The New York Times published its article on the thimerosal controversy, making it more or less about the heroic efforts of "scientists" and "experts" to persuade parents that no, there is no link between the use of thimerosal in vaccines and their children's serious diseases.
It's telling that the New York Times article never mentions the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that chelation has shown dramatic improvements for at least some kids with the diagnosis, but still feels compelled to highlight the experience of one self-proclaimed scientific mind, Jim Laidler, who rejects the whole thing on the basis of his experience with his own two sons.
Now, there are a great many things wrong with this article, but let me point out a few:
- There is no question that the medical and scientific community, as it were, has screwed up badly when so many parents remain unconvinced about the assertion that there is no link between thimerosal and pediatric neurological disorders. I'll tell you why, by the way: it's not as if they ever said, "hmm, interesting hypothesis. We have to take this seriously. It's going to be hard to test it, so let's cover it from every angle." They have denied the link every step of the way, and their efforts have largely consisted of discrediting anyone who opposes them. How could you help but get suspicious?
- It seems to me that anyone who deals in pediatric medicine and discounts the concerns of parents - no matter how "irrational" they may seem to them, is unqualified for their job at best and is guilty of gross and criminal negligence at worst. Laidler kindly pities parents who pursue non-conventional means to help their children - yeah, that kind of condescension will put those nutty parents at ease.
- Just how can anyone characterize themselves "experts" on autism, anyway? Let's be clear about this: autism is a disorder for which there is a wide and diverse range of symptoms, no known cause, a wide range of prognoses, and wide disagreement on treatment. I have personally met several of the leading "experts" on this condition, and I can tell you, they have very little to work on. Any serious medical or scientific professional on this issue will tell you they are humbled daily by it. Anyone who fancies himself/herself an "expert" on autism instantly loses credibility in my mind.
- It only hurts that authorities and experts show very little interest in finding out what's at the bottom of this epidemic. Yes, there's research on the matter: genetic testing, theories of mind, behavioral approaches, but they all - curiously - discount the possibility that environmental factors play a role. Autism, it seems, is a fluke of nature, its victims interesting specimens in helping us understand how the normal mind works. The day the government acknowledges a well-funded, independently managed effort to once and for all come to the bottom of the causes of autism, everything they say will be met with skepticism and suspicion.
It seems to me that, as a general rule, parents would prefer to spend their scarce time and money on things that would at least help and ideally cure their kids. The New York Times is trying to persuade us that the experts must be right, because they are experts; and the parents must be wrong because they are parents - the former consists of rational, independently thinking, and very smart individuals; the latter of irrational, overly loving, and dependant individuals. On this rationale alone, the New York Times would have parents give up on their kids and sit back and wait for the experts to pay attention to the problem. In other words, the New York Times would like to see parents rachet down their love and dedication to their kids just a notch.
Comments