A young antivaccine propagandist develops

The other day, I pointed out that one of the characteristics of antivaccine cranks is how, no matter how much you press them, they will never, ever get specific about which vaccines they find acceptable. they’ll go on ad nauseam about vaccines they despise and why, but will never admit that there are beneficial vaccines. When pressed about which vaccines should be included in the pediatric vaccination schedule, they’ll spin and contort enough to bend the fabric of space-time rather than commit to admitting that a vaccine is safe and effective.

Experienced antivaxers, of course, have a series of pat answers to this question. Jake Crosby, as I pointed out, does not, as evidenced by this answer to the question:

No, I don’t “care to explain.” I don’t have to explain anything. The people who are anti-vaccine are the people who say they are anti-vaccine – not the people who say vaccines cause autism – although I am sure the latter understandably includes some of the former.

Pretty lame, isn’t it? Well, fear not! The Boy Wonder of the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism appears to be learning. The comment thread continued a bit after that, and now Jake’s answer is this:

Lawrence, I think the things you’re asking for have been provided in the article above – e.g., that it’s safer to give vaccines separately than vaccines given all at once and that it’s safer to give vaccines without mercury than those with the neurotoxin. As John Stone already made clear to you, however, it is not AoA’s role to promote certain vaccines.

Frankly, I think for you to be asking for “scientifically supported actions” is utterly laughable when Offit and his colleagues have essentially been busted for skirting vaccine safety science to cover-up vaccine injury.

Yes, Jake’s learning. Instead of the hilariously silly stonewalling about people who are antivaccine being people who say they are antivaccine, he’s now graduated to the vague answer about “too many too soon” and “spreading out vaccines” that doesn’t actually admit that any vaccine works or that any specific vaccine is acceptable. The advantage of this strategy, of course, is that, using it, Jake doesn’t actually have to commit to making any statements about specific vaccines that can be scientifically refuted. Of course, it’s easy to refute the claim that spreading out vaccines is safer than using the CDC-recommended schedule, particularly given that spreading out vaccines results in a longer period of time when infants are susceptible to vaccine-preventable diseases. Similarly, since mercury in vaccines has never been shown to increase the risk of autism, there is little evidence to support that vaccines without thimerosal are safer than those with it.

Then, of course, Jake dodges the question by changing the subject to attacking the favorite all-purpose villain to the antivaccine movement, Paul Offit. Above all, he never, ever admits that any single vaccine works.

Bravo, Jake! You’re learning. Maybe someday you can be Barbara Loe Fisher, Sallie Bernard, J.B. Handley, Jenny McCarthy, Andrew Wakefield, and Mark Geier, all rolled up into one.