Archive | Ginger Taylor RSS feed for this section

So Anti Vaccine Crowd, how did that campaign for Trump thing work out for you?

12 Sep

In 2016 the anti vaccine community was very excited to have a candidate who lent them credibility. They always crave credibility and will latch on to anyone who does so. Think Robert Kennedy Jr., Del Bigtree, Andrew Wakefield, the whole raft of charlatans that any reasonable movement would cut loose. But in 2016 they had Donald Trump, who evolved from dark horse candidate to Republican nominee to president.

Donald Trump had tweeted the vaccines cause autism lie:

Trump lies about vaccines to get attention

Trump lies about vaccines to get attention

And had made other comments about autism and vaccines.

By this time most people understood Donald Trump. He’s a shameless self promoter who likes to take controversial positions to get attention (birther conspiracy, anyone? He even revisited birtherism with Kamala Harris).

Being a conspiracy theorist wouldn’t alienate Trump from the anti-vaccine community. Far from it. Just as they deny their own conspiracy theory roots, they will look past this in Trump. And being a loud mouth who is often wrong? Well, that sums up JB Handley to a T.

Trump flirted with the anti-vaccine movement and the anti-vaccine movement fell in love. JB Handley (anti-vaccine activist who uses his position as an autism parent in his campaign) wrote an article: Trumps Stands with my Son, I Stand with Trump with comments like “If ending the Autism epidemic is your top priority, how in the world can you vote Democrat? rel=’nofollow'”.

Let’s leave aside that the “autism is an epidemic caused by vaccines” is doubly wrong. Many of us responded at the time: if having respect for people with disabilities (such as your son, Brad) were any sort of priority, how could you vote for Trump? Trump clearly doesn’t respect people with disabilities. For example:

Why would an autism parent support this?

Why would an autism parent support this?

That said, JB Handley and many others in the anti-vaccine movement (including other autism parents) clearly don’t respect people with disabilities. Remember when Del Bigtree compared autistics to dogs and exotic chimpanzees while autism parents Mark Blaxill and Ginger Taylor laughed?

Many of us autism parents prioritize our kids and the autistic community in general. We feel that respect and rights for people with disabilities is a paramount issue. And Trump had no disability plans in his platform. But the anti-vaccine movement, even the autism parents, do not place such a high value on respect for people with disabilities. In fact, they disparage it as trying to “normalize” disability (I got a hint for you all–disability *is* a normal part of being human).

Here we are 4 years later. Donald Trump not only hasn’t taken up the anti vaccine banner, hasn’t taken up the “autism is a vaccine induced epidemic!” campaign, he’s now throwing money into the development of new vaccines and actively trying to get the vaccines to market before they can complete safety and efficacy testing.

Instead of “draining the swamp”, he’s pressuring the CDC and the FDA to become part of his political machine, where independent science isn’t reported but rather science-like support for Trump’s messaging are allowed.

The irony is thick. The anti-vaccine movement got the exact opposite of what they hoped for.

So I wonder what they are thinking now. How much do they know that they were played? And do they care that they were played?

I haven’t done much digging on this, but I did run across this from “you are so charming Del, I’ll laugh at your autistics-as-dogs remark” Ginger Taylor:

Yeah, she’s on to Trump. But she still backs him.

It’s rare for the anti-vaccine movement to admit even this much of a mistake (JB Handley, for example is very much in the Trump mold. Including the ‘never apologize, never admit mistakes’.)

I do wonder if somewhere, hidden from view, there have been discussions of “well, we were played by Trump” among the anti-vaccine community.

—
By Matt Carey

Financial documents for the Canary Party

12 Jul

There seems to be a large number of groups promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism. A large number of groups who share the same principle members. SafeMinds, the National Autism Association, Generation Rescue and others come to mind. A few years ago, another group was formed, this time as a political party: the Canary Party.

The Canary Party is not a charity, so they do not file form 990’s with the IRS. They appear to not be a national political party a they are not listed with the FEC. Recently, a commenter at the Respecful Insolence blog (Narad)found that the Canary Party is organized in Minnesota and files their financial reports there.

Forms have been filed for 2011 and 2012.

The Canary Party pulled in $72,000 in 2011 and $49,000 in 2012. The major contributors are (assuming I did my sums correctly):

2011:

Jennifer Larson (Canary Party President), $40,665
Mark Blaxill (Canary Party Chairman), $15,000

2012:

Barry Segal (founder of Focus Autism): $30,000
Mark Blaxill (Canary Party Chairman), $10,000

The largest expense is for a “media consultant”, Jennifer Taylor (apparently Ginger Taylor, a blogger).

$36,600 in 2011
$9,000 in 2012

Plus many expenses for advertising and other promotional expenses.

In 2012, travel became a larger expense. For example:

On January 26, 2012, $3,399.79 for expenses with Hyatt/Four-Seasons/Hyatt
(February 2nd 2012 was the date of the “Health Freedom Expo”, where other expenses were incurred)

On February 2, 2012, $1,841.43 for expenses with Hyatt/Ritz

It’s difficult from this to tell how many people were lodged at these hotels for these dates. One expense seems more clear: On 6/15/2012, expenses attributed to Canary Party president Jennifer Larson amounted to $1,541.42 for another Health Freedom Expo hotel stay, this time at the Hilton. Health Freedom Expos are typically 3 day events.

On 10/22/2012 the party hosted a convention, with apparently a tab of $11,382.02 for Hotel/Beverages/Hotel Fees.

Nothing particularly interesting. Per another comment posted to Respectful Insolence, the association between the Canary Party and Mr. Barry Segal appears to be strained. As Mr. Segal accounted for $30,000 of the party’s $49,000 revenue in 2012, one does wonder what 2013 revenue will look like.

—
Matt Carey

Ginger Taylor misrepresents David Bowman

5 May

the admission of David Bowman at HRSA (who runs VICP) that vaccines can cause encephalopathy that causes autism as reported by David Kirby.

Following the Poling vaccine concession, Kirby wrote to HRSA and asked if this now meant that the VICP was now paying for vaccine induced autism. This the “official statement” that HRSA sent him:

David,

In response to your most recent inquiry, HRSA has the following
statement:

The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to
compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually
caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children
exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy
may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms
including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries may have
shown signs of autism before the decision to compensate, or may
ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track
cases on this basis.

Regards,

David Bowman
Office of Communications
Health Resources and Services Administration
301-443-3376

Is this not a very significant disclosure by HHS and in conflict with many of their public statements of autism causation? HHS has admitted that vaccines can cause brain damage that becomes “autistic behavior, autism, or seizures”.

Well, no, no its not. Lets look closley at the ‘offending’ paragraph:

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

Quite clearly Bowman is saying that Encephalopathy may be accompanied by etc. A fact he goes on to clarify further in his next paragraph. How much clearer does it need to be?

Ginger Taylor and David Kirby really have got to stop misrepresenting people in this way. It does their beliefs no justice.

Donald Triplett – Autism’s Patient Zero

27 Sep

Donald Triplett is (for he is still alive) Kanner’s Case 1. Recently the story in a lovely portrait in The Atlantic, Donald has also had the sad misfortune to slowly but inexorably become a poster child for the autism/anti-vaccine movement. As one of the leading autism/anti-vaccine proponents, Ginger Taylor, writes:

While Kanner’s other cases had poor outcomes, Donald did not. It turns out Donald received a medical treatment that Kanner never recorded when, as a boy, he fell victim to crippling juvenile arthritis. Donald was treated with gold salts and his brother reported that as a result, Donald not only recovered from the arthritis, but “the proclivity to excitability and extreme nervousness had all but cleared up.”

Donald began to recover from “autism.”

This is highly relevant to the autism debate because gold has an extreme affinity for mercury and pulls it from the body. It is also significant because arthritis links his “nervous disorder” to his autoimmune disorder. It is historical evidence that the claims that parents have been making, that their children with autism had regressed after their mercury-containing vaccines, and that treating them for their autoimmune symptoms makes their “autism” better.

Sigh. And so we see the same old merry-go-round that has engulfed Hannah Poling – a determination to see one end and one end only for causing autism – vaccines.

And yet…theres no evidence Donald Triplett was ever vaccinated with anything. Certainly not thiomersal. Indeed, those who ‘discovered’ that Donald was treated with gold salts – Messers Blaxill and Olmsted, had to find another method of Donald being exposed to mercury. They claim that Donald:

…lived in an area where a water-soluble form of mercury was first used in forestry.

Bit of a stretch much?

There are a few reasons I really think this is debatable at best.

1) Why was Donald Triplett the _only_ person in Forest, Mississippi to ‘get’ autism from pesticides used in Forestry?

2) The only person who has suggested Gold Salts could theoretically chelate mercury is one Boyd Haley. In fact as Prometheus said way back in 2005:

The gold used to treat Donald T’s RA was a salt – the gold was an ion and not able to amalgamate with metallic mercury. In addition, mercury in animal tissue is also either ionized or chemically bonded with organic groups (e.g. methyl, ethyl, phenyl…) and also not able to form an amalgam.

3) Lets say that the gold salts performed the impossible and chelated the mercury. Why didn’t Donald Triplett simply ‘get’ autism straight away since mercury continued to be used in the Forestry industry? Chelation is not a preventative.

So here is this young boy who’s exposure to water soluble mercury seems in extreme doubt to me, who’s vaccination record seems to be zero but who was also autistic.

I’m afraid that only points one way to me.

Autism is not murderous

12 Aug

Lives lost to autism is a new website with what seems at first glance to have an excellent reason for existence – to record all the non-natural deaths of autistic people.

But the name ‘Lives lost to autism’, the strapline ‘For many, autism can be deadly.’ and most particularly the statement ‘This site tells the story of the precious lives cut short by autism.’ are very misleading. Blaming autism for murder is utterly misleading. Autism didn’t murder any of the children listed as murder victims – or the ones that haven’t been listed either.

The site seems to be set up and run by Ginger Taylor (left) who’s position on autism has grown more and more extreme over the years. It seems now she is happy to denigrate autism itself as a murderous entity.

Should there be a site where victims of murder AND natural deaths are remembered? Of course there should, its a great idea. But to politicise it so graphically and so ham-fistedly is wrong. Its a testament to the ideas of Ginger Taylor and not a lot more right now.

Ginger Taylor goes off the deep end

13 Feb

Like Wade Rankin, Ginger Taylor used to be someone that you could have a decent conversation with regarding vaccines and autism. Not any more. Increasingly, since she was caught out smearing the wrong man her blogging has become erratic and, well, odd.

Today reaches a new low point in Ginger’s blogging career. She has drawn a map listing the ‘forces’ ranged up against poor old Andy ‘Dr Dreamy’ Wakefield. ‘Look at the energy flow in this thing…’ she intones heavily as she describes how Rupert Murdoch and the US Arms industry are exerting pressure on Andy.

Ginger Taylor has become Richard Nixon – believing that everyone in the modern world is oout to get her, or in this case, her paranoia proxy Andrew Wakefield.

David Kirby didn't look before he leapt

7 Dec

On Wednesday 3rd December, Ginger Taylor sent an email around to a maillist of journalists she maintains contact with saying:

Last spring I wrote to you and told you to be on the look out for the story of Hannah Poling, who was the first child with autism to be paid from the vaccine injury compensation fund. In the months following the Poling story, we found that she was actually at least the tenth child with autism compensated for her vaccine injuries by the government, but only the first to go public. Her case caused a profound shift in the public recognition of vaccination as one of the causes of autism.

I am writing to you today to let you know that tomorrow another story of equally profound weight will be breaking.

Specifically that the Department of Defense now holds the position that autism is one of the adverse reactions to the DTaP vaccine. In addition, The US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology holds that thimerosal is likely a cause of autism and recommends methyl B12 and chelation as the course of treatment for this mercury exposure

This entry is about the DoD story here but I really can’t let the Hannah Poling reference go by without a few notes. Hannah Poling was _not_ the first child with autism to be paid from the Vaccine Injury fund, a story first broken by Kathleen on her blog. And please note that yes, these kids had autism and yes these kids had vaccinations. And thats it. No link was ever made. This is just the same as the Hannah Poling case where no court or HHS employee has stated that Hannah’s autism was caused by her vaccines despite the numerous claims that they have. if anyone ever tells you they they have, ask for them to provide a link. All these cases are once you get right down to it are dressed up cases of correlation being presented as causation.

