Dr. Beatrice Golomb's presentation This Is Your Brain On Politics pulls no punches in its critique of conflicts of interest, bias, censorship and intimidation involving pharmaceutical companies, health authorities and academic institutions and publications.  Professor Golomb's presentation includes commentary on pressure tactics, including intimidation, used by some pharmaceutical industry representatives to silence criticism of their products and the research that accompanies them.

Professor Golomb's presentation provides an interesting framework with which to consider the continued pressures exerted on Dr. Andrew Wakefield over an article he wrote in 1998 for which, in 2011, he was denounced, by journalistic decree,  as being guilty of fraud.  A refutation of the Wakefield fraud allegations by research microbiologist David Lewis was published in the BMJ  but has not received the major US or world media attention that the original fraud allegations attracted.

An even more recent  demonstration of pressure on those who question or study issues pertaining to vaccine safety has arisen in response to an article on vaccine adjuvants published by two UBC Ph.D.'s.  In Tom Sandborn's article in the Vancouver Courier Responses to UBC vaccine paper a problem for free scientific inquiry and expression UBC researchers raise questions, experience backlash Sandborn describes what appears to be an effort to suppress publication of peer reviewed journal articles which raise potential vaccine health issues. None other than Dr. Paul Offit is reported to have weighed in with comments which appear to suggest that studies or articles criticizing vaccine safety in any way should not be published:

"Shaw, who is on faculty at UBC with the Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience, and his colleague Lucija Tomljenovic have recently published a carefully parsed and thoroughly peer reviewed paper on vaccine safety, without a doubt one of the most controversial topics in medicine today. Despite the cautious and professional tone of the paper, and despite the authors' clear statement that their findings are not in themselves decisive, only pointing to the need for more extensive research into vaccine safety, the paper, published in November 2011 in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry which describes correlations and possible causal links between increased exposure to aluminum salts used as adjuvants in vaccines and increased levels of neurological trouble in exposed populations, seems to inflame angry and punitive responses in some quarters.


For example, when I discussed the Tomljenovic/Shaw paper with Dr. Paul Offit, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, a strong proponent of vaccines and the developer of a successful new vaccine that has made him a multi-millionaire, he told me that the paper "should never have been published," despite the fact it was rigorously peer reviewed before publication. (Like many who want to insist that all questions of vaccine safety have been settled, Offit invokes the notorious Andrew Wakefield affair involving a now discredited and withdrawn paper published in The Lancet in 1998, which suggested a link between MMR vaccines and autism. Offit claims that paper is responsible for avoidable deaths as worried parents failed to vaccinate their children. Wakefield has recently filed a suit for defamation against Brian Deer, the investigative journalist whose work was central to the storm of criticism that surrounded the Lancet paper.)"

In the context of the autism vaccine war the late Dr. Bernadine Healy expressed confidence in the general safety of vaccines while talking about the need to explore possible vaccine impacts on susceptible populations. She also expressed confidence in public understanding of the value and importance of vaccines in protecting and promoting pubic health and safety while cautioning public health authorities against dismissing further scientific research on autism vaccine issues:

"There is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. First of all, I think the public's smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don't think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you're afraid of what it might show."

The concerns expressed by Dr. Healy about the suppression of scientific inquiry into vaccine autism issues by public health authorities appear to be supported by the attempts to suppress the publication of articles like that of the UBC professors published after rigorous peer review which pointed to possible issues with aluminum salt adjuvants in vaccines.  Dr. Offit, and others who wish to suppress such inquiry, claim to be afraid of ignorant members of the public who will react out of fear and refuse to vaccinate their children.  The attempts at suppression however give rise to an equally plausible hypothesis as suggested by Dr. Healy ...  that Offit and company are afraid of what such inquiry might show.

NOTE: As the author of this blog comment I advise that my children have received all recommended and mandatory vaccines and that I have received vaccines at different times including during the H1N1 panic two years ago. I recognize the importance of vaccines in public health and safety. I am, however, seriously concerned about the incessant attempts to suppress scientific inquiry of vaccine safety issues and the view that all possible connections between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders have been explored and "debunked" for all time.  

The vaccine industry business congress  referenced above states that it is scheduled for Baltimore in the fall of 2011 although the agenda indicates dates in March 2011.   More significantly the first items on the agenda show clearly the priorities of Big Pharma, as the conference brochure itself refers to the vaccine industry, which are maximizing government sponsored funding and avoiding FDA scrutiny.  Great stuff.

The past 2 years have seen an onslaught of attacks on anyone who raises any questions about vaccine safety and in particular against anyone who suggests that vaccines might be implicated in causing or triggering autism disorders in some children.  Dr. Paul Offit has been the New York Times go to guy in promoting vaccine programs for almost a decade. His crusade to prevent discussion of possible autism vaccine connections was kick started with his New York Times Op-Ed "contribution" in March 2008 criticizing the results of the Hannah Poling case. 

With that opinion Dr. Offit expanded his unquestioned status as a vaccine expert to include his self appointed/self anointed status as an autism expert AND as a legal expert. The Offit Offensive began in full force in January 2009 with the New York Times' ceaseless coverage of  Offit's False Prophets and his drive to shut down discussion of vaccine safety issues.  The criticism of those who raise autism and safety issues has intensified with the ceaseless attacks on Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the unproven fraud allegation of the  BMJ (after the fact admitter of conflicts) and its adoptee  Brian Deer.

The result of the Offit Offensive? After years of attacking vaccine questioners public health authorities continue to see declines in vaccination rates and continue to blame those who question vaccine safety particularly those who are concerned about possible vaccine autism connections.  In just the most recent example in the news Minnesota doctors and health authorities are again tying declining measles vaccination rates and increased measles outbreaks to "erroneous" allegations of vaccine autism connections. 

As the parent of fully vaccinated sons I have never blamed vaccines for my younger son's autistic disorder and profound developmental delays.  I myself receive vaccines when I think them necessary or when advised by my family doctor. I believe vaccines to be important public health tools but like all of man's inventions I do not believe that they are  flawless.  Vaccines have caused injury in the past.  That is fact and it is reasonable for people to ask questions about the safety of vaccines.  The anecdotal evidence of vaccine autism connections, even acknowledging the weakness of anecdotal evidence, can not be ignored unless and until strong studies are done to convince parents that what they believe they have seen is not what really caused their children to lapse into a serious neurological disordered condition.  Failure to persuade the public is the failure of the health authorities and the persuasion strategies they have adopted to promote vaccine safety.  Decline in public confidence in vaccines is the failure of the health authorities not the public they are trying to convince.

While portrayed as being a front line crusader for the safety of children by vaccination Dr. Paul Offit is not in fact on the front lines.  It is parents who are on the front  lines fighting for their children's well being and health day in an day out. Calling them ignorant or irrational won't win their hearts and minds.  Blaming them for the decline in vaccination rates in some areas will not win the day for vaccine programs. Solid, credible studies free of pharmaceutical company influence by credible, trusted research authorities will. 

Margaret Dunkle is not, as far as I know, the target of an "investigation" by the BMJ or its investigative journalist Brian Deer. She is not a movie actress with an autistic child. She is Hannah Poling's great aunt and ...... she is a senior research scientist at the health policy department at George Washington University. On March 18, 2008 she wrote a very concise, and well informed, article about the Poling Case, Autism, Vaccines and Early Intervention – the Hannah Poling Case. The following is an extract from the article summarizing what happened. It is an honest description of what actually happened in the Poling case:

"What Happened in Federal Vaccine Court?

The Order of the Special Master also says that, based on the recommendation of the Secretary of HHS [Respondent] for compensation to Hannah Poling, “a damages determination is now appropriate.”"

Will the current media frenzy unleashed with the BMJ-Brian Deer fraud allegations (unproven in a court of law) against Andrew Wakefield, followed up with another Paul Offit big media tour, and a star celebrity turn by Bill Gates yelling "LIARS" in his very loud voice finally result in an increase in vaccinations or will it be counterproductive?    Feel free to register your vote on the poll at the top of the sidebar. 

