Autism Vaccine War: Is Scientific Inquiry Being Suppressed?

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

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

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weighed in with comments which appear to suggest that studies or articles criticizing vaccine safety in any way should not be published:

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


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

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

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

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

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

Wheeling & Dealing & Avoiding FDA Scrutiny at the Vaccine Business Industry (Big Pharma) Congress

The vaccine industry business congress  referenced above states that it is scheduled for Baltimore in the fall of 2011 although the agenda indicates dates in March 2011.   More significantly the first items on the agenda show clearly the priorities of Big Pharma, as the conference brochure itself refers to the vaccine industry, which are maximizing government sponsored funding and avoiding FDA scrutiny.  Great stuff.

Yes, the Congress brochure does refer, several times, to Big Pharma, so don't go all Orac berserk on me for using that expression.

No word on whether  Offit, Orac, Mnookin or Deer were/will be in attendance.

Blame Game: Health Officials Blame Their Vaccine Program Failures on Autism Concerned Parents

The past 2 years have seen an onslaught of attacks on anyone who raises any questions about vaccine safety and in particular against anyone who suggests that vaccines might be implicated in causing or triggering autism disorders in some children.  Dr. Paul Offit has been the New York Times go to guy in promoting vaccine programs for almost a decade. His crusade to prevent discussion of possible autism vaccine connections was kick started with his New York Times Op-Ed "contribution" in March 2008 criticizing the results of the Hannah Poling case. 

With that opinion Dr. Offit expanded his unquestioned status as a vaccine expert to include his self appointed/self anointed status as an autism expert AND as a legal expert. The Offit Offensive began in full force in January 2009 with the New York Times' ceaseless coverage of  Offit's False Prophets and his drive to shut down discussion of vaccine safety issues.  The criticism of those who raise autism and safety issues has intensified with the ceaseless attacks on Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the unproven fraud allegation of the  BMJ (after the fact admitter of conflicts) and its adoptee  Brian Deer.

The result of the Offit Offensive? After years of attacking vaccine questioners public health authorities continue to see declines in vaccination rates and continue to blame those who question vaccine safety particularly those who are concerned about possible vaccine autism connections.  In just the most recent example in the news Minnesota doctors and health authorities are again tying declining measles vaccination rates and increased measles outbreaks to "erroneous" allegations of vaccine autism connections. 

As the parent of fully vaccinated sons I have never blamed vaccines for my younger son's autistic disorder and profound developmental delays.  I myself receive vaccines when I think them necessary or when advised by my family doctor. I believe vaccines to be important public health tools but like all of man's inventions I do not believe that they are  flawless.  Vaccines have caused injury in the past.  That is fact and it is reasonable for people to ask questions about the safety of vaccines.  The anecdotal evidence of vaccine autism connections, even acknowledging the weakness of anecdotal evidence, can not be ignored unless and until strong studies are done to convince parents that what they believe they have seen is not what really caused their children to lapse into a serious neurological disordered condition.  Failure to persuade the public is the failure of the health authorities and the persuasion strategies they have adopted to promote vaccine safety.  Decline in public confidence in vaccines is the failure of the health authorities not the public they are trying to convince.

While portrayed as being a front line crusader for the safety of children by vaccination Dr. Paul Offit is not in fact on the front lines.  It is parents who are on the front  lines fighting for their children's well being and health day in an day out. Calling them ignorant or irrational won't win their hearts and minds.  Blaming them for the decline in vaccination rates in some areas will not win the day for vaccine programs. Solid, credible studies free of pharmaceutical company influence by credible, trusted research authorities will. 

Science Has Debunked ANY Vaccine Autism Connection? What Margaret Dunkle Said About Autism, Vaccines and the Hannah Poling Case

Margaret Dunkle is not, as far as I know, the target of an "investigation" by the BMJ or its investigative journalist Brian Deer. She is not a movie actress with an autistic child. She is Hannah Poling's great aunt and ...... she is a senior research scientist at the health policy department at George Washington University. On March 18, 2008 she wrote a very concise, and well informed, article about the Poling Case, Autism, Vaccines and Early Intervention – the Hannah Poling Case. The following is an extract from the article summarizing what happened. It is an honest description of what actually happened in the Poling case:

"What Happened in Federal Vaccine Court?

