IACC's action to halt vaccine-autism research flies in the face of congressional intent. The bill's authors clearly stated that vaccine research should be funded. Even the esteemed Institute of Medicine has condemned CDC's methods. In 2005, an IOM panel condemned CDC for its "lack of transparency" in vaccine-autism research.There certainly are Congress people who have made statements supporting research into vaccines and autism. Of course, most of those people are neither parents of children with autism nor particularly versed in autism research. Rather, they were responding to advocacy from passionate constituents. Nothing wrong with that - and perhaps Kirby and Kennedy are correct in suggesting that by calling for more research politicians are echoing the will of (at least some) people.The bureaucrats responsible for this scandal are on the wrong side of history and it's hard to not attribute an obstructionist motive to their act since vaccine-autism research has already entered the realm of mainstream science. Serious scientists (except those tied to the vaccine industry) no longer debate whether vaccine-autism research should be done, but rather how it should be done, and by whom.
But I really am surprised to hear that serious scientists no longer debate whether additional vaccine-autism research should be done. At least among the serious scientists I've met, interviewed and read, I can honestly say that there is a strong leaning AGAINST the idea of a vaccine/autism connection. And I suspect that, if you were to poll serious scientists at research facilities and hospital, the vast majority would NOT support a connection. They would base their beliefs on a number of factors, not least of which are the many studies which seem to refute such a possibility.
Could these "serious scientists" be wrong? Of course. But I think it's premature to suggest that the autism-vaccine debate is over!
Find me on Twitter!
There for sure does seem to be a “no debate, move on” attitude related to this issue.
“But I really am surprised to hear that serious scientists no longer debate whether additional vaccine-autism research should be done”….”I can honestly say that there is a strong leaning AGAINST the idea of a vaccine/autism connection.”
I am entirely confused. What does “everyone agrees autism-vaccine research should be done”, have to do with “most scientists don’t believe there is a connection?
You must think the only reason why people do research is because they believe they will find a causative link between two things. You are wrong. People do research to settle research questions. Even those who believe there is no link between vaccines and autism believe autism research should be done because that’s the only way to KNOW one way or the other whether one’s belief can be substantiated.
This debate will go on for a long time. I know that the debate will continue without settling until the group I feel was poisoned has passed on. They are now in the age group of 8 to 20.
I still am surprised how the media bites so hard on crazy numbers. This last Italian study is based on a sample group of 1 in 1704? Lisa does that make sense to you?
More Ammunition to fight. How stupid do they think we are? Autism Vaccines Research… Smoking something?
http://www.causecast.org/member/tanners-dad/blog_posts/632
M – You say I am entirely confused. What does “everyone agrees autism-vaccine research should be done”, have to do with “most scientists don’t believe there is a connection?
You must think the only reason why people do research is because they believe they will find a causative link between two things. You are wrong.
You’re responding to a semantic difference.
Would it help if I said “scientists are NOT in agreement over the question of whether additional research is required to make a connection between autism and vaccines”? That, I think fairly obviously, was my point.
Lisa (autism guide)
How about random gastro residents from John Hopkins (no relation to ASD) I meet on a airport van… You want to bet that the mainstream doesn’t think (in private) there may be a genetically susceptible group of individuals that cannot handle multiple viruses all at once (where do you think he got this piece of information)? Ever heard what some university scientists… oh I don’t know… Columbia? Have said about some genetically susceptible individuals ability to detoxify their systems? Or what scientist from… I don’t know… Harvard or UC Davis… have to say about environmental triggers?
Just because your child wasn’t damaged (or further damaged – like mine)… doesn’t mean that my n=1 study didn’t happen. How dare you say that I am imagining the connection to our childrens’ rapid decent (or any parent)?
pssst… I know a Type 1 diabetes mother who swears on a stack of bibles that her then 18m old was healthy as a horse until her 18m dpt/polio/hib – within 24 hours she went into a diabetic coma… Hmmm… different genetic make up, triggered by 5 viruses & whatever preservatives, who went spiraling into a type-1 diabetic coma that day. You want to bet she doesn’t associate it with that vaccine?
Nothing is simple. My son was clearly gestational (ASD), but that doesn’t negate his negative reaction to his flu/mengegate reaction when he was two.
