Lies, damned lies, and ... medical studies, in this instance.

[unixronin]

New reports from the UK indicate that Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who criticized the safety of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and claimed to have found a link between the vaccine and autism, falsified his data to make it appear to fit his conclusion.

Despite involving just a dozen children, the 1998 paper’s impact was extraordinary.  After its publication, rates of inoculation fell from 92% to below 80%.  Populations acquire “herd immunity” from measles when more than 95% of people have been vaccinated.

Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998.  Two children have died of the disease.

Now let me see, what was that oath?  Something about hypocrites?  No, wait, Hippocrates, that's it.  "First, do no harm."

Comments

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I teach Mad Science after school to elementary age students. When I ask them to compare results in an experiment, I typically obviously bias the experiment to produce the results that I "want". The students always call me on it. If they get it, I am teaching that scientists can (and do) slant their research analysis (and sometime raw data) to produce further funding for their research. I do it playfully. Unfortunately, many scientists do not. There are $$ Billions at stake here. That is simply too much money for pure researchers to ignore. Especially with research funds as hard to get as they have been the last decade or more.

[I have concerns about the safety of our vaccines in use. The big pharma companies abandoned that production long ago. There is no effective verification of safety, and hasn't been for decades. There is also no verification that the vaccines submitted to the FDA are the ones actually in use. It troubles me.]

[tanngrisnir.livejournal.com]

Purely pedantic, but Primum non noceres (I think it is spelled correctly!) isn't in the Hippocratic Oath. I don't know where this idea that it is came from. I have heard it frequently recently. It does neatly encapsulate the thrust of the important parts of the oath, but it's a principle of fairly unknown origin. It's the motto of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I stand corrected ...

[tanngrisnir.livejournal.com]

I have heard this so often recently that I had been thinking of posting about it.

Thanks, tannigrisnir.

[zeekar.livejournal.com]

I came here to make precisely that pedantic point. :) But as long as we're being pedantic, the Latin is primum non nocere. And the idea that it's from the Hippocratic Oath is probably due to the fact that it is from Hippocrates - just not the Oath itself. In Epidemics, book I, second constitution, paragraph 5: "The physician must [...] have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm." Galen translated it into the familiar Latin form.

Re: Thanks, tannigrisnir.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

... in stereo. :)

Re: Thanks, tannigrisnir.

[tanngrisnir.livejournal.com]

Yes, I was putting down the Latin from memory. :)

Galen is one of the people it's attributed to, but he (I thought) wrote in Greek, not Latin. The first person who is definitely, without doubt, known to have used it was a French guy (I think) in the seventeen or eighteen hundreds. It definitely incorporates notions which go back to Hippocrates (the oath certainly does say that the physician shall use his skill for the good of the patient and do no harm), just not expressed so pithily.

[lizzibabe.livejournal.com]

I hope he loses his medical license.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

No, just his research funds.

[mrakg.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link - it may be useful.

I'm frequently confronted by a "SUPERmommie" (Yes, that should be read with a decided sneer) sort who clings to a lot of questionable practices, and preaches a frequent sermon on "Vaccines are A Conspiracy To Destroy Children!"...I recall that Wakefield's "study" is one she cites on an almost daily basis.

That being said, I must admit to some shock at how aggressive the current standard vaccine regime has become.

[In her defense, I do agree with some of her other positions...particularly in holding "Pageant Moms" in the utmost contempt :) ]

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I think it's probably a good thing that more and more vaccines are becoming available. We're particularly pleased about the recently-new HPV vaccine, and I had the new polysaccharide pneumonia vaccine last year. I'm looking forward to ten years without a bout of winter pneumonia.

(Smoke inhalation sucks.)

We seem to have had a miscommunication

[mrakg.livejournal.com]

Oh, I have no problem with the adult-focussed vaccines....by "how aggressive the current standard vaccine regime has become" I was referring to the sheer number given to a child under the age of 5 now. It's approaching the total number I've had in 45 years of life...and I've traveled internationally. Viewed through that lens, it is startling.

Re: We seem to have had a miscommunication

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what the current total under 5 is. I know Goose had the HPV series at 12.

The pneumonia vaccine is primarily adult-focused, true, but it's an exception.

Re: We seem to have had a miscommunication

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

MMR, DPT, Polio, Tetanus, chickenpox, Hb1 (hepatitis) and the chickenpox is no longer optional. It was for Goose. I declined it because really, why not just expose her to it now (age 2) so she's got better protection from it.