Autism Vaccine War: Is Scientific Inquiry Being Suppressed?

Dr. Beatrice Golomb's presentation This Is Your Brain On Politics pulls no punches in its critique of conflicts of interest, bias, censorship and intimidation involving pharmaceutical companies, health authorities and academic institutions and publications.  Professor Golomb's presentation includes commentary on pressure tactics, including intimidation, used by some pharmaceutical industry representatives to silence criticism of their products and the research that accompanies them.

Professor Golomb's presentation provides an interesting framework with which to consider the continued pressures exerted on Dr. Andrew Wakefield over an article he wrote in 1998 for which, in 2011, he was denounced, by journalistic decree,  as being guilty of fraud.  A refutation of the Wakefield fraud allegations by research microbiologist David Lewis was published in the BMJ  but has not received the major US or world media attention that the original fraud allegations attracted.

An even more recent  demonstration of pressure on those who question or study issues pertaining to vaccine safety has arisen in response to an article on vaccine adjuvants published by two UBC Ph.D.'s.  In Tom Sandborn's article in the Vancouver Courier Responses to UBC vaccine paper a problem for free scientific inquiry and expression UBC researchers raise questions, experience backlash Sandborn describes what appears to be an effort to suppress publication of peer reviewed journal articles which raise potential vaccine health issues. None other than Dr. Paul Offit is reported to have weighed in with comments which appear to suggest that studies or articles criticizing vaccine safety in any way should not be published:

"Shaw, who is on faculty at UBC with the Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience, and his colleague Lucija Tomljenovic have recently published a carefully parsed and thoroughly peer reviewed paper on vaccine safety, without a doubt one of the most controversial topics in medicine today. Despite the cautious and professional tone of the paper, and despite the authors' clear statement that their findings are not in themselves decisive, only pointing to the need for more extensive research into vaccine safety, the paper, published in November 2011 in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry which describes correlations and possible causal links between increased exposure to aluminum salts used as adjuvants in vaccines and increased levels of neurological trouble in exposed populations, seems to inflame angry and punitive responses in some quarters.


For example, when I discussed the Tomljenovic/Shaw paper with Dr. Paul Offit, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, a strong proponent of vaccines and the developer of a successful new vaccine that has made him a multi-millionaire, he told me that the paper "should never have been published," despite the fact it was rigorously peer reviewed before publication. (Like many who want to insist that all questions of vaccine safety have been settled, Offit invokes the notorious Andrew Wakefield affair involving a now discredited and withdrawn paper published in The Lancet in 1998, which suggested a link between MMR vaccines and autism. Offit claims that paper is responsible for avoidable deaths as worried parents failed to vaccinate their children. Wakefield has recently filed a suit for defamation against Brian Deer, the investigative journalist whose work was central to the storm of criticism that surrounded the Lancet paper.)"

In the context of the autism vaccine war the late Dr. Bernadine Healy expressed confidence in the general safety of vaccines while talking about the need to explore possible vaccine impacts on susceptible populations. She also expressed confidence in public understanding of the value and importance of vaccines in protecting and promoting pubic health and safety while cautioning public health authorities against dismissing further scientific research on autism vaccine issues:

"There is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. First of all, I think the public's smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don't think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you're afraid of what it might show."

The concerns expressed by Dr. Healy about the suppression of scientific inquiry into vaccine autism issues by public health authorities appear to be supported by the attempts to suppress the publication of articles like that of the UBC professors published after rigorous peer review which pointed to possible issues with aluminum salt adjuvants in vaccines.  Dr. Offit, and others who wish to suppress such inquiry, claim to be afraid of ignorant members of the public who will react out of fear and refuse to vaccinate their children.  The attempts at suppression however give rise to an equally plausible hypothesis as suggested by Dr. Healy ...  that Offit and company are afraid of what such inquiry might show.

NOTE: As the author of this blog comment I advise that my children have received all recommended and mandatory vaccines and that I have received vaccines at different times including during the H1N1 panic two years ago. I recognize the importance of vaccines in public health and safety. I am, however, seriously concerned about the incessant attempts to suppress scientific inquiry of vaccine safety issues and the view that all possible connections between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders have been explored and "debunked" for all time.  

Read more »

Pandemrix Swine Flu Vaccine and Narcolepsy: Lesson for Autism Research?

                                                

                                                         (AFP Photo and Caption)

As the parent of a soon to be 15 year old boy with severe Autistic Disorder I have never attributed his autism disorder to vaccines. I have always accepted the view of public health authorities that there is little or no evidence linking autism to vaccines. With that mindset I never endorsed Jenny McCarthy's views of autism and vaccines although I admired her courage in fighting for her son.

At the other end of the vaccine autism battlefield I support vaccine programs generally as vitally important public health tools but I have become increasingly concerned by the campaign to discredit those who question vaccine safety and the certainty with which Vaccine Generals like Dr. Paul Offit and Dr. David H. Gorski aka Orac have declared that all vaccines and vaccine ingredients can never cause any autism disorder in any child.  Given the lack of certainty about what autism is biologically, given the shifting autism definitions used to attack what appears to be an obvious and astounding increase in autism disorders,  I don't see how the epidemiological studies can be that definitive. A particular question for me is whether the studies have actually ruled out the possibility that vaccines given to pregnant women might cause or trigger autism in the children they are carrying. Another major question arises from the failure to conduct studies comparing autism rates in existing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. 

Dr. Offit is the gentle, sweater wearing uncle type who poses for an adoring media and declares parents to be timid fearful sorts who can not understand science and the big picture.  Dr. David H. Gorski, aka Orac, is the snarling pitbull who delivers incessant attacks on vaccine questioners AND actual anti-vaxxers with scientific terminology like WOO, QUACK, IDIOT  and so on.  Both may soon be called on to lead their minions into battle again with news of a study out of Finland, as reported by AFP, which found that children injected with the Pandemrix swine flu vaccine were nine times more likely to contract narcolepsy than those who were not vaccinated  :

"Children injected with the Pandemrix swine flu vaccine were nine times more likely to contract narcolepsy than those who were not vaccinated, a preliminary study by Finland's National Institute for Health and Welfare, THL, showed Tuesday.

