6/30/2009

Really, Heckenlively?

Will be another work in progress, so check back upon occasion as I have the time to work on this. Feel free to volunteer your deconstruction of the post in the comments section. That would be tremendously helpful. I'm a week away from resuming teaching, and I'll have two courses to teach for summer 2, so I'm a bit busy getting things ready, and I could use any help readers are interested in providing in pointing out problems with AoA posts and comments.

Heckenlively writes:

"Nobody was more surprised by the decisions in Cedillo, Hazlehurst, and Snyder than me. It wasn’t just that the decisions went against the theory of vaccines causing autism. I understood how controversial this claim was, and the proof which would probably be needed to sustain it."

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/06/appeals-court-to-vaccine-court-dont-be-a-putz.html

No need to go past the first paragraph in this post to spot two glaring inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

I'll buy he was surprised by the decision.

But, I love this: "the decisions went against the theory of vaccines causing autism." No, they didn't and that's the entire point. The theories that AoA supports for autism causes are not scientifically supported. I'll admit that more work needs to be done, that Craig's post elsewhere showing no difference in autism rates in vaccinated and nonvaccinated would be helpful in closing the "controversy" for parents on the fence and close to the fence. Wouldn't do anything for the diehard woolies but nothing will.

Okay, that was the inaccuracy. Here's the inconsistency: "I understood how controversial this claim." If the theory of autism the Cedillos etc were espousing were as accurate as H. was suggesting in his paragraph and the "accepted doctrine" or mainstream science, then why would there be controversy?

It was/is only controversial to people who believe in Wakefield, the Geiers, Gordon (who, I'm sorry you really shouldn't want as a pediatrician), and Sears. Come on, how has no one at AoA caught on that these people are trying to sell you products? And yet AoA screams about pharma shills. I'd say the powers that be over there are awfully close to being con shills?


http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/190 discusses the payout the Cedillo lawyers got (nice, they get big fat checks, but not the families).

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/183/ discusses the dismissal of the Cedillo and other two cases.

More to come as I have time.

Again, I would be thrilled to see comments by readers offering any additional nuggets they can find in this article. :-)

2 comments:

kathleen said...

Andrew wakefield was attacked!! He was in the attorneys pockets...he faked his results..he lied-and now he is a victim.?? WTF?!..There is more on the polling case...let me find it and I will get back to you..

Dawncnm said...

Kim: nice link to Neurodiversity. The articles there are wonderfully researched and documented. Kathleen has done a great job.

@Kathleen(#1 comment) LOL re: he was attacked. The only way Wakefield can be seen as a victim is if the real Wakefield has been locked up and the guy running around is an imposter using his name.