Anyway.

Following Ginger’s email, the next day found David’s blog post on the Huffington Post asking if the Pentagon was was a voice of reason on autism and vaccines, by which he means – do they think vaccines cause autism.

During the course of the post, he cited this presentation from José A. Centeno of the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and specifically referred to Slide 22 which I urge you to download and look at yourself (its a PDF). The slide is headed ‘Thimerosal’ and discusses sources, health effects and treatment. The health effects section states (in its entirety):

– Exposure to Hg in utero and children may cause mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination impairment;
– Autism?
– Dementia?

to which David asks:

My question is: Why does autism appear on a list of health effects on a slide about thimerosal, even if it is followed by a question mark?

To me its obvious: This PDF was created in 2005. . Some mainstream researchers still thought it was a slight possibility that thiomersal was involved I guess. Its further notable that even Centeno knew it was a doubtful link by the placing of a question mark after the word ‘autism’.

Lets also note that these are bullet points on a slide. I imagined the discussion at the time of presentation revolved around the debunking of the thiomersal hypothesis and it seems that was accurate.

I wondered at the time if David had actually spoken to anyone in the US military about this before passing it on to Ginger as a story of ‘profound weight’ and now, after reading David’s update on the post itself, it seems he didn’t:

UPDATE – I recently received a response to my query from Paul Stone, AFIP Public Affairs. He wrote that: “Dr. Centeno’s presentation, entititled ‘Mercury Poisoning: A Clinical and Toxicological Perspective,’ did mention Thimerosal. However, its inclusion was specifically intended to point out that although there has been some speculation about a potential association between Thimerosal and Autism, currently there is no data or science to support such a claim. Neither the AFIP nor Dr. Centeno have been involved in or conducted research on Autism.”

Its unfortunate David decided to ‘publish and be damned’ before waiting for a response from Centeno or the AFIP. Its clear that rather than a story of ‘profound weight’ this is something of a non-event. However, as is usually the case, no matter how incorrect it seems to be (and I am sure that this is _far_ from the last that will be heard about this from bloggers eager to get to the accuracy of this mini debacle) it will be quoted again and again and again from anti-vaccine believers who care little for accuracy. This will have an impact on both the well being of autism research and public health. I really hope David does the right thing and simply apologises and retracts the story.

Dear Mercury and MMR Militia

21 Jun

I want to write you all an open letter to offer you my opinion as to where you are going wrong. Before I do, I fully realise that this is a massive generalisation and that some of you won’t hold all the opinions I’m about to go through. I think though, that many of you do.

Three things prompted this open letter. First of all was David Kirby’s trip to the UK. Second was a comment from Kelli Ann Davies where she expressed surprise that some of us might know/guess/whatever the intentions of the science and medical community. Third was Ginger Taylor’s recent sulk about the AAP. I’ll touch on these things as I go through this.

You have a truly massive credibility issue which grows with every passing year. Once upon a time it was an issue with the science/medical community but now it is an issue with the general public. There are a number of reasons why this is so.

1) You cannot keep your story straight. You have (as I said to Kelli Anne) some first class marketing and PR people. As I recall, Lynn Redwood, Mark Blaxill and Sallie Bernard all have marketing qualifications. You also have numerous leading lights who are very, very rich. This means you have ample opportunity to lever your message into the heart of the US media system.

But that means nothing without a coherent story to sell. You don’t have one. I understand that you have recently talked about how the ‘story of vaccines’ has _evolved_ . That is stretching things more than a little. Its mercury, no its MMR, no its both, no its Aluminium, no its all three, no its all ingredients, no its the very vaccines themselves, no its the schedule they’re given. No – its ALL the above. And don’t forget the mitochondria!

The more ingredients you add to the pot, the more you have to explain why they are causative of autism. You didn’t even manage to do this when you were concentrating on just _one_ thing (thiomersal). The above is not an example of an evolving hypothesis. Its an example of an ever widening hypothesis as one after another, your original ideas have been taken down.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than David Kirby’s stumbling backwards and backwards:

In 2005, David said in a FAIR Autism Media interview:

It’s now 2005…..[W]e should see fewer cases entering the system [cdds] this year than we did last year.

When that didn’t happen he then said:

if the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis…..total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.

That didn’t happen either.

You started off by pointing an air pistol at a target 20 feet away and missing. You worked your way through Magnums, Shotguns and Miniguns and kept missing. You currently have a canon wheeled right up to within a foot of the target and you’re _still_ missing.

2) Your science is weak and getting weaker. Sadly for you, the onus was (and still is) on you to provide evidence that vaccines in any of the myriad of hypotheses cause autism. Lets hypothetically agree with you that vaccines are in fact, fashioned by Satan and are in fact, tools of population control. That is not the point. The point is: _do they cause autism?_

There is not one paper that passes muster as valid science that offers corroborating evidence that any vaccine, any ingredient of vaccines or any schedule they are administered in causes autism. This is after over 10 years of trying to find one. What you are increasingly left with is a double conspiracy theory. In one barrel of the conspiracy theory, brave maverick doctors are having their research suppressed. In the other barrel of the conspiracy theory, Big Pharma shills are publishing science to refute the various vaccine hypotheses.

Of course, neither barrel is true. The brave maverick docs are not having their science suppressed. It is simply not good enough to pass peer review.

A good example of this is the science experts being presented at the Omnibus Autism proceedings. No Geier’s. No Jim Adams. No Boyd Haley. No Andrew Wakefield. At least, not so far anyway. And this is in the Vaccine Court, where standards of evidence are way lower than in a civil court, where – by the way – not a few of these same researchers science was not good enough to even be entered as evidence.

And you have this nasty habit of shooting yourselves in the foot. Only today David Kirby posted on the Huffington Post about how rubbish the VSD database was. The very same database the Geier’s recently used to allege a link between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders.

And the list goes on. The Hornig study? Refuted by Rick Rollens MIND Institute. The Nataf paper on Porphyrins? Liz Mumper, head of DAN! medical admits that even ‘normal’ children have raised Porphyrin levels. The Bernard et al paper? Refuted. Richard Deth’s work? Exposed and questioned.

3) Your choice of media people to represent you is doing you harm. I am not sure how the idea of latching onto Jenny McCarthy as a spokesperson for the anti-vaccine/autism connection came up. There are a few other celebs I can think of with more gravitas than McCarthy. In truth, you couldn’t have chosen worse. Already, she has made a public fool of herself (and you). As has her partner, Jim Carrey, with his ‘lazy ass’ FUBAR and calls to notice ‘warnings from the universe‘.

I understand that these events feel terribly cathartic to you but I would urge you to take off your rose tinted glasses and see how the real world perceives these kind of things. Its not good. Don’t take my word for it, go to a _mainstream_ news source, discount the people you know as friends/associates who are leaving comments and then see what people think.

You have also latched onto the words of Bernadine Healy. I can see why but she (is/was) a member of a paid lobby group that advances the ‘science’ of Philip Morris to put forward the idea passive smoking isn’t dangerous. How desperate do you have to be to turn to _this_ ‘authority’ for backup?

4) You cannot see that you are being humoured. I know that some of you have been very proud of your success in getting involved with things like the IACC and y’know, thats great – well done to you. And then there’s the ‘coup’ of getting the AAP to attend a DAN! conference and ‘work with’ them. But there’s one thing you seem to have forgotten. AAP members are medical scientists. They will go with the decent science.

I read a blog post from Ginger Taylor today which seemed to be telling the AAP their ‘window of opportunity’ to work with DAN! et al had closed due to the fact they endorsed a letter that a paediatrician had written on how to tackle parents who were nervous about vaccination.

Amusingly, Taylor also chided the AAP for not turning up to the ‘green our vaccines’ rally:

I warned that the window would only be open for a short time unless we saw real action, and would probably close around the time of the Green our Vaccines Rally if they didn’t show up for us in some respect.

Well the AAP didn’t show up for the rally and well… this certainly signals that the window is closed. They want it closed. And it looks like they may be locking it.

Can you not understand that to expect the AAP will turn up for a rally which touts such anti-science as Aluminium and Formaldehyde being at singularly dangerous levels in vaccines and Anti-Freeze being in them at all is the height of arrogant stupidity? Surely you cannot be that naive?

