Skeptico

Update – Neurodiversity Subpoena Quashed!

And get this:

Attorney Clifford Shoemaker is ordered to show cause within 10 days why he should not be sanctioned under Fed R Civ P 11 – see Fed R Civ P 45(a)(2)(B) which requires that a deposition subpoena be issued from the court in which the deposition is to occur and Fed R Civ P 45 (c)(1) commanding counsel to avoid burdensome subpoenas. A failure to appear will result in notification of Mr Shoemaker’s conduct to the Presiding Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia.”

I’m not a lawyer, but that doesn’t sound good for Clifford Shoemaker.

No news yet on Marie McCormack’s subpoena - her motion to quash was filed ten days after Siedel’s.

Further reading:

Lawyer Ken writing in the blog Popehat: Anti-Vaccine Thug Lawyer Gets Burned By Pro Se Blogger

Scientist Subpoenaed Too

There is an old saying in legal circles that if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither is on your side, pound the table.  Clifford Shoemaker, with neither the facts nor the law on his side, prefers to pound the table. Or more accurately, to pound his opponents with frivolous intimidatory subpoenas.

As I wrote two weeks ago in Bullying Attorney Thug, Clifford Shoemaker is the ambulance chasing attorney who makes his living filing claims in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Unable to cope with honest criticism of his methods, and with few facts on his side, he issued a massively invasive and irrelevant subpoena to blogger Kathleen Seidel. Kathleen now reports that scientist Marie McCormick received a similar subpoena at the same time. As with Seidel, McCormick has also filed a motion to quash.

You may remember Dr. McCormick from Robert F. Kennedy Junior’s dishonest article about thimerosal and autism of nearly three years ago. McCormick was one of the scientists whom Kennedy quote mined to make them appear to be saying the opposite of what they actually said. Three years later, little has changed. The opponents of vaccines, still lacking actual evidence to support their case, still resort to dishonest methods to push their agenda. All proponents of free speech should hope that both these ludicrous subpoenas will be quashed. If they are not, I would imagine that independent scientists would in future be less willing to serve on committees the way McCormick and others have done.

Autism’s Hidden Hordes Wrongly Diagnosed?

Anti-vaccinationists frequently a quote the recent (the last 10 - 15 years) increases in autism as evidence that vaccines cause autism. Since virtually all good science contradicts this idea, it seems there must be another explanation for this apparent increase. One possible explanation is a change in diagnosis - children who are now diagnosed as autistic would have been diagnosed with a different condition 20 years ago. Anti-vaccinationists ask, “where are the hidden hordes?” – the adult autistics who were not diagnosed autistic as children. Because, if increases in autism are merely a change of diagnosis, then there must be numerous adult autistics who were not diagnosed as such as children.

Professor Dorothy Bishop of the University of Oxford, led a recent study to examine this question. The study was published this month in the Journal of Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, and its conclusion was indeed to suggest that many children who would now be diagnosed as having autism, were in the 1980s and 1990s diagnosed with severe language disorders instead.

From the abstract we can see that Bishop looked at 38 subjects (aged 15 to 31), who had, as children, been diagnosed as having developmental language disorder, rather than autism. She then applied to them, modern tests for diagnosing autism at age 4 to 5 years – tests that involved interviewing both the subjects and their parents. The result was that one third of the subjects met the modern criteria for autism. The interviews with the parents were especially revealing: the subjects’ parents recalled what we would now regard as autistic symptoms appearing in their children when they were very young.  The conclusion is that much of the recent rise of autism could be due to a change in the diagnostic criteria.

The result is consistent with this study in Pediatrics from 2006 that showed the growing autism diagnoses from 1994 to 2003 were associated with corresponding declines in other diagnostic categories.

