Amanda Peet & the Ripple Effect: Actress Intensifies Vaccine Debate, Rather than Quell It

I write my Huffington Post blogs in order to spark debate and commentary from other quarters about what has become -- like it or not -- the biggest medical controversy of our time: the potential link between vaccine ingredients and autism.

In that sense, my last piece, "Amanda Peet vs. the Medical Establishment," has done its job.

Reaction was predictably swift and furious to this opinion essay -- and that's what blogs are: this is not news reporting.

Many took issue with the title (of all things), not realizing it was a tongue-in-cheek, somewhat satirical, and deliberately provocative headline meant to spark the indignant outrage that it obviously did, (It worked for Jonathan Swift and that New Yorker cartoonist, too).

These critics balk at considering the US President, or Senate health committee members, or the Chairman of a House science subcommittee, or appointed members of the federal Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, or many others like them, as part of the "medical establishment."

Fair enough. These are the people who, in a democratic society, control the medical establishment. They are not part of the establishment, in that sense, they are above it. They put the "over" in oversight. As a journalist, I value their opinion. As a citizen, I cannot imagine what this country would be like without them.

One of the critics was Dr. Steven Novella, academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine and president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society.

In his piece, "Celebrity Smackdown: Amanda Peet vs Jenny McCarthy," Dr. Novella refers to me as "that reporter who has made a career out of spreading misinformation about vaccines and any nonsense he can think of." In the same breath, he dismisses vaccine-related statements made by CDC officials because, "they were given in a political and not purely scientific context."

Dr. Novella takes issue with my characterization of the recent Hannah Poling case, in which a nine year-old girl was compensated by the US Government for a vaccine injury that lead to a diagnosis of autism.

Now, Hannah's father, Dr. Jon Poling, a respected neurologist and clinical assistant professor of the Department of Neurology, Medical College of Georgia, has responded to Dr. Novella, including his, "criticizing the journalism of Mr. David Kirby."

A copy of Dr. Poling's letter to Dr. Novella is posted at what ABC News.com called "the popular blog, Age of Autism."

It makes for some good reading, from deep inside the medical establishment!

PS: Here is a thought meant to spark more discussion: If parents who do not vaccinate their children are menaces (or parasites) to society, then what are adults who do not get all the recommended adult booster vaccines, especially those who travel abroad? Aren't we (yes, that includes me) just as guilty of putting small children at risk of infection here at home?

Comments

[ThoJ]

Mr. Kirby,

you have a habit of blogging corrections to minor mistakes people make in relationship to this case.

With that in mind, consider:

"Dr. Novella takes issue with my characterization of the recent Hannah Poling case, in which a nine year-old girl was compensated by the US Government for a vaccine injury that lead to a diagnosis of autism."

The Polings have not been compensated. Compensation was deemed appropriate, but the case is still ongoing. The docket does not show that the compensation has been awarded.

Somehow, I expect there to be some publicity when that happens, so it should be obvious.

[AutismNewsBeat]

You know what else is obvious - that there is no credible link between vaccines and autism. Somehow that also escapes Mr. Kirby's attention.

[nobelisto]

Very cute of David Kirby to spend years making thundering pronouncements and then, when upon realizing he was wrong the whole time, scramble for cover by claiming he was just trying to inspire an important debate.

Here's a hint: Important debates always have merit on both sides.

[prunesquallor]

AutismNewsBeat and others:
Thank you for making this into a rational scientific discussion, for once. Speaking of which, have you seen Epi Wonk's recent debunking of the DeSoto & Hitlan (2007) mercury data myth ("Epi Wonk's Intro to Data Analysis")? Take a look -- it's well worth it.

[CraigWilloughby]

No, Ken is doing what he usually does; bullying people who think different than he does and taking their words out of context and putting words in their mouth. He's not really adding anything to the discussion, just being himself.

[AutismNewsBeat]

This is the part where Craig introduces real data and evidence, and then defends it with reason and credible sources.

Take it away, Craig...

[doctorparikh]

RELYING ON SOCIAL PROOF RATHER THAN SCIENTIFIC PROOF

Ms. Peet's comments certainly have sparked a lot of controversy--but I think the response from Mr. Kirby was really just another example of using popular "endorsements" to make a point that science does not support--that vaccines cause autism.

What Mr. Kirby calls the greatest medical debate of our time is driven not by scientific ambiguity, but by accusations that can't be supported by quality science, endorsements by celebrities, politicians, and Dr. Healy, who although she was on the IOM had nothing to do with the report about autism, moving targets from one vaccine component to another each time we "exonerate" the prior one. That, in a nutshell, is the strategy of the smear campaign aganist vaccines.

In the meantime, the crux of Ms. Peet's argument, that infectious diseases stand to reemerge because of parents refusing to vaccinate kids, has already started to happen.

Rahul K. Parikh, MD

[MikeWag]

Rahul, I've been waiting since March for your respnse to this science.

Letter in Pediatrics in response to, "Fighting for the Reputation of
Vaccines: Lessons From American Politics".

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/121/3/621#36839

Reputation Of Vaccines And The People Who Defend Them: Michael
Wagnitz

Parents get angry when they see the following numbers listed on the
internet. These numbers have been out there for everyone to read for
years. They are mathematical facts backed by references. The way to
quell parental fears would be for someone like Dr. Parikh to address
these numbers.

2 ppb mercury = U.S. EPA limit for drinking water.
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#mcls

20 ppb mercury = Neurite membrane structure destroyed (Leong et al.,
Neuroreport 2001; 12: 733-37).

200 ppb mercury = level in liquid the EPA classifies as hazardous
waste.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/mercury/regs.htm#hazwaste

25,000 ppb mercury = Concentration of mercury in the Hepatitis B
vaccine, administered at birth in the U.S., from 1990-2001.

50,000 ppb mercury = Concentration of mercury in multi-dose DTaP and
Haemophilus B vaccine vials, administered 4 times each in the 1990's
to children at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 18 months of age.
Current "preservative" level mercury in multi-dose flu (94% of
supply), meningococcal and tetanus (7 and older) vaccines. This can
be confirmed by simply analyzing the multi- dose vials.

[doctorparikh]

INTERESTING NUMBERS: WHAT DO THEY MEAN?

Numbers like that look alarming, but the question is--what does a high or low number mean with respect to danger? Studies show, again and again, that thimerasol in vaccines never caused autism and infact, after removal of it from vaccines, autism numbers continue to rise.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/1/19


Again, statistics distributed without meaning or context merely worry people for uncessary reasons, which is where (for agnostic readers or concerned parents) anti-vaccine advocates have succeeded. On the other hand, it's the true evidence they lack to support their views. Please consider that and other tired tactics I've listed above when you make up your mind about vaccine safety.

[fgh71250]

Mr. Wagnitz,

As one chemist to another.

The mercury content of drinking water approved by the EPA is set at a very low level because people drink something on the order of a litre of water a day. A vaccine is approximately 0.5 ml. That is more than 1000 times smaller. So your 50,000 ppb becomes 50 ppb. We are well below the hazardous waste limit already. And a vaccine is only injected rarely. And not into the bloodstream, but intramuscularly. Because of this, you need to consider the whole volume of the body, which even for an infant is about 4 kg, or 4000 ml of water. Diluting that 0.5 ml volume by 4000 ml reduces the exposure by a factor of another 1000 (at least), leaving us with 0.5 ppb. So, now you are well below the safe drinking water level.

It is very rigorous of you to point out that the HepB and Haemophilus B vaccines containing these tiny amounts of mercury were administered to children in the US in the 1990's. I respect your honesty. The whole premise of the "autism is caused by mercury" argument is that the autism rates appeared to rise in concert with the mercury dose. But now that the mercury dose (tiny though it was) has decreased to a small fraction of the 1990's maximum, then why has the rate of autism not decreased accordingly?

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

Please point me to an empirical study that exonerates any of the known toxic components of vaccines that have been discussed. Oh, sorry, there aren't any. There are numerous studies that do point to these components being neuro-toxic.

Parents are concerned about vaccines because of these studies and the anecdotal evidence from parents. Until the entrenched medical community (EMC) studies these children to find out why the onus is on them (including you). Until the EMC compares vaccinated vs unvaccinated children the concern will continue. Why aren't you pushing for these studies to be done rather than pointing the finger at the parents?????

