Archive | Vaccines RSS feed for this section

In which I agree with Barbara Loe Fisher…

12 Nov

The response to the decision by Delta Air Lines to air a commercial by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) has been much larger than I would have predicted. Case in point, the Atlanta Journal Constitution has an article, Delta in-flight ad opposed; airline considers video change, discussing the reaction to the NVIC advertisement. This article notes:

Delta Air Lines will change its approval process for in-flight programming after a video advertisement drew opposition, leading to an online petition calling for its removal.

They note the online petition, “Tell Delta to Stop Putting their Passengers’ Health at Risk” (at over 2400 signatures so far).

The AJC also quotes Barbara Loe Fisher of NVIC:

“I don’t understand why there’s this controversy,” she said. “We need to be able to criticize organizations that we think could do a better job. … For the people who want to use vaccines, we are fighting for safer vaccine policies and safer vaccines. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.”

And this is where I agree with Ms. Fisher. We do need to be able to criticize organizations that we think could do a better job. She seems unaware that this is precisely what a number of us who are doing in discussing Delta’s decision to host this video. Criticizing NVIC, whom we feel could do a (much) better job.

I will note I find that quote very strange indeed. I wonder if she realizes the strawman argument she has created? People are not criticizing NVIC about “fighting for safer vaccine policies and safer vaccines.”

For example, I count myself amongst those who want to use vaccines. In that effortI do not want the sort of support that NVIC offers in working towards safer vaccines. For example, I don’t want the spread of misinformation about vaccine-induced epidemics of autism, which NVIC promotes. It is a message which has caused and continues to cause harm in the autism communities.

Oddly enough, in a quick search for “safer vaccine” on the NVIC.org website, I found no examples of a statement of the type, “this new vaccine is a safer vaccine” or anything which actually calls a vaccine “safer”.

There were only four hits for the phrase “safe vaccine” on the NVIC website. Those links are mostly to comments on blog posts. No statements by NVIC saying, “here is a safe vaccine” or “here is our definition of a safe vaccine”. The one hit for something actually posted by NVIC was from a testimonial, where safe was put in quotes: “…and the doctor suggested she have this “safe” vaccine…”

I am very interested in the continued effort to improve vaccines, including improving safety. I do not feel that NVIC represents my views in any way. I do not find their brand of “information” to be the sort I would recommend to anyone looking to educate themselves on vaccines.

I do agree with Ms. Fisher: we should be able to criticize those groups whom we feel could do better. Do better NVIC, or you will continue to be criticized.

The lack of substance in Andrew Wakefield’s supporters’ arguments

11 Nov

Andrew Wakefield, the man who brought us the MMR scare, is back in the news. In a relatively small way. Earlier this year, Mr. Wakefield was in the news in a big way when the BMJ called him out for research fraud. At the time, Mr. Wakefield was enjoying the hospitality of wealthy patrons in a Jamaican resort, under the auspices of a “vaccine safety conference“. Also attending the conference were a team from the National Whistleblowers Center (aside, I am getting more and more leery of groups that put “national” into their name). Why is this important? Because instead of responding to the BMJ article directly, Mr. Wakefield provided material to one of members of the Whistleblowers Center so he could reply. The letter, by David Lewis, attempts to address one of the many issues involved with Mr. Wakefield’s research. It does not do this well, to be frank.

One problem with discussing Andrew Wakefield’s work is that there is just so much wrong that one can easily lose the forest for the trees. The big picture gets lost going over count after count of dishonesty and unethical behavior.

When analyzing Mr. Lewis’ argument, there are again many problems to discuss. Once again, it is easy to lose the story for the details. Allow me to address a few.

First, the argument is a classic strawman. Mr. Lewis posits that it is reasonable for Mr. Wakefield to have reported nonspecific colitis in his 1998 Lancet article, therefore no intentional misinterpretation was committed. To bolster this argument, he provided the BMJ with the original scoring sheets used by the pathologist who reported on the samples. Writes Mr. Lewis:

As a research microbiologist involved with the collection and examination of colonic biopsy samples, I do not believe that Dr. Wakefield intentionally misinterpreted the grading sheets as evidence of “non-specific colitis.” Dhillon indicated “non-specific” in a box associated, in some cases, with other forms of colitis. In addition, if Anthony’s grading sheets are similar to ones he completed for the Lancet article, they suggest that he diagnosed “colitis” in a number of the children.

As though, even if accurate, this would exonerate Mr. Wakefield. As the BMJ point out, in not one, but two pieces by specialists (gastroenterologist and pathologist), these grading sheets do not support the claims made in the 1998 Lancet article.

If you don’t have time to read those short articles, here’s the title of one: “We came to an overwhelming and uniform opinion that these reports do not show colitis”. Pretty clear.

And, yet, one can already see the battle lines being drawn and the talking points distributed. Before, people ignored the facts and instead tried to frame this as a personal battle: “Brian Deer, journalist, vs. Andrew Wakefield, Doctor.” Just a quick tweak and we have “David Lewis, expert who knows colonic biopsy analysis vs. Brian Deer, mere journalist.” This is, of course, more convincing that “Opinion of soil scientist vs. a pathologist and a gastroenterologist.” And, of course, easier than tackling the facts.

Let’s consider some facts, then. The first sentence of the (now retracted) 1998 Lancet paper: “We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder. ”

“Consecutive series” was, at best, misleading given the facts of how the children were referred to the Royal Free. A fact not addressed in any way by Mr. Lewis.

“Chronic enterocolitis”. Note, “enterocolitis”. Not “non-specific colitis”. Let’s break this down. “-itis” means inflammation. Colitis “refers to an inflammation of the colon and is often used to describe an inflammation of the large intestine (colon, caecum and rectum).”

All fine so far. But, “enterocolitis“? The word actually used in the first sentence of the Lancet? The word used in the condition Mr. Wakefield coined for the condition he proposed, “autistic enterocolitis“? Enterocolitis is “an inflammation of the colon and small intestine.” And small intestine.

You can check the scores on grading sheets in the table Mr. Deer provided on his website. These include links to the scanned sheets themselves. For example, the sheets for Child 1.

The sheets and the table are arranged in a specific order: top down. From the highest point reached in the colonoscopy on down to the rectum (the exit of the large intestine).

Why point this out? Because you will notice from the table that for two of the eleven children reported (child one and twelve), there are no data for the duodenum (start of the small intestine) or the ileum (as noted in the Lancet article). Those reports start at the Caecum (the start of the large intestine) or lower. For some of the other children (child four, seven and nine), there are data, and they are listed as “normal”. The Lancet reports them as having lymphoid nodular hyperplasia. Child two has some notation, but again is checked “normal” by Dr. Dhillon. Likewise child 5 and child 6.

Which begs the question: how can you diagnose “enterocolitis”, inflammation of the large and small intestine, without data from the small intestine, or when the data you do have is normal? For 8 out of the 11 children, by my count.

Answer: you can’t. Hence the switch from “enterocolitis” to “non-specific colitis” in Mr. Lewis’ letter to the BMJ. In that letter, the term “enterocolitis” only appears in his citation of a Brian Deer article.

So, back to the first sentence of the Lancet article and ask, what is accurate? Let’s include the points made by Mr. Deer that not all these children demonstrated regression, and there wasn’t a single developmental disorder. So, with thanks to a reader who pointed this out: “We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder(s).

or,

“We investigated children with developmental disorder(s)”

Not really very exciting.

While I have fallen into the trap I described at the outset, losing the forest for the trees, allow me to discuss one last piece of the way people are attempting to frame the way Mr. Wakefield wrote his paper. Instead of being an active researcher, it seems he is considered to be merely the man who collected the data and typed the manuscript. Mr. Lewis wrote, “I do not believe that Dr. Wakefield intentionally misinterpreted the grading sheets as evidence of “non-specific colitis.” ”

As though the entire process of diagnosing children with enterocolitis involved looking at Mr. Dhillon’s grading sheets. Once again, what did the Lancet article say? Under “Histology”:

Formalin-fixed biopsy samples of ileum and colon were assessed and reported by a pathologist (SED). Five ileocolonic biopsy series from age-matched and site-matched controls whose reports showed histologically normal mucosa were obtained for comparison. All tissues were assessed by three other clinical and experimental pathologists (APD, AA, AJW).

AJW refers to Andrew J. Wakefield. So, did he just accept the diagnoses from others, as we are being asked to believe now, or did he assess tissues, as he wrote in the Lancet in 1998? Seems an important point to downplay, as Mr. Lewis is not attempting.

To bring this to a close, a press release has been issued in support of Andrew Wakefield. Mr. Lewis is quoted:

“There was no fraud committed by Dr. Wakefield. The crux of the matter in Wakefield’s case, so far as research fraud is concerned, is whether Wakefield fabricated the diagnosis of non-specific colitis for 11 of the 12 Lancet children as claimed in Table 1. Drs. Paul Dhillon’s and Andrew Anthony’s grading sheets clearly show that Wakefield did not fabricate the diagnoses of non-specific colitis reported in the Lancet article.”

Well, no. Nonspecific colitis is not the “crux of the matter” at all. Mr. Lewis is referred to Mr. Deer’s article, and the discussion of regressive autism and when symptoms appeared. Facts which were not reported accurately in the Lancet.

And there’s that whole first sentence not being accurate at all thing…let’s not even get started on the concluding sentence:

We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield: Pathology reports solve “new bowel disease” riddle

10 Nov

Today the British Medical Journal (BMJ) released a four articles on Andrew Wakefield and his research efforts at the Royal Free Hospital. To sum up the four articles in a single sentence (from Fiona Godlee of the BMJ): “Previously unpublished histopathology grading sheets apparently completed by Amar Dhillon, the senior pathologist on the paper, remove any remaining credibility from the claim that the Royal Free doctors had discovered a new inflammatory bowel disease associated with MMR”

For those who may wish a bit of background, earlier this year, the BMJ had a series of articles on Mr. Wakefield’s research:

Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed (Feature by Brian Deer)

Secrets of the MMR scare How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money (Feature by Brian Deer)

The Lancet’s two days to bury bad news (Feature by Brian Deer)

and

Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent (editorial by Fiona Godlee of the BMJ)

These articles came after Mr. Deer was able to review the transcripts of Mr. Wakefield’s “Fitness to Practice” hearings held before the General Medical Council (GMC).

Mr. Wakefield’s work focused on gastrointestinal disease. He went so far as to claim to have found a new syndrome, which he coined autistic enterocolitis. 13 years later, there is still no proof such a condition actually exists. When evidence came forward that the discussion of the children in the Lancet did not match the clinical records, Mr. Wakefield claimed that ““Dr Dhillon’s diagnosis formed the basis for what was reported in the Lancet,” and “I played no part in the diagnostic process at all.” Unfortunately it has been difficult to verify these statements. For one, the slides made from the samples taken from the children in the Lancet study are apparently missing, so direct comparison of what was reported in the paper to what was actually found in the children was difficult. Also, Dr. Dhillon’s analyses were not available. Until now. The scoresheets used by Amar Dhillon, the pathologist coauthor on the 1998 Lancet article, were recently made available to the BMJ. These form the basis for the articles published today.

