The article includes spokespeople from all sides of the debate, including leaders of the "safe vaccines" movement. Most telling to me, however, was this bit of the article, which includes citations from immunization specialists whose work focuses on developing and implementing vaccines:
...even if the threats are emerging from a small section of those who oppose recommended vaccine schedules, those in the field say that they have a definite impact on the work they do.The article goes on to say that, of course, no real violence has taken place so far... but plenty has been threatened, across the board."Does it stop me from speaking what I think is the truth? No," Poland said [Poland is Director of the Mayo Vaccine Research Group at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a vocal proponent of universal flu vaccination].
But, he notes, "I know of colleagues who have decided to write something slightly different or say something slightly different because they are afraid of inciting anti-vaccine groups."
Dr. William Schaffner, professor and chairman of the Department of Preventive Medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., said, "The threats certainly -- as well as the anticipation of heated 'feedback' -- clearly has inhibited colleagues from engaging in the public discussion of contentious issues regarding vaccines, Lyme disease, etc."
Schaffner said he has never received such threats. But, he added, "as to myself, this unpleasantness makes me very wary; we are a society that is prone to violence."
Poland said he believes legislation should be considered to offer special protection to those in the field of vaccine research.
"Since this affects not only a person and his or her family, but indeed the public health, special provisions should be considered in terms of legal consequences," he said. "This was done, for example, in the case of abortion protesters."
Are we really in the midst of a battle along the lines of that waged around the abortion issue? It's hard to imagine that such could be the case - particularly, at least in my mind, the two issues are very, very different.
The issue of abortion is an ethical issue. Perspectives on abortion revolve around personal faith, moral beliefs, and varying points of view on how to define "the beginning of life." There are no provable rights or wrongs relative to the issue of abortion: it is what it is, and you either do or do not approve.
The issue of vaccines relative to autism is - or surely should be - a scientific issue. IF vaccines have a causal connection to autism, no one in their right mind would suggest that we ignore that reality and simply go ahead and continue to cause autism. IF, on the other hand, vaccines have NO causal connection to autism, no one in their right mind would suggest that we ditch an immunology program that has saved and/or prolonged and improved countless lives.
If there really is a comparison to be made between the abortion issue and the autism/vaccine issue, then it seems to me that the vaccine issue has left the arena of science and entered the arena of faith. Since issues of faith do tend to evoke the intense emotions now prevalent in the autism/vaccine debate, maybe there is something to Poland's concerns. Maybe we really are looking at a faith-based war of ideas - and not at a science-based war of competing (and provable) theories.
And if we really are looking at a faith-based reaction to vaccines, what impact will that have - on our children, on our community, on our public health? Can we, as an autism community, afford to let belief - as opposed to science - guide our actions?
Share your thoughts!
The anti-vaccine activists will have devastating consequences if journalists, bloggers and others who know better keep pretending like there are two legitimate sides to the story.
I myself think there’s a large difference from abortion to vaccines, other than the protests and violence occurring within both debates. Vaccines no matter how you look at it, does not snuff out a living being. I think however it’s horrible for any to become violent or send violent messages to others regardless. When it coms to vaccines, it is a choice and everyone should be allowed to make that choice and researcher should be able to work without pending threats. I wonder, when way back when, when Polio was every where, if those parents sent threats to find prevention, or else?
I think we live in a world where we demand answers, and every thing has to have a cause. Some times, there is no answer’s or known cause but some wont accept that and due to that inability to be accepting, they get out right angry. If vaccines are a relation to autism, we still need to know why and how and who. Becoming violent with out these answers is foolish and autism may still happen.
Lisa, you said: “the idea that autism advocates are literally threatening violence toward one another must be a bit shocking.”
This seems to imply that those of us who utterly reject the idea that vaccination has anything to do with autism have physically threatened anyone of those who accept causality as gospel truth. If so, I strongly suggest that you get a reality check. That just has not happened. How do I know? Simple, if it had, the anti-vaccinators would have, by now, been whinnying and whining about it on blogs such as Age of Ignorance,, A-CHUMP, et al. Their silence, until now, is proof enough.
You persist in pursuing the dichotomy of false balance, and this article is just another of yours where you do so. If this blog was about celestial motion, I have no doubt that you would give equal balance to those who reject the heliocentric model of the solar system.
Lisa, it is time to get a spine, like Drs. Offit and Snyderman have, and take a stand. If not, you lack credibility.