As the parent of a soon to be 15 year old boy with severe Autistic Disorder I have never attributed his autism disorder to vaccines. I have always accepted the view of public health authorities that there is little or no evidence linking autism to vaccines. With that mindset I never endorsed Jenny McCarthy's views of autism and vaccines although I admired her courage in fighting for her son.

At the other end of the vaccine autism battlefield I support vaccine programs generally as vitally important public health tools but I have become increasingly concerned by the campaign to discredit those who question vaccine safety and the certainty with which Vaccine Generals like Dr. Paul Offit and Dr. David H. Gorski aka Orac have declared that all vaccines and vaccine ingredients can never cause any autism disorder in any child.  Given the lack of certainty about what autism is biologically, given the shifting autism definitions used to attack what appears to be an obvious and astounding increase in autism disorders,  I don't see how the epidemiological studies can be that definitive. A particular question for me is whether the studies have actually ruled out the possibility that vaccines given to pregnant women might cause or trigger autism in the children they are carrying. Another major question arises from the failure to conduct studies comparing autism rates in existing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. 

Dr. Offit is the gentle, sweater wearing uncle type who poses for an adoring media and declares parents to be timid fearful sorts who can not understand science and the big picture.  Dr. David H. Gorski, aka Orac, is the snarling pitbull who delivers incessant attacks on vaccine questioners AND actual anti-vaxxers with scientific terminology like WOO, QUACK, IDIOT  and so on.  Both may soon be called on to lead their minions into battle again with news of a study out of Finland, as reported by AFP, which found that children injected with the Pandemrix swine flu vaccine were nine times more likely to contract narcolepsy than those who were not vaccinated  :

AOL, in March 2010, posted an autism interview under the misleading title Autism Experts on Causes, Cures and Controversies. While the title referred to multiple autism experts the interview actually included one autism expert Dr. Geri Dawson of Autism Speaks.  It also included Dr. Paul Offit.

The Offit Offensive has been underway for a couple of years with heavy mainstream media, eg. the New York Times,  coverage of his books and with opportunities galore for interviews and serious discussion of vaccine issues eg. the Colbert Report. The icon of the "do not ask questions about vaccine safety " army which currently prevents media coverage of autism issues UNLESS they relate to vaccines was exposed in an AOL interview  (Geri Dawson of Autism Speaks was also interviewed) as someone with relatively  limited knowledge of autism who was prepared to grasp at anything that exonerated vaccines as a potential cause of some cases of autism.  To that end Dr. Offit warmly embraced the Neurodiversity ideology |(which does not view autism as a disorder,) sympathizes with very high functioning autism advocates and shows no awareness of the effects on everyday functioning of those with severe Autistic Disorder.

Some examples of Dr. Offit's autism awareness from the AOL interview Autism Experts on Causes, Cures and Controversies:

"AOL Health: Reports say that one in 110 American children is affected and that we are in the midst of an autism epidemic. Is this really an epidemic? Why now?


Offit: It's not an actual epidemic. In the mid-1990s, the definition of autism was broadened to what is now called autism spectrum disorder. Much milder parts of the spectrum -- problems with speech, social interaction -- were brought into the spectrum. We also have more awareness, so we see it more often. And there is a financial impetus to include children in the wider definition so that their treatment will be covered by insurance. People say if you took the current criteria and went back 50 years, you'd see about as many children with autism then.


Dawson: We know that the broadening of the diagnosis, as well as more awareness and access to services, accounts for some of this increase, but these variables don't account for all of the increase. Over the last two decades, the prevalence of autism has increased by over 600 percent. Between 2004 and 2006 we saw a 57 percent increase. A large percentage is unexplained, and that's why there is a focus on identifying environmental factors.

