Denmark: Autism-MMR link back?

[shanek]

Now I'm wondering how he happened across that crazy site he found the MMR article on that he posted here. Looking for stuff on 2nd hand smoke?

Just so you know, my son has autism, so any information about how autism may be caused (or, better still, even cured) is of great interest to me.

 

[Dragon]

Interesting. Are there any studies comparing the safety of MMR vs. "single-jab" vaccinations?

However, I'm less interested in the commentary than in the study itself. Although I'm puzzled as to why anyone would have any kind of bias against MMR vaccines particularly.

I don't know if there have been any such studies.
AFAIK the controversy has focused on the measles part of MMR. Mind you some anti-vaxers will tell you that giving three vaccines at once "overloads the infant immune system" which is arrant nonsense. The MMR vaccine contains 24 antigens but the human immune system can respond to many millions.
Google - mmr overloads immune system - for loads of references.

With three separate vaccines there is the obviously increased risk of infection before you get all three.

As to bias - well Wakefield's original study is compromised by legal aid funding he received (and failed to declare to The Lancet) relating to parents trying to prove a MMR/autism link. Some of the 12 (yes, that's all there were!) children in the study were part of that legal action. After the stir caused by the original study he went on, at a press conference, to recommend three separate vaccines, with no supporting evidence (certainly there was none in the study). As I said, I cannot trust the man.

I suspect you know most of this, shanek.
Fwiw - from a reformed socialist to a libertarian - I think the various government authorities are absolutely right on this one.

 

[Rolfe]

.... parents aren't very likely to admit that they broke the law and didn't have their children vaccinated, don't you think?

As far as I know, there is no law in Denmark requiring children to be vaccinated. I think it's important to get the facts right before trying to draw conclusions from them.

Rolfe.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

One problem I have is that I've discovered that autism covers such a wide continuum of things that it seems difficult to peg down any cause of it. My son is in a structured class of children with autism and other delays, and I can tell you that no two of the autistic children are alike. It's not like there's an autism gene or germ or hormone or anything objective that you can measure. It's basically a long list of things, and if you have a certain number of characteristics in this list to a degree that results in a developmental delay, then you're said to have autism. Diagnosing my son was a long and sometimes confusing process.

Thank you, this makes sense now, I started out on a similar search for information when my son was diagnosed with Tourettes. It was a long hard road to get the diagnosis as well.
I can understand your concerns and need for information. You are finding what I did, that some sources just take you down the wrong path to a place where you are banging your head against a wall trying to get reasonable answers. I'm sorry to say this source is notoriously misleading.

Any disorder has a spectrum, especially genetic ones. Not all people with Tourettes get OCD. Not all schizophrenics will have the paranoid schizophrenia. Not all people with OCD have Tourettes. Heck, not all brunettes have brown eyes. There are certain characteristics that ARE the disorder for sure though. All people with Tourettes have the tics. All brunettes have brown hair (I'm not talking about dyed either).

Some outside causes can injure the person the same way that can cause the genetic disorders, yes, but it is far less common. You can be born without hair altogether, or get it all chopped off. You can easily tell in most cases if there was an external cause, like the scissors, because it is more often than not obvious. Autism can be caused by encephalitus-the brain gets damaged. It is very hard to not remember that your kid had encephalitus, especially if the encephalitus came on because the kid got measles. More often though, the child gets autism for seemingly no reason.

Blaming vaccines for autism is like blaming vaccines for making one's hair blonde even though you used a dye. We know people will get autism even if they don't get vaccines. We know there is nothing in a vaccine to cause autism. Wakefield is grasping at straws to pinpoint a cause, and coming up with crazy things that cannot be found by anyone else found in studies that cannot be repeated by anyone else trying to get the same result doing the same study.

The source has been unreliable, always, and always including outtright lies as well. They have a notorious history. The source to me is like hitler. You know what he has done, you know what he is like, and you know he'd rather die than become anything but the monster he is. You also know he believes the drivel he spouts.

Please continue to ask your specific questions. It's the only way you'll get answers. I hope you have a lot of supports. Bring up information with your son's doctors too. That will help sort out what sources to trust. You will find a lot of sites on the internet will implore you to dump your "horrible" doctors who have helped you so much. You will be encouraged to try unreasonable "remedies" that have never been proven to work. You will be told vaccines caused autism. You will start to see the "two camps". One based on information, the other based on chasing their tails and throwing out misinformation.

All I can say is good luck. You are asking the right questions, and I hope you can sort through all the answers.

 

[CFLarsen]

There is no law in Denmark requiring children to be vaccinated.

It is highly important to get the facts right before trying to draw conclusions from them.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Oh, and the idiotic Wakefield claim that single "jabs" are better than combined is mind boggling. More on that:

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/Testimony-O99.htm

Questions have been raised about the benefits and problems associated with administering several vaccines at the same time or combining vaccines in the same syringe. There are factors that can limit the ability to combine vaccines and there are theoretical concerns that have been reviewed in detail in a workshop sponsored by the FDA, the National Vaccine Program Office, CDC and NIH2. These factors are taken into account in the FDA review of combination products. Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of vaccines administered simultaneously or in the same syringe. Several efforts to produce new combined vaccines have not been successful, but those vaccines that have been approved by the FDA have been carefully evaluated and found to be safe and effective. Experts serving on advisory committees for the CDC and the AAP review the data from these studies prior to making recommendations for general use.

Children benefit from combined vaccines because they are protected against several different diseases with a single injection, thereby reducing pain and discomfort from multiple injections. If we did not have combined vaccines, children would need to be brought to physician's offices or clinics far more often, perhaps even weekly during the first few months of life in order to protect them against serious infections. The use of combined vaccines can simplify the immunization process and record keeping for parents, physicians and public health officials.3

There is just no reason at all to say single vaccines are 'safer'. There is no difference at all in safety.

More on the Wakefield:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006D8F3.htm

A Whole index on MMR:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Sections/health/MMR/Index.htm

 

[shanek]

Mind you some anti-vaxers will tell you that giving three vaccines at once "overloads the infant immune system" which is arrant nonsense.

This I agree with.

With three separate vaccines there is the obviously increased risk of infection before you get all three.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid this isn't so obvious to me. Could you explain?

Some of the 12 (yes, that's all there were!) children in the study were part of that legal action.

Request for clarification: are you still talking about the Denmark study or is this a different one? This sounds like a much earlier one.

I suspect you know most of this, shanek.

I've looked into the earlier studies and yes, there were a lot of reasons why they were invalid. Does that mean I should stop asking questions about it?

 

[shanek]

As far as I know, there is no law in Denmark requiring children to be vaccinated.

That's the impression I got from reading this. If it's wrong, though, it's wrong. I'd like to see an authoritative source saying one way or the other; obviously, if it isn't, my point is invalid.

 

[shanek]

I can understand your concerns and need for information. You are finding what I did, that some sources just take you down the wrong path to a place where you are banging your head against a wall trying to get reasonable answers. I'm sorry to say this source is notoriously misleading.

It may be; I'm going to look at some more things this journal has published (this is the first time I've run into them) and see what they publish on other subjects. But I don't want to discard any babies in my haste to rid myself of filthy bathwater.

Blaming vaccines for autism is like blaming vaccines for making one's hair blonde even though you used a dye. We know people will get autism even if they don't get vaccines. We know there is nothing in a vaccine to cause autism.

Not trying to be confrontational here, but...how do we know there's nothing in a vaccine that can cause autism? How can we know that, if we don't know what the cause or probable causes of autism are to begin with?

Wakefield is grasping at straws to pinpoint a cause, and coming up with crazy things that cannot be found by anyone else found in studies that cannot be repeated by anyone else trying to get the same result doing the same study.

Small problem...the study in question wasn't done by Wakefield, and they only mentioned Wakefield as an historical reference, saying that he did the study, newer data "opposed" it, but that "new concerns" were raised by this data.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Not trying to be confrontational here, but...how do we know there's nothing in a vaccine that can cause autism? How can we know that, if we don't know what the cause or probable causes of autism are to begin with?



Small problem...the study in question wasn't done by Wakefield, and they only mentioned Wakefield as an historical reference, saying that he did the study, newer data "opposed" it, but that "new concerns" were raised by this data.

They have tested all the components of the vaccines. There are none that have been shown to cause autism when administered in the vaccine. Dead viruses/inactive viral parts cannot cause anything.

New concerns? Such as? Any concerns from Wakefield's viewpoint have been shown to be non-concerns ("single" vaccine as compared to multiple).

The other folks that did the study you posted are no different than Wakefield. They are just as misguided. None of their information has been shown to be factual, especially in the study.

Will wait for definitive proof otherwise, but will not hold my breath If you think you have any, please post.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not trying to be confrontational here, but...how do we know there's nothing in a vaccine that can cause autism? How can we know that, if we don't know what the cause or probable causes of autism are to begin with?

We can't. But what are you going to do, until we find out what causes autism?

