Recently, I asked the question is it safer to delay MMR vaccination? Many of those who are opposed to the current schedule of vaccinations or have heard anti-vaccine claims and fear that vaccines somehow overwhelm an infant's immune system may put off getting their children immunized until well after the age recommended by the CDC and AAP. This decision not only leaves a child at risk of infection for a longer period, but, as I discussed in that post, new research on the MMR vaccine indicates that there is an increased risk of seizures and fever associated with delaying that vaccine. So delaying might not necessarily be safer, at least in terms of adverse reactions to the MMR vaccine. The authors of the recent paper speculated that one probable cause of this increased risk is due to a more robust immune reaction the older a child is when they receive their first dose of measles-containing vaccine.
Another recent study, Measles in Children Vaccinated With 2 Doses of MMR, by F. Defay, G. De Serres, D. M. Skowronski, N. Boulianne, M. Ouakki, M. Landry, N. Brousseau, and B. J. Ward and published online on October 21, 2013 in Pediatrics, asked a related question: does delaying the first dose of measles vaccine improve efficacy? Well, really, the question they asked was, "does age of first MMR vaccination affect vaccine efficacy in children who received 2 doses", but my paraphrase is close enough.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Friday, October 25, 2013
For Graduate Practicum, George Washington University Earns an F
Recently, news came out that Mark Geier, the man who tried to treat autistic children's autism by using a powerful drug that suppresses testosterone (essentially chemically castrating these children), the man who lost every one of his twelve state medical licenses and had a 13th denied due to his medical misconduct (to put it lightly), served as a site preceptor for a graduate student at George Washington University. Autism News Beat rightly criticized the university. That Geier was able to serve as a preceptor for a student is pretty damning, since it means that GWU did not do its due diligence to ensure that individuals who apply to be a preceptor meet certain minimum standards. Either that, or someone at GWU was actively promoting Geier's nonsense.
The problem is that a site preceptor has a number of responsibilities, according to the GW SHHS Practicum Site Preceptor Guide:
And now it looks like GWU has taken notice.
The problem is that a site preceptor has a number of responsibilities, according to the GW SHHS Practicum Site Preceptor Guide:
- Visit the Practicum Website http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/studentres/practicum/index.cfm and Register. (See Register: for instructions)
- Review and approve the Student’s Practicum Plan
- Negotiate payment/stipend with Student, if applicable
- Engage student in work and provide constructive feedback and guidance to the student
- Provide guidance for professional conduct
- Complete the following on the Practicum Website:
a. Midpoint evaluation form in conjunction with the student
b. Final site preceptor evaluation of student and practicum - Address student’s reports of problems, including site safety issues and/or harassment
And now it looks like GWU has taken notice.
More VPD Cards Available
[UPDATE 3/8/16: I am out of VPD wanted poster card sets. Thank you to everyone who requested a set! You made it all worthwhile.]
In March of this year, I announced that I was making prints of an art project of mine available for free. These were sets of sixteen 4" x 5" cards with information about each of the diseases that is prevented by a vaccine on the current childhood immunization schedule. The cards are modeled after wanted posters, complete with mug shots and vital statistics of each virus or bacterium, as well as a description of what the disease does (its modus operandi, if you will). I received a lot of positive feedback on them, and I recently sent out the last of my initial 100 sets.
Because of continued requests, I've decided to do another printing. If you would like a set of VPD cards, click on that link or click the button below or in the sidebar to the right. Remember, it's absolutely free, though if you'd really like to open your wallet, please make a donation to a science-based autism charity or to support vaccine research. Here are some suggestions, which I have supported myself, or give to your favorite charity.
Much of the information is drawn from the CDC's Pink Book chapters on each disease, which I've tried to summarize in an easy-to-read format. These cards are a great way to learn about vaccine preventable diseases. Some people have even turned the cards into a game, shuffling and dealing them out, then playing hands of "who has the worst disease".
