Last May British medical authorities stripped Dr. Andrew Wakefield of his license to practice medicine. In case the name isn't familiar, Wakefield was the lead author of the 1998 paper published in The Lancet (and later retracted) that set off worldwide fear of vaccines. Now the British Medical Journal has jumped in, publishing an investigative report calling the Wakefield study "an elaborate hoax," suggesting that he manipulated his findings to help him get rich by suing drug companies.
The press will give this latest aspect of the story its 15 minutes of fame. But the coverage will mostly be about Wakefield. Little attention will be paid to the larger lesson here. Thousands of people are now getting all sorts of diseases that had been nearly eradicated, diseases which are resurgent now that people around the world have become fearful of vaccines, thanks both to Dr. Wakefield and to the innate way the human animals perceives and responds to risk. The lesson is that sometimes what we do to protect ourselves feels safe, but makes things worse. Examining how the psychology of risk perception played out in the Wakefield affair, and continues to play out in public concern about vaccines, can tell us a lot about how to avoid this risk in the future -- the huge risk that arises when we get risk wrong.
Wakefield et.al. looked for a link between autism and the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine. In their now retracted paper the authors said "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described." But in the news conference announcing the paper, Wakefield suggested taking the vaccines one at a time rather than together, just in case. The parents of the autistic kids who were studied -- all 12 of them -- desperate for an explanation for their tragedy, jumped at that hint, and 12 years later fear of vaccines of all sorts has spread worldwide. Vaccination rates are down. Herd immunity to some diseases has dropped so low those diseases are spreading again, in the U.S. and around the world.
As surely as we now know that vaccines do not cause autism, we also know from research on risk perception that several specific psychological characteristics played (and still play) a huge role in people's fear of vaccines.
It is not at all unreasonable to respond to risk this way. When it comes to the perception of potential danger, which is ultimately about survival, we have developed these affective characteristics -- trust, choice, kids, risk vs. benefit, among others -- as tools with which to judge a situation quickly, instinctively, subconsciously, for its riskiness. This is neither rational or irrational. It's just how we do it.
But this affective risk response can lead to what in my book I call The Perception Gap, a dangerous gap between our feelings and the facts that can be a risk in and of itself. Sometimes we're more afraid than the facts say we need to be (vaccines). With many of the bigger threats, we're not afraid enough (infectious disease). The gap between our fears and the facts can be dangerous all by itself. Just ask the parents of the thousands of kids worldwide now getting, or dying of diseases that vaccines had pretty much controlled.
We need to start paying more attention to what the psychology of risk perception has to teach us about why we react to risk the way we do. We need to be honest with ourselves and recognize that, as right as our feelings about a given risk may be, those feelings may raise new dangers. We do have to fear fear itself, too much or too little. As we have studied risks like vaccines and autism, so we have studied the psychology of risk perception, and identified its pitfalls. We can use that knowledge for wiser overall risk management in the choices we make as individuals and as a society.
And we need to do this proactively, as risk-related issues arise, before our feelings become too deeply set. Because we also know from risk perception studies that, once we've made our interpretations of what's safe and what's not, it's very hard to get those interpretations to change. One American parent in four is worried about the danger of vaccines to their kids and hundreds of thousands now refuse to have their kids vaccinated. This latest investigation against Dr. Wakefield won't change that. The harm he and others have done will persist for a long time, and will continue to serve as a reminder of the risk we face if we don't recognize that the way we perceive risk can be a huge risk in and of itself.
David Ropeik is an Instructor at the Harvard Extension School and author of "How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts"
(This post originally ran as a Guest Blog on Scientific American)
Follow David Ropeik on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dropeik
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8741307
After you read this and maybe follow a few more leads you will be able to comment on MMR.
How can studies PROVE anything when we don't even know what vaccine they are talking about. The MMR vaccine Wakefield suggested MIGHT be - due to parents comments- related to autism was (I found this out somewhere else - but read the link first) exchanged for the American vaccine which was shown to be safer.
