|
||
Monday's Los Angeles Times
Dr. Rahul Parikh's article entitled, "Parents, Don't Be Immune to Vaccine Truths" should not have been published by the Los Angeles Times. He begins by painting a grim picture of a child in Mumbai who survives a case of tetanus. Instead of attempting to educate parents, his stated aim, he attempts to frighten them.
We should have long ago moved beyond trying to scare parents into vaccinating and also moved beyond trying to frighten parents into believing that every child getting a vaccine might end up with autism.
Dr. Parikh is a well-published medical author and blogger and he speaks of a patient he saw as an intern in the year 2000 at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. (His bio on many sites lets you know that year.) He identifies the parents, their unique profession and their child's age and illness. This family can be identified by anyone who can use Google.
They have given me permission to respond to the LA Times article.
Dr. Parikh then goes on to describe the patient as having whooping cough.
She did not have whooping cough.
Preliminary tests were positive but more definitive tests done later showed that the baby did not have any evidence of exposure to the bacterium that causes whooping cough. This medical writer then goes on to speculate that " . . .if she had only RSV, then she would have gotten better faster than she did, which is what led us to evaluate her further. But that combination -- being very sick and unvaccinated -- had led this child to the edge of respiratory failure . . ."
She was sick, required exactly the same care as a fully-vaccinated child and recovered. She's a healthy happy child.
Again, more efforts to scare than to educate. And a dishonest presentation of the facts. And a serious ethical and legal breach.
Dr. Parikh's discussion of the Larry King television show omits my presence on the show and mischaracterizes what actually occurred. Watch the episode on YouTube.
This is the second time in a matter of a few weeks that this newspaper has presented old news and inaccurate facts as being real news.
Dr. Paul Offit co-held the patent for a vaccine whose rights recently sold for $182 million. He and his book are cited here and often elsewhere as unbiased sources for information. Dr. Offit is an honest researcher but he should not be quoted as a completely disinterested expert.
Dr. Parikh correctly mentions that pediatricians have long been disdainful and dismissive of those of us who disagree with the routine vaccination schedule. The American Academy of Pediatrics has received millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry to support everything from the building of our new headquarters to the coffee and doughnuts at our conferences. The industry sponsors our speakers, spends millions on advertising in our official journals and pays for our lunches and dinners. Dr. David Tayloe, the AAP President, is a good man and I sense that he will soon begin reversing this controversial relationship. But, that money has influenced vaccine approval and recommendations and scheduling for decades.
There is no proof that vaccines can cause autism but the evidence needs further research and investigation. The three "vaccine court" cases this year are easily analogized to the early judicial decisions over cigarettes and lung cancer. Again, the proof's not there against vaccines, but dismissing the possibility and the evidence based on a few court cases is bad law, bad science and bad medicine.
No one, no one accuses doctors of being " . . . bent on making profits from vaccines at the expense of children" as Dr. Parikh implies. Drug companies may be motivated very strongly by the profit motive but most of us doctors give vaccines because we truly believe that a child's personal health and the community's health benefit because of these shots. And, yes, I give some shots every day. I just don't give as many of them as are recommended and I vaccinate as late and slowly as I can. Yes, I have considered the public heath implications of this choice. The dangers are grossly over-stated by Dr. Parikh and others.
For the first time in eight years, a child died of HIB bacterial meningitis in Minnesota earlier this year. I responded to a recent LA Times article about vaccines and my first draft included my notes about fatal tree limb accidents: Over 100 people die each year because tree limbs fall on them. The relevance was questioned by my editor (my wife) and therefore omitted. Strange statistically-unlikely things happen. Using them as scary examples in medical articles does not serve the discussion well.
Talk to your doctor but do your own "homework" too. Vaccines are neither unequivocally good nor bad. The way we vaccinate our children now is not as safe as we could make it.
Jay Gordon, MD, Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, FABM, IBCLC Emeritus
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Preliminary tests were positive but more definitive tests done later showed that the baby did not have any evidence of exposure to the bacterium that causes whooping cough."
Let's apply Jenny McCarthy logic to the above sentence:
Just because tests showed no evidence of whooping cough doesn't mean the child was pertussis free. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Can Gordon prove the child didn't have whooping cough? Which pharmaceutical company devised the test for pertussis, and how can we trust it? Dr. Gordon is hardly an unbiased source for recalling a test result - after all, his reputation, such as it is, rests on proving Dr. Parikh wrong. How about a truly independent test to decide if the baby had whooping cough? We need a whooping cough v. no whooping cough study.
And that, Dr. Gordon, is what keeps our two communities far, far apart.
ANB -
As usual, you are engaging in sophistry.
"But the middle part of his exposition is devoted to a patient of mine and he commits ethics and HIPAA violations so egregious that the Medical Board must take him to task."
Dr. Gordon--this accusation is false and potentially libelous. There was not enough information given to come close to a HIPAA violation. A reasonable man would pull this blog post, and request that the age of autism blog pull theirs as well.
Thank you for updating your post, Dr. Gordon.
Yes, thank you for doing the right thing, although you could conceivable remove this line as well:
"And a serious ethical and legal breach."
But I understand the need to save face with your peeps.
"No one, no one accuses doctors of being 'bent on making profits from vaccines at the expense of children' as Dr. Parikh implies." - Dr. Jay Gordon, April 20, 2009
"With vaccines being the fastest growing division of the pharmaceutical industry, isn't it possible that profits may play a part in the decision-making? That the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit engine than a means of prevention?" - Jim Carrey, April 22, 2009
ANB -
It's a profit engine for the pharmaceutical industry.
That's not the same as being a profit engine for pediatricians.
Dr. Gordon,
Thank you for continuing to advocate for much-needed reform in vaccine administration.
I regret that I did not know, when I vaccinated my child, that he would be receiving mercury too.
Shame on anybody who does not support making vaccines (and the vaccine schedule) safer.
My oldest child, now twenty, was evaluated for autism when she was three or four, but was and remains undiagnosed. However I often wonder what might have happened if our Kaiser pediatrician hadn’t suggested that we postpone the hepatitis B vaccine. “It’s a sexually transmitted disease, why don’t we just put this one off for a bit?” he said. “I don’t think your toddler will be having sex any time soon.” Perhaps my slightly ‘quirky’ child would be one of the truly devastated, if not for him—one of the growing number of children with full blown autism. Thank God for decent doctors. He is no longer practicing with Kaiser, by the way. He quit shortly afterward.
Thank you so much, Dr. Gordon, for responding to this awful article, and for taking a reasonable stance on vaccines both in your work and in your writing.
Dr. Parikh mentions a prior Larry King Live show, but not the more recent show where pediatrician Dr. Jerry Kartzinel and former NIH director Dr. Bernardine Healy spoke out in favor of addressing vaccine problems. He mocked Jenny McCarthy without recognizing that the reason she has a following is that she reflects the views of thousands of other parents, many of whom do have advanced professional degrees but have been ignored by the media. Jenny McCarthy has bravely used her celebrity status to open doors.
And thanks so much to commenters such as nhokkanen and amdachel and kellianndavis who always make so much sense.
Not sure if this is willful advocasy, something the LA times is known for of it is just laziness, something else the LA times is known for.
Anyone who misrepresents the facts about vaccine ingredients is anti-vaccine. For example your good friend Jenny McCarthy still claims that vaccines contain anti-freeze and ether. Who told her that? Was that you, Dr. Gordon? You've admitted that you were wrong. Thank you. But how could you be so reckless as to make such a claim in the first place? Somebody who was "pro-vaccine" would have taken greater care to get his facts straight. As for McCarthy, either her medical adviser hasn't set her straight yet, or she knows and doesn't care. Is it fair to call you McCarthy's science adviser?
Similarly, it's gospel in the anti-vaccine movement that we are in the throes of an autism epidemic. But what is the evidence for that? If you are sincere, then please address the changes in diagnostic criteria over the last 25 years, and the rise of administrative diagnoses by schools, and the phenomenon of diagnostic substitution. At least mention that today's schedule contains a fraction of the thimerosal as the schedule used in the 90s, and that most kids never even receive a TCV before their third birthday.
"No one, no one accuses doctors of being . . . bent on making profits from vaccines at the expense of children."
Seriously?
"No one, no one accuses doctors of being . . . bent on making profits from vaccines at the expense of children."
Dr. Gordon, you may never have accused any of your fellow pediatricians of sacrificing children for profit, and you may never have experienced this sort of demonization, but if you Google the string "vaccines profits pediatricians site:ageofautism.com," you will find more of these sorts of accusations than you can shake a stick at.
Kathleen, there are many pediatricians who refuse to act like there is a financial benefit at all to them vaccinating..That is also insulting. The argument goes both ways.
"Anyone who misrepresents the facts about vaccine ingredients is anti-vaccine." This is nonsense. Jenny's point is that the current vaccine program hasn't been adequately tested. Not having complete knowledge about their ingredients doesn't change that. The fact is there are several components of many of the vaccines that are toxic. Oh, and by the way, the article wasn't about Jenny McCarthy.
"Similarly, it's gospel in the anti-vaccine movement that we are in the throes of an autism epidemic. But what is the evidence for that?" This is an even more ridiculous statement. One has but to look at the children swelling the ranks of the special needs programs at their local schools. But you don't even have to go that far -- because now there's one on every street. Claiming that it's all just better diagnosis just shows that you're not paying attention to reality.
I've said this before, spreading fear of childhood diseases is a losing battle; fear that your child may end up like the child with autism down the street is much more real to young parents. Do you disagree that the current vaccine program needs further study?
That's a strange argument, OAD - Jenny McCarthy isn't lying, she simply doesn't know what she's talking about. Is that it? If she has a compelling point to make, then why not stick to facts? The anti-freeze and ether claim is the result of confusing sound alike chemical names. Dr. Gordon made the same mistake. If that's not reckless, then the word has no meaning.
"One has but to look at the children swelling the ranks of the special needs programs at their local schools. " Yes, by all means look at the national IDEA numbers for children enrolled in special education services. The line has remained flat for over ten years. So you and McCarthy share something in common - you both don't know what you're talking about, yet feel compelled to speak out nonetheless.
"Anyone who misrepresents the facts about vaccine ingredients is anti-vaccine."
then that would include staff members of the FDA/CDC who have commented on vaccine ingredients and even suggested their removal
Can you give an example?
If the pt. ID'd woulda been a celebrity you just KNOW there would be repurcussions on all of this, after all those stories about hospital staff peeking at (celebrity) patient records and disclosing same to the media.
Dr. Parikh has frequently posted online comments that misinform and frighten readers, but this is a new low. What's chilling is this doctor's resistance to simply look at the medical condition of little children with vaccine-induced regressive autism, rather than repeating government statistics engineered to bolster conclusions beneficial to its industry partners. Parents' inconvenient input is dismissed.
Adding further insult to injury is Dr. Parikh's combative insistance on misusing the phrase "anti-vaccine." He shouldn't need reminding that investigating product safety does not make one anti-product.
Vaccine injury prevention cannot improve if vaccine injuries are not acknowledged by health care professionals. Today the IOM held a meeting, "Review of Adverse Effects of Vaccines" in Washington, DC. It is the first of many such gatherings, with public input. The lengthy recitation of health disorders linked to vaccines should be required listening for all physicians and nurses.
I hope Dr. Gordon apologizes for and retracts the libelous comments in his post. They are defamatory and uncalled for. I don't expect you to see that, Nancy, but I still have hope for Dr. Gordon.
Dr. Gordon: Thank you for retracting part of your post. But you are still mistaken when you accuse Dr. Parikh of violating HIPPA. I'm sure it's just an oversight.
Please do the right thing and remove the remaining defamatory remark.
This is an important argument, well stated. Progressives need to understand that the rhetorical style that Parikh, recommends (craft your arguments with emotional appeals the way the Republican Party does, for God's sake?) is thuggery, pure and simple. It's unprincipled, unscientific and immoral. The truth doesn't matter just the insistent repetition of talking points and scare tactics that treat the audience like idiots.
The debate over vaccine safety and choice is not one that pits "anti-vaccine" extremists against the public health. Rather it's a debate between skeptical and well-informed consumers against increasingly profitable commercial interests (vaccine developers) and a totalitarian delivery model (100% vaccination compliance). Pediatricians are caught in the middle and courageous doctors like Jay Gordon are the voices of sanity we must heed, not Rahul Parikh
"The debate over vaccine safety and choice is not one that pits "anti-vaccine" extremists against the public health. Rather it's a debate between skeptical and well-informed consumers against increasingly profitable commercial interests (vaccine developers) and a totalitarian delivery model (100% vaccination compliance)."
*THIS* is the best analogy yet on the whole "anti-vaccine" mantra!
Bottom Line: Parents are a smart bunch and more than capable of doing the research needed to make an informed decision! Believe it or not folks, but the computer age is here to stay! (Think: PubMed)
Thanks Jay for being a voice of reason.
Kelli Ann Davis
DC Political Liaison
Generation Rescue
Well informed consumers who think vaccines contain anti-freeze and ether? I think you need to work on your analogy.
Well said, mfb!
Dr. Parikh has taken an inflexible stand. Anyone questioning vaccine safety is "anti-vaccine" and he published this response to my comments about his LA Times piece. Breaking Down Age of Autism's Letter
http://open.salon.com/blog/rahul_k_parikh/2009/04/19/breaking_down_age_of_autisms_letter
In http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/121/3/621 Fighting for the Reputation of Vaccines: Lessons From American Politics, published in PEDIATRICS, he told doctors that the medical community needs to use "emotional appeals" to show that vaccines are safe. He wrote, "We need our academy, along with other groups such as the American Academy of Family Physicians and, yes, the CDC, to be more potent... They can do this by getting behind a clear and assertive campaign. If opponents to vaccines put a celebrity on Oprah, then we need to take out a full page ad in national newspapers to show parents what a child with tetanus looks like, or air an ad with a parent telling the story of how their child died from Haemophilus influenzae meningitis."
I can guarantee that the stories parents could tell about their normally progressing toddlers, many times talking and potty trained and who lost those skills coincidental to receiving certain vaccinations, will have a stronger effect. The photos and videos of those children now as teenagers, in diapers, unable to speak will make a lasting impression.
Anne Dachel
AGE OF AUTISM http://www.rescuepost.com/age_of_autism/
"The three "vaccine court" cases this year are easily analogized to the early judicial decisions over cigarettes and lung cancer."
Dr. Gordon, they are "easily analogized" in such a manner if you haven't actually read the decisions. I asked you this before and will ask you again: Have you actually read all three decisions in their entirety?
I read the decisions and it was pretty clear to me. The basis was simply, 'we are not required to accept testimony that is not considered mainstream medical science, and mainstream medical science does not believe in a vaccine/autism link'. Every study, doctor, etc that suggests or believes a link is marginalized by 'mainstream medical science'. This is exactly what happened during the years big tobacco was trying to hide itself.
so silly at this point, why the push againsts a safer vaccine schedule?
Sarah, where in the decision did you find this quote: "We are not required to accept testimony that is not considered mainstream medical science, and mainstream medical science does not believe in a vaccine/autism?"
What about the cases where the parents WON? Have you read Bailey v. HHS? The Vaccine Court has, on a number of occasions determined that vaccines have caused an autism spectrum disorder. Dr. Gordon should have mentioned those.
The Vaccine Court only looks at the likelihood that one thing caused another. The court's standard is "more likely than not". In the Banks case, the court determined that Baily's ADEM could have been triggered by a vaccine. That's far from a scientific determination of causation. The court was set up in the 1980s to quickly and fairly compensate parents - not to determine causality in a scientific sense.
I read Banks and blogged about it (http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/148) nine months after it was issued in July 2007. It's irrelevant to the OAP; petitioners' attorneys only publicized it in February 2009 when they needed to inspire their clients to keep the faith.
An autism diagnosis doesn't prevent compensation for individuals who prove vaccine injury. However, VICP has never compensated cognitively disabled individuals who weren't also physically disabled. The Banks child had acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. OAP petitioners whose autistic children have ADEM should have had their cases expedited long ago.
Petitioners who can prove vaccine injury should receive compensation. That didn't happen in the MMR test cases. The court considered all of the evidence that was presented to them, no matter how tangential or poorly reasoned. The evidence didn't support a finding that MMR causes autism.
Parents are reasonably concerned about their children's welfare and the need to provide for them when they're gone. It isn't acceptable, however, to attempt to meet the needs of autistic children who are not vaccine-injured by raiding a fund created to compensate vaccine-injured individuals. The only people who'll come out ahead in this campaign are the attorneys, who are raking in millions in fees (see http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/190 and http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/149), and their "experts" (many of whom spend more time in court than in clinic), and entrepreneurs who market treatments premised on litigation-fueled speculation about the causes of autism.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
