McCain cites "strong evidence" that thiomerosal causes autism

I nearly aerosolized Diet Pepsi all over my computer screen when I read this:

It a town hall meeting Friday in Texas, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., declared that "there's strong evidence" that thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was once in many childhood vaccines, is responsible for the increased diagnoses of autism in the U.S. -- a position in stark contrast with the view of the medical establishment.

McCain was responding to a question from the mother of a boy with autism, who asked about a recent story that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program had issued a judgment in favor of an unnamed child whose family claimed regressive encephalopathy and symptoms of autism were caused by thimerosal.

"We've been waiting for years for kind of a responsible answer to this question, and are hoping that you can help us out there," the woman said.

McCain said, per ABC News' Bret Hovell, that "It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates that it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines."

McCain said there's "divided scientific opinion" on the matter, with "many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying that's not the cause of it."

Come on, man!

There is not "strong evidence" that thimerosal causes autism. Just the opposite, there is not a shred of evidence that it causes it. This is not a subject about which there is "divided scientific opinion" in the medical establishment. We are all on board with the idea that A) mercury doesn't cause autism and B) saying that it does is a risky and dangerous falsehood because it encourages parents not to kid their kids vaccinated.

Why is McCain even speaking about this issue? What core constituency is he attempting to please? I guess I agree with Megan McArdle's assessment that since most people don't vote on this issue -- and those who do are more likely to vote positively -- he has nothing to lose by pandering to cranks:

The desperate parents who believe that thimerosol caused their child's autism are highly motivated people with a very good chance of voting for anyone who says he believes them. The researchers who study thimerosol probably weren't going to vote for McCain anyway. No one else votes on the issue.

The McCain campaign must have concluded that people who care about accuracy in scientific issues are a disorganized and not particularly powerful constituency. This speaks poorly both for the McCain campaign, but it also speaks poorly for those of us trying to organize that constituency. It would appear that the only way to ensure accuracy in scientific statements from candidates is to ensure that there are electoral penalties associated with uttering blatant falsehoods. At the moment, sadly, we as a constituency are in no place to provide those penalties.

On the other hand, as just a tactical observation for the presidential candidates, there are scientific issues that you give an opinion on and there are ones that you don't. This is one that you don't. McCain clearly did not consider the shit-storm that he was likely to ignite with these comments.

This comment puts me in a similar place to Orac. I had planned on voting for McCain, but comments like this make him seem at best a blatant panderer and at worst a crazy person. Further, I do consider his scientific views sufficiently important to vote on them. (As I said before, I won't vote for Ron Paul because among other things, he doesn't believe in evolution.)

I don't know if I am ready to assume that McCain is an anti-science president yet. He has shown more willingness than most Republicans to consider global warming and problem and discuss solutions. But I still find comments of this nature distressing.

Grrrrr. I hate election years sometimes.