NPR "Science Friday" Features a Debate on Autism and Vaccines - Where Do You Stand?
Offit is a strong proponent of vaccines. He works in the field, and has actually developed a vaccine himself. He has also become a national (and possibly international) spokesman for the vaccine development, testing, and approval processes in the United States. As such, he's become a lightning rod for the "do vaccines cause autism" debate.
NPR's Science Friday show is a call-in, and Offit was a guest for only about ten minutes of the show. As a result, he had time to field questions from only one caller, a mom named Chantal.
Chantal was, I thought, a fairly articulate spokesman for the opposing side of the vaccine/autism debate. Here, paraphrased, is what she had to say:
- Drug companies and federal agencies that test vaccines have a vested financial interest in finding that the vaccines are safe. Thus, their claims that vaccines are carefully tested and found to be safe are not to be believed.
- Despite Offit's claims to the contrary (he stated that hundreds of such tests are conducted as required by law), NO proper tests are conducted to discover whether multiple vaccines can be safely and effectively used at the same time.
- Statements by doctors like Offit that the quantity of questionable material found in vaccines (mercury, aluminum, bacteria, etc.) are miniscule compared to ordinary daily exposure are irrelevant. (Chantal didn't actually say this, but skipped past Offit's statements to this effect. I've also heard the argument that daily exposure is much less likely to be harmful than is injection into an infant, though I can't speak to the science behind this argument.)
At the very end of the segment, Dr. Offit made the statement that he thought Chantal did NOT speak for the majority of parents. Most parents, he feels, can be convinced of the safety of vaccines through scientific arguments like those he presents in his book.
So - is Offit correct? Do you feel that a book which lays out the science behind vaccine research and testing would allay your concerns about autism and vaccines (assuming you have any)? Vote in the poll - and express your thoughts on this complicated issue!
Comments
Well, she didn’t seem to be very prepared to me. Her answer to Dr. Offit’s perfectly reasonable responses to her concerns could be summed up as “you’re paid millions to talk about vaccine safety and you’re part of a conspiracy.”
She also didn’t seem to have done any research on the amount or type of testing required of vaccines. Even the host of science friday got the impression that Chantal’s preconception of a conspiracy made it impossible for her mind to be changed by anything anyone did or said. She came across as desperate and uninformed to me. If she truly is the best that side of the issue has to offer, I’m going to be much less concerned.
One the the main issues concerning the “link” between vaccines and the onset of severe symptoms of autism is that both typically occur at the same time in a child’s life. Our second grandson wasn’t vaccinated (due to family history) and his symptoms developed anyway (at the age of vaccination). Too many folks do not understand the difference between correlation (two or more events that occur at the same time), and a cause-and-effect relationship (where one variable actually causes the second).
I think Dr. Offit gave excellent responses to ease parents’ fears. Chantal came off as a conspiracy theorist, who contradicted herself by first saying she didn’t believe anything that came from the government, and then saying that she wanted the government to lead the independent studies. She was totally out of line when saying that Dr. Offit received “millions” from Big Pharma. How ridiculous, and rude of her when she said that while he was trying to answer one of the questions.
I did not hear the debate, but would side with Chantal as none of our current vaccines have even been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and potential to impair fertility. I couldn’t trust the manufacturers and proponents of vaccines to test the safety of these vaccines adequately.
Chantelle or Chantele (she’s commented on the JennyDCRally group) came across as a conspiracy theorist and an anti-science, anti-rationality refusenik.
You, Ms. Lisa Jo Rudy, need to get some guts and take a stand against the autism-vaccine stupidity. One way to get the guts up to do that is to read Dr. Offit’s book. It chronicles the underhanded and deceptive ways that the lawyers and the litigant parents got this idea going and kept it going. Not because it is possible for vaccines to cause autism, because that is not possible (any more than it is possible for alien abduction to cause autism), they kept it going because of the need to distract from their own genetics and their own behaviors that they fear may have caused their child’s problems, and because there is money in claiming that someone poisoned your child.
Get a clue, Lisa. You’ve had more than enough time to see through these fakes and ill-educated clowns! Take a stand for what is right so that I don’t have to worry about someone saying that my child is a toxic or that my child needs to be chelated because my child is autistic. You a part of the problem. You can be part of the solution if you get can find a spine. Check with the NYT, maybe they have a spare one.
To A Mother Afraid of the Antivax Crazies,
You don’t know the exact cause of autism, any more than Dr. Offit, or anyone else.
For you to insinuate that parents are somehow stupid, crazy, looking for attention or financial gain, or to blame for their child’s condition, is ridiculous, simple-minded and STUPID.
If YOU had a child with autism, (assuming you actually cared about your child) I can guarantee you would be doing the same thing. To seek answers to your child’s, in this case, mysterious cause of disability and suffering is a natural, and HUMAN reaction to not having a cause or a cure for your child’s medical condition. It’s actually the sign of a loving parent of a child with autism, to question speculative information and theories. If Chantal didn’t question the theories, what kind of parent would she be?
I too, listened to the Science Friday in question nd did NOT feel that Chantal sounded stupid, paranoid, or ill-informed. She was as informed as any intelligent, well-read autism-savy parent can be, given the fact that their is no actual definitive answer to the cause or origin of autism.
