In 1998, researcher Andrew Wakefield and others published a since retracted study in The Lancet that linked the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine with autism in children. While an investigation found the study's data didn't back this claim, vaccine skepticism likely increased after its publication, possibly thanks to negative media coverage of MMR vaccines, according to a peer-reviewed study published Aug. 19 in Plos One.
For the study, researchers from Oklahoma State University and Colorado State University examined whether the 1998 study increased the public's MMR vaccine safety concerns by evaluating the number of MMR reports filed to the HHS Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, before and after its publication. Additionally, the researchers evaluated the volume and tone of MMR vaccine stories from two years before and after the study was published.
The authors found that less than 2,000 adverse MMR vaccine events were reported to VAERS per year before the study was published. That yearly amount doubled to more than 4,000 by 2004, the authors said.
To make sure this growth wasn't affected by changes in how parents reported to VAERS, how providers diagnosed autism or the possibility of an uptick in vaccine skepticism in general, the researchers looked at adverse reaction reports to the haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine. The researchers found no effect on adverse event reports for the vaccine, which they would have expected if there were changes to how parents report the events or more general vaccine skepticism, the authors said.
The authors concluded that vaccine skepticism increased after the 1998 study was published, and was "potentially made possible by increased negative media coverage of MMR." The study "offers an opportunity to learn more about the effects of COVID-19 vaccine media coverage on attitudes toward vaccination," the authors added.
"Medical researchers and journalists need to work together in order to contextualize new scientific findings," Matt Motta, PhD, an assistant professor of political science at Oklahoma State University, told Becker's. "New scientific findings are being produced all the time. Whether or not they're advancing previous knowledge, whether or not others in the medical literature have tried to study these issues before, and how it is that their methods compare across studies — that tells us a lot about how much weight we should give new evidence, whether that's us in the public [or] whether it's hospital administrators."