Study linking autism and vaccination an "elaborate fraud"

[Renegade Paladin]

In a development which should shock no one... (http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/)
Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds
By the CNN Wire Staff
January 5, 2011 8:14 p.m. EST

(CNN) -- A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an "elaborate fraud" that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday.

An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.

"It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."

Britain stripped Wakefield of his medical license in May. "Meanwhile, the damage to public health continues, fueled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals and the medical profession," BMJ states in an editorial accompanying the work.

Speaking to CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," Wakefield said his work has been "grossly distorted" and that he was the target of "a ruthless, pragmatic attempt to crush any attempt to investigate valid vaccine safety concerns."

The now-discredited paper panicked many parents and led to a sharp drop in the number of children getting the vaccine that prevents measles, mumps and rubella. Vaccination rates dropped sharply in Britain after its publication, falling as low as 80% by 2004. Measles cases have gone up sharply in the ensuing years.

In the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than in any other year since 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than 90% of those infected had not been vaccinated or their vaccination status was unknown, the CDC reported.

"But perhaps as important as the scare's effect on infectious disease is the energy, emotion and money that have been diverted away from efforts to understand the real causes of autism and how to help children and families who live with it," the BMJ editorial states.

Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them. Most of his co-authors withdrew their names from the study in 2004 after learning he had had been paid by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers -- a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose. After years on controversy, the Lancet, the prestigious journal that originally published the research, retracted Wakefield's paper last February.

The series of articles launched Wednesday are investigative journalism, not results of a clinical study. The writer, Brian Deer, said Wakefield "chiseled" the data before him, "falsifying medical histories of children and essentially concocting a picture, which was the picture he was contracted to find by lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers and to create a vaccine scare."

According to BMJ, Wakefield received more than 435,000 pounds ($674,000) from the lawyers. Godlee said the study shows that of the 12 cases Wakefield examined in his paper, five showed developmental problems before receiving the MMR vaccine and three never had autism.

"It's always hard to explain fraud and where it affects people to lie in science," Godlee said. "But it does seem a financial motive was underlying this, both in terms of payments by lawyers and through legal aid grants that he received but also through financial schemes that he hoped would benefit him through diagnostic and other tests for autism and MMR-related issues."

But Wakefield told CNN that claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism "came from the parents, not me," and that his paper had "nothing to do with the litigation."

Read autism coverage on "The Chart" blog.

"These children were seen on the basis of their clinical symptoms, for their clinical need, and they were seen by expert clinicians and their disease diagnosed by them, not by me," he said.

Wakefield dismissed Deer as "a hit man who has been brought into take me down" by pharmaceutical interests. Deer has signed a disclosure form stating that he has no financial interest in the business.

Dr. Max Wiznitzer, a pediatric neurologist at Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital in Cleveland, said the reporting "represents Wakefield as a person where the ends justified the means." But he said the latest news may have little effect on those families who still blame vaccines for their children's conditions.

"Unfortunately, his core group of supporters is not going to let the facts dissuade their beliefs that MMR causes autism," Wiznitzer said. "They need to be open-minded and examine the information as everybody else."

Wakefield's defenders include David Kirby, a journalist who has written extensively on autism. He told CNN that Wakefield not only has denied falsifying data, he has said he had no way to do so.

"I have known him for a number of years. He does not strike me as a charlatan or a liar," Kirby said. If the BMJ allegations are true, then Wakefield "did a terrible thing" -- but he added, "I personally find it hard to believe that he did that."
Absolutely, disgustingly shameful. Vaccinations have been skipped, herd immunity is compromised, and people have died because of the hysteria prompted by this... person's lies and deceit.

Also, evidence mounts in favor of the banning of the legal profession.

[Eldan]

Huh.

Now, this is not actually about the article itself, but:

What kind of study gets published with only 12 cases? How can you even hope to show anything significant with that few?

[truemane]

This has been a thorn in my side for years. So many arguments I've had about vaccines (and always with women, for some reason, never with men, for whatever that's worth) and the 'dangers' they pose. The fact that this is complete and utter BS has been out there for a while now but people just don't want to listen. And they endanger their children on the basis of 'what they heard.'

