Age of Autism

Managing Editor's Note: To learn more about Dr. Grinker, click HERE to read JB Handley's piece called, "Grinker's Stinker: His Wife runs the IACC."

By Dan Olmsted

In some parts of the far-flung autism universe Roy Richard Grinker is a big deal -- professor of anthropology and director of the George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research and the author of five books including Unstrange Minds, which makes the case that autism is not new, just better identified. His credentials and credibility help “mainstream” this malignant notion: Time magazine says his book “persuasively argues” that there’s no autism epidemic at all.

Big deal. You’ve still got to get your facts right.

Lately, I’ve been reading the autobiography of Leo Kanner, the child psychiatrist who first described autism in 1943, which is unpublished but available at the American Psychiatric Association. I remembered that Grinker had cited the autobiography in Unstrange Minds and, out of curiosity, decided to review those references.

Oh, dear. I’m afraid Grinker’s gotten some things quite thoroughly wrong. And because the facts matter so much to solving the autism puzzle, that IS a big deal. Some mistakes don’t bear directly on the debate, but they make you wonder how many do.

Here’s one:

the fate of Leo Kanner’s family after he emigrated from Berlin to South Dakota in the 1920s. Grinker writes: “His father died just before the start of World War II, and it was to be the only natural death in the family. The Nazis shot his mother while she was napping in a rocking chair, his three sisters and their families were murdered in concentration camps, and his brother, Klias, committed suicide as the Nazis approached the small town in which he lived. The only survivors were Leo’s sister, Dora, born while Kanner was in South Dakota. … and a brother, Wolf, who fled to Shanghai, where he worked as a pharmacist for seven years before returning to Austria to become a violinist with the Viennese Philharmonic Orchestra.”

Except for the part about his father, that’s dead wrong. On page 347 of his own autobiography, the one Grinker is citing, Kanner says: “Of course, I kept in touch with my relatives. I received word of my father’s death. … My sister … moved to Belgium. My brother, Max, whom I had brought over to these shores, married a Sioux City, Iowa girl and worked as a furrier for a department store. My brother Josef, using the money which I sent him, migrated to Palestine … my brothers Willy and Emil were engaged in business in Berlin.”

Who ya gonna believe, Roy Grinker or Leo Kanner? Grinker is misreading a letter written TO Kanner by an old friend, describing what happened to HIS OWN family. And Grinker appears to have read right over (or not read at all) Kanner’s personal account. Kanner makes no mention of his mother in that passage, but unless she also was shot while napping in her rocker, that’s not right, either.

It’s an unfortunate and pretty careless mix-up, but not on the critical path, so to speak, to Grinker’s fundamental argument. The next two are.

First, Grinker makes hash of a study Kanner did while a psychiatrist at the state mental hospital in South Dakota. Here’s what Grinker says: “After four years in South Dakota, Kanner had earned his stripes, and more. Indeed, his brilliance and clinical skills were easy to see. His first publication was a paper on the American Indians he had treated at Yankton. … Kanner argued that Indians didn’t have as much insanity as the rest of the population, probably because the incidence of syphilis, one of the main causes of insanity in those days, was inexplicably low in Indian communities.

“His observation seemed so simple in retrospect, but no one had thought of it before. That was the first sign of his clinical genius. Kanner received so much attention that the German physician Emil Kraepelin, the founder of modern psychiatry … decided to visit Yankton during his trip to America.”

Oh, no. No, no, no, no, no. Let’s start with Kanner’s study, which he describes in the autobiography and published in 1926; the study is also listed in Grinker’s bibliography, which means he read it. Here’s what Kanner says in the ’26 study:

“Syphilis among the Indians is VERY COMMON [emphasis added], according to the statements of a great number of authors, and it is frequently, almost proverbially, said by people very near Indian reservations that the great majority of the red race have syphilis.” It is clear from the context of the study, co-authored by G.S. Adams, that they agree with this statement. What Kanner and Adams are actually talking about is the rarity of a particular kind of neurosyphilis -- syphilis of the brain and nervous system -- called general paralysis of the insane, or GPI. Kanner’s question was why, given how COMMON syphilis was among Indians, there wasn’t more GPI.

The study is titled “Paresis [general paralysis of the insane] among North American Indians,” for heaven’s sake. As far as I know Kanner never said anything about the overall rate of insanity among Indians.

Then there is the slight matter of the father of modern psychiatry, Emil Kraepelin, supposedly beating a path to Kanner’s out-of-the-way door in Yankton, South Dakota, to pay homage to the 30-year-old genius. Except, well, Kanner hadn’t yet written the paper about Indians that supposedly caught Kraepelin’s eye. What actually happened was that Kanner found out Kraepelin happened to be coming to a nearby asylum for Native Americans, and he wangled himself an invitation to meet him.

“I learned from a notice in the Sioux City newspaper that Emil Kraepelin, the famous German psychiatrist, was visiting this country with the purpose of studying the occurrence of general paresis among North American Negroes and Indians,” Leo Kanner wrote. “He was accompanied by the serologist Felix Plaut ... They were to spend four days at the Federal Government Asylum for Insane Indians at Canton, South Dakota.”

Kanner persuaded Adams, the Yankton superintendent, to get them and their wives invited to meet the great man. When they did, Kanner told Kraepelin he was treating a Native American with GPI, and Kraepelin urged him to write it up for publication.

So, contrary to Unstrange Minds, syphilis was not rare among Native Americans and Kanner never said it was; Kraepelin did not come to see Kanner, of whom he had almost certainly never heard, to discuss a study Kanner hadn’t written; and Kraepelin never set foot in Yankton.

Of course, this goof is not deliberate on Grinker’s part, but it’s getting into tendentious territory. Once made, it serves a useful purpose -- Kanner is such a blinding genius that the old order bows before him; only he notices the obvious that in retrospect has been ever thus. You can see how this paradigm comes in handy when Kanner, in 1943, writes Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact about 11 children born in the 1930s. Kanner describes them as “markedly and uniquely different from anything described so far;” but if you accept that, you’ve got to accept the idea that autism was a new disorder and that something triggered it. Better that Kanner be sui generis, a genius of observation and insight.

I’ve written lots about those early cases, of which I’ve found several despite Kanner’s first-name-and-last-initial-only identification. Based on that intensive investigation, my theory (co-developed with Mark Blaxill) has nothing to do with the simplicity of clinical genius. But it does happen to be backed by some actual facts, and it goes like this: Autism was triggered by the commercialization of ethyl mercury in vaccines and fungicides in the 1930s.
The reason Leo Kanner was the first to describe it can be explained by the “alert clinician” phenomenon -- cases of a new disorder (AIDS, for instance) start popping up, and someone of reasonable skill and experience, in the right place at the right time, is the first to spot them and write them up.

In Kanner’s case, the fact that by then he was at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore was serendipitous, to use one of his favorite words, because several of the parents of those first kids were cutting-edge researchers in medicine and agriculture, a number of them working nearby and for the federal government. A classic instance is Case 2, Frederick L. Wellman, who when his son was born was a plant pathologist investigating ethyl mercury fungicides for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Beltsville, Md., in suburban Washington. The agriculture center was right on the Baltimore-Washington Road, and it led straight to Johns Hopkins and Leo Kanner.

That leads me to one more mistake in Unstrange Minds. I’ve written about it before, in a column in which I reviewed the book. I found it “beautifully written” and useful for the way it laid out the argument against an autism epidemic. But I said I fundamentally disagreed with it.

And I pointed out that Grinker had messed up the math in a reference to Case 3: Richard M., in Leo Kanner’s landmark 1943 paper on autism. At about age one, Richard got a smallpox shot that was followed by a fever and illness that lasted a week, and later his mother told Kanner she recalled him losing skills he had started to develop. If you carefully track the chronology contained within that case study, you realize this regression started about the time of the smallpox shot and subsequent reaction. But Grinker gets the chronology wrong -- he puts the regression at age TWO, not age one. At that later age, the regression obviously could have had nothing to do with the shot at age one.

To my mind, this association between shot, illness and autistic regression in Case 3 is not a minor matter -- it is a clue, a warning from the very beginning of the Age of Autism. But Grinker misreads his way right past it. Here’s what Grinker writes: Richard “showed signs of normal cognitive development -- or at least this is what the parents retrospectively argued -- until he was about two. Then, as his mother wrote to Kanner, ‘It seems that he has gone backward mentally gradually …”

No, not at age two. At age one. When he got the shot and got sick. And regressed. Wrong again.

I’m going to venture a guess that at least the first two screw-ups I cited came by way of research assistants. But if you’re going to stake your professional reputation on the idea there’s no autism increase and no epidemic -- no worries, mate! -- you’ve got to get in there and read the early literature for yourself, and read it carefully, and get it right. I’ve spent so much time in archives over the past four years that I feel like I have a permanent coating of dust on me and haven’t seen the sun since 2005. Right now I’m flipping through my library cards for the D.C. public library, the University of Maryland, the Maryland State Archives, North Carolina State, John Hopkins Medical Archives, the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, the National Agricultural Library, the Arlington Public Library, the Falls Church City Library and the National Archives. It’s slow and tedious work but my motto, apologies to The X-Files, has become “The Truth Is IN There.” And it is, believe me.

Of course, all this seems like quibbling, not anything consequential, to the medical mainstream, those who already know autism didn’t start in the 1930s, who already know it doesn’t have anything to do with vaccines or mercury, who already know it isn’t increasing. They rather pity us poor misguided purveyors of Internet inaccuracies.

“The debate about whether thimerosal [vaccine mercury] is linked to autism has been fueled by a recent book on the subject, … high-profile articles by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and stories by Dan Olmsted of United Press International [now of Age of Autism],” Grinker writes in Unstrange Minds.

“The widespread dissemination of information via the World Wide Web sometimes makes us ordinary parents believe we are experts, or at least paraprofessionals. …” So, fellow ordinary folk, and especially you out-of-your depth parents out there, let’s back off and let the “experts,” the ones who have the professorships and the degrees and who write the books and publish the papers, handle these things. We can trust them to get this right.

On second thought, I’m starting to wonder whether that is such a good idea.
--
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism

Bill bans lead, gives Consumer Product Safety Commission more muscle

WASHINGTON - Alarmed by a year of recalls targeting millions of tainted toys, the House voted overwhelming Wednesday to ban lead and other dangerous chemicals from items such as jewelry and rubber ducks that could end up in kids’ mouths.

The legislation also would toughen rules for testing children’s products and take steps to give more muscle to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was criticized last year for its feeble handling of a flood of goods from China deemed hazardous to children.

“It should be a given that toys are not dangerous,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in welcoming legislation that was lauded by lawmakers and consumer groups as one of the most far-reaching product safety bills in decades.

With the bill, said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, “our children’s toys will be tested in the laboratory before they are tested by our children on the living room floors of America.”

The bill, a product of House-Senate negotiations, would impose the toughest lead standards in the world, banning lead beyond minute levels in products for children 12 or younger.

It would also ban children’s products — either permanently or pending further study — containing six types of phthalates, which are chemicals that are found in plastics and suspected of posing health risks.

The 424-1 vote sends the measure to the Senate, which could approve it before Congress leaves for its August recess at the end of this week. The White House has voiced opposition to parts of the legislation but has not threatened a veto.

The bill would require third-party testing for many children’s products before they are marketed, a key change in monitoring practices following a year in which 45 million toys and children’s products — 30 million from China — were recalled.

Those included lead-contaminated children’s jewelry, “Spider-Man 3” flashing rings and Halloween pails.

“Third-party testing is a centerpiece of the new law” and a victory for consumers, said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director of U.S. PIRG, a grass-roots environmental organization.

The bill would double the budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to $136 million by 2014, and give it new authority to monitor testing procedures and impose civil penalties on violators. The CPSC was founded in 1973 with a staff of about 800. It now employs about half that number, while imports have vastly increased.

It also would boost whistle-blower protections to encourage people to report hazards to the CPSC and would direct the agency to set up a database where consumers, government agencies, child care providers or doctors could report incidents of injury, illness, death or risk related to products.

One of the more controversial provisions is the ban on six types of phthalates, the chemicals used in a wide range of plastic products. They are used to make toys such as rubber ducks and bath books soft and flexible.

Tests on rats have found links to possible reproductive system problems for males and the onset of early puberty for females, and the European Union has banned the six.

The Breast Cancer Fund noted that when children put these toys in their mouths, phthalates can easily leach from toy to child. The bill, said the fund’s director of program and policy, Janet Nudelman, is “a first, important step toward reforming the way chemicals are regulated in this country.”

Ami Gadhia of Consumers Union said infants are also exposed to phthalates through teethers and health care products. While there is no conclusive evidence that the chemical causes health problems in humans, she said a recent study found that mothers reported use of infant lotion, infant powder and shampoo was significantly associated with phthalate urinary concentrations.

But phthalates, said Sharon Kneiss of the American Chemistry Council, “are an important part of our everyday lives. There is no scientific basis for Congress to restrict phthalates from toys and children’s products.”

