Autism and Vaccines: New York Times Promotes Offit Book

The New York Times has a new promotional feature, Book Is Rallying Resistance to the Antivaccine Crusade pushing Dr. Paul Offit's, "Autism's False Prophets" book. The NYT describes Dr. Offit as "mild, funny and somewhat rumpled" so you know where they are going with this one. They focus on Dr. Offit's receipt of death threats and quote him in a self comparison to Jonas Salk.

The NYT also manages to bring the beautiful actress, and Jenny McCarthy debater, Amanda Peet into the story, complete with photo of her in very motherly looking attire. What they don't do is mention the Poling case which put a serious dent in the "vaccines don't cause autism" position. Nor do they mention Dr. Julie Gerberding's acknowledgement that in some cases vaccines may trigger "autism like symptoms". Nor do they mention Dr. Bernardine Healy's (former head of the NIH and American Red Cross) comments calling for more research of a possible vaccine-autism connection, the limitations on the epidemiological studies which are used in defense of the vaccines, the discouragement by health authorities of vaccine-autism studies or the fact that vaccines still contain mercury.

The NYT has taken a stance and it has a right to do so. But it might be more honest to place the article in the opinion or editorial sections of the paper. Or in the advertising pages.

Journalism used to be about objectivity and presenting a complete, balanced summary of all sides of public issues. And the New York Times used to be about journalism.


autism

Autism and Environmental Factors - Valproate

In "Study finds epilepsy drug may increase chance of autistic children", reported in Future Medicine, a summary is provided of a UK study which found that children born to mothers who took the epilepsy drug valproate while pregnant were seven times more likely to develop autism than children born to mothers who took no epilepsy drug while pregnant. The risk was not found with other epilepsy drugs.

The article summarizes the study by RL Bromley, G Mawer, J Clayton-Smith and GA "Gus" Baker reported in "Autism Spectrum Disorders following in utero exposure to antileptic drugs. Neurology 71, 1923-1924 (2008). One of the study authors, Gus Baker, is quoted in the Future Medicine article:

"The potential risk for autism in this study was substantial for children whose mothers took valproate while pregnant, but more research needs to be done since these are early findings. However, women who take valproate while pregnant should be informed of the possible risks of autism and are encouraged to consult their doctor. Those who are taking valproate should not stop their treatment without talking to their doctor first."

The valproate study is one more indicator that autism research funding which has been so heavily weighted toward genetics research should be more evenly distributed to include more environmental research. It is also of interest to note that Dr. Bernardine Healy also emphasized the particular issue of pregnant women being given flu vaccines containing thimerosal and the fact that thimerosal passes the placenta.

autism

Autism Research Folly

"the NIH and NIMH are impeding progress in research about causes, diagnostics, and treatment in autism and similar syndromes.

By clinging to an oversimplified and outmoded model of autism (ie, it's gotta be genetic), the stubborn persistence of several research administrators in the NIH and NIMH means that funding for autism and autism-spectrum syndromes remains funneled into the hands of a small group of researchers who pledge (via NIH-grant contracts) to conduct their research in accord with the model wherein "it's gotta be genetic" (1).

This funding pattern imposes a serious limitation on research that ought be occurring, given the growing amount of new data which indicate that *more than* genetic-aspects need be considered.

The relationship between (a) the offically approved though outmoded paradigm and (b) subsequent funding patterns is worth re-stating:

The persistence of the NIH and the NIMH in focusing almost entirely upon a genetic-theory of autism means that a goodly amount of data continues to be ignored, shunted from view, and unfunded -- even as the primary genetics-model researchers are blessed with abundant funding despite decades of non-success (1). For instance, the data from Wakefield, Warren, Singh, Shattock, Oleske et cetera are important, as are patterns amidst parental anecdotes -- eg, gastrointestinal atypicalities, vaccination effects, extraodrinarily recurrent otitis et cetera.

However, as recent years have shown, despite the many new data and anecotes, the NIH and NIMH are resistant to change. The new data remain virtually ignored, the parents' anecdotes treated as if mere hearsay. Not surprisingly, in the face of this bureaucratic intransigence, the goal of changing and improving the NIH and NIMH in regard to autism funding will require increased effort."

Teresa Binstock, Researcher in Developmental and Behavioral Neuroanatomy, in IGNAZ SEMMELWEISS and AUTISM: when prevailing paradigms resist change, 1999

The Binstock article, referenced above, was a review of Jeanne Achterberg's book Woman as Healer and the sad story of Ignaz Semmelweiss who challenged medical orthodoxy of his time (1818-1865) by gathering data and arguing that peuperal (childbed) fever was caused by the unclean hands of those who delivered, or assisted, delivery of children. Hospital wards staffed by midwives had a 3% mortality rate due to fever while those staffed by medical students who often came straight from autopsy rooms to the maternity rooms, and either did not wash their hands, or wiped them on already bloody, dirty clothes, had a 10% rate.

The medical establishment of the time did not believe Semmelweiss and he was professionally punished by lowering his academic standing and restricting his hospital privileges. Ultimately he became depressed and committed to an asylum where he died of blood poisoning. Binstock noted similarities between the treatment afforded Semmelweis, his conclusions, and his data and what has happened today to the anecdotal evidence of parents and researchers who followed up on that anecdotal evidence.

Teresa Binstock's contention that research of a possible vaccine-autism conection has been discouraged by public authorities is in fact confirmed in the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism (2004) . In that document the public health authorities expressly discouraged research of vaccine-autism connections as shown at p. 152:

Biological Mechanisms Conclusions

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

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT

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

PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Policy Review

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

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

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

Apart from the express discouragement of funding of research of a possible vaccine autism connection it is interesting to note the first paragraph of the above quote. The highlighted portion states "In the absence of experimental or human evidence " that vaccines are causally related to autism any such hypothesis can be theoretical only. Having noted an absence of evidence the IOM then discouraged any research that might have produced such evidence. It is also becoming less certain that the epidemiological studies were as well designed as the IOM contended given the continued presence of thimerosal in vaccines, including some vaccines given to pregnant women.

In the last year the Poling case upset the IOM 2004 strategy. Government had to acknowledge that, at least in some subsets of children vaccines could trigger "autism like symptoms" :

if you're predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.

Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director, CDC, CNN Interview with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, March 29, 2008

As many have noted there is no intelligent distinction between autism and autism like symptoms. Autism is currently diagnosed by symptomatic behavior. In addition to Dr. Gerberding's reluctant acknowledgement of a vaccine-autism connection, Dr. Bernardine Healy, former director of the American Red Cross and the NIH, exposed limits of the epidemiological studes and expressed the need for further research of possible vaccine-autism connections in April 2008.

It is sheer folly to discourage research into possible environmental triggers or causes of autism. Not doing the research means that we might have missed out on possible treatments or preventative measures for autism. Teresa Binstock pointed out the folly of such a course of action in her 1999 comment. Now Irva Hertz-Picciotto, an author of the recent California study, has called for increased funding of research of possible environmental causes of autism.

It is time to move away from the "it's gotta be genetics" paradigm of autism research that Binstock described in 1999. It is time to move ahead with the autism research paradigm shift that the University of Minnesota called for in 2007, a paradigm based on the premise that autism is caused by a combination of environmental influence and genetic vulnerabilities.

It is time to end the "its gotta be genetics" autism research folly.

autism

Has Thimerosal Actually Been Removed From Vaccines? If Not, Of What Value Are the Epidemiological Studies?

Are the epidemiological studies relied upon by public authorities to refute assertions that the mercury based vaccine preservative thimerosal is responsible for some or all autism cases reliable?

These studies tend to show that autism rates did not decline after removal of thimerosal from vaccines. This past year the epidemiological defense of vaccines took a hit with the Poling case and with assertions by Dr. Bernardine Healy, a former director of the American Red Cross and the US National Institutes of Health, that the necessary clinical research to refute such a connection had not been done, particularly into subsets of children who might be genetically vulnerable or prediposed to develop when autism triggered by mercury or other toxins? Dr. Healy stated in Fighting the Autism-Vaccine War, US News & World Report, April 10, 2008, that:

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

She also stated, amongst other points, that:

thimerosal crosses the placenta, and pregnant women are advised to get flu shots, which often contain it.

I find that last statement very troubling. If the epidemiological studies are based on the premise that thimerosal has been removed from vaccines and in fact they have not then what is the probative value, if any, of the epidemiological studies? Particularly given the pregnancy context cited by Dr. Healy.

I am only a humble small town lawyer in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada but my concern is prompted in significant part by the information provided by a prominent and accomplished member of the US medical establishment. Other credible sources also lead me to the same concern about whether thimerosal has, or has not, been removed from vaccines as claimed in the public health authorities' refutations of vaccine-autism connections.

