I just can’t make this any clearer. Vaccines do not cause autism. Study after study has shown this, in multiple ways. The removal of the MMR (mumps-measles-rubella) vaccine in Japan did not lead to a decline in the number of cases of autisms diagnosed; instead the number of children falling in the autism spectrum increased.
A study in Denmark (link goes to Science Magazine; subscription required) showed the same thing: long after thimerosal-based vaccines were discontinued, autism-related diagnoses continued to rise:
Now the first big epidemiological studies weigh in. One comes from Denmark, which eliminated thimerosal from childhood vaccines in 1992. A team led by Kreesten Madsen of the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre in Aarhus reasoned that if thimerosal were a major cause of autism, incidence of new cases should drop once it was removed. In the September issue of the journal Pediatrics, they report that, instead of declining, the incidence continued to skyrocket after 1992.
They supply a graph:
This graph is a clincher. If they were related in any way, you’d see a decline. Instead it continues to rise. Note that the little dip we see at the end is many many years after thimerosal was stopped; if it were related to autism then the dip would have started years earlier.
The obvious conclusion is that vaccines containing thimerosal have nothing or at best extremely little to do with autism (and note that the MMR vaccine never contained thimerosal!). An obvious hypothesis explaining the continuing rise of cases diagnosed is that we are getting better at identifying it, and/or that the use of the term autism spectrum includes more symptoms that were previously not considered to be related.
This has not stopped the antivaccination people from marching on, however. The Washington Post is reporting that two cases trying to establish a link are being brought to court today. The article says
To win, the attorneys for the two boys, William Mead and Jordan King, will have to show that it’s more likely than not that the vaccine actually caused the injury.
This makes me very unhappy. A judge is not necessarily suited to decide medical science! If it were a case of medical ethics or negligence, or something along those lines, then certainly the judiciary system should be involved, but this is a clear-cut case of scientifically established reality. Vaccines do not cause autism.
As always in situations as delicate as these, let me say that I am a parent, and I love my daughter very much. If she had been diagnosed with some sort of issue like autism, I know I would have been devastated. I also know it is human nature to try to find a cause, some place to lay blame. But sometimes there is no blame.
I also know it’s human nature to take anything that happens after a given event and blame that event for it. I gave my daughter a vaccine, then she turned up with autistic symptoms. Therefore…
But life isn’t always like that. And I very much hope that the judges in this case are familiar with the term post hoc, ergo propter hoc: after this, therefore because of this. It’s a classic logical fallacy, and the antivax contingent is riding it right into the judicial system.
And there is a chilling side to this. Vaccines are among the greatest achievements in human history. This is not hyperbole. Millions upon millions of lives have been saved by vaccines. Smallpox is gone. Polio is gone. A vaccine has been developed to prevent HPV, saving millions of women from the horrors of cervical cancer.
If vaccinations decline, then we will see an increase in mumps, measles, rubella, whooping cough (pertussis), and many more terrible afflictions… problems that are ultimately completely curable. This is stone, cold fact. Worse, these problems are far more severe in children.
So let me make this as clear as I possibly can:
The antivaccination movement purports to try to save children. Instead, if it is successful it may be condemning millions of them to terrible ailments, and a significant fraction of them to death.
It is that simple.
Hat tip to John Keller for sending me the link to the WaPo article.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:59 am
The scientific and mathematical illiteracy of many Americans continues to outrage. I’ve been to several environment/health conferences over the last few years, and none of the scientists or doctors attending back the notion that there’s a vaccine-autism link.
There still MAY be a heavy metals-autism link, but it’s more likely related to environmental pollution. People need something to blame. It’s easier to blame something specific (like vaccines) than something less specific (pollution).
May 12th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Very well put as always, Phil. Clear, simple, comprehensible, and above all accurate - as science should be reported.
Now if we can just train the general public in the practice of thinkign critically about these things, we’d be on to a winner.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:14 am
In order to keep certain traits (like good eyesight) normal within a population, then those who lack this trait have to be selected against by nature. It seems to me obvious that as we manage to compensate for things like bad eyesight there will be no selection against it, so over years the eyesight of polpulations will get worse. This does not matter as we have other ways of compensating for it. I wonder if something like this is going on with autism? after all in todays society autistic people manage to adapt and do fine.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:17 am
How do these unvaccinated kids get enrolled in school? The schools I have had my kids in have all required proof of immunization. Not sure if this is a State or local requirement, but it is there.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:20 am
David D,
It’s a wonderful little thing called “religious exemption”. *barf*
May 12th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Laurie Mann,
Good to hear the rest of the world outside the US is without its crackpots. :-\
May 12th, 2008 at 10:31 am
It may also be that certain schools don’t require or don’t check for adequate immunization, like the Waldorf schools. I don’t think this is a purely religious issue. A lot of “educated,” middle class folks are swayed by the likes of Jenny McCarthy and Robert Kennedy.I think there are a lot of misinformed people out there, and added to a dose of woo-woo, you have a public health disaster on your hands.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Today, a biologically-related post from Dr Plait and an astronomically-related post from PZ (Russel’s Teapot!)
Are you two in some sort of Clarke-Asimov agreement??
JC
May 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Sailor.
How would bad eyesight be selected against precisely?
Would it mean that people with bad eyesight would either die before they can reproduce because of their handycap, or that people with bad eyesight don’t get to reproduce, because because of their handycap, they would not be able to ‘find’ a mate(y)?
You make a weird, very weird analogy.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Couldn’t agree more, Phil. Amen, Bro!
May 12th, 2008 at 10:53 am
If it were just illiteracy, then education would be the cure.
On one hand we hear Ben Stein say that scientists are murderers (I listened to his interview on TBN). On the other we hear John Duncan call people with academic degrees in health elitist when they think they know something about the subject they study. And, of course, the whole debate that should have been fossilized ages ago Evolution vs Creationism still rages on.
And it isn’t new. I remember similar issues over the last 30 years, since I was in High School. The usual suspect was literacy: if the population knew more science, they would be better prepared to approach issues from a scientific perspective. It seems that the literacy approach hasn’t worked as well as we would have liked. I wonder if throwing more “literacy” at this phenomenon will have any benefit.
Just how pervasive has antiscience become in North America? Is it mostly religious or mostly political? What is its genesis?
I certainly hope that what is happening is that a few voices are just very loud and that the problem is thus perceived as larger than what it really is. Does anybody have links to some solid research in this area?
http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/04/28/scientists-are-murderers/
http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/05/03/rep-john-duncan-r-tn-knowledge-science-are-elitist.htm
May 12th, 2008 at 10:55 am
in the UK this week a Minister was calling for benefits to be taken from parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and for school places to be refused without proof of immunisation. Daraconian? Maybe, but the decline in uptake of the MMR vacinne puts many more kids at risk than any i-madge-ined increase risk of autism. Well said phil. BOTH my kids were given the MMR because I listened to both sides of the debate, applied some critical thinking, did some research and realised there WAS NO RISK! Well written post Phil. Thanks.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Phil — a nice piece and I agree. Bigger question is “What is behind the increase in autism?” Let’s toss some $$$ at this issue.
Also, informative short read about US lack of math understanding — John Allen Paulos — “Innumeracy”. Prof of Mathmatics @ Temple Univ in Phila, PA.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Also of note is that the average age of first time mothers has risen, albeit on a different curve than the rate of autism. Of course, correlation is not causation, but it’s a data point for consideration.
