This from CNN: Landlord finds mentally disabled people locked in basement; 3 arrested
This is one of those stories where I have to take some time before writing any more.
Here is video from a CNN affiliate:
TACONY – October 17, 2011 (WPVI) — Philadelphia police say alleged kidnapping ringleader Linda Ann Weston had at least 50 social security numbers in her possession when she was arrested this weekend.
They say Weston could have been holding the four adults for a decade or more.
I recently wrote about a series of rather unfactual articles on EmpowHER, EmpowHer blogs the autism vaccine story…and fails. I checked back on her discussion. Here’s part of her latest comment:
Actually, most of the transmission of whooping cough to newborns is from their vaccinated parents and siblings. The vaccine has been found to only last 3 years so because people are vaccinated repeatedly through childhood and teens, it wears off at a time they are childbearing. In the past, the majority of people had whooping cough as children so they developed life-long immunity to it so could not infect their own children and in the past, most mother’s who had had whooping cough, also breast fed which meant their babies were protected from whooping cough during the vulnerable newborn phase.
Let’s take a look at this, shall we?
Does a pertussis infection give a person “lifelong” immunity? No. Does a vaccine give only 3 years of immunity? No. A journal article (first one on my search for “immunity from pertussis”) states otherwise:
Duration of immunity against pertussis after natural infection or vaccination.
Wendelboe AM, Van Rie A, Salmaso S, Englund JA.
SourceDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. awendelboe@unc.edu
AbstractDespite decades of high vaccination coverage, pertussis has remained endemic and reemerged as a public health problem in many countries in the past 2 decades. Waning of vaccine-induced immunity has been cited as one of the reasons for the observed epidemiologic trend. A review of the published data on duration of immunity reveals estimates that infection-acquired immunity against pertussis disease wanes after 4-20 years and protective immunity after vaccination wanes after 4-12 years. Further research into the rate of waning of vaccine-acquired immunity will help determine the optimal timing and frequency of booster immunizations and their role in pertussis control.
So, if we subject people to an infection rather than a vaccination, they might get roughly double the immunity time. Infection comes at the cost of weeks or months of painful coughing, potential permanent harm or death.
The first website in my simple and quick search was the New York state health department.
Neither vaccination nor natural infection with pertussis guarantees lifelong protective immunity against pertussis. Since immunity decreases after five to ten years from the last pertussis vaccine dose, older children, adolescents and adults are at risk of becoming infected with pertussis and need vaccination.
What about “in the past, most mother’s who had had whooping cough, also breast fed which meant their babies were protected from whooping cough during the vulnerable newborn phase.”
Well, yes and no. Protected, yes. As well as being vaccinated? No. Completely protected? No. Whooping cough resulted in a death rate of 4.5/1000 infants in the U.S. in 1900, a year when I expect breast feeding was near 100%.
EmpowHER claims that:
EmpowHER.com provides credible, evidence-based health content from over 400 world-class health care professionals, experts and providers.
Perhaps they could hire writers who would spend 30 seconds doing a simple web search to back up their unfounded claims. Not much to ask from “world class” “experts”.
Seriously, who allowed this comment to go through “Also, the vaccines don’t technically immunize, they change the presentation of the disease.”
Seriously wrong. EmpowHER can, and should, do much better.
In Illinois charges DAN doctor with unethical behavior, LBRB writer Ken Reibel discussed the case recently brought against alternative medical practitioner Dr. Anju Usman. These charges follow on a civil suit brought by the parent of an autistic child seen by Dr. Usman. This charges in this case will require that Dr. Usman defend many of the common practices in alternative medicine.
The complaint is:
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION of the State of Illinois,
v.
ANJUM I. USMAN, M.D.
No. 200904994
One short paragraph in the complaint sums up a big piece of where this suit has the possibility to strongly influence how alternative medicine “treats” autism: None of the treatments described above has been proven to influence the course of autism.
Here is a section of count 1:
17. Hair analysis does not provide a basis for the diagnosis of heavy metal toxicity.
18. Provoked urine testing does not provide a basis for the diagnosis of heavy metal toxicity. The American College of Medical Toxicology has determined that provoked testing has not be scientifically validated, has no demonstrated benefit and may be harmful when used for assessing patients for metal poisoning.
19. Porphyrin testing does not provide a reliable basis for the diagnosis of heavy metal toxicity.
20. Although chelation therapy is FDA-approved for treating lead poisoning, it should not be used unless a non-provoked blood (not urine) test shows an extremely high level of lead.
21. Respondent did not obtain a confirmatory blood lead test or record any source of lead exposure.
22. The record contains no basis for concluding that chelation therapy was appropriate.
23. The record does not contain adequate infonlled consent for any of the prescribed nonstandard tests or treatments. The consent fonns used did not accurately present the risks and/or benefits of tests and treatments. Although it mentioned experimental drug use, these were not administered as part of a proper experimental protocol.
24. The informed consent form states that chelation therapy “is considered controversial for the generalized treatment of chronic low or high level lead toxicity, mercury toxicity, or for other heavy metal toxicities, either acute or chronic.” This statement is misleading because there is a clear scientific consensus that it is inappropriate for treating lead toxicity without demonstrating that toxicity exists and that the level is very high.
25. Throughout the treatment period, Respondent made statements to AC’s mother that the prescribed treatments had positive clinical benefits for children with autism, despite the lack of empirical research supporting Respondent’s position.
26. The record does not document any reason why AC should have received unproven treatments.
27. Spironolactone, which is potentially dangerous, was prescribed without justification.
28. Despite a nonnal selenium level, Respondent repeatedly and unnecessarily prescribed selenium supplements and continued to do so even when AC eventually showed a high level.
29. That Respondent abused the physician/patient relationship by taking unfair advantage of a patient’s vulnerability in that Respondent utilized unproven drugs and medicine to treat AC, a pediatric patient diagnosed with autism.
30. That the foregoing acts and/or omissions of Respondent are grounds for revocation or suspension of a Certificate of Registration pursuant to 225 Illinois Compiled Statutes (2002), Section 60122(A)(20), relying on the Rules for the Administration of the Medical Practice Act, Illinois Administrative Code Title 68, Section 1285.240(b)(1 )(C), and (2) (C).
There are many methods by which “heavy metal toxicity” is diagnosed by alternative medical practitioners. These methods are not demonstrated to be accurate, and are not accepted by actual medical toxicologists. These include hair analysis, provoked urine testing and porphyrin testing.
A prime example is provoked urine testing. A thorough discussion can be found here. A provoked urine test involves giving an individual a chelator and then testing the urine for heavy metals. Everyone (every thing, every animal) has some level of mercury. A chelator will force the body to excrete some level of the heavy metals inside, so it is no surprise that the levels obtained are “elevated”. The problem is that there is no standard by which one can compare the provoked urine to determine if the person actually has heavy metal poisoning.
The method is also called “challenge” testing. The American College of Medical Toxicologists have a position statement on this:
It is, therefore, the position of the American College of Medical Toxicology that post-challenge urinary metal testing has not been scientifically validated, has no demonstrated benefit, and may be harmful when applied in the assessment and treatment of patients in whom there is concern for metal poisoning.
More quotes from the complaint:
From Count III
That Respondent made false or misleading statements regarding the efficacy or value of the medicine, treatment, or remedy prescribed by Respondent in the treatment of any disease or other condition of the body in that Respondent made false or misleading statements regarding the efficacy of chelation therapy in the treatment of autism.
From Count V
29. That Respondent engaged in a pattern of practice or other behavior that demonstrates incapacity or incompetence to practice in that Respondent:
a. Repeatedly prescribed and administered unproven and medically unnecessary treatments to AC despite the lack of empirical research demonstrating the effectiveness of the prescribed treatment plans; and
b. Demonstrated extreme departure from rational medical judgment in the care and treatment of AC.
This isn’t a criminal complaint. Rather it is an ethics or “professional regulation” complaint. The disciplinary action called for if the case is proven involves Dr. Usman’s license:
WHEREFORE, based on these allegations, the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation of the State of Illinois, by Laura E. Forester, its Chief of Medical Prosecutions, prays that the Physician and Surgeon license of ANJUM I. USMAN, M.D., be revoked, suspended, placed on probation or otherwise disciplined.
Empowher is a blogging network that bills itself as “Improving Health. Changing Lives”. EmpowHER.com “facts” include this statement:
EmpowHER.com provides credible, evidence-based health content from over 400 world-class health care professionals, experts and providers.
Unfortunately, their recent autism coverage has not been credible nor evidence-based. It is not “improving health”. I am referring to a number of articles by Joanna Karpasea-Jones. Here is a list of some recent articles. Even from the titles you can probably guess the slant these stories have taken:
An Introduction to Autism and its Prevalence
Autism’s Theoretical Causes: Diet and Dietary Deficiency: An Editorial
Autism’s Theoretical Causes: Mercury Amalgam Fillings and Anti-D Injections: An Editorial
Autism’s Theoretical Causes: Diet and Dietary Deficiency: An Editorial
Autism’s Theoretical Causes: Genetics and Metabolism–An Editorial
Autism’s Theoretical Causes, Ultrasound Scans: An Editorial
A short example of the problems that plague Ms. Jones’ analysis can be found on her website, Vaccine Awareness Network, where the top article listed on the main page is “Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent.”
This was a study by Maddy Hornig, Ian Lipkin and D. Chian from 2004. It was dubbed the “rain mouse” study at the time and was touted as an demonstration that thimerosal might cause autism. A few years later, researchers at the MIND Institute tried to replicate the study. They tried hard. They used 10 times as much thimerosal as Prof. Hornig’s group. They couldn’t recreate the results. They concluded, “Considered together the present results do not indicate pervasive developmental neurotoxicity following vaccine-level thimerosal injections in SJL mice, and provide little if any support for the hypothesis that thimerosal exposure contributes to the etiology of neurodevelopmental disorders. ”
In other words, “Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent” is a study which has been superseded by a more recent study.
When people give you the Hornig study and don’t mention the MIND Institute study, it’s time to be suspicious.
The articles by Joanna Karpasea-Jones are full of examples like this. Old studies which support her idea are presented. Other studies, old and new, which clearly don’t support the idea of vaccine causation are just not mentioned.
There is another recent article on EmpowHer by Dr. Daemon Jones “Vaccinations: Do They Support or Harm the Health of Our Children?” Dr. Jones is a naturopath, so you likely won’t be surprised that her article is very non-specific and presents statements like “This debate will continue in the medical community until there is more concrete data for one side than the other.”
I have news for Dr. Jones: this isn’t a debate in the medical community. This is a debate amongst bloggers like those on EmpowHER who don’t keep up with current research.
On EmpowHer you can vote for each article. You are given three choices: this article (1) Improved my health (2) changed my life and (3) saved my life. You can’t vote, say, “this article is tired old ideas which were discarded years ago” or, “Doesn’t anyone at EmpowHER check the facts of the articles?”
A lot of abstracts come out each day in autism research. Some are controversial. A few make big advances. Many make small advances. One can never tell what one will learn by following the flow of abstracts.
For example. Did you know there is a “Sonic Hedgehog” protein? (Sonic the Hedgehog being a character from video games). A researcher in Saudi Arabia proposes that it might be involved in autism etiology:
This probably isn’t one of the “big advances” papers. But, something new, at least to me.
An article up on the Washington Times Communities poses the question: Who should lead the autism rights movement? The article cites an amazing discussion that has been going on at The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism.
If you ask me, “who should lead the autism rights movement?” the answer is simple. No one. Emphasis on one. As in no one person can or should. We are talking about too diverse a group of people for any one person to lead.
Frankly, I think a leader/follower idea isn’t right anyway. Part of this is my own personal bias. I am always suspicious of people who want to lead. Especially people who are absolutely sure of their positions and never waiver from them. That’s just a recipe for disaster. I shy away from people who don’t understand that just because someone doesn’t want to lead, that doesn’t mean that he/she wants to follow. I run from people who are too enamored with leadership and power.
One comment out of the TPGTA series that has resonated with a number of people came from one of Zoe’s posts: “It goes like this: ‘Some parents just want disabled children to speak and disabled adults to shut up.'”
It pretty well sums up much of the divide, and much of the question of “who should lead”. Autism is a spectrum. There is are divisions between adults and parents, and the degree of challenge the autistic faces. Not all “high functioning” autistics are self-advocates. Not all “low functioning” autistics are not self advocates. (and, yes, I hate those “functioning” terms). We need people to advocate for the rights of all on the spectrum. We need advocates who have experiences relevant to the various parts of the spectrum.
That means we need people, plural, call them leaders if you will, who will represent the self-advocates. We need people who will represent those who, for whatever reason, can’t or don’t self-advocate. Most of all, we need these people to work together. To not only be the allies of autistics, but allies of each other.
There are many things that parents like myself–parents of young children with great challenges–should realize. This, of course, in my own humble opinion. I’ll list only a few.
It is in our children’s own best interest to be allies with self advocates. They not only can teach us things, but the fact is our kids are the minority. Seriously. First, there is a big population of unidentified adults out there. Kids are the minority, even amongst autistics. Even if you have problems accepting that, the “classic” autistic kid is the minority even amongst the autistic children of today. For example, most parents report their autistic kids are getting letter grades. Only 2.4% were reported by parents as “can’t speak”.
A common theme I read is from parents writing, “self-advocates are not as disabled as my kid. They can’t relate.” I really dislike the “more disabled than” idea, but accepting that–we parents aren’t as disabled as our kids either. Self advocates can have an understanding of our kids just as we can. Self advocates may have different priorities than our kids. And that’s where being allies comes into play. We support their priorities, they support those of our kids.
Whatever your goal for your kid, improvement, cure, recovery, education…whatever it is, isn’t “becoming capable of self-advocacy” a laudable goal for any kid, disabled or not?
Being an autistic self-advocate (or an autistic non-self-advocate) doesn’t make someone right, nice, friendly, or likeable. Just like being a parent doesn’t make one right, nice, friendly or likeable. No one is saying you have to accept whatever a self-advocate has to say, just like self-advocates don’t have to accept what parents have to say.
The thing about writing a piece like this is that it is sure to annoy someone. Many someones. As Ari Ne’eman wrote in his piece for TTPGTA: “As far as I’m concerned, if we’re uncomfortable, we’re making progress and we shouldn’t stop.”
Back to the idea of leadership. With the passing of Steve Jobs this week, I’ve heard his address to Stanford Graduates a number of times on the radio. One paragraph keeps standing out in my mind:
Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.
He didn’t say, “find someone to follow” or “be a leader and find some people to follow you”. He said, “Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking.”
We don’t need a leader. We need leaders. Thousands of them. That’s why it’s a “movement” not a political party.
I opened a recent article with the statment: “Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) has been suggested as linked to chronic fatigue syndrome and autism. This has been rather controversial in both cases.”
The story gets more tangled. The lead researcher promoting the idea has been fired. The Science Insider blog (affiliated with the journal Science) has an article: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Researcher Fired Amidst New Controversy. Trine Tsuderous at the Chicago Tribune has an article: High-profile 2009 chronic fatigue syndrome study in dispute: Lead researcher fired as journal, institute investigate alleged figure manipulation.
Yes, Judy Mikovits has been released from her post at WPI. The Institute has released a statement on their facebook page:
The Whittemore Peterson Institute is announcing the departure of Dr. Judy Mikovits from WPI. We wish to thank her for her previous work and commitment. The WPI remains committed to a comprehensive research program. Our research team and program remains active, and our lab open to authorized employees. We will continue the critical work of finding answers to M.E. and related diseases.We will use the opportunity created by the departure of Dr. Mikovits to do a full evaluation of our research lab and current research projects. WPI is dedicated to the highest standards in research and patient care, and to advocating for the patients, families and caregivers we exist to serve.
What happened? One big piece of this can be found on the ERV blog as XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome: For your enjoyment– A magic trick. It really is worth going over there and reading through the discussion.
I am going to take two pieces of data, from two independent experiments, establishing ‘proof’ of two different concepts, presented in to different formats and to different events…
Yes, two figures were presented at different times–and with different interpretations. But, in the end, they were only one dataset.
As ERV points out in the comments section of her article:
As RRM stated, Im sure there is a TOTALLY REASONABLE explanation for this. Im SURE it wasnt intentional. But even if it were that damn post doc again– what does this say about QC at the WPI? What does this say about their standards? What does this say about how carefully and how critically Mikovits is looking at her own work?
The discovery of the two-figures-which-are-one and the release of researcher Mikovits from WPI comes after a huge blow to the science behind the proposed link between XMRV and Chronic Fatigue syndrome. From Science Insider:
The issue came to a head with the recent publication by Science of the nine-lab study. The so-called Blood Working Group, which included the labs run by Mikovits and Ruscetti, failed to reliably find XMRV or other gammaretroviruses in blinded samples from people who previously had tested positive for these viruses. Both Mikovits and Ruscetti co-authored the paper, which invalidated their own assays for XMRV.
Why bring this up on an autism blog? Because XMRV has been proposed as being linked to autism. More recent studies fail to find a link (e.g. PCR and serology find no association between xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) and autism).
How did the XMRV/autism discussion get started? Well, as David Kirby wrote a few years ago:
As Dr. Mikovits explained to a television news program in Nevada, “It is not in the paper and not reported, but we have actually done some of these studies (in ASD children) and found the virus in a significant number of samples that we have tested for. It could be linked to a number of neuro-immune diseases, including autism. It certainly won’t be all, because there are genetic defects that result in autism. But there are also the environmental effects; there is always the hypothesis that, ‘My child was fine and then they got sick, and then they got autism.'”