Drives me crazy. That peculiar human trait of making important decisions based on background noise and not on actual fact. It's your CHILDREN, don't you owe it to them to do the minimal amount of research required to ferret out the truth and not just be all 'well I heard they cause autism...'

Grrr.

[Elder Tsofu]

Well, if the media hadn't given it the attention it didn't deserve...

[Asta Kask]

It was more of a case study. But it set the ball rolling.

Note that the journal retracted the paper in 2010 - I have never heard of a journal doing that in any other case, and I have followed a few scientific journals. Not even Pons and Fleischmann's paper (on cold fusion) was retracted. So my guess is that the Lancet suspected fraud in science even then.

Here's the Jenny McCarthy Body Count (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html) page. No, obviously she's not personally responsible for all those deaths but she is the face of the Anti-Vaccination crowd.

[pendell]

In a development which should shock no one... (http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/)
Absolutely, disgustingly shameful. Vaccinations have been skipped, herd immunity is compromised, and people have died because of the hysteria prompted by this... person's lies and deceit.

Also, evidence mounts in favor of the banning of the legal profession.

Thank you VERY MUCH for posting that. My wife has bought fully into that study and it's conclusions. I regret she'll probably dismiss the article as 'vaccination propaganda' or some such, but it's good to be aware of, even so.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

Also, evidence mounts in favor of the banning of the legal profession.

Where's that come from?

[Eldan]

As it says in the article: the researcher was paid by attorneys to falsify a study so that it would point at vaccinations creating autism, because they wanted to sue medical companies.

[truemane]

Well, if the media hadn't given it the attention it didn't deserve...

Yeah, I get that. I really do, but the media is always going to dive for the gutter when it can. That's what it does. Getting mad at the media for roiling up controversy is like getting mad at CEO's for pocketing bonus checks. That's just how they roll.

But, again, it's your own children, and it's their health. I just find it hard to understand how people can put them at risk over nothing.

I work with a lady who, at the height of the H1N1 outbreak, said told me she wasn't going to have her one year old daughter vaccinated and was quite outspoken about it. Why? Because a friend of hers had HER daughter vaccinated and got REALLY REALLY sick right after.

Sure. And my uncle lived to 110 years old after smoking three packs a day for 40 years. That means that, clearly, smoking doesn't cause cancer.

[Renegade Paladin]

The series of articles launched Wednesday are investigative journalism, not results of a clinical study. The writer, Brian Deer, said Wakefield "chiseled" the data before him, "falsifying medical histories of children and essentially concocting a picture, which was the picture he was contracted to find by lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers and to create a vaccine scare."

According to BMJ, Wakefield received more than 435,000 pounds ($674,000) from the lawyers. Godlee said the study shows that of the 12 cases Wakefield examined in his paper, five showed developmental problems before receiving the MMR vaccine and three never had autism.
Not being content with mere parasitism (the lawyer's bread and butter, thriving on the misfortunes of those who do productive work), whoever these attorneys are decided to move into bribery and falsification of evidence.

[hamishspence]

As it says in the article: the researcher was paid by attorneys to falsify a study so that it would point at vaccinations creating autism, because they wanted to sue medical companies.

That covers attorneys who specialize in suing- a variant of "ambulance-chasers"- but there's plenty of other aspects to the "legal profession".

A few corrupt lawyers isn't really a reason to ban the "legal profession"- just a reason to tighten up regulations and put more effort into discouraging this kind of thing.

[hamishspence]

Not being content with mere parasitism (the lawyer's bread and butter, thriving on the misfortunes of those who do productive work)

People who can't afford to defend themselves- still need defending.

Abolishing the entire legal profession- would simply end up with the poorest suffering the most, and being more open to exploitation.

[Eldan]

True, but, as Hamishspence points out, a few corrupt cases is not a reason to ban a profession. After all, there have been more than enough cases of corrupt judges, policemen, firemen, doctors or scientists in human history.

[Amiel]

It's such a shame that sheer, pernicious greed replaced both the Hippocratic oath and one's sense of personal ethics as the pursuit to strive for.

[Renegade Paladin]

People who can't afford to defend themselves- still need defending.\
Speaking as someone utterly unable to afford the services of an attorney to defend himself (and now has to pay more attorneys a ridiculous sum of money), I know. What does that have to do with demanding five figures to even consider such a defense?

[Zmflavius]

Not being content with mere parasitism (the lawyer's bread and butter, thriving on the misfortunes of those who do productive work), whoever these attorneys are decided to move into bribery and falsification of evidence.

You do realize that the vast majority of legal work is not tort where the vast majority of "thriving on the misfortunes of those who do productive work" occurs, but in fact more on family and property law (ie divorces, wills, contracts, etc.)?

[hamishspence]

Speaking as someone utterly unable to afford the services of an attorney to defend himself (and now has to pay more attorneys a ridiculous sum of money), I know. What does that have to do with demanding five figures to even consider such a defense?

That's why there are public defenders- to ensure that a person at least gets a fair say.

They may not be as good as private lawyers- but people still need them.

[Asta Kask]

Yeah, I get that. I really do, but the media is always going to dive for the gutter when it can. That's what it does. Getting mad at the media for roiling up controversy is like getting mad at CEO's for pocketing bonus checks. That's just how they roll.

But, again, it's your own children, and it's their health. I just find it hard to understand how people can put them at risk over nothing.

Remember, people haven't seen these diseases in full force. Take polio - in the last great epidemic, 1952, 58 000 cases were reported, 3 145 people died and 21 269 suffered mild to disabling paralysis (Wikipedia). There are 10 to 20 million polio survivors worldwide. Yet few young people today know that polio was once the most feared disease in the West.

Now, if you don't know how bad polio, or measles (death), or mumps (sterility), or rubella (severe birth defects) can be and someone tells you the vaccine causes autism, it's not strange that some people choose not to vaccinate.

Here's science-based medicine's (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9552#more-9552) take on it.

And could we have the legal discussion in another thread, please?

[hamishspence]

And could we have the legal discussion in another thread, please?

OK- was just responding to the "ban the legal profession" comments.

[Elder Tsofu]

Yeah, I get that. I really do, but the media is always going to dive for the gutter when it can. That's what it does. Getting mad at the media for roiling up controversy is like getting mad at CEO's for pocketing bonus checks. That's just how they roll.

But, again, it's your own children, and it's their health. I just find it hard to understand how people can put them at risk over nothing.

I'm not mad at the media, it is what they does - but they should also realize their actual responsibility as journalists. People believe what is said in the paper, when they don't have a personal reason not to.
The journalists could, for example, have asked a scientist or two what one study of this "calibre" actually means before blowing it up. They could even have grabbed three people from the streets with a bachelors degree in "science" and asked them.

But then again, people like reading stories over facts, so the paper deliver "stories"...

[Anxe]

Huh.

Now, this is not actually about the article itself, but:

What kind of study gets published with only 12 cases? How can you even hope to show anything significant with that few?

Of course it can be published, but its not conclusive evidence at that point. At that stage it should be considered preliminary evidence for further studies. The problem here: The further studies proved the first study horribly wrong.

[Renegade Paladin]

That's why there are public defenders- to ensure that a person at least gets a fair say.

They may not be as good as private lawyers- but people still need them.
Funny thing about that - Indiana has provisions for pauper defense, but when I applied, the judge told me out of hand that he never grants a motion for it, so I shouldn't bother. Fortunately, I'm smarter than the average bear and managed to strongarm them down to about 10% of their original demand through application of the bankruptcy statutes (what do you call a $120,000 judgment against someone with no assets? An unsecured debt!), but not before having over four years of my life wasted on a fabricated case that I could do nothing against directly, seeing how the prime witness died of a heart attack soon after the case was filed.

But you know what? This isn't the point of the thread. I learned more than enough in my time spent around the courthouse to know I'm right (it was certainly enlightening listening to supposedly opposing lawyers in another case openly conspiring to screw one of their clients after dragging their case out for as long as possible to get themselves more fees as soon as the judge was out of earshot; no wonder they wasted my time for four years before actually going to trial), but there's no point continuing to discuss it.

[hamishspence]

But you know what? This isn't the point of the thread.

there's no point continuing to discuss it.

