[Public Post] Interesting NY Times Article
*September 9, 2008*
*EDITORIAL*
*Debunking an Autism Theory*
Ten years ago, a clinical research paper triggered widespread and persistent
fears that a combined vaccine that prevents measles, mumps and rubella - the
so-called MMR vaccine - causes autism in young children. That theory has
been soundly refuted by a variety of other research over the years, and now
a new study that tried to replicate the original study has provided further
evidence that it was a false alarm.that the lead author had concealed a conflict of interest. Ten of his
co-authors retracted the paper's implication that the vaccine might be
linked to autism. Three of the authors are now defending themselves before a
fitness-to-practice panel in London on charges related to their autism
research. . .'>
The initial paper, published in The Lancet, the prestigious British medical
journal, drew an inferential link between the vaccine, the gastrointestinal
problems found in many autistic children and autism. In later papers,
researchers theorized that the measles part of the vaccine caused
inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract that allowed toxins to enter the
body and damage the central nervous system, causing autism.
Now, a team of researchers from Columbia University, Massachusetts General
Hospital and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has tried and
failed to replicate the earlier findings.
These researchers studied a group of 38 children with gastrointestinal
problems, of whom 25 were autistic and 13 were not. All had received the
vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. The scientists found no evidence
that it had caused harm. Only 5 of the 25 autistic children had been
vaccinated before they developed gastrointestinal problems - and
subsequently autism. Genetic tests found remnants of the measles virus in
only two children, one of whom was autistic, the other not.
The new study adds weight to a growing body of epidemiological studies and
reviews that have debunked the notion that childhood vaccines cause autism.
The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the C.D.C.
and the World Health Organization have found no evidence of a causal link
between vaccines and autism.
Meanwhile, the original paper's publisher - The Lancet - complained in 2004
that the lead author had concealed a conflict of interest. Ten of his
co-authors retracted the paper's implication that the vaccine might be
linked to autism. Three of the authors are now defending themselves before a
fitness-to-practice panel in London on charges related to their autism
research.
Sadly, even after all of this, many parents of autistic children still blame
the vaccine. The big losers in this debate are the children who are not
being vaccinated because of parental fears and are at risk of contracting
serious - sometimes fatal - diseases.
I find this very very interesting. Particularly since the original lancet article is clung to by so many pro-causation parents. I wonder- how many of them know that the researchers behind the vaccine-causation theory have withdrawn support of it? That nearly a third of them are under investigation for fitness to practice?
In any other study pushed by any other group this would be a dis-qualifier. Yet Vaccine Causation, although having been debunked MULTIPLE times, is pushed by an influential PARENT group, Generation Rescue (Autism Speaks I'm told is more genetic and pro eugenics? o_0). I won't get into how the group is a parent group rather than an Autism group, that's dividing, confusing, and lengthy issue. (Feel free to ask me why I'm against them, though. :) )
I wonder if it's because of Autism Speaks' and related parent organizations' prevalence and influence that so few people know the factors against the Vaccine Causation Theory? For any one that gets into an academic or pseudo-academic discussion with me, you'll know that I'm big on the whole "perception influences culture more than facts" thing. And perception is influenced by many factors. In this case, it has been the ability to recognize a common fear or shame, and having the funds to push an agenda based on it.
Perhaps that is another factor that prevents parents from continuing their investigation for why beyond the commonly publicized- shame. If it's not the fault of Vaccines, whose fault is it? If it's a genetic issue, is it bad for me to have reproduced? Is it MY fault that my child has this condition? etc.
Now, I have issues with most of these points. Why? Because, it focuses on the perceived lacks rather than the truth. From my point of view, just having Autism isn't a tragedy. It is what happens after that is. Let me ask you, what is more disabling- having your speech fall out on you (and finding alternative ways to communicate) or being prevented from seeking out alternative at ANY time? I mean this in an applied sense.
Let's use an education background. If a student can't talk, which will be more devastating for his future- having to learn an alternative system of communication, or being placed in a class that doesn't follow an academic course because of an assumption that there is only one way to learn? I would say the latter- Just because a student must learn an alternative way which might take a little more work doesn't mean that the student CAN'T get to the end point. This single minded-ness in HOW we get there creates fear- fear that burdens everyone involved, including the taxpayer.
I could go on and on about how this perception further impacts the economy (spending more for now SAVES money in the long run by creating a way for a person to generate money and give back. . . ) but that's getting more off topic than I already have.
In the end fault should be irrelevant, and blaming vaccines which have been proven to protect public health is irresponsible if there's a reason to believe it's not true. Let me end with a Tale told to me by a therapist, Supposedly of Buddhist** origin (icarusancalion? I'm pretty sure this is fairly garbled?).
One day a man came to the Buddha and, trying to be clever, asked of Him:
If a man is shot with an arrow, what sort of punishment should the shooter have according to his importance?
The Buddha smiled and replied:
Tell me, is it more important to the man shot that the arrow in his side be removed, or to know the genealogy of the man who shot him?
To me, this would be like the difference between learning an alternative way to cope (learning sign language, AACs, different teaching methods, using visuals or patterns to reinforce a lesson, etc.) and focusing on causation- one can help those needing helped. The other is impractical at best, damaging/limiting at worse.
** No, I am not Buddhist, and neither was the therapist. However, I hold great respect for the Buddha's teachings, and incorporate them where I can into my daily life.
*EDITORIAL*
*Debunking an Autism Theory*
Ten years ago, a clinical research paper triggered widespread and persistent
fears that a combined vaccine that prevents measles, mumps and rubella - the
so-called MMR vaccine - causes autism in young children. That theory has
been soundly refuted by a variety of other research over the years, and now
a new study that tried to replicate the original study has provided further
evidence that it was a false alarm.that the lead author had concealed a conflict of interest. Ten of his
co-authors retracted the paper's implication that the vaccine might be
linked to autism. Three of the authors are now defending themselves before a
fitness-to-practice panel in London on charges related to their autism
research. . .'>
The initial paper, published in The Lancet, the prestigious British medical
journal, drew an inferential link between the vaccine, the gastrointestinal
problems found in many autistic children and autism. In later papers,
researchers theorized that the measles part of the vaccine caused
inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract that allowed toxins to enter the
body and damage the central nervous system, causing autism.
Now, a team of researchers from Columbia University, Massachusetts General
Hospital and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has tried and
failed to replicate the earlier findings.
These researchers studied a group of 38 children with gastrointestinal
problems, of whom 25 were autistic and 13 were not. All had received the
vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. The scientists found no evidence
that it had caused harm. Only 5 of the 25 autistic children had been
vaccinated before they developed gastrointestinal problems - and
subsequently autism. Genetic tests found remnants of the measles virus in
only two children, one of whom was autistic, the other not.
The new study adds weight to a growing body of epidemiological studies and
reviews that have debunked the notion that childhood vaccines cause autism.
The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the C.D.C.
and the World Health Organization have found no evidence of a causal link
between vaccines and autism.
Meanwhile, the original paper's publisher - The Lancet - complained in 2004
that the lead author had concealed a conflict of interest. Ten of his
co-authors retracted the paper's implication that the vaccine might be
linked to autism. Three of the authors are now defending themselves before a
fitness-to-practice panel in London on charges related to their autism
research.
Sadly, even after all of this, many parents of autistic children still blame
the vaccine. The big losers in this debate are the children who are not
being vaccinated because of parental fears and are at risk of contracting
serious - sometimes fatal - diseases.
I find this very very interesting. Particularly since the original lancet article is clung to by so many pro-causation parents. I wonder- how many of them know that the researchers behind the vaccine-causation theory have withdrawn support of it? That nearly a third of them are under investigation for fitness to practice?
In any other study pushed by any other group this would be a dis-qualifier. Yet Vaccine Causation, although having been debunked MULTIPLE times, is pushed by an influential PARENT group, Generation Rescue (Autism Speaks I'm told is more genetic and pro eugenics? o_0). I won't get into how the group is a parent group rather than an Autism group, that's dividing, confusing, and lengthy issue. (Feel free to ask me why I'm against them, though. :) )
I wonder if it's because of Autism Speaks' and related parent organizations' prevalence and influence that so few people know the factors against the Vaccine Causation Theory? For any one that gets into an academic or pseudo-academic discussion with me, you'll know that I'm big on the whole "perception influences culture more than facts" thing. And perception is influenced by many factors. In this case, it has been the ability to recognize a common fear or shame, and having the funds to push an agenda based on it.
Perhaps that is another factor that prevents parents from continuing their investigation for why beyond the commonly publicized- shame. If it's not the fault of Vaccines, whose fault is it? If it's a genetic issue, is it bad for me to have reproduced? Is it MY fault that my child has this condition? etc.
Now, I have issues with most of these points. Why? Because, it focuses on the perceived lacks rather than the truth. From my point of view, just having Autism isn't a tragedy. It is what happens after that is. Let me ask you, what is more disabling- having your speech fall out on you (and finding alternative ways to communicate) or being prevented from seeking out alternative at ANY time? I mean this in an applied sense.
Let's use an education background. If a student can't talk, which will be more devastating for his future- having to learn an alternative system of communication, or being placed in a class that doesn't follow an academic course because of an assumption that there is only one way to learn? I would say the latter- Just because a student must learn an alternative way which might take a little more work doesn't mean that the student CAN'T get to the end point. This single minded-ness in HOW we get there creates fear- fear that burdens everyone involved, including the taxpayer.
I could go on and on about how this perception further impacts the economy (spending more for now SAVES money in the long run by creating a way for a person to generate money and give back. . . ) but that's getting more off topic than I already have.
In the end fault should be irrelevant, and blaming vaccines which have been proven to protect public health is irresponsible if there's a reason to believe it's not true. Let me end with a Tale told to me by a therapist, Supposedly of Buddhist** origin (icarusancalion? I'm pretty sure this is fairly garbled?).
One day a man came to the Buddha and, trying to be clever, asked of Him:
If a man is shot with an arrow, what sort of punishment should the shooter have according to his importance?
The Buddha smiled and replied:
Tell me, is it more important to the man shot that the arrow in his side be removed, or to know the genealogy of the man who shot him?
To me, this would be like the difference between learning an alternative way to cope (learning sign language, AACs, different teaching methods, using visuals or patterns to reinforce a lesson, etc.) and focusing on causation- one can help those needing helped. The other is impractical at best, damaging/limiting at worse.
** No, I am not Buddhist, and neither was the therapist. However, I hold great respect for the Buddha's teachings, and incorporate them where I can into my daily life.