AC: Is there a connection between vaccines and autism? Thousands of families with autistic kids think there is. But the Centers for Disease Control has always maintained that no research supports a link. Now one famous paediatrician has written a book about vaccines who charges the government's studies on vaccines is woefully inadequate.Ms. Camerota introduces Dr. Bob Sears (BS), author of The Vaccine Book, which was published three years ago.
AC: The government says they have studied vaccines and they do not cause autism. But has the government ever studied the amount of vaccines that our children get in 1 sitting?
BS: That is what me and my colleagues at SafeMinds are a little worried about...there is a CDC report that says that usually simultaneous vaccination has not been completely studied for safety and that's what we're worried about. Babies get as many as 6 or 7 vaccines altogether...and the CDC is admitting that they aren't always researched that way. The prime example is the flu vaccine. They've researched the flu vaccine in great detail when given alone, but the CDC has never researched it when given in conjunction with all the other shots...and that's what we're worried about.Interestingly, SafeMinds is a notorious anti-vaccine organisation, also known as the 'mercury militia', that maintains that autism is caused by thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines that contains ethylmercury. However, mercury toxicity does not resemble autism, and autism rates around the world have been increasing in spite of thimerosal removal from paediatric vaccines and immunoglobulins starting in 1999 in the U.S. and even years earlier in other countries. SafeMinds rejects any studies that demonstrate that thimerosal does not contribute to neurological disorders, even going so far as to storm off a study team, in a huff, the day the results were announced and not to their liking.
Dr. Bob alludes to some CDC report that states that simultaneous vaccination has not been completely studied for safety yet doesn't provide any further information about this. However, the CDC information regarding simultaneous vaccination does not support what Dr. Bob claims. For instance, from the CDC's Vaccine Safety Page:
Dr. Bob mentions that influenza vaccine has not been tested with the childhood schedule as the 'prime example', when, in fact, it's the only example. Vaccine safety studies are addressed later. Ms. Camerota continues:Is simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccinations safe? Wouldn't it be safer to separate combination vaccines and spread them out, vaccinating against just one disease at a time?
The available scientific data show that simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines has no adverse effect on the normal childhood immune system. A number of studies have been conducted to examine the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines simultaneously. These studies have shown that the recommended vaccines are as effective in combination as they are individually, and that such combinations carry no greater risk for adverse side effects. Consequently, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended simultaneous administration of all routine childhood vaccines when appropriate. Research is underway to find methods to combine more antigens in a single vaccine injection (for example, MMR and chickenpox). This will provide all the advantages of the individual vaccines, but will require fewer shots.
Another advantage is that combination vaccines result in fewer shots and less discomfort for children. In addition, spreading out the administration of separate vaccines may leave children unnecessarily vulnerable to disease.
AC: Let me show (CDC Infant Vaccine Schedule) our viewers how many different vaccines some children can get in one sitting. At two months they get five or six, same at four months. At six months they get tons! At 12 months they get up to six, at 15 months they get up to six. Why isn't the CDC looking at these combinations?
BS: (Nodding in agreement and not providing any corrections to these assertions.) Well I think the CDC is just assuming that they are safe. Because there is no real evidence that they causes [sic] any harm...But I would like to see more research on it and I think that parents want to be confident in vaccines. And as a paediatrician, I give vaccines in my office every day. But I want to know that these large combinations are safe. And what I do as a paediatrician, is I spread the vaccines out. I give no more than two vaccines at a time to any babies in my office. It takes longer to vaccinate them that way but I think it's a safer way to go.Here is the CDC Infant Schedule:
There are not 'tons' of vaccines at six months; actually the same at two and four months and as a matter of course, three or four at 12 months and two or three at 15-18 months. Dr. Bob not only spreads these out but omits some as well, and not necessarily ones that can or should be omitted and not some that should be as delayed as he has them. He also eschews combination vaccines which reduce the number of jabs and vaccine constituents, while getting infants protected more timely than his recommendations. Here are his evidence-free justifications for his recommendations:
- By only giving two vaccines at a time (instead of as many as 6), I decrease the chance of chemical overload from grouping so many vaccines chemicals all together at once. This allows a baby's body to better detoxify the chemicals one or two at a time.
