Tayloe, Offit, Minshew, Katz, Snyderman, et. al.: Feeding a Hungry Lie
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/cdc-aap-paul-offit-feeding-a-hungry-lie.html
There is a very, very hungry lie, and the lie needs more food. Dr. Paul Offit is this lie's public chef, but it also gets fed by the Centers for Disease Control, American Academy of Pediatrics, and many other parties who have a vested interest in protecting our current vaccine program. The problem with a lie as big as this one is that it never knows when it has had enough to eat, and it always needs more food.
It's a simple lie, really. And, it's being told with more and more frequency lately, which is really no surprise. Lies like this tend to get fatter and fatter and hungrier and hungrier before they explode, and many, many people need this lie to be true.
Like many lies, this one has evolved. The lie-tellers used to tell half-truths, but they seem to have abandoned the half-truths and just gone for the big, big lie. That's how hungry a lie tends to get. Don't feed me half-truths, the lie screams, feed me lies!
Like other very big lies, this one retains a lot of credibility with people who have a lot of credibility. And, we have seen this movie before, whether it's Colin Powell blessing the presence of WMDs in Iraq or the SEC blessing the trading prowess of Bernie Madoff. We know how the movie ends.
Stephen Greenspan, a psychologist and expert on gullibility, explains this recurrent experience of smart people falling for big, hungry lies as due to "the tendency of humans to model their actions—especially when dealing with matters they don't fully understand—on the behavior of other humans."
So, some humans purportedly in the position to understand something say the lie, and repeat it over and over again and pretty soon a bunch of people who don't really understand it start saying the same thing.
What's the big lie? Trust me; I really
want to tell you, I've just struggled with
which lie-teller to quote first. These days,
there are so many people telling the lie I
hardly know where to start.
I thought long and hard about which
lie-teller should get us going, and I've
settled on Dr. David Tayloe. As the
President-elect of the American Academy of
Pediatrics, he's supposed to have our kids'
back. Of course, he doesn't. And he's
certainly not above telling the lie.
I also picked David Tayloe because he said
on Larry King Live that, in all his decades
of being a pediatrician, he'd never reported
an adverse event from a vaccine. Given how
long he's practiced, and how many kids he's
shot-up, it's a near impossibility that no
child had an adverse event to a vaccine from
his practice, so that makes Dr. David Tayloe
somewhat or fully full of shit. So, he gets
the nod.
I've dragged this out so long, I almost
don't want to drop it on you now, but here
goes, here's Dr. David Tayloe,
President-elect of the AAP, telling the big,
big, very hungry lie:
"Vaccines do not cause autism and we're not
afraid of the truth."
Dr. Tayloe may not be afraid of the truth,
but he's certainly afraid to speak it.
Lest you think I'm picking on Dr. Tayloe,
which I certainly am, just know that he is
well-supported by other humans who don't
really understand the issue telling the same
lie he's telling because they heard other
people say it. Consider these luminaries of
the hungry lie:
Dr. Paul Offit: "It's been asked and
answered: Vaccines don't cause autism."
Amanda Peet, spokesperson for Sanofi Pasteur
and Every Child By Two: "Fourteen studies
have been conducted (both here in the US and
abroad), and these tests are reproducible;
no matter where they are administered, or
who is funding them, the conclusion is the
same: there is no association between autism
and vaccines."
Dr. Nancy Minshew, director of the
University of Pittsburgh's Center for
Excellence in Autism: "The weight of
evidence is so great that I don't think that
there is any room for debate. I think the
issue is done. I'm doing this for all the
families out there who don't have a child
with autism, who have to deal with the issue
of 'Do I get a vaccination or do I risk my
child's life' because they don't understand
what the science is saying."
Dr. Michael Katz, senior vice president for
Research and Global Programs for the March
of Dimes: "The implication that vaccinations
cause autism is irresponsible and counter
productive."
Dr. Renee Jenkins, current President of the
AAP: "A television show that productive."
Dr. Renee Jenkins, current President of the
AAP: "A television show that perpetuates the
myth that vaccines cause autism is the
height of reckless irresponsibility on the
part of ABC."
Dr. Nancy Snyderman, medical correspondent
for NBC: "Sixteen separate studies have
shown no causal association [between
vaccines and autism]."
The American Medical Association:
"Scientific data overwhelmingly show that
there is no connection between vaccines and
autism."
Whew. I'm tired just typing all those
quotes. If that's not a sign that there is
"consensus" on an issue…I don't know what
is.
What do we make of so many official people saying, and at times shouting, the same thing? The late Michael Crichton, himself an M.D., addressed this notion of a bunch of pedigreed people shouting the same lie, with a level of eloquence I could never summon:
"I want to pause here and talk about
this notion of consensus, and the rise of
what has been called consensus science. I
regard consensus science as an extremely
pernicious development that ought to be
stopped cold in its tracks. Historically,
the claim of consensus has been the first
refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid
debate by claiming that the matter is
already settled. Whenever you hear the
consensus of scientists agrees on something
or other, reach for your wallet, because
you're being had."
Birth of the Lie: 2004
We all know the year. We all know the
organization. We all know the document. No
document on earth has ever been more widely
quoted, misquoted, represented, and
misrepresented to prove, once and for all,
that vaccines do not cause autism. Because
this document is so damn important, and
because we know exactly when the document
was released, we can be very clear about
exactly when this very hungry lie was born:
May 17, 2004.
Before I continue, I need to tell you
something, and I really, really need you to
listen. I'm going to quote a cliché, one
that has been used many times, and is used
so often that sometimes we may forget to
reflect on its meaning, so please, take a
moment and really think about this: The
devil is in the details. Always.
With that cliché now bouncing around in your
head, let's look at the birth date of this
very hungry lie when the Institute of
Medicine released a document with the very
official sounding name Immunization
Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism.
(HERE)
There it is. There's the very first lie.
And, oddly enough, it's the title of the
entire document. Stick with me on this, and
remember the cliché I just mentioned to you.
The title of the document is "Vaccines and
Autism." To the average person, this would
presume that the document explores the
concept of whether or not vaccines cause
autism.
But, it doesn't. And, the study itself is
far more honest than its own title. The
study itself actually tells you what the IOM
looked at and here it is, the IOM summary of
what they actually looked at in the study
they released on May 17, 2004:
"In this report, the committee examines
the hypothesis of whether the MMR vaccine
and the use of vaccines containing the
preservative thimerosal can cause autism."
Wait a minute. The world thinks the IOM
considered whether or not vaccines can cause
autism. There are 11 separately licensed
vaccines given to children (I'm counting
DTaP and MMR as one each, even though they
are triple shots), many given multiple
times. The IOM looked at only one of these
vaccines, the MMR, and an ingredient found
in many others, Thimerosal.
But, the hungry lie started that day, two
months before my own son was diagnosed with
autism. It started with a very odd and very
contradictory piece of journalism by a
writer from Reuters who seems to be more
confused by the issue than most. This
writer, Maggie Fox, reported on the IOM's
document soon after its release, and her
headline is clear enough:
VACCINE DOES NOT CAUSE AUTISM, PANEL
SAYS
That's as clear and concise a version of
the lie as you will ever see, although the
use of the word "vaccine" rather than
"vaccines" is odd. Within her own story, Ms.
Fox goes on to explain what the IOM study
actually did do, which contradicts her own
headline:
"Neither the measles, mumps and rubella
vaccine nor a mercury-based preservative
used in some childhood shots cause autism, a
U.S. health panel has found."
Hmm, that's weird. Even weirder is the quote
she pulled out of Marie McCormick, the
chairperson of the very IOM committee that
issued the report that started the lie:
"The weight of that evidence is pretty
substantial," said Dr Marie McCormick, an
expert in child and mother health at the
Harvard School of Public Health who chaired
the panel. "The overwhelming evidence from
several well-designed studies indicates that
childhood vaccines are not associated with
autism," she added.
Childhood vaccines are not associated
with autism? That's quite a statement;
particularly given the panel only
contemplated two things: the MMR vaccine and
an ingredient (mercury) in some vaccines.
