Over the last decade, autism has gone from a rare and misunderstood condition to a disorder that may affect as many as 1.5 million Americans. Without a clear explanation in sight, parents and doctors have worked tirelessly to pinpoint the cause of autism, but the answer remains elusive. Are vaccines the missing link?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
1998 - 2008
- From Kev Leitch
By Kevin Leitch - Parent and Autism Activist
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thank you so much
Kevin Leitch, you are a breath of fresh air in the toxic atmosphere of hatred and blame that the antivaccine and "biomed" parents consistently spew.
Our children need to have the kind of care that all developmentally disabled children get. Right now we can be observing what parents of children with cerebral palsy, down syndrome and fragile x are doing for their children (including adult children). As it is many parents of special needs children recoil from the "autism parents" because their rhetoric is so full of hate and so prone to selling insane "cures" and ridiculously stressful "therapies" with big promises of "cures".
Today's autism parents are no better off than when they listened to Bettleheim, and no better off than a thousand years ago when children would have been taken to priests to be exorcised or barbers to be bled. The clamoring noise-makers of autism parents are some of the most unreasonable people I know.It's obvious to observers that they are not well people.
- Fenrisulfr August 8, 2008 1:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How dare you.
I have a son with Autism and I am far from unreasonable. I use all my spare time to help him and many other children with disabilities.
I sounds to be from your responses your the one with anger problems and a lot of hate yourself.
- bubs August 31, 2008 2:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not about Wakefield - 1
Kevin uses Wakefield as the starting point for an argument. So let's look at Wakefield in context. (Because of this sites 1000 character limit, I will break the response into multiple comments).
Have you asked yourself why this one man's research has been singled out for attention?
Follow the money. The global vaccine market was worth ~ $10 billion in 2007 and is expected to double in less than five years -- as long as vaccination rates remain high. Any reduction in vaccination rates equates to a huge chunk of lost revenue and profit for the makers.
Especially in developed regions, confidence in vaccines is eroding as credible facts and truth emerge. Pharmaceutical companies, and the legislators they influence, are meeting increasing resistance to the addition of 'mandatory' vaccines to the schedule. There is constant apprehension that if any vaccine is perceived to cause harm then all vaccine rates will plummet.
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 3:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not about Wakefield - 2
Industry and its government allies (both here and abroad) have been aggressively looking for ways to reverse the perception of harm. Things have really been heating up since the Autism Omnibus proceedings have gotten underway in 'vaccine court'.
Enter the campaign against Wakefield.
Wakefield has become a convenient, but crucial, scapegoat. A key part of the industry's current strategy hinges on their ability to discredit Wakefield and the lab he used, thereby hoping to exonerate the MMR-autism connection in vaccine court, and thereby reassure the world that combined MMR (and MMRC, and all vaccines) are completely safe and that all people should get as many vaccines as they recommend (or manage to mandate).
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 3:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not about Wakefield - 3
In 1998 Wakefield published an article about inflammatory bowel disease and ASD. It first appeared in the “Early Reports” section of The Lancet, one of England’s leading medical journals: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive disability disorder in children.
This first report of a new syndrome, never refuted or retracted, has since been repeatedly replicated and supported by subsequent, peer-reviewed publications by other researchers. Vaccine-strain measles virus has been found and sequenced from gut biopsies and cerebral spinal fluid in autistic children.
It is incorrect to say that that Dr. Wakefield’s first study was discredited and renounced. The only retraction was a retraction of the interpretation that the press made following the release of the study. It had nothing to do with the facts in the paper.
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 3:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not about Wakefield - 4
Under pressure from industry, the U.K. government claimed that the 1998 article led to a 15% decline in vaccination levels. However, using published U.K. government records
http://www.vaproject.org/yazbak/uk-mmr-vaccination-rates-before-1998-20070605.htm
it has been shown that the rate of MMR vaccination had already fallen by 16% in the 10 years prior to when the Wakefield article was published.
How does this tie into the Autism Omnibus proceedings? The first of three 'test cases' (ahead of 4800 cases) involves a girl who became autistic following reaction to the MMR. As part of her diagnosis and care she had tests run at the same lab used by Wakefield, and one of her physicians used the same protocol as Wakefield to verify vaccine-strain measles in her gut tissue. If the government Respondents can discredit Wakefield they hope they can discredit the Petitioners.
