I agree that some analysis for laypeople would be useful, but that's part of what I love about HN: an expert in this topic might come along soon and offer such an analysis. I think having a voice of dissent that offers something other than hyperbole and unsupported hand-waving is useful, and shouldn't be discouraged.
Whereas I think that anyone who drags Thimerosal into this debate -- roughly a decade after it was removed from vaccines in response to mass hysteria -- deserves to have a bucket of water poured over their head and sent home.
Just because an argument isn't made out of unsupported hand-waving doesn't mean that it isn't recycled garbage. Citations and glib technical language can be copied and pasted just as easily as mindless rants.
It is not enough to hold debates. One must also have the guts to draw conclusions.
Meanwhile, what's conspicuously missing from this particular cloud of chaff is a concise summary of the most recent epidemiological data. Should we not have plenty of that by now? Thanks to Wakefield, we have conducted an "experiment" over the last decade or so: Hysteria is up, and the vaccination rate is down. As a result, the incidence of preventable disease is measurably higher. Surely, if there is a correlation between autism and vaccination, the autism rate must now be significantly lower in these new unvaccinated populations? Or can we at least try to establish how many more kids have to suffer or die before we can draw that conclusion?
Read the inserts to the vaccine. "Thimerosal, a mercury derivative, is not used in the manufacturing process for the single
dose presentations; therefore these products contain no preservative. The multi-dose
presentation contains thimerosal, added as a preservative; each 0.5 mL dose contains
24.5 mcg of mercury. "
From: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines...
Right I will come right out and say what I implied in my full reply to the "dissenter". What they posted is hyperbol and unsupported hand-waving.
None of what they posted is useful in making a decision one way or another on the subject.
I can't understand the title of the study they posted let alone the contents and I have never heard of the journal which maybe is the preeminent publication of its field or a dirty rag which the publisher's mate "peer reviews". I have no way of knowing from the comment and posting the abstract provides nothing.
The second one is a blog of an Autism organisation in New York that doesn't link to anything that I can use to gauge its authority.
And the third is talking about a single scientist in the opposing side of the debate (there is only one person refuting these claims? Really?) who was caught with his hand in the till. Hardly proof or otherwise on the debate at hand.
