Does Vaccine Patent Holder Paul Offit Even Know What Autism Is?

Does vaccine patent holder Dr. Paul Offit even know what autism is?

Dr. Offit has been on a never ending crusade against parents of autistic children concerned about vaccine impacts on children, and professionals who share their concerns. The extent of his autism expertise has never been entirely clear though. Dr. Jon Poling questioned Dr. Offit's autism expertise in his Atlanta Journal Constitution guest editorial, Blinders won't reduce Autism, March 13, 2009. Wikipedia has a glowing summary of the heroic vaccine patent holder's career as a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases, an internationally known expert on vaccines, immunology, and virology. The article makes no mention of any autism expertise or actual involvement by Dr Offit with autism disorders.

Unlike Dr. Offit I am not an internationally known expert on vaccines or any other medical topic. I have never visited a hospital and seen the effects of polio on children as Dr Offit has. I am just the humble father of a severely autistic 13 year old boy who has first hand knowledge of the realities of severe autism and the impact it can have on a child's life and prospects. I have been actively involved with local autism organizations and issues. And I have visited mental health facilities and witnessed first hand the realities of life for severely autistic persons living their adult lives in institutional care.

I was surprised to read in At risk: vaccines How a legal case could cripple one of modern medicine's greatest achievements, a 2007 Boston Globe guest editorial by vaccine patent holder Paul Offit, the following comment:

"although large quantities of mercury are clearly toxic to the brain, autism isn't a consequence of mercury poisoning; large, single-source mercury exposures in Minamata Bay and Iraq have caused seizures, mental retardation, and speech delay, but not autism"

Dr. Offit does not indicate what levels of mercury are NOT toxic to the brain but the startling aspect of Dr. Offit's comment is that he recognizes that mercury can cause seizures, mental retardation and speech delay but then declares that mercury can NOT cause autism?

Although not part of the express definition of autism both seizures and mental retardation
(cognitive deficits, intellectual deficits or whatever the euphemism treadmill is churning out these days to describe mental retardation), are often associated with Autistic Disorder.

Speech delay is in fact one of the definitional criteria for Autistic Disorder in the DSM:

qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:

1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level

As the parent of a 13 year old with Autistic Disorder, a child who is severely autistic, I would assume that a child with mental retardation, seizures and speech delay is probably autistic and would seek a professional diagnosis. I find it startling that Dr. Offit would mention these conditions as resulting from mercury exposure and not see any possible autism connection. He was either being disingenuous in not recognizing that these factors strongly suggest autism or he just does not know what autism is.

autism

Read more »

Vaccine-Autism War: CBC Dirties Itself, Advocates Censorship of Vaccine and Autism Discussions

There was a day when I looked to the CBC as the shining example of what modern journalism should entail. That day is gone, long gone. Now the CBC has dirtied itself with an incompetent, one sided presentation of the vaccine autism debate and an express call for censorship of public health debates, specifically the vaccine-autism debate.

Autism, the raison d' être for this blog site, was once covered very well by the CBC as witnessed by David Suzuki's outstanding 1996 Nature of Things feature on autism, The Child Who Couldn't Play:

1996

The Child Who Couldn't Play (Autism) - a program that closely investigated autism and explored some avenues for treatment for young children with this condition. The program generated a substantial amount of interest from viewers - especially from parents of autistic children, eager for more information and relieved that the subject of autism was entering the public forum.

Now it offers repeated promotion of the "autism is beautiful ideology" in appearances by Dr. Laurent Mottron and Michelle Dawson and other persons with very high functioning autism and Aspergers on Quirks and Quarks and Positively Autistic. I have yet to see a recent CBC feature on the severely autistic children like my son, or those who injure themselves or reside in institutional care.

The CBC has sunk to an all time journalism low though with its express , and one sided advocacy, of censorship of the vaccine autism debates in Linking vaccines, autism tantamount to crying 'fire' where there isn't one, an article written by Stephen Strauss, whose"bio" somewhat oddly claims that "he still remains smitten by the enduring wisdom of the motto of Austrian writer Karl Kraus. Say what is." In "linking vaccines" Mr Strauss most definitely did NOT "say what is". Quite the contrary:

"In the interest of public health, and medical truth, and the emotional well-being of autism sufferers everywhere, the legal system should declare that promoting the vaccine/autism hypothesis is the modern equivalent of falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theatre."

