WELL-INTENTIONED: Antivaccine advocates are misguided.
Image: Sang Tan Getty Images
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
This winter in the San Francisco Bay Area, many children will sit in classrooms and play on the jungle gyms at recess and then go home to attentive parents who work hard to give them every advantage in life. Parents in this part of the country are better educated and wealthier than the average American and can give their children more opportunity. But the Bay Area is also a hotbed of the growing movement to abstain from vaccinations for fear that the shots cause autism and other disorders. Although these parents may have the best of intentions—to protect their kids—they are dangerously misguided.
California is now in the middle of the worst outbreak of pertussis in half a century. This highly contagious disease—known as whooping cough for the distinctive sound its victims make when gasping for air after a fit of paroxysmal coughing—was a scourge of childhood until the advent of an effective vaccine against it in the 1940s, which drastically reduced incidence of the disease. The number of annual cases has been climbing in recent years. Last year, though, the rate of infection rose, once again, to epidemic proportions—7,297 known and suspected cases, a fourfold increase from 2009. Whether those refusing the vaccine have helped fuel the current pertussis epidemic is uncertain, but their decisions have created a public health tinderbox: in some Bay Area schools, 40 percent or more of the kids are not vaccinated, leaving them unprotected against pertussis and other preventable diseases, such as measles.
California is hardly the only state grappling with antivaccine sentiment. Significant numbers of parents across the country are declining standard immunizations for their children. The success of any given vaccine depends on so-called herd immunity, in which a high rate of immunization in a population helps to protect those individuals who are not immune. Herd immunity requires high immunization rates—around 95 percent for highly contagious infections like pertussis and measles. When immunization rates drop below the critical level, disease can strike not only unvaccinated individuals but also vaccinated ones, because all vaccines fail to confer immunity in a certain percentage of people. Parents who opt out are endangering not only their own kids but everybody else’s, too—including those who cannot be vaccinated because they are too young or immunocompromised, as well as youngsters who have received their shots.
Vaccine anxiety has been around for as long as there have been vaccines, but the fear of autism originated with a paper published in the Lancet journal in 1998. On the basis of a study of 12 children, author and British medical doctor Andrew Wakefield claimed to have found a link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and an autismlike disorder. Antivaccination groups and the media pounced on the news, and before long the alleged vaccine-autism connection became a Hollywood cause célèbre; former actress and Playboy model Jenny McCarthy claims that MMR caused her son’s autism.
In February 2010 the Lancet retracted Wakefield’s infamous paper. That leaves no scientific evidence to support the assertion that vaccines cause autism or other chronic diseases. Unfortunately, fear is far easier to ignite than to extinguish. Some parents caught in the crossfire between scientists and charlatans have decided, against all reason, that the vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they protect against.
They are wrong. Vaccines may provoke a low fever and other unpleasant symptoms. Very rarely, side effects are serious, such as an allergic reaction. The risk of unprotected exposure to vaccine-preventable diseases is far higher: for example, more than 90 percent of unvaccinated people exposed to measles will become infected.
Each state has its own immunization requirements for schoolchildren. Yet in 48 states parents may exempt their kids on the basis of religious or philosophical beliefs (only Mississippi and West Virginia disallow exemptions). The right to decide what is best for oneself and one’s children ends where science has so clearly documented a threat to public welfare. It’s time for the other 48 states to eliminate these exemptions and adopt strict enforcement policies to ensure that kids get their jabs. In the interim, doctors need to be patient but firm with fearful parents, explain why vaccines are essential and help restore the public’s faith in science.
This article was originally published with the title Fear and Its Consequences.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
69 Comments
Add CommentScientific American pretends that the controversy over vaccines and autism is because of a single paper published in a British medical journal 13 years ago. "On the basis of a study of 12 children, author and British medical doctor Andrew Wakefield claimed to have found a link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and an autismlike disorder."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWakefield's article was not about a study and he never claimed it was. He wrote about what he observed in children whose parents had come to him for help as a gastroenterologist. These kids had bowel disease and autism, not "an autismlike disorder." They were healthy until they received their MMR vaccinations. Wakefield never claimed to have found a causal link. He simply asked for proper research.
In blaming Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy, SA selectively ignores the countless thousands of parents everywhere who claim that their children were healthy and normally developing until they received certain routine vaccinations. Suddenly they changed. They developed chronic diarrhea, sleep disorders, and seizures. They stopped talking and lost learned skills. They were eventually diagnosed with autism and the medical community can't tell us why.
Members of the media conveniently ignore Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health, who said in 2008 that the science isn't in on vaccines and autism; the proper studies haven't been done.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml
How about Dr. Peter Fletcher, former Chief Scientific Officer in the UK? He said he's seen disturbing evidence of damaging side effects from the MMR.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-376203/Former-science-chief-MMR-fears-coming-true.html
What about another famous British doctor, Richard Halvorsen? He's publicly stated his support for Andrew Wakefield.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-1215895/Health-Notes-Vaccines-autism-piecing-jigsaw.html
We need to remember that in 2008 it was announced that experts from Health and Human Services conceded the vaccine injury case involving Hannah Poling, a young Georgia girl. They agreed that she became autistic because of the vaccinations she received. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4336206/proof-of-vaccine-autism-link
Why doesn't SA call for the one simple study that would end the controversy? With so many parents exempting their children, why has there never been a study comparing the autism rates in children who've never been vaccinated with kids who've been fully vaccinated. If one percent of never-vaccinated children also have autism, it would be the final proof of no link. We seriously need to ask why it's never been done.