"Currently, the most likely explanation is that the increase in narcolepsy is by joint effect of the vaccine and some other factor(s)," THL said.

The institute stressed in its preliminary study that more investigation was needed, but said young people aged four to 19 had a "manifold increased risk of falling ill with narcolepsy" if they had been inoculated against swine flu with Pandemrix."

....

Narcolepsy is a sleep disorder which causes extreme fatigue and often results in the patient falling soundly asleep without warning, even in the middle of an activity.

Doctors in Finland reported a more than trippling of narcolepsy cases during the swine flue pandemic, and THL said "the risk of falling ill with narcolepsy among those vaccinated in the 4-19 years age group was nine-fold in comparison to those unvaccinated in the same age group."

...

"The observed association (with the vaccine) is so evident that it is unlikely that other so-called confounding factors could fully explain the phenomenon," THL said, adding its next step was to evaluate if other factors had created "joint effects" with Pandemrix.


It is interesting that a direct comparison of narcolepsy rates was made between those who were vaccinated with the H1N1 vaccine and those who were not. On the autism front former CDC directors Dr. Bernadine Healy and Dr. Julie Gerberding have both been reported in the past as stating that a comparison of autism rates amongst existing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations could and should be done. Their advice has been actively resisted by public health spokespersons. Dr. Offit and Dr. Gorski, each in their own way, will now undoubtedly be called upon to quell any concerns about vaccines and narcolepsy.


Meanwhile the comparative study of autism rates in existing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations will not be done. Unfortunately.

Read more »

Does Wakefield Decision Prove Vaccines Never Cause or Trigger Autism Disorders?

Does Wakefield Decision Prove Vaccines Never Cause or Trigger Autism Disorders? No it does not.

The UK General Medical Council found that Dr. Andrew Wakefield had engaged in several instances of unprofessional conduct. The decision has little, if any, bearing on the science involved in vaccine autism issues.

Several prominent health authorities and researchers have stated that there is a need for stronger science on autism vaccine issues including Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Julie Gerberding and Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto..

Read more »

Autism Vaccine Myth Busting: Thimerosal Is Still Used In Vaccines

One of the myths pushed in the mainstream media is that thimerosal, the mercury preservative used in vaccines, has been removed from vaccines.  That position simply is not true. 

The recent H1N1 panic showed that health authorities and pharmaceuticals still push vaccines containing thimerosal when it suits them.  The Ipswich Massachusetts Chronicle web site on  February 2, 2010 advertised immunization clinics for February 16 and 25, 2010 for thimerosal containing H1N1 shots:

"Only the injectable (shot) form of the H1N1 influenza vaccine will be used.


Participants should wear a shirt with loose0fitting sleeves or short sleeves to the clinic since the injection will be given in the upper arm.


Just like the seasonal flu vaccine, many formulations of the H1N1 vaccine contain a preservative called thimerosal. The vaccine that will be used at the clinic contains thimerosal."

Here in New Brunswick Canada the H1N1 (Swine Flu) vaccine also contained thimerosal and adjuvants and which were declared safe by our provincial health authorities as reflected in this  October 8, 2009 NB government news release. Of particular note, our provincial health authorities declared that thimerosal does not cause autism and is safe to give to pregnant women, one of the high priority groups targeted to receive the H1N1 shot during the fall H1N1 Pandemic/Panic:

• There have also been reports and public speculation about the safety of the H1N1 vaccine. The contents of the H1N1 vaccine will protect against contracting H1N1. The included additives and preservatives are there to help the vaccine work, and are not cause for alarm.
• As a multi-dose vaccine, the H1N1 influenza vaccine will contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal to prevent contamination of the vaccine by serious infectious agents from the growth of bacteria. Thimerosal also has a stabilizing effect on the vaccine, ensuring its effectiveness.
• The seasonal flu vaccine and most hepatitis B vaccines are also multi-dose vaccines, and thimerosal is added during the manufacturing process to maintain sterility of the vaccine.
• There is no safety reason to avoid using vaccines containing thimerosal. The best available scientific evidence to date shows no link between vaccines containing thimerosal and any adverse health condition, including neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism.
• The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) has reviewed the safety of thimerosal and concluded that, "There is no legitimate safety reason to avoid the use of thimerosal-containing products for children or older individuals, including pregnant women." International bodies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, share this opinion.
• Most of the H1N1 vaccine available in New Brunswick will also contain an adjuvant. An adjuvant is a substance that is added to a vaccine in order to boost an individual's immune response. It also means that less of the virus, or antigen, is needed to make a dose of the vaccine. Unadjuvanted vaccine has no booster element, and more antigen is needed to create this kind of vaccine.
• By developing an adjuvanted vaccine, Canada has used less of the virus material (antigen), allowing us to immunize more people in a timely manner.
• Adjuvants are not new. Many commonly used vaccines in Canada contain an adjuvant. Adjuvants have been used for several decades to boost immune response to vaccines. However, adjuvants have not previously been used with influenza vaccines in Canada.
• The WHO has indicated that it has no special concerns about the safety of adjuvanted H1N1 vaccines in general.

The WHO is now under scrutiny for its role in pushing the H1N1 panic button.  And not everyone shares our NB officials' unquestioning faith  that thimerosal does not play a role in causing autism particularly when given to pregnant women.  Dr. Bernadine Healy, a highly respected former US National Institutes of Health Director has stated several times that the issue of a thimerosal autism connection is still an open question. She has made particular reference to the possible effect of the mercury preservative thimerosal o the fetuses of pregnant women:

"thimerosal crosses the placenta, and pregnant women are advised to get flu shots, which often contain it. Studies in mice suggest that genetic variation influences brain sensitivity to the toxic effects of mercury. And a primate study designed to mimic vaccination in infants reported in 2005 that thimerosal may clear from the blood in a matter of days but leaves inorganic mercury behind in the brain."