In March of this year, I announced that I was making prints of an art project of mine available for free. These were sets of sixteen 4" x 5" cards with information about each of the diseases that is prevented by a vaccine on the current childhood immunization schedule. The cards are modeled after wanted posters, complete with mug shots and vital statistics of each virus or bacterium, as well as a description of what the disease does (its modus operandi, if you will). I received a lot of positive feedback on them, and I recently sent out the last of my initial 100 sets.
Because of continued requests, I've decided to do another printing. If you would like a set of VPD cards, click on that link or click the button below or in the sidebar to the right. Remember, it's absolutely free, though if you'd really like to open your wallet, please make a donation to a science-based autism charity or to support vaccine research. Here are some suggestions, which I have supported myself, or give to your favorite charity.
Much of the information is drawn from the CDC's Pink Book chapters on each disease, which I've tried to summarize in an easy-to-read format. These cards are a great way to learn about vaccine preventable diseases. Some people have even turned the cards into a game, shuffling and dealing them out, then playing hands of "who has the worst disease".
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Is It Safer to Delay MMR Vaccination?
Most people follow the recommended schedule of childhood immunizations. They understand the importance of immunization, not only for their own children, but for their communities as well. Certainly, parents put varying degrees of thought into their decision. Some simply go along with whatever their pediatrician recommends, while others thoroughly research the vaccines their child will receive before accepting the science-based recommendations behind the current vaccination schedule. Whatever level of scrutiny they give to the issue, the majority immunize their children fully and on-schedule, barring valid medical reasons to the contrary.
Then there's the minority, the parents who either delay vaccines, spreading them out over a much greater timeframe than recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics, the parents who only allow some vaccines, and those who eschew vaccines altogether. Some are strongly committed to the ideology that vaccines cause all manner of maladies, often becoming quite vocal about it. Their views stem from misunderstanding of the science, confusing correlation with causation, and distrust of large corporations and the government. Some parents have simply been misled by those anti-vaccine activists. The arguments resonate on an emotional level, despite being void of scientific validity. And finally there are those who delay or skip vaccines because they lack access or the resources to keep up. They cannot afford insurance to cover the vaccines. They may not be able to take the time off from work to take their children to the doctor's office. In short, through failures of the health care system, rather than any fear or distrust of vaccines, their children are under- or unimmunized.
Whatever the reasons, the decision to delay or avoid vaccinations carries certain risks. Most readily apparent is the increased risk of infection, contributing to outbreaks in regions of low vaccination. We need only look, for example, at recent measles outbreaks (Minnesota, New South Wales, Australia, Massachusetts, Indiana, North Carolina and New York, Pakistan and Wales, Texas) to see how lack of immunization increases the risks of infection and spread of disease. Not so obvious is that delaying some vaccines increases the risk of not being fully immunized.
And now there's another risk to add to the list, at least as regards measles vaccines.
Then there's the minority, the parents who either delay vaccines, spreading them out over a much greater timeframe than recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics, the parents who only allow some vaccines, and those who eschew vaccines altogether. Some are strongly committed to the ideology that vaccines cause all manner of maladies, often becoming quite vocal about it. Their views stem from misunderstanding of the science, confusing correlation with causation, and distrust of large corporations and the government. Some parents have simply been misled by those anti-vaccine activists. The arguments resonate on an emotional level, despite being void of scientific validity. And finally there are those who delay or skip vaccines because they lack access or the resources to keep up. They cannot afford insurance to cover the vaccines. They may not be able to take the time off from work to take their children to the doctor's office. In short, through failures of the health care system, rather than any fear or distrust of vaccines, their children are under- or unimmunized.
Whatever the reasons, the decision to delay or avoid vaccinations carries certain risks. Most readily apparent is the increased risk of infection, contributing to outbreaks in regions of low vaccination. We need only look, for example, at recent measles outbreaks (Minnesota, New South Wales, Australia, Massachusetts, Indiana, North Carolina and New York, Pakistan and Wales, Texas) to see how lack of immunization increases the risks of infection and spread of disease. Not so obvious is that delaying some vaccines increases the risk of not being fully immunized.
