The flip side of inclusiveness
A report last week stated that, according to the US Health and Human Services Department, advocates of the idea that vaccines are linked to autism will join neurologists and other health professionals as members of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, a new panel that will recommend areas for autism research.
If the vaccines-autism link has been repeatedly proven to be wrong, and even the Institute of Medicine, an independent organ that advises the US government on health issues, has urged scientists to look elsewhere for the causes of autism, what's the point of including supporters of such a link, other than to appease the advocacy groups?
I hope I'm wrong, but being inclusive for the sake of political correctness doesn't strike me as the right way to tackle a problem as serious as autism.
Comments
There are several studies (published in peer-reviewed journals) cited on the Autism Research Institute's website that would appear to support their case.
The studies on the opposite side are largely promoted by organizations that have a vested interest in infant immunizations.
In other words, there is enough research to keep the debate open. Granted, both sides have strong biases in favor of their respective positions, and the debate spills over beyond the medical evidence, but that's no reason to prevent it from continuing, IMO.
Medicine is not a physical science (again, IMO) in that there are no binary states (yes or no answers). The best we can hope for is to say that the preponderance of the evidence either supports or does not support a hypothesis.
Posted by: Kievas Fargo | December 13, 2007 09:42 AM
I agree that there's no absolutes, but one would like to see some evidence in support of the link between vaccines and autism to be persuaded that the debate is warranted. In the absence of these data, to keep on debating strikes me as gratuitous.
Posted by: Juan Carlos Lopez | December 12, 2007 07:19 PM
Perhaps if you had a child with autism (I don't, so I can't comment either way), you might be open to continuing the debate.
Your statement that the link between vaccines and autism has been "repeatedly proven wrong" requires some examination. The history of medical advancement has shown us that there are no absolutes. Similar statements were made, for example, that X-rays were absolutely safe for examining pregnant women.
Posted by: Kievas Fargo | December 12, 2007 02:41 PM
In case it isn't apparent, the US Government believes in "consensus" reality, not in empiricism. In other words, they're "teaching the controversy".
This is why it's so important to have leaders who understand science.
Posted by: Mr. Gunn | December 6, 2007 02:58 PM