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism
The editors of Scientific American must be patting themselves on the back for such a self-righteous position (Fear and Its Consequences/Feb. 2011). That "the right to decide what is best for oneself and one's children ends where science has so clearly documented a threat to public welfare," is not only laughable in its pomposity but dangerous. When "science" takes full responsibility for the welfare of my children -- birthing them, educating them, feeding them, clothing them, cleaning them, entertaining them, and staying up nights to clean their vomit, urine, feces, and any other unpleasant tasks that accompany parenting, then and only then will I agree that "science" will have earned the right to decide what is best for them. Unless or until that day comes, vaccines -- like any other healthcare decision -- must be left squarely in the hands of parents. In the years 1988-2008, the federal National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program compensated 925 families whose member(s) were injured by vaccines. Compensated injuries prior to 1988 totaled 1,189. Total compensatory payouts for both periods? A whopping $1,750 million dollars. That's a lot of money to address a problem that "science" has supposedly proven false. In the future, the editors of SA should stick to what they know rather than attempt to strongarm readers into sheep-like compliance. Vaccine safety has not been proven and there's plenty of proof to prove it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour article refers to the increase of pertussis as being in epidemic proportions because there were 7,297 cases, known and suspected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuring the 2000-2001 school year, 10,889 children 3-11
years of age in California were classified as having autism under IDEA and there are additional children with
ASDs who are classified in other disability categories.
In the early 1980s the incidence of autism was about 1 in 10,000. Today that figure is 1 in 100 or less.
Why isn't THAT concidered epidemic proportions?
Most, if not all of the pertussis cases only lasted a week or two while autism last a lifetime.
This isn't about the state deciding what is right for your child, but what is right for all children in the school including those who can't be vaccinated. Parents, no matter how ignorant or bigoted don't have the right to risk other children's health.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists and politicians have mandated vaccine programmes before for diseases like Polio, and Smallpox, and the result has been the eradication of Smallpox, the near eradication of polio, and a huge decline in human suffering as a result.
It is unfortunate that people are so resistant to the evidence. As seen in comments above despite solid evidence that Andrew Wakefield behaved fraudulently he is still quoted. Despite no evidence that vaccines cause Austism a connection is spuriously made.
There are two other approaches that spring to mind.
1) Are parents of children not vaccinated liable if their children spread vaccine preventable diseases?
2) The current exemption rules allow schools to exclude children who are not vaccinated during an outbreak of communicable disease. Most states have documented exclusion periods for susceptible individuals. If these quarantines were rigorously enforced I'm sure more parent would vaccinate to minimize the inconvenience.
We are indeed free to 'belief' in anything that we so choose. We are not free to arbitrarily ignore compelling scientific proof that certain beliefs belong to the realm of fiction. It would be wise to avoid basing beliefs on capricious emotions and feelings alone. That's where science comes in. Science is nothing but an unbiased and objective approach or methodology to determine empirical realities such as the efficacy of immunizations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a scientist, it is therefore particularly disheartening to me to read comments submitted by presumably well meaning people who persist in delusional thinking and irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is mystifying and saddening that these sorts of medieval ideas -unfounded in objective reality- still have a foothold in this time and age...
Why does this article purport that the paper by Andrew Wakefield and the position of Jenny McCarthy (Noting she's a former Playboy model comes off as petty and desperate) are the backbone of current vaccine anxiety? My attention to the dangers posed by vaccines was first brought about by an article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His investigation uncovered a shocking cover-up that "scientists" such as the authors of this article, seem all to willing to perpetuate. Rather than demand more studies and/or that pharmaceutical companies change the way these vaccines are produced, the scientific community has pledged their unyielding trust and allegiance to the industry. Next time, save yourselves some time and just print the word "OBEY."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHear Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discuss the issue -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQG5Q4GWw2o
Non Sequitur wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Science is nothing but an unbiased and objective approach or methodology to determine empirical realities such as the efficacy of immunizations."
I would like to be that idealistic, but unfortunately pharmaceutical corporations are very much for profit, they hire scientists and they have agenda. They also know how to lobby governments in order to sell their drugs and to avoid liability.
As a member of free society, I would rather be persuaded than forced by a "government" to subject my offspring to some potentially dangerous substance, even if it hurts only small portion of population.
Unfortunately, SA is pushing totalitarian approach instead of individual freedom. The true scientists would advocate pre-immunization tests that could indicate which children might develop allergic reaction in order to minimize risk and help to convince parents that their child. But that is not on SA agenda. They want "government" to tell masses what is good for them. Back to USSR?
I'm afraid Robert Kennedy Jr can be as misinformed and inaccurate as anyone else. Go read the corrections to his Salon article to see the precision of his analysis. 140% versus 18700% whoops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is full of untruths. I belonged to Autism groups for many years that we all discussed our children's vaccine reactions many years before we heard of Andrew Wakefield and way before Jenny McCarthy came on the scene. We were questioning thimerisol not the MMR, so Wakefield was certainly not responsible for the current questioning of vaccines in this country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only "science" they ever quote is epidemiology, crunching numbers whatever way they want and totally sponsored by industry. Can you say Vioxx?
The most quoted CDC study found the relationship 10x stronger than the relation between smoking and lung disease. So, what did they do? 1)Added back in kids under 3 knowing most don't have a diagnosis. What, it still won't go away? 2) Added back in 17,000 children originally excluded because they were born with a birth defect. What, still won't go away. 3) Only recognized original diagnosis. So, if speech delay was diagnosed at 2 but Autism at 3, it could only be counted as speech delay, not Autism. What, it STILL won't go away. 4)Let's bring in a brand new HMO to totally confuse the study, oh and by the way they are being investigated for poor record keeping and are too small to reach any conclusions. Oh my God, it still won't go away? How many generations of this study can we mess with before being forced to report to the public? Apparently 5, and their final conclusion....."We could not refute nor confirm a connection, more studies are needed". How was it reported in the media, "No connection found between vaccines and autism. Hmmmm? I wonder why parents are so distrusting. Read the studies, it's all there. Every study in a laboratory looking at real science, cells, animals, all point to a connection. Read the studies.
