It took a half century and hundreds of lawsuits to hold cigarette manufacturers culpable for the harm their products caused.

Vaccines may eventually be found "innocent" of causing or triggering autism, but that verdict is not established because three court cases were lost or because a herd of doctors deem them innocent.

This is the only area of medicine where we so vehemently deny side effects. Vaccines as they are now manufactured and administered to children can cause autism. This might not occur often but denying that it ever occurs flies in the face of the observations of experienced pediatricians and affected families.

Jay Gordon, MD, FAAP

drjaygordon.com
<link>

Where exactly did you go to medical school and when?

And are you old enough to have SEEN people die of polio or lose their vision because of measles? How many shingles cases do you see on a daily basis? Have you ever had a patient who has post-polio syndrome? Ever seen a kid die of whooping cough? How many babies have you seen that were destroyed in utero by rubella? When WAS the last diptheria outbreak, can you tell me? Now why was THAT so long ago? How about tetanus? How many little kids have you treated for tetanus...Oh, that's right, if they get it because their parents choose not to vaccinate on your advice, they die, so you don't have to deal with them, right? Sure, no causality there!

Gee. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously...except for the credulous, that is. Court cases are not medical proof of anything. Herds of researchers have proven that vaccines are safe. Oh, but you aren't a researcher, are you? No, what you are is a pediatrician with a book contract and a lot of anecdotal "evidence" that uses the media to "prove" that myths are real.

Even the guy that graduates at the bottom of the med school class gets to be called "doctor".

Visiting his website, the good Dr. Gordon looks to be making a nice living off unjustly smearing his fellow pediatricians. A case in point is that nasty hit piece "The Milky Way of Doing Business," which accuses the doctors that took issue with parts of a planned DSHS breastfeeding ads. The doctors behind it, according to Gordon, were simply tools of the formula companies and deserved scorn and criminal prosecution.

My sons' pediatrician was one of the "criminals" who sat on the committee which made that decision. I spoke to him about it at the time, and he explained there were two specific medical claims that they had issue with: one concerning juvenile diabetes and the other concerning I believe an auto immune disease. They didn't feel there was adequate medical evidence (SHOCK) to make those claims. That was the problem. (And after the children of two friends who both exclusively breastfed their children developed Type I diabetes, I see his point.)

And for the record, this pediatrician who was supposedly in the pocket of the formula companies made no secret of his pro-breastfeeding views. I never saw a bit of pro-formula propaganda in his office that is ubiquitous elsewhere. He consistently advised against the use of formula and did whatever it took to make sure my breastfeeding issues were resolved.

He's a brilliant doctor and a truly good man, and to see him so libeled by some hack looking to turn a quick buck of parents' fears disgusts me.

I'd think that anyone who listens to Jenny McCarthy about anything beyond how to look good naked is clearly in need of professional help.

JayGordonMDFAAP:

Vaccines may eventually be found "innocent" of causing or triggering autism, but that verdict is not established because three court cases were lost or because a herd of doctors deem them innocent.

No, it is established based on the statistics involved. Here is one paper examing the issue: <link>

Now, if the vaccine was in some way responsible for autism, you would HAVE to see some sort of correlation between vaccination and autism. And it's not there. Period.

JayGordonMDFAAP:

This is the only area of medicine where we so vehemently deny side effects.

I never seen anyone deny that vaccines have side effects. Hell, when you get one you are given all the potential side effects. However, that does not mean that a particular side effect must be true.

JayGordonMDFAAP:

Vaccines as they are now manufactured and administered to children can cause autism.

Nope. Statistically impossible.

Physics girl:

I've scanned the abstract and I'm wondering if you know whether the UK vaccines have thimerosal like the US versions do? The study was done in the UK. I'll look it up but am wondering if you could give me an answer more quickly.

When I did research in a laboratory, at a good university, we had very strict procedures for dealing with thimerosal so as to not have any physical contact with it, not even skin contact. Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin, so I don't think it is at all unreasonable to allow parents the option of a thimerosal-free vaccine. There are other preservative methods available. Even if there are epidemiological studies showing the volume of thimerasol in vaccines isn't typically harmful, this isn't a dictatorship and allowing parents the option of a thimerosal-free vaccine would defuse some tension. People's general concern for mercury is rational even if the particular instance isn't, and it isn't harmful to respect that if they are willing to pay a bit extra for alternatively-preserved vaccine. People in free countries don't like to feel compelled, and for most aspects of society that is a good thing.

Also people in the anti-vacc movement have devised "alternative" vaccination schedules. *All* those I've seen so far (in a few minutes browsing a google search for "alternative vaccination schedule") appear to include (or refrain from encouraging to avoid) polio, whooping cough (pertussis), and tetanus vaccinations. Giving those parents who are at risk of otherwise avoiding all vaccinations more options regarding such alternative schedules would definitely be better than having them refuse to be vaccinated alltogether. Sadly given the social trend the latter *will* happen unless the pro-vac side starts getting smarter about presentation, creation of options, and addressing concern.

People following the following schedule, for example, would be far safer neighbors than people following none at all, and as the latter group is growing, that's a big deal.

Example alternative schedule (quoted from http://tiny.cc/64O4z):

1. No vaccinations until a child is two years old.
2. No vaccines that contain thimerosal (mercury).
3. No live virus vaccines (except for smallpox, should it recur).
4. These vaccines, to be given one at a time, every six months, beginning at age 2:
1. Pertussis (acellular, not whole cell)
2. Diphtheria
3. Tetanus
4. Polio (the Salk vaccine, cultured in human cells)

Even if you and I agree on vaccinatin, at this point there are strong social, cultural, and political forces on various sides of the equation, and laying down a now-unpopular rule from above is likely to cause even more chaos (leading more publicity, stronger populist anti-vacc movements, and ultimately to less vaccination). Allowing the development of a middle ground between no vaccinations and the full US schedule (ranging from the more extremely minimalist, like the above schedule, to the quite sensible, like European schedules) by encouraging doctors to provide by alternative schedules if parents insist on them, is from a pragmatic perspective probably the best way to ensure that at least the worst of the reviving diseases eventually come under control again.

to isiscrisis:

Thimerosal has not been used in vaccines in the UK since 2004. It's also not in any US vaccines, so I don't understand what logic you're appealing to when you write "this isn't a dictatorship and allowing parents the option of a thimerosal-free vaccine would defuse some tension." No, eliminating thimerosal was a small concession made to the anti-vaccination mob, and then they moved the goalposts. You write a great deal about finding some compromise with such parents, but such compromise will not be possible with anyone who refuses to trust dozens of studies and believes that their celebrities know better.

"It took a half century and hundreds of lawsuits to hold cigarette manufacturers cuplable for the harm their products caused."

Those lawsuits would have been dead in the water if they didn't have verifiable, reproducible empirical evidence that cigarettes do harm. So far, the anti-vaccine lobby has failed to produce reproducible evidence of any link between vaccination and autism. On the other hand, there has been repeated and consistent evidence published that vaccinations are not related to autism. Any doctor who believes otherwise is a victim of his own pride and ignorance, and he ought to be exposed as a quack.

And if it matters to anyone here, I have an MS in Biostatistics.

Looks like a massive FAIL for Dr Jay then, thanks.

isiscrisis: I've scanned the abstract and I'm wondering if you know whether the UK vaccines have thimerosal like the US versions do?

It was a four page paper..... In any case, someone else has answered the question.

isiscrisis: this isn't a dictatorship and allowing parents the option of a thimerosal-free vaccine would defuse some tension.

US vaccines don't contain thimerosal any more. And interestingly enough, there was absolutely no discontinuity in the autism rate when we made the switch over which indicates that this was irrelevant.

isiscrisis: Giving those parents who are at risk of otherwise avoiding all vaccinations more options regarding such alternative schedules would definitely be better than having them refuse to be vaccinated alltogether.

Actually, I think that if parents aren't willing to participate in society by having their children vaccinated to avoid infecting everyone with diseases, that those children should not be allowed to attent public school nor should the parents receive any tax breaks for them. If any of the children acquire a disease such as measles that they should have been vaccinated against, the parents should be thrown in jail for negligence and the children should be removed and vaccinated.

This falls into the, "promote the general welfare" aspect of the Constitution. Quarantines are allowed, despite the fact that they infringe on an individual's freedom because the health and safety of many people depend on it.

isiscrisis: Sadly given the social trend the latter *will* happen unless the pro-vac side starts getting smarter about presentation, creation of options, and addressing concern.

The problem is the "pro-vac", or as I call it the "intelligent pro-science", side is not easy to understand nor is it simply. If vaccines cause autism, that's easy. Don't get your kids vaccinated. People like easy answers. That's why so many of them are religious. But, easy is not the way the universe works. But, unfortunately it's easier to believe a celebrity than to follow the statistics.....

isiscrisis: Even if you and I agree on vaccinatin, at this point there are strong social, cultural, and political forces on various sides of the equation, and laying down a now-unpopular rule from above is likely to cause even more chaos (leading more publicity, stronger populist anti-vacc movements, and ultimately to less vaccination).

No, I don't think so. Sure, people will whine and carry on. But if they are required to have their children vaccinated there isn't much they can do besides live elsewhere. But, in the mean time, the rest of us aren't at risk for an epidemic. Eventually, someone will discover the cause(s) of autism and this will all be laid to rest. Unfortunately, I suspect the causes aren't straight forward so it will take a while for the lunatic nutcases to calm down regardless.

isiscrisis, if we go by your schedule of one vaccine every six months, there will be several consequences:

1. We would need to be vaccinated into our 20s to receive all of our necessary shots and boosters.

2. Many children would be exposed to those dreaded diseases long before the vaccinations took place.

The reason we give all of these immunizations early in childhood is so children are vaccinated BEFORE they get exposed to the outside world in large doses. Your caution would create major havoc and ruin the herd immunity for these diseases, especially once those kids hit preschool and kindergarten.

