According to a piece on NPR there’s some speculation as to whether or not vaccinations lead to an increase to autism. Now, idle speculation here, what do we do if it does turn out that vaccines do cause autism? And further more, let’s say that any vaccinations given before the age of 10 (or whenever it is that the human body finishes it’s most critical periods of development) are likely to cause autism, so one couldn’t simply delay the use of one vaccine until a certain age, but all of them would have to be delayed in order to avoid the risk of autism.
So, given those conditions, what do you think that society will do? Will we be willing to accept a higher risk of infant mortality in order to avoid having autistic children or not? Will we see a shift in these choices if infant mortality begins to rise?
There also might be a problem of a fundamental attributional error. Such as, if 95% of juvenile delinquents chew gum, are we to assume gum-chewing is a catalyst to crime?
Until more research is done, I think it’s wrong to frighten parents so much. Even if a link is proven to exist, the chances of your child becoming autistic must be much smaller than the risk of an un-vaccinated child catching serious, and sometimes deadly diseases.
This is badly phrased, as no one is suggesting that the vaccinations are ‘likely’ to cause autism, only that there might be a non-negligible risk that they do.
This nuance is important as the whole issue revolves around assessing probabilities. Even if there is a link (and this layman is far from convinced that there is), the question would still be which of the risks outweighs the other. This is hardly a novel dilemma as few vaccines are without some potential side-effects. Those deciding medical policy have to confront this issue all the time.
There is, it is true, a big moral quandary about how one measures the comparable significance of, say, the death of one child against another child developing autism, but, in practice, the policy issues are rarely that stark.
Calling for more research seems the obvious answer but even that involves its own moral dilemmas. Numerous studies have already been carried out. How many more studies will have to be done to satisfy everyone? Some would argue that, as it is, enough research has already been done and that further investigations would only divert limited resources away from research into real medical threats. Why should this particular theory be a priority?
I could see this report becoming very problematic based on some suppositions.
1)New parents find out about this report and refuse to vaccinate their child(ren)
2)Schools mandate vaccinations before allowing child(ren) to attend school.
3)Since the parents are not able to send child(ren) to classes b/c they fear autism, it’ll open up lawsuits against the school.
If there really was a link between autism and vaccination (which IMHO has been ruled out with a fair degree of certainty) it would probably be found that it is some component of the vaccine that is to blame–not the act of vaccination itself. There’s some mercury compound, IIRC, that’s a popular suspect. If it were found to be to blame, the vaccine could then be manufactured without that compound. Another popular hypothesis is that it’s giving one big MMR vaccination that overwhelms some kids’ systems, and if they were given separate innoculations for measles, mumps, and rubella, widely spaced in time, the problem would be solved. So in all probability, there would be a technical solution to the problem.
However, I think there are some people who do blame the innoculation itself . . . something about throwing off the immune system and so on and so forth . . .
If that’s really the case, it would be harder to find an “easy” scientific answer.
From a public health standpoint, it’s really a no-brainer. A very small number of kids with autism, vs. the loss of herd immunity against measles, mumps and rubella, with who knows how many kids dying each year from those diseases.
From the POV of the individual parent, though, it’s harder.
IF some adverse consequence of any or all vaccines was indeed documented (be it autism, or asthma, or leprosy … whatever) society would have to do the same thing that it always should be doing with public health initiatives - weigh out the benefits from the vaccine(s) in question vs. the costs and risks. In your hypothetical you’d need to balance all the consequences of the diseases prevented by all vaccines under age 10 years old vs the consequences of your hypothetical increased risk of autism. I think that benefits would outweigh the risks. Handily. ALL interventions have some risks, both known and unknown. It is always a balancing act … does the disease that is being pursued cause enough death and/or serious consequence that it is worth the known and unknown risks of the vaccines?
*Briefly, the speculation that the MMR contributes to autism has been conclusively disproven by now. Even its prime proponent, Wakefeild, now has retreated to claiming that maybe it contributes to a very small number of special cases that won’t show up in any statistical study. (You are familar with the phrase “a nonfalsifiable hypothesis”, I hope.) And the hypothesis that thimerosol contributes to autism rates is being disproven as we speak … it has been three years plus since thimerosol has been removed from routine childhood vaccines. If it had been etiologic we’d be seeing a significant decline in new autism cases by now … no such decline has been reported.
**Just to be clear, even the most rabid vaccine conspiricy theorists do not make your hypothetical claim.
DSeid, I read the linked thread you posted. But is there any new discussion on any connection between the MMR’s mercury component and autism? My sister-in-law’s nephew went from a normal 3 year old’s vocabulary to a non-communicative autistic in a matter of weeks, and they suspect the MMR.
Didn’t the Homeland Security Bill include some provision granting immunity to companies making vaccines, in case their vaccines have serious side effects?
I don’t have access to a copy of the law here, so I don’t know if the immunity is limited to certain kinds of side effects, or just certain vaccines (that would protect against bio-terrorism).
IIRC, the autism concern comes from mercury, and the mercury is in some vaccines is a preservative, and you can easily get them without it.
The jury is still out on whether the mercury preservative can be linked to autism, but the doctors I have talked to have all stopped using vaccines containing the mercury preservative anyway. Bad PR and all that.
But you CAN still get them according to my pediatrican (former Head of Pediatrics at Hoag Hospital).
And yes, that little bit of pork was in the Homeland Security legislation. Our congresspeople are such assholes.
What’s really driving my thoughts behind all of this is that since there hasn’t been a major outbreak of the diseases we vaccinate against in the US for quite some time (and some folks claim that improved sanitation has more to do with that than the vaccines), it certainly seems possible that, were the hypothetical situation I posted in the OP to come to pass, many people would clamor for us to do away with vaccination altogether. If we did that, how long before the outbreaks started, if at all? How long before the infant mortality started to climb?
As to the rider on the homeland security bill - actually what it says is that any claims about thimerosol would need to go through the current government compensation program for alleged vaccine injuries before being elgible for private suits. Its sole effect is that it would delay any lawsuits by a few years. I think that the lawyers are so upset because when there has been no drop in autism cases for another few years, it makes their case look even weaker.
Jury is out on thimersol. Fine, so be it. But to innoculate specific companys, or even specific industries for that matter, by a stealth amendment anonomously inserted into a bill about Homeland Security is political cynicism of a whole new order.
And they got away with it. I never realized anyone could get away with something so utterly sleaze.
I would like to believe in the efficacy of vaccines, it makes good sense to me. But, after spending a Christmas get together with the chief epidemiologist of an unnamed state, who said he’d rather forgoe the smallpox vaccine unless forced, I wonder. Suppose that’s a bit of a hijack.
I’d like to understand the connection between mercury-containing vaccines and autism better. Any other links, with a basic explaination?
The smallpox vaccine is a bit different, though. It does have definite side effects that can sometimes kill and, more importantly, the virus no longer exists in nature. It would only be given to fight a possible terrorist attack, even though there is by no means any certainty that terrorists have or will ever get their hands on smallpox.
I think the discussion of vaccination against natural diseases has to be in a completely different area than the discussion of vaccination against possible terrorist bioweapons.
Many of us docs, and the CDC, are not thrilled about the potential of wide-sprerad imunization for smallpox. To accept hundreds of deaths as a side effect to protect against the threat of a threat that other strategies would be able to limit the damage of …
Don’t forget crippling. As I understand it the measles can cause deafness even though it doesn’t kill much anymore. Oh and Rubella causes birth defects. Just mentioning it because sometimes people only focus on the deaths only but the crippling effects of disease is nothing to sneeze at.