In his new BMJ article, Pathology reports solve “new bowel disease” riddle, Mr. Deer discusses the pathology reports. He compiled a table based on these reports (for example, the report from Child 1). If I can summarize Mr. Deer’s discussion: what is striking about these reports is that they are not striking. Dr. Dhillon used his own score method to rank the disease found in the specimens. In most cases, these were “normal” or “mild”.

Mr. Deer shared the reports with a number of professionals for comment. Including Dr. Henry Appleman:

“Most of this stuff is so close to normal that you’ve really got to question whether there is really anything there,” said Henry Appelman, professor of surgical pathology at the University of Michigan and a specialist in gastrointestinal disease. “These are the kind of things that we in our practise here would ignore completely.”

And Ingvar Bjarnason:

“Everyone thinks I am crazy even asking them,” said King’s gastroenterologist Bjarnason, after discussing the scorings with other specialists. “All but one of the children is normal in their eyes. There is no enteritis and no colitis, simple as that.”

While the reports were not striking, there is indication of inflammation. Mr. Deer argues that a key point was left out of the Lancet article, the presence of constipation in many of the children, which would have put the inflammation signs into better perspective for the readers:

No less controversial, the authors omitted from the paper the children’s principal gastroenterological problem. “Almost all” had “severe” constipation.(30) The GMC panel heard, for example, that after bowel preparation by nasogastric tube, the first patient, who had mild caecal cryptitis, endured two attempted ileocolonoscopies that failed because of faeces in the caecum, with “scope trauma” noted on the second.

This omission of constipation was no small matter. It went to the heart of how the paper would be read. Specialists told me that both mild inflammation and prominent lymphoid follicles may be expected to be associated with this sign.

(30) Murch S, Thomson M, Walker-Smith JA. Authors’ reply. Lancet 1998;351:908.

Mr. Deer, of course, is not a medical professional. But, we do not have to rely solely on Mr. Deer’s report. The BMJ has two companion pieces by medical professionals.

In Commentary: I see no convincing evidence of “enterocolitis,” “colitis,” or a “unique disease process”, Karel Geboes, Professor Doctor, Department of Pathology Univ Hospital KUleuven reports:

In general, the data are rather similar to the reports of the Royal Free hospital pathology service, which I reviewed for the BMJ last year.(7) Although minor abnormalities are noted in a minority of patients, I see no convincing evidence of “enterocolitis,” “colitis,” or a “unique disease process” being present in all patients. The Wakefield et al paper is obviously problematic and its wording does not reflect the data shown in the grading sheets.

(7) Deer B. Wakefield’s “autistic enterocolitis” under the microscope. BMJ 2010;340:c1127.

In Commentary: We came to an overwhelming and uniform opinion that these reports do not show colitis, Dr. Ingvar Bjarnason, professor of digestive diseases, consultant physician and gastroenterologist at King’s College, London, writes:

The hospital pathology service found the histopathology to be normal,(3) and, except in the case of the child mentioned above, the grading sheets also note normal findings. The fact that these scores were interpreted as abnormal raises, in my opinion, questions for the authors of Wakefield et al to answer, and particularly for the consultant histopathologists.

From the histological and endoscopic reports, there are no grounds to believe that any new inflammatory bowel disease may have been discovered, or any possible “unique disease process” observed, as reported by Wakefield et al. Nothing can be said about the aetiology of any minor irritations noted, and nothing can be inferred regarding treatment.

(3) Deer B. Wakefield’s “autistic enterocolitis” under the microscope. BMJ 2010;340:c1127.

In Institutional research misconduct, Failings over the MMR scare may need parliamentary inquiry, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee discusses how there is no sign that the Royal Free Hospital (University College London) has begun the expected inquiry into the misconduct which occurred there in the 1990’s:

It is now more than 18 months since the UK’s General Medical Council found Andrew Wakefield guilty of dishonesty and other serious professional misconduct(1) ; and it is nearly a year since the BMJ concluded that his now retracted Lancet paper linking the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine with autism and bowel disease was an “elaborate fraud.”(2) (3) At that time, January 2011, we called on Wakefield’s former employer, University College London (UCL), to establish an inquiry into the scandal. Ten months on, no inquiry has been announced.

Ironically, these data were made available to the BMJ with the intent of exhonerating Mr. Wakefield.

In 1997, Dhillon was asked to reassess intestinal biopsy specimens taken from children enrolled in Wakefield’s research after the hospital’s histopathology service, under consultant and fellow coauthor Susan Davies, reported most of the children’s biopsies to be normal. His 62 A4 grading sheets were sent to the BMJ by c, a self employed environmental microbiologist. Lewis says he was given them by Wakefield after they met at a vaccine safety conference in January. In his accompanying letter, Lewis concludes that a non-expert pathologist such as Wakefield could have thought they showed that the children had non-specific colitis.

Ms. Godlee is being kind, in my opinion, using the title the self-styled “vaccine safety” conference chose. This was the same conference in Jamaica which was discussed here at Left Brain/Right Brain recently.

It strikes me as rather odd that Mr. Wakefield did not provide these documents to the BMJ directly. Perhaps in a response to the articles published earlier this year. What advantage he gained in providing them through a proxy is unclear.

