Andrew Wakefield, in 1998, published a series in the Lancet journal claiming that the Mumps, Measles, and Rubella vaccine was a causative factor in autism (Rao & Andrade, 2011). He made this association on a sample size of only 12 patients. For anyone who understands basic research design, this should have been a major red flag to begin with. No assertions or associations can be made solely on the basis of 12 people. I am not sure if it is even possible to establish statistical significance with this small of a sample size. One of the major problems with Wakefield’s research design was how he obtained his sample to begin with. In fact, he falsified that his sampling was consecutive in his paper, when it was a completely selected sample instead. Wakefield conveniently chose kids that all had gastrointestinal problems and autism, and simply linked that association to his hypothesis of translocated peptides (Gerber & Offit, 2010). Not only that, Wakefield did not pass any ethical guidelines in his investigation of his patients. None of the assessments were done in a systemic or blind manner. As a result, none of his research was verified by independent scientists. In fact, research has established that measles virus vaccine virus is equally present in those with and without autism (Gerber & Offit, 2010).
Andrew Wakefield‘s motive was clear; he was financed by lawyers of parents who were against vaccine companies (Rao & Andrade, 2011). In evaluating this saga, the whole situation is sad and very sick. Wakefield took advantage of a vulnerable population for his own gain and did not follow any ethical research guidelines in the process. I think one has to ask the question; how can we ensure that scientists take every precaution to conduct ethical research? Wakefield’s small editorial had enormous consequences. Incidences of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella increased during this time because Wakefield preyed on the fears of the general public. At the end of the day, the only people who had to suffer the consequences were the children who contracted Measles because of Wakefield’s faulty claims.
Interestingly, findings are started to suggest that a third dose of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine may provide enhanced immunity against Mumps in young adults already vaccinated with two doses of MMR in the Netherlands (Kaaijk et al., 2019). Young adults given MMR-3 had increased antibodies levels associated with the Mumps virus specific immunoglobulin G (Kaaijk et al., 2019). These findings are significant because it suggests that a third MMR vaccine among vaccinated individuals may provide additional protections for a longer amount of time against Mumps. The most interesting finding was that the MMR-3 provided more antibody response tested against an outbreak strain (Kaaijk et al., 2019). I thought this study was particularly interesting because it may suggest that additional vaccination may be more protective for areas where Mumps outbreaks are likely to occur. Should we be vaccinating ourselves more against Mumps, Measles, and Rubella? Additionally, how do we effectively communicate to the general population as a whole that additional vaccination may prove to protect us even more? These are some of the intriguing question that came to mind when reading these findings. It seems that a lot of research, regarding how vaccination is beneficial to protecting us against Mumps, Measles, and Rubella, is out there. However, how can we translate these scientific findings to wide scale action in the global population?
Infectious Disease 