Vaccines and Autism: A Story of Medicine, Science and Fear
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-02-02/vaccines-and-autism-story-medicine-science-and-fear
In 1998 a research paper was published that linked the childhood measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to the onset of autism, a life long developmental disorder. Follow up studies could not replicate the findings casting doubt on its conclusions, and earlier this year it was proven that this original study was, in fact, fraudulent. But the damage was done. Childhood vaccination rates dropped resulting in outbreaks of measles and whooping cough. Funds that would have gone to new research into the causes of autism were diverted, and surveys indicate that about one in five Americans continues to believe that a childhood vaccine can trigger autism. A story of fraudulent medical research and its consequences.
Guests
Seth Mnookin
Author of "The Panic Virus: a True Story of Medicine, Science, and Fear." He is a contributing editor at "Vanity Fair" and a former senior writer for "Newsweek."
Dr. Roberta DeBiasi
pediatric infectious diseases physician at Children’s National Medical Center
Alison Tepper Singer
Founder and President of the Autism Science Foundation, formerly Executive Vice President of Autism Speaks, served on the federal Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC.)
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Thank you for tackling this important topic, and for inviting these three experts on your show.
As a result of Dr. Wakefield's scam measles with all its serious side effects is on the rise. He should be criminally prosecuted and serve serious time.
Regardless of the veracity of one study, I have never heard anyone say why pharma felt it was appropriate to use vaccine preservatives with heavy metals in them and why parents never knew heavy metals were being injected into their children. The pharmaceutical companies created this problem for themselves and instead of blaming parents for seeking solutions, pharma should be taking responsibility for their errors. People are frightened; we all know women who have borne brain-damaged children. Talking about the horror of measles is NOT going to make this problem go away.
I think it is unforgivable for a scientist to falsify research. However, I keep hearing the news media saying that because this study on MMR was fasified it proves that all vaccines are safe. That of course is not the case at all. What is proves is only that this study was wrong. It doesn't prove that MMR is not a factor in Autism, and it certainly doesn't prove that there are no other side effects from any of the many other vaccines given today. Most parents are not concerned with a specific vaccine, they are troubled by the number of vaccines given in such a short period of time. The cumulative effect of this won't be known for a generation. In the meantime, when choosing what vaccines to give my daughter I talked to my doctor, and also looked up the information on both the diseases and the vaccines using CDC data. I did the math and calculated which vaccines made sense given the odds of catching the disease, the chances of having a serious complication from the disease, and the incidence of serious adverse effects from the vaccine itself. I have also chosen, at the advice of her doctor, to space out the vaccines so that the cumulative effect is minimal. But despite my logical, thorough approach I am painted as panicked or uneducated because I still question vaccination safety. Somehow it is forgotten that all drugs, including vaccines have both risks and benefits.
I agree with Linda Theil completely. When drug companies do something as thoughtless as use heavy metals unnecessarily in these vaccines, they make it hard to trust them to do the right thing. Would they have removed them if there had not been an outcry? I doubt it.
I know this one study was fraudulent, but someone needs to address the fact that a number of parents have seen their children become ill after vaccines. What is that about? I am not saying it is because of the vaccine, but what might the connection be? We need more research.
Unfortunately, we have seen drug companies push various drugs with faulty and incomplete studies, and have seen unfortunate outcomes for consumers as a result. As I said before, this makes it very hard to trust what they say. We need to proceed with caution, because neither doctors nor drug companies have all the answers.
I was wondering, if the study was seriously flawed, how did it pass the peer review process?
It might be interesting to look at the report recently issued by the International Medical Council on Vaccination on the dangers of vaccinations. Download it from http://www.naturalnews.com/Vaccines_Get_the_Full_Story.html.
Check it out and add it to all the information floating around.
I absolutely agree with Elizabeth B's comment. If this was Facebook, I'd "like" it about 1000 times.
I hadn't heard before (or I'd somehow forgotten) that Wakefield had a specific monetary interest in an alternative vaccine. That makes his conduct even more horrendous and deserving of severe punishment.
In regards to the question about why parents are skeptical of the science surrounding vaccines, please address or have your guests address who is studying the vaccinations.
I think that many parents believe that the bulk (if not all) major studies are done by the drug companies that make the vaccines. If true, this would certainly be reason for skepticism.
Thank you.