This editorial, unlike most SA articles, includes inflammatory language such as "they are dangerously misguided." Measles are only dangerous to people with weak immune systems. What may be illogical is to vaccinate ourselves for every conceivable pathogen and then assume that we have "developed" a strong immune system. There is a fundamental difference between exposure to the pathogen and a vaccination, and the benefits and/or risks are not all known. If there is no evidence suggesting the cause of autism, then how do the editors of SA know what does not cause autism?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The right to decide what is best for oneself and one’s children ends where science has so clearly documented a threat to public welfare."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcuse me! While the country I proudly served, years ago, is changing before my eyes, we are not, yet, an oligarchy. Much less a scientific oligarchy. While I have the greatest respect for true researchers and applied scientists, I would not abide their edict as law.
There is a reason that science is distrusted or, at least, sceptically scrutinized, today. That is because too many, so called, scientists have sold their honesty and objectivity for notoriety, monetary gain or the furtherance of a political agenda (the latter resulting in the former, providing the agenda is sufficiently left of center).
It is MY choice, as a parent, whether to vaccinate or what vaccinations my child gets. No government entity or self-serving 'savior of public health' has any authority in the matter. If my un-vaccinated child is unable to attend a public school as a result, then home schooling is an (and probably a better) option.
And how far will this be allowed to proceed? If the 'public welfare' supersedes individual freedom with regard to vaccinations, what else will constitute the 'greater good'? And, by the way, where are these public guardians with regard to AIDS, hepatitis C and antibiotic resistant tuberculosis patients? Doesn't the public health require isolation of all of these people? Which scenario poses the more immediate and tangible threat to public health? My un-vaccinated child, or a transient coughing-up drug resistant tuberculosis sputum in public?
As for the MMR vaccinations themselves, I don't have a personal problem them and many other vaccinations. However, you will not order me or my countrymen to succumb to your idea of 'what is best'. History is replete with self appointed societal saviors. Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and Adolph Hitler come first to mind.
I have subscribed to SA for my entire adult life - more years than I care to admit. And that is because I'm interested in SCIENCE, not in the one-sided, biased and EMOTIONAL appeal presented in this piece!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI won't waste words repeating the points others have made about the dubious connection that this piece makes between one minor study and a growing public distrust of vaccines for children, or the valid evidence for links between vaccines and autism (and other health issues) that you prefer to ignore. But I am horrified at your position that our government should mandate vaccines for all children, implying that risking the injury of "some" children is acceptable for the protection of the "general public."
As a breeder of champion dogs and owner of other pets, I will add that over-vaccination of pets has been positively linked to a wide variety of health problems, including anaphylactic shock (which I have witnessed with my own eyes - not pretty), allergies, epilepsy, arthritis, diabetes, behavioral problems (aggression, timidity, shortened attention span, etc.), and other maladies. For those who are interested, refer to the work of Dr. Jean Dodds and Dr. Ronald Schultz.
But to deny that vaccinations (for humans or animals) can and do cause other health problems is simply ignorant. Or worse.
The irony here and the unfortunate consequence of the lack of SOLID SCIENCE informing us on this issue is that the public is at risk of developing a wholesale distrust of vaccines, which may lead to REAL public health consequences. No one wants the to see the return of the polio epidemic, for example, or to see our pets succumb to rabies or distemper (two horribly painful and tortuous ways to die).
The judicious use of vaccines is warranted, but we need good research that will lead to objective conclusions, which will allow individuals to make INFORMED decisions about which vaccines to use and when to use them. This will benefit both the individual and society as a whole.
What does not help is a respected publication such as SA taking a biased and uninformed position. It only exacerbates the problem.
Fear and Its Consequences - Have you read the full insert the comes from a pertussis vacation and hoped your child would not fall into the small percentage of risk? Have you read the risks? Then have you personally witnessed your four-month old with seizures? Did that lead you to read every bit of vaccination research you could find, including ordering books and medical studies? Did you bring it to discuss with your pediatrician? Did your pediatrician refer your child to one of the top medical schools in the world, only to have the director tell you the problems were likely caused by the vaccine? Then the director issued you a medical waiver. When your child turned four, did you give in to the mass hysteria created by the pharmaceutical companies and let the doctor give the MMR to your child only for her to get measles afterward? Have you looked at the graphs of the incidence of the illness with the rates of vaccination imposed over it to see the "correlation"? The editors have some nerve saying "The right to decide what is best for oneself and one's children ends where science has so clearly documented a threat to public welfare." I noticed you stated nothing about the "documentation" of the effectiveness of vaccinations. Has Scientific American heard about Ignaz Semmelweis and the resistance he had from the medical community when he recommended hand washing before surgery? You have just read the story of my life. Stop assuming parents are making uninformed and unintelligent decisions for their children on a whim or because they heard about not vaccinating at an afternoon playgroup. This is article is insulting and not well researched.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must admit I was quite astonished to see the article “Fear And Its Consequences” in a science publication. It appears to be a highly unscientific, highly opinionated, defensive, and unobjective attack piece. It assumes the correctness of its position in spite of many indications to the contrary. Those parents out there might not all be trained statisticians, or scientists, but they’re not necessarily all crazy and not necessarily wrong. In fact, they may well turn out to be largely correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe occurrence of autistic spectrum disorders in our society is a matter of extreme importance to future generations as well as the present one. It is time for a comprehensive, scientific, objective study of the subject, on a scale comparable to the Manhattan Project which produced our first atomic weapons. Such a study would require governmental funding.
