Study adds to evidence of vaccine safety
Reviewed By
Rating
Study adds to evidence of vaccine safety
Our Review Summary
The story does a reasonable job in describing the study as published in Pediatrics. Although there are some lapses in the story, the report provides an adequate review of the study and its relative importance. Although thimerosal has been reduced or removed in pediatric vaccines, the issue of autism and vaccines remains in the public memory.
The results of this study are reassuring from the view that they indicate that the levels of thimerosal which had previously been used in vaccines do not play a role in the development of autism.
Parents make decisions on the use of vaccines on an ongoing basis. Although experts in infectious disease would argue there are really no options, parents do resist and refuse to appropriately vaccinate their children based on an unfounded fear of autism.
Criteria
Not Applicable
The story was about thimerosal being reduced or eliminated from vaccines, so cost is not an issue in this context.
Not Applicable
The benefit of the pediatric vaccines was not the central issue of the story but rather the risks associated with their use.
Satisfactory
The study was intended to determine if a causal relationship could be attributed to the use of thimerosal in pediatric vaccines. As such the theoretical harms of the vaccine are described correctly. However, an important element missing in the story is the downside of not immunizing children. The story would have been enhanced with a brief comment about the negative impact of avoiding immunization (including the use of influenza vaccine).
Satisfactory
The story correctly describes the study design and the relative uniqueness of the methods used. The conclusions of the study are appropriately noted in the report.
Satisfactory
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
Satisfactory
Two individuals with expertise in vaccines and with no connection to this study were interviewed as part of this story.
Not Satisfactory
The story provided little or no information about decisions beyond simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’ concerning vaccination.
This story reported on a study of two vaccines against the same disease with different levels of thimerosal. So, for example, are there ever choices to be made about levels of other preservatives in vaccines? The story did not provide information about the benefits or harms associated with vaccination in general.
Satisfactory
The story was about a study that compared outcomes in youngsters who had received vaccines with different levels of thimerosal. The story correctly points out that since 2001, thimerosal has not been used as a preservative in pediatric vaccines in the US other than flu vccine.
Satisfactory
The story was about two vaccines for whooping cough with different levels of the preservative thimerosal. The story also reported that the preservative thimerosal is no longer used in vaccines in the US. Therefore, this story is about a treatment that is not available.
Satisfactory
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Total Score: 7 of 8 Satisfactory
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like