…and this is a 
Unethical is too mild a word
Category: Evil
Posted on: January 2, 2007 10:07 AM, by PZ Myers
Am I going to face the wrath of the anti-vaccination kooks for linking to this? Bring them on. Orac has an article that thoroughly disgusted me: a report on the infamous MD, Andrew Wakefield, who published an article in The Lancet that claimed to have found a link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. I had no idea that it had such a strong effect.
Wakefield's work for the lawyers began two years before he published his now notorious report in The Lancet medical journal in February 1998, proposing a link between the vaccine and autism.
This suggestion, followed by a campaign led by Wakefield, caused immunisation rates to slump from 92% to 78.9%, although they have since partly recovered. In March this year the first British child in 14 years died from measles.
Orac has a timeline that also includes this fact: in 2003, there were 4204 cases of mumps; in 2004, 16436; in 2005, 56390. That's in addition to the death from measles. That's an awful lot of misery. What did Wakefield get out of this? Was it the satisfaction of advancing the cause of science? Of revealing the truth? Of combating autism? It looks like the rewards were a little less lofty and a lot more venal than that: £435,000. He's got a little consulting gig now, getting paid £1000 per day to testify against the wickedness of vaccinations for legal firms out to sue pharmaceutical companies.
Wow.
It got me wondering how much you'd have to pay me to make 50,000 children sick, and maybe kill a few. There isn't any sum you could funnel to my bank account to get me to do that, but Wakefield would do it for the low sum of about a million dollars. Who knew evil could be had so cheaply?
Another thing that appalled me was that one of the referees for one of his papers was paid £40,000 for his review. I thought we were supposed to do this anonymously, and for free! Next paper, I should call up the author and get bids on a positive review…and if ever I should do that, strip me of my degree, fire me from my job, and throw me out on the street in disgrace. The "scientists" who perpetrated this fraud are vermin, and ought to be similarly drummed out of the ranks.
One set of things not mentioned, though, are the identities of the lawyers and the law firms who threw millions of pounds at scientists to corrupt them, and gin up the grounds for a lucrative lawsuit. There should also be an ethics investigation of those people, and a loss of their right to practice law in any way.
Comments
This whole thing blew up rather noisily in the Uk some years ago. Naturally the tabloids had a field day and as ever, no matter how many 'sane'reports came out later the scare mongering continued and the public only believed the initial report, not all the subsequent ones.
Conspicious attempts by the goverment to restore confidence in the MMR vaccine floundered (who believes the government? or government scientists?) and the whole thing draaged on rather badly.
Still, I was under the impression that the whole thing had blown over and that MMR use was back into the high 90%s. This is quite a shock to me. I am also shocked about the numbers quoted for reviews. How on earth did that happen?
Posted by: Dave Hone | January 2, 2007 10:24 AM
I'm guessing that Captain Fishsticks (Craig Westover) will write yet another op-ed column pointing out how science has lost most of its humanity.
Of course Westover happens to be one of those people who took Wakefield's work and ran with it in the pages of the St. Paul Pioneer Press claiming there was a concrete link between the use of thimerosal (which contains mercury) in vaccines and an increase in the occurance of autism.
In my humble opinion then, Westover has also profited from the spreading of incorrect information. It would be nice if he'd reconsider his opinions about science in light of his own part in contributing to such ignorance. But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: David W. | January 2, 2007 10:34 AM
Wasn't thimerasol use discontinued? Was that for no good reason?
Nance
Posted by: Nance Confer | January 2, 2007 10:38 AM
"How did that happen?" Because, at the risk of stereotyping, a shocking proportion of the current generation of UK mums are self-obsessed hippie arsewits who view a woeful ignorance of science as some sort of badge of pride. The sort of smug idiots who tell you with a grin that they won't give their kids food containing 'chemicals'.
I've been flogging on and on at a friend who now has three kids under five about this; her attitude is that the functionally non-existant probability of one of her kids 'developing' autism as a result of the MMR vaccination somehow far outweighs the very real risk to the population as a whole...
Posted by: Joe | January 2, 2007 10:40 AM
Scientifically, it was indeed for no good reason that thimerosal was discontinued. There is no sound epidemiological evidence linking mercury in thimerosal used in vaccines to autism. However, as a public policy matter, the U.S. decided to remove it, and, other than the flu vaccine, no childhood vaccines since early 2003 have had thimerosal in it. This was done mainly as a public relations tactic to "boost confidence" in the vaccine and hopefully forestall a decrease in vaccination rates, but it backfired. Predictably, the antivaxers pointed to this action as "evidence" that there was a problem.
