Autism, Vaccines and the CDC: The Wrong Side of History

Even as the evidence connecting America's autism epidemic to vaccines mounts, dead-enders at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) -- many of whom promoted the current vaccine schedule and others with strong ties to the vaccine industry -- are trying to delay the day of reckoning by creating questionable studies designed to discredit any potential vaccine-autism link and by derailing authentic studies.

On January 12, a cadre of mid-level health bureaucrats left over from the Bush administration ignored Federal requirements for advance notice in order to vote to quietly strip vaccine research studies from funding allocated by Congress in the Combating Autism Act (CAA) of 2006. Members of Congress had said that this money should be used to study the vaccine-autism connection.

These rogue bureaucrats -- members of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee -- held an unannounced vote to remove previously approved vaccine studies from funding under the CAA. Nearly all of the "Federal" members of the panel voted to remove the two studies, whose estimated cost was $16 million - or 1.6% of the billion dollars authorized by Congress for autism. The panel's civilian members, in contrast, voted nearly unanimously to retain the funding.

IACC's action to halt vaccine-autism research flies in the face of congressional intent. The bill's authors clearly stated that vaccine research should be funded. Even the esteemed Institute of Medicine has condemned CDC's methods. In 2005, an IOM panel condemned CDC for its "lack of transparency" in vaccine-autism research.

The bureaucrats responsible for this scandal are on the wrong side of history and it's hard to not attribute an obstructionist motive to their act since vaccine-autism research has already entered the realm of mainstream science. Serious scientists (except those tied to the vaccine industry) no longer debate whether vaccine-autism research should be done, but rather how it should be done, and by whom.

And Congress concurs: "I want to be clear that ... no research avenue should be eliminated, including biomedical research examining potential links between vaccines, vaccine components, and autism,pronounced Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Chairman of the H.E.L.P. Committee at the bill's passage. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said the bill should fund "environmental research examining potential links between vaccines, vaccine components and autism. And last week, Dodd called the potentially illegal maneuver to shut down vaccine research, "contrary to the spirit of the bill."

These days, being opposed to vaccine-autism research puts one outside of the "mainstream" (and let's be clear, supporting such research in no way makes one "anti-vaccine" -- that charge is a tired, diversionary charade -- an ugly lie perpetrated by vaccine industry allies and their blind supporters.)

Recognizing this fact, the vaccine industry and its CDC allies have continued to fund a series of deceptive and badly flawed studies designed to dispute the connection between vaccines and the epidemic of pediatric neurological disorders. The latest of these is the controversial Italian study released this week intended to allow Thimerosal's defenders to argue that the preservative is safe. The study comparing two groups of Italian children, who received a moderate level of Thimerosal vs. a moderately higher level, is so poorly designed it could only find one child in 1400 who tested with autism. The researchers did not include in the study the records of children who received no Thimerosal. For years, a cadre of vaccine officials at CDC has vigorously opposed funding for epidemiological studies that include both vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts that might give us useful information about causation.

The evidence of a potential link between vaccines and autism is now so compelling that every national autism organization firmly supports research into vaccination as a possible trigger for the disorder, including Autism Speaks, the world's largest, most well funded, well connected mainstream group.

Autism Speaks was co-founded by Bob Wright, former CEO of NBC-Universal, former Vice Chairman of General Electric. Autism Speaks, a staunchly pro-vaccine group, supports vaccine research. Its statement on the issue is right down the middle.

Why has vaccine-autism research gone mainstream? The reasons are many:

The Hannah Poling Case - A year ago, medical personnel at HHS determined that this girl's autism was caused by, "vaccine induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves." Hannah had low cellular energy related to her underlying and mild mitochondrial dysfunction. Many children with autism claims in Vaccine Court have almost identical mitochondrial dysfunction.

Mitochondrial disorders are not rare in autism -- Research suggests that dysfunction may affect 10-to-30% of all kids with autism -- perhaps more among "regressive" cases.

Mitochondrial disorders are probably not rare in the general population -- Such disorders were thought to affect 1-in-5,000 people. But new research suggests that genetic mutations that might confer mitochondrial dysfunction might be found in 1-in-400 to 1-in-50. A study by the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation (UMDF) found mitochondrial DNA mutations that might cause disease in up to 1-in-200 people.

Children with mitochondrial disorders are at greater risk of autistic regression -- A new study by researchers at Cleveland Clinic and elsewhere found that a trigger for autistic regression in kids with mito disorders could possibly come from a vaccine reaction. "There might be no difference between the inflammatory or catabolic stress of vaccinations and that of common childhood diseases," they wrote.