The case of Hannah Poling is important because it is considered by many to be the first time the federal government has conceded a connection between autism and vaccines. On March 6, 2008 the Office of Special Masters reported that, on November 19, 2007, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services [the Respondent in this case] recommended an award of compensation to Hannah Poling. The Special Master also reported that the Respondent [the Secretary of HHS] stated that, based on a review of the petition filed by Hannah Poling and her attorney, medical records and affidavits:

“…the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations Hannah received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”

Since autism is defined by symptoms, there is for practical purposes no difference between having the “features of autism spectrum disorder” and having “autism.” In fact, Hannah Poling has a DSM-IV diagnosis of autism.

The Special Master’s March 6 Order goes on to say that, on February 21, 2008, after reviewing an expert report by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, the Secretary of HHS [Respondent] stated that: “Having reviewed this additional evidence, [medical personnel at the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Department of Health and Human Services (DVIC)] now recommends compensation for Hannah’s seizure disorder as sequela of her vaccine-injury….”

The Order of the Special Master also says that, based on the recommendation of the Secretary of HHS [Respondent] for compensation to Hannah Poling, “a damages determination is now appropriate.”"

The next time an uninformed talking head at one of the major media outlets follows the Offit script and says that "science" has "debunked" any connection between vaccines and autism ... take it with a grain of salt.

Will Current Media Frenzy Attacking Possible Autism Vaccine Links Be Counter Productive?

Will the current media frenzy unleashed with the BMJ-Brian Deer fraud allegations (unproven in a court of law) against Andrew Wakefield, followed up with another Paul Offit big media tour, and a star celebrity turn by Bill Gates yelling "LIARS" in his very loud voice finally result in an increase in vaccinations or will it be counterproductive?    Feel free to register your vote on the poll at the top of the sidebar. 

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

                                                

                                                         (AFP Photo and Caption)

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

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

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

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

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

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

....

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

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

...

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


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


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

Autism Expert Paul Offit and Neurodiversity Ideology

Left  - Autism Expert Dr. Geri Dawson

Right -  Infectious Diseases Expert Dr. Paul Offit

AOL, in March 2010, posted an autism interview under the misleading title Autism Experts on Causes, Cures and Controversies. While the title referred to multiple autism experts the interview actually included one autism expert Dr. Geri Dawson of Autism Speaks.  It also included Dr. Paul Offit.

The Offit Offensive has been underway for a couple of years with heavy mainstream media, eg. the New York Times,  coverage of his books and with opportunities galore for interviews and serious discussion of vaccine issues eg. the Colbert Report. The icon of the "do not ask questions about vaccine safety " army which currently prevents media coverage of autism issues UNLESS they relate to vaccines was exposed in an AOL interview  (Geri Dawson of Autism Speaks was also interviewed) as someone with relatively  limited knowledge of autism who was prepared to grasp at anything that exonerated vaccines as a potential cause of some cases of autism.  To that end Dr. Offit warmly embraced the Neurodiversity ideology |(which does not view autism as a disorder,) sympathizes with very high functioning autism advocates and shows no awareness of the effects on everyday functioning of those with severe Autistic Disorder.

Some examples of Dr. Offit's autism awareness from the AOL interview Autism Experts on Causes, Cures and Controversies:

"AOL Health: Reports say that one in 110 American children is affected and that we are in the midst of an autism epidemic. Is this really an epidemic? Why now?


Offit: It's not an actual epidemic. In the mid-1990s, the definition of autism was broadened to what is now called autism spectrum disorder. Much milder parts of the spectrum -- problems with speech, social interaction -- were brought into the spectrum. We also have more awareness, so we see it more often. And there is a financial impetus to include children in the wider definition so that their treatment will be covered by insurance. People say if you took the current criteria and went back 50 years, you'd see about as many children with autism then.


Dawson: We know that the broadening of the diagnosis, as well as more awareness and access to services, accounts for some of this increase, but these variables don't account for all of the increase. Over the last two decades, the prevalence of autism has increased by over 600 percent. Between 2004 and 2006 we saw a 57 percent increase. A large percentage is unexplained, and that's why there is a focus on identifying environmental factors.

Alleged Autism Expert Offit relies on unidentified  people who say there were about as many children with autism 50 years ago?  Apparently autism expert Dr. Offit doesn't read information by people at the CDC and IACC who say based on research that approximately 50% of the increase in autism diagnoses is unexplained by diagnostic definition change, increased awareness or access to autism services.

