Journalistic Bias

  Advocates for Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning
“By Parents, For Our Children”

 

News Reports and Journalism Commentary

 

"Drug Test" by Daniel Schulman was published in the November/December 2005 issue of the highly respected Columbia Journalism Review ("CJR"). It can be found here or you can get a pdf of this article by clicking here.

This article analyzed news coverage of the claim that some cases of autism are caused by Thimerosal or other substances contained in vaccines. The CJR's commentary helped counter the imbalanced perspective on the controversy over mercury in vaccines contained in an infamous New York Times published June 25, 2005 titled "On Autism's Cause, It's Parents vs. Research."

The NY Times article reported that no scientific research supported the claim that vaccines or mercury in vaccines causes autism, and suggested that the only reason the issue had gained currency was because of the advocacy of parents of "autistic" children.

We at A-CHAMP know that the science supporting the claim that vaccines causes autism is strong and growing.  A-CHAMP parents view the New York Times article as so imbalanced that it verged on intellectual dishonesty.  We wonder why the New York Times article contained such blatant bias.

We urge you to read CJR's excellent analysis to understand why parents are so dissatisfied with the NY Times report. You can read the NY Times' "On Autism's Cause, It's Parents vs. Research" here.

Drug Test

By Daniel Schulman

On May 18, 2004, the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the prestigious National Academies, delivered its eighth and final report on vaccine safety, seeking to end a scientific controversy that had built to a slow boil over the previous five years: whether a mercury-containing vaccine preservative called thimerosal was to blame for an alarming spike in autism cases among a generation of children. After three years of reviewing this and other immunization safety questions on behalf of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the institute’s fourteen-member panel rejected the thimerosal link, and, in a powerful policy statement, recommended that research funding in this area be shifted toward other, more promising lines of inquiry. Under headlines such as this one from The Washington Post, EXPERTS FIND NO VACCINE-AUTISM LINK; PANEL SAYS MORE RESEARCH ON POSSIBLE CONNECTION MAY NOT BE WORTHWHILE, the press dutifully reported the IOM’s conclusions, perhaps as eager to lay the question to rest as the IOM panel itself.

For a time it appeared the controversy over thimerosal would end there. It didn’t. Over the past seven months, it has gained traction again, leaving journalists in an awkward position. The thimerosal question — scientifically, politically, and emotionally complex — is proving to be a test for journalism, and the successes and failures are evident in the coverage.

David Kirby, a Brooklyn-based writer, jumpstarted the debate in April with the publication of his book, Evidence of Harm, which lays out a compelling case for a connection between thimerosal and autism. Then, in June, Robert Kennedy Jr. followed with a more pointed — some say over-the-top — article, co-published by Rolling Stone and Salon.com, that alleges what amounts to a government cover-up of the harmful properties of thimerosal in the interest of buffering vaccine manufacturers from a cascade of lawsuits and maintaining public confidence in the national immunization program.

Still, the bulk of the scientific establishment denies the autism link, citing the conclusions of the IOM panel, and views believers as crackpots, conspiracy theorists, or zealots — a perspective many medical experts barely conceal in conversations with reporters. In an interview with Myron Levin of the Los Angeles Times after the publication of the IOM report, Dr. Stephen Cochi, the head of the CDC’s national immunization program, dismissed supporters of the thimerosal theory as “junk scientists and charlatans.” If so, then such universities as Harvard and Columbia, among others, employ charlatans — scientists who believe that a link between mercury exposure and autism is plausible. Even so, the perception that only distraught, activist parents and disreputable scientists back the thimerosal theory has seeped into the collective consciousness of the news media, which, in general, have been reluctant to cover the controversy.

For the full text of this article go here.