« Nuke, Nuke, Nuke, Nuke Nuke Iran? | Main | He Got it For Cheap » Autism Mumbo-Jumbo22 Apr 2008 10:23 am Oy. Via Brendan Nyhan, we've now got Barack Obama jumping on the McCain autism ignorance bandwagon: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." Making parents afraid to get their kids immunized does real harm to our public health. Politicians need to knock this crap off. Comments (81)
Damn. I wish he hadn't said that. 
in your opinion, Matthew? Mumbo-Jumbo, really? Like, the presence of aluminum, and the way that it is concentrated into the combination vaccines that are grouped together to be injected into 10 or 20 pound persons so that it far exceeds anyone's idea of a safe dosage -- these are also mumbo-jumbo, right? I just hope there's not too much bad stuff in that science = supreme -rationality = we-should-not-question-our-new-lords kool aid you're sippin' . . .
in your opinion, Matthew? Mumbo-Jumbo, really? Like, the presence of aluminum, and the way that it is concentrated into the combination vaccines that are grouped together to be injected into 10 or 20 pound persons so that it far exceeds anyone's idea of a safe dosage -- these are also mumbo-jumbo, right? I just hope there's not too much bad stuff in that science = supreme -rationality = we-should-not-question-our-new-lords kool aid you're sippin' . . .
What's next? Fluoridation saps our precious bodily fluids?
Ari, the science is in no way inconclusive unless you're a denialist. Vaccines don't cause autism, no matter what Jenny McCarthy tells you.
Ugh. It's better than McCain's ridiculous "there's strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines", but it's still disappointing.
In what sense is the science inconclusive? My understanding is that several studies have debunked any link between autism and vaccines. Are these studies flawed?
Jesus. The science is not inconclusive. There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence suggesting a link between autism and vaccines. None. It's been dreamed up by parents, who then shout down the actual experts with appeals to emotionalism and "Don't tell me about my sick kid...." It's an absolutely baseless argument.
There is absolutely no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. All studies thus far have shown no correlation. Attached is a link to a post by Dr. Steven Novella on the subject. Should there be more crap comments posted, I will further post links to articles by Dr. Orac on this subject. This nonexistent correlation between vaccines and autism is a fabrication by the mercury militia and their numbnuts leaders like Jenny McCarthy and David Kirby, neither of whom have the slightest expertise in medical science. http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=159
It appears to be the case that Obama hasn't really invested much energy in developing his positions on issues of science. His notions about NASA funding suggest a similar lack of study of the current state of the program; it's really no better than McCain promising to study to death things that are already pretty well understood.
We had our 20-month old vaccinated this year, and got the vaccine that people are concerned about. My wife did ask the doc about the autism link. The response we got was akin to "the science is inconclusive" and it's still being studied, but I'd give my own daughter the vaccine. This was from an excellent doc, at one of the top med centers in the country. If she says that, aren't we all just perhaps a little eager to put our "scientists" hats on here? My guess is that the science might well be pretty well wrapped up, but it's tough for it to be conclusive when this hasn't been studied all that long. Given that, I really don't have a problem with what Obama said and think the hysterics here are a little over the top.
The lack of evidence for a correlation does NOT mean that there is no link. Just that there is not evidence. It's a logical fallacy to assume the absence of proof is equivalent to the presence of refuting evidence.
The lack of evidence for a correlation does NOT mean that there is no link. Just that there is not evidence. It's a logical fallacy to assume the absence of proof is equivalent to the presence of refuting evidence.
Sorry, Jake, but it's pretty conclusive. Your doctor, like most gifted, talented, capable doctors, knows bupkus about science. That's how they're trained and that's how they'll be. Unfortunately she also feels compelled to speak about science, which she shouldn't -- and again, nothing out of the ordinary.
Jake, if Obama had said in the same breath that he'd give his own daughter the vaccine, then people would probably be a lot less concerned. We can't afford pandering, even a little, to fears of vaccination. It's too dangerous.
Given the heated nature of this debate, I should have chosen my words much more carefully. As a number of commenters who followed me in this thread have noted, to date, the studies done have shown no link between vaccinations and autism. Which is why I originally said that I tend to agree with Matt's point. That said, to insist, as an ironclad certainty, that this matter is settled, strikes me as wishful thinking. Our understanding of the etiology of autism is in its infancy. To pillory those people who are skeptical or scared or even "suspicious" about any possible cause, then, strikes me as the height of hubris.
Senator Obama does not seem to have any advisers on scientific subjects. The fact that the senator himself is not up on these issues is not surprising. Neither he nor the other two candidates have any significant scientific training. The issue is, who is advising them and who are they listening to. This example of pandering, perhaps based on ignorance of the subject matter, is very troubling to those who are hoping for substantial improvement over the current assholes running the country. Although the Clinton haters on this blog will not like this, the sad fact is that Senator Clinton is the only one of the three candidates who has had anything sensible to say on scientific issues thus far.
