This week, Jenny McCarthy posted an article on the Huffington Post (a blogging site long recognized for its lack of scientific accuracy - see this OS blogger for many good examples: http://open.salon.com/blog/rahul_k_parikh), that once again tries to convince us  a former Playboy model and actress knows more about our children's health than the majority of medical and scientific professionals. 

While I'm not out to attack McCarthy as visciously as others may be (I do credit her for opening the dialogue, caring so deeply about the cause of her son's illness and recovery, and being a spokesperson for a movement she feels passionately about), I have to take issue with the many examples of incorrect interpretations of data and flawed logic that McCarthy cites in this article.  Here is my breakdown of her article and where the Science supports or does not support her claims.

 McCarthy's original quotes are italicized here, with my replies underlined:

Parents of recovered children, and I've met hundreds, all share the same experience of doubters and deniers telling us our child must have never even had autism or that the recovery was simply nature's course. We all know better, and frankly we're too busy helping other parents to really care.

Corner one of the hundreds of doctors who specialize in autism recovery, and they'll tell you stories of dozens of kids in their practice who no longer have autism. Ask them to speak to the press and they'll run for the door. They know better.

Most doctors in our community share a common trait: their own child regressed into autism. They fixed their kid first and knew they'd have to spend their lives helping parents do the same, accepting the loss of "mainstream" status in their field.

Who's afraid of autism recovery? Perhaps it's the diagnosticians and pediatricians who have made a career out of telling parents autism is a hopeless condition.

Up until this point, McCarthy 'has' me.  I'm listening, I'm engaged, and I'm finding her points of view relevant and interesting...then the argument begins to degrade:

When I first went public with my son Evan's story, I just planned to talk about the "R" word -- Recovery. But soon I was spending most my time talking about the "V" word -- vaccines.

It's hard to address one without the other because so many of the parents of recovered children I know, myself included, blame vaccines for their child's regression into autism and use vaccine injury as the roadmap to treat their child.

The idea that vaccines are a primary cause of autism is not as crackpot as some might wish. Autism's 60-fold rise in 30 years matches a tripling of the US vaccine schedule.

What McCarthy does not mention here, is that during this time period other factors are at play - and this is another dangerous example of confusing correlation with causation.  During this same time period, ability to diagnose Autism as a disorder (or part of the spectrum disorders) has also improved.  Additionally, mercury-containing compounds in vaccines have been phased out while autism rates have apparantly continued to increase (most people who would like to see a link between vaccines and autism often blame the mercury-containing compounds in vaccine formulas, specifically the MMR).  See also point 6 below.

With so many kids with autism, the environment has to be to blame, and vaccines are an obvious culprit. Almost all kids get vaccines -- injected toxins -- very early in life, and our own government clearly acknowledges vaccines cause brain damage in certain vulnerable kids.

McCarthy's brain damage link here is to the Health and Human Services vaccine injury table, but there is nothing on this page to connect Autism or any spectrum disorder to vaccinations.  In fact, the injuries in this table are those occurring with a wide variety of vaccinations (not just MMR which McCarthy and others mainly blame), the injuries do not include brain damage of this sort (only encephalitis  is listed - or brain inflammation caused by viral or bacterial infection), and the injuries listed all occur in hours to days after the vaccine - not months as with Autism (see point 4 below).

Take those simple facts, along with tens of thousands of parental reports of regression after vaccination, not to mention a growing list of court cases where our government paid claims to children with autism acknowledging vaccines as the trigger, and the case we Moms are making makes sense.

The citation here is to a private foundation with a clear agenda to link Autism to vaccination, and features an advertisement with Jenny McCarthy.  This is a clear example of point 4 below.

Time magazine's article on the autism debate reports that the experts are certain "vaccines don't cause autism; they don't injure children; they are the pillar of modern public health."

I say, "that's a lie and we're sick of it."

This Time article clearly points to McCarthy as a fear monger and cites her for perpetuating wrong information about vaccinations and autism, which is clearly the reason this article was chosen for her attack.  Countless reputable articles have provided the factual basis for the same claims in this Time article, which is on the right side of the scientific debate.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1967796,00.html

How do you say vaccines don't cause autism when only a single vaccine -- MMR -- has ever been looked at for its relationship to autism? What about the other 10 vaccines our children receive through 36 doses? If Viagra is considered safe, is Vioxx then safe too, or do you need to test both?

Again, this is not the way to win a scientific or medical argument, to cite websites that clearly have the agenda of supporting your point of view.  Unbiased reports, objective analysis of appropriately collected data, and scientific study are the only citations that could make a case here.  See the list of studies in point 5 below.

Even with the MMR, studies only compare kids who have otherwise been fully vaccinated. Is that really an honest way to evaluate the issue? How come no one has ever looked at unvaccinated kids to compare their autism rates? It could be so easy.

And dangerous.  Vaccinations are essential to childhood health and the health of the overall population.  Although sadly, due to McCarthy and others, the numbers of unvaccinated children are increasing - and ironically this may now be enough for a large cohort in a scientific study. (see point 1 below)  Additionally, many scientists (including some who commented on McCarthy's blog) agree that vaccines should not automatically be ruled out as a cause for any health concern - but simply put, the studies to date are completely piled on the side of no risk.  The chances that this large amount of data will be overturned are slim, and studies investigating the genetic link for autism, as well as studies focusing on endocrine disrupting chemicals in the environment are far more promising.

How do you say vaccines don't injure kids, when a government website shows more than 1,000 claims of death and over $1.9 billion paid out in damages for vaccine injury, mostly to children?

Again, this is the Health and Human Services website - but look carefully at all the tables of data.  Not one dollar has been paid in an autism suit - all the cases have been dismissed.   This is blatant data massaging and manipulation of the data to serve a biased message.

Perhaps its better to say vaccines have both benefits and risks? Who's afraid of being honest about the good and the bad of vaccines?

In the recent case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, why did the press constantly report that his 1998 study said the MMR caused autism when anyone could read the study and know that it didn't? And, why did we never hear that the actual finding of Dr. Wakefield's study -- that children with autism are suffering from bowel disease -- has been replicated many times?

How come the press never interviewed the parents of the 12 children in Dr. Wakefield's study? In a letter they wrote:

Who's afraid of the truth about Dr. Wakefield? Could it be the vaccine industry's spokespeople trying to put the vaccine-autism genie back in the bottle?

Wow.  McCarthy is one of the few people to not realize the implications of this landmark decision to retract the long notorious Wakefield paper.  Scientists of any stripe have waited patiently for this obvious retraction of a dangerous and fraudulent paper that has somehow become a cultural and pseudoscience phenomenon.  Clearly the editors of The Lancet did not make a mistake in retracting this paper, a mistake that took Jenny McCarthy to point out...but I digress.  Please see Alicia Ph.D.'s great coverage of this news story: http://open.salon.com/blog/alicia_phd/2010/02/02/bye_bye_wakefield.

Also see the details of the retraction here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/health/research/03lancet.html

and here:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3716

There's something wrong with this generation of kids. They aren't healthy. The LA Times just reported that, "more than a quarter of all US children have a chronic health condition [ADHD, autism, asthma]...a significant increase from the rate seen in earlier decades." One quarter of our kids?

Writing for the New York Times last week, Nicholas Kristof asked the question, "Do Toxins Cause Autism?" and went on to say, "suspicions are growing that one culprit may be chemicals in the environment."

Great points.  The LATimes and NYTimes articles are great science writing, and do not at all link autism to vaccines.  The fact is, chronic health conditions in our children are increasing in number and the potential for environmental chemicals (the amount, type, combinations) may be to blame - especially in combination with a genetic predisposition of some sort.  But its far too early for even scientists to take a gander on this one - so its better left as speculative until the data are collected and analysed.

Is it possible all these things are related? Could we afford to give fewer shots slightly later and possibly reduce these chronic conditions? How do you go on a hunt for toxins and not consider vaccines?

The parents of children with autism aren't crazy. We're recovering our kids. We're trying to help other parents do the same, and we hope new parents can avoid our fate.

These two paragraphs make very valid points.  Scientists and medical professionals are certainly looking into the number and timing of vaccines, but so far nothing has proven as causative for disease.  That does not mean that studies will cease, but it also very clearly means that vaccinations should not cease.    Additionally, I think anyone can relate to the struggle of parents of children with autism.  What a scary and helpless feeling to have a sick child, and to be unsure of how they became sick or how to treat them.  Of course the goal of biomedical science and medicine is to avoid a scenario such as this.  No one wishes ill health on our children, although sometimes it apears that McCarthy views this whole debate as some sort of conspiracy to keep children sick and doctors in business (see the last line of her article)- ridiculous and unfounded.

There has to be room for moderation on vaccines, for a recognition that one size does not fit all, for an honest dialogue around risks and benefits, and for a willingness to maybe delay or scale back some vaccines. How come many other countries give their kids one-third as many shots as we do?

This article masquerades as a peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal, but it is no such thing.  Generation Rescue is in fact, Jenny McCarthy's Autism Organization.

Health authorities said autism was caused by cold mothers; parents proved them wrong. They said kids didn't regress into autism; parents proved them wrong. They said kids with autism weren't more sick with gastrointestinal issues; parents proved them wrong. They said autism was genetic and this epidemic wasn't real; parents proved them wrong. Is now the time to bet against the parents?

