Vaccine stuff

It's been a while. But just because I've decided on a career in Ob/Gyn, don't you go thinking that I've forsaken my first love of infectious diseases. First of all, there are plenty of infectious diseases affecting women of all ages, pregnant or not; second of all, do you think I plan to deliver babies and then just let them go off in life, unvaccinated? There's educating of pregnant women to be done -- breastfeeding and vaccination!

Anyway, back to the task at hand. Here are a couple of recent headlines that have crossed my Google Reader:
Study finds no autism link in vaccine
Vaccinations of toddlers set a record

In the first, the Wash Post reports the results of a case-control study in which children with GI disturbances and autism were compared to children with GI disturbances only to see if there were differences in the levels of measles virus found in their GI tracts (which is one proposed theory for a supposed link between the MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorders). It's just another piece of evidence disproving any assocation between vaccines and autism; tons of research has been done to try and show any assocation, and none has been found. Original research article published in PLoS One available here.

In the second, the NY Times repeats for the general public a CDC MMWR report that shows vaccination of children ages 19-35 months was great last year, reaching record levels. I notice, however, that the percentage of children receiving no vaccines at all in that age group increased from 0.4% to 0.6% -- it's hard to tell from the report whether this is a statistically significant comparison, but at first glance, it is.

Two weeks ago, I heard Dr. Paul Offit, notable pediatric infectious disease physician at CHOP, on Science Friday, and he said something that I found very interesting. Why, in the face of ever-mounting evidence to the contrary (the PLoS One article is only the latest in a long line of evidence showing no link between vaccination and autism), do people still believe that there is a "controversy" of some sort, that scientists are arguing among themselves and don't agree? Dr. Offit, in his new book, posits that this sense that there is a controversy, when in fact there isn't one, is due in large part to journalists. Journalists, Dr. Offit said, "under the journalistic mantra of balance, people try and fairly represent both sides, but this is really a scientific question that's been answered in a scientific venue. And so you have the side of the science and you have the side of those who don't believe in the science. I don't see that really as the best way to educate or inform the public." (That quote starts at 4:47 in the interview; the first 6 minutes of the segment are good, and then the caller Chantal takes up nearly all the rest of the 17-minute segment).

I've never really thought about it before, but he's right. Certainly, a lot of vaccine misinformation is spread by parents and special interest groups. But every time reporters write about this topic, they bring up the "controversy" but do not make it clear that there ISN'T a controversy. In the name of fairness, they find an anti-vaccine proponent to interview, and all that does is continue to spread misinformation. It's a tough position to be in, for sure; as a journalist, how can you write a story that isn't fair? But I think it has to be done. If you keep allowing untruths to be repeated, you only perpetuate them. (And I don't say this lightly; I do know the difficulties of being a fair and balanced journalist.)

I don't have much in the way of a closing sentence here. Continue to vaccinate.