The process of identifying the causes of autistic spectrum disorders has been beset by a number of unfortunate factors, including defensive postures taken by those (such as the Centers for Disease Control, a number of medical organizations, various pharmaceutical companies, certain doctors, vaccination advocates, etc.) who realize that ultimately, the finger of blame might be pointed at them. We need to get everyone to cooperate and participate in identifying the causes and excise the blame aspect in favor of achieving a good result. We need to literally take blame out of the picture if we’re going to get anywhere.
Another related factor is the normal human phenomenon that we don’t want to admit we were wrong. And strongly related to that is widespread unwillingness among humans to want to admit they contributed to a disaster. People are unlikely to step forward and admit they caused 100 people to die. Or that they caused the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on some foolish project. Or they caused a ship to sink due to poor construction. Willingness to admit they caused children to be born with no legs or no noses? Not real likely. And the autistic spectrum problem dwarfs such problems with potentially millions affected. We need to mute this factor in the interest of finding solutions.
I would like to submit a more detailed rebuttal (can't do it here because of length limitations) and will do so by mail or e-mail in the hopes you will print it because the proper types of studies have not been done.
In response to both Simon W and Non Sequitur, you might want to be cautious about using words like delusional, irrational, ignorant, and bigoted. Consider the possibility (actually a really good probability) that some posters here have IQ's that would dwarf yours and education that would make you look somewhat uneducated. Proper statistical studies have not been done. The CDC refused to do some that were suggested by really, really bright people. Relying on what you call "evidence" is not wise because it may well turn out to be dead wrong. If you are so sure you are correct, then why not join others like myself in pushing for and perhaps even managing highly probing scientific/statistical analyses that will ferret out the precise causes of autistic spectrum disorders?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real culprit that no one likes to talk about anymore is fluoridation. They've been pumping it in our water since the 1940s, which clearly coincides with the rise of a number of ailments, including autism. We've had socialists deep within our government bureaucracy for nearly 100 years who are determined to medicate the public into submission, no matter the cost. I'm sure you "scientists" will say I'm delusional, that's because most people are not prepared to believe that fluoridation is a communist plot, and if you say it is, you are successfully ridiculed by the promoters. It is being done, effectively, every day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Consider the possibility (actually a really good probability) that some posters here have IQ's that would dwarf yours'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm very happy to compare IQs seeing as I'm exceptional good at IQ tests, but I didn't call them stupid. Whilst there is some relationship between IQ and the ability to think rationally it isn't as strong as many people think. Mensa has plenty of people with wacky ideas as members, I've met enough of them. Linus Pauling's bizarre views on vitamin C being a classic example.
'Relying on what you call "evidence" is not wise because it may well turn out to be dead wrong.'
If we don't rely on evidence, what do we rely on in making these decisions?
I know let's make it up as we go along, and do what feels good, and if thousands of children die of preventable diseases as a result, we'll disclaim moral responsibility because we were too involved in listening to the voices in our head, or anecdotes, or rumours to look at the best evidence available.
Whilst "evidence" can change, the evidence for vaccines being beneficial is incredibly, overwhelmingly strong. It isn't like this is some borderline result in some obscure branch of medicine where you need to read medical journals (although it helps), just look around at all the people around you dying from smallpox, crippled by Polio, hospitalised by Measles. I haven't seen anyone with Mumps since I was a child, where as my parents thought of it as a common childhood infection.
So before folk undermine further what is arguably the most successful medical intervention EVER, they had better have their evidence straight, otherwise I consider their behaviour extremely reckless.
'Measles are only dangerous to people with weak immune systems.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is simply wrong. Hospitalization for cases of measles run at a high rate (10 - 20% of cases in some studies). Do we assume in the populations with 20% hospitalisations they all had weakened immune systems? I take it from your comment that you are not concerned if people with weak immune systems die needlessly?
While I believe that there is no link between Autism and vaccines, I think this is a poor example to use in arguing for having children vaccinated. Most of the reason Whooping Cough has made a comeback is that the medical community stopped including it in the booster shoot given out to children when they are around 12 years old. The vaccine wears off on its own about this time. I know, because that's when I got it. I got it before it had become widely recognized and it took my doctor over a month to identify what was wrong. Unsurprisingly, I passed the disease on to both fellow students and teachers. If this is a complicated enough issue that some of the blame can be placed on doctors then perhaps the scientific community shouldn’t be so quick to judge parents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReplying to SimonW, I am well aware of the wacky/Mensa phenomenon. And I wholly agree that rational thought processes need to be applied to the autistic spectrum problem and any possible link to vaccinations. But you have to be careful about what is presented as "evidence" because it may not be worth much. There's an old saying that figures don't lie but you can lie with figures. The limited statistical studies done so far do not get to the heart of the problem of correlation or non-correlation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is an unfortunate reality that quite a few people have been sent to prison on the basis of supposedly expert testimony that turned out to be nonsense. So you sometimes have to be careful what you accept as being evidence of some disputed fact. I agree we must look at and depend on "evidence" but it has to be valid or we could be making a huge mistake.
Statistics can be presented as evidence and, in reality, have no evidentiary value whatsoever. That is unfortunate but it occurs more often than we might like to think. When we look to statistics as potentially being evidence, we must be sure that the statistics validly convey what the proponents of them claim that they convey. In the case of the various studies supposedly examining the possibility of a causal link between vaccinations and autism, the studies have failed to address a number of rather obvious questions. The CDC was requested to do the proper statistical studies but refused. That should raise red flags in any reasonable person's mind.
If you are curious what kind of statistical studies should be done, I could describe them here but space limitations would require that the description be broken up into several submissions. To state the problem briefly, the huge, gaping hole in what has been done so far is the absence of any attempt to identify and null groups, also referred to as zero-incidence groups, and then make comparative statistical analyses. These groups likely exist but the CDC said they didn't see the need to do such studies. Personally, I think they're downright scared of what such studies would show.
