An Invasion of MMR/Vaccine Misinformation
May 26, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
To read an article about the MMR vaccine and autism in today’s Telegraph, you’d think there was plenty of reason for the “debate” to be “reignited” thanks to Senator John McCain talking about an “autism epidemic”; recent statements about US health officials being too quick to dismiss arguments about vaccine as a cause of autism by Dr. Bernardine Healy; the case of Hannah Poling, in which the government conceded that vaccines “aggravated” an underlying mitochondrial disorder in Hannah and led to symptoms of autism; and a recent poster presentation at IMFAR about a study in which 13 vaccinated monkeys showed “increased aggression, impaired cognitive skills and developmental delay” after receiving vaccines.
Here’s what the Telegraph article doesn’t note:
Sen. McCain was widely criticized by scientists about his comment that the increase in autism is due to vaccines.
There is a lot of uncertainty and even controversy over how common mitochondrial disorders are in autistic children. In the case of Hannah Poling, it’s necessary to note that the government did NOT concede that vaccines cause autism.
The poster presentation is by Laura Hewitson, who (along with her husband, Dan Hollenbeck) is a petitioner in a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. (And bloggers Larry Arnold and Mike Stanton comment on the notion of “conflict of interest.)
Though when journalist David Kirby speaks on June 4th in the UK, these things may not be mentioned: This American invasion of further evidence for the MMR/vaccine-autism debate is a lot less bullet-proof than the Telegraph suggests.
Mike Stanton of Action for Autism provides some more information and background behind Kirby’s visit to the UK.
My thought on this is as follows: if you think vaccines are such a terrible thing, then don’t get your children vaccinated. But if they contract one of the diseases vaccines are to protect against, do not cry “unfair”.
And if schools and the like insist on your children being vaccinated, there is always home schooling.
That statement about there having been no blinded, controlled, randomized trials for vaccines ain’t true.
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/169/4/488
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1915
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/152/8/734
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17095328?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17012871?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16826486?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16094217?ordinalpos=15&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.curehunter.com/public/pubmed12718836.do
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/15/1536
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iuatld/ijtld/1999/00000003/00000009/art00003?crawler=true
This one’s a nice description of the placebo-controlled, randomized whooping cough vaccine trials done 50 years ago:
http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/20th_Century/1950s/MRC/MRC-1951-commentary.html
Some for pertussis in Sweden:
49. Ad Hoc Group for the Study of Pertussis Vaccines. Placebo-controlled trial of two acellular pertussis vac-cines in Sweden—protective efficacy and adverse events. Lancet 1988;1:955–960.50. Storsaeter J, Hallander H, Farrington CP, et al. Secondary analyses of the efficacy of two acellular per-tussis vaccines in a Swedish phase III trial. Vaccine 1990;8:457–461.51. Blackwelder WC, Storsaeter J, Olin P, et al. Acellular pertussis vaccine: efficacy and evaluation of clini-cal case definitions. Am J Dis Child 1991;145:1285–1289.
Heps and HPV have gone through the described trials.Varicella vax has been tested in double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized trials. I like this one for MMR; looks interesting:
Peltola H, Heinonen OP. Frequency of true adverse reactions to measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. A double-blind placebo-controlled trial in twins. Lancet 1986;1:939-42. TWINS!
There have been trials stratified to specific high-risk groups. There have been trials stratified to specific age groups. There have been trials in specific populations in different regions of the world. There have been randomized, controlled, blinded trials of different combinations of vaccines. There have been many many many double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials for immunizations.
And here’s a nice open-access paper from 2001 that lists HUNDREDS of references to the studies that underlie current vaccines, including many many controlled trials:
http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/14/4/872
It’s a good read, if a little dated now.
Why would anyone even believe that a vaccine would be in use without going through the standard and quite standardized crucible of clinical testing to the top tier? That’s just bizarre.
I’ve got a lengthy comment pending, but I also wanted to add that it sure was entertaining to click over here to read Brad’s comment and discover that people have been talking to me for months–and I didn’t even know it! Ha!
Also, I’d be really wary of anyone claiming to have “legally proven” medical advice. That’s just nonsense if you think about it. Is there “medically proven” legal advice?
Emily: “I’d be really wary of anyone claiming to have “legally proven” medical advice. That’s just nonsense if you think about it. Is there “medically proven” legal advice?”
Absolutely! There is no such thing as ‘legally proven valid medical advice’ because, as we all know, the courts have no qualification upon which to determine the validity status (i. e., ‘proven’ or ‘not proven’) of anything medical: that is a matter for research and publication in peer-reviewed journals.
As Mr. Miller knows, given his B. Sc. (Hons) in Physics (and his Associateship of the Royal College of Science, as well as his legal qualifications – including at least the Common Professional Examination and the Legal Practice Course), the courts do not determine the validity of evidence presented in scientific research. Nor do they determine the same of evidence presented in medical research.
The concept of ‘legally proven valid medical advice’ is a – conceptually (and probably legally) – nonsensical one.
Well, I had a lengthy post with about a million links to peer-reviewed, blinded, controlled randomized studies of childhood vaccines, but it hasn’t posted, probably because there are too many links. If anyone’s REALLY interested in tracking them down, it’s pretty easy to do. Google the terms and put in childhood vaccines with them, or go to pubmed and do same. They exist (duh). As though they would not. It’s mind boggling that anyone would seriously believe that these vaccines would not be or have been subjected to the same tiered clinical trial construct that everything else is.
@Emily, I’m so sorry—-so many links that your comment went straight to the SPAM filter—now it’s out.
No big deal. I usually don’t even bother with links–I just say, “Go search for yourself.” Everyone seems to be expert at using Google U…which leaves me wondering why they don’t, especially when they read obviously wild assertions that beg to be investigated.
Unfortunately the proportion of misinformation to facts about vaccines on the web seems to be weighted towards the former!
Sorry guys but my personal experience trumps your “links”
watching my two daughters injured by vaccines trumps your “links”
Knowing that other parents have experienced the same or worse trumps your “links”
Knowing the ingriedents and viruses and aborted fetuses in the vaccines trumps your “links”
Too bad your mind is so closed that you will never see what is right in front of your own face, and all in the name of being superior to the ones that do believe in a middle ground and do believe that there is more to life than scientific studies and “links”
So do my personal experiences trump yours?
I’m not sure if Mary is a paroday or not, but it does seem silly to champion personal experience as being superior to the study of the evidence for the validity of those personal experiences.
That’s what these studies do in a indirect manner, they look at the occurance of the events people claim to experience and see if they’re actually happening.
Overall, they aren’t.
It’s like claiming your personal experience of watching a pitcher throw one ball in a baseball match gives you better understanding of the league standings, than someone who reads the weekly sports supplements. Your limited experience is always going to be trumped by people who look at the broader picture – everytime
I think there’s been some similar sorts of comments by “Mary” here before, as on this post:
http://www.autismvox.com/the-vaccine-autism-urban-myth/
Aw, Mary’s just contrary.
FYI, when one uses “quotation marks” around something in this context, the usual intention is that the term is not exactly what you’re saying and often is the opposite of what you mean. I fail to see how “links” are not, in fact, “links,” regardless of what you may feel “trumps” them.
I do believe there’s more to life than scientific studies and links (my children, my work, my country, my world, dreams, hopes, spirituality, books, beer and wine, traveling, hiking, writing, loving, living, dying, usw). I’m probably most honestly a worshiper at the altar of intellectual curiosity. That does not, however, involve leaps of faith that defy common sense. This laundry list of “trumps” followed up with a “holier-than-thou” statement as a sort of featherweight verbal coup d’grace is sadly exemplary of the flabby thought processes and shrieking hysteria that underlie so much of the antivax movement.
My personal experience trumps Mary’s “scare quotes”.
Especially since science backs it up.