Mr. Strauss argues that alleging a vaccine autism link is analogous to yelling fire in a crowded theater, an image often used to demonstrate one of the limits to free speech, uttering knowingly false statements which are reasonably foreseeable to result in harm to others. Mr. Strauss's example is misguided. The vaccine autism debate does not involve knowingly false statements. Far from it the issues involved are more complex and very much debatable.

Some very credible scientists and health authorities have indicated that the question of vaccines as possible causes or contributors to autism is an open question. Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former NIH and American Red Cross head, has twice stated that the question remains open, that the epidemiological studies relied on in support of vaccine safety are not particular enough to determine the impact of vaccines on more vulnerable population subsets. She has called for more studies to be done.

Dr. Julie Gerberding recent CDC director has also stated in connection with the vaccine autism debate that more studies COULD and SHOULD be done on the issue. A person of such high authority and credibility does not call for more studies to be done just for the hell of it. Dr. Gerberding has, amongst other things, pointed out that studies should look at autism rates in unvaccinated populations.

Perhaps Mr Strauss and the CBC are also unaware of the information found by CBS which, unlike the CBC and Mr. Strauss, actually examined some of the evidence on the "other" side of the vaccine debate and included in its reporting an interview with Dr. Healy in which she stated clearly her views that the vaccine autism connection is still an open question. CBS has also investigated and found more than a 1000 cases that have been settled before going to a decision. When cases are settled in favor of the plaintiff they accomplish the defendant government's goal of limiting their availability for use as legal precedents - or in public discussion of the issues involved.

As recently as last month an award was made to a child, Baily Banks, based on a 2007 vaccine court decision in which the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's claim that the MMR vaccine caused brain injury resulting in autism in the plaintiff child. If Mr Strauss, or his "research assistants", if he has any, happen across this humble blog, the link to the Banks decision can be found at 2007 Banks v HHS.

The CBC and Mr. Strauss might also consider reading The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research - January 26, 2009. In that document the IACC states, somewhat curiously if the issue of a vaccine autism connection has in fact been conclusively decided, that:

To address public concerns regarding a possible vaccine/ASD link, it will be important over the next year for the IACC to engage the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) in mutually informative dialogues. The NVAC is a Federal advisory committee chartered to advise and make recommendations regarding the National Vaccine Program. Communication between the IACC and NVAC will permit each group to be informed by the expertise of the other, enhance coordination and foster more effective use of research resources on topics of mutual interest. Examples of such topics include: studies of the possible role of vaccines, vaccine components, and multiple vaccine administration in ASD causation and severity through a variety of approaches; and assessing the feasibility and design of an epidemiological study to determine whether health outcomes, including ASD, differ among populations with vaccinated, unvaccinated, and alternatively vaccinated groups.

One further suggestion to inform the next rant by Mr Strauss or the CBC on possible vaccine autism connections. They should review the public information available on the Poling case ,one of the settlements which found that vaccines aggravated a girl's mitochondrial disorder resulting in "autism like symptoms", one of the weasel expressions used in place of "autism" in settlements. In addition Mr. Strauss should read the editorial by Dr. Jon Poling, the child's father, in yesterday's Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Fortunately, the ‘better diagnosis’ myth has been soundly debunked. In the 2009 issue of Epidemiology, two authors analyzed 1990 through 2006 California Department of Developmental Services and U.S. Census data documenting an astronomical 700 to 800 percent rise in the disorder.

These scientists concluded that only a smaller percentage of this staggering rise can be explained by means other than a true increase.

Because purely genetic diseases do not rise precipitously, the corollary to a true autism increase is clear — genes only load the gun and it is the environment that pulls the trigger. Autism is best redefined as an environmental disease with genetic susceptibilities.

We should be investing our research dollars into discovering environmental factors that we can change, not more poorly targeted genetic studies that offer no hope of early intervention. Pesticides, mercury, aluminum, several drugs, dietary factors, infectious agents and yes — vaccines — are all in the research agenda.

