Paul Offit meets Stephen Colbert!

In some areas, there was a lot of "buzz" about Paul Offit's appearance, last night, on the Stephen Colbert television show.  There was a Facebook page dedicated to the "event," and a rather heated debate place between anti-vaxers and Offit supporters.  


Some early posts on the FB page had indicated that some anti-vaxers were expecting Colbert to skewer Offit.  Those viewers were, no doubt, deeply disappointed.  Colbert's questioning of Offit was done in a way that gave Offit ample opportunity to explain his position, and for Colbert to throw some funny barbs in the direction of the anti-vax crowd.  It was just silly enough to be Colbert, and serious enough to get the point across.  


The vitriol that was being posted on the FB page was amazing, to me.  There was at least one person, maybe more, who seemed to be spending her whole day just posting - one post after another.  The thing is, her posts made no sense.  She posted quote after quote and link after link.  The links often did not prove her point, or even contradicted her point.  The claims that are so often made, that Wakefield's study had been replicated, were repeated like a mantra, but the links showed that those studies did not prove what the posters claimed they did.  Two or three of the five studies were, in fact, not really studies at all - they were case studies of one, two or three individuals who had ASD and gastrointestinal disorders.  That proves nothing about a link between the two.  Only one of the "studies" even comes close to being a replication of the Wakefield finding, and that was performed by ... Wakefield's group in Texas!  Not, exactly, an unbiased, disinterested source.  The finding is merely that there is some correlation (not significant, if I recall correctly) between ASD and GI issues.  That still doesn't link vaccines with ASD.


The moving target issue - first it was MMR, then it was thimerisol, then it was the number of vaccines ... - is huge.  But the bottom line for the anti-vaxers seems to be that it HAS to be the vaccines, even if they have no idea what it is.


I want to be clear here.  I know that some children have been injured by vaccines.  It happens, and it's awful.  It's also very, very rare.  For those children, and those families, and those friends, it is tragic.  Like just about everything else, there is a cost-risk analysis that says that the risk of those injuries is small enough that the benefit, for the vast majority of people, makes it worthwhile.  Clearly, for that person, it wasn't - but one never knows who that person will be.  NO ONE claims that vaccines are 100% safe.  Nothing in life is.  Not getting vaccinated isn't safe either.  And therein is the rub.  


While Age of Autism is vilifying Offit for his supposed blind adherence to all vaccines, they ignore the fact that he was the doctor who fought AGAINST continuing to vaccinate against small pox when the risk benefit analysis moved to the point where the risk became too high to justify continuing to administer the vaccine.  The histrionic opposition to vaccines is every bit as thoughtless as they accuse people of being when they "blindly" follow all the directions of their doctors.  


Personally, I wouldn't consider rejecting a tetanus shot for myself or my children.  The idea appalls me!  The standard vaccines, for me, are non-negotiable.  What about the others?  I don't get flu shots.  I still think there's too much hit-and-miss with the annual mix, and the annual angst about whether they got this year's right.  I'm also concerned about recent studies showing a link between flu shots and later development of Alzheimer's.  I'm also not approving the Gardisell (sp?) for my sons - I think that vaccine was rushed to market with inadequate testing and the testing for boys was even worse than that for girls.  But as far as meningitis, MMR, chicken pox, hib, Hepatitis, - my kids had all of those, and I would never second-guess myself on them.

Wakefield ... Again

The breaking news, that the 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield linking vaccines, in particular the MMR vaccine, to autism, was not only inaccurate but fraudulent, is everywhere.  One would think there was a tremendous amount of new information here.  Maybe there is, but if so, I must have missed it.  We knew, from earlier news releases, that the "information" that was published was inaccurate.  We knew, really, from the very first publication, that it had little, if any, scientific value - we're talking here about a "study" of 12 children, after all.  Since when is a scientific study considered "scientific" when it is composed of only twelve subjects?  Really? 


By the time the "study" had been withdrawn from the Lancet, we knew that the details of the medical histories were inaccurate and that Wakefield had been paid a small fortune for his expertise in a forthcoming lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.  The obvious interest in a specific result was more than clear.  The fact that some of the children had developmental  concerns before receiving vaccinations was documented.  So, what we have just discovered, if I am understanding things here, is that ... all of this was not a mere accident?  That up until now, we thought this was all just sloppy work, and now, surprise! we just found out that it was intentional?


