Age of Autism Awards 2010: Dr. Paul Offit, Denialist of the Decade
By Dan Olmsted
Why bother to call attention to Dr. Paul Offit, the vaccine patent-holder who has led the attack on the idea that vaccines have anything to do with autism or any of the myriad of other ailments afflicting this generation of American children? Well, because other people are paying attention -- including the nation's pediatricians and the mainstream journalists who need to start calling him to account. Offit has a new book out -- "Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All." Here's the question doctors who recommend him to nervous parents, and parents unsure what to think, and journalists who interview him, need to ask: Why is Offit transparently opposed to ever studying the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated Americans, even as he acknowledges that vaccines have a long history of causing serious side effects?
While his last book, "Autism's False Prophets," focused squarely on the disability now afflicting 1 in 100 children, Offit branches out here to deride those who have any concerns whatsoever about the safety of the current vaccine schedule. There is plenty of sympathy for parents of children who have died of infectious diseases, but perfunctory dismissal in cases where parents blame vaccines.
Thus Michael Belkin, whose daughter Lyla died after her hepatitis B shot, is treated as a gullible gadfly, goaded by Barbara Loe Fisher into heading "the Hepatitis B Vaccine Project at her National Vaccine information Center. Soon Belkin, a Wall Street financial adviser, was everywhere" -- everywhere being the CDC and Congress, which is exactly where he should have been as a citizen and parent who believes that Hep B is a dangerous and unnecessary childhood vaccine that killed his daughter. Sniffs Offit: "Despite Belkin's certainty that hepatitis B vaccine had caused his daughter's SIDS, study after study failed to support him."
Parents of girls who died after Gardasil vaccination get similar treatment. The idea that Gardasil is dangerous is "a contention refuted by careful study" and "established science."
And chickenpox vaccines are critically important because chickenpox can lead to shingles, "one of medicine's most debilitating diseases. Shingles is so painful that it has at times led to suicide. And shingles doesn't only affect the skin; sometimes when the virus reawakens it causes strokes, resulting in permanent paralysis. Chickenpox is a disease worth preventing." Absent is any acknowledgement of the evidence that the vaccine itself, by reducing cases of simple childhood chickenpox, has led to a big increase in shingles by removing the protective immunological "bump" those who already harbor the virus receive when they are re-exposed.
Hannah Poling and the government's $20 million concession that vaccines resulted in her autistic regression? Not mentioned. Billions paid out by vaccine court for all sorts of injuries over the past 20 years? Well, vaccine court is a strange place ...
Anyone concerned about any of these things fits Offit's definition of anti-vaccine, because vaccines don't cause any of them, because Paul Offit says so, a solipsism that is really quite breathtaking: "[B]ecause anti-vaccine activists today define safe as free from side effects such as autism, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, strokes, heart attacks, and blood clots -- conditions that aren't caused by vaccines -- safer vaccines, using their definition, can never be made."
Yet Offit himself yields an amazing amount of ground by describing unsafe vaccines -- including early polio shots and a rotavirus vaccine that was the immediate predecessor of his own. His technique is to situate all this as historical, part of the triumphant march of progress into the bright sunshine of vaccine safety. Here's a description I find especially astonishing: "When Barbara Loe Fisher burst onto the scene, several vaccines had serious side effects, every year causing allergic reactions, paralysis, or death. Public health officials and doctors didn't hide these problems. But they didn't do anything to correct them, either. And most parents had no idea they existed."
Public health officials did nothing to fix vaccine problems that led to paralysis and death? And parents didn't know about it? Is this not an indictment of the medical industry, and an unintentional endorsement advocates who have worked to remedy it? Does it not argue that at least some of the time parental observations may well be correct, an early warning system of the first order? Well, no, because apparently those things no longer happen -- to say otherwise, in Offit's parallel universe, would be anti-vaccine conspiratorial quackery.
Much of the book is a score-settling screed against anyone who's ever criticized him or vaccine safety surveillance, including Fisher, Jenny McCarthy and J.B. Handley. So it's no surprise that his "can't be done" argument against studying unvaccinated populations for any untoward outcomes arrives in the middle of an attack on Handley. Offit quotes J.B.'s comments on a Larry King segment in April 2009: "Larry, we have no idea what the combination risk of our vaccine schedule looks like. At the two-month visit, a child gets six vaccines in under fifteen minutes. The only way to test that properly would be to have a group of kids who get all six and a group of kids who got none and see what happens. They don't do that testing. They have no idea."