Before Mr. Strauss and CBC dismiss Dr. Poling contemptuously as another hysterical, misguided parent, they should be informed that he is also a neurologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Georgia. And the CBC's omniscient smearers of concerned parents should also remember that the government backed down in the case of Dr. Poling's daughter and settled.

In the interest of public health, and medical truth, and the emotional well-being of parents fighting to help their autistic children, and in the further interest of their own journalistic credibility, the CBC should withdraw the call for censorship made on its site and cease publishing such incendiary columns by ill informed, lightweight dilettantes like Mr Stephen Strauss.

autism

Read more »

The Lights Are Dim On Autism Street Today

Yep, Hannah Poling’s case was conceded, but contrary to popular internet re-interpretations which claim a court “decision” about autism causation, the case was apparently never actually heard by the court - and no court ruling about whether or not Hannah’s autistic features were caused by vaccination was ever made.

D'oC, Autism Street, March 13, 2009, http://www.autismstreet.org/weblog/?p=325

D'oC must have been in a rush to attack today's editorial by Dr. Jon Poling. In the above statement D'oC actually feels compelled to announce to the world that no court ruling was ever made about whether or not Hannah's autistic "features", code for Hannah's autism, were caused by vaccination.

DUH.

The case was conceded D'oC, of course there was no court ruling.

That is what the government has done in vaccine court when a knowledgeable, well prepared litigant appears. It concedes BEFORE a court can rule and set a precedent against vaccines.

Maybe D'oC didn't have his morning java before scurrying to attack Dr. Poling's editorial.

ROFLMAO

autism

Read more »

An Open Letter to the Globe and Mail: The Vaccine Autism Debate Is Far From Over, The Research Is Not Complete

The following email was sent earlier today to Andre Picard of the Globe and Mail:

I am the father of a 13 year old boy diagnosed with Autistic Disorder assessed with profound developmental delays. I have never attributed his autistic disorder to vaccines or vaccine ingredients although I currently have an open mind on the subject. I was very disappointed with your opinion piece declaring that the vaccine autism debate should end now and that the science is clear. I submitted a comment on that piece listing some of the many pieces of information and evidence that you simply ignored in articulating your opinion. That comment was not accepted for publication by your moderators.

As a "neutral" in the vaccine autism war I would like to see the proper research done to resolve the issues that are very much alive in respect of these issues. Several prominent health authorities have now declared that the epidemiological studies to which you referred and which are used to support claims that vaccines do not cause autism are not in fact specific enough to explore the possible impact of vaccines in causing autism in vulnerable population subsets. These authorities include former NIH and American Red Cross head Dr. Bernadine Healy, recent CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding and Dr. Duane Alexander, Director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), an NIH agency. As of February 24, 2009, as reported at the Huffington Post Dr. Alexander has acknowledged in connection with autism spectrum disorders and vaccines that:

"scientists must investigate susceptible subpopulations of children, including kids with mitochondrial disorders and those who have trouble metabolizing mercury."

Dr. Alexander himself stated in the interview with Autism Speaks' Chief Science Officer, Geraldine Dawson, Ph.D:

"One question (is) whether there is a subgroup in the population that, on a genetic basis, is more susceptible to some vaccine characteristic or component than most of the population, and may develop an ASD in response to something about vaccination. We know that genetic variations exist that cause adverse reactions to specific foods, medications, or anesthetic agents. It is legitimate to ask whether a similar situation may exist for vaccines,"


As you probably know a decision of the US Vaccine Court was released since your opinion was expressed decreeing an end to vaccine autism debates. In Banks v HHS the Special Master accepted the plaintiff's claim that as a result of the MMR vaccination received on 14 March 2000, his child suffered a seizure and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”) which led to Pervasive Developmental Delay (one of the autism spectrum disorders), a condition from which he continues to suffer. I am sure you are aware of the Poling case in which the government acknowledged that vaccine caused the child's 'autism like symptoms". Autism as you may know is defined entirely by symptoms. CBS has reported that more than 1320 vaccine cases alleging brain injury, some including autism disorders, have resulted in government settlements.