It's not just quite a statement; it's an
unbelievably bold misrepresentation, which
is a nice word for a lie.
I have noticed this trend a lot lately,
where health authorities in positions of
influence seem to bounce back and forth
between representing honestly what research
has actually been done and making sweeping
statement of false reassurance. Consider the
curious case of Dr. Paul Offit, a henchman
for Merck and vaccine patent-holder. In an
article in the New England Journal of
Medicine several years ago, Dr. Offit
spelled out the research fairly clearly:
"Fourteen epidemiological studies have
shown that the risk of autism is the same
whether children received the MMR vaccine or
not, and five have shown that
thimerosal-containing vaccines also do not
cause autism."
Today, why bother with the details? It's
much easier for Offit to say, "It's been
asked and answered: Vaccines don't cause
autism" and be done with it.
I wish I was done at this point, partly
because all these details really wear me
out, but the story actually gets a lot
worse.
Devilish Details
I'm now going to make a point, and this is
without a doubt the most important point I'm
making today, so I hope you can once again
take just a little bit closer of a listen.
As we all know, the IOM looked at many
different studies regarding both Thimerosal
and the MMR vaccine.
But, there is a point, and it's a point many
of us think we know, but it's a point rarely
discussed and a point so important that I
think someday when they are piecing together
how in the world the autism epidemic ever
happened and how in the world such a big
hungry lie was ever told for so long, I
think this is the point they will make, so
I'm going to make it first:
There isn't a single study contemplated
by the IOM, or cited by any medical
authority whether CDC, AAP, WHO, IOM, or
ECBT, that compares anything EXCEPT
vaccinated children.
How can that be? How can the IOM's document
that tells the world that vaccines do not
cause autism be resting on a foundation of
studies that only ever looked at vaccinated
children?
We need some analogies here:
That would be like looking at people who
smoke one pack a day versus two packs a day
and seeing no difference in lung cancer
rates and saying cigarettes don't cause lung
cancer.
That would be like looking at people who eat
chocolate chip cookies with chocolate chips
and chocolate chip cookies without chocolate
chips and seeing no difference in obesity
rates and saying cookies don't contribute to
obesity.
That would be like looking at people who
smoke low-tar cigarettes and people who
smoke normal cigarettes and seeing no
difference in lung cancer rates and saying
cigarettes don't cause lung cancer…
Do I need to continue? When I explained this
trick to my 9 year-old, he got it, so I hope
you do, too. If you can look at these
studies and say that vaccines do not cause
autism, well, I think you make Foghorn
Leghorn look like Chickenhawk.
Let's go back to Reuters for a second,
because the article is terribly important,
being the media's first brush with the lie
and all. Let's look at what else Ms. Fox
said back in 2004:
"The panel, which included experts in
paediatrics, family medicine, statistics and
epidemiology, had reported in 2001 that
there was no proven link between vaccines
and autism but said there was not quite
enough evidence to be definitive. Since
then, they have reviewed five large
epidemiological studies done in the U.S.,
the U.K., Denmark, and Sweden that found
Children who were vaccinated with
thimerosal-containing vaccines were no more
likely to have autism than children who
received thimerosal-free vaccines."
Five large studies done? OK. And, these
studies were the ones that turned the tide,
right? That's certainly what this writer
appears to have learned from the IOM. Just
for fun, let's actually look at the "new"
studies that were contemplated by the IOM.
Not all five of them, but just for fun I'll
pick two of the studies Ms. Fox is talking
about, the one from the US and the one from
the UK, published in 2003 and 2004,
respectively.
Before we look at these two studies, I need
to make another point: the majority of
studies that authorities point to as proof
that vaccines do not cause autism have been
published in a journal called Pediatrics.
As Pediatrics will tell you, they
are the official journal of the American
Academy of Pediatrics. As we know, the AAP
is a trade union for pediatricians with two
unfortunate truths:
- The AAP derives a majority of their
outside contributions (estimated at more
than $25 million per year) from
pharmaceutical companies who make vaccines
- The very people the AAP represents,
pediatricians, derive the majority of their
annual revenues from the administration of
vaccines to children
Do you think that's a coincidence?