The truth is – and I get this from speaking to AAP, NIH, FDA and NHS members – that you had, and always will have, an opportunity to impress them with decent, peer reviewed science. That’s all you’ve ever needed. And that’s what you’ve never had.

5) The future. The person you’ve decided will be your public face is writing another book. <a href="http://stopthinkautism.blogspot.com/2008/06/today-autism-recovery-tomorrow-crystals.html"She says that:

It’s really an Indigo book…….We’re definitely the Indigos, you know, breaking down these walls so this, you know, New Earth behind us can happen.

And what’s your role in this?

…But people aren’t quite there yet and I kinda had to, not lower my vibration, change my vibration to focusing on the world hearing that message. Hearing that biomedical treatment does help these kids.

And then, slowly, you know I can put it in my speeches. and then in my last book I talked about the indigos and crystals. And I’m just like, I’m really following source, kind of I felt the need to do that, I’m just kind of dribbling it here and there until people, you know, have that spiritual awakening of spirituality.”

That’s where you’re going. You’re close to abandoning any kind of rational basis for your beliefs and just becoming Jenny’s followers in an Indigo Spiritual Awakening to herald in the New Earth..

The Irrelevant Objection Fallacy – I’m Insulted!

21 Jun

In some cases, the irrelevant objection fallacy can also bee seen as the, “shoot the messenger” fallacy, or in this case, maybe even, “shoot the straw messenger”.

Over at Age Of Autism, Ginger Taylor writes:

The American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends that pediatricians tell parents who don’t vaccinate their children that they:

Are “Selfish”
Are “Self-Centered”
Are “Complacent or Lazy”
Are often “Emotional” decision makers
Have “Unacceptable attitudes”

But they do not believe that insulting you like this is in any way coercing you to vaccinate your child.

Does the American Academy of Pediatrics really recommend that? Ginger’s assertion is based on is a sample letter from a private pediatric practice (All Star Pediatrics). The sample letter does in fact clearly communicate this practice’s position and opinions about the importance of vaccination and probably does serve a healthy portion of a ‘not-so-pretty look in the mirror’ at attitudes surrounding vaccination refusal. Yes, this sample letter is available on the AAP website, but, is it really a “recommendation” from the AAP?

This sample document was created by All Star Pediatrics. It is provided only as a reference for practices developing their own materials and may be adapted to local needs. This document does not represent official American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy or guidelines and the AAP is not responsible for its use. You should consult an attorney who is knowledgeable about the laws of the jurisdiction in which you practice before creating or using any legal documents.

If the sample letter from All Star Pediatrics is not official policy or guidelines, what is?

This maybe? (from the AAP Policy website).

What is the pediatrician to do when faced with a parent who refuses immunization for his or her child? First and most important, the pediatrician should listen carefully and respectfully to the parent’s concerns, recognizing that some parents may not use the same decision criteria as the physician and may weigh evidence very differently than the physician does.21 Vaccines are very safe, but they are not risk free; nor are they 100% effective.22 This poses a dilemma for many parents and should not be minimized. The pediatrician should share honestly what is and is not known about the risks and benefits of the vaccine in question, attempt to understand the parent’s concerns about immunization, and attempt to correct any misperceptions and misinformation.23–25 Pediatricians should also assist parents in understanding that the risks of any vaccine should not be considered in isolation but in comparison to the risks of remaining unimmunized. For example, although the risk of encephalopathy related to the measles vaccine is 1 in 1 million, the risk of encephalopathy from measles illness is 1000 times greater.22 Parents can also be referred to one of several reputable and data-based Web sites for additional information on specific immunizations and the diseases they prevent (see pages 52 and 53 of the Red Book25 for a list of Internet resources related to immunization).

Many parents have concerns related to 1 or 2 specific vaccines. A useful strategy in working with families who refuse immunization is to discuss each vaccine separately. The benefits and risks of vaccines differ, and a parent who is reluctant to accept the administration of 1 vaccine may be willing to allow others.

Parents also may have concerns about administering multiple vaccines to a child in a single visit. In some cases, taking steps to reduce the pain of injection, such as those suggested in the Red Book,26 may be sufficient. In other cases, a parent may be willing to permit a schedule of immunization that does not require multiple injections at a single visit.

