As A Parent, I Just Know Chemical X Isn't Safe

I'm not sure why people should care what Jenny McCarthy thinks about autism or parenting, but they do care. I disagree with how she views autism. She talks of healing, of recovery, as though autism were in some manner analogous to a physical or mental disease rather than, as I view it, a kind of human mind that is not well accommodated for in a society in which it was once rare. If that were all she had to say, then I suppose we could consider this a strong difference of opinion. But of course there's more.

Jenny McCarthy on Autism and Vaccines

I do believe sadly it's going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it's their f___ing fault that the diseases are coming back. They're making a product that's s___. If you give us a safe vaccine, we'll use it. It shouldn't be polio versus autism.

All I can do is sigh. Jenny McCarthy is a high-profile human being, so her views carry weight. The least she could do is honour the responsibility that carries and keep up with the scientific evidence, the expert views. But instead she continues to push the tired old vaccines = regressive autism canard, whilst suggesting that parents should be prepared to accept the resurgence of diseases which kill and maim people. McCarthy feels secure enough in her knowledge of vaccination and autism biology that she can make that undoubtedly harmful claim. She's basically making herself an expert opinion, without having to do the hard work that would really require.

I have a radical suggestion. Jenny McCarthy should present herself as an expert on things in which she is experienced. So parenting, sure. We may disagree with her, but she can certainly have that. Parenting with an autistic kid? Same deal. Virology? Vaccination? Autism biology? Cohort studies? Meta analyses? Risk factors? When she starts citing the studies, the analysing the data that back her up, rather recycling the anti-vaccination nonsense, I might start listening to her views on those.

Holy F**king Sh*t: Daily Mail debunks MMR autism link

This post may be unsuitable for minors or people upset by scenes of total doublethink.

Well, the day has finally come. The Daily Mail has finally joined the rest of the world in accepting that MMR is safe, and that the 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield has been "debunked" (even though the study never says that MMR causes autism, a press release did and it was debunked 10 years ago). Measles is on the rise again, and that's actually a big deal. Kids are getting sick, people have died and someone is going to hang. This isn't just Wakefield's fault of course. No, he should not be a scapegoat! There are others to blame. Us, apparently. In a remarkable display of doublethink, the Daily Mail points the finger at "middle-class MMR refuseniks". Parents who somehow bought the press-release pseudoscience presented by Wakefield (minus the et al). They must have picked it up off Reuters, the wiley middle-class (yet strangely uncritical and credulous) bastards.

Of course, the Mail don't mention the media frenzy that followed the "confirmation" of Wakefield's 1998 work (by, er.. Wakefield). The evidence-free total bullshitstorm that presented Wakefield's speculations directly to that middle-(and working-) class audience as if it were yet another scientific "breakthrough". The torrent of jargon filled trash that published everything that vaguely supported the hypothesis but ignored the dozens and dozens of studies debunking it, milking that story for every millilitre of newspaper sales it had. And how could they, since up until a month ago the Daily Mail were still doing it? Still implying that MMR was dangerous. But today they've hit the reset button. And I feel like I just fell through the looking glass. It's funny, in a totally horrifying kind of way. Well, let me just say, so that we can be clear. And you'll have to forgive me for my profanity because it just feels like that sort of moment.

THIS WAS YOUR FUCKING FAULT, YOU MORONS.

I mean, seriously. Read your own articles. People are going to hang for this, but the media are the ones judging who, so the list will doubtlessly be restricted to:

-A. J Wakefield
-The Middle Classes

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Update 18:08: It's even crazier than I thought. A search for "MMR" on the Daily Mail reveals a similar article in 2008 blaming "mothers" for the oncoming measles epidemic. This article sits amongst yet more panic pieces calling MMR "controversial" and cagey coverage of the research that 'disproves MMR jab link to autism' (the quotes were in the headline as if incredulous). Clearly, the Mail spent 2008 being eased into a gentle but enormous u-turn.

The Streisand Effect

The Jeni Barnett MMR story really has longer legs than many of us sciencey bloggers had hoped. A week after Barnett rehashed every cliché in the anti-vaccination handbook over roughly 40 minutes of hysterical melodrama, the subsequent attempts by both Barnett and her radio station LBC to silence Ben Goldacre's perfectly appropriate criticisms have exploded hilariously in what is called The Streisand Effect. Only the Bad Science followers were paying attention up until the point when LBC's lawyers forced Ben to remove a (rather long) clip of the entire MMR segment of the show in what was a rather dubious and aggressive copyright infringement claim. The Sciencey Blogsphere Collective as not amused. The clip was rapidly copied and redistributed across the interenet, effectively becoming entirely untouchable. Blogs everywhere began to report angrily on the incident and the feeling was almost universally in favour of Ben.

In an attempt to appear open to debate, Barnett's Blog (which rather scathingly dismissed one of her most polite pro-MMR callers as "viscious") called for comments. And the comments came. 121 comments, mostly annoyed but polite attempts to explain to Jeni why MMR is safe and important for public health. A follow-on post by Barnett sneered at the "Bad Scientists" and their "sarcasm". This post prompted a further 81 comments, again the vast majority being critical of Barnett's poorly-informed and irresponsbible stance on MMR.

More blogs reported, more segments of the radio programme were posted, this time in fragments too small and too many to be silenced by questionable copyright infringment claims. Transcripts appeared. PZ Myers rallied his atheist army behind the pro-MMR standard. The Times online noticed the story, and weighed in to defend Ben Goldacre. And, in a quite stunning moment, the great Stephen Fry called for Goldacre to be supported.

Perhaps understandably, Ben's website crashed several times under the weight of visits and messages of near-universal support. Perhaps panicked, Barnett deleted all 200 or so of the critical messages from her own blog and has attempted to move on. No meaningful apology. No recognition of the continuing damage this evidence-free nonsense has done to public health in the UK and Ireland. And of course, no glimmer of having realised that everything she and LBC have done so far, including this, is just making things worse for her and her employers.

For those interested, the deleted blog comments are available at the excellent Quackometer blog.

MMR is safe. Tell your friends.

Bad Science writer Ben Goldacre recently reported on a stunningly ignorant radio broadcast by Jeni Barnett perpetuating the MMR vaccine scare. Ten years after a peer-reviewed paper didn't say there's a connection between MMR and autism but one of the authors told the media that it did, we're still going in circles. We can point fingers in all sorts of directions, including at ourselves, but the data has shown time and again that MMR is safe.

Ben posted the radio slot up to demonstrate that he was not cherrypicking the most stupid parts just to make Jeni look bad. But apparently this is legally not okay and so, because scientific debate has long ceased to matter in the MMR scare, the lawyers swooped in. Personally, I don't think any of us should allow fear to prevail when the cost is so great. The MMR scare is based on crap science and it's putting kids at risk. It has to stop.

Discuss it on Bad Science (there may even be some links to the radio programme): http://www.badscience.net/

On Jeni Barnett's blog: http://www.jenibarnett.com/2009/02/mmr_and_me.php

Update 16:52: Coincidentally, the BBC today announced that Measles cases rose yet again for the third year running. The cause is the reduction in MMR uptake and the result is going to be deaths. Not many deaths, but some.

Update 08 February 2009: And evidence has just emerged that the man behind the scare, Dr. Wakefield, falsified some of the original data showing a temporal association between MMR and autism. Far from there being even that correlation, it appears that some of the kids were showing documented autism characteristics prior to MMR vaccination and others displayed them much much later than was stated in Wakefield et al. (1998).

Things Happen After Event Shock

The Daily Mail have decided to have a go at MMR again as pointed out by Ben Goldacre at Bad Science. A child has fallen terribly ill "six months after MMR jab". Ten years after Andrew Wakefield speculated himself into the headlines by suggesting a link between MMR and autism (in a press-release mind, not in a research paper), this misguided rubbish is still being presented as "science news". Actually, most of the papers now seem to reject the link and are thus in the business of demonizing Wakefield himself, as if they had nothing to do with the scare. But the Daily Mail is apparently not quite ready to take even that ass-covering step. They cite the 1998 Wakefield paper (it was a press release that actually made the claims) and I have responded, though I wonder if it will be published.

Daily Mail, please read the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al. It does not suggest anything more than a temporal connection between the MMR vaccination and the onset of a symptom associated with autism (colitis) that's a long way from even suggesting a possible connection between MMR and autism. Wakefield decided to make that particular suggestion directly to the press, perhaps because the evidence did not support him and he knew it would not be published. More tellingly, ten of his his co-authors on the 1998 paper retracted their support for that claim.
So here we have another temporal association. Thing Y has happened after thing X. And so we must assume that X caused Y, right? Rubbish. I'd imagine a whole load of things happened before this poor kid fell ill.

At this point I ran out of words in the little submission box, so I'll conclude as I would have liked.

The child doubtlessly slept, ate breakfast and breathed constantly just prior to falling ill. So far as we can actually gather from the evidence here, almost anything could have "caused" this tragedy. The likeliest explanation though, is that it was nothing we could have predicted. You write that the child had previously suffered brain damage due to a Herpes Simplex infection at the age of two weeks. Anyone who has had coldsores will know that re-activation of that virus (it never leaves us) is not a predictable event and it has never been causally linked to events such as vaccination, as far as I'm aware.

To imply that MMR was responsible for this sad event is deeply irresponsible journalism and it will doubtlessly further the anti-vaccination movement and lead to more sick kids, and probably more deaths from measles- a disease that was nearly extinct in Europe before this totally unfounded scare.

Update 23 Jan 2009: Predictably enough, my comment has not appeared on the Daily Mail article. Nor have any at all, for that matter. Given that the Goldacre Evidence Army was alerted, that seems just a little suspect to me...