[AutismNewsBeat]

Because you've already shown yourself impervious to reason. Ample evidence already exists to exonerate vaccines, and you are choosing to ignore it. It strains credulity to think that yet more evidence would change your mind.

[TimKasemodel]

Dr. Parikh, MD

You write "infectious diseases stand to reemerge because of parents refusing to vaccinate kids, has already started to happen." Is this comment based on facts, studied and peer reviewed science, or is this simply your stretching of the truth ?

In the measles outbreaks I do not know if anyone has definitively proven that the small numbers of cases without a doubt is due to "parents refusing to vaccinate kids".

When a report comes out saying SOME of the cases were in an unvaccinated population, it does not mean automatically that it was a parents REFUSAL to vaccinate, that is an assumption - as a doctor you must know that there are many real risks to vaccination and some parents CHOOSE not to vaccinate or have medical reasons not to.

There is never mention in these reports if the infected child was too young for vaccination. And why oh why, if many of the infected WERE vaccinated and the vaccination OBVIOUSLY FAILED, do you and others automatically assume the reemergence began with an unvaccinated child from a parent who "refused" vaccination?

Could you post a link to your source of info that directly backs up your statement? I mean, if the FDA can track down a single jalepeno as a source of food contamination, you must have access to the detailed report showing what you say is true - otherwise, it is easy for us on the "other side" to see you write with only rhetoric and

[CraigWilloughby]

Tim, you are absolutely correct. The media loves to spin this to make it look like all of these outbreaks are caused by unvaccinated children. Scare tactics to make parents who have objections to vaccinations look like the enemy of the people. They never seem to quite grasp the concept that these outbreaks are among the vaccinated populace as well!

[LindsE]

You know, sometimes people don't just make things up. This is regarding documented measles cases in the US between Jan and April 2008:
Sixty-three of the 64 patients were unvaccinated or had unknown or undocumented¶ vaccination status, and one patient had documentation of receiving 2 doses of MMR vaccine. None of the five patients who were visitors to the United States had been vaccinated. Among the 59 patients who were U.S. residents, 13 were aged 20 years, 14 had unknown or undocumented vaccination status, two had claimed exemptions and acquired measles in Europe, one had evidence of immunity because of birth before 1957, and one had documentation of receiving 2 doses of MMR vaccine.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm57e501a1.htm

[AutismNewsBeat]

"When a report comes out saying SOME of the cases were in an unvaccinated population, it does not mean automatically that it was a parents REFUSAL to vaccinate, that is an assumption ... some parents CHOOSE not to vaccinate or have medical reasons not to."

Some of us may not be clear on the difference between "choosing" not to do something, and "refusing" not to do something. Can you elaborate?

[ThoJ]

Well said, Dr. Parikh.

What is also worrisome is how closely tied vaccine rejectionism is to the autism community. People can try to dismiss this as "scare tactics", but it's reality.

It isn't enough to start claiming now "I am not anti-vaccine" or "I am pro-vaccine". Words are cheap. If there is a major outbreak, the public isn't going to notice that Mr. Kirby isn't a member of the "autism community" or that he has styled himself as "pro-vaccine". The public won't care that Ms. McCarthy tried to distance herself with comments of decreased vaccination rates being good if it shakes up the CDC.

Promoting "alternative" vaccine schedules that leave people unprotected against measles, mumps and rubella as both Mr. Kirby and Ms McCarthy do with their ties to Generation Rescue, speaks louder than any mere claim of being "pro vaccine".

