The Incredible Hulk Vaccine Side Effect: Or, Understanding VAERS

By Karen Ernst

Inevitably, in the course of speaking with someone who wants to support her decision not to vaccinate her child, you will be asked to read the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) database. Reading VAERS is not inherently wrong or bad. However, before reading VAERS, you should understand what it is and what you will find there.


VAERS is the place where doctors, patients, and really anyone else can report what they suspect to be side effect of a vaccination. The CDC and the FDA co-sponsor this data base, and they use it to monitor possible vaccine side effects. When certain patterns or clusters of similar reports appear, public health officials investigate these events and make appropriate recommendations. For example, in 1999, VAERS caught a higher than expected incidence of intussusception—a bowel disorder—following adminstration of RotaShield, a rotovirus vaccine.  Epidemiological studies confirmed the heightened risk of this side effect, and the vaccine was pulled from the market.


In this sense, VAERS is invaluable. It gives public health officials the information they need in order to keep our immunization program as safe as possible. As a parent, I take comfort in the fact that VAERS exists and that people who know how to analyze the data are on top of it.


However, VAERS is a passive reporting system. This means that anyone can report anything to it. There is no go-between. It’s almost like an online forum or message board; anyone can post and no one vets the claims. As such, a report in VAERS does not prove that any adverse event was actually caused by vaccines.  In fact, it doesn't even prove that any reported adverse event actually existed. One of the more well-known examples of how any report makes it into VAERS was Dr. James Laidler’s report that the influenza vaccine turned him into the Incredible Hulk. He inspired Kevin Leitch from Left Brain Right Brain to report a similar Wonder Woman adverse event. 

Of course, those examples are a bit tongue-in-cheek. There are other events people submit, however, which can be taken no more seriously.  For example, here is one reported event, taken word for word from the VAERS data base:



“Information has been received from a nurse practitioner concerning a patient’s nephew, a 17-year-old male consumer who she "thought" was vaccinated with a dose of GARDASIL (lot number not provided) in November 2010. The nurse practitioner stated that two weeks after the patient received the dose of GARDASIL, approximately November 2010 (also reported as "two weeks ago" on approximately 01-APR-2011), the patient died of sudden cardiac death on the lacrosse field. Unspecified medical treatment was given. It was unspecified if any lab diagnostic test were performed. The cause of death was sudden cardiac death. Sudden cardiac death was considered to be immediately life-threatening and disabling by the reporting nurse practitioner. Additional information has been requested.”



In this third-hand report (a nurse practitioner reporting about the nephew of a patient), VAERS cannot even confirm whether or not the deceased ever received the vaccine in question. In another very sad report, suicide (following a history of suicidal ideation) is blamed on a vaccine: “Known chronic depression, she elected to stop her medications when she turned 18. Committed suicide 04/28/11. Hung herself.”



Other similar reports are made here at the well-known anti-vaccine site National Vaccine Information Center. Included in this one page of the VAERS data base are people who read something on the internet and made a VAERS report.  Sometimes the same person made multiple, similar, vague reports. That bereaved parents and concerned others make reports to VAERS is not troublesome, even when these reports may be dubious or even fraudulent.  Epidemiologists and public health experts know how to wade through the overwhelming amount of information in order to determine the safety of our vaccines.
But the anti-vaccine movement relies heavily on the VAERS data base to frighten parents away from vaccines, and this is extremely troublesome. 

VAERS does not prove causation, or even correlation, when it comes to side effects and vaccines. Parents would be far better off trusting their doctors who have examined the studies done to ensure the safety of the vaccines we use to protect our children. As parents, it’s easy to be scared off vaccines by reports of “vaccine injury.” However, when making a decision as crucial as this one, we must know where our information comes from and the truth behind the way it is presented.

Story by Story...

I had the privilege of meeting Brendalee Flint at the Minnesota Department of Health's annual immunization conference. I watched as she told the story of her daughter's experience with contracting meningitis from an unvaccinated child (even though Julienna had been vaccinated herself) twice. The story is one of the most difficult I've ever heard. This child almost died, and her mother's heart with her. With Julieanna, the vaccine didn't take because of an immune problem, so she was unwittingly relying on the community's herd immunity, on other parents vaccinating their children against this evil, ugly, fast-moving disease. Except other parents didn't vaccinate their children, and fifteen-month-old Julieanna nearly died.

