Vaccine-Autism Link

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 1, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                                

              Since the prestigious British medical Journal Lancet retracted Feb. 3 its once groundbreaking 1998 study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield linking childhood vaccines to autism, the medical community continues to pile on.  Accusations from the U.K. to the U.S. have blamed Wakefield’s study for a significant drop in vaccines, causing corresponding increases in childhood diseases.  “Nine out of 10 parents believe that vaccination is a good way to prevent disease for their children,” said University of Michigan researcher Dr. Gary Freed, believing that Wakefield’s research discouraged parents from getting their children vaccinated.  “Luckily their concerns don’t outweigh their decision to get vaccines so their children can be protected from life-threatening illnesses,” failing to mention concerns of 1,552 parents surveyed that childhood vaccines might cause autism.

            Wakefield’s 1998 research, while methodologically flawed, addressed the alarming increase in childhood autism, now accounting for about one-in-a-hundred births.  Wakefield reasoned that worldwide vaccine schedules changed in 1988, combining measles, mumps and rubella into one potent dose.  Wakefield concluded that excessive viral load was too much for young immune systems, causing, in those predisposed children, the spike in autism over the last 20 years.  British authorities now blame Wakefield for an increase in measles, mumps and rubella among children whose parents avoided vaccines dues to fears of autism.  Britain’s General Medical Council ruled Jan. 28 that Wakefield acted in “callous disregard” for the health-and-welfare of the 12 children in his study.  Wakefield reportedly took blood samples of the 12 children at his son’s birthday party.    

            Britain’s GMC also criticized Wakefield for receiving $80,000 from the Legal Aid Board, a group seeking to prove a link between autism and childhood vaccines.  British medical authorities, now busy discrediting Wakefield, don’t criticize pro-vaccine researchers, like Freed, for accepting generous funding from vaccine makers.  “Now that it’s been shown to be an outright fraud, maybe it will convince more parents that this should not be a concern,” said Freed, whose study, appearing in the journal Pediatrics, is quick to point out Wakefield’s mistakes.  British medical authorities criticized Wakefield’s methods and ethics, not necessarily his conclusions.  Lancet’s retraction had more to do with Wakefield’s failure to obtain “informed consent” from parents than unwarranted conclusions.  Wakefield’s research gave parents with autistic children a possible way of prevention.

            Growing numbers of pediatricians hailed the GMC’s actions against Wakefield, citing frustration with parents refusing to vaccinate their children.  While British medical authorities attribute the rise in childhood disease to Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet study, increased African and South Asian immigration to the U.K also account for the increase.  “This is not before time.  Let’s hope this will do something to re-establish the good reputation of this excellent vaccine,” said Univ. of Bristol Pediatrics Prof. Adam Finn, hoping to see less opposition among parents to the MMR vaccines.  Finn had no comment about the use of mercury-based preservatives in the MMR vaccine, possibly contributing to the alarming increase in autism.  Discrediting Wakefield or retracting his 1998 Lancet study doesn’t rule out the toxic effect of mercury-based preservatives in MMR vaccines.

            Trashing Wakefield and his two former colleagues, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, doesn’t automatically give the medical community a free pass on the safety of childhood vaccines.  “And I hope the country can now draw a line under this particular health scare and move onto a new opportunity for vaccination,” said Finn, ignoring other factors, including mercury-based preservatives, that might contribute to the growing incidence of autism.  Freed’s hasty denunciation of Wakefield indicates his research sides with vaccine makers, seeking not only to reduce the incidence of childhood diseases but to expand the use of childhood vaccines.  While it’s tempting to exploit science to prove a point, it’s better to look at both sides, regardless of methodological or ethical problems with Wakefield’s study.  Parents with autistic children prefer to error on the side of caution.

            Calling the vaccine-autism link “spurious” throws caution to the wind, when Lancet’s retraction had more to do with methodological errors and ethical infractions than Wakefield’s ultimate findings.  Medical practitioners shouldn’t blame parents with autistic children, or those seeking to prevent it, for exercising caution when it comes to vaccinating their children.  “Furthermore, by not vaccinating your child you are taking selfish advantage of thousands of others who do vaccinate children . . . We feel such an attitude to be self-centered and unacceptable,” said Dr. Bradley Dyer of All Star Pediatrics in Lionville, Pa, showing little sympathy for parents worried about childhood vaccines.  “For our children’s sake, we have to think like scientists,” said University of Louisville’s Dr. Gary S. Marshall,” forgetting that most medical research is funded by drug and vaccine makers.

About the Author

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.