Hence a new thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182394

raising the question of the necessity of the legal profession.

[Asta Kask]

Now, regarding the press. Yes, the media dropped the ball on the 1998 paper and has done so repeatedly. And I think it was because this was one of the archetypal stories - "Plucky young researcher proves the establishment wrong" and "Children's lives destroyed by corporate greed." And since the welfare of the children was at stake, anyone who stood up and opposed the claim could be accused of "wanting children to have autism" and "being shills of Big Pharma"*.

The anti-vaccers website (Age of Autism) for Thanksgiving 2009 had a picture of prominent vaccers gathered for Thanksgiving. Their meal? A cooked baby. And the main complaint from those who commented on this was that the picture didn't go far enough.** When you realize that this is their picture of anyone who doesn't agree with them, you realize that no matter what the evidence says, the people over at Age of Autism will not give up their beliefs. It's all a big conspiracy, and any evidence against the conspiracy is really evidence for it. When you've come to that, there's really no hope.

* I'm of two minds when it comes to the pharmaceutical companies. On the one hand, they do some very bad things, like hiding data from regulatory agencies. On the other hand, they provide us with the most wonderful drugs to battle disease. Too bad we can't seem to get the latter without the former.

** TBF, a vocal minority criticized the picture and said it was distasteful and would only damage their cause. Their commentaries tended to mysteriously disappear from the website, however.

[pendell]

True, but, as Hamishspence points out, a few corrupt cases is not a reason to ban a profession. After all, there have been more than enough cases of corrupt judges, policemen, firemen, doctors or scientists in human history.

Well, clearly, the answer is to ban all humans.

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[Adlan]

This isn't news. Or at least shouldn't be new news, it's been know for a while. Ben Goldacre's brilliant Book, Bad Science, and his Blog, are a fantastic guide and introduction to both the Wakefield and Anti-Vaccer Hype, Homeopathey and Nutionist 'WooWoo' and the attitude of Skepticism Everyone should have.


* I'm of two minds when it comes to the pharmaceutical companies. On the one hand, they do some very bad things, like hiding data from regulatory agencies. On the other hand, they provide us with the most wonderful drugs to battle disease. Too bad we can't seem to get the latter without the former.


I should first Declare that I work for a Pharmaceutical....

There is a hell of a lot wrong with Big Pharma. But It's something that is wrong with all big corporations, the a-morality of a company not due to their intention, but due to their size, it's big enough for a culture of fudging to grow to keep upper management happy, and the rewards tempt people to doing some dam dodgey things.
However, the more scientifically literate people out there, the more pople who are willing to stand up and whistleblow,the better it'll be.

[Lillith]

What I always found very interesting was the episode of Penn and Teller about this subject. For those interested link to the first part here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo97VouL0ls). It has this perfect example of people who are against vaccinations and it pretty much states the reasons why there are some people who are against it. (aka, they're as dumb as bricks)

[Elder Tsofu]

Ben Goldacre's brilliant Book, Bad Science, and his Blog, are a fantastic guide and introduction to both the Wakefield and Anti-Vaccer Hype, Homeopathey and Nutionist 'WooWoo' and the attitude of Skepticism Everyone should have.

Good book, an "enjoyable" read. But I wont take what he says as true until I've read the references (or I'll come of as dumb/deceitful as those he portraits).

It gives a good introduction to the scientific method though, and a few things to think about - so it is recommended literature. (as long as you finish his course with a passing grade)

[Quincunx]

This entire thread puts a smile on my face. It's no new information, but it's good to be reminded of all this and to have it pulled together in a single article.

However, the public health laws to restrict the freedoms of carriers still only apply after people contract the disease they may carry. There's no way to penalize the non-vaccinated. The best we can do, probably, is bring the option of vaccination to the adults whose parents refused to vaccinate them as kids. There's a little public-health project. . .hmm. . .:smallconfused:

[Emperor Ing]

I wonder how many careers, legal or otherwise are gonna go down the hole because of this?