This is scary, but it's not a scare-tactic. If the anti-vax movement is anything, it is nothing but scare tactics. If you are making your own vaccine decisions about your children, please take the time to read Brendalee's incredible story and about her daughter's remarkable recovery. I had the honor of looking at lovely Julieanna for an hour during today's parents' panel. In terms of gathering information, if we are capable of hearing the "vaccines are toxic" or "they turned my child autistic" stories, we are capable of looking at the other side and reading the stories of what can happen when we choose not vaccinate. To turn away from these stories is to be dishonest in our decision making. We all want what's best for our kids, and that means making an informed decision about vaccinating. Julieanna will help you make an informed decision. Promise.

Brendalee Flint's Story

The Google Conundrum

As a new parent, I did the same thing every single parent in my state, probably in the country, did before bringing in my kid for his vaccinations: I googled "vaccines." Big mistake. There were no obvious signs that I had fallen down the rabbit hole. In fact, I was directed to some very official looking websites, one of which was The National Vaccine Information Center.


National Vaccine Information Center. That sounds official. And I need information on vaccines. Great. It took me a while to realize that the site I was visiting belonged to an anti-vaccine organization. (As Dr. Ari Brown pointed out during this weekend's Got Your Shots immunization conference here in Minnesota, you always want to get your vaccine information from a website that has a scrolling ad for lawyers on the margin of the page, right!) Then there's the Vaccine Safety Council. Again, sounds official. And I want safe vaccines. Let's head on over there and see what gives. And so began some of the most stressful months of my life, becoming scared of harming my son with vaccines, coming to realize, through research, that I had been sold a bill of goods by the anti-vaccine community, and was in danger of putting my son's life at risk if I didn't vaccinate. Somehow I climbed out of that rabbit hole and got back on steady ground.  I know other parents face the same terror I felt after doing that first Google search, so I want to provide some basic information here in the hopes that it can be a kind of Cliff's Notes for you or new parents you know who are doing the vaccine thing. As new and expecting parents, the last thing we want and, frankly, have time for is examining verbiage, nuance of language, and point of view on websites we come across during a 2am Google search between nursing and changing a diaper. What I learned was that I could not take anything for granted--I could not assume that seemingly straightforward, unbiased names like "National Vaccine Safety Council" or "Vaccine Information Center" were providing factual information. Notice that none of these sites call themselves "The Anti-Vaccine Clearinghouse" or "Moms Who Don't Vax." They refer to themselves as people desiring "safe vaccines" (hint: we already have them) or "more research" (hint: the research is in, and it's conclusive).


I want to provide some shorthand for you sleepy parents out there who want to know about some of the sites you find during a Google search. Please note: I only list the first five notable anti-vaccine sites that appear in a Google search for "vaccines" here. I'm happy that the CDC's site, the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP)'s site on vaccines, and other credible sources are appearing higher and higher in this particular Google search. But in the meantime, if you are a new parent, please know this about the following websites you will encounter on your Google adventure.


1.) National Vaccine Information Center: Anti-vax organziation run by an anti-vaccine activist named Barbara Loe Fisher. Unfortunately, this is currently the third or fourth link that shows up under a Google search for "vaccines." To get a sense of what these folks are about, check out this story from Discover Magazine online.


2.) SafeMinds: Anti-vax organization run by another anti-vaccine activist named Sallie Bernard, former marketing executive. Left Brain Right Brain, a science blog, says this about the organization:

"SafeMinds has shown themselves to be very resistant to the very research they called for. Studies which show a lack of association between thimerosal containing vaccines (TCV’s) and autism are always rejected by SafeMinds. They are not alone in this, groups such as Generation Rescue and the National Autism Association(NAA) have also refused to accept the science.

Incidentally, one of the hallmarks of the anti-vax movement is an astonishing level of defensiveness. This is a trait you will rarely see (I've never seen it) in the pro-vax movement. Perhaps this is because we have nothing to be defensive about. You will also not see vindictive attacks on anti-vax activists from public health authorities and pro-vax parents, like this one Safeminds perpetrated on one of their pro-vax critics, a parent. Acts like this should go into your consideration of whether a source is trustworthy enough to earn your confidence.