Children with mitochondrial disorders are at greater risk of vaccine injury -- This according to Dr. Douglas Wallace, Professor of Molecular Medicine and Director of the Center for Molecular and Mitochondrial Medicine in Genetics at UC Irvine. A member of the UMDF's scientific board, he stated, "We advocate spreading vaccines out as much as possible -- each time you vaccinate, you're creating a challenge for the system, and if a child has an impaired system that could in fact trigger further clinical problems."

The National CADDRE Study -- This 5-year project of the CDC's Centers for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology (CADDRE) Network will "help identify what might put children at risk for autism," the CDC says. Among those risk factors: "specific mercury exposures, including any vaccine use by the mother during pregnancy and the child's vaccine exposures after birth."

The Kennedy Krieger Institute -- The nation's premiere autism research outfit is sponsor of the Interactive Autism Network (IAN). Its new questionnaire deals with autism and vaccines. Thousands of families are describing their experiences with autistic regression following vaccination. Top scientists will then use this information, "to conduct additional vaccine-focused studies."

The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network -- CISA is a CDC-sponsored group that brings together leading autism research institutions and America's health insurance companies. Last April, the CDC proposed this research question: "Is immunization associated with increased risk for neurological deterioration in children with mitochondrial dysfunction?" To find out, "CISA has formed a working group to study methods related to mitochondrial disorders and immunization," the CDC said.

Autism Speaks -- Autism Speaks recently authorized three studies on thimerosal, vaccines and autism, and the foundation is considering funding a lot more highly significant research into the possible links between vaccines and autism.

The National Children's Study -- This is not a vaccine-autism study. But the HHS-EPA joint effort will investigate "the effects of environmental influences on the health and development of more than 100,000 children across the United States," including autism. As part of their work researchers will track medical records, which include vaccinations.

CDC's Immunization Safety Office -- As part of its draft research agenda for vaccine safety, this agency last April proposed looking at several clinical outcomes from childhood vaccinations, including "Autoimmune diseases; central nervous system demyelinating disorders; encephalitis/ encephalopathy; and neurodevelopmental disorders including autism."

Former CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding -- who told CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta: "If a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, and if you're predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage (and) symptoms that have characteristics of autism. We have to have an open mind."

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases -- who told US News, "If we can show that individuals of a certain genetic profile have a greater propensity for developing adverse events, we may want to screen everyone prior to vaccination (for) undetectable diseases like a subclinical mitochrondrial disorder."

Drs. Richard I. Kelley, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Margaret L. Bauman, Massachusetts General Hospital, Marvin R. Natowicz, Cleveland Clinic, etc -- "Large, population-based studies will be needed to identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in persons with mitochondrial cytopathies."

California Department of Health Services/ Kaiser Permanente -- This CDC- funded, NIH-published study showed that kids born in the most polluted tracts of the SF Bay Area (mercury was a significant factor) were more likely to develop autism: "Our results suggest a potential association between autism and estimated metal concentrations."

Many scientists are exploring other environmental factors, including heavy metals:

UC Davis MIND Institute -- Authors of this new study say that genetics alone cannot explain the rise in autism in California. "We're looking at the possible effects of metals, pesticides and infectious agents on neurodevelopment," said Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, a co-author and professor at UC Davis.

The University of Texas -- Two studies led Ray Palmer, Ph.D., associate professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center show increased risks for autism among kids living closest to mercury-emitting sources, such as coal-fired power plants.

Scientists at UC San Diego -- They wrote in the journal Autism that children given Tylenol after the MMR shot were several times more likely to develop autism. Tylenol can reduce levels of glutathione - a powerful antioxidant and detoxifier. "Tylenol and MMR was significantly associated with autistic disorder," the authors wrote. "More research needs to be completed to confirm the results of this preliminary study."

The new administration of President Barack Obama also seems to recognize the need for independent studies. HHS Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle said in 2002 that, "Mercury-based vaccine preservatives actually have caused autism in children." And President Obama said on the campaign trail last year, that: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."

We could not agree more. The government must study the genetic and environmental factors that cause autistic symptoms such as neuro-inflammation and rapid brain growth, immune dysregulation, oxidative stress, glutathione depletion and microglial activation.

Hard science is increasingly pointing to vaccines and heavy metals -- among other environmental triggers -- as suspects in the epidemic.

After eight years of secrecy and subterfuge by the Bush Administration, it is time to shed light on the government's abuse and mismanagement of autism research in this country - especially when it comes to investigating evidence of a link to vaccines.

Comments

[DrZP]

Although there is a lot of merit within the above discussion, I wish the authors had commented on the risk of neuronal injury in kids with mitochondrial disease who develop infections. The immune response and metabolic stress that is induced by vaccines is multi-fold higher under infection.