And now there's another risk to add to the list, at least as regards measles vaccines.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
B-lyme-y!
The last couple weekends in July and the first weekend of August, I helped out with a project down in Connecticut. It allowed me to tap into my woodworking interests and challenged me with techniques I hadn't done a great deal of before, like sculpting with a chisel and lashing several different ways. Because of time constraints, I made use of some power tools (saws, screwgun and sander), hand tools (axe, chisel, knives) and some more unusual tools (like a blowtorch). Most of the work used rough branches, rather than lumber, and some didn't involve wood at all.
The project was also a great excuse to get outside to enjoy nature, as it took me into the woods quite a bit. That was both good and bad, because, unlike the Disney (and quackery) version where nature is all happy and fluffy and nary a hair on your head will be harmed, I encountered the real nature. The more immediate problem was relatively minor: it was hot. Really, really hot. And humid. But I could live with that. I could even live with the little bit of contact dermatitis I got from either poison ivy or poison sumac that brushed my wrist against at some point without knowing it. Itchy and ugly, but luckily I'm not hypersensitive to it. What was more concerning was what I got, much like the dermatitis, without knowing it. I never noticed that I'd had a visitor that came for a bite to eat, then left without so much as a "how d'you do?". The only indication I had of the encounter came weeks later: a characteristic bulls-eye rash. I had lyme disease.
Since there is a great deal of misconception about this disease among the public, and because more than a few people were gravely concerned when I told them, thinking that I would be in extremely poor health because of it, I figured it might be good to share my experience.
The project was also a great excuse to get outside to enjoy nature, as it took me into the woods quite a bit. That was both good and bad, because, unlike the Disney (and quackery) version where nature is all happy and fluffy and nary a hair on your head will be harmed, I encountered the real nature. The more immediate problem was relatively minor: it was hot. Really, really hot. And humid. But I could live with that. I could even live with the little bit of contact dermatitis I got from either poison ivy or poison sumac that brushed my wrist against at some point without knowing it. Itchy and ugly, but luckily I'm not hypersensitive to it. What was more concerning was what I got, much like the dermatitis, without knowing it. I never noticed that I'd had a visitor that came for a bite to eat, then left without so much as a "how d'you do?". The only indication I had of the encounter came weeks later: a characteristic bulls-eye rash. I had lyme disease.
 |
| Didn't get a photo of my rash, but it looked like this. Photo credit: James Gathany. Source: Public Health Image Library |
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
A Short Vaccine Video
A reader recently sent me a link to this video. It's a nice, short, humorous way to present the impact that vaccines have had on public health.
Monday, September 16, 2013
An Anti-vaccine Activist Unsurprisingly Gets the Science Wrong
It's so cute when anti-vaccine activists try to use citations to bolster their arguments. Quite often, it seems as if they simply read the title of a study and leap to the assumption that it supports their notion that vaccines are useless, dangerous or cause autism. In those instances where they actually do get past the title, they either misinterpret the study or misrepresent the results, hoping, perhaps, that whomever they are speaking to won't go through the trouble of actually reading the citation. Actually, in most instances, they probably rely on people not reading their citations at all. It's very impressive to throw out a bunch of study titles and author names. The casual observer is likely to just think, "Huh, they must have a point. I mean, look at all of those studies."
And I can't really blame the average person for taking that approach. It takes a lot of effort and time to actually examine the citations critically. Scientific papers are generally geared toward academics, people in the same field who already have a basic background education. They understand the methods and why certain things were done, while others weren't. They know the various jargon used. The language of science is probably the biggest barrier to a layperson understanding (let alone reading) a study. After all, there are a lot of new, unknown words and, let's face it, study papers are boring (unless you have a keen and obsessive interest in the subject, maybe). But those who deny some scientific concept rely on this to overawe their audience. It allows them to use a tactic known as the Gish Gallop: throw out lots of studies that you claim support your position and depend on your audience not making the laborious effort to see if the studies say what you claim they do.