The studies have shown that there is no positive correlation between a particular vaccine additive and increased autism rates. Autism rates are rising, but mercury isn't what's causing it. As far as I'm aware, there have been no studies that compare autism rates between non-vaccinated children and vaccinated children. Until we have that kind of a study, the science will be inconclusive because science hasn't examined it. If the body's response to vaccination in general, rather than any particular vaccine additive, is what's causing the problem, then no correlation would show up in a study comparing vaccines with and without mercury. (If autism is caused by something else altogether, a correlation wouldn't show up either). Of course there would be huge ethical concerns with that kind of a study. Whose kids are going to go without vaccines just so the question can be answered?
I can't believe you guys are hyperventilating about politicians acting like ... well ... politicians. Pandering to their audience is their lifeblood -- you don't get elected by telling the electorate what they don't want to hear. Obama, Clinton and McCain aren't very different in this regard -- why is anyone surprised by this?
Would we be better off if Obama and McCain just said “Austism rates are rising at an alarming pace. We don't think vaccines have anything to do with it, but we are certainly keeping our options for the root of this problem open as we seek to end this public health risk.” Yes. And, contrary to what you say, studies have effectively disproved the correlation. So it'd be even better if the politicians clearly acknowledged that. Because, as Matt says, there are already real public health issues arising directly from parents' fear of vaccination.
The lack of evidence for a correlation does NOT mean that there is no link. Just that there is not evidence. It's a logical fallacy to assume the absence of proof is equivalent to the presence of refuting evidence. Medical science has demonstrated with a great deal of confidence that autism is not caused by vaccines. That is the opinion of medical science, supported by the great preponderance of the medical community, including the AMA. Also, you are the ones making the positive argument that vaccines cause autism. Simply asserting they do, devoid of evidence, and then saying that the claim hasn't been refuted, is absurd. (So have allergies, for that matter.) No. The "allergy epidemic" is also manufactured hysteria, and funded by the makers of the Epipen. Harpers magazine did an expose on the subject in this January's issue.
I can't believe you guys are hyperventilating about politicians acting like ... well ... politicians. Pandering to their audience is their lifeblood -- you don't get elected by telling the electorate what they don't want to hear. Obama, Clinton and McCain aren't very different in this regard -- why is anyone surprised by this?
Millions of kids were vaccinated over the last 50 years with vaccines that used mercury-based preservatives; many of us have fillings in our teeth with mercury - but the dramatic increase in autism diagnosis is fairly recent - so what's going on? I think these "science is not conclusive" statements by politicians are a sop to parents (primarily upper-middle class suburbans) who are frustrated by not being able to pin a cause for their child's autism. For all we know it might have significant genetic components - that's the last thing a parent wants to hear.
The lack of evidence for a correlation does NOT mean that there is no link. Just that there is not evidence. It's a logical fallacy to assume the absence of proof is equivalent to the presence of refuting evidence. Thanks for setting us straight, Nathan: not only does correlation not imply causation, but lack of correlation doesn't even imply lack of correlation. There's a guy named Steve Sailer around here you might like to discuss statistical analysis with--you and he have quite a bit in common.
There's also no clear evidence that actual incidence of autism, as opposed to diagnosis, has increased at all.
Millions of kids were vaccinated over the last 50 years with vaccines that used mercury-based preservatives; many of us have fillings in our teeth with mercury - but the dramatic increase in autism diagnosis is fairly recent - so what's going on? I think these "science is not conclusive" statements by politicians are a sop to parents (primarily upper-middle class suburbans) who are frustrated by not being able to pin a cause for their child's autism. For all we know it might have significant genetic components - that's the last thing a parent wants to hear.
These politicians should leave the science to the scientists and focus on the autism-related public policy issue that does concern them - that is the staggering cost of treating a child with an autism spectrum disorder. As a parent of a child with ASD, I can tell you the insurance companies are doing everything they can to not cover the costs of treatment. My out-of-pocket expenses could be anywhere from $20,000 - $50,000 a year. My wife and I are lucky and can (barely) afford these costs, but not without drastically changing our other costs. And all along I thought I had insurance to avoid these types of situations... silly me.
Ummm ... there is a link (which seems doubtful) and it isn't the mercury or Al (*) or whatever, then I would highly, highly doubt it's actual exposure to the antigens making up the vaccines per se. After all, in the old days, kids got the actual diseases and were exposed to far more antigens (having all those viruses/bacteria in their systems) than they would get from a few shots. Most likely the perceived link is, as others have pointed out, due to autism showing up in a stage of development occuring shortly after vaccinations are given. IMHO, if there is a relation between autism and vaccines, it's the mere trauma of getting shots in a pre-verbal stage that, in succeptible individuals, pushes neural development over some edge. Note how similar some of the symptoms (at least) of autism are to PTSD. As far as Al is concerned, IMHO, that's unlikely. Back in the days when kids weren't raised in such sanitized environments, they'd play in and in fact eat dirt. They say that a lot of our allergy problem is because kids don't play in the dirt ... now an anecdote is not data, but I played in the dirt an awful lot as a kid and I still have very, very bad allergies. But the one thing I did not do was eat the stuff. I figure that we humans have evolved to receive exposure to either the Si or more likely the Al in silicates in dirt and not getting that exposure throws off our immune systems and possibly more. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if there is an inverse correlation between autism and Al exposure! But I wouldn't go feeding my kid Al nor would I not vaccinate my kid. Vaccines no doubt do have risks, but compared with childhood diseases? Well, the reason why people are grumbling about vaccination is that they've managed to forget what childhood diseases were like!
Freddie, are there any other sources on the allergy debate? I'm pretty suspicious of science journalism in Harper's after the article that gave Peter Duesberg a platform. But this one may be better.
These politicians should leave the science to the scientists and focus on the autism-related public policy issue that does concern them - that is the staggering cost of treating a child with an autism spectrum disorder. As a parent of a child with ASD, I can tell you the insurance companies are doing everything they can to not cover the costs of treatment. My out-of-pocket expenses could be anywhere from $20,000 - $50,000 a year. My wife and I are lucky and can (barely) afford these costs, but not without drastically changing our other costs. And all along I thought I had insurance to avoid these types of situations... silly me.
Would you rather have your child die of an infectious disease, or have autism? I know what my answer is.
The "skyrocketing autism rate" has nothing to do with more people getting autism than before. It was caused by a change in the criteria for diagnosing autism. As a father of a one-year old I get into this discussion far too often. This trendy bit of anti-science alarmism is popular in England and America, but the two countries can't even keep their false explanations straight. In one country the autism is supposedly caused by an immune response, in another country it's supposedly caused by the mercury used a preservative in vaccines, even though that has been almost completely discontinued as a practice. Now in this discussion we hear that aluminum is the culprit. Folks, get your hyperventilating BS straight before you demand that science disprove it. The burden of proof is upon the extraordinary claim. Science can't absolutely prove a negative. Nothing can. So supporting your argument by saying that the science is inconclusive because it hasn't absolutely proven that there's no link between autism and vaccines is like saying that science hasn't proven that vegetables don't cause epilepsy, therefore we should all stop giving vegetables to our kids. The truth is that science has proven a link between lack of vaccination and higher child mortality.
I can't find my copy of the magazine, Matt, but there were some studies referenced which certainly appeared credible to me. One big thing was that the major allergy-awareness groups, both of whom are funded by the makers of Epipen, have asserted statistics that appear to be entirely made up. For example they assert that thousands of children die every year just from food allergies, and yet in the most recent year for which the CDC has numbers-- numbers generated by actually counting deaths, not making estimates-- the number of Americans of any age killed by any kind of allergies was less than 60.
The "skyrocketing autism rate" has nothing to do with more people getting autism than before. It was caused by a change in the criteria for diagnosing autism. As a father of a one-year old I get into this discussion far too often. This trendy bit of anti-science alarmism is popular in England and America, but the two countries can't even keep their false explanations straight. In one country the autism is supposedly caused by an immune response, in another country it's supposedly caused by the mercury used a preservative in vaccines, even though that has been almost completely discontinued as a practice. Now in this discussion we hear that aluminum is the culprit. Folks, get your hyperventilating BS straight before you demand that science disprove it. The burden of proof is upon the extraordinary claim. Science can't absolutely prove a negative. Nothing can. So supporting your argument by saying that the science is inconclusive because it hasn't absolutely proven that there's no link between autism and vaccines is like saying that science hasn't proven that vegetables don't cause epilepsy, therefore we should all stop giving vegetables to our kids. The truth is that science has proven a link between lack of vaccination and higher child mortality.
I have a son who is an Aspy (though a very mild case), and I'm not all that convinced that there is a link between vaccines and Autism. I think Obama's comment is fairly neutral (I don't think there's a link, but we have to research it), while McCain's is a little less so. But either way, it's not super biggie to me...
Epidemiology is not the only science. It is quite possible that the incidence of autism has increased as a result of a number of factors. Even if we remove one of those factors, the overall incidence of autism could still be rising due to other factors.
AS the parent if a child with an ASD, I am so tired of these unfounded assertions. The rates of autism have not skyrocketed, the definitions have changed and become more inclusive -- this is a good thing because it is a result of better understanding. And there have been studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Vaccines do not cause autism. Period. We desperately need real science and not these distractions. And yes, money for the treatments that are available.
NO NO NO NO NO NO It has been shown that the mercury in vaccines does not increase the likelihood of autism. It remains entirely unclear as to whether the vaccines themselves increase the likelihood of autism. And there is a correlation between overall increase of vaccines and at an earlier age with the rise of autism. Could just be coincidence, as autism onset is usually around the time of vaccination, but who knows? Not me, nor anyone else.