Vaccines might be wonderful - but I'd be more likely to believe it if we could hear the truth. Certainly it doesn't take much knowledge to realise just how much wool Deer is pulling. Has pulled. He's such a health advocate - telling us all about terrible drugs that HAVE ALREADY BEEN taken off the market. So much money is involved the courts are ? the newsmedia is ?
American studies that back up Wakefield's claims have been pulled - Wake Forest Universities. He says a group may be more prone to damage - If say that is coeliacs - let's find them and figure out a safer option. Vaccines have almost certainly saved lives, but they have also killed people. Risk benefit is hard to ascertain, and long term damage impossible with no studies to prove it. So it's your job medical community PROVE IT, don't stop studies from happening because you are afraid of what they might find out.
if not, why not
does the possibility that measles virus from the MMR appears in the gut of these children problematic?
Are corp. and stockholder profits corrupting influences?
Does Dr. Gallo derive any profits from the HIV test?
(read the disclaimer on the label)
What researcher would dare to do this research given the "media" inspired hysteria.
One of Wakefield’s colleagues and former business partners co-authored a study that was a rigorous and explicit attempt to replicate Wakefield’s findings; the authors concluded: “The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that ASD with GI complaints is related to MMR exposure. We found no relationship between the timing of MMR and the onset of either GI complaints or autism.” [Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study. PLoS One. 2008 Sep 4;3(9):e3140.]
Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. “Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism.“ J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.
Sabra S, Bellanti JA, Colon AR. “Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. The Lancet 1998;352:234-5.
Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. “Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism.” Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382
Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F. “Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.” Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517.
Gonzalez, L. et al., “Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms“. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.
Balzola, F., et al., “Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome?” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.
S. Walker, K. Hepner, J. Segal, A. Krigsman “Persistent Ileal Measles Virus in a Large Cohort of Regressive Autistic Children with Ileocolitis and Lymphonodular Hyperplasia: Revisitation of an Earlier Study”
Balzola F et al . “Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.” Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.
And Dr. Wakefield has never said you shouldn't vaccinate. He said he recommended further research into the matter.
The editors of the BMJ have concluded that Wakefield is a fraud. Wakefield can sue the BMJ, Deer, and his employers under the notoriously slanted UK libel laws if he likes. He has already abandoned one suit against Deer and Deer received a check for his legal expenses. Perhaps Wakefield can try again--who knows, he might use his time wisely to become a good jailhouse lawyer if, in fact, he is imprisoned for fraudulent use of about three-quarters of a million dollars in public (legal aid) funds.
The father of child complained and that complaint is found at the beginning of the BMJ article.
In 2004, the story of the paper became public on a Friday. On Sunday, Brian Deer published his story. On Monday, the GMC contacted Deer asking for information for the investigation they were undertaking. On Wednesday, Brian Deer gave the GMC information. As well, let us not forget that Wakefield called upon the GMC to investigate the charges.
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/deer1st_complaint1.pdf
Parents of affected children are fully vested in this matter. We've been lied to before, we're being lied to again by Brian Deer. Dr. Wakefield is an honest man who has stood by our children from the beginning. Please read the other side before jumping to the conclusion that mainstream media has done it's due dilligence in looking at the facts themselves.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/the-big-lie-wakefield-lancet-paper-alleged-fraud-was-not-possible-for-anyone-to-commit.html
Pharm doesn't want anyone to look at vaccines. The testing and studies have NOT been done.
The admission and discharge information at the Royal Free hospital has the child having his first autistic symptom a month before MMR vaccination. And a week after vaccination, the kid got a chest infection.
Wakefield reported that the kid had the first behavioral signs of regressive autism a week after MMR vaccination.
Ask yourself - is there any evidence at all that would convince you Wakefield is guilty as charged? If the answer is "no", then you're too invested, too committed, and almost religious in your support of Wakefield.
It is time to reflect, it is time to pray, and it is time to objectively look at the documents that Wakefield himself signed. And it is time to change your mind. It's ok, we've all been wrong about big important stuff before.
An honest, thoughtful and brave person can admit a mistake, learn from it, and move on.