- I give only 1 aluminum-containing vaccine at a time (instead of the recommended 4). Overloading on this metal can be particularly toxic to the brain (See Resources, page 250 of The Vaccine Book to view the research on this).
- I give only one live-virus vaccine component at a time to allow the body's immune system to better handle the live viruses in these vaccines.
- Giving fewer shots at a time may decrease the side effects, in my experience.
- Giving fewer shots at a time also makes it easier to figure out which vaccine a child is reacting to if a severe reaction occurs.
Dr. Sears creates controversy surrounding vaccine excipients where there really isn't any, by either misinterpreting or omitting relevant scientific literature. It is a shame that Dr. Bob has chosen to pander to anti-vaccine rhetoric, for the premise of his book seemed appropriately timely, however his execution was sophomoric and clearly intended to further his own agenda and biases. Ms. Camerota continues:
AC: It's interesting that you say that because the CDC in part says that they have combined all these vaccines because parents have clamoured for that...parents say, we don't want to have to keep bringing our kids in every two months and giving them different shots, let's just get it all over with. So perhaps they have acquiesced to parents desires but in a dangerous way.
BS: Right, you know 20, 30 years ago we only gave babies two vaccines at a time with a total of about eight injections throughout their childhood. Now we give babies six or seven vaccines each time and over 50 injections spread throughout their childhood. So I think parents would rather go the extra mile and and [sic] spread the vaccines out cause [sic] I think parents feel like their babies are being overloaded.Thirty years ago, infants and children received five DTP, four OPV and one MMR. The U.S. also had about 20,000 Haemophilus influenzae b (HIb) cases in children annually with about 1,000 deaths each year and approximately 16,000 cases of hepatitis b infection in children less than 10 years old each year. Twenty years ago, infants and children received 18 vaccinations with four given at visits for two, four, and six month olds, three or four given at 12 -18 months old and three given from four to six years old. They were DTP, Hib, Hep B, OPV and MMR. There had also been a huge resurgence of measles during that time with more than 55,000 cases and at least 259 deaths.
Today, children are receiving about 30 vaccines by six years old and three of those are not injections, 36 if parents diligently vaccinate their children for influenza, which are actually very few, less than 30% most years. So it is very difficult to determine how Dr. Bob calculated 50 injections, however, his own recommendation to split MMR up into six as opposed to two injections would get children closer to that.
But onto his argument that vaccines have not been tested together. I don't know how he can make this statement when a quick and easy review of the literature reveals quite the opposite. There are numerous studies that examine the safety and efficacy of new vaccines with existing ones, for example:
Hexavac with Hepatitis A
Hexavalent vaccine with Rotateq
DTaP with Hib
PCV-13 with all infant vaccines
MMR and Varicella
PCV-7 with MMR, Hib and Varicella
Pediarix with Hib and Infanrix-hexa
New Hib with all infant vaccines
MMR with Varicella
MMR-V with Hib-HepB
MMR-V with all infant vaccines
Meningococcal-C with Hep B and Pentacel
Pentacel with PCV-7
This is not, by far, an exhaustive list. Additionally, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) exist to monitor vaccine safety after licensure. Dr. Bob promotes himself as a vaccine expert yet continues to omit relevant facts. There are valid criticisms of vaccines and policy that are supported by the scientific literature but Dr. Bob chooses to raise the spectre of misinformation that he has the solution for.
AC: Certainly if they're educated, I think you're right about that. We asked the CDC for their response to that fact that you say their research has been woefully inadequate, here is their response to us:
"Vaccination is the single most important step parents can take to protect their children from life threatening diseases which once killed thousands of children each year. Scientific data from years and years of research show that vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccines do not overload the immune system. Vaccines contain only a tiny fraction of the antigens that babies encounter in their environment every day. We do know that delaying vaccines puts children at known risk of becoming ill with vaccine-preventable diseases."
- Tom Skinner, CDC Spokesperson, 1 October 2010
BS: Well I agree with most of that, especially you don't want to delay vaccines for very serious diseases like meningitis or whooping cough. However I think the CDC's argument about the thousands of germs that we can tolerate every day...I think that's scientifically invalid because I think they are talking about germs that we inhale, or germs that we swallow. Those germs are exposed to our immune system in a natural way, in our intestines and our respiratory passages, our immune system processes those germs. But when you inject germs directly into the body you by-pass the immune system completely and internal part, the bloodstream immune system has to see the germs and attack them, it's a very unnatural type of germ exposure.It appears as though Dr. Bob has attended the 'Jenny McCarthy School of Immunology' . His statements regarding 'natural' versus vaccine immune responses invoke one of the most erroneous and overused canards of anti-vaccinationists. I can't quite parse what Dr. Bob is saying because his description of immunity isn't corroborated by anything known about how the immune system works. How could he possibly explain an immune response to antigens (or germs as he puts it) that are introduced 'directly into our bodies' via cuts or insect vectors? Is this also 'unnatural'? He also seems to believe that this 'natural way' is completely infallible and compartmentalised such that pathogens cannot breech this. So how does he explain the fact that pathogens have adapted to evade our innate immune system and requiring our adaptive immunity (perhaps what he is referring to as 'bloodstream immune system') creating antibodies to rid ourselves of them?
Vaccination does by-pass some front line non-specific immune defences, but certainly don't 'by-pass the immune system completely', for if they did, we wouldn't produce antibodies and immune memory defences against pathogens when we encounter them. The whole point of vaccination is to 'teach' our immune system how to deal with the real thing, by using parts of bacteria or inactivated or attenuated viruses. And they work! Which shouldn't be the case according to Dr. Bob's primer on the immune system. It takes quite a bit of knowledge on a topic to be able to reduce complex concepts down to a few sound bites. So Dr. Bob's conjecture about vaccine versus natural immunity is the chasmic difference between dumbing something down and just sounding dumb.
AC: The CDC also said that they have done lots of research...it's interesting because they, they CDC has long cited 2 studies done by these Danish researchers that show that mercury in vaccines does not cause autism. Well now the lead researcher is being investigated. Why?
BS: Right, he was kind of double-dipping so to speak. He was taking money from the CDC to do this research, he was also under salary from the Danish Universities [sic] and that was against his contract and apparently that went against the rules and now, according to Danish newspapers, he has skipped town with 2 million dollars worth of Danish research money and that sort of calls into question the validity of his research.Let's take a look at those publications first:
Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen P, Olsen J, Melbye M. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 7;347(19):1477-82.
Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, Thorsen P, Plesner AM, Andersen PH, Mortensen PB. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Pediatrics. 2003 Sep;112(3 Pt 1):604-6.
Notice the dates of publication and the order of the authors. Ms. Camerota and Dr. Bob have referred to the lead author which is Dr. Madsen for both, well he isn't the author in question. That would be Dr. Poul Thorsen, the sixth and fourth author, respectively. Respectful Insolence has explained this relevance in great detail, but an author that far down on the list has not made a very significant contribution. In fact, Dr.s Madsen and Melbye, the senior authors of the studies released a statement to the Philadelphia Inquirer several months ago regarding Dr. Thorsen's involvement:
Excellent post. Now the only thing the anti-vax movement is missing is going on Glenn Beck's show.
ReplyDeleteGreat post there Science Mom, it's pretty sad that there are still those in the media willing to climb on the autism.vaccines bandwagon, despite the fact that the wheels fell off that particular vehicle a long time ago.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is why they call it "faux news".
Great deconstruction. Dr. Manny also went off the deep end the other morning on Fox... I think someone is up to something.
ReplyDeleteThanks for doing the hard work. I saw the Dr. Bob segment & just got too grumpy to tackle it. I did, however link to it from the comments on Shannon Rosa's piece Why My Child With Autism Is Fully Vaccinated
ReplyDeletehttp://shotofprevention.com/2010/10/04/why-my-child-with-autism-is-fully-vaccinated/
I saw the segment too and I fired off an email to the idiots at Fox and Friends. Never heard back of course. Great article.
ReplyDeleteIncredible deconstruction, just incredible.
ReplyDeleteWhoa, Shannon's blogpost comments has become a hornet's nest. Although the pro-science folks are, naturally, prevailing.
ReplyDeleteIf Fox News are the only ones to host such nonsense, I'd say that that's a pretty clear sign of where the anti-vax, anti-science brigade has gone.
Nicely done! It is great to see such a clear post about the Fox BS :)
ReplyDeleteI have always wondered, with the 'too many too soon' chant, which vaccines these parents would choose over what? Looking at your newborn, how does one decide "gee, I sure don't want my little angel to get polio...but pertusis? heck! why not! that one sounds fun!"....
Excellent piece of work. Let the hand-waving begin 3...2...1...
ReplyDeleteThanks!
ReplyDeleteFunny, Science Mom; I have serious concerns about what the public has been and is continuing to be told about the safety of vaccines, and yet I don't consider myself a member of "the anti-science brigade". You, and the other folks on this site, apparently do. So I guess this isn't my place to air my concerns. Sad stuff, this polarization going on in this matter. It's too serious to be left to the close-minded.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, please feel free to critique anything that I have countered Dr. Bob's information with. You know, I can call myself 'princess' but that doesn't make it so.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the list of references and kudos to Elise for writing to the morning show in question. I think the final comments of this post are wrong, though. I think Sears could continue to get attention and promote himself as a celebrity. For example, he managed to get himself and his "Autism Book" (which promotes biomed autism treatments) mentioned in a seemingly nice, noncontroversial article from April 2010:
ReplyDeletehttp://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-02/health/autism.middle.school_1_autism-spectrum-high-functioning-middle-school?_s=PM:HEALTH
Oh Science Mom, this American mother is curious to what you think about progressive countries like Finland banning the flu vaccination for kids under 18. I hear France is likely going to do that, too. You can freely google the information, as it is all over the internet, no need to cite references.
ReplyDeleteCurious to as how much the pharm companies are paying you?
ReplyDeleteAh, it is the old, boring and totally worthless Pharma Shill Gambit!
ReplyDeleteWhy not something original and informative, like perhaps the news article about Finland and France suspending the vaccine. Because I am looking, and I cannot find it (except for one less than credible news site).
I gotta copy this over to http://factsnotfantasy.com it's so good!
ReplyDelete@Anonymous, lies repeated often enough do not become truth, no matter what Fox says...
Anonymous, how much are your pro-disease, alt-med companies and organisations paying you to post here?
ReplyDeleteWhen you pull the pharma-shill gambit, you have obviously lost.
Oh Science Mom, this American mother is curious to what you think about progressive countries like Finland banning the flu vaccination for kids under 18. I hear France is likely going to do that, too. You can freely google the information, as it is all over the internet, no need to cite references.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your criteria for 'progressive'? Finland banned H1N1 vaccination as a knee-jerk reaction to the reports of an association with narcolepsy. What exactly is your point?
Thank you so much!
ReplyDelete-Criticizing someone based on an association is a red herring.
ReplyDelete-Studies published and cited are not necessarily representative of good science. i.e. lack basic scientific methodology required of even a grade-school science project. For further example, I pulled one citation of your list: "New Hib with all infant vaccines:" A study with no control group. Really. All three of the research groups had a combination vaccine sequence applied. Not one of the research groups stood as a control to study effects, if any, of one vaccine in isolation as a comparison group to a group receiving more than one vaccine. And this is just one cursory glance at one study.
-True, injecting vaccines does not bypass the immune system completely; the effect(s) of vaccines is not solely determined by the effects of the antigens, however, and this is likely to what Dr. Bob was referring. Preservative metals/adjuvants/squalene...natural vectors or not, not something with which the body can deal as effectively if injected vs. ingested.
-The Dr. Thorsen stuff is similar to the Dr. Wakefield stuff: take into account who is saying what, why, and the background of the story, and the PR jabs more or less just fade away as politics.
-The lack of scientific validity is still at issue. The CDC is largely not responsible in this regard. The media are largely not responsible in this regard. Physicians are largely not responsible in this regard. Pharmaceutical companies are largely not responsible in this regard.
"There are concerns and criticisms regarding the CDC vaccine schedule, but they are rather mundane when compared to the misleading and downright false conjectures that self-proclaimed experts would have us believe. There seems to be an anti-intellectual movement afoot but with the taskmasters absurdly co-opting the esteem of education and credentials to propagate it."
...again, more red herring. Right and wrong exists on both sides of the issue, "false conjectures" and "anti-intellectual movements" are born of every interest. 'Saying it' doesn't make it so; and isn't that your point too, really?
The Pharmy Army strikes again!
ReplyDelete-Criticizing someone based on an association is a red herring.
ReplyDeleteNo, often it isn't but I evaluate on a case-by-case basis. But if someone is member of, say, the Klu Klux Klan, do you honestly believe they are there just for the tea and biscuits? I'd like to see how consistent you are when evaluating an investigator who has only received a piece of pizza and a coffee mug from a pharma rep.
-Studies published and cited are not necessarily representative of good science. i.e. lack basic scientific methodology required of even a grade-school science project. For further example, I pulled one citation of your list: "New Hib with all infant vaccines:" A study with no control group. Really. All three of the research groups had a combination vaccine sequence applied. Not one of the research groups stood as a control to study effects, if any, of one vaccine in isolation as a comparison group to a group receiving more than one vaccine. And this is just one cursory glance at one study.
That highlights the impossibility for performing a 'vaccinated vs. unvaccinated' study. Vaccines are the standard of care, like it or not and to with hold them is unethical. The point of the study was to evaluate the current suite of vaccines with a new Hib vaccine. The effects of the established suite of vaccines is well-known so it isn't difficult to determine if addition of a Hib vaccine is contributing to more or less reactions. Besides, the assertion by Dr. Bob (more accurately by AC and BS concurred) was that no studies exist testing multiple vaccines together and a quick PubMed search, easily refuted that. There are more studies if you like.
-True, injecting vaccines does not bypass the immune system completely; the effect(s) of vaccines is not solely determined by the effects of the antigens, however, and this is likely to what Dr. Bob was referring. Preservative metals/adjuvants/squalene...natural vectors or not, not something with which the body can deal as effectively if injected vs. ingested.
Oh do you speak for Dr. Bob now? Perhaps he should learn the proper nomenclature if he's going to appoint himself a 'vaccine expert' don't you think? He was quite clear about his statement and he was very wrong.
Emphasis added. That is a rather empty or wrong statement pending your clarification. Both humoral and cellular immune arms respond very effectively to nearly all vaccinations. In fact the humoral immune response to polysaccharide vaccines in infants is superior to that of the wild-type diseases. Do you dispute the dramatic plunge in measles and rubella disease? How can that be an ineffective vaccine response?
Cont...
-The Dr. Thorsen stuff is similar to the Dr. Wakefield stuff: take into account who is saying what, why, and the background of the story, and the PR jabs more or less just fade away as politics.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. There is so much known and documented regarding Wakefield's ethical lapses and his intentional falsification of data (not just medical histories but PCR results) and very little known about what Dr. Thorsen actually did. Wakefield, with media help created a worldwide scare, Thorsen allegedly bilked Aarhus and/or the CDC out of ~2 mil dollars. I would like to know what happened and if he is guilty, should be hung out to dry. But the 2 aren't comparable as far as the public health damage that has occurred.
-The lack of scientific validity is still at issue. The CDC is largely not responsible in this regard. The media are largely not responsible in this regard. Physicians are largely not responsible in this regard. Pharmaceutical companies are largely not responsible in this regard.
Again, I disagree. While our knowledge is not perfect and is expanding, I would place the onus upon you (general you too) to be more specific and outline what data should be generated that would satisfy you.
...again, more red herring. Right and wrong exists on both sides of the issue, "false conjectures" and "anti-intellectual movements" are born of every interest. 'Saying it' doesn't make it so; and isn't that your point too, really?
No, I would say that was pretty en pointe. You are trying to create a false balance, except in a different direction. Is there criticism of public health policy regarding vaccines? Yes, but again, it's rather mundane than the outright false conjectures created by 'safer vaccine proponents', all in the name of personal validation, but mostly, for profit.
Respectmyauthority, the pharma shill gambit is lame and speaks directly to your lack of intellectual capacity to address the issues. See the previous commenter, that is how you do it.
ReplyDeleteThat Shaw et al. study is as irrelevant to Gulf War Syndrome as it is for infant vaccines. It's a methodologically-sloppy piece of tosh and the results remain clinically-insignificant, just as his preceding paper with Pietrik et al.