I ask that the Globe and Mail, and you personally, exercise some journalistic balance, and inform the Canadian public, that the Vaccine Autism debate is, contrary to your previous opinion, far from over. Nor does the science make clear your claim that there is no vaccine autism connection. Three senior members of the American public health authority establishment have lent there voices to those of thousands of parents and many health care professionals who want to see the necessary research done to explore these issues.

Research, not the opinion of Andre Picard or the Globe and Mail, will provide the information that will help children, whatever the results of the research.

Respectfully,


Harold L Doherty
Fredericton New Brunswick

cc Facing Autism in New Brunswick

NOTE: As subsequently pointed out by jypsy, the Banks decision itself was made public some time ago and commented on by some involved in autism discussions. The compensation awarded to the injured child was announced last week for that decision.

autism

Read more »

Vaccine-Autism War: Where In The World Is Dr. Paul Offit?

When the Vaccine Court Special Masters ruled against parents claiming their children's autism disorders were vaccine induced Dr. Paul Offit was the go to guy, once again, for the vaccine industry/public health establishment. The vaccine patent holder was ready with an enthusiastic endorsement of the Vaccine Court's autism triology:

"It's a great day for science, it's a great day for America's children when the court rules in favor of science."

Now another Vaccine Court decision has been made public and .... ooooops ... the Special Master in the case of 2007 Banks v. HHS has ruled in favor of the Plaintiff who claimed that as a result of the MMR vaccination received on 14 March 2000, his child suffered a seizure and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”) which led to Pervasive Developmental Delay (one of the autism spectrum disorders), a condition from which he continues to suffer. The decision is available in pdf and is discussed in some detail by David Kirby and Robert Kennedy at the Huffington Post.

Will Dr. Paul Offit appear before the cameras and reporters to once again declare a victory for science or will his love for the Vaccine Court wane with a victory for an injured child over the government and the vaccine industry? And how about Andre Picard of the Globe and Mail who removed his journalist's hat and decreed that the debate about vaccines and autism should end? Should the all knowing Andre Picard lose his god like status and be ordered to rejoin the ranks of ordinary citizens who exercise their freedom of expression to discuss public health issues? Or are some Vaccine Court decisions better than others?

autism

Read more »

Vaccine-Autism War: Unrelenting Offit Opinion Offensive

One point is crystal clear in the vaccine-autism war. Dr. Paul Offit has media access and he isn't afraid to use it.

Dr. Offit's "Autism's False Prophets" book was given free press in an article by Donald G. McNeil Jr. in the New York Times on January 13, 2009 - just prior to the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee's clandestine decision to reverse itself and withdraw approval of funding of research that might have shown the existence of the vaccine-autism connection. Now, on the heals of the Vaccine Court's Autism Triology Dr. Offit is at it again with his Autism's False Prophets book and his heroic struggle to save children around the world from desperate anti-vax parents promoted in a prominent feature by Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor, Reuters UK. Dr. Paul Offit's brown plaid shirt from the NYT interview is replaced with a comfortable blue sweater in the Reuters feature. Parents concerned about possible negative health impacts of vaccines are once again portrayed as desperate and irrational.

Deaths of some children are blamed on such parents by Dr. Paul Offit in this article.

There is no mention of the fact that "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".

There is no mention of the fact that "the medical literature is replete with reports of neurological reactions to vaccines, such as mood changes, seizures, brain inflammation, and swelling."

There is no mention of the fact that all the studies relied upon by Dr. Offit are epidemiological studies. There is no mention of the fact that Dr. Bernadine Healy, former NIH head has twice within the past year pointed out the limitations of epidemiological studies in exploring the possible impact of vaccines on susceptible population subsets of children.

There is no mention of the fact that expecting women have received vaccines containing thimerosal, a mercury based preservative which crosses the placenta.

There is no mention of the fact that some vaccines still contain "trace" amounts of thimerosal (FDA Website: "Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine").


No mention is made of an admission by Dr. Julie Gerberding, then CDC director, in an interview with Dr. Gupta, speaking of vaccination that "if you're predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism."

