Autism's Junk Science

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 12, 2009
All Rights Reserved.                    

        Dealing a whopping blow to plaintiffs seeking damages for Measles, Mumps and Rubella [MMR] vaccines causing autism, a special federal court ruled that, “vaccines don’t cause autism.”  “There’s little if any evidence to support claims of a vaccine-autism link,” said special masters deciding the case, leaping to conclusions based on the best “scientific” data.  That same data cited by the court has been sponsored, to a large extent, by the vaccine makers, working round the clock to prove that no such link exists.  Proving causal relationships is next to impossible in science, instead relying on varying degrees of correlation or association between variables, in this case MMR vaccines and autism.  Concluding scientific data “is weak, contradictory and unpersuasive,” Special Master Denise Vowell, jumped far beyond the “scientific” facts cited to discredit plaintiffs’ cases.

            Preparing plantiffs’ cases in product liability or medical malpractice is no easy matter.  Typcially, plaintiffs present anecdotal case studies, citing firsthand experience with their own children to make cases.  Judges are more persuaded by carefully prepared research supported by impressive statistics, leaving plaintiffs at a distinct disadvantage, especially with judges unfamiliar with bias built into scientific studies.  “Sadly, the petitioners in this litigation have been the victims of bad science conducted to support litigation rather that to advance the medical and scientific understanding of autism,” said Vowell, in a classic of the “pot calling the kettle black.”  Credible investigative journalism by the Los Angeles and New York Times over the last five years calls into question the objectivity of scientific research, especially when it’s sponsored by drug, vaccine or equipment makers.

            Master Vowell seems smitten with “scientific” research but doesn’t take into account the built-in bias of researchers working for drug, vaccine or equipment makers.  They overwhelming produce research favoring their clients.  No court should admonish plaintiffs or their attorneys about the merits or pitfalls of bad science, when defendants—and the court—parrot back research funded by publicly traded companies.  Litigants on both sides seek to influence the court, whether judges or juries.  No defendant wants to disappoint corporate clients, seeking any possible way—scientific or otherwise—to win cases.  No judge or jury should pass judgment over which side wishes to advance the “medical and scientific” understanding of autism, when judges lack the expertise to know when scientific research is corrupted by powerful commercial interests, especially, drug, vaccine or equipment makers.

            Autism is a complex, neurobehavioral genetic disorder with multivariate causation.  Parents observing deterioration in their child’s behavior following MMR vaccines prompted the Food and Drug Administration to order the removal thimerosal, an ethyl-mercury-based preservative.  Whatever evidence existed in 1999 between mercury-laced vaccines and autism, it prompted the Center for Disease Control and American Academy of Pediatrics to urge vaccine makers to remove thimerosal from childhood vaccines.  Based on an exhaustive review of the literature, the CDC’s Institute of Medicine concluded:  “The Committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosol-contained vaccines and autism.”  No committee has ever ruled out that some relationship exists between thimerosol-containing vaccines and autism spectrum disorders.

            Alarming autism rates over the past 20 years aren’t only related to better diagnosis.  For the CDC and AAP to urge vaccine makers to remove thimerosol indicates some relationship between the ethyl-mercury preservative and the complex group of neurobeavioral disorders known as autism spectrum.  Symptoms range from mild social and communication problems to severe muteness.  Dismissing more than 5,500 claims because plaintiffs attorneys could not prove a causal link between MMR vaccines and autism is preposterous.  “I must decide this case not on sentiment but by analyzing the evidence,” said Special Master George Hastings Jr., rejecting the Yuma, Ariz. Case of Michele Cedillo.  Federal court got it wrong expecting plaintiffs to (a) prove a causal link between MMR and autism and (b) ignore a relationship between MMR and autism spectrum disorders.

            Judges or juries ruling on complex cases like the relationship between MMR and autism, need more education.  Few, if any, scientific studies prove cause-and-effect relationships.  Most scientific research demonstrates a correlational relationship between variables, e.g., MMR vaccines and autism.  Because autism ranges on a spectrum, it’s misleading to expect a relationship between MMR vaccines and only the most extreme variety of the disorder.  “There was certainly no scientific proof that vaccines caused autism, but that ‘s not the standard, the standard is likelihood,” said Cedillo’s attorney Kevin Conway of Boston.  Conway got caught in the defense’s trap, imposing an unrealistic burden of proof.  Before judges dismiss families’ personal experience out of hand, they need to consider tainted scientific research designed to exonerate drug, vaccine and equipment makers.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.