Yesterday, Amy wrote:
 
>I have acknowledged the pros and cons to all sides.  You on the other
>hand, seem to feel it is YOUR decison to make for others and seem
>particularly bothered that information is being presented so people may
>make informed decisions." No, I am particularly bothered that *wrong*
>information is being presented by you as truth, and people may be using
>it to make desperately, desparately important decisions, for themselves,
>and for our fuzzies.  The penalties for making the wrong choices are
>horrific, and we, as a society, are several generations removed from
>understanding the consequences on a first-hand basis.  Reading about it
>ain't the same.
 
I will focus on just one example, because I think that BIG really wishes
I would go back to writing happy stories about flying tractors.  I am too
cheap to slip him a case of beer, as Bob Church suggests, so this is the
last I will write on the topic.
 
You have spoken of autism as one of the side effects of vaccination.
Yesterday you wrote:
 
>The cases of autism has dramaticly increased with the addition of more
>and more childhood vaccinations.  Alot of parents of autistic children
>can pinpoint it to the vaccinations.  Of course it will probably be a
>long while for this to finally be acknowledged openly, because then
>what?
 
Amy, I think you mean well, but your comments throughout this debate
strongly suggest a lack of understanding of the scientific method at its
most general level,the responsibility of our public health agencies at
theirs, and a specific lack of familiarity with the literature you are
citing with confidence as "proof." Apparently you are unaware that the
authors of the original study linking autism to the MMR (Measels, Mumps,
Rubella) vaccine (published in the British medical journal the Lancet in
1998) have RETRACTED their findings.  Here is what they have to say, in
light of further research:"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no
causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data
were insufficient.  However, the possibility of such a link was raised
and concequent events have had major implications for public health.  In
view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time we should together
formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the
paper."
 
<http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=bbc+news&page=1&offset=1&resu
lt_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D45e8a44c6134edee%26clickedItemRank%
3D1%26userQuery%3Dbbc%2Bnews%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fnews.bbc.co.u
k%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DnsBrowserRoll%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remov
e_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F>pe.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=bbc+news&page
=1&offset
[Posted in FML issue 4649]