I am an immunologist (basic science), and have been admonished (if not duck taped) by the science community that is heavily backed by "translational research intitiatives " (i.e. R&D that is backed by industry and that is done in large part for commercial value) each time I have written about the very real potential to disrupt immune homeostasis by our over-enthusiastic vaccine fetish. Sure it is a cash cow for big pharma, but we were once as blissfully ignorant with the overuse of antibiotics - and now we have resistant strains and health conditions resulting from misuse.
I think it is unlikely preservatives or metals in vaccine formulations actually cause autism - but I do suspect there is a real possiblity that the way in which vaccines nonspecifically expand components of adaptive immunity (antibodies in particular) that may lead to the development of conditions such as autism and severe allergies (peanuts are now banned from preschool!). From what I've gleaned, children with autism have an unusually high number of auto-antibodies (which some researchers tried to link with immune cells from the mother) as well as a high degree of food intolerances.
Because there aren't many populations that don't give any vaccines to infants these days and the difficulty in diagnosing autism makes it unlikely to pick up in areas where vaccine programs aren't implemented nationally, epidemiological studies cannot pick-up either causation or association with any degree of confidence.
Dr. Bernadine Healy: Don't Dismiss Vaccine Link
Misery loves company, and so do controversial journalists.
As someone who has come under, shall we say, "sniper fire" for refusing to concede that there is no link between vaccines and autism, I now have a semi tongue-in-cheek response to my once and future critics: "Go tell it to Dr. Healy."
Tonight on CBS News, Sharyl Attkisson, (another reporter who questions the government's dismissal of any vaccine-autism link) conducted an extraordinary interview with "a powerful medical voice," who is "breaking ranks with her colleagues" on the autism contretemps: Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health.
She was interviewed on the first day of the first test-case hearing in so-called Vaccine Court, on whether the mercury-based preservative thimerosal can cause autism.
"I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as 'irrational,' without sufficient studies of causation... without studying the population that got sick," Dr. Healy told Attkisson. "I have not seen major studies that focus on 300 kids who got autistic symptoms within a period of a few weeks of the vaccines."
This is exactly what I, and many other government critics have been saying for years: Large population studies are not enough to disprove a link. One must look at the kids who actually regressed into autism, and determine what factor or factors might have contributed to their regression.
This is especially true if there is a subset of children who are particularly susceptible to such environmental triggers. "Populations do not test causality," Dr. Healy said, "they test associations."
And she noted, "We do have the opportunity to understand whether or not there are susceptible children -- perhaps medically, perhaps they have a metabolic issue, mitochondrial disorder, medical issue -- that makes them more susceptible to vaccines, plural, or to one particular vaccine, or to a component of vaccines, like mercury."
The problem is, prestigious groups such at the Institute of Medicine have concluded there is no link, based almost solely on large population studies, without giving enough consideration to data culled from children who actually developed the disorder.
Dr. Healy is a member of the IOM: "I love Institute of Medicine," she said, "but a report from 2004 basically said, 'Do not pursue susceptibility groups. Don't look for those children who may be vulnerable.' I really take issue with that conclusion."
The reason why officials didn't want to look for those groups? "Because they were afraid that, if they found them, however big or small they were, that would scare the public away," Dr. Healy explained. "They don't want to pursue this hypothesis because it could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. I don't believe the truth ever scares people."
Dr. Healy is hardly "anti-vaccine," and neither am I. In fact, I agree completely that, "if we identified a particular risk factor for vaccines, or if we found out that they should be spread out a little longer, I do not believe that the public would lose faith in vaccines. I think the public is smarter than that. You should never turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you are afraid of what it might show."
What it "might show" is precisely what attorneys are arguing this month in vaccine court: According to research from the University of Washington, primates exposed to thimerosal had an accumulation of mercury in their brains. Similar accumulation has been shown to activate certain brain cells, producing "neuro-inflammation" and brain swelling. Autopsies on deceased people with autism also show chronic neuro-inflammation and activation of the same brain cells, known as glial cells.
Like many people reading this post, Dr. Healy at first considered the vaccine-autism link to be "silly." But, she said, "the more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science, if you look at the research that has been done in animals, if you look at some of the individual cases, and if you look at the evidence that there is no link, what I come away with is, the question has not been answered."
Thank you, Dr. Healy. On behalf of open minded journalists, researchers, parents, politicians (including all three presidential candidates) and Huffington Post readers, your candor is a welcome addition to this debate. You have placed a much-needed wake up call to your esteemed colleagues: Some will attack you; but the majority will listen.
NOTE: CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has posted her own blog on this subject.
CNN correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta also interviewed Dr. Healy and wrote about it on his blog.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Would you be willing to point me to the evidence that vaccines induce non-specific Abs? Thanks!
