Another Way to Access the Candidates: The Vaccine-Autism Question
April 22, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
The Pennsylvania Primary is today, with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama battling it out. I’ve noted the candidates’ autism plans in a previous post. Today’s Washington Post hones in on another way to consider the candidates, the alleged link between vaccines and autism. Back in February, Senator John McCain linked the rise in autism cases to thimerosal in vaccines. The Washing ton Post indicates that he’s not the only candidate who has “wandered into an exceptionally emotional medical debate in which they have no known scientific expertise”: According to David Kirby in today’s Huffington Post, Obama was quoted at a Pennsylvania rally yesterday saying that he is “suspicious” that the “skyrocketing” autism rate might connected to vaccines (Mother Jones magazine also refers to this). Says the Washington Post:
The scientific debate will continue, but the body of evidence assembled so far suggests no proven link. Both McCain and Obama are wrong to suggest that the scientific verdict is still hanging in the balance.
Clinton, who has said she believes there is an “autism epidemic” [source], has said that she will “double investments in the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) efforts to identify the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes.”
Maybe we need to introduce a “scientific knowledge factor” in assessing politicians?
Thanks for posting this Kristina. As it stands for me now, none of candidates have enough of an analytical mind in order to qualify for the office of the presidency. We need an autie.
Given the role of HHV-6 in autism, AIDS and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, hopefully all of the candidates will encourage more funding for HHV-6 research.
But I would hazard a guess that the candidates have never even heard of HHV-6. The media is doing a terrible job on the HHV-6 story. It is more politically correct to discuss the vaccine-autism theory than HHV-6 because HHV-6’s role in AIDS threatens the very foundations of the HIV theory of AIDS causation. And that’s just the beginning of the HHV-6 issues.
I agree with those who are worried that the vaccine theory is now more likely a case of throwing good money after bad.
Just getting anyone to debate HHV-6’s role in autism would be a major step forward. The “science” of HHV-6 in a wide array of medical problems is growing while the “science” of the vaccine-autism theory seems to have died on the vine.
I’m very, very familiar with HHV-6 and from what I’ve gleaned over a couple of decades now there is no relation between HHV-6 and ASDs proper.
Who was the last candidate who really had his science down?
Also ask them about their stance on water fluoridation. My theory is that fluoride + mercury + a poor diet causes Autism. Anyone who knows about the dangers of fluoride knows that it also causes mito-dysfunction, seizers, and brain damage. Also, the most common age to develop Autism is 3-6, the age kids start to brush and possible ingest a large amount of fluoride via toothpaste.
Autism is not the parents fault BTW, it’s the result of a corrupt system in place in the USA and most countries that values revenues over wellness, profits over prevention. All in my opinion of course.
No relation between autism and HHV-6?
http://members.jorsm.com/~binstock/hhv6.htm
These guys are dependent on science advisors. Look at who is going to be appointed, that person’s politics and history, and although not water-tight, you’ll have some idea on policy direction.
Maybe it’s crunch time and they are pandering to what they think is the issue for the constituency based on who they contacted (McCain’s meeting with those who believe the thimerosal-autism connection), and Clinton responding to an A-Champ survey.
Let’s face it folks. If those groups rattle the saber louder, they will be the voice for us, because politicians listen to those who write, visit, campaign and donate to them. That’s politics.
Although I had been an Obama girl, he’s going a little south on me. Clinton has actually sponsored and co-sponsored bills that might have some practical utility (respite expansion, expanding promise, fully funding IDEA). I like practical. If the Billster’s around, maybe he can talk science with her; apparently he is really fond of the subject area.
Keep an eye on the science advisor; if the talk is flaky now, it could get worse after the election, since advisors now reflect choices in the future.
It would be nice to hear “We just don’t know enough, so let’s fund a wide array of research projects.” Admitting ignorance would be refreshing. Of course… never happens.
I don’t pretend to have any theories. I’d much rather just keep tracing children and study potential similarities. Clusters of autism, for example, are interesting. Those allow for theories — in those instances, which might not be generalizable.
That’s what I want from a political leader: “I don’t know.” Wow… imagine how stunning that would be.
HHV-6 may be immune related, but that doesn’t mean it’s a cause for Autism. I’m 99% sure that fluoride + mercury which = mito dysfunction and Salicylate Intolerance causes autism. Basically, enzymes, digestion, elimination, and the immune system is compromised and in some kids, this causes the train wreak.
H6:
Oh, please, don’t dredge up the old Binstockian link. You can spare me that one as I’ve seen in excess of 9000 times. Also probably any other links you post. Binstock ain’t no scientist, btw. Not by any kind of long shot. Plus, she appears to have neurobigotry leanings which I don’t appreciate in anyone attempting to do any kind of research any where near the brain.
“My theory is that fluoride + mercury + a poor diet causes Autism.”