Offit's comment: "Handley was asking for a study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. One result is certain: given recent outbreaks of Hib, measles, mumps, and pertussis, no vaccinated children would suffer and possibly die from preventable infections. It would be, of course, an entirely unethical experiment. No investigator could prospectively study children who are denied a potentially lifesaving medical product. And no university's or hospital's institutional review board worth its salt would ever approve such a study."
Offit goes on, outrageously, to compare Handley's proposal to the infamous Tuskegee experiment in which doctors withheld treatment from black males suffering from syphilis in order to study the natural course of the disease.
P-LEEZE. No one I know of is suggesting that a study of unvaccinated children deliberately withhold vaccination. Rather, there are growing numbers of never-vaccinated children in America -- a fact Offit acknowledges with dismay -- and plenty of families willing to participate in such a study. State governments have vaccine waivers on file for public school attendance that are another obvious source of non-life-threatening data.
The real problem for Offit is not an ethical one; the real problem is that any such study would trump all the self-interested industry and CDC studies that never manage to include never-vaccinated chldren as a control group. Informal efforts to do that -- by myself, J.B.'s Generation Rescue and others -- have pointed toward less autism and asthma, and been met by the medical establishment and its sycophantic sock puppets with an absolute frenzy of denial and misdirection.
In our book, "The Age of Autism -- Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-made Epidemic," Mark Blaxill and I discuss this aversion to doing the obvious. "A very simple test goes right to the heart of the vaccine controversy: What is the difference in total health outcomes, including autism, between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations? We would argue that we've uncovered a number of natural experiments in human populations that suggest we should be seriously concerned over the ever-increasing load of childhood vaccinations, especially in the United States. ... Oddly, when it comes to doing such studies in human populations, and studying the autism levels in the Amish, the homeschooled, or philosophical objectors, vaccine industry proponents resist mightily. Conducting human vax/unvax studies in existing unvaccinated groups would be so fraught with methodological problems that they are 'retrospectively impossible.' As for controlled studies, they would be so burdened with permission problems that they would be 'prospectively unethical.' In short, the resistance to the proposal to do vax/unvax work has not only taken the attitude that 'we already know the answers,' but 'we should not seek to know.' It's pretty hard to make scientific progress in the face of this kind of epistemological nihilism."
I am begging, on bended knee, that pediatricians quit putting Offit on a pedestal, and that mainstream journalists do their job and ask him why he is so averse to any study that involves the health of never-vaccinated children. Don't let him call you "anti-vaccine," and don't let him change the subject to the quite thoroughly separate issue of preventing deadly disease. That's an important topic, but there is room at the table for both effective public health policies against disease AND a fearless examination of whether today's vaccine schedule contributes to chronic health problems -- whether Paul Offit denies it or not.
--
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism
" It's so simple. It's so cearly understood. Lots of unvaccinated kids are out there....kids of all nationalities and races. It would be the real proof that vaccines don't cause autism. We don't want a 21 year study looking for possible triggers. We want the study no health official will call for."
This refusal to perform the OBVIOUS alone confirms the dishonesty of the "system". How can anyone trust (that is what "vaccination" REQUIRES) a dishonest system to shove a NEEDLE with UNKNOWN contents into your child's, or your, arm?
Posted by: Lou | May 06, 2013 at 01:17 AM
"Offit goes on, outrageously, to compare Handley's proposal to the infamous Tuskegee experiment in which doctors withheld treatment from black males suffering from syphilis in order to study the natural course of the disease."
The real story of Tuskegee, the motivations behind it and its place in the larger context of Lyme Disease and other bio-weapons is something that should certainly interest anyone concerned with autism and "vaccination".
“If this were fiction, the study's investigators would have been the archetypal mad scientists. But the study was conducted by no less prestigious a group than the United States Public Health Service30 and funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)…" The Lancet, December 2011 (commentary on international syphilis injection experiments conducted by the U.S.)
"Who could imagine the government all the way up to the Surgeon General of the United States, deliberately allowing a group of its citizens to die from a terrible disease for the sake of an ill-conceived experiment?" Commentary on the Tuskegee Experiment
"I believe Phase II of the Tuskegee Experiment deadly experiment is being conducted by the CDC with a weaponized variant of a Borrelia spirochete-a bacterium of the same phylum as the syphilis spirochete that was the subject of the first Tuskegee Experiment.(The Lyme spirochete is actually much more complex than the syphilis spirochete and the infection more deadly and less understood 21.) You need to arm yourself with information to protect yourself and your family. As will be shown below, the CDC clearly isn't going to do it 22." Biological Warfare Experiment on American Citizens Results in Spreading Pandemic Note the "Tuskegee Experiment" was but one part of a world wide test conducted in over 100 countries on many thousands of mostly unknowing victims.
" U.S. government researchers must have known they were violating ethical standards by deliberately infecting Guatemalan prison inmates and mental patients with syphilis for an experiment in the 1940s, according to a presidential commission." U.S. researchers broke rules in Guatemala syphilis study
"The researchers, led by U.S. doctor John Cutler, who had also been involved in the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments on African-American men that ran from 1932 to 1972, utilized mental patients, prostitutes, prisoners and soldiers as their guinea pigs. Today, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues issued their findings of a study undertaken in the aftermath of the scandal. According to news reports, at least 83 Guatemalans died after being infected with both syphilis and gonorrhea. Over 1,300 were exposed to the venereal diseases." 83 Died in U.S.-Guatemala Syphilis Experiments: “We’re talking about intentional deception.”
http://healthyprotocols.com/2_Lyme.htm
Posted by: Lou | May 04, 2013 at 05:44 PM
Thank you for spelling it out for us to destribute to naysayers. Also thank you for Leading the charge for squeeky wheel.
I'm the only one in this new station but I am making a difference b/c of y'all. Thank you!
Posted by: Bre | January 13, 2011 at 08:17 PM
Good point, Steve! It is unethical NOT to do the comparison of vaxed versus unvaxed. It would probably be a fairly short, straight-forward study. Once interim analysis showed an unequivocal trend towards increased risk of SIDS, it would be unethical to go any further with the comparison. It would be unethical to continue to enroll subjects into a study in which the data showed a clearly increased risk of SIDS in the vaccinated arm of the study.
Hepatitis B vaccine is associated with SIDS. Mass inoculation of the public with hepatitis B vaccine on the first day of life is completely irrational. There is no reasonable justification for this policy. Hepatitis B vaccine has no less than two known neurotoxins, both aluminum and mercury. The blood brain barrier is functionally incompetent at birth.
http://www.thinktwice.com/hepb.htm
http://www.informedchoice.info/hepB.html
Niu et al. evaluated reports of neonatal deaths (aged 0-28 days) after hepatitis B (HepB) immunization reported to the National Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) January 1, 1991, through October 5, 1998. They identified 18 deaths (8 boys, 9 girls, 1 unclassified). The mean birth weight of the neonates (n = 15) was 3034 g (range, 1828-4678 g). The mean age of the infants at vaccination was 12 days. The median time from vaccination to onset of symptoms was 2 days and the median time from symptoms to death was 0 days (range, 0-15 days). The causes of death for the 15 autopsied cases were sudden infant death syndrome for 12 and infection for 3 [78].
Niu MT, Salive ME, Ellenberg SS. Neonatal deaths after hepatitis B vaccine: the vaccine adverse event reporting system, 1991-1998. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999 Dec;153(12):1279–82.
Posted by: patrons99 | January 01, 2011 at 05:29 PM
Thoe with a chance need to often make the simple point that it is unethical NOT TO DO theses studies in the exact same wording that Offit uses. This is the best way to defeat this snow job.
Offit wins little battles on a daily basis, but loses ground every year. When my family was "drug" into this in 2003, it was consider complete foolishness to mention "environment". Now only the most biased cling to a genes-only position. This and other things mare slow and steady progress. Eventually we will hit the tipping point. Keep fighting for the truth.
Posted by: Steve | January 01, 2011 at 03:16 PM
Dan:
There is a clear advantage for Pharma to continue opposing a study of vaxed vs. un-vaxed. This is due to the fundamental problem when using epidemiological studies based on toxin exposed groups versus toxin exposed groups—as opposed to including control groups that were not exposed.
Here is an elegant articulation of the problem.
“Every biologist knows that within a group of living organisms there is always an individual variation in the sensitivity towards, for example, a poison or a drug. Because of natural biological variation some individuals are affected more than others and some are perhaps not affected at all. If about 0.5 mg. of strychnine is given by intraperitoneal injection to a certain strain of rats, approximately 50 per cent of the animals will die. The fact that the other 50 per cent survive cannot, of course, be taken as evidence against a causal relation between the intake of strychnine and death in rats.”
From “Thalidomide and the Power of the Drug Companies” by Sjostrom and Nilsson, 1972, page 162.
It seems that the Pharma reps would rather avoid asking the question as to whether or not the children today could have had a significantly lower rate of ASD with zero Thimerosal exposure.
