Vaccines and autism

[Amianthus]

Thursday, March 06, 2008
By Dr. Sanjay Gupta
Chief Medical Correspondent
Hannah Poling
Some new news to share about autism today. At a press conference this morning, a Georgia family will describe how the government has conceded that a vaccine "contributed" to their daughter's autism symptoms. The family will receive compensation from a federal vaccine court.

That doesn't mean the federal government agrees that vaccines cause autism (click here for more on autism). Nor does this 9-year-old girl's case mean the 4,900 other families in the vaccine court have won their claim that vaccines resulted in their children's autism. That case continues.

Advocates who see a vaccine-autism link point to Hannah Poling's case as a big victory for their cause - evidence of the potentially disastrous side effects of vaccines.

Within 48 hours after receiving her vaccinations, Hannah, then 19 months old and by all accounts a normal little girl, developed a high fever, inconsolable crying and some signs of regression, including difficulty walking and speaking.

Over the next several months, she had countless visits with doctors finally culminating in the diagnosis of encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder. At the same time, and this is potentially very important, she had genetic testing and was found to have the gene for an underlying mitochondrial disorder (click here for more about mitochondrial disorder).

So, did the vaccines worsen an already existing condition leading to the symptoms of autism? That is what the government seems to have conceded. And, if so, was it caused by the mercury preservative thimerosal, which was present in Hannah's vaccines several years ago, or was it the profound immune response that vaccinations cause in the body?

The Centers for Diseases Control, American Academy of Pediatrics, Institute of Medicine and other prestigious medical organizations maintain there is no link between vaccines and autism.

As many experts have told me, this case is likely to raise more questions than it answers. But, these are good questions and important ones for anyone who cares about this issue. What do you think?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.
Posted By Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Chief Medical Correspondent: 11:41 AM ET

[fatman]

Where is the line that separates the right of the individual vs. the greater good of the populace at here?  Does a parent have the right to refuse a vaccination for their child because an extremely small minority of children may develop a complication (autism) from vaccination?  Is it better to protect their child from that than to protect them from diseases that were rampant 60 years ago:  polio, measles, mumps, etc?

[Amianthus]

Is it better to protect their child from that than to protect them from diseases that were rampant 60 years ago:  polio, measles, mumps, etc?

I think that it comes down to parental choice. And there are many around here who would remove child rearing choice from parents.

Most parents would choose the vaccine route - and really, to prevent rampant plagues as you were questioning, only about 80-85% of the population needs to be vaccinated. Plenty of room in there for choice.

[fatman]

I agree with you that it is an area of parental choice, and generally I support parental choice in a wide range of responsibilities.  No doubt that there are some who would like to see children reared in a conformist fashion, and although their reasoning may be secure, I can't say that I support that idea.  Schools should not be a substitute for parenting, though it seems like more and more people are accepting this idea as fact.

The main issue I have is hypothetical, in that although you're correct that most parents would choose to vaccinate, but what is the recourse when that number dips below the 80-85% mark that you stated would need to be vaccinated?  It would be truly awful to see the diseases that have been more or less eradicated from this nation make a comeback.

[Amianthus]

The main issue I have is hypothetical, in that although you're correct that most parents would choose to vaccinate, but what is the recourse when that number dips below the 80-85% mark that you stated would need to be vaccinated?  It would be truly awful to see the diseases that have been more or less eradicated from this nation make a comeback.

It's self-correcting; if the diseases seem to be making a comeback, then more parents will vaccinate. Besides, while nature is busy evolving better diseases, humans are busy evolving better immune systems. There is no vaccination for bubonic plague, and the disease still exists, yet you hardly ever hear about outbreaks - our systems are better able to handle that disease. There are also similarities between HIV and the common cold - it's been theorized that the common cold was just as deadly as HIV / AIDS to our ancestors.

However, if you remove that stimulus from humans (our immune systems having to fight off many diseases) you start to see more previous non-virulent diseases becoming virulent. There are many - and the number is growing - doctors who will tell you to let your children get many of the childhood diseases rather than try to avoid them. There also seems to be a pretty well documented link between auto-immune diseases and "exercising" your immune system, as well as a less well documented link between allergies and said exercise.

[fatman]

That's a pretty well stated case Ami. 

Thanks