Short answer - No.

Longer answer - Autism does appear to be more than one disorder and should be expected to have more than one cause. However, there is no more data implicating a “toxic environment” (whatever that might be), viruses, “yeast overgrowth” or vaccines than there is implicating television, rain, cell phones or Miley Cyrus.

I am all for asking for safe vaccines - you show me data indicating that a particular vaccine could be made more safe (and how that could be done) and I’ll push it as hard as I can to make that happen.

On the other hand, if this is just about “too many, too soon” and “green our vaccines”, I can’t get behind that. Vague “concerns” about vaccines without any data to support them are pointless. There are people “concerned” about the effects of cell phones, microwave ovens, “chemtrails” and reptilian aliens replacing world leaders. None of that is worth the effort and expence of a study.

Research time, resources and mony are finite - very finite. To spend any of them chasing down a vague and ill-defined “concern” would be a criminal waste - criminal because, in the zero-sum-game that is research funding, spending resources on one thing means that something else doesn’t get funded.

So, do we divert money from cardiac disease, diabetes, cancer or Altzheimer’s disease to track down and eradicate these vague “concerns” about vaccines and autism?

Vaccines are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective - we know that. Nothing in life is 100% safe and 100% effective. Vaccines - as they are currently formulated and administered - are safer than getting the disease they were developed to prevent. Much, much safer.

If you have data that vaccines cause autism, bring it and then we can talk about how to get a study going.

Prometheus

Empathy, respect, and awe are welcomed, and on occasion, even reciprocated.

The way I deal with the autism wouldn’t change in the least, even if there were any evidence that vaccines caused autism, which there isn’t of course.

I really enjoyed the posted article and the comments from all those trying to keep it scientific.

We find each other’s reasoning to be fundamentally flawed. This sometimes happens.

Frank makes this sound as though he and Do’C were disagreeing over whether the Cubs were a better baseball team than the Red Sox. Unfortunately, unlike the Cubs/Red Sox “controversy”, there is real data about this issue.

Unfortunately for Frank, these data do not support his position. Thanks for playing, Frank. We have some lovely parting gifts for you…..

I can’t get over how some people - including the person named in the title of this post - don’t seem to understand that there is a real answer to the question of vaccines causing autism.

It doesn’t matter that Jenny McCarthy - ex-minor-league-celebrity - “believes” that autism is caused by vaccines. It doesn’t matter if Bernadine Healy or Barack Obama believe that vaccines cause autism. It doesn’t matter even if a majority of people in the US, or the UK or the world believe that vaccines cause autism.

All that matters is what the data show. And so far, the data show that vaccines don’t cause autism.

Maybe tomorrow someone will publish data showing a connection between vaccines and autism that will overwhelm the current mountain of data that fail to show a connection. If that happens, I will happily change my tune. But not before then.

This isn’t a popularity contest or an election - there is a real answer to this question that doesn’t depend on what people believe.

If you’ve got the data to show that vaccines cause autism, then show it. If not….well, you’re still entitled to your opinion, but we don’t have to believe it.

Prometheus

I see the overburdening of developing immune systems with untested (in the intended host) compounds.

And you see this “over burdening” of the immune system how?

Read up Frank:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/112/6/1394

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/109/1/124

No special insight (toxicological, immunological, epidemiological, etc.) was apparent by the way.

Come on back if you change your mind and decide to comment on the actual topic of the post.

Have you heard of PubMed?

Do you honestly think that vaccines make lots of money versus the cost of treating diseases? Actually, that has been researched here is a sample paper:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/110/4/653

(the “vaccines make millions of dollars” argument has to be on of the more idiotic ones, it is right up there with the assumption that a child could be injured more by a vaccine with very few and weakened antigens than by the actual disease!)