The latest Offit Offensive in the vaccine-autism war does not mention as stated by Sharyll Atkisson that" the government has a dataset of unvaccinated children available. It has published more than one survey of parents of undervaccinated and unvaccinated children (to find out why the parents are choosing not to vaccinate). It would seem simple to use those same families to measure their rate of autism/ADD")

Dr. Offit does not mention in this latest opinion piece that public health authorities have for many years actively and expressly discouraged research that might prove a vaccine-autism connection and he does not mention that his latest media offensive is timed in conjunction with the IACC decision to cancel its previous approval of funding for such research and the release of the Vaccine Court Autism decisions.

Comfortable plaid shirts and blue sweaters or not, I just can't trust a public health spokesperson who does not tell all sides of the story, who demeans parents raising legitimate concerns about their children's health and safety, who ignores credible criticisms and concerns about vaccine safety by doctors and scientists, and who hides the fact that public health authorities have actively discouraged and suppressed the research that could provide more objective answers. And of course the same spokesperson is tied by patent and profit to the promotion of vaccines.

The world will continue to hear Dr. Paul Offit promoting vaccines. We will hear him over and over and over again. Those who are already convinced will remain convinced. Those who doubt vaccine safety, or have an open mind on the subject, will remain unpersuaded by such an unrelenting but clumsy public relations offensive. It is time for the relevant authorities to do the necessary research of possible vaccine-autism connections. The research will hopefully address the concerns of parents and professionals. Dr. Offit's unrelenting, and at times offensive, opinion campaign will not.

autism

Read more »

Vaccine-Autism Research and the Vaccine Court Autism Decisions: The Circle is Complete

After the trilogy of Vaccine Court decisions the fact remains that the necessary research into a possible vaccine-autism connection still has not been done.

Vaccine-autism research has been actively discouraged by public health authorities. While they consistently discouraged the research that might have provided evidence of a vaccine-autism connection public health authorities have also pointed to lack of evidence to support its decisions to refrain from conducting the necessary research. The circular reasoning of the NIH, the IOM and the IACC is now reflected in the decisions of the Vaccine Court which complete the circle by pointing out that there is no evidence of a vaccine-autism connection.

Despite all the resulting headline hyperbole, and despite the setback for the families involved, the US Vaccine Court decisions did not disprove a vaccine-autism link. The Masters reviewed existing science and concluded there was no evidence of a vaccine-autism link. As I understand, in all three cases the Masters accepted official understanding of that science and nothing more was done than that. This remark is not intended in any way as a slight on these decisions. Given current research on the vaccine issues it is difficult to imagine they could have reached any other conclusions.

The problem is that public health authorities have never funded the research which might substantiate claims that vaccines cause autism in some cases. To the contrary any such research has been expressly and actively discouraged by those same authorities as:

(1) was reported by researcher Teresa Binstock in 1999:

By clinging to an oversimplified and outmoded model of autism (ie, it's gotta
be genetic), the stubborn persistence of several research administrators in the NIH
and NIMH means that funding for autism and autism-spectrum syndromes remains
funneled into the hands of a small group of researchers who pledge (via NIH-grant
contracts) to conduct their research in accord with the model wherein "it's gotta
be genetic" (1). This funding pattern imposes a serious limitation on research that
ought be occurring, given the growing amount of new data which indicate that *more than* genetic-aspects need be considered.

The relationship between (a) the offically approved though outmoded paradigm
and (b) subsequent funding patterns is worth re-stating: The persistence of the NIH
and the NIMH in focusing almost entirely upon a genetic-theory of autism
means that a goodly amount of data continues to be ignored, shunted from view, and unfunded -- even as the primary genetics-model researchers are blessed with abundant funding despite decades of non-success (1).

...

Let us consider two parallels between how Semmelweiss was treated and how the NIH and NIMH react to new data in autism-spectrum syndromes:

1: Initially and for many years, new data are strongly ignored; then, they are
resisted; and finally, if a person espouses those data and is persistent in seeking
to explore their ramifications, then he or she becomes shunned and excluded. That
these reactions occur leads to a second ramification significant to autism research
in the 1990s and beyond.

