Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

Scarier Than Fiction: Pediatricians Try To Censor ABC

By David Kirby, Huffington Post. Posted January 28, 2008.


Will a TV show be canceled because it features an attorney who successfully argues that a mercury-containing flu vaccine caused autism in one kid?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

On Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics will release the contents of a foreboding letter sent last week to ABC/Disney executives, demanding they cancel the January 31 premiere of a new legal drama series, Eli Stone, because it features a family attorney who successfully argues in court that a mercury-containing flu vaccine caused autism in one child.

The letter, signed by AAP President Renee Jenkins, borders on near-hysteria over a fictional television entertainment. It ominously warns that ABC "will bear responsibility for the needless suffering and potential deaths of children from parents' decisions not to immunize based on the content of the episode."

Dr. Jenkins calls on ABC to cancel the episode but, anticipating a refusal, urges executives to run a disclaimer that "no scientific link exists between vaccines and autism," if the offending network "persists" in airing the show.

I share the AAP's concern that parents should not be driven away from protecting their children from dangerous, even deadly diseases. But parents are far too smart to base such an important decision as immunization on the "content of the episode" of a single drama on broadcast television.

In fact, if I were Dr. Jenkins, I would be far more concerned about real news happening in the real world -- events that not only suggest the possibility of some sort of link between mercury, vaccines and autism, but might alarm parents more than any fictional account written for ratings-grabbing mass entertainment.

If I were Dr. Jenkins, instead of fretting over a fake family engaged in a mock trial held in a make-believe court on some LA soundstage, I would be up at night wondering why the Federal Government recently conceded a real vaccine-autism lawsuit in a real court and will soon pay a real (taxpayer-funded) settlement to a real American family and a very real child with autism.

I would want to know why the Department of Justice agreed that mercury-containing vaccines "severely aggravated" the autism symptoms in at least one child, and I would wonder if research into what triggered that severe aggravation might provide at least some clues into the perpetual mysteries of the disorder and its causes.

And, if I were Dr. Jenkins, rather than wringing my hands and trying to censor a TV-show verdict, I would truly worry about what will happen when parents realize that the Federal Government's concession has been sealed -- preventing the public (and future plaintiffs) from viewing what could only be described as "evidence of harm." I would be nervous that this secretive action in an actual court (itself reminiscent of science fiction) might drive parents away from vaccination far more effectively than any scripted drama.

Furthermore, if I were the top pediatrician in America, I would not be asking television networks to make sweeping statements such as, "No scientific link exists" between autism and mercury or vaccines, when highly respected publications continue to publish new (and very real) data that roundly debunk what has now become, frankly, a tired piece of misinformation.


If I were the AAP, or ABC for that matter, I would feel downright silly stating that "no scientific link exists," so soon after the Journal of Child Neurology published a study titled, "Blood Levels of Mercury Are Related to Diagnosis of Autism: A Reanalysis of an Important Data Set." I would also worry about parental reaction to learning that researchers had done due diligence and reanalyzed data from a prior, hugely influential study that (erroneously) found zero connection between mercury levels and autism.

Instead of trying to silence the fictional words of "Eli Stone" co-creators Greg Berlanti and Marc Guggenheim, I would pay closer attention to the real words of Journal authors M. Catherine DeSoto and Robert Hitlan, who found a major flaw in the original study that found no link. In fact, they concluded, "a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder," and that "hair sample analysis results offer some support for the idea that persons with autism may be less efficient... at eliminating mercury from the blood," something that proponents of the mercury-autism hypothesis have long contended.

And, I would heed this rather wise warning from the authors: "If there is any link between autism and mercury, it is absolutely crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stating that no link occurs."

Another study, freshly out of Harvard, likewise shows a potential link between mercury and the autopsied brains of young people with autism. The American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology reports that a marker for oxidative stress was 68.9% higher in autistic brain issue than controls (a statistically significant result), while mercury levels were 68.2% higher.