Why do you assume that the American herd is healthy and that a 20% hospitalization rate is reflective of the "danger" of measles. Yes measles can be dangerous, but so can the common cold. This editorial was inflammatory. As unhealthy as the American herd is, the CDC morbidity tables show 57 people died of measles in 2010 thanks to modern anti-biotics and I'm sure you would argue vaccinations. I 'am very appreciative of the brilliant work that immunologists did in the 20th century to tame such brutal diseases as polio, tetanus, diptheria etc..... and I plan on giving my daughter the MMR vaccination (when her immune system is old enough) so that she does not get it in adulthood as it would not be pleasant. What I 'am suggesting is that it may be that she would have a stronger immune system if she were to get the "real" measles as a child. But each child is different and that is the whole point about Government dictating a child's vaccine schedule. I'm not suggesting that we throw out the baby with the bath tub. We all agree that a healthy herd is what we want. It is how we achieve a healthy herd that is in question. And I would argue that vaccinating every individual for every known pathogen ( consequently robbing the individual's immune system of the opportunity to respond to a real world infection with the appropriate fever response) so that members of the herd with weak immune systems do not get infected is not logical. Further it may be immoral if in fact too many vaccination at too early an age combined with environmental toxins like bisphenal a and insecticides induces autism spectrum disorders. Vaccines are a powerful tool but we should use them wisely as "all of the research" has not been done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American is usually extremely good in its coverage of a topic - even on medical subjects, which tend to be complicated. The article on Multiple Sclerosis in this issue is an example. It would be helpful to address the immunology question differently, I think: I'm not uneducated, come from a long medical background, and am old - went through the polio horrors and so on, and so have seen a great deal of change in this department. Can you explain to us, without making us feel idiotic for asking, why immunizing against measles, mumps, and whooping cough is a vital step for our children's health? Polio is deadly, so yes, that's clearly vital. Smallpox is also deadly and disfiguring, so that too (though we apparently consider smallpox "extinct," god help us). Chicken pox, because it apparently leads to shingles in later life - might make a case for that too. But most of the others are what we used to call "childhood diseases," and my father, a doctor in the 1940s and 1950s, used to urge parents to let their children get these diseases in grade school, in order to build up a reasonable immunity. Has medical understanding of these diseases changed in 50 years? If so, how? Why is chemical immunology necessary here? If we had more information, we might be less panicked about serious side effects of immunization. There are always risks. So talk clearly about the benefits that make the risks tolerable, please. SA is in a good position to inform us - and can surely do it without engendering so many defensive responses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy mother witnessed it first-hand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo matter what people say, MMR does cause autism. Where that is a small amount or not is not important.
The human race is made of more phenotypes than scientists know about and so people should be allowed to have the 3 single jabs instead.
Its no biggy until youre one of the familiies that has this autism cused by a drug wiuth nothing you can do about it because its declared safe. Its not safe in all cases.
The issue isn't so much the public's trust in science as the public's trust in federal agencies and in scientists-for-hire. Forcing people to have their children vaccinated is a poor way of restoring that trust, as is sneering at people who are hesitant to have their children vaccinated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Whether those refusing the vaccine have helped fuel the current pertussis epidemic is uncertain" - and, yet, the article goes on and on about how important it is for everyone to continue to accept every new vaccine pushed our way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the "Scientific Community" side of this argument would adopt any kind of rational stance about which vaccines are life saving, which prevent serious and life-long debilitating conditions, and which are just nice to have because they save mom and dad from taking time out from work, I could get happier about listening to the advice given.
Instead, I hear fire and brimstone, death and destruction, absolute get all your vaccines on schedule or we're going to pass laws to expel you from the state or even country.
Get real, or continue to be ignored.
This is a perfect opportunity to conduct an experiment in human evolution. Those who choose to vaccinate their children, and those who choose not to. Continue for the next 100 years and check on the percentage of survivors. My hypothesis? The percentage of the population receiving vaccinations will grow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is assuming that vaccines work, but it's missing key elements in it's argument. Most of the Pertusis outbreaks happened in VACCINATED people. And if vaccines work so well, why is it vaccinated people are so worried about catching these supposed "vaccine preventable" diseases? It's interesting that the people who are so pro-vaccine and the most vocal about forcing people to be injected also tend to be the most uneducated about them. They have no idea what is in vaccines, nor do they truly know anything about efficacy. This argument extends beyond autism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow - these are not the sorts of responses I would have expected from readers of a science magazine. There must be "Call to Action" emails going out from all the anti-vaccine groups out there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis fear of vaccines is irrational and is contrary to the best science available. On the other hand, a fear of loss of herd immunity because of all the paranoid parents out there not vaccinating their children is legitamite. I would suggest that children who have not been vaccinated should not be allowed to attend school - period. These concerned parents can start their own schools if they are unconcerned about the risks of communicable diseases.
The USA has now become a country dominated by reactionary religion that values blind faith above scientific evidence and any rational thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI congratulate Scientific American for continuing to stand for the power of rational thinking and scientific analysis and evidence against the forces of wilful and irresponsible ignorance.
I pity the innocent American citizens who are being put at risk, along with their children, of so many infections by ignorant people who value faith above evidence and who have no respect for what they are doing to their neighbours.
It is no wonder America is in decline.
"I would suggest that children who have not been vaccinated should not be allowed to attend school - period. These concerned parents can start their own schools if they are unconcerned about the risks of communicable diseases."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately the insanely high level of 'home schooling' that is contributing to the anti social and religiously obsessed American population is only likely to gain a new group of recruits.
Forcing people to be immunized is not the answer. It's a violation of our basic freedom. The answer is simple, proper education. If this is such a big deal, the government need only put out a few TV ads about vaccination giving people access to the information. I'm sure they already have websites that address the vaccine scare garbage. It just needs to get out there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPut simply: compulsory vaccination = no freedom to control what the government injects you with while proper education = a people empowered to make the smart decision. It's that simple. I don't want the government telling me that I must get injected with anything. However, I will gladly submit to such injections of my own free will... at least those that I know are effective. You won't catch me getting a flu shot. But once again, that's my decision, not theirs.
This article is pretty funny--science is forever evolving to revise itself, therefore, basing mass immunization on something that has been so clearly scientifically documented is silly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlood letting was widely documented--that doesn't make it right.
In Canada--I "believe" children cannot attend school without their vaccinations--I'm not entirely certain.
I think that the usual childhood vaccines are probably relatively safe and I do not concern myself in worrying about them too much. Considering how much everyone travels now compared to decades ago--I just feel it's the safer thing to do
With that said, I am by no means running around getting any of the new vaccines. Flu shots, Hepatitis, HPV etc...not for me, not for my family. Unless there's a real genuine need--like being close to someone that may be at high risk ie) a transplant patient etc..I wouldn't even consider one of these vaccines! I think that artificial over-immunization is a bit risky because who knows what is in these new vaccines or the long term damage they might cause and they give people a false sense of security.
Not scientific by any means but I do believe in my heart that parents who've seen vaccine side effects happen to their children are not out of their minds.or being irrational. When one person associates one thing with another--it's easy to discount their findings and point them in another direction--when there's thousands out there claiming the same findings without any sort of an agenda--I'd put my money on the fact that there really is something not quite right with the vaccine and it really does have the capacity to do more harm than good in some individuals. The question is, to whom? and why?
I am wondering if perhaps the MMR vaccine formulation has changed over the years? Perhaps there's an ingredient change or a change in virus strains that is causing illness/permanent damage in some children?
The "establishment" as I like to call it would rather deny anything than to have to admit that there might be actually be a problem.. Bad medicine--wouldn't be a first in medical history.
"Wow - these are not the sorts of responses I would have expected from readers of a science magazine."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you might be missing is that autism rates are 1% in the general population, but much higher in families with parents who are scientists and engineers.
Emmib, what, exactly, is a "pertussis vacation"? Is there a form of relaxation that we the rest of us are missing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am happy to see the critical comments above. Those who would use science to justify tyranny are not promoting respect for science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience has the ability and obligation to promote truth and enlightenment through the replication of experiments. Likewise, teachers should not pin the blame for a failure to convince the student merely on the obstinacy of the student.
Science is certainly of great importance. However, much that purports to be science in the medical literature clearly is not; it is sometimes self-serving propaganda.
If we give up liberty in the name of science we have truly lost our way.
My daughter has a PhD in Genetics from Stanfod University and currently lives in the Bay Area with her husband who is a medical doctor. I have ha numerous conversations with them about this very topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne interesting point that has been verified in controlled studies has found that autism has been found at higher levels in people with higher IQs. i.e.., smart people. Areas around the country with high concentrations of these people have been identified as hot spots for autism. The Bay area is one of them and, yes, scientists and engineers are a big segment of this group of people.
By the way at least 50% of the increase in autism numbers has to with with a much more sensitive process for identification, i.e., a higher percentage of people with autism are now diagnosed with autism.
Why if vaccines are so wonderful and so protective, would a parent who vaccinates their kid have any issues with parents who do not vaccinate their own. Perhaps because vaccines are pretty bad about protecting kids from infections (like the worst case of chicken pox I've seen was in my son after he had his shot). Oh yeah, my daughter had mercury levels checked when she was 5 and they were elevated due to Hep B vaccines, my son who did not have hep B shots, had none. And before you ask about how high the levels are MERCURY IS THE SECOND MOST TOXIC ELEMENT AFTER PLUTONIUM, THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL. THIS IS WHAT THE IDIOTS WHO SAY MERCURY IS SAFE DON'T EVER, EVER, EVER, TELL YOU.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops! I forgot my last part of y earlier comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy daughter also has a friend in her neighborhood who has four children. The first three had all of the childhood vacunations and the fourth had none. The one who was diagnosed with autism was the one that had NOT been vacinated. I only know because that same child was recently hospitalized for a severe case of the mumps. You see, he had NOT been vacinated with MMR. The other three children who had been vacinated with MMR did NOT get the mumps.
I know it's not scientic, but it does seem to imply that the MMR was not the cause of his autism and i know it's not contagious.
This editorial is highly emotional and scientifically incorrect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is wrong to blame unvaccinated kids for the CA pertussis outbreak. As someone correctly pointed out the teenage population in CA is not protected anymore. Unless they get booster shots, they can just as easily spread the disease as unvaccinated kids.
It is time that we have a 21st century debate on the pros and cons of vaccines. Vaccines can cause serious and debilitating illnesses and it is time that we stop ignoring that. Hint, look at the growing number of autoimmune diseases in the under 18 population. The problem is much bigger than autism. Those who continue to ignore this huge problem risk to become irrelevant.
Do you understand what the herd effect is and how it statistically works?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you understand that there is no perfect solution, just ones that are very close to that?
Highly polluted environments seems to have a more deterministic cause to much of our health problems, but i suspect you still don't want somebody to tell you to stop polluting either.