Under the new third-party testing regimen, a standards organization overseen by the CPSC would set up and run a mandatory protocol that testing labs would have to meet to certify a product. No covered children’s product or toy could be imported without a certification mark.

The negotiators also resolved to make more products now covered by voluntary industry standards subject to mandatory standards. That step added several potential toy hazards, including goods containing small magnets that were included in products recalled last year, subject to third-party testing requirements.

Among other provisions, the bill requires the CPSC to adopt safety standards on all-terrain vehicles and close a loophole in which cribs sold secondhand were not subject to the same standards as new cribs.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas cast the only dissenting vote. The failed Republican presidential candidate frequently votes against measures expanding the federal government’s reach.

Watch Video on Adventures in Autism

AAP, Every Child by Two and Paul Offit have begun to get the public scrutiny from a mainstream medial outlet on the huge sums of money they get from pharmaceutical companies and how those conflicts of interest (both disclosed and undisclosed) should call into question their claims of 'independence' and their claims of vaccine safety. These three sources are almost always portrayed in the media as reliable sources for vaccine safety information that are only working in the interests of children that parents should turn to for advice. Their Pharma ties are almost never mentioned.

Sharyl Attkisson was generous to these three vaccine promoters in her piece. She didn't even mention Offit's scolding by congress for his serious ethics breaches and conflicts of interest during his time on the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Nor did she mention the absurd safety statements that the incoming head of the AAP, David Tayloe, has been making, as he did on Good Morning America. Really there is enough here for hours of in depth news magazine coverage or even a book or two.

I hope that this story will lead to some more in depth coverage of the shenanigans that are going on in the relationships between Pharma, health authorities, professional organizations and the medical industry and get the media to examine with new eyes the evidence for the vaccine/autism connection. I hope that parents will consider these huge cash payouts before taking the word of these people as gospel.

And I ESPECIALLY hope that wise pediatricians who do want to make balanced, informed vaccine recommendations for their patients will stop listening to these very questionable sources and begin to do their own research into vaccine safety, rather than taking the AAP's word. We are never going to bring balance to the vaccine program or transparency to the vaccine/autism relationship until those who are making bank off shots stop calling the shots and influencing the process.

Someone email this to Amanda Peet before she does those ads for Every Child by Two. She has already sullied her self by considering calling Paul Offit as "doing her research", and she needs to know who she is getting into bed with.

My Dear Husband's comments: "That is the first interview Paul Offit has ever turned down."

Amanda Peet Joins the Fray in Public Debate Over Childhood Vaccination

By Dan Childs, ABC News Medical Unit, Aug. 5, 2008

Actress Amanda Peet is not the first celebrity to speak out on childhood vaccination. But her message is clearly different from that of many other stars on the subject.

And on Tuesday morning, she shared this advice with the public on ABC's "Good Morning America": the public might be better off to turn a deaf ear to celebrities when it comes to vaccines.

"It seems that the media is often giving celebrities and actors more authority on this issue than they are giving the experts," Peet said. "I know it's a paradox, but that's part of why I wanted to become a spokesperson, to say to people, 'Please don't listen to me. Don't listen to actors. Go to the experts.'"

Peet also apologized again during her appearance for comments she made in the July issue of the parenting magazine Cookie in which she stated, "Frankly, I feel that parents who don't vaccinate their children are parasites."

"I didn't mean to show disdain, and I did and do apologize for the use of the word 'parasites,'" she said. "But I do in no way, shape or form retract my position or the meaning behind the use of the word, which is that if there are vast reductions in herd immunity, our children will be at risk."

Peet has taken her message to the Internet, sharing her story on www.vaccinateyourbaby.org. And the actress, who stars in the new movie "X-Files: I Want to Believe," last month announced her support of the group Every Child By Two (ECBT). She is scheduled to be part of a panel on Aug. 5 to encourage parents to have their children receive all recommended vaccinations by the age of 2.

Peet says her interest in vaccines began with the birth of her daughter, Frankie, on Feb. 23, 2007.

"When Frankie was born, I started to learn about vaccine safety," she told ABCNews.com in an email message. "The more I learned, the more I realized how much misinformation there is about vaccines."

Amy Pisani, executive director of ECBT, says she hopes Peet's advocacy is "a 100 percent antidote" to the position of former Playboy model Jenny McCarthy's position that the current vaccine schedule places children at a higher risk of developing autism.

Pisani says that the issue is too important to be reduced to a showdown between celebrities.

"We don't want it to be a fight between Jenny McCarthy and Amanda Peet," she says. "This is between scientists and the public."

Still, the entrée of the latest celebrity voice into the vaccine debate has made waves online. In a message on ECBT's Web site, Peet says she made the decision to support the organization when she was pregnant.

"Many of our friends in Hollywood were choosing not to vaccinate their babies or to delay vaccines because they feared that they might cause autism or other disorders," she notes in her message. "We had never thought about not vaccinating, but when we went online to educate ourselves on vaccines, we found Web site after Web site warning us about their dangers. Naturally, we were very concerned about what we read."

Peet says her discussions with doctors at once allayed her fears and introduced her to the dangers of skipping vaccinations. It is this platform that she has pushed in recent weeks -- and some of her comments have been a source of ire for those who believe there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism.

In particular, Peet's "parasite" comment has been a sore spot for many parents who believe in a vaccine-autism link.

Rebecca Estepp, parent support and media relations manager for the advocacy group Talk About Curing Autism (TACA) -- of which McCarthy is a spokeswoman -- says the star's comments were out of line.

"I guess she's calling me a parasite, because I did not vaccinate my second son because of what I saw happened to my first son," says Estepp, who adds that her first child developed autism shortly after his vaccination.

Science as a Celebrity Cause?

While celebrity advocacy of certain health causes is not a new phenomenon, having McCarthy and Peet squaring off over the vaccine debate has taken public interest in the issue to another level.

Dr. Paul Offit, chief of the section of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, says much of this has to do with the fact that the public, as a whole is, in many ways, more eager to listen to celebrities than to researchers.

"I think when Jenny McCarthy appears on "Oprah" and says, 'I think vaccines harm our kids,' that has an effect. When Amanda Peet comes out and says, 'I believe the scientists on this,' that also has an effect," Offit says. "It's a culture of celebrity, and we tend to trust what celebrities tell us."

Offit, a leading advocate of the current vaccine schedule, is the doctor whose advice Peet sought early in her search for information. Peet met with Offit through her brother-in-law, who is a fellow in the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's division of infectious diseases. And Offit says that what Peet learned about the risks of skipping vaccinations is what drove her to take action.

"It angered her," he says. "She felt like this, at some level, put her children at risk."

As for McCarthy, Estepp says the former model approached TACA in 2005 after her own son had been diagnosed with autism.

"When [her son] got better, she said, 'I want to help,'" Estepp says, adding that McCarthy's advocacy grabbed the attention of other celebrities. "It looks like Jenny's story kind of sparked like wildfire through the Hollywood community."

Offit, too, notes that Hollywood has become a major battleground in the vaccination debate. And he says that while scientific evidence on the importance of vaccination is irrefutable, celebrity culture goes a long way in shaping public discourse on the topic.

"[Peet] lives, to some extent, in the California culture and knows that people like Jenny McCarthy are not the minority there," he says.

But Peet says she bases her arguments for vaccination on the expertise of doctors and medical groups.

"I don't think parents should be taking medical advice from actors," she told ABCNews.com via email. "I take medical advice from several pediatricians, other doctors, the CDC, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

It's an approach that Offit says sets Peet apart from other celebrities weighing in on the topic.

"[Peet] says, 'I'm not a scientist; you shouldn't even be listening to me,' which is refreshing," he says.

Beyond Celebrity, Debate Rages

While the participation of Peet and McCarthy in the vaccination debate may make waves among the public, their convictions are unlikely to sway those of medical experts and autism advocacy groups.

"The risks [of skipping vaccinations] became no longer theoretical with the recent measles outbreaks, which have sickened 127 children in 15 states," Offit says. "Measles makes you sick. One out of every 1,000 kids who gets it dies from it, and one in five are hospitalized."

"We do not endorse vaccination for all children, and with the present schedule, because of the lack of safety testing and the number of reports from parents about losing their child after vaccination," counters Stan Kurtz, executive director of the advocacy group Generation Rescue, in an e-mail to ABCNews.com. "My child and Jenny McCarthy's child included."

But Offit says, no matter what science may say, there is little doubt that celebrity advocacy goes a long way in swaying public opinion -- and public health.

"We're in an information age more than any other time in history, and I think that's both good and bad," he says. "It's good because we have a lot of information to work with, but it's bad because some people think that's enough to make them experts. That's not true here."

Age of Autism

By Kim Stagliano

"We call upon CBS to issue a retraction of Sharyl Attkisson's report...."

Lisa Randall of Voices For Vaccines has sent a letter to Katie Couric about Sharyl Attkisson's piece last week that questioned the financial ties of the AAP, Dr. Paul Offit and "Every Child by Two" to the vaccine industry. Even The Wall Street Journal picked up the report in its blog, (we wrote about it HERE.)

Here's the letter:

Voices For Vaccines
325 Swanton Way
Decatur, GA 30030

July 31, 2008

Katie Couric, Managing Editor CBS Television Network
524 West 57th Street
6th Floor
New York, NY 10019-2902

Via Facsimile

Dear Ms, Couric:

Voices For Vaccines objects to the defamatory allegations made by the CBS Evening News on Friday, July 25, against the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two, and the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, with our colleague Dr Paul Offit singled out for baseless criticism.

It is our privilege to partner with these institutions in our mission to disseminate reliable information about vaccines. These groups advocate for immunization based on the overwhelming evidence for the lifesaving power of vaccination, and motivated by a sincere concern for the health of America's children. It is preposterous and deeply offensive for CBS to suggest otherwise by insinuating that the pharmaceutical industry improperly influences the views of these vaccine advocates.

An obvious starting point for an unbiased reporter assigned to investigate this possibility would have been to determine whether the advocates' recommendations were in accord with the scientific consensus on immunization, as articulated by neutral bodies such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (In fact, all three subjects of the CBS story do promote vaccination according to federal guidelines.)

In contrast, Sharyl Attkisson relied solely upon tangential observations in concluding that the judgment of these respected authorities has been co-opted by drug companies. Ms Attkisson's choice to pursue her story even after failing to uncover any evidence of malfeasance reveals not bias on the part of the story's subjects, but on the part of Ms Attkisson herself Professionalism required her to acknowledge that the targets of her story have done nothing other than emphasize to the public that which is well known to science. that vaccines allow children to grow up safe and healthy.

(page 2)

We call upon CBS to issue a retraction of Ms. Attkisson's report and an apology to the individuals and institutions whose good and honorable work in the field of immunization has been smeared. We further ask CBS to reflect upon the fact that it does not befit a user of the public airwaves to broadcast misleading claims about the most important public health measure of our time.

Sincerely,

Lisa H. Randall
Interim Executive Director
(404) 592-1.408
lrandall cr voicesforvaccines.org
cc: Katie Boyle, Senior Producer
Jonathan LaPook, MD, Medical Correspondent
Sharyl Attkisson, Reporter

Click HERE to find the "contact us" page for CBS (scroll down toward the bottom) so you can send an email to Ms. Couric and others at The Evening News.

J.B. Handley wrote about Voices For Vaccines last spring in his post titled, Fools Rush In.

You know the response is coming. For anyone watching the news for the last two months, the “other side” (aka, The Vaccine Lobby) has been getting annihilated in the press, online, in the coffee shops, schools, watercoolers, and, of course, on Larry King Live. There’s too much power, profits, and prestige at stake for the other side not to fight back, at least a little.

With that as backdrop I was delighted to get an email from a friend with a link to a new, curious website called Voices4Vaccines.

The website is under construction, but the home page opens with this noble goal:

“Voices for Vaccines has only one goal to provide science-based, accessible, and clear information about the benefits and risks of vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases. Our leadership consists of scientists and concerned individuals who are totally committed to supporting continued efforts to eradicate vaccine-preventable diseases.”

This new organization also makes a veiled reference to you-know-who and our movement in general:

“But we also know that the loud voices and famous faces are not necessarily giving the best information.”

We posted a few pieces about Ms. Randall and Voices For Vaccines, including a post by Kelly Ann Davis, Tracy Stewart and one about the The Immunization Coalition, which sent out an "alert" prior to Jenny McCarthy's Green Our Vaccines rally, in June.

Kim Stagliano is Managing Editor of Age of Autism.

Provide your comments to CBS.

Age of Autism

By Katie Wright

My Son is Fine, Therefore Vaccines are Always Safe: CDC Vaccine Science

I just finished reading the CDC transcript regarding “why science is not always enough.” This seminar was contrived in order to convince parents to give a newborn babies 5 vaccines, containing ammonia, aluminum and anti-freeze, at once. The CDC does not understand why American parents do not think this is a great idea. I encourage all to visit the CDC website [HERE] and listen to this bizarre and convoluted groupthink seminar. No opposing points of views were allowed and no parents of vaccine injured children are included. Vaccines are presented as completely risk free, in any quantity, with any number of toxic ingredients, at any age.

Where to begin?

The lecture was so rambling and repetitive but it basically comes down to the fact that the CDC believes that parents are falling victim to the Internet and, God forbid, educating them about vaccine safety! Another calamity, as they see it, is that we are uneducated, which in and of itself contradicts their primary concern, that we are reading too many books and articles. All these parents researching vaccine safety issues on their computers and in their libraries are creating so many problems for pediatricians that the CDC needed to convene a conference to stop the “parent to parent exchange of misinformation.”

In an attempt to appear somewhat relevant to the pediatricians who deal with Moms everyday, the CDC enlisted a new Mom and doctor, Dr. Kristine Sheedy, to speak for the organization. Dr. Sheedy speaks about how precious her baby is, how much she loves him, how much she sacrificed during the course of her pregnancy in order to be safe. Been there, done that. Then Dr. Sheedy takes her newborn in for 5 vaccines. Yes, he cries a bit but is fine. Therefore she concurs that, yes, it was psychologically scary to have her baby hyper-vaccinated but that the vaccines safe totally safe for all babies. Case closed. Interesting scientific method.

During a rare moment of quiet, when her two boys are napping, Dr. Sheedy had turned on “Oprah” just in time to view the Jenny McCarthy episode. Well, then all hell broke loose. When Sheedy heard that Jenny went on the Internet to find help and information, “she knew exactly where this was going! And I was right.” Where is that? To knowledge??? Maybe Jenny had to go on the Internet because her pediatrician knew nothing about autism and basically told her to just give up and accept it? The fact that Jenny wanted to help her son and not give up on Evan is apparently a big problem for Dr. Sheedy. The doctor sounds less like a physician than a paranoid private investigator. “ I know what you are thinking, forget about Jenny McCarthy, there are so many holes, so many contradictions in her story.” Whoooa. “Holes in her story” is Jenny McCarthy under some kind of federal indictment? Is Jenny trying to escape prosecution? “Holes in her story,” what a bizarre way to characterize a courageous Mom’s description of her son’s horrific descent into autism. I guess Jenny should have made the narrative less messy and scary for the CDC.

Not only is the doctor furious at Jenny she is angry with “Oprah” for not, you parents of autistic kids will love this, “not having an autism expert on.” OK, Ok, I know, very funny right? From all the physician friends I know, the medical school education on autism comprises like 2 hours, even for pediatricians. In that 2 hours they are told autism is totally genetic. Apparently, Dr. Sheedy wanted a CDC pediatrician or a vaccine patent holder from the NIH on the program. Sounds interesting and helpful! No one at the AAP or the CDC seemed too interested in autism until Jenny McCarthy started talking about it. These agencies had decades to lobby Oprah but never seemed particularly interested in autism, and now they want to ride Jenny’s coat tails and piggyback on her show? That is really sad.

After the doctor we hear from a nurse, Patricia Strincfield, who waxes on and on about all the horrible deaths from disease she sees, apparently all day and everyday. It sounds as if she alone is trying to save these children from their horribly selfish and misinformed parents. No wonder she sounds so bitter, what an awful job! Then Stinchfield repeatedly cites the Danish study as a paragon of scientific validity, proving once and for that vaccines have zero to do with autism. She never mentions that the Serum Institute, a vaccine company, paid for the study or that Gerberding herself recently acknowledged that this study was rife with errors and was not very useful. Gerberding also stated that the CDC would not utilize a study with such a poor research design again. Strinchfield also denies that the CDC has withheld the VSD data and has never sought to deny public access to these records. I swear, I thought I was listening to a parallel universe!

Finally pediatricians are counseled to basically humor parents. Listen to their concerns, pretend to respect their beliefs and then try to convince them they are wrong. But in a nice way!! Throwing in a big dose of guilt is also advised. Remind parents how they are putting all children at risk for horrific diseases. No one wants to see the return of these awful disease but it is so disturbing that the CDC is so obsessed about the one in a million chance of contracting polio but not at all concerned with the 1 in 150 chance of developing autism.

The thing is we can have it both ways, but not in the matter the CDC is proposing. We will not convince parents that our insane vaccine schedule is safe by demonizing the internet. That is just crazy. Parents are turning to the online community for the help and knowledge their pediatricians do not have. The CDC will not convince parents vaccines are safe by bullying them about herd immunity either. The only way for the immunization program to succeed is to support outside, objective research and until then not aggravate an already disastrous situation by adding more unsafe vaccines, like Pentacel, to the schedule. Finally the CDC should apologize to Jenny McCarthy and thank her for bringing attention to autism. While the CDC is holding web seminars on dated scientific information, ignoring the needs of millions of sick and suffering autistic kids, hiding the VSD, Jenny has been touring the country meeting with thousands of families offering them hope and inspiration through empowerment and knowledge. Dr. Sheedy and Patricia Stinchfield would be wise to stop lecturing and start listening.

Katie Wright has two young boys. Her oldest son, Christian, is severely affected by autism. He developed normally; smiling, talking, walking; only to lose every skill and every word by the age of 2 and a half. Upon the advice of medical professionals Katie and her husband were advised to pursue only high quality behavioral therapy, speech and OT for Christian. It had no meaningful impact on Christian until his parents sought help from DAN! doctors who treated the underlying causes of Christian's descent into autism. Christian has improved but still has far to go. He has Inflammatory Bowel Disease, the measles virus in his gut and an immune system akin to a late stage AIDS patient. Christian does not have a psychiatric disorder. Before autism, Katie Wright was the Clinical Director of Sexual Assault Crisis Center in Stamford Connecticut. Katie is proud to serve on the boards of NAA and SafeMinds.

Mutation Causing Mitochondrial Disease More Common Than Previously Believed

PITTSBURGH, Aug. 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation (UMDF) today announced landmark research finding that one in every 200 people has a DNA mutation that could potentially cause a mitochondrial disease in them or their offspring. Mitochondrial disease is a devastating and often fatal disease, and mitochondrial disorders are at the core of many well known diseases and chronic illnesses, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and autism spectrum disorders. This research, which was partially funded by UMDF, was conducted by Patrick Chinnery, MBBS, PhD, MRCPath, FRCP, Wellcome Senior Fellow in Clinical Genetics and professor of neurogenetics at Newcastle University in the UK. Dr. Chinnery's findings are published in the current issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics.

