Vaccines and autism: "Culture eats data for lunch"

A common saw in the business world is that “culture eats data for lunch every day”. The lesson is supposed to be that in trying to create organizational change, it is important not to assume that people do what they do simply because they are ignorant of the facts, and that these simply need to be presented to them and change will occur. This is also the case in many other areas, including public health, and it seems it is often easier to create change by presenting simple “facts” (even if they are wrong) that are easy to digest and concord with pre-existing belief systems than more complex or nuanced facts that are actually right.

Recently, in a Facebook “discussion”, I was informed of a couple of things by a friend-of-a-friend whom I do not know. One was that vaccines are bad because pharmaceutical manufacturers make lots of money on them, and they are evil. Indeed, I had acknowledged that I think that they are evil, and the “discussant” asked (rhetorically, I assume) how I could then trust them? I didn’t respond (who needs to waste time arguing with folks who will never be convinced) but it is a logical fallacy. Drug companies are evil, in that they systematically exploit every method they can to make money, and even more money, but this does not mean everything that they do or make is evil. They are happy to make lots of money selling drugs (or vaccines) that in fact work well; their evil is in hiding when they don’t work well, or have bad effects (think “Sackler” and oxycontin) and grossly overpricing them when they do. Vaccines do work, and incredibly well, some better even than others. There have been rather rare side effects (beyond local soreness or slight fever) associated with them, but the one getting the most play is their association with autism, especially measles (or measles/mumps/rubella, MMR) vaccine. They don’t cause autism as shown by many studies, some of which are cited below and all are available by searching PubMed (National Library of Medicine) or Google Scholar.

Or maybe not. The other thing that this discussant noted was that there are over 200 studies showing that it does cause autism, which was news to me. They didn’t provide the citations (it was, after all, just a Facebook post) but I presume they have them. The only other explanation I can think of is that it is a number that they heard of read somewhere and are repeating (something which most of us are, at least sometimes, guilty of). In any case, I haven’t been able to find them. I am not going to go into great detail here about the absence of a link between autism and measles vaccine, as there are already many good discussions available, two of which are a review of Vaccines and Autism by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Vaccines Don't Cause Autism. Why Do Some People Think They Do? From the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. This article in StatNews also reviews the evidence. If you are interested in some of the studies done that showed no association between vaccine and autism, one big one was from Denmark that looked at over 650,000 children and was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2019, Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study. There are dozens of others, which have looked at over 3 million children, and are easily found on searches on either NLM or Google.

If not 200, however, there are at least 2 studies, by the same author, Andrew Wakefield, that purport to show that measles vaccine causes autism. The first, published in the Lancet in 1998, Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, studied 12 children. It not only didn’t prove that the vaccine caused autism, but was so deeply flawed it could not have, and the Lancet retracted the paper (which you will see in a notification when you search it or follow the link above). Several of Wakefield’s co-authors removed their names from this paper. There was a second study published in 2002, using a different, but also flawed, methodology.

However, despite the vast preponderance of evidence, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is not convinced and is commissioning a new study of the link, to be done by David Geier, long associated with the movement to associate vaccines with autism, (who was not a doctor but practicing under the license of his father -- who had HIS revoked for experimenting on autistic children). I wonder what it will find?

In 2025, so far in the US, there have been almost 900 cases of measles, with 3 deaths, the most of both in many decades. Given that the mortality rate for measles is about 1/1000, it suggests an under-reporting of cases. 97% of those affected were unimmunized. This means that parents who choose to not immunize their children are risking disease and death from measles. And doing so for a “benefit” (not getting autism) that is unrelated. This is sad, but people believe what they believe for a variety of reasons, and act on those beliefs. There is also no shortage of papers studying and reporting on why this is so, e.g. Why Parents Say No to Having Their Children Vaccinated against Measles: A Systematic Review of the Social Determinants of Parental Perceptions on MMR Vaccine Hesitancy.

Historically, and today, the prevalence of measles is higher in communities of lower socioeconomic status, for a variety of reasons discussed, for example, in Measles Outbreak in Socioeconomically Diverse Sections: A Review. Of course, many diseases are more common in communities of lower socioeconomic status, for the same reasons, prominently including lack of access to health care. What is concerning about the current measles outbreak is that it is so closely tracking, in the main outbreak in West Texas and adjacent New Mexico, low levels of immunization that result from belief that vaccines are bad, not because they are inaccessible.

Taking things on faith and not on evidence is a cornerstone of most religions, but belief in things like vaccines causing autism, and other evidence-free ideas, should not be on the same order as religious beliefs. However, it may be that being used to accepting some of the most important things on faith conditions one to being willing to accept others. Also, while the autism/vaccine question is pretty specific, it is easy to accept simplistic guidelines to guide a person as to what is “good” or “bad”, without the (unfortunately ubiquitous) subtleties. One example is “natural”; things that are “natural” are good, and things that are manufactured or modified are not. So, vaccines, being manufactured, could be bad. Of course, this idea is pretty dangerous; lots of natural things are poisons, and many beneficial natural things (like plants that help with certain conditions) are actually not as good as the standardized and purified forms made by those evil pharmaceutical companies. Aspirin is derived from willow back. But how much willow bark is good for my arthritic pain? In what season? What microclimate? How much will be too much and cause stomach ulcers? If something seems too good to be true it usually is; similarly using a single touchstone (e.g. “is it natural”) it is too simple and often wrong.

I used to be very concerned with people ignoring science and good research and believing, well, what they wanted to believe, for whatever reason. Now I am even more concerned about the seeming pride that they take in not believing science, as if that were a good thing, that in not believing what the evidence shows they are asserting their loyalty to a cause and victory over an enemy.

This is the much more important thing to believe in: US mortality is high, and strongly linked to wealth! Let us work on addressing that.