Posted by: Jim Thompson | December 31, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Who did publish this propoganda (book)? We should all bombard them with calls and emails.
Offit is an idiot! He's just stupid enough to be the spokesperson for pharma's propoganda. They will most definetly turn on him when the stuff finally hits the fan............and it will!!
Posted by: Virginia | December 30, 2010 at 04:04 PM
Kevin Barry, interesting observations in that survey. I would like to point out one, when my children are ill with the disease dejour all of the vaccinated will carry temps hovering right over 105, the unvaccinated child never quite makes it to 103, this difference has always caused me to go "hmmm". There is likely much vaccine damage that hasn't as yet been exposed. He has never had an alergy, asthma, hyperactivity, speech delay, ASD,weight issues, feeding difficulties, and while some may think "lucky" kid, how did he dodge everything his brothers have, where are those genes, the only difference .. he has never had a vaccine.
Posted by: barbaraj | December 30, 2010 at 03:44 PM
Offit's books belong in the Science Fiction section of the book store.
Posted by: Holly Riley | December 30, 2010 at 06:02 AM
I've never met a healthy vaccinated kid/adult. I know LOTS of healthy UNVACCINATED kids, though.
Posted by: Mary | December 30, 2010 at 04:55 AM
Raising my hand to volunteer my kids in a never vaccinated study. Maybe they can make the study ethical by "counseling" me to vaccinate my children, and then study them when I still refuse?
Posted by: Kristina | December 30, 2010 at 03:26 AM
Just wanted to mention that Kevin Barry's vaccinated vs. unvaccinated survey is just that....a survey. It's not something we can rely heavily on to prove our point because there is no statistical data so it is not a valid study. I wish it were because it makes some fantastic points. I wish someone would go ahead and do such a study that not only analyzes Autism rates, but also all the other health related consequences that this survey includes. I say this because any time we use something to make a point to the naysayers who refuse to believe that vaccines pose any danger at all, we want to make sure that they don't take what we say lightly and trash our sources. Just wanted to post this is a word of caution to my aoa friends.
Posted by: luckymom2D | December 30, 2010 at 02:19 AM
I am a bit too far from Hollywood to help with a "pretend Heb B" vaccine TV commercial,
but I would suppose it would not take too long to create and post for those who have skills in such things.
Offit "fogot to mention" the Hanna Poling case in his new book ??? Truly beyond f-amazing.
Posted by: cmo | December 29, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Teresa Conrick had it right about substance abuse denial. And Ottoschnaut, points to the power that the common citizen possesses. Doctors can no longer afford to ignore us. The growing numbers of parents who opt-out of vaccines is starting to make them crazy! Years ago, no one of the caliber (and I use the word loosely) of Offit would have ever given us the time of day, let alone engage in a debate (if you can call it that).
Dare I say, the "fight" is one on one. Educate, and the list of unvaxes will grow and grow and the Offits-of-the-world will become more and more unhinged.
When public schools unfortunately become simply warehouses of special ed and unvaccinated kids are driven out due to the sheer desire to have an education, someone will wonder what is the difference between the two populations. The experiment will happen sooner or later even if it is sadly retrospective.
Posted by: Cynthia Cournoyer | December 29, 2010 at 10:16 PM
Great post, Dan. I find it amusing and somewhat perplexing that when I put my name ["Tenpenny"] into the Amazon "search" function of Offit's new book nothing comes up.
After 11 years of speaking at many seminars and being a guest on countless radio interviews, being part of several documentaries about problems with vaccines, organically growing in less than one year >21,000 fans at http://www.Facebook.com/vaccineinfo , selling thousands of copies of 7 different DVDS about vaccines, writing 3 books that expose problems associated with vaccines (with hundreds of references from peer-reviewed literature), having large amounts of free material available through http://www.drtenpenny.com, Offit's "anti vaccine book" doesn't even mention my name or my work? Apparently I'm not much of a threat to Offit or his campaign to vaccinate the world and deny that vaccines are the backbone of the billion dollar medical industry....Guess again Dr O.
Posted by: Dr Sherri Tenpenny | December 29, 2010 at 09:54 PM
Dan asks,
"Why bother to call attention to Dr. Paul Offit, the vaccine patent-holder who has led the attack on the idea that vaccines have anything to do with autism or any of the myriad of other ailments afflicting this generation of American children?"
My answer is that Offit can't be ignored. He has such access to media coverage and with no genuine science on his side, he's allowed to trash parents, minimize the impact of autism, and cover up the worse medical disaster in history.
Although he has enormous self-interest in this because of his financial ties to the vaccine schedule, he's presented as if he's only concerned with the science. He's made millions because of his rota virus vaccine. He's a major player. His career is riding on his denials.
Herd immunity is his only concern. Those unfortunate victims of side effects are acceptable losses.
Offit does change the subject and so do a lot of health officials. Warning us of epidemics if we don't vaccinate has no bearing on the controversy.
There is no real proof that vaccines don't cause autism. The only way to do that is to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated kids for autism rates. It's so simple. It's so cearly understood. Lots of unvaccinated kids are out there....kids of all nationalities and races. It would be the real proof that vaccines don't cause autism. We don't want a 21 year study looking for possible triggers. We want the study no health official will call for.
Anne Dachel
Posted by: Anne McElroy Dachel | December 29, 2010 at 08:58 PM
Hey, just a little note to say that right now there's an interesting piece on doctors who give pharma-talks and how it reflects negatively on the medical institutions- in the Huffpo health section. You may or may not want to post this...
Posted by: Jen | December 29, 2010 at 06:52 PM
I love this appropriate picture of these people with their "heads in the sand".
Here's another great photo of Paul Offit with his head up his ass:
http://www.lifeisajoke.com/pictures388_html.htm
With his new book, he will continue his career in teaching other people to do the same.
Posted by: Autism Grandma | December 29, 2010 at 06:23 PM
Every time I see this photo of Dr. All Profit it just makes me feel SICK. This man (or should I say monster) is leading the charge to destroy the minds and health of 40,000 children who will be diagnosed this year and every year with autism, which I believe by the EVIDENCE to be caused by vaccines. Additionally he will perform his job to the end result of many children also dying from vaccine reactions. Here is a photo of him from the Shafer Autism Report as the "Grim Reaper", the perfect symbol for all that he stands for:
http://www.sarnet.org/lib/todaySAR14-97.htm
Scroll down to this article: "40 UK Deaths Linked To Child Vaccines
Over Seven Years"
He should wear his black hooded cloak and carry his sickle when he recieves this award for "Monster of the Decade" from Age of Autism [OOPS I meant "Denialist")
Posted by: Autism Grandma | December 29, 2010 at 06:14 PM
the Dutch study KEvin linked to is really interesting -an all or nothing comparison definitely shows that the unvaccinated kids seem healthier. Definitely less autism (none).
Posted by: jen | December 29, 2010 at 05:01 PM
Haha -- "Baghdad Bob" -- good comparison!
And, yeah, that "babies can withstand 10,000 or 100,000 vaccines at once based on my mathematical formula" -- reckless, immoral, and insane!
Posted by: Twyla | December 29, 2010 at 04:26 PM
Oh, I forgot to say -- Congratulations, Dr. Offit, on winning this award!! :-) I hope you will print the article, have it beautifully framed, and hang it in a prominent space on your office wall!
Posted by: Twyla | December 29, 2010 at 04:14 PM
Immelkat,
The insidevaccines article I cited earlier cites at least two studies showing increased shingles since the introduction of the chickenpox vaccine. In addition, it discusses the failure of the chickenpox vaccine, leading to the need for a second (booster) dose. It turns out that the vaccine only provides long-lasting immunity in the presence of circulating chickenpox. In Japan, where the vaccine was only used for children who were at high risk from CP, the vaccine provided very long-lasting immunity. But in the U.S., where the majority of the children were vaxed, the immunity proved to be transient. An increasing number of outbreaks involve older children, in whom CP is a very serious problem, or even adults. In a few years we will have pregnant women without immunity which will add even more serious problems. Since most of the world has not followed the U.S. down this vaccinating rabbit hole, there isn't the faintest hope of eradicating this illness or preventing disastrous outbreaks in teens and adults. Crazy. Here is the article link again: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/07/30/a-pox-on-the-taxpayer/
Posted by: MinorityView | December 29, 2010 at 03:51 PM
The only man I can compare Dr. Offit to in my memory is "Baghdad Bob" .. who was once Saddam Hussien's "prime minister of information".
Every time I see Dr. Offit speak on television .. I remember clearly the image of Baghdad Bob .. earnestly reassuring the people of Baghdad that Saddam's Revolutionary Guard forces had badly defeated and killed thousands of infidel American troops .. even as the people of Baghdad were seeing American tanks .. unchallenged .. roll by their living room windows as Baghdad Bob was speaking.