Former NIH Director Dr. Healy's concerns do not appear to have been taken seriously by public health authorities during the great H1N1 Swine Flu scare of 2009.

autism

Read more »

Was the H1N1 a Fake Pandemic? A Council of Europe Motion to Investigate Drug Sellers Influence

In WHO to Clarify H1N1 Data After False Pandemic Claim Bloomberg  reports that "The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe plans to debate the theme “Faked pandemics: a threat to health” at a plenary session in Strasbourg, France" next week.  

Not to quibble too much with "B"but the debate is not just debate of a theme in an academic or abstract sense.  It is  debate on an actual motion which calls on the member states of the Council of Europe to conduct investigation of the influence of "drug makers" in defining and declaring pandemics.

I am not, and do not pretend to be, prescient.  I do not know what the outcome of the debate will be.  Given the emphasis placed by governments around the world on vaccines as public health tools and the active and vigorous discouragement of any debate of any safety concerns around vaccines though I would not expect to see the Council of Europe pass the motion and conduct any real investigations.  Nor do I expect the Council of Europe to find that the H1N1 Pandemic was overblown.  Of course I have been wrong before.  

As for whether it was reasonably forseeable that the  "pandemic" would not be as harsh as predicted by public health authorities there were credible skeptics who questioned the pandemic rhetoric many months ago.  As with any questioning of vaccine related issues skeptics and critics of public health authorities' "consensus" on these issues were largely ignored, ridiculed or demonized.  

As for whether "drug makers" or pharmaceuticals have too  much influence over public health authority decisions concerning pandemics and other public health issues I will leave that question to someone truly knowledgeable on the subject ... someone like Dr. Julie Gerberding who led the CDC from 2002 to 2009 and who will now lead Merck's vaccine division:

 "WASHINGTON, Dec 21 (Reuters) - Dr. Julie Gerberding, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was named president of Merck & Co Inc's (MRK.N) vaccine division, the company said on Monday.... She may be charged with reigniting flagging sales of Merck's Gardasil vaccine to prevent cervical cancer by protecting against human papillomavirus or HPV. After an encouraging launch Gardasil sales have been falling and were down 22 percent in the third quarter at $311 million." [Bold emphasis added - HLD]

One thing I would like to see emerge from the H1N1 Pandemic, whether the Pandemic label was justified or not, are studies of the impact on the health, including any negative health  effects, if any, of the many people vaccinated with H1N1 shots.  In some countries adjuvants and other ingredients, including thimerosal, were included in the H1N1 shots.  

One of the high priority  target groups to receive H1N1 shots was pregnant women. Some credible public health authorities, including Dr. Bernadine Healy, have pointed out that thimerosal,  a mercury based preservative, crosses the placenta.  It would seem appropriate to me to keep data on the health effects of the H1N1 vaccine on  these women and the children who received the H1N1 shots in utero. 

It seems to this humble layperson that the developmental histories of children born during this time period from pregnant women who (1) did not receive the H1N1 shot (2) received the H1N1 shot without thimerosal, (3) received the H1N1 shot without adjuvants should be compared.   As someone with an interest in autism disorders and what causes them I am interested in particular in seeing a comparison of  autism rates 2+ years from now of children whose mothers were carrying them when they  received H1N1 shots containing thimerosal  and children whose mothers, while carrying them, received H1NH1 vaccine shots without thimerosal.

No I am not expecting such studies to be done and yes I do expect to be ignored, ridiculed or demonized for making these suggestions.  But I am making them anyway.

autism

Read more »

Autism and ScienceBlogs: Dr. Gorski Replies, Sort Of

Alleged science blogger Dr. David H. Gorski is at it again lashing out at anyone who disagrees with his views, and hurling ad hominem attacks. Once again Dr. Gorski  demonstrates no knowledge of autism disorders while commenting, albeit indirectly, on autism causation.

Dr. Gorski displays poor research skills  by describing me as an Age of Autism hanger on which is quite funny because I have over the years often disagreed with views posted on that site. A year ago I questioned Kent Heckenlively of Age of Autism about his apparent endorsement of the ACE Pathway investigation one of several critical posts  I made about ACE Pathway which I viewed with concern.

If Gorski actually read anything on this site he would know that I advocate for evidence based interventions and services for autistic children and adults and have done so for a decade along with other parents, and with some real results, in my home province of New Brunswick, Canada. In our autism advocacy efforts studies and reports by  American health and science experts on autism were the foundation of our efforts. They were invaluable. Dr. Gorski's name was not amongst those that I have encountered over the years as having any expertise on the subject of autism.

I never used to accept that vaccines played any role in causing autism.  I have  moved from agreeing with the view  that there was no merit at all to the vaccine causes autism theories to accepting that the issues arising from the injection of vaccines into children and pregnant women have not been "determined for all time" and may trigger autism in some vulnerable predisposed children.   My move toward an open mind on these issues was prompted not by the Age of Autism but by Dr. Healey, Dr Poling and even Dr. Julie Gerberding, the soon to be Merck vaccine division head and former CDC director. Dr. Gorski would know this if he actually read this site before slinging mud.

Dr. Gorski, apart from failing to demonstrate any knowledge of autism in his new commentary, also tried to reduce my views, and the views of many others, about potential environmental causes of autism to the vaccine issues.  He does so  no doubt because it is easier to attack people who question vaccine safety than those who question the impact of environmental chemicals generally on the neurological development of children. Dr. Paul Offit has led a very successful campaign to whip the mainstream media into condemning people who question vaccines as fringe, hysterical extremists.  It is more difficult for Gorski, or Offit for that matter, to argue that it has been "scientifically proven for all time" that there are no environmental causes or triggers of autism.

I don't know if Dr. Gorski is aware of the recent CDC study which measured and reported on 212 toxic chemicals found in our bodies today,  a list which included mercury, lead, aluminum, arsenic and many other goodies.  Like the autism prevalence study and the Gerberding move to Merck announcements, this study too was "publicized" in the pre-Christmas period when most people, and especially the mainstream media, are busy with family and Christmas.  With so many toxic chemicals in our bodies, with rising incidence of autism disorders in our children it is not just unscientific to assume that these chemicals are not involved with causing autism disorders ....  it is foolish.