We have become such a fat and comfortable lot it is impossible for us to imagine what true epidemic disease is like. Not to worry, the life systems on this planet will soon remind us of this. Even if there was anything to this autism argument, in the face of epidemic disease, with less than 1% chance of an adverse outcome compared to a 5-10% chance of dying, you would take the vaccine!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAutism is a multi-factorial condition. It relates more to parental age than anything else. People with multiple levels of higher education tend to have children at older ages. Consequently, not just autism, but all conditions associated with increasing parental age are seen with increased frequency in this group. Of course in our culture of victimization we can not research certain issues because they are too sensitive. Issues such as frequency of parental recreational drug use. The few studies done in this area indicated a strong relationship but nobody is funding because the potential findings are just to uncomfortable for us. Instead we will delude ourselves into thinking that somebody else is to blame rather than looking in the mirror and accept responsibility for our own choices.
Scientific America - please continue to to fight the fight for science and rational thinking against the torrent of ignorance that has been typified by so many posts here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“In February 2010 the Lancet retracted Wakefield’s infamous paper. That leaves no scientific evidence to support the assertion that vaccines cause autism or other chronic diseases.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew documents have emerged that clear Dr Andrew Wakefield of the allegations of fraud recently made by the British Medical Journal and its reporter Brian Deer. This new evidence "completely negates the allegations that I committed scientific fraud. Brian Deer and Dr. Godlee of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) knew or should have known about the facts set out below before publishing their false allegations," says Dr Andrew Wakefield (see sources, below).
Professor Walker-Smith's 1996 presentation at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School was entitled, "Entero-colitis and Disintegrative Disorder Following MMR - A Review of the First Seven Cases."
Since Wakefield’s paper was based on that earlier paper, the original evidence has NOT been negated. In fact, both subsequent research, and much anecdotal evidence, shows an extremely strong link between the MMR vaccine, and many serious subsequent medical conditions, of which autism is taking a prominent place. The commonest suggestion is that the mercury content (thimerasol) of the preservative in the vaccine is the major contributor to these effects.
Incidentally, to call just over 4000 cases in a place as big as California, “an epidemic”, is like calling 1500 cases of bird flu world wide, an epidemic. Just gross exaggeration.
And Linus Pauling has some serious support for the use of vitamin C. It is less than a year ago here that large IV doses (25-75 grams per day) cured a man on his death bed. The doctors had given up, and only plain stubbornness by the family got the treatment that saved his life.
Great editorial. It's nice to see a rational pro-science stance taken by a scientific magazine. If you believe in science you can't be an anti-vaxxer. The idea that vaccines cause autism or other medical problems has been overwhelmingly disproven by decades of science. The CDC, AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, World Health Org, and every other major medical org supports getting the re...gular schedule of vaccines. Sadly, since anyone can write anything or take anything out of context on the internet, the hoax survives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople don't get that when a person doesn't vaccinate their kid it's not just their kid they put in danger, it's many other kids. Millions of people rely on "herd immunity" since they have an allergy to vaccines or can't get them for other reasons. (plus while vaccines work well, even a vaccinated person is not 100% bulletproof against the disease, and still could get it from an unvaccinated one) Letting an unvaccinated kid go to school is similar in principal to letting a kid with ebola go to the school. It's dangerous and irresponsible.
"Letting an unvaccinated kid go to school is similar in principal to letting a kid with ebola go to the school. It's dangerous and irresponsible."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you serious? Do you really believe that measles or mumps are on par with ebola? Can you really be so dense?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Letting an unvaccinated kid go to school is similar in principal to letting a kid with ebola go to the school. It's dangerous and irresponsible."
Absolutely. Well said.
I see that the True Believers are out in force with anecdotal guesswork. I have a personal reason for demanding mandatory DPT vaccination. At age 2 I got diphtheria from a playmate down the street. She died; I almost did. My grandmother and mother became my "nurses". Dad did what he could after work. There were times I couldn't breathe. I needed an iron lung but we couldn't afford the fee. All that kept me alive were constant chest pressure and using a suction tube to clear my nose and throat. It was hard and they were constantly worried. Every time I stopped breathing Mom thought I was dead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter weeks in a coma I recovered consciousness then spent half a year confined to bed because the doctor thought there might have been heart damage. I survived, my heart was good enough to get me a career in the Navy, I'm a mother and grandmother and will be 75 next month.
I was lucky. In 1938 a diphtheria vaccine existed but in our state it was given only to children entering school.Little ones were dreadfully vulnerable. And caregivers suffered permanently. My mother never quite got over the hideous nightmares she had of seeing her baby in a coffin; she had them recurringly the rest of her life. I don't remember anything about diphtheria--too young--but in grade school I caught 2 serious kinds of measles (German and 3-day) simultaneously and again almost died. Throughout school I remember the polio scares that closed down pools and rec centers for children. Later I felt that kids who had no place to go all summer long started formed gangs--the first juvenile delinquents who endangered society in the 50s.
Someone needs to tell the counry how serious diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus (lockjaw), polio and measles really are. However, it will take laws. True Believer types have no comprehension of reality. I got all possible vaccines and shots for my son, born 1971. He got mumps and chicken pox but no colds or flu. He's still never sick, and he and his wife (who live in CA) obtained all the vaccines for my granddaughter, who's now a bright athletic child of 8, never ill. The problem is that a small minority of vaccinated children, surrounded by unvaccinated ones, can get a terrible disease from a sick child who comes to school and spreads it around.
Laissez-faire doesn't work in public health any more than in economics! Get laws passed to stop this danger, laws that have teeth. Parents who knowingly have avoided vaccinations and whose kids carry preventable diseases to others should be prosecuted.