[Asta Kask]

What I always found very interesting was the episode of Penn and Teller about this subject. For those interested link to the first part here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo97VouL0ls). It has this perfect example of people who are against vaccinations and it pretty much states the reasons why there are some people who are against it. (aka, they're as dumb as bricks)

Penn and Teller do an excellent job, like they mostly do. Dumb...? Well, in some cases they certainly are. Other are merely scientifically uneducated. Critical thinking is not the default mode for humans - it takes training and effort. So it shouldn't surprise us that many people are bad at it.


There's no way to penalize the non-vaccinated. The best we can do, probably, is bring the option of vaccination to the adults whose parents refused to vaccinate them as kids. There's a little public-health project. . .hmm. . .:smallconfused:

First of all, is there a legal case for something like Public Endangerment against organizations like Age of Autism? Second, I think many of the adults will continue to refuse vaccination. The alternative - to accept that they put their own children in danger - may be too much to swallow for them. Easier to accept a conspiracy theory.

[leakingpen]

To be honest, the article is about the lasting damage the fraud has done, according the the medical journal. The fact that the study is a fraud was admitted by the guy in charge of the study about 2 years ago.



So it shouldn't surprise us that many people are bad at it.

Yeah... and still it does never fail to surprsie me.

[Elder Tsofu]

I've always thought that the penalty for non-vaccinated is the disease. It only springs up when they reach a critical part of the population though.

The delayed penalty is a bummer (if they don't go abroad and don't take their shots that is), that it might hit the anti-vaccinations children is ... beyond words.

[Castaras]

In a development which should shock no one... (http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/)
Absolutely, disgustingly shameful. Vaccinations have been skipped, herd immunity is compromised, and people have died because of the hysteria prompted by this... person's lies and deceit.

Also, evidence mounts in favor of the banning of the legal profession.

....This isn't a new phenomena. There was a jab quite a few years ago that had the same sort of study - I think it was in the Chester area of Britain that had the most hysteria. Lots of people refused to get their kids the jab, and whatdoya know - Just because you discover kids have autism at the same time as they have the jab doesn't mean you have a positive correlation... And most of the kids got sick...

It's sick, yes.

[Quincunx]

. . .dear gods, the epidemic of a preventable disease already happened once?!

*****

No, parents cannot face the idea that they chose poorly. That's why I would like to find the (now adult, or nearly so) children whose parents have already made their choice, and offer that generation the choice now that they're old enough to think through it on their own, and perhaps old enough to be scorched by the idea of choosing poorly for their own offspring.

[Brother Oni]

I've always thought that the penalty for non-vaccinated is the disease. It only springs up when they reach a critical part of the population though.

That's due to herd immunity. Basically the people who don't vaccinate don't see their children getting the disease because it fails to reach their unprotected children due to all the other vaccinated children protecting them.

This leads to more people not getting their children vaccinated, until the percentage of the population vaccinated drops below the required minimum for effective herd immunity (I remember a rather high figure like 95% vaccination is required for useful herd immunity, but I can't remember where I read it), and then all the children start getting the disease.

I believe the case studied the combined MMR vaccination, rather than individual vaccines (some parents paid to have the separate jabs), but unfortunately some parents read that to be all vaccinations, thus never vaccinated at all.

[Serpentine]

I read an interesting article in New Scientist a while ago about denialism. It demonstrated the similarity - even some direct links, which was worrying - between vaccination deniers, climate change, evolution, AIDS and other deniers. It explained the methods they use to argue their case, and it was really remarkable how similar they all are.
Unfortunately you have to sign up to read the article, but there's an article about it (with link) here (http://www.desmogblog.com/new-scientists-%E2%80%9Cliving-denial%E2%80%9D-special-issue-discusses-climate-deniers).

My cousin is a vaccination denier :smallsigh: She's from Byron Bay, which is notorious for its hippy population and distrust of medicine, especially vaccines. Guess what? They have a whooping cough epidemic. Who'da thought?! :sigh:
Oh, and this cousin, whose baby certainly isn't vaccinated, is moving to Indonesia :sigh:

[Anxe]

Whooping Cough isn't a standard vaccination for infants though is it? At least it wasn't when I was a baby in my area.

[leakingpen]

Pertussis, yeah, its part of the first ones kids get, my son got it at a month, i believe.

[Zmflavius]

. . .dear gods, the epidemic of a preventable disease already happened once?!

*****

No, parents cannot face the idea that they chose poorly. That's why I would like to find the (now adult, or nearly so) children whose parents have already made their choice, and offer that generation the choice now that they're old enough to think through it on their own, and perhaps old enough to be scorched by the idea of choosing poorly for their own offspring.

Actually, the solution to this problem is not so simple. Adults and teenagers are hit harder by preventable diseases than children (I'm not a doctor, so I'm not sure why), so the vaccination is actually more dangerous as you grow older.

[Quincunx]

Babies and children have more robust immune systems to compensate for starting out with no antibodies at all; they catch every germ going around without a struggle, and then overpower it, whereas an adult's antibodies overpower the germ first, and only when that fails does the adult get and stay sick. The child's immune system is already in the "learning" phase that vaccines stimulate. Adults can still benefit from vaccines, though, like the 'travel vaccinations' if you're going to be traveling to an area where diseases you haven't been exposed to still thrive. Even if an adult decides not to take precautions against disease*, the options exist.

The anti-vaccination movement will start to die out, not once their children die from preventable diseases, but when they regard the preventable death as a worse outcome than the alternative. Right now, they seem to think that the chance of autism is worse than the chance of death.

*vaccine, prophylactic pills, mosquito nets, etc.

[pendell]

I read an interesting article in New Scientist a while ago about denialism. It demonstrated the similarity - even some direct links, which was worrying - between vaccination deniers, climate change, evolution, AIDS and other deniers.


I respectfully suggest that 'denialism' happens when a scientific study trips the BS filters of ordinary people but they do not have the scientific background to explain their disagreement in scientific terms, nor particular interest in doing so. Not accepting the results of this study -- or cold fusion -- or the prospect that the world will run out of fossil fuel before the year 2000 -- or there will not be enough food to support the human population by 2000 -- or that coffee causes pancreatic cancer (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/12/us/study-links-coffee-use-to-pancreas-cancer.html) ( a study that has been refuted (http://www.cosic.org/coffee-and-health/cancer)) et cetera ad nauseum.

By the time you reach 40 (which I will hit next May), you've seen a boatload of scientific scares and studies of one kind or another come and go. The result being is that when the latest wave of college students come around from university determined to Save You From Your Evil Ways -- well, you tend to take it with a grain of salt. Then in about ten years or so the predictions don't work out and it's on to the next craze.

It's only natural that people who lack either time, interest, or ability to participate in the scientific debate should reach a point of regarding said discussions with an air of attached bemusement, then gravitate to those people who will reinforce their point of view, whatever it happens to be.

I know a couple of people firsthand who are denialists. I am myself in some areas (which, I ain't tellin'). While it's hard to generalize, many of the people I think of who are denialists aren't so much irrational as they consider university discussions to be utterly irrelevant to how they live their daily lives.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Juggling Goth]

I've always thought that the penalty for non-vaccinated is the disease. It only springs up when they reach a critical part of the population though.


That's due to herd immunity. Basically the people who don't vaccinate don't see their children getting the disease because it fails to reach their unprotected children due to all the other vaccinated children protecting them.

This leads to more people not getting their children vaccinated, until the percentage of the population vaccinated drops below the required minimum for effective herd immunity (I remember a rather high figure like 95% vaccination is required for useful herd immunity, but I can't remember where I read it), and then all the children start getting the disease.

I believe the case studied the combined MMR vaccination, rather than individual vaccines (some parents paid to have the separate jabs), but unfortunately some parents read that to be all vaccinations, thus never vaccinated at all.

The other problem is the other side of herd immunity: it's not meant to protect people who're too special-snowflake to get vaccinated. It's meant to protect the people who don't have enough immune system to get vaccinated. So while it would be very karmic if people who didn't get vaccinated got sick, it's more likely to be the people who can't get vaccinated who get sick, who're extra-vulnerable and relying on everybody else being sensible. (And, you know, the babies who don't get to change their parents' minds. That sucks too.)

The Wikipedia article on herd immunity gives rates for various vaccinated-against diseases. 94% is indeed the top end for measles and whooping cough. All of the top-end estimates are over 80%, and most of the low-end estimates are, so vaccination rates dropping below 80% is a major problem.

[OracleofWuffing]

Whooping Cough isn't a standard vaccination for infants though is it? At least it wasn't when I was a baby in my area.

Pertussis, yeah, its part of the first ones kids get, my son got it at a month, i believe.
Funny story, I got diagnosed with Whooping Cough back in my college days... My parents and I checked the records, and, well, basically I received the vaccines for diphtheria and tetanus, and then my doctor forgot to administer the pertussis vaccine. :smallsigh: My parents didn't refuse the vaccine for me or anything, it just wasn't administered. I wanted to punch that guy through the phone as soon as I could breathe normally.

[Joran]

The other problem is the other side of herd immunity: it's not meant to protect people who're too special-snowflake to get vaccinated. It's meant to protect the people who don't have enough immune system to get vaccinated. So while it would be very karmic if people who didn't get vaccinated got sick, it's more likely to be the people who can't get vaccinated who get sick, who're extra-vulnerable and relying on everybody else being sensible. (And, you know, the babies who don't get to change their parents' minds. That sucks too.)

The Wikipedia article on herd immunity gives rates for various vaccinated-against diseases. 94% is indeed the top end for measles and whooping cough. All of the top-end estimates are over 80%, and most of the low-end estimates are, so vaccination rates dropping below 80% is a major problem.

Or kids too young to get vaccines. Infants don't get vaccines for some diseases until 2 months or 6 months. I've read stories of young babies dying of pertussis because they weren't able to be immunized until later.

Two of my cousins have kids with autism, two of them with the same mother. It's heart-wrenching, especially because there's no explanation why. I still had my new child vaccinated; I believe in science and medicine.

There's a sliding scale though of denial. My mother, with a Ph.D. in Biochemistry is of the "mercury" causes the autism, so she advised me to get vaccines without thimersol, "just to be safe". This is a relatively benign version of anti-vaccine, but just shows how persistent the bad science has permeated into society.

[Prime32]

And there's a worse side to this. If a child isn't vaccinated, not only can they catch the disease but they provide a breeding ground for the disease to mutate and become immune to the vaccine.

[Asta Kask]

The anti-vaccination movement will start to die out, not once their children die from preventable diseases, but when they regard the preventable death as a worse outcome than the alternative. Right now, they seem to think that the chance of autism is worse than the chance of death.

I don't think so. It has been with us since vaccination was first discovered. It's like a game of whack-a-mole; remove one misunderstanding and a new once crops up. Still, we can limit the damage.


And there's a worse side to this. If a child isn't vaccinated, not only can they catch the disease but they provide a breeding ground for the disease to mutate and become immune to the vaccine.

I wouldn't worry too much about that... a bigger problem is that they can spread it to babies who haven't been vaccinated, or kids and adults who have a poor immune system. My neighbor has a kidney transplant which requires immunosuppressants - if she came too close to someone who didn't vaccinate (and who may not even realize he's ill), she could very well die.

[Keld Denar]

Is there a vaccine for stupidity yet? How about ignorance? Gah...

I've had all my vaccinations. My mother is a public health nurse. She GAVE me all my shots. And I thank her for it (well, except the one time she gave me my Hep A booster in a dark car in the parking lot of a bar when I was in college, that just looked awkward).

Menengitis is the biggest one most people need nowadays. Every year you hear about a few college kids who die from this horrible disease. Its so EASY, and the alternative is so horrible, painful, and deadly. It seriously makes no sense to me. Seriously, go look at what menengitis does to the body. It'll make you dizzy and sick to your stomach just reading it.

[Castaras]

Oh - I'll also add this, just as a personal thing: I'm bloody terrified of Injections. I sometimes faint when people are just *talking* about injections. At the very least, I either have a need to steer the conversation away from it or walk away. I would still take every jab needed to make it so I wouldn't have to suffer such a horrific illness - the risk of Fainting or a panic attack once for an vaccination is nothing compared to getting seriously sick and close to death.

