Media Standards Trust

Once again, fears over the mumps measles and rubella (MMR) vaccine have been reignited. Just days before Dr Andrew Wakefield faces a GMC disciplinary hearing for his role in the original controversy, newspapers re-awakened the alarm he first raised with headlines like “New fear over MMR link with rising autism” (Telegraph)

6 Comments

 

Context

The Observer's Denis Campbell first broke the story about an unpublished study, conducted by the Autism Research Centre in Cambridge, which indicated levels of autism could be as high as 1 in 58. The aim of the study was to establish how different methods of detecting autism could alter the number of people defined as autistic. Of the several methods tested, the most extreme found autism levels of 1 in 58. The others produced figures closer to the more widely accepted ratio of 1 in 100.

So where does the renewed scare about the MMR vaccine come from? This is where the reporting becomes more difficult to assess. The Observer stated that two members of the research team “privately” believe the MMR vaccine might have some link with rising autism. The Daily Mail and the Telegraph repeated the claim. The Telegraph named the sources as Dr Fiona Scott and Dr Carol Stott.

Dr Scott was contacted by the Telegraph and said that, contrary to the reports, she did not believe that the rise in autism was linked to the MMR vaccine (‘My own daughter is getting the vaccinated with the MMR jab on July 17” she told the Telegraph). The other source, Dr Carol Stott, has long since left Cambridge, having been disciplined by the university (see Brian Deer & Ben Goldacre), and now works for Andrew Wakefield’s organisation the Thoughtful House. None of the newspapers report this, or that Stott was allegedly paid £100,000 when she supported the argument that there is a link between MMR and autism during litigation (Goldacre).

Since extensive research has refuted Andrew Wakefield’s original suggestion in 1998 that there might be a connection between the MMR jab, autism and bowel disease, one would expect these claims to have a substantial basis. But no new research has been conducted which suggests a link between MMR and autism. This research is not about causes of autism but about its definition. The sources cited either dispute the claims or have been found to have conflicts of interest (unreported).

 

Questions

Were the newspapers right to reignite fears about alleged links between MMR and autism?

Is the evidence on which the stories are based substantial? Are these scares being over-emphasised by the media or are they right to highlight these private views?

Do the newspapers have a responsibility to provide more information about their sources, particularly when raising such serious allegations?

To what extent is Dr Andrew Wakefield being punished for his own misconduct and to what extent is he being punished for the media’s coverage of the scare?

Dr Wakefield is being charged with a catalogue of crimes including that he “undertook research between 1996 – 8 without proper ethical approval”. To what extent is he being prosecuted for a panic created by the newspapers?

Should the media be held accountable for their own role in the original MMR scare? And if so, how?

 

Recommended

Anjana Ahuja, 'Autism, the Truth', The Times, 12-7-07

Brian Deer, MMR Investigation

Ben Goldacre, Bad Science

General Medical Council, Charges against Dr Andrew Wakefield

Thank you to those who have commented in this debate.

To sum up the discussion below, in answer to the question of whether the newspapers were right to reignite fears about the links between MMR and autism:
Dave Rawling comments that ‘there can be no justification for raising these fears again’ and ‘the result of the media hype would appear to have been an increased number of young chidren suffering unnecessarily from measles, mumps and rubella. Dr Jennifer Best (retired virologist) says that parents have been left confused by the media coverage, particularly because ‘the media have given more coverage to anti-vaccine campaigners than to scientists who know about vaccines’. Oli Ward (Chemist) points to an eight year study conducted in Japan on tens of thousands of children which concluded that MMR had no effect’. Nigel Scott (HVA) doesn’t think it is a media scare and supports the right of newspapers to question the consensus.

Barbara McIntosh, co-director of the Foundation of People with Learning Disabilities, criticises the tone of the media debate, and calls for the media to ‘stop obsessing over the debate surrounding what causes autism’ and for giving the impression that autism ‘is a catastrophe for all concerned’.

The MMR debate has left parents confused, partly because the media have given more coverage to anti-vaccine campaigners than to scientists who know about vaccines (Economic and Social Research Council).

It was hoped that the debate about MMR would have been halted when it became clear in March 2004 that Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest over publication of the Lancet paper in 1998. He apparently did not declare that he had received funding from the Legal Aid Board and there is concern over the ethical standards of the study. In March 2004, the Lancet published a retraction of the suggestion that MMR was linked with autism by 10 of the 13 authors of the 1998 paper.

