Anti-vax argument has no basis in fact, science
Without a doubt, the most important achievement in human health was the discovery of vaccinations, starting with the smallpox vaccination in 1796, which saved the lives of millions of people around the world. Smallpox is now eradicated, and the deadly polio virus is virtually gone as well.
Vaccinations became a widely accepted mainstay of public health generations ago after demonstrating their power to defeat infectious diseases that took their toll on children and society. Today, vaccinations are recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The importance and effectiveness of vaccines are as close to settled science as there is. Yet we find ourselves reading claims from people who oppose immunization. Their conclusions are based on false information derived from fraudulent research conducted by biased investigators.
"Mandatory vaccines: Bad medicine and bad politics" (Point of View, Dec. 10) by anesthesiologist Steven Lantier is a dangerous compendium of opinions that have no basis in fact or science. He claims that, “Vaccines are absolutely one of the causes of autism.” Plain and simple. No equivocation and no real documentation to back it up.
Lantier is making a startling proclamation considering the billions of vaccines that have been given for more than 220 years and continue to be given safely around the world. We’re not even certain of Lantier’s experience or qualifications in the fields of infectious diseases or immunology. What we are certain of is that the Autism Society and the National Autism Network both recommend vaccinations for families.
The issue of immunization and autism has been the subject of debate since 1998, when Andrew Wakefield published fraudulent research that linked the two. Wakefield’s study was later discredited by multiple publications, citing conflicts of interest and manipulation of evidence. Wakefield was even punished for professional misconduct, and he lost his license to practice medicine. But the legacy of his claim continues.
We understand the importance of dialog, but Lantier is not debating the issue objectively based on facts. He’s attempting to scare the public with false information that he pulled from a book written by others who oppose immunization.
Unfortunately, he is helping to further erode public health in Oklahoma. The state’s vaccination rate is falling because hundreds of children are allowed into school each year without the required vaccinations. Let’s not endanger public health even more with false claims that mislead the public and endanger our children even more.