[_Zoot_]

It irritates me that people can be allowed to put others at risk like this, I mean, it wouldn't be fare to force them to get vaccines, but like wise it isn't fare that others may get badly sick because of exposure to a person that has not be vaccinated.

And if vaccines are so bad, why is it that while more than 90% of the population is vaccinated there are very few cases of all the nasty things that vaccines are meant to cause going around?

[Evil DM Mark3]

Huh.

Now, this is not actually about the article itself, but:

What kind of study gets published with only 12 cases? How can you even hope to show anything significant with that few?

You can do a paper that is based on a few cases, or even just one, but it is very hard to do right. There is a paper, widely respected, on the placebo effect that had just 2 people involved, because it was built around giving the people a drug that would make them feel worse but telling them that it would make them feel better (they felt better, but not much better, BTW). These papers are hard, VERY hard, to do right though for the very reason you raise. You have to be open and clear with your findings and it normally only happens if you have a few highly unusual or astounding cases, typically of a very rare condition. Even then they are treated with scepticism and care by the medical community. But it can be done if you are a careful, self critical and scrupulously fair researcher.

This guy, not so much.

Seriously I am still angry that he has escaped jail time. Even if he has not directly killed anyone, he has significantly hastened the deaths of many, making him a killer on the Golem metric.

[Asta Kask]

A study showing 100% remission of late-stage rabies or ALS would definitely be published, even if there were only 12 cases. And case studies and case series are invaluable in medicine - that's where many ideas for new research come from.

[Moonshadow]

Is there a vaccine for stupidity yet? How about ignorance? Gah...



Never fear, Darwin will save us!

[CoffeeIncluded]

As I have been saying all day in school, this is sick, disgusting, and every single synonym in the book. Sadly, I'm not surprised. Just ashamed. It's "people" like him who give doctors and scientists a bad name. I simply cannot comprehend how he decided that to make money and to feed his own ego would be worth causing an international scare and killing people!

He needs to be stripped of his license internationally and if the thing with the lawyers is true, then they need to be disbarred. Lawyers have a standard of ethics too, and telling a "doctor" to falsify a medical study is almost certainly grounds for disbarment.

This violates pretty much every single standard of ethics and morality, both medical and general, out there. Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath? Or just, you know, basic decency?

Full disclosure: I've had every vaccine (Including Gardisil) except for the flu shot.

[pendell]

Never fear, Darwin will save us!

Umm .. it doesn't seem to be working. People kill themselves through stupidity every year but the amount of stupidity in the world seems to be increasing.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Keld Denar]

Full disclosure: I've had every vaccine (Including Gardisil) except for the flu shot.

I don't recognize this one. Is that the new HPV vaccine? If it is, shiney!

[CoffeeIncluded]

I don't recognize this one. Is that the new HPV vaccine? If it is, shiney!

Yeah, that's what it is. My parents kinda gave me a sideways glance when I asked if I could get the vaccine (and I think I know why :smallannoyed:) but all I was thinking was, "CANCER VACCINE. GET IT."

[Keld Denar]

Yea, given the fact that HPV is primarily an STI...yea...thats kinda got some negative stigmatta attached to it if your parents take it to assume you are, or intend to be sexually active. HPV is also one of the highest causes of cervical cancer, so...yea, go go gadget cancer vaccine (indirectly).

Still, shiney! Good ol' science, lowering the consequences of being irresponsible one needle poke at a time.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Yea, given the fact that HPV is primarily an STI...yea...thats kinda got some negative stigmatta attached to it if your parents take it to assume you are, or intend to be sexually active. HPV is also one of the highest causes of cervical cancer, so...yea, go go gadget cancer vaccine (indirectly).

Still, shiney! Good ol' science, lowering the consequences of being irresponsible one needle poke at a time.

It was more of a teasing, "Why are you asking for this, Coffee? :smallamused:" thing. But yeah! Shiny!

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: The underlying scientific discussion could probably be conducted within the Forum Rules (if done carefully) without running afoul of the prohibition on real world politics. (That said, please don't restart this thread in any fashion without permission from one of the Friendly Banter moderators.)

The discussion of law and the legal profession on the other hand is altogether too political in nature to discuss here, and it's bound up in this thread from the first post.