Comments on: Science Trumps Fear Over Autism

By: Meghan Davis

Meghan Davis — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:25:08 +0000

Great article. I have been following this story since it hit the news! I am a public health nurse and these people have made my job significantly more difficult! Our children are the victims in this sick game and hopefully more enlightening information such as this article will reach the parents of all children, however I think the bandwagon has been loaded!!!!!

By: Amy Spangler

Amy Spangler — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:49:49 +0000

Vaccines have been in use since 1978 with the development of the smallpox vaccine. While all medical treatments carry some degree of risk, in the case of vaccines, the benefits usually outweigh the risks. The challenge for parents when it comes to making decisions about vaccines is separting fact from misinformation. The goal of baby gooroo is to provide clear, concise, accurate information so that parents can decide along with their baby’s health care provider what is best for their baby. Your baby is lucky to have such a caring parent!

By: Plainspace

Plainspace — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:00:13 +0000

Are there any dangers associated with vaccines?

By: Dawn Crawford

Dawn Crawford — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:36:17 +0000

Fantastic article. I love how you lay out the facts and let parents make their own conclusions!

By: AutismNewsBeat

AutismNewsBeat — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:05:03 +0000

Bravo, Amy! Thanks to people like you, the good guys are winning. Anti-vaccine activists are reeling from “l’affaire Wakefield”, and the news and entertainment media are finally catching on that diseases are bad, and stopping diseases is good. Slowly, the cultural narrative is shifting from “vaccines might cause autism” to “vaccine rejectionism puts children at risk”. Good to have you on board, fighting the good fight.

By: Liz Ditz

Liz Ditz — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:17:36 +0000

Thanks for this excellent summary of the history of the Wakefield affair and of vaccine fears in general.

I sometimes write a post that collates blog responses, both positive and negative, to a given issue.

I’m keeping one now on responses to the Lancet retraction of the Wakefield’s paper.

I’ve added your post to the list.

The post is at

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2010/02/on-the-lancets-re traction-of-wakefields-1998-paper-alleging-a-connection-between-the-mm r-vaccine-and.html.

There, your readers will find the views of those who disagree with the Lancet retraction as well as those that agree that the Lancet retraction was long-overdue.

Science isn’t decided by a popularity poll, but the “long-overdue” posts are running at about a 9:1 ratio to those who defend Wakefield.