« Scientists & Bumble Bee Watchers | Main | Pain and Health Care Costs »
Burden of Proof
By Dr. Paul Varnas | December 22, 2009
There is a growing number of people who (rightly or wrongly) believe that vaccines may be responsible for the explosion in the number of autism cases. They argue that we did not have autism before we started vaccinating and that the number of cases of autism have increased as the number of vaccines have increased.
Parents are concerned, but the medical establishment considers questioning the wisdom of vaccines to be crazy. We have been told that studies have been done; vaccines are safe. The research denouncing the idea that mercury in vaccines could be causing a problem says things like, “Gee, we gave the kids vaccines and tested the blood, stool and urine for mercury and didn’t find any.” or, “Gee, the Danes use a lower level of mercury in their vaccines and they have as much autism as we do.” or, “Gee, we checked kids with autism and those without and the mercury levels were about the same.” No one has done a study that compares the health of an unvaccinated population to one that gets all of the required vaccines.
Whether the medical profession realizes it or not, they have a credibility problem. Many people are of the opinion that medical science in the United States is at best tainted and at worst corrupt. I don’t really believe in conspiracies or that there is a monolithic force working to suppress natural health care. I do, however, believe in good business practices and in growing your business. Journals run drug ads. If I am a drug company and I want my profits to grow, I may want to use as much leverage as possible to make people think well of my product.
If I spend millions of dollars advertising in medical journals, I would want their editorial policies to reflect favorably on my product. If I sell Ritalin, I may not look favorably on a journal that published research that showed diet to be beneficial in children with ADD. I would not look favorably on articles that questioned the wisdom of giving children vaccines, or even those favoring limiting the number of vaccines.
The people who believe that vaccines are harmful are told that the burden of proof is on them. That would be true if the movement was seeking to ban vaccines for all people. That is not the case; people just want the right to say, “No.” The government requires that you vaccinate your children—there are loopholes, but you have to know what you are doing to use them. Can you be any less free than having your government require that you MUST inject your children with a series of viruses and toxins?
There may be nothing to the concerns about vaccines, but the people who question their wisdom are not crazy. There are some legitimate concerns that the scientific community (and the medical community) have not adequately answered.
If you want to inject my child with a foreign substance, the burden of proof that it is harmless rests with you. If I do not believe that you have adequately tested the safety of the substance, I should be within my rights to refuse. Vioxx was kept on the market for two years after we knew the danger it posed to the heart. Other Cox-2 inhibitors also increase the risk of heart disease and they are still on the market. Journals tend to err on the side of the drug companies, so being a little suspicious is not crazy.
Topics: General | No Comments »
December 26th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Great article!
Thank You
January 8th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Very well spoken