My lay person's understanding of science is based on the notion, perhaps naive, that issues are not "decided for all time".  I am now in the undecided camp about vaccines and autism and suspect that in some instances vaccines may trigger autism disorders, and other neurological damage, in some children.   I believe that more study should be done on this issue.  

And I believe very firmly that the imbalance in funding of autism research must be shifted from the near 100% funding of genetic based autism research to a  model which provides equal funding for environmentally focused autism research. 

I hope that the ScienceBlogs bloggers abandon cheap personal attacks on those who question vaccine safety and offer ... some real science.   I hope they live up to their claim of being science bloggers ... at least when they are discussing autism disorders.

autism

Read more »

IACC Autism Research Plan: Dr. Steven Novella Throws a Tantrum

Steven Novella MD, author of the NEUROLOGICA blog, doesn't like the recent IACC Statement on Autism Research and is throwing a tantrum. In IACC Statement on Autism Research Dr. Novella objects to the inclusion of research into possible links between vaccines and autism. Specifically he objects to language, approved unanimously by the IACC, that:

"calls for studies to determine if there are sub-populations that are more susceptible to environmental exposures such as immune challenges related to naturally occurring infections, vaccines or underlying immune problems."

In Dr. Novella's view this statement represents:

"the infiltration into the autism community of anti-vaccinationists – who have an agenda other than researching autism. In fact, the anti-vaccine movement has been unfortunately successful in branding themselves as autism activists and experts. This decision by the IACC represents the fruits of that infiltration – a distortion of funding for autism research to suit their anti-vaccine agenda. In fact, two members of the IACC – Lyn Redwood and Lee Grossman, were added specifically to represent the anti-vaccine movement in the (probably misguided) hope of placating that group."

It looks, at first reading, as though Dr. Novella has become, in the oft used words of his fellow "science" blogger Dr. David H. Gorski, aka Orac, a conspiracy theorist. Rather than do a full Orac on Dr. Novella though I think it is probably too early to tell just from his initial reaction. It is probably fairer to say, at this time, that Dr. Novella simply did not get what he wanted ... the exclusion of any reference to vaccines in the IACC strategic research plan, and his response is much like what any child who does not get his way might do ... he is lashing out ... he is throwing a tantrum.

Like many people who do not like the result or outcome of a process Dr. Novella is now furious and screams that the process itself was flawed from the outset. The inclusion of ... ugh... public representatives on the IACC is reprehensible to the good Doctor. After all Doctors should never have to listen to their patients right? No longer content to question the ability of public representatives to think about science Dr. Novella now feels that he has the expertise to determine who is, and who is not, a legitimate member of the "autism community".

Apparently it is no solace to Dr. Novella that Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the American Red Cross and the NIH, has articulated the premise that the existing vaccine autism studies were not specific enough and did not examine the possible impact of vaccines on vulnerable population subsets. Apparently it is no solace to Dr. Novella that Dr. Healy, as well as former CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding and neurologist Dr. Jon Poling have all stated that autism research should included further vaccine autism research.

Dr. Novella may be on the road to becoming what Dr. Gorski might call a conspiracy theorist but for now only one thing is certain ... the good Doctor does not like the result and he is screaming foul ... after the fact .

The Doctor is throwing a tantrum.

autism

Read more »

End the Vaccine-Autism War Now: Do The Comparative Study and Quit Demeaning the Parents Who Actually Care for Autistic Children

The vaccine-autism war has continued unabated, primarily because of the actions of Dr. Paul Offit, Dr. Thomas Insel and the IACC. It will continue until a credible observational study comparing autism rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations is done.

The IACC ventured near a possible end to the war when it contemplated doing an observational study comparing autism rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Instead, under Dr. Insel's direction, it engaged in procedural shenanigans to take the option off the table, aggravating hostility and suspicion amongst those who observed the onset of autism symptoms in their children after vaccination.

Dr. Insel added to the mess by informing Senator Harkin's committee that such a study could not be done. Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the NIH, and Dr. Julie Gerberding, formerly of the CDC, have both stated that the observational autism study could and should be done. Dr. Duane Alexander has also stated that such a study could be done.

Dr. Paul Offit signaled that it was OK for the media to heap scorn on vaccine concerned parents when he painted himself as a martyr and began a crusade to silence any criticism or questioning of vaccines. Now mainstream media and bloggers, including alleged science bloggers , routinely demean and admonish the people who are actually helping autistic children ... their parents. In doing so they are hurting those same autistic children and elevating hostilities in the vaccine-autism war.

It is parents, not Dr. Paul Offit, who actually do the day to day caring for autistic children and who represent their children's interests. In telling these parents to sit down and shut up, in mocking these parents, the "vaccines above all else crowd" are in fact signaling their contempt for the role of the family, the role of parents, in caring for and raising children.


The IACC can continue to sit by and hope that the current Offit inspired media offensive against parents of autistic children who question whether vaccines caused or triggered their child's autism will silence those parents. It is a false and futile hope. Not because these parents are inherently stubborn but because they require more than condescension , flawed, conflicted, statistical massages, and trite cliches (correlation does not imply causation) before they will be persuaded.

If the IACC wants to end the vaccine-autism war it will recommend funding to do the comparative study called for by Dr. Healy and Dr. Gerberding and have it done by credible, conflict free, research authorities. The more the IACC resists calls for such a study the more it will appear it has something to hide. If it wants the vaccine-autism war to continue it will refuse to conduct the study.

It's that simple.

autism

Read more »

Autism and Vaccines - Excellent Commentary at Biology in Action

On the Biology in Action site Rebecca Baker, a biology student, offers an excellent commentary on vaccines and autism "Vaccines and Autism: Many Hypotheses, But No Correlation Found" making a point with which I am in complete agreement - there is a need for more research on the issue.