Second, the vaccine is not the underlying mechanism by which these children develop neurological problems. Rather, it is their underlying mitochondrial disease. Placing blame on the vaccine for causing autism is unfair. Therefore, like children with other disease that prevent vaccinations, it is reasonable to argue that this children MAY benefit from an altered vaccine schedule or cessation. But, this must be weighed against the risk of non-vaccinations. An issue that was not addressed here.

[nowGo4ward]

I believe the CDC is exceedingly behind the times in research and in practice when they recommend two or more vaccinations given together without clinical study of the combination, or one vaccination given to a new population, such as the Hepatitis B vaccine give to newborns, when it has only been studied briefly in 5 to 18 year olds. The non-existent long term studies of the overall health effects of the program, especially the effects of giving an unprecedented 36+ vaccinations before Kindergarten, are assumed to have already been done. Few understand that some vaccine ingredients have never undergone testing under current standards, and even worse, are being used in excess of what has already been shown to cause harm. Most don’t even understand how many more vaccinations are being given to children now than used to be. The CDC is relying on this ignorance to maintain compliance with their recommendations, and they will not be able to stand on this “foundation.”

Because the vaccine program has been in a state of noncompliance with current standards for quite some time, those profiting from this have already lost more than they ever gained by trying to “fast-track” the disease “prevention” program, have lost more than some of us who trusted them with our children’s precious health. What more could be lost by now “complying” with “first do no harm?”

[nowGo4ward]

The FDA is required by law to ensure efficacy and safety before licensing products, and when a patient is taking a drug, doctors take combined drug reactions into account when prescribing another. They are also, I believe, supposed to take personal and family health history into account when recommending a treatment or procedure, as well as the current health status of the patient. There seems to be a process of true informed consent with possible adverse events and “side effects” of prescription drugs. Parents, often, enter their “well-baby” visits assuming these kinds of procedures are in place with the vaccine program, but they are not.

As there is an “approval” process to determine safety and efficacy of new drugs and industrial products, and seemingly, an extended process before drugs are approved for use in children, this leads many to believe that anything currently in use has already undergone this evaluation for safety. With so many products “not recommended for children under age …” or not to be “taken if pregnant,” there is also this sense that a higher standard is in place for prenatal and postnatal exposure risk. This expectation is there for vaccination as well.

[nicknaylor]

Not often considered by those who accept vaccinations as automatically efficacious are the countless studies demonstrating that "immunity" - narrowly defined as the production of antibodies - can be overstimulated with consequent adverse effects; especially in children.

In science it's known as a "proof" in principle. In this case it can be called "idiotypic runaway", the inevitable result of the introduction of the new schedule in 1989 that Mr Kennedy is talking about.

The probable result is some type of autoimmune disorder because of the cascade of "cross-reacting" antigen-antibody epitopes that inevitably produces autoantibodies. The immune system then attacks healthy cells.

Simplified explanation.

[SteinsOz]

There are 4 points to consider here:
1. Absence of is not evidence of absence. In this context, I mean that just because some people believe that no convincing link between vaccines and autism has been found, is by no means the same thing that evidence has been found to show that vaccines are not related to autism.
2. Many of us parents are after removal of thimerosal from vaccines. Let's go back a few decades to the struggle to remove lead from automotive gas. Saying that people who advocate for removal of thimerosal from vaccines are putting their children at risk because vaccines are life-saving, would be similar to arguing that removal of lead from gas means that proponents of the anti-lead movement are against cars.
3. Informed consent. I remember the times when my kids were vaccinated as being some of the most "unempowered" medical events I have ever been party to. Parents should be required to read the "package insert" that comes with all medications; parents should be informed about the debate on vaccine safety, parents should be able to opt for single-use vs. thimerosal­-containin­g multi-use vials. And then, parents should decide what they want to do.
4. How do doctors with knowledge of thimrosal risks advise their families? It would be very interesting to know how folks like Dr. Julie G. etc advise their own families. Maybe some one can execute an FOI search on this information.

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

SteinsOz, very well put.

However, I would modify (2) to say that parents are after the removal of thimerosal, aluminum and anything else that some children might not be able to tolerate. And, then there still may be children that can't tolerate more than one vaccine at a time; which kind of leads into your point (3), parents should be informed of which vaccines are the most critical (Hep-B and Varicella being at the bottom of the list, for example).

And now, standby for some idiot to make a comment about "moving the goalposts" -- like science never changes direction when new things are discovered.

[AutismNewsBeat]

1. Science cannot prove a negative, just as you cannot prove you are paid by pharmaceutical interests to discredit anti-vaccine activists by posting transparently uninformed statements on HuffPo. That's why, if I claim that you are a pharm-shill, it is incumbent on me to prove my point, not on you to disprove it.

2. Thimerosal has been absent from schedule childhood vaccines since 2002. So why haven't autism diagnoses declined?

3. Informed consent requires that parents receive accurate information. Posting Jenny McCarthy's talking points on the internet is antithetical to that end.