I should take this opportunity to clarify one point. The MMR vaccine never contained thimerosal. Ever. Nor have Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. However, given the ignorance out there and the hysteria fueld by Wakefield, many parents mistakenly believe that MMR had thimerosal in it.
Posted by: Orac | January 2, 2007 10:51 AM
Nance:
The MMR vaccine never had thimerosal in it. So, no, that was not a "good reason" for Wakefield's lies.
Posted by: Skeptico | January 2, 2007 10:53 AM
At every DFL (Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party) gathering I attend, I get one of these petitions about vaccines causing autism shoved in my face. And I get the same stunned reaction when I refuse to sign -- like I'm the ignorant one that isn't up on the issues or that I must be some right-winger.
One reason I was so happy to discover PZ's blog is the relief it is to find another political progressive that is also pro-science and pro-evidence.
Posted by: Sonja | January 2, 2007 11:22 AM
I just had a horrible thought: Weapon and Fore Sam in one comment thread.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | January 2, 2007 11:23 AM
Standing ovation for this post, PZ.
Posted by: Melissa G | January 2, 2007 11:26 AM
I'm embarrassed to say that I read about the mercury = autism vaccination thing a while ago and believed it. I mean, a real scientist and real magazines and newspapers said it! It must be true. Sites like this have been helpful. Luckily I haven't had any kids yet so I didn't do anything stupid.
Posted by: Kevin | January 2, 2007 11:41 AM
One set of things not mentioned, though, are the identities of the lawyers and the law firms who threw millions of pounds at scientists to corrupt them, and gin up the grounds for a lucrative lawsuit. There should also be an ethics investigation of those people, and a loss of their right to practice law in any way.
Obviously PZ, you've had little legal "experience" (which may or may not be a good thing). First, legal ethics are established within the legal profession. They are in practice more like "guidelines" rather than any "code". Any violation of "ethics" would have to be determined by the legal profession itself. Need I say more? Ok, the very type of ethical violation you seem to be complaining of is encouraged - cultivated - by current legal practices. It's about "winning", and nothing else. If you can find an "expert" to support your argument and increase you chances of prevailing over your adversary, you are in fact doing exactly what is expected of you as a lawyer. In fact, if you can find a judge to assist in the process (not really so hard to do), that's OK too because you are simply doing your "job". There are no hard and fast rules about this stuff. Anyway, how can you complain about someone doing what they are supposed do? It really sucks though, doesn't it.
Posted by: Ethan | January 2, 2007 11:50 AM
The Daily Mail journalist Melaine Phillips has been one of the most outspoken supporters of Andrew Wakefield, and from her regular newspaper column has done much to fan the flames of the MMR vaccine hysteria. She also happens to be a passionate global warming denialist and also likes to write in support of ID and against those evil 'dogmatic Darwinists'. It's interesting how these irrationalisms all run together.
Posted by: Tony Jackson | January 2, 2007 11:58 AM
As a child, I was allergic to eggs and chicken feathers, so I could not get the MMR shot. Consequently, I gained immunity to measles, mumps and rubella the old fashioned way: I contracted measles, mumps and German measles.
I was very young when I got GM, but I remember being sick with the other two.
Frankly, even as a young child, I'm pretty sure I would rather have had the shot if the shot wouldn't kill me. With modern technology, there's even an MMR shot available now that egg-allergy folks can get.
The strange thing is, it's not the children that are really at risk. Getting one of those three diseases as a child is unpleasant, and there's some serious health risk, but it's not the end of the world....
... but not getting immunity as a child and contracting any of those diseases as an adult is brutal, and can lead to things like "testicles shrivel" as well as death, etc.
How anyone can deny their child the protection is beyond me.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | January 2, 2007 12:03 PM
At every DFL (Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party) gathering I attend, I get one of these petitions about vaccines causing autism shoved in my face. And I get the same stunned reaction when I refuse to sign
I am surprised (and disappointed) to read that, Sonja. I don't think I've ever encountered such a petition, though I can imagine some people that I know signing it, sadly.
It seems to me that there was a parent of an autistic child who was himself paying a lab to conduct a double-blind experiment to test the whole idea of austism being caused or exacerbated by heavy metals (not necessarily just mercury). The results were due in October 2006. I have not heard anything about it, but then I've been busy and didn't keep up.
I didn't necessarily "believe" in the mercury connection, but I didn't disbelieve in it; I didn't have enough information to form an opinion, but any link seems dubious to me, and at any rate, I knew there wasn't thimerosal in the shots.
And who are these lawyers who pay people to spread pseudoscience? It reminds me of Wells and his destructive AIDS "theory". It makes me sick.
Posted by: Kristine | January 2, 2007 12:15 PM
Most likely because these people are gullible.
Posted by: Stanton | January 2, 2007 12:16 PM
Actually, measles and such can be serious: Even in developed countries, measles can kill. It's already done some of that in the UK as a result of the hysteria.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | January 2, 2007 12:16 PM
I remember reading reports of that article when it first came out and feeling sick to my stomach. As the parent of an autistic child, I would hate to think that I'd condemned my child to a lifetime of problems because of a medical treatment.
Of course, as I dug more into the story, I realized how much his so-called science was getting a drubbing. But somehow the debunking never gets nearly as much press as the crazy accusations did in the first place!
Posted by: Ancarett | January 2, 2007 12:51 PM
Too bad every parent of an autistic child didn't get a lumbar puncture performed on their child. My daughter had an immune deficiency at time of live virus vaccination, which the doctors had not discovered. 21 days after the MMR/ varivax she suffered encephalitis, complete with erythema multiforme, and seizures. The ER assured me it was not vaccine related, said it was viral, performed no tests and sent us home.
6 months later my daughter stopped growing, and was dx'd with autism. She has Oka strain varicella in her csf. She had no immune response to any vaccine we have tested her for.
It is sad that more children die in the US annually from the MMR than from any of the diseases it protects children from.
Regardless of how Wakefield acheived his results, it calls into question the safety of live virus vaccines. Much more research (aside from looking at numbers) nees to be performed. I personally know 2 parents who have sucessfully gained compensation for their autistic children in vaccine court, as the vaccine strain measles were found in their csf.
Wasn't the OPV changed to IPV in 2000 simply because it was causing VDPV in immunocompromised children? In fact, the only cases of polio we have had in our country in the last decade were from the vaccine.
Medicine is not perfect, it is as evolving as humankind. Clearly, we can work towards a safer vaccination schedule.
Posted by: Monica | January 2, 2007 12:54 PM
Stanton said -
Most likely because these people are gullible.
Actually, it has a lot more to do with who is telling them. Until reading Orac about vaccines, I thought that they did, on very rare occasions, cause autism. That I alos thought that the minor risk (of a horrible disease) was outweighed by the benifit of the vaccines for children, didn't stop me from being terrified that my healthy child might hit the wrong side of the percentages after his vaccines.
This has nothing to do with gullability when your average Joe is told by scientists and even their pediatricians or regular doctors (such as ours), that this is a risk. I go to doctors, because I assume they know a lot more about medicine than I do, I trust what they say for the same reason. Does that make me gullible? No, it means that I trust what people with a lot more education, when they are discussing issues covered by their training.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 2, 2007 1:16 PM
Ancarett, I'm really sorry to hear you thought you might be to blame for your child's autism, even briefly. One of my huge problems with the pseudoscience in alternative medicine is how often the groundless claims made by unthinking (or deliberate) practitioners actually blame the victim--it's cruel, even on top of being unfounded.
Examples of what I'm talking about (in addition to making parents feel guilty over routine child care) include Louise Hay's claim that birth defects are karma from previous lives, claims that you can cure yourself of cancer if you just try hard enough to get the right attitude/personality, and just about anything else that makes getting sick or not getting well some kind of character flaw on the part of the patient. It's a continual source of amazement to me how people can commit such cruelty, all the while seeing themselves as some kind of advocate for patients.
Posted by: RavenT | January 2, 2007 1:18 PM
Great post!
Posted by: Christian Burnham | January 2, 2007 1:19 PM
Monica:
Yeah, life was ever so much better for kids before there were vaccines. Nothing like childhood diseases to make you really glad to be alive.
Wake up, please.
Posted by: Warren | January 2, 2007 1:39 PM
Monica:
Citation please?
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2007 1:49 PM
Thank you Orac and Skeptico.
We vaccinate but, of course, I've seen all of these reports in the news and wondered.
Any opinions on the chicken pox vac (my understanding is that it "wears off" and so we'll have a crop of 20-year-olds with the chicken pox if we vaccinate now) or the new HPV vac?
Nance
Posted by: Nance Confer | January 2, 2007 1:51 PM
He's got a little consulting gig now, getting paid £1000 per day to testify against the wickedness of vaccinations for legal firms out to sue pharmaceutical companies.
