Huff Po: NIH Agency Head: Vaccine-Autism Research is "Legitimate"

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

"Even as the mainstream media, most pediatricians, and vaccine inventors like Dr. Paul Offit try to shut down the vaccine-autism discussion (and its attendant research), thoughtful scientists who are actually in real positions of power are speaking up to support the important work that still remains to be done."

NIH Agency Head: Vaccine-Autism Research is "Legitimate"

David Kirby Posted at Huffington Post February 25, 2009

A major health official within the United States Government today endorsed more research into possible links between vaccination and autism, saying that such studies are "legitimate."

The official, Dr. Duane Alexander, Director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), an NIH agency, said scientists must investigate susceptible subpopulations of children, including kids with mitochondrial disorders and those who have trouble metabolizing mercury.

..."One question (is) whether there is a subgroup in the population that, on a genetic basis, is more susceptible to some vaccine characteristic or component than most of the population, and may develop an ASD in response to something about vaccination. We know that genetic variations exist that cause adverse reactions to specific foods, medications, or anesthetic agents. It is legitimate to ask whether a similar situation may exist for vaccines," Dr. Alexander said in a remarkable Q&A with Autism Speaks Scientific Director, Geraldine Dawson, PhD, posted today at the group's website.

..."The research process at its best is open and constantly questioning. It even reevaluates things that have been accepted for a long time, and is honest enough to be self-correcting when new information develops," Dr. Alexander said. "What is important is that the scientific inquiry moves ahead unfettered but free of conflict of interest so that the public can have confidence in the results. When there is evidence that research may not be free of bias, it is the role of the research community and the public to raise questions and concerns, assure that corrective measures are taken to be sure that results are valid and untainted, and provide assurance to the public that their trust is earned and deserved."

"There are still legitimate questions to ask about possible vaccine-associated events, and such questions need to be pursued in the interest of both public safety and maintaining public trust."

[Orrex]

1. We should also look into the stork theory of human reproduction

Equally valid, with at least as much supporting evidence.

[tabatha]

3. And also, that about ostriches sticking their heads in the sand.

[Orrex]

4. The funny thing is that ostriches don't actually do that. It's a myth.

Just like the causative link between vaccines and autism.


Of course the research is legitimate; many studies have already been done! The problem is that they've reached conclusions contrary to what the anti-vax troo-woo-believers had assumed outright, so those studies are declared tainted or invalid.

Round and round we go.

[eridani]

52. You are missing the point of the OP

--which is that studies on the general population may not be able to pinpoint very small groups of genetically vulnerable people. I presume you would not dismiss the existence of PKU because general population studies readily demonstrate the fact that phenylalanine-rich diets have no effect on the brain development of most kids.

[Orrex]

53. I get it, I get it

The problem is that antivaxers, the OP included, make the leap from

"There may be a statistically tiny subset of the population that is susceptible to this or that toxin."

to

"Vaccines cause autism! No one has demonstrated this yet, but vaccines really do cause autism!"

That's assuming the conclusion, or begging the question.


Let them perform the research on whatever micro-population they care to study. In the meantime, it is simply incorrect to say that vaccines have not been scientifically shown to have a causative link to autism, which is what the antivaxers are claiming (not verbatim, of course).

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MountainLaurel]

29. Don't laugh

Considering that NIH has spent money on whether prayer can heal you, I'd guess that the stork isn't far behind.

[tabatha]

2. Kind of what I thought.

"No clear evidence yet exists to implicate a specific relationship, but questions persist about whether there may be subpopulations unable to remove mercury from the body as fast as others, some adverse or cross-reacting response to a vaccine component, a mitochondrial disorder increasing the adverse response to vaccine-associated fever, or other as-yet-unknown responses," he added.

The point about mitochondrial disorders and vaccine-associated fever was a clear reference to Hannah Poling, the little girl with full-blown autism who won her Vaccine Court case last year when HHS conceded that a "vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves" had triggered her descent into autism.

[Warpy]

10. Mercury has been out of mandatory childhood vaccines since 2001

and was never in the MMR vaccine in the US.

How long are we supposed to wait to see the huge decrease in autism cases?

