Confusion Ensues as IACC Adopts Vaccine Research Objective
By theresa wrangham
As someone who regularly listens and/or attends meetings of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), I was stunned and confused by the statements made by IACC public member Alison Singer in the Autism Science Foundation’s recent press release regarding vaccine research adopted by the IACC on November 10th. While it is true that two vaccine objectives in the draft were rejected, it is more accurate to say that the two vaccine objectives were deleted and a new vaccine objective adopted. In terms of this research not being based on “good science” it is clear the Ms. Singer must have attended a different meeting from the one I attended.
The addition of language from the Institute’s of Medicine’s (IOM) 2004 report on vaccines and autism clarifies that the current body of epidemiological research is limited in detecting subpopulations genetic susceptibilities to vaccines. The focus of the new objective is to detect these subpopulations and identified vaccines as an area of possible investigation. This language also alludes to the same recommendations made by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC – an expert federal advisory committee) this past June with regard to investigation of subpopulations and conducting research via animal models and cell cultures. Ms. Singer would do well to familiarize herself with the recognized deficits in vaccine safety research noted by the IOM and the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC – a federal advisory committee of experts) and the “good science” needed as it applies to autism. Below are additional salient quotes from IOM 2004 that hold implications for the IACC’s strategic plan:
“The committee notes several factors that limit acceptance at this time of the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism… However, the experiments showing effects of thimerosal on biochemical pathways in cell culture systems and showing abnormalities in the immune system or metal metabolism in people with autism are provocative; the autism research community should consider the appropriate composition of the autism research portfolio with some of these new findings in mind.”
“… few dispute the fact that adverse reactions to vaccines are rare, leading some to claim that infants and young children will not experience adverse reactions unless they possess some unusual characteristic that increases susceptibility—in particular, a genetic predisposition. This suggestion has currency now because of the discovery of genetic variants in humans that do indeed change the way individuals react to certain medications, a field of research known as pharmacogenetics....These and other examples can be used to hypothesize that something similar might be operating in infants and young children exposed to certain vaccines or vaccine components. This hypothesis cannot be excluded by epidemiological data from large population groups that do not show an association between a vaccine and an adverse outcome.”
Unfortunately, the two objectives best addressing needed research were deleted for a second time from the IACC’s strategic plan for the new weaker objective. Though IACC Chair, Dr. Tom Insel, often reminds the IACC that they have no money to conduct research and can only make research recommendations to Secretary Sebelius, at the very least it is within the IACC’s power to recommend this research to underscore its importance and support the NVAC’s report at is relates to those affected by autism.
While the adaptation of a vaccine objective may be seen by some as encouraging, it is in fact very a small step given the broad deficits in safety research identified by the NVAC. It is fair to say that the IACC’s actions do not reflect the urgency needed to put to bed the many vaccine questions that are now ten years old and that continue to bombard them during public comment. To further complicate matters, the IACC to date has not addressed how it will assure that conflicts of interest held by U.S. Health & Human Services (HHS), as previously acknowledged by the committee in January, will be resolved. Instead, the IACC has opted to “coordinate” with the NVAC to make sure that the autism specific recommendations are included in future efforts of the NVAC. This kicking of the can to NVAC negates the intent of the Combating Autism Act (CAA), as it is the IACC’s charge to do the heavy lifting on vaccine questions as they relate to autism.
SafeMinds has requested clarification from the IACC on how independent oversight and conduct of this research will be resolved for the newly adopted vaccine objective, as well as advocate for broader research objectives on environmental factors and vaccines. The next meeting of the IACC will be December 11th and held via webinar to finalize the strategic plan and send on to Congress and Secretary Sebelius. The public is encouraged to submit their concerns and comments no later than December 8th at IACCPublicInquiries@mail.nih.gov.