New York Times and thimerosal

Creationists apparently have no monopoly on unscientific nonsense. There’s an excellent article in the New York Times on the thimerosal controversy (Jun. 20 and links therein), though it fails to follow the money from the plaintiffs’ bar behind the pseudoscience. (Gardiner Harris and Anahad O’Connor, “On Autism’s Cause, It’s Parents vs. Research”, NY Times, Jun. […]

Creationists apparently have no monopoly on unscientific nonsense. There’s an excellent article in the New York Times on the thimerosal controversy (Jun. 20 and links therein), though it fails to follow the money from the plaintiffs’ bar behind the pseudoscience. (Gardiner Harris and Anahad O’Connor, “On Autism’s Cause, It’s Parents vs. Research”, NY Times, Jun. 25). Meanwhile, the Huffington Post spouts irresponsible conspiracy theories for why ABC refused to endorse Robert Kennedy Jr.’s attack on the vaccine industry. The excellent Skeptico blog follows up its earlier post on the subject. And you just knew Michael Fumento would weigh in, and he shows the real costs of the plaintiffs’ bar scaremongering:

The conspiracy-mongers have scared parents into not protecting their children. “Sadly, as exemptions proliferate, disease ‘hot spots’ are cropping up across the United States,” observed an article in the Winter 2004 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. “Outbreaks of measles, whooping cough, mumps, rubella and diphtheria are reoccurring, costing hundreds of lives and hospitalizing thousands more.”

Remember that next time you hear the plaintiffs’ bar taking credit for safety innovations that have saved lives.

2 Comments

  • Lack of journalistic integrity

    Very short summary of the thimerosal affair as an example of lack of journalistic integrity. Also, Something Awful recently produced a visual critique of traditional media which I find relevant to this case and in general.

  • A vaccine database, contaminated

    The federal government has established something called a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System to collect reports of possible side effects related to immunizations. Sounds like a useful tool for epidemiological study, right? Except that, it…