[flyingobject]

11. ah but GW Bush & federal preemption of states' laws banning thimerosal

"Another source of mercury is thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative) in some vaccines. Many states (e.g., Iowa, Illinois, California, Delaware, New York, and Missouri) have banned the use of thimerosal in vaccines; HOWEVER, legislation signed into law by the Bush administration in 2005 allowed federal preemption of the use of thimerosal, such that thimerosal could be used in vaccines even if it is banned in the state. In addition, in 2007, Bush vetoed a bill that banned the use of childhood flu vaccines that contain thimerosal."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-kern/autism-and-this-election_b_111037.html

[cosmik debris]

13. But since it is not in childhood vaccines

It doesn't matter if the states ban what isn't there. And it doesn't matter if the feds preempt that law banning what isn't there.

It is still not there.

[Warpy]

18. Flu vaccine is not mandatory

and can be given nasally, thimerosol free.

In addition, vaccine makers aren't going to reformulate vaccines for a few states that say they can go back to using thimerosol. It just doesn't work that way in real life.

[pnwmom]

16. Officially, but old stock lingered for another couple years.

And there was a drop several years later, when the group of children with the new vaccine reached preschool.

But why should there be a "huge" drop? If, as this scientist says, a subset of the population might be particularly vulnerable, why wouldn't the corresponding drop be related to the size of the subset?

[Warpy]

19. Vaccines are a little more fragile than that

and are generally created a year at a time.

I don't know where you people get this rubbish.

[pnwmom]

20. "You people"?

Interesting that you had no response for the second part of my post. So you resort to insults instead.

[mzmolly]

22. Hello you "person"

you. :hi:

[pnwmom]

23. Hello to you, too!

:hi:

[Orrex]

25. There is no evidence that "a subset of the population might be particularly vulnerable"

That's simply an assumption based on a long succession of failures to prove a causal link between Thimerosal and autism. In other words, it's an example of moving the goal posts.

If someone can present a study demonstrating the existence of the subset, then by all means let them present it. But in the absence of such a demonstration, antivaxers are simply assuming outright that this convenient subset exists, and from that assumption they're arguing that "trace amounts" of Thimerosal are at fault. That's begging the question.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

31. Head of NIH: "One question that still remains to be addressed...is a subgroup...more susceptible..."

Whether you believe it possible that some subsets of the population are more vulnerable
to vaccine injury than others, it is a valid question that deserves to be studied.

It truly is anti scientific to oppose research.

If you are right that there is no connection, than you have nothing to fear from research.

Dr. Alexander: One question that still remains to be addressed in a study of adequate size and precision is the one described in the preceding response, which is whether there is a subgroup in the population that, on a genetic basis, is more susceptible to some vaccine characteristic or component than most of the population, and may develop an ASD in response to something about vaccination.

http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science_news/nichd_alexander_interview.php

[Orrex]

34. Blah blah blah

I don't oppose the research. Let those who believe in the causative Thimerosal/autism link do as much research as they want, as long as they're honest about the outcome and don't fuck with the data in Wakefield-esque fashion.

And indeed there is much to be feared from bogus research, because it's exactly like debating a Creationist. The Creationist doesn't care whether nor not he proves his point while debating the scientist; as long as the debate takes place at all, the Creationist holds it up as a triumph for Creationism simply because the debate occurred.

If the conveniently susceptible subset were the subject of, say, 20 studies, here's how the antivaxers would play it:

1. If the studies found no link, they'd say "Studies are ongoing, but the existence of a susceptible subset can't be ruled out."

2. If 19 of the studies clearly showed no link but one study was inconclusive, they'd say "Scientists haven't yet reached a consensus, but there is some evidence that a susceptible subset exists."

3. If 19 of the studies clearly showed no link, and the one study that did show a link was shown to be fraudulent, they'd say "Studies have demonstrated a link

And if no serious studies to date have shown any causative link between Thimerosal and autism, they'd say "It truly is anti scientific to oppose research. If you are right that there is no connection, than you have nothing to fear from research."


See how it works? Just like all pseudoscience, the advocates change the goalposts or spin the results every time a study arrives at a conclusion other than the one advocated.

[uppityperson]

44. Indeed. I would like to see studies into all sorts of health issues

"I don't oppose the research. Let those who believe in the causative Thimerosal/autism link do as much research as they want, as long as they're honest about the outcome and don't fuck with the data in Wakefield-esque fashion."

