Horizon - Does the MMR Jab Cause Autism?

Dragon

Graduate Poster
Dragon
Joined
Mar 20, 2002
Messages
1,639
The answer was a resounding "No"

Did anyone else see this?

A pretty comprehensive programme which covered the issue from Wakefield's first paper up to soon-to-be published studies which looked for correlations between autism and traces of measles virus. The Danish study, the Japanese experience, epidemiology, gastroenterology and the better diagnosis of autism were all covered.
We even had a statistics professor dealing with the post hoc fallacy and demonstratiing how, on chance alone, you could easily get 100 children a year in the UK being diagnosed with autism in the month after getting the MMR vaccine.
Also featured was Rosemary Kessick, a leading light in the anti-MMR lobby. She rejected all the epidemiological evidence and said that she was 100% sure that MMR had caused her son's autism but that more studies were needed - just to back up what she already "knows" apparently.

Excellent programme in the best tradition of Horizon.

Oh - nearly forgot - you'll want a link.
 
I thought that it was a completely stretched out doco. put together for the sole purpose of being "first to the market" with a sneak preview of some imminent research that kicks the final leg out from under Wakefield's stool.

The most interesting thing for me was the MMR campaigner who revealed herself to be completely irrational.
She landed herself right in it when she declared quite explicitly that "no evidence could convince her that MMR was does not cause autism". So there you go.
 
Drooper said:
I thought that it was a completely stretched out doco. put together for the sole purpose of being "first to the market" with a sneak preview of some imminent research that kicks the final leg out from under Wakefield's stool.

The most interesting thing for me was the MMR campaigner who revealed herself to be completely irrational.
She landed herself right in it when she declared quite explicitly that "no evidence could convince her that MMR was does not cause autism". So there you go.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was Rosemary Kessick - she also made an appeal to emotion saying something like, "How can you believe the epidemiology when faced with a damaged child?"
I thought they did a good job of drawing her out.
I don't agree that the programme was "stretched out" - there's a lot of stuff to cover. They maybe could have waited for the latest studies to be published, though.
 
I was out last night so I recorded it - I've just watched it. I thought they went through the points pretty well. The approach they took, of putting up each of the anti-MMR claims and then showing the evidence against them worked well. It also nicely drew attention to the ever-changing stance of the anti-MMR campaigners: as each claim was demolished they fell back to a modified position, for example from the "epidemic of autism caused by MMR" claim to the eventual "perhaps the numbers are so small they don't show up in epidemiology."

One point they perhaps didn't make quite well enough was that Wakefield, when he found the allegedly new form of bowel disease, seems only to have been looking at a selected group of autistic children. This did come up towards the end of the programme, in the section about the Timothy Buie, who has looked at both autistic and non-autistic children and not observed any difference, but I think the point should have been explained a little better.
 
Dragon said:
Yes, that was Rosemary Kessick - she also made an appeal to emotion saying something like, "How can you believe the epidemiology when faced with a damaged child?"
I thought they did a good job of drawing her out.
I don't agree that the programme was "stretched out" - there's a lot of stuff to cover. They maybe could have waited for the latest studies to be published, though.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am being a little unfair. I suppose I watched the first 45 minutes thinking to myself, "yeah, but we knew all that already" as they went on about the origin of Wakefield's claims, the measles/gut claims and the O'Leary paper (all of which date back around 3 years now).

Viewed as a comperehensive review for those who haven't kept up with events, I would rate it much higher.

I also agree that they didn't give reveal the ethical compromises that were inherent in Wakefield's research; namely the fact that the original sample was effectively cherry picked.

I alos like they way tey put this issue into context by showing the real implications that a lack of immunisaton would bring by showing the case of that unfortunate kid who suffered brain damage after contracitng measles.
 
I agree they should have really stuck it to Wakefield on his apparent forgetfulness when it comes to conflicts of interest. Perhaps they pulled back from that as they didn't want to be accused of a personal attack on him.
My intense dislike and suspicion of the man was increased by the bit near the start when he was basking in rapturous applause at some anti-MMR meeting = looked to me like clear evidence of what his motivation is (I admit bias where Wakefield is concerned).
 
Drooper said:
Maybe I am being a little unfair. I suppose I watched the first 45 minutes thinking to myself, "yeah, but we knew all that already" as they went on about the origin of Wakefield's claims, the measles/gut claims and the O'Leary paper (all of which date back around 3 years now).
...
Click to expand...
I'd seen most of it, too - I annoyed Mrs D by anticipating what was coming next - luckily we are as one on the issue.
 
Dragon said:
Yes, that was Rosemary Kessick - she also made an appeal to emotion saying something like, "How can you believe the epidemiology when faced with a damaged child?"
Click to expand...

One has to have sympathy for her predicament, but sadly she is yet another person completely out of her depth when asked to deal with complex medical questions and resorts to an appeal to rely on her intuition rather than facts.

Once again we see the fallacy being trotted out that statistics are a mere adjunct to an accurate description of the world, the icing on the cake, but that Truth can be directly perceived in some way. What people like Mrs Kessick will never understand is that the reality is inherently statistical and her failure to understand this does not allow her an alternative and special access to the Truth.

It was mentioned in another thread recently (in comnection with Creationism) that we find ourselves confronting people who invoke the fallacy because they don't understand something it is beyond any understanding. I see this as the unfortunate consequence of the modern virtue that everyone's opinion must be taken seriously.
 
I would love to see Wakefield brought to book and made accountable for the worry and expense he has caused by his prolonged exercise in arse-covering.
 
There's already a mumps epidemic in the UK. It's a racing certainty that we'll have rubella damaged children because of Wakefield and Kessick's blatent scaremongering and falsehoods.

How about looking at a damaged child then, Rosemary?

I don't think so, somehow.:(
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
One has to have sympathy for her predicament, but sadly she is yet another person completely out of her depth when asked to deal with complex medical questions and resorts to an appeal to rely on her intuition rather than facts.

Once again we see the fallacy being trotted out that statistics are a mere adjunct to an accurate description of the world, the icing on the cake, but that Truth can be directly perceived in some way. What people like Mrs Kessick will never understand is that the reality is inherently statistical and her failure to understand this does not allow her an alternative and special access to the Truth.

It was mentioned in another thread recently (in comnection with Creationism) that we find ourselves confronting people who invoke the fallacy because they don't understand something it is beyond any understanding. I see this as the unfortunate consequence of the modern virtue that everyone's opinion must be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's certainly no virtue to give all opinions equal weight - cultural relativism, bleah!.
For those that didn't see the prog they also featured a GP and his son (again diagnosed with autism soon after getting his MMR jab). However the father was adamant that, having examined all the evidence, whatever caused autism it wasn't vaccination.
By the way, I found the scenes with the GP caring for his severely autistic son (who had no speech at all) extremely moving.
 
What bothers me the most about the whole antivaccination and autism folderal is the money used by these people to justify there existence could be put to much better use working on finding the cause and effective treatment and cure for autism.

We know it's not vaccination, it's time to move on.



Boo
 
I was somewhat dissaponted to the "equal" weighting they seemed to give the anti-MMR lobbyists.
There was no mention of Wakefield's conflict of interest, or the fact that 11 (or was it 9) of his original co-authours completely dissociated themselves from his allegations.

The only new bit came in the last few minutes - I await publication with interest - already I can hear the scamperings in the undergrowth of anti-MMRists working themselves into a froth - "How are we going to try and discredit these latest findings?" they are asking themselves.

If my previous experience of them in the BMJ web site holds true, they will come up with some trite queries or criticisms of these papers when they are produced, and then convince themselves in an orgy of mutual congratulation that they have totally succeeded in blowing them apart. A few days later, they will be referring to the "totally-discredited" work of so and so, and in another few days, their criticisms will be espoused by all the anti-MMR web sites/organisations as the final word on the matter.
 
That woman Kessick was so deeply, deeply stupid I'm surprised she could even dress herself. I thought the programme was a good summary for thise who hadn't kept up, and although it missed some tricks (there were two kidney-transplant boys maimed by measles, not just one, and when you see the quackery Wakefield is peddling now it just kills any credibility he ever had), it did get the point over. Afterwards my mother kept complaining that it wasn't emphatic enough, and that they'd given Mrs. Kessick too much air time, but I thought they'd given her enough rope to hang herself. Assuming anyone got the point that you'd expect about 60 (was it?) children to show up with regressive autism just after an MMR jag every year by ordinary coincidence, but she kept insisting that because that had happened to her son it must be cause and effect.

I felt so sorry for the parents, it must be awful having to care for these children, but haven't we spent enough money refuting Wakefield that could have been used on actual productive research as regards real cause or possible treatment?

It seemed from the film that it was actually Mrs. Kessick who set Wakefield off on this. I don't suppose she's bright enough ever to figure out how much harm she's done.

(The reason my Mum was so mad is that her neighbours in Scotland just travelled to Birmingham with their three year old girl to get separate injections, and the mother is expecting another baby next month, and how many times are they going to drag these children a round trip of 600 miles, for nothing? And have they no concept that the children have a far far higher chance of being disabled in a road accident on the way than anything the MMR could do? Sorry, ranting, but I've been on the receiving end of this rant several times and the Horizon was just the last straw, with Mum wishing she could make the neighbours sit down and watch it by force - no I don't think she's seen A Clockwork Orange but that was the general idea....)

Rolfe.
 
I'm sorry I didn't get to see the program. I appreciate what has been shared here of it though. It sounds like they did a pretty good job :)
 
Eos of the Eons said:
I'm sorry I didn't get to see the program. I appreciate what has been shared here of it though. It sounds like they did a pretty good job :)
Click to expand...

With luck it will be turned into a NOVA program from the PBS network in the US. I don't know if you get that your part of Canada (our local PBS station is broadcast in a good portion of BC).
 
Dragon said:
Agreed, it's certainly no virtue to give all opinions equal weight - cultural relativism, bleah!.
For those that didn't see the prog they also featured a GP and his son (again diagnosed with autism soon after getting his MMR jab). However the father was adamant that, having examined all the evidence, whatever caused autism it wasn't vaccination.
By the way, I found the scenes with the GP caring for his severely autistic son (who had no speech at all) extremely moving.
Click to expand...
I think it was this guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom