• Scientists give a big thumbs up to Obama’s environmental plan.

• A handy list of all the biggest “global cooling” hacks, now in bar graph form.

• Poor Tesla. The bad news just keeps on comin’.

• A universal flu vaccine nears completion—but will we have the cash to distribute it?

• Finally, some sliding profits news to be happy about. Oh no wait, never mind.

• Senate decides (thank goodness) that children and health insurance are two things that should really continue to go together.

How many times do we have to say it? At least once more, apparently: The anti-vaxer movement is wrong, it’s dangerous, and it’s having major effects on public health. Like this one: More than 12,000 cases of measles, around four-fifths of which were in unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated children, surfaced in Europe in the two-year period from 2006 through 2007, with an additional 6,000 infections reported in the first three quarters of 2008.

These results come from a study published in the upcoming issue of The Lancet, and were written up by Mark Muscat of Copenhagen’s Statens Serum Institut. The study includes data from 32 countries, though 85 percent of the cases were in Romania, Germany, the U.K., Switzerland, and Italy—all of which have vaccination rates below 90 percent, well below the World Health Organization’s 95 percent recommendation.

So here it is, a highly-contagious and also highly-preventable disease making its way into children because their parents saw some study or read some pamphlet filled with inaccurate and scientifically disproved information.

To make matters worse, there’s also the class problem that anti-vaxers are causing:

People in wealthy countries (like the U.S. and U.K.) refuse to vaccinate, and then transport their diseases to poorer countries—a phenomenon noted by Jacques Kremer and Claude Muller of the WHO Regional Reference Laboratory for Measles and Rubella:

The more pressing question is how much measles does Europe export to countries with poor health systems and high fatality rates. Importations of measles virus from Europe have already triggered several outbreaks in South America… Rich countries need to be responsible for avoiding cases by implementation of high vaccination coverage, to make it the privilege of resource-poor countries not to worry about reintroductions from Europe.

Related:
RB: While the Anti-Vax Movement Strengthens, Their Arguments Only Get Weaker
RB: And So It Begins: U.S. Sees Big Measles Spike in Unvaccinated Kids
RB: Autism and Vaccinations: A Celebrity Smackdown
BadAstronomy: Countering antivaxxers

This month in DISCOVER, Mark Anderson has a feature story on the medical controversy surrounding shaken baby syndrome (SBS). The crux of the debate is this:

On one side of the courtroom, representing mainstream medical opinion, are those who believe shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is a valid diagnosis. They say that decades of clinical experience and criminal confessions—in which a parent has admitted to shaking a child with symptoms of SBS—bolster their case to the point of near-certainty. On the other side, a growing number of skeptics are now claiming that the evidence for the syndrome rests on dubious medical ground with questionable biophysical models supporting it.

The confusion centers around the trio of symptoms that lead to an SBS diagnosis: bleeding between the brain and skull, bleeding behind the retinas, and brain swelling. Conventional medical wisdom holds that some or all of these mean a baby is suffering from SBS. But a growing number of skeptics say the symptom list could come from any number of other sources, from infections to diet to a fall.

While the final medical verdict is still up in the air, the issue highlights the tricky—and potentially devastating—fallout when medical uncertainty headbutts the legal system. SBS presents a clear dilemma: If a baby has it, the “fact” that the baby’s death or injuries were caused by SBS is in and of itself evidence that a parent, caretaker, or other handler intentionally committed a crime.

Of course, if SBS is, as one neurosurgery professor called it, “a sham,” then anyone convicted of abuse, negligence, or even murder in an SBS case has potentially been put in jail for a nonexistent crime.

The sticky law-versus-medicine issue came to a head with the 1997 trial of British nanny Louise Woodward, who was convicted of second-degree murder in Massachusetts after a baby in her charge died. While Woodward was accused of other acts of negligence such as dropping the baby, the cause of death was a subdural hematoma, and SBS was declared its source. The case received intense media scrutiny, and a judge later reduced the charge to involuntary manslaughter and sentenced Woodward to time already served.

If Woodward had in fact dropped the baby, chances are the fall caused far more damage than any shaking could. But dropping an infant would rarely if ever lead to criminal charges as serious as murder. What the SBS diagnosis brought to Woodward’s case was intention—no one accidentally shakes a baby hard enough to cause internal bleeding. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Except that if these deadly injuries are unrelated to shaking, the pudding is proof of nothing.

