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.
I have a son who had a stroke at birth. There have not been any safety studies conducted on using vaccines with neurologically damaged children. I have taken my son to many specialists, and in their waiting rooms, I have met many parents of children who were irreparably damaged by vaccines. To the person who said "How irresponsible of parents to put other's children at risk by not vaccinating their children," my response is that my first priority is to my own child, not the public. Since there are no safety studies on using vaccines with people with neurological damage, I will not have my son vaccinated.
That being said, I make sure I feed him a very healthy diet, avoiding processed foods, giving him lots of vegetables and fruits and give him supplements to strengthen his immune system, so that he can fight any illnesses that come his way. And he rarely gets sick; last year he had a sniffly nose for a couple days, and that was it. Even his pediatrician comments how rarely he sees my son, pretty much just for his yearly check-ups.
My problem with vaccines is the "one size fits all" concept; there are some people who ARE adversely affected by vaccines. In my opinion, there is not enough research into how to avoid these adverse reactions. I would be willing to vaccinate my child if there was a vaccine developed that would take into account his neurological issues. Until then...
Unfortunately it isn't just parents, at least according to some, even some pediatricians agree with the parents that fewer shots should be given, etc. It's possible they are going along with the parents in order to prevent a lawsuit should anything happen to the child. Either way, I think we need to start with educating doctors.
The association of vaccines and autism may not an issue about vaccinations per say, but merely the fact that too many vaccines are given at one time instead of spacing them in greater intervals.
We now know that some drugs react drugs react differently based on gender and race. How do we know that there are not some genetic factors that cause a reaction in certain people?
As a mother of five children, I respect science and strongly believe in the value of vaccines. I can only hope that other parents will understand what Dr. DeBiasi stated in the broadcast: Fear of what people do see (namely a large presence of autism within our community), often clouds a parent’s vision of the fact that serious harm and even death can occur from what they don’t see (namely vaccine preventable diseases). If a parent has concerns, I would urge them to have a frank and candid conversation with their doctor, rather than make an emotional decision based on the fear perpetuated by others. I applaud Alison Singer for standing up for the science and Seth Mnookin for addressing the role that the media has, and continues to play, in this ongoing discussion.
Fortunately, the fact remains that a majority of parents continue to recognize the importance of immunizations by getting their children vaccinated. However, we must continue to address the concerns of parents so that they can ultimately trust the science and the public health agencies. If anyone is looking to engage in a conversation regarding vaccinations, I invite them to join our community at our http://www.facebook.com/VaccinateYourBaby or the Shot of Prevention blog (http://shotofprevention.com/).
Isn't there another professional in the world that can debate these guests? There are two sides to this story. 31,553 reported adverse reactions to vaccines in 2010. That probably doesn't include most cases of autism. http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/data/
So it's unproven vaccines directly cause autism. But we do know they can cause measles, polio, encephalitis and even death.
I have two comments. One, the Pharma companies are FOR-PROFIT companies. Any time parents are told to conform to mass medication, and some corporation is making a profit, I think its responsible for a parents to question the vaccine. Why are Pharma corporationsw For-profit? Why can't they be non-profit, and write grants to produce the vaccines, or get funding from the gov't to produce them with no profit?
Two, the only children that I knew of in my community who had some of these childhood diseases WERE vaccinated. I would like your commentators to seperates non-vaccinanated, and vaccinated children when descriding outbreaks in certain parts of the country. I think this distiction is not clarified, evne when talking to local health cepartment officials. I think this too is our right as parents to know.
I agree with the comment about this discussion being very 1 sided. How about Dr. Joseph Mercola on your show?
I have chosen to do delayed, single vaccines for my 4 month old child. When she was born, the hospital made me sign a release so that she wouldn't have to have the Hep B vaccine. When I asked why she needed the vaccine, the nurse told us that it was because Hep B was transmitted through coughing, WHICH IS FLAGRANTLY FALSE! The Hep B vaccine is completely unnecessary for newborns, and done purely for profit. Hep B is only transmittable through blood or bodily fluids. Unless your baby is sexually active or injecting drugs, why would they need it? When these kind of things occur, how are we as parents to trust Big Pharma? In regards to the FDA, there is a revolving door between the FDA and industry. The FDA cannot be trusted. Example: Triclosan. Proven to increase microbial resistance and is associated with thyroid problems in lab animals, yet is still FDA approved. The FDA allows data to come from pharmaceutical companies, instead of having a 3rd party do experiments.