On one side the commentary is a bit shallow focusing on Jenny McCarthy but not mentioning Dr. Bernadine Healy or the Poling and Banks cases ( as the mainstream media also does). BUT in exploring the other side of the debate the blog author does not give Dr. Paul Offit the free ride he gets from the mainstream media and from "autism is beautiful", Offit worshipping blogs like Left Brain/Right Brain:

Based on the radically different studies on the topic, I think that this debate has just begun. More research must be done in order to come to a definite conclusion. While reading the article I found, I had several questions. Whenever Dr. Offit was discussing one of the hypotheses, he stated that he analyzed several studies that refuted the idea. He never specified which studies he looked at. It seemed as though he did not provide enough evidence to support his findings. Also, if some children show severe reactions to the vaccines, is it not possible some kids are allergic to the vaccinations, as I am to penicillin? Because I am not convinced by both sides of the argument, more research must be conducted.

The vaccine-autism debate could use more balanced, common sense commentary like that by Ms Baker at Biology in Action.

autism

Read more »

Why the Big Pharma, Pro-Vaccine Cult is Losing the Vaccine-Autism War

Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save face? He didn't ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why argue with him? You can't win an argument, because if you lose, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior, you hurt his pride, insult his intelligence, his judgment, and his self-respect, and he'll resent your triumph. That will make him strike back, but it will never make him want to change his mind. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People

If you support vaccine programs as important public health tools then you are probably insulted, and not persuaded at all, by the title of this blog comment. If anything you will have dug in your heels in opposition to anything further that I might have to say. I doubt that Dale Carnegie would try to persuade people with opposing views to change their mind by insulting them.

Yet, that is exactly what is done every day by media editorial writers, bloggers and even health care professionals who dismiss parents concerned about vaccines being injected into their own children as hysterical. Anyone who asks questions about vaccine safety is branded as a nut, a hysterical parent, ignorant and ill informed, a conspiracy theorist etc. Is it any wonder that parents are not persuaded by such obvious attempts to marginalize them, to dismiss them and their concerns, to insult them?

Directly related to the use of insults to marginalize parents is the disregard for parents direct observation of what is happening to their children. Science, to this layperson anyway, must rely on actual observation as a basis for its method. No one has more direct, prolonged opportunity to observe their children then the parents who live with and care for those children. Yes, other issues arise because of the intensity of that emotional connection but the fact remains that it is parents, not Paul Offit, who actually observes their children, see them progressing and enjoying the milestones typically involved in infant development. It is parents who witness their children regress into autism disorders after vaccination that are in the best position to assess what has happened to their child.

The parents observations are, contrary to some statements that there is no evidence of vaccine autism links, exactly that. This direct observation does constitute evidence, albeit anecdotal evidence, that vaccines caused or contributed to their children's' autism disorder. Dismissing these observations as coincidence is not persuasive unless YOU can prove that it is a coincidence.

There have been a number of epidemiological studies done which are used to argue that science has conclusively disproved a vaccine autism link. Yet those studies have been subjected to what appears to be valid criticisms. The Danish study is perhaps the most notorious example. It compared autism rates before and after thimerosal was removed from vaccines in Denmark, Yet the study itself points out that the comparisons were questionable because of the different groups examined in the different time frames. The Danish study looked at autism rates in the period from 1972-2000. As everyone knows who argues against a real increase in autism rates, the diagnostic criteria for autism changed in the early 90's making it difficult to draw firm conclusions from that study. Perhaps equally as negative about the Danish study is that it was conducted after serious prodding by American health authorities who wanted to dispel a vaccine autism connection.

The epidemiological studies are observational. They do not test an hypothesis in a controlled experiment. No observational studies of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations have been conducted despite existing unvaccinated populations and despite calls for such a study from parents and professionals concerned about possible vaccine autism connections. Dr. Insel did not persuade any persons with vaccine and autism concerns that vaccines are not connected to autism when he appeared before Senator Harkin's committee and declared that an observational study comparing autism rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations could not be done. His statement was directly contrary to those of Dr. Bernadine Healy (former NIH head), Dr. Julie Gerberding (former CDC director) and Dr. Duane Alexander, a member of the IACC to the effect that such a study COULD be done. Dr. Healy and Dr. Gerberding have both said that such a study SHOULD be done. When public health authorities refuse to undertake credible research to examine the vaccine autism issue and yet state to the media that the matter is closed, that science has determined the issue conclusively and for all time, their credibility is undermined, their ability to convince concerned parents is weakened.

Dr. Healy, in calling for more research on vaccine autism issues, has pointed out that the epidemiological studies are not specific enough to address vulnerable population subgroups. The Poling case is a perfect example of the validity of that criticism. Not all people are constructed the same. The effect of a vaccine on one person may not be the effect of a vaccine on another. In the Poling case autism resulted from the impact on the child's mitochondrial disorder. Dr. Healy has called for a variety of studies to examine further the vaccine autism issue. Yet her name rarely appears in media summaries of the issue which prefer to paint the issue as Jenny McCarthy against the scientists.

If public health authorities want to restore public trust in vaccines they should do the research that Dr. Healy has called for. They should conduct the observational study comparing existing unvaccinated and vaccinated populations and stop pretending that it can not be done. They should stop pretending that science has conclusively decided the issue when too many people know that not to be true and refuse to be bullied and intimidated. Public health authorities should not be afraid to do more homework to ensure that the chemical and biological concoctions they are insisting people inject into their children are safe in all instances.

If public health authorities want to restore public trust in vaccines and convince us all that vaccines do not cause or contribute to autism they should stop condescending. They should start treating parents like what they are in this matter ... the front line researchers whose observations are invariably the first stage in recognizing and understanding autism disorders in their children. They should start treating those parents with the respect they deserve. Their failure to do so to date has been the biggest reason why they are failing to convince some parents that vaccines are safe. It is the biggest reason the public health authorities are losing the battle to restore public confidence in the safety of vaccines. If you don't believe me, check with Dale Carnegie. He left us with some notes on the subject.

autism

Read more »

Swine Flu Vaccine and Autism Debate: CANWEST & Fitzpatrick Publish 3rd Version of Same Article

UPDATE The original full unedited version of the article is now online again and the 2 cropped versions removed

CANWEST News and Meagan Fitzpatrick have published yet another, a third, version of the article firs published yesterday on the Swine Flu vaccine refueling the autism debate. This 3rd version is expanded to reinsert information about Jenny McCarthy but does not include my comments or more importantly those of UWO researcher Dr. Derrick MacFabe.