'This ground breaking discovery confirms what researchers and experts have believed for some time - mitochondrial disease is not rare,' said Charles A. Mohan, Jr., Executive Director and CEO of UMDF. 'We now know that 1 in 200 people carry the mutation for this horrible, debilitating disease. This discovery underscores the need for additional research funding to help better diagnose and treat affected individuals and to learn more about how mitochondrial dysfunction is connected to other diseases.'

Mitochondrial diseases are extremely complicated and often go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed for years. They develop when the mitochondria - the body's main energy source - do not function properly. Mitochondria are responsible for creating more than 90 percent of the energy needed by the body to sustain life and support growth. Because they are in almost all human cells, this 'power failure' results in disease that can affect almost any body tissue. Therefore, the severity of symptoms and how the disease manifests itself can vary from person to person. One person may suffer difficulty breathing, have uncontrollable seizures and/or digestive problems, while another may not be able to walk, talk, see or hear.

'The demonstration by Dr. Chinnery and colleagues that at least one in 200 newborns harbor known pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutations indicates that mitochondrial dysfunction is a major underlying risk factor for human disease,' said Dr. Douglas C. Wallace, Donald Bren Professor of Molecular Medicine, Director of the Center for Molecular and Mitochondrial Medicine and Genetics, University of California-Irvine. 'This new observation augments the rapidly expanding body of evidence indicating that common mitochondrial DNA lineages modulate the risk for developing a wide variety of diseases including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Parkinson Disease, Alzheimer Disease, various cancers, as well as longevity.'

The mitochondrial DNA encodes essential genes for mitochondrial energy production. Therefore, mitochondrial dysfunction represents a major unexplored area of human biology of vital importance to human health. Along with the diseases noted above, mitochondrial dysfunction has been implicated in autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis and lupus. While it cannot yet be said that mitochondrial dysfunction causes these problems, it is clear that mitochondria are involved because their function is measurably disturbed.

'Dr. Chinnery's research raises many new questions - none of which can be answered without additional dollars allocated for research into mitochondrial disease and dysfunction,' said Mohan. 'This line of research holds great promise. Ultimately, the investment we make may enable doctors and researchers to transform medicine, benefiting not only those suffering from mitochondrial disease, but the many millions of Americans who suffer from the wide range of diseases related to mitochondrial dysfunction.'

Dr. Chinnery's study was performed on 3000 randomly ascertained neonatal cord blood samples, screening for ten specific DNA mutations related to mitochondrial disease. The study's findings establish that the incidence of new mutations and the frequency of asymptomatic carriers are not rare and emphasize the importance of developing new approaches to prevent transmission.

SOURCE United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation

David Kirby on Huffington Post

BOTH MITOCHONDRIAL "DISEASE" AND "DYSFUNCTION" APPEAR TO BE MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT -- IMPLICATIONS FOR AUTISM, OTHER DISORDERS ARE "EARTH SHATTERING."

Note: To put a human face on this subject, I URGE you to visit this site.

ALSO - A roundup of this controversy, written by Hannah Poling's great aunt, was published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

In February, when the US government conceded that vaccines had caused an autism-inducing reaction in little Hannah Poling, most experts declared that her underlying condition, a mitochondrial disorder, was exceedingly rare - so rare, in fact, that it had no bearing on other autism cases.

But on Monday, the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation announced a "landmark research finding" showing that at least one in 200 healthy humans "harbors a pathogenic mitochondrial mutation that potentially causes disease." The finding was published in the current issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics.

"This is earth shattering news," UMDF Executive Director and CEO Charles A. Mohan, Jr. told me. "Some of my colleagues are calling it 'revolutionary.' We have shown that mitochondrial disease is not rare."

Mitochondria are the little powerhouses found within most cells, and which produce most of the body's energy. Mitochondria are key for proper neurotransmission and, for obvious reasons, are highly concentrated in cells of the brain and central nervous system.

Up until now, estimates of mitochondrial disease rates have held steady at about 1-in-4000 people. But this study shows that 20 times that number have genetic mutations that could cause mitochondrial disease.

"What this says to me is that more than 1-in-4,000 people have mitochondrial disease," Mohan said. "And it tells me that 1-in-200 could develop some type of mitochondria-related disease over the course of their lifetime, depending in part on environmental triggers."

Mitochondrial disorders are found at "the core of many well known diseases and chronic illnesses, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and autism spectrum disorders," a statement from the UMDF said today.

Humans have two types of DNA: nuclear, and mitochondrial. The study looked at 10 mutations in mitochondrial DNA that are known to cause disease, and identified them in the cord blood of 1 in 200 newborn children.
.
The study looked exclusively at classic mitochondrial "disease." In the classic form, inherited mutations of mitochondrial DNA are passed down through the mother, causing a wide variety of pathologies, including seizures, digestive problems, paralysis, blindness, heart disease, neurodevelopmental disorders and other problems.

The classic form is often quite severe, and sometimes fatal. But it is not rare.

Which brings us to Hannah Poling: She does not have "classic," maternally inherited mitochondrial disease.

Hannah does share the same single-point mutation in mitochondrial DNA as her mother, Terry. But this mutation is apparently benign (Terry Poling is just fine), is not described in the medical literature, and is not associated with any pathology at all.

Instead, Hannah seems to have had a much milder, even asymptomatic form of mitochondrial "dysfunction" - one that led to reduced cellular energy, but no obvious signs of severe mitochondrial "disease."

In April, I reported that researchers in Baltimore were studying 30 children at one autism clinic who all had nearly identical markers for mild mitochondrial dysfunction. One of them was Hannah Poling.

All 30 children were developing normally until they encountered some type of immunological stress and began showing signs of regressive autism soon afterwards.

In 28 cases, the doctors said, typical childhood fevers caused the stress, while in the other two cases, including Hannah, vaccines appeared to be the exacerbating factor.

The doctors - who spoke on a CDC conference call that included executives from the health insurance industry -- reported that mitochondrial dysfunction was found in autism "in numbers that make it not a rare occurrence."

Some estimates currently put the rate of mitochondrial dysfunction in ASD at 7-20%, while rates among regressive autism cases could climb much higher than that.

This milder form of mitochondrial disorder, the doctors said, was probably caused by a mutation found in nuclear (as opposed to mitochondrial) DNA, and inherited through the father -- rather than through the mother, as in classic mitochondrial disease.

Shockingly, the nuclear DNA mutations that bring risk of dysfunction could be as common as 1-in-400 to 1-in-50 people - though no one knows how many people have developed actual mitochondrial disorders because of it.

Even so, we can now assume that classic mitochondrial "disease" desrcibed in this study (via mutations in maternal mitochondrial DNA) and mild mitochondrial "dysfunction" found in Hannah and others (via mutations in paternal nuclear DNA) are both associated with increased risk for autism.

And we can also now assume that neither form of mitochondrial disorder is rare. Moreover, whether the low cellular energy originates in mitochonrial DNA or nuclear DNA mutations, either way it could confer increased risk for autism.

That would mean a significant number of children between the ages of 1 and 2 who are walking around right now, potentially vulnerable to autistic regression triggered by some acute immune stressor - whether vaccine related or not.

"Mitochondrial dysfunction represents a major unexplored area of human biology of vital importance to human health," the UMDF statement said, noting that it also has been implicated in autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis and lupus.

"While it cannot yet be said that mitochondrial dysfunction causes these problems, it is clear that mitochondria are involved because their function is measurably disturbed," the statement said.

This new study suggests that, "mitochondrial dysfunction is a major underlying risk factor for human disease," said Dr. Douglas C. Wallace, professor of molecular medicine and director of the Center for Molecular and Mitochondrial Medicine and Genetics at the University of California-Irvine.

He should know. Dr. Wallace is one of the world's leading mitochondria researchers, and a member of the UMDF's Scientific and Medical Advisory Board. He also has a 23-year-old son with autism.

In April, Dr. Wallace told the Vaccine Safety Working Group of HHS's National Vaccine Advisory Committee that over-vaccination of people with mitochondrial disorders was a deep concern, especially in light of Hannah Poling, who got nine vaccines in one well-baby visit.

"We have always advocated spreading the immunizations out as much as possible because every time you vaccinate, you are creating a challenge for the system," Dr. Wallace testified. "And if a child has an impaired system, that could in fact trigger further clinical problems."

I take that to mean that children with impaired mitochondria might also have impaired immune systems. And children with impaired immune systems might not be able to handle, say, nine vaccines given at once.

The CDC says that multiple simultaneous vaccines are safe, "for children with normal immune systems," but makes no mention of the risk for everyone else.

But, as Dr. Wallace put it, "We do not know what is safe. We do not know what is not safe. We do not know the actual risk of a person with light mitochondrial disease has and being challenged either by vaccination or by a severe infection."

"Is there a relationship between mitochondrial disease and vaccination and mitochondrial disease and autism?" Dr. Wallace asked the HHS panel. "Would a vaccination or infection initiate an incipient mitochondrial disease, as has been suggested?"

Only major investments in scientific research will answer these questions, which have become particularly pressing now that we know that mitochondrial disorders are anything but "rare."

"This will help us educate key members of Congress to motivate and encourage NIH to appropriate more funds to focus specifically on mitochondrial dysfunction and disease," Mohan told me. "We would like to see this result in a better understanding of the links between energy metabolism and what we call the "sexy diseases."

I likewise hope our nation's researchers will jump on this particular scientific train before it leaves the station.

It would appear that far more lives are at risk for far more diseases (well beyond autism) than we ever imagined.

Age of Autism

BY Dan Olmsted

I've got an idea: Let's not vaccinate kids until they turn two, at the earliest. Of course, I'm not a zealot like the industry-funded Every Child By Two folks who made themselves look like paranoid idiots in New York City last week. I'm just someone who has heard enough from parents and read enough simple science to know that, for starters, some children are vulnerable in ways we don't understand to neurological problems after vaccination; some vaccines given too early can trigger asthma; some vaccines -- HepB and chickenpox, to name two -- are unnecessary; and the whole kit-and-kaboodle has never been studied in toto on human infants, but when it was tested on primates, those little monkeys got really sick and developed features that resemble autism.

As I say, I'm not a zealot: If a mother has HepB, by all means vaccinate the child; if polio pops up in Peoria (unlikely), by all means vaccinate infants; if rotovirus starts to strike down American infants the way it does in developing countries (for which it is really intended -- getting it approved here is just good precedent for the manufacturers to inoculate kids in Africa and Asia by the tens of millions), then get Paul Offit, stat!

I first heard the No Child By Two idea -- though he didn't call it that -- from a doctor who treats the Amish. His own infant daughter had a vaccine reaction from hell -- she actually GOT the disease the vaccine was designed to protect against and spent several precarious days in the hospital's intensive care unit. That gave the doctor a taste of his own medicine, so to speak, and ever since he has urged his patients -- many of whom are non-Amish and show up expecting to follow the CDC immunization schedule -- to wait till the child is two. That way, he reasons, their neurological and immune systems will be better able to withstand the effects of the current vaccine load -- I forget, is it 14, or 36, or 10,000, or 100,000? Whatever, it's too many too soon, and too many are unnecessary, and they are by no means Green with the mercury, aluminum and such that's still in there (yes, I know, it's only flu shots, blah blah blah).

No Child By Two makes things much simpler. I always get asked what I would suggest a parent do if they are concerned about vaccines. After saying I have no kids and no medical expertise, I have to start talking about the lunacy of HepB at birth, why the MMR should be unbundled and given later and NEVER on the same day as the chickenpox shot, which isn't really necessary, and by the way is there any history of autoimmune disorders in your family?, because then you might want to rethink the whole thing …

Frankly, that kind of piecemeal advice doesn't work very well, in my limited experience. I've already described my friends who I convinced not to get their newborn vaccinated with HepB at birth, but then they went ahead with the two-month shots and ended up with their baby screaming for three hours straight after waking up from a dead "sleep." "Don't worry," the pediatrician said, "it's just 'screaming baby syndrome.'" If they had known about the risk of this apparently benign and predictable "screaming baby syndrome," they would have waited, I assure you.

Too many parents know that on this issue, they simply can't trust their pediatricians. I had a conversation recently at a party with an ob-gyn who knew my work. "What about the Danish studies?" that exonerate mercury as a cause of autism, she asked.

I responded. "I don't find them very convincing. Do you?"

"Yes," she said, "I do."

"What about the part where they included outpatient autism cases just at the point where the rate might have dropped if thimerosal was implicated?"

"They did?" she said, obviously surprised. She either hadn't read it, or hadn't read it carefully, or took the AAP/CDC summary hook, line and sinker. Anyway, good luck having that conversation with most baby doctors as you try to argue shot by shot for deferring, de-bundling or dropping the ones that are clearly ridiculous.

