Surely the question "Is evidence less certain than it seems?" is
unanswerable even in theory!
I think the issue here is public communication not epidemiology. And the
problem arises because even the best of the media take balanced reporting to
mean "both sides of the argument" even if one side has but one proponent and
the other side has every else.
I also think the way to keep vaccine coverage up is to make sure that front
line workers - particularly health visitors and GPs - know the science; we
don't need to worry too much about the mass media. That seemed to be the
lesson of previous vaccine scares from pertussis onwards.
Edmund Jessop
West Surrey Health Authority
01276 605545
fax 01276 605496
email: [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: p=NHS NATIONAL
> INT;a=NHS;c=GB;dda:RFC-822=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK;
> Sent: 22 January 2001 09:35
> To: p=NHS NATIONAL
> INT;a=NHS;c=GB;dda:RFC-822=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK;
> Subject: MMR
>
>
> The Department of health has felt it necessary to publish a detailed
> critique
> http://www.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/mmrresponse.pdf
> rejecting any suggestion by Dr Andrew Wakefield and Dr Peter
> Fletcher that,
> MMR vaccines were licensed prematurely.
> (Combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccines: Response of
> the Medicines
> Control Agency and Department of Health to issues raised in papers
> published in "Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicological
> Reviews, volume 19
> no 4, 2000 ")
> The critique is scathing about Wakefield's paper yet he appeared on
> television still prepared to stand by his view that MMR may
> pose a risk.
> Wise, (BMJ 2001;322:130 ( 20 January ) notes that Dr
> Wakefield's claims
> have been refuted repeatedly.
> Has Wakefield got it wrong or is there a possibility that the
> evidence is
> less certain than it seems?
>
> John Platt
>
|