From the CDC web site which states that autism is actually increasing:

"Does thimerosal cause autism?

Research does not show any link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder. Although thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in 2001, autism rates have gone up, which is the opposite of what would be expected if thimerosal caused autism."

Obviously the CDC would not have cited increased autism rates as support for the view that thimerosal does not cause autism if the increase were not real. AOL asked about causes of autism:


AOL Health: What causes autism?

Offit: It has, at least, a genetic basis. A number of studies have shown a complicated genetic mutation. It's not like sickle-cell anemia, where a single gene has a single mutation, or cystic fibrosis, where a single gene has many mutations. With autism spectrum disorder, it appears that at least several genes have varying mutations.

Dawson: Genetics play a significant role. If we compare identical twins who have all the same genes versus fraternal twins who only share half their genes, the concordance rate is about 90 percent in identical twins and only 5 percent in the fraternal twins. But there's evidence that suggests that environmental factors can also play a role. Most likely individuals with autism have a genetic susceptibility that interacts with environmental factors. Research is focused on factors such as the prenatal environment, prematurity and exposure to toxins such as pesticides

Alleged autism expert Dr. Paul Offit makes no mention of possible environmental causes or triggers of autism disorders preferring to mention only genetic bases for autism.  Dr. Geri Dawson's reference to evidence of environmental factor involvement in causing autism is in fact consistent with modern scientific consensus as expressed by the the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee:

"As with many complex disorders, [autism] causation is generally thought to involve some forms of genetic risk interacting with some forms of non-genetic environmental exposure. ... In addition, a number of other environmental factors are being explored through research because they are known or suspected to influence early development of the brain and nervous system. Recent studies suggest factors such as parental age, exposure to infections, toxins, and other biological agents may confer environmental risk. ... Progress in identifying environmental factors which increase autism risk has been made recently (Eskenazi et al., 2007; Palmer et al., 2006; Palmer, Blanchard,; Wood, 2009; Rauh et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2007; Windham et al., 2006), although this area of research has received less scientific attention and far fewer research dollars than genetic risk factors"[Underlining added - HLD]      - United States IACC (Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee)

Autism expert Offit may also want to consult the CDC web site on causes of Autism Spectrum Disorders:

"Causes and Risk Factors

 

We do not know all of the causes of ASDs.  However, we have learned that there are likely many causes for multiple types of ASDs.  There may be many different factors that make a child more likely to have an ASD, including environmental, biologic and genetic factors."

Once again, alleged autism expert Offit seems to be out of touch with mainstream scientific consensus on the role of non genetic factors in causing or triggering autism disorders.  Of course the use of the term disorder may be touchy for autism expert Offit who accepts the Neurodiversity views that autism is not a medical disorder and that autistic children will, if left without treatment, will improve over time:

"AOL Health: Do you believe that there is a cure for autism?

Offit: No. Children who show signs of autism sometimes can get better between 2 and 5, but it probably has nothing to do with the biomedical treatments -- they simply improve with time."

NOTE: Alleged autism expert Offit focuses on attacking biomedical treatments but makes no mention of behavioral intervention as possible explanation for autistic children's improvement.  Instead he embraces the Neurodiversity ideology which says let them be, just let them be ... there will be an answer ... they will get better on their own, let them be, let them be.

"AOL Health: What do you think of the theory promoted by many autistic rights organizations run by individuals with autism that society needs to accept neurodiversity and treat autistic individuals as people who think and understand the world differently?

Offit: It makes abundant sense. They are arguing that it's a way of being. It's a variance of normal. It should be looked at as such, not stigmatized. I've spoken to many of them, and they don't want to be seen as damaged.

Dawson: One of the things that is so challenging about autism is the fact that there's so much variation in the way autism is expressed in people. Some individuals can have a productive and creative life, and they aren't looking for a cure. They're interested in being accepted and getting access to services to help them adapt to the world with their special skills. At the other end, there are children severely affected who have significant medical conditions, such as seizures, and have never spoken. For those individuals, the prospect of a cure for autism is really important. That results in a lot of different perspectives of where our priorities should be."

Alleged Autism expert Offit makes no mention of the children severely affected by autism disorder for whom the prospect of a cure is really important as noted by Dr. Dawson.  Of course Dr. Offit would not actually be able to speak to many of those who are non verbal with intellectual disabilities.  And he would not actually talk to their parents either since he would be too busy talking down to them about how vaccines have never caused or triggered the autism disorders about which he knows ... so much.

Autism and ScienceBlogs: Dr. Gorski Replies, Sort Of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

autism

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

It's that simple.

autism

Is Autism an Adverse Event Following Vaccination?

An intense campaign has been waged to discredit parents of autistic children who report that their children regressed and developed autism disorders after vaccinations. The campaign has been led by Dr. Paul Offit and a mainstream media that follows faithfully and without questioning the Offit script ...... vaccines are the miracle medical tool of the past century, Dr. Offit is a modern day medical hero who has had his life and family threatened by anti-vaccine kooks, science has disproved for all time any connection between vaccines and autism disorders, parents who question the safety of vaccines are hysterical and desperate, anti-vaccine whackos, duped by celebrities. Professionals who question the Official Doctrine of the Vaccine Church are not mentioned or, if mentioned at all, are quacks ..... and of course .... the many parental reports of autism development in children after vaccination are merely coincidental.

Unlike fever, redness, or swelling on the arm following vaccination, the development of an autism disorder after vaccination is not considered an adverse event and is not tracked, followed or admitted by public health authorities.

A Government of Canada web page, Frequently Asked Questions - H1N1 Flu Virus, purports to provide answers to serious questions about the H1N1 virus and vaccines. It discusses, without mention of the development of autism symptoms, what constitutes an adverse event following vaccination:

Q1. What is an adverse event?

An adverse event is any unwanted medical reaction following immunization.

The majority of adverse events are minor reactions – like soreness at the injection site, or a slight fever – but sometimes, more serious events are reported. Serious adverse events are reactions that cause life-threatening illness, hospitalization, disability or death, like a severe allergic reaction, paralysis, or a seizure. These events are carefully investigated to determine if they are related to the vaccine directly, or if they were caused by an underlying health condition or some other reason.

Q1. Serious adverse events following immunization are rare. In any immunization campaign, from regular childhood vaccines to seasonal flu shots, the average reported rate of serious adverse events is about one case for every 100,000 doses distributed.

Careful monitoring and prompt reporting of any adverse event after immunization are an essential part of the Government of Canada's commitment to providing a safe and effective vaccine. Reporting an adverse event does not mean that the vaccine caused harm. Careful investigation is needed to determine if the events are linked or if they are coincidental.

If there is ever an indication that a vaccine, or a specific batch or lot of vaccine, is harmful to the general population, the Government of Canada has systems in place to quickly and effectively stop or alter immunization programs."

To the above information the Government of Canada should perhaps say that it does not consider evidence of autistic regression after vaccination to constitute adverse events, no matter how many times such non-adverse events are reported by parents. As to the assurance that the Government of Canada will act quickly in the event of an "indication that a vaccine is harmful to the general population" I don't expect to see any time soon publication of the Government of Canada's efforts to follow up on reports of autism disorder onset in children after vaccination. It would be helpful if the Canadian government actually did conduct a careful investigation to see if autism disorders are "are related to the vaccine directly, or if they were caused by an underlying health condition or some other reason."

Is autism in some children an adverse event following vaccination? I don't know and neither does the Government of Canada, the IACC or Dr. Paul Offit, none of which wish to admit that autism disorders might be post vaccination adverse events in some cases.

autism

Autism Research Quote of the Year .... 2003

The increase in the incidence of autism from 1990 on may be attributable to more attention being drawn to the syndrome of autism and to achange in the diagnostic criteria from the ICD-8 to the ICD-10 in 1994. Also, outpatient activities were included in the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register in 1995 and because many patients with autism in former years have been treated as outpatients this may exaggerate the incidence rates, simply because a number of patients attending the child psychiatric treatment system before 1995 were recorded for the first time, and thereby counted as new cases in the incidence rates.

Madsen et al., Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data, Pediatrics 2003;112;604-606

The Madsen study above is one of the studies referred to by those who assert that "science" has proven that thimerosal in vaccines does not cause or contribute to autism. The usual reference to this study is that after thimerosal was removed from Danish vaccines in 1992 incidence of autism continued to rise. As the authors themselves pointed out the continued rise in autism in Denmark after the removal of thimerosal coincided with changing diagnostic criteria, increased social awareness and different methods of outpatient recording. It is truly amazing that those who assert that vaccines do not cause autism based on such studies now claim that data showing autism diagnoses increases from 1 in 150 to 1 in 91 during the latter half of this decade, more than a decade after the DSM and ICD diagnostic changes. does not necessarily reflect a true rise in autism for the reasons set out in the Madsen quote above.

