Both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama have made statements recently saying that vaccines should be investigated as a possible cause of autism.
Problem is, that claim has been investigated, very thoroughly, and it’s a crock. There is no link whatsoever between the two. If you’ve been following this antivax antiscience nonsense at all, then you won’t be surprised to hear that Tara and Orac have something to say about this. And I agree with both of them that while what Obama and Clinton said aren’t nearly as bad as the garbage spouted by McCain, it’s a bad sign and a downward trend in a campaign that seems to have no end to downwardness.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Do politicians think that reality-bound voters are such a small demographic that pandering to them won’t pay off?
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Here’s what Obama actually said,
“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.” –Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I wouldn’t expect either of them (or any politician) to know right off the top of their heads all of the bunk out there that has been debunked, but I would expect a presidential candidate to have a capable science advisor who could whisper in their ear on issues like this.
Bottom line, you can’t really put this on the same level as “ghosts are causing cancer” or other such nonsense that I might pull out of thin air for the sake of argument. Cut these two a little slack.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Back in March Clinton said,
“I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines. I have long been a supporter of increased research to determine the links between environmental factors and diseases, and I believe we should increase the NIH’s ability to engage in this type of research. My administration will be committed to improving research to support fact-based solutions, and I will ensure that the NIH has the staff and funding to fully explore all possible causes of autism….We don’t know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism – but we should find out. “
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Sorry,
I can’t cut these people any slack (McCain too).
One out of 150 kids is born with autism. That’s a lot of people. When you include parents, siblings and other relatives, you are talking about millions more who are affected. And lets not forget the schools who have to teach these children. Again millions more, both in people affect and dollars. The autism problem is one that needs to dealt with scientifically, and not with voodoo.
If these people want to be our leader, they need to gets their facts straight.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Carey,
I for one refuse to cut a prospective President of the United States any slack whatsoever. This is someone who aspires to be, arguably, the most powerful person on Earth. They SHOULD be informed enough on any topic they care to comment on to get it right. They have the resources to get the answers to their questions before they open their mouths. If they don’t do something as simple as ask an expert in the field they are commenting on – and finding an expert to consult is NOT hard – then how can you trust that they will exercise due diligence on more complicated matters of policy? The answer to the question “Do vaccines carry an increased risk of Autism?” has been answered and answered unequivocally. The science is not in any way inconclusive on the matter. All he has to do to learn this is to ask virtually any MD. The Surgeon General of the United States might be a good one to ask and I’m pretty sure he’d answer that call or e-mail quickly. By failing to ask a knowledgeable person on the topic he has perpetuated a myth and lent it credibility that it does not deserve – the words of a president or potential president carry a lot of weight in this world and should be chosen carefully.
When a presidential candidate clearly fails to exercise any due diligence at all – an ends up perpetuating a dangerous myth – it is a bad thing and should not be tolerated. Unless we demand more of our leaders we cannot expect our governing bodies to do a good job.
I do actually support Obama for President, but I am sorely disappointed in him on this topic (amongst others as well) but he is, in my opinion, the best option we have. I have a better candidate in mind but I don’t think Dr. Who can actually run for President – being a fictional character and all… and an alien.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
@Stark
Who/Tyler ‘08!
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
It’s not necessary to cut either of these candidates any slack if the comments above are what they really said. They´re doing their jobs as politicians, they´re not scientists. They´re taking a concern that some people may have, even if its not based in facts and dealing with them in the manner that politicians do. They will never stand in front of a parent with these suspicions and say you´re wrong and stupid and I won´t listen to your nonsense. They will say “look dude, I´ll look into it.” Then someone in their staff will ask someone who has read the material on it about it, and if we´re lucky it will fizzle out.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
New flash for Sen. Clinton, the NIH already has looked into the autism-vaccine issue, and is still looking into it, and has found so far that, guess what? No connection! Google “nih autism vaccine” and the first link that comes up is the NIH web site dealing with this issue.
Both candidates should be ashamed of themselves. Perhaps we should send them articles and links to journals that show that there is no correlation between autism and vaccines? Hell, if someone knows where to send it, I can send them both a copy of the paper I recently wrote on this very topic for a graduate class.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
What’s worse is that we have organizations and web sites with official sounding names promoting this nonsense, such as the National Vaccine Information Center.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Could the perceived rise in cases be due to better diagnosis of borderline cases? There is precedent for that happening.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Frett:
What’s wrong with “studies have shown that there is no connection between vaccines and autism, but that just means we need to look elsewhere for a cause”?
