An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All
[An alternative view on this topic from WIRED mag]
To hear his enemies talk, you might think Paul Offit is the most hated man in America. A pediatrician in Philadelphia, he is the coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine that could save tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slams Offit as a “biostitute” who whores for the pharmaceutical industry. Actor Jim Carrey calls him a profiteer and distills the doctor’s attitude toward childhood vaccination down to this chilling mantra: “Grab ‘em and stab ‘em.” Recently, Carrey and his girlfriend, Jenny McCarthy, went on CNN’s Larry King Live and singled out Offit’s vaccine, RotaTeq, as one of many unnecessary vaccines, all administered, they said, for just one reason: “Greed.”
Thousands of people revile Offit publicly at rallies, on Web sites, and in books. Type pauloffit.com into your browser and you’ll find not Offit’s official site but an anti-Offit screed “dedicated to exposing the truth about the vaccine industry’s most well-paid spokesperson.” Go to Wikipedia to read his bio and, as often as not, someone will have tampered with the page. The section on Offit’s education was once altered to say that he’d studied on a pig farm in Toad Suck, Arkansas. (He’s a graduate of Tufts University and the University of Maryland School of Medicine).
Then there are the threats. Offit once got an email from a Seattle man that read, “I will hang you by your neck until you are dead!” Other bracing messages include “You have blood on your hands” and “Your day of reckoning will come.” A few years ago, a man on the phone ominously told Offit he knew where the doctor’s two children went to school. At a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an anti-vaccine protester emerged from a crowd of people holding signs that featured Offit’s face emblazoned with the word terrorist and grabbed the unsuspecting, 6-foot-tall physician by the jacket.
“I don’t think he wanted to hurt me,” Offit recalls. “He was just excited to be close to the personification of such evil.” Still, whenever Offit gets a letter with an unfamiliar return address, he holds the envelope at arm’s length before gingerly tearing it open. “I think about it,” he admits. “Anthrax.”
So what has this award-winning 58-year-old scientist done to elicit such venom? He boldly states — in speeches, in journal articles, and in his 2008 book Autism’s False Prophets — that vaccines do not cause autism or autoimmune disease or any of the other chronic conditions that have been blamed on them. He supports this assertion with meticulous evidence. And he calls to account those who promote bogus treatments for autism — treatments that he says not only don’t work but often cause harm.
As a result, Offit has become the main target of a grassroots movement that opposes the systematic vaccination of children and the laws that require it. McCarthy, an actress and a former Playboy centerfold whose son has been diagnosed with autism, is the best-known leader of the movement, but she is joined by legions of well-organized supporters and sympathizers.
This isn’t a religious dispute, like the debate over creationism and intelligent design. It’s a challenge to traditional science that crosses party, class, and religious lines. It is partly a reaction to Big Pharma’s blunders and PR missteps, from Vioxx to illegal marketing ploys, which have encouraged a distrust of experts. It is also, ironically, a product of the era of instant communication and easy access to information. The doubters and deniers are empowered by the Internet (online, nobody knows you’re not a doctor) and helped by the mainstream media, which has an interest in pumping up bad science to create a “debate” where there should be none.
Continue:





















There is no logic in forced vaccinations...
With regards to "general health"
Everybody is different
Every virus is different
Every virus changes in each body it infects
So how could 1 shot immunize the population
Not to mention by the time the shot is mass produced the virus would be fundamentally different(in many variations) than the original sample.
www.Umake.it - The online resource for the Hand Made Society
While I welcome heathly debate
and its important to hear all of the arguments for and against vaccination. I am disappointed in the tone WIRED has taken over the past year or so.
Once a great intellectually honest magazine that rendered it a wonderful libertarian resource, now it is an apologist for war, government, and those who want to discredit "conspiracy" theories with snarky dismissals rather than thoughtful investigations.
Sad. WIRED was once great.
He is a scientist that
He is a scientist that peddles the version of the story he knows best. He knows that the vaccines he creates kills stuff in test tubes and petri dishes, I don't have a problem with that.
My main gripe would be with the supposedly credible news sources (like NPR who loves this guy) that consider him being a highly respected spokesman for an industry that makes him personally rich. His biases are so evident that he should only be part of the debate when the opposing viewpoint is clearly represented (and often that is not the case).
His vaccine is for infant diarrhea. If your infant lives through his/her first 6 months without the 3 doses of it that the CDC recommends at 2, 4 and 6 months of age then the vaccine has no purpose. I understand that it can be a serious illness, but it is really only a public health problem in lesser developed countries. In fact many states in the US do not include that vaccine in their recommended schedules because they do not consider it necessary.
He promotes mandatory vaccination. By doing this he feels he has the right to make personal decisions for other people, and I feel that is fundamentally wrong.
He is also on record saying a child could safely receive 1000 or more vaccines at one time. This is a very significant statement coming from a highly respected scientist, and despite the many requests for him to volunteer himself for such an experiment (including offers of significant payment for his trouble) he does not seem willing to put his personal health where his expert medical opinion is. If he is going to take it upon himself to represent the vaccine industry he should not be spouting off such obvious b.s., to anyone paying attention it should call into question all of the other claims he has made.
While I do not agree with his views, I would not wish him or his family any harm. He is just representing one side of a debate (the side he has devoted his life work to) and if he was not filling that role someone else would.