A Different Look at the MMR Issue
Science writer David Bradley takes a close look at the MMR vaccine and statistical manipulation in a September 6th post on Science Base. With reference to the recent Times Online article about a rise in cases of measles as parents, fearful of a link between vaccines or something in vaccines and autism, have chosen not to vaccinate their children or have requested to have the vaccines given separately, Bradley notes the following:
- The incidence of measles began to fall in the mid-1970s. “The MMR vaccine was not introduced in the UK until 1988 (although it had been in use elsewhere since 1957), thereafter incidence of measles has pretty much fallen to levels close to zero.” Other reasons for a “pre-vaccine drop” in measles include, he suggests, “reduced overcrowding, improved nutrition, better hygiene and healthcare.”
- “….since the 1940s, by about 1970, long before the introduction of MMR, measles deaths were also close to zero. The risk of getting measles is about one in three, assuming no vaccination coverage at all. The risk of serious consequences to this disease, which personally I had in 1972 or thereabouts, is somewhere between 1 in 5000 and 1 in 15,000.”
- “There has been one UK death from measles since 1992 (as opposed to the several hundred each year during the 1940s). But, look closer at the victim. He was a member of the travelling community…..” and also had an underlying lung disease.
Bradley also considers selective vaccination:
Mumps causes more problems for boys in terms of glandular inflammation and damage (viz risk of infertility), whereas rubella is most harmful to the developing fetus, so in one sense is more of a problem for females than males
He further speculates why the pharmeceutical industry might be behind “enforcing MMR vaccination”:
Isn’t MMR less expensive than the three vaccines given separately? Maybe take up as outlined above with no measles vaccination, boys only mumps, and rubella for girls, would chew deeply into the profit margins. Most of us take serious risks day in, day out without really considering the statistics, do the statistics stack up for vaccination? Measles, as the statistics show, is not the problem it is perceived to be, despite the single tragic death of a teenage boy.
Vaccines are a topic of regular contention in autism discussions. Bradley’s article, while not specifically about autism and vaccines, steps back to consider measles more generally and possible reasons for the decline in its incience. He also looks more closely at one result of concerns about an alleged vaccine-autism link, the request by parents to have the vaccines given separately and over a longer period of time, and comes up with a question that is not “does one vaccinate or not.” Immunizations play their part in public health, he writes, but does every child need all of the MMR?
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Health, Media, Rhetoric, Statistics, Vaccines, Weblogs
16 opinions for A Different Look at the MMR Issue
María Luján
Sep 6, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Hi Kristina
I consider the reflexion and data of the author of this article interesting.
I have insisted in the need of equilibrium in the analysis of the MMR issue and the consideration of confounders. Besides, there is much more we do not know about the immune status in autistics from the developmental point of view and from the impact of combined exposures to antibiotics/others and vaccines in accumulation- that epi can not take into account.
Perhaps you can be interested on this
Comment
Thanks
HCN
Sep 6, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Is he fudging the numbers? Because it says here:
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/measlesmrvaccine …
“Since the MMR vaccine was introduced in the UK in 1988 the number of suspected cases of measles has fallen from between 50,000 and 100,000 cases per year to less than 10,000. The number of deaths from acute measles has also fallen from an average of 13 per year to only 4 deaths between 1988 and 1996. ”
Why is he ignoring the dozen or so deaths per year before 1988? Also, death is not the only consequence of getting the actual diseases. There is also deafness, blindness and other disabilities. He seems to be neglecting that mumps used to be one of the major causes of post-lingual deafness during the early 1960s (congenital rubella syndrome created children born deaf, blind, mentally retarded… or dead… see the book _Deaf Like Me_ by Spradley, a personal look at the rubella epidemic of the early 1960s).
Why does he say ” Maybe take up as outlined above with no measles vaccination, boys only mumps, and rubella for girls, “… doesn’t he think girls should be protected from deafness? Or the other side effects from mumps? While deafness only occurs in 1 in 10000 mumps cases, last summer with only about 2600 mumps cases in the American Midwest… FOUR (4) people were deafened. Plus one woman did get the inflamation of her reproductive organs (oophoritis). There were several people hospitalized:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm55d518a1.htm
He also creates a blatant error in saying “vaccine was introduced in 1957″. Actually, there was a fairly ineffective measles in the early 1960s, but a more effective one became available in 1963:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf
The MMR in use now in the UK is the one that was approved in the USA in 1971 (not 1957!). For a good biography on the major participant in creating that vaccine read _Vaccinated_ by Paul Offit.
I would say it’s a different look… one that ignores major chunks of real data!
Another Voice
Sep 6, 2007 at 9:06 pm
I don’t know why people who write about MMR so frequently mention that it increases the profit margin of the drug companies by having a combined shot. It seems that a drug company would be better off charging for three separate dosages. They have the expense of producing three vaccines and then the addition step of combining them.
It also seems that the doctor would make more by charging for three office visits to administer the shots.
Maybe one of your readers can explain how having one shot works to their advantage in terms of profit margin.
HCN
Sep 7, 2007 at 12:16 am
He has this very flawed statement ” Maybe take up as outlined above with no measles vaccination, boys only mumps, and rubella for girls, would chew deeply into the profit margins.”