3.) Association of American Physicians and Surgeons: a very official and "medical-sounding" organization that is anti-vaccine. For a detailed explanation of this organization's approach, please go to Science-Based Medicine's post on it. Shorthand: they had disgraced former doctor Andrew Wakefield speak at their conference.


4.) Natural News.com: Sadly, some parents look to this website as a source for medical information. It is notably anti-vaccine and has no problem providing "medical information" suggesting vaccines cause harm that is, frankly, nothing but lies. Even if you've never taken a science class in your life, you will quickly see through the stories posted on this very odd website. To give you an idea of how poor of a grasp the folks who run this website have on basic science, one of their recent headlines was: "CDC admits flu vaccines don't work (which is why you need a new one every year)" I nearly spit out my coffee when I read that one. It's astounding that these people don't understand that new flu viruses arrive every single year and that the vaccines are manufactured to guard against the new strains. They also claim "multiple studies" show mercury causes autism, something even most anti-vaxxers are now moving on from.


5.) Vaccines.net: this site has become very stripped down, but it still directs you to "vaccine adverse events," which is a somewhat unmonitored reporting system that collected all reports of perceived vaccine-related illness or injury. I hope to have a post from someone far more knowledgable than me on the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) set up by the U.S. government, and how it works, but long story short, someone can report (and apparently has) that their son got a vaccine and then turned into the Incredible Hulk, and that will be part of the VAERS reports; no causation is needed, just a report, even something overheard. I've read reports of a teenager receiving a vaccine, then thirty days later committing suicide, and it being part of VAERS because the reporting party wondered if the vaccine caused her suicide. Anyway, vaccines.net, despite the official-sounding name, is an anti-vaccine website.


6.) Vaccine Exchange: I honestly wouldn't have known about this site if the person running their Twitter account hadn't Tweeted us with some nonsense accusing us of not liking National Vaccine Information Center because we are cockroaches who scatter when light is shined on "the truth." (Because insults like this coming from  a site purporting to provide unbiased information about vaccines always inspires confidence in the site's usefulness.) Vaccine Exchange is just another site promoting an anti-vaccine agenda and using scary stories and misleading language to dupe new parents into buying into their stories. There's a lot of talk about "informed consent"--which has become shorthand for "antivax," because patients who choose to vaccinate their children are both informed (to the nth degree, actually) and have given their consent. You'll see stuff there about "Scientists Under Attack" and the fact that parents from West Virginia "have no right to decide what is injected into their children." If their overblown, meretricious prose doesn't tip you off, their poor web design might.


These are just a handful of the sites you might come across in a search on vaccines. Please take a look at the links on the right of this page for credible, science-based information on vaccines, as well as a few blogs from really smart people who do this infectious disease/immunology thing for a living. For a readable, accessible, but penetratingly intelligent--and accurate--account of the groups named above, please read "Yet Another Bad Day for the Anti-vax Movement in 2011" on the science blog Respectful Insolence.


I also want to point out one sad fact that I've had to come to grips with, and that is that the mothering.com board, for all its attachment parenting, breastfeeding, and "natural mama" support, is mostly an anti-vax board. You'll see a lot of links to books by anti-vaccine activists, and lots of justification for their reasons for not vaccinating. And once in a while you will see a valiant soul trying to coax them into using science. But I would warn any new parent away from this particular resource, as the rampant misinformation and scare tactics you see in the comments are not worth the trade-off for breastfeeding tips and lists of paraben-free baby products. 

Telling a Better Story, Telling the True Story

I have heard the success of the anti-vax movement described as a victory based on the fact that they tell a better story.

I take that to heart.

The truth is that the most persuasive, effective means of communication among parents is not the research paper, it’s not the newspaper, it’s not even the pediatrician: it is the anecdote. It is the story shared between parents. It's how we learn how to soothe a fussy baby. It's how we figure out which baby bottles work best. It's how we know what kind of diapers to use, what day cares or preschools to try. It's often how we choose our pediatricians. Anti-vax activists, having no science to lean on, have wisely chosen to utilize the anecdote to keep parents from vaccinating. Let me give you an example. 

They tell parents this: My son was a bubbly, happy one-year-old. Then he had his MMR vaccine and the next morning he was autistic. 

It’s an excellent story. It's a horrifying story. It suggests a kind of dark, chaotic danger at the end of a needle. And it has worked. It doesn’t matter that it’s not backed up by science or fact. Most scientific debates have a healthy amount of replicable research on both sides. Not this one. And still, this anecdote has resonated across the country.

The medical community and public health authorities have been slow to respond, not because they're slow, but because they have been unable to understand why firm science and the reassurances of replicable science, clinical trials, and wide-ranging research has not quelled this fear. The anecdote is anathema to the medical community, which is why it hasn’t occurred to them, until recently, to use it as a tool in this fight.

 It’s time for pro-vax parents to begin telling their anecdotes. We have an advantage because we have anecdotes—and we have science to back it up. It’s a powerful combination, and it's time to put it to use.

Many people have asked me why, as a parent who vaccinates, I care about immunizations as much as I do. The answer is easy. I live with the guilt of having put my son at risk, for three months, of contracting a potentially debilitating, deadly disease because of a very sophisticated, well-told lie I discovered during my "research" on the internet as a new mom. My son was set to get his MMR vaccine at twelve months. I delayed it until he was fifteen months. And if I had not had my own come-to-Jesus moment during those three months, realizing that my son could die because of an unfounded fear I had of vaccines, I can’t tell you when I would have vaccinated him. In those three months, he could have been one of the children infected with measles. He could have been hospitalized. He could have died. And it would have been my fault for basing a decision on a story that I’d been told, one that had no basis in fact. It would be impossible to continue living.

When I realized this—luckily not too late-- I got angry, the same way I’ve been angry at lies that affect my life in the past. For several years, I was a journalist who focused on corporate misdeeds; I took issue with pharmaceutical companies, how many of them paid for research to show their products were harmless. But none of the machinations I investigated as a journalist can compare to the outright fabrications I’ve come across in this anti-vax movement, which targets vulnerable new parents who want nothing more than to keep their children from harm.

When the public health authorities and pediatricians challenge the claims, they are, unfortunately, unconvincing. And it's not their fault. The anti-vax movement has sowed suspicion among parents of a doctor’s true motives. For doctors who have seen vaccine-preventable diseases ravaging a child's body, or even killing a child, vaccines are a no-brainer. I think very few of them have ever googled “vaccines” and “vaccine safety” to see what, exactly, it is that parents find when they do this search—as ALL of them do. If they did this, they would know what they are dealing with and they could address it head on.

It's time for parents to begin working with medical providers and the public health authorities to reframe this discussion and to harness the power of storytelling. New parents are also in desperate need of context and perspective. They need to know that a breastfed baby gets seven times more aluminum in the first six months of breastfeeding than she'll receive in the whole course of childhood vaccines. They need to know that vaccines have side effects and potential complications--that are as similar in the former and rare in the latter as any number of commonly prescribed medications.

An example: My one year old daughter was wheezing after having a cold for a few days. I took her into Urgent Care. The doctors became concerned that she had pneumonia. Turns out, she had bacterial pneumonia and she was hospitalized. I grew terribly afraid. Here was this impossibly tiny child on my lap, with an oxygen mask on, dealing with a serious infection. “We’ll need to give her a shot of antibiotics,” the doctor said. “It burns a little; it’s not comfortable.”

Did I think twice?

No.

Side effects include much the same side effects as a vaccine. Did I think twice?

No.

Now, if I had looked up antibiotics on Google before deciding to let my daughter have this shot, as I did before scheduling my son's vaccines, I would have discovered an FDA report that read: “Increased risk of death with Tygacil antiobiotic compared to other antibiotics used to treat similar infections.” Would I have hesitated to let her have the shot? Probably.

But I didn’t have that luxury. Her increasing illness and the possibility that it, itself, could lead to death, trumped all of that. The thought that I would deny my child a medicine that could ease her suffering, possibly keep her from getting worse, never crossed my mind. To do otherwise would have been criminal. I wonder if I would have even been allowed to leave the clinic without it.

And yet a vaccine is just as important as this shot my daughter had. The difference is that your child is not yet sick; you are protecting the child from becoming sick. And so the impetus is not there. I often ask vax-hesistant parents if they were in my situaton, with a child suffering, if they would have refused the antibiotic shot because there were risks involved. No one has said yes.  

Let's start telling our own stories. Let's tell parents why we vaccinate. Let's step into this dialogue, let's take it over. Let's start telling the better story. The true one.

If you don't vax for measles, be prepared to help your child through this...

Jim Gehrz via Startribune.com

Editor's Note: Author of the now-defunct Vaccine Times, Leart Shaka, has graciously allowed Moms Who Vax to re-post several of his articles. His work on vaccine education was immensely helpful. The story below is his, sourced from Maura Lerner's excellent Minneapolis Star Tribune article.

Little Mahi is very unlucky: he nearly died of measles. He contracted measles while traveling overseas. He was not vaccinated due to his young age. He was 9 months when his family left for Kenya. Although Mahi’s parents intended to get him vaccinated on time according to the recommended schedule, they didn’t know that although the first shot of the MMR vaccine isn’t given until 12 months, for overseas travelers different rules apply. Mahi should have been given a vaccine prior to his trip to Kenya. His chances of getting the disease would have been slashed by over 90% if that had happened.

Little Mahi is very lucky: he nearly died of measles, but he didn’t; he beat the disease. After contracting measles he had a 1/20 chance of getting pneumonia, which he unfortunately did. On August 10, his mother brought him to the emergency room with very high fever. Within days, baby Mahi was on life support, hanging by a thread.

“I didn’t think I’d be able to hold him again,” his mother said Friday, as she cuddled him in her lap.

[...]

On his fifth day in the hospital, Mahi took a dangerous turn. He was transferred to intensive care, hooked up to a breathing machine and given antibiotics to battle the pneumonia. For days, he was sedated and barely moved.

“It was really hard,” said his mother. “It was like watching a dead body.”

The medical experts were equally worried. Mahi, said Stinchfield, was “teetering near death.”

After nearly two weeks in intensive care, Mahi started to wake up, as doctors eased up on the sedation.

On Tuesday, they took off his breathing tube. “He opened his eyes and looked at me,” said his mother, and he squeezed her hand. “Look at this!” she thought. “I couldn’t believe he could be that strong.” When he started crying when she stepped away, she was thrilled. “Wow, my son knows me,” she said.

Little Mahi is lucky to have beaten measles, unfortunately 1-2/1,000 children who contract the disease will not be so lucky, despite the best medical care they can be given. Measles is not a trivial disease. It can land you in the hospital like it did baby Mahi, it can leave a child deaf, and it can kill. Do not be swayed by the conspiracy theorists. Do not delay.

Inject to protect.


Editor's Comment: Mahi was not vaccinated because he had not yet reached the 12-15 months of age recommended for the MMR shot (though he should have been vaccinated before traveling overseas). But what happened to him can happen to any unvaccinated child. Delaying a vaccine out of fear or because of recommendations from a vaccine-hesitant parent-friend puts your child at grave risk for those months that she is left unprotected, especially now that measles has come roaring back to life all over the country because people are not vaccinating their children. My kids have received two MMR vaccines. My eighteen-month-old had to receive her MMR booster (typically scheduled for four-years-old) just six months after her first one because of the Minnesota measles outbreak this winter. It's not the time interval that bothers me--it doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is that anti-vax parents forced me in to the doctor's office for a shot two-and-a-half years early. 

Vaccines Cleared Again as "Culprit": or, Whose Mind Do You Trust?

For any parents out there seeking fresh reassurance that immunizations do not cause autism, perhaps this week's announcement of research results from the Institute of Medicine will provide some.

Using seventeen years of data, the institute found absolutely no link between immunizations and autism; more, it found that immunizations are overwhelmingly safe, and that bad reactions are exceptionally rare, especially considering how many vaccines are given across the globe.

But, tragically, those with a great deal at stake (mostly money) in perpetuating the falsehood that vaccines not only cause autism, but are responsible for a host of health problems, continue to deny the science and find ways to scare parents into skipping vaccines. As parents ourselves, we understand all too well how that visceral fear of harm coming to our children can be stimulated--and taken advantage of.

The National Academy of Sciences has nothing to gain by lying about the research. It is an independent body of researchers and scientists. The question of undue influence aside, the anti-vaxxers then ask if the science has been interpreted correctly. We would ask you to judge for yourself the qualifications of those minds from the Institute of Medicine (and all the minds responsible for producing the more than 1,000 vaccine studies the Institute analyzed) versus the qualifications of non-scientists, public relations professionals, and autism activists from anti-vax organizations like National Vaccine Information Center.