Are you familiar with the background on the use of adjuvants to lower the threshhold for T cell and B cell activation? We are just at the point of understanding the mechanism by which vaccines and adjuvants change the reactivity and check-points in immune activation (there is a new article in Immunity on how vaccines lower the threshhold for TCR triggering and there is an excellent review in the same journal from Nov. 2007 which is entitled: "How Do Adjuvants Work?"
I have just started looking into the connection between the rise in allergies and autoimmune disorders and the wide spread initiation of intensive vaccine schedules. A good starting reference to give you would be the following study:
"Is Infant Immunization a Risk Factor for Childhood Asthma or Allergy?"
Trudi Kemp; Neil Pearce; Penny Fitzharris; Julian Crane; David Fergusson; Ian St. George;
Kristin Wickens; Richard Beasley; Epidemiology, Vol. 8, No. 6. (Nov., 1997), pp. 678-680.
From their findings "The Christchurch Health and Development Study comprises
1,265 children born in 1977. The 23 children who received no diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus (DPT) and polio immunizations had no recorded asthma episodes or consultations for asthma or other allergic illness before age 10 years; in the immunized children, 23.1% had asthma episodes, 22.5% asthma consultstions, and 30.0% consultations for other allergic illness. Similar differences were observed at ages 5 and 16 years."
This would be evidence of bystander effects of polyclonal expansion of antibodies.
SPEAKING UP FOR VACCINES AND THEIR IMPORTANCE
For parents who may be concerned about vaccine safety, I'd like to suggest you look at the website:
http://voicesforvaccines.org/Home/
this is a site created by people who understand and believe in the safety of vaccines. It is not funded by any pharma or medical organization. I would direct you to the "stories" section, where you can read the story of a young boy who died needlessly of a vaccine-preventable disease.
This shouldn't stop the research that those on this blog want, but we need to balance the consequences of messages they make parents worry about with the consequences of going unvaccinated. And remember, the consequences of going unvaccinated has clear, proven consequences. We can't say the same about vaccines and autism.
(Indicidentally, I am not and never have been paid to promote vaccine or any drug products by anyone. I'm simply who believes that vaccines save lives. Like all things in medicine, they have risks, but autism is not one of them)
Rahul Parikh, MD
(Sorry if this is sort of a repeat. I thought I responded to this post earlier, but may have missed the "Post" button.)
In addition to being a front for organizations that are pushing this agenda, I see that Dr. Paul Offit is on the steering committee. So much for not having a conflict of interest.
And, again you're making blanket statements that ignore logic. You can't prove a negative (someday I hope you'll understand what that means).
It's horrible when children die (young or old -- the "young boy" referenced in the story above was college age). It's also horrible when they get life-long debilitating conditions like autism. I find it sad that your position seems to be that this is an either-or situation. If there is concern about the safety of vaccines in this country then you should tell us about real research that demonstrates that the vaccines are safe -- not "stories" (there's actually only one story, so far) about a child who died. I also noticed that there is no section on the above referenced web site for anything related to research in this area.
ObjectiveAutismDad, mentioning For-Profit Offit and Conflict of Interest in the same sentence is a bit redundant, don't ya think? :P
The site mentions an older child dying of a vaccine preventable disease. This is a truly sad thing, but if they wanted to be objective as they claim they are, wouldn't it be prudent to mention the thousands of children injured by vaccines?
But of course, since For-Profit is running the show, the testimony of parents like us will be completely ignored.
Actually, Dr. P, if you look up who sponsors the site, it is a front run by the CDC, using an organization that is called the Task Force for Child Survival as a cover. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Here we go again... To paraphrase: we don't have any idea what it is, but it's not the vaccines or any of the vaccine adjuncts. You can't prove a negative; your statement is patently illogical. And, in addition, where are the safety studies for all of these vaccines that you're trying to force on people???
I noticed that Dr. For-Profit-Offit is on the steering committee for the site you referenced. So much for conflict of interest.
It's really sad when children die. And it's really sad that you're not doing anything to assuage the fears that people have when it comes to a (more than likely) life long debilitating condition. The decrease in the vaccination rates is a direct result of the obfuscation and blind folded arrogance of the main stream medical community.
Not everyone can take penicillin. Not everyone can eat peanuts. (Both of things can potentially kill you, if you're allergic to them.) But for some reason everyone HAS to take their vaccines; and if you don't we'll make a law to force you to.
Unfortunately, Dr. Healy is not an immunologist, not a neurologist, not an infectious disease expert. She was trained as a pathologist and has not practiced medicine of any sort for many years. Her very qualified endorsement of further research must be considered in that light.
So is it your position then that we shouldn't do any more research??? For a condition that has no known (proven) cause? That affects 1 in 150 children; roughly 1 in 96 boys? Let me clue you in on something -- we live in a democracy in this country. That means anybody gets to ask for more research. Then somebody has to sort out which requests get the funding. With over 1% of the male children in this country afflicted by this -- we're going to get the money, sooner or later.
Hi,
I have one other question if someone can answer it for me? Looking at that 2004 IOM report Dr. Healy is questioning, I don't see her name on the review committee or as an author of the report. Can someone explain why she is speaking out if she wasn't directly involved in the review of the evidence.
If not, could this be the equivalent of another celebrity endorsement?
"If not, could this be the equivalent of another celebrity endorsement?"
Is that your title for your next Pediatric's piece? You are really reaching....
This is an absolutely ridiculous comment. Dr. Healy questioned the statement in the conclusion of the IOM report which basically stated no further research should be done this area. She takes issue with that, as do most rational people. If only the authors of studies were able to question them there wouldn't be any questions.
Does her name have to be on the report, according to you? No, it does not, you know why? Because, she does not have to be on the report to have reviewed it and see the discrepancies. You should know that being a doctor and all. Do you have to be in on the research team to believe that it has been done correctly? If so, have you researched everything you practice? Also, what do you practice? I do believe this has been asked before, I am not too sure if you have answered.
I thought it was a reasonable question myself, but I know those of us that question things are frowned upon around here.
I think you missed Dr. P's point. He's objecting to the fact that Dr. Healy asked a question! Do you think it's unreasonable for Dr. Healy to question the conclusion of a report that she didn't author? It's rather ironic that you made your statement -- because it seems that the position that you and Dr. P. have taken is that it's not appropriate for the rest of us to ask questions.
We question the safety of the current vaccine program because we have anecdotal evidence from parents and empirical evidence from reputable researchers that there may be a problem. The vast majority of your comments are objections, to those of us who are affected by this, for even asking these questions. Along comes yet another respectable Doctor and you object to her questions. You are part of the problem right now -- rather than helping to find a solution.
I would like to know, have you ever had an interest in doing a study on this LindsE? Is there any small part of you that is just curious to know if there could be any real possibility to this? It seems like you have enough interest in this.
dr p-
You have not been honest nor answered direct questions. I doubt anyone here puts much trust in you, your information, and your tactics in propaganda distribution (Pediatrics).
If you are trying to use Dr. Healy's IOM dates as your "proof", how sad is that.....
Again, what do you gain by denying harm AND continuing to turn your back on susceptible groups?
David - Please read this important new book! Although the author, Dr. Michael Chez, is dismissive of the thimerosal theory, he grips a lot of other third rail issues (even calling much mainstream medical care of children with autism "random"). His colleagues aren't going to be happy reading this book but Chez is, in my view, one of the best (and most controversial) minds in autism research and clinical care today. Many prominent leaders from all camps in the autism community as well as patients from all over the world have sought out his care. You really should read it.
http://www.amazon.ca/Autism-Medical-Management-Michael-Chez/dp/1843108348
CriticalDune
You must have some connection to Chez as I have never heard these compliments. Many parents reported that Dr Chez was rude and not very objective as moderator of the recent IACC meeting. Putting DAN! down while pushing his own book may not win too many parents, fwiw.
Teresa
Considering the fact that the incidence of autism has increased as the level questionable vaccine preservatives have actually decreased over time suggests something else may be in play besides vaccines themselves. For example, does the fact that the contemporary child lives in an over-sterilized environment contribute to certain systemic reactions to vaccination? In addition, there have been two recent, preliminary studies that show a correlation between autism and the documented decreased intake of Vitamin D in human diet.
But there is a clear correlation between possible retardation, physical restriction, and death and childhood diseases -- especially when the unvaccinated person is an adult. I do not wish to disregard the subject of mercury preservatives or bad vaccines -- my mother contracted polio as a result of the smallpox vaccination campaigns -- but the fact remains that you are more likely to be stricken with a highly communicable disease without vaccination than you are to develop autism with vaccination. And unless you have found a novel approach to presenting all the complexities of this issue to the average person, you open up the possibility for more people to not only become sick, but to also transfer disease to others.
For more information on the Vitamin D link, a good place to start is the Vitamin D Council -- they are part of the supplement lobby, but they provide links to the primary materials:
One point about Healy: 1) she wrote in US news piece about skyrocketing rates of autism--again, mistaking prevalence and incidence. As a public health leader, she ought to look at the following explanation by an expert in epidemiology:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/opinion/11shattuck.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=paul+shattuck&st=nyt&oref=slogin
That leads me to question how much she's really done her homework
Again, it's the principle of social authority--if "an expert" says, is it true? We need to ask tougher questions about charges this serious
Second, Mr. Kirby should link to studies he is referring to. The UW study, among other flaws, looked at thimerasol effects in vaccines injected into infant monkeys. Infant monkeys weigh a kilo less than human infants, and in pediatrics, we dose everything by weight. So essentially, by weight, you're admintering tremendously high concentrations of mercury into this monkeys.
The point being that it is more appropriate to do the same study, but use proportional doses of vaccines to the monkey's weight, then see what happens.
In the end, I think it would be best if the government simply released the documents of the Poling trial so we could all get a look at them.
Rahul Parikh, MD
Doc, may I direct you to the study done by Mady Hornig at Columbia. Mice were injected on a schedule that mirrored required vaccines, proportionate to the weight of the subject mouse.
My son was the unlucky lottery winner, having received each of his scheduled immunizations from a multi-dose Thimerosal vial. Maximun amount inflicted maximum damage in his case. He is totally disabled, barely speaks and will never function independently.
I agree that the Poling documents be released to the public and have petitioned my Congressman to act on that subject.
I understand the point that more children are now being identified on the spectrum as autistic than ever before. However, you can not deny that children with severe cases have increased substantially. The first time I had ever heard of autism was about 22 years ago. I saw a child at a public pool and the mother of this child told me it was autism. It was quite apparent that something was wrong with the child. Now, today, I have autism within my own family and friends, and friends of friends, etc. Extreme cases. Not children on the fringe of the spectrum. I, like everyone else, do not know if there is a connection between vaccines and autism. But what I do know, Autism , what was once hardly heard of, is now an everyday household term. SOMETHING is or has happened beyond the explanation of children not being diagnosed appropriately in the past.
And here we go. We all knew it would start, the smearing, the snide comments, the innuendos about the legitimacy of a doctor who thinks that it isn't a good idea to dismiss the link. It didn't take long, and your comments are not the 1st.
What she is asking, which is the same thing that all of us are asking, is that we look at these injured children. We look at these children who suddenly developed regressive autism after receiving a vaccine. But, the government agencies are denying this; they are saying, "'Do not pursue susceptibility groups. Don't look for those children who may be vulnerable."
That is a very damning statement. Especially considering that there have been no, absolutely NONE, studies looking at these subsets. Perhaps YOU should be the one doing their homework, particularly when it comes to legal matters. I have a feeling that this whole facade will be crashing soon, and parents are going to be looking at people like you as to why this happened to their child.
I agree, Craig! Whatever are these doctors going to say when they are faced with this? I would imagine they will say," well, it was my job to tell you that the vaccines are safe, I was only doing my job, I did not personally knowingly injure your child." It will be a big cop out. They still will never know just how bad this is until it affects their own life.
AN INFLUENTIAL VOICE SPEAK OUT BUT TO WHAT END?
The interview and comments of Dr. Healy are pretty staggering. Those who accuse vaccines of causing autism will latch onto it as further proof that they are correct.
But here's a more reasonable way to look at it. Dr. Healy is not saying vaccines cause autism. Her comments are calling for further research, despite a decade's worth of research that should reassure the public.
That's ok, if that's how those in the autism and medical community want to spend our ever tighter health care dollars.
And if we do find that vaccines cause autism, we in the medical community will have a lot of explaining and apologizing to do. Because that science will be as close to the truth as possible.
But let me ask the question: Let's say we do thoe and find that there is no link between autism and vaccines? Then what? Will the debate end?
I don't think it will--per the pattern I've seen, the arguement will continue to shift. First it was MMR, then thimerasol, now it's aluminum or formaldehyde. People have staked out positions in this debate. In the case of people like Mr. Kirby, Dr. Gordon, the Geiers etc. they've staked their incomes and/or reputations as well. In other words, we believe what we want to believe, and dismiss that which conflicts with those beliefs.
(continued in next post)
"TO WHAT END?" To the health of our children; to preventing the affliction of more children.
You do not know what causes autism (although you have emphatically stated that "it's not the vaccines"). Dr. Healy is saying that we should look more closely at the children who have been affected. Your decade's worth of statistical studies that don't focus on these children are less and less convincing to the public in light of empirical science that is starting to shed more light on potential causes. Your response is we should stop looking at this or go look elsewhere -- but you don't say where.
To what end? You supposedly care about these children. Your words seem to be in conflict with that supposition.
Craig, it is sad! I have fears of what caffeine is doing to my body. I had the initial cervical cancer cells about 11 years ago and I have many fibroids in my breasts. My doctor has stressed to me time and time again to at least cut back. I told him, "easy for you to say". I have had more than 6 years of this kind of life. I know this will more than likely be a long road. I have to do what I know works for keeping afloat.
Posted May 12, 2008 | 08:44 PM (EST)