There is a lot of work to be done, but I think we can all put the vaccine hypotheses to rest.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Great post. Now if only we could make Jenny McCarthy read it…
May 12th, 2008 at 11:00 am
[…] Bad Astronomy Blog was ranting about this at the same time I was […]
May 12th, 2008 at 11:00 am
That would be better phrased as “what is behind the increase in reported autism rates?” since it may well be a simple case of broadening diagnostic criteria and increased awareness over time.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:01 am
[…] Phil Plait is Angry… …and rightfully so. […]
May 12th, 2008 at 11:02 am
David D.
There are a lot of ways kids can get into school without being vaccinated. Where I live, in addition to the previously mentioned religious exemption, a parent can simply opt out for “personal reasons”. Its not quite a religious exemption but its close.
My own personal history gives another reason: a medical exemption. As an infant, I only received my first round of shots. My parents and doctor decided after that first vaccination, that further shots would be more risk to my health than the risk of catching one of the protected diseases. This was because I had a severe allergic reaction to the first shots!
That said, I am very thankful that most of the children in my age group were vaccinated; because through their immunity, I was protected as well. I also never hesitated to get my own children vaccinated.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:05 am
My son was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. Which I don’t know how many people realize this, but that is a autistic spectrum disorder. The most telling symptoms is that he didn’t start speaking till he was 2 1/2, and he started reading 5 months later. He’s incredibly bright, has an amazing vocabulary for a 6 year old. On the negative side, he doesn’t spell so well, he doesn’t like loud noises or bright lights, and he has a habit of sitting on his classmates when he gets angry. But other than a few extra challenges, he’s fine. 10 years ago, he’d just be another disruptive child who wasn’t living up to his expectations. So you all went to school, How many kids do you remember like this? All the nerds who didn’t quite fit in with any group, even the other nerds.
Before they were just awkward or shy, or countless other categories that really didn’t fit. Now at least we know what they are. Now we’re at least trying to solve the problem. Though there are so many out there who just can’t handle having a label attached to their child.
But yeah, it’s not so bad.
I turned out fine without the label, It was hard, I had to work a bit harder than some. At least he has help. It’s a lot easier teaching a kid how to deal with people who are different, than it is to try to make a kid be something that he’s not.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Let me be clear on something before I say anything else. I My child is properly vacinated, and I intend to do the same with any firther children I have.
However…
I was VERY clear with my doctor; My child was not to receive ANY injections with a mercury based preservative, end of story. He argued the point and said I was being paranoid, so i went elseware and found a doctor who was happy to use an EQUALLY effective vaccination that did not use the preservative.
As was explained to me by a DR: The additive has NO medical value, it is strictly a shelf life extending agent meant for economy, not any medical use.
On a slightly broader note,
I wish I shared you faith in modern medicine, I truly do. but I have seen first hand too many cased where politics and arrogance on the part of MDs led to painful and pointless decisions that the patients had to deal with, not the doctors.
In this case, however, if the people are truly arguing the MERCURY based preservative is the issue, then the rest of us can rest easy, because Pharmaceutical companies are, and have been making doses of these inoculations without mercury for years.
My 2 cents.
Cisco
First time Commenter here
Long time reader of the BA movie reviews
Man of faith & a fellow Skeptic
May 12th, 2008 at 11:05 am
It’s hard for someone outside the “autism world” to envision what it’s like on the inside. Let me just say that vaccine believers don’t just mention that they have a theory. They are evangelical on the subject. And while you are able to produce “clear, irrefutable” evidence that vaccines do NOT cause autism, they are able to produce just such evidence on the other side.
When I say evidence, I don’t mean just anecdotes (of which there are hundreds) which seem to suggest that a child was absolutely healthy until the day after his vaccines. I also mean studies, published in peer-reviewed journals and available as abstracts on PubMed.com. And it’s not just parents making the connection. The studies are conducted by MD’s and PhDs, with legitimate degrees, from various countries around the world.
It’s certainly true that the studies you cite are bigger and better funded than those refuting their conclusions. BUT - the argument is that these huge studies are epidemiological, and thus miss relatively small but significant groups who are biologically more vulnerable.
When you say “the likes of JFK Jr.,” you may feel he’s not credible, but many would disagree. And folks who are predisposed to believe in a conspiracy will be very impressed indeed with the Age of Autism series and other investigative projects which seem to suggest that the whole world is in cahoots to support Big Pharma at the expense of public health…
In short, vaccine believers are not standing out in left field. They’re well-supported, very persuasive, and more than willing to give you all the evidence you can carry in your briefcase!
Lisa Rudy (about.com guide to autism)
May 12th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Well, there are crackpots everywhere. The anti-vaccine craze hit England before it hit here. I think they’ve mostly settled down.
I remember first hearing this vaccine-autism link in the early ’80s, about the time my daughter was getting her shots. Most times, she just screamed when she got the shots. But, when she was about 18 months old, she screamed all night after she got her shots and it was odd. The next day, she was fine.
She has ADHD, but so have most members of our family for at least four generations, so I can’t blame that on the shots!
May 12th, 2008 at 11:11 am
listing = listening
May 12th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I think the anti-vaccine camp has kind of gotten into its own way with this whole mercury/autism thing. Personally I am VERY against vaccines for a multitude of reasons, autism being only one of them. But let me say that any anti-vaccine person who has actually done their research knows that there is way more in a vaccine to worry us than just mercury. That graph showing when thimerisol was eliminated really doesn’t prove anything because while they may have removed ONE of the things that cause problems, they didn’t remove ALL of them… and at the same time they started requiring MORE vaccinations increasing the amount of crap being pumped through an infant’s system and wreaking potential havoc… a vaccine for CHICKEN POX? Are they kidding me?
Again, any anti-vaccine person who knows what they’re talking about doesn’t (or shouldn’t) say that vaccines CAUSE autism. What they’re saying is that if you have a child who is more genetically disposed to getting autism, the introduction of foreign substances, heavy metals or what have you from ALL sources (not just vaccines) could be the deciding factor in whether or not they actually get it. It’s a holistic thing, which is why most people who don’t vaccinate are also trying to remove as many chemicals from their daily life as possible (detergents, pesticides, etc).
As to the idea that vaccines have saved millions upon millions of lives, I think that is up for a huge amount of debate. As I’m sure you must know, every disease goes through its own rise and fall of deadliness, usually the span of a generation or two, before its effects lessen. This is due to natural immunity that actually can get passed down to offspring. The example I always like to use is the Black Plague. How many people did that kill. And yet without vaccines you never hear of anybody getting it much less dying of it anymore save for that one in a billion case. If you look at graphs of a lot of these other diseases you mentioned, a lot of them appeared to already be “on their way out” at the time the vaccines were introduced.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Yeah, who in their right mind would want to prevent a potentially fatal disease?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:20 am
How would bad eyesight be selected against precisely?
Would it mean that people with bad eyesight would either die before they can reproduce because of their handycap, or that people with bad eyesight don’t get to reproduce, because because of their handycap, they would not be able to ‘find’ a mate(y)?
Historically, blind people would, for the most part, be relatively unable to eke out a living and would die in the streets. They’d be less likely to mate, or if they did mate, to support a family.
Obviously, this has been an ever declining issue for hundreds of years, but the original point is well taken.
