Once Again No, Vaccines Did Not Harm Children in Mexico

A couple of weeks ago the autism-hating, anti-vaccine blog Age of Autism ran a story of vaccines killing and hospitalising several infants in Chiapas, Mexico during a routine immunisation programme.  As of this writing only one commenter linked to a news story of possible bacterial contamination and the author of the blog post hasn't even bothered to issue a correction.

However, Orac in his usual Respectful Insolence style correctly urged patience for the investigation to conclude and that bacterial contamination was a more likely explanation.  Well that investigation has concluded and it was a bacterial source but not from the vaccines themselves but rather externally during handling and administration:

• Although no hypothesis is not rejected, the only vaccine given in common to all children affected was that of Hepatitis B, so the research focused on the biological.
• The batch of the vaccine was properly certified.
• No adverse events were recorded after 100,000 doses were administered in various parts of the country since Oct. 2014.
• Results of blood cultures at that time showed the presence of the local external contamination, outside the biological vaccine, in particular bacteria, which was consistent with the clinical pictures of hospitalized children. Microbiology studies conducted on children reported the finding of Staphylococcus hominis, a type of bacterium commonly found in the skin of people. These findings rule out other bacteria, such as those found in the gastrointestinal tract and airways. Molecular studies demonstrated that isolated Staphylococcus hominis in different patients was the same, namely that the bacteria came from a single source of contamination.
• In conclusion, the Federal Commission for Protection Against Health Risks (COFEPRIS) analysis found that the vaccine was not defective and remained in temperature. Therefore, bacterial contamination occurred during the procedure of handling and application of the vaccine.  

While the conclusion that the vaccines were manufactured and stored properly can help establish confidence in vaccine programmes, two infants are dead and dozens were hospitalised due to improper handling of the vaccines.  This tragic result emphasises the need for more rigorous training of personnel administering any medications.  This was an avoidable error and the focus should be on that, not vaccinesdidit.

Pharma Shill Gambit? You Lose.

Anti-vaxx "activists" seem to be getting more shrill these days as more people are stepping up to the plate to counter anti-vaccine misinformation and register their disgust toward anti-vaxx parents putting others at risk and ushering back diseases such as measles.  The anti-vaccine misinformation groups really detest being called what they are...anti-vaccine and as Dr. Novella eloquently put it:

The anti-vaccine movement cannot win in the arena of science. In fact, they have already lost. So they are desperately trying to change the venue by framing the narrative as one about freedom, choice, and transparency. Ironically they are doing this with misinformation that detracts from transparency and freedom of choice.

Not only have they lost in the arena of science, anti-vaxxers never really understood science nor the scientific method to begin with and as such try to shut down rebuttal by accusing their opponents of being "Pharma Shills".  The Pharma Shill Gambit (coined by Orac many years ago) is an ad hominem tactic used by anti-vaxxers to avoid refuting their opponents' evidence.  Sadly, some notable "professionals" even resort to this tactic.  Hilariously Dr. Bob Sears attempted to to this to Catherina and I years ago when he issued a warning to his (now-defunct) forum readers.

There are rumors that SM and Cath are “secret agents” for vaccine manufacturers, planted here to combat my “anti-vaccine” advice. Although I wouldn’t put it past any company to do just that (makes perfect sense – have a couple of “scientific” parents work the blogs and posts instead of doctors or professionals – some parents would listen more to another parent), I have no evidence that such is the case. SM and Catherina claim they spend hours on this site each week for almost two years now out of the goodness of their hearts. I would love to believe that, but I would also expect such good-hearted people to come across good-heartedly in their posts toward people who question vaccines. That clearly is NOT the case, so that makes me question what type of people they really are.

Dr. Bob Sears even believes, in spite of all evidence against this, that any studies refuting a vaccine autism causation are conducted by pharma shills.  More recently, "journalist" Sharyl Attkisson, an anti-vaccine crusader accused a certain law professor of being a pharma shill via Twitter:

And just within the last couple of days, more shoddy reporting by NBC San Diego unquestioningly allowed notorious anti-vaxx "autism mom" Rebecca Estepp to accuse high school students of being pharma shills because she can't believe that high school students could be intelligent enough to see through anti-vaccine propaganda all on their own.

People accusing their critics of being pharma shills or better yet, pharma magnates do themselves no favours.  Those who do so appear incompetent and deluded enough to believe that this is an effective deflection.  Let's say for the sake of argument that we are pharma shills (granted this requires suspension of disbelief), we criticise or refute a point and are accused of being pharma shills.  How does this, in any way, invalidate our criticism or refutation?  The accuser is admitting that our knowledge is so impressive that we must have received specialised training/education/experience (and we have, just not at the Lord Draconis Zeneca's Académie of Shills and Minions).  The accuser is also admitting that they are out of their depth on the subject matter and are unable to intelligently respond.  Sometimes it is projection; often those who engage in the pharma shill gambit have books, videos and other dubious wares for sale and simply can't imagine people criticising them on their own dime.

So the next time someone accuses you of being a pharma shill, they lose.  Perhaps it's time to honour one of our esteemed "commanders" and call it Orac's Law.