I hope that research is being done as to other reasons for autism, as well as all sorts of other health issues.

[mzmolly]

21. Not completely. There are trace amounts in some.

eom

[two gun sid]

5. Thanks for posting this.

Peace.

[mzteris]

6. a David Alexander quote

“The National Children's Study would follow more than 100,000 children, from before birth -- and, in some cases, even before pregnancy.”


and he was appointed by REAGAN. . .

not to mention he's what - almost 70 yo . . .

and while I agree that research should be done, calling it "vaccine-autism" research is not only irresponsible, but damaging.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. it is Dr. Duane Alexander, (not David) & he makes alot of sense, here's more:

He brings up some points of interest and some questions that science should try to answer:

NICHD Director Dr. Alexander Discusses the Need for More Research on Environmental Risk Factors for Autism Spectrum Disorders

This is the first in an occasional series of interviews with key figures in the science and autism fields.

...The history of vaccine use holds numerous examples of risk reductions made when research demonstrated vaccine-associated adverse events, even if they were uncommon or only hypothetical. These include stopping smallpox vaccination not long after the disease was eliminated, switching from live polio vaccine to the killed vaccine, shifting to purified antigen rather than whole organism pertussis vaccine, and many others, including removal of Thimerosal as a preservative from children's vaccines. All these changes came from continued research and the desire to maximize public safety even when the adverse events were rare (polio) or hypothetical (Thimerosal). There are still legitimate questions to ask about possible vaccine-associated events, and such questions need to be pursued in the interest of both public safety and maintaining public trust.

Dr. Dawson: What sort of findings from vaccine-related studies might be useful in terms of advancing prevention, diagnosis and treatment for ASD?

Dr. Alexander: Both vaccine- and environment-related studies hold out the possibility of breaking down the group of ASDs into different subgroups based on cause or response to different treatment approaches. Diagnosis can be used not just for autism overall but for the subtype within the spectrum. Knowing causes can permit research to develop different prevention/intervention/ treatment approaches that could personalize care and markedly improve outcomes

....

[pnwmom]

17. Makes a lot of sense.

I can't process gluten, a common substance that doesn't bother most people. My father couldn't metabolize chemotherapy normally -- and it turns out that that is a genetic condition, too. I'm sure that there are also groups of the population who have more trouble metabolizing mercury, or other elements of the vaccine. And I think if the government is going to promote these vaccines, then it has an obligation to protect those who are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects.

[Jim__]

26. Dr Duane Alexander's quote in context.

Link:

Other evidence suggests that environmental influences on the DNA that we inherit from our parents also may affect our health. In fact, parents would be included even before they have children, to see if their health influences their children's health. Similarly, minor variations in our DNA explain why different people respond differently to the same environmental exposure.

The National Children's Study would follow more than 100,000 children, from before birth-and, in some cases, even before pregnancy. It would meticulously measure their environmental exposures while tracking their health and development, from infancy through childhood, until age 21, seeking the root causes of many childhood and adult diseases. In their search for environmental influences on human health, study researchers plan to examine such factors as the food children eat, the air they breathe, their schools and neighborhoods, how often they see a health care provider, and even the composition of the house dust in their homes.

Study researchers plan to enroll more than 100,000 women to ensure that enough children participate. In many cases, the women's partners would also be enrolled in the study. Study scientists plan to include not only pregnant women, but women who are planning to become pregnant. The researchers also intend to include women who have no plans to become pregnant. Many pregnancies are unintended, so including this latter group would allow study scientists to examine factors surrounding planned and unplanned pregnancies for possible effects on health and development.

[flyingobject]

8. "The research process at its best is open and constantly questioning. "

Sounds like a scientist and a doctor.


"Dr. Alexander: The research process at its best is open and constantly questioning. It even reevaluates things that have been accepted for a long time, and is honest enough to be self-correcting when new information develops. What is important is that the scientific inquiry moves ahead unfettered but free of conflict of interest so that the public can have confidence in the results. When there is evidence that research may not be free of bias, it is the role of the research community and the public to raise questions and concerns, assure that corrective measures are taken to be sure that results are valid and untainted, and provide assurance to the public that their trust is earned and deserved."
http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science_news/nichd_alexander_interview.php

[Mojorabbit]

14. Yes

An openminded scientist is a jewel.