If finding "pig viruses" in rotovirus vaccines was not enough to cause the FDA to withdraw the vaccines from the market for "safety reasons" .. I seriously doubt "begging" pediatricians and main stream media to demand a "fearless examination of whether today's vaccine schedule contributes to chronic health problems" .. is going to prove productive.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | December 29, 2010 at 02:56 PM
"Parental observations... Early warning system of the first order?" you bet!! Yes, it is surprising that Offit can say that there have been huge problems on the one hand and yet not allow that there could still be huge problems with particular vaccines ( such as hep b at birth, Gardasil, too many vaccines at once etc.) it's just so obvious that they don't WANT to study vaccinated vs unvaccinated, in the same way that neurologists don't want to be studying the CCSVI issue in multiple sclerosis. Too threatening. He creeps me out, him and his wifey- I mean Sullivan.
Posted by: Jen | December 29, 2010 at 02:44 PM
Twyla
Indeed, the whole idea that 10,000 or a 100,000 vaccines are safe could not possibly depend on what was in them. The proposition fantastic and delirious though it is could only be sustainable if all products were inherently benign. And Offit challenges his own proposition. I guess he won't be recommending anthrax either.
John
Posted by: John Stone | December 29, 2010 at 02:36 PM
Good post, particularly in documenting the deceitful claims of Offit.
Fortunately, even we lowly creatures without a PhD have common sense. It is obvious to most parents that the incidence of ASD, ADHD, asthma, and life-threatening allergies are skyrocketing. The response of the medical establishment is “we have no idea what is causing it, but we know it just can’t be the vaccine schedule”. More and more are realizing the statement completes with “because we make too much money from it”.
Offit and his ilk are becoming hysterical as parents are rejecting the dogma. The internet has become the great equalizer; parents are free to search out alternate viewpoints instead of accepting edicts as if from a medieval Pope. In true statist form, their solution is to use force to protect society from “irresponsible parents”. They really are becoming desperate; they sense an end to the vaccine gravy train. The more rational among them may also realize they face repercussions for the harm they have caused.
As Dan lays out in the post, the intellectual dishonesty in Offit’s argument is crystal clear. He is not a scientist pursuing the truth. That leaves an “end justifies the means” ideologue or your typically marketing scumbag. My guess is the latter.
Posted by: Jeff C. | December 29, 2010 at 02:20 PM
Kevin Barry, that's an interesting study!
Posted by: Twyla | December 29, 2010 at 02:16 PM
Here is what Dr. Offit said about adverse reactions to the smallpox vaccine, in an Online PBS NewsHour a few years ago (2002 I think?):
"But they can get an infection of the brain, called encephalopathy or encephalitis. If they have eczema, they can have sometimes a severe and occasionally fatal disease called eczema vaccinatum. And this is very common that one can inadvertently touch the site that was inoculated and then touch the eye and have an infection of the eye, which can rarely be quite severe. In patients who have decreased capacities to fight infection, there is a disease called 'progressive vaccinia' where in fact the disease is overwhelming and it is the cause of death."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec02/offit_smallpox.html
He goes on to make a rational argument that when smallpox was common it was worth taking the risks of this vaccine, but that now we haven't seen a case of smallpox for 25 years, so we should not do mass vaccination even though there is some concern that smallpox could be used for bioterrorism.
Why doesn't he apply this same logic to weighing the risks and benefits of our current schedule? What are the risks of giving 29 vaccines to babies by the age of two? 6 or 7 vaccines to a two-month old infant? How does this compare to the risks of diseases which in many cases have become extremely rare, or only have rare serious consequences?
It's bizarre that he acknowledges the risk of "encephalopathy or encephalitis" from the smallpox vaccine, yet completely dismisses reports of encephalopathy, encephalitis, seizures, and/or autism which parents have seen in their children following other vaccines. And these "anecdotal" reports are supported by scientific studies showing inflammation in the brain, antibodies to myelin basic protein coating nerve cells, and more.
As Dan pointed out, why does Dr. Offit refer to all vaccine problems as historical, and not possibly happening today? It's bizarre. He is one of the worst, most evil villains in this situation. His pretense at scientific objectivism combined with the slanderous hostile slanted way that he writes about people is despicable.
And, needless to say, the mantra of "science has proven..." is crazy, when there is so much science that has not been done. The same people who keep telling us "Don't confuse correlation with causation" also keep telling us that flawed epidemiological studies are definitive.
Posted by: Twyla | December 29, 2010 at 02:06 PM
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/11/disingenuous-cdc-study-confirms-danger-of-chicken-pox-vaccine.html
Posted by: John Stone | December 29, 2010 at 01:44 PM
I struggle to understand why someone would publish this book. Right now, it's number 46,600 on amazon...pharma better start buying it soon!
