I am not a fan of how newspapers use headlines to misrepresent stories to provke unwarranted fear, and heightened risk perception. Today, the Ottawa Citizen published two stories about seasonal and H1N1 vaccine. The first story, For Guillain-Barre survivors, flu shot stirs up unwelcome memories, emblazoned on the front page has all the elements of what is regrettably become the norm in newspaper headlines. Headlines are not under control of the journalist. The article was written by Sharon Kirkey.
Ottawa Citizen journalist Dan Gardner’s book, Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear discusses this journalistic approach to sensationalizing news called the Example Rule.
This rule is used to present rare occurrences as if they are common or lurking among us, misrepresenting true risk. Therefore, it was no great surprise to read the front-page headline of today’s Ottawa Citizen continuing this tradition. It outlines the history of a woman who develops a rare neurodegenerative disease called Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS) and implies a link to the flu vaccine.
The medical content of the story accurately presented the risks of developing GBS, about 1-2 per 100, 000 people. There is some evidence that indicates that the flu vaccine may add an extra 1 per 1 million people. However, the headline clearly did not reflect this. It cites one Ontario study that the seasonal flu vaccine increases the relative risk of contracting GBS by 45 percent.
The absolute risk change of the 1 in a million increase was mentioned immediately following the 45 per cent claim. This former should have been the only statistic cited.
Relative risk is presented to emphasize dramatic change. It is used by media, pharmaceutical companies, food manufacturers, and the Natural Health industry among others to bolster their health claims.
Relative risk does not provide context for the change in risk and should not be included in health reporting. However, it is the number that will be cited by the reader when they discuss this issue with others, hence the problem of skewed risk perception.
The story ends with the woman who had GBS stating, “I made a promise to myself, that if I ever walk again, I will do whatever it takes to keep whatever doesn’t belong in my body out of it.” Although it is understood that traumatic experiences can influence one’s sense of risk, the statement is used to conjure up the idea that unnatural substances are implicated in the disease process and are to be avoided.
If that were the case, one could argue that we should avoid touching any manufactured product, walking down the street and being exposed to car exhaust’s polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and using chemical cleanser’s and agents among others. Exposure to some of these potentially harmful compounds is likely in the parts per million or billion as well. We do not routinely think about this because our sense of risk from these everyday products and activities is low.
News reporting should present information with context. The public should be treated with respect, which includes removing the fear mongering for the sake of selling newspapers, TV and radio shows and magazines. Globe and Mail health reporter Andre Picard has commented on this issue as well as Dr. Noni MacDoanald in an article written for the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
The second story written by Pauline Tam, Our best shot against swine flu?, deserves kudos to the reporter for excellent evidenced-based content and science writing.
Ms. Tam accurately represented the uncertainty that is inherent in medical research yet clearly emphasized the strength of evidence against many misperceptions about the flu vaccine.
She covered the issue about adjuvants or immune system boosters and reviewed how the adjuvant improves efficacy of the vaccine. The adjuvant, squalene, is produced by our liver and is found in many foods as natural oil.
One wonders why, given the focus by some groups on how natural products are better than synthetic, there is such controversy. It would make sense that the logic should remain consistent.
Ms. Tam also reviews the preservative thimerosal found in some multidose vaccines and cites evidence from numerous reputable sources regarding its safety profile.
What Ms. Tam accomplished it to foster critical analysis of health information and present it in context allowing the reader to make an informed decision and risk assessment. She shows medical research is always evolving and is not perfect (nor should it ever be if we are to continue to learn) and how it is a jigsaw puzzle of information pieces that are brought together to create the best picture to date about flu vaccine efficacy and indication for use.
Background:
The evidence-based website Up to Date cites this data:
Vaccination — Guillain-Barré syndrome has followed vaccinations, but this danger may be overstated.
Influenza vaccination — In the United States, an increased risk of GBS was associated with the swine influenza vaccine in 1976, although the severity of the risk has been controversial. Subsequently, no increased risk was observed up to 1991.
Individuals who received either the 1992-1993 or 1993-1994 influenza vaccinations were not at significantly increased risk for GBS, but combining the two seasons suggested that influenza vaccination resulted in approximately one additional case of GBS per million patients inoculated. This risk appears to be substantially less than the overall health risk posed by naturally occurring influenza.
The annual reporting rate of GBS following influenza vaccination in adults declined significantly from 1996-1997 through 2002-2003 in the US. Nevertheless, the long onset interval for post vaccination GBS compared with other post vaccination adverse events (median 13 days versus one day, respectively) is consistent with a possible causal association between GBS and influenza vaccine.
Other data are conflicting, but suggest that influenza vaccination is associated with a low or negligible risk of GBS. In a self-matched case control series from Ontario, Canada that identified 269 hospital admissions for GBS diagnosed within 42 weeks of receiving influenza vaccination, the estimated relative incidence of GBS during the primary risk interval (weeks two through seven after vaccination) compared with the control interval (weeks 20 through 43) was 1.45 (95% CI 1.05-1.99). However, a separate time-series analysis of 2173 hospitalized cases of GBS showed no statistically significant increase in hospitalizations for GBS after institution of the universal influenza vaccination program in 2000.
References:
Guillain-Barre syndrome following influenza vaccination.
Haber P; DeStefano F; Angulo FJ; Iskander J; Shadomy SV; Weintraub E; Chen RT
JAMA 2004 Nov 24;292(20):2478-81.
The Guillain-Barre syndrome.
Ropper AH
N Engl J Med 1992 Apr 23;326(17):1130-6
Guillain-Barre syndrome after influenza vaccination in adults: a population-based study.
Juurlink DN; Stukel TA; Kwong J; Kopp A; McGeer A; Upshur RE; Manuel DG; Moineddin R; Wilson K
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Nov 13;166(20):2217-21.
The Guillain-Barre syndrome and the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 influenza vaccines.
Lasky T; Terracciano GJ; Magder L; Koski CL; Ballesteros M; Nash D; Clark S; Haber P; Stolley PD; Schonberger LB; Chen RT
N Engl J Med 1998 Dec 17;339(25):1797-802.