Autism's Finger Pointing

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Feb. 3, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                    

              Adding to the growing controversy surrounding childhood vaccines and autism, the British General Medical Council admonished 53-year-old British physician and researcher Andrew Wakefield for acting “dishonestly and irresponsibly” for his groundbreaking 1998 study.  Twelve years after conducting his study at London’s Royal Free Hospital, linking the early childhood Measles, Mumps and Rubella [MMR] vaccines with autism, the GMC ruled Jan. 28 that Wakefield acted with “callous disregard” for the child-subjects in his study.  Wakefield paid $8 a child at his son’s birthday party and took blood samples for his research.  British authorities accused Wakefield of “callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer,” moving to revoke his medical license.  Wakefield, who heads “Thoughtful House” autism research center in Austin, Texas, expressed “no regrets.”

            Wakefield skirted conventional restrictions on conducting medical research on children, obtaining colonoscopies, blood and spinal samples to find scientific proof of compelling anecdotal data showing a close link between childhood vaccines and an increase in autism.  Wakefield called the GMC’s findings “unfounded and unjust,” citing the possibility that his research gave families second thoughts about taking conventional MMR vaccines.  While disputed by the medical community and vaccine makers, Wakefield believed the MMR vaccine provided too much viral load to vulnerable immune systems, contributing to the alarming rise in autism.  Citing a lack of scientific proof, physicians and vaccine makers have second thoughts about giving the triple-dose childhood vaccines.  More spacing between individual vaccine doses has become more commonplace in the U.K. and U.S.

            Publicly rebuking Wakefield or discrediting his methods or ethics, doesn’t automatically reverse the common sense behind reducing the viral loads in vaccines to young children.  Saying there’s no “scientific proof” doesn’t undo the heavy burden of anecdotal evidence indicating that MMR vaccines deal a damaging blow to young immune systems.  Suggesting that there’s something fishy, the GMC heavily criticizes Wakefield for not revealing his funding sources while conducting research at London’s Royal Free Hospital.  Wakefield’s research was ostensibly supported by plaintiffs’ law firms litigating claims against vaccine makers.  While there’s value to identifying the funding sources, most scientific biotech or drug research today fails to disclose funding sources.  Drug and device makers routinely hide funding behind nonprofit associations and medical groups.

            While there’s nothing wrong with questioning Wakefield’s methods or ethics, there something very wrong with ignoring the same problem with scientists working at universities, research institutions or private medical groups receiving money directly from drug and device makers.  Before tar-and-feathering Wakefield, British authorities should look into who filed the original complaint about his research.  It should surprise no one to learn that vaccine makers have a vested interest in discrediting anyone that suggest their products cause harm, no less autism.  While Wakefield’s findings didn’t specifically identify the mercury-based preservative Thimerosal in causing autism, vaccine makers have been quick to discredit that theory.  Common sense tells you that adding a triple-dose virus in the MMR with a heavy metal, like mercury, could cause adverse side-effects.

            British authorities should stop pointing fingers at Wakefield and take closer look at the alarming rate of autism, now at one-in-a-hundred births.  British authorities cited only 56 cases of measles in 1998, compared with 1,370 in 2008, blaming a 20% drop in MMR vaccines by 2003.  Attributing the increase to Wakefield’s research shows the reckless way British authorities have singled him out.  Many other factors, including South Asian and African immigration patterns, could also explain an increase in measles or any other communicable diseases.  Medical authorities on both sides of the Atlantic are hard-pressed to explain the disturbing increase in autism.  Focusing on childhood vaccines is a logical place to start for parents and physicians who saw no observable signs in children until receiving MMR vaccines.  Wakefield’s research, while not perfect, was groundbreaking.

            British and U.S. authorities need to take a deep breath before killing, or at least silencing, the messenger.  Whether Wakefield’s research was flawed or not, it doesn’t detract from the novel idea of questioning the advisability of injecting young children with toxic levels of virus, with or without mercury preservatives.  U.S. and British authorities need to look into the vaccine makers’ motives in discrediting research or clinical reports, no matter how feeble, implicating childhood vaccines as a preventable factor in autism.  In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, forcing vaccine makers to endow a multibillion-dollar trust fund to settle vaccine-related injuries.  Wakefield’s findings, however flawed, mirror the alarming increase in autism over the last 20 years. Discrediting one doctor’s research doesn’t change the growing body of clinical evidence supporting his findings.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.