The main reason to revisit the topic, even for those that understand the strong scientific evidence that show how unlikely it is that vaccines are related to ASDs, is to promote Frontline's "The Vaccine War."  The episode (you can watch it here, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid)  provides a thoughtful account of the perspective of the parents who hold the belief that vaccines cause harm.  This belief has strong grounding for some in the notion that we must go back to nature and the ways of the past for better living.  While there is some face validity to technology having unwanted side effects such as less person to person interaction, going back to the past is something many of these people would benefit from.  If they saw firsthand the ravages of polio, smallpox, and the many diseases that killed or maimed and ravaged humanity, they might have a different perspective that would allow them to appreciate the benefits brought by vaccines.  The frontline episode brings some of those scourges to life as an effective counterpoint.

The Vaccine War also provides the major proponents of the vaccine mythology, Jennie McCarthy, Barbara Loe Fisher, and J.B. Handley ample time to present their beliefs.  The former Playboy Playmate and MTV personality, Jennie McCarthy, discusses her views and at one point says she sees a choice between vaccinating and causing ASDs.  In her mind, you can choose measles or you can choose autism.  She'd choose measles but this is a false distinction.  You don't have this choice if the MMR vaccine is unrelated to autism.  In fact, the MMR may prevent some cases of autism. Expecting mothers that contract rubella are at an increased risk of having a child with autism (see my previous posts for the references).  Eliminating rubella makes it unlikely that pregnant mothers will contract it.  However, Jenny has long moved away from the one hypothesis approach.  She says that science has not explored vaccine safety or the vaccine-autism myths extensively enough.  Frontline cuts away from this statement to review the research.  This is the most responsible type of journalistic coverage.  When an unsupported statement is made, the journalist should get to the actual evidence.

In terms of presenting the science on this topic, the episode does not hit every major piece of evidence and skirts over some of the issues.  For example, in discussing both hypotheses a viewer might come away with the errant notion that the MMR contained thimerosal.  However, given that there is only so much time and so many parts to this story, it is hard to imagine covering everything.  Nonetheless, the episode does present the science on this topic cogently without the false balance of providing unwarranted credibility to the improbable hypotheses forwarded by the "scientists" like Andrew Wakefield.

Producer Jon Palfreman and his team did an excellent job.  They avoided the trap of "tell two sides of the story" without critical evaluation of either.  They interviewed the most respected authorities on vaccines and epidemiology and provide what I believe is a valuable source of information to share with parents.  This is not the only episode of Frontlione that I've found useful along these lines.  Back in the 1990s Palfreman produced an episode on facilitated communication titled "Prisoners of Silence."  The science in this episode is also presented in a cogent and consummable fashion with the human toll that this bogus therapy has caused so many families.  for more on this topic go to my post on FC:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/radical-behaviorist/201004/fc-is-bs