The dramatic events of the past two months in the vaccine-autism war were predicted a decade ago by researcher Teresa Binstock in her article IGNAZ SEMMELWEISS and AUTISM: when prevailing paradigms resist change in which she reported the funding bias in favor of genetic based theories of autism causation. She also indicated that studies of potential environmental causes of autism, including vaccines and vaccine ingredients, were unlikely to receive funding. Studies which reinforced the prevailing "it's gotta be genetic" model of autism were favored. Binstock described the health establishment's disregard for parents' observations of their children's reactions to vaccine, the demeaning marginalization of parents and professionals who question the official autism paradigm and the disregard for contrary evidence. Ms Binstock noted that:
"when a medical model becomes institutionalized and its primary spokespersons become set in their well funded ways, such institutions and individuals strongly resist change"
No medical model is anymore entrenched then the vaccine model of public safety. And few spokespersons are better funded than vaccine patent holder Dr. Paul Offit who has been on a never ending tour promoting his book about what he calls autism's false prophets. There are a number of indisputable good reasons for the entrenchment of the vaccine model: the reduction and near elimination of serious diseases, some of which can kill, are very powerful reasons in support of public vaccination programs. But few systems or models are perfect. Most require adjustment when problems are found.
If vaccines do cause harm in some cases then those harmful, and potentially harmful, effects should be studied and adjustments made. Unfortunately the vaccine programs have been elevated to a sacred level by public health authorities to such an extent that people who ask questions or voice concerns are dismissed as hysterical, as cranks, quacks, charlatans and any number of other pejoratives.
Dr. Wakefield has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by the GMC for several years. Journalist Brian Deer who has had some serious involvement with the laying of charges against Dr. Wakefield has recently published an article in the Sunday Times in which he "convicted" Dr. Wakefield of data tampering. Other imperious journalists like Andre Picard at the Globe and Mail have decreed that the debate over vaccine safety must end now. Imagine, a journalist dictating that free public discussion of public safety issues must end now?
Of course THE primary spokesperson for the entrenched medical model, the entrenched "s peak no evil of vaccines model" is Dr. Paul Offit. Dr. Offit is the vaccine patent holder whose genial face, cozy sweaters and "regular guy" flannel shirts appear every other day in a major media interview describing his own heroics on behalf of the children of the world and demonizing the evil parents who have voiced their concerns about vaccines thereby contributing to the growth of disease and death.
In 1999 Teresa Binstock offered the following hunch which has proved prophetic:
My own hunch is that the NIH and NIMH will not change from within; the senior practitioners of the "it's gotta be genetic" model have too much influence. Just as Semmelweiss and his data were suppressed, so too will the NIH/NIMH autism-research insiders continue to act against the the growing body of new data in autism; the NIH's pro-genetic old-timers will cling to their paradigm and its funding. As a result, change within the NIH and NIMH will have to be initiated from outside those tax-supported corporations.
As Teresa Binstock predicted in 1999 any research of non-genetic causes of autism, including and especially, potential vaccine causes, will have to come from outside the public health establishment. Of course the ability to conduct such research will be further hampered by well orchestrated media campaigns led by Dr. Paul Offit with journalists from institutions like the Sunday Times, the New York Times and the Globe and Mail scurrying about helping to suppress public discussion of concerns which raise any doubts about the deeply entrenched vaccine health model.
Personally it is the suppression of research and public discussion which causes me the greatest concern about the safety of vaccine programs. Ultimately, as the Semmelweis case reviewed by Teresa Binstock shows, the truth will out. In the meantime though some vulnerable children might be harmed by vaccines and vaccine ingredients. harm that might have been avoided with some adjustments. The vaccine program itself will most definitely be harmed by the campaign to suppress research and discussion of vaccine safety concerns.