Anyone have book recommendations?

[heathergirl67]

I just finished reading Dr. Offit's book Autism's False Prophets. It was (obviously) pretty pro-vax, but I liked it. What I really appreciated about it was that he had a huge index at the end where he gave the names of the studies, newspaper articles, etc. of things he was talking about.

I'm interested in reading a book that's more anti-vax now. I've heard of many books here that people like, but I want to be a little more specific. Has anyone read a book like that that has references and links to articles and studies? I'm sure that they're out there, but I'm just not sure which ones they are. I appreciate antecdotal stories, but I tend to be a little more scientific, so if you know of a book like that would you mind recommending it? Thanks in advance!

P.S. If you're close enough to San Diego I also wouldn't mind doing a book-swap with someone. If anyone would be interested? Thanks!

[ma2two]

I just wanted to let you know that J.B. Handley of the Age of Autism successfully sued Paul Offit for lying in that book. Offit had to issue a public apology and give $5,000 to a charity of Jenny McCarthy's choice, among other things.

It was a real obvious lie, not something that could have been a mistake on his part.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/c...-prophets.html Apparently, there were a lot of other lies, but J.B. Handley could only sue for the lies about him.

So you might want to actually check up on those sources. I wouldn't trust what he writes just because he has endnotes.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by ma2two

I just wanted to let you know that J.B. Handley of the Age of Autism successfully sued Paul Offit for lying in that book. Offit had to issue a public apology and give $5,000 to a charity of Jenny McCarthy's choice, among other things.

It was a real obvious lie, not something that could have been a mistake on his part.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/c...-prophets.html Apparently, there were a lot of other lies, but J.B. Handley could only sue for the lies about him.

So you might want to actually check up on those sources. I wouldn't trust what he writes just because he has endnotes.

That's interesting, thank you for letting me know about that! Like I said, the antecdotes (including the ones in the book I already read) are not something that I put a lot of weight in. It's too easy for people to misremember, add their own feelings, etc. I mainly appreciate links to studies, etc. But any person who knowingly lies about someone else (including Dr. Offit, if that was the case) should be ashamed of themself!

[SuburbanHippie]

Evidence of Harm by David Kirby is a good read.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by ma2two

I just wanted to let you know that J.B. Handley of the Age of Autism successfully sued Paul Offit for lying in that book. Offit had to issue a public apology and give $5,000 to a charity of Jenny McCarthy's choice, among other things.

It was a real obvious lie, not something that could have been a mistake on his part.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/c...-prophets.html Apparently, there were a lot of other lies, but J.B. Handley could only sue for the lies about him.

So you might want to actually check up on those sources. I wouldn't trust what he writes just because he has endnotes.

Not true. Dr. Offit settled. That is not the same as "successfully suing" someone. A $5000 settlement is a lot less than he would have to pay to take a case through a trial- that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and drag on for years.

[mamadelbosque]

True. It was a settlement. But generally, you only settle if you know you were/are in the wrong, and just don't want to pay court fees. I seriously doubt offit would have settled if he thought he was in the right. I know I wouldn't

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by mamadelbosque

True. It was a settlement. But generally, you only settle if you know you were/are in the wrong, and just don't want to pay court fees. I seriously doubt offit would have settled if he thought he was in the right. I know I wouldn't

Really? You would spend hundreds of thousands in legal fees for a defense when $5000 would make it all go away? We don't have a "loser pays" system in this country, so he would be on the hook for full legal costs no matter what the outcome of the case.

[mamadelbosque]

If I was paul offit and had millions and a damn good reason to keep my name clean (ie to keep it from popping up on message boards and on news shows that I settled for having supposedly outright lied in my book)? Yes, I would.

[littlec]

Originally Posted by mamadelbosque

If I was paul offit and had millions and a damn good reason to keep my name clean (ie to keep it from popping up on message boards and on news shows that I settled for having supposedly outright lied in my book)? Yes, I would.

Absolutely. There's no way, if I were him, would I let some "crazy anti vaxer" have me admit I did something wrong...no matter what the cost.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by SuburbanHippie

Evidence of Harm by David Kirby is a good read.

I second this!

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

I just finished reading Dr. Offit's book Autism's False Prophets. It was (obviously) pretty pro-vax, but I liked it. What I really appreciated about it was that he had a huge index at the end where he gave the names of the studies, newspaper articles, etc. of things he was talking about.

I'm interested in reading a book that's more anti-vax now. I've heard of many books here that people like, but I want to be a little more specific. Has anyone read a book like that that has references and links to articles and studies? I'm sure that they're out there, but I'm just not sure which ones they are. I appreciate antecdotal stories, but I tend to be a little more scientific, so if you know of a book like that would you mind recommending it? Thanks in advance!

P.S. If you're close enough to San Diego I also wouldn't mind doing a book-swap with someone. If anyone would be interested? Thanks!

I find it amusing that he even wrote a book on autism. He is no expert on autism, nor does he even treat autistic children. That would be like reading a book about schizophrenia that was written by an endocrinologist. Just sayin'

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Marnica

I find it amusing that he even wrote a book on autism. He is no expert on autism, nor does he even treat autistic children. That would be like reading a book about schizophrenia that was written by an endocrinologist. Just sayin'

Haha, I totally get what you are saying. FWIW, one of the first things he does is tell everyone that he doesn't see, treat, etc autistic kids. He's an immunologist. But the gist of his book is really, "Why people who are saying that autism is caused by vaccines are wrong" and not "The causes of autism and effective treatments of it."

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by mamadelbosque

If I was paul offit and had millions and a damn good reason to keep my name clean (ie to keep it from popping up on message boards and on news shows that I settled for having supposedly outright lied in my book)? Yes, I would.

I dunno. I kind of agree that people seem to settle out of court whether they think they'd win or not. It just seems more cost-effective. And as for the publicity angle- it could be that he thought engaging in a court battle would bring media attention to him. And people would doubt his science, rather than the misstatement of a conversation that he's being sued for. If that is the case then it seems to be an effective strategy, because I hadn't heard of the case before.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Haha, I totally get what you are saying. FWIW, one of the first things he does is tell everyone that he doesn't see, treat, etc autistic kids. He's an immunologist. But the gist of his book is really, "Why people who are saying that autism is caused by vaccines are wrong" and not "The causes of autism and effective treatments of it."

Since "they" do not know definitively what DOES cause regressive autism, I find it interesting that an admitted non-expert can difinitively say what does NOT cause it. As for effective treatments...this same admitted non expert is the first to poo poo biomedical treatments for these kids...again just sayin' Im done now

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Marnica

Since "they" do not know definitively what DOES cause regressive autism, I find it interesting that an admitted non-expert can difinitively say what does NOT cause it. As for effective treatments...this same admitted non expert is the first to poo poo biomedical treatments for these kids...again just sayin' Im done now

No, he can't say difinitively, in that no one can. Science cannot prove a negative. He can just point out all of the studies that show no link between vaccines and autism. And he does also bring up lots of studies that show certain treatments for autism to be ineffective like chelation and secretin.

I admit that I am not a fire expert. But I don't think I have to spend every day trying to extinguish fires to be sure that if you light a piece of paper on fire it will burn. If I point out all of the studies backing up my claim (if they existed, haha) I still wouldn't be a fire expert. But I would have a valid point.

[harli]

I think what your trying to do is great. It's always best to read up on both sides of the matter before forming an opinion. But I WOULD NOT be reading anything written by Offit as factual or trustworthy. He's the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. They put out A LOT of pro-vax propaganda. Some of which is out and out lies.

He has also done some pretty shady, unethical things in his career. Like be on the CDC's vaccine approval board (not sure of it's exact name) but yet made money from the vaccine he helped to approve (rotavirus vax....I think it was Rotashield) because he owned part of the patent on it. I believe this all occured while he was working for Merck. I saw an interview where the reporter asked him if he understands why people may have a problem with this and he pretty much said no 'I don't see how it's relevant'. So he has no thoughts that what he did was unethical, which scares me a little.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by harli

I think what your trying to do is great. It's always best to read up on both sides of the matter before forming an opinion. But I WOULD NOT be reading anything written by Offit as factual or trustworthy. He's the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. They put out A LOT of pro-vax propaganda. Some of which is out and out lies.

He has also done some pretty shady, unethical things in his career. Like be on the CDC's vaccine approval board (not sure of it's exact name) but yet made money from the vaccine he helped to approve (rotavirus vax....I think it was Rotashield) because he owned part of the patent on it. I believe this all occured while he was working for Merck. I saw an interview where the reporter asked him if he understands why people may have a problem with this and he pretty much said no 'I don't see how it's relevant'. So he has no thoughts that what he did was unethical, which scares me a little.

Really? It doesn't bother me. He spent years trying to create a vaccine that he thought would save lives. So when he had the chance to vote it into the schedule he did. Maybe if he was the sole decider, or tie-breaker or something... But then again, it doesn't bother me when a presidential candidate votes for themself in an election so

P.S. I try not to really "trust" anyone in this kind of thing (as bad as that sounds). So that's why I really appreciate books that give references to back up what they're saying.

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Really? It doesn't bother me. He spent years trying to create a vaccine that he thought would save lives. So when he had the chance to vote it into the schedule he did. Maybe if he was the sole decider, or tie-breaker or something... But then again, it doesn't bother me when a presidential candidate votes for themself in an election so

P.S. I try not to really "trust" anyone in this kind of thing (as bad as that sounds). So that's why I really appreciate books that give references to back up what they're saying.

The problem is that he had a direct conflict of interest, and an ethical responsibility to decline voting. However, when it came time to vote to remove Rotashield from the recommended schedule, he declined to vote then.

[heathergirl67]

Update: My local library didn't have "Evidence of Harm", but other libraries in the county did! So I ordered it and it should be in at my library in no time. Thank you all so much for your recommendations! If you have any others, please feel free to share.