In recent well-publicized cases, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled against three families who filed petitions seeking compensation for their children’s autism based on the belief the disease was brought on by vaccinations. These were just the first of over 5,500 such autism-related claims filed with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The law requires petitioners to prove only probability rather than certainty of injury, with court decisions handed down by “special masters,” lawyers appointed to rule in these cases, rather than regular judges.
In one of the cases, Special Master Denise Vowell described the evidence presented to her as “weak, contradictory and unpersuasive. Sadly,” she went on to say, “the petitioners in this litigation have been the victims of bad science conducted to support litigation rather than to advance medical and scientific understanding.”
Similar rulings by the other special masters caused many in the media to conclude that these cases affirmed the safety of vaccines and particularly the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, which was in question. “Hopefully, the determination by the special masters will help reassure parents that vaccines do not cause autism,” declared the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Pardon me, but I’m not so reassured, and here’s why:
Although autism was virtually unknown 75 years ago, it is presently increasing at epidemic proportions. The current rate in the U.S. among children stands at one in about 150, with the rate for boys significantly higher than that. The use of vaccines has of course increased greatly over the past 75 years as well, though that fact of and by itself doesn’t prove anything.
However, there are still significant groups of people in America who do not vaccinate their children. There is no question, therefore, that a definitive scientific study of the autism rate among those people as compared to the general population could have been undertaken. This would not be all that difficult to do, and considering the certainty of the government and medical establishment that there is no link between vaccines and autism, you would think it had been conducted long ago. But it never has, and I can’t help but wonder why.
For example, most Amish people do not vaccinate their children. Doctors who service these families, such as Dr. Frank Noonan of Lancaster, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish for some 25 years, have indicated that autism just doesn’t occur among them. “You’ll find all the other stuff, but we don’t find the autism. We’re right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and that’s just the way it is,” he says.
Dr. Mayer Eisenstein of Chicago runs a number of pediatric offices, the majority of whose patients are not given vaccinations. (Many are from Christian families that homeschool their children.) He says: “We have a fairly large practice [4 separate offices employing 5 doctors]. We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we’ve taken care of over the years, and I don’t think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines.” He goes on to say: “We do have enough of a sample. The numbers are too large to not see it. … It’s not something that anyone would miss.”
It is therefore not surprising that the highly accomplished former National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Bernadine Healy has called for more research into a possible vaccine link to autism and said the question had not been settled.
In 2006, a bill requiring the federal government to conduct a study of autism rates in unvaccinated American children was introduced by Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Tom Osborne, R-Neb. When Rep. Osborne did not return to Congress the following year, Rep. Maloney introduced similar new legislation (H.R. 2832) and got Ron Paul, R-Texas, who is himself a doctor, and Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., to sign on as co-sponsors. Nineteen other representatives (liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans alike) subsequently signed on. However, the legislation remained bottled up in committee for a year and a half and never came to a vote. When the 110th Congress ended in January of this year, the bill automatically expired.
Considering the growth and extent of the autism epidemic, the huge burden it places on families and the cost to society as a whole, one would think there would be no opposition to such a comparatively inexpensive scientific study. That obviously is not the case, and one can’t help but wonder what powerful forces are aligned against it. Rep. Maloney’s office has indicated she will reintroduce the legislation in the 111th Congress.
It is our government’s failure thus far to conduct an honest and very much needed investigation that is the “bad science” in this case. And it is those people who are blocking efforts “to advance medical and scientific understanding” when it comes to autism who should be exposed.