Alleged Autism Expert Offit relies on unidentified  people who say there were about as many children with autism 50 years ago?  Apparently autism expert Dr. Offit doesn't read information by people at the CDC and IACC who say based on research that approximately 50% of the increase in autism diagnoses is unexplained by diagnostic definition change, increased awareness or access to autism services.

From the CDC web site which states that autism is actually increasing:

"Does thimerosal cause autism?

Obviously the CDC would not have cited increased autism rates as support for the view that thimerosal does not cause autism if the increase were not real. AOL asked about causes of autism:


AOL Health: What causes autism?

Offit: It has, at least, a genetic basis. A number of studies have shown a complicated genetic mutation. It's not like sickle-cell anemia, where a single gene has a single mutation, or cystic fibrosis, where a single gene has many mutations. With autism spectrum disorder, it appears that at least several genes have varying mutations.

Dawson: Genetics play a significant role. If we compare identical twins who have all the same genes versus fraternal twins who only share half their genes, the concordance rate is about 90 percent in identical twins and only 5 percent in the fraternal twins. But there's evidence that suggests that environmental factors can also play a role. Most likely individuals with autism have a genetic susceptibility that interacts with environmental factors. Research is focused on factors such as the prenatal environment, prematurity and exposure to toxins such as pesticides

Alleged autism expert Dr. Paul Offit makes no mention of possible environmental causes or triggers of autism disorders preferring to mention only genetic bases for autism.  Dr. Geri Dawson's reference to evidence of environmental factor involvement in causing autism is in fact consistent with modern scientific consensus as expressed by the the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee:

"As with many complex disorders, [autism] causation is generally thought to involve some forms of genetic risk interacting with some forms of non-genetic environmental exposure. ... In addition, a number of other environmental factors are being explored through research because they are known or suspected to influence early development of the brain and nervous system. Recent studies suggest factors such as parental age, exposure to infections, toxins, and other biological agents may confer environmental risk. ... Progress in identifying environmental factors which increase autism risk has been made recently (Eskenazi et al., 2007; Palmer et al., 2006; Palmer, Blanchard,; Wood, 2009; Rauh et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2007; Windham et al., 2006), although this area of research has received less scientific attention and far fewer research dollars than genetic risk factors"[Underlining added - HLD]      - United States IACC (Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee)

Once again, alleged autism expert Offit seems to be out of touch with mainstream scientific consensus on the role of non genetic factors in causing or triggering autism disorders.  Of course the use of the term disorder may be touchy for autism expert Offit who accepts the Neurodiversity views that autism is not a medical disorder and that autistic children will, if left without treatment, will improve over time:

NOTE: Alleged autism expert Offit focuses on attacking biomedical treatments but makes no mention of behavioral intervention as possible explanation for autistic children's improvement.  Instead he embraces the Neurodiversity ideology which says let them be, just let them be ... there will be an answer ... they will get better on their own, let them be, let them be.

"AOL Health: What do you think of the theory promoted by many autistic rights organizations run by individuals with autism that society needs to accept neurodiversity and treat autistic individuals as people who think and understand the world differently?

Offit: It makes abundant sense. They are arguing that it's a way of being. It's a variance of normal. It should be looked at as such, not stigmatized. I've spoken to many of them, and they don't want to be seen as damaged.

Dawson: One of the things that is so challenging about autism is the fact that there's so much variation in the way autism is expressed in people. Some individuals can have a productive and creative life, and they aren't looking for a cure. They're interested in being accepted and getting access to services to help them adapt to the world with their special skills. At the other end, there are children severely affected who have significant medical conditions, such as seizures, and have never spoken. For those individuals, the prospect of a cure for autism is really important. That results in a lot of different perspectives of where our priorities should be."

Alleged Autism expert Offit makes no mention of the children severely affected by autism disorder for whom the prospect of a cure is really important as noted by Dr. Dawson.  Of course Dr. Offit would not actually be able to speak to many of those who are non verbal with intellectual disabilities.  And he would not actually talk to their parents either since he would be too busy talking down to them about how vaccines have never caused or triggered the autism disorders about which he knows ... so much.