No, this is much simpler, and it has the advantage of rubbing the Every Child by Two crowd's collective noses in their own slogan. Some readers, even those who agree with me, are going to cite the practical issues -- pressure from hospitals and pediatricians and day care and so on. My only answer is, so what? Get a new pediatrician, don't send the kid to daycare -- whatever it takes. Regressive autism by and large begins to manifest itself between ages one and two, and if it were me I'd do whatever it takes to shield a child from that risk (and the risk of asthma that Mark Blaxill outlined in a recent column, and ADD, ADHD, etcetera etcetera etcetera). As I understand it, the really nasty battles kick in when a child shows up for public school, and as my Amish-community doctor said, there's plenty of time to start vaccines at age two, space them out decently and still have a child arrive for the first day of kindergarten fully immunized.

What even a lot of people concerned about the CDC immunization schedule tend to forget is that vaccines were not always aimed at infants (or in the case of flu shots, fetesus). There's a 1990 book by Harris Coulter -- one of the unsung elders of the sane vaccination movement -- titled Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality, which I commend to everyone.

The introduction is titled "The Most Immunized Child in History!" Here are the first few paragraphs:

"The twentieth century is the age of vaccination. Edward Jenner's 1798 discovery that cowpox inoculation prevents later infection with smallpox was the start of a new science. … Most [vaccines] have been beneficial, especially those against the great epidemic diseases which once ravaged Africa, Asia, and Latin America -- bubonic plague, yellow fever, cholera, typhus, and poliomyletis. … These triumphs of immunology are undisputed, and no criticism is made of them in the following pages. …
"However, as so often happens in human affairs, success led to excess. After taming these ancestral scourges, physicians sought new challenges and, in due course, directed their attention to common diseases of childhood.
"The first such vaccine was for whooping cough (pertussis) in 1925. A vaccine for measles followed in 1960, for German measles (rubella) in 1966, and for mumps in 1967. A vaccine against chicken-pox is under preparation today.
"Researchers and physicians, however, gave insufficient thought to the difference between the fully grown adult and the newborn baby. Even in the former, the injection of toxic proteins carries a measure of risk. Injecting the same material into small babies is far more dangerous. The adult immune system has been toughened and can withstand the stress of vaccination. The two-month-old baby is inconceivably more vulnerable. But that is when immunization commences in the United States."

In a footnote, he add, "The rule that vaccination should start at two months -- earlier in the United States than in any other country -- is designed mainly for the convenience of pediatricians."

Talk about an early warning -- this wise counsel from 1990 seems almost quaint from the perspective of 2008, what with HepB at birth, rotovirus, etcetera etcetera etcetera. But Coulter was ahead of his time in many ways: The first chapter is titled Autism, and it may be the earliest full-length discussion of the possible connection to vaccines.

So … who's anti-vaccine? Not me, and certainly not Harris Coulter. We're not against, we're FOR -- for a rational public policy discussion and an urgent science-based evaluation of the current CDC immunization schedule. That's it. And that's a position shared by the two presidential contenders, the former head of the NIH and many other people with "standing" who increasingly are on our side, not Paul Offit's and the frozen-in-amber Rosalynn Carter's. Such a study shouldn't take long -- two years should be sufficient, wouldn't you think? Until we get it, I say No Child By Two.
--
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.

Inside Autism Blog

August 1st, 2008, 2:53 pm · posted by sammiller

CBS News just e-mailed me a statement in response to Voices for Vaccines’ criticism of its coverage:
Our report last Friday represents one part of the extensive reporting CBS News has done, and will continue to do, on the issues surrounding vaccines and possible links to autism. That continuing coverage has repeatedly reported on the critical importance of the nation’s maintaining a robust vaccination program for children. Reporting on what critics, including members of Congress, believe to be potential conflicts of interest for vaccine advocates who receive funding from vaccine makers is also an entirely legitimate aspect of our overall coverage. We believe our report was in no way defamatory of any institution or individual, and that no retraction is warranted.

Inside Autism

July 31st, 2008, 4:49 pm · posted by sammiller

Lisa Randall, executive director of Voices for Vaccines, has asked CBS to retract a story it ran last week that documented financial ties between some defenders of vaccines and the vaccine industry.

The story was by Sharyl Attkisson, an investigative reporter who covers government spending and taxpayer issues for CBS.

“It was a pretty sorry piece of reporting,” Randall told me in an email. “It bothers me when journalists make unfounded accusations and defend themselves with the claim that they’re doing a service simply by raising questions. David Kirby [the author of “Evidence of Harm”] has tried to argue similarly recently. I think ‘raising questions’ without a firm evidentiary basis is exactly the same as ’starting rumors.’”

Read my take on the CBS story, and my previous interview with Randall.

Lisa’s letter to CBS is after the jump.

Katie Couric, Managing Editor
CBS Television Network
524 West 57th Street
6th Floor
New York, NY 10019-2902
Via Facsimile

Dear Ms. Couric:

Voices For Vaccines objects to the defamatory allegations made by the CBS Evening News on Friday, July 25, against the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two, and the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, with our colleague Dr. Paul Offit singled out for baseless criticism.

It is our privilege to partner with these institutions in our mission to disseminate reliable information about vaccines. These groups advocate for immunization based on the overwhelming evidence for the lifesaving power of vaccination, and motivated by a sincere concern for the health of America’s children. It is preposterous and deeply offensive for CBS to suggest otherwise by insinuating that the pharmaceutical industry improperly influences the views of these vaccine advocates.

An obvious starting point for an unbiased reporter assigned to investigate this possibility would have been to determine whether the advocates’ recommendations were in accord with the scientific consensus on immunization, as articulated by neutral bodies such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (In fact, all three subjects of the CBS story do promote vaccination according to federal guidelines.)

In contrast, Sharyl Attkisson relied solely upon tangential observations in concluding that the judgment of these respected authorities has been co-opted by drug companies. Ms. Attkisson’s choice to pursue her story even after failing to uncover evidence of malfeasance reveals not bias on the part of the story’s subjects, but on the part of Ms. Attkisson herself. Professionalism required her to acknowledge that the targets of her story have done nothing other than emphasize to the public that which is well known to science — that vaccines allow children to grow up safe and healthy.

We call upon CBS to issue a retraction of Ms. Attkisson’s report and an apology to the individuals and institutions whose good and honorable work in the field of immunization has been smeared. We further ask CBS to reflect upon the fact that it does not befit a user of the public airwaves to broadcast misleading claims about the most important public health measure of our time.

Sincerely,
Lisa Randall
Interim Executive Director
cc: Katie Boyle, Senior Producer
Jonathan LaPook, MD, Medical Correspondent
Sharyl Attkisson, Reporter