KQED is a public radio (and TV) station in the San Francisco bay area. One show on KQED that covers science is QUEST. A few weeks ago, QUEST had an article on their blog: Doubt and Denialism: Vaccine Myths Persist in the Face of Science. As you can imagine, it gathered exactly the sort of attention it was discussing: comments showing vaccine myths persisting in the face of science. There are nearly 220 comments. Quest has followed up with another good article on science and how it is often ignored: In Defense of Science: An Interview with NCSE’s Eugenie Scott. Eugenie Scott pulls a lot of examples from the evolution discussions to illustrate how science is often ignored or misused.
Note: I misspelled KQED when I first published this.
—
By Matt Carey
Left Brain Right Brain 
Thanks for this. I was going to leave a comment there because I have a science crush on Dr. Scott. But alas, the loony brigade came out and I just don’t have the stomach for it right now.
Provide evidence from experimental (animal) research that vaccine components do not affect the brain. Comparisons with doubts over evolution and global warming are irrelevant. Civil conversations with those considered part of the “looney brigade” might be more productive.
Which components? The comparisons of anti-vaxx sentiment to AGW and evolution are very relevant; they are all a rejection of science in lieu of clinging to beliefs. Civil conversation will provided when anti-vaxxers stop operating outside their education and experience, when anti-vaxxers stop abusing scientific literature and when anti-vaxxers stop lying and when anti-vaxxers start putting their own money where their mouths are by demanding studies from so-called autism charities like SafeMinds, Generation Rescue and TACA. They can do them too.
Brain systems underlying language development should be the priority for autism research. Since 2003, I have submitted “public comments” to the IACC on this subject, But language development and the brain have been ignored by the IACC in their strategic plans.
Matt, I responded to your post on the IACC’s mandate to ask if public comments from the July 10 meeting were discussed. I could not listen in to the conference call on July 27, and won’t be able to on September 7 either. I am glad to see that a subcommittee on basic and translational research has been formed. Can you report on the IACC conference calls? I have asked via the “public inquiries” email address, but received no answer.
Thanks for sharing this, some excellent reminders about staying on target and on message.