ENGL 193
Carson Aubin
21063356
Assignment # 1 : Science Literature Review
January, 23, 2024
1. Original Article (Peer-reviewed)
Deer, B. (2011). HOW THE CASE AGAINST THE MMR VACCINE WAS FIXED.
BMJ: British Medical Journal, 342(7788), 77–82.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25766677
Summary of Original Article:
This article explains how some doctors claimed that the vaccine to MMR (measles, mumps,
and rubella), caused regressive autism. Regressive autism is a form of autism where the child
does not show any symptoms until they are 15 to 30 months of age. The author of this article,
Brian Deer explains how 12 children were being used as proof that this new vaccine caused
autism. The doctors would describe that some of the children showed signs of autism less
than seven days after being treated with the vaccine. Deer explains that in a lawsuit against
the vaccine, files from different hospitals proved that the parents of the children suspected
autism or other developmental disorders months before the children contracted MMR. The
lawsuit concluded by proving the vaccine for MMR did not have any correlations with
regressive autism. Also, many of the doctors that were proven to be wrong denied they used
false data to attempt to save their medical licence. This scare caused many parents to not
vaccinate their infants and has caused multiple deaths that could have been prevented with a
vaccine.
Question Framework:
Before reading ask yourself these questions:
Who are these authors? What journal is this? Might I question the credibility of the work?
The author is Brian Deer, he is a British investigative journalist that specialises in the medical
industry. Since this is his field of work, I would consider him credible.
Have I taken the time to understand all the terminology?
Yes, I read the description of the more technical and scientific words that I did not
understand.
Have I gone back to read an article or review that would help me understand this work better?
I did not read an article, but I read some of the Wikipedia pages that the questions
recommended, to better understand the vaccine scare during this period of time.
Am I spending too much time reading the less important parts of this article?
At the beginning I was reading too much of the less important information such as the back
story of some of the patients and other less important elements that are mentioned during the
lawsuit.
Is there someone I can talk to about confusing parts of this article?
I could speak to my professor if I am confused about this article, but the author wrote
everything very clearly and precisely.
After reading, ask yourself these questions:
What specific problem does this research address? Why is it important?
This article describes how many doctors thought that the vaccine for MMR was linked to
regressive autism. The author then writes that there is no correlation to this vaccine and any
type of autism. This is very important because this speculation has caused a massive scare of
vaccines leaving lots of infants unvaccinated.
Is the method used a good one? The best one?
Yes, I believe the method that was used is the best. The author summarised a very
complicated subject into an article that can be read and understood by anyone.
What are the specific findings? Am I able to summarize them in one or two sentences?
The specific findings are that the MMR vaccine does not cause regressive autism.
Are the findings supported by persuasive evidence?
Yes, the findings are supported by a lawsuit that happened in the past, and the affirmation of
multiple doctors.
Is there an alternative interpretation of the data that the author did not address?
No, the author created valid points, and shows proof so that there could be no alternative
interpretation.
How are the findings unique/new/unusual or supportive of other work in the field?
These findings prove that the MMR vaccine is not linked to regressive autism, this supports
the medical and drug industry, affirming to the public that this vaccine is safe for small
children.
How do these results relate to the work I’m interested in? To other work I’ve read about?
This article is not related to work that I am interested in, but it is interesting because vaccine
scares are very relevant in today's society.
What are some of the specific applications of the ideas presented here? What are some further
experiments that would answer remaining questions?
There are no other experiments that can answer remaining questions because it was proved
that this vaccine has no links to autism. But, if there are more speculations, they could follow
the same steps in an attempt to find a solution.
2. Peer-reviewed article from reference list
The Editors of The Lancet. (2010). Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia,
non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet (British
Edition), 375(9713), 445–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4
Summary of Peer-reviewed article from reference list:
This article describes A. J. Wakefield's findings that there could be a link between
gastrointestinal issues particularly ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, and developmental
disorders in children. These gastrointestinal issues are suspected by Wakefield to be linked to
autistic spectrum disorders. Also, there are numerous issues linked to the central nervous
system such as migraines, attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder, and abdominal epilepsy,
that are linked to food allergies. Both of the links to these different issues are unknown to the
research team. Wakefield speculates that the vaccine for MMR is one of the links to the
gastrointestinal issues and autistic spectrum disorders.
Question Framework:
Before reading ask yourself these questions:
Who are these authors? What journal is this? Might I question the credibility of the work?
The author is The Lancet, they are general medical journalists. They are a credible source, but
the work they describe in this article was proven to be wrong.
Have I taken the time to understand all the terminology?
I somewhat understand the general medical terms, but I do not know every medical issue in
this article because it is not as important.
Have I gone back to read an article or review that would help me understand this work better?
Yes, I read a previous article that used this article as a reference. I understand the general
concept of this article, and what links the doctors are making because I read another article
that speaks about this subject.
Am I spending too much time reading the less important parts of this article?
Yes, at first I spent lots of time trying to understand every medical term, but doing this was
not needed.
Is there someone I can talk to about confusing parts of this article?
I could communicate with my professor, but I did some research to understand the more
technical terms in this article.
After reading, ask yourself these questions:
What specific problem does this research address? Why is it important?
This research addresses a link between gastrointestinal issues with autism, and also a link
between central nervous system issues and food allergies. Both of these issues and links are
found in children and the doctors think the link could be the MMR vaccine.
Is the method used a good one? The best one?
I would say the method is not the best. This article is old, and the tone is very technical and
scientific. For the point the author is trying to make, a more formal tone should have been
used. With a formal tone, the public could have better understood what the research was done
on.
What are the specific findings? Am I able to summarize them in one or two sentences?
The findings are that there is a link between digestive issues and autism, there are also links
between nervous system issues and food allergies. Both links are found in younger
populations.
Are the findings supported by persuasive evidence?
The evidence is supported by a doctor and his team, so I would say that it is supported by
persuasive evidence.
Is there an alternative interpretation of the data that the author did not address?
No, the links in between issues are clear and could not be mistaken for anything else.
How are the findings unique/new/unusual or supportive of other work in the field?
These findings were very new and big in the media when these findings were published,
because doctors were saying there could be a link to illnesses and the MMR vaccine.
How do these results relate to the work I’m interested in? To other work I’ve read about?
These findings don't relate to what I’m interested in, but they are related to some topics that
are present in today's society. Like the Covid-19 vaccine and all of its uncertainty in the
public.
What are some of the specific applications of the ideas presented here? What are some further
experiments that would answer remaining questions?
The findings the doctors made were accurate, but they used false data. These claims were
proved to be wrong in the future, so there has already been further research.
How this article relates to the original?
This article related to the original one because it is an entire research report on how the MMR
causes regressive autism. But, in the original article, the author proves that Wakefield's
research was false and he used fake information.
3. Peer-reviewed article from reference list
Squires, R. H., & Colletti, R. B. (1996). Indications for Pediatric Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy: A Medical Position Statement of the North American Society for
Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and
Nutrition, 23(2), 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005176-199608000-00002
Summary of Peer-reviewed article from reference list:
This article describes what an endoscopy is. An endoscopy is basically a long thin tube that
has a camera attached to the very end. This tube is passed through the mouth. This is done to
observe the digestive system. This article encourages the use of this method, it is said that
endoscopy can be more effective than radiology. It is also encouraged to use in infants and
children, as it is easy to use.
Question Framework:
Before reading ask yourself these questions:
Who are these authors? What journal is this? Might I question the credibility of the work?
The authors are Squires, Robert H. JrColletti, and Richard B, they work at the University of
Texas Southwestern Medical Centre. I would consider this work credible because they work
at a medical institute.
Have I taken the time to understand all the terminology?
Yes, the main points are said in a formal tone.
Have I gone back to read an article or review that would help me understand this work better?
No, the article was simply explaining how endoscopes are a good way to observe the
digestive system.
Am I spending too much time reading the less important parts of this article?
No, the article was short and only had important information.
Is there someone I can talk to about confusing parts of this article?
There were no confusing parts in this article.
After reading, ask yourself these questions:
What specific problem does this research address? Why is it important?
This article addresses why endoscopes are a good measure to observe the digestive system,
they are safer and better than radiology.
Is the method used a good one? The best one?
Yes, the method in this article is the best one, they properly proved why endoscopes are good.
What are the specific findings? Am I able to summarize them in one or two sentences?
The specific findings are that the endoscope is a good tool to use when the digestive system
needs to be observed. This method can be used on anyone.
Are the findings supported by persuasive evidence?
Yes, the findings are supported by medical researchers, and they used compelling evidence
like the endoscope is safer than using radiology.
Is there an alternative interpretation of the data that the author did not address?
No, there is not an alternative interpretation of the data explained by the author.
How are the findings unique/new/unusual or supportive of other work in the field?
The findings are not new or very special, they are just promoting the use of the endoscope.
How do these results relate to the work I’m interested in? To other work I’ve read about?
This article is related to the original article that I read because they used the endoscope to
observe the digestive system of the children with gastrointestinal issues.
What are some of the specific applications of the ideas presented here? What are some further
experiments that would answer remaining questions?
There is no other research that can be done, this measure is still used today which proves it is
useful.
How this article relates to the original?