I guess I'm just too cynical.  It didn't occur to me that any of the "manipulation" of medical records, or any of the inaccuracies in the histories, or any of the blatant falsifications were accidental.  There was clearly a motive.  This was not being undertaken for the sake of pure science, or for the sake of helping children in need: this was being undertaken to support a particular position in a lawsuit.  There was only one outcome that was desired.  Even if, for the sake of argument, one wishes to believe that Wakefield wanted to help children/families, his motivation was to reach a particular conclusion here.  He was not unbiased or disinterested.  He had a theory that he wanted passionately to prove.


And of course, with this "breaking news," comes a huge outpouring of outrage ... on both sides of the issue.  People who look at the news and say "What a scoundrel!  He should be put in jail forever!" may be shocked to learn that there are many, many supporters of Wakefield who are lining up to defend him.  This is all, in their view, a plot to undermine the truth-teller who would seek to reveal the dangerous reality about "Big Pharma" and its nefarious intentions.  It is as if the more that is revealed about Wakefield's bad science, bad ethics, bad integrity, the more his supporters view it as proof that there is a conspiracy to silence him because he has so much important information to share.  It is circuitous "logic" that is difficult or impossible to counter, since all science that counters what he has found is dismissed as "tainted" by the researchers' supposed interest in vaccine income.  This is asserted constantly and vehemently regardless of whether or not the researchers have such an interest, and any reference to Wakefield's financial interest in the outcomes of his "research" are dismissed out of hand.  The inability of anyone to duplicate Wakefield's "findings" are similarly dismissed, while the many studies that have failed to find a connection between vaccines and autism are picked apart for various reasons.


Many people welcomed the news about the fraud as the final nail that will put an end to the vaccine-autism "nonsense."  Maybe now, the hope is, time, energy and money will be better spent on more useful things to help people and families dealing with autism.  Unfortunately, I don't think that this news will do that any more than the prior news, including the retraction of the story from the Lancet, has done to put this issue to rest.

Vaccines, Autism, and Maintaining Friendships

I don't believe that vaccinations cause autism.

The more I learn about Dr. Wakefield, the more horrified I am by him.

I have friends who are certain that their autistic children are vaccine-injured.  I respect them, I know they truly believe this, and I even believe that some children are injured by vaccines - just that it is an extremely small number, and that the vast majority of people believed to have autism were not injured by vaccines.  In order not to offend those people who truly, deeply believe that their children were injured by vaccines, I don't post anything on Facebook about Dr. Wakefield, or vaccines, or the absurdity that I believe his dangerous, faulty "research" has wrought.   

They, of course, post a great deal about how awful they think Dr. Offit is.  They post to support Dr. Wakefield, for all he has done "for us."  I don't get it.  They look at "all the money" Dr. Offit earned.  They don't notice "all the money" that Dr. Wakefield earned or stood to earn from the tiny study he did, using unethically obtained tests from a too-small to be significant sample, drawing conclusions that had no support.  The damage that he has done is incalculable.  Aside from the people who have been exposed to and endured the diseases that they should, rightfully, have been vaccinated against, there is all that money that has gone into research, again and again, to disprove this connection.  And this continues to be done.  And the money that goes into publicizing the inaccuracies of Dr. Wakefield's theories - all this could have been used to research, publicize and provide services for individuals living with autism.  Legitimate research. Needed services.

How many children have been really injured from pre-natal exposure to measles, because so many are not being vaccinated?  How many have been really injured from the high fevers and other effects of the illnesses that these vaccines had all but eliminated?  

I don't know whether we live in an age of intense fear of conspiracies, or whether that was always an underlying "fear of the masses," but this kind of fear, which is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the underlying science, is dangerous to everyone.  As science advances, and as the number of people who understand that science seems to decrease, proportionally, the fear and distrust is likely to increase ... to the detriment of all.

The Facts In The Case Of Dr. Andrew Wakefield

I know that the MMR/vaccine - autism issue is a highly charged, controversial one.  For better or worse, I've never thought there was a link between autism and vaccinations.  Do I believe there are some individuals who are injured by vaccines?  Of course.  Do I believe that the current increase in numbers of children diagnosed with ASD is due to immunizations?  No.  This came to my attention, and I really, really liked it.



The Facts In The Case Of Dr. Andrew Wakefield

Posted using ShareThis