|Age of Autism
August 07, 2008
Dr. Paul Offit and Dr. Jon Poling: New England Journal of Medicine
By Anne Dachel
Dr Jon Poling and his daughter Hannah
versus Dr Paul Offit 'For Profit' in the
New England Journal of Medicine
On August 7, the New England Journal of Medicine published the opposing opinions of Dr. Jon Poling, father of Hannah Poling, and Dr. Paul Offit, Infectious Disease Specialist from Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, on the Vaccine Court case in which the federal government conceded that vaccines were a factor in the development of autism in Hannah. Titled, Vaccines and Autism Revisited, the letters run in the "Correspondence" section of NEJM. (Click HERE to read the August 7th piece)
In the May 15 NEJM Perspective section, Offit split every hair he could to try and lessen the impact of the Poling case. He tried to convince the public that there was no scientific basis for the concession. (Click HERE to read the May 15th piece.) Offit's remarks led to the August 7 response by Dr. Poling.
In his August 7 piece, Poling went after Offit's opinion about his daughter's case using phrases like "Offit misrepresents my position," "Offit confuses issues," and "His opinion is unsupported by clinical trials."
Poling also said that he agreed with the remarks made by former head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bernadine Healy, on CBS News, who said, 'I don't think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you're afraid of what it might show. . . . If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children. If you turn your back on the notion there is a susceptible group . . . what can I say?'
The fair and balanced NEJM then allowed Offit to respond to Poling at the bottom of the article. Offit defended his remarks by claiming that the science is on his side and the facts support his view. He made one stunning comment. He brought up Healy's remarks about the need for further study of a subgroup of children who might be damaged by vaccines. Offit wrote, "Now, Poling and Healy are standard-bearers for the poorly conceived hypothesis that children receive too many vaccines too early. As a consequence, some parents are choosing to delay, withhold, or separate vaccines."
That was really a low blow. To claim that one of the top doctors in the U.S. was promoting a "poorly conceived hypothesis" and that "the public airing of that hypothesis caused thousands of parents to avoid the MMR; many children were hospitalized and several died from measles as a result," was really pitting doctor against doctor in the vaccine war. (Amanda Peet just told us on Good Morning America, "Please don't listen to me. . . . Go to the experts." Well, here they are and they don't agree!)
I had to go back to the remarks made by Healy on CBS Evening News (Click HERE) on May 12 to figure out what exactly she said that could be described as a "poorly conceived hypothesis." Soft-spoken and reasonable in her conversation with CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, Healy called for more studies on vaccines and autism. She said that we need to do the studies to find out if there is a subgroup of children who are susceptible to a particular vaccine, to vaccines plural, or to components in vaccines. She urged scientists "to take another look at that hypothesis, not deny it."
Healy said nothing to undermine that vaccine program. She told the public, "A susceptible group does not mean that vaccines aren't good." She firmly stated that she didn't believe "the public would lose faith in vaccines."
We have the most heated controversy in medicine today over vaccines and Healy addressed it by saying, "It is the job of the public health community and of physicians to be out there and to say yes, we can make it safer because we are able to say, this is a subset. We're going to deliver it in a way we think is safer."
Sharyl Attkisson then brought up the fact that health officials will deny there is a link between vaccines and autism. They say there's no evidence.
Healy, shaking her head, firmly stated twice, "You can't say that."
Why? Because they haven't studied "the population that got sick."
Healy said that she hasn't seen "major studies that focus on 300 kids who got autistic symptoms within a period of a few weeks of getting a vaccine."
Healy noted the primate and mouse studies that have been too quickly dismissed. She challenged the conclusions of the IOM Report of 2004 where we were told not to "pursue susceptibility groups." Healy said, "I really take issue with that conclusion. The reason they didn't want to look for those susceptibility groups was because if they found them, . . . that would scare the public away."
Offit might think that the endless epidemiological studies have settled the question, but Healy made it clear, "Populations do not test causality, they test associations. You have to go into the laboratory."
Healy chided the medical community by saying, "The fact that there is concern that you don't want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me."
She ended a chilling comment about vaccines and the link to autism: "The question has not been answered."
From his remarks, it's pretty obvious that Offit is opposed to any open scientific inquiry. Healy didn't say that all children were receiving too many too soon, as Offit claimed. She said we need to find that subgroup of children.
The CDC studies that are always being promoted in the press haven't settled a thing. The public is growing increasingly skeptical of health officials and their claims. They don't want to risk the health of their children by giving them vaccines with possibly damaging side effects. Healy's was the refreshing voice of reason in this debate. Too bad Offit refused to listen.
Perhaps the ending of the Poling/Offit pieces said it all. After Poling's remarks, he listed his conflicts from the lecturing and consulting fees he had received from different pharmaceutical companies. At the end of Offit's, all we see is "Children's Hospital of Philadelphia."
Here's the body copy from NEJM
Anne Dachel is Media Editor of Age of Autism
Comment From The UK:
GrammaKnows | August 07, 2008 at 07:41 PM
Offit was able to turn up 3 deaths from the Dublin outbreak of 1990 (not UK), which may be something to do with compromised health and economic migrant communities (very little to do with Andrew Wakefield). The UK auhorities keep on mentioning two deaths from measles in immune compromised, unvaccinated subjects, but they don't publicise 18 others in the last 15 years, who were presumably vaccinated. See here.
There are also serious anomalies in the most recent report of a measles death in the UK, since the unfortunate subject only seems to have tested positive for the presence of the virus, without having the symptoms of the disease. Enquiries of our Health Protection Agency (HPA) have so far not met with acknowledgement (five weeks after Freedom of Information requests were submitted):
With regard to our Dr Salisbury, there was a very helpful blog today by Alan Golding of CryShame:
However, it is also essential to point out that one of the key reasons why we are having outbreaks of measles in the UK is simply because the vaccine is not working - for which reason our the HPA (who cite Offit as authority) are double vaccinating infants.
* HPA Unable To Link UK Measles Outbreak To MMR Shortfall
What's Going On in SE London?