Of course the study needs replicating with a much larger number of subjects than 38, before any firm conclusions can be drawn. But the study’s tentative conclusion is consistent with the total lack of evidence that autism is caused by vaccines. To be sure, the anti-vaccine crowd would have been quick to publicize this study if the results had been negative, but now they will probably ignore the study, or criticize the independence of the study’s authors. That is their normal tactic when faced with studies they don’t like but have no evidence to refute. But what they won’t have are valid criticisms of the actual study, or studies of their own that show there was, in fact, no change in diagnostic criteria.

It would be nice if CNN and Larry King would now have Professor Bishop on to explain her studies to the public, and undo some of the misinformation they recently helped put out. But, again, we can be sure this won’t happen. They get higher ratings showing the idiotic views of “Professor” Jenny McCarthy.

References

Abstract: Autism and diagnostic substitution: evidence from a study of adults with a history of developmental language disorder

University of Oxford: Rise in autism related to changes in diagnosis

Bullying Attorney Thug

They don’t learn. This time the attack is directed at autism blogger Kathleen Seidel. Kathleen had blogged about attorney Clifford Shoemaker (pictured right), who specializes in prosecuting claims filed in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Apparently Shoemaker frequently uses Mark Geier as an expert witness, which by itself should tell you all you need to know about Shoemaker. But Kathleen’s article dug a little more deeply into how attorneys like Shoemaker get paid for filing claims, regardless of their actual merit or end result. She listed the cases that Shoemaker had filed (and been paid for) in the previous 18 months – two thirds of which were dismissed as not satisfying even the relatively lax standard of proof required in these cases. Within hours of this post, Shoemaker issued an intimidatory subpoena.

But the subpoena had nothing to do with the actual article Kathleen had written. From Overlawyered:

The subpoena contains no indication that Seidel herself is accused of defaming anyone or violating any other legal rights of any party. Instead it seems she is being dragged in as a third-party witness in Shoemaker's suit on behalf of his clients, Rev. Lisa Sykes and Seth Sykes, against vaccine maker Bayer. Although Seidel has been a remarkably diligent blogger on autism-vaccine litigation, I can find no indication that she is in possession of specialized knowledge that Shoemaker would not be able to obtain for his clients through more ordinary means.

Instead, the first phrase that occurred to me on looking through the subpoena was "fishing expedition", and the second was "intimidation".

Indeed. The subpoena demands all documents, financial records and communications related to the creation and operation of her blog. This is to include all her financial records, and copies of all communications with a range of people, including what appears to be her entire autism blog roll. In it she is “COMMANDED to appear” in person at the court in New Hampshire (at her own expense, naturally). Since Kathleen is not a party to, nor has any special inside knowledge of, any of Shoemaker’s cases, it is obvious this is just an intimidatory tactic and an abuse of Shoemaker’s power as an attorney.

Kathleen has responded with a motion to quash. It ends with:

Kathleen Seidel prays her motion to quash this unconstitutional, unreasonable, irrelevant, excessive, invasive, burdensome, frivolous, and clearly retaliatory subpoena be ALLOWED.

Today Orac posted An open letter to David Kirby and Dan Olmsted about the Kathleen Seidel subpoena – an appeal to Kirby and Olmstead to use their influence in the autism movement to protest Shoemaker’s bullying tactics. Because, as one commenter wrote:

If I were on the legal team for Glaxo-SmithKline, Wyeth, Inc. and Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, I would be preparing virtually identical subpoenas for David Kirby, Dan Olmsted, JB Handley, John Best, and all the "journalists" and bloggers associated with the Mercury Militia to be served the precise moment that the Judge rules the subpoena can go forward

Such action would perhaps provide some kind of grim satisfaction – to see these pseudoscientists hoist by their own petard. But it would be a hollow victory. If attorneys can shut down criticism this easily, using nothing but the threat of subpoena, most skeptical blogging will be at risk. One can only hope the judge will allow Kathleen’s motion to quash.

In the meantime, Clifford Shoemaker should enjoy his Streisand moment.

Other Articles

Popehat on attorney Clifford Shoemaker - Vaccine-Litigant Thuggery: Subpoenaed For Blogging

Overlawyered on attorney Clifford Shoemaker - Vaccine lawyer subpoenas Kathleen Seidel

I speak of Dreams on attorney Clifford Shoemaker – the snappily entitled Kathleen Seidel Slapped With Unconstitutional, Illegal, Barred by the Journalist’s Privilege, and Needlessly Invasive Subpoena

The Voyage on attorney Clifford Shoemaker - Neurodiversity Blogger Unfairly Subpoenaed

New York personal injury law blog on attorney Clifford Shoemaker - Abuse of Process: Blogger, Unrelated to Action, Hit With Subpoena

Legal Blog Watch on attorney Clifford Shoemaker - Blogger Subpoenaed for Influence

Autism – Still Not Vaccines

I’m sure you’ve heard anti-vaccinationists claiming recently that the government conceded that vaccines cause autism. Of course, they did no such thing. As Orac wrote in David Kirby and the government "concession that vaccines cause autism": The incredible shrinking causation claim, the government merely conceded that vaccinations may have aggravated a child’s underlying mitochondrial disorder – with some of the child’s symptoms being similar to autism. This doesn’t mean the child is autistic, or that autism is caused by vaccines. Also, the “may have” rider tells us merely that the government chose to settle the case rather than go the prolonged and expensive route of a disputed court case. Since we know that (a) vaccines do occasionally harm a small number of patients, and (b) it clearly benefits the majority that we continuing vaccinating, it is entirely sensible and ethical to compensate possible victims the few times this happens. Such facts haven’t stopped bigots such as David “the debate will never be over” Kirby and his ilk.

Anyway, others have deconstructed this case much better than I. If you want to know the facts on this case, Orac has a post up with some of the best links covering this vaccine injury case / mercury / autism story, including posts of his own as well as posts from Steven Novella, Kevin Leitch and others.

Study: No Mercury – Autism Link

You may have read about the new study in the Archives of General Psychiatry that (yet again) failed to find a link between mercury in vaccines and autism – a study that would have been expected to find some link if one existed. It’s been discussed in detail by Orac:

Another very bad day for antivaccinationists: Yet another study fails to find a link between thimerosal and autism.

Also Steven Novella:

One More Nail in the Mercury-Autism Coffin

And in Science Based Medicine

Mercury in vaccines as a cause of autism and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs): A failed hypothesis.

Click the links – I really don’t have much to add.

I think we’re now at the stage when we can safely say that the people who still insist that the debate on this subject is not over, are in the same league as creationists, HIV-AIDS deniers and global warming deniers – ie they’re cranks.

Results Are In / Debate’s Not Over

The utter vacuousness that is David Kirby can be found in the header to his recent confused rant in the Huffington Post. It’s right there at the top of his article, in bold so you don’t miss it:

Memo to those who wanted the autism-vaccine contretemps to just go away: You lost.

If you read that again and think about it, you’ll realize it’s more interesting for what it doesn’t say than for what it does. This is what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say, “Memo to those who said that vaccines don’t cause autism: You lost”. It doesn’t say that because even he realizes that would be false.  (Although later, he equivocates like hell. Of course.)  Remember, this is the same David Kirby who said, in June 2005

Because autism is usually diagnosed sometime between a child's third and fourth birthdays and thimerosal was largely removed from childhood vaccines in 2001, the incidence of autism should fall this year

Just to be clear – by “this year” he meant 2005. That was two years ago. And newsflash – autism rates didn’t fall. In 2005, or since.

But, note, we Thimerosal skeptics “lost.” Not because we were wrong. But because Kirby insists that the “debate” is going to continue, no matter what the evidence tells him. Yeah. Doesn’t that remind you of the “debate” about whether evolution is true?

