Thoughts on L.A. Times Vaccine Articles

Earlier this evening I sent the text of two recent articles (a front page news story and an editorial) from the Los Angeles Times, both of which seemed (IMO) to be quite slanted - towards the anti-vaccine side. While lip-service was given towards the medical studies showing no vaccine-autism link, the article sure seemed (again, IMO) to imply that thimerosal must to be to blame.

One question I haven't heard answered by any of the anti-vaccine folks anywhere (and I know there are some lurking on this list, so here's your chance to chime in): If thimerosal was to blame for the rise in autism rates, especially the theory that it was giving multiple vaccines at one visit or "too much" over the course of the first 1-1/2 years of life, where is the expected drop in cases now that the vaccine supply is practically thimerosal-free? It's been phasing out over the past few years and now the amount of thimerosal received - especially in those not given flu vaccine - is negligible. I'd truly like to hear a plausible theory explaining the continued rise in autism despite the lack of thimerosal exposure. It seems to me that if all the resources (time and money) spent investigating thimerosal and prosecuting drug companies were put towards more promising research, it would go a long ways towards bettering the lives of children with autism as well as their families.

And a question for the providers on the list: How are you going to handle the thimerosal issue and flu vaccine this year?

Michael Sachs, M.D. General Pediatrician