Falsified data, vaccines, and autism
February 10, 2009 7:45 AM Subscribe
A series of articles in the Times shows that the original 1998 Lancet paper by Andrew Wakefield that started the scare that MMR vaccination was linked to autism was based on falsified data. This is the latest in a series of scandals about this key research paper (which has not been successfully replicated) that led ten of the twelve authors to retract their publication. Though substantial evidence since 1998 contradicts a link between MMR and autism, measles are again becoming endemic in the UK, and are on the rise in the US as well, as herd immunity begins to fail.
This post was deleted for the following reason: This is a nice collection of links, but we just had an MMR/vaccine-controversy/etc post on Friday. Probably best to add this stuff as a comment in there. -- cortex
I agree with PG. I saw this yesterday, and I nearly flipped out. The guy is probably responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths.
Burn him.
posted by rosswald at 7:56 AM on February 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
Burn him.
posted by rosswald at 7:56 AM on February 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
Good, although I hope that this information can be spread as far and as fast as the original falsehood, and it's not like printing "LOCAL MAN IS A CHILD MURDERER" on the front page one week and "Local man not actually child murderer, sorry" on page 37b the next. This particular conspiracy theory has done a lot of harm, on par with the "frankenfood" yahoos convincing third world leaders that GM crops are "poison". Wakefield should face criminal prosecution, although I'm not sure what they could get him for.
posted by DecemberBoy at 8:02 AM on February 10, 2009
posted by DecemberBoy at 8:02 AM on February 10, 2009
You all know this will be dismissed by the anti-vaccination crowd as a healthcare industry smear campaign. Just sayin'.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:03 AM on February 10, 2009
posted by Thorzdad at 8:03 AM on February 10, 2009
Yo, Jenny McCarthy and other autism "experts"...
posted by Sassenach at 8:03 AM on February 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Sassenach at 8:03 AM on February 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
What's the word on motivation? He just hates vaccination? Needed to get published somehow?
posted by DU at 8:09 AM on February 10, 2009
posted by DU at 8:09 AM on February 10, 2009
There's sufficient motivation in having a pet hypothesis and wanting to prove it and get published. They teach us in school that proving a hypothesis false is also good science, but it doesn't have that sort of flashy flair like "proving" something true.
posted by explosion at 8:15 AM on February 10, 2009
posted by explosion at 8:15 AM on February 10, 2009
You can't unring that bell.
I once read about how you can run an article that says "No Link Between Cancer and Homosexuality,"* and later people will only remember that these two things were in the same article, so it becomes "OMG Gays cause cancer!"
This myth will be around for the rest of my lifetime. Even if mercury did contribute to autism, coal plants and industrial spills put way more mercury into our bodies than the small amount you might get from a vaccine.
*it doesn't matter what the nouns are in this sentence. Coffee and emphysema would also work as an example.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:16 AM on February 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
I once read about how you can run an article that says "No Link Between Cancer and Homosexuality,"* and later people will only remember that these two things were in the same article, so it becomes "OMG Gays cause cancer!"
This myth will be around for the rest of my lifetime. Even if mercury did contribute to autism, coal plants and industrial spills put way more mercury into our bodies than the small amount you might get from a vaccine.
*it doesn't matter what the nouns are in this sentence. Coffee and emphysema would also work as an example.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:16 AM on February 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm surprised this post didn't mention LBC forcing Ben Goldacre to remove his posting of Jeni Barnett recently. There's still appalling irresponsibility on the part of some members of the media.
LBC's legal threats have only served to guarantee that Jeni Barnett's dangerous idiocy has been not only preserved on the internet but highlighted more strongly than it would otherwise have been.
posted by edd at 8:18 AM on February 10, 2009
LBC's legal threats have only served to guarantee that Jeni Barnett's dangerous idiocy has been not only preserved on the internet but highlighted more strongly than it would otherwise have been.
posted by edd at 8:18 AM on February 10, 2009
A lot of people outside of the medical and research communities don't seem to realize that doctors and scientists are just as fallible as everyone else on this planet. They all have agendas just like everyone else and just like everyone else often let their agendas shape their work.
Researchers can choose to publish a small subset of their data, repeat experiments for years until they get a nice set of results, or in this case apparently draw ridiculously false conclusions. Every paper in every journal should be read with skepticism, taking into account a researcher's previous track record. That's hard to do for the general population which doesn't have a scientific background and access to the articles.
We need rigorous research every time a breakthrough paper is published, and rigorous follow ups in the months and years afterward. Of course that will scare researchers into not publishing some genuine papers for fear that new information and techniques might invalidate them. So we also need to educate the public about the scientific method and the idea that facts can be disproved when new data and techniques become available. It's hard enough to get funding even when you're publishing papers that show your research is on the right path, the public needs to be OK with scientists failing from time to time. A strong research project that ends up not working out is beneficial in keeping other researchers from going down that same path.
