Autism

What have they contributed?

You quote the title of the article but skip over the points she made so let me answer by reviewing what she actually said were important questions to be asked and answered in the story:

1) Are we overvaccinating our children?
2) Is the vaccination schedule too rigid?
3) Are certain groups susceptible to negative side effects and can those individuals be identified before receiving the vaccines?

I wonder which of these questions is not important or a valid question to be asking?  Even the staunchest, most pro-vaccine individuals would agree that people are damaged by vaccines. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out BILLIONS to individuals harmed by vaccines - over $91 million in 2009 alone. So there is a recognized danger there ... though frequently only a danger recognized after the fact and after study, research and debate.

Ms. Healy has also commented in the past that the government has been too quick to dismiss parent concerns without sufficient studies of causation.

Ms. Chew do you not see the value in an open debate about the safety of a chemical injection that many states REQUIRE parents give their children?  Do you not think it fair to question the POSSIBILITY that introducing known toxins could cause damge and therefore need further safety review and testing?

There's science on both sides of the debate, a fact which I know you're aware of, so saying that anything is "unproven" is probably a bit misleading.

Autism is a neurological disorder, so isn't studying things that could cause possible neurological damage or studying children who could be susceptible to neurological damage not a worthy debate?

Your profile points out that you are a Classics professor so I could ask the same of the type of classes you teach, what does studying classic civilizations or languages such as Greek or Latin (which some mistakenly describe as dead languages) contribute? 

The answer of course is simple .... we study and debate to further learn and understand.  When we learn and understand we are able to improve lives and outcomes .... Autistic or otherwise.

Respectfully yours,
Steve Bockmann

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." - Michael Crichton

Actually, Mr. Welsh, and Mr. Bockmann, you both missed the point of the post. 

Point is, that the whole vaccine debate has been a huge detriment to the Autistic community.  So much time, effort, and money waisted on one belief, that has taken away from the focus of helping those affected with much needed services, advocacy, and potential housing.

Our affected children are aging, and missing out on many opportunities because so many in the Autism front are chasing a myth.  They are approaching that critical cut off line between federally required educational services, and adulthood, with few supported options.

Think how much more we could do for them if even half of the fervor that is put into the vaccine myth, was *redirected* into providing for their futures as adults.

Bernadine Healey is not writing as a doctor or scientist but as a craven politician pandering to the anti-vax contingent.  

The anti-vax zealots have been saying "one day it will be proven" for years.  Every year more and more evidence lines up against the idea that vaccines cause autism.  Did you read the autism omnibus court decisions?  The Special Masters said it wasn't even a close call.  The "evidence" the plaintiffs presented was of shockingly poor quality and they even said that the plaintiffs had been badly represented by lawyers who trotted out such unqualified "experts".  

Détente is a curious term to use.  It was originally used to signify reduced hostility, an attempt to bring the parties back from the brink of a civilization ending war.  The Soviets wanted arms reductions so they could reduce spending on an arms race the leaders knew they could not win no matter their rhetoric.  The West wanted the Soviets to respect the basic human rights of its citizens as outlined in the UN Universal declaration of human rights.     

I suspect that what the anti-vaxers want is a reduction in the rhetoric put in the main stream media.  When MSM goes to check the facts on vaccinations and autism, they come across the same facts that the pro-vaccine camp is using to show that vaccines are an important and positive health intervention and that there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism.  These are not the "facts" that the anti-vaxers are using.  Fair minded people agree with the statement by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."  The anti-vaxers want to end the "war" fought with facts that the leaders know they can not win no matter their rhetoric. 

I see this as similar to the Soviets wanting no discussions of human rights.  The Soviets wanted their own "facts", their own definitions of "human rights", straight out of Orwell's 1984.  The Soviets wanted no "interference" with their internal affairs, such as how they dealt with dissidents.  Anti-vaxers want no "interference" with how they treat their children, even if that means subjecting them to experimental treatments that have never been tested and have no plausible therapeutic mechanism.  Even if that means deliberately subjecting children to diseases that are vaccine preventable.   Fair minded people call that child abuse.  If what the anti-vaxers do were more widely known, I think that fair minded people would be able to see them for what they are.  Preventing that transparency is the goal of Bernadine Healey's détente.  A goal I reject. 