The definition of pseudoscience includes not altering your theory when contradictory evidence comes in. The pseudoscientist moves the goalposts and makes ad-hoc rationalizations for why his previously predicted results did not transpire exactly as planned. Want to read Kirby’s version of this? Prepare to be astonished at the chutzpah:

Finally, to all those who are going to post comments about the autism rates in California not coming down, following the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines: You are right. The most likely explanation is that thimerosal was not responsible for the autism epidemic. But that does not mean that it never harmed a single child.

No, of course it doesn’t. But note the new, impossible standard he has just sneaked in. The skeptics now have to prove that not a single child was ever harmed by Thimerosal. He wants us to prove a universal negative. Although even then we all know he’d find something else to go for. (Aluminum in vaccines makes an early trial run in this post.)

Kirby says right there in his post that most likely explanation is that thimerosal was not responsible for the autism epidemic, and yet he still wants the debate to continue. But if Thimerosal was not responsible for the autism epidemic, what reason do we now have for even continuing to debate Thimerosal? Kirby’s motive for writing this post is to gloat that we “lost”, because the debate will continue regardless. That’s his definition of “winning”. The word douchebag to describe Kirby seems a little unkind. To douchebags.

Note:

Orac takes apart Kirby’s arguments in more detail. I’ll just mention one point. Kirby makes a big deal because advocates of the mercury-vaccine-autism connection were appointed to a new federal panel on autism.  Funny thing, the day before Kirby posted this sorry screed, Orac wrote in a different post, “Expect the mercury militia to milk this connection for all it's worth”. Well it didn’t take long. One day, to be precise. Take that psychics.

Worst Arguments

Two weeks ago I posted Left Brain Right Brain closes – how the actions of John Best (who sometimes posts as Fore Sam) had forced Kevin Leitch to close his blog to protect his family. Predictably, John Best appeared in the comments to promote his pseudoscientific view that autism is caused by Thimerosal in vaccines. Several other commenters (details below) took Best to task and essentially ripped his silly arguments apart for all to see. Yes, my regular commenters really are smarter than the average bear.

Not everyone reads long comments threads, but I can honestly recommend reading this one to see how weak Best’s’ arguments are. You can compare Best’s mere assertions with the actual contrary evidence and citations provided by the other commenters. It’s worth a read just to appreciate the intellectual ass kicking the other commenters gave Best. Some of it’s pretty funny too. And remember, this repertoire Best has of fallacious reasoning, assertion and bullying represent the very best (no pun intended) arguments that he has been able to think of in all his years promoting these beliefs. You’ll need to set aside a couple of hours to read all of the 180 comments - more if you’re going to read all the citations (not the ones from Best because he doesn’t provide any), but it will be entertaining.

That said, I know not everyone has that amount of spare time, so I’m going to sum up Best’s arguments and the rebuttals.

Best Arguments for Thimerosal

Pun intended that time. His is an argument in two parts, namely:

1. Autism first appeared in 1943 (or maybe 1931 – a little uncertain over the exact date) – which corresponds to the date Thimerosal was first used in vaccines. The only explanation for this is that thimerosal causes autism.
2. Based on his personal observation only, Best thinks his son’s autism (or is it his ADD – a little unsure here too), and that of several other kids, was cured by chelation.

Take those two points, add insults about your opponents – call them deuschbags (sic), knuckleheads, Bozo’s (sic), idiots, dumb bastards, simpletons, boneheads, wack jobs, bunch of jerks, scum, dopes etc. – and reference your success at gambling on the horses as proof you’re smart (I’m not kidding), and you’ve essentially got Best’s arguments.

I’ll try to summarize the main reasons the other commenters gave for why Best is wrong.

Autism first appeared in 1943

Best actually writes:

How about we use a graph from the last million years? It will show no autism until 1943 with a slow rise for about 40 years and an increasing rise as the number of vaccines with thimerosal increased.

Even if we had data from the last million years (obviously we don’t), it wouldn’t show autism until 1943 because that’s when Leo Kanner determined that autism was a separate syndrome, not reported before. Kanner notes autism had most likely previously been previously reported as schizophrenia. Best provided no data, but Tom Foss found Kanner’s actual paper that states:

These characteristics form a unique “syndrome,” not heretofore reported, which seems to be rare enough, yet is probably more frequent than is indicated by the paucity of observed cases. It is quite possible that some such children have been viewed as feebleminded or schizophrenic. In fact, several children of our group were introduced to us as idiots or imbeciles, one still resides in a state school for the feebleminded, and two had been previously considered as schizophrenic.

It seems fairly clear that Kanner means autistics were around before but had been misdiagnosed as feebleminded or schizophrenic. That is, autism existed before 1943 (or 1931 – take your pick), but it had been called something else. Kanner is just the first person to recognize that autism is something different. Best insists Kanner is saying autistics didn’t even exist before he (Kanner) diagnosed these initial children. Reading what Kanner wrote, I don’t see how any reasonable person could possibly come to the conclusion that Best comes to. In any case, the idea is absurd.

Best’s entire case stands or falls on his interpretation of Kanner’s words, the truth of Best’s interpretation, and Best’s assertion that “Autism is never misdiagnosed”. And he means it never was misdiagnosed – even before Kanner. That’s clearly an absurd assertion on its own, but even more so after Joseph provided a link to Dr. J. Landon Down and "Developmental" Disorders – referring to an 1887 paper that reported on patients with a “developmental” disorder that we would now almost certainly refer to as autism. Best just ignores this inconvenient piece of data.

Best then leads with what he considers is a killer argument, the crudely phrased:

Are you trying to tell me autism existed before 1943? If your ridiculous assertion is true, you should be able to show me 77 year olds at the rate of 1 in 150 with autism. If you can do that, I'll blow you.

Of course, it’s highly unlikely that 77 year old autistics, who value their privacy, would be lining up to present themselves now for classification at the order of John Best. Even so, Interverbal managed to provide:

California Department of Disability Services

Quarterly Report 7/1/1992

Age Cohort: 62-99

4 people meeting DSM-III-R autism criteria (stricter than the current standard).

1992 - 62 = 1930.

If they are alive today, then they are your 77 year old autistics, at the youngest.

Best also hand waves away this inconvenient piece of data.

The most charitable view is that Best hasn’t provided any even remotely extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary claim. The less charitable and more realistic view, is that his argument has been totally busted. And without it, what reason does he have to suppose autism is caused by Thimerosal? Oh yes, it’s:

Chelation

Best’s reasoning for this is:

My son's improvement, my son with ADD being 100% cured, friends and acquaintances who have cured their children and reports from DAN and others.

But he provides no double blind studies that show chelation to be better than placebo. There is a reason we use double blind studies – it is because we know that humans are good at fooling themselves. This is especially true with autism which involves delay in many areas of development. But delay doesn’t necessarily mean no progression. Autistic kids often progress without intervention, and certainly without chelation. Without a double blind study, you have no way of knowing if chelation is a factor in the progression or not.

Best also fails to explain why, if his son is “100% cured”, he still needs chelation. This is something you would expect if chelation was not curing the child. It’s a result that is inconsistent with chelation being the cure.

Without a randomized double-blind study we cannot possibly know if chelation is helping Best’s child or any other. And since that was the other leg of Best’s proof that Thimerosal causes autism, his “argument” such as it was, is completely destroyed. Best’s continued aggressive and anti-science responses such as “Studies are a waste of time to me” demonstrate his inability to even think coherently on this subject. It also means he doesn’t even realize how much he’s just been beaten, and how much his foolishness has been laid bare for the world to see.

