Thanks to Bret over at 29 Marbles I’ve learned that there is an online debate at Opposing Views about the relationship between Autism and vaccinations. Opposing Views publishes statements by people (”interested experts, opinion leaders and advocates”) its editors have identified and invites others to make comments and vote for the pro or con position on the issue. In this instance (there are lots of debates), the question is framed in this way:
Are Autism and Vaccines Linked?
Over the last decade, autism has gone from a rare and misunderstood condition to a disorder that may affect as many as 1.5 million Americans. Without a clear explanation in sight, parents and doctors have worked tirelessly to pinpoint the cause of autism, but the answer remains elusive. Are vaccines the missing link?
The experts arguing the pro position are identified as the National Autism Association, SafeMinds, and Dr. Karima Hirani. The experts arguing the con side are identified as the Montreal Children’s Hospital at MUHC, Dr. Bryna Siegel, and Dr. Jennifer Shu. Readers who support the pro side have cast more votes than those who support the con position; as 6 August at 6:25 AM there were 153 votes, with 82% saying “yes” and 18% saying “no.”
Links to OpposingViews.com and to the debate entitled Are Autism and Vaccines Linked. Although 29 Marbles is included in the blogroll, here’s a link to Bret’s blog (at it’s new site) for good measure.
Sphere: Related Content
Honestly, John, a “debate” in 2008? Science settled by “debate”? People should know better.
One thing seems to be true: the Safeminds/NAA/AoA folks seem to have actives mailing list that get the faithful out to vote.
It is evidence-LESS medicine vs. evidence-BASED medicine, where those who claim a link are armed with bad science, or, no science at all. Those who deny a link are well equipped with replicated studies and sound scientific logic.
Liz, I agree. “Debate” is the wrong method for deciding a question that can be legitimately decided on the basis of evidence and reason.
Mr. Probe, although I agree with the general idea of your comment, I’d like to tweak it a tad. Arguments fail for two possible reasons: They have faulty premises (facts) or they employ faulty reasoning (logic). I think those who claim a link have problems on both counts. The evidence to which the linkers point is often flawed, and the logic they use in making connections among evidence also flawed.
Update: I just checked the poll again. As of 13 August at ~2:50 PM, there were 166 votes with 79% saying “yes” and 21% saying “no.”
I have a blog about autism my be can give some information