The vaccine-oriented autism orgs are claiming that the IACC acted improperly when they removed the vaccine initiatives from the Strategic Plan. They claim that this wasn’t on the agenda. Uh, yeah.
Let’s take a second look at this, eh? Because, from what I can see, not only is there a lot of spin being added to this story, the spin is filled with hypocrisy.
These vaccine initiatives were added at the December IACC meeting. Here’s the agenda for that meeting. I don’t see where it says, “Add new initiatives”. And, yet, here they are in the draft of the Plan. Note that the vaccine initiatives are in all red–they were added at that meeting.
That’s not “according to procedure”, if we take the SafeMinds/TACA/GR/NAA spin where it has to be clearly in the agenda.
It isn’t even “according to procedure” in the real sense. Science based initiatives are supposed to be generated by subcommittees who vet them based on need and whether they have a reasonable scientific basis.
Or, to put it another way–vaccines were added to the Plan at the last minute as part of an end-run around the system by Lyn Redwood. And, now, she and the vaccine-orgs are complaining that the removal of these initiatives is part of a “improper action” or some such nonsense because it wasn’t in the agenda.
Not merely a weak argument, but hypocritical as well.
Let’s take a look at some similar actions. The January IACC meeting included an attempt by Lyn Redwood to basically rewrite the introduction to the Plan. (By the way, one of the IACC members called Lyn Redwood out (politely) on her constant attempts to rewrite the Plan, noting how this has delayed the entire process considerably. Thank you, whoever you are.)
Let’s take a look at the agenda for the January meeting. Do you see any mention of rewriting the introduction in there? I don’t. So, what do we have here? We have Lyn Redwood attempting to circumvent the procedure and introduce new initiatives outside of the process. Then, when they are removed, she cries foul, claiming that others are working outside of the process?!?
Clearly, this is a political move. Adding vaccines to the Plan was a political move, not a scientific move. The complaints lodged against the removal of the vaccine initiatives are political, not reality based.
And, while all this plays out, good research is stalled.
That’s a complete shame.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Dr. Bernadine Healy, former American Rd Cross and NIH head, and somewhat more qualified to address these issues than you or me, has twice within the last 10 months spoken of the need for vaccine-autism research beyond the existing epidemiological studies with their limitations.
See: Fighting the Vaccine-Autism War,
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/brain-and-behavior/2008/04/10/fighting-the-autism-vaccine-war.html
and
Leading Dr.: Vaccines-Autism Worth Study.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml
I am not part of the vaccine-autism camp,nor am I part of the shut my eyes, stick my head in the sand and pretend that thimerosal and other vaccine elements have been proven not to cause autism or otherwise cause harm. As Dr. Healy points out the necessary studies have not been done.
There is a scientific need for research. Insults from Dr.Offit, or you, aimed at anyone who does not agree with you will persuade no one, and will increase public suspicion about the safety of vaccines.
I don’t believe vaccines cause autism, but you should see what the
crankgreat authority that is Bernardine Healy has to say.Mr. Doherty,
Could you point to the parts of the above post which you consider insulting?
Since you want to rely on Dr. Healy’s credentials, I can point out the flaws in your argument without it being insulting. Dr. Healy may have been the head of the American Red Cross, but she did such a poor job that she was asked to leave. The word from people within NIH is that she was far from effective there. Lastly, you left off the part of her credentials where she worked for TASSC, the self-styled “Advancement of Sound Science Coalition”. Paid by tobacco companies to promote the message that second hand tobacco smoke is not a health hazard.
Sorry, but if you want to use her credentials to boost the value of her message, you leave yourself open to the less inspiring things on her resume.
That said, her message on autism was rather thin. Just assertions, no real discussion of the science of how she came to her conclusions. She did manage to completely misrepresent the way the IOM worked to create the 2004 autism and vaccines report. Given that, I don’t give her much credence.
Should you wish to make the arguments yourself for why such a study is valuable, that would be a much better place to start.
If Harold wants to rely on Dr Healy and her credentials, it would be a great help to him to indicate why they are valid and relevant.
He has yet to do this, as do any of her other supporters.
Bear in mind, her comments were based upon a meeting by equally credentialed and experienced people who basically said the cost of further study outweighed the benefit.
Why should we trust her over them – especially when they’re supported by numerous studies by many international and multinational teams?
It makes no sense at all to use credentials to claim someones point as valid – yet dismiss the greater and more relevant credentials of the many people who do not agree with her.
Such an action is both illogical, unprofessional and frankly is more than a bit dishonest. It smacks more of desperation at the inability to dredge up anyone more relevant as a champion, than it does of actual agreement with her concerns.
She may be highly qualified in her own field, but until someone comes up with an arguement for why we should treat Dr Healy as a expert authourity on anything other than cardiology or the use of women in research, let’s pay attention to what the expert authourities with proven credentials and a relevant track-record have to say. She is not one of them, nor has anyone shown why she should be seen as such.