Comments on: Autism Speaks sees second resignation over vaccine stance http://www.patriciaebauer.com/2009/07/03/another-resignation-19571/ Disability News | PatriciaEBauer.com Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Beth Clay http://www.patriciaebauer.com/2009/07/03/another-resignation-19571/comment-page-1/#comment-4441 Beth Clay Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:02:11 +0000 http://www.patriciaebauer.com/?p=19571#comment-4441 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. 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.

]]>