When he was found guilty of misconduct by the GMC, Mr. Wakefield vowed that he would not go away. So far, this appears true. However, his arguments are getting weaker as time goes on. In this case, they seem to have outright backfired. Writes Ms. Godlee:

The grading sheets are certainly interesting, but not for the reasons Lewis (or, it may be assumed, Wakefield, in giving them to him) intended. We sent them to two independent reviewers and supplied the data for comment to two further senior gastroenterologists. We also showed them to Brian Deer, the investigative journalist who over the past eight years has uncovered the secrets behind the MMR scare and who arguably knows more about this case than anyone apart from Wakefield. Our expert reviewers are in no doubt that Dhillon’s findings—like Davies’s before him—are almost all normal, or as near to normal that the changes they reported were likely to be physiological.(6) (7) In an accompanying feature article, Deer explains what they add to our knowledge of the Wakefield saga.(8)

(6) Geboes K. Commentary: I see no convincing evidence of “enterocolitis,” “colitis,” or a “unique disease process.” BMJ 2011;343:d6985.
(7) Bjarnason I. Commentary: We came to an overwhelming and uniform opinion that these reports do not show colitis. BMJ 2011;343:d6979.
(8) Deer B. Pathology reports solve “new bowel disease” riddle. BMJ 2011;343:d6823.

Want a lollypop with free chickenpox virus?

7 Nov

No, there isn’t some company which has some manufacturing contamination infecting kids. Instead, this is a response by people who want to set up “chickenpox parties” but can’t. The vaccine has been rather successful, you see, and one can’t find neighborhood kids sick with chickenpox. So, via the magic of the internet, parents are striking the deal and sending lollypops (and other items) which are only slightly “used” by their chickenpox infected children.

Yes, sick kids are slobbering on candy and their parents are sending them to other parents.

I’m a little late to this pox-party, so here’s some full discussions:

Emily at The Biology files as The antivax women who mail pox: Who are they?

Mike the Mad Biologist in ‘Pox Parties’ and Bioterrorism

Aitiology and Chickenpox parties–just a Facebook friend away

ToddW (Hapocrates Speaks) in Pox by Post.

Besides being strange, and a bad idea, it’s also illegal to ship infectious material through the mail. The same people who complain that vaccines are “biological wastes” if disposed of have no problems sending infectious agents in the post.

It doesn’t stop with chicken pox. Measles, mumps, rubella.

Remember the “why do we vaccinate children against hepatitis B? Kids are sexually active or using needles.” Well, how about sharing lollipops with an infected kid? HepB is blood borne. Unlike HIV, HepB can live outside the body for a considerable time. But, hey, so what if a kid gets an extra infection or two from a stranger’s lollipop? It’s natural immunity, right?

Another question: when do the parents who have subjected their kids to “pox parties” or the slobber of random strangers through the mail, when do these people quarantine their children?

There’s a lot of uncertainty as to when a child will be contagious after exposure.

When Is a Person Contagious?
A person with chickenpox is contagious 1-2 days before the rash appears and until all blisters have formed scabs.

It takes between 10 and 21 days after contact with an infected person for someone to develop chickenpox.

So, somewhere between 8 and 20 days after exposure, the child will be contagious. And a danger to other children and people with compromised immune systems.

Unless these parents quarantine their children starting from 8 days after exposure, they are “inviting” everyone they meet to a special “pox party”. Nice, huh?

The Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Toddlers: A Population Study of 2-Year-Old Swedish Children.

6 Nov

A recent study, The Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Toddlers: A Population Study of 2-Year-Old Swedish Children, considers changes in prevalence in very young children and the effect of early screening:

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is more common than previously believed. ASD is increasingly diagnosed at very young ages. We report estimated ASD prevalence rates from a population study of 2-year-old children conducted in 2010 in Gothenburg, Sweden. Screening for ASD had been introduced at all child health centers at child age 21/2 years. All children with suspected ASD were referred for evaluation to one center, serving the whole city of Gothenburg. The prevalence for all 2-year-olds referred in 2010 and diagnosed with ASD was 0.80%. Corresponding rates for 2-year-olds referred to the center in 2000 and 2005 (when no population screening occurred) were 0.18 and 0.04%. Results suggest that early screening contributes to a large increase in diagnosed ASD cases.

The prevalence for this young age group in Gothenburg Sweden showed a dramatic rise: from 0.04% in the year 2000, to 0.18% in 2005 and a big jump to 0.80% in 2010.

I’m sure many things have changed in Gothenburg in the past 10 years. However, the implementation of an early screening program is cited as having the major impact, as this was in place in 2010, but not for 2005 or 2000.

For those who will undoubtedly ask: the vaccine schedule for Sweden did not change remarkably in that time period.

2007: A revised schedule is implemented from 2007, including a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis booster at school entry (DTaP) and at school leaving (dTap), and also a lower age for the second MMR (6-8 years). The new schedule starts with children born from 2002. Children born 1995-2001 receive a single dose pertussis catch-up in form of DTaP instead of DT at 10 years.

2009: PCV7 was introduced into the national childhood vaccination programme and recommended at 3, 5 and 12 months of age to all children born from October 2008 onwards.

2010: HPV introduced into the national childhood vaccination programme on 1st January 2010.

The 2007 change doesn’t affect children 2 1/2 and under. The 2009 addition of PCV7 doesn’t affect the children in 2005, where the prevalence was over 4 times higher than in 2000. HPV doesn’t affect children aged 2 1/2. Thimerosal was removed from vaccines in Sweden in the early 1990’s, so that exposure was unchanged over the entire period. My guess is this won’t stop people from pointing to the PCV7 vaccine as the “toxic tipping point” for Swedish kids.

Call me biased. I’m going with the authors on this one and giving credit to the hard work of the screening program implemented.

The Wakefield Rehabilitation? Not really.

18 Oct

Reading about Andrew Wakefield gets old and tiring. I’m sure that isn’t news to readers here. Writing about Andew Wakefield gets very tiring. Who wants to keep reminding him/her self about a man who has caused so much harm to both the autism communities and public health in general? Who wants to read about dishonesty and unethical behavior?

I can only imagine that Brian Deer must want to put his award on a shelf and move on.

Which all begs the question: why do I think people reading Left Brain/Right Brain might want to read about him again? Because in this case it isn’t about Mr. Wakefield. Rather it is about his supporters. People who put aside the proved charges of dishonesty and unethical behavior. People such as Kent Heckenlively of the Age of Autism blog who are looking for The Wakefield Rehabilitation. It’s about how and why authors cite previous literature, and not reading too much into citations.

Beyond the hopes of those supporting Andrew Wakefield, there is some good research here and a bit of information about how and why people cite certain papers in the scientific literature.

First, how is Mr. Wakefield being “rehabilitated”? Answer: his papers were recently cited in a recent study. Seriously, something that small. That’s how hard people have to look for validation for Mr. Wakefield. A few citations and he’s on the road to rehabilitation.

The new paper isn’t by just any team, though. The study, recently out in PLoS One is Impaired Carbohydrate Digestion and Transport and Mucosal Dysbiosis in the Intestines of Children with Autism and Gastrointestinal Disturbances. The study is a follow-on to the PLoS One paper by Hornig et al., Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study.

Why is that important? “Lack of association…” is the paper which definitively put an end to the Wakefield MMR hypothesis. The team tried, with meticulous attention to detail, to replicate the most important factors of various Wakefield MMR-autism papers. They studied children with autism and gastro-intestinal complaints. They restricted their study to children who had demonstrated clear need for endoscopy (one major difference from the Wakefield studies). They were very careful about correctly reporting the patient histories (another major difference). They tested intestinal biopsy samples for measles virus (similar to as study by the Wakefield team), but were very careful to avoid contamination (unlike the Wakefield studies). The recent study used multiple laboratories to test for measles virus (Wakefield used two: his own and the O’Leary laboratory). Unlike Mr. Wakefield, the recent study reported on results from all the laboratories (Mr. Wakefield neglected to mention the results from his own laboratory which were contradictory to his theory).

Hornig et al. wrote:

The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that ASD with GI complaints is related to MMR exposure. We found no relationship between the timing of MMR and the onset of either GI complaints or autism. We also could not confirm previous work linking the presence of MV RNA in GI tract to ASD with GI complaints.

About as clear a conclusion as I’ve ever seen. “The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that ASD with GI complaints is related to MMR exposure.”

So, what about the new paper and the citations? Well, members of the team that produced the Hornig et al. study did further research on the tissue samples taken. Brent L. Williams heads up the author list on the new study.

Here is the (highly technical) abstract from the new study by Williams et al.:

Gastrointestinal disturbances are commonly reported in children with autism, complicate clinical management, and may contribute to behavioral impairment. Reports of deficiencies in disaccharidase enzymatic activity and of beneficial responses to probiotic and dietary therapies led us to survey gene expression and the mucoepithelial microbiota in intestinal biopsies from children with autism and gastrointestinal disease and children with gastrointestinal disease alone. Ileal transcripts encoding disaccharidases and hexose transporters were deficient in children with autism, indicating impairment of the primary pathway for carbohydrate digestion and transport in enterocytes. Deficient expression of these enzymes and transporters was associated with expression of the intestinal transcription factor, CDX2. Metagenomic analysis of intestinal bacteria revealed compositional dysbiosis manifest as decreases in Bacteroidetes, increases in the ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes, and increases in Betaproteobacteria. Expression levels of disaccharidases and transporters were associated with the abundance of affected bacterial phylotypes. These results indicate a relationship between human intestinal gene expression and bacterial community structure and may provide insights into the pathophysiology of gastrointestinal disturbances in children with autism.

If this were really about the autistics and not about Andrew Wakefield, those claiming that there is something different about the GI disturbances in autistics should be extatic. Here is a top notch team pointing to a possible real difference. In the kids tested, the genes were expressing enzymes and transporters–i.e. the genes are performing differently–for autistic kids. Also, they are seeing differences in the bacteria in the autistic kids.

Not only that, but these kids benefited from dietary intervention, although it isn’t specific to the autistic kids: “Beneficial effects of dietary intervention on GI disturbances were reported for all AUT-GI and Control-GI subjects with FA.”

But, it apparently isn’t about the autistics or the research when it comes to the Age of Autism. It’s about rehabilitating Andrew Wakefield’s reputation. (With apologies in advance–the image that comes to mind is a team that has been performing CPR on his reputation for years now. It’s time to move on.)

The important piece of this study, according to Mr. Heckenlively, is that they cite some of Andrew Wakefield’s papers. In particular:

Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, et al. (2000) Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorders. Am J Gastroenterol 95: 2285–2295.

Wakefield AJ, Ashwood P, Limb K, Anthony A (2005) The significance of ileo-colonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia in children with autistic spectrum disorder. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 17: 827–836

Ashwood P, Anthony A, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ (2004) Spontaneous mucosal lymphocyte cytokine profiles in children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms: mucosal immune activation and reduced counter regulatory interleukin-10. J Clin Immunol 24: 664–673.

Mr. Heckenlively appears to have built a nice straw man argument in which every thing Mr. Wakefield has done is now discredited. Somehow citing a paper by Mr. Wakefield then becomes some sort of a statement that everything he did was actually right. Both sides of that argument are false. The authors should cite what is in the literature. By citing, say, the Ashwood (2004) paper, they aren’t saying that, say, the 1998 Wakefield Lancet paper is now “rehabilitated’.

Notice that the authors didn’t cite the 1998 Lancet paper. One big reason: it’s been retracted. Which begs the question, why are the authors citing Wakefield et al. (2000)? The paper in the American Journal of Gastroenterology has also been been retracted:

On 28 January 2010, the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practice Panel raised concerns about a paper published in the Lancet by Dr Wakefi eld et al. (1). The main issues were that the patient sample collected was likely to be biased and that the statement in the paper, that the study had local ethics committee approval, was false. Th ere was also the possibility of a serious conflict of interest in the interpretation of the data. Th e Lancet has now retracted this paper (1). Th is paper in the American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG) (2) also includes the 12 patients in the original Lancet article and therefore we retract this AJG paper from the public record.

One really shouldn’t cite things that have been retracted from the public record. So, is there some message that Williams et al. are trying to send us? Are they saying that Andrew Wakefield was correct all along? Hardly. That paper was retracted in May of 2011, the same time that Impaired Carbohydrate Digestion and Transport and Mucosal Dysbiosis in the Intestines of Children with Autism and Gastrointestinal Disturbances was submitted to PLoS One. The authors weren’t aware of the retraction. Says a lot about how closely they follow Andrew Wakefield, don’t it?

Apparently, the authors have contacted PLoS about the citation, and it will be corrected to notify readers of the retraction. That is the right thing to do. It isn’t a statement about Mr. Wakefield’s research, other than this paper was retracted.

Authors can’t control the message bloggers may try to create from their research (heck, one of the authors, Ian Lipkin, consulted on the recent movie “Contagion”, a main character is a blogger whose message is unscientific and irresponsible). From what I’ve heard, the authors are still very clear on the message of their first PLoS paper: “The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that ASD with GI complaints is related to MMR exposure. ”

I think the point was made pretty clearly. Mr. Heckenlively in his excitement read way too much into this new paper. Not surprisingly, he just goes on and on making more mistakes. Consider this paragraph:

Isn’t Dr. Wakefield supposed to be some super-villain, leading all of us gullible parents to believe that vaccines aren’t quite as safe as sugar water? Didn’t he make up fake diseases? So, after being stripped of his license to practice medicine in the U. K., it turns out there really is something called autistic entercolitis and ileo-colonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia in children with autism. At least Dr. W. Ian Lipkin seems to think so.

Wow. All this is extrapolated from a single sentence in the introduction of the paper: “Macroscopic and histological observations in ASD include findings of ileo-colonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, enterocolitis, gastritis, and esophagitis [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].”

What does that sentence mean? Simple interpretation: others have reported these findings. Not “we confirm that these findings are real”. Given that reference [3] (a retracted Wakefield paper) may be removed or noted to be retracted, the only support for “enterocolitis” will be gone from the paper.

Mr. Heckenlively wrote “Although this study used a relatively small sample of gut biopsies from children with autism (Hey, isn’t that what Wakefield got in trouble for? Or is my memory failing me?),”

Mr. Heckenlively, your memory is failing you. The findings of the General Medical Council are easily found online.

Let me remind you of some of that document:

The Panel concluded that Dr Wakefield’s shortcomings and the aggravating factors in this case including in broad terms the wide-ranging transgressions relating to every aspect of his research; his disregard for the clinical interests of vulnerable patients; his failure to heed the warnings he received in relation to the potential conflicts of interest associated with his Legal Aid Board funding; his failure to disclose the patent; his dishonesty and the compounding of that dishonesty in relation to the drafting of the Lancet paper; and his subsequent representations about it, all played out against a background of research involving such major public health implications, could not be addressed by any conditions on his registration. In addition, the Panel considered that his actions relating to the taking of blood at the party exemplifies a fundamental failure in the ethical standards expected of a medical practitioner. It concluded that conditional registration would not mark the seriousness of such fundamental failings in his duty as a doctor

and

The Panel made findings of transgressions in many aspects of Dr Wakefield’s research. It made findings of dishonesty in regard to his writing of a scientific paper that had major implications for public health, and with regard to his subsequent representations to a scientific body and to colleagues. He was dishonest in respect of the LAB funds secured for research as well as being misleading. Furthermore he was in breach of his duty to manage finances as well as to account for funds that he did not need to the donor of those funds. In causing blood samples to be taken from children at a birthday party, he callously disregarded the pain and distress young children might suffer and behaved in a way which brought the profession into disrepute.

Mr. Heckelively also poses the question: “Didn’t he [Andrew Wakefield] make up fake diseases?”

That would be “autistic enterocolitis”, a term Andrew Wakefield coined and a condition which still, 13 years later, doesn’t have support. Autistic enterocolitis is not just any and all GI disturbances in autistics. Enterocolitis is “…an inflammation of the colon and small intestine”. Note the “and”, there. Even more important, the PLoSOne paper is not about inflammation at all.

Mr. Heckenlively finishes with the rather hopeful, wishful thinking statement: “But if a big shot scientist like Dr. W. Ian Lipkin is quoting Dr. Andrew Wakefield as a reliable source, maybe the rest of the world will soon be doing the same thing.”

Again, wow. Here we have Ian Lipkin, one of the team that just put an end to the Wakefield-MMR hypothesis. Again, let’s remind ourselves, Ian Lipkin is part of the team which wrote: “The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that ASD with GI complaints is related to MMR exposure.” There is such a major disconnect between that statement (which, yes, Dr. Lipkin stands by) and what Mr. Heckenlively wrote that I am just left in amazement.

This isn’t a story about rehabilitation. This is a story about diversion. Diversion of attention away from important subjects in autism. These include the medical treatment of major health problems. How does one treat something like bowel problems in individuals with communication and/or sensory difficulties? That’s a big question that gets lost in this whole “Andrew Wakefield” discussion. Research like this new paper is important in that respect: is there something specific to kids with autism, regression and GI disease? Leave aside any discussion about GI being linked to the regression, how do you treat it? I, for one, am glad to see something come out of this research project than just the “MMR doesn’t cause autism and GI disease” conclusion. Instead of trying to read the tea leaves of this paper and try to recoup the damage Andrew Wakefield did to his reputation, why don’t we just read the paper in the context of what this might tell us about the health problems of autistics?

Defending alternative medicine and autism: the charges against Anju Usman

14 Oct

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.

The 2011 “Vaccine Safety Conference” in Jamaica

6 Oct

Earlier this year, a conference was held in Jamaica. The declared subject: vaccine safety. Even from the beginning, it was clear that this was no ordinary scientific conference. It had all the signs of a junket. A meet-and-greet for vaccine “skeptics” and wealthy patrons. Precisely the sort of junket that people complain about “Big Pharma” hosting. Well, not precisely. I suspect even Big Pharma doesn’t put on such a lavish event.

The number of speakers was small (only 19), and didn’t include anyone who is a vaccine researcher. 21 presentations were made in the course of a week, leaving a lot of time for people to enjoy the resort and to network.

Talks included “Rethinking the germ theory”, “Vaccination Programs: Prevention or Corruption?” and “Gardasil: Prophylaxis or Medical Misconduct?”.

Getting a picture of the conference agenda? And by “agenda”, I do not mean the schedule.

The conference received some brief public attention when Anderson Cooper interviewed Andrew Wakefield. Mr. Wakefield (who refused to be on the segment if Seth Mnookin were included) appeared via Skype from that conference in Jamaica. Mr. Wakefield’s talk at the conference: “Autism & Vaccines: a Research Strategy Focused on Cause”.

The event was titled: Vaccine Safety|Evaluating the Science Conference. A nearly one week event (January 3-8) in the Tryall Club in Jamaica.

I’ve been to a lot of scientific conferences. I’ve even helped organize scientific conferences. None of them were ever held in a place remotely similar to the Tryall Club. Heck, when I think of “big pharma” hosting junkets for doctors, it’s in places not nearly as nice as the Tryall Club.

In case you didn’t get a chance to see the website, here’s a picture of the Tryall Club:

Nice, isn’t it? The Tryall Club isn’t a hotel. It is a collection of 86 Villas (including 73 privately owned estate villas) plus 13 “great house” suites.

The property’s 86 villas offer visitors a dazzling array of options, from beachfront bungalows to elegant hillside chalets. Each carefully situated villa offers distinctive architectural elements, a singular style and a unique floor plan. A couple may choose a cozy one-bedroom retreat, while an extended family of several generations may opt for a 7- or 8-bedroom manor.

Consider as an example, the six bedroom “Twin Palms” Villa. Cost for 1 week: $30,000, or $5,000 per bedroom. (Cost is $40K/week if you include the master suite). The Villa comes complete with a staff of 9 and “Dining areas are designed to seat 20 guests or more. Formal dining is in the 80’ dining room under Italian chandeliers at place settings of Lalique crystal, Tiffany china and silver from France.”

As I said, not like any conference I’ve ever attended.

So, who put this conference on? Aside from a stay in Jamaica, were the attendees compensated? I wondered these questions so I emailed the contact address on the website. Here’s the response:

The conference was co-sponsored by the National Vaccine Information Center and private individuals and family foundations who are concerned about the safety of vaccine ingredients, preparations, combinations and schedules. Speakers volunteered to speak as is customary for scientific conferences, and accommodations were provided in private homes donated by or as guests of individuals who are concerned about vaccine safety. No funds exchanged hands except to reimburse for travel expenses, which were funded by donations to the National Vaccine Information Center.

The Vaccine Safety Conference

“No funds exchanged hands except to reimburse for travel expenses, which were funded by donations to the National Vaccine Information Center.” Nice. Reimbursing the speakers directly probably isn’t tax deductible. Donating to NVIC is. And it lets NVIC look like they are pulling more money.

Who put this on? The sponsors are listed clearly on the conference website:

Albert J. and Lisa Claire Dwoskin Family Foundation

Cmdr. Richard and Joan Curtis

Mark and Candace Hart

Daisy and Paul Soros

Danny and Stency Wegman

One name jumps out (to me at least): Soros. Sponsors Paul and Daisy Soros. Paul Soros is the brother of George Soros, but is quite well off in his own right.

We are talking some serious money was backing this conference.

Case in point. First in that list is the Dwoskin family. Claire Dwoskin has worked as a board member of the National Vaccine Information Center.

The Dwoskins have hosted fundraisers for political candidates at their home and been guests at White House dinners.

Apparently, they also set up the “vaccine safety” conference website. Mrs. Dwoskin is listed as the contact for the website:

Administrative Contact:
Dwoskin, Claire novaccine4me@XXXXX.com
Vaccine Safety Conference

No, I did not make that email address up. It really is listed as “novaccine4me”. Pause a moment to consider that choice.

The physical address given for the website contact is that of the McLean, Virginia home of the Dwoskins. It is sizable and valuable. As the domain registration reports, this is also the address for “Vaccine Safety Conference”. It seems reasonable to assume that the Dwoskins are the primary organizers of the conference. The Dwoskins also appear to own other valuable property. Mr. Dwoskin is a real estate developer, so this is no great surprise. But, one property which they (or their business) are associated with: Twin Palms. Yes. the 7 bedroom Villa in Jamaica described above. What leads me to believe this? The website twinpalmsjamaica.com is registered to A.J. Dwoskin & Associates.

Seems reasonable to think that the first tier of presenters at the conference were hosted in Twin Palms.

In case you are curious as to the Dwoskins’ position on vaccines, Mrs. Dwoskin wrote in an email to John Stossel of Fox: “Vaccines are a holocaust of poison on our children’s brains and immune systems.”

Seriously. A holocaust of poison.

There is nothing wrong with wealthy people hosting gatherings of people on a subject they feel strongly about. Anyone who chooses an email address “novaccines4me” and considers vaccines “a holocaust of poison” certainly has strong feelings.

Wealthy people have a right to offer their hospitality to people who may promote their views. People with less means have the right to accept the largess of the wealthy.

I have the right to voice my opinion. This was a junket. Seriously. 6 days to have 19 speakers present? Rooms costing $5,000 a week? I wonder how much time at the “vaccine safety” conference was spent talking about safety and how much was spent talking about the “holocaust of poison” view of vaccines.

Next time I hear or read about Big Pharma buying off doctors with exotic junkets I’ll be thinking of Andrew Wakefield, talking via Skype from the Tryall Club in Jamaica.

Childhood mortality and vaccines

2 Oct

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.

Worries About Autism Link Still Hang Over Vaccines

30 Sep

A story just out from National Public Radio in the United States: Worries About Autism Link Still Hang Over Vaccines. Part of the survey on how the public views vaccines was a question on autism:

Do you believe any of the following are linked to vaccines?
1. Autism
2. Cancer
3. Diabetes
4. Heart disease

The answer: about 21% of Americans say yes to the autism/vaccine link.

The highest levels of “yes” were in those aged 35 to 64, with middle-income status, some college education and who have children.

About 1/4 said their opinions of vaccine had changed in the last 5 years, with about 60% of those responding that their opinions had changed for the worse.

Of the main reasons cited for vaccine fear, autism was the top. By far.

21.4% of respondents said they believe vaccines can cause of autism, 9.2% said they believe vaccines can be
linked to cancer, 6.9% believe they play a role in diabetes, and 5.9% cite a connection between vaccines and
heart disease.

Is this because there is actual evidence, or because of a vocal campaign to put the message of a vaccine/autism link into the public mindset? Well, since there is no convincing evidence of an autism/vaccine link (and a lot of evidence against the primary theories: mercury and MMR) I’d go with the media campaign as the reason this idea still has traction with the public.

And I’m not alone, at least in thinking that the effort of some vocal members of the autism community have had an impact. Last time such a survey came out, it was trumpeted by some of the more vocal sections of the autism-parent community, with one blogger telling his readership to take credit for an increase in belief in the vaccine/autism idea and fear of vaccines:

With less than a half-dozen full-time activists, annual budgets of six figures or less, and umpteen thousand courageous, undaunted, and selfless volunteer parents, our community, held together with duct tape and bailing wire, is in the early to middle stages of bringing the U.S. vaccine program to its knees.

What was even more disturbing than those words were the conclusion of the article:

…mark my words, the results from the next survey will show that the trust continues to erode. Keep fighting, parents, America is really listening.

Yep, Keep fighting. Not to get the message out, but to erode trust in public health. The message seems to have morphed over the years. From informing the public of an idea (albeit unsupported by good data) to one of fear. As we can see from the NPR/Reuters survey, the idea that vaccines and autism are linked is still out there.

We saw a form of this idea surface recently when Michelle Bachmann recently made comments linking the HPV vaccine and mental retardation. I sent an email to the National Vaccine Information Center asking about the Bachmann claim. Here is the response I received:

Sorry to just be getting back to you but we have been inundated with emails about Michelle Bachmann.There’s no information to support her claim and now she has withdrawn it.

I chose the NVIC for this inquiry because they are an organization which I believe has rather lax standards on proof of vaccine injury. If anyone were going to support Ms. Bachmann’s claims, it would be the NVIC. The fact is that even they see this as an unsupportable comment.

But to bring this back to the NPR survey: yes, there are concerns about vaccines in the American public. Concerns are one thing. We should all be concerned about such an important part of the public health system. Fears. That’s another thing. Unfounded fears. Discounted fears. That is yet something else. And we are at the point where unfounded fears and disproved fears are still promoted, largely by autism parents. And that is why autism parents like myself feel the need to counter the misinformation. Because these fears have consequences:

As parents fret, vaccination rates for kids have dipped. Childhood vaccination rates against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), for instance, fell almost 3 percentage points to 90.6 percent in 2009 from the year before, according to data from private insurers.

As vaccine rates drop, the risks to us all, and infants in particular, rise. In the words of Simon Murch, colleague of Andrew Wakefield in the now-retracted Lancet study which fueled the modern fears of MMR and other vaccines:

“If this precipitates a scare and immunization rates go down,” Murch warned, “as sure as night follows day, measles will return and children will die.”

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →