It’s the summer, though in London where I was over the weekend the summer was not doing what summer’s are supposed to do: it was grey and wet all weekend long. And a good thing too, seeing as I decided to spend much of the weekend refuting the notion that MMR is vindicated with regard to autism. It is not, in my opinion. To my eye the evidence is simply not fit for purpose, in that the methods used are not adequate for the purposes of assessing whether or not MMR and cause autism. If you want to get the right answer in science, you do at least have to ask the right question. It doesn’t seem to have happened here.
I am not claiming MMR can cause autism. I say this because I’ve had that accusation levelled at me a few times now, even though I’ve stated that is not my position many times. It occurs to that the accusers would like to force me into an indefensible position. Yet, to my mind it is their position that is indefensible, though you wouldn’t know it from their hubris and the way they talk.
Just to give you a some indication of the sorts of ‘discussions’ I’ve been having over the weekend, you may like to peruse the exchange between me and Anthony Cox, who is a pharmacovigilance pharmacist in the UK, and whose job it partly is to ensure that things like drugs and vaccines are not harming or killing too many people (sorry, but sometimes it’s best not to sugar-coat things). You can find it here.
Anthony comes in at comment 35. If have the patience to read through the posts you will see what looks to me like a quite bewildering example of someone who purports to take a scientific approach, but then resorts to insults, misrepresentation and evasion, not to mention some distinctly unscientific and illogical thinking. Please try and remember as you read this exchange this is not an intellectual exercise (well, not for me), it’s about the safety of MMR as it relates to autism which I take to be of grave importance (and I know there are plenty who share this view).
If you want to cut to the chase, just read posts 52 and 54, where Anthony Cox launches a quite desperate attack, to which my response was to critique his position and the evidence he cites for it. I’ll warn you, post number 54 is a bit lengthy, and it goes into excruciating detail regarding why I think that the assertion that MMR has been proven safe with regard to autism is baseless. It’s long, but I do think it’s a worthwhile read for seekers of the truth and those who are of balanced, rational and relatively objective mind.
Anthony Cox refused to engage further, but he has his own site, so I went to put some questions to him there. You can see the debate continue at his own site here.
Now, I say ‘debate’, but it’s not really a debate, because it basically consists of me asking utterly reasonable and actually very important questions and Anthony Cox, err, refusing to answer them. It culminates in him insulting me (again).
My experiences over the weekend have reminded me of just how unscientific scientists can be. The exchanges here, on Anthony Cox’s site, and elsewhere have taught me that there are common (but lacking in substance) tactics that are used to discredit and refute my assertion that we don’t know if MMR causes autism or not.
Here, I think, are the main ones:
1. Claim that I should provide the evidence that MMR can cause autism (even when that it’s not my position that MMR causes autism).
2. Argue that because we don’t have evidence definitive evidence that MMR causes autism, then that MUST mean it doesn’t (this is illogical, but you’d be surprised how many times this card is played scientists who really ought to know better).
3. Misrepresent the strength of the science (this is actually the most common one, and my assertion is that the evidence used to vindicate MMR with respect to autism, from a scientific perspective, doesn’t amount to a hill of beans)
4. Insult me (e.g. call me ‘wilfully ignorant’)
5. Say nothing
The last two are easily spotted, the first three less so. The third is actually the hardest to spot of all. I highlight them just in case any of you come against this sort of thing, and would like to be somewhat forewarned. Do not think for a moment, by the way, that using any logical, scientific arguments in this issue means for sure that you’re going to get anywhere: far from it, those involved in this battle (on both sides) are usually quite firmly entrenched.
Would you believe, and this is the honest truth, that when I woke up this morning I had no intention of writing about MMR and autism? In fact, a mere week ago, I didn’t have any plans to dip my toe into this most charged and contentious of arenas either. What I had planned to devote this blog to was some evidence that relates to its capacity to protect the skin from sunburn.
But, I honestly got sidetracked. Some of that has to do with the fact that the weekend has been spent with my head relatively full of the arguments and scientific evidence as it relates to the MMR/autism issue. And also as those who are regular readers of this site will know, my stated aim is for it to be a portal of balanced and trustworthy advice about a wide range of health issues. And to this end, my thoughts on this debate fit that brief, although I know that many individuals disagree with my views. I am only too aware that my views on certain matters are unpalatable to some, but thinking about that and not expressing them would, I believe, not be the right thing for me, or for you. Actually, I believe it would not be the right thing ” period.
I am well aware that, at this rate, this site risks becoming a single issue one. But I have made a mental note to myself not to let this happen. However, I do think this subject should get the attention it deserves. It deserves it, I think because, I maintain that with the state of the evidence as it is that we don’t know beyond reasonable doubt that MMR does not cause autism. And we have quite a lot of people who believe that too and are asking for the appropriate scientific work be done. When the stakes are this high, is that really too much to ask?
Normal service will be resumed ” with piece about sunburn (probably) ” on Wednesday.
MinorityReport
“It might be relevant that Goldacre’s father is Professor Michael Goldacre, of The Unit of Health Care Epidemiology within Oxford University’s Department of Public Health..”
Is that so? I never previously had confirmation of that, although I have never heard a denial either. Wikipedia used to mention his mother (apparently an Australian pop-singer), but not his father. The entry has beeen pruned.
You will still only read in Wikipedia that Ben is a junior doctor in London – there is a certain amount of information about his previous academic and professional career, but not about his present appointment.
It is certainly an interesting issue as to why – if Ben Goldacre is son of Prof Michael J Goldacre – it should never have been mentioned:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1732321
and:
Miller E, Goldacre M, Pugh S, Colville A, Farrington P, Flower A, Nash J, MacFarlane L, Tettmar R.
“Cases of aseptic meningitis associated with measles/mumps/rubella vaccine were sought in thirteen UK health districts following a reported cluster in Nottingham which suggested a risk of 1 in 4000 doses, substantially higher than previous estimates based on cases reported by paediatricians (4 per million). Cases were ascertained by obtaining vaccination records of children with aseptic meningitis diagnosed from cerebrospinal fluid samples submitted to Public Health Laboratories or discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of viral meningitis. Both methods identified vaccination 15-35 days before onset as a significant risk factor and therefore indicative of a causal association. With both, half the aseptic meningitis cases identified in children aged 12-24 months were vaccine-associated with onset 15-35 days after vaccine. The study confirmed that the true risk was substantially higher than suggested by case reports from paediatricians, probably about 1 in 11,000 doses. However, the possibility that the aseptic meningitis induced by vaccination was largely asymptomatic and a chance laboratory finding in children investigated for other clinical conditions, particularly febrile convulsions, could not be excluded. Comparison of national reports of virus-positive mumps meningitis cases before and after the introduction of this vaccine indicated that the risk from wild mumps was about 4-fold higher than from vaccine. Altogether, 28 vaccine-associated cases were identified, all in recipients of vaccines containing the Urabe mumps strain. The absence of cases in recipients of vaccine containing the Jeryl Lynn strain, despite its 14% market share, suggested a higher risk from Urabe vaccine. A prospective adverse event surveillance system using the study methods is currently being established to assess the risk, if any, from the Jeryl Lynn strain which is now the only mumps vaccine used in the UK.”
“The government’s white paper on public health, Our Healthier Nation (published in 1999), announced the establishment of a Public Health Observatory (PHO) in each government region. The contract for the PHO for the South East Region was awarded, in 2000, to a joint bid from the Unit of Health-Care Epidemiology and the NHS’s Public Health Resource Unit (which is also part of the Oxford Institute of Health Sciences). Michael Goldacre is Co-director of the South East Public Health Observatory, with Alison Hill who is the Director of the Oxford NHS Public Health Resource Unit. The Public Health Observatory’s remit is to enhance the development and use of information about public health by drawing together data from different sources, including social, economic, environmental and health data. It is also charged with developing evidence to underpin programmes aimed at reducing health inequalities. The Observatory is intended to make its work publicly and widely available through web-publishing. It is at http://www.sepho.org.uk ”
http://www.uhce.ox.ac.uk/sepho.html
Gosh, it’s like the Da Vinci code isn’t it? Do you think Michael Goldacre is an albino monk?
“It is certainly an interesting issue as to why – if Ben Goldacre is son of Prof Michael J Goldacre – it should never have been mentioned”
Only in your world JS, only in your world.
Goldacre thinks family background is highly relevant if it can be used to smear critics of the government and industry position on wifi:
“The Independent has put its green columnist Julia Stephenson on to Panorama’s Wi-Fi scare story: a charming beef heiress living in Chelsea on a trust fund, who believes her symptoms of tiredness and headache are caused by electromagnetic radiation from phones and Wi-Fi.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/02/badscience.comment
A wonderful Bad Science spoof here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/27/guardian_use_me_as_a_mouthpiece/
(or is this a ‘you couldn’t make it up’ moment?)
No, in Ben’s world too. You don’t think he would concern himslelf with such background if we were talking about a nutritionist?
Indeed, we have here a remarkable circumstance. For the last half dozen years Ben has had this high profile column in the Guardian every week, almost invariably with an epidemiological dimension, while his father putatively is Oxford professor of epidemiology an co-director of SEPHO. And yet this is not part of his profile and it is never remarked on in the press.
I recall that some years back Kingsley and Martin Amis protested at the suggestion that they pose together for a joint National Portrait Gallery portrait, but they did not exactly keep it secret that they were related.
Prof Michael J Goldacre’s Unit of Health-Care Epidemiology, Oxford seems to be exclusively funded by the Department of Health:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7415/596
Ben Goldacre enters into autobiography here:
“But is colour preference cultural or genetic? The “girls preferring pink” thing is not set in stone, and there are good reasons to suspect it is culturally determined. I have always been led to believe by my father – the toughest man in the world – that pink is the correct colour for men’s shirts.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/25/genderissues
JS – I really don’t know where you are going with this but your last post is clutching at the last straw that broke the camel’s back. I honestly cannot fathom what you are trying so hard to demonstrate so there’s not a lot I can add or debate with you about. Let’s talk evidence etc. on the other thread instead. I’m pushed for time at the moment so I’ll get back to you and CT over the weekend sometime.
Ross
Of course you can’t, but then you won’t even say who you are. And the fact that you pretend that can’t see the relevance of that only goes to make the point. What is your interest? It is certainly not transparency.
Sorry:
Of course you can’t, but then you won’t even say who you are. And the fact that you pretend that you can’t see the relevance of that only goes to make the point. What is your interest? It is certainly not transparency.