Sign in to follow this  
vinceb

MMR and Autism

Recommended Posts

vinceb

It has now been established beyond doubt that Wakefield, the English physician who said that there was a link between MMR and autism has been found to have manipulated the patient selection and the data in his research, and all for that oldest and basest of motives - money, and has in the process put back the acceptance of immunization against measles, munps and German measles for years.

He has been struck off the United Kingdom medical register and may no longer practice as a physician.

For several years he has played the martyr role effectively and in the process garnered the sympathy of people and misled the people who believed in him and set back the research into Autism for years. And so the wheel turns, but I suppose there will still be people who will anything believe any conspiracy theory fed to them.

The story is here and here.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eugene

or it is a conspiracy to discredit his findings so that they can continue making money.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vinceb
or it is a conspiracy to discredit his findings so that they can continue making money.

:cry:

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CharleneK

Oy, Vince! Now all the conspiracy theorists are going to crawl out of the woodwork again.....Prepare the tinfoil hats!!!! :cry:

Charlene

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vinceb
Oy, Vince! Now all the conspiracy theorists are going to crawl out of the woodwork again.....Prepare the tinfoil hats!!!! :cry:

Charlene

Yes, I'm sure they will be there and will ignore the fact that this doctor was no different than a snake oil salesman and in the process did a great deal of harm, ie

1. Herd Immunity only comes about when immunization covers from 75-90% of the population and the misinformation by Wakefield have led to lower immunization rates - one could postulate that some people were getting a free ride from the parents who did the right thing and had their children immunized (a small % of the population cannot be immunized for various reasons).

2. Research money is limited and Wakefield probably helped to misdirect research money.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CharleneK
Oy, Vince! Now all the conspiracy theorists are going to crawl out of the woodwork again.....Prepare the tinfoil hats!!!!

Yep, I told you so....

Charlene

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tracey22

What about the conspiracy that Osama was killed in 2001!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vinceb

Vince, please elaborate what was actually fraudulent in the 'research'. Is the 'research' you are referring to the 'Lancet paper'?

OJoy,

Sigh.

Did you miss the links I posted in the opening post of this thread?

Vince

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trevor&Anelle

I think that most non-vax parents have done plenty research. Of course there are some who haven't, but for the most part I find them to be well researched. To me it is a live and let live thing... I seriously cannot get riled up over someone's decision regarding the health, education or birth (these 3 things are often debated heavily) of their children. Of course, when I go the vaccination sub-forum on fora such as MDC, my head wants to explode.... but for the most part, I really can't fault that people think outside of what they are told by others and make their own INFORMED decisions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CharleneK
but for the most part, I really can't fault that people think outside of what they are told by others and make their own INFORMED decisions.

It is how people choose to inform themselves I have issues with...

Charlene

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johankok

My real question is what happened to his research supervisor(s), and the rest of the peer evaluations to be able to confer his degree. He must have had academic papers as well before that research was done. Thus the whole process, right through to him receiving a degree based on the research must have been flawed....

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tracey22

You seem to be quite negative regarding the use of MMRs. have any of your children been affected? is it only the MMR you do not agree with or is it the concept of general vaccinations?

Both my kids had MMR as well as all their friends (so i would say we know at least 60 kids) who all had MMR with NO issues!

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CharleneK

I would ask that we all think carefully before opening a debate on vaccinations again. This debate has occurred on the forums before numerous times, and never with good result. Please, just let this thread die a natural death...

Charlene

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johankok

Well Tracey, consider this. My eldest son was born in 1985 and the 2nd in 1986 followed by 2 others. The eldest had to go to a special language school at that time part of a special research division at the ???? hospital (my memory lost me there), and the second went to Unica and later to Vera Schools for autistic children. The second followed the classic autism pattern and talking etc up to 18 month and soon after having had the MMR started dropping back and was not talking at all at the age of 2,5, and in Unica at 3 years of age. This is roughly the same time when this research was done in the UK, and we were quick on it, never questioning the actual research, which turned out not to be properly executed.