This is the point at which people the Chantal’s of the world (i.e. parents, caregivers, families, teachers, etc of children with autism) and people like Antivax show their true differences.
The Chantal’s of the world can read anything the can get their hands on about autism, know that much of it sounds legitimate and that they SHOULD believe it, but at the end of the day, they still have a child with autism, and no answers as to why. They’ve read all the right books, are well-educated. have been excellent parents, have made all the right choices, but they STILL have a child with autism. To add to the burden of not knowing why, there is also the added assault of knowing that there are cruel and ignorant people like Antivax out in the world who would much rather blame the Chantals and the autism community in general for the problem, rather than go out on a compassionate limb to realize there isn’t any real answers yet.
People like Antivax want simple answers. I don’t know if they are just stupid, but I’m inclined to believe they are just intellectually and emotionally lazy.
It is so much easier for those looking in to chalk it up to bad parenting, poor choices and bad genes. If you can boil it down to something you feel is tangible, Antivax, you don’t have to bother with the fact that autism, in addition to being a scientific mystery, is heart-breaking, family-wrecking and tragic — that people who are affected by it deserve respect for their strength and humility, not disdain and hate-speech from people who are too mindless and lazy to see that not everything has an easy answer.
Antivax,
You don’t know the exact cause of autism, any more than Dr. Offit, or anyone else.
For you to insinuate that parents are somehow stupid, crazy, looking for attention or financial gain, or to blame for their child’s condition, is ridiculous, simple-minded and STUPID.
If YOU had a child with autism, (assuming you actually cared about your child) I can guarantee you would be doing the same thing. To seek answers to your child’s, in this case, mysterious cause of disability and suffering is a natural, and HUMAN reaction to not having a cause or a cure for your child’s medical condition. It’s actually the sign of a loving parent of a child with autism, to question speculative information and theories. If Chantal didn’t question the theories, what kind of parent would she be?
I too, listened to the Science Friday in question nd did NOT feel that Chantal sounded stupid, paranoid, or ill-informed. She was as informed as any intelligent, well-read autism-savy parent can be, given the fact that their is no actual definitive answer to the cause or origin of autism.
This is the point at which people the Chantal’s of the world (i.e. parents, caregivers, families, teachers, etc of children with autism) and people like Antivax show their true differences.
The Chantal’s of the world can read anything the can get their hands on about autism, know that much of it sounds legitimate and that they SHOULD believe it, but at the end of the day, they still have a child with autism, and no answers as to why. They’ve read all the right books, are well-educated. have been excellent parents, have made all the right choices, but they STILL have a child with autism. To add to the burden of not knowing why, there is also the added assault of knowing that there are cruel and ignorant people like Antivax out in the world who would much rather blame the Chantals and the autism community in general for the problem, rather than go out on a compassionate limb to realize there isn’t any real answers yet.
People like Antivax want simple answers. I don’t know if they are just stupid, but I’m inclined to believe they are just intellectually and emotionally lazy.
It is so much easier for those looking in to chalk it up to bad parenting, poor choices and bad genes. If you can boil it down to something you feel is tangible, Antivax, you don’t have to bother with the fact that autism, in addition to being a scientific mystery, is heart-breaking, family-wrecking and tragic — that people who are affected by it deserve respect for their strength and humility, not disdain and hate-speech from people who are too mindless and lazy to see that not everything has an easy answer.
In order to have a reason to go chasing after vaccines or various “toxins” as a cause of autism you must have a way for that toxin to cause autism. There is no logical or supportable way to get from a few micrograms (millionths of grams) of mercury to autism. It makes as much sense to say vaccines cause autism as to say that alien abduction causes autism.
There are many causes of autism, perhaps hundreds or thousands, and so far they don’t require a heavy metal or any vaccine component. Viruses, even vaccine preventable diseases can possibly cause autism to an unborn child, all the more reason for Lisa Jo Rudy to take a stand against the antivaccine nonsense to prevent scores of children from being born with congenital rubella syndrome, a known cause of autism.
I do have an autistic child and you have no right to imply that I don’t. I don’t want Lisa Jo Rudy and her handlers at the NYT to aid in the spreading of lies about autism. Those lies affect me now and will affect my child if I die.
Lisa Jo Rudy, you need to get a spine and you need to read Dr. Offit’s new book. He slams the media wimps for not questioning the outright lies of the parents who are in this for money. Not all of them are in it for money but there’s a greedy, scum sucking lawyer standing in the shadows behind many of these poor “devastated” parents and those lawyers are calling the shots.
Just because some parent can come up with a story about a child who suddenly collapses into the nightmare of autism following a vaccine does not mean it’s in the least bit true. You have a responsibility not to be a gullible pawn for greedy lawyers and you have a responsibility to parents not to help them to fool themselves into believing lies, and you have a responsibility to autistic people not to help the liars label them as “vaccine damaged”.
Apart from Dr. Offit’s book, history will not be kind to people like you, Lisa Jo Rudy, who helped keep the hysteria alive and who contribute to the impending harm, even deaths, of children from vaccine preventable disease outbreaks.