By J.B. Handley
"It is quite clear that you do not understand English. Brian Deer is not a member of the Sunday Times staff. He is a freelance journalist who runs his own website and blog and is not under the control or direction of the Sunday Times. Mr. Deer should not represent himself as a Sunday Times journalist. He is not a member of staff, does NOT have a regular salary from us, is not on our pension scheme and pays his own tax as a freelance. If he says that he writes for the Sunday Times that would be correct. He is a contributor to The Sunday Times on an occasional basis but again we have no control over him ..."
- Alaistair Brett, Legal Manager, Sunday Times
I watched Brian Deer’s appearance on Anderson Cooper 360, the one where he closed his eyes for extended periods of time when Anderson asked him certain tough questions, and kept wondering to myself, “Who IS this guy?”
The answers are coming in fast and hard as to who Brian Deer really is, and I must say I am thoroughly astonished at how badly many major news outlets...
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html
When it comes to the recent article, it was commissioned by the BMJ. It is clearly defames Wakefield and in language that is blunt and explicit. The UK is very friendly to plaintiffs who sue for libel. So you can be sure that the BMJ carefully vetted every word of the article. So the article is by Deer with the backing of the BMJ.
Separately, there is the GMC hearing that ended up erasing Wakefield from the medical registry. Brian Deer certainly supplied information to the GMC, but the GMC acted independently and found that Wakefield, beyond a reasonable doubt, was unfit to be a doctor because he had acted unethically and dishonestly.
Here's more on this Brian Deer chap:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html
It's all about making billions of dollars for the major pharmaceutical companies. They are the ones that led the charge to crucify Dr Wakefielf and are fueling this latest smear. Dr Wakefield wrote a seven page article in the British Medical Journal Lancet calling for studies on the safety of vaccines. He did not reach any conclusions. For that he was run out of England.
The Amish do not vaccinate their children and have a zero rate of autism. Drugs are not the answer nor are mass innoculations with untested chemicals. Let'sw hear both sides of the evidence.
Go read the article. As well, go read the GMC decision. And in case you don't know, when Deer published his investigations in 2004, Wakefield actually called upon the GMC to investigate.
There is a copy of the GMC decision at https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B7TTKX7laEzvMzk2Y2Q4ZGUtZDA5Mi00NGY3LTg5MjAtZDQ1NzE4ODg0ZTQz&hl=en
I would love for you to share how/where they get their revenue from as well as what percentages of the revenue are from what areas of business?
Also, by reading the original complaints issued to the GMC you can easily see who/what and the intent behind the complaing that Deer sent to the GMC...its facts are black and white, and why Deer, a freelance reporter would have interest in excessive/unessacary/or dangerous testing/care/etc that Deer 'alledges' Dr. Wakefield and others did to these kids, then why do you think NONE of the kids themselves or their parents, or their full medical records ever reveiwed by the GMC?Well, other than the medical records that Deer illegally obtained? I mean, isnt it AT ALL concerning to you that none of the parents/kids were interviewed by GMC?
And another big question? Why would the GMC, a governmental body, EVER take 'hearsay' as evidence? Because that is what they did, they took all 'papers/etc' that Deer gave them and instead of using it as hearsay like it IS, they used it as gospel, as FACT. That is dangerous, and if ANY judge/government body here did that, it would be DISASTEROUS and very WORRISOME!
Can you find ONE GMC case that also decided based on HEARSAY? plz share it.
Why didn't Autism make a real huge increase when the MMR vaccine was introduced?
The Amish/Autism thing is a total myth. Though they have lower rates, the fact that they have such different social ordering than other people is a much more plausible explanation. That and a lot of Amish do vaccinate their children.
And americans need to quit being scientifically lazy. Oprah is not a scientist. She is an entertainer. You are socially irresponsible if you know no further science then what you learned in Jr. High School.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-ropeik/wakefield-debunked-but-va_b_805826.html#
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html
For the sake of all of our children we need to really know the truth about this issue, don't we?!
And just by coincidence, Wakefield applied for a patent on a measles vaccines in 1997!
Details, ANB, details.