Has the government been hiding information about a vaccine-autism link?

Great Debates
1

THIS article says yes. (warning, takes about 10 minutes)

In short, it seems that in 2007 or so in the vaccine injury court, a special court set up by the US government to protect the pharma industry from lawsuits, a bunch of lawsuits against the vaccine industry were thrown out based on the expert witness of researcher and scientist Dr. Zimmerman. Thing was Zimmerman actually HAD seen that vaccines COULD cause autism in CERTAIN cases. But that information was kept hidden and Zimmerman fired. The article also says that big Pharma money is so strong on capital hill that debate on the topic is quickly stopped.
Also note: the people in this discussion are not anti-vaccine. They still support their benefits and getting flu shots.
Its an interesting discussion and I was wondering what this board thought.

2

Rebuttal.
Another rebuttal.

Two seconds on Google.

3

No. It’s nonsense and the people who push it out there kill children through their actions.

The CDC doesn’t think they do.

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia doesn’t think they do.

The journal ‘Vaccine’ doesn’t think so.

Science-based Medicine doesn’t think so.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information doesn’t think so

So I repeat, the people who persist in this argument kill children. They cause miscarriages. The put people at risk. All for the belief - as Isaac Asimov put it - that their ignorance is the equivalent of someone else’s knowledge.

4

This is a heaping helping of nothing, brought to you by longtime antivax conspiracy theorists (in particular, Sharyl “The Gummint Hacked My Computer!” Atkisson and RFK Jr.).

“…this new “report” is nothing new. Attkisson’s been flogging the Hannah Poling case ever since it hit the news. So it’s not surprising that she’d do it again. As much as she and RFK Jr. are trying to paint this as some horrific conspiracy to hide the evidence that vaccines cause autism and deny the petitioners of the Autism Omnibus their just compensation, there’s really even less here than there is in the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory, which isn’t much. All we have is one witness who, a decade after Autism Omnibus, became somehow convinced that the government lawyers had done him wrong by deciding they didn’t want him to testify and whose importance to the case was nowhere near as critical as it is being portrayed by RFK Jr. and Sharyl Attkisson. Basically, through the Hannah Poling case, he came to believe (erroneously) that mitochondrial disease + vaccines = autism and appears to want vindication, to achieve which he’s now going public with his grievance. In the end, it’s really pathetic.”

While antivaxers perpetually keep flogging the same old nonsense about vaccine “toxins”, shots “overwhelming” children’s immune systems and causing laundry lists of unrelated ailments (based on anecdotes and mommy intuition), they especially love faux conspiracies, seeing that they’re convinced that there’s an unholy alliance between physicians, other health care workers, researchers, health agencies, Big Pharma, the CDC, the FDA, and quite probably the TVA and CIA to conceal Da Troof about vaccines, because of course all of these millions of people are in it for the money and don’t have any kids themselves.

By the way, this Dr. Zimmerman who figures in the latest conspiracy silliness is one of a small minority of docs who think there’s a potential link between mitochondrial disorders (rare genetically-based syndromes) and regressive autism developing after vaccination. However Zimmerman is just one of myriad researchers/experts who’ve testified before the vaccine court, and others overwhelmingly do not agree with him. Plus (and you won’t hear antivaxers admit this), Zimmerman is on record defending the value of immunization and advising that it’s better even for kids with mitochondrial disorders to get DTaP vaccine than risk serious damage caused by pertussis (whooping cough), the “P” in DTaP.

Exapno Mapcase’s second link is to a blog written by an extreme antivaxer (Jake Crosby), whose enmity for Zimmerman apparently stems from his belief that Zimmerman didn’t go nearly far enough to blame autism on vaccines, and thus isn’t worth antivaxers’ efforts to defend or exploit him. I recommend taking anything Crosby says with a whole mine full of salt, and disinfecting your computer after reading his articles.

  • Jackmannii, who makes untold millions from his Pharma masters as a message board shill for vaccination.
5

While I only skimmed, I note that the article does not mention:

  1. A mechanism for operation. I.e., how they’re suggesting that vaccines can cause autism to occur.
  2. A large scale study that tests and confirms the hypothesis.
  3. Replications of the results of the study.

But let’s say that that’s not important because…well, reasons…and just talk about the general approach of the article and how it works as proof. To do that, let’s consider a different case, which could result in a similar article being written on a different topic.