So, the XMRV/autism story got started with unpublished data by the now fired Mikovits, who claimed that she found XMRV in the blood of autistic children.
For those who remember David Kirby, the idea of him taking extremely weak evidence and creating a sensationalist story out of it is not surprising. Acting without apparent regard for the harm he could be causing, Mr. Kirby linked XMRV to autism through vaccines. Classic David Kirby:
The discovery raises more questions than it answers. What, exactly, is it about immunization that might switch on XMRV viral expression? Could the effect of heavy metals upon cytokine balances be at play? Where did this retrovirus come from, and how did it apparently become so prevalent in children with autism? Did these children inherit the virus from a parent, or was there some other unexplained route of transmission? Why has the NIH said nothing about XMRV in association with autism, and did Dr. Insel know about these findings without sharing them with the IACC?
Mr. Kirby’s style is well represented in the above paragraphs. Pose sensationalist, unsupported ideas as questions. Gives him the chance to put his ideas out there while keeping himself at a distance from the statements.
Now that the XMRV research by Dr. Mikovits is in serious doubt, will David Kirby retract his article on the subject? Will he at least put out an article which informs his readers of the current state of research? Or will he quietly move on to his new project (Death at SeaWorld – Shamu and the Dark Side of Killer Whales in Captivity) without regard for the harm he has caused to the autism community?
I single out Mr. Kirby as an example of the sort of messenger who has promoted ideas like XMRV and autism or XMRV and chronic fatigue. The mercury-causation idea fell apart, but no word from people who promoted it a great deal (like David Kirby). What will happen now that XMRV and autism and XMRV and chronic fatigue are falling apart?
Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) has been suggested as linked to chronic fatigue syndrome and autism. This has been rather controversial in both cases.
Before we get to the “false positive” report, Science published one of the papers on XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome
Murine leukemia viruses (MLV), including xenotropic-MLV-related virus (XMRV), have been controversially linked to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). To explore this issue in greater depth, we compiled coded replicate samples of blood from 15 subjects previously reported to be XMRV/MLV-positive (14 with CFS) and from 15 healthy donors previously determined to be negative for the viruses. These samples were distributed in a blinded fashion to nine laboratories which performed assays designed to detect XMRV/MLV nucleic acid, virus replication, and antibody. Only two laboratories reported evidence of XMRV/MLVs; however, replicate sample results showed disagreement and reactivity was similar among CFS subjects and negative controls. These results indicate that current assays do not reproducibly detect XMRV/MLV in blood samples and that blood donor screening is not warranted.
Reminds me of the Hornig study trying to find measles RNA in autistic children’s intestinal tissues. Multiple laboratories. No link found.
But, what of the older studies claiming a link? Well, Science also has a short article from some of the authors in an earlier paper. They reexamined samples from their study and found that their samples were contaminated with XMRV plasmid DNA:
In our 23 October 2009 Report, “Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome,” two of the coauthors, Silverman and Das Gupta, analyzed DNA samples from chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) patients and healthy controls. A reexamination by Silverman and Das Gupta of the samples they used shows that some of the CFS peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) DNA preparations are contaminated with XMRV plasmid DNA.”
Again, this is very reminiscent. In testimony for the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, Stephen Bustin discussed contamination (and other) problems with the laboratory searching for measles virus in the samples provided by Andrew Wakefield’s group.
Science ran another article, False Positive, on the XMRV/chronic fatigue story:
For the past 2 years, a controversy has roiled around the purported link between a mouse retrovirus, XMRV, and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), a baffling, debilitating disease with no known origin. An October 2009 paper in Science found XMRV in the blood of two-thirds of the CFS patients examined, but more than a dozen labs have failed to replicate it to date. Millions of dollars have gone into clarifying the question, which has had far-reaching consequences for people with CFS and, if the virus lurked in the blood supply, the public at large. A nine-lab study published online this week by Science found that none of the labs could reproducibly detect XMRV or relatives of the virus in blood samples distributed under a blinded code. Science is also running a partial retraction of the original paper, as a contributing lab found that it in fact had a contamination.
More discussion can be found at the blog A Photon in the Darkness as Mikovits XMRV Study “Partial Retraction” and at ERV as XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome: For your enjoyment– A magic trick.
Other studies have already looked closely and found no evidence of a link: PCR and serology find no association between xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) and autism. The current articles in Science do not directly address autism, but they show the serious difficulties involved with studying XMRV and help us to understand how these potential links were made in the first place.
One of the ideas that gets presented as fact all too often on the internet is “the United States is the most vaccinated country in the world and has one of the worst childhood mortality rates”. There are variations of this, of course. Unfortunately, this notion gets put forth by autism-parents and even autism-parent organizations.
This sticks in my mind since a rather blatant attempt at misinformation from Generation Rescue in the form of a pseudo-paper “special report”: AUTISM AND VACCINES AROUND THE WORLD: Vaccine Schedules, Autism Rates, and Under 5 Mortality. I wrote about the many failings of that document at the time.
One major failing in the childhood mortality comparisons is that the U.S. measures infant mortality (which is a big piece of under 5 mortality) differently than other countries. As Bernadine Healy (a source highly respected by groups such as Generation Rescue) wrote:
While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that “First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.
But why bring this up again? The reason is simple: I found a very interesting source of data and in reviewing it, I found information on vaccines and on childhood mortality: the Google Public Data Explorer. The Wold Bank dataset includes childhood and infant mortality figures.
What does the childhood mortality rate look like as a function of time for the United States? Not surprising (to most) it has been dropping over the past 30 years. In fact, from 1989 to 2009 the rate dropped from 12.1 per 1,000 to 7.8 per 1,000. (click to enlarge):
Why pick 1989 onward? This is the period when the vaccine schedule in the U.S. increased dramatically. If the idea that vaccines are somehow linked to worse childhood mortality we would expect this trend to be increasing, not decreasing.
Here is a good example of why we can’t say that correlation means causation. Consider childhood mortality for a country. Consider CO2 emissions for a country. Guess what, there is a big trend towards lower childhood mortality with higher CO2 emissions. (click to enlarge)
The “effect” (quotes mean it isn’t real) is huge. Note that the graph is a log-log plot. Countries with high CO2 emissions have 20 times, or more, lower childhood mortality. If we were in the “correlation equals causation” camp, we would decide that CO2 prevents childhood mortality. We could take this another step into the ridiculous and say, “Since CO2 emissions will coincide with higher atmospheric mercury due to coal burning and other sources, mercury must prevent childhood deaths”.
So keep that lesson in humility in mind as we play armchair epidemiologist and look further into the World Bank data. What is correlated with childhood mortality that might make sense? Being from a country in sub-Saharan Africa is correlated with high infant mortality rate. Low income countries have high infant mortality rates. Having a skilled person to attend the birth is correlated with low infant mortality rates.
Vaccines? What about them? They only have data for measles vaccine uptake. Again, not surprisingly, childhood mortality is lower for countries with higher measles vaccine uptake (click to enlarge)
I chose 2003 for the year for this comparison. That year has data as well for the fraction of births attended by skilled health staff. The datapoints are color coded with this to show that this is a big correlate. The more births have a skilled health worker in attendance, the more kids live. Could be a proxy for some hidden variable, but it makes some level of sense that having a health worker would reduce infant mortality. It also makes sense that countries with access to healthcare in general would have lower infant mortality.
But, that brings us back to the measles vaccine and infant/childhood mortality. Does the vaccine reduce infant mortality? Certainly in countries where measles is endemic. But measles vaccination isn’t the reason why childhood mortality figures are higher in, say, Chad than in the United States. And that’s why researchers try to control for other factors, like wealth and access to health care, when trying to correlate factors and diseases.
Otherwise, you end up with “mercury causes autism”. Or, using the World Bank data, “Cell phones cause low fertility rates”. Or other strange ideas.
While I think these data show pretty clearly that childhood mortality is not likely increased by vaccines, they also show the pitfalls of being an armchair epidemiologist. With the internet, data abound. One can find many correlations. Some are just random. Some are due to some unseen variable. Some are an indication of actual causation.
Do I believe that there is a reason why childhood mortality is lower in wealthy countries? Yes. Do I believe that there is a reason why childhood mortality is lower in countries with high CO2 emissions? No*. Both show correlations. What about the idea that measured autism rates went up as the exposure to thimerosal increased? Sure, there’s a correlation, just like with CO2 and childhood mortality. And, just like with childhood mortality and CO2, there are other factors at play.
*note–CO2 emissions are linked to countries with greater wealth. In that respect, yes there is a reason for the correlation. But there is no direct correlation of CO2 and childhood mortality.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Recent Comments