In answer to your question I don’t think Offit is correct when he contrues to know the opinion of most parents. I think if an educated person gets half the story they are very likely to end up with beliefs that are more akin to the half of the story they got. If a parent only reads the die hard anti-vaccination crowd’s material they are not well informed. The same would be true if a parent only read Offit’s book. If any parents makes a decision to vaccinate or not based on a 10 minute soundbite interview they are not well informed. The idea that the only reason there is a vaccine autism controversy is because of greedy lawyers and ashamed parents is as silly as stating that the the only reason autism exists is because of a huge consipracy between government and pharma to poison children. I’m afraid the issues are much more complicated than that and cannot be adequately condensed into a short paper, interview, or television show. Although I find Dr. Offit’s previous double talk and amazing statements (you can google Offit and his statements are pretty well documented) to leave him with very little credibility on the subject I intend to read his book, remembering the goal is to be well informed and seek the truth, whatever that is. I suggest the best minds (perhaps not Chantel) pen up a detailed response paper to the assertions in Dr. Offit’s book and perhaps someone could link to it here when that has been done. The only way to win this argument is not by yelling louder but by having the truth on your side and speaking it plainly in open public forum for review. If you find the truth is no longer on your side the scientist is willing to change sides quickly as the truth is what matters. Unfortunately it does not seem many folks (on both sides) in the vaccine autism debate are willing to keep their mind open to this possibility…
PS. If I am not mistaken it is Mrs. Rudy’s job in the blog section to create an ongoing discussion regarding things that are important in the autism community. Attacking her personally for doing so shows a lack of understanding (not to mention compassion, humility, or respect) on your part. I suspect some parents who come to this website might be looking for information, let’s see if we can help them get it without them reading through pages of personal attacks and insults…
Thanks, Mike and Lindsay. Indeed, my blog is about conversation, debate, and sharing of ideas and resources.
Beyond that, though, it seems to me that people of intelligence can reasonably disagree about the veracity of government and pharma-based studies - particularly when those studies are epidemiological in nature.
I am, in general a science-oriented person. I am not a “true believer” in much of anything. But that also means my back goes up when someone tells me, in essence, “trust me - I’m a professional and I know best.”
As the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” I’ve been scammed more than once by authorities who have asked for my trust. As a result, I do find myself holding authoritative requests for trust at arms’ length while I search for verification of their claims.
Lisa (autism guide)
Dr. Offit brings up the fact that there is scientific studies indicating that neither Thimerasol nor the MMR is to be indicated in the autism epidemic but what about the glaring lack of studies done checking out vaccinated versus unvaccinated for the disorder. Probably the most simple and conclusive study that could be done. One that Bernadine Heally, former director of the NIH and member of the IOM has said ought to be done but hasn’t been done because her colleagues are fearful. Dr. Offit also does not address the fact that comparing a babies exposure to bacteria via nose and mouth etc. probably is not completely the same as an IM injection. Why is there even a very slight chance of serious or lifethreatening reaction to a vaccine when such a response would be unheard of when one is exposed to the bacteria or virus of the disease itself. True, when we are exposed to the bacteria or virus of the disease itself we will likely become ill with the disease and could go on to experience severe and life threatening consequences from that disease. I think he is being overly simplistic. Vaccines are not the same as typical antigen exposure. Vaccines are an attempt to trick the immune system into responding to an antigen it may not have even been exposed to or to a weakened virus. I think we still have a lot to learn about the development of the infants immune system. Offit refutes Chantel’s concern about aluminum based on our daily exposure but again fails to reckon with the fact that our daily exposure is generally oral not an IM injection and the body has to deal with those two different ways of exposure differently. Will all infants handle a toxic injection designed to stimulate the immune system in precisely the same safe and sane way???? I don’t think we really know yet. By the way, why the scientific evidence of cytokines in the spinal fluid of autistic children indicating chronic inflamation on the brain. Check John Hopkins research out on that one. Why the evidence for more antibody producing B cells and significantly more T killer cells in the blood of autistic children versus control children? Check the UC Davis Mind Insitute out for that study. Seems to me that scientific evidence thus far is pointing it’s fingers at an abnormal immune system in autistic children. Is it fair then to say that vaccines are definitely not the culrit??? I think they just might prove to be the culprit in at least a subset of autistic cases. Not likely more than 50% though.
At this point, though, it’s tough to know where an “unbiased” study would receive its funding, since virtually all studies are funded either by the federal government, drug companies, or funding agencies like Autism Speaks - all of which could reasonably be seen to have some kind of vested interest in the outcome.
Are you sure about this? There are other countries in the world besides the US, and some of them have research scientists.
Although I find Dr. Offit’s previous double talk and amazing statements…
I’m guessing you have a problem with his statement that an infant’s immune system can handle 10,000 antigens at once. Assuming you disagree with this, can you tell us why?
If you do agree with that statement, then please tell us which other statements you disagree with.
First of all, conflicts of interest do not necessarily discount everything someone says on a subject. It that were the case, we would have to discount all parents claiming vaccine injury caused autism in their children.
That said, it is interesting to consider Dr. Offit’s present position. He has no financial conflicts of interest anymore on this subject. He goes into promotion of this book without being able to profit financially from it’s sale (even the proceeds from sale are being donated to autism research).
But, a close exam of Dr. Offit’s situation makes it clear that he is now very independent.
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1022
If people want someone without financial conflicts of interest, they now have one.
Yeah it’s me, the mother from the radio. (Pronounced Shan-tell actually, but that’s neither here nor there.)
On to more important things. To those of you who feel that I am nothing more than a terrified parasitic mother I have this to say to you. “Prove me wrong..”
SHOW ME THE STUDY THAT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED ON ALUMINUM BEING INJECTED INTO THE BODIES OF CHILDREN AND HOW IT MAY OR MAY NOT AFFECT THEM! (FACT: OFFIT COULDN’T PROVE ME WRONG, BECAUSE THERE IS NO STUDY, SO HE BASICALLY SKIPPED OVER THAT QUESTION AND SPOKE ABOUT THE STUDIES THAT I HAD ALREADY MENTIONED THAT WERE CONDUCTED.)
FACT: Aluminum has been linked to at least one Neurological disorder…Alzheimer’s
ANSWER ME THIS: When vaccines are being studied where are the control groups to compare side effects? There is NO Non-vaccinated control group to compare it to. WHY?? Dr. Offit only wanted to spout off and say that over 40,000 + children have been studied which proves that vaccines are safe.
ANSWER ME THIS: If vaccines are so “safe” than why does the government require that $.75 of every vaccine administered go into a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund? AND if they are so safe, than why has $62,802,000 (estimated) been paid out of the fund in 2007? (It seems that if vaccines were safe no money would be paid out of the fund at all…)
FACT: Paul Offit MD HAS BEEN paid MILLIONS by Big Pharma - don’t forget, he has created his own vaccine you know! (So therefore, he does have a vested interest he feels he needs to protect.) **You really can’t prove me wrong on this one, because he has “invented” his own vaccine.
Which brings me to this fabulous comment from Leila:
I think Dr. Offit gave excellent responses to ease parents’ fears. (Actually, no he didn’t. I want unbiased scientific proof and what I was asking for he couldn’t provide…)
Chantal came off as a conspiracy theorist, who contradicted herself by first saying she didn’t believe anything that came from the government (actually if you listened to my comments you would have heard me say I don’t believe the government when Big Pharma is feeding them the information), and then saying that she wanted the government to lead the independent studies (the government SHOULD lead the studies because they have a duty to keep the children of this country SAFE!).
(My favorite part..) She was totally out of line when saying that Dr. Offit received “millions” from Big Pharma. How ridiculous, and rude of her when she said that while he was trying to answer one of the questions. (That’s exactly right!! You actually read between the lines and understood this part of my conversation!)….That was fun!
So, now I have been called a “conspiracy theorist”. My thoughts on this are simple. I do believe that information has been covered up over the years in regards to vaccines being harmful. (Ever heard of a woman named Bernadine Healy MD? She was the former President of NIH…and guess what..She is speaking out against vaccines and some of the studies that have been conducted.) So if I happen to listen to what Dr. Healy is saying and even believe what she says, does this make me a “conspiracy theorist”? Call me whatever you would like. I assure you I have been called far worse and I’m still pretty young, but I’ll take that as a compliment, because to me it means I’ve done my research!
And last but not least to those who think I’ve jumped on some bandwagon and am nothing but an “anti-vax crazy” remember this. I personally am not anti-vaccination. I’m “delayed vaccination”, there is a difference. AND guess what, I have done my research **EXTENSIVE RESEARCH** and have come to the conclusion that something is really truly wrong with the vaccination program.
So I leave you with this…
My vow is speak out on the subject of vaccinations and be in support of the mothers who feel that their children have been affected negatively by a vaccine. I don’t ever want to hear another story about how one day a mother’s child was fine; smiling, talking, playing, and he got his next round of vaccines and he became ill, his speech has regressed and he is not the same little boy he used to be. I believe that the evidence in these cases is more than just a mere coincidence which is why I always say, “One of these days the coincidence will hit the fan!”
So for any of you who feel the need to bash me, bring it on, just remember this: I would rather be passionate about one thing and make change happen, than to sit back and resemble the person judging me who is doing nothing.
Good night,
Chantele
I just have a few things to say.
One, this topic seems it can never be done on a civil manner.
Two, there are different types of Aluminum as there is Mercury and what has been linked to Alzheimer’s may not have one thing to do with vaccines. Most of the elder of this generation hardly had any vaccines as a child, and who knows who had the flu vaccine. My mother has never had a vaccine in her life. Anyone who has been around long enough knows, it had to be the MMR vaccine. Then it had to be the Thimerosal. Then it had to be the trace Thimerosal. The rates keep a going up and now it’s the Aluminum. Next week it’ll be the hormones in milk. There may not be too many studies on Aluminum and vaccines however the question is, how long has it been used in vaccines??? As far as I know, it’s not in all vaccines either.
Three, vaccines were created to save lives, so yea to the mean and women who created them so smallpox doesn’t get us. I don’t need to hear it from the Big Bad Pharma or Gov, my mom has plenty of stories of these horrible things.
