Merck

Syracuse University mumps outbreak – bad anti-vaccine math

Partially because I’m an alumnus, and partially because I watch new reports about infectious disease outbreaks all over the world, I’ve been following the recent Syracuse University mumps outbreak. As of 13 November 2017, Syracuse University (SU) Health Services has reported 41 confirmed cases and 78 probable cases of the mumps on the SU campus.

One of the age-old tropes of the anti-vaccine statistics world is that kids who have been vaccinated against the mumps (or measles or any disease) are more likely to get mumps (or any disease) than those who are not vaccinated. I squashed this myth before, but you know what happens – the anti-vaccine zombie tropes tend to reappear over and over and over and over again.

Now, the anti-vaccine statistics deniers have jumped into the Syracuse University mumps outbreak with their alternative facts, or should I say alternative math. So, once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more. We will take down this trope.Read More »Syracuse University mumps outbreak – bad anti-vaccine math

HPV vaccine safety – another massive scientific study (UPDATED)

by Michael Simpson
2017-09-05
27 Comments
Cancer, HPV vaccine, Infectious disease, Merck, Vaccines

In a 2013 study of over 1 million girls, the overall HPV vaccine safety for teenage girls was reaffirmed. There appear to be no links between serious adverse events and the HPV vaccines. This is in line with numerous other large size epidemiological studies of HPV vaccines.

Let’s take a look at the HPV vaccine safety that is supported by this trial.
Read More »HPV vaccine safety – another massive scientific study (UPDATED)

Paul Offit MD – debunking the anti-vaccine tropes and myths

I have long considered Paul Offit MD as one of heroes and leaders of the public discussion of how vaccines save lives, and how they have made the lives of the world’s children healthier and better. Dr. Offit, together with Edward Jenner (the father of immunology), Jonas Salk (discoverer of the polio vaccine), and Maurice Hillman (inventor of the MMR vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella), should have statues place outside of every pediatric hospital in the country for the number of lives that they have saved.

Unfortunately, since Dr. Offit is considered one of the “leaders” of the pro-vaccine majority, his name has been demonized by the anti-vaccine cult. These people use the Big Lie, a Nazi propaganda technique where a known falsehood is repeatedly stated, then treated as if it is self-evidently true in hopes of swaying the course of an argument in a direction that takes the big lie for granted rather than critically questioning it or ignoring it.

The vaccine deniers constantly repeat untruths about Dr. Offit so that those lies eventually evolve into apparent truths, at least for those who hold onto their pseudoscientific anti-vaccine beliefs.

The problem is, of course, that if you’re a new parent who is confused by what vaccines may or may not do, you’d assume you could not accept anything that Dr. Offit says because of those Big Lies, and many of the ridiculous tropes and memes of the vaccine denialists. And this is sad.

Let’s counter the Big Lie with the Big Facts.

Merck shingles vaccine lawsuit – what are the facts?

In 2016, a Merck shingles vaccine lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia claiming that the plaintiff was injured by the Merck’s shingles vaccine. Since the shingles vaccine is not administered to children, it’s not covered by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. Injury claims, therefore, do not go through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) before going to court.

That is a mixed bag for plaintiffs: on one hand, they can go directly to state courts, something anti-vaccine activists clamor for in relation to all suits. On the other hand, they need to meet the more demanding requirements of regular courts, including showing that there was fault on the part of the manufacturer with one of the tools lawyers use to sue product manufacturers, meet the more demanding causation requirements that govern the process in state courts, and follow the rules of evidence in those courts.

To remind readers, in NVICP, a petitioner (as they are referred to, while claimants in state courts are “plaintiffs”) would only need to show that the vaccine caused their harm, and their damages, and pretty much any evidence is allowed, though the Special Masters may give unreliable evidence little weight. This Merck shingles vaccine lawsuit can suggest what these claims would have to demonstrate if they actually had to go to regular courts.Read More »Merck shingles vaccine lawsuit – what are the facts?

Vaccine lawsuits – overview of litigation across the USA

The goal of this overview is to tell you about vaccine lawsuits in the federal and state courts (but not in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program). As an overview, the discussion of each case will be very short. If you want more information, please let me know in the comments section. If you know of cases I have missed, also mention that in the comments.

The vaccine lawsuits overview is arranged by topic, and without topic by states, and within states in alphabetical order. I have chosen August 1, 2016 as a starting point to keep this manageable.

Note that the “claims” section provides a summary of what a complaint is claiming – what it is trying to do – and not an analysis of the claims’ validity. Where available, I link to a post discussing the claim’s merits more in detail. Where not, I add some comments about the validity. But the claims section just provides what the plaintiffs are claiming – it doesn’t mean their claims, hold water.Read More »Vaccine lawsuits – overview of litigation across the USA

Index of articles by Prof. Dorit Rubinstein Reiss

by Michael Simpson
2017-04-17
47 Comments
Andrew Wakefield, Del Bigtree, Featured, Law, Merck, Religion, Vaccines

Editor’s note – this index of articles by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss has been updated and published here. The comments here are closed, and you can comment at the new article.