"The lack of evidence for a correlation does NOT mean that there is no link. Just that there is not evidence. It's a logical fallacy to assume the absence of proof is equivalent to the presence of refuting evidence." The same could be said for potty training. Once you've reduced the likelihood of something causing an effect to the same level as any other random thing causing the same effect, you're done. You move on to the next potential cause and examine that. The obsession that vaccines must be the cause of autism is harmful. It detracts from the search to find the real causes. The, "We should research it until we're metaphysically certain" attitude causes harm. The people who have that attitude are morally responsible for causing that harm. It is a pointless, selfish indulgence.
Childhood autoimmune diseases (like type 1 diabetes) are going up at a rate that can't be explained by any known factors as well, so there's definitely something quirky going on. That being said, there's just no evidence that suggests the changes in frequency have anything to do with vaccines. It's pretty shameful pandering, especially since it's going to lead to some kids dying from preventable diseases because their parents trusted McCain/Obama and thus declined to get them vaccinated.
Except that as already noted, there's not even any clear evidence that incidence (as opposed to diagnosis) is actually rising at all.
DAS, the thing that gets me about the level of antigens is that the vaccines are so concentrated in early development. Yes, children used to get all of those diseases. But did they really get hepatitis B, Rotavirus, Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, haemophilus influenza B, Pneumonia, polio, influenza, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, and hepatitis A, all before they were two? Those are all of the shots that the AAP recommends. It seems like a plausible hypothesis to me. Definitely not plausible enough to prevent me from vaccinating my kid, absent actual evidence! But it's something that should be looked into, and I don't think people asking the questions should be looked on as loons.
Childhood autoimmune diseases (like type 1 diabetes) are going up at a rate that can't be explained by any known factors as well, so there's definitely something quirky going on. That being said, there's just no evidence that suggests the changes in frequency have anything to do with vaccines. It's pretty shameful pandering, especially since it's going to lead to some kids dying from preventable diseases because their parents trusted McCain/Obama and thus declined to get them vaccinated.
NO NO NO NO NO NO It has been shown that the mercury in vaccines does not increase the likelihood of autism. It remains entirely unclear as to whether the vaccines themselves increase the likelihood of autism. And there is a correlation between overall increase of vaccines and at an earlier age with the rise of autism. Could just be coincidence, as autism onset is usually around the time of vaccination, but who knows? Not me, nor anyone else.
IIRC, thimeresol (sp?) was phased out some years ago for use with vaccines. Meaning almost certainly were it a cause of autism, we should have by now seen a precipitous drop in new diagnoses. We haven't. That to me pretty much closes the case.
The "skyrocketing autism rate" has nothing to do with more people getting autism than before. It was caused by a change in the criteria for diagnosing autism. I don't know. I was a kid in the 70s and a father and uncle now. It certainly feels like a real change. The increase in Asperger's I agree is mostly a change in the diagnosis - but I meet parents of real autistic kids all the time nowadays, and these are kids with serious issues. There certainly didn't seem to be that many "weird" kids around in the 70s. Of course, 90% of the upper class male population of England probably has Asperger's so England has long been on the cutting edge.
Fine, let's suppose it was a plausible hypothesis (of course, there are multiple different explanations for the supposed vaccine/autism link, some sillier than others, but assume that the overall link was a plausible hypothesis). It was, then, a plausible hypothesis that has been investigated repeatedly, without any such correlation being found. Fine, throw more precious NIH dollars at this issue to keep people happy, but realize that in doing so, you are doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Meanwhile, jittery parents fail to vaccinate their children for infectious diseases, putting the entire community at increased risk.
It is certainly heartening that most of the commentors on this thread have not fallen for the mercury militias' crap relative to vaccines. Just to reinforce these views, I am posting a link to a thread on Dr. Oracs' blog which discusses this subject. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/04/the_cult_of_antivaccinationism.php#more
When I first read the quote--"Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included" --I read it as Obama confirming that he suspected a connection. But others are reading it as him saying that he personally doubts that there is a connection, and I think that might be the better reading. "Suspicious" in this contect is ambiguous. Are the "some people" and Obama suspicious of the vaccines or they suspicious of the connection? Maybe all he's saying is that he doesn't think its vaccines, but that we need to keep researching potential causes autism.
Yeah. I have a son who is diagnosed Asperger's, and it's a mess. (Not him,he's great.) What I mean is that the debate over causes of ASD is a mess. I think that the direct link to anything will never be found. But I also think that the way vaccines are manufactured and administered is a little bit screwy. It's very wierd and disempowering when doctors take your (minutes old!) newborn infant out of the room and you later find out that a vaccine for 3 different diseases, two of which are basically eradicated in the civilized world, has been administered without your knowledge, much less consent. So it's a can of worms. But the bottom line politically is that the community of ASD parents is very strong and wealthy and active.