2: Despite the new data and its acceptance by many individuals, the data and
*ramifications* of that data tend to remain ignored by highly placed medical
bureaucrats. As a result, medical practices that ought change because of the new
data's significance do not change; and people entrenched within the old
paradigm (now made outmoded by the new data) do their best to enforce
the old paradigm -- and do so despite the fact that the new data suggest better
methods of treatment, diagnostics, or research.

(2) was candidly acknowledged and further research again discouraged by the IOM in 2004:

BOX 2
Committee Conclusions and Recommendations

SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT

Causality Conclusions

The committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.

The committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism.

Biological Mechanisms Conclusions

In the absence of experimental or human evidence that vaccination (either the MMR vaccine or the preservative thimerosal) affects metabolic, developmental, immune, or other physiological or molecular mechanisms that are causally related to the development of autism, the committee concludes that the hypotheses generated to date are theoretical only.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT

The committee concludes that because autism can be such a devastating disease, any speculation that links vaccines and autism means that this is a significant issue.

PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee recommends a public health response that fully supports an array of vaccine safety activities. In addition the committee recommends that available funding for autism research be channeled to the most promising areas.

Policy Review

At this time, the committee does not recommend a policy review of the licensure of MMR vaccine or of the current schedule and recommendations for the administration of the MMR vaccine.

At this time, the committee does not recommend a policy review of the current schedule and recommendations for the administration of routine childhood vaccines based on hypotheses regarding thimerosal and autism.

Given the lack of direct evidence for a biological mechanism and the fact that all well-designed epidemiological studies provide evidence of no association between thimerosal and autism, the committee recommends that cost-benefit assessments regarding the use of thimerosal-containing versus thimerosal-free vaccines and other biological or pharmaceutical products, whether in the United States or other countries, should not include autism as a potential risk.

(3) was reported by former NIH head Dr. Bernadine Healy in 2008:

(a) US News and World Report, April 10, 2008

There is no evidence that removal of thimerosal from vaccines has lowered autism rates. But autism numbers are not precise, so I would say that considerably more research is still needed on some provocative findings. After all, 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.

The debate roils on—even about research. The Institute of Medicine in its last report on vaccines and autism in 2004 said that more research on the vaccine question is counterproductive: Finding a susceptibility to this risk in some infants would call into question the universal vaccination strategy that is a bedrock of immunization programs and could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines. The IOM concluded that efforts to find a link between vaccines and autism "must be balanced against the broader benefit of the current vaccine program for all children."

(b) CBS News, May 12, 2008:

"I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational ... 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."

(4) was exhibited by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee shenanigans in 2009

when the IACC reversed a previous decision to authorize funding of the very research that might prove a vaccine-autism connection.

The Vaccine Court Autism Trilogy decisions are based on incomplete research. The deficient state of vaccine autism research was carefully, persistently and actively mainstained by public health authorities. As part of this process parental observations of their children's reactions to vaccine injections are dismissed with a blanket statement that they are coincidences. Parents who go further and publicly advocate for safer vaccines are villified and have their sanity questioned. Professionals who do the same are denounced as frauds by journalists writing in prominent publications. "Celebrity" parents like Jenny McCarthy are subject to unconscionable and even blatantly sexist abuse.

The circular reasoning of the public health authorities "there is no biological or experimental evidence that vaccines cause autism, so there is no point in doing biological or experimental research to determine whether vaccines cause autism" appeals to the converted but not to those who trust their own parental observations and can not blithely dismiss the reactions they saw in their children.