CDC Study, the one that just won't
go away
The first of the two studies I'll look at,
the one that most people cite as the
definitive work that vaccines do not cause
autism, was published in Pediatrics in
November 2003 and was written by the CDC by
a lead researcher named Thomas Verstraeten.
It's called Safety of Thimerosal
Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of
Computerized Health Maintenance Organization
Databases.
To say that much has been written about this
study is like saying much has been written
about Britney's love life – it's always an
understatement. So, I'm just going to make
two points about this study, two points that
will show you how big this lie has really
become:
1. The study's authors, after analyzing the
only data ever run on American children
(data that was later lost by the CDC),
concluded that they couldn't prove anything
either way. Their study was simply
inconclusive. Not positive, not negative.
Just neutral. After the press and vaccine
talking heads tried to turn the study into
the first evidence of the very big lie, the
study's lead author, that same guy
Verstraeten, wrote a desperate letter to
Pediatrics because he was distraught at how
his study--the one he was the lead author
for--was being misused:
"Surprisingly, however, the study is
being interpreted now as negative [where
'negative' implies no association was shown
between Thimerosal and autism] by many...The
article does not state that we found
evidence against an association, as a
negative study would. It does state, on the
contrary, that additional study is
recommended, which is the conclusion to
which a neutral study must come...A neutral
study carries a very distinct message: the
investigators could neither confirm nor
exclude an association, and therefore more
study is required."
It's hard to imagine a second point actually
worse than the point I just made, the point
that one of the most famous studies
routinely held up to support the position
that "vaccines don't cause autism" actually
reached no decision at all. 0./But, it does
get worse.
2. Like every study the IOM considered in
reaching their conclusion, and like every
study ever cited by anyone defending the
vaccine program, this study only looked at
children who had been vaccinated. If that
wasn't bad enough, the authors actually went
a step further. Because there were so few
children available who had received vaccines
without Thimerosal, they actually compared
children who had received MORE Thimerosal
with children who received LESS Thimerosal
to try and reach a conclusion. In point of
fact, this "large-scale" study, as it's so
often portrayed by the media, evaluated a
total of exactly 223 children with autism,
all of whom had been vaccinated, and over
80% of whom had received vaccines with 87 or
more micrograms of mercury.
Man, I'm really tired of talking about these
details. If you think it's hard reading this
lengthy piece, try writing it. In fact, it's
the painful nature of these pesky details
that makes the lie so easy to feed and
perpetuate. Who really reads this shit? No
one, I think. In fact, I have a little
secret to tell you: I have actually read
every single study the IOM based their
conclusions on and every study the other
side claims supports their case. I have them
all sitting right next to me here in a tidy
little folder. I may be the only human being
on earth (except perhaps Bernadine Healy)
who has actually done this.
How am I so sure? I'm not, really. I just
know it took me several hours and several
hundred dollars to even get all the studies
together in one place. You see, many of the
actual studies are not freely available
online for the average journalist to find,
you have to buy them from the websites of
the journals. Testing this hypothesis a step
further, I asked a journalism friend of mine
to ask Every Child By Two if they had copies
of all the studies they cite on their
website that prove vaccines don't cause
autism. Surely they had copies and had read
them all…surely?
Here's what he heard back:
Unfortunately we do not have copies of
all of the studies available. I would
suggest that if you check the main library
at [your school]. They often get these
journals even though your school doesn't
have a medical or nursing program and you
can copy what you need. Some may also be
available online.
Rich
Rich Greenaway
Director of Operations and Special Projects
Every Child By Two
Nope, even ECBT doesn't have the studies;
they just speak authoritatively about the
conclusions of studies they've never
actually read…
The "British" Study – Am I on
Neptune?
Ok, I'll admit it -- up until a week ago,
I'd never read the large-scale
epidemiological study from the UK that
clearly shows vaccines don't cause autism as
was clearly stated in the Reuters article
and clearly part of the IOM's very clear
conclusion. I feel terrible, but I just
never took the time to read it.
