![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In her blog, Respectful of Otters, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rivka has passed along the news that The Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, has renounced their publication of Andrew Wakefield's study showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism in children. The study has been heavily criticized before now on scientific grounds, and it seems that Wakefield forgot to disclose that he was being funded by lawyers hoping to represent the parents of autistic children in liability cases against manufacturers. Oops.
Well, all I've go to say is...
Amen and hallelujah. The amount of time and resources spent dealing with this study could have been better spent elsewhere on autism research. And people have latched on to this study -- even in the face of a lot of evidence which contradicts it -- and have run around screaming and encouraging people to *not* have their children immunized.
Which is a complete load of hooey. As a parent of an autistic child, until there is a clear link between vaccines and a significant increase in the probability of a child developing autism, I will -- and have -- immunized my other children and encourage others to do likewise.
We tend to think of measles, mumps, and rubella as "childhood" diseases, and not very serious. These diseases can be quite serious -- even life-threatening. And while the link between the MMR and autism may be completely speculative, the link between a woman contracting rubella in the first trimester of pregnancy and a much higher incidence of serious birth defects is not.
There is a reason we vaccinate against these diseases, not just because they are a minor annoyance. And the only way to contain diseases like this is to vaccinate on a wide scale. There will always be people who, for one reason or another, cannot take the vaccine (as a child, I could not take the MMR because of an allergy to one of the ingredients made in its manufacture -- later they changed it so that I could). But for people to not vaccinate their children because some scientifically questionable study says there may be a link to autism is, in the absence of more compelling evidence, socially irresponsible.
rivka has passed along the news that The Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, has renounced their publication of Andrew Wakefield's study showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism in children. The study has been heavily criticized before now on scientific grounds, and it seems that Wakefield forgot to disclose that he was being funded by lawyers hoping to represent the parents of autistic children in liability cases against manufacturers. Oops.Well, all I've go to say is...
Amen and hallelujah. The amount of time and resources spent dealing with this study could have been better spent elsewhere on autism research. And people have latched on to this study -- even in the face of a lot of evidence which contradicts it -- and have run around screaming and encouraging people to *not* have their children immunized.
Which is a complete load of hooey. As a parent of an autistic child, until there is a clear link between vaccines and a significant increase in the probability of a child developing autism, I will -- and have -- immunized my other children and encourage others to do likewise.
We tend to think of measles, mumps, and rubella as "childhood" diseases, and not very serious. These diseases can be quite serious -- even life-threatening. And while the link between the MMR and autism may be completely speculative, the link between a woman contracting rubella in the first trimester of pregnancy and a much higher incidence of serious birth defects is not.
There is a reason we vaccinate against these diseases, not just because they are a minor annoyance. And the only way to contain diseases like this is to vaccinate on a wide scale. There will always be people who, for one reason or another, cannot take the vaccine (as a child, I could not take the MMR because of an allergy to one of the ingredients made in its manufacture -- later they changed it so that I could). But for people to not vaccinate their children because some scientifically questionable study says there may be a link to autism is, in the absence of more compelling evidence, socially irresponsible.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I think it's natural for families of children with autism to feel as though there must be something or someone to blame, and to keep searching for some sort of explanation that makes sense. And I think it's natural for other people to want to believe that autism is avoidable if you just make the "right" choices.
So it doesn't surprise me that this myth is as long-lasting as it is. But it's hard to watch it going on anyway. You make an excellent point about rubella and pregnancy. Some of these parents are likely to find that their efforts to protect their children have led to severe mental retardation in their grandchildren - if their daughters don't happen to encounter that "harmless childhood disease" rubella until they're pregnant.
From:
Re:
I understand the need to find "solutions". I think it stems from a human need to feel that their suffering is not in vain.
And it might not drive me so nuts if what people are suggesting is something relatively benign. But to trade some hypothetical reduction in autism for a very real increase in human misery if these diseases were to become very widespread again is crazy.
When my firstborn was young, there was all this uproar over the DPT vaccine. The vaccine, in particular the pertussis component, had a few very nasty reactions. Parents opted not to get the vaccine -- trading a very small chance of a serious reaction for a much much greater chance for life-threatening illness. I even read one parent who said at the time, in effect, "well, it's not like these are common diseases anymore." It made me want to cry.
I wonder what would have happened if there was found to be link between autism and polio vaccine. I think polio is seared into the national consciousness as a Very Serious Disease (thank you, FDR), so you might have more people more reluctant to stop immunizing without solid scientific evidence.
As far as rubella goes, when my sons become sexually active, the second question I plan to ask their girlfriends (if they are straight), right behind "what form of contraception are you using?" is "have you been immunized against rubella, and if not, why not?" I personally think that any parent who would deliberately (ie., not because of lack of medical care) not immunize their daughters is too irresponsible and silly to be raising kids, but I'm a little extremist on this issue.