Well... somehow I don't think that his career as an anti-vax "expert" witness is going to last much longer, even if he's active on cases right now. I'm sure that the UK has some case law similar to Daubert and defending counsel wouldn't have to do too much to get Wakefield's testimony tossed out. One of the good things to come out of this story, in my opinion.
Posted by: ArtK | January 2, 2007 2:14 PM
Actually, it's not sad at all. 10 kids dying of vaccine-related complications is *way* better than 10,000 dying of the diseases those vaccines would have stopped.
There's a reason that those diseases don't kill very many people in the US: they have a very low incidence because almost everyone is vaccinated against them. Without that protection, the diseases would be a lot more common and therefore a lot deadlier (just as they were a few centuries ago, and still are in areas that don't have as much access to the vaccines).
This is not to say that we shouldn't continue to work on the vaccines and try to reduce the incidence of complications, but refusing to use them until they are absolutely perfect would be insane. Vaccines prevent a LOT more health problems than they cause, and while there is some room for improvement, in their current state they are much better than nothing.
Posted by: Chris | January 2, 2007 2:25 PM
Warren, never have I said to stop vaccination, or that the disease is preferrable. But we need to make a safer alternative than to shoot children with 4 live viruses at once, regardless of their immune function.
Posted by: Monica | January 2, 2007 2:29 PM
I sometimes get the "if you're so smart, why are you rich?" and there's two parts that make up the answer.
1) I'm pretty lazy, and perhaps too timid.
2) I have ethics.
It is so easy to make obscene amounts of money nowadays -- simply be a televangelist, or a AGW guy, or an anti-vaccine guy. The only reason I don't is because I'm not a degenerate scummy piece of human filth like those people are.
And Monica, I second Azkyroth's call for a cite, but also want to note that the way you wrote that up has the truthiness factor writ large; you are claiming that NOW few children die from those diseases than from vaccines but implying that fewer children died previously from those diseases than from vaccines now. The second part, the implication, is incredibly foolish nonsense, which you may well have incorporated from some source without thinking it through, but the first part may be true (where's that cite? should be easy to find if true). The reason the first part could/may/might be true is that vaccines are effective; few children die from those diseases NOW because we have ways of preventing that, ways that people like you, well intentioned or not, want to stomp out so that children in the future will die in horrific numbers. Nice.
Posted by: QrazyQat | January 2, 2007 2:32 PM
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/416/
is a nice summary of the personal injury lawyer Richard Barr and his history of involvement in lucrative but ineffective litigation.
While he deserves the ethical scrutiny that PZ calls for, the clueless members of the Legal Aid Board/Legal Services Commission that wasted GBP 15 million on quackery should be named in public.
Posted by: David vun Kannon | January 2, 2007 2:41 PM
My daughter has a vaccine injury, I have been kicked out of 2 doctors offices for suggesting such a thing, and have been lectured by dozens of doctors. It took 17 months before we found someone who did the right testing.
If a doctor had considered what I had first suggested when my daughter had a reaction, she could have begun varicella antiviral therapy. Now, she has a lifelong developmental and growth disability.
I am not against vaccines, but I am against our one size fits all vaccine policy, and against vaccines which are quick to market. The US is guinea pigs, look at the rotovirus vaccine. That was a big hit.
I am also against a vaccine injury compensation program that is near imnpossible to gain compensation from.
True, 10 deaths per yr are better than an epidemic of measles, but it is UNFAIR that the law in thge US does not allow more than $200,000 compensation to the families of those who's loved ones were sacrificed so that the US can maintain it's high level of herd immunity, yet people can sue for millions for hot coffee.
Azkyroth, take some time, and compare the MMR related deaths in the vaccine adverse event reporting system www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/
and the CDC's own MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report), which lists infectious diseases and their rate of occurence for any given week.
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
Posted by: Monica | January 2, 2007 2:42 PM
And Monica -- as to the central matter at hand, it is precisely and emphatically the question of relative risk and benefit that is important here. Everyone who learns of your daughter's experience must feel tremendous sympathy for both of you -- how could we not? But when you accompany that account with
and you start to erode that sympathy. A safer, more just world is what we all want; where we differ is in how to achieve it.Posted by: jre | January 2, 2007 3:18 PM
I never stated that I feel Wakefiels was right in what he did, but what he FOUND is critical, and his studies need to be replicated.
And I feel it IS`sad that the vaccine kills more children in our country than the disease. Pharmeceutical companies are in no rush to come up with a safer plan.
It is ridiculous that these 4 live viruses are given at once. It is also ridiculous that to request these vaccines seperately, insurance will deny payment, forcing a parent to pay upwards of $600 for these vaccines.
Pharmaceutical companies were also against a black box warning on the OPV- live virus containing oral polio vaccine.
It was not until parents of immune deficient children who contracted VDPM- (vaccine derived poilio myelitis) from this live virus vaccine lobbied the government that a safer "killed" virus version- IPV- inactivated polio virus was included in the current US pediatric vaccination schedule.
We are now able to use a killed version, as we have not had a case of wild virus polio in over 2 decades.
Other countries, which have had cases of polio, must still use the OPV until polio is no longer a threat.
Look up info on the endgame strategy for polio eradication.
It is time the US moves to an inactivated measles vaccine. As I have stated before, 10 deaths are too many, especially if the death was your own child.
Also, in the late 90's we moved to the DTaP, as the DTP was causing neurological problems in many children.
To think we cannot improve our current policy is absurd.
I am in favor of herd immunity more so than the average parent, as my daughter has not been able to build antibodies against the vaccines she has received. She has no immunity to these viruses, and must rely on herd immunity for protection.
But for God sakes, break up the vaccines, we are throwing WAY too many viral insults at our babies immature immune system. In a country as advanced as ours, it is appalling that we only have the 36th lowest infant mortality rate.
In no time in history has a baby had to build as many immune responses as one does today. Too many immune responses in a close proximity throw people into autoimmune disorder.
A child has had 54 immune responses from vaccination by 18 months in the US. Compounded with the fact that childhood vaccines have (since 1991) been mandatory by 18 months of age, is the fact that we are adding more vaccines all the time.
It is time we adjusted this schedule, and offered safer alternatives.
Posted by: Monica | January 2, 2007 3:52 PM
If you actually read the article, Monica, you'd realize that Dr Wakefield never offered an actual, viable alternative to vaccines.
Posted by: Stanton | January 2, 2007 4:12 PM
Stanton, I never said Wakefield did offer an alternative, although there has been also been great speculation that he had applied for a patent of another vaccine. As a person who has received Google news alerts about Wakefield for over a yr now, I can tell you much of what you read about him is purely speculation, on both sides of the argument.
An alternative to the live measles virus exists, in fact, we discontinued using it in the 70's, as measles was still too prevalent, and inactivated virus vaccines are not as effective in gaining herd immunity as live virus, or attenuated vaccines. I think it is time we move back to this vaccine.
Posted by: Monica | January 2, 2007 4:17 PM
Actually, it's not sad at all. 10 kids dying of vaccine-related complications is *way* better than 10,000 dying of the diseases those vaccines would have stopped.
Exactly. Even if MMR did cause autism at the rates claimed, if I were responsible for small children I'd still make sure they were vaccinated.
As I've written before, here's the "childhood disease" toll in the sibship that produced my mother (10 births between 1908 and 1925):
1 death from whooping cough
1 death from diphtheria
1 serious lifelong disability because of anoxia caused by whooping cough
1 severe but non-fatal case of diphtheria
And these were four separate events. (For example, the death and the disability from whooping cough happened during separate outbreaks, about 10 years apart.) That's what life was like for working-class American families ninety years ago.
Two kids dead, one in a wheelchair all his life, and a fourth who came close to death and was sick in bed for weeks.
Please, please, please. Never again.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | January 2, 2007 4:24 PM
Monica:
There are a couple problems here. For starters there's something suspiciously like "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!" combined with a deliberate conflation of infant mortality rate with the prevalence of childhood vaccination.
To say this is disingenuous of you is being charitable.
You might think it's "absurd" to vaccinate with multiple viruses at once -- but have you considered the practicality of alternatives? That is, is it more reasonable to expect parents to drag their kids to the doc four times in a row to spread out the vaccinations? (Using what money, precisely? Insured, on the dole or out of pocket, those visits cost someone something.)
Of course, we could have vaccination through GM food. But then, too many people are against that as well.
All of this is on par with the person insisting he'll never wear a seat belt because of the 2% or so collision survivors who lived because they didn't buckle up.
As I said earlier, wake up, please.
Posted by: Warren | January 2, 2007 4:37 PM
The papers over here in the UK tend to go loopy when a story like this comes out, showing at best ignorance of the scientific method and how medical trials etc actually work, and at worst a willful manipulation and sensationalisation of reports which bear little resemblance to the headlines the next day.
The Daily Mail claims every day that either "X Causes CANCER!!!" or "Is Y the new Superfood?", liberally sprinkled with MRSA stories, all designed to keep the masses in a perma-hysteria.