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
@QD
Yep. Around the same time that the number of vaccinations increased, the diagnostic tools also improved, and the definition of autism was expanded to include such things as Asperger’s.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
@Ken B
That would have been the correct thing to do.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I don’t know which is worse:
Ignorance of the Facts OR
Pandering to the Mercury Militia for Votes
Personally I think McCain is ignorant on Science along with his party, while Clinton is Pandering. I don’t know where Obama falls on the scale. We need the National Science Debate, so at least we will know where on the line they fall.
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Well, you were ill-informed about trans fats, so it’s a wash.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Didn’t SGU cover this already and gave’em both clean bills of health compared to McCain?
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
And here’s what I think:
Every politicians are full of something smelly. (use your imagination on what the smelly thing is.) They can act all progressive all they want, but their stupid side will always come out someday.
We just got another proof here.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Little known fact:
Dr Andrew Wakefield who was at the centre of the UK autism/vaccine link has a number of patents on an alternative MMR vaccine.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
From Steven Novella’s Blog:
McCain’s Autism Gaffe
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=204
Some Follow Up On Vaccines
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=279
I know the SGU made comments on the Podcast that week about all of the candidates but the new quotes are more recent. This new evidence definitely changes how they should be viewed on science. I don’t think they gave them all clean bills of health, I believe it was more wishy-washy, while these comments are clear.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Wow Sir Eccles, I must say that is the first time I heard someone made that connection. That is really major towards his credibility even though he isn’t taking money from “BIG PHARMA” as the proponents claim. Although I did hear of Homeopaths claiming that they can use Homeopathy to vaccinate children.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
@Sir Eccles
Actually, it’s a pretty well-known fact among the vaccine community the Dr. Wakefield is, umm, a wee bit biased against the MMR and is pursuing various alternatives that stand to make him a wealthy man if they happen to pan out…and if MMR can be smooshed.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
>>That is really major towards his credibility even though he isn’t taking money from “BIG PHARMA” as the proponents claim.
I should say as the proponents (Mercury Militia) claim about scientists who say there is no link.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
If there´s something I have learned is that telling someone the correct thing based on facts never works to appease their concerns. Politics is about telling people what they want to hear. The people get the government they deserve. You have to see the whole picture, here is a group of misinformed parents that want to believe that the government has done this to their children through vaccination because they don´t wish to believe that they have done some harm to those children themselves by passing some bad genes or smoking, drinking, bad diet etc.
The candidates represent the government in a fashion, and if they said the facts, the people would not believe it. These misinformed parents tend to believe more in friends and media than experts. And most often people will vote for someone who addresses their concerns in some way, not in the person that always says the correct thing.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
For more on the Wakefield-autism bit, take a look at: http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Also, for those who would like to read some more on it, the November/December 2007 issue of Skeptical Inquirer had several articles on vaccines and autism.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
From what I understand of a recent article by Scientific American (see URL), there may be a link between vaccines and autism, but it’s not causal.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=vaccine-injury-case-offer
It sounds like what would normally be a mild reaction to a vaccine becomes a more pronounced reaction in children with a mitochondrial genetic mutation, and the resulting fever may lead to mild brain damage and autism. Note that *any* fever in a child with such a disorder would probably have the same result, which would mean that even without vaccines the odds are against the child.
Really what the candidates should have said is that the cause of autism should be investigated. If that investigation points in the direction of vaccines, then that’s where the scientists will go. If not then they’ll still be trying to find an answer.
Ya start with the data and figure out the answer, not the other way around.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
You, given the stupidity of the talking head in the media and the obsession with fingers, orange juice, and off the cuff remarks (when was the last time you heard anyone on the cable news channels talking in depth about any of the candidates’ positions on issue of real importance?) I’m not surprised that Obama and Clinton start hedging on things like this. Look what happened to McCain when he told the truth about manufacturing jobs in Michigan never coming back. The last thing they want is a cadre of fanatical, but misinformed, parents raising a stink on the campaign trail, especially when a basically non-committal answer can so easily prevent that from happening.
The real question is, which of the three–actually two, since Clinton’s already lost the Democratic primary–candidates would you best trust to:
(a) appoint department leaders based on competence, not ideology or loyal to person or party.
(b) follow the advice of the professionals in the NIH and other health and science-related departments over what their health policies should be.
(c) will put the health and safety of the voting public first, and not the will of the deep pockets of corporate America.
Those are the criteria that matter, and while I would guess the neither McCain nor Obama will be perfect on one or more of these counts, but I’m betting that one candidate will be far better than the other on all three, and it’s not the one who has recently embraced G.W. Bush in both word and deed.
(Let’s also not forget that America’s health system, despite being the most advance and by far the most expensive in the world, is one of the least effective amongst the wealthy nations. Other wealthy countries, from Taiwan to Switzerland, are almost unanimous in agreeing that access to decent quality health care is a right of citizenship. Even their conservative politicians agree about that. It’s all too easy to condemn these systems as socialism in disguise, but the key point is that while they may not be perfect, these systems work, and the US is falling behind in measures such as life-expectancy and infant mortality, which is especially shameful.)
