Sunday, August 10, 2008
Vaccine debate isn't out of place on these pages
Dan Radmacher
Recent columns
- Kaine saw much progress in his four years
- Virginia voted for gridlock on Tuesday
- Project Vote Smart tries to educate Virginia voters
- America should listen to this Cassandra
From the RoundTable blog
We wrestle with dilemmas here all the time when making decisions about what to print and what not to print. One repeated discussion is what to do with letters like one we printed last week about the alleged dangers of vaccinations ("Researcher shows vaccine-autism link," Aug. 3).
There are many topics such as this where a very vocal contingent tilts against conventional wisdom and the scientific establishment. Think evolution opponents, global warming skeptics, opponents of fluoridated water.
Generally, even if their arguments are shaky or have been discredited, we let these folks have their say, and trust experts to reply to set the record straight. After the vaccination letter was printed, though, I got a personal e-mail from Steve Huff, a Roanoke Times columnist and doctor who has written about this topic in a couple of columns. He said running such letters did "a grave disservice to children."
Huff noted that rates of preventable infectious diseases, such as measles, mumps and chicken pox, are on the rise as more parents wonder about an alleged link between vaccinations and autism -- a link Huff said is "scientifically unfounded."
He went on to suggest that we should restrict debate about the topic on our pages and "leave this topic to venues that can address it more responsibly, such as medical journals."
Huff wrote, "Because the affected people are children who are unable to control their fates, legitimate science should be the primary determining factor as to whether or not they receive immunizations. David Ayoub [a researcher cited in the letter] is a convincing speaker, but his views are decidedly unscientific. The legitimate science surrounding this issue is overwhelming and prone to misrepresentation for the average reader."
I wrote back and told him that we gave considerable thought to such issues. Time after time, we've decided to err on the side of publishing such controversial views in the hope that more expert voices would weigh in. "In a perfect world, discussions such as this would only take place in appropriate venues by people who know what they're talking about," I wrote. "In this world, however, we think it's best to publish such letters and hope that the truth will prevail in the ensuing discussion."
I'll admit that I am not an expert on vaccinations and the feared risk of links to autism. From my limited reading, however, any link is tenuous, indirect and complex.
For instance, Huff was especially incensed by one sentence in the letter: "Let's also not forget that the federal government recently conceded that vaccines can cause autism."
Well, kind of. Sort of. Not really. In one case before a special court set up by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, immunizations were found to have contributed to a girl's autism. The girl had a very rare mitochondrial disorder. Children with this disorder can develop normally until exposed to a biological stressor -- such as an immunization.
But, as Huff pointed out in an April column, the diseases prevented by the immunizations are also biological stressors that could trigger a similar reaction in such children.
Are letters to the editor the ideal place to sort out such complex issues? No, they're not. But these views, passionately and sincerely held, are out there. And they will be expressed somewhere. Information -- even faulty information -- can't be squelched in the Internet age.
It's far better, I think, to publish these views and the views of the scientific establishment rather than hope the tiny, professional audience of medical journals somehow prevail in the wider debate.
We will never knowingly allow a writer to publish factually incorrect information on our pages. But when there is basis for an opinion, however thin, I believe we have an obligation to let writers have their say -- and to publish contrary opinions.
Personally, I trust the scientific establishment on this one. My 4-year-old son has received all the recommended vaccinations.
I respect Huff's opinion and think he made some legitimate arguments when he wrote me. But, in the end, I don't believe that we would serve the public by declaring this debate -- or almost any other -- off limits on our pages.
After all, if we did that, we couldn't have published Huff's informative columns on the issue, either.
Radmacher is the editorial page editor of The Roanoke Times.