This article is related to the original one because it speaks on a method that is being
encouraged to observe the digestive system. The original article cites this article because the
author speaks about Wakefield’s tests on children with gastrointestinal issues, where he used
an endoscope.
4. Peer-reviewed article published after the original
Coombes, R. (2019). Ten years of investigative journalism. BMJ (Online), 367,
l6892–l6892. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6892
Summary of Peer-reviewed article published after the original:
This article reflects on investigative journalism. There are multiple topics, such as the
Tamiflu medical scandal in 2009, the fake hip prosthesis in 2012, the truth about sport drinks,
and Wakefield’s fraudulent research on the MMR vaccine. The false research on the MMR
vaccine was the more relevant part of the article for my research. Rebeca Coombes explains
how the British Medical Journal caught Wakefield performing fake research and creating
false information. He did this to link the MMR vaccine with regressive autism.
Question Framework:
Before reading ask yourself these questions:
Who are these authors? What journal is this? Might I question the credibility of the work?
This author is Rebeca Coombes, she works for the BMJ. She is a credible source because she
is only reflecting on different scandals that happened in the past, and that have been proven to
be scandals.
Have I taken the time to understand all the terminology?
There is no complicated terminology in this article.
Have I gone back to read an article or review that would help me understand this work better?
This article was easy to understand.
Am I spending too much time reading the less important parts of this article?
No, there were no unimportant parts in the article.
Is there someone I can talk to about confusing parts of this article?
There were no confusing parts in this article.
After reading, ask yourself these questions:
What specific problem does this research address? Why is it important?
This article addresses different scandals from the past ten years, but more specifically,
Wakefield's false research.
Is the method used a good one? The best one?
Yes, the method used in this article is very good, it explains everything very well.
What are the specific findings? Am I able to summarize them in one or two sentences?
There are technically no specific findings in this article. It encompasses different findings
such as when the government held influenza vaccines, how Wakefield did false research, how
Deborah Cohen created fake hip prosthesis and ran it through tests, and how sports drinks
companies are paying scientists to review their drinks.
Are the findings supported by persuasive evidence?
Yes, there are further articles that back these claims.
Is there an alternative interpretation of the data that the author did not address?
No, there are no other alternative interpretations of the data, the article is very clear.
How are the findings unique/new/unusual or supportive of other work in the field?
The findings are not new, they are older findings being brought up ten years later.
How do these results relate to the work I’m interested in? To other work I’ve read about?
This article sums up the original article I read.
What are some of the specific applications of the ideas presented here? What are some further
experiments that would answer remaining questions?
There was no research done in this article, the author refers to older articles that were
investigative journals in the medical industry.
How this article relates to the original?
This article is related to the original one because it mentions how Wakefield used false
information from his patients to try to create a new disorder. The article refers to the original
one that proves Wakefield was wrong.
5. Non-scholarly article
Bueckert, K. (2023, December 26). Waterloo region’s COVID booster rate lags behind
national average | CBC News. CBCnews.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/waterloo-region-wellington-guelp
h-covid-booster-rate-1.7068259
Summary of Non-scholarly article:
This article says that only 10.9% of people in Waterloo have their vaccination boosters for
COVID-19. While the average percent of people over the age of five years old in Canada that
do have the latest booster is 15%. The author quotes a doctor that claims COVID-19 is still
very dangerous and she advises people to get the latest booster.
RADAR Framework:
This article is very relevant because it talks about COVID-19 and how it can still be
dangerous. The author says that less than 11% of Waterloo’s population have the latest
booster. This article is relevant for anyone in Canada because it is addressed to everyone that
is eligible to get the vaccination booster. The authority of this article is a journalist that works
for CBC News. This journalist does quote Dr. Hsiu-Li Wang, this is a very credible source as
she is a licensed doctor. This article was published on December 26, 2023. This means that it
is very relevant in today's society because it is an ongoing conflict.
This article is not peer-reviewed, it is written by a journalist that works for CBC News. CBC
News is in favour of the COVID-19 vaccination, which means they could be more biassed
when talking about people getting vaccinated. Overall, the article is well written and uses a
credible quote from a doctor, making it accurate. The reason this article was written is
because only 10.9% of people in Waterloo have the latest vaccination booster. The
government is encouraging people to get the newest booster because they are warning people
that COVID-19 is still dangerous. To conclude, the reason this article was written is to warn
the people of Canada that COVID-19 is still a danger.
How this article relates to the original?
This article is related to the original one because Wakefield created a vaccination scare about
the MMR vaccination. He claimed it was linked to causing regressive autism in younger
children. In this article, the author is trying to promote the COVID-19 vaccine. The relation
to today and the time frame of the original article is that both societies are facing a vaccine
scare.