Those people who DO fear vaccinations may fear vaccinated people will pass it onto THEM or their kids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"People who get vaccinated with the herpes zoster vaccine Zostavax to prevent shingles can shed the virus in their saliva for weeks afterward"
So, how do you explain the fact that life expectancy has been increasing dramatically at the same time that most people had their teeth filled with mercury?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for sharing your personal experience. Unlike many of those posting which say vaccines must have caused the autism since many of the kids who have autism were vaccinated, your troubles were clearly caused by a lack of vaccination at the time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've seen alot of "vaccines do not cause autism" comments. You all seem so sure, so I ask then, where is your proof?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf anything is a "threat" to public welfare is the lies told by the science industry, the medical industry and the food industry. Starting with the opening sentence above "With preventable diseases on the rise". Exactly which vaccine available diseases are on the rise? People are really this brainwashed that they believe this lie? I bet they believe the CDC's lies as to the number of flu deaths each year too. Don't these people ever ask for proof?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe majority of those with vaccine preventable diseases are vaccinated. In Marietta Ga, the majority of those with Pertussis were vaccinated. In at least two CA outbreaks, the the majority of those with Pertussis were vaccinated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShow us the science, SA - present the peer-reviewed published proof of vaccine efficacy. There is no proof. Why? Because primary and secondary failures are frequent. How frequent? Well if the industry wanted to know then wouldn't the industry push for a VAERS system that was at least respectable enough to be used for gathering such numbers? But they don't, and its no wonder why they don't.
Only a true pharma-shill would pretend that vaccines work.
Vaccinated children carry disease just like the never vaccinated do. Vaccinations do not keep one from being a carrier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there is no link between vaccines and autism then why is autism listed as a possible adverse effect on the package insert for the Tripedia vaccine?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only people who claim the science does not support a link between autism and vaccinations are those who have never read and understood the science for themselves. "Scientific" American has failed enormously in this story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628440
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16264412
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/2004-and-the-birth-of-the-hungry-lie-vaccines-dont-cause-autism.html
Autism now affects one 91 children - why isn't it called an epidemic yet? Let me guess - because no one is hawking a vaccine for it yet?
Until this article, I found Scientific American to be an informative source of recent research and insights into the mind, brain and health. Now I seriously question the scientific soundness of "the Editors" - to suggest that states should take a more tyrannical approach with something that has been proven to cause severe side effects in a subset of people is ludicrous. Moreover, the "science" behind vaccination safety and testing is highly suspect. I know for a fact that DPT is not a safe vaccine because my son regressed after his. Given the complexity of the human organism and the microbes around us, why would SA editors buy into the pharmaceutical myth that a shot can protect everyone? Did you look at the facts on how many people coming down with whooping cough (or chicken pox or flu) were actually vaccinated?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recommend the Editors read "The Vaccine Epidemic" which was recently released and presents a broader perspective on this topic that all Americans should consider.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you look under the guidelines of calling something an epidemic it clearly states that a genetic disorder cannot be listed as an epidemic. Maybe this is the reason for such a big push into genetics and autism. As long as it isn't caused by "something" they don't have to alert the public........Just a thought
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso a 2004 study claims the number in UK is 1 in 64, can only imagine what it's at now
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American doesn't need to do a study dissassociating vaccinations from causing autism. They have been done many times. If you haven't seen the PBS show on the topic (in which these studies are discussed), try the following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/
How about an actual study not a link to a tv show
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVariation of our species should not be manipulated by anyone. Vaccines are a force that shape variation of within our species. Until this force is better understood I don't want to take any vaccine if the cells within me are better suited for the environment then the cells of another whose are not. Another point is I don't want to be forced to take a vaccine just so I can save someone else in the short run. I don't want to be harvested like a slave to keep another person alive, the long-term consequences are not beneficial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's all well and good the authors stating that there is no scientific evidence supporting the assumption that vaccines cause autism or other disorders. However, I would like to see the apparent overwhelming scientific evidence which supports the assumption that these vaccines do not cause any of these disorders, none of which was mentioned in this article. Only then will the minds of parents, not only in the US but around the world, begin to regain trust in the vaccines that have become an inherent aspect of a child's life. After receiving my MMR at the age of 1 in Ireland, I have been subsequently told by my mother that I lost the use of my legs for two days. The distrust towards this particular vaccine has only been heightened with my youngest brother being located on the autistic spectrum which will ultimately affect how I approach vaccines for the children I may one day have in the future. Until a substantial verification of the supposed little effect the MMR may have on children, parents, and recipients of these vaccines themselves, will continue to look at them with uncertainty and fear, a fear, which for the moment, can only be overcome by taking no vaccine at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou know what....I agree with one of the earlier posters....let the vaccinated vs unvaccinated play out and judge it...shouldn't take to long...maybe 30 to fifty years....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCommon sense -- vaccines -- you are infecting/damaging/disordering the body with numerous biologically active agents that are foreign and unnatural to the body -- via injection, directly into the blood -- so damage and disorder is inevitable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVaccines are making us progressively unconscious and reactive in various and unpredictable ways.
Your post has to be one of the most sociopathic bits of absolute selfishness I've ever read on these forums. Before vaccines the child mortality rate was 80%. A 1 or even 2 percent chance of a bad outcome verses an 80% chance of a catastrophic outcome is hardly a difficult decision. I think perhaps you should be institutionalized for your own protection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would anti-vaccination parents all prefer a dead child to an autistic child? Why would you prefer having a child live with blindness or type-1 diabetes for their entire life? Why would you possibly condemn another person's child to these things?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think people forget that there are horrible consequences to these diseases- maybe not for every child that contracts them, just as every child who receives the vaccines doesn't experience their alleged side effects. Many of these diseases, especially pertussis, are more fatal for infants who are too young to get the vaccine. By not vaccinating your children, you make it more likely for the young and unprotected to contract it and die. Parents can apparently sacrifice their own child's health, but they shouldn't be allowed to sacrifice others for their own notions.
Here is a study done on children in Denmark who have and have not received vaccinations containing MMR vaccine(i.e. the component of vaccines that is believed to cause autism).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://jetnet.jccmi.edu/file.php/23653/Discussion/MMRAutismReview.pdf