News
(The link below is to an NPR interview with Jon Hallberg, M.D., the physician who is Minnesota Public Radio’s regular medical analyst.)
The radio interview is about a 1998 study, which caused an international firestorm about the MMRV (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and an alleged link to an increase in autism in children. The study was just retracted by the journal which published it. (The study was partially retracted in 2004.)
That journal is The Lancet, one of the most influential medical journals in the world.
One little-noted fact is that the study was based on only 12 children, a very, very small sample. That number is more appropriate for an anecdotal report or an early alert of an infectious disease outbreak. Dr. Hallberg says this should have appeared as a letter to the editor of the journal rather than appearing as a full study.
How big is big enough when it comes to study sample size? The answer is complicated by many factors but it is safe to say, the bigger the study’s size (animals or humans), the more reliable the findings likely are to be.
This week the journal totally retracted the study and disclosed that the researcher had been paid by litigators representing parents who were suing the manufacturers of the vaccine. “He was in the pay of solicitors acting for parents who believed the vaccine had harmed their children,” wrote the editor of The Lancet.
Although there now are more details about what the researcher said versus what the public understood that he said, the bottom line is that this study was used to prove that the vaccine was contributing to an increase in cases of autism.
That study changed how the world viewed this vaccine. In many ways, that study may have contributed to an anti-vaccine mindset among parents, which is not in the best interests of their children.
Dr. Halberg also says that this study appeared about the time the Internet was taking off as a source of medical information, creating a “perfect storm.”
Bad information moves as quickly as good and sometimes even faster.
‘Regular readers know that this is why they should rely on reliable medical websites for information.
Today, even if The Lancet published this study, physician research review news services likely would note that the very small size of the study was a concern.
Minnesota Public Radio
by Dr. Jon Hallberg, Minnesota Public Radio
“The doctor behind a controversial study which linked the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine to autism has been called “a dishonest, irresponsible doctor” by the General Medical Council, a British review board, and journal that originally published the study in 1998 has now retracted it.
“The editor of Lancet told the Guardian newspaper that the statements in Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s paper were “utterly false,” and that he now feels deceived.
“The study caused widespread concern and fear in parents, and led to an increase of unvaccinated children, and an up-tick of measles.
“MPR’s regular medical analyst Dr. Jon Hallberg talked with All Things Considered about this rare move and its practical effects in the clinic….”
Source: Minnesota Public Radio News and National Public Radio All Things Considered, February 4, 2010