It has been an ethical and moral question for a long time… if medical science advances in ways that allow people, with disabilities and diseases that can be passed on, to survive and reproduce when they wouldn’t before, does the human population as a whole get stronger or weaker? Or does it even matter if the compensating technology exists? Modern thinking would indicate that it doesn’t matter if compensating technology exists.
Social Darwinism, as Ben Stein likes to bring up, has its roots in this question. It’s a place nobody likes to go because going there always seems to turn out really bad. It’s kind of “Brave New World”-ish.
There was an article I read a few years back that talked about the increasing incidence of diseases like Alzheimers, and why it was so difficult to find a cause. One of the premises in the article was that it only appears that the incidence of Alzheimers is on the increase because historically, people didn’t live long enough to get Alzheimers but with modern technology people now live to be so old that we get to see diseases and conditions that people simply didn’t survive to get in the past.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:21 am
“Yeah, who in their right mind would want to prevent a potentially fatal disease?”
Chicken pox? Fatal? Sure there is that one in a million case of a kid who had other immune issues going on at the time who died of chicken pox. But hell a BLISTER is “potentially fatal” if you don’t take care of it, but I’m not going to inject myself with something JUST IN CASE I buy a new pair of running shoes.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Here is a question, from a soon-to-be father: are there any web sites out there which give a concise (!) summary of which dangers are attributed to which vaccines, and how seriously these claims should be taken? I understand everybody agrees that some vaccines do have some unfortunate side effects, but that most of the alleged dangers, like autism, have no basis in reality. Here in France there is also quite a strong anti-vaccination movement, and I never quite know how to respond to people trying to convert me to this particular subculture (and these people are really evangelical once they learn my girlfriend is pregnant!) I have searched the web for useful info, but the pro-vaccination sites I found talk mostly about the crazy autism claims, which seems like a straw man, and the anti-vaccination sites tend to be rambling and conspiracy- and homeopathy oriented. Surely there must be some fair description of the variety of anti-vaccination claims and a levelheaded discussion of their merits out there. Thanks!
May 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Lisa,
In which case it is up to you to cite those sources you believe support that viewpoint. I went to your about.com page and those links which did cover the possibility of a vaccine link was mostly anecdotal or significantly underwhelming.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Brian,
I really wish that there was a vaccine for chicken pox when I was a child (and that I had not had the allergic reactions to my first vaccinations).
Why? Because I had no immunity to the disease. For most children that’s not a big issue. They catch chicken pox, get a little sick, some more so than others; but in a couple of weeks they’re fine. But when I caught chicken pox, I nearly died!
Let me tell you, there is nothing scarier when you are 9 or ten years old than to see your parent cry because they are afraid for you. Or to be unable to lift a Dixie cup full of water because you are too weak. In the end, it took months for me to fully recover. I ended up missing almost all of the fourth grade as a result.
Childhood diseases kill. I got lucky. When it came time for my sons to be vaccinated, my wife and I did not hesitate. I would not run the risk of my children dieing of a preventable disease!
May 12th, 2008 at 11:41 am
No, it’s not, really. Antivaccinationists saying that it is up for debate doesn’t make it so. Perhaps you have evidence to support your side of this “debate”?
Didn’t think so.
The black plague, by the way, was primarily transmitted by fleas from rats. It is not so easy to pass the disease from person to person, unlike most diseases for which we vaccinate, although it can be aerosolized as a weapon. Keep people out of contact with rats and other wild animal vectors, and the disease has much less opportunity to spread.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I guess you’re all too young to have paid attention to polio…
Polio is an interesting case. They found out in the early ’50s that it was the sort of disease almost everyone got. The vast majority of people who got polio presented as a stomach virus or maybe the flu. A small percentage got a severe headache. A small percentage of the people who got the headache became paralyzed. A small percentage of the people of became paralyzed stayed paralyzed permanently (FDR, for example). And a small percentage of the people who got polio died.
Still, even though most people who got it never even knew they had it, most people got vaccinated for it after April of 1955.
It’s true that a few hundred people in 1955 got polio from a few lots of the vaccine that one particular company made and hadn’t properly quality-checked. Something like 12 children died (including, ironically, the grandson of a man who’d been the Surgeon General of the United States). But once people figured out that the bad vaccine was from one company, most people got vaccinated. As a result, that last real outbreak of polio in this country was among a group of people who did not vaccinate - the Amish.
The three things that have saved more lives over time have been:
clean water
personal hygiene (especially hand-washing)
vaccinations
May 12th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Dave,
Yes, you’re right, when you catch CP as an adult, it can be deadly. That’s why I think it’s even MORE important to not vaccinate against it. Because when you catch it naturally as a kid, you get a lifelong immunity against it (generally speaking). But vaccines wear off after ten or so years. So even if you got vaccinated as a kid, that doesn’t guarantee anything when you become an adult.
I’m not a person who thinks vaccines are always bad all the time. I think there are times and places for them. Believe me if I had been in your position as an ADULT, I would have gotten the vaccine too. People going into the Peace Corps where diseases like malaria and the such are still very active, sure I say get your shots. But when we’re shoving vials and vials of stuff into infants with a still developing immune system for diseases that they are unlikely to get, and will most likely have the NATURAL tools to fight off if they DO get it, that’s just silly… especially when most people agree there are potential side effects. I have likened it to walking around wearing a parachute 24 hours a day just in case you fall out of a window yet not wearing a seatbelt in the car.
I actually wrote a whole essay about this when I was trying to make this decision. If you’re curious it’s here:
http://www.hey-guess-what.com/essays/archive/2004-06-29-vaccines.htm
May 12th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Orac,
A quick search turned up these graphs.
http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=14&event=graphs_print_list_item
http://www.alternative-doctor.com/vaccination/obomsawin.html
http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/njpage6.gif
I can post more but they all indicate the same thing. Yes these all come from sites that are clearly in the anti-vaccine camp so who knows, they could have skewed numbers in their favor. Of course then again THEY would try to tell you that the pro-vaccine camp did the same thing to make THEY’RE side more favorable. So who are we to believe. In the end it all comes down to who you think has more to gain by BS-ing you. Either way, there IS still a reason to debate and remain skeptical of what anybody on EITHER side is telling you.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Phil, this is an example of you at your best. You took a controversial topic, prevented the facts, and didn’t go all hyperbolic on them.
It’s posts like these that keep me coming back despite others.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. My son and I both have Asperger’s Syndrome, and although we are high on the Autism spectrum, I would rather have AS than measles mumps or rubella. AS isn’t going to kill me; in fact it’s made me a great physics teacher!
May 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Evolution and bad eyesight…
I would suggest that genetic diversity is one of the best defenses against a catastrophic epidemic. Who knows, perhaps my sort of really bad eyesight might be linked to a gene that confers resistant to some nasty new virus.
Heterosis and genetic diversity, these are things that make a population genetically stronger, not weaker. Thus our desire to preserve life, to enable individuals to live beyond their genetic conditions, is well placed. Efforts to “purify” the species is not based on science. In fact, the science would direct us in the exact opposite direction - mixed and diverse.
So… do your species a favor. Make babies with someone outside of your local gene pool and don’t worry about something as easily correctable as eyesight.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Brain,
Here’s another graph for you:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready
May 12th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Unfortunately, Lisa Rudy is not qualified to write about autism science or to judge the quality of published findings. It is truly a shame that About.com does not realize her woeful lack of expertise.
The “medical literature” purporting to find a causal link between vaccination and autism is published in journals like Medical Hypothesis and authored by unscrupulous and/or third rate investigators who double as expert witnesses in vaccine injury trials.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Brian, if it’s coming down to a ‘graph versus graph’ situation, I’d check the data from which the graph was drawn. How was it collected, and what controls were used? Anyone can create a study that shows exactly what one wants to see — only in trying to create a fair study can you get at what is going on. Without the information about the data set the graph was drawn from, it’s just a pretty picture.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
No argument there, SE. I’m pretty positive that for as many graphs and stats as I produce, you could produce an equal number, and vice-versa. Pretty much anyone can make numbers work in their favor with minimal thought. Didn’t somebody say, “The number don’t lie but they can confuse”. or words to that effect.
A little devil’s advocate on the graph you produced though, the CDC is talking simply about “cases” of measles. But if they’re worried about people dying from the disease, you’d think they would have used a graph that showed the decline in deaths after the vaccine was introduced. Because sure, there are going to be CASES of any given disease all the time. The real question we’re discussing is whether or not getting the disease will lead to your death.
Honestly though we could go round and round.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
(Disclaimer: I just spend a bunch of time writing a thoughtful and thorough response, only to have Firefox swallow it whole. That’ll teach me to trust anything but a text editor. My apologies if this is a bit terse.)
I’m a science nerd, a believer in critical thinking, and a dad. If it was a simple matter of some definitive study determining whether I should be concerned about the effect of vaccination, then I’d happily go along with it.
However, medicine isn’t just science, and vaccination isn’t something you toggle from “no, thanks” to “yes, please.” There are schedules, combined vaccines, expiration dates, regional appropriateness, and enough free variables to make my head swim. Pediatricians and parents are on the front lines, but there are the amassed forces of drug companies, epidemiologists, school boards, and so forth all trying to optimize the rules to their own ends.
So what’s a reasonable dad to do? Should I expect that my pediatrician has all the facts, weighed them against my son’s specific needs, and ignored all other influences? Or do I evaluate those facts based on my experience and take a conservative approach, weighing the possibility of a childhood disease against the possibility of a vaccine-induced ailment?
It’s easy to fall into saying “all X are bad” or “all X are good,” but I’d much rather take the time to ask, “What is this particular vaccine protecting him against? How likely is that disease? How many cases were reported locally in the last decade? Is the vaccine scheduled now for medical reasons, or epidemiological reasons? Can it be scheduled in a more medically-appropriate way if I know he’ll be coming back for them all?”
A concrete example: until just recently, measles was exeptionally uncommon in my neck of the woods, so the Geeklet wasn’t vaccinated. As soon as cases were reported, though, he was. At age 4 instead of age 6 months. Did the three years make a difference? Maybe. As with anything else, I made the call as a parent.
Basically, I’m saying it is NOT that simple. Just shouting “OMG your son will die of disease!1!!” is (to me) as unhelpful as shouting “OMG your son will get injected with the evil autism mercury!1!!” Relaying the facts and giving options (as in the first part of the article) is much preferred to browbeating those who choose to hold back a little (as at the end of the article.)
May 12th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I notice that all of your graphs list death rates from these diseases, which is of course typical for antivaxers. Death rates decreased because of better treatment and support before vaccines became available. Whooping cough could be treated with antibiotics, for example, after the 1930s. Polio was treated with supportive care an iron lungs; a horrible fate but patients didn’t die of respiratory failure at the rate that they did before. What you really need is to look at case rates. For example, when MMR uptake fell in the U.K. in the wake of the MMR scare (due to Andrew Wakefield’s shoddy science claiming the MMR was linked with autism), measles and mumps rates increased. Thanks to an aggressive vaccination campaign in Africa, both measles case rates and death rates fell precipitously. There are numerous more examples.
As for your essay, I hate to tell you this, but it’s so full of antivax canards that I could easily do a whole series of blog posts fisking it because one would end up having to be just too long. Certainly debunking all the misinformation and logical fallacies there would be too big a project for the comments of this blog. Maybe I’ll put it in my list of future topics…
May 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
In this case, I’d be prepared to bet that the judges (the term “special master” as used in this story means, effectively, judge) are likely to require a strong showing of causation.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
That’s why the BA linked to the places where he got the graphs, which give some descriptions of the methodology used to gather the data. In the future, when making arguments, I suggest you do the same — one’s argument is only as credible as the facts one draws it from.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Brian,
“In the end it all comes down to who you think has more to gain by BS-ing you”
Actually, in the end it all comes down to what the evidence tells us.
Take a look at what is happening in Africa. Even a few years ago thousands if not millions of people were dying every year from diseases that were pretty much eradicated in many western countries.
After many African countries began vaccination programs the number of deaths fell drastically and in some cases, like polio, the diseases were simply eradicated.
People in Africa didn’t magically acquire immunization against these diseases. It was the direct result of the vaccination programs.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Brian said:
“So who are we to believe. In the end it all comes down to who you think has more to gain by BS-ing you.”
Incorrect. When presented with two sets of data that lead to contradictory conclusions, one of the sets of data, or one of the inferences gathered from the data, is incorrect.
Therefore, in the end it still all comes down to rigorously analyzing the data and drawing proper inferences - NOT throwing one’s hands up in the air and pleading one’s case through ascribed motives.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
First time commenter
My name’s Kev, I run an autism related blog called Left brain/Right Brain and I am father to a severely autistic 8 year old girl with whats called ‘leaning disabilities’ in the UK and ‘retardation’ in North America.
I started my blog five years ago when my daughter was diagnosed and I was convinced that the DTP vaccine caused her autism.
However, over time, I stopped reading websites such as Brain lists above and started reading science. I quickly realised I was wrong. No vaccine caused my daughters autism. Her autism was just the way she was.
The difference is between peer reviewed, journal published science that is hopefully replicated or is at least transparent enough to be replicated and diatribes posted on websites that utilise bad science, bad methodologies and come to bad conclusions. I would urge all parents or soon-to-be parents to study the science. Not the websites. the science.
Chris Radcliffe above says:
With all due respect that opinion and decision (not to vaccinate until you are personally affected) has no doubt led to the proliferation of measles in your area you are now obliged to vaccine your child against. Less vaccination = less herd immunity.
I would simply all your questions to two:
1) Are vaccines very largely positive or negative in effect?
2) Will not vaccinating have both a personal and societal impact?
3) Is there any decent science to support the view that vaccines in any way cause autism?
To me, there is no ambiguity to any of the answers. To that end, I can see no reason to not vaccinate and plenty of reasons that not vaccinating is a bad idea.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Apologies ’simply’ should read ’simplify’ and ‘two’ should be ‘three’.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
In order to keep certain traits (like good eyesight) normal within a population, then those who lack this trait have to be selected against by nature.
As someone with bad eyesight, gee, thanks for *that*.
Well just toss out over a century of eyeglass, contact lens and Lasik technology just for you. And well stop all stem cell research, which has shown it can actually regenerate retinas.