Let’s say, for example, that the Republican party hires an economist to write a new taxation bill. The economist is a brilliant guy who does good math, and whose economical arguments are very compelling. But, as they start working with him, they come to realize that where he’s really strong on tax and business, he’s a crank in other areas and thinks, for example, that the government is being run by a secret cabal organized under the Freemasons.

Not wanting to have the new tax bill shot down over the crank ideas of this one guy, they pressure him to not mention any of his ideas about the Freemasons to anyone and they suppress emails and other materials to ensure that the only thing being discussed around the tax bill are the economics of the tax bill.

After the bill passes and the guy has been released from his deal with the party, the guy goes to some no-name, crank news site and explains to them how the government worked to suppress him, proving that his ideas about the secret cabal are true. And, being a crank news site, they publish his tale and present it in the same manner: Suppression = Truth

But does suppression = truth? Or is it simply that people are embarrassed by and for the cranks around them, and sometimes work to shield themselves from the crank or to shield the crank for his own good?

I would suggest that suppression is not, innately, a proof of truth. And, I would further argue, more things are suppressed because they are embarrassing than because there is an elaborate conspiracy - by people who have chosen to go into a career helping people to live healthier, longer lives - to mentally impair children, in bulk, for a quick buck.

6

I’m not an anti vaxxer, but I am a little concerned by an odd and disturbing trend I see, which is people repeatedly being so eager to prove themselves as the opposite of cranks that they forget that the opposite of unreasonable is reasonable, not unreasonab!e in the opposite direction. Just because someone has come to a crazy conclusion or a since disproven one doesnt mean that 1) every single thing they ever believed is proof that the extreme opposite is true, both in conclusions and in premises.

It leads to some very odd paradoxes in thinking. While careful consideration of the issue will show that vaccinations aren’t linked to autism, and are a net benefit for society, what it doesn’t show is that vaccinations are a panacea with zero complications or that questioning authority is automatically paranoia.

After all, the whole autism scare happened because of a trusted authority lying for financial benefit. While this discovery and further research makes it fairly reasonable to disregard a link between vaccines and autism, it is ridiculous to use it as evidence for the idea that industries with an inherent financial drive are incorruptible.

That’s not only absurd, there’s abundant counter examples. A whole government agency had to be created to combat it (FDA). Even in the pure science of academic research where you would think there would be less incentive for corruption and more idealism, there’s a crisis in reproducibility of results.

I’m sure there are no end of tobacoo industry executives with children who nontheless continue to promote the bottom line.

So yes, it’s great to put a bed to the particular conclusions of certain groups that happen to be probably false, but it’s just as harmful to go to the opposite extreme by assuming every idea remotely associated with those things is automatically true in the extreme opposite, and that this can be shown not through reasonable evidence and arguments, but through dismissive sarcasm and virtue signaling towards a whole class of people.

7

On the other hand, that giant straw man of yours is a fire hazard. If you can find an example of me (or pro-immunization advocates in general) stating that vaccines have “zero” complications, or that questioning “authority” (i.e. the medical profession, the scientific community, the CDC etc.) automatically equates to paranoia, I will buy you a kewpie doll (or a McD Happy Meal).

If you mean Andrew Wakefield (the discredited researcher who engaged in sloppy and ultimately fraudulent research postulating an MMR-autism link while concealing huge payments from a law group interested in suing vaccine makers), then I agree with you.

I’m perfectly willing to hear evidence that a drug company might have engaged in malfeasance (there are numerous examples of such), the key word is evidence - we need to see it, not assume that Pharma Bad, so vaccines are automatically deeply suspect (with that logic, we should also be reluctant to use insulin if diabetic,not allow the administration of clot-busting drugs if we are developing ischemic strokes, refuse antibiotics for sepsis and so on).
And it’s not just industry that we must view as horribly corrupt - there’s all the physicians, other health care workers, researchers, government workers (didn’t I already mention these fellow travelers?:)), and let’s not forget the parents of autistic children and organizations like Autism Speaks who don’t buy into the vaccine-autism conspiracy…wow, the conspiracy just keeps getting wider and deeper. :dubious:

The FDA is also Evil in the antivax universe, just not as evil as the CDC.