Four, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund? They also have malpractice insurance too. Because a doctor has this insurance, does that mean he’ll slip up??
Five, if one child is vaccine injured, there is no manner to know who will be the next, or what exactly would cause such a thing to begin with and it is true, why rely on the USA? Plenty studies out there from other countries.
And finally six: any one who runs a blog forum walks a slim line and if they teeter totter or sway, some one is gonna getcha. The poor person can hardly have their own opinion without being attacked. So my advice? You’re doing a fair job on a very windy day.
AutismBeat did indeed provide me with citations on my request - and I have not had a chance to investigate them more deeply. Here (and I quote) is the info he kindly provided:
“The Camberwell study (Wing and Gould 1979) found a prevalence of 20 in 10,000 for autistic spectrum disorders amongst children with IQ less than 70. The Gothenburg study (Ehlers and Gillberg 1993) found a prevalence of 71 in 10,000 for autistic spectrum disorders among school children with an IQ greater than 70. These studies were published in 1979 and 1993 respectively. When the statement is made “1 child in 150 is now affected by autism,” we need to remember that back in 1993 some of the leading autism experts in Europe were arguing that 1 in 110 children were affected. Eric Fombonne (1997) carried out his own epidemiological studies (Chakrabarti and Fombonne 2001, 2005)) which went a long way to confirming Wing and Gillberg’s position.”
in a second note, AutismBeat added this detail:
“Fombonne, Pedatrics, 2006, found 65% of all ASDs were PDD-NOS and Asperger’s. Dawson and Ozonoff report similar numbers.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139
RESULTS. We found 180 children (82.8% males) with a pervasive developmental disorder diagnosis who attended the surveyed schools, yielding a prevalence for pervasive developmental disorder of 64.9 per 10000. The prevalence for specific pervasive developmental disorder subtypes were, for autistic disorder: 21.6 of 10000; for pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified: 32.8 of 10000; and for Asperger syndrome: 10.1 of 10000.
64.9 of 10,000 for all ASDs
42.9 of the 64.9 PDD-NOS and Asperger’s”
I do want to comment that the 1:150 stat is from the CDC - and not from any group who might want to artificially inflate the number. In addition, I have some concerns about research which defines “autistic” on the basis of IQ tests. I’ve learned that standard IQ testing can be very misleading for people who are intellectually competent but verbally challenged.
One other point: the term PDD-NOS is not synonymous with “high functioning autism.” People with the PDD-NOS dx can be quite severely disabled - though their specific issues may not fit neatly into the “autism” dx.
Quite agree, BTW, that the US does NOT cover all possible avenues of research (!). There is certainly much to be said for looking outside these borders!
Cheers,
Lisa (autism guide)
There is certainly much to be said for looking outside these borders!
So do you still believe “virtually all studies are funded either by the federal government, drug companies, or funding agencies like Autism Speaks”?
OK, AutismBeat, ya got me: virtually all AMERICAN studies are funded as I described.
I really don’t know much about the sources of research funding outside of the US, so would have to look at individual studies to give an intelligent assessment of whether or not the funder was biased.
My point in the prior comment was that it does indeed behoove me (and others) to consider research findings from non-English speaking countries!
Cheers,
Lisa (autism guide)
I’m not trying to “get you”. You plainly agreed with that old anti-vax canard that studies can’t be trusted because they’re all tainted by the US gov’t, drug companies, CDC, Dr. Mengele, etc. I pointed out that many quality studies are published by research teams outside the US all the time.
Discussing anti-vax fear mongering is like playing that old carnival fame Whack a Mole. I doesn’t matter how many spurious claims you knock down, there’s always another one on the way. Of course, none of this would be necessary if we had legitimate science writers that didn’t succumb to the reflexive urge to show “both sides of the story”. It quite simply defies logic and social responsibility to treat illogical and misleading claims as worthy of serious consideration, given that doing so is scaring parents.
As far as bias goes, guess what - we’re all biased. Observational bias, selection bias, financial interests. Researchers have known that for centuries. That’s why we have the scientific method and peer review - they are quite literally the best check and balance we have against letting personal biases influence how we separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of nonsense.
Chantele,
if people disagree with you, they are not “bashing” you. They are disagreeing with what you say.
And, yes, I disagree with much of what you say.
When I read your statement that begins, “My vow is speak out on the subject of vaccinations…” I also hear what is likely motivating Dr. Offit–a “vow” to speak out against misinformation on vaccines that could lead to illness and death. One doesn’t have to go much farther than that to understand his position. The constant attempts to discredit the man with claims of bias caused by financial conflicts of interest make zero sense to anyone who understands the world of real research (which, by the way, is distinct from the world of “research” by way of the internet or books by vaccine-rejectionists).
Yet another big marker in the world of real research on vaccines and autism is about 5 hours away…
Sandy says: “Anyone who has been around long enough knows, it had to be the MMR vaccine. ”
This isn’t going to be your day.
Sullivan,
The facts are the facts, whether you agree with the facts or not, that’s for you to decide. I have made my decisions on vaccines based on the facts that are available. Not someone else’s hearsay.