4. Why bother with an FOI when you can just make up any old statistic that you want, and post it here?

[SteinsOz]

Dear AutismNewsBeat ... well, while I can see we're clearly on opposite sides of this discussion, I am still pleased to be engaged in a constructive dialogue. Looking at your responses to my points, seems to me you are using fairly standard "disinformation" techniques, including generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Let me address these on a case by case basis:

1. Science cannot prove a negative. This is precisely my point, and I am in 100% agreement with you. For this reason, we should err on the side of safety. The Hippocratic Oath in any reasonable interpretation calls for the medical community to "first, do no harm". It is self-evident that vaccines containing thimerosal are more harmful (by any measure) than vaccines without thimerosal. I understand they're almost equally cost-effective to produce ... and no less a public interest luminary organization than the FDA recommends thimerosal withdrawal. I'll ignore the rest of your rant about about shills etc, as I don't really understand your points, other than that your metaphors and allusions are clearly more profound than the points they're trying to embellish.

(cont'd)

[SteinsOz]

2. Thimerosal has been absent from schedule childhood vaccines since 2002. Again ... great news ... this is a great start ... if only it was true! Looking at the current US vaccination schedule (http://www.fda.gov/CBER/vaccine/thimerosal.htm, accessed 11 Feb 2009) I count 4 vaccines that still contain thimerosal ... and 15 out of all vaccines (including non-childhood ones). But of course, you are referring to the US schedule. How about the Australian schedule? The Indian schedule? And furthermore, let's not nit-pick over what "remove" means ... its kind of the "But I didn't inhale" of this debate. I quibble here about so-called trace amounts. Poison is poison, no matter how little there is of it. Again, a nice comfortable euphemism to quell the crowd. Please, check your facts and quote your references before debating mine.

(cont'd)

[SteinsOz]

3. Accurate information would be great! However in times of debate, its had to come by. Look at our difference of opinion as an example. Parents should be informed about the debate and allowed to make their own choices. This is what I have advocated. Your Jenny McCarthy point is a distraction, a very base Ad Hominem fallacy, and simply, a red herring.

4. Id like to bother with an FOI precisely because I don't just want to make up any old statistic and post it here. Again, a silly Ad Hominem fallacy, and another red herring.

Finally, it seems to me that you are introducing no new information to the debate, you are simply attacking me. I am not the issue. Vaccine safety is the issue. Let's get back to that, OK?

[euthman]

This issue has been studied thoroughly, and there is no link between vaccines and autism. Keep beating this dead horse, and you only divert valuable resources in the ongoing effort to discover the real cause (or causes) of autism, which is not vaccines.

Ed Uthman, MD
Pathologist, Houston, Texas, USA
http://web2.airmail.net/uthman

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

"there is no link between vaccines and autism"??? How do you know this? You can not prove that this is true. NONE of the studies which people refer to actually conclude this. They found no correlation; which is not the same as saying there's no correlation; it just means that the studies that were done failed to find one. Basic logic tells us that you can NOT prove a negative. One should expect that at some point in medical school you learned things along these lines. You don't know what causes autism so you can't say what it isn't.

[euthman]

The way the scientific method works (or is supposed to work when it's not being driven by celebrities and politicians) is that the null hypothesis stands until it is rejected at an acceptable probability (usually 95%). In this case, the null hypothesis is that there is no link between autism and vaccines. The investigator hypothesizes that autism and vaccines is connected and sets out to gather sufficient data to support his hypothesis, until he is at least 95% sure that the null hypothesis is wrong. If he can't do that, the null hypothesis stands. In this case, the data have been gathered by way of multiple studies, and there is insufficient support to reject the null hypothesis. The issue of "proving a negative" doesn't come up in empirical science. That's for mathematics and other endeavors in formal logic.

Another way to look at it is that science and pseudoscience both start with a hypothesis. The pseudoscientist makes all effort to prove the hypothesis right, while the scientist makes all effort to prove the hypothesis wrong. The strongest scientific conclusions are those that withstand efforts to prove them wrong. The weakest are those that are propped up by insubstantial assertions and wishful thinking.

[MNmommy]

Thank you.

[CamJam]

Yes.. just keeping clicking your heels and repeating that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

Heck the constant lie to go to war in Iraq was said enough times that people thought it true.. but now we know better eh?

[CraigWilloughby]

In other words, since we don't know what is the true cause of autism, and we don't know for certain and have never done any vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies, which is a requirement for every single medical drug on the market, it could be anything.

But it's not the vaccines, even though we don't know it's not the vaccines.

Can you say Hallelujah? Can you say Amen?

And the High Priest Pauly PrOffit spake, "Correllation does not equal causation."

And the congregation replies "But vaccines SAVE LIVES!"