Ah, you have an autism theory. That’s original. (Sorry for the sarcasm).
BTW, LZ, I know it’s off-topic to bring this up here, but I asked you to support something over at autism-news-beat.com and I’m still waiting.
“Neurobigotry leanings”?
This is even more politically heated than I realized.
For anyone open minded about HHV-6:
http://www.hhv-6foundation.org/
(I don’t think the HHV-6 Foundation is “neurobigoted.”)
Once you know something about activated HHV-6, it’s hard not to be concerned about its role in AIDS, CFS, autism and other medical problems.
H6:
Yes, know (of) the foundation well. Don’t know their stance on neurodiversity however. I have had HHV-6 and been treated for it.
Hello friends –
Whoever we get this November, they’ll be light years ahead of our current administration, who has actively waged a war on information and the dismissal of science inconvenient to free markets. None of them have a clue about autism, but at the very least even McCain has to be an improvement.
- pD
Sorry pD but it looks like the candidates want to — wait how did you phrase it in terms of the current admin — ‘actively wage war’ on civil and human rights. So, I’m not seeing the improvement.
pD,
You and I don’t see eye to eye too often, but I’ll take a bet right now that when tallying up administrations for the history books, GW will be at the bottom of the barrel with Harding.
Another thing that is going to define legislation is the composition of the Congress, so it would be nice to have a government that is pulling on the same end of the rope (at least for 4 years to try it out).
Do you \’assess the candidates\’ as opposed to \’access the candidates\’? Just curious.
what do you think?
“As it stands for me now, none of candidates have enough of an analytical mind in order to qualify for the office of the presidency. We need an autie.”
Oh, isn’t that optimistic!
Yet, it’s so very appealing. But, politicians having to be rather manipulative, protean in opinion, and claiming to some standard of normality, it’d have to be quite a different time.
Politically, I have to admit to being in the “I’m a liberal, but I have many serious issues with both candidates, but they’re better than McCain, and all of them are way better than GW” camp. And, admittedly, I’m not surprised by either Obama or Clinton, though it seems now that Clinton is being most neutral (given her closeness to Autism Speaks at times, I didn’t think this would be true). I’d actually be shocked if a candidate didn’t use the terms of “epidemic”, given their distance from the subject and the common use of the terms. Where we push the boundaries is when asserting the plausibility of a vaccine link, where it has been pretty clear that this isn’t true in mainstream scientific terms.
Then again, that’s not what matters. It’s a popular myth at this point, such to the degree that I doubt that one could get away dismissing environmental factors without being harassed. And that’s not the kind of thing you want to stumble into. But saying that you think they do, or short therein, is still dangerous, because it too would annoy those closer to mainstream scientific views.
Seems that two of the politicians have thought the popular myth more important to play to for votes, and another is playing the issue safe. Be honest, I suspect, given their respective records, Clinton is the only one who has honestly given autism a real thought, despite whatever convincing reactions one might have seen.
Oh, as a final note; access is an interesting and legitimate word here. I think it’s optimistic in its implications of understanding (I highly doubt many really understand the candidates that well, be honest), but who knows? I have seemed to have played the pessimist alot recently in regards to the campaign.
Cliff
From where I sit, “access” is the _absolute correct_ word because we know who has gotten to them with their pseudoscience. A small note on the matter of political leanings: FWIW, I am to the left-of-left, so I’m not feeling that the Dems will necessarily be ‘light years’ ahead of the GOP. Moreover, I am so very disappointed in Obama. He does know better, btw. It’s not simply a case of bad advice. It’s a case of a post-racial candidate inciting fear among and toward a minority group. For votes. That’s about as low as you can go. He’s lost me for good.
From the Washington Post, a piece entitled Dr. Obama and Dr. McCain:
Joseph, to answer your question, I posted a response that was censored on autism-news-beat under the “Vaccine rejectionism and empowerment” blog. Someone there “maybe you” asked me for my source on the “2700% increase” number out there in reference to vaccinated, autistic children vs. un-vaccinated children. The actual PR that suggested the CDC datalink originally suggested kids who are vaccinated risk a 27 times increase in autism on my website here: http://liquidzeoliteplus.com/CDC_datalink_27-times_more_likely_to_develop_autism_after_exposure_thimerosal_vaccines.html
I also posted a link to FOIA docs (emails) that were obtained that show there was some “doctoring” of numbers after the fact to cover-up the original findings:
http://www.nomercury.org/science/documents/FOIA_emails_11-03.pdf
June 21, 2000 and June 22, 2000 – In this two day meeting, Dr. Thomas Verstraeten discussed the Thimerosal/VSD study and some of its findings. However, the more troubling findings of early datasets were not discussed at this two day meeting. It is interesting to note the findings he discussed at this public meeting and the closed door meeting held at Simpsonwood are quite different from the findings in his confidential draft of February 29, 2000. Dr. Verstraeten’s paper of February 29, 2000 showed a 2.48 relative risk increase (a 248 percent increase) of autism in children who had received the mercury laced vaccines (see graph 3 at the top of page 15 ). Even more troubling than the first written, yet unpublished, analysis of February 29, 2000 by Dr. Verstraeten and the CDC is the initial analysis which has been dubbed “Generation Zero” and was apparently never compiled into a formal report. In this analysis, done in November and December of 1999, CDC researchers found a relative risk of 11.35 for autism for those infants with >25 mcg exposure at one month. In other words, children exposed to thimerosal levels as low as those found in the flu vaccine of today were over 11 times more likely to acquire a neurodevelopmental disorder. These results were so disquieting to the CDC they apparently felt the need to revise the data by including younger infants (not yet diagnosed) and pulled in data from a financially faltering Massachusetts HMO that dramatically under reported autism rates (due to a poorly designed database) and used these “new” calculations in the second and third drafts of this report. Internal e-mails from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, obtained by SafeMinds under FOIA, appear to confirm this suspicion. All of these numerical permutations dramatically decreased the relationship of Thimerosal to the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism. Unfortunately for millions of children around the world, the published analysis of the VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) data had eliminated the risk, never informing others of their initial findings that were of great significance. Sadly, this version would be repeatedly cited by other authors in many medical publications and news stories over the next few years, even today. The various manipulations the dataset went through over the course of 4 years prior to publication is discussed in detail in the science section of the NoMercury website. In the November 5, 2003 issue of Pediatrics, Verstraeten, et al published data based upon the manipulated figures from the VSD study as discussed above. Ironically, even Neal Halsey, M.D., a staunch supporter of the National Immunization Program, and former Chairman of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), raised credibility issues as evidenced in his December 17, 2003 letter to Pediatrics. In February 2004, Geier and Geier published a letter to the editor in Pediatrics which detailed the serious errors in the Verstraeten study. Most telling is the letter from Dr. Verstraeten himself to Pediatrics about the allegation that his study “cleared” thimerosal. Congressman David Weldon, M.D. (R-FL) has also detailed his concerns about the credibility of the these studies and suspected statistical cover-ups in his letter to Judy Gerberding, M.D., Director of the Centers for Disease Control, in his letter to her dated October 31, 2003. Congressman Weldon stated:
“I am very concerned about activities that have taken place in the National Immunization Program (NIP) in the development of this study, and I believe the issues raised need your personal attention.”
“I found a disturbing pattern which merits a thorough, open, timely, and independent review by researchers outside of the CDC, HHS, the vaccine industry, and others with a conflict of interest in vaccine related issues (including many in University settings who may have conflicts).”
“A review of these documents leaves me very concerned that rather than seeking to understand whether or not some children were exposed to harmful levels of mercury in childhood vaccines in the 1990s, there may have been a selective use of the data to make the associations in the earliest study disappear.”
To date, there has been no corrective action taken at the CDC by Dr. Gerberding, in fact, the pattern of behavior continues to be reflected the their ongoing studies and published papers.
I have to conclude that other website is based in China where the free exchange of ideas is seen as dangerous and harmful.
It wouldn’t surprise me if one or more (or all) of the candidates actually don’t even believe that it’s worth pursuing as a cause, but they’re going with what they think will help them in the election. It’s politics, after all.
I slept on this and when I got up had a different angle.
We do have a rapidly increasing DIAGNOSIS rate, and given some of the discussions of accurate counts, heterogeneity, different needs, etc., it does seem significant to at least do some research to tease that out and present a definitive face to the issue being dealt with.
If it wasn’t an issue, I doubt that it would be discussed and debated as much as it is.
The problem, given the above, is assuming a monolithic cause or solution. That’s where it gets into trouble, and if a candidate applied that kind of blunt tool (as I feel McCain did), that would lose my vote.
Is there a consensus here that autism involves the immune system in addition to the brain? Or is that considered to be “neurobigotry?”
http://www.neurodiversity.com/immunology.html
Look you people can go banging on about highly complex technical issues concerning the autsim vaccine issue but get this straight it is not science it is arithmetic.
There are no, or virtually none, autistic people who have not been vaccinated. There has been no work by any independent body (safe from the interference of the medical or pharma community) to examine vaccinated vs unvaccinated outcomes.
My work in collecting some hundreds of data sheets comparing medical interventions in individuals vaccinated vs individuals unvaccinated shows mostly clean sheets for unvaccinated people from the commonplace diseases and conditions that spatter the pages of the vaccinated groups.
Face facts, it is arithmetic not science! It will ultimately break free from the logjam of corporate interests that stifle open debate on these issues.
Tony Bateson
@Tony Bateson, Are you planning to publish your research?