The article does not mention that Dr. MacFabe, Dr. Bernadine Healy (a former NIH and American Red Cross head), Dr. Julie Gerberding ( a recent CDC head) and Dr. Jon Poling (a neurologist, professor and father of an autistic child who successfully established a claim in the US vaccine court on behalf of his daughter whose autism was caused by vaccine insult to her pre-existing mitochondrial disorder). All of these people have called for more research on vaccine autism issues. Dr. Derrick MacFabe was mentioned in the 1st of the 3 "autism debate" articles published yesterday but not in the 2 redrafts published today.

The effect of the latest draft is to cast the dispute as one led by actress Jenny McCarthy on the side of those concerned with vaccine autism issues, without any mention of the professional calls for more research on the vaccine autism issue.

H1N1 vaccine arrival refuels autism debate

BY MEAGAN FITZPATRICK, CANWEST NEWS SERVICESEPTEMBER 22, 2009

The much-anticipated H1N1 vaccine has given new life to an ongoing debate about whether vaccinations in children can cause autism, a discussion that will likely heat up as Canada and other countries move closer to releasing the new vaccine.

From one side of the debate come assurances that vaccines are safe and there is no conclusive link to autism; from the other, warnings that there is a relationship and parents should think twice about giving shots to their children.

Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones, has repeatedly said that vaccines have a long history of being safe and effective.

Weighing in on the autism debate, he noted that vaccines are given to children at around the same age as when neurological disorders can surface.

"You can have a close time frame," he said.

"Just because something's associated in time does not mean it's causal."

Butler-Jones said he recognizes that parents are searching for answers about autism's cause, but added claims that vaccines are the culprit have not been proven.

"The studies have been pretty clear and consistent that vaccination is not the cause of many of the things that have been claimed around the vaccine,"he said.

The benefits of immunization far outweigh the risks, said Butler-Jones, but he understands people need to think carefully about it.

"It's important that they get the facts -- not the theory, not the conjecture, not the claims -- but the actual facts about what we know about the vaccine and the disease and I think . . . virtually everybody would choose the vaccine," he said.

The theory that childhood vaccines are behind an upsurge of autism cases emerged in the 1990s and in recent years has gained high-profile advocates such as Hollywood star Jenny McCarthy, whose son was diagnosed with autism.

McCarthy is among those who believe children receive too many vaccines, too close together, and that a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal used in some vaccines is harmful. She is passionate about her cause, but she has her critics who are equally fervent on the pro-vaccination side of the debate.

- - -

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

We want to hear from you. Send your comments on this story to

letters@nanaimodailynews.com. Letters must include your first and last names, your hometown and a daytime phone number.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

autism

Read more »

Swine Flu Vaccine and Autism: Some Disturbing Reporting by Megan Fitzpatrick

UPDATE The original full unedited version of the article is now online again and the 2 cropped versions removed

UPDATE: Shortly after I posted the following blog the article I checked on line and found that the original report from yesterday had been reposted by Megan Fitzpatrick and CANWEST.

The article was modified to omit my comments and those of Dr. Derrick McFabe. The result was to recast the debate as one beween parents and the health care community. For that reason I modified my blog comment title from "refreshingly balanced reporting" to "disturbing reporting". See my next post on this subject for more.

Harold Doherty

I was pleased to see the balanced reporting by Megan Fitzpatrick of CANWEST NEWS SERVICE in her report on the H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine and a possible autism connection in Flu vaccine rekindles debate over connection to autism. I was interviewed for that article and Ms Fitzpatrick placed me accurately, and fairly, as being in the middle on vaccine autism issues. I no longer accept without questioning the official opinion that vaccines play no role in causing or triggering autism, and I do not believe that parents' observations of their child's development should be dismissed. I believe that more research needs to be done, a belief inspired by several prominent professionals including Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Jon Poling and Dr. Julie Gerberding.

The article reported comments from Dr David Butler-Jones, Canada's chief public health officer, whose voice has been everywhere during this alleged swine flu pandemic. The public positions of Jenny McCarthy are reviewed along with some comments from autism researcher Dr. Derrick McFabe of the University of Western Ontario who stated that parents who believe that their children's autism resulted from vaccinations must be heard.

There have been a string of one sided media reports since the New York Times public relations style interview with Dr Paul Offit. It appears that many journalists have abandoned any pretense of old fashioned objectivity and have chosen to enlist fully in Offit's Army. They repeat ad nauseum his simplistic assertions that the research is "done" and that "science" has conclusively determined that there is no vaccine autism connection. In reading Ms. Fitzpatrick's article it was refreshing to see an honest attempt to convey all sides of the issues from multiple sources.

One omission from my interview that I wish Ms Fitzpatrick had included in her article is that I informed her that my belief that an observational study comparing autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should be done is not my original idea. My belief is based on the statements of Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Dr. Jon Poling and other respected professionals who do see a need to conduct further research on possible vaccine autism issues .... and other possible environmental factors causing or triggering autism disorders. Media narratives invariably portray the vaccine debate as one pitting parents against doctors and professionals without mentioning that some credible health care professionals are of the view that the science is not "done" or concluded on these issues, that more research needs to be conducted.

What might be original in my comments is the notion that we may in fact be undergoing an unintended experiment on some vaccine autism issues with the public health authorities response to the current alleged swine flu pandemic. Not everyone agrees that we are in fact facing such a pandemic. Not everyone will be taking the swine flu vaccine. Those who are targeted - pregnant women and young children, will in some cases be receiving shots which include thimerosal and an adjuvant known as squalene which caused serious harm to Gulf War soldiers. If the young children receiving the shots, and the new born children of women who received the shot while pregnant have significantly higher autism rates than those who do not receive the shots will Offit, health authorities, and most of the mainstream media just ignore that information? Will they continue to decree in very unscientific like manner that the science is closed on these issues?

