JAMA update. I previously commented on a strange article in a leading medical journal that attacked unofficial vaccination web sites. The article claimed to study web sites that "specifically oppose vaccination for human infants or children". I contacted the lead author and asked him to give me an example of how they came to this conclusion for any of the sites. No response.

I suppose that no one will consider this academic fraud, but I think that JAMA has really deliberately misrepresented these sites in a biased and misleading manner. The fundamental factual assertion in the article is completely false, and the authors deliberately omitted the references that would have allowed readers to learn the truth.

Calling these web sites "antivaccination" is like calling Ralph Nader anti-car. In a way, he is anti-car, but he does not favor abolishing the automobile. He wants cars to be safer for people and the environment. And likewise these web sites do not favor abolishing vaccination. They want safer vaccines, and informed choices.