Robert F. Kennedy recently published an article in Salon and Rolling Stone about the thimerosal controversy, joining the chorus who question the way in which public health organizations have studied the possibility that the presence of thimerosal - a mercury-based compound in vaccines administered to small children - has contributes to the increases prevalence of autism, ADHD, and other disorders among children.
I've written about the evidence that supports such a link before, but one of the questions before us is: is it even plausible to consider that government agencies, research organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and medical groups could have colluded to hide the issue from the public? Is this whole idea based on a fantastic conspiracy theory?
The thimerosal-vernichters say, absolutely. And the lore that surrounds characters like Verstraeten supports the notion of a vast conspiracy. And it's all about money.
In the thimerosal controversy, people are staking their hard-earned reputation on asserting that there is no link. Let's be clear here: if those who support a link turn out to be wrong, we'd have spent unnecessary money producing single-dose vaccines. If those who oppose a link are wrong, they'll have poisoned kids for no other purpose than gratifying their egos. Nothing will ruin a doctor's reputation like vehemently supporting something that turns out to be unsafe.
Ibsen wrote a play called “An Enemy of the People,” about a doctor in a spa town that discovered that the spa waters were toxic from an upstream tannery. Thinking that the townspeople would thank him for averting certain disaster, he finds himself shunned and ultimately banished from the town. The consequences of the truth couldn't be contemplated, and so they treated it like a fabrication, as the product of a deficient mind.
In Ibsen's play, only the doctor is professionally qualified to assess the water. Still, in spite of the preponderance of the facts, his warning is not only ignored but outright rejected and the messenger vilified.
Indeed, the consequences of proving a link are staggering. The lawsuits against the pharmaceutical companies in question would surely put them out of business for good. The federal government would have to foot astronomical expenses to take care of affected kids - possibly for life - and compensate parents for the hardship. People would go to jail. Pediatricians that didn't obtain informed consent for “mandatory” vaccines would get sued. There would be a crisis in confidence toward all vaccination programs, possibly causing other public health crises.
Faced with this, it is no wonder there is a strong desire to deny the link, let the current moratorium take effect, and hope that treatments are developed that minimize the economic impact of those children who are affected. If the problem somehow will work itself out anyway, why make a spectacle?
This would not be the type of conspiracy crafted behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms but rather a tacit bias among a number of people smart enough to see that they're facing a cataclysm. To even hint that the link is likely would amount to professional suicide, at best. Who wouldn't drag their feet, shut out unpleasant facts, engage in groupthink? Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.
phish is good see ya
Posted by: tricky | November 08, 2007 at 02:19 PM
phish is good see ya
Posted by: tricky | November 08, 2007 at 07:00 PM