Hi Lisa Jo,
I’m afraid I also doubt any threats of violence have occured ‘across the board’. Scientists such as Paul Offit, Paul Shattuck and Roy Grinker as well as pro-vaccine autism bloggers such as myself, Camille Clark, Kathleen Seidel, Orac have recieved specific threats of violence both to ourselves and sometimes to our children. I’m afraid the TACA mother in that article who was shouted at has no idea what shes talking about if she considers her experiences in any way comparable.
I think the threats are not as one-sided as you may believe, Probe and Kev. For example, the article includes this additional bit:
“I’ve been called a baby killer,” says Rebecca Estepp, national manager of the autism support group Talk About Curing Autism. “One woman got into my face this summer and told me I was going to cause millions of children to die. Emotions are running high because this involves the health of our children.
“Nancy Snyderman and Paul Offit are carrying on about it, but it happens to us, too. I have sympathy because I know exactly how it feels.”
I’ve also heard from Age of Autism editors that they’ve received threats.
Of course, I can only take their word for it – but I do know for sure that the emotions are equally high on both sides.
Re spines, we’ve had that conversation before, on this blog, many times.
Lisa (autism guide)
Do you need to be reminded that Age of Autism editors rely on confabulation and exaggerations to rally their troops?
Yes, emotions are high on both sides, but that’s not the same as saying that threats of violence have occurred “across the board”. Emotion is not the same as violence.
You’re off in your comparison.
First, let me say that many, many pro-safe-vaccine advocates are scared to say where they stand and their lives and work have been altered too, because Offit’s side has basically said to persecute those that are ‘anti-vaxers’ (even though we’re not anti-vaxers). Many moms are forced to quit work and homeschool because the schools are not accepting exemptions. Many parents have been kicked out of their doctor’s practice; and kicked out of playgroups; thanks to Offit’s words.
Second, this is not a faith-based argument. The 16 studies they keep quoting…every last one of them flawed. When will they (government) do legitimate studies? Epidemiolocal studies can show anything anyone wants. All the biological studies show that it’s highly plausible that vaccines are causing these injuries, such as autism, ADD/ADHD, asthma, etc.
I hate to inform people, but any time any public person has spoken in opposite of what the anti vaccine believers believe, they send out petitions to have that person fired. It doesn’t stop there, either.
There wont be one study accepted, even if it was done in another country than America. Anti vaccine people don’t generally waste time on the many bloggers out there. A few do, but you see them else where all the time.
This isn’t the first article out there to talk about the violence and threats. It’s a shame some will under estimate the importance of this.
Force never get’s a person any where.
…Offit’s side has basically said to persecute those that are ‘anti-vaxers’ (even though we’re not anti-vaxers
What else do you call a movement that relies on junk science and blatant lies to make vaccines sound far, far less safe than they are? I’m still waiting for Jenny McCarthy to tell us that vaccines don’t contain anti-freeze or ether.
Lis Jo – that was the incident I mentioned in my comment. I’m sorry but being shouted at in no way compares to having your life or the lives of your loved ones threatened.
I simply don’t believe the editors of AoA have been in this situation, sorry. One of the editors of the AoA went on TV once and said that all autism was mercury poisoning and that all could be cured with 2years (no more, maybe less) of chelation. After this period, the child would be 100% neurotypical. This editor has never apologised or even admitted they were wrong. This, to me, is the base line of their honesty.
The threats made to me (and my daughter) I can show with IP tracked comments and emails. I strongly suspect the editors of AoA can’t say the same.
The headline should read “Science vs. marketing in the vaccine controversy”, although the word “controversy” gives the anti-vaccine activists more credibility than they deserve. AoA is more about marketing and promotion than it is about following the evidence. Kev’s anecdote about AoA saying autism can be cured with chelation is exhibit A.
My point in writing this blog wasn’t to start a “who’s nastier than whom” battle.
I certainly don’t know precisely what the writers and editors of Age of Autism have heard from those who disagree with them; I only know what I’ve read and been told. The same, in fact, goes for Dr. Offit and Dr. Poland: I assume he’s telling the truth when he says he’s received death threats, but I have never seen the phone records!
My point, really, was to focus on the fact that the internal battles within the autism community are now solidly international news – and that it seems to be getting wholly out of hand. We’re gaining an international reputation for being completely over the top in our reactions to books, movies, and one another.
The worst of this, in my opinion, is that we seem to be losing sight of the very people about whom we’re theoretically so concerned: those living with autism. Instead, doctors, parents and journalists appear to be spending the majority of their energy and time battling one another.
Just as is happening on this blog.
Lisa (autism guide)
What would you believe that the evidence-based community is losing sight of autistic individuals? I can’t speak for others, but my motivation for speaking out is to protect children from preventable childhood diseases, and to promote acceptance for autistic persons.
How does vaccine fear-mongering and unproven cure du jours fit in with your agenda?
Lisa has it exactly right. Where once these debates truly only happened within the autism community (many of those were never pleasant either) they have spread outward and have expanded to threats against the people they hold responsible. The impression many are giving the rest of us is that we all have a very short fuse and cant communicate any better than our kids can. That’s what we’re loosing sight of, properly comminucating to others and not forcing opinions unto others. Nothing comes of any of this, and even when there is a pausible study, no one believes it on either side, depending on the study.
This is hardly the manner to obtain answers so many want, and what so many need. I do believe these threats are real, any whose been around a while can attest to how mean parents can become when there’s a differing opinion. These same people who are being threatened are probably the ones who will in the end, find that answer.
It’s all fun and games, until you’re caught.
I am sorry, Lisa, but your protestations and defense of the anti-vaccinators is just pathetic. There IS no comparison. None. “Getting in someone’s face” is in no way comparable to the phone calls that Dr. Offit described. Here is a simple proof.
When Amanda Peet spoke out in favor of vaccines, and rightly referred to non-vaccinators as parasites, the anti-vaccinators posted the names of her agent, etc. and encouraged others to contact them. They also encouraged people to boycott her movies, etc.
This is taking the discussion outside of the realm of the free market place of ideas, and into the realm of harassment for speaking out. I know of no pro-vaccine person who has ever encouraged such behavior. If one would, I would tell them not to stoop to the gutter of Age of Ignorance, et al.
BTW, as for losing sight…the anti-vaccinators have completely lost sight. They focus on cause, cause, cause, false treatments, etc. They are more worried about WHO is saying something, rather than what is being said. They never seem to advocate for better education, more funding for respite, etc.
That is precisely why many of us want to move on from their actions, and begin helping families. Sadly, you do not see this.
“For members of the autism community, this is not really news – but for ABC readers, the idea that autism advocates are literally threatening violence toward one another must be a bit shocking.”
“Autism Advocates”? Do you understand how inaccurate this label is Lisa?
Nothing comes of any of this, and even when there is a pausible study, no one believes it on either side, depending on the study.
Again with the false equivalence. Can you cite a plausible study that links vaccine to autism?
There’s tons of ‘links’….. to many things but there is no concrete proof. Generally speaking, there’s only one side which never agree’s on what a study comes up with, and generally speaking, I’m not one of them.
Sandy said: “There’s tons of ‘links’….. to many things but there is no concrete proof. Generally speaking, there’s only one side which never agree’s on what a study comes up with, and generally speaking, I’m not one of them.”
First, there can be a gadzillion links, however if they provide bull, all you have is a lot of bull. That is precisely what the anti-vaccinators provide.
The medical and scientific evidence is in. There are high quality studies that demonstrate no link, and no plausible mechanism for a link. The anti-vaccinators trash these studies by attacking everything except the science. Why? Because they cannot.
I’ll type this real slow: Vaccines do not cause autism. Period.
Hi The Probe –
There are high quality studies that demonstrate no link, and no plausible mechanism for a link.
If so many people didn’t think that the studies were high quality, this type of ignorance would be funny. Instead, it is tragic. I believe you know better, but it is tough to be sure.
Hey, the Probe, did you know that children with autism are more likely to harbor polymorphisms that over express the key components of modern vaccination; the toll like receptors? Its true.
Check out this paper:
“Macrophage Inhibitory Factor in Autism Spectrum Disorders”
Take special note; as levels of a chemical known to affect toll like receptors increases, so does autism severity. It just so happens, these toll like receptors are the first step in generating immnological responses; and the aluminum based adjuvants in every single vaccine interact with these toll like receptors to create a response. All of the ‘high quality’ studies you put so much faith into are completely blind to this interaction; toll like receptors get stimulated in a vaccine with or without thimerosal. Likewise, studying a single vaccine in an array of two dozen provides almost as little power to detect a relationship.
At a clinical level, we also have evidence that when the toll like receptors of children with autism are stimulated, subgroups (i.e., regressors after infection) display differential cytokine responses.
Check out:
Evaluation of atopy and immune functions in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD): Identification of an ASD subset with distinct clinical and immunological findings
Not linking due to spam filter concerns.
Presumably you are aware of the drastic changes in immune system cytokines that have already been found in autism, no?
I’m not here to defend threats of violence, Jenny, or the rest; but we cannot ignore the fact that there are biological differences in some children that make them respond to vaccines (or any immune stimulation) different than their undiagnosed peers. This has likely always been the case. What has not always been the case is that ever single child has had their immune system challenged with multiple antigens specifically tailored to generate a response on the day they are born, the days they turn two, four, and six months, and beyond.
We simply have not studied the impact of this increasingly aggressive immune stimulation. This statement should be simple to falsify if any of the ‘high quality’ studies you mention do so. Why not provide some links that look at something other than a single preservative, or a single vaccine in a series of many?
- pD
Hi TheProbe –
The anti-vaccinators trash these studies by attacking everything except the science. Why? Because they cannot.
I’ll attack the science.
The existing epidemiology is very poor for detecting a relationship between vaccines and autism. They are entirely based on two things, studies of thimerosal, or studies of the MMR.
Vaccines have many properties other than their preservatives, or lack there off. Do you disagree?
What we do have is many studies involving thimerosal. If I remove all tar from cigarettes and study them for cancer, this tells me very little about smoking; just about tar.
Likewise, MMR studies, while somewhat useful; the large ones are horribly flawed, excepting perhaps the Japan study. In any case, even if they did not suffer from large methodological problems, they still suffer from analyzing a single insult in a series of many insults.
You are treating the absence of studies on vaccines as the presence of quality studies. It is a poor substitution.
How can we hope to learn the effect of decreasing the age of DTaP to two months by studying the MMR? How can we hope to understand the potential of adding Hib and HepB at very early ages by evaluating the thimerosal content of those vaccines, but giving both shots at the same time? We cannot.
It is the abandonment of a rigorous application of the scientific method. It is insane.
- pD
Good morning, friends. Any possibility of talking about the issue that’s discussed in the actual blog post?
Thanks,
Lisa (autism guide)
I think PD’s practical application of pseudoscientific principles illustrates the problem very well – people who don’t understand the science, or how science works, are having a disproportionate impact on important public health policy.
It’s as if creation scientists were writing biology textbooks, or Scientologists were influencing Medicare drug coverage.
If this manufactured controversy can be described as just another clash between faith and science, then it’s a misplaced faith. True religious faith brings comfort and solace, and can be compatible with free inquiry and scientific discovery. Jenny McCarthy’s faith aims to supplant scientific truth with guerrilla marketing tactics and mob rule. How hard is it to see through that?
Anne said: “let me say that many, many pro-safe-vaccine advocates are scared to say where they stand and their lives and work have been altered too, because Offit’s side has basically said to persecute those that are ‘anti-vaxers’ (even though we’re not anti-vaxers).”
Poppycock. You are spreading a falsehood. “Offit’s side” has said no such thing. Did “Offit’s side” post links to Jenny McCarthy’s agent, publicist and movie studio? NO! Did the anti-vaccinators post links to Amanda Peet’s? You bet they did. If you disagree, post where “Offit’s side” has engaged in such conduct. I won’t hold my breath waiting.
passionlessDrone said: “so many people didn’t think that the studies were high quality, this type of ignorance would be funny. Instead, it is tragic. I believe you know better, but it is tough to be sure.”
No, PD, I do not know better, since I am science, not pseudo science, based.
Of course, you use a logical fallacy when you claim that many people thought that the studies showing no connection were poorly done. I am not certain that you understand what a logical fallacy is. Furthermore, those who did not think that the studies were of high quality, and just the ones we are discussing. Thus, you conclusion fails due to selection bias. They are the anti-vaccinators who will find any way to trash a study that they do not agree with.
Now, one last thing…your statement implies that I am lying. Please place that where the sun does not shine.
Hi AutismNewsBeat –
LOL! LOL!
Does anyone here notice that instead of taking the time to actually try to dispell a single point I have made, AutismNewsBeat has simply out of hand classified my posting as psuedoscientific?
Well, here is your big chance, instead of just telling me that my application is ‘psuedoscientific principles’; why not spell out; exactly, what is wrong with my logic?
In all honesty, do you believe that having toll like receptors over expressed is not important if you are going to be stimulating an immune response? Why not? Anyone with google can tell you that stimulating toll like receptors are absolutely critical to modern vaccination. Do you disagree?
The dirty little secret is that AutismNewsBeat cannot point out any logical flaws in my argument. He would have done so instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.
people who don’t understand the science, or how science works, are having a disproportionate impact on important public health policy.
This one is especially hilarious. So, presumably you understand how science works. So tell me:
How can we understand the effects of repeated immune stimulations at earlier ages with more diverse antigens without evaluating those stimulations? How does evaluating the MMR tell us anything about other vaccines? How? How does evaluating the presence or absence of a specific preservative tell us about anything other than that single preservative?
Instead of attacking me, why not just explain that? If you cannot, you are a farce; and indeed, the embodiment of psuedoscience.
- pD
Hi TheProbe –
No, PD, I do not know better, since I am science, not pseudo science, based.
LOL!
Of course, you use a logical fallacy when you claim that many people thought that the studies showing no connection were poorly done.
I am not certain that you understand what a logical fallacy is.
Furthermore, those who did not think that the studies were of high quality, and just the ones we are discussing.
Thus, you conclusion fails due to selection bias. They are the anti-vaccinators who will find any way to trash a study that they do not agree with.
I understand that it is a logical fallacy to claim studying thimerosal levels is a comprehensive way to study the vaccine schedule. Do you disagree? Likewise, it is a logical fallacy to believe we can learn about the cumulative effects of repeated immune stimulations by studying the MMR in isolation. Do you disagree?
What if I were to agree that a study involving thimerosal was well done (there has been one), but that this information, tells me nothing other than about thimerosal? What if I were to assert that in order to understand effects of vaccination besides thimerosal, we’d have to do additional research; research which I contend does not exist? Is this psuedoscience? Also lets not forget, many of the studies were poorly done. Verasteen is full of very aggressive data manipulation, and is a neutral study. Denmark suffers from far greater data level errors that are well documented. And both suffer from studying single components of vaccines or the schedule.
Now, one last thing…your statement implies that I am lying. Please place that where the sun does not shine.
Well, I also implied that you might be ignorant; so you can keep running with that if you’d like.
- pD
OK, this thread is ended. I will delete future posts to this blog entry.
It would be wonderful, though, since you are all as engaged as you are in the research surrounding autism, if you would be willing to comment on some of the research that does NOT involve vaccines.
For example, I wrote about a study that suggests older parents are more likely to have a first child with autism. Does that study stand up to scrutiny? I wrote about early diagnosis studies that suggest its possible to diagnose autism based on eye tracking. And so forth.
Unless your interest in autism and research relates solely to the vaccine question, I hope you’ll consider taking part in some of these other discussions.
All the best,
Lisa (autism guide)
It’s fine if this gets deleted.
I can’t comment on the older parents, my husband and I were 24 when we had our autistic son.
Eye contact – again, no. He makes good eye contact, not excellent, but good. It was even better as an infant, so his autism would not have been detected early, based on that intervention. The fact that at 18 months he was more interested in trees than a parade, yep. but I haven’t read anything about anything like that being a form of early detection, besides the fact that one of my friends asked if he was autistic as I bragged about it. I said what? no, he’s just different. Little did I know at the time, my friend was right.
Unfortunately, the media by and large plays up the vaccine ‘controversy’. I don’t think you do that here, besides suggesting getting called a baby killer is any where comparable to getting called with detailed information about the whereabouts of your children and having someone knock on your door and harass your wife and kids… ‘Baby killer’ is harsh but somewhat accurate. If the level of people vaccinated drops, the chances that infants too young for vaccination will contract diseases they can die from increases.
The problem is, if we are silent about the vaccines, I think some fear that will mean we agree. However, I do agree the pro vaccine members of the autism community do tend to talk vaccines a little too much. And you have to consider that those who are autistic will tend to obsess over things, including vaccines. And those who are not autistic, quite frequently share some character traits with autism, though they don’t fall on the spectrum… So it kinda makes sense that people obsess over this.
I think we really need to start promoting the controversy over a lack of services for those that lack money. My son is in an excellent school, but I’m sure he’d be doing better if I could afford one on one education for him, If I didn’t have to rely on what I qualify for because of my income, If I made just a little bit more money than I do now, I’d be screwed.
Halo! The babes are here! This is my sexiest site to visit. I make sure I am alone in case I get too hot. Post your favorite link here.