Recently Sully asked if there was value in continuing to report of a certain AJ Wakefield’s exploits. It got me to thinking – is there continuing value on blogging Age of Autism, the book?
The most recent chapters have descended into very very familiar territory with the Somali and Amish episodes being regurgitated to seemingly little or no point. Are LB/RB readers of the opinion that this sort of material requires review?
Don’t get me wrong, I would continue to blog about _new_ material in the book but as I have come to the section of the book where phrases like:
The obvious risk that immigrants to any Western country face is over-vaccination.
Page 250
are tossed around without any reason or evidence to back up the implication that ‘over’-vaccination is dangerous, or indeed there is such a things as ‘over-vaccination’, then I begin to question the worth of this material to LB/RB readers.
What do you think Dear Reader?
Left Brain Right Brain 
Yes, please continue. It saves all of us the pain of reading the book ourselves and I trust you would find the “new bits” in case there were any.
I’d appreciate it if you would continue your efforts.
FWIW, from personal experience I know that I couldn’t do what you are doing. My neighbor gave me a copy of Jenny McCarthy’s “Healing and Preventing Autism” yesterday–she thought that if it’s good for a few laughs it would be worth the 90 cents that she paid for the remaindered copy–but I really don’t think that I’m going to be able to read much of it; I’m not going to be able to get past “yeast die-off.”
Kev,
I’m good with you diving on this grenade for the rest of us. I have grown tired of people claiming that no one can comment on “The Age of Autism” without reading the book. That’s nonsense. Correct me if I am wront, but the book contains so little that Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill haven’t already made public.
Sure, they claim that syphilis and hysteria were caused by mercury. Leaving aside their specious arguements, so what? Mercury in large doses is bad. Got it. Doesn’t mean it causes autism.
The Amish have autism…oops, they seem to have left that part out. A tad inconvenient for them, I guess. Autism rates didn’t drop when mercury was removed from pediatric vaccines…gotta waffle around an explanation for that. Autism existed before thimerosal, gotta leave that factoid out of the book. They don’t have a mechanism for thimerosal causing autism but other mercury compounds not causing autism…oops.
It is worth seeing what lengths these guys will go to in order to supporter their hypothesis. It is worthwhile calling them out on their frank denial of facts, yet again.
It is worth putting in the public domain the account of someone who read this book with a critical eye. I already know where I can find people who accepted the book (even before reading it).
I agree that it’s worth continuing. I am coming late to the debate only in the last year. While I’ve read Autism’s False Prophets and Vaccines (I remember A. Allen’s original New York Times Article too), they don’t really discuss/counter the more outre claims that seem to be in Age of Autism.
I say continue. The reason I fight with trolls is not to convince the believers on either side, but to show the uninformed and undecided that ours is the correct viewpoint. The reason you’re blogging this is to show everyone the errors and mistakes in the book.
I say continue too. This is one of the very few things that I want someone to do for me that I am unwilling to do myself.
Please continue. It’s funny.
“ours is the correct viewpoint.”
On the one hand Safeminds, hallucinating to the bitter end about the proven harmfulness of vaccines. On the other hand the equally incorrigible cargo-cult delusions displayed at lbrb. Difficult to say which is the sadder, or madder. Meanwhile in the real world the credibility of medical “authorities” is increasingly in shreds.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=desperate-for-an-autism-cure
“As many at 75 percent of autistic children are receiving alternative treatments not developed by conventional medicine”
“As many at 75 percent of autistic children are receiving alternative treatments not developed by conventional medicine…”
The rest of the sentence and the next two, same article:
“… according to some studies. And yet the therapies are often bogus. They have not been tested for safety or effectiveness, they can be expensive, and some of them may actually do harm.”
The 75% may speak more to gullibility (or desperation) than credibility. The noted article explains this.
@ RPClarke,
Firstly, our viewpoint is the correct viewpoint. Vaccines do not cause autism. The science says so. Six Test Cases, supposedly the best ones, lost in a court where the rules are written to favour the plaintiffs. Patricia Campbell-Smith, ruling on Colten Snyder, declared “To conclude that Colten’s autism was a result of his MMR, an impartial observer would have to emulate Lewis Carroll’s White Queen, and believe six impossible – or at least highly improbable – things before breakfast.” Precisely what about my comment is delusional?