I have a colleague who studies the families of children with disabilities. (Am an academic but I'm not dumb enough to post under my real name pre-tenure---that's just how the world is.) What I've heard from her and her students is that there seems to be a real increase above and beyond what they would attribute to diagnosis alone, though putting a reasonable quantitative number on it is probably impossible. There seems to be no one cause for the increase but there are at least two factors working that make ASD more likely: -ASD is correlated with older parents, particularly older fathers. There may be other inputs, such as changes to environmenal pollution. In short, it doesn't seem to be a nice, neat simple explanation that wraps things up with a bow and a box.
Hmm, some wandering around PubMed has led me to think that part of calling all toaster's post may be right, in that the scientific community hasn't caught up to the broader alarmism over vaccines yet. For the longest time, thimerosal was the supposed culprit. Now it seems that, having been investigated thoroughly, that link isn't going to show its head. So now we're getting other, ad hoc explanations blaming different parts of vaccines. Thimerosal at least seemed kind of plausible, though. Now we're hearing that it's the vaccines themselves (and not the preservatives), because vaccination rates have been going up, and so have autism rates. This is supposed to pass for evidence. And of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with people who were wrong over mercury groping around for some way to salvage their theory with an entirely different mechanism. So I guess it's worth investigating, if only to keep conspiracy theorists off-balance, but I'm certainly not holding my breath. This myth is going to persist in one form or another, whatever investigation is carried out.
Kraz--
I'm not a scientist, but parent of a kid on the autism spectrum & a layman who's read a lot about it & observed a lot of kids on the spectrum over time. Please forgive me for going on about this, but it's close to my heart & doesn't get aired very often. IMHO: - Much, probably most, of the recorded increase in autism over the past 20 years is due to more aggressive screening for it & a broadening standard of diagnosis (i.e. 'autism spectrum disorders (ASD)' vs. 'autism'). While there's probably been some secular increase as well, it's hard to say exactly how much or where it's been concentrated. The murkiness of the epidemiologic data makes it very hard to prove or disprove any big claims about the causes of autism. But trying win us over by playing up the most contentious, least factually sound, and therefore most unstable element of our own group consensus & identity ... that's not only bad politics (seizing on a wedge issue, at the expense of spreading misinformation, misunderstanding and division), it's also dumb politics (probably alienating as many people as you win over, setting you up to look like an alarmist & an opportunist in the future, and certainly undercutting your overall theme of changing the tone of politics). I expect a lot better from Obama. Thanks for calling him on this.
I wouldn't have minded Obama's comment until I read this thread. Now I'm a little terrified that there is that much ignorance out there. Mainly socializing with scientists has left me naive about the public's scientific education, I suppose.
Well, I WAS an Obama-supporting child psychiatrist with a graduate degree in epidemiology, but...
It's good to have an occasional reminder that Obama is a far from perfect candidate- he just happens to be the least bad of the 3 remaining possibilities.
Many large scale studies have been done (bless the Europeans and their socialized medicine, which makes asking such correlation questions much easier): there is no link. If you look and look and look and don't find a link, then you don't say "the data aren't in." One of the better analyses I've seen suggested a new environmental factor--heavy metals are popular--in link with genetics. A genetic predisposition toward autism in the presence of certain pollutants, explaining both the family link and the recent increase. Like many: I expect better from Obama, he should be called on this, but given the quality of advisers so far I'd expect him to come up with a reasonable science policy in office. I'm all for the McCain-Obama science debate, but do fear, judging by the thread, that the judgment of scientists and non-scientists as to who "won" might be far different.
Oh frabjous day, all 3 candidates are crammed in this boat:
As the parent of a 25 year old kid with (almost certainly) Asperger's syndrome, who spent about 20 of those years either being "treated" for problems he didn't have or just being dismissed as a problem child (which he never was; extreme passivity was more often the issue), I ask why parents should trust "studies?" I believe neither the thimerosol nor the mercury connection, but clearly ASD is a problem that no one wants to take seriously. And having spent time in Asperger's support groups and gravitating to other parents with similar issues over the years, may I invite Freddie and other jackasses who want to write this off as a wealthy suburban indulgence to take a flying leap? Almost all the parents I've met are on the lower end of the economic spectrum, and, like myself, have fallen further down it trying to cope. Living in an area with OK ASD support services (Eugene OR) I am aware of people who have literally given all they have to move here (in one case from Japan) to try to give their kids a life.
I believe neither the thimerosol nor the mercury connection, but clearly ASD is a problem that no one wants to take seriously.I feel for what you've been through, but that's a massively ridiculous statement. There's publicity about ASD up the wazoo, on TV, the internet, the shelves full of books at your local Borders.
There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence suggesting a link between autism and vaccines Try this one on for size: Study.
I believe the consumption of Hot Pockets has also increased drastically in the last 25 years . . . and Elmo first appeared on Sesame Street in the mid-1980s . . . hmmm . . .
Ari, the science is in no way inconclusive unless you're a denialist. Vaccines don't cause autism, no matter what Jenny McCarthy tells you. Amen!! The debate ended years ago, but the germ theory denialists have expanded their market thanks to the fear of Autism. When it comes to Autism, its time to look at oneself, and realize that most of the data shows its link is to older fathers or genetic.
bbartlog ,the history of that study is well known. Even the supposedly "suppressed" early version does not say what you seem to think it does, and even at that it had severe methodological problems. There is no "there" there.
Funny how people on the left are willing to believe in corrupt oil companies or military contractors (and their extensive influence on government), but somehow have trouble thinking that this same sort of problem might exist with large pharmaceutical companies. Of course there's not a lot of money in vaccines per se, but the liability issues could or would be huge. Or I could say isn't it funny how the left seems to believe the scientists when they talk about the Environment, but not when they talk about health. Maybe you're just not old enough to remember what all these vaccines have saved us from. There are parents out there that now refuse vaccines of deadly diseases, think the vaccine is worse than a crippled life (Polio) or simple absolute death (measles.) We don't defend Big-Pharma, yes they spend too much money on lobbiest and advertising, but that has nothing to do with Vaccines. But now that I've posted this, I get an extra 3 grand in the mail for my defense ;)
I just can't see the reason behind taking such a binary position on something this relatively new and unclear.
-ASD is correlated with older parents, particularly older fathers. My son is autistic and I manifest some of the "sub-clinical" characteristics you alluded to. Sometimes, I think that he is me writ large. The factors you have cited figure prominently in Simon Baron-Cohen's (Sacha's cousin) theory about the increase in autism. IIRC, he sees it, at least in part, as the result of the increase in assortative mating.
Maybe you're just not old enough to remember what all these vaccines have saved us from. There are parents out there that now refuse vaccines of deadly diseases, think the vaccine is worse than a crippled life (Polio) or simple absolute death (measles.) Not old enough to remember personally (few are). But vaccines deserve only a tiny portion of the credit for the massive reduction in death from infectious diseases. In any case, no one (I imagine) thinks that the risks associated with a vaccine (which even proponents will concede are not zero) are somehow worse than *certain* paralysis or death. But once you are talking about balancing two risks, both very small and hard to measure, the question becomes more difficult.
bbartlog ,the history of that study is well known. OK, so enlighten me. I'm aware that the site that I linked to is hardly an unbiased source of information, but I'm a sucker for raw data, and they at least have 262 pages of transcripts from the meeting rather than a two paragraph synopsis. Even the supposedly "suppressed" early version does not say what you seem to think it does I'm aware that it shows only a link between neurological disorders and mercury, rather than a link with autism specifically; beyond that I'm not sure what you mean. and even at that it had severe methodological problems. There is no "there" there. Given the way that access to the data has been restricted, I'm quite skeptical of the claim that there is nothing there. If they had published the raw data I would be much less suspicious (and I have enough statistical knowledge that I could run my own checks). As for the methodological problems, I would want specifics rather than just claims from vaccine proponents; there are a lot of people with agendas on both sides of this issue.
Baron-Cohen hypothesizes that fetal androgen exposure is involved in autism? IIRC from my under-grad developmental bio, androgens actually are aromaticized in crossing the blood brain barrier and that the active steroid involved in "androgenizing" the brain is actually estrogen. How much of whatever increase in autism (and diagnostic changes are an issue -- e.g., Simon and Garfunkle's "most peculiar man" would definitely be considered autistic today) is due to increased exposures to both phytoestrogens (otherwise a good thing -- and the result of today's healthier and more varied diets) as well as to PCBs and similar long-lived xenoestrogens that, unlike estrogen, readily cross the blood brain barrier acting essentially as androgens?
1. It showed no such link when ALL the data were included. Even Verstraeten at the time described the overall results as "neutral". And again, he wasn't even looking at autism, as at least you admit. 2. In addition to the HUNDREDS of studies trying and failing to find a link between thimerosal and autism, we have the fact that drastically reducing thimerosal usage has had no impact at all on the rate at which autism is diagnosed. 3. You appear to be at least dimly aware of point 2 and thus to be groping towards a position that vaccines per se are somehow causing autism. (This doesn't even make any sense given how different the compositions of different vaccines are. That's why the loonies latched onto thimerosal in the first place- they needed some common factor.) Good luck finding even an old unpublished draft to support that idea, let alone a real paper. Not that there's much point in arguing with people whose basic stance is that facts are stupid things.
Jeezus. They changed the diagnostic criteria. Now every shy kid is "on the autistic spectrum". End of discussion.
