« It 's probably Obama vs. McCain | Main | McCain kisses AlGore's Ring »

May 12, 2008



P.s. Autism Squeaks is cordially hated by every autie on the planet who knows anything about them, not least for probably encouraging a murder or two.


My personal theory is that the incidence of autism is related to having smart parents.

Oh, and say, Rivrdog? Do you know Rory Miller? He keeps a blog called Chirontraining.blogspot.com, is a Deppity in Multnomah, and has two autistic kids.


My personal theory is that the incidence of autism is related to age of the mother at parturition, but I have not yet acquired enough data to verify or disprove.

Nels Tomlinson

I'm sure that the cases will be decided by emotion rather than fact. That's what happens when lawyers and juries get involved. I am inclined to agree with your take on the cases you mentioned. Still, since we have reason for a strong suspicion that there IS a susceptible group, when do ``they'' cross the line into liability for injuries done through deliberate ignorance?

I expect that political considerations have precluded any serious, official attempt to look for common factors in the genes and case histories of children who might have been harmed by vaccinations: there have been a great many careers built on these programs, and far too many good, well-meaning people in positions of power would have to admit they had made mistakes and done serious harm if a susceptible group were actually identified.

Anyway, the real point I wanted to make is that parents need to read the research and make decisions like this on their own, rather than relying on some doctor whose only exposure to research is a drug company salesman with a pocket full of pens and free samples.

ED. NOTE: All those points are well taken, Nels, but how many parents have the educational grounding or temperament for research that it takes to get to the level of such discoveries?


Nels, all your studies will probably be quoted at trial.

My point is the loose way that liability is applied here in Multnomah County seems to obscure the fact, as you say, that SOME of the SUSCEPTIBLE children (clearly not identifiable at the time) MIGHT have had an effect traceable to the preservative (or the vaccine itself).

In my book, a chance of a chance of a MAYBE happening NEVER equates to liability or foreknowledge of an event.

Nels Tomlinson

Here is a link to a journal article which suggests that it's not (or not just) the thimerosal in the vaccines: http://web.mac.com/rblaylock/Russell_Blaylock_M.D./Published_Papers_files/JANA%20long%20cytokines,%20excitotoxin%20autism%20paper.pdf. Go to page 21. The author's thesis is that the vaccinations themselves are causing brain damage and autism in some susceptible children.

There is another article by another author, to which I don't have a link, which shows a mechanism by which thimerosal, in vitro, causes damage similar to that seen in autism. We have a correlation, and a possible mechanism, so we shouldn't be too quick to rule out the possibility of causation.

I always like to say that modern medicine, as we understand the term today, is probably less than 100 years in the future. Right now, we don't have much understanding of what's going on inside us. Until we understand this stuff, parents should probably give only a subset of the available vaccines to their children, and, since vaccines are commonly available without thimerosal, should only administer thimerosal-free vaccines.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad