[bonesmccoy]

I'm a board certified physician and I agree with your comments above... however, let me correct you about the contents of the flu vaccine.

This year's vaccine was picked and produced six months ago.

There are several different strains that were targetted by the vaccine.

One of the strains was missed because the virus mutated some (genetic drift) prior to reaching the United States.

There is still cross reactivity between the vaccine and the wild virus. So, despite not a being a perfect match, the vaccine will provide some degree of protection.

Now, regarding the allegations of this group of researchers, instead of publishing in the popular media allegations of problems, legitimate researchers go out and do RESEARCH.

Instead of filing litigation with liberal law firms and having ex-gov Gray Davis funding their "non-profits" with millions of dollars of appropriations from the California state gov't...

Instead of launching criticism unprofessionally in the media...

They should quit complaining about the CDC and GO DO THE RESEARCH THEMSELVES in a controlled fashion and then PUBLISH THE RESULTS in Pediatrics...

Now, if AAP's people reject the research, THEN you have the real story.

[Lee'sGhost]

"There are several different strains that were targetted by the vaccine. "

Thanks. I knew that, but I do tend to talk in shortcuts.

[Lil'freeper]

I agree wholeheartedly. I'd like to see these numbers for myself. And if it's nothing more than a database query, it shouldn't be that hard.

But your comment GO DO THE RESEARCH THEMSELVES in a controlled fashion and then PUBLISH THE RESULTS, brings up a series of issues I have with that system in general. I won't hold my breath waiting for the science establishment to even acknowledge these problems, let alone debate them properly.

1. From where is the money going to come? The feds are reluctant to 'waste' money on research that will attempt to disprove entrenched theories. Hence plenty of money to prove the infinite ways saturated is so very bad for you and no money to research a Hg-vaccine-autism connection.

But if a private group raises money to do their own research, the results will be dismissed with claims of "Bias!"- even if they are published in reputable journals. The assumption will be that the group was just trying to desperately prove what they already believe or are just trying to make a profit.

The feds (and, through them, academia) are biased because they judge which questions deserve to be answered. Private industry is biased because they have an agenda. Is there any way clear of this bias trap?

2. Can peer review and journal publication really be trusted? Sure it's the best system we have, but the same people sitting in review have established their careers and egos on status quo, entrenched theories. Research that is too hostile will be rejected because it is "wrong", or "quackery", or "fringe science". This leaves the journal reader to assume that work published in the journal is, by default, right. If this article's author is correct in the allegation that data that didn't support the conclusions were deliberately left out, then there is a serious problem with this system!

Then there's the bias in the reputation of the journals themselves. From what I can tell, elitist Nature and Science might as well be scripture they're so nigh unto infallible < /sarcasm >. While the more obscure journals, where some real gems finally get published, are regarded as less authoritative and easily ignored.

I'm truly just ranting, as I don't see a real solution. So yes, let the Hg-autism crowd go do some real research and get published. If they do get past the hurdles I've described and given the stifling inertia of establishment science, I ask, "Who is going to pay any attention?!!?"