In short; science isn't done by wizards in white towers. Sometimes really good research turns out to be wrong, that's OK. Some people in every field are dicks, possibly criminal dicks, who should have been forced out years ago.
posted by Science! at 8:21 AM on February 10, 2009 [3 favorites]
Researchers can choose to publish a small subset of their data, repeat experiments for years until they get a nice set of results, or in this case apparently draw ridiculously false conclusions. Every paper in every journal should be read with skepticism, taking into account a researcher's previous track record. That's hard to do for the general population which doesn't have a scientific background and access to the articles.
We need rigorous research every time a breakthrough paper is published, and rigorous follow ups in the months and years afterward. Of course that will scare researchers into not publishing some genuine papers for fear that new information and techniques might invalidate them. So we also need to educate the public about the scientific method and the idea that facts can be disproved when new data and techniques become available. It's hard enough to get funding even when you're publishing papers that show your research is on the right path, the public needs to be OK with scientists failing from time to time. A strong research project that ends up not working out is beneficial in keeping other researchers from going down that same path.
In short; science isn't done by wizards in white towers. Sometimes really good research turns out to be wrong, that's OK. Some people in every field are dicks, possibly criminal dicks, who should have been forced out years ago.
posted by Science! at 8:21 AM on February 10, 2009 [3 favorites]
cjorgensen: while some antivaxxers go for the mercury theory, Andrew Wakefield's ideas were centred on the measles virus part of the vaccine. Certainly the mercury ideas seem to be more common in the USA, whereas in Britain it's much more focussed on MMR rather than vaccines containing thimerosal (based entirely on my reading of the media and not properly controlled studies of misguided parents).
Antivaxxers will focus on any convenient component of a vaccine that their children are being offered in order to give whatever flimsy basis they can to their irrationality.
posted by edd at 8:23 AM on February 10, 2009
Antivaxxers will focus on any convenient component of a vaccine that their children are being offered in order to give whatever flimsy basis they can to their irrationality.
posted by edd at 8:23 AM on February 10, 2009
Oh yes, the Barnett stuff did get mentioned - I must have missed it. Thanks.
posted by edd at 8:24 AM on February 10, 2009
posted by edd at 8:24 AM on February 10, 2009
Previously (four days ago) on the blue, Bad science meets bad broadcasting
posted by csw at 8:27 AM on February 10, 2009
There was an NPR story about this on This American Life right before Christmas. In it they describe the damage caused by a yuppie couple who refused vaccination for their child: their child got the measles on a trip to Germany and brought it back to the US, infecting a number of infants who were too young to have been vaccinated.
On hearing this, I was amazed how sanguine the parents of the exposed infants were. I was outraged. Any parent of child who was not immunized should be held criminally liable for the damage said disease-vector children cause. This includes criminal negligence for causing the infection of any infants and negligent homicide if any of them die.
And I also think that would have been a great opportunity for some of those huge, media grabbing lawsuit verdicts.
posted by overhauser at 8:27 AM on February 10, 2009
On hearing this, I was amazed how sanguine the parents of the exposed infants were. I was outraged. Any parent of child who was not immunized should be held criminally liable for the damage said disease-vector children cause. This includes criminal negligence for causing the infection of any infants and negligent homicide if any of them die.
And I also think that would have been a great opportunity for some of those huge, media grabbing lawsuit verdicts.
posted by overhauser at 8:27 AM on February 10, 2009
Oh yeah, I remember those days:
OMG, gays cause cancer!
posted by Pollomacho at 8:27 AM on February 10, 2009
OMG, gays cause cancer!
posted by Pollomacho at 8:27 AM on February 10, 2009
DU, one journalist thinks it may be financially motivated since Wakefield filed a string of MMR- and bowel-related patents around the time of the 1998 publication. However, this could also be consistent with batshitinsanity and tilting at windmills.
posted by Llama-Lime at 8:30 AM on February 10, 2009
posted by Llama-Lime at 8:30 AM on February 10, 2009
Science! writes: A lot of people outside of the medical and research communities don't seem to realize that doctors and scientists are just as fallible as everyone else on this planet.
Well, the problem is also that people hear about one case where 'the doctors got it wrong!' and it undermines confidence in the system more so than it would anywhere else, because of the amount of trust that we put in doctors. The correct response is of course what you suggest: peer review, rigorous vetting, and a self-correcting community. This is not the response that we get. Instead, we end up with vaccination crazies and Christian Scientists who use isolated studies and junk science to bolster their ridiculous positions.
So, yes, let's come down hard on pseudoscience, but let's also make it clear that medicine is an iterative approach--we had to wade through leeches and bloodletting to get here, but modern medicine is a damn sight better than any of the other crap out there.
Or, we take parents whose children infected others with measles, and charge them with manslaughter when their precious l'il vector of infection starts causing deaths because of their parents' inability to grasp causality. Whichever.
posted by Mayor West at 8:34 AM on February 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
Well, the problem is also that people hear about one case where 'the doctors got it wrong!' and it undermines confidence in the system more so than it would anywhere else, because of the amount of trust that we put in doctors. The correct response is of course what you suggest: peer review, rigorous vetting, and a self-correcting community. This is not the response that we get. Instead, we end up with vaccination crazies and Christian Scientists who use isolated studies and junk science to bolster their ridiculous positions.