But then we have people like Dr Ben Goldacre at the Guardian (www.badscience.com) </shameless plug>... Are you guys familiar with 'Dr' Gillian McKeith?
Posted by: psycotic_furby | January 2, 2007 4:42 PM
make that www.badscience.net
Spellcheck be DAMNED!!!
Posted by: psycotic_furby | January 2, 2007 4:44 PM
I feel many of you do not understand my stance. I am not anti vaccine. The diseases they protect us from are horrible, and we do not want to see them return. My grandfather lost 5 siblings to whooping cough and measles during the depression. These diseases are deadly.
But, as the discovery of penicillin has saved many lives, many have died from penicillin allergy, and we have discovered safer alternative antibiotics for those people.
We had successfully eliminated smallpox and polio without today's aggressive policy. Why do we feel it is now necessary?
Is it a surprise that big pharma contributes largely to republican campaigns that for 10 yrs have turned a blind eye to their irresponsibility and marketing?
Healthcare is no longer about wellness, it is about business.
Our wonderful president included, upon signing the "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005". As a result, families of patients who are killed or injured due to a defective or dangerous vaccine, drugs or devices that fit within this category will have no recourse, no ability to file a claim or lawsuit, no way to collect any compensation even if the drug company or health care provider was negligent, reckless or in some cases intentionally harmful.
It also accelerated approval of any drug, biological product, device or research tool that the government determines to be a national security or pandemic priority, severely weakening the normal safeguards that prevent unsafe vaccines, drugs and medical devices from reaching consumers.
What big pharma company is going to want to do any more research and clinical trials than what is required by law?
Posted by: Monica | January 2, 2007 5:03 PM
Did you just say "our wonderful president" in a non-ironic way on Pharyngula?
I say troooooooooollllllll,
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2007 5:07 PM
"That is, is it more reasonable to expect parents to drag their kids to the doc four times in a row to spread out the vaccinations? (Using what money, precisely? Insured, on the dole or out of pocket, those visits cost someone something.)"
so, convenience and money are more important than our children's welfare?
If I had known what could happen, I would have rather paid each month, out of pocket, and visited the doctor each month, than to have my daughter suffer how she has. I was never given a choice.
Warren, I hope you never have to watch your child have a vaccine reaction, stop growing, and suffer facial tics, seizures, and a lifelong disability for which compensation may never be made.
If that happens, and your child is that small percentage, you too will say that even a small percent, is unacceptable.
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 5:11 PM
I'm pretty sure it is being said in an ironic way.
Posted by: j | January 2, 2007 5:13 PM
if you could not detect the iorony, forgive me, I mean, that man who has destroyed the country I love dearly, George W Bush
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 5:14 PM
This may be an utter (lack of) shock to you, but it's just like that in the US, too.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | January 2, 2007 5:15 PM
But for God sakes, break up the vaccines, we are throwing WAY too many viral insults at our babies immature immune system. In a country as advanced as ours, it is appalling that we only have the 36th lowest infant mortality rate.
I suspect that those 35 also use the same mmr vaccines
Posted by: zwa | January 2, 2007 5:28 PM
You can't really expect individuals who have a choice to put their own children at risk *just* for the sake of herd immunity, however indignant this might make the public health specialists. Given that the risks of an adverse effect, while very small, are never going to be zero the rational (if cynical) parent should try to persuade everyone else to vaccinate their children so that the risk of catching the disease is small enough so she needn't have to do her own.
That could explain some of the heat around the debate a little while back around whether the children of certain UK Government Ministers had been vaccinated. Because they might be assumed to be well placed to influence such matters, it rightly became a public rather than a personal issue.
For most people though regional vaccine take-up rates are what they are, so a wholly rational parent, if such a creature exists, will work the odds according to the best evidence available. Less than 90% take-up eh? Hm. Those of us who are not experts are wholly reliant on people who are trained to assess these things to advise what is best evidence.
On the face of it if Dr Wakefield has not compromised any claims he might have had to being a reliable person, then at least he's got a good deal of explaining to do.
Posted by: Gav | January 2, 2007 5:31 PM
Some people are being rude to Monica while missing her main point, which she keeps carefully repeating, apparently to no avail. (I detected sarcasm in her "wonderful president.") She is saying that there is plenty wrong with current vaccine policy, and that the system can be improved.
To add to Monica's point, consider the reporting of adverse events. When parents call their family doctors to report an adverse event, doctors typically tell them that the event is "normal" and not to worry about it. It is generally agreed in the medical community that because of this, adverse events are widely under-reported. This means that the statistics used to support vaccine safety are not valid.