The point is… there is a question… it was earmarked to be funded in 2006. How dare mid-level federal employees overturn plans in a unpublished vote (and the Singer chick who had a seat at the table because of her job – then quit her job – but kept the seat???). Disgusting Bush cloak and daggers behavior.
M said it… “You must think the only reason why people do research is because they believe they will find a causative link between two things. You are wrong. People do research to settle research questions. Even those who believe there is no link between vaccines and autism believe autism research should be done because that’s the only way to KNOW one way or the other whether one’s belief can be substantiated.”
Go M go.
When I discuss this issue now with medical/public health personnel I cut right to the chase.
“This is what your profession is defending. You inject newborns and infants with levels of mercury hundreds of times higher than EPA hazardous waste levels. The type of mercury you use is more toxic than methylmercury (sometimes I have to explain why). By using direct injection, you are providing instant access to the bloodstream and thus all target organs. Even you must agree, babies are more vulnerable to mercury damage.” End of discussion.
Lisa Joe, Why do you defend this practice? What could possibly be your motive? Believe me,it’s not vaccine/mercury people who are pushing for more CDC statistical manipulation studies.
Lisa said, “Would it help if I said “scientists are NOT in agreement over the question of whether additional research is required to make a connection between autism and vaccines”? That, I think fairly obviously, was my point.”
It wasn’t obvious to me because I don’t believe it’s true. My reading suggests the opposite is true, and that “research” (and by that word, I do not mean statistical studies, but real population comparisons) is supported by both sides for precisely the reason I stated: to settle the question once and for all.
I have a hard time believing that most scientists with a very serious interest in this issue would want to prevent this kind of study from happening, regardless of their beliefs, precisely because the research has *not* been done thoroughly comparing real populations. Keep in mind there are a variety of hypotheses related to the vaccine issue. Some scientists suspect the issue could be priming of the immune system, and have nothing to do with mercury. Any scientist who really believes there is no question wants to see those beliefs borne out in empirical research, to silence all question.
It was only in the past few weeks that UC Davis announced to the world that the autism increase in CA is not explainable by better diagnosis. This started in 1990. 18-19 years have passed, and finally a mainstream institution announces a definitive study that implicates some kind of environmental trigger. And yet we think all of the necessary research has been done? Obviously, it has not been, because the research questions focusing on the environment have not been formed and funded, because the problem was denied.
AAAW I think those two stir the pot enough all on their own. Neither one of them are experts on the topic. They’re almost like any other, found a place in the market, and keep adding to it.
There’s evidence that suggests there’s more to autism than vaccines, and those autism rates still keep going up. This debate, regardless of any studies provided, will never end as long as David Kirby and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. keep adding to it in the manner that they do.
MW – I don’t defend the use of thimerosal, and, in fact, thimerosal was removed from almost all vaccines a couple of years ago. There are those who argue that “trace amounts” remain, and that it’s the “trace amounts” that cause autism – but I find that tough to believe.
Lisa
M – again, it’s a matter of how you word the question.
I’m sure you’re right that if you said to mainstream Dr. X, “if funding were not an issue, would you stand in the way of a researcher interested in conducting studies regarding a possible connection between autism and vaccines?” then Dr. X would say “of course not.”
If, on the other hand, you said to Dr. X, “given that funding for research is severely limited, would you place studies regarding a possible link between autism and vaccines at the top of the list of medical concerns?” my guess is that Dr. X would say “of course not.”
The reason, it seems clear to me, is that most doctors and researchers believe that the studies are conclusively against the idea of a link. That doesn’t mean they’d stop someone from studying a possible link – assuming that the someone had the funding and resources.
But given limited funds and resources, I do believe that the vast majority of mainstream researchers feel that the issue is settled (with the possible exception of a possible statistically invisible group of kids who might have special susceptibilities).
Lisa (autism guide)
The UC Davis study clearly stated they were not relating their study to vaccines being the cause, but in fact other sources. Also, that study has it flaws as well.
More so for David Kirby than Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Thimerosal is their issue, is what they want more and more studies about regardless that 4 others implies it has no relation to cause. Yes, maybe more studies should be done, but let’s extend it to area’s not yet studied at all.
