Denmark: Autism-MMR link back?

[shanek]

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

And that that correlates with the increase in MMR vaccines.

You still haven't said what "ideas" of mine this supposedly supports.

 

[CFLarsen]

And that that correlates with the increase in MMR vaccines.

Why is that a concern? It clearly has nothing to do with MMR vaccines.

You still haven't said what "ideas" of mine this supposedly supports.

That secondhand smoke doesn't cause lung cancer.

 

[shanek]

Why is that a concern? It clearly has nothing to do with MMR vaccines.

I want to see the statistical analysis I mentioned before I completely rule it out. Can you provide it?

That secondhand smoke doesn't cause lung cancer.

WTF does that have to do with MMR causing or not causing autism? Stick to the subject.

Answer straight, for once: What does MMR possibly causing autism have to do with my "ideas"?

 

[CFLarsen]

I want to see the statistical analysis I mentioned before I completely rule it out. Can you provide it?

You don't need it. If there was a causation between MMR vaccines (with thimerosal) and autism, we would see a dramatic drop in the number of 0-4 year olds diagnosed with it. We don't. Ergo, the vaccines don't have anything to do with it.

There is no need to complicate things, especially when the answer is right in front of you.

WTF does that have to do with MMR causing or not causing autism? Stick to the subject.

Answer straight, for once: What does MMR possibly causing autism have to do with my "ideas"?

I was pointing out the very different ways you look at the data: If a paper supports your idea, then you are willing to accept the same kind of "bias" you have not accepted in research which contradicts other ideas of yours.

You select your data. It's that simple. You've done it before, so it cannot be that much of a revelation to you.

(And if we could dispense with the rude language, I am sure that we would all be profiting from it. I am certain that Randi, to pick one, would be pleased...)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmm, I'm not a statistician, so cannot analyze their data that way. All I know is that I question their collectionof data since they are just wanting to debunk the Denmark study that already showed that there is no difference in autism rates when comparing vaccinated kids to unvaccinated kids.

This means that autism rates rise and fall with unvaccinated kids the exact same way with vaccinated. Thus, vaccination is no indication of any sort of cause to autism.

So the paper you posted only shows half of the story, which is to be expected from the authors who are notoriously anti-vaccine. I already posted links to other sites they are involved in, and are supported at, and they are also just as as willing to believe vaccines cause autism, cancer, MS, etc. without proof.

They feel vaccines are this huge conspiracy to push something harmful on our kids in order to support "big pharma", and that the government suppresses data that shows vaccines are harmful. This all without proof. That's okay, they don't need real proof, they just chuck out these worthless studies as their proof instead.

They want to offer alternatives like the "single jab". Yes, that's very good advice (not).

The authors will also try to tell you that vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome.

http://www.woodmed.com/Shaken Baby Web 2002.htm

They spout on vaccines paralysing the immune system (no proof and not even possible). They spout on that vaccines ARE NOT tested (completely untrue).
These guys are purveyors of pseudoscience, mistruths, and misinformation.

I find them and their site disgusting.
Can you see why I question them and their motives?

Please find a study from some credible sources on MMR and autism. I assure you there are none that say it is a legitmate concern.

 

[shanek]

You don't need it. If there was a causation between MMR vaccines (with thimerosal) and autism, we would see a dramatic drop in the number of 0-4 year olds diagnosed with it. We don't. Ergo, the vaccines don't have anything to do with it.

Except that, as the paper pointed out, most diagnoses of autism in Denmark don't happen until after age 5. That may make the 0-4 age group too statistically insignificant to rule it out on that basis.

I was pointing out the very different ways you look at the data: If a paper supports your idea, then you are willing to accept the same kind of "bias" you have not accepted in research which contradicts other ideas of yours.

Then ANSWER THE QUESTION: How does this paper "support my idea"? What "idea" of mine is it supporting?

 

[shanek]

Hmm, I'm not a statistician, so cannot analyze their data that way. All I know is that I question their collectionof data since they are just wanting to debunk the Denmark study that already showed that there is no difference in autism rates when comparing vaccinated kids to unvaccinated kids.

Okay: why? Can you show evidence of their bias?

This means that autism rates rise and fall with unvaccinated kids the exact same way with vaccinated. Thus, vaccination is no indication of any sort of cause to autism.

So the paper you posted only shows half of the story, which is to be expected from the authors who are notoriously anti-vaccine.

Except that you haven't shown how Goldman and Yazbak are "notoriously anti-vaccine." You more than sufficiently showed it for Wakefield, so if you could do the same for those two it would go a long way.