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
My middle daughter is Autism Spectrum (five years old, diagnosed at age three), and being the parent of an Autistic Child I’ve never found the Vaccine argument particularly valid.
We’ve been told repeatedly that the studies seem to show that there is no link between Autism and vaccinations. I’ve even noticed the furor die down among other families I know with Autistic kids. I think what keeps it going with some people is the possibility of a nice, tasty lawsuit against a rich pharmaceuticals company rather than concern for finding the actual cause.
And personally, “The Cause” doesn’t matter to me so much. There have been special needs children since the dawn of time, the fact that we got a bed roll of the dice is just the way the cookie crumbles – I’m thankful to be at a point in history where there are so many wonderful support groups! Despite the shirts wanting a cure, I don’t think there will be one. Whatever mental block an autistic child is behind, I feel that being “cured” would not give you a normal, social child – too long behind the locked door of autism will still leave the child stunted.
Besides, my daughter (though we do have rough days), is sweet and wonderful, and some days I think I identify with her more than her neurotypical brother and sister.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
IMO, this is an over-reaction. O & C did not state that vaccines were linked to autism. They said it should be investigated. That is a judgement call; not a statement of scientific fact.
These are politicians. It is quite possible that the issue hadn’t warranted discussion with their scientific advisors unitl now. Plus, I doubt that either of them plan a course of action on this issue if they are elected.
In any case, I wouldn’t base my vote on this issue.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
@Todd W.
Good link, that article clearly sets out the timeline of patent applications with respect to the whole mess.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
@Stark
I don’t think Dr. Who can actually run for President – being a fictional character and all… and an alien.
Well, if he had regenerated in the United States, it may be possible.
[affirmative, correct]
J/P=?
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I’m not a bigwig in the Obama campaign, just a strong supporter – nevertheless I was able to get an email in via his website asking someone on his staff to look into the facts on this and linking them to some of the sources. Obama is pretty good on stem cell research (he’s for it) so maybe he’ll be clear about not blaming vaccines for autism. (Vaccines are one of humanity’s greatest inventions).
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
> (and the US is falling behind in measures such as life-expectancy and infant mortality, which is especially shameful.)
Devil’s Advocate / Misanthrope hat on: just think of it as us doing our part to combat human overpopulation. Good medicine, long life-expectancy, low infant morality, combating human overpopulation. Pick three.
Hopeful idealist hat on: Obama has indeed shown the capability to let science speak for itself. Sure, he’s pandering, but it’s quite possibly far less damaging pandering than Clinton’s, who relies heavily on “think of the children! I have ovaries!” to maintain her power base.
Dark horse hat on: Of course, the unexpected is always more jarring than the expected. If McCain were to win and immediately “became” pro-science, it’d be pretty impressive and could do a lot to reverse the GOP’s generally anti-science trend.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
So because studies have so far not found a link we should just embrace vaccines whole-heartedly? Isn’t that like trying to prove a negative or something?
I’ve been told by “studies” that there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rGBH and cows not treated with rGBH. I’d still pick the non-treated cow’s milk, thank-you-very-much. At least I would if I still drank it. Same goes for irradiated meat, or GMO corn.
I think you’re being way too harsh on the antivax people. I’m a parent and want what is best for my children. I’m also a science-minded skeptic. And yet somehow these studies don’t make me feel much better. I’m skeptical of the government agencies who give us a “schedule” of vaccines to give our children. I’m skeptical of the pharmaceutical companies that produce them, the marketing campaigns that promote them (i.e. Gardasil), the lobbyists who push for legal immunity for the manufacturers, all the way up and down the line I’m skeptical. If vaccines are so great why is there a fund to compensate people injured by them? Why are we “supposed to” inject our babies with four or five (or more if you count the combos) chemical cocktails in one dr. visit?
At the very least you’re getting your panties all in a wad over such a small issue. These are people who believe their savior is a crucified carpenter from millennia ago, and you’re all pissy about their opinion of vaccines?
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
The reason we give our children so many vaccines is that there are so many ways for children to die. Or were. If scientists came up with a vaccine to prevent childhood leukemia, would that be one too many shots? How about a vaccine that eliminated SIDS? How would you go about deciding which vaccines you would not give your child?
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
You live in a democracy. Your politicians reflect your populace. Your populace is largely ignorant and misinformed because of your criminaly incompetent news services.
The general populace does not know the difference between good science and bad science, and the media, who should know, don’t care.
infidel:
we have embraced vaccines for the last hundred years, and they are the reason epidemics do not rage through the population the way they used to. The risks are quantified and a fund exists to compensate those who have an adverse reaction because we KNOW that 2 people in 10,000 will have an adverse reaction, and we accept that 2 in 10,000 is a better number than 1 in ten from influenza or 1 in 20 from polio.
Has anyone you know died from smallpox lately?
The simple way to know the truth about any ’science’ in the news is to keep abreast of what the scientific community thinks about it, via a reliable popular science magazine. The difference between a good study and a bad one is that a good one uses lots of people, and not too many scientists are screaming that the tecniques used are flawed.
The science scare stories in the press tend to be started by a study that has about 5 people in it. The phamacutical studies that you are rightly sceptical about tend to use selective reporting to inflate the effectivness of whatever drug they are testing.
Finaly the antics of this bunch of misinformed idiots has had a severe effect, at least here in the UK. Cold and Flu season killed more than its share last year, and probably this year as well, due to the mass refusal of parents to immunise their children over the last few years. Children in the US have been subjected to dangerous chelation therapies because of the rumour that the vaccines contained heavy metals (they didn’t, at any time).
Rekless endangerment of children by the media and the parents that listen to it? You consider that a small matter?
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Isn’t that like trying to prove a negative or something?
Sort of. Specifically, you are demanding that science prove a negative before you will accept the safety of anything.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
@infidel
A couple things: we have a fund to compensate those injured by vaccines, as james said, because we know that vaccines are not 100% (just like any medicine), but also, and this ties into the legal immunity for manufacturers, so the manufacturers are not bogged down with thousands upon thousands of legal claims (not all valid), which could have a significant negative effect on vaccine stockpiles.
As for the schedule of vaccines, it is generally based on when a vaccine is safe (in a relative sense) to administer to children, as well as when additional boosters are needed to increase the efficacy of the vaccine. If you are concerned about your child getting 5 different shots at the same visit, ask the doctor to space them out.
As to why the anti-vaccine crowd is dangerous, to tag onto the previous UK example, when the autism-MMR scare first surfaced, MMR vaccinations dropped, and, as a result, the incidence rate for measles shot way up. Once the scare settled down somewhat and people started to get vaccines again, the measles rate decreased once more. It is important to have a certain minimum percentage of the population vaccinated (i.e., herd immunity) in order to prevent an epidemic. And looking at the rates of adverse reactions versus the rates of complications (debilitating, chronic conditions and/or death), vaccines are much, much safer.
There are some things that we have vaccines for that I don’t think really need to be in the required set (Gardisil, for one), but highly contagious, deadly diseases are important to guard against. I think currently the only disease that is not transmittable but we still have a vaccine for is tetanus, simply because almost without exception, it leads to death.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
GIGO. Most of what people know about thimerosal comes from skimming over news reports about the controversy. Observations that there is no autism-thimerosal link and that thimerosal has been removed from most vaccines is usually buried deep where it’s easy to miss. I don’t expect a politician to pay closer attention than the general public.
We’ve become complacent precisely because vaccines work so well. The old “Childhood illnesses” are almost a thing of the past. People don’t remember the terrible toll of disease.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Back when BA posted his comments on McCain and Jenny McCarthy I told you folks that Hillary Clinton was also deep into autism-vaccine woo. I didn’t know about Obama back then but it looks like he is also far up woo creek without a paddle. If McCain, Clinton, and Obama had even half a brain they could figure this one out: 75-80% of autism cases are boys. Are 75-80% of the vaccine recipients boys? C’mon guys, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out.
“As for the schedule of vaccines, it is generally based on when a vaccine is safe (in a relative sense) to administer to children, as well as when additional boosters are needed to increase the efficacy of the vaccine.”
Actually, this is the only thing I agree with the autism-vaccine folks about. The vaccine schedule as promoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the pharmaceutical companies has more than doubled during the last few decades from about 8 shots to age 2 years in the 1960’s to 24 shots today. I would say you are naive if you believe there are absolutely no economic motives behind this increase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_schedule
In my home state of Texas our governor Rick Perry tried to enforce mandatory HPV vaccinations for young girls. Thankfully the state legislature shot that BS down. According to Perry, contributions made by Merck, the manufacturer of the vaccine, to his campaign had no effect on his decision to seek mandatory usage. Yeah, sure Rick. So all of these politicos are congenital liars when it comes to vaccines.
http://kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=43114
BTW, what ever happened to Science Debate 2008? Wasn’t it supposed to take place just before the Pennsylvania primary?
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Doc,.
Thanks for posting the link to the recent case involving a vaccination triggering problems in a child with a mitochondrial genetic mutation. It may also be that CFIDS and some other later onset conditions may also be related to mitochondrial disorders.