As for diabetes, one of my younger sister’s had type one as an infant, without ever getting a vaccine. There is no valid scientific proof vaccines contribute to diabetes, SIDS or autism. A child can have diabetes for a while before it’s ever detected. My sister did. Most times it takes a coma.
Finally,
““You must think the only reason why people do research is because they believe they will find a causative link between two things. You are wrong. People do research to settle research questions. Even those who believe there is no link between vaccines and autism believe autism research should be done because that’s the only way to KNOW one way or the other whether one’s belief can be substantiated.”
Research has been done, yet the debate continues.
Lisa (autism guide)-
Your take on the Huffpo blog is always so strange. You change words around to kind of suit your purpose. For example, you start out this blog saying “In the article, they argue.” Where do you get that? There is no arguing and to use that word indicates that they are debating, either amongst themselves or to the readers. That is a red flag on your intent here, as usual.
Another large and confabulated statement you made is when you reported that Kirby and Kennedy said, “All scientists agree that vaccines cause autism”, when in reality they said, “Scientists within the mainstream now believe this research needs to be done, and we agree”. You completely turned that around to fit in with your theme here — that Kirby and Kennedy are not being factual and that autism-vaccine research is some kind of obscure, unsupported, expensive thing.
Your blog here is always biased. If you are supposed to be a “guide” into autism, it is a trip where the passengers eyes and ears are closed because there is no way that you can ignore the science, unless you are unable to comprehend it, or deny it by changing the words to fit your view of autism. You must not feel vaccines can harm and did not cause this epidemic of children with an autism diagnosis. What do you tell your readers regarding heavy metals, viruses, bacteria, ocd, food allergies, mitochondria dysfunction, sensory overload–oh, wait, I posted that time as you had a mom discussing what to do about her child slamming the door ALL day. The suggestions were to put a towel in the door, to buy a different door, to reward the child for not slamming the door–then I came in and posted about STREP bacteria and how it can cause severe OCD behavior as well as tics. (google PANDAS-AUTISM). We are in 2009. The science of what ails the kids, how it effects their behaviors is what autism and vaccine research is all about. To read this blog is like a trip back to 1970 minus the fridge. Wake up!
Teresa, the word “argue” has several meanings – not simply “to quarrel.” Here is the dictionary definition:
1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate: “It is time to stop arguing tax-rate reductions and to enact them” (Paul Craig Roberts).
2. To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: The speaker argued that more immigrants should be admitted to the country.
3. To give evidence of; indicate: “Similarities cannot always be used to argue descent” (Isaac Asimov).
4. To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: argued the clerk into lowering the price.
Kirby and Kennedy are doing all of these things, as is appropriate in an editorial, and I stand by my choice of word.
Re science, I’m not really sure of your point. If I understand you correctly, you feel that a scientific response to a child slamming the door over and over again is to check him for strep. That’s one point of view, though not one I would particularly focus on in an article containing hints and tips for managing behavior – especially when I know absolutely nothing about the child’s medical background, nor am I a medical practitioner.
Why would you feel that this perspective is somehow a throwback to the age of refrigerator mothers? I’ve never said a single individual word in blame of parents – nor would I.
In answer to your point regarding my person opinion – no, I don’t think that a huge epidemic of autism has been or is being caused by vaccinations. I suspect that there is a connection in some specific cases – but I am absolutely certain that there are many “autisms,” many causes, many useful treatments, and a few potential cures for a small handful of individuals.
But that isn’t my point in this blog. My entire point in this blog is simply to say that I think Kirby and Kennedy are wrong to suggest that the majority of mainstream researchers believe in a causal connection between vaccines and autism.
Lisa
First, Pandas-Autism has not relevant to this topic however, the treatment often used is in much the same way as similar behavioral conditions such as Florentine, an anti depressant. I myself would have suggested a towel or reward than medications. Geez, I’d remove that door. You’re right though, this is 2009 and psych meds may be over RX’d. Let’s just remember advice is a dime a dozen. You offer it but don’t complain when no one takes you up on it, or tries a towel instead which was the more practical thing to do until maybe the parent could get Pandas-autism checked out.