I am a physician, have reviewed the literature regarding all vaccines in the pediatric vaccination schedule extensively and have made the well informed decision to not follow the pediatric vaccination schedule for my child. The guests on your show today are discussing only a fraction of the concerns that exist regarding vaccines yet are pushing hard to paint all vaccines as safe for all children. Autism aside, not all vaccines are safe for all child. This is my professional opinion.
Thank you so much for this great show and critical discussion of immunizations. Vaccines are so important to our health and wellbeing. I am grateful to live in a an age where I can vaccinate my children against fatal illness. I have a young baby 8 months old, and I live in Arizona. I was very worried about the measles outbreak in California last year, because of how vulnerable my newborn was at the time of the outbreak. My child was born prematurely and spent 36 days in the NICU and if she had contracted a preventable illness, like measles, I would have been livid. I feel we need to way the risks against the benefits; and in my mind the benefits of immunizations greatly outweigh the risks.
K. Caruso said:
it is not very "scientific" to conclude that vaccines are safe or not safe based on one study.
You are right and one study is far from all we have. Did you know that Wakefield's study was questioned in the scientific community shortly after it was published. Tons of work has been done to confirm his findings and see if there's any real link between vaccines and autism.
Vaccine safety has been looked at often and apart from some well understood risks (including allergies), there is nothing dangerous about the commonly used vaccines.
The other issue is the flu vaccine. Another totally for profit medical intervention that has minimal benefit for 99% of the population. A strong immune system is all that is needed to handle the flu virus. This occurs through proper nutrition and healthy sun exposure, as well as avoidance of the flood of environmental toxins around us.
It is a myth that children who are not vaccinated are a threat to those children who are vaccinated In fact, the children who have been vaccinated with a live virus can expose others to that virus for up to two weeks after the vaccination. And being vaccinated does not guarantee immunity. We may use the terms interchangeably at times, but vaccination does not equal immunization. If you are concerned about your child's health, you would do better to ensure they are getting adequate nutrition that you are educated on how to treat diseases and their symptoms naturally so that you are prepared in the event that they do get sick.
I find it utter riduculous that this issue been compared to the "birther" movement - it is not at all a parallel issue. If your science is sound, you would welcome a two-sided discussion in which you could refute anything that you did not agree with
Also, parental anecdotes are used because the system of reporting vaccine injury in this country is not reliable. Parents have to be listened to when they tell their child's doctor what is going on with the child following a vaccine and the doctor actually has to report it, but this often does not happen. Why would the doctors (and pharmaceutical companies) want to admit anything that would make them liable for any harm done?
It is a myth that children who are not vaccinated are a threat to those children who are vaccinated In fact, the children who have been vaccinated with a live virus can expose others to that virus for up to two weeks after the vaccination. And being vaccinated does not guarantee immunity. We may use the terms interchangeably at times, but vaccination does not equal immunization. If you are concerned about your child's health, you would do better to ensure they are getting adequate nutrition that you are educated on how to treat diseases and their symptoms naturally so that you are prepared in the event that they do get sick.
I find it utter riduculous that this issue been compared to the "birther" movement - it is not at all a parallel issue. If your science is sound, you would welcome a two-sided discussion in which you could refute anything that you did not agree with
Also, parental anecdotes are used because the system of reporting vaccine injury in this country is not reliable. Parents have to be listened to when they tell their child's doctor what is going on with the child following a vaccine and the doctor actually has to report it, but this often does not happen. Why would the doctors (and pharmaceutical companies) want to admit anything that would make them liable for any harm done?
Thanks for covering this topic. However, the debate that has raged on over thimerasol and autism has overshadowed other reasonable criticisms of vaccine policy.
For example, aluminum, a neurotoxin, is present in many childhood vaccines yet, as demonstrated by Dr. Robert Sears (a pediatrician who supports vaccination), there have been no studies regarding the safety of aluminum in those vaccines. And a study comparing groups of newborns who were given IV solutions with and without aluminum demonstrated neurological development differences 8-9 months later.
Combine that concern with the current research showing that genes for diseases are often triggered by environmental factors and you have a case for allowing families to make informed decisions regarding vaccine policy for their own children. Especially considering research has not yet been conducted on the effects of vaccine ingredients on the wide array of diseases that family history can pass on.
Yet it is rare to find the pediatrician who is willing to factor in family history and plausible concern. Families who choose to use selective or delayed vaccination are all too often cast as conspiracy nuts or menaces, thrown out of medical practices or not provided with adequate information. As with all medical practice, every decision must be made according to individual circumstances, not blanket policy.
It is undeniable that Wakefield's studies are bad science. Also undeniable are the stories from parents of autistic children. My 8 year old daughter has High functioning autism. At 15 months old she received the MMR vaccine and 2 weeks later developed a fever and a measles type rash. After this episode, the extreme sensory integration issues and tantrums began. By 18 months, she had a change in affect-- emotionally she was lost to me. Was this a coincidence? It is possible that there is a subset of the population that has a genetic tendency to autism and the introduction of the MMR effects brain development in this population. Has this type of study been done? I've chosen to vaccinate my children with the recommended vaccinations but I delay the MMR until after 2, just in case. I did not give my autistic daughter the MMR booster due to worry about a more severe physical reaction and the fear of another regression. Some "good" science would be very helpful for parents making these crucial decisions
Please elaborate on your concerns. I did feel that the guests were very 1 sided. Please share if you have any info that accurately summarizes what is in the medical literature. Thank you.
Seth Mnookin is completely wrong when he states that no study can be done on vaccinated versus unvaccinated children because to withhold vaccines from children would be unethical. There are plenty of children in America alone, the Amish for one, whose parents have withheld vaccines voluntarily. These children are available for studies, yet these studies have not been done. Do vaccine advocates fear the results of such a study? If so, what do they have to fear?
I would welcome the results of such a study. I am told the Amish have few instances of autism, but until a study is done on unvaccinated versus vaccinated children, I have no idea if that is true. A well-designed study would answer that question.
As this program evolved, I was quite concerned how one-sided you have managed to make this conversation. While you do give time to your callers, you give much more time for your guests, ALL of whom make money when vaccine policies are followed. You mention the studies and professionals supporting vaccine use, and an apparent 'minority' of doctors and scientists who oppose them. Have you ever heard of chiropractors? There are over 50,000 chiropractors in the US, and the VAST majority oppose mandatory vaccine policy. Have you ever heard of the American Academy of Physicians and Surgeons? It boasts THOUSANDS of MDs and related scientists, ALL OF WHOM oppose our current mandatory vaccine policy, and caution that the science done to support their use is of dubious quality. Do you recall the THOUSANDS of medical doctors and nurses who REFUSED smallpox vaccines during the anthrax scare after 9/11? Your program was horribly biased, and you should be ashamed.
The BEST comment on today's show was when Diane made explicit the structure of today's discussion: this was NOT NOT NOT intended to be a "balanced" discussion, but an act of responsible journalism. One side of the vaccine/autism debate has been so thoroughly debunked that to continue to give it air time is, in itself, irresponsible. Seems to me you have the topic of another show: how to encourage those with pulpits on air, in print, in the ether to act *responsibly* by reporting, discussing, dissecting the facts, and NOT by adopting the Fox view of "balanced" which, of course, is anything but.
Hooray, hooray, hooray to you, Diane, for setting the standard and, perhaps, for leading your journalist colleagues back to their mission: keeping us, the people, informed, not "balanced."
One reason the public has difficulty to understand the scientific findings is the poor education. Any high school graduate should be able to understand the basics of scientific approach to a hypothesis testing. In a society that parents home school children so they are not exposed to evolution, where global warming is considered a myth you cannot expect much.
Chiropracters are not physicians. Their approach is by no means science based.
Chiropracters are not physicians. Their approach is by no means science based.
@ Lynn Wilhem:
Did you also know that the FDA does not do their own studies and that they rely on the pharmaceutical companies to do their own research and submit it for review? And the pharmaceutical companies can submit whatever will help their drugs get approved? Also, did you know that safety studies on new vaccines only require them to be compared to other vaccines already on the market, which may already not be safe? And that parents with children who have reactions to vaccines either do not realize that their children are sick because of vaccines (it does not always show up right away) or are told by their doctors that the vaccines their children receive don't have anything to do with their illness/reactions, so the incidents are usually not reported? And that most children, by the time they enter school for the first time, receive over 90 vaccines according to the current schedule? And that there are no studies that can prove that vaccines are safe for all children, let alone any that show that the cumulative effects of 90+ vaccines are safe?
I'm so glad that other parents are speaking up- Whether or not there's a link to autism, my twins had a severe reaction to MMR when they were very small.
Your guests were in a very comfortable position, and simply brushed aside any disagreement.
Parents are scientists too, we have to be!
Our observations are not silly because they don't take place in a lab, they are some of the most important data available for anyone interested in childrens' welfare, rather than career advancement.
Faith based science isn't real science- if an observer has decided that Vaccines Are Safe and then provide a study to support that point of view, then appear on a well respected talk show and brush aside intelligent parents' observations, they might as well move over to Fox.
Vaccines seem to be fairly safe, most of the time, for most kids.
Some kids have moderate to severe reactions.
Dismissing these observations because they don't fit one's opinions is silly.
Autism is a terrifying disease for parents. It doesn't appear immediately at birth but instead manifests itself as the child develops. As a parent, you feel like you have no control over what is happening to your child and you can almost drive yourself crazy trying to deduce a reason for their condition, and so I can understand why the idea that there is a link between vaccinations and Autism is so attractive. It is a decision that you make as a parent and it is something you can control, and it some ways it is fueled by growing discontent with doctors who can be insensitive or uninformed about your child's needs. It is attractive to feel like you might have control over your child developing autism. However, now that there is irrefutable proof that Dr. Wakefield fabricated his information, it is amazing to me that parents continue to espouse these irrational beliefs based on misinformation, beliefs that have had harmful results. One of the callers today mentioned that he had an eight year old with autism and had never had his children immunized. If that is the case, how could he link autism with immunization issues? As a parent with an autistic child, I hope that the scientific community will stop wasting time and funds on this issue and move forward with more promising research. Thank you for the topic today and for your efforts in promoting better information about this issue.
If this article is true, this may be the answer to why this study isn't done. According to this article, 70% of the Amish vaccinate their children: http://autism.about.com/b/2008/04/23/do-the-amish-vaccinate-indeed-they-...
One of the reasons I listen to and respect the show is that there is always someone representing opposing views. Why not with this one? And why didn't you ask who actually did all the studies that "proved" that there is no link between vaccines and autism? It would have been interesting to note that the pharmaceutical companies did them. I urge you to do a show now with people from the vast base of parents and professionals who will provide compelling argument to support a probable link. Try the organization Age of Autism for a start. I am an RN and I do not support the outrageously excessive use of vaccines on infants.
This is a very important topic and the panel was too obviously pro-vaccine, claiming that there is no evidence of harm.
I don't believe that parents who do not vaccinate rely solely on anecdotal evidence. More of the "liberal, affluent, educated" parents who do not vaccinate might be more likely to if the CDC, and a bunch of the pharmaceutical companies had treated the issue more seriously from the beginning, rather than use fear to get people to vaccinate. Furthermore, when there is the same push for the flu vaccine as there is for polio or measles, many parents end up confused and respond by not vaccinating at all.
I've listened to the Diane Rehm Show for years and normally I appreciate the more balanced exchange of ideas, but today, the Show missed out on an opportunity to allow all sides to let their voice be heard.
Some researchers need to reconsider the comments they use to try to convince parents that they should vaccinate. While it's true that breast milk and formula has more aluminum and a can of tuna has more mercury than vaccines, we are not injecting the tuna and formula into our babies blood system. Thus, there is not the same spike of those metals as would happen with simple consumption. These poor analogies are not scientifically useful and do more to make one not trust the science and industry. Instead, show me the reproducible research that determines what mercury and aluminum levels are safe to inject into a baby's system. How much is too much? Oh course a parent is going to be on the conservative side of protecting their baby and when they mistrust the science, they will hesitate. By the way, I fully believe in vaccinations but I can also see how this can be abused by the industry. While there is a need to vaccinate, we also have to take care that it's done right.