[mzmolly]

15. An excellent

statement.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. Doc says valid question to see if some subgroups are more susceptible.....

We know there is a group here who is opposed to research into any possible vaccine connection to Autism, and it seems opposed to pretty much any research, so we won't try to persuade that group.

Here is the key point, IMHO:

"....which is whether there is a subgroup in the population that, on a genetic basis, is more susceptible to some vaccine characteristic or component than most of the population, and may develop an ASD in response to something about vaccination."

Read it all here, decide for yourself:
http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science_news/nichd_alexander_interview.php

Its not about Mercuri, its about environmental causes, and in this case, vaccines or their components as an environmental cause.

[LeftishBrit]

37. Nobody is 'opposed to research into any possible vaccine connection to autism'

It's just that an awful lot of research in this area has been done already. What about doing more research into the possible connections to autism of prenatal nutrition, or the effects of infections during pregnancy, for example?

[trotsky]

39. Absolutey. Or environmental factors such as pollution.

Or early television watching. (As one study has already indicated may be linked.)

Or any other number of things that are languishing because a very desperate group of people want someone to blame rather than real answers.

[uppityperson]

46. I would like to see more research into things like that also.

thank you

[aquart]

9. Good.

One in 150 children is something out of control.

[mzmolly]

12. K and R

:kick:

[trotsky]

27. It's funny watching David Kirby pretend like he's got a shred of credibility left.

It's also hilarious to see the anti-vax brigade latch onto this as if it were a validation of the discredited vaccine-autism theory. Hint: Read Dr.'s actual words, CAREFULLY.

[cosmik debris]

28. He reminds me of the Jon Lovits character on SNL

Yeah, that's the ticket!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

32. Spamming my threads, as usual. What - nothing else to do but wave your pom poms?

Same old predictable shit. Anti science, anti research, fearful of having a real investigation
done. ego before helping those with Autism or others injured by vaccine.

Wave your little pom poms

[Why Syzygy]

33. .

[trotsky]

35. You've been taken to task for this innumerable times.

But you've REALLY got to stop with the strawmen. Seriously. NO ONE here is "anti-science." NO ONE here is "anti-research." NO ONE is "fearful of having a real investigation."

You got that? Can you acknowledge those facts? Can you behave responsibly and put forth your arguments rationally without having to totally misrepresent the positions of those who disagree with you?

[Why Syzygy]

36. I would wager

that WYVBC and I aren't the only ones who perceive anti-science, partisan posters here.
Maybe just accept that's our perception. Your "facts" are another person's skepticism.

[trotsky]

38. OK that's just bullshit.

You want to know what's REALLY anti-science?

Bashing reputable researchers with years of education, study, and experience as "shills" that have all been paid off by big pharma.

Dismissing sound research not because of ANY flaws or methodology problems but merely because the results don't match up with what you want to believe.

Demanding, despite the incredible preponderance of evidence showing vaccines are not only multiple orders of magnitude safer than the diseases they prevent but ALSO that they don't cause the problems they are currently being accused of, that MORE research needs to be done - money WASTED rather than used to ensure vaccines are more readily available for children around the world, are more effective, are (yes) SAFER, and are viewed as a net POSITIVE thing for public health rather than some global paranoid CONSPIRACCEEEEE to kill and maim children.

Don't you fucking DARE lecture me on what's anti-science.

[Why Syzygy]

40. What we have here

are DU members who show interest only in pro-pharmaceutical and a minor interest in anti-god.
No balanced human being is so shallow.

None of you post in the Science forum, ever. You have no interest in science.
You are only interested in advancing the state position on science, which has been shown over and over again to be flawed.
I see one or two out in the big forums. No interest outside two forums. That's what I see.

You ignore all the evidence that does not support your claims. For example, the reports on Lily posted in this forum. :shrug:
Partisan. All the way. Your actions might mold a change of opinion, but all the caps on the keyboard will not.

[trotsky]

41. One word sums up your post. FALSE.

None of you post in the Science forum, ever. You have no interest in science.
FALSE. You obviously have no idea how to use DU's search function. Would you like me to embarrass you with a page of links?