In order to continue believing the vaccine-autism non-link, you would have to believe in a decades-long conspiracy among the United States government, the greatest scientific minds in the country, university researchers, epidemiologists, including those from the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization, pediatricians across the country, and drug-makers. That only a single man, over the course of this entire debate, has come forward to make "scientific" claims that immunizations and autism are related, is telling. One would actually think that more folks would take advantage of an opportunity to become famous--to be the one guy or gal who could definitely prove a link between vaccines and autism. More telling, though, is that that single man who did claim to find a link--Andrew Wakefield--faked his results, manipulated his subjects, kept that manipulated sample size to under fifteen, and was stripped of his license to practice medicine as a result of his fraud. The Lancet, which published this study, retracted it entirely. In contrast, the New York Times describes the Institute of Medicine this way:

The Institute of Medicine is the nation’s most esteemed and authoritative adviser on issues of health and medicine, and its reports can transform medical thinking around the world. 

We then turn to concerns  that have some real science behind them. For example, this study found that while exceptionally rare, immunizations can cause negative effects in some immuno-compromised individuals (much like any medicine might). It is in this area of the study that you will likely see many anti-vaxxers flock to in order to proclaim that the study "proves" vaccines are harmful. What you won't get from them is context.

Let's take the finding that one of the risks of receiving the chickenpox vaccine is that, years after the vaccination, some people (immuno-compromised individuals, such as those undergoing chemotherapy) can develop pneumonia, meningitis, or hepatitis if the virus used in the vaccine in a weakened form "reawakens" because of that cancer. This, you'll hear anti-vaxxers say--and many already have--proves that the safety of vaccines is still in question.

Not quite. Here's your context. The exact same risks of developing meningitis, pneumonia, and hepatitis are present in individuals who got chickenpox naturally. No, that's not quite right--the risks for developing these health problems are far *greater* in those who had chickenpox naturally. Read: the risk is greater in those who were not vaccinated and who contracted chickenpox the old-fashioned way. Or the new-fashioned way, I suppose: at "chickenpox parties," where unvaccinated children are exposed to an infected child so they can gain "natural immunity" in the form of the chickenpox virus.

We do find it heartening that as more and more of these conclusions from wide-ranging, objective scientific research firmly establish that there is no link between immunizations and autism, the retorts from anti-vaxxers begin to sound as error-ridden as they, in truth, are. In fact, I have noticed a note of desperation creeping into some of the quotes I've been reading in the press. Take the quote in the New York Times article from Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds, which contends there is a link between vaccines and autism. She says,  "I think this report says that the science is inadequate, and yet we are giving more and more vaccines to our kids, and we really don't know what their safety profile is."

It is interesting that a survey of more than 1,000 peer-reviewed research articles on vaccine safety, which finds no link to autism and very few adverse effects in the population to any vaccine, is considered "inadequate" to Ms. Bernard.

If you're still not sure whose scientific judgment to trust, you can compare credentials. Ellen Wright Clayton, the chair of the IOM's panel, is the Craig-Weaver Professor of Pediatrics at Vanderbilt, the Director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society. She is considered one of the country's leading experts in Inborn Genetic Diseases, and as been a member of the IOM since 2006.

Sallie Bernard is the founder and former president of a full-service market research and marketing consulting firm and is the parent of an autistic chid.

Here is the New York Times article on the new findings by the Institute of Medicine. Vaccine Cleared Again as Autism Culprit.

Letter to the Editor

UPDATE TWO: Unfortunately, the response from MN Parent was pretty disappointing. There was no real correction. Instead, there was a clarification that no study has been shown to link vaccines and autism. Instead of acknowledging the other errors in the piece, the editors felt they needed to validate the mother's search for "truth"--apparently even if in that search she misinforms thousands of parents--and use this as a reason they do not challenge her facts. Also, the editors disputed the information I gave them about the state with the highest rate of autism. I guess the CDC isn't reliable enough. It's enough to make me think that this publication has an anti-vaxxer pretty high on the masthead. It's really too bad...it's an otherwise nice magazine.


UPDATE: I received a gracious reply from the executive editor of MN Parent. There might be a correction run in the next issue. I will keep you updated.


Editor's Note: In the August 2011 issue of Minnesota Parent, a local free publication distributed in Minnesota, a mother was profiled in the magazine's "Real Parents" feature. The parent, Jennifer Vanderhorst-Larson, is the parent of a ten-year-old autistic child. She seems like a nice lady. However, in her profile, and uncorrected by the editors of the publication, she makes some statements about vaccines and autism that are egregious and false, including the jaw-dropping assertion that "1 in 28 Somali children" are autistic (They make up 1 in 28 in a population of diagnosed autistic children.) I was literally sick to my stomach after reading her profile and decided I had to speak up. Below find my letter to the editor. I am posting this to encourage other Moms and Dads Who Vax to speak up whenever the media fails to do its job when discussing this issue. When we remain silent, we agree. And members of the media cannot be allowed to fall down on the job on this issue, when lives are at stake. 

Dear Editors,

I was distressed and profoundly disappointed after reading the Real Parents in this month's Minnesota Parent. As a mother and journalist, I have always enjoyed the reportage and first-person accounts in your magazine. But upon reading Jennifer Vanderhorst-Larson's profile, I was struck dumb. You profile a mother of an autistic child who is involved with special education efforts. That's great. However, you allow her to speak as an expert on vaccines, autism, and even the incidence of autism in the Somali community, all the while not doing any fact-checking of her statements, and writing, as the editorial voice introducing her, that her child was diagnosed with autism after his fifteen-month vaccinations, instead of stating how old Cade was when he was diagnosed, which would have avoided creating a link in the reader's mind. As you know, study after study after study has found absolutely no link between vaccines and autism. As you also know, children and infants have fallen ill and died from vaccine-preventable diseases because people are not vaccinating their children because of a fear of this non-existent link.

Just to give you a sense of how badly Vanderhorst-Larson got her facts wrong, she says that there was no study on combo vaccines when her son was vaccinated nine years ago. In fact, in 1997, this study (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/5/925.short) was published in Clinical Infectious Diseases about the safety of the MMR combo vaccine when given with another vaccine. In 2001, there was this study in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal (http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/2001/10000/Safety_and_immunogenicity_of_a_pentavalent.11.aspx) showing the safety of the dTap combo vaccine. Both were published ten or more years ago, before or within those first fifteen months of her son Cade's birth. More studies on combo vaccines have been published since (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=combination+vaccine+safety&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart). and all of them have found the combo vaccines safe. This was a crucial piece of information left out of the profile, and it makes me wonder if it was intentional. In any case, Vanderhorst-Larson's comment that there were no studies on combo vaccines when Cade was vaccinated is incorrect and misleading.

She also says Minnesota has the highest rate of autism. This is incorrect. In the latest, most comprehensive accounting of autism diagnoses in this country, the CDC found New Jersey had the highest incidence of autism, 1 in 94. 

Finally, in what I think is the most egregious mistake in her story, she says 1 in 28 Somali children in the Twin Cities have autism. She may not understand the statistics she is looking at: the Minnesota Department of Health estimated that of diagnosed autistic children in Minnesota, you could expect to find a Somali child in one of every 28 diagnosed children. This is a far cry from 1 in 28 Somali children, which is what she states in her profile. There is, in fact, no firm number on the incidence of autism in the Somali community--and that is why the CDC just funded a study to discover the incidence and to understand why it seems to be higher than other populations. I won't bore you with her misapplication of the word epidemic in connection to autism and the possibility that it is, in part, a genetic disorder.

It's disappointing to see the vaccine-autism myth handled in this way by a trusted local publication that aims to support and educate parents, and usually does. I believe the responsible thing to do in this case would to have been either to keep to Vanderhorst-Larson's area of expertise--education and founding IT companies--and edit out her comments on vaccines and statistics (unless you planned to fact-check those statistics and her claims about vaccines, which didn't happen) or to run an editor's note with her profile pointing out that autism and vaccines have not been found to have any link, despite numerous studies that have looked for that link. This is not a matter of opinion; if it were, I wouldn't be writing to you. This is a matter of science and public health, and it is reckless for a publication like yours to let a parent spread false, misleading, and downright scary information in a forum such as your Real Parents profile, which I bet is a very popular part of your magazine. (Definitely the first page I turn to!)  Errors like Vanderhorst-Larson's, which are very, very commonly heard in the anti-vaccination community, cannot go uncorrected. I beg you to run an editor's note correcting her misstatements of fact, lest a new parent read these comments and choose not to vaccinate her baby because of them. Let that parent, at least, make that decision based on facts, not falsehoods. Thank you.

Ashley Shelby