Whether parents decide to vaccinate their children or not is for them to decide, but I encourage them to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. Every mother that I come into contact with (even if they don’t want to hear it) I speak to them about vaccines. I believe the CDC’s “recommended” schedule is really harsh “Too Many, Too Soon” and should be spread out.
“Clean ‘em up and Spread ‘em out!” -That’s what I would like to see happen. And I do believe that one day (whether it be next year or in 10 years) this will have to happen…
(Just for the record when someone is calling me a “conspiracy theorist” I consider that bashing.)
Chantele
Does your research lead you to believe that vaccines contain anti-freeze and ether? Does it lead you to believe that the trace amounts of formaldehyde found in some vaccines is harmful?
Do you agree with Dr. Offit that an infant’s immune system can safely handle 10,000 antigens at once? If not, why not?
“That’s why we have the scientific method and peer review - they are quite literally the best check and balance we have against letting personal biases influence how we separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of nonsense.”
I do believe this SHOULD be true.
But I’ve also had the experience, quite a few times, of learning that peer reviewed articles were flawed for various reasons. For example, a study which found that autism diagnoses were substituting for MR diagnoses was later “recalled” by the researcher based on later findings. And of course Andrew Wakefield’s notorious article on the MMR and autism was published in the Lancet, one of the world’s most prestigious peer-reviewed publications.
It also seems to be the case that the scientific community accepts quite a few findings and recommends acting on them DESPITE lack of high-quality, peer reviewed, replicated studies (ABA is a case in point).
I do think that high quality, peer reviewed, replicated studies are the gold standard for research. But that doesn’t therefore mean that they are always complete, unbiased, and accurate. In short, I won’t condemn anyone for raising questions - particularly when the answers to the questions relate to the health of their child.
Would I vaccinate my kids again? Absolutely! Would I raise questions and look into the details of the vaccines? Now that I know more about vaccines, yes, I would.
Lisa (autism guide)
“That’s why we have the scientific method and peer review - they are quite literally the best check and balance we have against letting personal biases influence how we separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of nonsense.”
I do believe this SHOULD be true.
But I’ve also had the experience, quite a few times, of learning that peer reviewed articles were flawed for various reasons. For example, a study which found that autism diagnoses were substituting for MR diagnoses was later “recalled” by the researcher based on later findings. And of course Andrew Wakefield’s notorious article on the MMR and autism was published in the Lancet, one of the world’s most prestigious peer-reviewed publications.
It also seems to be the case that the scientific community accepts quite a few findings and recommends acting on them DESPITE lack of high-quality, peer reviewed, replicated studies (ABA is a case in point).
I do think that high quality, peer reviewed, replicated studies are the gold standard for research. But that doesn’t therefore mean that they are always complete, unbiased, and accurate. In short, I won’t condemn anyone for raising questions - particularly when the answers to the questions relate to the health of their child.
Would I vaccinate my kids again? Absolutely! Would I raise questions and look into the details of the vaccines? Now that I know more about vaccines, yes, I would.
As regards “legitimate science writers,” there are certainly journalists out there with UPI and AP experience who report on autism news - and you may or may not feel they’re “legitimate.” I am not a “legitimate science writer” in the sense that you mean: I’m not a journalist breaking stories, digging into the truth behind the mask, etc.
Lisa (autism guide)
Of course some peer reviewed articles can be flawed - that’s the whole point of peer review and study replication. Scientists don’t grow comfortable with a hypothesis because it’s been studied and published only once. A scientific idea grows legs when it’s been tested, and retested, and the results can be replicated by different investigators at different locales. Wakesfield’s 1998 study has never been replicated, and it was bound to be exposed as nonsense sooner or later. Hornig’s study, released today, replicates other studies which failed to confirm the purported link between autism and MMR. The odds of several studies showing the same result and still being flawed are much longer than the odds of one research team getting it wrong.
I do think that high quality, peer reviewed, replicated studies are the gold standard for research. But that doesn’t therefore mean that they are always complete, unbiased, and accurate.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise, and we are all free to ask questions. But there is such a thing as settled science. You could ask questions all day about evolution, and criticize 100 years of predictive, replicable science. And you would look very foolish in the process. I’m saying most criticisms of vaccines are so base as to be meaningless. The questions have been asked and answered. The ginned up controversy is not helping matters, but it is putting parents off from vaccines.
I’m surprised you don’t see that.
Sullivan says: ‘This isn’t going to be your day.’
It never is my day. The point I was making is when evidence points away, something else replaces it. I generally do not like these topics per sey.
Chantele says: ‘Every mother that I come into contact with (even if they don’t want to hear it) I speak to them about vaccines.’
I disagree with this. If some one is not wondering or willing to have your information, you shouldn’t push it onto them, they have a right not to ‘hear it’. This is a bold thing for you to do, not knowing their full medical history or their own risk factors. And why only mothers? Why not include fathers? Many are very active in their children’s medical care. I hope you’re also informing them of the risks of delaying vaccines as well.
For example, a study which found that autism diagnoses were substituting for MR diagnoses was later “recalled” by the researcher based on later findings.
Are you talking about Croen’s paper? There have been studies before and since that have found solid evidence for diagnostic substitution.
And what do you intend to replace the current peer review system with? The anti-vaccine movement hangs its hat on poster presentations and vanity publication papers. That’s not much of an option.
Sandy,
Per your comment:
Chantele says: ‘Every mother that I come into contact with (even if they don’t want to hear it) I speak to them about vaccines.’
I disagree with this. If some one is not wondering or willing to have your information, you shouldn’t push it onto them, they have a right not to ‘hear it’. This is a bold thing for you to do, not knowing their full medical history or their own risk factors. And why only mothers? Why not include fathers? Many are very active in their children’s medical care. I hope you’re also informing them of the risks of delaying vaccines as well.
It doesn’t matter if you disagree with something that “I” do. I feel that they have a right to know and 9 times out of 10 they are interested in what I have to say. And what I love is when they do their own research and find out the studies are non existent and their own physicians can’t even answer their questions!! I may plant the seed, so to speak, but when they look into vaccines and do their own research they draw their own conclusions.
You ask why I don’t speak with fathers?? I don’t associate with many men in my circle of friends. But rest assured if I come across a father with a willing ear, you better believe he will be spoken to about it!
Chantele
Are you talking about Croen’s paper? There have been studies before and since that have found solid evidence for diagnostic substitution.
And what do you intend to replace the current peer review system with? The anti-vaccine movement hangs its hat on poster presentations and vanity publication papers. That’s not much of an option.
I am referring to Croen’s paper - and it was Croen herself, in a telephone interview, who explained the flaws in the research. That doesn’t mean that her work was meaningless or pointless, but that the peer reviewed article was flawed - according to its writer.
I am NOT trying to suggest that the scientific method is useless, or that faith, hope and posters should replace it! What I am trying to say is that the scientific method is a process, undertaken by human beings, and that it - like everything else - may be flawed for any number of reasons.
I try to keep an open mind relative not only to questions regarding autism but also, for example, to questions regarding physics, zoology, and every other branch of science. The universe is an incredibly complex place, and “scientific truths” are changing every day as a result of new discoveries.
I KNOW that science is nowhere near understanding the processes of the human brain. I am morally certain that we will be surprised by new discoveries that are just around the corner.
Does that mean vaccines cause autism? Of course not! It does mean, however, that we don’t yet know much about what (if anything) does cause, treat, or cure autism. And it does mean that we are, almost certainly, going to be debating and researching the question for a very long time.
Lisa (autism guide)
Did you really mean to imply that the scientific method is flawed? Or is it more accurate to say that human beings are flawed, which is why we need the scientific method?
Otherwide, what are the flaws that you see in the scientific method? Croen’s flaw was that she misinterpreted data - that has nothing to do with the validity of the scientific method, but everything to do with why we need it.
What I am saying is that BECAUSE the scientific method is undertaken by human beings who make mistakes, have biases, etc., the RESULTS of research using the scientific method may be incorrect, incomplete, or otherwise flawed.
Obviously, if the same results are found by different people with different funding sources and different biases, the results are more likely to be accurate.
But there are many different ways to phrase questions; many different ways to parse statistics; many different ways to conduct experiments, and many different ways to interpret findings.
I just don’t think you can subtract the human element from the process of research.
Lisa (autism guide)
What I mean to imply is that human beings conduct scientific research. Human beings are flawed.
You can’t simply subtract the human element from research and call it “pure” science. When researchers conduct epidemiological studies, they make choices regarding the questions they ask, and they make choices about how to interpret their findings. When researchers design research protocols, they make decisions about which cohort to work with, which observations are relevant, and so forth.
Scientific research is a human-led, human-conducted, human-interpreted process. Human nature intervenes because it must! This is not to say that scientists are intentionally slanting their findings or misinterpreting data. But we are all subject to our own expectations, desires, and personal preferences.
Certainly it’s possible, for example, to describe the human skeleton without bias. But once you begin to interpret WHY a particular bone is formed in a particular way, or HOW the process of skeletal evolution occured, researchers are likely to disagree.
That, in itself, is part of the scientific process.
Lisa (autism guide)
I just don’t think you can subtract the human element from the process of research.
No, but you can control for it.
“It never is my day. The point I was making is when evidence points away, something else replaces it. I generally do not like these topics per sey.”
Yeah, but yesterday was particularly harsh for vaccine rejectionists. The MMR/autism link is all but gone now. Sure, NAA and Thoughful House will throw up some chaff, but when you got Rick Rollens saying it’s good work, the topic is over.
The science has been clear for years - there is no evidence to support a link between vaccines and autism.
