Series final: Autism and vaccinations

Tim says:

01:19pm | 19/01/11

Yeah pffft who needs scientific research?
-I know this one kid at school who found out he had leukemia.
-This same kid used to eat worms in the playground daily.
-He managed to survive the leukemia and is living a very happy life.

Why haven’t these so called “Scientists” cottoned on to the wonderful anti-leukemia effects of eating worms? It’s a national outrage: every kid should be fed a worm daily.

Super D says:

01:22pm | 19/01/11

Most kids are first exposed to The Wiggles at around 12 months.  I’d be pursuing that line of enquiry as it has nothing to do with the vaccinations.

Macca says:

01:27pm | 19/01/11

Correlation does not equal Causation

Syl says:

01:29pm | 19/01/11

Correlation is not causality and anecdotes are not evidence.  This has been debunked well and truly, all the evidence is there and the studies are done.  Also quite often Autism does not develop (to the point of being diagnosable) until around this age anyway.
The possibility is MUCH higher that they were born autistic and simply didnt show signs until this age.  When something like this happens people usually look for the last significant event and blame that.  Just because X then Y happened, doesnt mean X caused Y.

Jayne says:

01:33pm | 19/01/11

Not good enough Amber. If you’re going to make the accusation and claim that the vaccines these two children were given caused their autism which is what your post is claiming you need to have evidence. Have they been officially diagnosed with autism, what signs exactly are you referring to, are they still 12 months old or just over it, if so, that’s very early to be saying they officially have autism, have they had any exposure to anything else in the environment, have they been tested for nutrient deficiencies, do they have gastrointestinal issues that have been tested for, etc? It is so easy to point the finger of blame, but take it from someone who has a child with ASD and has done a great deal of research, it’s much more complex than you are making out. You need to also think very carefully whether in fact there were signs during the first 12 months that may have been missed. It’s generally only at 18 months when language should have started and a child should be at least starting to walk that many people only start to notice something amiss. Other signs can be overlooked. I would do this before making such claims.

TheRealDave says:

02:25pm | 19/01/11

Amber is my favourite stripper name by far.

I’ll think I’ll take your word and soft core plastic bimbo queen Jenny McCarthy over reputable science any day.

Elphaba says:

02:41pm | 19/01/11

@TheRealDave, hilarious!

@Amber, so based on your statistic of 2 out of the hundreds of thousands of children vaccinated every year, I affix my tinfoil hat in anticipation of your instructions.  What else should I (not) do?

papachango says:

03:28pm | 19/01/11

oh gawd here we go again. Even the most severely autisic child will appear ‘perfectly normal’ at 12 months; the signs of ASD first start to be noticed between 18 and 36 months or even later depending on the severity. Generally the first thing to be noticed is delayed speech which doesn’t kick in until 18 months

Craig says:

04:27pm | 19/01/11

I read this post then I got a headache.  Therefore, Amber causes brain cancer.

Just Sayin' says:

01:53pm | 20/01/11

“Correlation does not equal causation”
“Correlation is not causality”

Both good points, Macca and Syl, but you are being far too generous to Amber.  She doesn’t have evidence of correlation, she has a selective anecdote.  It is completely meaningless.  Not only is there no evidence of causation between MMR and Autism, there isn’t even a correlation. 

Tim who replied to Amber first pretty much nailed it.

Sam says:

04:42pm | 19/01/11

How many millions of kids do you think Amber personally knows? Duh! Even if she knows 100 little kids, 2 is plenty. BTW I’m all for vaccinations but some of the logic used to refute Amber is dumber than the logic she employed.

Markus says:

02:42pm | 19/01/11

So ‘they’ created the entire anti-vaccination conspiracy theory purely as a means of publicly debunking it, as part of a larger conspiracy to destroy credibility behind all other credible conspiracy theories?

I can’t argue the logic. Have you established a motive yet?

papachango says:

04:06pm | 19/01/11

you’ve lost me me Zeta. Are you taking the piss or are you actually a troother?