When I finally read it, cover to cover, all
7 pages of this published study, I only had
one conclusion: Am I living on fucking
Neptune?
You see, if you think the CDC study I just
told you about is a shaky foundation for
building a hungry lie, then the British
study is the foundation of a thousand year
old clay shack in the Sichuan Province
during a 9.0 earthquake.
Like all studies, the UK study has a very
official sounding name, and one I will
repeat so I can be as clear as possible:
Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and
Developmental Disorders: A Prospective
Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not
Support a Causal Association
Wow, that's an earful. Oddly, like few other
studies I have seen, the title includes the
conclusion of the study, albeit a deceitful
representation of the actual conclusion.
This UK study is such junk, it's really hard
to write about. I imagine a journalist
trying to read this study for the first
time, and probably struggling with what the
hell was actually done, sort of like a
monthly statement from Bernie Madoff, and
falling back to just reading the title again
and hoping for the best. Yet, after reading
the study enough times, I was able to
actually figure out what had been done, and
I'll start by quoting you from the authors'
own summary of what they did, from the
Methods section of the study on page 577 of
Pediatrics in September 2004:
"The study has been monitoring >14 000
Children who are from the geographic area
formerly known as Avon, United Kingdom, and
were delivered in 1991–1992. The age at
which doses of thimerosal-containing
vaccines were administered was recorded, and
measures of mercury exposure by 3, 4, and 6
months of age were calculated and compared
with a number of measures of Childhood
cognitive and behavioral development
covering the period from 6 to 91 months of
age."
OK, I know. You have no idea what that
means, I certainly didn't. So, I will use
the kind of English most of us can
understand so you can see how amazingly
unbelievable this study really is:
- 100% of the children in this study were
vaccinated
- 100% of the children in this study were
vaccinated with the thimerosal-containing
DTP vaccine
- If you were a child who hadn't completed
the full series of thimerosal-containing DTP
shots, which in Britain is 3 doses, you
weren't even in the study
- The only variable considered, and I'm
going to put ONLY in all-caps so you really
hear me, the ONLY variable considered was
the TIMING of the 3 doses of
thimerosal-containing DTP vaccines given to
kids
- And, when I say timing, what I mean is
they compared kids who had gotten these
shots by 3 months, 4 months, and 6 months
That's it.
The timing of thimerosal-containing shots
was explored. The authors are actually
honest about this in their own conclusion to
the study:
"This study, based on a large United
Kingdom–based prospective cohort, shows no
evidence of any harmful effect of an
accelerated immunization schedule with
thimerosal-containing vaccines."
There it is, clear as day: an accelerated
schedule of TCVs. TIMING is the only
variable this study considered.
One side point, for those of you who
noticed. The IOM study came out in May 2004.
This study was published in Pediatrics in
September 2004, four months later. What
gives? What gives is that the AAP did an
excellent job of getting a crap study in
front of their friends at the IOM to give
them more ammunition to birth the hungry
lie.
A "Dose" of Reality
It's hard to write this piece, because it
makes me lose even greater faith in our
health authorities. I think about a guy like
Dr. David Tayloe and I just want to know
what's actually true:
- Is he the gullible guy who just believes
what others say and repeats it?
- Is he so stupid that he's read all the
science and believes it proves that vaccines
don't cause autism?
- Does he know the science doesn't remotely
say that, but thinks it's better to say so
anyway and protect the vaccine program?
I don't know, but any of those reasons
pretty much suck.
I mention above about giving a dose of
reality, so I'm going to. But first, a
question:
What is the purpose of science, and more
specifically, of medical research?
I think the purpose of science and medical
research is the betterment of the human
race. To help us live longer, healthier,
happier lies. To answer all the tough
questions about what's good for us and
what's bad for us. The customer of medical
research is mankind.
If mankind is the customer here, I would
make another argument. Mankind's most
important members are babies and children.
Agree? And, nothing is more painful for
mankind or more detrimental to mankind's
life, liberty, and happiness than a sick
child. Ask any family.
So, here's some reality for you:
Terry has a daughter named Hannah. Through
eighteen months, Hannah's pediatrician notes
she is meeting all developmental milestones
– a normal developing child. At nineteen
months, Hannah gets taken to the
pediatrician, presumably by her Mom, and she
gets five shots in one visit: DTaP, Hib,
MMR, Varivax, and IPV. A five shot visit? In
the U.S., this happens thousands of times a
day.
Suddenly, things for Hannah change. I'll let
the now-famous court document tell the story
from here:
"According to her mother's affidavit,
Hannah developed a fever of 102.3 degrees
two days after her immunizations and was
lethargic, irritable, and cried for long
periods of time. She exhibited intermittent,
high-pitched screaming and a decreased
response to stimuli. Terry spoke with the
pediatrician, who told her that Hannah was
having a normal reaction to her
immunizations. According to Hannah's mother,
this behavior continued over the next ten
days, and Hannah also began to arch her back
when she cried.
On July 31, 2000, Hannah presented to the
Pediatric Center with a 101-102 degree
temperature, a diminished appetite, and
small red dots on her chest. The nurse
practitioner recorded that Hannah was
extremely irritable and inconsolable. She
was diagnosed with a post-varicella
vaccination rash.
Two months later, on September 26, 2000,
Hannah returned to the Pediatric Center with
a temperature of 102 degrees, diarrhea,
nasal discharge, a reduced appetite, and
pulling at her left ear. Two days later, on
September 28, 2000, Hannah was again seen at
the Pediatric Center because her diarrhea
continued, she was congested, and her mother
reported that Hannah was crying during
urination. On November 1, 2000, Hannah
received bilateral PE tubes. On November 13,
2000, a physician at ENT Associates noted
that Hannah was "obviously hearing better"
and her audiogram was normal. On November
27, 2000, Hannah was seen at the Pediatric
Center with complaints of diarrhea,
vomiting, diminished energy, fever, and a
rash on her cheek. At a follow-up visit, on
December 14, 2000, the doctor noted that
Hannah had a possible speech delay.
Hannah was evaluated at the Howard County
Infants and Toddlers Program, on November
17, 2000, and November 28, 2000, due to
concerns about her language development. The
assessment team observed deficits in
Hannah's communication and social
development. Hannah's mother reported that
Hannah had become less responsive to verbal
direction in the previous four months and
had lost some language skills.
On December 21, 2000, Hannah returned to ENT
Associates because of an obstruction in her
right ear and fussiness. Dr. Grace Matesic
identified a middle ear effusion and
recorded that Hannah was having some balance
issues and not progressing with her speech.
On December 27, 2000, Hannah visited ENT
Associates, where Dr. Grace Matesic observed
that Hannah's left PE tube was obstructed
with crust. The tube was replaced on January
17, 2001.
Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a pediatric
neurologist, evaluated Hannah at the Kennedy
Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic
("Krieger Institute"), on February 8, 2001.
Dr. Zimmerman reported that after Hannah's
immunizations of July 19, 2000, an
"encephalopathy progressed to persistent
loss of previously acquired language, eye
contact, and relatedness." He noted a
disruption in Hannah's sleep patterns,
persistent screaming and arching, the
development of pica to foreign objects, and
loose stools. Dr. Zimmerman observed that
Hannah watched the fluorescent lights
repeatedly during the examination and would
not make eye contact. He diagnosed Hannah
with "regressive encephalopathy with
features consistent with an autistic
spectrum disorder, following normal
development." Dr. Zimmerman ordered genetic
testing, a magnetic resonance imaging test
("MRI"), and an electroencephalogram
("EEG").
Did you read that whole excerpt? Did you
really read it? If you did, and if you are
human, it rips your heart out. If you are
the parent of a child with autism as I am,
it more than rips your heart out, it causes
you to die all over again. And, as we both
know, Hannah's story is far from unique. In
the autism world, it's the norm. I'd hazard
to guess that Hannah's story is shared by
several hundred thousand families in the US
alone.
How does the experience above benefit
mankind?
Can science help us out of this mess?
The Failure of Science and the Big
Lie
As we all know, Hannah's Mom is a nurse and
her Dad is a neurologist. I've never met the
Polings nor have I ever talked to them. But,
I know that Jon, Hannah's dad, was very much
part of the mainstream medical establishment
before seeing what happened to his daughter,
as he himself has said.
I have no doubt that as Dr. Poling was
watching these events unfold with his
daughter that he was looking for answers
through science and from the people and
journals he trusted. And, I have little
doubt that he found nothing.
Let me ask you a simple question, and I
particularly want to ask it of the liars
like David Tayloe, Paul Offit, Nancy
Snyderman, and others who falsely reassure
parents every day that everything is OK when
everything is not OK. Please, a simple
question:
Can you show me the science that would
convince the Polings that it wasn't the
vaccines?
Please. Show me. She got five vaccines in
one day. She was never the same. Show me the
science where you can proudly stand up and
say, "Vaccines do not cause autism, I'm
sorry about what happened to your daughter
but it wasn't the vaccines, please read
this." Is it the British study, the one that
made me think I was on Neptune? Or, is it
that one from CDC, the one where they were
unable to determine anything? Which one
should the Polings look at so they can move
off of vaccines as a likely culprit to their
daughter's regressive autism?
The lie needs to end. Those who have been
telling the lie need to be called out. They
need to be removed. Every day, another
parent is falsely reassured because they
listen to someone they think they can trust
who is feeding the hungry lie.
It makes me so damn mad to write this piece,
perhaps that's why it's so long, but really,
I don't even know how to end it. The more I
look at the details, the madder I get. Since
I can't trust myself to end this piece in a
thoughtful way, I will bring in Dr.
Bernadine Healy, the former Director of the
National Institutes of Health, herself an
M.D. from Harvard and someone who directed
the nation's largest organization dedicated
to medical research.
Dr. Healy fits into this story because it
was Hannah Poling's case that caused her to
take a closer look at the controversy.
Unlike many of the feeders of the lie, I
have no doubt that Dr. Healy actually has
read the science that many of her colleagues
claim shows vaccines don't cause autism, and
Dr. Healy didn't like what she learned at
all. So, I'm going to finish with a quote
from her, but not until I get one final
request in here:
If you are reading this, and you can do
something about all these liars who falsely
reassure parents every day, please do. Thank
you.
Here's Bernadine Healy, talking to CBS
Evening News:
"We have to take another look at that
hypothesis, not deny it. I think we have the
tools today that we didn't have 10 years
ago, 20 yrs ago, to try and tease that out
and find out if there is a susceptible
group…A susceptible group does not mean that
vaccines are not good. What a susceptible
group will tell us is that maybe there is a
group of individual who shouldn't have a
particular vaccine or shouldn't have
vaccines on the same schedule…I don't
believe that if we identify the
susceptibility group, if we identify a
particular risk factor for vaccines or if we
found out that maybe they should be spread
out a little longer, I do not believe that
the public would lose faith in vaccines…
I think that the government or certain
public officials in the government have been
too quick to dismiss the concerns of these
families without studying the population
that got sick…I haven't seen major studies
that focus on 300 kids who got autistic
symptoms within a period of a few weeks of a
vaccine…I think public health officials have
been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as
irrational without sufficient studies of
causation…I think they have been too quick
to dismiss studies in the animal laboratory
either in mice, in primates, that do show
some concerns with regard to certain
vaccines and also to the mercury
preservative in vaccines…The reason why they
didn't want to look for those susceptibility
groups was because they were afraid that if
they found them, however big or small they
were, that that would scare the public…I
don't think you should ever turn your back
on any scientific hypothesis because you're
afraid of what it might show…
Populations do not test causality, they test
associations. You have to go into the
laboratory and you have to do designed
research studies in animals…The fact that
there is concern that you don't want to know
that susceptible group is a real
disappointment to me. You can save those
children…The more you delve into it, if you
look at the basic science, if you look at
the research that's been done on animals.
If you also look at some of these 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."
J.B. Handley is co-founder of Generation Rescue and a contributor to Age of Autism.