You are only interested in advancing the state position on science, which has been shown over and over again to be flawed.
FALSE. The "state position" on global warming the previous 8 years was a farce. We realize, however, that each issue must be studied individually and that the government experts aren't always right OR always wrong.

No interest outside two forums. That's what I see.
FALSE. On my "My posts" page I have posts in 8 different forums. I have no idea if that's typical for me, but that's what it says right now.

You ignore all the evidence that does not support your claims.
FALSE. Project much?

Every single one of your ridiculous accusations is false - and that's pathetic, yet wholly expected.

[Why Syzygy]

43. .

:boring:

[uppityperson]

47. I do not see that at all. I see dichotomous snarking in Health forum, and

posters posting all over DU including here. Broadbrush insults like this don't help either.

I read several forums, but don't post in all. I do hope you aren't including me in your "assessment" of Health Forum posters. I may be uppity, but I am wondering why I am even posting here as it seems the dichotomous snarking is what is important.

[Why Syzygy]

48. No. I'm not including you.

There's no list. When I first started poking around over here (Health), I was told that "anti-vaxers" should be put in the 911 dungeon. However, the ones that suggested that are the guiltiest of keeping the rage going. They post on it more than anyone else, and KEEP IT GOING. No one has ever given an explanation of why there is so much irrational, emotional involvement in this ONE issue. And, yes, there is the never dying defense of the government sponsored, monitored and controlled research field. That is something I cannot overlook. Call me tinfoil, but I don't trust ANYONE who is so aggressive about defending crooked research/science politicians and policies.

[uppityperson]

49. I see this as the problem: "crooked research/science politicians and policies "

seems folks on both sides have different ideas of which research/science is crooked.

[Why Syzygy]

50. Yeah. That's the real debate it would seem. nt

[uppityperson]

45. I thought "spamming" was posting the same thing over and over, without concern or realtionship to

the topic of the thread. Merely replying on threads started by the same OP doesn't constitute "spam". If you think it does, alert on it and tell the mods and let them decide as they are here to serve us.

You are losing my support when you post things like "Anti science, anti research, fearful of having a real investigation
done. ego before helping those with Autism or others injured by vaccine." and then insult. It really doesn't help. I know you are frustrated, but it doesn't help.

[mzmolly]

42. Here's an interesting, related article.

"Vaccine Court: Autism Debate Continues"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html

On February 12, the federal "Vaccine Court" in Washington issued a sweeping ruling in three highly touted "test cases" against families who claimed that their childrens' autism had been caused by vaccines. The Special Masters in those three cases found that Petitioners failed to establish causation between MMR vaccines, the mercury-laced vaccine preservative thimerosal, and autism (the court decision, which is under appeal, deferred any finding on a thimerosal-only theory of causation). The rulings could have a significant precedential impact on some 5,000 families who opted to bring their cases in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings (OAP) hoping that the vaccine court would officially hold that the MMR vaccine or thimerosal had caused autism in their children.

The New York Times joined the government Health Agency (HRSA) and its big pharma allies hailing the decisions as proof that the scientific doubts about vaccine safety had finally been "demolished." The US Department of Health and Human services said the rulings should "help reassure parents that vaccines do not cause autism." The Times, which has made itself a blind mouthpiece for HRSA and a leading defender of vaccine safety, joined crowing government and vaccine industry flacks applauding the decisions like giddy cheerleaders, rooting for the same court that many of these same voices viscously derided just one year ago, after Hannah Poling won compensation for her vaccine induced autism.

But last week, the parents of yet another child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were awarded a lump sum of more than $810,000 (plus an estimated $30-40,000 per year for autism services and care) in compensation by the Court, which ruled that the measels-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine had caused acute brain damage that led to his autism spectrum disorder.

The family of 10-year-old Bailey Banks won their case quietly and without fanfare in June of 2007, but the ruling has only now come to public attention. In the remarkably clear and eloquent decision, Special Master Richard Abell ruled that the Banks had successfully demonstrated that "the MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the conditions from which Bailey suffered and continues to suffer."

If anyone is interested in a discussion on this, feel free to post a new topic.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.