Oh, and, FYI, there is some contention that myopia is a completely genetic trait.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Brian,
You are obviously too young to remember the polio outbreaks that crippled so many kids. It’s easy to ignore the value of vaccines when you never saw what things were like before they existed.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Brian,
According to WebMD and the WHO childhood mortality from chicken pox is between 50-100 deaths per year in the US. (Much higher in undeveloped countries). 4 million children get CP in the US per year, (more than 1/100,000 - not huge, but how do you justify to your spouse that your child was ‘just unlucky because you didn’t have him/her vaccinated when it was available’?) 1 in 100,000 sounds like a small risk, but consider that it is 1000X your odds of winning the lottery. Additionally, a significant number of people who contract CP as children suffer through shingles later in life - very low mortality, though frequently agonizing.
In addition, my niece is a microbiology researcher, and it appears (very early - but ‘interesting’) that there may be a link between herpes infections (including CP) and Alzheimers’ syndrome.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“As was explained to me by a DR: The additive has NO medical value, it is strictly a shelf life extending agent meant for economy, not any medical use”
This is actually a medical value — extending the shelf life. Seriously. The purpose of the preservative (whether thimerosal or another) is to protect the patient against septicemia. You really really really REALLY don’t want bacteria growing in a substance which is going to be injected into somebody’s body.
And don’t underestimate the importance of economy. Consider for a moment that a great many people lack health coverage, and a great many of those are in tight corners financially yet do not qualify for assistance. If they have to pay out of pocket for their children to be vaccinated, the cost of the vaccine makes a huge difference. (After all, if you have to choose between a vaccine and Now, we *could* subsidize vaccines further, perhaps even to the point where they are free to all. But the funding will have to come out of the taxpayers’ pockets, and there has historically been considerable resistance to that.
Me, I’m in favor of health care cost reduction, as long as it doesn’t compromise safety too much. (Is there an acceptable amount of compromise with regards to safety? Yes. That may sound horrible, but truthfully, it just reflects on the fact that nothing can ever be 100% safe, so insisting on total safety may mean paralyzing one’s decision-making process. At some point, ya gotta fish or cut bait.)
May 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
@BeWi
For information on the side effects expected from vaccines, take a look at the US Food and Drug Administration’s web sites, as well as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
The largest autism advocacy organization in the United States is ASA (Autism Society of America). Here is what they have to say about vaccines and autism:
http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mmrvaccine
“ASA Statement on May 2004 IOM Report on Vaccines and Autism
A national panel of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) charged with advising the government on the safety of vaccines released their final report today concluding that there is no causal link between vaccines and autism. The Autism Society of America has reviewed the report and does not support the conclusions drawn and is calling for more credible research into the issue.
The IOM report, “Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism,” is based on a meeting conducted in February 2004 in Washington, DC, during which more than a dozen researchers presented evidence related to a proposed link between certain childhood vaccines specifically, those with the mercury-based preservative thimerosal and autism.
ASA has had difficulty supporting the conclusions reached by the committee because research on the affected group needed to draw such a conclusion has not been conducted. ASA is calling on the government to launch biological and clinical studies that look at the subgroup of individuals with autism who may be genetically susceptible to the effects of vaccines and/or thimerosal before putting the issue to rest.
Moreover, the ASA agrees and supports the IOM’s own recommendation made in 2001 that biological and clinical studies be conducted to answer the question of a link. ASA also supports many of the points raised by Congressman Dave Weldon (FL) as well as others who believe the IOM report is incomplete and premature.
.
.
.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Phil, if you want to inject Mercury into the Little Astronomer, go right ahead.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Ed, if you want to make a false dichotomy, and misrepresent vaccinations, go right ahead
May 12th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Polio isn’t quite gone, thanks to some Nigerian clown who thumped on his Qur’an while shouting “The American infidel dogs are out to sterilize yo’ wimmenfolk with their vaccines!” (It’s always about threats to yo’ wimmenfolk.) Combine this with that little annual shindig in Mecca and you have polio coming back in other places as well.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
There is a rare mitochondrial disorder associated with chromosome 16 which can be triggered by a vaccination and potentially cause autism. This is however, extremely rare to see. But this, I think, is where most of the public worry comes about. When the Autism Consortium study, released online by the New England Journal of Medicine was published, which had results linking autism to a rare, random genetic disorder which could potentially be triggered by a vaccine came out — well, the public latched onto it, and over-reacted, as the public is wont to do (especially with sensationalist media).
There is a tiny link — an extremely tiny link. And even if your child has this mitochondrial disorder and gets a vaccination, that doesn’t mean that they will get autism. It’s not just the vaccine, which is something that some people have a really hard time wrapping their heads around. It’s the vaccine + your genes + your environment. Vaccine + genome + epi-genome.
Unfortunately, testing for the mitochondrial disorder is very expensive (in the states, anyways). So parents don’t test for until after their child is diagnosed — and even if the child does autism, it cannot be 100% proven that it was caused by the disorder.
Reading the media coverage on this gives me premature gray hairs.
We recently talked about this in my Applied Human Development class at college. Luckily for me, I have sane, respectable psychologist professor for that class who recognizes the merits of evolution.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Do the Scientologists believe in childhood vaccination, or does Xenu prohibit it?
May 12th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Well, detection rate continues to rise. It’s remotely possible that autism “contraction” rates did decline, but since our “detection” methods improve, the apparent number of autism cases continues to rise. I’m not saying I believe this, I’m saying I want to know if there’s any way to rule this possibility out.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Ed Minchau, maybe I’m a little dense today, but what precisely do you mean by that comment?
May 12th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm
48 states have vaccination exemptions based on religion - only Mississippi and West Virginia do not
The following 21 states have vaccination exemptions based on personal belief:
Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin
Thus, if the American public turned away from vaccinations in large numbers there is not a thing legally anyone could do about it. Herd immunity would rapidly disappear.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
@Brian and Tom Marking
If you haven’t seen it yet, take a look at the Brian Deer web page. He goes into pretty great detail about the MMR-vaccine flap started by Andrew Wakefield.
Next, see if you can get a hold of the Skeptical Inquirer issue that deals with vaccines and autism. I believe it is the November/December 2007 issue. An article there by Dr. Steven Novella has a number of studies referenced that examined the supposed link.
From an ethics/logic perspective, the benefits of vaccination generally outweigh arguments against them. The odds of serious injury or death from the diseases they protect against are much higher than the odds of serious adverse events from the vaccinations themselves. Also, on the concept of community immunity (aka herd immunity), every person that refuses to get vaccinated decreases the protection afforded the community, particularly those who do not get vaccinated because they have medical conditions that preclude vaccination. So, the vaccination decision is not just a personal issue. It does have ramifications for the larger population.
I agree that there should be more investigation into vaccines and the negative effects they may have on health, but as the research currently stands, there is little credible evidence that there is a link between vaccines and autism and a great deal of evidence suggesting that there is no link. The course of the argument for a link shifted from the MMR-autism link and the thimerosal-autism link to MMR-thimerosal-autism link to “it must be something else in the vaccine” argument as each theory lost credibility (though they have all held on rather tenaciously). This line of argumentation sounds very strongly of the “need to believe” style of thinking, which is understandable considering the devastation that a diagnosis of autism brings.
As a final thought, around the same time that the vaccination schedule expanded, so, too, did the Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis. Tools for diagnosis also improved, as did awareness of autism. These factors all contribute to an increase in diagnoses (though not necessarily a true rise in the number of cases).
