Ugh, I thought Obama was above that.  

Wow, he really said that? That's troubling.  The best you could say about that comment is that he's just calling for more research, rather than misguided policy changes.  He should know better.

Boo (though ironically there are a lot of hardcore anti-vaccine types who might vote for him on this alone).  At least he's not doubting global warming, using Michael Crichton as a science advisor or making shout-outs to creationism.  

I'm not the paranoid type, and I don't think it's that bad a statement.  In absence of any explanation for the rise of autism, and the sudden emergence of a "newer" form of autism whereby seemingly normal children suddenly become afflicted, there's going to questions.  There may not be any reliable science at the moment to tie vaccines and autism, but as more and more parents note that their children became ill after vaccinations the government is going to have to try harder to explain.  The recent court case in Georgia is only the beginning.

No kidding ratnerstar, AlanSP.  Ouch Obama, dial back on the overconfidence a little.  Sometimes being a little vague or circumspect in an area you're not an expert is okay.

Proof positive that Obama watches "The Shield", where an the Mackeys try to sue vaccine makers for supposedly causing their children's autism.

He watches the Shield and the Wire. That's good enough for me.

A genuine disappointment.

Mozier: "...and the sudden emergence of a "newer" form of autism whereby seemingly normal children suddenly become afflicted..."

What?  You mean Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, (DSM code 299.10)?  Or do you mean the broadening of ascribing any sort of Pervasive Developmental Disorder NOS diagnosis to "autism spectrum disorder?"  Or that onset of symptoms that fit in the diagnostic criteria have to occur before <I>age 3</i>?  I mean, come on.  What, you work for Kaiser Permanente or something?

VC -- sure he doesn't watch "Lost"?  The vaccines do some nasty stuff their and the doctors are in on the plot to infect, just like...nevermind... (Joking, people!)

Obama saying that sickens me as it's utter garbage and this is from an Obama supporter.  It's just more evidence of the anti-intellectualism of the US, that we glorify stupidity over intelligence.  I'm convinced no matter who wins in the fall it still means the decline and fall of the US republic.  Our best days are behind us without a doubt.  All you see now is a bunch of bickering over an ever shrinking pie.

I posted the following on Matthew Yglesias' discussion of this same topic:

When I first read the quote--"Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included" --I read it as Obama confirming that he suspected a connection. But others are reading it as him saying that he personally doubts that there is a connection, and I think that might be the better reading. "Suspicious" in this contect is ambiguous. Are "some people" and Obama suspicious of the vaccines or they suspicious of the connection? Maybe all he's saying is that he doesn't think it's vaccines, but that we need to keep researching potential causes autism.

Why doesn't TNR start ratcheting up the pressure on the candidates to do the Science Debate?  

I don't think the candidates will to agree to it because they're all going to end up looking dumb.  Perhaps it should be a debate that includes the candidates' science advisers as well, since for the most part politicians are told what the science means and don't have to worry about understanding it for themselves.

Urging the candidates to participate in the Science Debate is an excellent idea. I for one would like to hear what they have to say about the as-yet unpublished but highly intriguing data linking highly skilled sexual prowess with a tendency to repeat oneself verbatim, an association that everyone--women in particular--should be aware of.

Urging the candidates to participate in the Science Debate is an excellent idea. I for one would like to hear what they have to say about the as-yet unpublished but highly intriguing data linking highly skilled sexual prowess with a tendency to repeat oneself verbatim, an association that everyone--women in particular--should be aware of.

Urging the candidates to participate in the Science Debate is an excellent idea. I for one would like to hear what they have to say about the as-yet unpublished but highly intriguing data linking highly skilled sexual prowess with a tendency to repeat oneself verbatim, an association that everyone--women in particular--should be aware of.

A straightforward Plank post critical of Obama! Wow.

This is progress.

Like Jason , I was not happy to learn that Barack Obama, like John McCain, had given credence to the

At least he's not arguing that the government's deliberately infecting people...

What's the Rev. Wright position on vaccines?

Candidates don't get their foreign policy advisers to help them during foreign policy debates; I don't know why this should be any different.  Obviously, they're not going to be asked to solve Schrodinger equations or describe the evolution of blood types or whatever.  I want to evaluate how well they understand the implications public policy has on science and vice-versa.  And I want to see whether they are familiar with the discipline and have put thought into it, and are therefore less likely to fall under the sway of people like the anti-vaccine movement.

numerous studies have found no link between autism and anything. Researchers have not yet identified a single "trigger" that causes autism to develop. Other researchers are investigating the possibility that under certain conditions, a cluster of unstable genes may interfere with brain development, resulting in autism. Still other researchers are investigating problems during pregnancy or delivery as well as environmental factors, such as viral infections, metabolic imbalances, and exposure to environmental chemicals. (or chemicals such as thimerosal) My wife is pregnant, and I have two small children, damn straight I have concerns. Books have been written about the unintended consequences of vacines, not even including their misuse. God forbid a Presidential candidate suggests we make sure that we understand all the potential risks of a vacine, because that makes him anti-science.

This, for me, has nothing to do with Obama. This has everything to do with my children. Anybody who says they are blithely unconcerned about the potential side effects of vacines because, gosh darn it, they just trust the infallibility of big Pharm obviously are the people who need to be educated.

Nobody is saying that vaccines don't have risks or side effects, just that autism isn't one of them.  Moreover, people who are scared by misinformation into not vaccinating their children are not only exposing their own kids to more dangers, they are harming overall public health.  When Presidential candidates -- all three of them, apparently -- go out of their way to spread this myth, it's not a good sign for the health of our society.

ratty, I am all in favor of vaccines, but I don't see how acknowledging peoples concerns becomes anti-science. I used to make money in my college days as a guinea pig for big pharm in New Jersey, great money for genuine risk, but it was easy and quick (besides being a human pin cushion for a week). My attitude than as now, more research is better than less.

Again, I have concerns, I will still vaccinate my baby, but damn right I want as much research done as is possible.

Some research out there suggests that the bitterness caused by seeing one's local economic prosperity disappear in corporate downsizing while Republicans mesmerize you with visions of volvo-driving liberal elitists planning to steal your hunting rifle can engender a particular form of autism known as Limited Political Attentiveness Syndrome.  However, this seems to mostly occur at an adult (voting) age, rather than in childhood.

In general, more research is better than less, but it's a zero sum game: if you're spending money on researching a vaccine-autism risk, you're not spending it on, say, researching alternative energy.  

Look, I'm pathologically afraid of snakes -- many people are.  And while I'd be somewhat intrigued by an Obama proposal to study how to eliminate them from the face of the Earth, in the end it would be a bad idea.  Because my fear of snakes isn't rational.  And the last thing this country needs is more politicians indulging people in their irrational fears.

Actually, though, snakes are pretty fucking dangerous.  On second thought, where do the candidates stand on this important issue?

elliot -- "regressive" autism, not new but not seen with such prevalence until recently. DSM is not worth reading, in my opinion.  Are you seriously asking me if I work for Pharma?

Boo on you, Barack and Hillary. Others have this subject amply covered, but I wanted to note that Barack and Hillary have both jumped on the anti-vaccinationist bandwagon. The bandwagon is getting crowded what with McCain already being on it....

This can&#39;t be for real: Robert F. Kennedy Jr is being considered for EPA director? You mean the RFK