As of this posting the web site of the US Food and Drug Administration states: Over the past several years, because of an increasing awareness of the theoretical potential for neurotoxicity of even low levels of organomercurials and because of the increased number of thimerosal containing vaccines that had been added to the infant immunization schedule, concerns about the use of thimerosal in vaccines and other products have been raised. Indeed, because of these concerns, the Food and Drug Administration has worked with, and continues to work with, vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal from vaccines.

Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine (see Table 1). A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women. Some vaccines such as Td, which is indicated for older children (≥ 7 years of age) and adults, are also now available in formulations that are free of thimerosal or contain only trace amounts. Vaccines with trace amounts of thimerosal contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose.

The above, current statements from the US FDA, raise several concerns for me:

1) Theoretical potential for neurotoxicity of even low levels of organomercurials

The use of the term "theoretical potential for neurotoxicity" tells me that potential toxcity of organomercurials has NOT been definitively ruled out by the FDA. I appreciate that the expression is used in an historical context to explain the decision to remove mercury based preservatives from vaccines but surely the FDA web site would have immediately stated after that comment that there was no longer even a theoretical potential if such were the case.

2) continues to work with, vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal from vaccines.

Again, this information is taken from the web site of the US FDA as it exists today. Why are they continuing to reduce or eliminate thimerosal from vaccines if the epidemiological studies were based on the premise that thimerosal had already been removed? I appreciate that some of the studies are from other countries but have those countries all completely removed thimerosal from vaccines? If so, why were those other countries able to completely remove thimerosal when the US can not?

In the United States a study by the California Department of Health released in February 2008 found that autism rates remained steady after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines. That study conclusion was qualified though by Dr. Robert Schechter, a health officer with the California health department and lead author on the report of the study as reported in the Lexington-Herald, February 5, 2008:

As for Haley's argument that some children still might be getting some mercury from vaccines, Schechter said that could be true. But he said the general removal of thimerosal from vaccines still should have caused autism rates to fall -- if mercury were the culprit in the disease. "I would not claim that children are getting no mercury from vaccines," Schechter said. "But the average exposure for the population has been substantially decreased over the past decade. If mercury from vaccinations was a primary cause of autism, you would expect rates to be dropping substantially."

Substantial decrease is not the same as total removal of mercury from vaccines. The California epidemiological study, at least, is not based on removal of mercury from vaccines.

3) Trace amounts

The FDA site, as quoted above, states that vaccines with trace amounts of thimerosal contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose. That certainly sounds like a very small amount and the implication appears to be that the amount is too small to have any effect. But the FDA also referred to the theoretical potential for neurotoxicity of even low levels of organomercurials.

It seems dubious to claim that epidemiological studies show no autism increase after removal of mercury-thimerosal if all elements of the material have not in fact been removed when the potential for neurotoxicity is recognized even in small amounts. Partcularly since the FDA, as stated above, considers vaccines with trace amounts to be vaccines with the mercury removed:

A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women.

Why leave trace amounts in the vaccines to begin with? If trace amounts of thimerosal can still have a preservative effect on bacteria in the vaccines then why can't they also have a neurotoxic effect on children receiving the vaccines? And some of the flu vaccines, the ones not considered thimerosal free, contain more than trace amounts of thimerosal.

I am not a medical authority and do not pretend to be. Nor do I claim that vaccines or thimerosal cause autism. As some one who does earn his living by some degree of critical thinking and analysis I find the statements of public health authorities about epidemiological studies refuting a vaccine-autism link open to question.

Their own statements appear to contradict their claims that the studies refuting a vaccine-autism link are based on periods when thimerosal was removed from vaccines.

autism

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

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

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

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

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

kristina (Kristina Chew, Ph D, classic literature)

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

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

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

Jen

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

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

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

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

....

There is no evidence that removal of thimerosal from vaccines has lowered autism rates. But autism numbers are not precise, so I would say that considerably more research is still needed on some provocative findings. After all, thimerosal crosses the placenta, and pregnant women are advised to get flu shots, which often contain it. Studies in mice suggest that genetic variation influences brain sensitivity to the toxic effects of mercury. And a primate study designed to mimic vaccination in infants reported in 2005 that thimerosal may clear from the blood in a matter of days but leaves inorganic mercury behind in the brain.

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

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

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



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

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

autism

Autism's Vaccine War Should Be Ended

I am a "neutral" in autism's vaccine wars.

I do not accept that a connection between autism and vaccines has been established by medical and scientific study. Nor do I believe that such a connection has been conclusively dis-proven by epidemiological study. I find it disconcerting that both camps in the autism-vaccine wars throw increasingly angry rhetoric, including cheap insults, at anyone who offers an opinion on the issue. Public Health authorities should encourage the research necessary to obtain evidence to resolve and bring an end to the autism vaccine wars.

I am the father of a 12 year old boy with Autistic Disorder, assessed with profound developmental delays. I am not a scientist or a scientific researcher of any kind. I am also a humble small town lawyer who looks primarily to those who do the research, and to medical and psychological professionals, for understanding of my son's Autistic Disorder.

The responsible authorities tell us that there is no vaccine autism connection and I accept that - for now. With that acceptance I am not in the anti-vaccine camp in the autism wars. I read with interest the information posted on the Age of Autism web site but do not subscribe to much of it.

Unlike those firmly entrenched in the other army in the vaccine-autism war though, I do not close my mind to the possibility that further research could establish such a connection. As a lawyer it is axiomatic that I must look at all the evidence, not just the evidence that suits a client's position, in order to properly represent that client. It has always been my understanding that science too re-examines its conclusions in the face of fresh evidence and that hypotheses are not excluded for policy reasons.

I remain open to the possibility that vaccines may contribute to, or trigger, the onset of autism in some children. I thought the comments of Dr. Bernardine Healy in her CBS interview with Sharyll Attkisson were worthy of follow up and rebuttal by responsible professionals. Dr. Healy is a former head of the National Institutes of Health in the United States who told Ms Attkisson that the vaccine autism could not be ruled out, that further research had been declined by health authorities for fear of what might be found:

"I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational," Healy said. "But public health officials have been saying they know, they've been implying to the public there's enough evidence and they know it's not causal," Attkisson said. "I think you can't say that," Healy said. "You can't say that."

Healy goes on to say public health officials have intentionally avoided researching whether subsets of children are “susceptible” to vaccine side effects - afraid the answer will scare the public. "You're saying that public health officials have turned their back on a viable area of research largely because they're afraid of what might be found?" Attkisson asked. Healy said: "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," Healy said, "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." As an example, Healy points to the existing vaccine court claims.

CBS News has learned the government has paid more than 1,300 brain injury claims in vaccine court since 1988, but is not studying those cases or tracking how many of them resulted in autism. The branch of the government that handles vaccine court told CBS News: “Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries…may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this basis.”

"What we’re seeing in the bulk of the population: vaccines are safe," said Healy. "But there may be this susceptible group. The fact that there is concern, that you don’t want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me. If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children. If you turn your back on the notion that there is a susceptible group… what can I say?"

Government officials would not respond directly to Healy’s views… but reiterated, vaccines are safe.

Dr.Healy's comments about public health officials discouraging research into the vaccine hypothesis are clearly confirmed by reading the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism (2004) referenced in the CBS interview with former NIH Head Dr. Bernadine Healy ot the National Academies Press site. The document is 214 pages with hundreds of references to autism. Some comments in the Review:

At page 152:

BOX 2
Committee Conclusions and Recommendations

SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT

Causality Conclusions

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

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

Biological Mechanisms Conclusions

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

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT

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

PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Policy Review

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

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

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

The above recommendations noted that because there was an absence of experimental or human evidence concerning a vaccine autism link any such link remained theoretical only. It did not say that there was no possibility of such a link or that such a link had been dis-proven. The recommendations expressly discouraged investigation of a possible autism vaccine link for cost-benefit reasons. The IOM expressly discouraged the type of research that might have provided the evidence that it said was lacking and necessary to establish a vaccine autism link.

The IOM strategy of abandoning investigation of a possible autism-vaccine link has not enhanced public confidence in the safety of vaccines. The denials and insults thrown at leaders of the "vaccines cause autism" camp will only increase the suspicions of those who distrust public health authorities and their assurances that vaccines do not cause, contribute to, or trigger autism.

It is time for the IOM and other public health authorities to investigate and obtain the "experimental or human evidence" to either refute or confirm, in whole or in part, the autism vaccine hypothesis that it referenced in 2004.

It is time to end the autism vaccine war.

autism

Washington Post Omits Historic Date, Important Information, From Autism Key Dates List

The Washington Post has published a list of Some Key Dates in Autism History. The list has an important omission and is inaccurate or misleading on some controversial assertions. The article also repeats, without qualification, some oft repeated official positions that are not entirely accurate or are subject to serious dispute.

1) 1987 Lovaas Study On Effectiveness of ABA

The article, by Brittney Johnson, makes no mention of the publication in 1987 of the Lovaas study indicating that 90% of children substantially improved when utilizing Applied Behavior Analysis, compared to a control group with close to half attaining normal IQ and testing within the normal range on adaptive and social skills.


2) Alleged Thimerosal Removal

2000 In response to broad government concerns, vaccine makers remove thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, from all routinely given childhood vaccines.

That statement is not entirely accurate. As stated by Dr. Robert Schecter, lead author of the recent California epidemiological study on rising autism incidence:

"Autism rates increased consistently ... throughout this period, despite the exclusion of mercury from nearly all childhood vaccines,"[Bold highlighting added -HLD]

As for Haley's argument that some children still might be getting some mercury from vaccines, Schechter said that could be true.

"I would not claim that children are getting no mercury from vaccines," Schechter said."

- Lexington Herald Leader, February 4, 2008


3) 2004 IOM Report - No credible evidence of a link between thimerosal and autism . . . or between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism.


2004: The Institute of Medicine, which advises the government on scientific matters, finds no credible evidence of a link between thimerosal and autism . . . or between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism.

The 2004 IOM report and the processes used in preparing it have been criticized; including recently by former NIH Head Dr. Bernadine Healy who stated that the IOM expressly discouraged research and investigation of a possible vaccine/thimerosal link to autism and that the IOM report authors did so because of fear of vaccination rejection by the general population. Dr. Healy's contentions appear to be supported by some of the IOM report statements at page 152.

4) Autism Spike

2007: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports autism affects 1 in 150 children. Medical experts say the changed number reflects better detection, broader diagnostic criteria and increased public awareness -- not a spike in the disease.

Some medical experts attribute the spike entirely to diagnostic criteria change and increased public awareness ...... and some do not. Research is continuing into possible environmental causes of autism and their potential contribution to current rates of autism diagnosis.

5) Bettelheim's Refrigerator Mother Theory

1971: Eminent psychologist Bruno Bettelheim promotes the "refrigerator mother" theory, which holds that "cold," unurturing parents, especially moms, are to blame for autism.

The article describes Bettelheim as an eminent psychologist and makes no mention of the fact that his "theory" is totally discredited today .... or to the harm that it caused to families.

All in all, a less than sterling effort by Brittney Johnson and the Washington Post.

autism

IOM Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism (2004) Discouraged Investigation of Possible Vaccine Autism Connection

Anyone wishing to read the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism (2004) referenced in the CBS interview with former NIH Head Dr. Bernadine Healy can access it at the National Academies Press site. The document is 214 pages with hundreds of references to autism. Some comments in the Review:

At page 152:

BOX 2
Committee Conclusions and Recommendations

SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT

Causality Conclusions

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

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

Biological Mechanisms Conclusions

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

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT

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

PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Policy Review

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

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

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

The above recommendations appear to support Dr. Healy's statements that the IOM expressly discouraged research and investigation of a possible vaccine/thimerosal link to autism and that the IOM report authors did so because of fear of vaccination rejection by the general population. As the above quote indicates the recommendation was based on epidemiological studies.

autism

Fomer NIH Head Says Question of Whether Vaccines Cause Autism Has Not Been Answered

Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the US National Institutes of Health, has claimed in an interview with CBS News that the question of whether there is a causal connection between vaccines and autism has not yet been answered. There is not yet enough evidence to say that there is no causal connection.

Dr . Healy notes that there have been no major studies of autistic children who developed autistic symptoms shortly after vaccination to see if there is such a connection. Animal Lab tests on mice and primates showing concerns about mercury and vaccine preservatives have been disregarded. Population studies do not test causation the indicate associations. Controlled lab studies are required. Dr. Healy also indicates that an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report in 2004 discouraged investigation of a possible link between susceptibility groups, autism and vaccines. Dr. Healy claims that the IOM report expressed a concern that pursuing the vaccine autism hypothesis would scare the public.

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

"But public health officials have been saying they know, they've been implying to the public there's enough evidence and they know it's not causal," Attkisson said.

"I think you can't say that," Healy said. "You can't say that."

CBS News has learned the government has paid more than 1,300 brain injury claims in vaccine court since 1988, but is not studying those cases or tracking how many of them resulted in autism.






autism