It should be remembered that some people have a vested interest in promoting single vaccines rather than MMR – they make money from selling these vaccines! Other people are paid advisors to litigants. Andrew Wakefield suggested that single vaccines might be safer at a press conference in 1998. He had no evidence that they would be safer. He is a gastroenterologist, not a virologist or a vaccinologist and was therefore not qualified to make this suggestion.

MMR vaccine has been widely used since 1971. It is used worldwide and has helped to substantially reduce the incidence of measles, mumps and rubella in many countries. There is no doubt that it is a safe vaccine, and those who have not received it will be at risk of measles, mumps, rubella and congenital rubella if these diseases continue to circulate in the UK.

Recent news reports linking an unpublished, leaked survey of autism rates in the UK with Dr Andrew Wakefields imminent appearance before the General Medical Council reflect a general tone of debate in the media that we find disappointing.

Commentators should remember that while this latest media furore has being running many parents will have been presented with an autism diagnosis for their child. Their understandable anxiety will not have been helped by sensational headlines or journalistic conjecture.

The impression created is that of autism as a catastrophe for all concerned. While we recognize the profound challenges autism can present, this is simply not true. People on the autistic spectrum have always been and quite possibly always will be part of our communities, often making valuable contributions to society and leading fulfilled lives. This would be greatly facilitated by the provision of proper services and support. Of particular importance are the benefits early intervention in the life of a child on the autistic spectrum can bring. By campaigning on these issues, rather than obsessing over the debate surrounding what causes autism, the media could make a positive impact on lives of thousands of families.

Being involved in a voluntary capacity with people with autism and their carers I am acutely aware of the fears that parents would experience at the thought that something they do could result in the disability. Most of the carers I meet are still searching for a reason that their relative is disabled and they often feel if they are parents that they are to blame in some way.
I have been following the story for the last couple of years through New Scientist and it is apparent that the link has been tested extremely thoroughly by a number of highly qualified groups and all have verified that there is no link.
The result of the media hype would appear to have been an increased number of young children suffering unnecessarily from measles mumps and rubella.
The press must be aware of the effect they had and there can be no justification for raising these fears again even if it does sell papers.
If they are working in the public interest they should ensure that a reliable consensus has been reached before publishing again.

Nigel Scott, there have been many extensive studies, who's conclusions were based on factual evidence, unlike many of the anti-vax 'studies'.

Are you also forgetting the most exhaustive study to date? The Japanese study, an 8 year study of tens of thousands of children, a study, that is in fact titled "No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study":

www.blackwell-synergy.com

Much has been done into researching these claims as they are very serious ones, but I tend to think that as no evidence has supported the claims of the anti-vax crowd, and in fact they need to PAY scientists (who have been shown to be most dishonest) to support their claims, that there isn't anything to it.

The Observer's choice to bring the subject up again is a strange one seeing as the main supporter of the MMR induces Autism claims, Andrew Wakefield, is being investigated and charged for some very suspect research.

I don't think this is a media scare. The problem as I understand it is that
Dr Wakefield has identified a possible avenue for research and more needs to
be done. All he has ever said is that there is a possibility here. Autism
is increasing but no one knows why. MMR may be one possible culprit.

Rather than funding more research, the government has taken a dogmatic
position and said that there cannot be a link. This is a lot more suspect
than Wakefield's position. All the published studies fail to find a link
because the children were not studied for long enough after being
vaccinated. The studies typically follow the children for a few weeks to
see if they become ill. Autism can take months to show up and by then it is
much harder to make a connection.

The newspaper coverage precedes Wakefield's appearance before the GMC. The
DoH and vaccine industry has closed ranks because the former saves money
with triple jabs and the latter makes money selling vaccines.

In fact all three conditions (MMR) are seldom problematic in
immuno-competent children. The rare cases of death usually happen to
children who are already ill with other more serious conditions. Parents
are expected to sacrifice their children to the god of 'herd immunity' for
the benefit of others when the government takes every possible step to avoid
paying compensation to children who are adversely affected by vaccines and
refuses to fund research to establish the long term effects of MMR because
it fears the financial consequences of being proved wrong.

My eldest son was given MMR. My perception is that his personality changed
from being very smiley as a baby to being much quieter as he grew up and he
now has obsessive compulsive tendencies so he is probably somewhere on the
mild end of the autistic spectrum. My second son was not vaccinated and he
has remained much more extrovert and sociable. I accept that this is not
scientific and I have no way of proving any connection but it does make me
wonder.

And stories at the weekend suggested that there is a bigger increase in the
numbers of cases of autism than was previously believed. Something is going
on here and authorities are trying to pretend nothing is happening rather
than trying to do something about it.

I applaud questioning journalism over newspapers which simply reprint DoH
press releases.