But your sort of right. Most conspiracy theories appear to have a believable motive on face value, even if they are mostly ridculously improbable; do you really think the Bush administration was capable of such as massive cover-up, with thousands of people involved in the panting of explosives etc, and not a single person confessing to Wikileaks?

But the Big Pharma/Big government vaccine conspiracy just doesn’t make sense on any level - either motive or the probability of keeping the whole thing secret. I’m not even sure that the supposed conspiracy is. Is it Big Pharma who want to give kids autism or does some other shadowy organisation want to sell snake oil ‘cures’ like homeopathy or chelation therapy?

TheRealDave says:

04:16pm | 19/01/11

Its perfectly clear Markus that its all an ingenious plan by ‘The Captain’ of The Captains Table/KRAFT to establish water crackers as a viable afternoon treat for children at the expense of NABISCO/Oreo.

Its all there people!

Zeta says:

04:52pm | 19/01/11

@ papachango - I’m not a ‘Truther’. The 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB crowd are throttled by the same irrational thinking as the Antivaxxers. You think about the JFK assassination - directly after the deed, the prevailing theory amongst loonies was that LBJ did it to become President. It wasn’t until Garrison methodically went through the evidence that he uncovered the Mafia/CIA/Cuba connection.

No matter how good the evidence is (and the evidence is great), the Truther’s are held back by the theory that Bush/Israel (depending on wether or not the Truther is on the Left, or in the Tea Party) did it over oil/the PATRIOT Act (again, if you’re Left or Right).

Because there was no investigation, the conspiracy theory fills the vacuum, and just like with JFK, it will be years before an investigator pulls together the evidence in a way that makes sense and without presupposing a motive.

But the same irrational thinking clouds the logic of skeptics, as you’ve just illustrated: no, of course the Bush administration weren’t capable of huge cover up, and 1000s of people weren’t involved. No one ever said they were. No one ever said the entire US Government killed Kennedy, and with every passing year, and with every participant that makes a death bed confession, we know the real conspirators probably number about 6.

50 years from now, we’ll probably find out the same thing about 9/11, that’s the way conspiracy theories, at least those based in fact actually work.

When it comes to Antivaxers, the few sane ones claim that it’s not a conspiracy to hurt people, but a conspiracy of incompetence (actually the sane Truthers make a similar arguement) - the vaccines didn’t work, but there was so much investment of financial and political capital behind them they pressed ahead anyway. That’s one theory.

Problem is, now that it’s been debunked by science, the language the antivaxers use has shifted from their supposed ‘evidence’, to ‘belief’. It’s at that point the theory falls completely flat.

Kate says:

11:35pm | 19/01/11

Well that’s just absurd Zeta. Everyone knows that Family Guy is written by manatees.

stephen says:

11:37pm | 19/01/11

You seem to be answering yourself now ? But no mind, but you do emphasize motive, which, as far as I know, is resultant upon massive evidence, so that the ‘opportunity’ of a crime or misdemeanor is secondary.
Motive is a loaded theory. (It’s only some Homicide Detectives, I’m sure, who love the chase of the variables in personality).  It is treated with kid-gloves ,(especially by the lawyers) and any conspiracies are best left to the fictioners.

James1 says:

02:38pm | 19/01/11

If the government ran and funded such programs, wouldn’t they just use it to implant GPS trackers/mind control chips in our children?

papachango says:

03:53pm | 19/01/11

erm… the goverment DOES run and fund vaccination programs - generally via maternal and child health services.

They just purchase the vaccines off drug companies. Are you suggesting government should do their own research and invent their own vaccines from scratch, merely to avoid buying them cheaply from Big Pharma, just because you don’t like multinationals?

You have far too much faith in the non-corrputibility of government and their ability do do what pharmaceutical companies currently do. I’ve never heard of a drug successfully developed by a government.

Syl says:

04:00pm | 19/01/11

Trish

I think the reason people distrust vaccinations (well some people) is because other “educated” people present “scientific studies” full of bold face lies whilst peddling their own “Immunisation Alternatives”. 
And even when these studies are roundly debunked they would rather be special and believe in conpiracy theories than actually engage their own brains and think a little.

