Elle Macpherson, “anti-vaxx” nonsense, and the opportunity to engage
BMJ 2018; 362 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3255 (Published 31 July 2018) Cite this as: BMJ 2018;362:k3255
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Research Chair
Thank you.
I am not an “ anti-vacciner”.
Nor am I swayed by celebrities (even those elected to high office by a big country (great country?)) south of Canada.
And I have administered hundreds, maybe a few thousand, vaccines prepared by a Pasteur Institute. Long time passing. Some thousands of miles away.
And here in England, my England, not the little New England lying across the Atlantic, I have administered plenty of vaccines.
And I have myself been vaccinated against SMALLOX - the original vaccine! - at least a score of times. Including several times when I vaccinated myself before going out to examine patients where smallpox was a “possible diagnosis”.
Just one thing more. I listen to both sides of the argument and try to see the opposing evidence, hear the opposing accounts of “evidence”.
Listen to the patients, please! Even when you believe they are silly.
Thank you
Competing interests: No competing interests
There is a growing literature demonstrating how engaging with anti-science arguments can actually reinforce people's anti-science views.
So we should engage with caution.
Of course, we should prefer objective, reasoned argument for decision-making. But it is very ineffective at influencing public opinion - just look at Brexit! The thing that seemed to turn opinion on MMR in the UK was not the careful lining up of all the scientific arguments and the debunking of the anti-vaccine ones. It was a documentary and serious of articles exposing Andrew Wakefield.
See eg:
Deer B. The MMR & autism crisis: part 2: the Wakefield factor. London, 2004; Updated 2004 (undated); Accessed: 2018 (01 Aug): (http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm).
General Medical Council. Dr Andrew Jeremy WAKEFIELD: Determination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and sanction. London: General Medical Council, 2010; (http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf).
Poland GA, Spier R. Fear, misinformation, and innumerates: How the Wakefield paper, the press, and advocacy groups damaged the public health. Vaccine 2010;28(12):2361-2362 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X10002203).
Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H. Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ 2011;342, DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c7452 (http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.short).
Competing interests: No competing interests
It would seem that Professor Caulfield is spending too much time engaging with celebrity culture. He seems to know so much more about the life of celebrities than more pressing subjects as to why some individuals suffer serious adverse events following vaccination. These are the individuals that require our help and expertise. There should no acceptable level of collateral damage following receipt of vaccines.
Competing interests: No competing interests
One would have though this is both trivial and no one's business [1].
As a serious medical journal reporting current affairs I look forward to an article from BMJ engaging with the steepling and unexplained rates of autism emerging from public data, not being addressed (with or without Wakefield) [ 2,3,4,5,6]. With great government neglect and for whatever the reasons rates of autism in schools are more than ten times the level they were when Wakefield was questioned at the famous Royal Free news conference in 1998 (notably a reported rate of 4.7% in Belfast) and we need to know why.
I also look forward to a report of the paper by Jørgensen, Gøtzsche and Jefferson in BMJ Evidenced-Based Medicine [7] on the Cochrane review of HPV vaccines [8], in which three senior and Cochrane affiliated scientists attack the foundations of the review's methodology and raise a host of red flags over product safety. The original paper was regarded as a news event by BMJ [9] and the profession should really be informed about this matter, which cannot be dismissed as "anti-vaxx" nonsense.
These are matters of substance and they should not be hidden under froth.
[1] Timothy Caulfield, 'Elle Macpherson, “anti-vaxx” nonsense, and the opportunity to engage', BMJ 2018; 362 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3255 (Published 31 July 2018)
[2] John Stone, 'Re: Autism spectrum disorder: advances in diagnosis and evaluation', 21 May 2018, https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1674/rr
[3] John Stone, 'Re: Autism spectrum disorder: advances in diagnosis and evaluation: Nothing to see here folks!" 26 July 2018, https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1674/rr-8
[4] JK Anand, , 'Re: Autism spectrum disorder: advances in diagnosis and evaluation. Mr John Stone's response', 27 July 2018, https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1674/rr-9
[5] John Stone, 'Re: Autism spectrum disorder: advances in diagnosis and evaluation' 27 July 2018, https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1674/rr-10
[6] John Stone, 'The rise in autism - this is how the Department of Health replied in 2000. What about now?' , 28 July 2018, https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1674/rr-11
[7] Lars Jørgensen , Peter C Gøtzsche , Tom Jefferson, 'The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias' , https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/07/27/bmjebm-2018-111012
[8] Marc Arbyn, Lan Xu,Cindy Simoens,Pierre PL Martin-Hirsch, 'Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors', 9 May 2018, http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3/full
[9] Nigel Hawkes, 'HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds',
BMJ 2018; 361 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2059 (Published 09 May 2018)
Competing interests: I am author of a complaint to IPSO against a similar article in the Daily Telegraph in which I appear.
Re: Elle Macpherson, “anti-vaxx” nonsense, and the opportunity to engage
As a “Public Health Physician” Peter English seems to express disdain for the public, while also apparently eliding any critical view of vaccines at all with being “anti-science” [1]. I wonder what he thinks the public, particularly prospective vaccinees and their families, should be allowed to know about the recent paper by Jørgensen regarding the inadequacies in the trialing of HPV vaccines?
[1] Peter English, ‘Re: Elle Macpherson, “anti-vaxx” nonsense, and the opportunity to engage’ https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3255/rr-1
[3] Lars Jørgensen , Peter C Gøtzsche , Tom Jefferson, 'The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias' , https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/07/27/bmjebm-2018-111012
Competing interests: No competing interests