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss – Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA) – is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines (generally, but sometimes moving to other areas of medicine), social policy and the law. Her articles usually unwind the complexities of legal issues with vaccinations and legal policies, such as mandatory vaccination and exemptions, with facts and citations. I know a lot of writers out there will link to one of her articles here as a sort of primary source to tear down a bogus antivaccine message.

Professor Reiss writes extensively in law journals about the social and legal policies of vaccination–she really is a well-published expert in this area of vaccine policy, and doesn’t stand on the pulpit with a veneer of Argument from Authority, but is actually an authority. Additionally, Reiss is also member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease.

Below is a list of articles that Dorit Rubinstein Reiss has written for this blog, organized into some arbitrary and somewhat broad categories for easy reference. Of course, she has written articles about vaccines and legal issues in other locations, which I intend to link here at a later date. This article will be updated as new articles from Dorit are added here.

HPV vaccine effectiveness – even better than we thought

The greatest thing about science is that it relies upon evidence, while building the body of evidence over time. We know that evolution is a fact, not because of one piece of data, but because of thousands of individual data points over nearly 150 years. The body of evidence supporting HPV vaccine effectiveness, though not at the level of evolution research, is, nevertheless, robust and broad.

A new study suggests that the HPV vaccine effectiveness is much higher than originally believed, as shown by the reduction in the incidence of cervical neoplasia (including pre-cancers) since the introduction of the HPV vaccine.This is pretty exciting news.

Let’s take a look at the recently published paper that supports improved HPV vaccine effectiveness.

Japan HPV infection risk can be reduced with Gardasil

As I’ve written previously, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare had suspended recommending the cancer preventing HPV vaccine as a result of the worst statistical analysis ever. Of course, Japanese lawyers, looking for a quick yen, has sued the manufacturers of the HPV vaccine, despite the utter lack of evidence. Unfortunately, there is a growing body of evidence that the Japan HPV infection risk can be reduced after the reinstitution of the recommending Gardasil for young girls in the country.

HPV cancer vaccine rates – Gardasil uptake remains low

As I’ve written before, there are precious few ways to prevent cancer. But one of the best cancer prevention strategies is the HPV vaccine, which can prevent numerous cancers such as cervical, oral, penile and anal, all serious, and all dangerous. Maybe we should just rename Gardasil to “HPV cancer vaccine,” which could make everyone sit up and notice.

The HPV vaccination rate remains depressingly low in the USA. According to recent research, 39.7% of adolescent girls aged 13-17 received all three doses of the vaccine in 2014 up from 37.6% in 2013. HPV vaccination rates among teen boys are much lower than for girls, 21.6% in 2014 up from 13.4% in 2013.

There are probably a lot of reasons for the low HPV cancer vaccine uptake rate, so I thought I’d go through the most “popular” ones, debunking them one by one.

Hopefully, the reader can use this article as a checklist of the tropes and myths of the anti-Gardasil crowd with quick answers to them. Maybe you’ll convince one person to get their son or daughter vaccinated against HPV related cancers.

Merck vaccine lawsuit – implausible narrative, bad law and facts

by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss
2016-08-07
Andrew Wakefield, Autism, Law, Merck, Vaccines

On 19 July 2016, New York Attorney Patricia Finn filed a complaint in a federal district court against the pharmaceutical firm Merck, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services, and Julie Gerberding (formerly director of the CDC, and currently Merck’s Executive Vice President for Strategic Communications, Global Public Policy and Population Health). This Merck vaccine lawsuit, called Doe v Merck, is an amended complaint that was filed on 20 July, and will be the one examined in this article.

While the complaint was filed in the name of a Jane Doe and Baby Doe, the text of the complaint made it very clear that Jane Doe is in fact Maria Dwyer, and Baby Doe is her son Colin Dwyer. Colin Dwyer’s case was one of the test cases in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings (OAP) for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). The Dwyer case, like the other five test cases in the OAP, was rejected.

The Doe v Merck complaint makes two demands. First, that Merck’s license to produce the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (M-M-R®II ) be revoked.

Second, it asks for damages for Colin’s alleged vaccine injuries. The complaint is problematic from three aspects:

The story it tries to tell is full of holes;
as a legal matter, it makes no case; and
it includes many factual inaccuracies.

In short, the Merck vaccine lawsuit is bad work. However, the complaint is being shared widely, and a discussion of its shortcomings might be of value to many readers. Read More »Merck vaccine lawsuit – implausible narrative, bad law and facts