In addition there are many other concerns that parents wonder about in relation to vaccines: additives, allergies, obesity, ADHD, and other childhood illnesses that are on the rise.
I've read that the Wakefield study was really a retrospective case review of no more than 15 children and some of those 15 cases were excluded from the Lancet journal article. There were no controls. Is this true? If so, its just junk science.
Can anyone comment regarding the media's reponsibility (as well as the Lancet) for the perpetuating this MMR/Autism hoax when Wakefields association with lawyers trying to prosecute the pharmaceutical industry WAS KNOWN FROM THE GET GO?? Seems like a huge omission?! Why should we trust the media now to give us accurate, fully accurate information? Why hasn't the media been screaming from the roof tops that the vaccine is SAFE! Totally irresponsible!!
Yes, the fact that this study was falsified does not mean that vaccines don't cause autism, but the many, many studies that repeatedly found no causal connection do demonstrate that. Yes, there are many cases where pharma companies and some scientists have lied about the benefits or side effects of drugs. No one is saying that isn't so. What is troubling here is the notion that the majority of scientists who have reached a consensus aren't believed. There are also cases where vaccines have caused problems, but these have been discovered and remedied. The problem here is that science and the scientific method are completely discounted because some bad things have happened. Most scientists are honestly researching and pursuing the truth for the well-being of others and not earning oodles of money. It is extremely discouraging when their best efforts are treated as some kind of conspiracy of scientists and the government to harm children.
If that were true, we would not be able to believe anything experts say and we need to go around putting ourselves in a bubble. We cannot live this way. How can people believe that the government and scientists are out to get them? What benefit would the government get from continuing to promote a treatment that results in some cases in a child who then will need a lot of expensive interventions and where many of the costs will be borne by the government?
Don’t parents who choose not to vaccinate their children realize that they could be putting other children or people at risk? How could they justify putting other people in danger?
I think the only way to convince the people who are most suspicious is for scientists to show they are vaccinating their own children in the same way that they recommend.
I'm having a very difficult time with the so called "explosion" in autism cases. While severe cases are very difficult to manage and it's very easy to understand parent desperation--one cannot escape the faddishness of "mental health" and doctors who are over-defining MANY psychological and behavioral complaints. Having worked in the education field for some time, there appears to be a significant over identification (and mental illness labelling) of many conditions. The use of the DSM is implicated in the US, I believe, as the DSM is used far less, elsewhere.
And then, there is of course, the alarmist press which collectively promotes catastrophic interpretations of various dangers. In reality, most people die or are injured in car crashes or in falling down stairs.
Autism should be one of the least of our worries, and it would be useful to promote good nutrition and developmental skill building as the mainstays of parenting. Eliminating heavy metals is very useful, as well--but there is a difference between leaded paint and trace amounts occurring elsewhere. (Could the press help us in assessing the difference?)
We use many more drugs in the US than in other countries, with less than optimal health indicators. Surely, SOME of them might be eliminated or reduced--
However, I remain a supporter of immunization efforts.
The spike in the diagnosis of autism also corresponds to the change in the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-R, not to vaccines given in children.
As a vaccine advocate myself I would love to hear more about the promising research to find the causes of autism. The only way the public will stop believing vaccines are the cause is by finding the true cause(s).
Where are research dollars best spent to find the cause and treat those with autism now.
Amy Pisani, Executive Director, Every Child By Two - Rosalynn Carter/Betty Bumpers Champions for Immunization
Did The Lancet lose any peer credibility after the Wakefield paper was called into question?
I am quite concerned that your panel seems to be entirely formed of those who support vaccines and their dissemination, in essence a free commercial for the vaccine industry. ALL of your guests seem to have a vested interest in advocation of vaccines. I am particularly interested to know if they have vested FINANCIAL interests. Please ask of your guests to disclose if the sale of vaccines, or the advocation of vaccine policy, brings them financial gain. Also, please tell us when you may invite a panel that would be able to respond to the charges your panelists level WITHOUT OPPOSITION.
this issue is not about this study exclusively. there is another study that links autism with HepB vaccine, and it is not mercury problem. and many more aspects..
I do vaccinate my children very conservatively, the reasons being:
1) too many vaccines on market, too many new vaccines not being around for long enough that I would consider them 100% safe
2) some deceases are not life threatening and can be dealt very easily with modern medicine. but it takes time - the reasons here are mainly economical/financial. I can afford to take care of my sick child for two weeks continuously.
3) possibility of faulty preparations/procedures - so many drugs have being recalled and mistakes are made
3) very little of balanced information from pediatricians. they act like machines - getting kids vaccinated by any cost, as early as possible, very much out of convenience, not child's health considerations. guideline is to not vaccinate sick children - done all the time.
4) there are more risks then autism and it is not being discussed properly. instead we are stuck with this Dr.W. study which is just one wave in this ocean.
** I am former researcher and did my MS in vaccine research. My husband is MD.
What I find interesting is that the majority of public discussion of this issues seems to center around one study by one man when there is a lot of other research out there showing that vaccines do have harmful risks and consequences. Those who are concerned about vaccine safety can look at the work of other researchers to find ample evidence of this, and those who investigate on their own will see for themselves. Pointing to the bias held by other researchers does not discredit their studies - bias is inherent in all studies (especially those done by and released by pharmaceutical companies.) There is not enough understanding in the medical community about how the immune system actually works and what the consequences of injecting aluminum really is to be experimenting on our children this way and saying that this is acceptable.
By the way, there has been information that has come out in recent weeks that shows the Dr. Wakefield's research was not only based on his own observations, but on research done by others before him, which supported his work, but I have not seen this covered by the media. Whatever you believe about this one man, it is not very "scientific" to conclude that vaccines are safe or not safe based on one study. Please check out the work of Dr. Sherry Tenpenny if you want to see more about why so many people have concluded that vaccines are not safe - she has done research using the CDC's own data.
Parents often feel guilty when their children come down with a serious chronic disease like autism or diabetes. Of course they would try to find an outside cause for the sickness. I sympathize with the parents, their anguish. I also was a child during "The March of Dimes" fight against polio. Polio and other vaccine-preventable diseases are even more terrifying.
This whole debate smacks of collusion between big pharma, who make the vaccines, and the government, who then mandates their use. I’d love to hear your guests discuss passive immunity, which the FDA has acknowledged as a viable means of protecting unimmunized children by exposure to children who’ve received vaccaines, as well as the vaccination-related conversations that took place at the CDC conference at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Georgia in 2000.
This whole debate smacks of collusion between big pharma, who make the vaccines, and the government, who then mandates their use. I’d love to hear your guests discuss passive immunity, which the FDA has acknowledged as a viable means of protecting unimmunized children by exposure to children who’ve received vaccines, as well as the vaccination-related conversations that took place at the CDC conference at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Georgia in 2000.
The idea of a relationship between autism and vaccines may persist, because it provides a simple explanation, pointing to an exterior palpable cause. By contrast, prenatal genetic causes are more difficult to ponder, for parents and for scientists alike.
Read more here:
http://brainmindinst.blogspot.com/2008/04/autism-schizophrenia-time.html
As a parent of an immune suppressed child, this topic is near and dear, and honestly makes me so scared and angry. My child is put in danger every time a misinformed parent fails to immunize their children.
Not a vaccine issue but does anyone on the panel have insight about the increased use of Pitocin to induce labor rising along with the soaring autism rates. Midwife birth data though limited seems to indicate drugless natural births have few if any subsequent cases of autism.
If you choose to vaccinate your children, you are allowed to see the ingredients in the vaccine before you decide to do so. Ask the doctor or nurse for the vaccine insert and then decide for yourself if you trust what is in there. Know also that experimental DNA and RNA has been found in some vaccines and up to 45 viruses have been found in the polio vaccine. Why is this necessary?
The conversation is always focused too much on the link with autism and the invalid report by Dr. Wakefield. It is clear that the medical community has achieved overwhelming consensus on this issue.
While I agree it's dangerous to lower the trust of the medical and pharmaceutical communities, it's also dangerous to blindly trust communities that have proven not deserving in the past.
1) A couple of your guests have already said the communities have failed the public in the past. What is different now that makes these communities deserving of our trust?
2) The general public is over-medicated (Frontline "The Medicated Child"). The default for children these days is to receive medication and intervention for both prevention and treatment. There needs to be a larger focus on what can be done for proper health through healthy nutrition habits, sleep and environmental awareness.
3) Medications/vaccines must be used as tools to support these healthy habits and not as a replacement.