As many of you may know, CFIDS has been denied as a true health problem by almost all medical doctors and all insurance companies. Nonetheless, a few medical researchers have developed possible treatments based on the assumption that mitochondira are not generating typical levels of energy to the victim’s cells.
Would you knowingly vaccinate someone with a disorder like mono? Of course not! But the equivalent may be occurring in some cases simply because we have not yet developed a complete understanding of or the ability to easily test for improperly functioning mitochondria.
I would have a huge problem with a presidential candidate saying something like “We know all there is to know about the causes of autism and so further research is not needed.” Even scarier would be “Those citizens who are concerned about vaccinations are simply wrong and the government has the duty and obligation to force their children to undergo vaccination no matter what.”
At this point in time there are known gaps in medical science that leave room for intelligent people to reach reasonable conclusions about the possible dangers of certain drugs (including vaccinations) for members of their extended families. Should their rights to do what is best for their families be curtailed just because some less educated people reach similar conclusions for the wrong reasons? I say no.
I am a skeptic through and through, so it is particularly painful to see a leading skeptic make a blanket statement in an area where he has no direct expertise. Under those conditions I would only accept such a statement after a critical examination of first hand data related to the claims. Failing that, the most that can be said is that the current consensus view of the matter is this and so according to those who have researched the matter. BY going the extra step of saying “its a crock” when we now know it is not a crock in at least some cases is some well deserved egg on the face of this, for once, very bad astronomer.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:50 am
I think infidel and Rock Howard make some good points. We need to know more.
At this point, I’m uncomfortable with both of these statements:
“vaccinations are unequivocally safe and have been absolved completely of responsibility for any part of the apparent rise in autism cases”
“the 36 immunizations administered to children may be a large constituent of an overall environmental syndrome contributing to the rise in autism cases”
I don’t think that makes me NOT a skeptic. We need to know more, don’t we? Is that not what Obama is saying? Granted, we may reach a conclusion such as:
“there may be a link, in some isolated cases, between immunizations and the onset of autism, however, we’re willing to accept that risk due to the cost of NOT immunizing being worse than the cost of autism cases; certainly vaccinations fall well short of being the SOLE cause of the rise in autism cases, and research continues on that front, but additional oversight of the immunization industry is warranted as well”
Is that reasonable?
What do you make of autism recovery tales: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/mccarthy.autsimtreatment/
April 24th, 2008 at 6:34 am
@Kevin White
Your suggested comment is a much more reasonable approach to the issue. In certain cases, such as the Poling case, in which a child has a mitochondrial disorder, which itself is rather rare, vaccines may play a role. Exactly, how should be investigated.
While there may be cases like that one, research into the autism-vaccine link has, pretty overwhelmingly, shown no correlation. Studies have looked at comparisons in autism rates between those who received MMR vs. no MMR, thimerosal-containing vs. thimerosal free, and vaccine vs. no vaccine. These studies found that the rates of autism are pretty much unchanged across all these groups.
Also, research into autism itself suggests a genetic basis. While environment may play a role, the larger part of appears to be in the genes.
As to autism recovery, based on my experience (I was married to someone who studied autism extensively, proofread her papers and learned a lot of what she learned), cases of recovery are more likely due to misdiagnoses (i.e., they never had autism to begin with) or a case of a higher functioning type of PDD, such as Asperger’s. So far, the only therapies that have solid, published evidence to support their efficacy in mitigating, though not eliminating, autistic symptoms/behaviors, is applied behavioral analysis. ABA helps to teach those who have autism or other PDDs skills to allow them to function with more autonomy and, if higher-functioning cases, get jobs.
In the article you linked to, I would suggest reading some of the comments that were left by those affected by autism and their opinion of the supposed vaccine link.
@Rock Howard
I would agree that we should always be vigilant in watching vaccine safety. Anyone who suggests that vaccines are 100% safe are either lying, spewing meaningless rhetoric, or are prohibitively dumb. And learning how vaccines cause certain adverse events, such as Guillain-Barre Syndrome, or interact with rare conditions like mitochondrial disorder, is very important and can lead to safer (though again, not 100% safe) vaccines.
I suggest going to the FDA web site and taking a look at their information on vaccines. Also, visit the CDC and NIH sites. Do a little reading on herd immunity, as well. If you want, I could also send you a paper I recently wrote on the vaccine-autism link.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Another question that we need to ask, before going to extremes, is “Is there really an epidemic of autism? Or, is the apparent rise in cases due to changes in awareness and dignostic tools, procedures and definitions?”
April 24th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Oh for goodness sake. While I agree that the link between autism and vaccinations is all but demolished at this point, I see absolutely no reason to fault Obama (I have’t seen Clinton’s statements, so I won’t comment) for stating that, god forbid that research should be done, and the results should be used to drive policy…
April 24th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Todd W.
“As to autism recovery, based on my experience (I was married to someone who studied autism extensively, proofread her papers and learned a lot of what she learned), cases of recovery are more likely due to misdiagnoses (i.e., they never had autism to begin with) or a case of a higher functioning type of PDD, such as Asperger’s.”
I guess you never have heard of O. Ivar Lovaas and his groundbreaking 1987 paper. It was he who introduced the word “recovered” to refer to autistic kids regaining normal functioning. According to Lovaas 9 out of 19 kids (47 percent) who received ABA treatment recovered. So recovery in autism is well documented.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:02 am
The Lovaas paper can be found at:
http://www.sceap.com/pdf/Lovaas.pdf
April 24th, 2008 at 9:24 am
@Tom Marking
Thanks for the link. I will take a look at it. I’m curious how, exactly, he defines “recovery.” The lay person would tend to think of that as “no more autism,” I think, rather than, perhaps, “restoration of ‘normal’ appearance and behavior but still having autism.”
I learned a lot about autism and ABA from my ex, but admittedly am no expert in the field.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:45 am
So, it looks like Lovaas is defining “recovery” as attaining “normal functioning,” i.e., behavioral and intellectual functioning equivalent to non-autistic peers of the same age. Do you know if other studies were done to validate Lovaas’ findings?
April 24th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Yes, there were several other studies. One of them attempted to follow up on the recovered kids in Lovaas’ original study. I posted the links on another autism group. Let me see if I can find them.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Here are some ABA studies which are readily accessible on the Internet. The McEachin study attempted to follow-up on the recovered kids in Lovaas’ initial 1987 study several years after the kids had been out of the program.
Cohen, Howard, Amerine-Dickens, Mila, Smith, Tristram. (2006)
Early Intensive Behavioral Treatment: Replication of the UCLA Model
in a Community Setting
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 27 (2), 145-155
http://www.pacificautismcenter.com/ADA-Info/Cohen2006.pdf
Howard, Jane S., Sparkman, Coleen R., Cohen, Howard G., Green, Gina, & Stanislaw, Harold. (2005)
A Comparison of Intensive Behavior Analytic and Eclectic Treatments
for Young Children with Autism
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26 (4), 359-383
http://www.ctfeat.org/articles/ABAvEclectic.pdf
Lovaas, O. I. (1987)
Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual
functioning in young autistic children
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3-9.
http://faculty.caldwell.edu/kreeve/Lovaas%201987.pdf
Lovaas, O. I. (2000)
Clarifying Comments on the UCLA Young Autsim Project
University of California, Los Angeles. Department of Psychology
McEachin, J. J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1993)
Long-term outcome for children with autism who received early
intensive behavioral treatment
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97 (4), 359-372.
Sallows, Glen O. & Graupner, Tamlynn D. (2005).
Intensive Behavioral Treatment for Children with Autism: Four-Year
Outcome and Predictors
American Journal on Mental Retardation,110 (6), 417-438.
I also did my own number crunching on these studies which is as follows:
********************************************************
Study; Duration; Total Hours of ABA; Change in IQ (ABA);
Change in IQ (Control)
Lovaas 1987; 24 months; 4,160; 29.0; 10.4
Howard 2005; 14 months; 1,970; 31.3; 8.7
Sallows 2005; 35 months; 5,650; 24.5; N/A
Cohen 2006; 36 months; 5,850; 25.0; 14.0
Normalizing for the total hours of ABA therapy in each study we can
derive the following numbers:
Study; Change in IQ (ABA) per 1,000 hours;
Change in IQ (ABA) minus Change in IQ (Control) per 1,000 hours
Lovaas 1987; 6.97; 4.47
Howard 2005; 15.89; 11.47
Sallows 2005; 4.34; N/A
Cohen 2006; 4.27; 1.88
The last three studies sought to duplicate the results of the first
study which was done by O. Ivar Lovaas in 1987. But numerically they
are way off. In terms of delta-IQ for ABA per 1,000 hours of
treatment the Howard 2005 study yielded a value 3.7 times greater
than the Cohen 2006 study. If we look at delta-IQ-ABA minus delta-IQ-Control the difference is even more pronounced – Howard 2005 is 6.1 times the value of Cohen 2006.
We would not expect such large differences if the ABA therapy in all
four studies was being conducted in the same way. I have yet to read
any explanation on why these numbers are so far apart. The two
closest studies are Sallows 2005 and Cohen 2006 which differ by only
1.6 percent in delta-IQ-ABA per 1,000 hours, but they are 38 percent
less than what Lovaas reported earlier.