Jayne says:

03:10pm | 19/01/11

I agree Lexi. I would also look at the incidence of rates of autism in the UK. Wasn’t there a problem that happened after Andrew Wakefield’s report was published where there was a reduction in the incidence of MMR immunisations. If as the anti-vax community claim that MMR causes autism, wouldn’t we then see a reduction in rates of autism as a result? My understanding is that this is not the case.

James1 says:

03:10pm | 19/01/11

I can’t speak more generally, but I have read that the place with the highest incidence of parents not vaccinating their children in Australia is centred on Byron Bay.  Given the number of Greens in their local council, I imagine that the residents there are not very inclined towards using evidence to form positions or opinions.  That might go some way towards answering your first question in a way that is only half in jest.  On whether this view still exists, see this: http://www.avn.org.au/

For an idea of how far these people will go, check this out: http://www.vaccinetimes.com/how-low-can-meryl-dorey-go/

Your second question is answerable by examining the whole Wakefield incident - apparently the peer review process failed to pick up the issues and alleged fraud involved in Wakefield’s study, which was subsequently published in a respectable academic journal, and picked up by the media (and among others, Oprah).  The quick answer is it began with fraud and dodgy science.

On the side effects, St Michael put together some excellent stats on reactions to vaccines as well as stats relating to the diseases they are meant to prevent in previous articles on this matter that you might find helpful.  Acknowledged side effects range from minor fevers and flu like symptoms, to febrile convulsions, and I think in a few rare cases anaphylactic shock, although I could be wrong on the last one.

DG says:

03:16pm | 19/01/11

The information that you seek is available from your Dr. I believe that the vaccination comes with the usual documentation (including side effects) if requested from your medical practitioner.

I am assuming of course that you are willing to limit yourself to consideration of the side effects that are scientifically proven. If you want all of the unjustified, unsupported claims you need to search the internet or watch Oprah.

St. Michael says:

03:19pm | 19/01/11

On the first question, it’s because people—and in particular, distressed parents—are unable to conceive of chronological coincidence as anything other than cause and effect.  In short, because there will always be silly people like Amber who believe that just because the sun comes up in the morning and deaths occur in the morning, that a sunrise kills people.

Most vaccines are administered in the first 6-18 months of life.  Autism often (but not always) starts to show up in the first 12-24 months of life.  Ergo, to people like Amber, vaccines cause autism.

Bits of information like kids developing autism *before* any vaccines are administered, or the fact parents don’t often notice the first symptoms of autism in very young children because it’s difficult to detect if you aren’t looking for it, get washed away in the supposed “cause and effect”, though to be kind I prefer to think of it as confirmational bias that causes people to ignore it.

As for how it first came to be viewed as such—anecdotally.  Jenny McCarthy’s breasts and bottom, rather than her brain activity on the subject, and Oprah’s moral cowardice as a journalist basically gave the “movement” its first big popular impetus, which wasn’t helped any by Wakefield then publishing the BMJ study that dishonestly linked the two.

As for the acknowledged side-effects of immunisation and their prevalence: talk to the United States CDC, mostly because they oversee vaccinations and they have a register (VAERS) for adverse outcomes on the subject.  Not to mention that all our vaccines are made in the US, so it’s a comparable group to study.

Quackwatch has a section here: http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/immu04.html which is drawn off the CDC’s figures for adverse outcomes from the MMR and the DPT.  No deaths, and for MMR it’s literally a one in a million chance of encephalitis or a severe allergic reaction.  DTP obviously has higher odds of an adverse outcome—1 in 1,750—but on the other hand the odds of being royally f&*ked up by the diseases they immunise against are much higher, too.

Andrew says:

03:28pm | 19/01/11

the reason it exists is because the signs of autism tend to appear around the same time as when vaccines such as the MMR vaccine are given. Parents looking for something or someone to blame see the correlation, and blame the vaccine. Conspiracy theorists and vultures jump on the band wagon, and the net result is people don’t get their kids vaccinated

Danny B says:

03:32pm | 19/01/11

“Only two things are infinite; human stupidity and the Universe.  And I’m not so sure about the latter.” - Albert Einstien

People will believe what they want to believe, unfortunate but true.

AdamC says:

03:41pm | 19/01/11

Thanks all, very interesting.

In particular, St Michael, I like your explanation of the timings of vaccinations and the timings of the onset of autism symptoms. I can certainly understand how people, in distress or fear, may come to believe that co-incidence is causality.

I suppose another issue has to be that, given the success of public health initiatives like mass immunisation, infectious diseases are less scary than they used to be. Hence in the popular mind, the very small risk of side effects from vaccination can loom larger than the big picture issue of infectious diseases. It is an even greater shame, of course, when those side effect bogeymen are purely fictitious.

St. Michael says:

04:27pm | 19/01/11

@ AdamC: true.

It’s hard to see the 175,000-odd cases of measles which are prevented, statistically, by the vaccine.  We instead rather see the one-in-a-million case writ large.

I strongly suspect that if you took a demographic of the antivax brigade that it would not include many people who lived in the earlier part of the century before the vaccines were available.  People who grew up either knowing from personal circumstances what smallpox does to populations, or at least reading the old book “I Can Jump Puddles” about the misery, pain, and tribulations of a kid who was diagnosed with (now-virtually-extinct) polio at an early age, I would suspect have an entirely predictable view of vaccines.  As you suggest, it’s the curse of success.

TheRealDave says:

04:17pm | 19/01/11

Its the Vibe Leah…duh   :p

papachango says:

05:28pm | 19/01/11

what is this drivel - ‘incorrect chormosones’ is utter rubbish or else you’re confusing it with Down Syndrome which is a chromosonal disorder. People with ASD have exactly the same chromosones as everyone else.

The rest of your post is incomprehensible junk with a few big words in there to make it sound authoritative. It’s the sort of crap that anti-vaxxers spew out regularly.

Steph says:

06:35pm | 19/01/11

I know unvaccinated children aren’t allowed to enroll in the childcare bonus - and a few childcare centres won’t take children unvaccinated. Even if they’ve had their first shots, unless they’re fully up to date, the child is excluded from enrollment and/or activities which may put the child in danger (or others around him/her).

I agree bout the bad parenting. Because these diseases, having been vaccinated against largely in the community, are not seen often, means mothers making the choice not to vaccinate have never seen the effects of the viruses. They can go on their self-righteous crusade and put their children in danger because of what THEY believe.

Freeman says:

06:00pm | 19/01/11

there was this guy at school with autism, he seemed to have an awesome time clapping to himself and doing mental arithmatic out loud. you could give him sums and multiplycations and he could give you the answer without blinking. His name was Addy, we called ‘addy subtracty’

marley says:

06:02pm | 19/01/11

That depends on the degree of autism.  Somebody with Aspergers’ can function perfectly well in society, maybe make a few billion in software development, and do good deeds.

On the other hand, I’ve got a pal with a son who is a “high functioning” autistic - almost no verbal skills, no ability to communicate or even relate to his parents and sister, and no prospects of ever being able to fend for himself.  His parents aren’t going to live forever.  What happens to him then?  That’s the problem.

Steph says:

06:40pm | 19/01/11

Another question to pose is “Would you rather have healthy children with a disability or perfectly ‘normal’ children that are chronically ill?”

I think the risk of autism is small against what some of the diseases being vaccinated against can do. Any parent getting their child vaccinated gets a “this is the disease, the symptoms and lasting effects vs this is the vaccination, and the vacc’s symptoms” sheet. Parents who don’t want to vaccinate their children should read it before making the decision. Maybe even look up the viruses in question.

papachango says:

09:22pm | 19/01/11

Of course it’s not bad. It’s just a very different way of looking at the world.

However, as marley says, life outcomes can vary dramatically (it’‘s a spectrum disorder after all, and can range from someone who’s just a bit ‘quirky’ to someone who cannot communicate and spends all day banging his head against a wall and humming to himself)

Some kids with high functioning ASD do well and excel at some things, and even make friends, have partners etc. But others can suffer terribly at school as they get teased mercilessly for being ‘weird’ and later in life have trouble socialising or finding a partner. You could argue it’s because they’re misunderstood and not their fault, but that’s just how the world is..

Not all of them want to be loners - A lot of them in the ‘active but odd’ category actually want to have relationships but lack the social ability to go about it and find this terribly upsetting. They will approach others but are so awkward in their interactions they get rejected time and time again.

meg says:

09:40am | 20/01/11

My elder sister doesn’t have autism, but another mental disability (so rare we don’t even bother remembering the name). She has the mental capacity of about a 8-12month old child. No, my parents have never blamed vaccinations - they remembered the devastation of polio, rubella, etc. And when they finally did looking into it, it was discovered to be a ‘freak of conception’ - she has half a chromosome missing or in the wrong place. (a full map wasn’t done at the time.)
We’ve been lucky that my parents made sure she is in a good care situation.
Christmas day, I wasn’t in a good mood. I’d had some bad news the week before, and was in a real depressive rut.
We went to another sister’s for lunch. There, we had a skype call with some family who were down the coast. For the first time in a long time, you could see my sister totally bewildered - she knew that was a screen, but that was someone she knew on there, and they were talking to her. Her desire to reach out and touch was heartwarming.
We then went for a swim. She loves the water, and laughed and laughed as she kicked and swam up and down the pool with me for the better part of an hour, holding onto the pool noodles to float, throwing balls at the kids, and splashing all the time.
Made me realise the little things are the ones that make you smile. The simple things are important. Got me out of that rut.
It’s not easy at times - she does require full time care, and it upsets mum she can’t be at every family event. But she doesn’t waste time blaming someone or something, just enjoys the moments like Christmas Day, where she reminded us how to laugh. 
It’s why I get annoyed at those who claim to ‘cure’ autism. I’m yet to see a reputable study saying you can, and it gives false hope, rather than trying to make a difficult situation one you can grow from. I’m sorry if that sounds like I’m preaching, it’s just my experience.

Hugh says:

09:18pm | 19/01/11

Either
They’re the same thing

Youre already eating 100 times more mercury when you eat fish

JS says:

09:18pm | 19/01/11

I understand that the mercury-based preservative you are referring to is not used in vaccines given to children in Australia and hasn’t for at least 10 years. Therefore your argument seems a touch outdated.

marley says:

09:40pm | 19/01/11

Well, as others have pointed out, your question is moot because there is no mercury in kids’ vaccines these days.  And then there’s a well known Finnish study of several hundred thousand children which showed no difference in autism rates between kids vaccinated with vaccines containing thimerosal and those vaccinated with non-thimerosal vaccines. And by the way, the incidence of autism has continued to rise since thimerosal was removed from the vaccines.

Elphaba says:

07:57am | 20/01/11

What Hugh, JS and Marley said.

There’s more mercury in that piece of ocean fish you eat with steamed vegies in an attempt to be healthy.  There’s no mercury in children’s vaccinations.  Your argument, Risky, sucks big time.

Just Sayin' says:

02:04pm | 20/01/11

I believe that’s “Mr Wakefield”, these days.

JS says:

03:30pm | 20/01/11

@Just Sayin. Agree, although it looks like many aren’t aware of the fact that his right to use the ‘Dr’ title has been revoked (perhaps they’re just ignoring it).

Risky says:

09:10pm | 20/01/11

Hugh, I don’t think jail is likely. Read your response, blah blah bah, sort of thing people say when they run out of argument.

papachango says:

01:07pm | 20/01/11

Generally the first signs are noticed about the same time as the MMR shot - i.e. 18 - 24 months, though diagnosis depends on a psychological/developmental assessment which might happen much later.

It’s got nothing to do with MMR, often the first signs are noticed before the shot, but all it takes is one or 2 parents who don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation to say ‘I noticed something wrong right after the MMR shot’, and the myth perpetuates.

Syl says:

01:40pm | 20/01/11

LC, your intentions are great but I must disagree

“Parents have the right to refuse any vaccination before the child is aged 5. After that to continue refusing to vaccinate, they must show medical evidence provided from at least 3 independent doctors that the risks involved in vaccinating their child outweigh the gains.”

Whats the point of giving the choice before the age of 5 but forcing them to vaccinate after?  We should be protecting them from preventable dieases from the get go, afterall, under this scheme, they are going to be vaccinated eventually (extenuating circumstances aside)

“Parents of vaccinated children are required by law to inform any kindergartens, schools, daycare centers, playgroups, sporting clubs and the parents of children their child socializes with of their unvaccinated status. Failure to do so means failure to meet their duty of care, and thus they could end up facing a negligence suit.”

I assume you mean parents of UNvaccinated children.  Yes if their child is unvaccinated they most certainly should have to tell child care etc, personally I think they shouldnt be there at all.  It is VERY difficult to prevent children from mixing and I would rather my child not be put at ANY risk to keep some idiot, whos political ideals are more important than their child’s health, happy.

“Kindergartens, schools, and daycare centers must put vaccinated children in separate classes and the school, kindergarten or daycare facility must in turn must inform parents of other children who go there as to how many unvaccinated children are in attendance. Government funded schools, kindergartens or daycare facilities cannot refuse to enroll children on the basis of vaccination status unless they do not have adequate facilities to cater for them, or their current facilities are full.”

At what cost?  I am not footing the bill because some parent is willfully neglecting the health of their child based on a debunked theory advocated by a big titted actress.

“More research needs to be done to find out if vaccination does cause Autism or other long term physical or mental disorders.”

Why?  The research is done, the theory is debunked, there is NO grounds to test the theory any more as the theory had no basis of truth to begin with.  It was a sham to begin with that is being perpetuated by ignorant fools.

“More research needs to be done to find a way of identifying those at risk of a severe allergic reaction or anything else, and then finding a method of screening these people out. “

Agreed, however I don’t know about “screening out”, I think research in to non-allergenic alternative vaccines would be wiser.

Ryan says:

02:20pm | 20/01/11

@LC: but if your vaccinations work so well, then there is zero risk to kids who aren’t vaccinated.

Syl says:

03:32pm | 20/01/11

Ryan

“@LC: but if your vaccinations work so well, then there is zero risk to kids who aren’t vaccinated. “

Im assuming you dont know how vaccinations work.
A vaccination doesn’t stop an infection from existing, it allows the body to fight the infection before it can take hold, by creating the correct immunogens in your system.  A vaccinated child can still come in contact with infectious bacteria, and even carry it for a short time before it is defeated by the immune system.  It is entirely possible for unvaccinated children to be at risk while mixing with vaccinated children.

This is such a ridiculous argument for neglecting your child’s health it beggars belief.  You basis for this belief eludes me.

Elphaba says:

03:53pm | 20/01/11

@Syl, do’t even bother.  Ryan has consistantly been shown well-researched data on vaccinations by Punchers like St. Michael, and he consistantly shows complete ignorance on how vaccinations work, believing that the quacks are onto something by fiddling with the system.

Ignore him.

LC says:

03:30pm | 02/02/11

@Syl
“Whats the point of giving the choice before the age of 5 but forcing them to vaccinate after?  We should be protecting them from preventable dieases from the get go, afterall, under this scheme, they are going to be vaccinated eventually (extenuating circumstances aside)”
The “no mandatory vaccinations under the age of 5” is to buy time to determine if there is any actaul reason that they should be vaccinated.

“I assume you mean parents of UNvaccinated children.  Yes if their child is unvaccinated they most certainly should have to tell child care etc, personally I think they shouldnt be there at all.  It is VERY difficult to prevent children from mixing and I would rather my child not be put at ANY risk to keep some idiot, whos political ideals are more important than their child’s health, happy.”
Perhaps I should have proof-read it a little better. The child should not have to suffer isolation and lack of education because of the parents failure to vaccinate, which is why they are allowed to attend public schools etc. To protect both themselves and those who are vaccinated, they will be separated from vaccinated children. You’ll still be told the numbers of vaccinated children in attendace and you can make a decision from there.

“Kindergartens, schools, and daycare centers must put vaccinated children in separate classes and the school, kindergarten or daycare facility must in turn must inform parents of other children who go there as to how many unvaccinated children are in attendance. Government funded schools, kindergartens or daycare facilities cannot refuse to enroll children on the basis of vaccination status unless they do not have adequate facilities to cater for them, or their current facilities are full.”
Costs would be passed back to the parents, obviously.

“Why?  The research is done, the theory is debunked, there is NO grounds to test the theory any more as the theory had no basis of truth to begin with.  It was a sham to begin with that is being perpetuated by ignorant fools.”
This I know, Austism is decided through genetics, it’s not caused by external factors (to our knowledge). However, this does not mean vaccinations do not (potentially) cause other problems, especially those which have been recently released, such as the swine flu vaccine. It was pushed through the trial stages extremely fast due to media hype, so we have no clue whether it causes cancer 5-10 years down the track.

“Agreed, however I don’t know about “screening out”, I think research in to non-allergenic alternative vaccines would be wiser. “
That would be the eventual goal. But in the interim they have to be screened out because the serious allergic reasons can be as fatal as the diseases we vaccinate against.

@Ryan
It’s more for the protection of the unvaccinated children than anything else.

LC says:

06:37pm | 02/02/11

Damnit, not again.
“The “no mandatory vaccinations under the age of 5” is to buy time to determine if there is any actaul reason that they should be vaccinated.”
That should read “if there is any actual reason that they should NOT be vaccinated”.

St. Michael says:

11:43pm | 20/01/11

I did have a read of that article.  The most interesting part was this excerpt:

““The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true”. Ioannides attributes this counter-intuitive effect to cut-throat competition to publish exciting research first. “This may explain why we occasionally see major excitement followed rapidly by severe disappointments in fields that draw wide attention,” he says.”

Wakefield’s research doesn’t really fit the bill for this. In his case the taint wasn’t so much the desire to be first as the fact he was being funded by lawyers gearing up for lawsuits against the makers of the MMR vaccine.  This is not a matter of innocent mistakes made or overenthusiasm; Wakefield’s research was demonstrably corrupt given the motives behind it.  His bleating about finding “results” is what I’d term the McBride play: Joseph McBride, though guilty of the same crimes of fabrication and misinterpretation as Wakefield was, still made it back onto the medical rolls in 1998, eventually.  Wakefield is like every young crim brought before a court: trying to mitigate his lies by saying they served some public purpose.

The basis of science is not respect for the scientist, it’s respect for the results and the extent to which they are reproducible or reliable.  The former follows the latter.  And in most cases the respect is deserved because the scientist has been thorough enough to carefully check his results, resist the temptation against confirmational bias and make no wild guesses from the data he gets.

You also mentioned: “It is also interesting to note how often the sanctimonious chant of ‘coincidence is not causation’ is heard in this discussion, almost immediately followed by the blaming of Wakefield for a drop in MMR vaccinations and a rise in measles cases.”

That’s comparing apples with oranges.  A drop in vaccination against a given disease, QED, causes an increase in cases of the diseases that it’s meant to prevent.  Herd immunity is lowered and the disease is better able to spread through a population.  This is particularly so given that measles cases are at such incredibly low levels due to the vaccine; an uptick in measles cases is most likely correlated with lowered vaccination rates.

‘Coincidence is not causation’ isn’t sanctimonious.  It’s shorthand for saying that without a sufficiently large sample and a reproducible set of results, the correlation of one incident with another is not the cause of the second incident.  With vaccines there have been millions of MMR treatments, and no statistically significant number of diagnosed autism that can be said to arise from the treatment.  Indeed the diagnosis of autism in unvaccinated children, as it is in many cases, suggests quite the opposite of cause.

I don’t actually tend to blame Wakefield so much as I do Jenny McCarthy and her cadre, mostly because people are more willing to listen to a mother who also happens to look attractive and puts the paranoia into words of one syllable than a hangdog scientist who speaks in gobbledegook to most people in the population.  But Wakefield’s still Patient Zero.