As someone mentioned above, research needs to look into what has caused the apparent increase in the number of cases, and whether it has truly increased or, as I suspect, is likely an artifact of improved diagnosis and expanded definition.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Brian
So you think Chicken Pox is no big deal. Tell that to the people suffering from “shingles” in later life as a result of the Herpes Zoster still living in their nerves. This suffering is now vaccine preventable. I wish that the vaccine had been available when I was a kid - if it had been I would not be at risk now.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Phil, if you want to inject Mercury into the Little Astronomer, go right ahead.
Ed, if you want to make a false dichotomy, and misrepresent vaccinations, go right ahead
No, you’ve got it wrong, see? This is an astronomy site, and Ed spelt Mercury with a capitl ‘M’.
I’d hate to see the size of that needle…
May 12th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
You hit it right on the head. As study after study exonerate thimerosal in vaccines as a cause of autism, now antivaccinationists are turning to other ingredients in vaccines and then starting to refer to innumerable permutations and combinations of these vaccines as the “real” cause of autism. Antivaccinationists are, if nothing else, very–shall we say?–flexible about what hypotheses of autism causation they will accept. The only absolute requirement they have for such hypotheses, of course, is that the hypothesis must somehow blame vaccines for autism, no matter how tangentially. Anything else is negotiable. It doesn’t matter how ridiculous or scientifically implausible (remember the Geiers’ concept of “testosterone sheets” binding vaccine-derived mercury in autistic children and making it “more difficult to chelate,” for example) or how many high quality studies refute it (the concept that mercury in the thimerosal preservative that used to be in most childhood vaccines, for example), as long as the hypothesis somehow blames vaccines for autism, antivaccinationists will credulously gobble it up. It doesn’t even matter if the hypotheses they champion are mutually contradictory of each other. To them, as long as a hypothesis of autism causation somehow, some way allows them to blame vaccines for autism, to antivaccinationists it’s all good.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
That’s funny, David Ayoub doesn’t look Nigerian.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Close, but not quite. It’s in reality any source of fever that can aggravate the specific mitochondrial disorder from which Hannah Poling suffered, and it caused encephalopathy “with autism-like symptoms,” not autism itself.
The way antivaccinationists have latched on to this case shows just how desperate they’ve become to find a way to blame vaccines for autism.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“Tools for diagnosis also improved, as did awareness of autism.”
What tools would these be? Have you ever had a child in your family diagnosed with autism? Probably not. Otherwise you would be aware that there are no fancy medical gadgets for diagnosing autism, no blood tests, no DNA screens (there is such a thing for FragileX syndrome but that’s a different story), no brain MRIs, etc., etc. There is no specific medical test at all. Instead there is something called ADOS (Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule) but don’t let the acronym fool you. It is nothing fancy - just a doctor sitting down and observing your child for about 15 minutes and also asking the parents questions. That’s the state of the art in terms of autism “diagnosis”.
“… and expanded definition.”
Also, the main definition of autism comes from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders) version IV which was last updated in 1994. It would be hard to account for Phil’s autism curve from 1994 onward due to expanded definition when the definition hasn’t really changed.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I had a zoster outbreak two years ago, and I’d never felt such pain. I still have a spot on my chin where the nerves haven’t come back. Brian keeps talking about deaths from measles, deaths from chicken pox, etc. But these diseases can also leave a person maimed for life - deafness, brain damage, sterility. It’s scary that somebody could be that misinformed and have any influence on public health. I thought creationists were bad when they start rewriting textbooks. Brian and his friends are reinterpreting the physical world, based on their subjective experience and the words of some equally misinformed claims makers. This is not only foolish, but potentially disastrous.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
It’s in reality any source of fever that can aggravate the specific mitochondrial disorder from which Hannah Poling suffered, and it caused encephalopathy “with autism-like symptoms,” not autism itself.
Which, ironically, means that had she not been vaccinated, she’d probably be a *greater* risk of high fever, since she’d be vulnerable to every childhood pathogen that comes along, and much more likely to develop serious consequences from things like chicken pox, rubella, measles, influenza etc. I saw a blog comment from a parent of a child with the same mitochondrial condition, talking about how it is actually MORE important to vaccinate these children, not less.
The anti-vaccinationists have the wrong end of the stick completely with this one. There are only two possibilities: either they are not thinking things through very well, or they believe that death or severe disability is preferable to autism.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Myopia (nearsightedness) could be both a genetic trait - associated with a defective PAX6 gene, and environmentally caused - as a result of diet, too much light, or stress, according to Wikipedia (I don’t know how to insert links in these posts).
I was diagnosed with nearsightedness at the age of six or seven when my fourth grade teacher noticed that my class work declined and tested my reading of the chalkboard from the back of the room (where I usually sat) and the front.
I suspect this problem has more to do with genetics than anything else; I have two brothers, only one of whom doesn’t have myopia (but he has developed far-sightedness in middle age). My dad was near-sighted, my mother wasn’t; both our grandparents on my dad’s side had no vision problems by the time of their deaths (of heart disease) in their early ’60s. There is no data available for my mom’s parents. So, anecdotally at least, it would seem that my problem is parent-related on my dad’s side of the family. And two of us brothers inherited heart trouble (but not the brother with good eyesight!).
I once read a science article which said that all Chinese in China would eventually have to wear glasses because of their increasingly narrowing gene pool. The conjecture didn’t apply to folks who intermarried with non-Chinese - clearly a premise based upon a genetic theory. The overwhelming size of the population of China was a large factor in the projection as well; there was a shrinking gene pool of variables from which to select. So, if we just keep mixing up the gene pool (and ignore the proscriptions of the various religions against such mixing), perhaps the need for glasses, laser surgery and the like will eventually disappear - or perhaps the stem cell-retinal injections will have a positive genetic effect on the next generation.
As for vaccinations: I had to suffer through measles as a kid. When a vaccine for Polio was discovered by Dr. Jonas Salk, my mom was among the first in our neighborhood to sign me up. I think I must have been right on the edge of the life-altering discoveries of the last century: penicillin - which was a relatively new “miracle” drug - saved me from a life-threatening bout of asthma; I was one of the last kids to be anesthetized with ether (for a broken arm); I was one of the first kids in our neighborhood crew to have my teeth put in braces. And later, when I had a heart attack at the age of 40, the newest batteries of drugs along with suggested changes in diet and behavior have kept me alive well past the age when my dad died of heart disease at 59.
So, I trust science and the medical profession pretty much big-time. Without these advances in medicine I’d have had a much shorter - and probably poorer quality - of life.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
As I’ve said before, some folks will always be riding the “Vaccine-Autism” bandwagon because they smell a big, fat lawsuit.
I couldn’t care less about a cure for Autism. Even if they did come out with a cure, my daughter can’t have back the first three years of life to develop neurotypically. She’s the way she is, and I love her that way. The days can be rough, but some days I’d take her over my other, “normal” kids.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
<blockquote.There is a rare mitochondrial disorder associated with chromosome 16 which can be triggered by a vaccination and potentially cause autism.
No, that is not accurate. I blogged this here.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Tom,
The DSM is not the only source for diagnostic criteria. It’s not like diagnoses are static for 14 years because another version of the DSM has not come out. There are still published papers and evolving standards occurring all the time.
The definition of autism has been expanded to autism spectrum disorders - this is indisputable.
In terms of better diagnosis - this is not due to a new diagnostic tool, but expanded surveillance and better recognition among clinicians.
for more info: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=95
May 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
My apologies to Ed then for missing that!
May 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
@BeWi:
Here are a couple that I find are clear and explain the risks of not vaccinating really well:
What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations?
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm
And this one, about popular misconceptions:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm
May 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Black Swans exist!!!
I can just imagine all the rationalizing and posturing that will occur a few years from now.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
The ASA isn’t a science-based organization, it’s an advocacy organization that has long had an explicit policy not to make judgments about any “treatment” a parent might choose, however outlandish or harmful it might be.
This is why they used to support (may still support) places like the Judge Rotenberg Center, an institution which uses cattle-prod-like devices and other forms of torture on autistic (among other) children to encourage obedience, and which has been responsible for some deaths of disabled people living there. That is the lack of limitation they have generally had on outlandish and cruel things, as long as they call themselves “treatments”.
So their position statement on vaccination is as meaningless as if it came from any random person. All it reflects is particular parents’ opinions, not science.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Moreover, the ASA agrees and supports the IOM’s own recommendation made in 2001
Which was supplanted by the IOM’s recommendation in 2004. And by all means, do let’s give more credence to an advocacy organization–because if it’s the biggest, it must be the best–over our country’s national academy of medicine.
Not.
not a thing legally anyone could do about it. Herd immunity would rapidly disappear
One could strive to get laws changed in the 21 states that permit exemptions based on an inability to understand medicine and public health. Herd immunity would certainly be endangered, but it’s plain that you’re not very concerned about that.
Have you ever had a child in your family diagnosed with autism? Probably not.
I have. Can I comment now?
There were multiple changes in the DSM, not just some grand unifying change in 1994. Awareness has been increasing at a rate that is not measurable–in fact, awareness is probably a concept that’s difficult to quantify without resorting to softer science methodologies.
And it’s not like the change in the DSM criteria was an on/off switch–it didn’t instantly affect incidence. It’s quite obvious that there’s an increase in the slope from 1994-1996.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
@ Lisa Rudy:
Don’t know if this was mentioned yet, but the Kennedy earlier referred to, was recovering heroin addict Bobby Jr, not the late John Jr as you wrote here: “When you say “the likes of JFK Jr.,” you may feel he’s not credible, but many would disagree.”
May 12th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
“The ASA isn’t a science-based organization, it’s an advocacy organization that has long had an explicit policy not to make judgments about any “treatment” a parent might choose, however outlandish or harmful it might be.”
Yes, the reason I bring it up is that it is frequently claimed that when Hillary or Obama or McCain make some kind of autism-vaccine statement that they are pandering to a few distraught parents of autistic kids. They may be, but they are also pandering to the largest autism advocacy group in the country which just happens to be pushing the autism-vaccination linkage.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
@Orac
“Close, but not quite. It’s in reality any source of fever that can aggravate the specific mitochondrial disorder from which Hannah Poling suffered, and it caused encephalopathy “with autism-like symptoms,” not autism itself.”
Sorry for the confusion there, I was trying to use that as example of how people freaked out over autism-causing vaccines when they really don’t need to, because if the child has that mitochondrial disorder, it’s just going to suck no matter what when it comes to things medical.
I really should be more careful at proof-reading what I post when I’ve only had 1 hour of sleep.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Long time reader, not often commenter … blah, blah. But what’s important is that I’m a supporter: the anti-vaccination crowd are ignorant criminals who, at least, should hide their heads in shame; at worst be jailed for the pain and misery they’ve caused so many people.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
“One could strive to get laws changed in the 21 states that permit exemptions based on an inability to understand medicine and public health. Herd immunity would certainly be endangered, but it’s plain that you’re not very concerned about that.”
Yes, I suggest you strive very, very hard in your own home state to get those laws changed. As to my concern or lack thereof, I suggest you search back to Phil’s Jenny McCarthy post and you can see for yourself my opinion about the anti-vaccination crowd.
“Awareness has been increasing at a rate that is not measurable–in fact, awareness is probably a concept that’s difficult to quantify without resorting to softer science methodologies.”
I don’t buy the whole increasing awareness of autism for the following reason. If your kid isn’t talking by the time he reaches kindergarten age then it’s obvious. There is no awareness involved. It would have been just as obvious in 1960 as it was in 1970 as it was in 1980 as it was in 1990 as it is now. The kid’s not talking, he’s flapping his hands - this does not take some rocket scientist to figure out. Awareness is not needed in this case.
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism
“Attention has been focused on whether the prevalence of autism is increasing with time. Earlier prevalence estimates were lower, centering at about 0.5 per 1,000 for autism during the 1960s and 1970s and about 1 per 1,000 in the 1980s, as opposed to today’s 1–2 per 1,000.”
This is hard-core autism they’re talking about in these numbers, not ASD. The prevalence went from 0.5 per 1,000 in the 1960’s to 1-2 per 1,000 today. Widening the net for ASD does not really affect the statistics for autism-proper.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Well, this could just be our next stage of evolution. Once herd immunity drops, and these diseases resurge, there will be a strong selection toward the “having gotten vaccinated” behavior, and the “anti-vaccine” behavior will die out with its adherents.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
From now one, every time I hear an anti-vaccination person speak, I will think of this article…
http://bluecollarscientist.com/2008/05/09/autism-linked-to-parents-mental-illness/
“In another sign pointing to an inherited component to autism, a study released on Monday found that having a schizophrenic parent or a mother with psychiatric problems roughly doubled a child’s risk of being autistic.”
It’s not the mercury, people; it’s the crazy people having kids that’s doing it.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I think people should keep an open mind.
I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t vaccinate your kids (I don’t have any, never plan on having any, so it doesn’t affect me and my life personally). All I’m saying is keep an open, scientifically-based mind.
Is it a scientific law that vaccines don’t affect medical disorders (you notice I didn’t say “cause”)? We believe in physical laws, like gravity. But theories, even though they have stood up to attacks by experimentation for decades, could possibly be changed or overturned if there is new, proven data found.
To say that vaccines do not cause autism, measles, mumps, polio, wanting to watch American Gladiators is - I think - close-minded.
History is rife with instances of someone saying “this is the way it is, and how it will be” and then a discovery is made refuting it. Who here can positively say that sometime in the future (near or far) that there won’t be a link discovered between vaccines and certain diseases (there’s no hope for the viewers of “American Gladiators” though).
I’m not defending Jenny McCarthy or other like her. But is everyone her so arrogant that they can’t be a tiny teeny bit open-minded that there might be something out there?
We rant and rave against the ID’ers and the narrow and close-minded people who believe the universe is 6000 years old, or have intense religious beliefs. The Discovery Institute is taken to task for their beliefs daily, the movie “expelled” is cursed by the critical thinking crowd. But while you chide and berate these people for their narrow minded thinking, aren’t you guilty of the same thing when it comes to this topic?
Is everyone really, really sure? 125% positive? Without a shadow of a doubt?
I don’t think so.
Ms. McCarthy, and others like her, might be wrong about their approach, and perhaps have shoddy data. But it seems they are more open-minded than many scientists, who stop their feet, shout them down, and say “you are wrong - you are killing your children!!”
Just think about it. Keep an open mind.
I’d hate to have something show up five or ten years from now that makes Phil and the rest of the scientific community look bad because they - in the year 2008 - were “100% convinced” of their beliefs.
So… if you are absolutely, completely, without a shadow of a doubt CERTAIN you are correct, list your names so that if - and I’m not saying it will happen, but I’m at least open-minded enough to imagine it might happen - years from now a link is established, everyone can know who was really wrong. Are you all willing to do that? To stake your names and reputations on this? I know I’m not.
Critical thinking is good. It’s necessary. But don’t be so critical to be close-minded and blind to the possibilities.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
If we could eradicate Polio, etc., it would save us money here in the US — in the short term. We spend alot on our vaccinations. The payback period is very short. Astronomically short. The first world should pay to make this happen in the third world, if only for self interest. I know a guy who claims to be the last American infected with Polio. One arm is limited by what the nerves can still do. I’d say he got away lucky.
So, if you don’t do vaccinations for religeous reasons, who does it hurt? Does it take these people out of the gene pool? Probably not. It does increase the chances of infection for the rest of us. Many vaccines are not 100% effective. So, say 20% might get infected anyway. But if 80% of your peers can’t be infected, you are MUCH less likely to be infected, even if you aren’t immune yourself.
One thing that has been linked to Autism. TV. We should ban TV. While we’re there, we could save some 45,000 deaths per year in the US alone by banning cars. Each of us has a 1% chance of death by car over our lifetimes. Is that acceptible risk?
A parent could ban TV for their own kids, without affecting the rest of us.
TV also affects attention span. My attention span is now so short, i can’t make it through a TV program. And most of you didn’t make it to the end of this comment. Right?
May 12th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I think it might be better to say, “SOME vaccines do not cause autism”.
Sorry, Phil, you haven’t done your homework on this one.
There have been links discovered in peer reviewed biology papers between certain vaccines and autism, among other serious negative side effects, including DEATH.
See the Journal Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, university level theses.
You may be a great astronomer, skeptic and debunker of rouge asteroids, but you aren’t a catch-all scientist. You can’t get a doctorate in everything.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
No, it is quite correct to say that vaccines do not cause autism. At least there is no credible scientific evidence that any of them do and lots of good scientific and epidemiological evidence that they do not.
But, hey, maybe I missed something in my studies in this area. I doubt it, but it’s possible. Perhaps you could point me to papers in Nature or NEJM that support a link between vaccines and autism. After all, that’s what you seem to be implying, that there are peer-reviewed papers in these prestigious journals supporting your contention.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The BA writes:
“Ed Minchau, maybe I’m a little dense today, but what precisely do you mean by that comment?”
Let me translate: Ed wishes people to confuse the properties of a chemical compound which contains mercury with the properties of mercury itself, which is equivalent to worrying that salting food will cause it to explode, because sodium is explosive.
Andrew
May 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
@Kevin
“Is everyone really, really sure? 125% positive? Without a shadow of a doubt? I don’t think so.”
Please keep an open mind and REVERSE your query: Are you willing to tell an autistic child/teen/adult that they are “poisoned”; a “toxic train wreck” (terms used by McCarthy and crew) … without a shadow of a doubt? Because this is precisely what’s going on. And you’re calling that tactic “more open-minded than many scientists” learned opinions? Sorry, but it’s patently abusive.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Where to start? First off, there is not really any such thing as biological “laws” as they are understood in physics and the physical sciences. There are theories, like the theory of evolution, but laws are mainly for physics, and then they are relatively few. Moreover, physical laws have stood the test of time that the chances of them ever being overturned is vanishingly small. If you’re going to liken the contention that vaccines don’t cause autism to a scientific law, you’re basically saying that the odds are overwhelmingly against this contention ever being overturned.
Your appeal to the “open mind” produces the sort of mind that’s so open your brains fall out. Critical thinking tells us that the evidence that there is no link between vaccines and autism is very, very strong, while the studies that claim otherwise are invariably very, very weak. (And I’ve read virtually all of the studies that claim to support a link. I have yet to find one that isn’t seriously flawed from a scientific or study design standpoint.) The evidence is quite strong, and although it’s not impossible that someday some sort of link will be found the evidence today is such that it would be highly unlikely that it would be a strong link. If there were a strong link that affected any more than a very small minority of the population, it would have been found already in the multiple studies done on this issue.
Oh, please. Give me a break with the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy Let’s put it this way: The evidence is such that I’m 99.99% positive that there is no correlation. So are virtually all the scientists who study this issue. Even if it’s only 99%, the level of uncertainty is far lower than it is for almost any other medical question out there, so low that the antivaccination hysteria whipped up by the “vaccines-cause-autism” crowd and aided and abetted by credulous “open-minded” people like you is simply not justified.
As for ten years from now wondering if a link will be found, let’s put it this way: Scientists have been looking for a link for at least a decade now; every well-designed large clinical trial and epidemiological study has failed to find one. Given that autism is usually diagnosed between the ages of 3-5, that’s plenty of time to have found a link if one existed.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Yes, I suggest you strive very, very hard in your own home state to get those laws changed. As to my concern or lack thereof, I suggest you search back to Phil’s Jenny McCarthy post and you can see for yourself my opinion about the anti-vaccination crowd.
My state doesn’t have a personal belief law.
I do apologize if I mischaracterized your general belief about vaccinations. If what you say is true, I offer the defense that you walk like a duck (figuratively). That defense aside, I apologize if apology is warranted (limited time for back-checking, I’ll choose to assume your good faith).
As to the epidemiology, the 1 in 150 prevalence of legend covers all autism spectrum diagnoses, not just the ones you’re selecting. Regardless of which diagnoses you consider relevant, the “awareness” discussion also goes to diagnoses that would now be relevant, that were formerly classified as “retardation” or other archaic terms.
And I really don’t mean this to be as snide as it’s probably going to sound, but you want me to accept Wikipedia as an authoritative source on autism epidemiology? Uhm…I’ll choose to take that as a subtle jest. And to laugh at it good-naturedly. And to enjoy the remainder of my day, as I hope you will do with yours.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
CammoBlammo, it is quite proper to capitalize the name of a chemical element.
BA, I was a little over the top there, because I figured that the shock might make you sit up and take notice; I don’t think for a second that you would ever knowingly do harm to the Little Astronomer. I also have no problem with vaccines per se. I do have a problem with the doses of vaccine being separated by a drop of Mercury.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I’m a microbiology major in college and Brian’s comments about the plague and diseases weakening over time really bugged me. I’ve been taking a microbial evolution and ecology class and we actually talked about this although I never heard anyone try to use Yersinia pestis (Black Plague).
I quickly checked the black plague on wikipedia to find the estimated death tole. 75 million people globally (the world population at the time was 450million, but I don’t know if either take the Americas into account since they weren’t involved). 25-50 million died in Europe. That’s an obscene 30-60% of the European population.
Do you really want to argue against vaccines with that data. That risk would make me want to get a vaccine even if there was a 10% chance of death. Instead, you have a flimsy set of anecdotal evidence and questionable research. I have no clue why you would want to use the plague.
On top of that your anecdote is based on poor interpretation of microbial ecology. Yes, SOME bacteria and viruses decrease in virulence overtime. The common cold is often cited although there is no evidence to indicate it ever was a mass killer. The Ebola virus is also often used. It does massive damage then puffs out of existence for a while ’till a new bat infects someone. It’s not equipped to survive in a human population for a long time right now (thankfully).
This argument fall apart when you look at something like tuberculosis. It has been around for an incredibly long time. I don’t remember the play, but Shakespeare wrote about it. It is also one of the top killers in the world, granted economic conditions, malaria, HIV play a part in