(no subject)

[pat]

In her blog, Respectful of Otters, 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.

Comments

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

Had a juicy, articulate response all typed up - and then my connection timed out and ate it :P

I do think that one reason for the anti-vaccination hysteria that hasn't been mentioned yet is simple ignorance. Historical epidemiology and emerging diseases is a peculiar interest of mine, and IMHO most people under the age of 50 have no idea just how painful and permanently destructive (or lethal!) these "childhood diseases" were, mostly because the existence of vaccines has made the likelihood of meeting anyone suffering/surviving these diseases almost nil.

I think most people remember polio if only because of FDR, but smallpox would leave you heavily scarred for life, assuming you survived at all. Tetanus (my grandmother had it) is extraordinarily painful and often fatal. Rubella, as mentioned earlier, can cause severe birth defects. But people never see this anymore (because of widespread vaccination, at least in the developed world), so they assume they're "safe".

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that measles in parts of the developing world still cause blindness. And pertussis can cause seizures and brain damage.

I guess I was just lucky to have good science teachers who taught me about these diseases and what the purpose of vaccination was. It also didn't hurt that my mother was a) a nurse and b) born before widespread immunization (she was born in the Depression, and was 38 when I was born). She used to tell us what the polio scares were like.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

I didn't know that measles and pertussis had these risks - I thought it just meant months of bed rest! Learn somthing new every day!

You were lucky to have a mother and teachers who explained this to you - maybe they should have a section on the history and science behind vaccination in schools now to combat the ignorance surrounding the issue.