Answers to questions from anti-vaxers
If I could say but one thing: recognize hype versus objective observation and honest inquiry when you see it, and don't hold each to the same standard.
The following comes across to me as merely pile-it-on anti-vax propoganda.
These are the views from the anti-vaxers.
1. Why doesn't the NIH replicate the clinical science studies that Dr.Vijendra Singh and Dr. Andrew Wakefield have done and take it to the next level?
2. Why isn't there scientific curiousity as to why children with autism have elevated measles antibody titers, measles in the gut and measles in the spinal fluid. Isn't there an interest to explain this especially when the CDC, NIH, and IOM say that the autism epidemic is a mystery but then deny a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
dras reply--The NIH has responded to these first two questions: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/autism2.htm
3. Why is there a conflict of interest between pharmaceutical companies and the CDC and FDA as per this article........ http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030718-012134-4422r Aren't these government health agencies responsible to the American public rather than serve their masters at the pharmaceutical companies?
dras reply----This line of questioning is not objective, contains or infers invalidated statements and suppositions ("serve their masters"), and serves only to appeal to emotions, rather than as a query for facts. The referenced article is an argumentative editorial. That means it is written with the intent to raise some eyebrows. It is nevertheless, someone's opinion based on some chosen observations. There is always two sides to a story. Quite likely is the fact that these agencies overall serve the public good and any relationship or "conflicts of interest" members have in no way is related to a controversy between autism and vaccines.
4. Why hasn't the FDA conducted any independent, long-term safety studies on vaccines? If as in number 3 they can't do this then what public agency can do it?
dras reply----Again refer to the NIH site linked above, also the following are helpful: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/autism, http://medlineplus.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/autism.html.
5. Why hasn't the NIH conducted any immunology studies regarding autism since it is well known that autism involves an autoimmune component.
dras reply----Even though I doubt the "well known" statement in the question has always been widely accepted, it looks like they are looking into this: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_20959.html There is other research going on (Vijendra K. Singh, Phd is a leading researcher) but conclusions are still very preliminary.
6. Why are all studies done by the IOM, CDC and NIH denying links between vaccines and autism just epidemiology studies and none of the studies involve clinical science such as immune blood panel tests, colon biopsies, etc.
dras reply----I do not know that these studies are "denying" links between vaccines and autism. This is another question phrased to raise emotions rather than facts. Resources for research are limited and devising a clinical research study becomes a very formal as well as scientific process. An oversight panel or internal review board (IRB) will review proposed clinical trials. Among many things required for qualification is that the objectives must be based on a valid theory, which in turn is based on already understood scientific concepts, or data from preliminary studies. Where this question infers a conspiracy, it is more likely due to science's natural hesitancy to jump to conclusions or to gauge the cart before seeing the horse.
7. Why is mercury in fish and broken therometers dangerous while mercury in vaccines is not according to the IOM and CDC.
dras reply---The same way that the carbon dioxide we breath is not dangerous, but inhaling it for several minutes through a tank and mask is likely fatal. Even the most natural substances in our bodies have a toxic threshold, where too much is dangerous. And the most biologically toxic substance may not be harmful in the smallest of doses.
8. Why isn't there more questions about what is put in vaccines when the product package inserts says it all as per........ http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ingredients1.html
dras reply---Why stop at vaccines, what about ingredients on the labels of anti-biotics, IV saline solutions, sterile surgical instruments, etc? Why stop there, what about the ingredients labels on Pepsi, or baby teething toys? Point being is that there is likely no conspiracy over the industry standard for labeling protocols.
9. Why the denial of a vaccine link to autism when clearly there has been no clinical science to disprove the link. There has been no clinical science to explain why children with autism have elevated measles antibodies in their blood, measles in the gut and measles in the spinal fluid.
dras reply---The answer to #6 above applies here as well. To expand further, there has likely not been enough scientific evidence to infer that there is a link to carry out more specific clinical studies on this issue up until now. Despite this question's blunt attempt to make a supposed obvious correlation, science cannot accept speculative correlations without clear clinical study observations and comparisons.
10. Why does the FDA keep a file called VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reaction System) that documents adverse reactions to vaccines and nothing is done with it.
dras reply----That "nothing is done with it" is subjective reasoning. See http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaers/vaers.htm to understand what is done with the reports. This, again, is not a fact-finding question. It is leading to an invalidated implication of conspiracy.
10. Shouldn't the NIH and CDC be interested in looking into stopping the epidemic of autism and see if they can develop immunology treatment strategies to help those children and their families who are victims.
dras reply---Science can question whether there is an "epidemic of autism." The one study from California is often cited; however, there are inherent difficulties to epidemiological studies. Shortcomings of the CA study are noted here: http://www.autism-biomed.org/fombonne.htm Nevertheless, the public fervor generated seems to be mustering enough political clout to put this issue on a short list for increased tax funding. Sometimes I wonder which other needed and worthy, and maybe more valid and utilitarian (more good for more people) issues will get the short-end because of it.
12. Why do the NIH, CDC, IOM and FDA get money if they aren't concerned about the autism epidemic and they want to continue to look the other way. Why are they funded by the general public and not the pharmaceutical companies who they represent more effectively. What benefit do these agencies give the American public.
dras reply---It is implied that these last questions are rhetorical, and need no answer, so I will not attempt. They are the attempt to bring-home the implication that it is all a big conspricacy. I will conclude that few other biomedical advancements other than vaccines (even those with thimerasol) have contributed more to the health and longevity of the human race. Also, that no one person or entity is infallible, and few things are perfect. The current emotional passions rampant on the autism/vaccine issue does little to advance, and serves more to hinder the progress of scientific knowledge and understanding. No amount of clinical observation and conclusion will change the minds of true-believers; the conspiracy just gets darker and deeper for them. Unfortunately as well, there are those that create and use the emotional energy to their own benefit and profit, all the while creating and accusing antagonists as conspirators and gluttons.
signed, dras (seeker of knowledge, with no personal or vested interest in the autism/vaccine issue)
The following comes across to me as merely pile-it-on anti-vax propoganda.
These are the views from the anti-vaxers.
1. Why doesn't the NIH replicate the clinical science studies that Dr.Vijendra Singh and Dr. Andrew Wakefield have done and take it to the next level?
2. Why isn't there scientific curiousity as to why children with autism have elevated measles antibody titers, measles in the gut and measles in the spinal fluid. Isn't there an interest to explain this especially when the CDC, NIH, and IOM say that the autism epidemic is a mystery but then deny a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
dras reply--The NIH has responded to these first two questions: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/autism2.htm
3. Why is there a conflict of interest between pharmaceutical companies and the CDC and FDA as per this article........ http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030718-012134-4422r Aren't these government health agencies responsible to the American public rather than serve their masters at the pharmaceutical companies?
dras reply----This line of questioning is not objective, contains or infers invalidated statements and suppositions ("serve their masters"), and serves only to appeal to emotions, rather than as a query for facts. The referenced article is an argumentative editorial. That means it is written with the intent to raise some eyebrows. It is nevertheless, someone's opinion based on some chosen observations. There is always two sides to a story. Quite likely is the fact that these agencies overall serve the public good and any relationship or "conflicts of interest" members have in no way is related to a controversy between autism and vaccines.
4. Why hasn't the FDA conducted any independent, long-term safety studies on vaccines? If as in number 3 they can't do this then what public agency can do it?
dras reply----Again refer to the NIH site linked above, also the following are helpful: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/autism, http://medlineplus.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/autism.html.
5. Why hasn't the NIH conducted any immunology studies regarding autism since it is well known that autism involves an autoimmune component.
dras reply----Even though I doubt the "well known" statement in the question has always been widely accepted, it looks like they are looking into this: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_20959.html There is other research going on (Vijendra K. Singh, Phd is a leading researcher) but conclusions are still very preliminary.
6. Why are all studies done by the IOM, CDC and NIH denying links between vaccines and autism just epidemiology studies and none of the studies involve clinical science such as immune blood panel tests, colon biopsies, etc.
dras reply----I do not know that these studies are "denying" links between vaccines and autism. This is another question phrased to raise emotions rather than facts. Resources for research are limited and devising a clinical research study becomes a very formal as well as scientific process. An oversight panel or internal review board (IRB) will review proposed clinical trials. Among many things required for qualification is that the objectives must be based on a valid theory, which in turn is based on already understood scientific concepts, or data from preliminary studies. Where this question infers a conspiracy, it is more likely due to science's natural hesitancy to jump to conclusions or to gauge the cart before seeing the horse.
7. Why is mercury in fish and broken therometers dangerous while mercury in vaccines is not according to the IOM and CDC.
dras reply---The same way that the carbon dioxide we breath is not dangerous, but inhaling it for several minutes through a tank and mask is likely fatal. Even the most natural substances in our bodies have a toxic threshold, where too much is dangerous. And the most biologically toxic substance may not be harmful in the smallest of doses.
8. Why isn't there more questions about what is put in vaccines when the product package inserts says it all as per........ http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ingredients1.html
dras reply---Why stop at vaccines, what about ingredients on the labels of anti-biotics, IV saline solutions, sterile surgical instruments, etc? Why stop there, what about the ingredients labels on Pepsi, or baby teething toys? Point being is that there is likely no conspiracy over the industry standard for labeling protocols.
9. Why the denial of a vaccine link to autism when clearly there has been no clinical science to disprove the link. There has been no clinical science to explain why children with autism have elevated measles antibodies in their blood, measles in the gut and measles in the spinal fluid.
dras reply---The answer to #6 above applies here as well. To expand further, there has likely not been enough scientific evidence to infer that there is a link to carry out more specific clinical studies on this issue up until now. Despite this question's blunt attempt to make a supposed obvious correlation, science cannot accept speculative correlations without clear clinical study observations and comparisons.
10. Why does the FDA keep a file called VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reaction System) that documents adverse reactions to vaccines and nothing is done with it.
dras reply----That "nothing is done with it" is subjective reasoning. See http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaers/vaers.htm to understand what is done with the reports. This, again, is not a fact-finding question. It is leading to an invalidated implication of conspiracy.
10. Shouldn't the NIH and CDC be interested in looking into stopping the epidemic of autism and see if they can develop immunology treatment strategies to help those children and their families who are victims.
dras reply---Science can question whether there is an "epidemic of autism." The one study from California is often cited; however, there are inherent difficulties to epidemiological studies. Shortcomings of the CA study are noted here: http://www.autism-biomed.org/fombonne.htm Nevertheless, the public fervor generated seems to be mustering enough political clout to put this issue on a short list for increased tax funding. Sometimes I wonder which other needed and worthy, and maybe more valid and utilitarian (more good for more people) issues will get the short-end because of it.
12. Why do the NIH, CDC, IOM and FDA get money if they aren't concerned about the autism epidemic and they want to continue to look the other way. Why are they funded by the general public and not the pharmaceutical companies who they represent more effectively. What benefit do these agencies give the American public.
dras reply---It is implied that these last questions are rhetorical, and need no answer, so I will not attempt. They are the attempt to bring-home the implication that it is all a big conspricacy. I will conclude that few other biomedical advancements other than vaccines (even those with thimerasol) have contributed more to the health and longevity of the human race. Also, that no one person or entity is infallible, and few things are perfect. The current emotional passions rampant on the autism/vaccine issue does little to advance, and serves more to hinder the progress of scientific knowledge and understanding. No amount of clinical observation and conclusion will change the minds of true-believers; the conspiracy just gets darker and deeper for them. Unfortunately as well, there are those that create and use the emotional energy to their own benefit and profit, all the while creating and accusing antagonists as conspirators and gluttons.
signed, dras (seeker of knowledge, with no personal or vested interest in the autism/vaccine issue)
posted by nawledge at
9:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home