Physicians should also explore the possibility that cost is a reason for refusing immunization. For a parent whose child does not have adequate preventive care insurance coverage, even the administrative costs and copayments associated with immunization can pose substantial barriers. In such cases, the physician should work with the family to help them obtain appropriate immunizations for the child.

For all cases in which parents refuse vaccine administration, pediatricians should take advantage of their ongoing relationship with the family and revisit the immunization discussion on each subsequent visit. As respect, communication, and information build over time in a professional relationship, parents may be willing to reconsider previous vaccine refusals.

Continued refusal after adequate discussion should be respected unless the child is put at significant risk of serious harm (as, for example, might be the case during an epidemic). Only then should state agencies be involved to override parental discretion on the basis of medical neglect. Physician concerns about liability should be addressed by good documentation of the discussion of the benefits of immunization and the risks associated with remaining unimmunized. Physicians also may wish to consider having the parents sign a refusal waiver (a sample refusal-to-immunize waiver can be found at http://www.cispimmunize.org/pro/pdf/RefusaltoVaccinate_2pageform.pdf). In general, pediatricians should avoid discharging patients from their practices solely because a parent refuses to immunize his or her child. However, when a substantial level of distrust develops, significant differences in the philosophy of care emerge, or poor quality of communication persists, the pediatrician may encourage the family to find another physician or practice. Although pediatricians have the option of terminating the physician-patient relationship, they cannot do so without giving sufficient advance notice to the patient or custodial parent or legal guardian to permit another health care professional to be secured.27 Such decisions should be unusual and generally made only after attempts have been made to work with the family. Families with doubts about immunization should still have access to good medical care, and maintaining the relationship in the face of disagreement conveys respect and at the same time allows the child access to medical care. Furthermore, a continuing relationship allows additional opportunity to discuss the issue of immunization over time.

I read the sample letter from All Star Pediatrics, and in my opinion, it follows the Clinical Practice paper on the AAP Policy website pretty closely. I encourage everyone to read it in its entirety before commenting.

Let’s take a look at what the sample letter from that pediatric practice states, that apparently “insulted” Ginger:

Re: “Selfish,” “Self-Centered,” and “Unacceptable”

Furthermore, by not vaccinating your child you are taking selfish advantage of thousands of others who do vaccinate their children, which decreases the likelihood that your child will contract one of these diseases. We feel such an attitude to be self-centered and unacceptable.

Ouch. Unguided by sound science or logic and reason, parents who refuse to vaccinate probably rely heavily on beliefs and things like communal reinforcement to internally justify their decisions. Having one’s beliefs challenged in an ethical context (social responsibility), but based on science (herd immunity) could be quite uncomfortable for some. Is it easier for someone to acknowledge a potential lack of social responsibility, or is it perhaps easier to cry, “I’m offended!”?

Re: “Complacent” and “Lazy”

The vaccine campaign is truly a victim of its own success. It is precisely because vaccines are so effective at preventing illness that we are even discussing whether or not they should be given. Because of vaccines, many of you have never seen a child with polio, tetanus, whooping cough, bacterial meningitis or even chickenpox, or known a friend or family member whose child died of one of these diseases. Such success can make us complacent or even lazy about vaccinating. But such an attitude, if it becomes widespread, can only lead to tragic results.

Hmmm. This looks more like a reasonable concern, and it’s expressed as a possibility.

Re: “Emotional”

We recognize that the choice may be a very emotional one for some parents.

Not too inflammatory in my opinion, but perhaps that’s just me.

At any rate, here’s the bottom line – this sample letter from All Star Pediatrics (which is not in and of itself an AAP policy or guideline), clearly communicates the position and professional opinions of All Star Pediatrics. In my opinion, this practice’s outlined policies seem mostly in-line with the Clinical Practice paper on the AAP Policy website. How it oulines those policies is direct, and very possibly quite uncomfortable for those who would refuse vaccinations. Objecting to that direct and potentially ‘uncomfortable for some’ tone, is irrelevant to the importance of preventing childhood disease.

What does any of this have to do with autism? Well, nothing really, but don’t shoot the messenger.