If Cohen 2006 and Sallows 2005 are more accurate than the other
studies then this is pretty depressing news since if we take the
second column as a measure of ABA effectiveness versus the control
then Cohen 2006 is 2.4 times smaller than what Lovaas reported.
Just some food for thought.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Sorry, the blog software wouldn’t let me put the last 3 URLs in. They are:
Lovaas, O. I. (2000)
Clarifying Comments on the UCLA Young Autsim Project
University of California, Los Angeles. Department of Psychology
http://www.ctfeat.org/articles/LovaasRebut.htm
McEachin, J. J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1993)
Long-term outcome for children with autism who received early
intensive behavioral treatment
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97 (4), 359-372.
http://www.ctfeat.org/articles/Lovaas93.htm
Sallows, Glen O. & Graupner, Tamlynn D. (2005).
Intensive Behavioral Treatment for Children with Autism: Four-Year
Outcome and Predictors
American Journal on Mental Retardation,110 (6), 417-438.
http://www.ctfeat.org/articles/AmericanJournalMentalRetardationNov2005.pdf
April 24th, 2008 at 10:17 am
” I’m curious how, exactly, he defines “recovery.””
From the McEachin study:
“The 9 experimental subjects who had achieved the best outcomes at age 7 received particularly extensive evaluations indicating that 8 of them were indistinguishable from average children on tests of intelligence and adaptive behavior.”
If you can’t distinguish the kids from their neurologically normal peers using psychological tests of various sorts I’d say that qualifies as recovery. I’m sure it would to most parents of autistic children.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:25 am
@Tom Marking
Thanks for the added info. I was wondering when Gina Green’s name was going to pop up.
I know that the reigning thought on behavioral treatment is that the earlier intervention is started, the better the outcomes. So, if treatment starts under 4 years of age (when autism is typically first diagnosed), then the child will have a reasonably good prognosis, compared to someone who does not begin to receive treatment until they are several years older.
I’m curious about how these study subjects that showed “recovery” will be when they are in their 20s or 30s, or older. At any rate, these studies show the effectiveness of ABA in treating PDDs.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
If vaccines (specifically the mercury preservative in them – which isn’t being used any more AFAIK) cause autism, why is my entire generation (AKA the Baby Boomers) not all sitting in the corner rocking back and forth from all the merthiolate (AKA “red sting-y stuff,” which is thimerosal, the old preservative) we got painted all over every cut and scrape we ever got?
Bah. Humbug.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
@themadlolscientists
Well, clearly it’s because it was only topically applied and not injected into your body. And, you didn’t get as much of it because you didn’t receive as many vaccinations as children get today. It’s that cumulative effect, don’tcha know, that causes it! [./sarcasm.]
Thimerosal is still used in most flu vaccines, but the majority of childhood vaccines no longer have thimerosal in them, and haven’t since about 2000 or 2001.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Neither candidate would dare suggest anything else right now. Try telling most parents with a autistic child that thimerosal is not the culprit, and they will look at you like you are a member of the conspiracy. These people are desperate. We still don’t have any idea what causes autism, nor how to really treat it. Most of us have little idea of how frustrating, energy/time consuming, emotionally draining, exhausting, and frightening it is to have an autistic child.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:32 am
Just wanted to clear something up. Not all parents of children with autism blame thimerosal or the MMR or vaccines in general. In fact, a lot think that it’s a crock and that the evidence just isn’t there. Yes, it’s a painful, challenging thing to deal with, but there are people out there who still keep their heads.
Unfortunately, there are those who desperately need to understand what’s going on, who need to be able to point at something as the cause. And some of these people are extremely vocal (Jenny McCarthy, among those with celebrity). Sometimes, they prompt research that is very valuable, but at others, they promote a lot of nonsense that takes time away from more promising research and occasionally things that can put their children in serious risk of injury (e.g., chelation therapy).
Finally, in terms of not knowing how to treat it, there is a treatment that actually works quite well and has the science to back it up. Applied Behavior Analysis. It is tiring and time-consuming, but it does make a huge difference in the functioning level of a child with autism.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:03 am
“Finally, in terms of not knowing how to treat it, there is a treatment that actually works quite well and has the science to back it up. Applied Behavior Analysis. It is tiring and time-consuming, but it does make a huge difference in the functioning level of a child with autism.”
Unfortunately for parents of autistic kids such as myself, the only treatment for autism which has any degree of scientific evidence that it works (i.e., ABA) is also the one treatment that most public school districts will never implement because it is too expensive. What good is scientific research if the fruits of such research are never implemented? It might as well never have happened.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:14 am
@Tom
I feel for you, but I do need to disagree with your statement “It might as well never have happened.”