[euthman]

The reason that there are no comparisons between large randomized, matched vaccinated and unvaccinated samples is that, despite the years of hysterical fearmongering, too few parents are foolish enough to let their children go unvaccinated. The value of vaccination has been apparent for so long that it would also be unethical for any legitimate medical scientist to propose such a study, or for any source of research funding to back it.

Ed Uthman, MD
Pathologist, Houston, Texas USA
http://web2.airmail.net/uthman

[SteinsOz]

Hmmm ... since when did absence of evidence become evidence of absence?

[nowGo4ward]

Thank you Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kirby for all your efforts to provide a healthier environment for this generation and the next.

[MNmommy]

Bobby, I'm disappointed that you're still pursuing this.

Diagnoses of all neurological brain disorders are on the rise due to widened diagnostic criteria.

1 in 150 have autism, 2 in 100 have bipolar, 1 in 100 have schizophrenia, 1 in 20 have ADHD and on and on.

It's past time that we accept the disabilities, treat the symptoms, stop worrying about the labels and continue to pursue therapy that works for all of these kids.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america.shtml

Why does everyone have amnesia about the institutions that existed in the past that housed so many of these children?

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

If this is true then over 1% of the adult male population is autistic. (1 in 150 children and 4:1 ratio of boys to girls means that 1 in 96 boys is autistic). Yet no know seems to know where these adults with autism have gone to.

The institutions of the past had no where near 1% of the population in them. At the height of institutio­nalization in this country, about 1960, there were half a million people in mental institutions -- and that was for ALL disorders combined (roughly 1/4 of 1% of the US population at the time). Open your eyes.

[Josephius]

OAD,

What are you looking at for adults with autism? What is your criteria for diagnosing them with autism? That they behave just like your children?

The fact is, that 1 in 150 you cite so often includes individuals you and I would not be able to classify as autistic. Experts can and do. They know what to look for. And, as a result, they are characterized as being part of the spectrum.

What is the incidence rate for severe cases of children with autism (the individuals who may not progress as much as others and will retain blatant autistic characteristics into adulthood)?

People change as they grow up...that includes children on the spectrum. Some develop a little, most develop a lot.

It is foolhardy to think these people are locked into some kind of psychological stasis.

[MNmommy]

So?

2% of all have bipolar.

I said many of the children - not ALL of the children.

Isn't the 1 in 150 a number that represents children on the spectrum? Many of them grow to be extremely successful in life. Think Asperger's.

[AutismNewsBeat]

Over 1% of the male population has a diagnosis for an "autism spectrum disorder". That's worth noting, as not everyone with an ASD is a hopeless vegetable as you seem to believe. "Autistic disorder", the most serious PDD, comprises less than 30% of ASDs, which equals an adult population (>18 years of age) of roughly 500,000, probably less. But not all of these individuals have an autism diagnosis. A good many are labeled MR, with a serious language disorder. And they are not all instutionalized. Some live with family members, others in group homes you apparently have never visited. I've seen this individuals. To deny their existence is to deny their humanity.

[anathea]

With decreasing levels of mercury in vaccines but increasing cases of autism it is often claimed to be a proof that mercury can't have been the cause at after all - but there is one often overlooked factor and that is rising levels of electromagnetic radiation, especially from cell phones and towers. Microwaves are known to break down the blood-brain barrier, allowing neurotoxins (nerve poisons) into the brain. The result is a condition like in the condition of multiple chemical sensitivitiy where very low levels of chemicals can have effects as with a severe poisoning. George Carlo, a microwave researcher, and Robert C. Kane have found evidence for this hypothesis.
See A Possible Association Between Fetal/neonatal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Increased Incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)

[Doybia]

I left out one or two of the pro-vax arguments, sorry!
Any criticism of anything related to vaccines is exactly equivalent to a conspiracy theory. As all conspiracy theories are bunkum, therefore all criticism of vaccines is bunkum. There is a little failure of logic and fact in this argument...
And, vaccines are wonderful, because if they weren't wonderful, all the agencies whose job is to promote vaccines would have noticed that there were problems with vaccines and publicly said that there were problems with vaccines and investigated these problems. Since they haven't done this, vaccines must be wonderful.
Government agencies never make mistakes, never get stuck in bad patterns, never have conflicts of interest, never collaborate with corporate interests to cover up mistakes, never put corporate interests before the interests of individuals and anyone who says that there are problems is a conspiracy theorist.

I mean honestly guys. You've got to be able to see how silly some of these arguments are.

[CraigWilloughby]

Again, your summation is astoundingly accurate. Bravo to you, sir.

[Josephius]

My god man....did you read the article by RFKjr and Kirby?!?!

Do you not recognize that this whole thread is following THAT article?

I have to disagree with you Craig, I think these responses are simplistic, reactionary, and exaggerated. If this is the way you really see it, then your perception is questionable.

...and of course, neither of you cared to respond to my invitation to characterize yourselves in this situation.

"You've got to be able to see how silly some of these arguments are."

That's about the one contribution to the request so far. Arguments and silly. OK, continue.....

[CraigWilloughby]

Josephius, do you understand what satire is?

[Dion Madsen]

Doybia,

These are not the arguments that I have seen posted here. In fact, I find the arguments against the autism-vaccines link to be quite logical, credible and supported by strong scientific data. Nobody has said that government agencies never make mistakes, however, you are assuming that because they make mistakes, that this is proof of a mistake in this instance, an illogical statement.

Rather than making baseless accusations, compile the scientific data and present it in a credible scientific journal.

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

And, what do you say about the science that contradicts your science (because you seem to want to ignore half of the equation)?

Also, Doybia never made the assumption that you claim. Read the post, and realize that it's satire.

[CraigWilloughby]

Dion,

Go back through some of these comments and some of the comments in other blogs concerning autism and count how many times parents who are just asking for further studies into vaccine safety have been accused of being conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers. Many parents are concerned about the efficacy of vaccines because of the numerous scandals associated with the pharmaceutical companies. Many parents have questions because we have been witness to adverse reactions to vaccines. We have questions. And instead of answering these questions, we are called idiots and conspiracy theorists.

Parents like me are sick and tired of being called idiots. We are tired when people who claim to be doctors and scientists derisively call all of us (many of whom HAVE vaccinated their children) anti-vaccine. And then, when someone posts a tongue-in-cheek response to these accusations, we are decried as debating unfairly. Do you not see the hypocrisy there?

[BehindBlueEyes]

Continuation of examples for consideration…..
(3) Hannah Poling case
Basically every aspect of this case has been incorrectly stated. Sticking to the concession, there were two compensations awarded: "regressive encephalopathy" and "partial seizure disorder" Not autism.
HHS staff never determined that her autism was caused by vaccines and this falsehood has been correctly over and over.
(4) UC Davis MIND Institute study
The study's conclusion is only 3 sentences: they can't tell if the reported increase in autism incidence is real. The characterizations of this study bare no resemblance to the actual study.
The fact is there is a lot of nonsense asserted on this topic.
Everyone would be served if these falsehoods were stopped. One way to do this is to not accept statements simply because they agree with ones viewpoint—whatever that viewpoint may be.
Peace,
BBE

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

Hanah Poling IS autistic. She has been diagnosed as autistic by her Doctors (plural). And spare us the "symptoms of autism" comment because, as you are probably not aware, autism is defined as a set of symptoms.

[BehindBlueEyes]

Thank you for your comments.
And yes we all understand that HP has been diagnosis with autism.
Still it is very puzzling how the advocates keep getting confused by this topic.
Again what were the two HP compensations:
Partial seizure disorder--this is not autism
Regressive encephalop­athy--this is not autism
The confusion seems to arise from the fact that some kids with regressive encephalopathy can have some of the symptoms of autism.
For example, due to the regressive encephalopathy HP apparently stopped making eye-contact. Still regressive encephalopathy is clearly different from autism and no truthful argument can be made that the compensation was for autism
So here again are the central facts:
HHS did not conclude that her autism was caused by the vaccines
The advocates continue to falsely claim the reverse.
And this error keeps getting corrected but the advocates keep on making it.
Once again, I think we are lucky. I believe that any person that makes a good faith effort to understand the case can’t help but figure out that HHS never decided that Poling’s autism was caused by vaccines.
The only issue to discuss is how is it possible that so many people keep getting this simple fact wrong?
Peace,

[CraigWilloughby]

"(3) Hannah Poling case
Basically every aspect of this case has been incorrectly stated. Sticking to the concession, there were two compensations awarded: "regressive encephalopathy" and "partial seizure disorder" Not autism.
HHS staff never determined that her autism was caused by vaccines and this falsehood has been correctly over and over."

Well, Hannah Poling was autistic BEFORE the NVICP case. I guess it cured her. Her Doctors should be informed.

[BehindBlueEyes]

Thank you for your comments.
But you have ducked the actual issues.
K&K—like many others--state in this column that HHS found Hannah Poling's autism was caused by a vaccine.
This is simply untrue.
All you have to do is to accurately read the HHS statement. Further, this error been corrected so many times.
If you can make it all the way through the court decisions, in some cases they even have comments that question the integrity of the scientists making the arguments that vaccines cause autism.
The sad fact is that that the continued falsehoods made by the advocates with respect to the Poling case has reinforced the idea that the vaccines cause autism movement is simply a fraud.
This helps no one and everyone would be better served if the truth was told: Poling’s autism was not determined by HHS to have been caused by vaccines.
Peace,

[BehindBlueEyes]

All—even if you completely disagree with my opinions, I request that you take the examples I give below and simply compare the actual facts with what is asserted to be true.

(1) IACC and CAA
The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee posts their agendas on their website. In the Jan 14 meeting they did exactly what the agenda said--they reviewed the decisions and they finalized the then tentative plan. They did everything exactly correctly.
What has been omitted from the discussion is the most important aspect of the voting: the qualified voters found none of the vaccine studies worthy of funding.
Congressional intent is clearly demonstrated by the act that was actually passed—the IACC committee has followed the act.
All the yelling and screaming seems to be based on complete misrepresenting the events that occurred and the basic English meaning of the words in the agenda and the CAA.
(2) 100% unvaccinated kids
Putting aside the massive technical problems with generating valid data--witness the fiasco of GR survey where the 100% unvaccinated kids were found to have higher risk of ASD then vaccinated kids--the simple fact is that there is CDC generated data comparing 100% unvaccinated kids with vaccinated. There was no difference in risk for autism.
Bottom-line: for more than 8 years we have had data showing that 100% unvaccinated kids have the same risk for autism as vaccinated and this simple fact continues to be misstated

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

The IACC did everything correctly??? What planet are you living on? If this is true, why is that actual members of the IACC are petitioning Congress for an investigation.

[BehindBlueEyes]

Thank you for your comments.
Did you read the IACC agenda?
We have K&K's characterization of the vote as unannounced and contrary to Federal regulations.
We have Ms Wright's AoA column attacking the ethics of the committee and claiming that the vote was not on the agenda and that no one knew that the issue would even be discussed etc…
Fortunately we can all read the agenda. Basically the whole purpose of the meeting was:
To review the decisions
To make budget recommendations
To finalize the plan
In other words all these attacks on the IACC simply aren’t truthful and are predicated on completely misrepresenting the facts. This does nothing but reduce the credibility of your side.
Still we are lucky that everyone can read the agenda and see the truth for themselves.
Peace,

[BehindBlueEyes]

Misters Kirby and Kennedy,
Thank you for facilitating public discussion on this topic.
Despite the advocate’s false claims that vaccine manufacturers can’t be sued, the truth is that a number of US courts have already heard the arguments and in every case decided they have thrown out all of the vaccines cause autism science as "junk".
Time and again the testimony from:
Dr. Grier,
Dr. Haley,
Dr. Deth,
Dr Mumper,
etc, etc (depending on the case) has been ruled unreliable and inadmissible in court. All of it has been ruled as junk science.
Obstructionists, secrecy, subterfuge would seem to exactly characterize your side’s behavior.
One of your lead scientists was described by a court as: "intellectually dishonest" and that his affidavit was "nothing more than an egregious example of blatant, result-oriented testimony".
Perhaps Mr. Kennedy could explain what the court means by this.
I just don't know how the courts can be any clearer.
The basic central truth here is--that despite a world of good intentions—the advocates that claim vaccines cause autism get basically all the science wrong.
Please don't take this as a personal criticism: it is no sin to be wrong.
However if the advocates continue to falsely claim that they haven’t had their day in court, then that will be a sin.
Perhaps the real issue is that no reasonable, open-minded person could read court cases and honestly believe that there is any merit to the claim that vaccines cause autism?
Peace,
BBE

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

You don't know what causes autism, do you? Then you can't say what doesn't cause it -- logic 101.

In what way has "our side" been obstructionist, secretive or engaged in subterfuge? This is just ad-hominem against all of us.

Is all the science done at Columbia, Northeastern and the University of Washington (to name just a few) ALL bad science?

If we're wrong then PROVE it. That hasn't been done yet, not to any reasonable standard of logic and reason. If you're wrong then more children are being afflicted by your lack of action. That would be a sin.

[BehindBlueEyes]

Thank you for your comments.
Did you read the IACC agenda?
We have K&K's characterization of the vote as unannounced and contrary to Federal regulations.
We have Ms Wright's AoA column attacking the ethics of the committee and claiming that the vote was not on the agenda and that no one knew that the issue would even be discussed etc…
Fortunately we can all read the agenda. Basically the whole purpose of the meeting was:
To review the decisions
To make budget recommendations
To finalize the plan
In other words all these attacks on the IACC simply aren’t truthful and are predicated on completely misrepresenting the facts. This does nothing but reduce the credibility of your side.
Still we are lucky that everyone can read the agenda and see the truth for themselves.