So, yes, let's come down hard on pseudoscience, but let's also make it clear that medicine is an iterative approach--we had to wade through leeches and bloodletting to get here, but modern medicine is a damn sight better than any of the other crap out there.
Or, we take parents whose children infected others with measles, and charge them with manslaughter when their precious l'il vector of infection starts causing deaths because of their parents' inability to grasp causality. Whichever.
posted by Mayor West at 8:34 AM on February 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
There was an NPR story about this on This American Life right before Christmas.
That story was linked in the post on Friday. I suggest you relisten to it, because not only do you not remember the facts correctly, you're also perpetuating the blind rage that will only ensure that those of other convictions than yours regarding vaccination will be more convinced than ever they're right and you're wrong. Which is not how this stand-off will ever be solved - as the programme tried to suggest.
Any parent of child who was not immunized should be held criminally liable for the damage said disease-vector children cause. This includes criminal negligence for causing the infection of any infants
A few children got the measles. Then they all got well again. Could you elaborate on your definition of criminal negligence?
posted by progosk at 8:37 AM on February 10, 2009
That story was linked in the post on Friday. I suggest you relisten to it, because not only do you not remember the facts correctly, you're also perpetuating the blind rage that will only ensure that those of other convictions than yours regarding vaccination will be more convinced than ever they're right and you're wrong. Which is not how this stand-off will ever be solved - as the programme tried to suggest.
Any parent of child who was not immunized should be held criminally liable for the damage said disease-vector children cause. This includes criminal negligence for causing the infection of any infants
A few children got the measles. Then they all got well again. Could you elaborate on your definition of criminal negligence?
posted by progosk at 8:37 AM on February 10, 2009
So, yes, let's come down hard on pseudoscience, but let's also make it clear that medicine is an iterative approach--we had to wade through leeches and bloodletting to get here, but modern medicine is a damn sight better than any of the other crap out there.
That's actually a big part of the problem. Our education system, and society at large, does a pretty good job of pointing out how far we come from bloodletting to full body imaging, from alchemy to the Hubble telescope. We ingrain a sense of awe towards science and medicine and tell ourselves that we don't need to worry about anything because these geniuses have it all worked out, or will by the time we're personally affected by something.
We need less distanced awe and wonder and more "Hey, that's awesome! Show me how you did that!"
posted by Science! at 8:41 AM on February 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
That's actually a big part of the problem. Our education system, and society at large, does a pretty good job of pointing out how far we come from bloodletting to full body imaging, from alchemy to the Hubble telescope. We ingrain a sense of awe towards science and medicine and tell ourselves that we don't need to worry about anything because these geniuses have it all worked out, or will by the time we're personally affected by something.
We need less distanced awe and wonder and more "Hey, that's awesome! Show me how you did that!"
posted by Science! at 8:41 AM on February 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
I wonder what RFK, Jr. thinks of all this.
posted by billysumday at 8:41 AM on February 10, 2009
posted by billysumday at 8:41 AM on February 10, 2009
"A few children got the measles. Then they all got well again. Could you elaborate on your definition of criminal negligence?"
While I wouldn't argue for the parents being charged with criminal negligence, I don't see how the fact they got better has anything to do with it. If I punch you in the face but cause no permanent damage that doesn't mean I'm not guilty of assault.
posted by edd at 8:42 AM on February 10, 2009
While I wouldn't argue for the parents being charged with criminal negligence, I don't see how the fact they got better has anything to do with it. If I punch you in the face but cause no permanent damage that doesn't mean I'm not guilty of assault.
posted by edd at 8:42 AM on February 10, 2009
you're also perpetuating the blind rage that will only ensure that those of other convictions than yours regarding vaccination will be more convinced than ever they're right and you're wrong.
I don't see how one might file criminal charges in this case, but you can rest assured I'd be seriously tempted to punch someone who got my child sick with a potentially serious disease because they felt entitled to endanger others by ignoring vaccinations. So maybe my blind rage combined with ACRES UPON ACRES OF F*CKING SCIENCE will convince them they're wrong?
I'm not hopeful.
posted by jalexei at 8:54 AM on February 10, 2009
I don't see how one might file criminal charges in this case, but you can rest assured I'd be seriously tempted to punch someone who got my child sick with a potentially serious disease because they felt entitled to endanger others by ignoring vaccinations. So maybe my blind rage combined with ACRES UPON ACRES OF F*CKING SCIENCE will convince them they're wrong?
I'm not hopeful.
posted by jalexei at 8:54 AM on February 10, 2009
In short; science isn't done by wizards in white towers.
That's how *I* do my science, puny mortal.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:57 AM on February 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
That's how *I* do my science, puny mortal.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:57 AM on February 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
« Older Bombed and Stretched, like Bubblegum | Tragedy of the anti-commons Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:50 AM on February 10, 2009 [8 favorites]