Looks like Clinton's drunk the kool-aid on this as well. Really disappointing to see everyone feel like they need to pander to this not-especially-fearsome lobby.
« Footprint | Main | The Scumbag Line »
More Autism
22 Apr 2008 02:12 pm
Comments (34)
It's a fear of appearing emotionally cold or insensitive to the plight of parents dealing with a tragic situation. Driven by the (imagined) optics, probably with the consideration that a lot more average folks are capable of sympathizing with the parents than are capable of grasping the science.
Not sure why Clinton has jumped in on this, too, but Obama and McCain are clearly just trying to get with Jenny McCarthy.
I blame RFK, Jr.!!!
As the mother of a child with an ASD, this refusal to accept the science is so disheartening. There is a lot that we need, but conspiracy theories just waste our time and resources.
I think Live (above) has hit it exactly on the head. Imagine how this issue would look in a GE debate. To argue against this link Obama would have to discuss research and the costs vs. benefits of public policy. McCain will just argue that he wants to protect little kids (ignoring the fact that vaccines protect children too...).
Imagine how the MSM would cover the issue; crying parents insisting they observed such a link vs. 'experts' disputing such a link. Picture how that would fit with the smarty-pants 'elitist' caricature of Obama and the real-guy depiction of McCain.
I think this is just one of those issues where those of us who don't believe in such a link may have to accept that politics just sucks sometimes...
Guess I just don't see this as a big deal-- after all, it's a pretty easy Dem position, to be for child safety and against pharmaceutical companies using mercury-based preservatives in vaccines. The real objective is to eliminate thimerosal in vaccines, after all, not the vaccinations themselves, and the affluent people who tend to fret about this sort of thing can usually find a pediatrician that will use single-dose, non-thimerosal vaccines (which is exactly what I would do, given that there's at least one child in my family who has a few autism-spectrum traits, albeit very minor ones).
The larger problem would involve vaccinating poorer kids, here & worldwide, with the multiple-dose vials that use thimerosal (although it's being phased out in the US, IIRC).
It seems there is still a persistent scientific inquiry. Look, Julie Gerberding, the head of CDC has said as much on camera, that there is a connection and that more research is needed. She appeared on Dr. Sanjay Gupta's show House Call and explained that vaccines can trigger autism in some children, like 1 in 50. This issue is still open. That a presidential candiate shows interest in this is a good thing. Seems like a no brainer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-nkD5LSIg
Well, with all our stupid candidates saying the same stupid thing, things might eventually start to happen in the real world once a huge fraction of the population starts following the advice of both Saint Barack and Hillary Satanus.
Let's start a pool on the year when America gets hit with its first huge epidemic, and we invade Bangladesh in retaliation for the tens of thousands killed by Al-Qaeda and its fiendish bio-weapons!
I gotta blame RFK Jr. He's got a huge amount of credibility on environmental issues going back decades. He's taught environmental law in law school, worked on cleaning up polluted rivers, etc. And he's been pushing this autism thing hard for a couple of years now.
It's utter bullshit, but I can't blame folks for believing him absent any other information.
You have to realize this was never about the kids or mercury or any of that. This started off as a new way to attack a basic tenet of science, and will constantly morph to find new ways to attack.
Meanwhile it costs our country millions due to the lack of a strong preservative. Millions of lives are at risk.
The McCarthy Autism militia is nothing but a money making organization that is pushing anti-germ theory nonsense. They will do whatever it takes to get people on board, but judging by all their constant goal post shifting, they're after the same thing all along. The end of vaccines, the end of all forms of ant-biotics, the end of modern science. All so they can make more money.
You don't need to defend big-pharma to realize how dangerous this group is. RKU is right, if we have some Bush-like president we'll just start invading nations due to the spread of measles and polio in the US.
Maybe all of the candidates got autism from vaccines. Did you ever think of that? Except Ron Paul, who just enjoys eating paint chips - as long as they weren't first painted by an illegal Mexican immigrant.
Can I get a link to a definitive independent, non-government funded study that says, 100 percent, no doubts about it, thimerosal does not cause Autism? Thanks.
It's at the same site where there is a study proving 100%, no doubt, that there is no Santa Claus.
Jesus, would people please take the trouble to learn a little bit about how science works before they pontificate?
I don't see what she said in that link that is problematic. She is committed to investigating environmental causes, including things such as vaccines. She also said that she wanted people to have information about vaccines in response to a question about whether families should be able to choose their vaccines. Maybe I am missing her offending statement because I don't see any evidence that Clinton believes that vaccines cause autism.
Aaron- Think about it, how would such a study be possible? Let's ignore all legal and ethical concerns (for these hypothetical purposes) and try to put such a study together. You could take 10,000 children and randomly give half of them a vaccine with thimerosal and not give it to the other half. Then, at the end of the study, you might find that the autism rate was identical between the same groups. Would this prove "100%" that thimerosal does not cause autism? Of course not. You could blame the results on a fluke, or you could say that the effect is too small to be measured. Scientific proof, such as it is, just doesn't work that way. But we can say that all of the best evidence collected so far shows no link between thimerosal and autism.
I challenge you to show me a definitive and independent, non-government funded study that says, 100 percent, no doubts about it, that smoking cigarettes may lead to lung cancer...
Most medical research conducted outside of corporations is in some way funded by the government. I would also argue that it is exceedingly rare that a study draw the kind of definitive conclusions you are asking for. Despite the best evidence suggesting that a link between Thimerosal and autism does not exist the FDA has stipulated that all vaccines administered to young children contain no mercury. If a child is administered a vaccine today they will not receive Thimerosal so I am somewhat uncertain why this continues to be a live issue.
Wow. A lot of really smug responses.
Where did I say I was "challenging" anyone? I am a parent of 3 girls, one of whom is currently undergoing testing for developmental delays and autism, among other things. Forgive me for not being up on scientific method and for trying to be as educated as possible.
What a bunch of pricks.
Well, it's a live issue for people who still have a tort claim in mind. But other than them...
Aaron, you shouldn't have gotten so much grief for that question. But it really wasn't a very sensible question; if you're suspicious of studies that are government-funded, you're pretty much going to have to give up on a scientific answer altogether.
Though I don't buy a direct causal link between autism and vaccines (my two-year old has had every shot, right on schedule), I'm not particularly bothered by pandering or Kool-Aid drinking from the candidates. This may be damning with faint praise, but I was particularly not bothered by Obama's comments.
First, I didn't read Obama's comments as indicating he actually has drunk the autism-vaccine Kool-Aid. Others have posted here that just because the scientific evidence doesn't support a link, that doesn't mean that a link (whether correlative or causative) doesn't exist. Obviously, at a certain point, a lack of evidence of causation weighs in favor of a presumption of a lack of causation. I'm just not sure we're at that point on this topic.
Second, my bet is that Obama has done more thinking about these issues than anyone else in the presidential race this year. Mike Strautmanis, one of his key legal advisers (on the campaign, and before that in the Senate) and a close friend of the Obamas since the 90s, has a young child with autism. Through him, Obama has first-hand, personal experience with the trials, tribulations, and--yes--joys of families raising autistic children.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, lots of parents of autistic kids are concerned about the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism. If Obama and others don't gain their trust, all the science and national investment in the world isn't going to win them over to a more reason/science-based approach. My kid's not autistic, but he has suffered acute illness in his short life. If my experience is any indication, to ask a parent to be rational in the face of a child's crisis, you've got to credibly convey that you get where the child and the parent are coming from, irrational fear and all. Presidential candidates can do that, too.
Aaron,
I think this is one of the most comprehensive studies:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/5/1039
It certainly can not be interpreted to say anything with 100% certainty, but science doesn't work that way. It renders the likelyhood that thimerisal causes autism to be the equivalent of X causes autism, where X is whatever you want. That's really all science can do, say that thimerisal is no more likely to cause autism than anything else.
AlanC9,
Thanks for the response. Hard not to be suspicious of government funded studies after reading RFK Jr's stuff,(and yes, I am well aware of the arguments against him and his point of view) but I understand the point you're making. Thanks again.
I think there's some overreaction here. Tell me where exactly Clinton said there's a definitive link between autism and vaccines from this interview. In fact, she says:
"We don’t know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism."
Her greatest fault appears to be politicking, which you can certainly make a case for. She even goes so far to say that more research could be done to explore Autism's causes. But she's certainly not declaring any sweeping scientific statements in this interview.
Njorl,
Thanks very much.
Can I get a link to a definitive independent, non-government funded study
Wait, so now it's the public-funded research that's suspect? When you're finished striking out public funding and Big Pharma funding, who exactly do you think is left to fund any research?
bperk, she was responding to a questionnaire by a group called "Advocates for Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning". Even responding to them is tacit admission that they have a point.
"You could take 10,000 children and randomly give half of them a vaccine with thimerosal and not give it to the other half."
Considering we haven't administered thimersal vaccines to children for six years and the autism rate hasn't decreased, it's becoming increasingly unlikely that there is a link. Secondly, saying that the immune system being activated so often is what is causing the problem (the new goalpost) is something that can't be helped anyways. Kids are always going to get sick a lot of times, so I don't see how this can be prevented.
Having seen the results of insufficient vaccination in India, I'm a very strong proponent of vaccination (coerced if necessary). But maybe we should find an alternative to Thimersol. It's worth a study, at least. While it may be safe, there may be an alternative that doesn't contain mercury. Mercury is a particularly nasty substance that can often take a long time to manifest itself. There may be long term effects from the mercury that we don't know about yet. Finding an alternative is worth at least some effort.
But we should not in any way try to scare people away from vaccination. The consequences of that are far more severe. We do not want to reach a point where we have to coerce people to get the sufficient vaccination percentage to eliminate diseases. Trying to find an alternative to mercury-based vaccines may help in inspiring confidence in the vaccines. But anti-vaccine demagoguery will not.
Kids are always going to get sick a lot of times, so I don't see how this can be prevented.
Interestingly, there's another theory floating around tied to autoimmune disorders that one of the drivers is that kids aren't getting sick enough - that is that our obsession with antibiotic hand soap, limiting outdoor time, etc are creating kids with defective immune systems.
The theory is that the immune system needs threats to 'learn' how to respond properly, and absent these threats has a tendency to start turning against the body itself, with autoimmunity being the result.
I think these theories are great to bat around, but the problem is that advocacy groups latch on to them as more than academic speculation and they take on a life of their own.
But maybe we should find an alternative to Thimersol.
It's been gone for years now already. No change was observed in autism rates after it was discontinued.
MY and others should be aware that this Kool-Aid happens to be so popular because most parents with an autistic child will hear next nothing about what caused their child's condition, next to nothing about how it should be treated, and absolutely nothing about any treatments that their insurance will cover. In fact some are lucky to get a diagnosis. This is in some cases a severe handicap that science and medicine can tell parents almost nothing about. The situation does however make great fodder for science blogs who like to make fun of parents who don't happen to have read that latest studies on autism and X.
Re Aaron
RFK Jr. is a whackjob who has no expertise in medical science. I am posting a link to a thread on Dr. Oracs' blog where he directs some well deserved not so respectful insolence at Senators Obama and Clinton.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/04/hillary_clinton_and_barack_obama_descend.php#more
"Well, so much for Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's reputations for supposedly being well-informed about scientific issues. True, they didn't sink as far into the stupid as John McCain did about vaccines and autism, but what they said was bad enough. Let's put it this way: If David Kirby thinks what they said about vaccines and autism is just great, they seriously need to fire all their medical advisors and get new ones who know how to evaluate evidence:"
"MY and others should be aware that this Kool-Aid happens to be so popular because most parents with an autistic child will hear next nothing about what caused their child's condition, next to nothing about how it should be treated, and absolutely nothing about any treatments that their insurance will cover. In fact some are lucky to get a diagnosis. "
I can vouch for this. My wife and I had to do all of our own research to find out what we were dealing with. There is no scene from a made-for-TV movie where a kindly but down-to-earth doctor explains it all to you. The vast majority of pediatricians know very little about autism, and can not contribute at all to diagnosing it. Health insurance covers essentially nothing involved other than medications that might have barely noticeable effects. State and county agencies are about the only way typical people can afford to give their child any useful care for the malady, so if you live in the wrong place, you're really screwed. Desperation is reasonable. It's the frauds who prey upon it that really deserve scorn.
Comments closed May 06, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Clinton has also drunk the Kool Aid on McCain's gas tax holiday (which won't save you any money, but is a good gimmick because nobody understands economics). At the rate we're going, our candidates will have the same policy positions as McCain come November. Our candidates are already buying into the notion that middle class people make $200K per year.
Posted by fostert | April 22, 2008 2:23 PM