I encountered this on a small scale just recently in the comments of an article in the Independent Online discussing what happens when vaccine refusal has fatal results. When one commenter claimed that modern measles outbreaks occurred predominantly among the vaccinated, I countered with examples from recent outbreaks in which the majority (or all) of the cases were unvaccinated. A second commenter responded to me with a list of six studies purporting to support the assertion that measles outbreaks disproportionately occur among vaccinated, rather than unvaccinated, individuals. But as expected, the reality is rather different than this person claimed.
And I can't really blame the average person for taking that approach. It takes a lot of effort and time to actually examine the citations critically. Scientific papers are generally geared toward academics, people in the same field who already have a basic background education. They understand the methods and why certain things were done, while others weren't. They know the various jargon used. The language of science is probably the biggest barrier to a layperson understanding (let alone reading) a study. After all, there are a lot of new, unknown words and, let's face it, study papers are boring (unless you have a keen and obsessive interest in the subject, maybe). But those who deny some scientific concept rely on this to overawe their audience. It allows them to use a tactic known as the Gish Gallop: throw out lots of studies that you claim support your position and depend on your audience not making the laborious effort to see if the studies say what you claim they do.
I encountered this on a small scale just recently in the comments of an article in the Independent Online discussing what happens when vaccine refusal has fatal results. When one commenter claimed that modern measles outbreaks occurred predominantly among the vaccinated, I countered with examples from recent outbreaks in which the majority (or all) of the cases were unvaccinated. A second commenter responded to me with a list of six studies purporting to support the assertion that measles outbreaks disproportionately occur among vaccinated, rather than unvaccinated, individuals. But as expected, the reality is rather different than this person claimed.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Sharyl Attkisson Accuses Critics of Astroturfing
Back on Monday, Labor Day, I wrote about an execrable piece of reporting that appeared on CBS This Morning just over a week ago. The story was about Dorothy Spourdalakis, mother and murderer of Alex Spourdalakis. Earlier this year, Dorothy and Alex's godmother, Jolanta Agatha Skrodzka, plotted for at least a week to kill Dorothy's son, a 14-year-old boy with severe autism. At home in the apartment in River Grove where the three of them lived together, Dorothy and Jolanta drugged him with sleeping pills, and when that did not kill him fast enough, Dorothy, as she admitted and is reported in various media outlets, used a kitchen knife to stab Alex in the chest four times, hitting his heart twice. She then slashed his wrist so severely she nearly severed his hand.
The CBS story, however, does not tell the story of cold-blooded, premeditated murder. Instead, it shows Dorothy kissing Alex and washing his feet when he is in the hospital. It portrays her as a loving mother who, pushed to extremes of stress by, as the report says, a system that failed her. What is not in that story are some very important facts that, had the reporter included them, would have made for a very, very different telling. A theme that runs throughout the whole piece was that Dorothy had no support, no help. For example, Dorothy's lawyer is shown, saying, "Every door closed. She had nowhere to go. She had nowhere to take her son. There's no help for him." That is at odds with other reports. For example, the Illinois Autism Society offered support, but Dorothy turned them down and only requested a lawyer. The state's Department of Children and Family Services offered respite care and psychological counseling, but the family refused this help. Also left out of the story is the background of the "documentary" produced by Polly Tommey, of the Autism Media Channel (AMC), as well as her connection to Andrew Wakefield, also of the AMC, who was working on the documentary before Alex's death as part of a reality TV show. And yet another factor omitted was the connection between Dr. Arthur Krigsman, who reportedly diagnosed "lesions" in Alex's stomach, and Andrew Wakefield: they used to work together at Thoughtful House in Texas, and Dr. Krigsman bases much of his treatment philosophy on Wakefield's now-retracted paper purporting to find a connection between MMR vaccine and gastrointestinal disorder. Meanwhile, Alex himself was portrayed as a violent, difficult to manage young man with no hope of a future. It is, sadly, the image that all too often is presented of those with developmental disabilities like autism. And it is false.
