After posting that, I sent the following email to Dr. Healy through the web-based interface at US News and World Report, where she works.  I sent the following:

I have some questions for Dr. Bernadine Healy. I would appreciate it if you could forward this to her.

Dr. Healy, I have followed your coverage of the autism/vaccine question closely. I found some of your statements about the IOM and their report and recommendations somewhat troubling as they call into question the motivations and intent of IOM in its approach to and conclusions from the 2004 report on vaccines and autism. Given the serious nature of your assertions, I approached the IOM directly for a comment on the process and conclusions. I have quoted it below:

http://autismlibrary.org/blog/asking-the-iom-for-clarification/

Would you be able to comment on how your statements can be reconciled with the IOM’s stated methods? Is there anything more substantial to your assertions than what is already in print? Because, I will state frankly, what I see are assertions on your part. They have been left unsubstantiated for too long. The effect they have on the autism community are great and we deserve more than assertions.

I appreciate your time in this matter.

Since that time, Mr. Dan Olmsted at the Age of Autism made a blog post entitled, “Tell it to Dr. Healy”. He also added a permanent page to their blog with video of the Dr. Healy interview.

Well, I find it interesting, as I did “tell it to Dr. Healy”.

It’s been two weeks since I sent the email. It appears that “telling it to Dr. Healy” results in no response.

Dr. Healy’s comments add to the erosion of confidence in our trusted institutions.  The Age of Autism is correct that this is a big issue–big enough that Dr. Healy and Sharyl Attkisson should have supported what are merely assertions.  As a journalist, I would expect that Dan Olmsted should see that major weakness in the interview.  Perhaps he does, but he doesn’t even mention it.

If I recall correctly, the Court of Federal Claims (a part of which is the “vaccine court”) is soon to hold their annual Judicial Conference.  Dr. Healy was supposed to participate as a panelist and Sharyl Attkisson was supposed to be the moderator of a session on the autism/vaccine debate and the media.

In many ways, I wish that this session had not been cancelled.  Had Dr. Healy made her usupported statements again and had Sharyl Attkisson handled the discussion with the same lack of objectivity that appears in her journalism, the Special Masters would have seen it easily.  Yes, certain groups would have made great hay out of this, but in front of an educated audience like the Judical Conference, I’ll put Arthur Allen with facts and science against clearly biased moderator and a doctor with clearly unsupported assertions any day.

Healy said: “There is a completely expressed concern that they don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. “First of all,” Healy said, “I think the public’s smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show.”

This statement bothered me.  The IOM is part of the National Academies.  I know people who are members of National Academies (although not the Institute of Medicine), and Dr. Healy’s assertion is completely at odds with how they act.  There is often a call for “independent” research or analyses from groups within the autism community.  Well, that’s the National Academies.  They are the independent voice that the government can call on to analyze research and report back.

They give a description of their purpose on the National Academies website:

The National Academies perform an unparalleled public service by bringing together committees of experts in all areas of scientific and technological endeavor. These experts serve pro bono to address critical national issues and give advice to the federal government and the public.

Another good place to look for a description of the National Academies is here.

Given my concerns, I went to the source: the National Academies. I emailed them links to some news stories and expressed some concerns that this image of the IOM was damaging, not only to them, but to the autism community as well. Below is the response I received (reproduced with permission):

Thank you for your recent and very thoughtful message. As you know, the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee most certainly did not suggest that scientific inquiry into the role of vaccines in autism should cease because the results could affect public perception of the value of childhood vaccinations. The public deserves better than that.

The committee’s 2004 report, Vaccines and Autism, states:

“Determining causality with population-based methods such as epidemiological analyses requires either a well-defined at-risk population or a large effect in the general population. Absent biomarkers, well-defined risk factors, or large effect sizes, the committee cannot rule out, based on the epidemiological evidence, the possibility that vaccines contribute to autism in some small subset or very unusual circumstances. However, there is currently no evidence to support this hypothesis either.”

After a paragraph in which the report follows that sentence with a discussion of the sparse literature regarding subsets of autism and the theoretical possibility of a vaccine-susceptible subpopulation, the report states:

“While the committee strongly supports targeted research that focuses on better understanding the disease of autism, from a public health perspective the committee does not consider a significant investment in studies of the theoretical vaccine-autism connection to be useful at this time. The nature of the debate about vaccine safety now includes a theory that genetic susceptibility makes vaccinations risky for some people, which calls into question the appropriateness of a public health, or universal, vaccination strategy. However the benefits of vaccination are proven and the hypothesis of susceptible populations is presently speculative. Using an unsubstantiated hypothesis to question the safety of vaccination and the ethical behavior of those governmental agencies and scientists who advocate for vaccination could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines and inevitable increases in incidence of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough, and Hib bacterial meningitis.

The committee urges that research on autism focus more broadly on the disorder’s causes and treatments for it. Thus, the committee recommends a public health response that fully supports an array of vaccine safety activities. In addition the committee recommends that available funding for autism research be channeled to the most promising areas.”

Some readers have apparently failed to appreciate the full meaning and intent of the committee’s carefully written text. The report, as supported by the above-quoted paragraphs, clearly acknowledges the possibility that new information in support of hypotheses about susceptible subpopulations could emerge, at which time significant new research efforts might be appropriate. Whether the recent information about mitochondrial dysfunction will be the foundation for a major new research direction remains to be seen. The committee’s comment on the untoward consequences of discouraging vaccination was offered as an elaboration of their concerns about the unsubstantiated vaccine-autism hypothesis and not as support for their recommendations about an appropriate research agenda for understanding autism.

The scientists and clinicians on this committee evaluated the then-available scientific data in an unbiased manner. They reached their conclusions based on where the evidence led them. This principle—making recommendations only if supported by the evidence—guides all studies that IOM undertakes. I reiterate that the committee most certainly did not urge caution about pursuing the vaccine-autism connection in order to avoid frightening the public away from immunizations. The IOM stands ready to re-examine this issue should sufficient and relevant evidence emerge.

I don’t believe that Dr. Healy’s statements are consistent with the way the IOM works in general or as described above. This isn’t just a statement that I disagree with her, I really don’t see how they are consistent, so I am sending her a link to this blog post and asking if she can elaborate.

This is vitally important. Dr. Healy’s statements, in my view, undermine the integrity of the IOM process, not just the 2004 report on autism and vaccines. They add to the growing mistrust of any group, be it academic, governmental or, in the case of the National Academies, independent, who research or analyze research on autism. The fact that they have been left for so long unchallenged and, in my opinion, unsupported, is very damaging to the autism community.

Translating Autism is an autism research blog intended to rapidly disseminate the latest scientific findings related to the nature, causes, & treatments of autism spectrum disorders. Only a minuscule portion of the autism research ever reach parents, educators and consumers, and this blog was created to help close that gap. In this blog I present scientific findings with some, but minimal, editorial content. I review the latest scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals and translate these findings into applicable and useful information for parents, teachers, clinicians

Also, from his FAQ

I’m Nestor Lopez-Duran Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and neuroscience researcher working at a university-based child psychiatric institute in the mid west

There isn’t a lot of discussion on that blog, but it is one that I think should be on everyone’s watch list.