Questions Best Can’t Answer

When debating someone, questions often arise from the claims the person makes. For example, if someone says “chelation cures autism”, a reasonable question is “where is the study that shows that?” Questions not answered, or answered dishonestly, can be very revealing about the strength of the person’s position and his or her intellectual honesty. Jimmy Blue and Tom Foss came up with several relevant questions that Best ignored. If you want to know how honest Best is, or how strong his case is, consider these questions that Best still can’t or won’t answer:

1. What reason do you have not to believe that all the Thimerosal has been removed from vaccines?
2. How does Thimerosal cause mercury poisoning?
3. If removing Thimerosal from childhood vaccines had no effect on reducing autism (because it's still coming from the parents' flu shots) then how do you know it was ever caused by childhood vaccines?
4. A lot fewer people get flu shots than get their children vaccines; still fewer get it while they're pregnant. How long does it stay in the mother's system?
5. What evidence do you have that chelation cures autistics?
6. So, were autistic kids born with "scrambled brains" before, due to the flu shots? If so, again, how could you blame childhood vaccines? If not, why has the flu vaccine started causing autism earlier than the mercury crowd used to claim?
7. How could Kanner (or you) say that autism had NEVER existed before 1943 if he (or you) did not have access to the medical records of every human being who had ever lived?
8. Why didn't mercury poisoning and widespread varied use cause autism until 1943/1931/1929?
9. How does chelation cure autism?
10. What is the chemical equation for the metabolization of some harmful mercury compound from Thimerosal in the body?
11. Why don't autistics exhibit the other symptoms of mercury poisoning (kidney dysfunction, ruddy faces, loss of hair, teeth, and nails, etc.) if autism is mercury poisoning?
12. How does HBOT cause brain cells to re-grow?
13. What evidence is there that autism is the result of brain cells damaged by mercury?
14. Why can't Best give us a detailed rebuttal of the sources I have found in the last week, when he has been researching this for years?
15. In what sense does he mean his son is cured of autism if he still needs treatment for it?
16. How does Generation Rescue respond to the accusation that it's research is not peer reviewed?
17. Why does Generation Rescue still claim that the work of certain scientists supports their arguments when many of those scientists have specifically stated it does not and asked to be disassociated from GR's work?
18. How does Best explain the contradiction of claiming the CDC cannot be trusted whilst quoting autism prevalence rates provided by CDC research?
19. Why does Best think life is nothing to lose for autistic children?
20. How does Best explain his statement that autism is never misdiagnosed when there is clear evidence that it has been in the past and still is now?

Note in the comments below, whether or not Best attempts to answer any of these questions, and form your own views.

Acknowledgements

This post was written with the arguments developed and put forward by commenters on this blog.

Most of the heavy lifting of the detailed paragraph by paragraph rebuttals to Best’s points, was written by Jimmy_Blue and Tom Foss. From experience I know how much time this takes, and they should be congratulated. They also gave me several good laughs (“My dogs think they are smarter than you”). Tactical support was supplied by Bronze Dog and Techskeptic, pointing out fallacies and other problems with Best’s position. A couple of pieces of really interesting information came from Joseph, who has clearly been writing about autism longer than most of us. And of course, Interverbal found the 77 year old autistics that Best still insists don’t exist. Thanks to you all. It was quite a lesson in taking apart fallacious arguments.

Bestisms

I want to end with a few choice Best quotes. It’s not quite as good as this list of John Best quotes, but they are amusing none the less.

In response to requests for citations to back up his claims:

I don't use citations. I just rely on my memory. When you learn to do that, you will be a lot better off.

On the inventiveness of Eli Lilly:

Autism was invented in 1931 by Eli Lilly.

Argument by wild west wanted poster:

…just find me the 77 year olds, dead or alive.

On consistency in evaluating sources:

The FDA and CDC are not reputable sources for anything.

And then goes on to quote the autism prevalence of 1 in 150, which he gets from (guess where? No prizes) , the CDC.

On the true meaning of science

true scientists like myself…

and yet

I think you guys are too involved with science

Where I learned what I know to be true is of no concern to you.

