Autism Speaks sees second resignation over vaccine stance
July 3rd, 2009From the Education Week’s On Special Education Blog, the Arizona Daily Star’s Puzzle Pieces Blog, and Newsweek’s The Human Condition Blog:
Dr. Eric London resigned this week from his post on the scientific affairs committee at Autism Speaks, citing ethical differences over the advocacy organization’s stance on the autism and vaccine debate. London was a co-founder of the National Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR), which merged with Autism Speaks in 2006.
In a public resignation letter, London said he was stepping away from the New York-based organization because it continues to push for research into an autism-vaccine link, which “he can no longer ethically support.”
London said Autism Speaks’s arguments that “there might be rare cases of ‘biologically-plausible’ vaccine involvement…are misleading and disingenuous” and adversely impact autism research and public health.
Alison Tepper Singer resigned from her post as executive vice president for communications and outreach for Autism Speaks earlier this year for similar reasons and started her own advocacy group, the Autism Science Foundation (ASF). London serves on the scientific advisory board at ASF.
This entry was posted
on Friday, July 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 am and is filed under advocacy, autism, vaccine.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Email This Post
Our RSS Feed
July 4th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Sadly, too many have bought into the current mass media campaign that puts forward the idea that the ’science is settled’ on an autism-vaccine link. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have more than 1300 families who have received settlements in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, we have at every turn seen poorly designed and implemented studies (which found no link) be promoted as good science and definitive results, while the hard science conducted at respected academic institutes such as Northeastern, Columbia, and outside the United States is discounted or outright ignored. There are serious (and admitted) gaps in the scientific knowledge base about who is at risk for a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine and who is not. Sadly, since those questions were first asked in 1989 and again in 1999-2000 the government has still failed to see these studies done.
Just as we now know that as many as 1 in 10 Americans may have celiac disease (a sensitivity to gluten), we also know that between 1 and 2 percent of the public may suffer a serious reaction to a vaccine resulting in disability or death.
Is every case of autism the result of vaccination – NO. However, vaccines can cause brain injury, and brain injury can cause autism. So, not only is it biologically plausible, but it it highly likely that an unknown percentage of cases of autism are vaccine injury related. When asked to choose between a parent’s observation and an epidemiological study, I will go with the parent’s observation every time.
Autism Speaks, who came onto the autism scene in recent years has the resources few other organizations have, and should be lauded for being willing to look at what continues to be a very important and unresolved scientific issue. After all, with autism rates still on the rise and a desire to preserve the integrity of public health immunization programs, we need to have real answers based on high quality hard science, not mediocre research and an over emphasis on epidemiology. Is it the ONLY thing that needs to be done in research on autism, NO and no one at Autism Speaks or the autism/vaccine injury community is suggesting it is, However, to ignore the work that needs to be done continues to put future generations at risk for injury and death (and yes for autism). If we can take the risk for vaccine injury from 1-2 percent down to .5 percent or less, would that not be a great benefit to society and to the immunization program? I think so. And I think any reasonably minded individual would as well.