If the IOM, NIH and the IACC really, really wanted to reach out past the pews of the converted to the unwashed, ignorant masses who do not worship at their alters, they would fund the necessary research to address the legitimate concerns of parents. If these health authorities choose not to do so THEY will continue to imperil, as THEY have done for so many years, the very vaccine programs they pretend to protect.

autism

Read more »

Autism-Vaccine Connection? The Question Is Not Settled, All The Studies Have Not Been Done

In New MMR and autism study: no correlation my friend Kev, at Left Brain/Right Brain, has seized upon an English abstract of a Polish study to state that "there is no correlation between autism and MMR. Neither at ‘general’ ASD level, nor at specific ‘severe’ level." I do not read Polish in which the study itself is written, and apparently neither does Kev, but he felt comfortable in using this study to help justify mocking, in offensive terms, those who believe that there is an autism-vaccine connection. (I personally do not believe a vaccine-autism link has been established on the evidence but I do not think any such connection can be ruled out on the basis of the studies to date). Kev asked this question:

"Do we really need to keep on churning out results and studies until every last person on the earth gets the point? Or do we cut our losses, accept that there will always be some idiots who will never get it and…move on….to a research future where we can get back to thinking about autism, how we can help autistic people to live their lives and hopefully a future where children don’t die of vaccine preventable diseases."

Personally, I find the reference to people as "some idiots" offensive towards persons with actual cognitive impairments, learning disabilities and severe autistic disorders. It is equally offensive to use such attacks as a means of preventing rational discussion of controversial issues. In somewhat more polite language some commentators on that opinion piece stated:

1. "One of my resolutions for the new year is to say, enough, let the AOA’s have the mercury/vaccine talk, and onward for those of us who know the question is settled"

kristina (Kristina Chew, Ph D, classic literature)

2. yet another study that fails to demonstrate a link. i doubt that the Mercury Militia will acknowledge defeat here. tough. they like to look like idiots? then let them.

David N. Andrews, M. Ed. (Distinction)

3.All of the studies in the world won’t convince some people...

Jen

Notwithstanding the brilliance of Kev and David N. Andrews, M.Ed.(Distinction) I am sure that even they can not truly consider Dr. Bernadine Healy, cardiologist and former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Red Cross to be "an idiot" as they described those who do not consider the vaccine-autism issue closed. In addition to that career background Wikipedia indicates that Dr. Healy :

"was the top student of her high school class at Hunter College High School. Healy then attended Vassar College and graduated summa cum laude with a major in chemistry and a minor in philosophy in 1965. She was one of only ten women out of 120 students in her Harvard Medical School class. In 1970 she graduated with her MD cum laude. For Healy's post graduate training, she stayed in the Washington, D. C. area. She completed her internship and residency training in cardiology at Johns Hopkins."

Dr. Healy has pointed out that, contrary to the belief of Kev and his gang at Left Brain/Right Brain, the question of a possible vaccine autism connection is not closed and "all the studies in the world" have not been done". See her statements in Fighting the Autism-Vaccine War, US News & World Report, April 10, 2008 :

“vaccine experts tend to look at the population as a whole, not at individual patients. And population studies are not granular enough to detect individual metabolic, genetic, or immunological variation that might make some children under certain circumstances susceptible to neurological complications after vaccination.

....

There is no evidence that removal of thimerosal from vaccines has lowered autism rates. But autism numbers are not precise, so I would say that considerably more research is still needed on some provocative findings. After all, 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.

The debate roils on—even about research. The Institute of Medicine in its last report on vaccines and autism in 2004 said that more research on the vaccine question is counterproductive: Finding a susceptibility to this risk in some infants would call into question the universal vaccination strategy that is a bedrock of immunization programs and could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines. The IOM concluded that efforts to find a link between vaccines and autism “must be balanced against the broader benefit of the current vaccine program for all children.”

Wow. Medicine has moved ahead only because doctors, researchers, and yes, families, have openly challenged even the most sacred medical dogma. At the risk of incurring the wrath of some of my dearest colleagues, I say thank goodness for the vaccine court.”

Following is the Sharyl Attkisson/CBS interview of Dr Healy:



As I said earlier I have never claimed that vaccines cause autism. But the attempt to suggest that the question is closed is simply an attempt to stop examination of what is an important and controversial issue. If some cases of autism are caused by maternal exposure to thimerosal containing vaccines or by any other route, or if some subset of children are more vulnerable to the potential negative effects, including autism, of vaccines than research should be conducted to confirm or refute those possibilities.

Only when the research is done will the autism/vaccine question be settled.

autism

Read more »