Studies are a waste of time to me.

On humility

Autism is never misdiagnosed

And finally, the proof Best really is smarter than anyone else:

Until one of you morons can decipher a racing form and select 6 out of 9 races while I only pick 5, you will not be able to outdo me at any intellectual pursuit. For, handicapping horse races is the single most difficult problem solving exercise one could ever encounter.

Note: the single most difficult problem solving exercise one could ever encounter. There really is no answer to that. Best’s Nobel Prize must surely be a mere formality.

Left Brain Right Brain closes

Kevin Leitch’s Left Brain Right Brain autism blog closed today. Click the link and you will discover why:

The reason LB/RB is shutting is because I cannot continue to allow my beautiful eldest girl to be exposed to the hatred and bullying she is recieving from John Best. John has seen fit to compare my beautiful child to a trained monkey because he didn't like the fact she was progressing. He has made numerous jokes at her expense on that theme. He has assumed her identity online. He has encouraged others to do the same.

Let me be clear. I do not care one iota what this cowardly idiot thinks of me. He can write whatever he wants. But he has involved my daughter. Not to reference her progression. Not to quote me. But to laugh at her and to put words in her seven year old mouth.

I genuinely fear for her safety at the hands of this person (I will refrain from calling someone who picks on children 'a man'). Three days running he has posted blog entries about her, two of which assume her identity and one of which is attempting to gain money in her name. I do not know where he would stop. Therefore the only way to make her safe is to remove us from his presence.

More at the link.

This is sad. Kevin’s blog has been a source of much thoughtful and useful information on autism and autism quackery over the years, and all of this information is now lost (the wayback machine notwithstanding). But Kevin has to put the safety of his family first and I can’t fault him for doing so. I don’t know too much of this John Best, except that he posts numerous comments to blogs under the name “Fore Sam”, and is well known in the autism anti-quackery blogosphere. For example, this appears to be a sample of John Best aka Fore Sam’s thought on a variety of subjects.  This is his blog.

Whatever your views on the causes of autism, it’s a sad day when a blog has to close due to fears for the safety of its author and/or his family.

Get Your Flu Shot

From Carl Zimmer today I found this excellent opinion piece in the NYT by Jessica Snyder Sachs, explaining why you should get your children vaccinated and why the “natural” approach is no such thing. Some extracts:

Some parents have come to embrace colds and flus, and in recent years we’ve seen a resurgence of the chickenpox party, where parents deliberately expose their preschoolers to infected playmates on the theory that it’s better to get the disease than to have the vaccine.

But the idea that illness is good for children — or anyone else — is wrong. In part, the idea of “good sickness” is a throwback to a now disproved version of the “hygiene hypothesis.”

And she goes on to explain why this idea, which originally was thought to be sound, has been proven wrong. I actually met a woman recently who thought it was better for her kids to get a disease than to have the disease prevented by a vaccine. The logic for that escaped me (if your kid gets the disease he’ll then not get the disease again?). I wish I’d had this article handy. Also, I didn’t know this:

Moreover, studies now show that the more infections a person has during childhood, the greater his or her chance of premature death from scourges of old age like heart disease and cancer. The link appears to be chronic inflammation, a kind of lingering collateral damage from the body’s disease-fighting response.

I thought the most interesting part was how Snyder Sachs explained that getting immunity through getting the disease, is not natural:

A second misconception common among vaccine-shunning parents is that there’s something “natural” about the 6 to 10 respiratory infections the typical American child gets every year (or even the two to four we adults experience). Common, yes; natural no, not if “natural” represents the forces that shaped the human immune system during all but the last sliver of our 250,000 years as Homo sapiens. Colds, flus and most other contagious diseases found a central place in our lives only after we and our domestic animals began crowding together in large settlements some 5,000 years ago.

The article goes on to explain why you really should get your flu shot this year.