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 3:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not about Wakefield - 5
Read the original document published in the Lancet. Be sure to note on page 641 where the authors (not just Wakefield but twelve others) clearly state: "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue."
The subsequent paragraph is what made the industry stake-holders squirm: "If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988."
It was now 1998, ten years after the vaccine was introduced, and industry knew the syndrome (autism) was on the rise. But keep reading and once again you see where Wakefield et al clearly were not claiming an association: "Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine."
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 4:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not about Wakefield - 6
What would you do if you were in the shoes of Wakefield and the other authors? Parents AND physicians refer these tough-case kids to your country's prestigious hospital. Among other things they all have weird poop and you recognize they probably have inflamed guts. They all report noticeable declines occurred within days of receiving the MMR vaccine and no other temporal cause can be identified.
Your team runs tests, including a check to see if their bodies failed to clear the live viruses in the vaccine. Your team uses state-of-the-art procedures and discovers vaccine-strain measles where it shouldn't be. You discuss it with each other and conclude it's important to share the information because it may matter to a lot of lives.
As a team you recommend proceeding with eyes wide open, and advocate further research to pin down what, if anything, is really happening.
All of this is standard scientific approach. It was blessed before, during, and after by the hospital management.
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 4:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not about Wakefield - 7
That is until industry came down hard in response to the perceived threat. I wonder what would have happened if Murch, Anthony, Linnell or any the others had their name first in the author's list.
Actually, we do know. Except for Murch and Walker-Smith, the other guys caved under industry pressure. The three with enough integrity to stand tall are getting thrashed by their government and industry-bought media.
With regards to the legitimacy and replicability of the "Wakefield study" (always remember there were a dozen co-authors, and the research project was blessed by one of the most prestigious research hospitals in Europe), the fact remains that their method followed accepted scientific principles and the results have been replicated by recognized experts.
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 4:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not about Wakefield - 8
Kawashima et al replicated the findings [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=pubmed&details_term=10759242 %5BUID%5D ]. Kawashima is experienced. He had been doing this kind of work for at least 4 years before Wakefield's team. For example in these two peer-reviewed studies [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8836505 ,8678833 ] he demonstrated the presence of vaccine-strain measles in patients diagnosed with autoimmune hepatitis and epilepsy.
Kawashima and other scientists from around the world (including Afzal in the U.K., one of Wakefield's strongest detractors) established that labs can differ 1000x in their sensitivity [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=pubmed&details_term=12629660 %5BUID%5D ]. It was a contest revealing it's not just enough to have the equipment, you've really got to know how to run it.
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 4:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not about Wakefield - 9
Another replication of Wakefield's findings comes from Uhlmann et al [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=pubmed&details_term=11950955 %5BUID%5D ]. You might be interested to note that the Royal Free Hospital blessed this study which occurred 4 years *after* the first study involving Wakefield.
You might also be interested to note that Afzal attempted to refute the findings. He claimed to have done an identical study [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=pubmed&details_term=16555271 %5BUID%5D ] but found zero evidence of vaccine-strain measles. Upon scrutiny, however, we learn that he used peripheral blood instead of gastrointestinal tissue samples. Look in the wrong place and you'll find the wrong thing --- a classic maneuver.
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 4:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not about Wakefield - 10
You should recognize that the Royal Free Hospital had been investigating the probable association between Crohn's disease and measles since at least 1989
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=pubmed&details_term=8563889 %5BUID%5D
That paper was published 9 years before the 'Wakefield' study. Wakefield was no maverick at the hospital.
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 4:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not about Wakefield - 11
To date there has been no proven disassociation between the MMR vaccine and autism.
But did you know that, in court, plaintiffs have prevailed in the link between MMR vaccine and arthritis, development of actual measles in an immuno-suppressed person, Guillain-Barre syndrome, acute encephalomyelitis, paraplegia, and seizure disorder. Or that the Department of Health and Human Services has agreed in court that the MMR vaccine can lead to ADD, learning disorders and behavioral problems.
And did you know the MMR vaccine has never been evaluated as to whether it plays any role in cancer, cell mutation, or potential to impair fertility? Merck states this right on the product insert.