Yes, ABA is very expensive and a lot of school districts don’t want to cough up the money for it. But some do. More people need to lobby their local legislatures to try to get more funding put into the educational system for ABA. ABA has helped so many families and individuals.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Law Mom wrote: “The reason we give our children so many vaccines is that there are so many ways for children to die. Or were. If scientists came up with a vaccine to prevent childhood leukemia, would that be one too many shots? How about a vaccine that eliminated SIDS? How would you go about deciding which vaccines you would not give your child?”
Naked Bunny wrote: “Specifically, you are demanding that science prove a negative before you will accept the safety of anything.”
Many of you seem to have the impression that I am antivax, which is not true. I said I’m skeptical. I was mainly reacting to BA’s flippant “its a crock” comment which I found to be arrogant and dismissive. To LM, NB, and whomever it was who suggested we just space out the vaccines more, that’s precisely what we are doing. We judge each vaccine on its relative merits based on the severity of the disease(s), the potential of actually contracting the disease(s), our kids’ age, health, etc etc. If the kid so much as has a runny nose, we figure their system is already fighting something off, why would we want to smack it down even harder? There are only a couple that we’ve flat-out refused.
We try to make as informed a decision as we can. For a while we were even getting “reminders” from our HMO (sponsored by one of the big pharmaceuticals, btw) that we were missing “important” vaccinations on the schedule. If that doesn’t scream conflict-of-interest and/or profit-motive then I don’t know what does.
Whomever mentioned the “herd” coverage of vaccines hit on something important. To the government we’re just a herd to be managed based on relative costs of epidemics vs. compensation funds, even if some small percentage die or are perpanently injured. If you want to be part of the herd then that’s your choice.
There have been people pushing for Gardasil to be routine for all girls since it first came out. There are even people figuring it should be routine for all boys as well since they’re the vectors that spread it to the girls. Think of the windfall profits for the manufacturer if that happened. Think of all the money they’d be willing to contribute to the politicians who could approve such an addition to the standard schedule. If that isn’t enough to make you skeptical of the whole mess then there isn’t much left for me to say, I guess.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
@infidel
“Whomever mentioned the “herd” coverage of vaccines hit on something important. To the government we’re just a herd to be managed based on relative costs of epidemics vs. compensation funds, even if some small percentage die or are perpanently injured. If you want to be part of the herd then that’s your choice.
I hope you aren’t comparing the costs of human lives to the cost of compensation funds. While I think that the government is far from perfect, and that there are occasionally ulterior motives, I feel that in the case of vaccines, the main focus is on public health and the prevention of needless loss of lives or debilitating injury.
There are instances where an individual should not receive a vaccine due to a contraindicating condition. Those individuals receive the benefits of the vaccine due to herd immunity. I.e., because a large enough percentage of the community around them are immune, as long as they remain within that immunized community, they are safe, as well. If the immunization rate falls or they leave that community, then they are at risk for infection. So, when someone refuses to get vaccinated for reasons other than being contraindicated, they are not only putting themselves at increased risk for infection, but also those around them who also, for whatever reason, have not been vaccinated.
There are risks involved, true. Some are foreseeable, others not so much. But when a decision is made to not be vaccinated, such a decision should be weighed carefully, bearing in mind the effect of that decision on family, friends, and strangers around you.
I’m glad to hear you aren’t completely anti-vaccine. However, some of your comments have made me think, “Skepticism is good, but there is such a thing as too much skepticism.” Slate recently had a 3-part article about “paranoid skepticism” (The Paranoid Style in American Science, I believe was the title). Definitely worth a read.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Todd wrote: “I hope you aren’t comparing the costs of human lives to the cost of compensation funds. While I think that the government is far from perfect, and that there are occasionally ulterior motives, I feel that in the case of vaccines, the main focus is on public health and the prevention of needless loss of lives or debilitating injury.”
I’m not comparing anything or assessing the value of any particular life. What I’m saying is that from a governmental perspective there’s a certain abstract nature to the problem of public health. The government has to think of aggregates, not individuals. If there is some risk of death or injury to some percentage of a population for a given treatment, wouldn’t they have to weigh that against the potential benefit? I.e. compare the potential savings in healthcare costs, lost productivity, etc to the potential risks of loss (life, health, compensation funds).
Just a thought.
I’ve been told that a primary factor in the addition of the chickenpox vaccine to the schedule was the private sector losing some amount of productive hours per year from parents who were out to care for their sick children. Is that true or just paranoid skepticism? I don’t know. I don’t claim its true, but at some level it wouldn’t surprise me. I’d like to think that the public health officials are really truly just interested in preventing as much disease as possible, but having recently been tangentially involved in a political issue I trust politicians about as far as I can throw them.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
[...] Obama, Clinton grossly misinformed on vaccines [...]