Reproduction of 1998 Wakefield Study Finds NO MMR/Autism Link

It's pretty commonly known that Andrew Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper on the link between autism and the MMR vaccine has been the source of considered controversy over vaccinations and autism, even after the majority of the paper authors removed their names and the journal retracted the paper. Wakefield's unethical conduct, the leaps of logic, and the small sample size itself, all contributed to reasons the paper was ultimately discredited.

Unfortunately, that sort of discrediting might hold weight in academic spheres, but doesn't necessarily take hold in the public sphere. It's much more entertaining to write scare-tactic headlines touting fears of vaccines and the rise of autism than it is to say "woops", let alone "woops, we maybe made something worse... sorry about that, please go vaccinate your kids before measles skyrockets to new epidemic proportions."

Hopefully the news that a reproduction of the Wakefield study shows absolutely no link between autism and the MMR vaccine will gain foothold in the media at large, and go a long way towards convincing parents that vaccinating their children is not only a socially responsible action that contributes to the common good (via herd immunity), but is the responsible action as a parent taking care of their child's health.

Like Wakefield's study, the new study looked for evidence of potential links between MMR vaccinations, autism and the digestive (gastrointestinal, or GI) problems sometimes seen in autistic children.

"If in fact you want to implicate a factor in the causation of an illness, it must be present before the illness," said W. Ian Lipkin, a professor of epidemiology, neurology and pathology at Columbia University, explaining the idea behind the study. "In the event MMR was responsible for autism, the MMR must precede the onset of autism. There was no evidence . . . MMR preceded either autism or GI problems" in the children studied, he said.

In the first eight months of this year, there have been almost 140 cases of measles alone. The vast majority of these cases have occurred in unvaccinated children - cases of measles that could have easily been prevented.

Let's hope that this is the final nail in the coffin of the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, and that while research into causes, origins and cures for autism continue, our vaccination rate also goes back up to healthy levels for the entire population.

-Kelly Hills

Neurodiversity blogger subpoenaed in "vaccine-autism link" lawsuit

Kathleen Seidel, of Neurodiversity Blog, has been subpoenaed by the plaintiffs' lawyer in a lawsuit claiming that vaccines caused autism. It appears that this subpoena may be retributive action from the lawyer for the plaintiffs, whom Seidel criticized a few weeks ago.

She has since filed a motion to quash the subpoena because she is uninvolved in the Sykes v. Bayer case other than as an independent blogger who has discussed issues related to neurobiology and autism.

This action has many potential impacts for the medical and legal arenas, and opens up the possibility of harassment and undue barriers for bloggers if they can be required to produce the amount of paperwork required in a subpoena at the drop of a hat by a bitter lawyer who perpetuates fraud.

More from:

* Pure Pedantry

* Pharyngula

Is GARDASIL® a responsible mandate?

If the common goals between the public and the pharmaceutical giant Merck in the controversy over compulsory HPV vaccination were long-term cost containment and public safety by reduction and prevention of widespread disease (HPV and cervical cancer, in this case), and GARDASIL is supposed to achieve both objectives; then, mandatory GARDASIL vaccinations for young women is worth investigating.

Compulsory HPV vaccination for girls before they become sexually active is said to cut long-term costs in their healthcare (especially costs related to cervical cancer). However, these costs may be outweighed by long-term costs that are unknown at this time. According to Merck's website, GARDASIL has only been tested for over a decade, which is not sufficient in considering the long-term effects of a drug on a young woman's reproductive system. Currently, GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity... it is not known whether GARDASIL can affect reproductive capacity (Merck 2007). Because a little over a decade is arguably insufficient time to recognize all of the implications that the drug may have on a woman of childbearing age who received the vaccine prior to, or during puberty, we do not know the long-term costs of what may result from the use of GARDASIL. And, we cannot assume that GARDASIL is cost efficient. We cannot consider this vaccine to be an effective one in reducing or preventing long-term, perhaps costly health problems.

As the second most common cause of cancer death in women worldwide, resulting in nearly a half-million diagnoses and 240,000 deaths each year (Merck 2007), and because 6 million people in this country become infected with HPV every year, and nearly 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer (Colgrove 2006), HPV and cervical cancer are undeniably very serious threats to public health. Compulsory HPV vaccination for girls before they become sexually active is said to significantly reduce or even prevent widespread cervical cancer. Because there is some evidence of its success in preventing four types of HPV, two of which are leading causes of cervical cancer, the fact that there are at least short-term benefits to GARDASIL is undeniable. However, the vaccine should be made accessible without mandating its use. From a moral standpoint, it seems that the use of the GARDASIL should be accessible at least for those at high risk (i.e., with family history of cervical cancer, etc.). Without long-term evidence of its efficacy and safety, it seems irresponsible (on the part of government, as well as Merck) to mandate its use, but also to deny its access completely.

The best possibility at this point is to wait until further, more conclusive and long-term research has been conducted. Given more time, competition will likely increase, which will inevitably reduce the cost to the consumer (or government), as well as provide more sound evidence regarding its long-term efficacy and safety.

References:

Merck. 2007. CDC Finalizes Advisory Panel Recommendations for GARDASIL®, Merck Cervical Cancer Vaccine. http://www.merck.com/newsroom/press_releases/product/2007_0322.html (accessed September 25, 2007).

Colgrove, J. 2006. The Ethics and Politics of Compulsory HPV Vaccination. http://www.natap.org/2006/newsUpdates/121106_05.htm (accessed February 20, 2008).