Kristina, you asked:

"What have all of these discussions about vaccines as a purported, and unscientifically proven, "cause" of autism contributed to improving services, supports, and education for individuals on the autism spectrum?"

Nothing, nada, zip, zero.

Healy's request for a "détente" is a further distractor from meeting the real needs of real families.

US News and World Report should be ashamed of hosting this sort of propaganda.

I'll first refer to Orac's post regarding Healy----

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/04/bernadine_healy_flirtin_with_the_antivac.php#more

The scientific evidence continues to refute a vaccine-autism link, though the worries remain among parents, unfortunately.

http://autism.change.org/blog/view/the_vaccine-autism_scare_panic_in_the_wrong_place

Regarding the question by Steve Bockmann about the study of Classics and of the ancient world more generally contributes: One certainly learns about the workings of history, about change over time, and about how those living in their historical moment may have difficulty standing outside of that moment and seeing events in their historical context. The vaccine-autism "link" has been occupying a certain portion of late 20th-century/early 21-st century discussions of autism causation, as psychogenetic theories (those of Bruno Bettelheim for instance) once preoccupied the public. Hopefully the emphasis in autism discussions can switch from hypothetical speculation to a real push for the real supports and services that individuals on the spectrum need here and today.

Preservation Nation, I don't think I missed the point ... I responded to a question.  I also posed some questions in return.

As for Ms. Chew's hope for a switch from hypothetical speculation I agree ..... but as long as we have questions that are unanswered I'm wondering how we avoid hypothetical speculation?

I'll even move away from vaccines, how about these questions:

1) What causes Autism?
2) How many types/categories of Autism are there?
3) What are the best therapeutic approaches to use with Autistic children?
4) What are the best educational approaches to use with Autistic children?
5) Can Autistic characteristics be "cured"?
6) Can Autism be prevented or should it be?

It seems to me that none of these questions can be addressed without hypothetical speculations at this point.

One of Science's core tools in pursuing truth is hypothetical speculation.  If you really want to dispense with hypothetical speculation then essentially what you want to do is state the fact first and then just pull enough research until you can prove you were right. That's less science and more marketing.

It also seems difficult to fight for universal supports and services until some of these questions are addressed.

As for money being wasted that's a matter of opinion and I agree that more needs to be spent on the needs of children, teens and adults with Autism.

While many hammer the "anti-vax" this or the "science has proven" that angle my questions above still remain.  Are those "pro-vaccine" folks so firm in their stances that they are unwilling to accept and agree that:

1) Vaccines do help ... but also have a record of damage
2) There have been many studies disproving an autism-vaccine link .... but there have also been many that have shown a link
3) Courts have also ruled both ways

Ms. Chew you addressed my questions about the Classics ... thank you.  How about these two questions which were missed:
 1) Do you not see the value in an open debate about the safety of a chemical injection that many states REQUIRE parents give their children?

2) Do you not think it fair to question the POSSIBILITY that introducing known toxins could cause damage and therefore need further safety review and testing?

You don't come to scientific conclusions based on consensus of opinion .... you come to scientific conclusions based on a consensus of the facts.  It doesn't seem to me to be a waste of money pursuing that type of conclusion.

Finally, the problem isn't too much money being spent looking at vaccines, it's too little money being spent on Autism.  I agree, the causes of Autism may not be important to some parents facing the challenges of a child that already has Autism .... but it sure is important to the parents that will be having children that haven't yet been touched by it.

As for studying of Classics and history more generally I certainly agree with you Ms. Chew as to it's value.  In studying these topics we get to reflect on how proven scientific thinking, consensus and fact has changed over time in order to learn from it (i.e- the earth is flat or the center of the galaxy, smoking is healthy, the existence of a "superior race", etc.). Funny some of the bizarre things people believe because smart folks told them it was true.

Thank you again,
Steve Bockmann