And though the mercury results did not quite reach statistical significance (probably due to the small number of autistic brains studied: 9), the authors cautioned that, "However, there was a positive correlation between (oxidative stress and mercury levels)," meaning the two might be associated.

Finally, if part of my AAP job description was to ensure that every American child is vaccinated as early and often as possible, I would be hugely apprehensive, not about a new courtroom drama, but rather about a dramatic new study soon to appear in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

In the article, "Delay in DPT vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of childhood asthma," Anita Kozyrskyj, an asthma researcher at the University of Manitoba, and other scientists combed the medical records of 14,000 children born in Manitoba in 1995 (when many Canadian shots still contained mercury, by the way).

They found that children who received the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) vaccine at two months of age were 2.63 times more likely to develop asthma (at a rate of 13.9%) than children who were not given the shot until after four months of age (5.9%). "We're thinking that maybe if you delay this allergic response until a bit later, the child's immune system is more developed and maybe you're not seeing this effect," Kozyrskyj told the Winnipeg Free Press, which just broke the story.

No one wants infant children to go unprotected from whooping cough (or pertussis, the "P" in DPT). But what if delaying that vaccine could have prevented more than half of the asthma cases in the United States? With millions of children currently suffering from the disease, at the cost of billions of dollars a year, would waiting another two months improve the risk-benefit ratio for society (save for the companies that market those asthma medications)?

Even more importantly, if too-early vaccination causes asthma in some kids, could the practice cause other disorders? There is absolutely nothing to link this vaccine study to autism, of course. But consider the following:

1) Many asthma cases have been linked to autoimmunity. The same with autism.

2) Childhood asthma has been dramatically increasing for two decades. The same with autism.

3) Most of the children with asthma in the vaccine study were boys. The same with autism.

Any way you look at it, this study is hardly reassuring news to parents who are about to vaccinate their kids (though think how comforting it would be to allow them to delay this shot by two months). Medicine and the media constantly tell us that all vaccines are safe for all children. When parents try to jive that information with studies that imply the opposite, their faith and trust in public health and the immunization program begin to take a nosedive, along with vaccination rates.

It's not just the broadcast of fiction out of ABC that might drive parents away from immunization. It is the negation of fact out of the AAP as well. And if unvaccinated children get sick, will the esteemed Academy also "bear responsibility," or just heap it all upon the network?

ABC executives could cave in and cancel the broadcast, but I don't think they will. And even if America's pediatricians manage to successfully censor fiction and crush artistic freedom, they will never be able to stifle the facts.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: abc, eli stone, american academy of pedia

David Kirby has been a professional journalist for over 15 years and has written extensively for The New York Times for the past eight years.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Father's Age May Play Role in Autism Risk
Posted by: TerryS on Jan 28, 2008 8:34 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
David Kirby wrote:

"And though the mercury results did not quite
reach statistical significance (probably due
to the small number of autistic brains studied: 9),
the authors cautioned that, "However, there was a
positive correlation between (oxidative stress and
mercury levels)," meaning the two might be associated."

Meanwhile, according to this NPR story:

Father's Age May Play Role in Autism Risk

"The older the age of the father at the time of birth,
the higher the chances of the offspring to have autism,"
Reichenberg says. "In fathers who were 40 years or older,
the risk for autism was almost six times higher than in
the offspring of fathers who were younger than 30 years
of age."

Just maybe, AAP President Renee Jenkins is right to
be concerned that some parents will take to heart
the (unproven) message of this show, which is that
vaccinating your child is a very risky proposition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jenkins Deserves Credit
Posted by: ASunder on Jan 31, 2008 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Jenkins deserves credit for trying to improve our health as a nation by sharing evidence-based conclusions reviewed over time by our best scientists. Criticizing Jenkins by citing a few recent studies gives a misleading view of Dr. Jenkins' laudable action, the medical community's responsibility to the public in this matter, and the debate over immunization.

