New book sparks debate over whether vaccines cause autism

NewsGuard 100/100 Score

The bitter debate over whether vaccines cause autism is masking real problems with the modern inoculation schedule and encouraging a growing number of parents to refuse recommended vaccines for their children, argues a Michigan State University scholar.

In his new book "Vaccine: The Debate in Modern America," Mark Largent writes that extremists for and against vaccinations have clouded the issues for parents seeking to make the best possible decisions for their children's health.

On one hand, there is no scientific evidence that vaccinations cause autism, Largent said, adding that vaccines are "one of the most effective tools in the public health arsenal."

On the other hand, Largent said some shots raise serious concerns among many parents, such as the vaccines against chickenpox and hepatitis B, which is typically given within the first days of life. Further, he said pediatricians and health officials have created an all-or-nothing approach to vaccinations that gives the false impression that all inoculations are equally important.

"It's a signal to parents that the vaccine schedule is an all-or-nothing affair - that you either accept that the mandated vaccines are all equally valuable and comply with the entire schedule or reject it in its entirety," said Largent, associate professor in MSU's James Madison College. "As a result, parents who find some vaccines unnecessary are encouraged to question the entire vaccine schedule."

Fueled by celebrity activists, public anxieties over vaccines have emerged during the past 20 years, Largent noted. On one side of the debate is actress Jenny McCarthy, who believes her son's vaccinations triggered a series of seizures that led to his eventual diagnosis on the autism spectrum. On the other side are vaccine proponents such as actress Amanda Peet, who publicly supports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommended vaccination schedule and declared that parents who do not vaccinate their children are "parasites."

Meantime, legislators in many states have loosened requirements on childhood vaccinations for attendance at schools and daycares. Today, more than half of Americans live in states that allow for philosophical exemptions to mandatory vaccinations - often requiring little more than a parent's signature on an exemption form.

Public health officials worry that children who do not get all recommended and mandated vaccines pose a risk to those who get the full complement of shots. Although vaccines are not guaranteed to be effective, officials say the best way to guard against the spread of communicable diseases is to get all recommended and mandated vaccines.

Ultimately, Largent believes parents must accept responsibility to decide the best course of action for their children when it comes to vaccines. In his case, he decided against a doctor's recommendation to give his then 4-year-old daughter Annabelle a seasonal flu shot and supplemental vaccine for swine flu because she had already contracted the flu that year.

"Parents should examine the vaccination schedule, think about their child's situation and consider their options," Largent said. "That way, when they decide in favor of or against a vaccine, they are actually making a conscious choice rather than simply drifting into a decision that has been made by someone else."

Comments

  1. dfwmom dfwmom United States says:

    Whenever we subject a healthy child to medical treatment, such as injecting them with heavy metals such as mercury or portions of infectious agents, we must closely consider the possible risks to the child.   There are real risks to vaccines, when we consider introducing foreign substances to the body, and the effects of deliberately intensively stimulating the immune systems of a developing child.

    I find this statement interesting..."Public health officials worry that children who do not get all recommended and mandated vaccines pose a risk to those who get the full complement of shots. "    Public health officials don't have much faith in their vaccines, do they?   Are they seriously arguing that parents put their own children at risk in order to reduce risks to other children?   How successful do they expect that argument to be?  

    I find it interesting that in both arguments, officials are arguing that unvaccinated children are a risk to others, rather than arguing about the benefits of the vaccines to the children themselves.   It is an interesting argument that we should subject our own children to a risk, in order to reduce risks to other children.

    My own children are vaccinated.   However, reading this article, I start wondering why.  Do public health officials really believe that the greatest concern in vaccinating a child is in the interests of other children?   If so, then what I did was wrong.   My child should not be subjected to "altruistic" medical procedures until she is of age.  Meanwhile, only treatments that improve her own health should be administered to her.   She should have a choice about sacrificing her own health for the benefit of others.

    The public dialog about vaccines seems to be dishonest.   Children can and do have severe adverse reactions to vaccines.  But, public officials and vaccine companies want to ruthlessly quell any debate over true health concerns related to vaccine, which definitely do exist and are an issue.   Therefore, there is a trust issue - parents know we are being railroaded, and not being told all of the true dangers.  

    On the other side of the debate, people who wish to learn more about the risks of vaccines are stymied in getting real evidence due to the manner in which researchers are harassed and discredited if they find answers that public officials don't want anyone to hear about.  It's really scary what happens to a researcher who suggests that vaccines are not 100% safe, like watching an episode of The Bourne Identity.  The obvious, very public attempts at coverup are painful to watch, and raise very serious questions about whether the our government is being honest with people.

    Parasites are very successful creatures.  Many parents are OK with emulating the success of the parasite in order to gain the benefits of vaccines while keeping their own children safe.  I don't think that argument is going to convince many people.

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
Prenatal topiramate exposure not associated with increased autism risk among children