We will only know the answers if the data is recorded and made known. At this time we do not know if that will be done. We do not know if public health authorities will begin to take autism spectrum disorders, and the parents of children with autism, seriously.

We can only hope.

autism

Read more »

Autism Prevalence - Why Wasn't the Research Done?

My son Conor was born in 1996 and received an autism diagnosis in 1998. Since 1996 the estimated prevalence of autism has increased dramatically from 1 in 500 to 1 in 150. A recent study suggests the figure may now be 1 in 100. The UK estimate is currently 1 in 100 with a recent study suggesting a figure of 1 in 58. In the 13 years from 1996 to 2009 though despite this incredible increase in numbers of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders there are many who deny the increase is real.

From 1996 to 2009 those who deny the existence of a real increase in autism have used the same speculation to deny the existence of a real increase in autism. They often conclude their denial of a real autism increase with the refrain that more research needs to be done. So why wasn't the research done?

Have public health authorities and researchers not been taking autism disorders seriously? Do they not understand the realities facing children born with autism spectrum disorders, and their families? It is just academic curiosity or the availability of research grants that motivate the necessary research?

1996 BMJ Editorial

Thus there is no firm evidence for or against a general rise in the prevalence of "typical autism" or other autistic spectrum disorders. The impression that there is a rise could be due to a change in referral patterns, widening of diagnostic criteria for typical autism (which are difficult to apply with precision anyway), and increased awareness of the varied manifestations of disorders in the autistic spectrum (especially those associated with higher IQ). On the other hand, there might be real changes in prevalence, locally or nationally, due to temporary or permanent factors. Some recent research on typical autism suggests that complex genetic factors may have a major role in its aetiology.9However, in a minority of cases, mostly comprising people who are severely disabled, other physical causes may be implicated.3 4 It is possible that there are interactions between genetic susceptibility and other physical factors. There is also some evidence that mothers of children with typical autism are of higher than average maternal age.10 If this is a real association, changes towards later childbirth11 might affect the prevalence of typical autism and possibly other autistic spectrum disorders.2003 BMJ Article

2003 BMJ Article

The prevalence of autism, which was apparently rising from 1979 to 1992, reached a plateau from 1992 to 1996 at a rate of some 2.6 per 1000 live births. This levelling off, together with the reducing age at diagnosis, suggests that the earlier recorded rise in prevalence was not a real increase but was likely due to factors such as increased recognition, a greater willingness on the part of educationalists and families to accept the diagnostic label, and better recording systems. The proportion of parents attributing their child’s autism to MMR appears to have increased since August 1997.

2007 BMJ Article

Despite three recent studies showing that the number of diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders has almost doubled in the last seven years to around 1% of children, researchers say that it is still impossible to say whether the rise is due to a genuine increase in the number of new cases or to other factors.

2009 BMJ Group Information Published in the Guardian

How Common is Autism? Doctors once thought autism was rare. But newer studies show it seems to be getting more common. It's hard to say why. This may be just because the newer studies have been better at finding children with autism. Or it may be because the way doctors define autism has got wider. We need more research before we can say for sure what's causing the increase in autism.

2009 University of California Davis Study

The 2009 University of California Davis study The Rise in Autism and the Role of Age at Diagnosis is one of the first major studies to suggest that the rise in autism diagnoses may reflect a real increase in autism diagnoses. The authors of that study, Irva Hertz-Picciottoa and Lora Delwiche, also indicate that more research needs to be done:

"In summary, the incidence of autism rose 7- to 8-fold in California from the early 1990s through the present. Quantitative analysis of the changes in diagnostic criteria, the inclusion of milder cases, and an earlier age at diagnosis during this period suggests that these factors probably contribute2.2-, 1.56-, and 1.24-fold increases in autism, respectively,and hence cannot fully explain the magnitude of the rise in autism. Differential migration also likely played a minor role, if any. Wider awareness, greater motivation of parents to seek services as a result of expanding treatment options, and increased funding may each have contributed,but documentation or quantification of these effects is lacking. With no evidence of a leveling off, the possibility of a true increase in incidence deserves serious consideration. One approach to this question would be a rigorous investigation to determine incidence or prevalence in 20- to 30-year olds. If there has been no true increase and no individuals who were cured or outgrew their diagnosis, then the application to adults of criteria equivalent to those being used today in children should find, for each previously identified autism case, 4 to 8 undiagnosed cases. Whatever the final determination with regard to overlooked cases of autism in the past,the current occurrence of autism, a seriously disabling disorder in young children, at rates of greater than 30 per 10,000individuals — and still rising in California—is a major public health and educational concern.

In 1999 Teresa Binstock, a Researcher in Developmental and Behavioral Neuroanatomy, pointed out that funding was generally available for genetic based autism research but not for autism research focused on environmental factors. Ms Binstock described the "it's gotta be genetic" paradigm in autism research in her article IGNAZ SEMMELWEISS and AUTISM: when prevailing paradigms resist change. In that article Ms Binstock recounted the historical example of Ignaz Semmelweiss who was vilified by the medical establishment of the day for his observations about hand washing, childbirth and puerperal fever which challenged the medical orthodoxy of the day. His observations could have saved many more lives if they had been accepted by the medical establishment instead he was vilified and ostracized.

In her 1999 article Ms Binstock compared the medical establishment's response to Semmelweiss to the modern medical establishment's response to autism:

"In other words, there was a very real cost -- prolonged human suffering, even numerous deaths -- because despite the data collected and shared by Dr. Semmelweiss, medical-research officials of his day were defiantly resistant to change. Similarly, keeping Dr. Semmelweiss's fate in mind, we wonder in regard to autism, how many years will new data be ignored? In how many U.S. medical school research facilities will promising research be steered away from or squelched? What will be required to cause the NIH and NIMH to quit acting like the officials who suppressed Semmelweiss and instead to begin acting like sincere scientists who appreciate new data, even as paradigms must adapt or be replaced.

My own hunch is that the NIH and NIMH will not change from within; the senior practitioners of the "it's gotta be genetic" model have too much influence. Just as Semmelweiss and his data were suppressed, so too will the NIH/NIMH autism-research insiders continue to act against the the growing body of new data in autism; the NIH's pro-genetic old-timers will cling to their paradigm and its funding. As a result, change within the NIH and NIMH will have to be initiated from outside those tax-supported corporations.

As a goal for 1999 and beyond, I offer that parents and their organizations and foundations increase the pressure brought to bear upon the NIH and the NIMH in regard to how autism-research funds are allocated. The "it's gotta be genetic" model is no longer the only paradigm worthy of funding; and not to fund other models and other data in autism is no longer scientifically valid. The NIH and the NIHM are re- enacting the Ignaz Semmelweiss scenario wherein new data are ignored on behalf of an old-guard and its outmoded paradigm; autism children and their parents deserve far more. The paradigm-shift in autism must occur more rapidly, even within the NIH."

The most likely explanation for the failure to conduct autism prevalence research to confirm whether the dramatic increases in autism is real is probably the one offered by Teresa Binstock. The medical establishment is loath to accept change, to consider alternatives which challenge the status quo. An establishment belief that autism disorders are 100% genetic in origin will not result in research to determine whether an increases in autism reflects a real increase or not. The established belief is that autism is genetic and therefore any increase cannot be real since genetics do not change that dramatically that quickly.

The failure to fund environmental research is still occurring with genetic autism research receiving at least 10 times as much funding as environmental research. This imbalance permits medical authorities to continue claiming that it is not clear whether there really are more autistic children today then 20 years ago. But much more than confirmation of a real autism increase has been lost. Greater understanding of autism causes, treatments and even possible cures might have been lost.

The IACC has begun reluctantly to acknowledge that autism disorders probably involve an interaction of environmental and genetic factors but the performance of Dr. Thomas Insel discussing autism and possible vaccine connections before Senator Harkin's Senate committee was not encouraging. Dr. Insel clearly has a closed mind on these issues. He even stated that studies of unvaccinated populations and vaccinated groups could not be done for ethical reasons even though respected health figures like Dr. Bernadine Healy and Dr. Julie Gerberding have said they could be done using observational comparative studies of existing unvaccinated and vaccinated populations.

Valuable time has been lost by the failure to conduct environmentally focused autism research.

It is long past time to get serious about autism disorders, to focus on finding all causes of autism disorders, genetic and environmental, and to find treatments and cures.

autism

Read more »

The Great Autism and Swine Flu Vaccine Experiment

The vaccine causes autism debate will now be front and center for years to come as US Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius confirms that the Swine Flu (H1N1) Vaccine will be laced with the mercury based preservative thimerosol.

In an interview with Katie Couric Secretary Sebelius says thimerosol is safe and parents need not worry:

"study after study, scientist after scientist, has determined that there really is no safety risk with thimerosol. There is concern about parents of why autism rates are rising. And, as you know, we've got some special NIH studies, thanks to the president, focused on just what is going on.

But thimerosol has been proven to be safe. It's used in seasonal vaccine-- seasonal flu vaccine. And, again, we want to assure people that that-- the scientists, again, have confirmed-- that there is really a safe factor with using thimerosol. It's an effective preservative and one that we think actually adds to the likelihood that we'll have a safe vaccine for a while to come.

....

based on the science. And the science, again, continues to indicate that the ingredients we're anticipating using in this vaccine are safe to use."

The article Web Exclusive: Sebelius on Vaccine Fears does not indicate what studies Secretary Sebelius relies upon to assert that the science shows that thimerosoal is safe and does not cause autism. Given that pregnant women will be targeted it appears that the swine flu vaccine program will essentially be an experiment which could result, or not, in a new wave of autism diagnoses in the children of women receiving the swine flu vaccine. I hope that Secretary Sebelius is right in the result but I believe she has overstated the "science" supporting the safety of thimerosol and the alleged lack of any link to autism disorders.

Hopefully accurate records will be kept. In a feature last year, also on CBS, Dr. Bernadine Healy expressed concerns about vaccines and indicated that research of a vaccine autism connection had been expressly discouraged by health authorities. CBS also reported that:

"CBS News has learned the government has paid more than 1,300 brain injury claims in vaccine court since 1988, but is not studying those cases or tracking how many of them resulted in autism.

The branch of the government that handles vaccine court told CBS News: “Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries…may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this basis.”"

There you go. First authorities do not research or track possible vaccine related autism cases. Then they claim the science does not support a vaccine autism link. And vaccine programs like the impending Swine Flu program are reported on the basis of "science" to be safe with no autism connection.

See no autism, hear no autism, speak no autism.

autism

Read more »

Vaccine-Autism War: Will Beating Up Jenny and Oprah End the War?

From Newsweek to Discover online to the self appointed protectors of science who contend that any questioning of the safety of injecting substances containing mercury, aluminum and biological agents directly into the blood of young children on dozens of occasions constitutes "woo" the Offit Offensive has rolled out with a vengeance lashing out at Jenny McCarthy and Oprah Winfrey for the attention they bring to parents' concerns about vaccine safety. Will these vicious personal attacks convince those parents who have seen their children regress into autism after vaccination? I doubt it. I doubt it very much.

If the self styled anti-woo brigade really wants to persuade parents that their concerns about multiple injections of potentially toxic chemicals and biological agents into their children's bloodstream is risk free they should change course. Stop repeating the same failed tactics over and over and over again. Do the comparison study of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations that credible health authorities like Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Dr. Duane Alexander and neurologist, university professor, "autism dad" and successful vaccine autism litigant, Dr. Jon Poling have all said could and should be done.

Dr. Paul Offit and others should stop the silly name calling. You will change no minds with such foolishness. Stop playing in the "woo" and do the credible studies to change minds. If you want to stem the tide of concern over vaccine safety do the research that will convince people of vaccine safety .... or start accepting your own responsibility for continued public suspicion over the safety of vaccines.

autism

Read more »