[sandygottstein]

It boggles the mind that people who don't vaccinate are considered a menace to anyone. If the vaccines work, they protect anyone who chooses to use them. It they don't work, why even recommend , let alone use, them?
And as I said in a speech I once made http://www.vaccinationnews.com/dailynews/february2002/bartlettdemospeech.htmm), "And to whatever extent vaccines are being required because the “immune suppressed” cannot be vaccinated, and are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of disease, while my heart goes out to such people, they are not more important than children who are harmed by vaccines. Nor should the notion that vaccination may in itself be creating immune suppression be left out of this equation."
As for the idea that we need a certain level of vaccination to achieve "herd immunity", there is documented proof of outbreaks in 100% vaccinated populations, e.g., http://www.vaccinationnews.com/rally/Meas100%25Vax.htm. Now, whose fault is that? (For more on the theory of herd immunity, go to Scandals: Is the theory of "herd immunity" flawed? at http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/July_5_02/Scandal23.htm.
All the best,
Sandy Gottstein
President, Vaccination News, A Non-Profit Corporation
http://www.vaccinationnews.org

[AutismNewsBeat]

You know better than that, Sandy. Vaccines aren't 100% effective. That's why more vaccinated people can be affected during an outbreak than unvaccinated - there are more of the former than the latter.

[sandygottstein]

That's why I noted that even when a population is documented to have been 100% vaccinated, there have still been outbreaks.
I have no problem with people choosing to be vaccinated. Forcing vaccination is quite another thing, however. And requiring vaccination because vaccines don't always work means that the rights of those who choose to be vaccinated are considered more important than the rights of those who choose not to be. In my opinion, that is an unethical position. Were vaccines 100% safe, perhaps this would not be important. But there is virtually no one who would even suggest such a thing. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that vaccines are far riskier than the "experts" even begin to acknowledge.
And while there are more vaccinated during an outbreak, again, if the vaccines work, those choosing vaccination will be protected. The fact that even 100% coverage doesn't stop outbreaks makes any forcing of vaccines even more offensive. (BTW, you might find yourself surprised to find that you agree with at least part of my column on vaccine effectiveness, "Vaccine Effectiveness - An ineffective argument" - http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/2003/Jan_31/Scandal53.htm)
PS Anyone who questions forcing vaccination might be interested in the following:
1) On cheating "the other guy" http://www.vaccinationnews.com//Scandals/2008/Feb_18_08/Scandal86.htm)
2) Forced Vaccinations - Musings on what the road to Hell is paved with http://www.vaccinationnews.com//Scandals/2007/Nov_21_07/Scandal83.htm)

[ThoJ]

ANB--

that sort of disingenuous comment as made by Mr. Gottstein is tiring to say the least.

[linlou34]

Keep up the great work David! Someday, this will be outed. Someday soon, I hope for all of the victims of scientific negligence! Somebody has to do this and I am glad it is you.
Lin

[fgh71250]

I thought this was the main aim of David Kirby - to "out" the so-called scientific negligence. I see this topic openly discussed on HuffPost, as well as many other places. It is a bit silly to pretend that this is some kind of huge conspiracy.

But you, linlou34, and David Kirby really need to try to grasp something. The truth is not decided in a popularity contest. It is not decided by who gets the most press, and it is not decided by who wins one case for compensation for vaccine injury. The truth will be decided by scientific consensus. And so far, despite Mr. Kirby's gathering of all possible people willing to speak in his favor, the scientific consensus is firmly against the autism-vaccine hypothesis. And it is even more strongly against the autism-mer­cury-in-va­ccines hypothesis. Which was the topic of Mr. Kirby's book, after all.

[foe2Hg]

fgh71250-

You said
"the scientific consensus is firmly against the autism-vaccine hypothesis. And it is even more strongly against the autism-mer­cury-in-va­ccines hypothesis­."

This is not new information. Of course many are "against" it as damage has been done. It has become a money issue rather than a health issue for "the scientific consensus" you mention. Thousands of kids have been poisoned and they are not going away and actually continue to be diagnosed every 20 minutes.

David's popularity is firmly planted because he represents the accurate science, the thousands of sick children, and the truth. So, yes, popularity will win. He also is not afraid to keep reminding the readers about the Poling case because as much as you all would like to minimize or deny its importance, it really is hugely important.

Keep going DK as you are scaring the hell out of the other side!

Teresa

[linlou34]

I suppose you get paid quite well to go on these blogsites. This is not about winning, good Lord! This is about finding the cause and correcting it, possibly curing the injured and preventing it for the future.
That is still exactly what you people do not seem to understand!
Grasp on this, every day that goes by, thousands of children could be spared this diagnoses. Perhaps someone you love and cherish!