Related:
RB: American Political System Prevents Tyranny But May Prolong Use of Torture
RB: Brain Research for Sale? Gaming Industry Looks to Science to Beat Class Action

Newsweek reports that the children displaced by Hurricane Katrina who spent the longest amount of time in government-provided temporary housing—a.k.a. FEMA’s toxic trailers—are “the sickest I have ever seen in the U.S.,” according to Irwin Redlener, Children’s Health Fund president and a professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

The ailments, according to a study of 261 post-Katrina kids, range from mental health disorders to anemia, and are astonishingly widespread: Forty-one percent of the children are anemic—twice the rate found in minors in New York City homeless shelters—and 42 percent have respiratory infections and other problems likely linked to the excessive formaldehyde in the trailers.

As we’ve discussed on Discoblog, formaldehyde is a probable carcinogen as well as an allergen, and is used in many products, including the wood used to build these disaster homes. The formaldehyde gas levels in FEMA’s trailers were so toxic that Katrina victims began complaining of illnesses, including breathing difficulties, bloody noses, and even gas-linked deaths, almost immediately after they moved into them.

Even worse, a Salon report in January of this year revealed that FEMA had pressured scientists to water down a report on the health risks of formaldehyde in the trailers, all as part of an effort to avoid getting sued. Of course, the real results have been severe and possibly permanent damage to the health of thousands of children. We could wag a finger at this umpteenth egregious example of how the Bush administration’s policy on science obfuscation has endangered lives, but we’re too aggrieved to try.

Related:
RB: Let’s Get It Started! Obama Plans Reverse of Bush Science Policies
RB: It’s Not Over Yet: Bush Sneaks In Harmful Pollution Laws
Disco: Why Are Victoria’s Secret Bras Causing Skin Rashes?

Now that the worldwide euphoria over Obama’s victory is abating, it’s time to look at some dismal facts: The air is still thick with pollution, the globe is still warming, and the science community is in a frenzy over who the president-elect will choose to head up the battered, broken EPA.

The short and distinguished list of candidates includes include former Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection head Kathleen McGinty; California Air Resources Board chairwoman Mary Nichols; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection head Ian Bowles; Kansas governor Kathleen Sibelius; New Jersey environmental commissioner Lisa Jackson; and, finally, environmental lawyer, activist, and prolific blogger Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

While all are talented and have the potential to breathe life into the foundering agency, the one receiving the biggest pounding is Kennedy. Across the Internet, science writers have lambasted the longtime environmentalist for his alleged “anti-science” views—in particular, his public criticism of vaccines.

There’s no question that Kennedy has been vocal in his campaign against the CDC, particularly regarding its stance on Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative. In 2005, he published a controversial piece in Salon charging that the government had concealed data showing that Thimerosal-containing vaccines were harmful. Critics excoriated the article, and Kennedy has since been labeled a traitor to science and affixed with the anti-vaxer label.

Still, the reality isn’t quite so simple. While Kennedy has indeed pointed accusatory fingers at certain vaccine practices—and has fallen victim to the “hand-picked studies” effect on at least one occasion—the charges that he’s a full-on anti-vaxer are incorrect and arguably irrelevant.

The distinction is this: Kennedy’s focus has been on making vaccines “safe” (i.e. Thimerosal-free), not eliminating them. This position is in contrast to that of many anti-vaxers, who dangerously assert that the MMR vaccine causes autism and other health problems, despite the lack of valid scientific evidence for their theory. While he charges the CDC with making poor choices, he has repeatedly stated that he remains pro-vaccine.

On the environmental side (the one that’s most germane to his ability to run the EPA), Kennedy has a 25-year career that includes some impressive achievements, including founding the Waterkeeper Alliance, winning nearly $200 million in damages against DuPont for waste-dumping, and cleaning up the Hudson River. His resume also includes advances in cleantech, alternative energy, and emissions reductions.

Is he the right man for the job? Perhaps not. The jury is still out—and may never reach a consensus—on whether he’s been right about a single Thimerosal claim, and the fact remains that Kennedy and his campaign against Thimerosal have been used as ammunition in the larger, pointless fight against vaccines—a fact he’s no doubt aware of. Still, when we’re debating an issue as crucial as this one, it’s worth scrutinizing the details before jumping on any bandwagons.

You’d think that recent news about autism—i.e., the increasing amount of definitive evidence proving it’s not linked to vaccines—would be vindication for Paul Offit, the prominent pro-vaccination advocate and medical director of the Vaccine Education Center at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. As you might recall, Offit sounded off earlier this year on the Hannah Poling case, offering an opinion that led to all sorts of name-calling and borderline hysteria.

Now, it appears, the hysteria has made a sharp right into psychosis. ABC News reports that Offit has been receiving death threats (as in, more than one) from anti-vaxers. On a recent “Today Show” appearance, Offit revealed that “the threats [he] received included a ‘phone call from an unidentified man who mentioned specific and private details’ about Offit’s family.”

And he’s not the only one: Flu vaccine advocate Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Vaccine Research Group at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, describes the following:

“Among the most egregious things — I got a letter once railing against my involvement in vaccines and hoping that something serious would happen to me and hoping that something serious would happen to one of my children,” he said. “I had people come to the door of my home and harass my wife and kids, so I no longer have my address listed in the phone book.”

And at one point, Poland said, someone broke into his lab and attempted to hack into his computers. As a result, Poland’s lab is now locked down for security purposes.

Granted, leaders of anti-vax groups respond that they’ve also been the victims of harassment, with taunts like “baby-killer” hurled their way.

None of this behavior is excusable. Just as physicians and scientists have a right to perform their research and discuss their results without fear of violence, so do vaccine opponents have an equal right to raise questions and incite debate. The only real difference here is that one side is backed by the overwhelming bulk of scientific evidence, while the other simply isn’t.

The chilling effect that can/will/has occurred on both sides as a result of harassment is of course dangerous to free speech, but for doctors like Offit and Poland it has a more insidious significance: By keeping these experts from speaking freely about the total lack of an autism/vaccine link, and the health hazards that come with shunning vaccines, we’re endangering not only their first amendment rights, but also the health of children.

So what should be done? Well, for starters, we can stop relying on doctors to provide the sole voices of reason concerning the lack of a link between autism and vaccines—aka, the CDC and other government agencies can lend a hand. After this coming January, maybe that could actually happen.

Related:
RB: While the Anti-Vax Movement Strengthens, Their Arguments Only Get Weaker
RB: And So It Begins: U.S. Sees Big Measles Spike in Unvaccinated Kids
RB: Autism and Vaccination Smackdown Part II: This Time, The Doctors Go At It

We decided to take a break from the creative environmental fables springing forth in Minneapolis to hit yet another field where fact and fabrication have been scarily intertwined: autism and vaccines. The anti-vax celebrity movement is going strong—now they can add Lance Armstrong to their ranks—and more parents are jumping on the “screw public health, we don’t want autistic kids” bandwagon.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is already seeing a measles spike, while Canada is reporting a mumps epidemic and the U.K. is bracing itself for a possible measles outbreak. All while the actual research continues to show that there is absolutely no link between vaccines and autism, Crohn’s disease, colitis, asthma, teenage pregnancy, incurable foot odor, etc.

A stock anti-vax response to these facts? “So what? Who says the measles are so bad?”

Well, doctors, that’s who. As ABC News reports, the anti-vax movement isn’t just leaving an isolated number of unvaccinated children vulnerable—it’s putting entire regions in danger:

“When more than 10 percent of a community opts out of vaccinations, it leaves the entire community at risk because germs have a greater chance of causing an epidemic,” said Dr. Ari Brown, an Austin, Texas, pediatrician who represents the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The issue at hand is “herd immunity,” which works as a buffer: If enough people in a community are vaccinated, they protect those with weaker immune systems, or those whose vaccinations didn’t take, from catching the disease. The CDC estimates that some diseases, like mumps, can’t generally take hold in a population where as few as 75 percent of the people are vaccinated. But other, more virulent diseases, such as measles or the increasingly common whooping cough, need collective immunity of up to 94 percent to avoid infection.

So, in essence: Sure, your unvaccinated kid may live through the measles, or the mumps (though, as one doctor noted, cases in Canada have led to hospitalizations, deafness, meningitis, and sterility). But he’s also putting the other kids at risk.

As for the argument that children may suffer violent allergic reactions to vaccines? That one may soon kick the bucket entirely, now that a team of experts has discovered that with close monitoring and a few standard precautions, almost all children with known or suspected vaccine allergies (as determined by a pre-shots allergy test) can be safely immunized. One more reason to support scientific research.

We’re not one to say “I told you so” (oh, who are we kidding) but reports are in from the CDC that the number of measles cases in the U.S. has risen to its highest level in more than a decade, with nearly half of the reported cases involving children whose parents chose not to have them vaccinated for the disease.

Granted, the number of cases is low, 131 total, but that’s only from January through July of 2008—and that increase is significant, considering that 2007 saw a grand total of 42 cases. Thus far, none of the newly infected have died, though 15 were hospitalized. To make matters worse, the AP reports, at least 17 children contracted whooping cough (which can be fatal to children) at a private school in the San Francisco Bay area, and 13 of them weren’t vaccinated against the disease.

Vaccination rates in 2006 were still at 92 percent, but this year’s uptick indicates that the Herculean (albeit totally misguided) efforts of the celebrity set and their anti-vax followers may be working, and children are getting sick as a result. According to the CDC report, in 63 of the new measles cases—almost all of them minors—the child or their parents had refused to be vaccinated for “philosophical or religious reasons.”

Luckily, reason and logic won’t go down without a fight: the Academy of Pediatrics has made educating parents about the safety and necessity of vaccines a top priority this year, and doctors are taking action, distributing detailed pamphlets and documents explaining why physicians don’t believe the shots cause autism. Still, with the glut of misinformation and sketchy “evidence” flying around, doctors may have a long, preventable-disease-addled road ahead of them.

While the celebrity smackdown between former Playboy bunny Jenny McCarthy and actress Amanda Peet has been working its way through the media python coils, another autism/vaccine showdown has sprung up—this time at the New England Journal of Medicine. Pro-vaccination guru Paul A. Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has gotten into it with Jon S. Poling, a Georgia neurologist and the father of Hannah Poling, who was diagnosed with autism after receiving five standard vaccines.

The dispute is over a piece Offit did for NEJM on Hannah’s successful lawsuit against the government after her diagnosis, which made her the first autistic child to collect damages under the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Offit argues that, while anti-vacciners have pointed to the case as proof that the government knows vaccines are dangerous and can cause autism, in reality the Poling win was one in a chain of sketchy decisions by the VICP, which “seems to have turned its back on science.” Sure enough, in swooped Poling Sr. with the following response:

Offit’s remarks about Hannah’s case are not evidence-based. He has no access to my daughter’s personal medical records, legal documents, or affidavits. In contrast, physicians from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) who studied this information recommended that the government concede Hannah’s case. The clinical history Offit presents contains significant inaccuracies, and the resulting conclusions are consequently flawed.

To which Offit delivered a concise blow:

Poling claims that I didn’t have access to his daughter’s medical records. My information was based on a verbatim transcript of the DHHS concession, which stated that his daughter had had frequent ear infections and a series of viral infections early in life. These infections, which are a far greater immunologic challenge than attenuated or inactivated vaccines, are not in dispute.

Poling states that my assertion that the administration of multiple vaccines is safe is an “opinion . . . unsupported by clinical trials.” But studies of concomitant use, which are required by the Food and Drug Administration before licensure to show that new vaccines do not affect the safety or immunogenicity of existing vaccines or vice versa, have clearly shown that multiple vaccines can be administered safely.

The government isn’t doing the medical/scientific community any favors with the Poling case, and it could also be opening the floodgates for other parents of autistic kids to demand compensation. It’s true that having a child with autism is no picnic, and in the modern culture of hyperactive parenting, it’s not surprising that parents are fervently seeking a reason for why their child has an incurable disorder. Vaccines are an easy whipping boy, and one that’s gained momentum as pretty blonde celebrities take up the cause.

Unfortunately, vaccines just aren’t the answer, and government agencies issuing apparent mea culpas won’t change that. In fact, what’s more likely to happen (and is already happening in the U.K.) is that we see epidemics of diseases that could have been prevented by a simple shot.

Media attention on the issue skyrocketed last month, when Playboy model-cum-actress-cum-autism activist Jenny McCarthy led a Washington D.C. march demanding changes to the CDC’s child vaccination guidelines. McCarthy, hailed by supporters as “the biggest thing to happen since the word autism was coined,” is throwing her weight behind chelation, an unproven and possibly dangerous treatment that removes heavy metals from the body—and increasing numbers of parents are backing her. The government has begun feeling the heat over the rise (which may not be a rise at all) of the disorder (which may not be a disorder at all), and the National Institute of Mental Health is pushing to begin tests of chelation.

Still, some big names in Tinseltown are less than convinced by McCarthy’s efforts.

Marc Malkin at Eonline reports that actress Amanda Peet, who described herself as being “shocked by the amount of misinformation floating around, particularly in Hollywood,” also called parents who fail to vaccinate their children “parasites.” Feel the love!

Meanwhile, over in the world of actual science, researchers are making progress identifying genes that may underlie the disorder, while large-scale projects such as the National Children’s Study are examining the effects of environmental factors on the rates of autism, as well as a host of other mental and physical disorders. But in the meantime, look for plenty more autism coverage in the pages of Us Weekly—particularly once the Scientologists get involved.

Image: Flickr/Vlastula