In the end, many science and autism bloggers rightly criticized the story for its many faults (Liz Ditz has curated a robust list of responses). Now, in my post, I did not mention the reporter's name, because, really, it isn't particularly relevant to the problems with the piece (except insofar as this particular reporter has a history of promoting anti-vaccine pseudoscience). But she has been active on Twitter recently digging an even deeper hole for herself.
The CBS story, however, does not tell the story of cold-blooded, premeditated murder. Instead, it shows Dorothy kissing Alex and washing his feet when he is in the hospital. It portrays her as a loving mother who, pushed to extremes of stress by, as the report says, a system that failed her. What is not in that story are some very important facts that, had the reporter included them, would have made for a very, very different telling. A theme that runs throughout the whole piece was that Dorothy had no support, no help. For example, Dorothy's lawyer is shown, saying, "Every door closed. She had nowhere to go. She had nowhere to take her son. There's no help for him." That is at odds with other reports. For example, the Illinois Autism Society offered support, but Dorothy turned them down and only requested a lawyer. The state's Department of Children and Family Services offered respite care and psychological counseling, but the family refused this help. Also left out of the story is the background of the "documentary" produced by Polly Tommey, of the Autism Media Channel (AMC), as well as her connection to Andrew Wakefield, also of the AMC, who was working on the documentary before Alex's death as part of a reality TV show. And yet another factor omitted was the connection between Dr. Arthur Krigsman, who reportedly diagnosed "lesions" in Alex's stomach, and Andrew Wakefield: they used to work together at Thoughtful House in Texas, and Dr. Krigsman bases much of his treatment philosophy on Wakefield's now-retracted paper purporting to find a connection between MMR vaccine and gastrointestinal disorder. Meanwhile, Alex himself was portrayed as a violent, difficult to manage young man with no hope of a future. It is, sadly, the image that all too often is presented of those with developmental disabilities like autism. And it is false.
In the end, many science and autism bloggers rightly criticized the story for its many faults (Liz Ditz has curated a robust list of responses). Now, in my post, I did not mention the reporter's name, because, really, it isn't particularly relevant to the problems with the piece (except insofar as this particular reporter has a history of promoting anti-vaccine pseudoscience). But she has been active on Twitter recently digging an even deeper hole for herself.
Monday, September 2, 2013
CBS Sympathizes with Murderers
Back in June, I wrote a post in which I tried to understand the murder of Alex Spourdalakis by his mother, Dorothy Spourdalakis, and his caretaker, Jolanta Agatha Skrodzka. In particular, I noted how those who do not blame vaccines for autism properly blamed Dorothy and Jolanta for the murder, expressing sympathy and horror on behalf of Alex. Yet among the biomed and "vaccines cause autism" communities, the general spin to the story was that Dorothy was oh so distraught and just couldn't cope any more; because she had supposedly been failed by the system, poor woman that she is, she resorted to murder, putting Alex out of his misery. That is a horrible, horrible insult to a boy who suffered the ultimate abuse by those who were supposed to care for him.
That sentiment, sympathizing with a child murderer, disgusted me then and disgusts me now. Part of the tragedy of this whole thing is that we only have Dorothy's voice being heard. HIPAA regulations block any revelations from the medical professionals being vilified by murder apologists at Age of Autism, Autism Media Channel and so on. Alex's voice has been permanently silenced. To make matters worse, CBS This Morning has decided to lend their support to Alex's killers.
That sentiment, sympathizing with a child murderer, disgusted me then and disgusts me now. Part of the tragedy of this whole thing is that we only have Dorothy's voice being heard. HIPAA regulations block any revelations from the medical professionals being vilified by murder apologists at Age of Autism, Autism Media Channel and so on. Alex's voice has been permanently silenced. To make matters worse, CBS This Morning has decided to lend their support to Alex's killers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