Back to topic. Anyone read the full article? From it:
“Even as the evidence connecting America’s autism epidemic to vaccines mounts, dead-enders at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) — many of whom promoted the current vaccine schedule and others with strong ties to the vaccine industry — are trying to delay the day of reckoning by creating questionable studies designed to discredit any potential vaccine-autism link and by derailing authentic studies.” Well if the shoe fits. Kirby does this exact same thing abut studies that shows there is no link. Kirby also and has always contributed to that Big Pharm theory. History tells us the CDC way back when had little to do with the creation of vaccines, and childhood diseases spoke for themselves yet there just has to be some conspiracy. Yes, Kirby is arguing and yes, he is debating and fueling it.
What’s biased is to accept it when Kirby does this, but accuse and not accept Lisa’s opinions? “there is no way that you can ignore the science, unless you are unable to comprehend it….” This works both ways as well.
Let’s all remember as we’re ‘guided’ through autism at this blog; as of today there is no known concrete cause(s) to autism. Kirby doesn’t have those true answer’s and neither does Lisa so quite honestly, where is the biased??
Lisa, Lisa, Lisa! First of all, my vaccine injured child was born in 1996 so I don’t care about today’s levels of vaccine mercury. The concentraion of mercury in her vials was 50,000 ug/l, 250 times higher than EPA hazardous waste levels. This amount still exists in the Flu, menningcoccal and tetanus vaccines so you are wrong anyway. How manty times do you have to be told this? While what they refer to as trace is still 10 times higher than hazarous waste levels, I think the debate started about 10 years prior to vaccines having “trace” amounts of organic mercury. After you read this post, “Google” organomercurials and do some actual research on this material.
It really isn’t right to say some one is wrong. Respectfully:
The meningococcal vaccine is given at age 11 to 12 years old, and doesn’t contain Thimerosal. The Tetanus vaccine they give to adults has Thimerosal in it, but the ones given to young children do not. The flu vaccine comes Thimerosal free as well for children. My child had one last year however no one knows of the autism rates, just who had the flu vaccine prior to the option for children. I never had my son get it until last year, when a child in my state died due directly to the flu.
The theory of Thimerosal anyway is every thing was just fine with the vaccine schedule until in the 1990′0s when they added a few more vaccines, which was suppose to tip the scale and as a result, autism sky-rocketed. So, if one goes by that theory, the previous vaccine schedule should had been just fine with the levels of whatever in those vaccines.
Either way, that theory is flawed since the removal of Thimerosal, the autism rates have not dropped.
Lisa-
You just don’t seem to comprehend comments, or maybe just mine.The lack of current medical information regarding autism here and your peppered comments here and there to convey to the readers that
“no, I don’t think that a huge epidemic of autism has been or is being caused by vaccinations. I suspect that there is a connection in some specific cases – but I am absolutely certain that there are many “autisms,” many causes, many useful treatments, and a few potential cures for a small handful of individuals.”
That is all of your opinion on autism. But this blog is supposed to cover all of autism–and be unbiased. It is not your personal blog to tell parents what not to believe or what not to do. That is what I take issue with as your opinion is so obvious that readers are not getting a true perspective to make their own opinion nor are they getting current medical information on autism research and treatments.
How you are “absolutely certain” about any medical piece regarding autism is just a wrong and ignorant statement.
Respectfully, I don’t think Lisa tells any one to do anything one way or another, what to believe or not believe and if that’s what she is accused of, then her allowing other’s to comment freely would be guilty of the very same thing each time they as well post their own opinion, which was acknowledged as being Lisa’s opinion.
What I get out of this is if you do not agree with other’s opinion, just don’t leave a comment or blog it.
Readers of any blog site will never get a true perspective of autism. It’s impossible, unless of course every one believes every thing they ever read. That true perspective varies per child and family.
Opinions is how people get different perspectives, it’s how people learn and that’s exactly what this site blog provides. Over the past few months, any time this one topic comes up, the blog owner get’s attack and their intent is questioned and she allows those posts to freely go through. That is unbiased. I can name a few popular sites that deletes comments from ever going through if it does not match their own. I cant imagine why any one would ever blog when this is the result every time.
No one learns or listens when others questions another’s opinion.
Theresa – you say “this blog is supposed to cover all of autism–and be unbiased. It is not your personal blog to tell parents what not to believe or what not to do. That is what I take issue with as your opinion is so obvious that readers are not getting a true perspective to make their own opinion nor are they getting current medical information on autism research and treatments.”
I will take this as a compliment, since you clearly have the sense that this blog is open and accepting (at least most of the time). In fact, while this isn’t a “personal” blog in the usual sense (it’s not about my personal life), I’m under no personal or contractual obligation to stay neutral – or to present every possible direction for treatment or study.
When I don’t take a stand on an issue, but rather open up the blog to debate, it’s because I honestly feel there is a place for converation, debate, and exploration of alternatives.
What I think you’re asking for, however, is that I take a position with which you agree – and stick to it.
BTW – if you’re interested in seeing what else is on this site besides the blog, you can take a look at the Treatments section. There, you’ll find info about everything from ABA to HBOT – and a large section on GFCF.
Lisa
Lisa-
Your interpretation of my last post is odd and does not even come close to answering it accurately.
Well, Theresa, I guess I’ll just have to live with the fact that you feel my writing is odd. Worse things have happened.
Lisa
I gave up on reading the comments.
From what I’ve gathered on most people that think that vaccines injured their kid, and they are a vocal minority, their kid had a seizure. The seizure could have been caused by a vaccine if it was a fever induced seizure. The incidence of fever induced seizures in MMR is 1/3000. For DPT it is even more rare. Now not all of those 1/3000 have autism, so, there you go. It cannot be 1/3000 of the 1/150 that have autism. it has to be an even smaller percentage. A percentage so small that large scale studies can’t find a link (and they have found a link of 1/30000 of low platelet counts caused by the MMR. I don’t think these people read the data the CDC gives you)
However, some 40 percent clinically with autism have seizure disorders. I think research into the relationship between seizures and autism is worthwhile. Vaccines, wasted money. (and my son does not have seizures).
Teresa -
There is nothing wrong with Lisa’s responses to your entries. She is clear and to the point.
Maybe you are having a difficult time because she does jive with your point of view?
The entire autism-vaccine connection and hysteria started because of a 12 person study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield in the UK. You can find details of the actual study on Wikipedia or follow links to the finding of the board in the UK that investigated and discredited him. Dr.Wakefield’s study was published in Lancet. He failed to disclose that the children in his study were provided by lawyers who were seeking judgments for their clients. He failed to disclose that he had been paid many thousands of dollars. He included in his data a supposedly positive test result that was proven to be a false positive. Other “data” was highly suspect or did not agree with medical records for the same subjects. Almost all of the other doctors listed as coauthors on the study immediately removed their names and retracted after they found all this out. He had not disclosed this. When the study first came out, Dr. Wakefield called a press conferene to announce his amazing results. His study was hailed as a huge breakthrough and featured in hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles. No one knew about the manipulation of study population and data. All of the subsequent large studies of tens to hundreds of thousands of patients in numerous different countries that followed have failed to corroborate his findings. Having been barred from practicing in the UK, he now apparently claims to have a monkey study of 14 monkeys coming out in the US. Wow! 14 whole monkeys! Maybe they were monkeys specifically selected by lawyers or maybe he’s similarly played with the results he obtained from them or slipped them a mickey. That is why people have come out swinging in his favor. He’s a snake oil salesman with an unfortunate group of gullible celebs, politicians and even, occassionally, physicians, who simply don’t seem to care about what his record shows or to be able to comprehend what it means. His theory has been discredited again and again by every study of significant size. Yes, many still believe it because they refuse to look at the legitimate research conducted by unbiased people with large study groups, rather than tiny ones funded by lawyers seeking judgments or conducted by discredied doctors seeking to clear their names. The brilliant Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed, along with a significant portion of the UK, that mediums were really communicating with the dead. He hypothisized, and many believed, that Harry Houdini was himself a medium and using his sinister magical powers to damage the reputations of other mediums. Popular belief won’t make it so, no matter how hard we all want to believe that this dread disease can be magically prevented. I suspect this disease will turn out to be an auto-immune disease and frankly feel that with all the huge vaccine/autism studies that have been done in Denmark, Japan, England, the United States, etc. they should indeed start putting some money towards other research.