Twelve years after now-discredited research first proposed a link between early-childhood
vaccinations and autism; courts have finally rejected the claim outright.
{loadposition davidh08}A special US court, often referred to as the "vaccine court," was convened to
test claims of a causal connection between the administering of a vaccination (generally the
Measles, Mumps, Rubella, or MMR vaccine) and the onset soon-after of paediatric autism.
The court stipulated (on page 22,
here) that any successful petition to the courts must present three things
successfully.Â
(1) "a medical theory" that causally connects the vaccinations and the child’s
autism;
(2) "a logical sequence of cause and effect" that shows that the child’s vaccinations
were the "reason" for the injury;
(3) evidence of "a proximate temporal relationship" between vaccination and injury.
The court tested two possible theories.
The first theory being that the vaccination itself was the cause and the second being that the
mercury-containing compound Thimerosal, used as a preservative.
Neither theory stood up to the scrutiny of experts or the court officials.
{loadposition davidh08} According to the published
decision "The undersigned [one of the three 'special masters' hearing the evidence] observes
that while petitioners' experts were qualified, they lacked the specialized qualifications that
distinguished respondent’s experts.
"The focus of the extensive research conducted by respondent's witnesses coupled with the
significant clinical experiences of respondent's witnesses provided well-informed guidance
concerning the various aspects of petitioners’ theory of vaccine-related causation.
"The testimony of respondent’s witnesses made clear that petitioners' presented theory of
causation was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported. Petitioners' experts
openly conceded the limitations of their expertise during cross-examination, and the testimony
given by petitioners' experts showed both internal inconsistencies and notable external
inconsistencies with established scientific principles.
"These inconsistencies in the testimony of petitioners' experts–that were
exposed, in part, through the testimony of respondents' experts–diminished the
persuasiveness of the opinions that petitioners' experts offered, and, in the view of the
undersigned, called into question the soundness of the positions that they offered."
In commenting on the mercury claim, Patricia Campbell-Smith, the master in the Mead case (quoted
here) noted that
vaccine opponents "have not shown either that certain children are genetically
hypersusceptible to mercury or that certain children are predisposed to have difficulty excreting
mercury. "She also echoed a contention by vaccine defenders that a shot is safer than a
tuna sandwich. "A normal fish-eating diet by pregnant mothers" is more likely to deposit mercury
in the brain than vaccines are."
{loadposition davidh08}One of the Internet’s best-known medical sites, WebMD has an
article
on the topic which notes, rather tellingly, that "experts studied whether the MMR vaccine could
cause autism. To do that, they looked for clues among kids who did and didn't get the vaccine.
"Since that initial finding, 14 studies including millions of children in several countries
consistently show no significant difference in autism rates between children who got the MMR
vaccine those who didn't.
"The bottom line: It's very unlikely that the MMR causes autism."
The New York Times also commented on the
ruling, exposing one of the many motivators for parents to blame vaccines for Autism: "The master
in the Dwyer case wrote that many parents 'relied upon practitioners and researchers who peddled
hope, not opinions grounded in science and medicine.' "
It has been a long and difficult path for rational science to recover from the damage done by Dr
Andrew Wakefield’s original research paper. However, the paper is noew
entirely
discredited and extensive work has been done to
expose those supporting the connection as seriously misinformed (to be remarkably kind).
Even with this
decision, Dr. Offit (director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of
Philadelphia and the inventor of a rotavirus vaccine from which he receives royalties) said,
"it's very hard to unscare people after you've scared them."
Of course, nothing here will change the fact that a number of children have developed autism
within a short time of receiving a vaccine. However, the decision is clear
– the vaccine isn’t guilty; in fact a number of researchers have pointed
out that the vaccine is generally administered to children when they are at the same age that
symptoms of autism frequently appear.