While not only will this bring measles back up the levels seen in Japan (where dozens of people die of measles each year, and several college campuses were closed this past sping)…
It protects less than half of the population from mumps and rubella. Not half, LESS than half.
Even if you feel that it is just okay dokay for girls to go deaf or suffer inflamation in their ovaries, just vaccinating boys will not protect all of their precious fluids. The vaccine is not 100% effective. You will always have a certain percentage who will always be vulnerable to the actual disease no matter how many times they are vaccinated (last summer there was a news report of a doctor who came down with mumps several times, he was vaccinated for it, but still got the disease… he would get better and then get exposed again from a patient!).
So with mumps going through the population of girls, there will still be boys who will get mumps… with the chances of all the complications. Not just the dreaded sterility, but also deafness and meningitis.
The same goes for rubella. If only girls are vaccinated, it will be kept alive and well in boys… and some of these boys have a good chance of infecting a pregnant woman who did not become immune to rubella even if vaccinated.
gettingthere
Sep 7, 2007 at 12:22 am
David Bradely sounds like a reasonable person. I don’t know about the economics of vaccine manufacture but I do know about the misery and complications of measles and mumps. In the 60’s, I and my 3 siblings caught both as did about 2/3 of our classmates and some of them were very seriously ill. We were all unvaccinated and lived in a poor, underdeveloped country.
Having become an autie mom in an advanced developed country, I can state with a fair degree of certainty that autistic traits existed in me, some family members and classmates long before the MMR vaccine was introduced. Indeed, coming to think of it, at least 4 children in my 4th grade class of 96 (yes, that’s right) were on the spectrum.
I did vaccinate my son at the recommended age but he showed autistic traits before that, only nobody took me seriously. It’s in the genes, I’d say.
amy
Sep 7, 2007 at 12:23 am
I’d guess that if you offer three, they won’t buy three. As far as the doctor goes, parents will choose a doc who reduces the total number of visits and shots necessary.
Kristina, you’re asking a public-health economics question, but I’m guessing that each time you offer a fork (give this vaccine, y/n) you add cost. I’m also guessing that one of the disease-control concerns is that if you provide the virus with hosts, it will have more opportunity to mutate, and then you may find your vaccinated population isn’t protected after all. The new virus may be more dangerous, too. This is why I think we’re making a big mistake in leaving AIDS to fester in Africa.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Sep 7, 2007 at 12:45 am
HCN, thanks.
I was disapointed that the article became, in the last paragraph, another critique of “Big Pharma.”
HCN
Sep 7, 2007 at 11:24 am
Well he read both of my entries, but he did not put up the one with all the links showing where his data was bogus.
I took a further cue from his last paragraph and left in another message ending with:
And how does NOT vaccinating for measles, then vaccinating only half of the population for mumps and rubella keep money away from the pharmaceutical companies? Wouldn’t giving two MMR vaccines to most children keep costs down? Under your plan Big Pharma would benefit bigtime between hospital equipment due to increased incidences of pneumonia, meningitis, encephalitis and oophoritis… Then there would be the increase of sales for hearing aids, plus the subsequent cost of educating kids who get neurological disabilities from the actual diseases. Oh, and don’t forget the funeral industry getting to sale pediatric coffins. (remember, Roald Dahl had to buy one of those for his first born child)
Kristina Chew, PhD
Sep 7, 2007 at 11:27 am
If we all just never got sick, or seemed on the verge of getting sick, a lot would go unfunded……
HCN
Sep 7, 2007 at 11:27 am
Oh crud… I just thought of a another jab!
He thinks that girls should only get the rubella vaccine. (sarcasm on) Of course it is only important to protect any fetus a woman would have… since they are only good for having babies. Who cares if they become deaf or otherwise disabled from mumps… they aren’t worth anything except as babymakers! (sarcasm off)
Tom
Sep 7, 2007 at 11:35 am
Another person without background speculating wildly about a subject he knows very little about.
I object to an uninformed science writer playing scientist.
HCN
Sep 7, 2007 at 11:52 am
Well he is presently trying to pry himself out from being called sexist (and racist).
The man is an idiot.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Sep 7, 2007 at 11:55 am
Have you read other articles about vaccines etc. by him?
HCN
Sep 7, 2007 at 12:10 pm
No. I only went there from here.
HCN
Sep 7, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I just did a perusal of his “highlighted” posts… which changed each time I chose one to read.
It was a quick read because they were short, lightweight and not very enlightening. I then checked the recent blog entries… they were a bit more indepth.
It is like he goes through and finds little stories that to him sees interesting, and writes a little blurb. It is clear he does not do more than check a newsfeed and then regurgitates it for his blog. The most recent entries are a bit longer, and actually contain references (something that was glaringly missing from his MMR diatribe). The ones he seems to do well on are about chemisry and computer stuff, but I do not have the expertise to judge their quality.
It is completely different than the very indepth material that can find on Scienceblogs (most of them being actual scientists)… especially the very verbose Orac at http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
This Week’s Top Posts
Sep 15, 2007 at 7:17 pm
[…] A Different Look at the MMR IssueScience writer David Bradley posts about measles and giving the MMR as three separate vaccines; readers find flaws. […]
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: