but to answer the question directly, say a parent solely chose not to vaccinate because they heard vaccines caused autism. Do I think that is insufficient reason? NO. I think that until we know EXACTLY how safe vaccines are, the default needs to be NOT to get them. If there is any doubt, why should we take that risk? What about the risk that vaccines themselves carry?

Before anyone claims that its riskier NOT to vaccinate, for fear of spreading disease, they must first research such specific diseases, and just how dangerous they are. Also, they need to research exactly what is in vaccines and how effective and long lasting they are, and weigh that risk for themselves. It’s a right we should all have. It’s hardly a right now, considering how much bullying people get for it.

Not to beat on old horse, but I just read this:

“In Virginia the issue of religious exemption was taken to the state Supreme Court by a Virginia Beach resident, Waleen James. She chose natural health care for her grandson and fought it in court. The court ruled that if it was a strong personal belief that vaccinations could do harm to the child then it could be considered a religious belief and a parent did not have to belong to an organized church that does not practice medical intervention to submit the “religious exemption.”"

http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-ed_sunltrs_11110nov11,0,891228.story

It would seem that in Virginia at least, the courts have determined that strongly held beliefs against vaccine legitimately qualify as a “religious belief” and therefore they don’t need to be a member of an organized church to qualify.

That would certainly explain the actions of many parents, especially when they’re being instructed by the courts to do this.

I am familiar with that quote, and I guarantee you will find many other researchers who treated that same paper with a high level of credibility when it was first published. You find exactly the same pattern with the MMR studies in the UK. The irony in the UK is that most of those studies were deemed not credible within a couple of years by the Cochrane Group. In one case, a study author (of the lastest study) admitted that the previous studies were inadequate (the one he/she authored). So this is not unique to Dr. Offit. The sad part is that people continue to reference these studies, because they do not get marked or tagged as non-credible even if the author admits it. Even more amusing is when new studies continue to reference them.

Dr. Offit is definitely a repeat offender. You’ll notice the FUD examples I quoted earlier were mostly from Dr. Offit and there are more outrageous ones that aren’t even worth printing or discussing.

However, one person’s bad quotes don’t make a scientific argument nor do they prove the opposite of what their saying. All you can do for people like him, is ask for and track down the evidence provided and prove the inaccuracies.

If someone presents you with referenceable facts, you have to analyze them independent of the person delivering them. This is a trap that many people fall into on both sides of the debate. Many people refuse to look at studies not published by people with a PhD. Others assume that peer-review = credible. More people immediately disregard any study published by the CDC. None of these are a good critical approach. If presented with evidence, one must evaluate the evidence independent of those that present or generate it.

Reputation only comes into play as it can help you prioritize where you will apply your resources in critically examining presented facts, or when someone expresses an opinion.

That is why I am drawing a line in the sand with the General Medical Community on this topic, because I do not trust their opinion without supporting facts which are sometimes glossed over. My personal experience and research have eliminated any benefit of the doubt they once had on most topics (not all mind you). Thus, I am currently stuck with relying on raw data to make decisions.

Cliff