Small problem...the study in question wasn't done by Wakefield, and they only mentioned Wakefield as an historical reference, saying that he did the study, newer data "opposed" it, but that "new concerns" were raised by this data.

What new concerns? The data shows that whatever causes autism, it isn't thimerosal.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

With three separate vaccines there is the obviously increased risk of infection before you get all three.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid this isn't so obvious to me. Could you explain?

...snip...

A MMR vaccine means less time "unprotected" for the child. A child receiving 3 separate jabs is exposed longer to the chance of getting one of the diseases. (The separate jabs are normally done several weeks apart.) A child having separate jabs is at a higher risk longer from at least 2 of the diseases then the child having all three at once.

Plus then the increased risk that goes along with every single injection, the chance of a parent not returning for all three.. and so on.

 

[shanek]

New concerns? Such as?

They're mentioned in the first couple pages of the study.

Any concerns from Wakefield's viewpoint

have nothing to do with this study.

The other folks that did the study you posted are no different than Wakefield. They are just as misguided.

Wakefield has been soundly discredited in this thread due to professional bias, self-interest, and sloppy science. Can you do the same with Goldman and Yazbak?

 

[CFLarsen]

They're mentioned in the first couple pages of the study.

Could you be a little more specific, so we are all on the same page here?

Wakefield has been soundly discredited in this thread due to professional bias, self-interest, and sloppy science. Can you do the same with Goldman and Yazbak?

Goldman and Yazbak's paper is "built" on Wakefield, the same way the BMA paper was "built" on the EPA study - which you considered flawed.

Therefore, this means that Goldman and Yazbak's paper is biased. Right?

 

[Dragon]

...

(Me, earlier - With three separate vaccines there is the obviously increased risk of infection before you get all three.)
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid this isn't so obvious to me. Could you explain?

Yes: Say you give a child the three serparate vaccines at six-month intervals - they will be unprotected for the diseases covered by the 2nd and 3rd shots for six months and a year respectively, compared to the all-in-one MMR. Sorry I wasn't clear before.


Request for clarification: are you still talking about the Denmark study or is this a different one? This sounds like a much earlier one.
I was talking about the earlier study involving Wakefield.

I've looked into the earlier studies and yes, there were a lot of reasons why they were invalid. Does that mean I should stop asking questions about it?
No, of course not, I hope you find some answers. I've probably let my bias against Wakefield, and anger at the anti-vax crowd in general (which I think is justified, of course!) lead me slightly away from the paper you quote in your OP.

On a personal note - our daughter had an anaphlyactic shock when she had her first MMR, stopped breathing, turned blue, the works. Precautions have been taken for all her subsequent jabs (oxygen and adrenaline immediately to hand etc,) but once we had sought proper advice, we never once considered not having her immunised.
Now I often wonder if I would hold the views I do had her subsequent development proved to be slow. I don't know, but I do try and remember the personal stories and distress that can lie behind some people's concerns about vaccinations. I don't hold the same compassion in this context for medics or journalists.

Here are a few links from the UK I've found useful on this issue, which in turn have links to various studies -
NHS MMR page
Alexander Harris - the solicitors acting for parents who believe their children to be vaccine-damaged.
Autism Independent UK
The Autism Research Unit at the University of Sunderland
The National Autistic Society
Bupa - large private health care provider.

I've already given some reasons for questioning the validity of the Goldman/Yazbak paper - I don't feel qualified to comment futher on their statistical methods.

 

[shanek]

Could you be a little more specific, so we are all on the same page here?

The data they were mentioning which comes from the fact that Demnark has universal records on both vaccination and autism diagnoses.

Goldman and Yazbak's paper is "built" on Wakefield, the same way the BMA paper was "built" on the EPA study - which you considered flawed.

Therefore, this means that Goldman and Yazbak's paper is biased. Right?

Claus, your ability to deliberately misrepresent someone's claims is paralleled only by your complete lack of moral fortitude to prevent you from doing it.

First, the BMA study was NOT biased because it referenced the EPA study; it was biased because they went into it with the conclusion already foregone. If you can show that Goldman and Yazbak did so here, then we can conclude that this study is biased as well.

Second, this study does NOT use Wakefield's data "the same way" that the BMA used the EPA study. The BMA USED THE DATA IN THE EPA STUDY—WITH NO REGARD FOR ITS PROBLEMS. Hence, its conclusions are flawed. This study DID NOT USE ANY OF WAKEFIELDS DATA— it merely REFERENCED it and ACKNOWLEDGED THE PROBLEMS WITH IT. It then presented the new data, and presented information showing that the problems with Wakefield's data were NOT PRESENT in this new study. Only someone as dishonest and bigoted as you could say the two are equivalent.

 

[shanek]

Yes: Say you give a child the three serparate vaccines at six-month intervals - they will be unprotected for the diseases covered by the 2nd and 3rd shots for six months and a year respectively, compared to the all-in-one MMR. Sorry I wasn't clear before.

Okay, thanks for explaining. I thought you were referring to some kind of risk of infection from getting the injections themselves.

I was talking about the earlier study involving Wakefield.

Well, I fully agree that that one has been debunked and is worthless.

No, of course not, I hope you find some answers. I've probably let my bias against Wakefield, and anger at the anti-vax crowd in general (which I think is justified, of course!) lead me slightly away from the paper you quote in your OP.

Thank you for acknowleging this. I hope you can go and read the Goldman paper again with less bias.

On a personal note - our daughter had an anaphlyactic shock when she had her first MMR, stopped breathing, turned blue, the works. Precautions have been taken for all her subsequent jabs (oxygen and adrenaline immediately to hand etc,) but once we had sought proper advice, we never once considered not having her immunised.

I would think, though, that the question should at least have entered your mind. As for my son, he's already had his immunizations so that's not an issue, but I'd still like to know.

Here are a few links from the UK I've found useful on this issue, which in turn have links to various studies

Thanks; I'll look at them when I have the time.

I've already given some reasons for questioning the validity of the Goldman/Yazbak paper - I don't feel qualified to comment futher on their statistical methods.

And I think it's been questioned reasonably enough as far as you've gone; I do want to see someone knowledgeable about statistics analyze the paper, though.

 

[CFLarsen]

The data they were mentioning which comes from the fact that Demnark has universal records on both vaccination and autism diagnoses.

Thank you. In what way are new concerns raised by these data?

Claus, your ability to deliberately misrepresent someone's claims is paralleled only by your complete lack of moral fortitude to prevent you from doing it.

We shall see about that.

First, the BMA study was NOT biased because it referenced the EPA study;

Allow me to point you to your own posts from this thread:

When I pointed to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services paper:

This uses the same bad data clearly debunked on Penn & Teller's show.

When I afterwards pointed to the BMA study, you had this to say about it:

And the evidence they reference? Yep—that very same debunked data! ONE BAD REPORT is resulting in all of this.

QED.

it was biased because they went into it with the conclusion already foregone.

This is an unsupported claim of yours.

If you can show that Goldman and Yazbak did so here, then we can conclude that this study is biased as well.

I am not out to show that Goldman and Yazbak are biased. I am pointing out that you are treating this differently, because it supports your ideas.

Second, this study does NOT use Wakefield's data "the same way" that the BMA used the EPA study. The BMA USED THE DATA IN THE EPA STUDY—WITH NO REGARD FOR ITS PROBLEMS.

So you keep saying...

This study DID NOT USE ANY OF WAKEFIELDS DATA— it merely REFERENCED it and ACKNOWLEDGED THE PROBLEMS WITH IT. It then presented the new data, and presented information showing that the problems with Wakefield's data were NOT PRESENT in this new study. Only someone as dishonest and bigoted as you could say the two are equivalent.

It is simply impossible for you to refrain from being a boor, especially when you are shown wrong.

Oh, well. I made my point.

 

[shanek]

Thank you. In what way are new concerns raised by these data?

Because it shows the effect still taking place in the absence of the problems with Wakefield's study.

Allow me to point you to your own posts from this thread:

ALL of those posts confirm what I said. NONE of the claims of bias came from the fact that they used the EPA paper, only that the fact that they used the DATA from the EPA paper invalidated the study.

This is an unsupported claim of yours.

I supported it with numerous quotes from the report and you know it.

I am not out to show that Goldman and Yazbak are biased.

But you must, if you want to show that this report is biased.

I am pointing out that you are treating this differently, because it supports your ideas.

Really? What "ideas" of mine does this support? Do you not have any idea how ridiculous and small-minded you look? Why do you have to turn every thread I participate in into a p!ssing match?

It is simply impossible for you to refrain from being a boor, especially when you are shown wrong.

How can I possibly have been "shown wrong" about anything in this thread, when I have made no claims to be "shown wrong" about?

Oh, well. I made my point.

If your point is that you're a bigot with some kind of mental malfunction that causes you to attack me and attempt to derail every thread that I post in, then your point is well made.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because it shows the effect still taking place in the absence of the problems with Wakefield's study.

What effect? That the number of autism in children is rising?