The National Network for Immunization Information offers a more complete view in "Know the Facts about Immunization," available online at www.immunizationinfo.org/:

• Immunizations are one of the most important ways people can be protected against serious,
preventable infectious diseases.

• Immunizations are extremely safe as a result of advances in medical research and ongoing
review by doctors, researchers, and public health officials.

• Immunizations are recommended for infants, young children, the elderly, and those with
chronic health problems because they are particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases.

• While small risks accompany every immunization, people are far more likely to be seriously harmed by vaccine-preventable diseases than by the recommended immunizations that prevent them.

• Medical advances have resulted in the availability of additional safe and effective vaccines. Now, people can be protected against a greater number of serious preventable diseases.

• Immunization benefits not just the individual, but also the community. Communicable
infectious diseases spread among people who have not been immunized, and among the
small percentage of people for whom the immunization may not have been fully effective.

• Immunizations work by strengthening the body’s own immune system.

• While breastfeeding and vitamins have health benefits, they do not replace the benefits of
vaccines in preventing infectious diseases.

• Without immunizations, the diseases we are now protected from could easily return to
infect, disable, and even kill, many infants, children and adults.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But parents are far too smart ...
Posted by: strahlungsamt on Feb 4, 2008 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But parents are far too smart to base such an important decision as immunization on the "content of the episode" of a single drama on broadcast television.

OK. Once I read this sentence, I knew not to even bother with the rest of the article. Are you for real? Do you know how many Americans base their entire knowledge of life on such propaganda as "ER" and "Law and Order"?

Seriously, do you really think that surgeons talk about their emotional lives during an operation? They don't. They talk about bone marrow tissue and medical terminology you don't even know. Doctors in big hospitals separate themselves emotionally from accident victims. They have to. They wouldn't function otherwise. And they live in nice neighbourhoods, not in dingy apartments under the railway tracks and they don't visit each other after work, worrying if the patients will survive.

Do you think that the police are a bunch of hyper-concerned individuals like on Law and Order? They are not. They are a bunch of narrow-minded Bush-voters with a tunnel vision who care more about their vacation than actually solving crimes. Don't believe me, wait until you get mugged or robbed and see how fast they come and investigate.

Face it, the majority of Americans get ALL their worldly knowledge off TV. Fox News, Hannah Montana, Ricki Lake, Doctor Phil etc. To say that parents are too smart for that is to misunderstand America in a big way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vaccines, Autism,Smart Parents and TV
Posted by: kilgor on Feb 4, 2008 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of the article is clearly behind the times on the most recent evidence surrounding the autism-vaccination issue. He cites obscure, probably not peer reviewed journals that are not easy to access to make his case. Just looking at the DeSoto abstract one has to wonder what type of re-analysis led to the original p values going from p=.15 and p=.79 to attaining statistical significance. Indeed the Ip et al 2004 article that Kirby claims was misleading in the mercury autism connection and is supposedly a key article in the autism mercury literature is itself of questionable scientific merit. A recent publication in the peer reviewed journal (Archives of General Psychiatry. 2008;65(1):19-24) entitled "Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California’s Developmental Services System-Mercury in Retrograde"
by Robert Schechter, MD, MSc; Judith K. Grether, PhD conclude that..."The DDS data do not show any recent decrease in autism in California despite the exclusion of more
than trace levels of thimerosal from nearly all childhood vaccines. The DDS data do not support the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal during childhood is a primary cause of autism."
In the accompanying editorial it is stated that
"...Parents of autistic children should be reassured that autism in their child did not occur through immunizations. Their autistic
children, and their siblings, should be normally vaccinated, and as there is no evidence of mercury poisoning in autism..."
As for Kirby's assertion that smart parents will not believe anything shot on a Hollywood sound stage I would recommend he read Jerry Mander's book "Seven Reasons Why TV Should be Banned". Just look at the TV viewing statistics. Families watch an average of 30-35 hours of TV a week. Given these TV viewing numbers, smart and watching TV becomes an oxymoron.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement