Atkinson was careful to point out that she did not consider the matter settled conclusively (by the research) one way or the other. But her writing wasn’t as even handed as that concession would indicate it should have been.
Incidentally, my position is that immunization has proven to be such a worldwide good that it is difficult for me to imagine that we humans would abandon it even if it can be conclusively shown that some aspect of immunization causes what is now being called autism. I say it this way because I am convinced that the “epidemic” of autism that has people concerned is an epidemic of definition. I do not think it represents a real phenomenon.
If there is an argument to be made that immunizations could be made safer by making changes in the way we administer vaccination programs, or by developing better preservatives or adjuvants, I think there would be widespread approval of that. I can tell you for certain that pharma is always looking at ways to improve the safety and efficacy of their products and that includes vaccines.
And so we potentially arrive at a middle ground.
I have two comments, both of which I hope you find reasonable:
First, Ms. Attkisson wasn’t trying to be “even handed” about whether vaccinations were harmful or not; she was, in fact, laying out the case that the rest of the new media was being anything but even handed. You are reading her as an “anti-vaxxer.” Try reading her again from the perspective that she’s reporting on deceptive nature of the reporting itself, and not on the value of vaccinating per se. In that regard, I think she made an important contribution, unless you think one side of an argument should be buried, of course.
Second, you say you are “convinced that the “epidemic” of autism that has people concerned is an epidemic of definition.” You’re no doubt correct that cases once diagnosed as another condition, or not diagnosed at all for that matter, are now classified within the autism spectrum. After all, the autism classification didn’t even exist in the 1950’s. But have you really done the work to determine that it’s only a process of definitions changing? Do you at least concede the possibility that something more might be going on?
If you’re a reasonable person, and you sound like one, you would have to allow for the possibility that the surge in cases isn’t all due to a change in definition. I suspect that your resistance to doing so is related to the vaccine issue, but I could be wrong. In any case, I think a better explanation is that the widespread avoidance of the sun advocated by the medical community, especially for the very young and for pregnant women, has caused a correspondingly widespread vitamin D3 deficiency across the population. That explanation, incidentally, subsumes the vaccination explanation, treating vaccines as possible, though infrequent, triggers to a pre-existing condition wherein the developing immune system has been compromised by a vitamin D3 deficiency.
The sun avoidance advice was first promulgated in the late 1980’s and corresponds closely with the “supposed” epidemic we’re discussing. A substantial portion of the autism observations can be explained by Dr. Cannell’s theory that a vitamin D3 deficiency is the culprit. For example, there a substantial communities of recent African immigrants living in northern climates today who have far higher observed rates of autism than both their neighboring communities and in their home countries where the condition was generally rare (though that, admittedly, could be due to poor diagnoses in their home countries.)
As for reaching middle ground, I am not against vaccines but I do think they are triggering autism in some cases. I do think autism rates are rising, and have been rising since the 1980’s, but that much, though hardly all, of the rise is due to new diagnostic criteria. I see Ms. Attkisson as one of the best reporters working today. You still might disagree on all three points, I suppose.