I'm not suggesting that you are sniping unless you are in fact SD from the blog you linked in another post. That is sniping, to call the research a big pile of crap (paraphrasing) but then refuse to dissect it piece by piece to show where the analysis is flawed and where the misinterpretation of the literature lies. Someone who is purported to be of high credentials and professional integrity should have no problem generating a professional quality, publishable, peer-review worthy rebuttal. Name calling, alas, does nothing for me or others wanting clarification of the issue. It also makes me think that when authors stoop to that level, they have come to the bottom of the barrel argument-wise.
Again, conflicts of interest exist on both sides. Manufacturers fund studies. There is bias in everything. Any reasonable person notes where the money is coming from in any published paper and makes a mental note of it. The key is whether or not the science can stand up to scrutiny.
Edited to add: I was also thinking of Shaw's work (who is second credit on many of her articles). As far as I can see, this one was original research, rather than lit review.
FTR, position-wise, I'm on the fence. We're considering a very few select vaccines, but unless I can find the studies can completely debunk all of Shaw's work (and Tomljenovic's "cherry picking" lit reviews), and proves to me that aluminum adjuvants are completely inert and do not contribute in any manner to autoimmunity nor neurological impairment, then I have to delay until those questions are answered to my satisfaction.
Edited by japonica - 10/21/12 at 5:08pm