[BehindBlueEyes]

(4) Proof
Prove is a very strong word. Instead let’s summarize the high-level situation.
We are now in the second decade of a serious attempt to scientifically link vaccines with causing autism.
Every relevant scientific and medical group, association, etc in the world reject the arguments.
The people that support the link have had their chance in court several times and the courts have not just ruled against them, but have ruled all the arguments to be junk and have even in some cases questioned the integrity of these scientists.
Then we have the advocacy groups that are suppose to be there to help families deal with autism. These groups continue to advocate the same error-ridden arguments completely ignoring the all the criticisms by claiming that the court decisions don’t exist.
So what we can conclude is that a family that is basing their medical decisions on information from K&K, or AoA, or GR, or SM etc will be terribly misinformed.
Peace,

[BehindBlueEyes]

(3) Columbia, Northeastern?
It would really help you to understand better if you read the court rulings...
These studies are like any other--some have stronger data and some weaker.
But your comment doesn't address the real issues. First, the miss-use of these studies to make arguments in support of the idea that vaccines cause autism. Arguments that are so poor that each of the courts ruled them to be junk. Secondly, that the advocates continue to falsely claim that you can't sue.
A simple example is glutathione. There is data that people with autism have lower levels of glutathione, but trying to spin this data into an argument that people with autism can’t efficient excrete mercury is pure junk.
Now I am not here to say that courts are perfect or that these issues should even be decided by courts at all.
What I am exactly saying is that really damning criticisms of the arguments that vaccines cause autism have been raised and that the actions of the advocates have hidden these criticisms.
This is just not right

[BehindBlueEyes]

(2) ad-hominem
It is very interesting how you do not seem to find it worth commenting on all the personal attacks against people with different views from you, but you find my comments to be ad-hominem?
From my perspective the facts speak for themselves:
The arguments that vaccines cause autism were heard by various courts
All the arguments were found to be so unreliable that they were inadmissible
The advocates continue to make the same merit less arguments
The advocates simply ignore the courts very substantive criticisms of their arguments by falsely claiming that you can't sue
Clearly the basic facts have been obstructed.
I think a reasonable person might even conclude that this is a case of
subterfuge--that the court findings are being deliberately hidden from
parents.
No one is served by this situation.
The solution is for AoA, GR, SM, Huffington etc to post the decisions and let folks read them

[BehindBlueEyes]

Thank you for your comments.
(1) Logic
You have made a basic logic error.
Even if we don't know what causes something, it is still very possible to exclude possibilities as being the causative agent.
When you think about it, this is pretty obvious. You can think of silly examples of possible hypotheses for what causes autism that we can reject as false with absolute certainty.
Your logic 101 assertion is simply incorrect
I have seen this error made before. It would be kind of you to correct others when they make it.

[Josephius]

I am wondering if Mr. Kirby and Mr. Kennedy would go ahead and state publicly that the FDA too, is in fact, part of the conspiracy.

Choose the .pdf under views

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/custom/jsp/search/searchresult/docketDetail.jsp

That would make it the CDC and the FDA then.

Next, we can discuss the AMA, AAP, NIH, IOM, and...with enough time, the WHO. Are they all implicated too? How far does this conspiracy stretch?

[Josephius]

Dead link? Hmmm. Unfortunate. Try

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/fdmsSearchResult/fdms_docket_detail?d=FDA-2007-P-0232&docType=fdms_docket&returnUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regulations.gov%2Fsearch%2Fsearch_results.jsp

And selecting the .pdf relating to FDA-2007-P­-0232-0004

[CraigWilloughby]

You mean the same FDA that discovered that there was mercury content in High Fructose Corn Syrup back in 2005? And then, instead of informing the public and working to correct the issue, instead waited 4 years to release their findings?

[foe2Hg]

Josephius-

I hate to be the one to tell you this but we are on to you Dr Gorski, and so are your superiors at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

[Josephius]

Oh please Teresa. I am NOT Orac. That should be obvious.

[JohnDanStone]

Excellent summary Doybia!

New evidence of scientific fraud relating to the CDC and the Italian study on this blog:

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/cdc-fraud-tax-dollars-and-italian-vaccine-mercury-study/

[Josephius]

"the US Centers for Disease Control [CDC] spends US tax dollars in foreign countries on studies to claim the vaccination programmes they promote for US children are safe when they know the results of the studies will produce false and misleading negative results."

Are you kidding me?! And this is considered reliable information? You've got to be kidding?! When someone makes a blanket claim about an organization that employees thousands world-wide, you've better have some rock solid evidence. Do they? No. It's more conspiracy BS, fear mongering, and delusional rhetoric.

And who's leading the charge? John Stone. Who had decided there was something wrong with the study the second he read the title.

Again, you try and try and try to paint this little picture you've drawn up in your head for yourself.

If this is "evidence" of scientific fraud, you've got a lot to learn about the world. That is, outside of the National Enquirer.

[CraigWilloughby]

Cerus84, are you reading this? This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my post. There are more tactful ways to disagree with someone. I figure someone that goes to medical school can learn that.