Cracking The Code: AS and NYT

Yesterday Autism Speaks ran a full page ad in the New York Times. If you saw the ad in your city's newspaper please tell us in the comments section.

The advertisement speaks simply of "Learn the signs of autism." It's an awareness campaign. And a good one. It puts forth no political agenda, no opinions on the controversy of autism, vaccines, environment, genes or court cases. It's an eye catching, well executed ad.  Autism Speaks is run by professionals from top to bottom. This is not a kitchen table/shoe string organization.

However, it did run across the gutter (No, really, that's what the center part of the newspaper is called.) from an editorial about the vaccine court in progress (see daily posts below from Kent Heckenlively) that concludes with this stunning statement: "Those who shun a vaccine are at far greater risk than those who take it."  Really?  Says who? The vaccine manufacturers? The parents of the infants who died from the Rotavirus vaccine of the early 1990's? 

That's a pretty powerful blanket statement from The Times editorial staff.  And the use of the word "shun" implies an emotional cutting off based in hysteria, not the thoughtful, agonized decision that most parents who eschew some or all vaccines make.

The Autism Speaks ad ran right next to this editorial. Coincidence? Veiled message?  Code? You tell us.  Here's the full body copy from the editorial.

"A federal vaccine court in Washington is confronting the contentious and highly emotional issue of whether early childhood vaccinations might have caused autism in thousands of children. Virtually every major scientific study and organization that has weighed in on the issue has seen no link. But many parents of afflicted children remain unconvinced. Their lawyers will try to prove that some 4,800 children were harmed by the mass vaccination campaigns that protect the nation’s youngsters from potentially devastating childhood illnesses.

There seems little doubt that the child at the center of the first of the cases — Michelle Cedillo of Yuma, Ariz. — has classic symptoms of autism: impaired social interaction, limited ability to communicate, and unusual repetitive behavior. Her mother says she developed a high fever a week after she received the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella at the age of 15 months and soon after could not speak and was unresponsive.

Her lawyers theorize that two vaccine factors were likely responsible. This shot and others that she had received contained a mercury preservative that they argue suppressed her immune system, thus allowing the measles virus used in the vaccine to cause neurological damage. Other plaintiffs are contending that the preservative alone, the measles vaccine alone or something else in the vaccines caused their children’s autism.

What confuses the issue is that infants are routinely vaccinated at the age when autism first emerges, and understandably distraught parents, searching for a cause, often latch onto vaccination as the likely culprit. But in Michelle’s case, experts testifying for the Department of Health and Human Services said that home videos and professional records showed early symptoms of autism starting well before she received the measles vaccine."

In 2004, the prestigious Institute of Medicine concluded that neither the preservative, known as thimerosal, nor the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine was associated with autism and that various hypotheses about how they could trigger autism lacked supporting evidence. Even after thimerosal was phased out of pediatric vaccines, autism rates did not fall.

The vaccine court will be addressing the narrow issue of whether these families deserve compensation from a national vaccine injury fund. But the proceedings will inevitably affect all parents’ attitudes toward the measles vaccine and toward pediatric vaccinations in general.

We can only hope that, however the verdicts go, parents will remain eager to get their children vaccinated. Even the plaintiffs’ lead attorney acknowledged that mass immunization programs are “a great public benefit” that have prevented tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries. Those who shun a vaccine are at far greater risk than those who take it.

Comments

[hekyll]

Hmm. Babies Today article vs. the Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5334a3.htm

Do ya think, if there had been fatalities, that might have been important enough to mention in this report?

"500,000 physician visits, 50,000 hospitalizations, and 20-40 deaths annually" in the United States - can you guess what that describes?

[Editor]

2

RotaShield sailed through the FDA approval process with no problems. However, a year after its introduction, RotaShield was voluntarily withdrawn from the market, following numerous reports of a condition called intussusception, which is an extremely painful, possibly deadly process whereby the infant's intestines become twisted and obstructed. By September of 1999, there had been 99 reported cases of intussesception in infants given RotaShield. Two of those babies died.

http://babiestoday.com/resources/articles/vaccines.htm

Give my regards to Jekyll.

[hekyll]

How many infants died from the rotavirus vaccine?

Would that number be.....zero?

[Carol Brown]

During these hearings you would think that Autism Speaks would keep there personal beliefs on what causes autism to themselves...they do not for sure how immunizations are going to effect children .. but they support them?? Apparently Autism speaks has not done their homework ... by looking at all the cases of autism and a link to immunizations. I hope Autism Speaks changes their name... because they do not speak for my autistic grandson .. who had immunization starting in 1994 through 1999.. he recieved his MMR at 1 year old... the only thing he did was throw himself backwards and scream...he lost all gross motor skills and launguage..at 3 he was diagnosed with Autism... then the letter came out from the CDC in 1999 saying there were high levels of mercury in the immunzations during the period of 1994 to 1999. It is wrong of Autism Speaks to endorse immunizations and telling parents they are safe... I hope Autism speaks starts to lose it backers and from families with children with Autism.

[Autism Wreaks]

I'd guess they were able to select that placement as a not so subtle way of stating their point of view on vaccines. Another public shot at their daughter. Very sad.

[Barbara Fischkin]

I am grateful to Kim Stagliano for noting on EOH that the ad and editorial ran together. I have written a complaint to the New York Times public editor. (public@nytimes.com). As I told him more or less: In the old days when I worked in a newsroom if something like this happened we would be throwing things and complaining about advertising influencing editorial policy. The disagreements between Autism Speaks and many parents, particularly parents who believe Thimerosal did considerable damage, has been well publicized. Either the "timespeople" in charge of the opinion pages are not paying attention or they should be ashamed of themselves.

[Jane Krantz]

Shun... That's a joke.