Relying on over-worked family doctors to do medical research is unwise; proper long term vaccine safety studies need to be performed before we can be sure that vaccines are safe.
Many other issues can be raised here, and perhaps usefully discussed. (For instance, the dearth of long-term safety and efficacy studies, the unusual protection granted to vaccine producers, etc.) It is not a simple case of black-and-white, as some commenters imply.
Posted by: Santo D'Agostino | January 2, 2007 5:35 PM
Also, Monica, if you took a class on virology, pathology, or even just read about polio and smallpox, these two particular diseases were eliminated because of an intensely aggressive vaccination program.
Posted by: Stanton | January 2, 2007 5:37 PM
Also, to note, there are many children who are contraindicated for certain vaccines. Take primary immunedeficiency for example, the NIH says children with PI, or a family history of PI should not receive live virus vaccines, until proper immune function can be established.
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/primary_immuno.cfm
What many people fail to realize, is that many of our doctors practice one size fits all cookie cutter medicine, even with vaccination.
Doctors are also interested in the bonus they get from the government for high vaccination rates.
They do not get these if a child is contraindicated for vaccination.
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 5:41 PM
umm, who ever said I believe in God?
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 5:43 PM
Gav, it seems to be the difference between a perceived risk and a proven one. Correct me if I'm wrong (which I may well be) but Wakefield's findings have not been recreated, and the MMR vaccines don't contain mercury, or any other substance alleged to cause autism.
Parents should be able to make informed decisions, but based on the facts. The risk IMHO is that if parents make the decision not to vaccinate based on unfounded fears, on the assumption that the rest will pick up their slack, we run the risk of not reaching the levels necessary for herd immunity, and thus the unvaccinated kids will be at more risk.
Posted by: psycotic_furby | January 2, 2007 5:44 PM
Stanton, the vaccine policy 20 yrs ago did not include as many vaccines, or vaccines delivered as young as they do now. Check the CDC's website on vaccine history
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/vacc-timeline.htm
And thank you Santo, atleast someone is smart enough to believe that big corporations and our government could be *gasp* irresponsible.
To think, my daughter's doctor to this day REFUSES to file a report with the vaccine adverse event reporting system on my daughter's behalf.
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 5:48 PM
DR Krigsman at Wake Forest University replicated Wakefield's findings last spring
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 5:51 PM
Also, a recent genetic study (the most promising to date) shows a genetic variant associated with the MET gene is common in children with autism and appears more frequently in families that have more than one affected child.
This same gene is also responsible for immune system regulation, and GI function.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=54747
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 5:57 PM
how did this turn into bash monica day? her child had a bad reaction, a rare one. she is not against vaccinations. i'm glad she is speaking up.
my kid is in high school. just before christmas, the principal alerted the whole school that one child has been diagnosed with whooping cough, which is fairly contagious and can be very serious. i'm almost 50 years old, and i can't recall such a notice in my entire life. it's possible that part of what is going on here is that parents have refrained from vaccinations-- the school is in berkeley. we also learned that the immunity wears off over time, and got a non-emergency recommendation of a booster vaccination. the real recommendation was to watch for symptoms of whooping cough, which i'm guessing none of us parents has ever seen.
Posted by: kathy a | January 2, 2007 6:02 PM
DR Krigsman at Wake Forest University replicated Wakefield's findings last spring
umm, did you read Oracs post?
Posted by: zwa | January 2, 2007 6:04 PM
What I find odd about Wakefield, again, it is hard to discern fact or fiction with this man, is that The General Medical Council decided in July that it will not proceed with charges against him.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=395903&in_page_id=1770
If there was no merit to his research, and they truly felt he was at fault, why would they have dropped charges?
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 6:16 PM
The reason for this is the US's appalling lack of universal health care. An embarrassment for the whole world. Look at the other 35...
Incorrect. There are indeed vaccines that can cause autoimmune diseases -- but that's because those particular vaccines are similar (on the molecular level) to some of your own proteins. For the same reason there are also infections that can cause autoimmune diseases. I study molecular biology, I've had my head filled up with far more immunology than I was ever interested in; I can't think of a reason why "too many immune responses in [...] close proximity" could cause autoimmune reactions.
On another note: Peanut Gallery, don't you notice your comment is entirely off-topic in this thread? Maybe read the original post again and then tell me what it has to do with religion.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 2, 2007 6:18 PM
Posted by: jre | January 2, 2007 6:28 PM
btw, there have only been 2 documented cases of autism among the amish, who do not vaccinate. those 2 cases involved children adopted after immunizations.
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 6:39 PM
Thus proving adoption causes autism
Posted by: zwa | January 2, 2007 6:54 PM
We had successfully eliminated smallpox and polio without today's aggressive policy. Why do we feel it is now necessary?
Erm, both of those were eliminated because of immunizations. I don't see your point.
Posted by: Kesh | January 2, 2007 6:56 PM
My point is that a 3 month old baby should not be forced to mount an adequate immune responses to 14 viruses in one day. We effectively eliminated polio and smallpox without giving as many vaccines at once.
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 7:01 PM
My point is that a 3 month old baby should not be forced to mount an immune response to 14 viruses in one day. We effectively eliminated polio and smallpox without giving as many vaccines at once.
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 7:02 PM
Don't stop there, Monica -- what conclusion should we reach from the Amish factoid?
If it's that the Amish are free of autism because they don't vaccinate, don't forget to propose any alternative explanation of the data that might occur to you.
In any event, I will see your Amish and raise you five peer-reviewed studies.
Posted by: jre | January 2, 2007 7:06 PM
"btw, there have only been 2 documented cases of autism among the amish, who do not vaccinate. those 2 cases involved children adopted after immunizations."
You're wrong, but I'll bet that you don't care about the facts.
BTW, since thimoseral has been eliminated from vaccines since 1996. How do you explain the NEGATIVE correlation between thimoseral dose and PDD (which includes autism) in a study with actual controls?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/118/1/e139.pdf
Posted by: John | January 2, 2007 7:09 PM
monica, from what I understand about vaccination schedules no 3-month old baby is given 14 in a single day. Here's a link to a immunization chart that I found on the subject:
http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/growth/medical/immunization_chart.html
Posted by: David W. | January 2, 2007 7:14 PM
I never once claimed (nor has Wakefield) that Thimerosal causes autism.
Actually, thimerosal was not phased out of most childhood vaccines until 2002, and it today's flu vaccine, licensed for pediatric use in the US, still contains thimerosal.
Consequently, my child was born in 2003, and has never had a thimerosal containing vaccine, yet developed autism at 17 months.
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 7:27 PM
David, for your clarification, the DTaP is 3 viruses(diptheria tetanus pertussis), the PCV is 7 variations of the pnumococcal virus (now we are up to 10 viruses), then you add Hepatitis B, Polio, and Haemophilus
influenzae type B3
That is 14 seperate immune responses and is totally unnatural for a 3 month old immune system.
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 7:35 PM
Oh, and here is the CDC's latest schedule
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-schedule-color-print.pdf
you can see for yourself
Posted by: monica | January 2, 2007 7:37 PM
Just how do you know that? Do you think kids are naturally brought up in a sterile environment or something?
How many "seperate immune responses" do you think you might be experiencing right this moment?
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2007 7:41 PM
hmm, a 3 month old typically will not encounter 14 such hostile viral insults in one day. These are major viruses that we vaccinate against for a reasson. Pertussis is not an average cold. Polio and diptheria are not your everyday immune insults.
Posted by: monicaq | January 2, 2007 7:45 PM
Thanks monica. The PCV as I understand it isn't seven (or ten) viruses though, it's actually a conjugated polysaccharide (or sugar) of the molecules that make up the surfaces of the various pneumococcal bacteria. The immune system then develops antibodies that will react against the actual bacteria. FYI - for the PCV vaccine, about 10%-20% of children develop redness, tenderness, or swelling where the shot was given and about 10% may experience a mild fever. This isn't natural, but it does seem to be an acceptable risk considering the risks of an acutal infection to the infant.
Posted by: David W. | January 2, 2007 7:52 PM
monica, the CDC's schedule you provided the link to does not actually show what you're claiming. (That is, 14 hostile viral insultes in one day.) At most, it's more like six or seven. (Note that I am not counting the PCV as seven separate vaccinations, as that is not what is actually being administered.)
Posted by: David W. | January 2, 2007 8:00 PM
Monica, are you asserting that it's the immune response of the body being subjected to "14 viruses" at once that's causing the autism? Since you seem to be discounting the thimerosal as the cause.
Posted by: Kesh | January 2, 2007 8:02 PM
I am sorry, the PCV is 7 various strains of a bacteria, which is just as much work for an immune system as a virus.
And yes, seven bacterias seem to be an acceptable risk, but combined with immune responses to the viruses.