Should we not also discount the Madsen study, and the claims that thimerosal has been proven safe, because of diagnostic and social awareness changes? Or should we accept the recent data showing increased diagnoses of autism as reflecting a real increase in autism diagnoses>

Which is it Dr. Insel? And what do you think Dr. Offit?

autism

Double Standards Applied to Autism Prevalence Data

With the recent dramatic change in estimated autism rates from 1 in 150 to 1 in 91 over just a two year period public health authorities, and Neurodiversity ideologues and pseudo skeptics have pulled out a number of arguments to deny, once again, that autism is rising, that there is a real increase in autism. The arguments used in denying any real increase in autism disorders over the past 2 years, are reruns of arguments used to deny increases in autism for the past 15 years. Very, very curiously, however, the same authorities, the same allegedly skeptical, scientific voices, denying autism increases also point to studies, particularly the Danish studies, using prevalence data reflecting decades of diagnoses from the early 1970's to 2000, a period encompassing drastic changes in diagnostic definition of autism disorders, heightened autism awareness, growth in autism services and increasing ability to diagnose autism.

The change in autism diagnostic definitions in the DSM III-R and DSM IV are trotted out once again 15 years later to deny the reality of autism rising. Increased social awareness is a favorite. And of course there has to be a blame the parents excuse: the alleged availability of autism services has resulted in parents seeking autism diagnoses for their children. Dr. Thomas Insel urged the world to be cautious because, after all, authorities are now better at diagnosing autism. It is not clear how the ability to diagnose autism increased by more than 50% over a two year period or what studies the good Doctor Insel relied on but after all he is the Chair of the IACC ... isn't he? But what are the implications of the unreliability of autism rate information for the vaccine autism studies which relied on such data over a longer period of time?

If all these factors diminish the reliability of a reported increase in autism disorders over a two year period, so long after the DSM III-R and DSM IV revisions of the diagnostic definitions of autism disorders, what are the implications for the vaccine autism studies that relied on increases in autism diagnoses after the removal, or the alleged removal, of thimerosal from vaccines? These studies were conducted using data that actually spanned the period prior to and after the period for which data was obtained. Can the prominent Danish studies still be used to assert that there is no correlation between thimerosal and autism?

The Madsen study (Pediatrics, September 2003) found that there was an increase in reported autism diagnoses after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines in Denmark in 1992. The authors also noted though that:

The increase in the incidence of autism from 1990 on may be attributable to more attention being drawn to the syndrome of autism and to a change in the diagnostic criteria from the ICD-8 tothe ICD-10 in 1994. Also, outpatient activities were included in the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register in 1995 and because many patients with autism in former years have been treated as outpatients this may exaggerate the incidence rates, simply because a number of patients attending the child psychiatric treatment system before 1995 were recorded for the first time, and thereby counted as new cases in the incidence rates.

The above caution is not mentioned by those who claim that this study disproves a thimerosal autism correlation. Dr. Insel for example did not mention this caution when he appeared before Senator Harkin's subcommittee although he now frequently mentions such factors to downplay the recent reports of a more than 50% increase over a period of just 2 years. Dr. Offit speaks so often in support of vaccine safety that it is difficult to say that he NEVER mentions the caution expressed by the authors of the Madsen Danish study but I have never encountered it in his many high profile media appearances on the subject.

There are many other critical flaws in the studies cited by Insel, Offit and others as proving that there is no autism thimerosal connection, no autism vaccine, connection. They have been addressed at length elsewhere by Generation Rescue and other true skeptics. At this time what is terribly striking to me is the ease with which Insel and Offit and their follower's embrace wholeheartedly the studies which they claim support their no vaccine autism connection even though they suffer from the same factors they cite in denying a real autism increase, perhaps even more so. Conspiracy perhaps but the evidence is not sufficient in my humble opinion. Conflict of interest? Probably. Bad faith? Definitely.

Double standards and hypocrisy take on a serious twist in this story. The failure by Insel and Offit to properly inform parents of the risks associated with injection of potentially damaging substances into their children is justified by reliance on studies flawed by the same factors they point to in denying the existence of real increases in autism disorders.

Autism IS rising OR many of the vaccine autism studies of are of no value whatsoever. Those whose careers and livelihoods depend on denying environmental, including possible vaccine, contributors to autism are growing increasingly desperate but even they can not have it both ways when it comes to assessing autism prevalence.

autism

Autism Research Funding: It's Still Gotta Be Genetic

Even the IACC has acknowledged in its public statements that the emerging view of autism causation is that autism likely results from the interaction of genetic, biological and environmental factors. Although there have been calls for more funding of environmental based autism research of late the "it's gotta be genetic" paradigm identified by Teresa Binstock in 1999 still appears to be holding sway over funding of autism research.

As reported in the LA Times yesterday $4.5 million from the US government stimulus funding will go toward one study by researchers at Harvard University and Children's Hospital Boston involving the sequencing of genomes of at least 85 people diagnosed with autism "in a bid to tease out the genetic basis for some cases of the neuropsychiatric disorder". As long as autism research funding is restricted to genetic focused research only the genetic bases of autism will be found. Possible environmental causes and triggers of autism will remain unknown or unconfirmed.

Information concerning the development of autism by children living in close proximity to power plants and steel mills, the role of toxic plastic materials and other potential environmental causes and triggers of autism will never be determined with any degree of certainty if funding continues to be directed towards genetic based autism research by as much as 20 to 1 compared to environmental based autism research. And of course, if funding for an observational study comparing autism rates in existing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations is not provided an informed understanding of the possible role of vaccines in causing or triggering autism will not emerge. The Offit extremists will continue to maintain that there is no evidence to support a vaccine-autism connection and the vaccine- autism war will continue.

Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Jon Poling, Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, and others who have called for more environmentally focused research of autism causes, do not appear to be heard by those who call the shots.

The more things change the more they remain the same.

autism

Autism and Vaccines - Excellent Commentary at Biology in Action

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

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

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

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

autism

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

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

Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

autism

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

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

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

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

Harold Doherty

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can only hope.

autism

Stupid Autism Parents?

Apparently there are a lot of SAPs, Stupid Autism Parents, behind all the uproar over possible vaccine autism connections.

Those parents who accept the official view that autism is 100% genetic and that substances injected into young children can not possibly disrupt or damage their neurological systems are smart, good guy parents. Those who want to treat or cure their children, who question vaccine safety, the combinations of vaccines, the frequency of vaccines and the biological and chemical agents contained in vaccines are ..... well .... just not that smart.

Being a Stupid Autism Parent who believes that autism is a disorder for which a cure is badly needed, that it results from an interaction of genetic and environmental factors and that vaccines MIGHT play a role in causing or triggering autism in some cases I was grateful to learn from a discussion at "Aspies for Freedom" that it is just my own stupidity that leads me to such erroneous beliefs and irrational concerns. In the end parents who post at Autism Speaks are stupid and parents who post at Aspies for Freedom are smarter. It's true, Aspies for Freedom says so.

Aspies for Freedom is a site which appears to be dedicated to the rights of "Aspies" to be free, although free in what sense is not clear since most of the posters appear to reside in the US, UK and Canada where fundamental freedoms are constitutionally entrenched. Perhaps it means freedom to determine what is best for other people's Autistic children? Aspies for Freedom started a highly enlightening, intellectually sophisticated discussion topic called:

A General Comparison Between Parents on This Forum and Parents on Autism Speaks

The general gist of the opening post, by a brilliant intellectual posting as Mars Mariner, and subsequent discussion is that parents who post at Aspies for Freedom are smart and parents who post on the Autism Speaks forum are well ... not so smart:

Post 1

I would make a general comparison between parents here and parents on Autism Speaks. Again, this is a very general comparison, one that I do not intend as a slander against the parents on the "other" forum. However, my sense is that parents here enjoy a greater level of education and critical faculties than their peers on the other forum. It is not my intent to belittle the earnest and sincere parents on Autism Speaks. However, it seemed from my experience there as though they were not discerning people. My sense is that they were younger, not college educated, and more susceptible to seeing the world simplistically. I may be wrong in my perception, but that seems like a general rule of thumb.

I am not coming at this from an elitist perspective (I hope not). Rather, I am sincerely recalling my experience there. What disturbed me, however, was one other difference between parent cultures there and here. Parents there seemed not to care about children beyond their own to the degree that parents here do. It was not so much that they agreed with the torture going on at the Judge Rotenberg Center; more that they did not care too much about the sphere beyond their immediate concern. Parents here seem a lot warmer.

If I am mistaken, or if I have over-generalized, I apologise. Again, I think that parents on the other forum are more likely to look at reality simplistically. A lot of them were disaffected with Autism Speaks because it will not endorse the vaccine view. Autism Speaks endorses establishment positions, while the anti-vaccine people are decidedly against the pharma cartels. However, both factions, the establishment eugenicists and the anti-establishment vaccine people, believe in Neurotypicalism. Neither side can see Autistic people as having positive contributions to make. Both see a "problem," to be cured in a society dedicated to Enlightenment modes of rational problem solving.

In summation, my time there was somewhat disturbing. I wanted to like the parents there, but found that I could not relate to most of them. Few of them were even interested in what I had to say enough to tell me to shove...whatever they would tell me. This was disturbing, because I was willing to be of assistance as much as possible with what I could help.

However, it is also possible that few parents of intellectually inclined Autistics visit that forum. It is possible that more such parents are here than there. Hence, my experiences may not have been of value to them. My time there was brief, and rather unproductive. To top it off, the moderators there allowed a pornographer to spam the whole website, one visited by children! I will never return.

Another intellectual giant writing as Pakrat chipped in:

Post 2

RE: A General Comparison Between Parents on This Forum and Parents on Autism Speaks

I also notice on FB that the old chestnut of vaccine causing autism is very much alive and some of the parents disbelieve the evidence discrediting the supposed link. One woman got incredibly hysterical when I told her that vaccines did not cause her brother's severe autism. She made all kinds of insults against me which I found amusing since they were so ludicrous but it goes to show that when there is an emotive subject, reason can be quite lacking.

Yes, I believe the parents here are generally brighter and more deep thinking than in sites such as Autism Speaks. It's also possible though that the other parents have more severely affected children and therefore were exposed to more hype about "cures" and more indoctrination about the "tragedy of autism". People who prey on desperation are indeed despicable and all too common.

The discussion was also enlightened by one of the "smart" parents, posting as "atypical", who frequents the Aspies for Freedom site and, not surprisingly. agrees with the proposition that parents who frequent Aspies for Freedom are smarter than those at Autism Speaks:

Post 4

I think that if we/us parents seem brighter - it may be because -we found this place and stayed because the people here remind us of our children - or something in ourselves. Not average and mundane, but interesting, complicated, freedom lovers (It's in the name!)...

I feell lucky to have a different way of looking at things -I/WE ARE LUCKY TO BE AWARE, it is a blessing to see things in an atypical way AND instead of us changing our children, our children change us.

I am probably just not as smart, or as "aware", as "atypical" but I do take autism seriously as a disorder which seriously restricts the life opportunities of my son. It is in truth sad to see some persons with Aspergers Disorder, and some parents, posting such offensive material on the site, one of the alleged "Autism" Hub sites.

I know some persons with Aspergers and High Functioning Autism who do not indulge in such foolish, offensive trash talking and who do in fact show respect for the rights and responsibilities of parents to do the best they can to help their children live the fullest life possible. It is too bad that the "intellectuals" at Aspies for Freedom and other Autism Hub web sites don't display the same good character.

In the bigger picture the demeaning characterization of parents who seek cures for their autistic children or those who question vaccine safety as less intelligent than those who embrace their children's autism disorder as a blessing and do not question what gets injected into their young children's bodies is not much different than the marginalization of parents conducted by Paul Offit and other government and pharmaceutical spokespersons.

Offit and company also want the public to believe that parents who question vaccine safety are of lesser intelligence. Parental observations, no matter how many times the same pattern occurs are dismissed as coincidence. Parents, ALL parents who question vaccine safety are gullible fools seduced by charlatans ... or they are hysterical wing nuts because some apparently committed criminal, threatening acts toward Dr. Offit and his family.

And so we can just ignore ALL parents who see their children regress into autism after vaccination (unless they are a neurologist who can not be ignored or marginalized like Dr. Jon Poling).

If only those Stupid Autism Parents would just do as they were told.

autism