Lisa Jo I can’t give you enough praises for the WORK that you have done in opening communications between families with Autistic children, along with all the contacts you have shared with us for help wether financial or medical. As for the venom from “A Mother Afraid Of The Antivax Crazies Says” It doesn’t say much of anyone that will not connect what they say using at the minimum THEIR FIRST NAME? Getting back to the real world. Iv’e said in the past that I believe if it’s not the mercury issue why can’t it be what I call the COCKTAIL ISSUE! and when it’s given? So far all I see is one sentence with no response. ” NO proper tests are conducted to discover whether multiple vaccines can be safely and effectively used at the same time” I would add to that the timing of the shots and some type of generic testing of the parents. Again MANY MANY THANKS TO LISA JO
I am the mother of a severely autistic child. When he was chelated, his level of mercury was off the chart and his aluminum level was way up there too. I took the time to look up aluminum and mercury in a dictionary and both of these were defined as being neurotoxins… nervous system poisons. Most of the attention with regard to the vaccines has been with the mercury. When the amount of mercury in each vaccine given children was added up it equaled 326% more than is a safe level for an adult. It is my understanding that when thimerasol was taken out of the vaccines, the amount of aluminum in the vaccines was increased. It seems to me that one neurotoxin was traded for another. There is no doubt in my mind that the pharmaceutical companies could find other nontoxic substances to provide the same reaction in the body that these NEUROTOXINS do, but that would cut into their bottom line, and THAT is what their business is all about.
Just to give some information here… a study was conducted on the Amish community, who, by the way, do NOT vaccinate their children. Guess what that study showed?!!! NO AUTISM, with the exception of a child that had been adopted… and PREVIOUSLY vaccinated.
Susan
Actually, there’s a little more to that Amish line that Dan Olmsted did that meets the eye. In his findings however, there was two children and yes they were adopted but that too is odd, from China too I think. Many Amish do vaccinate, however their genes may very well play a role in this.
i said the amish didn’t have their children vaccinated years ago and there wasn’t autism in their community. i was told in print that it wasn’t true. ask lisa jo
Re the Amish: Dan Olmsted of Age of Autism did a huge “expose” and stated that the Amish do not vaccinate and that they have no autism. Later researchers found that this was not the case.
I did my own research, and spoke with a representative from a family service agency that serves the Amish. She told me that indeed many of the Amish do vaccinate, and that there certainly are incidences of autism. The rate, however, seems to be lower than that of America in general - but it’s unclear as to whether the lower rate is attributable to fewer cases, or to a difference in culture (the Amish, according to this lady, are more tolerant of differences within their community).
Lisa (autism guide)
…a study was conducted on the Amish community, who, by the way, do NOT vaccinate their children. Guess what that study showed?!!! NO AUTISM…
That UPI reporter, Dan Olmsted, missed The Clinic for Special Children in Lancaster, PA, which treats dozens of children showing autistic like symptoms. It was not a “study”. It barely rises to the level of journalism.
I’d like to hear where Susan learned that as thimerosal came out of vaccines, aluminum was added in larger doses.
Not that it may or may not make a difference, but aluminum salts has been in vaccines I think even longer than Thimerosal. Aluminum salts are also not used for the same reason as why they used Thimerosal so when they removed Thimerosal, there’d be no reason to increase the aluminum salts. There was no trade-off, other than that fear factor trade-off.
It is my understanding that aluminum becomes trapped in the tissue at the injection site, and never enters the bloodstream.
I feel the whole interview format needs to be conducted not only more fairly, but with more genuine curiosity to get to the truth. I don’t support polarizing into us against them camps. I don’t think anyone really wants to disable a whole generation of children, but with so much at stake, how can we not want to know the truth? We need to stop damaging our precious children and we need to stay focussed on that goal.
Since the CDC covered up relative information and even Congress admits that the shabby study conducted by the IOM, whose panel of so-called scientists dismissed the ‘biological evidence’ and chose to manipulate the variables of an epidemialogical study, has resulted in public mistrust, it seems that the public must become better informed so that we do not have to rely too completely on what we are being told.
Of course the doctor’s comments were either based in ignorance or were purposefully misleading. Mercury, for example, when introduced via the digestive system should have a good chance of binding with a cytochrome via the liver, re-entering the digestive tract in a non-absorbable form, and then being voided from the body in the feces. So, exposure to mercury in food has much less chance to reach nerve tissue where its neuro-toxic affects can be devastating. When, however, mercury is injected more directly into the bloodstream, the child (or adult) simply does not have a filtering system that is likely to catch it before causing damage. Now, either the doctor knew this and is trusting that his audiance does not and he should be found criminally liable, or he does not know this and he should be found professionally incompetent or criminally negligent.
In this case, I fault NPR for falling into the trap of respecting this gentleman’s title and position. There is only one scientific method. It is an honest method of sober and detached observation. It does not dismiss observations that fail to support special interests. Anytime you see organizations dismissing hundreds of thousands of observations reported by parents, school nurses, and the doctors who are brave enough to report them, it should be obvious that someone is trying to protect some business interest or a professional position. Dismissing observations, as Charles Krebs put it, is not science. It is anti-science.
I heard the doctor’s statement on NPR. He used the word ’science’ in a manner to intimidate people and to dishonor their perspectives and their honest observations. I pray he and his narrowly focussed colleagues come to understand their errors and correct them of their own volition. If enough of the public ever becomes informed enough to understand what they have done, I doubt there is a court that would waste mercy on them.
I don’t expect better from doctors like this. I expect better from NPR’s Science Friday. I want real science, not pharmaceutical propoganda. Won’t our nation stand up for our children? Is there anything… anything more important?
Thank you for allowing my heart to express this. May God have mercy on us all.