Even today, taking completely different aspects into account, we are still not positive about certain types of inoculations, and are likely never to be, as we (together with friends and family whom are in the medical profession) investigated various inoculations, and believe that there are some that should be avoided, much on the same basis as Wakefield's research - i.e. not appropriate or biased research and or research methodologies and on the basis of material content in those. However, it would take a load of additional research to conclusively prove or disprove our position, thus it will stay a personal matter, not worth fighting over.

PS. The latter two kids did not have MNR and had no problems at all. The eldest is doing his masters in engineering, and the second did a NDIP in Mechanical Engineering and recently started on a B.Sc Computer Science. The latter is still -- lets put it this way - very shy....

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pretor

Ojoy, have a look at your Lancet paper link. You'll see the word "Retracted" printed in big, bold red letters all over the manuscript. That means it has no credibility, it is devoid of any truth, it is junk, just like Enron stock.

A question I have, and this is aimed at the medicos on here, is why is it acceptable in medical research to publish work based on such small sample sizes (in this case, 12 out of a population of hundreds of millions that have received vaccinations)? My grasp of statistics is not 100% but I fail to see how such a small sample size can be regarded as being statistically significant.

Edited by pretor
  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CharleneK
A question I have, and this is aimed at the medicos on here, is why is it acceptable in medical research to publish work based on such small sample sizes (in this case, 12 out of a population of hundreds of millions that have received vaccinations)? My grasp of statistics is not 100% but I fail to see how such a small sample size can be regarded as being statistically significant.

You're quite right; studies with such a small sample size should not be regarded as statistically significant. Like any other science, medicine should stick to the principles of research, namely randomisation, adequate sample size, absence of bias etc. etc. The problem is when so many interest groups claim a stake. The Cochrane Collaboration does a fairly good job at analysing the research, but not everyone pays attention.

My favourite quote? "The plural of anecdote is not data (or evidence)."

Charlene

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tracey22

Anyway, this is a quote from the journal you have linked:

"Using regression analysis and controlling for family income and ethnicity, the relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI

In order to get a positive statistical relationship, you need a positive r-squared. I wonder what their r-squared was in this article? the abstract does not say.

I am sorry O'Joy, but the article speaks to Autism or SLI. Many children have an SLI issue that is treated. A lisp is an SLI.

Also, I am sure you could draw a strong correlation (an r-squared of at least 0.7 upwards), if it was in your ib=nterests, that links the prevalence of peanut allergies to vaccinations, of peanut allergies to dust.

I know, that this a definite 100% correlation between a reduction in DEATHS attributable to smallpox, polio, measles, and the use of those vaccines.

They have controlled the test subjects for ethnicity and family income - so what does this mean - did they only test wealthy whites, poor whites, wealthy latinos or poor latinos, north american indians - on and off reservations....

This abstract does not mention MMR

Edited by Tracey22
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tracey22

during a presentation last month, in Austin, Texas.
.

You can see the actual Lancet Paper yourself, i.e.: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children

Findings in the Lancet Paper have been replicated, i.e.:

What they found was that the regression into autism followed intestinal abnormalities that were causing the affected children a great deal of pain and discomfort. Once the intestinal issues were addressed then the children's cognitive/behavioural issues improved as well.

OJoy, this Lancet paper has been retracted. That must say something....

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pretor

This addresses the paper in question: Ho-Hum

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johankok

This addresses the paper in question: Ho-Hum

I may have missed it, but how is the study in the US addressing the study fudged study in the UK other than by inference? Unless the study in the US is proofed not to be self-standing.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johankok

Wakefield's research was based on a too small sample (mistake 1), but approved, however after a number of year, it came to light that he was not truthful in his research process, which caused the major problem. By the way, as far as I remember, that was an academic paper presented by him, and that he got a doctorate based on that research - i.e it was more than a case study.

The so-called "bad science" talks about a discredited idea - the only aspect is that the said research could not be used as proof, i.e. Wakefield's research is discredited, thus he proved "nothing". However that does not disprove his postulates. This is where my question came from... How can one correlate separate case studies (still a form of research) with that of Wakefield? I.e. what has the US cased studies to do with Wakefield's research, barring that it revolves around similar postulates, which were never proved or disproves. Dr. Walker's research has nothing to do with that of Wakefield, barring that he is looking at the specific measles strain's which originates from the vaccines.

One should forget about Wakefields' results, correct or incorrect, those results are clearly scientifically unacceptable, this does not go to say that his conclusions were incorrect, however one should not use his results as proof anymore.

By the way I do have a highly functional Autistic child and one that had a LSI problem (not the had) (Tracy, this form of LSI is not a physical impairment, but rather relates to a linguistic/speech type of problem) and as a result have followed the research in these areas with more than a passing interest. Both of them are mechanical engineers, and continuing their studies.

Our 3rd and 4th children had no vaccinations at all, and we did stop vaccinations on the older ones based on Wakefield and a number of other people's research. Wakefield's was the only one directly attributing the increase in autistic incidents to MNR. But that also brings another factor into play - what was the knowledge about autism before the '60s? Even today most doctors has very little knowledge in that area.

One of the very interesting (already a few years old) research includes brain scans on autistic people which clearly show the differences to those of "normal" kids. The latter may or may not directly relate to vaccines.

Having said all of this, I am still glad that we did stop vaccinations on out children, and would likely do the same again, even if I knew that Wakefield's research were discredited, as that would have been one straw that could have made a difference to the rest. Furthermore, should our children have been more "spaced out (in age)", then we would have in all likelihood stopped at two.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smurf

More importantly - was Thorsen's research fraudulant? There seems to be no evidence of this. Wakefields's research though is being called out as being fraudulent by bodies such as the British Medical Journal here

To quote "Deer shows how Wakefield altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories in order to support his claim to have identified a new syndrome; how his institution, the Royal Free Hospital and Medical School in London, supported him as he sought to exploit the ensuing MMR scare for financial gain; and how key players failed to investigate thoroughly in the public interest when Deer first raised his concerns."

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merida

I came across this - there is some breaking news regarding the link between MMR and autism.

Congressman Posey On House Floor - CDC Authors of 2004 MMR Paper Destroyed Documents

http://www.c-span.org/video/?327309-1/us-house-morning-hour&live=

At the bottom of Table 7, it also shows that for the non-birth-certificate sample, the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge. All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September '02 not to report any race effects for the paper. Some time soon after the meeting we decided to exclude reporting any race effects, the co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard-copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hard copies of all documents in my office, and I retained all associated computer files.

"I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper."

Their study showed that especially African American boys were at a much greater risk of autism. For example autism rates amongst Somalians in the US is 1 in 32. Their parents say that they didnt see this back home and it is not something that they would have missed, i.e. it's an obvious disorder.

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-finds-high-rate-autism-among-minneapolis-somali-community

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

Reminds one of how for decades the link between cigarettes and lung cancer was denied:

BTW, a co-author of the Wakefield paper won appeal of the GMC decision:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/mmr-doctor-john-walkersmith-wins-high-court-appeal-7543114.html

Today the GMC suffered a serious blow when Mr Justice Mitting, sitting in London, ruled the verdict and the decision to strike off could not stand.

The judge criticised the disciplinary panel's "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion".

The judge said: "It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again."

He urged that in future such cases should be "chaired by someone with judicial experience".

Edited by Merida
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merida

Scientists have found a plausible explanation for the link between vaccines such as MMR and autism.

Certain vaccines such as the MMR are made utilizing aborted unborn babies: This shows how the autism rate went up as additional vaccines made utilizing aborted unborn babies were added to the schedule:

Autism-Changepoints.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cathy K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this