr. is a talking head full of nothing resembling authority on this subject

DrOliver - would you please cite some of the studies to which you are referring? I would honestly be very interested in taking a look. Thank you.

This is how misinformation is perpetuated. What were the credentials of the person writing the articles? Do the articles disclose conflict of interest such as ties to research entities or vaccine manufacturers? Are the MD's practicing or just writing? Is their specialty General Practice? Epidemiology? endocrinology? Biochemistry?

If they have a patient who has had a vaccine reaction, did they tell that person or parent the reaction is "normal" and fail to report it to VAERS?

There's an old joke about Drs:

What do you call someone who finished medical school at the bottom of their class?

Doctor.

Just because someone has M.D. after their name, doesn't make them qualified to present an opinion to the general public. They may be qualified in their state to practice medicine on a given set of patients, but even that has its limitations (an orthopedist may have an opinion about neurosurgery, but he/she can't perform neurosurgery).

Mainstream magazines, by the way, are written at a 6th grade reading level...so you will see words like "redness and swelling" instead of "edema and inflammation", or "numbness" instead of "neuropathy". By the same token, many critical details can be glossed over, minimized or even omitted.

Did any of the articles you've read ever ONCE say to consult the package inserts for all warnings, precautions and contraindications? Did those articles even once warn about severe allergic reactions to ingredients other than thimerosal? Did tose articles ever refer the reader to the FDA or CDC for details?

Caveat Emptor: Let the buyer beware.

That means if someone is selling crap, its up to you not to buy it, not on them not to offer it for sale.

GrammaKnows

I'm not sure what "selling crap" means, but call me crazy - I'll take the opinion of a medical doctor over the opinion of an environmentalist everyday.

It is a sad, sad state of affairs in this country that there is this much resistance to the idea that doctors are smart.

There is no question that doctors are smart. This is not about the intelligence of the profession. We as consumers must protect ourselves, and our families, by gathering the evidence and making informed choices. There are several medications in the news today that were all thought to be harmless and beneficial and have been prescribed to thousands of patients by smart Doctors in the name of medical progress and the greater good. Here is a link to the FDA RECALL list. <link> Just because a Doctor and the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC says something, we do not need to be sheep and just trust in their vast brilliance and omnipotence. This is not about being anti-vaccine it is about making individual choices for our own health by being given all the information and not making broad health decisions at the highest levels of public health based on money and political influence. I am not naive to think this will change, but I for one will not go into that darkness blind. Mr. Allen may want to look into his own confirmation bias on this subject. Why does Slate only publish a one-sided view of autism? I enjoy the balance of their political articles but it is lacking in the coverage they allow on autism. I am a parent of an autistic daughter and I personally saw the change after a series of shots including the MMR, Hib and chicken pox vaccinations. I have since learned all of the pro’s and con’s of vaccines and the better ways to administer them. Do your own research! Also it is a good idea to read what Robert Kenney Jr. and David Kirby have written before taking Mr. Allen’s spin on their writings.

Max Duley:

There are several medications in the news today that were all thought to be harmless and beneficial and have been prescribed to thousands of patients by smart Doctors in the name of medical progress and the greater good. Here is a link to the FDA RECALL list. <link>

I had trouble cutting and pasting your link. Here is a link to the associated page with more detailed information about the recent MedWatch bulletin on RotaTeq you referred to:

<link>

First a correction. You did not provide a link to the FDA "RECALL list". You linked to website of MedWatch, the FDA's Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program. This is how the FDA keeps all citizens, doctors and patients alike, informed about actual and potential safety issues regarding a wide range of medical products, including vaccines and prescription medications. You do us all a service by pointing out this source of drug safety information. Anyone with an interest in medicine would do well to refer to this website periodically.

The specific bulletin you refer to shows how the FDA is monitoring for adverse events from vaccines. They are pointing out that a few cases of Kawasaki's disease have been temporally associated with administration of RotaTeq. This is not a recall of RotaTeq. As the bulletin makes clear, the FDA is monitoring the situation, but the few cases of Kawasaki's seen are not any more than would be expected due to chance. At this time, there is no evidence of a link between Kawasaki's and RotaTeq. If new data come to light, the FDA will issue a new bulletin and possibly further recommendations. Right now, they are asking doctors and patients to keep a sharp eye out for Kawasaki's and any possible relationship with RotaTeq.

How this MedWatch bulletin supports the argument that the FDA, the CDC, and other heath authorities are in the thrall of the vaccine manufacturers is beyond me. This suggests instead that the public health institutions are trying to protect the public by keeping watch for problems caused by vaccines and other medications. Sure, the system isn't perfect, and some medications like Vioxx have been pulled much later than some of us wanted. But the system does function to identify problems and warn everyone about them.

I have no problem with parents who have concerns and are considering holding off on brand new vaccines such as RotaTeq. I usually avoid using new prescription medications for at least the first 2 years after they go out on the market, especially when there are older, better-known alternatives. But when I explain what a Rotavirus infection is like to the poor child and the rest of the family, the parents always elect to get the vaccine. Given what we know right now, the risks of RotaTeq appear to be very very small, and when balanced against the risks of a Rotavirus infection, the risk/benefit analysis tips heavily in favor of giving the vaccine, as new as it is. We will never know everything, but that is no excuse for inaction.

Physicians are generally not upset or threatened by patients educating themselves with responsible, scientifically based information (like MedWatch!) about medications and their health.

On medical expertise, I am reminded of how literally THOUSANDS of intelligent U.S. medical-pharmaceutical-industr­ial-complex gastro-intestinal physicians and scientists could be so wrong and waste MOST OF THEIR ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL LIVES incompetently “treating” ulcers.

You have no idea how much ridicule the “non-scientists” J. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall took for literally years from “established” medicine and drug companies before the evidence simply became overwhelming that ulcers weren’t caused by "stress," etc., but rather by -- surprise! -- bacteria.

Originally, this was lunatic blasphemy by people who weren't the "experts." Two years ago they got the Nobel Prize.

Only a short time ago, the medical-industrial-complex experts thought autism was caused by "icebox mothers." Right...

Currently, the medical-industrial-complex cannot even off a coherent hypothesis on what causes autism, except to say that we now somehow have a genetic epidemic.

It appears to me those advocating genetic susceptibility to environmental triggers, very possibly mercury-related, at least are presenting a viable hypothesis with some data back-up -- which is much more than the medical establishment is offering. My bet is on S. Jill James eventually for the Nobel Prize here...

Well, its silly sports analogy time. Griping about the small percentage of recalled drugs, is kind of like watching a football game between the Oakland Raiders and the Cleveland Browns, and claiming that the entire NFL stinks.

Yes that was a silly analogy.

How about griping about a whole medical profession that for decades treated stress as the cause of millions of ulcers?

Geez, just trying to lighten the mood around here. Some of these threads just turn morbid after a while.

Seriously though, as stated in the article we're discussing, it is much easier to rail against organized medicine than it is to educate yourself about organized medicine. People get obsessed with the TV commercials that list side effects, and the 2% of drugs on the market that get recalled. Again, watching a TV commercial about an allergy medicine is easier than reading a medical journal.

The overwhelming majority of medical patients get treatment, and then get better. I continue to write in these kind of threads to provide a counterpoint to your bizarre and dangerous view that modern medicine is somehow harmful. I don't expect you to change your mind anytime soon, but maybe someone who reads this will see your view as the silly, childish and uninformed opinion it is.