There’s such a huge body of research validating vaccine safety and efficacy, you’d have to posit an incredibly vast conspiracy to account for it all. Hmmm…

Oo, Big Tobacco too! Didja know there used to be ads back in the '40s with doctors praising cigarettes? That oughta tell you something!*

*a possible example of “dismissive sarcasm”. Sorry about that. :frowning:

8

So this is the truth about vaccine court: many of the winners have been genetically tested and one commonality has arisen. They all have Dravet syndrome which is a severe incurable form of epilepsy that has autism like features. Eventually these kids were going to be symptomatic as babies or toddlers, but getting a vaccine can cause symptoms to appear slightly sooner if they spike a fever. Had they never been vaccinated it still would have been a matter of weeks to months before an illness caused a fever to spur their first convulsions.

9

I’m sorry, Urbanredneck, but the way the article describes this alleged link is horseshit.

This isn’t how links between drugs and adverse events are determined. It’s just not. It’s done through extensive study and the work of a team of people, including epidemioloists, statisticians, pgorammers, and a shitload of physicians, pharmacoviligance experts, and God knows who else. Only in movies does one guy say “I’ve found it!”

Look, if you don’t believe me, read that article more carefully. Zimmerman claims vaccines can cause autism. But… how does he know that? Does he have a control group? What’s his evidence? Where is it?

The author of this article

  1. Has absolutely no idea how pharmacovigilance works. None whatsoever.
  2. Has an axe to grind, and
  3. Is deliberately deceptive.
10

Linky McLinkface for further reading?

11

My thought is that it’s not an interesting discussion.

12

Are you serious with this? Do you just find a web site and then think that whatever it says is true? Do you do any research or critical thinking on your own? With little effort, I could find web sites that say Bigfoot is real, or mermaids are real, or the Earth is flat, or 9-11 was committed by the US government. Please, PLEASE read about the topic before posting stupid, time-wasting topics here. Jesus.

13

For some light reading

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474442210701071
https://vaxopedia.org/tag/national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program/

14

For some light reading
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525505011002605

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474442210701071
https://vaxopedia.org/tag/national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program/

15

Ta much!

16

To that I have to add this article from Vaxopedia that shows that even Dr. Andrew Zimmerman does not agree with the anti-vaccination narrative:

17

If you want to read about this in depth, my wife just published a book on the vaccine debate (from ABC Clio) and a year ago published a more technical book (though still for the general public) on vaccines in general. PM me for details.
It was not paid for by Big Pharma. I wish - wouldn’t hurt to have the money.

No where in the article is a discussion of how Zimmerman came to this conclusion. Did he do a study? Was it published? Or was it anecdotal?
The thing about the supposed autism link is this. Anti-vaxxers have come up with several supposed mechanisms for causing autism, like mercury. Even if mercury had been an issue, which it wasn’t, it was removed from most vaccines just in case. The autism rate was not affected at all.
Now it seems that the onset of autism happens about the time that vaccines are given, which might explain the apparent correlation. But studies of populations not getting vaccines show the same autism rate (or even higher) than those getting vaccinate.
But I’m not an expert, my wife is, so if you care you might either get the book or ask your library to get it. It’s in over 100 libraries worldwide already.

18

How could the US government do that?

Vaccines are used by pretty much every nation on earth. All the first world ones, the nations with large national health care systems etc. The ones with large pharmaceutical companies and the ones without any. How on earth could the US government conceal something like that from the research and statistics of all other nations ?

19

Vaccines do not cause autism. There is no link. There have been numerous massive large-scale international studies examining this. There is nothing to cover up. I think this discussion is as interesting as a discussion on whether the earth is flat, and that you should seriously spend some time thinking about how you even come up with sources this bad.

20

It doesn’t really, though, at least not in most kids. Something like 70-80% of kids who have autism don’t regress like it’s often claimed they all do. Instead, from watching videos of the kids between 6 and 12 months old, and interviewing people who spent a lot of time with the children during infancy (other than the parents) it’s fairly clear that the majority of kids already show symptoms long before a lot of parent notice and/or admit it to themselves.

A great many kids on the spectrum are firstborns, so their parents lack a basis of comparison which makes it harder to realize that their kids are different than other babies until they begin to fail major language milestones like using sentences in toddlerhood. So what happens is the little kid who is already a bit different (doesn’t smile at people, shies away from eye-contact, doesn’t hold out their arms to be picked up) gets their vaccines at an age when people begin having more social expectations of them.