FAAP is right, cause this thread is all FAAP, FAAP, FAAP.

Thank you.

I'm curious if you feel the same way about the great social threat of epidemic caused by chicken pox? Was that another insidious infection that posed a danger to mankind, or did in fact, the bean counters simply determine that it was more cost affective to vaccinate children, than to have their parents lose a week of work? Will you put your children first in line, for the new swine flu vaccine they are rushing to create?

Possibly you need to educate yourself fully on the vaccines that you are allowing your children to have, on someone else's schedule, before referring to yourself as the "intelligent pro-science" sect. Actually, if you really studied the science, you would learn that there is no scientific reason to give a newborn a Hepatitis vaccine, and instead it is given at that time, because the medical establishment believes better to vaccinate at birth, than risk possibly not having a chance to vaccinate later. This is a decision I feel quite capable of making for my children, myself. Since I did not anticipate any unprotected sex, or iv drug use, in the neonatal nursery, I delayed that vaccine for my children. According to you, I should now lose all my rights as a citizen?

In addition, no study has ever been done on the effects of giving children 5 or 6 different vaccines, in one office visit. If you are willing to play guinea pig with your child, good luck to you. I am not.

By the way, I am not anti-vaccine, only anti-convenience vaccine. I'll make my own decisions about losing time from work with a sick child. I'm also pro-a more cautious vaccine schedule. My school age children are completely up to date with vaccines, and yet, they never had more than one, at any given time.

I think to not do your own research, to not listen to your own child's needs, and to not think for yourself, should constitute a form of child abuse.

"Vaccines as they are now manufactured and administered to children can cause autism."

There is no sicentific finding of any kind to support this irresponsible statement. No one knows what causes or otherwise triggers the onset of autism. Some genetic components and links are indicated in research. But there is no blood test available. Autism is diagnosed through observation of behaviors and developmental delays.

While I understand why so many parents have come to suspect vaccines, it has been researched, and no link established. Keep in mind that the "self-interest" argument cuts both ways too. Blaming the CDC and manufacturers gives unscrupulous and desperate people someone to sue.

As a parent of a child diagnosed with autism, I can attest to the steep costs associated with therapy. We fight for more public funding and with our insurer to cover the costs. But we will not be manipulated into accepting crackpot conspiracy theories, nor will we be used by lawyers who would use our child to sue some drug manufacturer.

Jenny McCarthy does considerable harm to children and families who do not have her more substantial resources. The harm she does is not limited to blocking life saving vaccinations. She uses her fame, which is not in anyway attached to any meaningful expertise, to attack the medical community. This opens the door for snake oil salesmen to manipulate parents who are at the end of their ropes. Who among us doesn't want to "cure" our children with autism. McCarthy misleads people into believing they can. There is no cure. Children with milder forms (including my own daughter) can show dramatic improvements with therapy. My wife and I know many parents who have shelled out thousands of dollars for untested, unscientific and in some cases, even harmful treatments. For every child with autism, there is a clinic or specialist waiting to take the check or credit card from a parent willing to believe in the impossible.

Jenny McCarthy has no expertise, no direct responsibility and no idea of the consequences of her actions. Parents need to take their autistic children as far as they can go in life - just like they would a typical child. Some, more mildly affected children will go on to live happy and productive lives. Some will not. Some are misdiagnosed in the first place.

There are many things about autism that the medical and scientific communities do not know. But that's no reason to allow silly people like Jenny McCarthy to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, or lead crusades against the medical community. In time, our knowledge will improve. I often wonder why people are so quick to believe stories about evil pharma corporations, while at the same time they are so willing to trust lawyers and rich chicks with big boobs. These vaccines have saved countless millions of lives - and people are willing to give up on them because of what one silly playmate claims?

That disease has serious long term medical consequences for people who have had it. The chicken pox virus doesn't actually die when you recover from the disease, you see. It hides, generally in nerve bundles, and is undetectable in blood which may indeed show antibodies to it. Therefore ANYONE who gets chicken pox is carrying the virus that causes shingles, which generally hits later in life and causes severe and debilitating pain that can last for months at a time.

Shingles is NOT "just a minor rash". It hits most sufferers in their late 50s into their 60s and causes horrendous pain that can leave some sufferers bedridden. There are no real therapies for this disease - there are some treatments. There is a vaccine for shingles, but it cannot be administered until the age of 60 at the earliest and even then it's not terrible effective.

Of course, you'll probably be long dead by the time your children are suffering from this viral nasty that you chose not to protect them from and will not have to face any accusations of irresponsibility from them.