Kevin's attempt to paint the MMR, and vaccines in general, as harmless simply doesn't pass muster.
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 4:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It IS about what's in the vaccines -12
Kevin states, "As the science has progressed and closed off avenue after avenue, their beliefs have changed to try and fit. First it was MMR in the UK and Thiomersal in the US. Then it was both. Then it wasn't just these but the ingredients in all vaccines. then it was a combination of all the above, then it was the schedule vaccines were administered in."
Nice try. But it wasn't the parents who split the issue between MMR, thimerosal, or both. Those distinctions were applied to facilitate the massive case load grouped into the Omnibus proceedings.
But for Kevin's sake let's keep it simple. Go to PubMed and type in "mercury AND inflammation". You get 160+ peer reviewed studies, most of them honest, demonstrating the link between mercury and illness.
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 4:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Most of them honest?
I'll keep this simple. Whey are you refering people to a website where only "Most" of the studies are honest? How did you decide which ones were honest? Were those the ones that agreed with your preconceived notions?
- Aegiltheugly
September 23, 2008 1:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You decide
I refer people to PubMed because it is the most comprehensive publicly accessible database for peer reviewed medical research. Have you tried it?
The comment about "most of them honest" is a reminder that just because a study is peer reviewed does not mean it is without bias or distortion. I did not invent that problem (see http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=bias +medical+journals ). I added the comments so that readers would understand I am not claiming all 160+ studies are unquestionable or infallible. Maybe they are, but odds are that some of the studies are manipulated. I did not identify any particular study as honest or dishonest. Does that seem unreasonable?
Read the studies, come to your own conclusions about which ones are reliable. Choose which, if any, influence your notions.
Once you've actually read the studies, come back and tell us whether you believe there is a link between mercury and illness.
- toxouts
September 23, 2008 3:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jama
I read JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine myself. Peer reviewed is not enough. You need to consider what the study is reviewed in. In a publish or perish environment you end up with a lot of "peer reviewed" junk.
- Aegiltheugly
October 3, 2008 2:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And the rest
Agreed. Peer-review alone is not sufficient to ensure objectivity and reliability -- funding, sponsorship, affiliations, alliances, obligations, expertise, and other aspects influence bias in the reported outcomes and conclusions of research.
PubMed is simply a database including articles published in JAMA, NEJM, and thousands of others.
Since you are familiar with JAMA, NEJM, and how to spot bias, I'm guessing it should be relatively easy for you to check on "mercury AND inflammation" (results at http://tinyurl.com/533u6a ).
Have you looked through these and personally concluded whether there is a link between mercury and illness?
- toxouts
October 3, 2008 5:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It IS about what's in the vaccines -13
Not convincing enough? Try this "mother of all toxicities" search for mercury in PubMed [ http://tinyurl.com/33totb ]. You get more than 5900 results. I challenge anyone to spend more than 15 minutes reading through this and then rationally argue that mercury, at any level in the body, by any route -- including injection -- is okay.
Mercury is just one ingredient. It is entirely rational and justified to question what effect each injected chemical has on people -- especially little people -- and also to question what effects they have in combination. Viruses and antigenic proteins deserve scrutiny too. Start with something simple in PubMed like "virus AND (excitotoxi* OR glial)" and decide for yourself. The mechanisms are there.
Or consider http://www.sailhome.org/Concerns/Vaccines/MMR_autism.html #burden
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 4:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It IS about what's in the vaccines - 14
Kevin concludes his statement by saying, "What our children need is a future, not a continual scrabbling about to blame something which is not at fault."
I agree, autistic children need help with their future. I also believe in reducing risks associated with the onset of autism -- so that more children never have to face that future.
The weight of science -- much more than merely the observations made by Wakefield and his colleagues -- demonstrates how the biomechanisms of viruses and the effects of toxic exposures produce autism (and other illnesses). Accepting this now will lead to better treatment and prevention sooner.
- toxouts
August 12, 2008 4:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
I've responded to these points here: http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/dr-andrew-wakefield
- Kev Leitch
August 15, 2008 4:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
For which there is no "fault"
Kev, I would take it one step further and say "What our children need is a future, not a continual scrabbling about to blame something for which there is no fault."
- gbrettmiller
August 21, 2008 7:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.