This whole thing is due to the unhealthy tendency of doctors' organizations and public health organizations to spin things that they think the ordinary non-medical person is incapable of understanding. It is a mistake that people like Yglesias are repeating in pronoucements about respecting "scientific studies" about such things, and following some supposed rules and protocols that have been proven to work for a sample of humans. Science is fine and dandy kids, but here's the problem: the practice of medicine is an art and not a science, each individual is different, and you do not apply protocols to them like they are identical robots. Enlightened actual practicing immunologist and allergist M.D.'s have offered non-thimersol vaccines and allergy shots sincd at least the early 90's, probably earlier, but that is when I personally started paying attention to these things. Not because they believe it causes autism, but because they know from experience that plenty of people are sensitive to it and that young bodies probably don't need to be exposed to such a thing. Because they actually believe in that thingie about "first do no harm." One allergic reaction to something like thimersol, or any other allergen, for that matter, is called, in the vernacular, "brain fog," in other words, getting like a space cadet, not unlike autism. This is a temporary reaction and not autism, but if you keep plugging the victim with the causative agent, it's going to present that way to some. That other doctors are on the tube spinning that thimersol is totally harmless to all living things is not the truth. The truth is that it is a cheap preservative with a relatively low but certainly not nonexistent complication rate, one that saves them money and time, that the non-thimersol-preserved solutions is more expensive, and that using the thimersol-free takes things like refrigeration and more sanitary procedures. Some of them just don't wanna have to do that, they like the assembly line set up they have for treating their patients. If you want good care for your future children, you will run as far away from a pediatrician that treats your child like he's identical to all other children of the same age and needs the same ton of vaccinations at the same time as all other kids get these days, even if he has a cold or is sick or is immuno-compromised at the time (you know, rules and protocols are rules and protocols.) The amount of vaccines given to kids now is way way way up, and the application of them is sped up and is too often glumped together for the convenience of the doctor without spending time on whether it might be better for the kids to have more individualized schedules. Again, medicine is art, not science, and doctors and health organizations spin because they are the paternalistic type that think ordinary citizens can't possibly understand the nature of the risks and possibilities. They themselves are consequently responsible for things like the autism conspiracy theories developing, as they do not engender trust with their spin once a parent starts checking out the stuff they have said. Find yourself a doctor that cares about trying to share the nuance about your own body with you, rather than quoting the results of scientific experiments as if you are a carbon copy of every other human on earth.
p.s. oops, spelled it wrong all through my above comment:
p.s. oops, spelled it wrong all through my above comment:
No matter who wins in Pennsylvania today, the next President of the United States will support research into the growing evidence of some link between vaccines and autism. Senator John McCain has already expressed his belief that vaccines and the mercury containing preservative thimerosal could be implicated in what he has rightly termed an "autism epidemic." Senator Hillary Clinton, in response to a questionaire from the autism activist group A-CHAMP, wrote that she was "Committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines." And when asked if she would support a study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, she said: "Yes. We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out. And now, yesterday, at a rally in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama had this rather surprising thing to say: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."
So there you have it, our next President will share the views of such radical fringe crazies as, well, me, Democrat Robert Kennedy, Jr., Republican Joe Scarborough, former NIH and Red Cross chief Bernadine Healy, and several researchers at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the Universities of California and Washington and elsewhere.
And yes, now the comments to this piece will come flying in, repeating the tired mantra that "this case is closed," that vaccines and thimerosal have been "completely vindicated," and that people like me are just trying to scare the public and drive them away from vaccines, leaving their children vulnerable and sick. Of course, none of the above is true. So stay tuned. To begin with, government researchers are currently looking into a number of factors that may trigger autism, including vaccines, their ingredients and the crowded vaccine schedule itself. Secondly, on April 11th, I attended a top-level meeting in Washington where vaccine safety officials discussed all of the above issues, and more. Included on the Federal Draft Research Agenda for vaccine safety are now questions such as: Can vaccines cause neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism?
Can the combination live-virus measles, mumps and rubella vaccine cause seizures and long term damage in children? Can vaccines cause autoimmune disease? Can thimerosal cause tics or Tourette syndrome? Can attenuated viruses in vaccines cause asthma in children?
But there is more. Dozens of autism cases (and perhaps more) currently filed in so-called Vaccine Court will almost certainly be compensated this year. Why? Because a little girl named Hannah Poling with a supposedly rare mitochondrial condition was recently compensated for her own vaccine injuries, including autism and epilepsy. But I have personally identified at least a dozen (and there are reports of many more) children with cases in the court who meet the exact same medical criteria as Hannah, and whose cases will almost surely be compensated as well -- each time with the attendant media fanfare. My prediction is that, by Election Day, few Americans will still believe there is absolutely no evidence to link vaccines to at least some cases of regressive autism. So the remarks by all three candidates not only reflect good science, they reflect good politics as well.
No matter who wins in Pennsylvania today, the next President of the United States will support research into the growing evidence of some link between vaccines and autism. Senator John McCain has already expressed his belief that vaccines and the mercury containing preservative thimerosal could be implicated in what he has rightly termed an "autism epidemic." Senator Hillary Clinton, in response to a questionaire from the autism activist group A-CHAMP, wrote that she was "Committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines." And when asked if she would support a study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, she said: "Yes. We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out. And now, yesterday, at a rally in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama had this rather surprising thing to say: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."
So there you have it, our next President will share the views of such radical fringe crazies as, well, me, Democrat Robert Kennedy, Jr., Republican Joe Scarborough, former NIH and Red Cross chief Bernadine Healy, and several researchers at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the Universities of California and Washington and elsewhere.
And yes, now the comments to this piece will come flying in, repeating the tired mantra that "this case is closed," that vaccines and thimerosal have been "completely vindicated," and that people like me are just trying to scare the public and drive them away from vaccines, leaving their children vulnerable and sick. Of course, none of the above is true. So stay tuned. To begin with, government researchers are currently looking into a number of factors that may trigger autism, including vaccines, their ingredients and the crowded vaccine schedule itself. Secondly, on April 11th, I attended a top-level meeting in Washington where vaccine safety officials discussed all of the above issues, and more. Included on the Federal Draft Research Agenda for vaccine safety are now questions such as: Can vaccines cause neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism?
Can the combination live-virus measles, mumps and rubella vaccine cause seizures and long term damage in children? Can vaccines cause autoimmune disease? Can thimerosal cause tics or Tourette syndrome? Can attenuated viruses in vaccines cause asthma in children?
But there is more. Dozens of autism cases (and perhaps more) currently filed in so-called Vaccine Court will almost certainly be compensated this year. Why? Because a little girl named Hannah Poling with a supposedly rare mitochondrial condition was recently compensated for her own vaccine injuries, including autism and epilepsy. But I have personally identified at least a dozen (and there are reports of many more) children with cases in the court who meet the exact same medical criteria as Hannah, and whose cases will almost surely be compensated as well -- each time with the attendant media fanfare. My prediction is that, by Election Day, few Americans will still believe there is absolutely no evidence to link vaccines to at least some cases of regressive autism. So the remarks by all three candidates not only reflect good science, they reflect good politics as well.
No matter who wins in Pennsylvania today, the next President of the United States will support research into the growing evidence of some link between vaccines and autism. Senator John McCain has already expressed his belief that vaccines and the mercury containing preservative thimerosal could be implicated in what he has rightly termed an "autism epidemic." Senator Hillary Clinton, in response to a questionaire from the autism activist group A-CHAMP, wrote that she was "Committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines." And when asked if she would support a study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, she said: "Yes. We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out. And now, yesterday, at a rally in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama had this rather surprising thing to say: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."
So there you have it, our next President will share the views of such radical fringe crazies as, well, me, Democrat Robert Kennedy, Jr., Republican Joe Scarborough, former NIH and Red Cross chief Bernadine Healy, and several researchers at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the Universities of California and Washington and elsewhere.
And yes, now the comments to this piece will come flying in, repeating the tired mantra that "this case is closed," that vaccines and thimerosal have been "completely vindicated," and that people like me are just trying to scare the public and drive them away from vaccines, leaving their children vulnerable and sick. Of course, none of the above is true. So stay tuned. To begin with, government researchers are currently looking into a number of factors that may trigger autism, including vaccines, their ingredients and the crowded vaccine schedule itself. Secondly, on April 11th, I attended a top-level meeting in Washington where vaccine safety officials discussed all of the above issues, and more. Included on the Federal Draft Research Agenda for vaccine safety are now questions such as: Can vaccines cause neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism?
Can the combination live-virus measles, mumps and rubella vaccine cause seizures and long term damage in children? Can vaccines cause autoimmune disease? Can thimerosal cause tics or Tourette syndrome? Can attenuated viruses in vaccines cause asthma in children?
But there is more. Dozens of autism cases (and perhaps more) currently filed in so-called Vaccine Court will almost certainly be compensated this year. Why? Because a little girl named Hannah Poling with a supposedly rare mitochondrial condition was recently compensated for her own vaccine injuries, including autism and epilepsy. But I have personally identified at least a dozen (and there are reports of many more) children with cases in the court who meet the exact same medical criteria as Hannah, and whose cases will almost surely be compensated as well -- each time with the attendant media fanfare. My prediction is that, by Election Day, few Americans will still believe there is absolutely no evidence to link vaccines to at least some cases of regressive autism. So the remarks by all three candidates not only reflect good science, they reflect good politics as well.
Comments closed May 06, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I tend to agree, Matt. But, as a father of two young kids and the husband of a public-health practitioner, I don't think the case -- about what politicians should or shouldn't say on this issue -- is nearly so clear as you claim. Because, as Obama notes, the science is inconclusive. And people are terrified. In short, for Obmaa to make ironclad claims about the safety of vaccines could be very irresponsible. Likely the best course, then, would be to say nothing at all. Or, failing that, to leave it at the science is incconclusive.
Posted by Ari | April 22, 2008 10:37 AM