It is difficult to independently assess the validity of Ms Escher's claim that the vaccine hypothesis is an idea devoid of biological plausibility that has been debunked by rigorous research. She links to the Autism and Vaccines: Read the Science page at the Autism Science Foundation's website. But most of the studies provided there are …
It is difficult to independently assess the validity of Ms Escher's claim that the vaccine hypothesis is an idea devoid of biological plausibility that has been debunked by rigorous research. She links to the Autism and Vaccines: Read the Science page at the Autism Science Foundation's website. But most of the studies provided there are available only by subscription which most readers like me would not have. Also some links there are simply dead, and others point to articles that are no longer available (and thus presumably retracted). Some of the articles that are available for the general public to download and read have been the subject of critical posted comments or have been attacked in other published studies.
Ms Escher also links to something by Paul Offit, but Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Offut are in a he said/he said dispute. Mr. Kennedy makes a lot of claims about Mr. Offit, and Mr. Offit has a written response claiming that Kennedy is lying. No way to tell who is telling the truth or if they are both telling falsehoods (I'm not saying that either of them does not genuinely believe what he claims).
That said, some of the studies on the Autism Science Foundation website do appear credible and seem to disprove the premise that vaccines (or thimerosal) cause Autism. These are studies based on very large data sets of millions of children some vaccinated and some not, with no statistical difference in the amount of autism between the two cohorts. Also, there is an article there that purports to show by brain scans that autism is the result of a physical mis-development of the brain. However, the author appears to be basing his conclusion on post-natal brain scans and so apparently he just assumes that the mis-development shown by the scans was pre-natal. He then posits a post-natal treatment that he thinks might possibly correct or improve the developmental deviations from normal brain organization, which begs the question, "if the problem can be corrected post-natal, what is the evidence that it was not pre-natal rather than being caused post-natal?" In other words, if the brain can be rewired post-natal, then any wiring errors shown on post-natal brain scans might have been caused post-natal, rather than being a pre-natal development problem.
It seems like the debate about mercury is that Kennedy and those who claim vaccines may cause autism rely on the fact that methyl mercury (i.e. organic mercury) is known to be a harmful toxin and assume that ethyl mercury (i.e. inorganic mercury) is probably harmful too. On the other hand. Offit and those who claim that thimerosal in vaccines is not a problem claim that the reason that methyl mercury is a toxin is that it can enter inside of cells and disrupt normal cell function, while ethyl mercury (which is what is in thimerosal) cannot enter cells therefore is non-toxic. It seems like both sides are making assumptions for which they do not seem to offer proof. Kennedy assumes that since methyl mercury is toxic, ethyl mercury must be too. Offit assumes that since methyl mercury is toxic because it can enter cells while ethyl mercury cannot, ethyl mercury mercury is both not toxic and is eventually excreted by the body. In the literature cited, I am not finding proof of either assumption. Maybe someone smarter than me can point it out.
It is difficult to independently assess the validity of Ms Escher's claim that the vaccine hypothesis is an idea devoid of biological plausibility that has been debunked by rigorous research. She links to the Autism and Vaccines: Read the Science page at the Autism Science Foundation's website. But most of the studies provided there are available only by subscription which most readers like me would not have. Also some links there are simply dead, and others point to articles that are no longer available (and thus presumably retracted). Some of the articles that are available for the general public to download and read have been the subject of critical posted comments or have been attacked in other published studies.
Ms Escher also links to something by Paul Offit, but Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Offut are in a he said/he said dispute. Mr. Kennedy makes a lot of claims about Mr. Offit, and Mr. Offit has a written response claiming that Kennedy is lying. No way to tell who is telling the truth or if they are both telling falsehoods (I'm not saying that either of them does not genuinely believe what he claims).
That said, some of the studies on the Autism Science Foundation website do appear credible and seem to disprove the premise that vaccines (or thimerosal) cause Autism. These are studies based on very large data sets of millions of children some vaccinated and some not, with no statistical difference in the amount of autism between the two cohorts. Also, there is an article there that purports to show by brain scans that autism is the result of a physical mis-development of the brain. However, the author appears to be basing his conclusion on post-natal brain scans and so apparently he just assumes that the mis-development shown by the scans was pre-natal. He then posits a post-natal treatment that he thinks might possibly correct or improve the developmental deviations from normal brain organization, which begs the question, "if the problem can be corrected post-natal, what is the evidence that it was not pre-natal rather than being caused post-natal?" In other words, if the brain can be rewired post-natal, then any wiring errors shown on post-natal brain scans might have been caused post-natal, rather than being a pre-natal development problem.
It seems like the debate about mercury is that Kennedy and those who claim vaccines may cause autism rely on the fact that methyl mercury (i.e. organic mercury) is known to be a harmful toxin and assume that ethyl mercury (i.e. inorganic mercury) is probably harmful too. On the other hand. Offit and those who claim that thimerosal in vaccines is not a problem claim that the reason that methyl mercury is a toxin is that it can enter inside of cells and disrupt normal cell function, while ethyl mercury (which is what is in thimerosal) cannot enter cells therefore is non-toxic. It seems like both sides are making assumptions for which they do not seem to offer proof. Kennedy assumes that since methyl mercury is toxic, ethyl mercury must be too. Offit assumes that since methyl mercury is toxic because it can enter cells while ethyl mercury cannot, ethyl mercury mercury is both not toxic and is eventually excreted by the body. In the literature cited, I am not finding proof of either assumption. Maybe someone smarter than me can point it out.