I recently blogged about frustrations with the way the Institute of Medicine was portrayed by Dr. Bernadine Healy.  My frustrations led me to do what Dr. Healy and Sharyl Attkisson did not do: contact the IOM for a comment.

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.