Posted by: JB Handley | December 29, 2010 at 01:25 PM
Offit is something I have just not been able to understand. How can someone make so much money, have so much influence, have no experience with ASD and be recognized as an expert?
If it was any other industry (financial, automotive, etc) a conflict of interest policy would be imposed. For whatever reason Offit is immune to analysis by most in the media when they could be and should a little more critical who is deemed an expert in autism.
Posted by: Lisa @ TACA | December 29, 2010 at 01:23 PM
2004 Vac/UnVac survey results from the Dutch Association for Conscientious Vaccination:
http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/Vacc%20vs%20unvacc%20results%20survey.pdf
Posted by: Kevin Barry | December 29, 2010 at 01:19 PM
Is it not a "BIT embarrassing" that after nearly 20 years, Offit, the CDC, and the American Academy of Pediatrics cannot find the cause of an epidemic 30 times more common than Polio ???
No ideas, no cause, no cure, no clue, no treatments and "when is your next well baby visit...your seven shots behind..."
Posts by their own AAP "office staff RN's" at AoA have stated the US pediatric vaccine program is obscene and they see the damage it causes nearly every day...
It will be interesting the coverage the new Offit book will get in the media. I would suppose with the proper checks issued to the proper bookstores, the book will be placed in the store for all to easily see, even if the medical waste is not purchased.
Posted by: cmo | December 29, 2010 at 01:09 PM
Hey Immelkat- short answer is yes, there is increased herpes -zoster.
Cost–benefit analysis of universal varicella vaccination in the U.S. taking into account the closely related herpes–zoster epidemiology
Medical Veritas International (MVI), P.O. Box 847, Pearblossom, CA 93553, USA
Received 21 July 2003;
accepted 4 October 2003.
Available online 30 March 2005.
Abstract
Many models concur that universal varicella vaccination of children is beneficial from the perspective of reducing societal costs. Yet, the majority of such cost analyses have been modeled under the assumption that varicella vaccination has no adverse effect on the closely related herpes–zoster (HZ) epidemiology. Historical models have assumed that asymptomatic endogenous reactivation is the chief mechanism of boosting that suppresses the reactivation of HZ and that immunity wanes due to the aging process. Recent studies suggest instead that periodic exogenous exposures to wild-type varicella are the predominant factor influencing the curve of increasing HZ incidence rate with advancing age among individuals <50, after which an age-related decline dominates in the elderly. Based on a realistic age-structured model, we compare differences in outcomes of the number of HZ cases and direct medical costs associated with the population existing in 2000 and as it ages (according to the mortality given in the 2000 U.S. census) during the following 50 years with and without implementation of universal varicella vaccination. Under universal varicella vaccination, we assume that 15 years post-licensure, the boosting mechanism known as asymptomatic endogenous reactivation principally serves to limit HZ incidence to 550 per 100,000 person-years in unvaccinated individuals <50 with a previous history of natural varicella—since there has been a vaccine-induced decline in exogenous boosting. We estimate universal varicella vaccination has the impact of an additional 14.6 million (42%) HZ cases among adults aged <50 years during a 50 year time span at a substantial medical cost burden of US$ 4.1 billion or US$ 80 million annually utilizing an estimated mean healthcare provider cost of US$ 280 per HZ case.
Posted by: Ottoschnaut | December 29, 2010 at 01:06 PM
AD or BC?
Posted by: Immelkat | December 29, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Immelkat,
How many elderly people exist who were born in 1995?
Posted by: Marykay | December 29, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Dan, since the introduction of the varicella vaccine in 1995, the incidence of varicella decreased about 90 percent, from 4 million to about 400,000. After the introduction of the second dose, the incidence fell another 90 percent, to about 40,000 cases. If your hypothesis of reduced boosting is correct, then the number of cases of shingles in the elderly should be increasing. Do you have any data to that effect?
Posted by: Immelkat | December 29, 2010 at 11:51 AM
Great piece. You are so spot on when you mention that any discussion of vaccine-related illness is turned around in to "vaccines save lives" mantra. That is not the issue, Paul. What we need to talk about is the trade-off of vaccination in terms of undermining the health of children born every day by injecting their muscle tissue with stuff that you can't even effectively describe the true and real process of. Physicians are meant to ask questions, and objectively and altruistically to find out the root of a health issue. In your case, Paul, it just seems increasingly obvious that what you want is to be right, at all costs.
Posted by: MA | December 29, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Thank you, Dan. I couldn't agree more. One could be a denialist if one were ignorant, or if knowing something was too painful to comprehend.
Offit's denialism reminds me more of a substance abusing denial, the kind where great harm is done by all around him as he lashes out, yet he continues to smile and deny harm is being done -- in fact "you are the problem" -- especially when you bring up those things that threaten the isle of denial.
In that kind of denial, there is much cover-up, deceit, and lies. Many are hurt in the wake of that denial yet the Offits (abusers) keep at it. So what would be a "drug of choice" here? Power, money, greed?
Not sure but maybe an Intervention would help. Maybe Dr. Offit is so entangled in his false truths that he just can't see the truth - like an alcoholic or maybe more like an adrenaline-driven gambler? Maybe all those dollar signs get in the way of seeing the pain, agony and reality of vaccine danger and death? He may need to be fired from his job as "media voice" to the public until he finds a proper 12 step program for his unique issues. The public deserves a sober and honest man of science and not what we are getting - a denialist in need of zero attachments to vaccine money and Industry affiliation.
Maybe 2011 will be the year that he checks into some sort of Betty Ford rehab for gambling with our health?
Posted by: Teresa Conrick | December 29, 2010 at 10:51 AM
http://vran.org/vaccines/cpox/shingles-threat.htm
Posted by: Ottoschnaut | December 29, 2010 at 10:50 AM
How ethicial is it to NOT inform parents that there is mercury in a vaccine? How ethical is it to keep adding shots without testing the schedule in total? Let me count the (cash) ways....
Posted by: Stagmom | December 29, 2010 at 09:58 AM
Offit and his ilk can claim that a vaxxed vs unvaxxed study is unethical or immoral but the reality is that with a indisputable history of vaccine damage and the growing availability of an unvaxxed population, it is unethical and immoral NOT to do the study.
Posted by: Harry H. | December 29, 2010 at 09:45 AM
I think there should be a bast*^&* of the year award for this ilk! How could anyone deny what is happening to the Gardasil girls?! Perfectly healthy girls don't just drop dead spontaneously out of nowhere! The very thought is redicoulous and insults my intelligence!
I do believe it is in the Bible that we are told to "ask, seek, knock!" If our taxes are paying for these shumucks to force this stuff down our throats, we as citizens have the right to know whether or not it is safe, and no, we don't have to just take thier word for it! I don't trust any of those people as far as I could throw them! What is so unintelligent and dangerous about asking questions or having doubts?
I thought that was a part of being human! Oh that's right, we are supposed to be mindless robots! Well excuse the hell out of me for having a brain and being able to concieve thought!! It's when we stop asking questions that the danger is the greatest! Proof of that is Nazi Germany, Rowanda, extremist Islamist states. So no, I won't stop asking questions!
How about you start answering some of them with some actual science, instead of regurgitating the same study from 1990 and expecting me to swallow it?
Posted by: Theodora Trudorn | December 29, 2010 at 09:14 AM
Insidevaccines did a careful review of the chickenpox/shingles story: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/07/30/a-pox-on-the-taxpayer/ not only has the vaccine caused a massive increase in shingles which will continue for at least 50 or 60 years (possibly forever, as the vaccine can linger and cause shingles, too), but it is costing the U.S. government billions and will cost the public billions more for the shingles vaccine on top of the chickenpox vaccine. Basically, the whole thing is a huge scam.
Posted by: MinorityView | December 29, 2010 at 09:02 AM
Picture Offit as the arborist who is busily sawing away on the limb upon which he is perched. Let him keep blabbing. As he continues to fill the public record with demonstrably false and self serving statements, he is creating a very public record that will eventually be used to destroy his credibility.
Some day soon, Offit will be in a very public tough spot. The ridiculous assertions he makes, without a shred of evidence, will be carefully examined in the harsh glare of the kleig lights. At that moment, his entire public record will be a gift that keeps on giving. He is, after all, the oublic face of the pharma/medico vaccine profiteer cartel. Show him to be a fool, then the whole edifice is built on shifting sands.
I noticed the very prominent pediatric practice in my home town was forced to remove it's vaccine policy statement that was posted on the wall. Their policy was if your kid doesn't take the needle, get out of our practice. So many parents decried the stupidity of a "one size fits all" medical policy that the practice was forced to modify their stance.
BTW- hep b at birth- someone need to ask Offit why that does not fall under the category of "unnecessary medeical procedure."
Posted by: Ottoschnaut | December 29, 2010 at 08:54 AM