Autism and Vaccines and the Burden of Proof - Bradley Doucet Responds

There is much I could argue with Mr. Doucet over re: his article on vaccines and autism, but I want to focus on one: he states that the burden of proof rests on the parents who are claiming that there is a connection between vaccines and autism.
 
Not so.
 
The burden of proof is on the pharmaceutical companies to demonstrate that their products are safe and effective. This is what the FDA is supposed to require that they prove in order to release their product for human use. Instead the FDA is asleep at the wheel where vaccines are concerned, letting the pharma companies release a product on which they have done zero testing for mutagenic or carcinogenic side effects (as stated right there is their indications for use). That is, they provide no evidence that their product does not cause damage to neurons, a highly likely side effect of introducing known neurotoxins into the blood stream (aluminum hydroxide, formaldehyde, mercury, and more - these are all known neurotoxins). The burden of proof is not on the parents, it is on the pharma companies. The burden of responsibility for determining if vaccine products are safe for use on humans is not on the parents, it is on the FDA. Both have completely failed the consumers, and detractors, of pharma products.
 
Dan Larsen
Edmonds , WA
 
- - -       - - -       - - -
 
Bradley Doucet responds:
 
Let me begin by thanking Mr. Larsen for responding to my article. There is certainly much more that could be written about the burden of proof than I wrote in one short paragraph. First, the burden of proof in any particular issue can shift, as I believe it did when preliminary studies suggested a possible link between vaccines and autism. At that point, some of the burden did fall on vaccine proponents to investigate the potential link. However, the fact that subsequent studies involving millions of children failed to substantiate the initial suggestions surely shifts the burden of proof back on those who maintain that there is nevertheless a link.
 
Second, technically speaking, we can never prove beyond all shadow of a doubt that anything is completely safe. This is the problem with the precautionary principle. The best we can do is try to falsify our hypothesis of safety. If we fail to falsify it after a reasonable amount of trying, we can conclude with some certainty that, in the context of present knowledge, our hypothesis is true.
 
Third, from what I have read over the years, the FDA if anything errs too much on the side of caution. More lives have been lost keeping safe drugs and products off the market than approving dangerous ones.
 
Finally, the mere presence of “toxins” does not prove toxicity. The poison is in the dose. Too much water, for example, can be toxic. In fact, the basic principle behind vaccines is that tiny amounts of certain (biological) toxins can help instead of harm you, teaching your body how to fight those particular agents.
 
Having said all of this, let me once again encourage readers to explore this important topic for themselves and to make up their own minds after examining both sides of the controversy with a critical eye.