Who's afraid of the truth? Usually the people it would hurt the most.

 Of course as time marches on old assumptions with weak data to support them will eventually be disproven and more solid science will take their place (remember we used to believe the Earth was flat?).  But this does not mean that the data about vaccinations and autism are incorrect to date - the studies are many in number, are large and properly controlled, and are peer reviewed.  Additionally - McCarthy's line claiming that parents have disproven "autism was genetic and this epidemic wasn't real" makes absolutely no sense - the two claims are not mutually exclusive.  Clearly McCarthy needs a primer on what the two terms really mean. Many scientists do believe there is a genetic cause for Autism (which does not rule out potential triggers in the environment) and no one disputes that Autism cases are way too prevalent.

Link to McCarthy's piece:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenny-mccarthy/whos-afraid-of-the-truth_b_490918.html

Link to a reputable, scientifically sound Autism organization and charity, Autism Speaks:

http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/index.php

An excerpt from Autism Speaks' science pages:

The role of environmental factors in the development of autism is a crucial area of study. Although we know that genetics is an important factor, genetics alone may not account for all cases of autism. The increase in the reported number of autism cases has generated extreme concern over the potential involvement of toxins as well as infectious agents in our environment. For example, prenatal exposure to the chemicals thalidomide and valproic acid has been linked to a greater risk of a child being born with autism. This initiative targets research that seeks to understand and identify the potential role environmental factors play in triggering autism.

Some great points (from the Wired piece cited below) to back up my points above:

- 1 - In certain parts of the US, vaccination rates have dropped so low that occurrences of some children’s diseases are approaching pre-vaccine levels for the first time ever.

- 2 - (the vaccination 'debate' is) helped by the mainstream media, which has an interest in pumping up bad science to create a “debate” where there should be none.

- 3 - In 1905, French mathematician and scientist Henri Poincaré said that the willingness to embrace pseudo-science flourished because people “know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether illusion is not more consoling.” Decades later, the astronomer Carl Sagan reached a similar conclusion: Science loses ground to pseudo-science because the latter seems to offer more comfort.

- 4 - Still, despite peer-reviewed evidence, many parents ignore the math and agonize about whether to vaccinate. Why? For starters, the human brain has a natural tendency to pattern-match — to ignore the old dictum “correlation does not imply causation” and stubbornly persist in associating proximate phenomena. If two things coexist, the brain often tells us, they must be related. Some parents of autistic children noticed that their child’s condition began to appear shortly after a vaccination. The conclusion: “The vaccine must have caused the autism.” Sounds reasonable, even though, as many scientists have noted, it has long been known that autism and other neurological impairments often become evident at or around the age of 18 to 24 months, which just happens to be the same time children receive multiple vaccinations. Correlation, perhaps. But not causation, as studies have shown. And if you need a new factoid to support your belief system, it has never been easier to find one.

- 5 - Twelve epidemiological studies have found no data that links the MMR (measles/mumps/rubella) vaccine to autism; six studies have found no trace of an association between thimerosal (a preservative containing ethylmercury that has largely been removed from vaccines since 2001¹) and autism, and three other studies have found no indication that thimerosal causes even subtle neurological problems. The so-called epidemic, researchers assert, is the result of improved diagnosis, which has identified as autistic many kids who once might have been labeled mentally retarded or just plain slow. In fact, the growing body of science indicates that the autistic spectrum — which may well turn out to encompass several discrete conditions — may largely be genetic in origin. In April, the journal Nature published two studies that analyzed the genes of almost 10,000 people and identified a common genetic variant present in approximately 65 percent of autistic children. (see link to article below for citations of these scientific publications)

- 6 - But researchers, alas, can’t respond with the same forceful certainty that the doubters are able to deploy — not if they’re going to follow the rules of science. Those tenets allow them to claim only that there is no evidence of a link between autism and vaccines. But that phrasing — what sounds like equivocation — is just enough to allow doubts to not only remain but to fester. Meanwhile, in the eight years since thimerosal was removed from vaccines (a public relations mistake, in Offit’s view, because it seemed to indicate to the public that thimerosal was toxic), the incidences of autism continue to rise.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For another example of a well-researched pro and con set of articles, see this excerpt from my Fodder and Snowballs post (one in  my Read, Watch, Visit, Do, Browse series):

Read: Take a look at the latest on the vaccine debate, from magazines and blogs:

1. Read the coverage from Wired magazine here:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/

2. Then read the coverage from Atlantic Monthly here (mainly focusing on flu vaccinations):

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

3.  Then read a science blogger's take on the Atlantic Monthly article here:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2495

 4.  Finally, take a look at the CDC's FAQ page (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/index.html), THEN have a debate with a friend now that you're armed with some of the latest and best information.