This is also an accusation of cherry-picking, one that I would like to see explained at length, as well. What data was left out?

They want to offer alternatives like the "single jab".

This makes no sense...if, as you claim, they believe that vaccines are a plot by the pharmaceutical companies to bilk us of money or whatever, then why would they support the single-jab over the combined vaccines?

The authors will also try to tell you that vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome.

http://www.woodmed.com/Shaken Baby Web 2002.htm

I didn't see Gloldman's name in there anywhere, and I only saw Yazbak cited as a reference (and a vague reference at that).

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Except that, as the paper pointed out, most diagnoses of autism in Denmark don't happen until after age 5. That may make the 0-4 age group too statistically insignificant to rule it out on that basis.

A lot of diagnosis "aren't made" until after a certain age. That doesn't mean the child isn't ignored until that age if they are showing signs. My son had to be in a hospital setting (home on weekends) for a full six months before they would actually "diagnose" him. That means if he had all the signs of Tourettes from a very young age to adulthood without this mandatory stay for the diagnosis, then he would not have been diagnosed, ever.

So although they may not get the "diagnosis" until a certain age, it doesn't mean that the child wasn't already getting whatever help or services that may have been available to the child before that age.

We just can't be sure what exactly is Denmark's procedures and processes are before handing down the diagnosis. Maybe most children have to have the signs and symptoms until then, or you really can't tell for sure (in their eyes) if they have autism until that age and they have passed certain development stages.

Others with autistic children would better be able to say anything on that. All I know is that I could not get my child diagnosed before age 7. You won't find me trying to blame vaccines.

Did you know there are a far higher number of people with schizophrenia than autism? Why aren't they blaming vaccines for schizophrenia? One out of hundred people have schizophrenia. Thing is, you don't find out until people are older that they have it.

Autism shows up much earlier. It's easier to blame vaccines, or at least try to.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

This makes no sense...if, as you claim, they believe that vaccines are a plot by the pharmaceutical companies to bilk us of money or whatever, then why would they support the single-jab over the combined vaccines?



I didn't see Gloldman's name in there anywhere, and I only saw Yazbak cited as a reference (and a vague reference at that).

Good question shanek. They just do this to try to show that there is SOMETHING wrong with the combined vaccines. There is never any logic to their "logic".

You want more on their crazy theories, okay, look through the website you found the study on. Try finding logic there.

http://www.aapsonline.org/sbs.htm
http://www.aapsonline.org/press/abortioncancer.htm


More propoganda from them both:

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/

You will have no problem finding Yazbak and Goldman publications there.

That should fill you with enough anti-vaccine nonsense for a few months or years should you read every bit and all their references. They even support Hilary Butler of all people. Ugh.

I can't blame people for believing them, there is soooo much they put out. They and their sources do not stand under actual scrutiny though. This never deters them from spouting more and more junk.

 

[shanek]

A lot of diagnosis "aren't made" until after a certain age. That doesn't mean the child isn't ignored until that age if they are showing signs.

I understand that. But it does make me wonder if those statistics are as significant as the ones in the older age groups.

Others with autistic children would better be able to say anything on that. All I know is that I could not get my child diagnosed before age 7.

We'd had our suspicions before he turned 2. We took him to a testing center, who couldn't come to anything conclusive but said there was a developmental delay of some kind (duh, we knew that). They referred us to a place that took him through a 13-week observation program, and at the end said he was "probably" autistic, although he was such a borderline case it was hard to pin it down directly. But by the time he was 4, there was no denying it.

Of course, that's my own anecdotal, unscientific experience, so make of it what you will.

You won't find me trying to blame vaccines.

I'm not either, but I want to make sure it's not at least a possibility.

Autism shows up much earlier. It's easier to blame vaccines, or at least try to.

OTOH, it's also easier to tell within years of a vaccination policy change whether or not there's a real effect.

 

[shanek]

Good question shanek. They just do this to try to show that there is SOMETHING wrong with the combined vaccines. There is never any logic to their "logic".

Well, they'd hardly be the only ones if that's the case.

You want more on their crazy theories, okay, look through the website you found the study on. Try finding logic there.

http://www.aapsonline.org/sbs.htm
http://www.aapsonline.org/press/abortioncancer.htm

More propoganda from them both:

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/

You will have no problem finding Yazbak and Goldman publications there.

That should fill you with enough anti-vaccine nonsense for a few months or years should you read every bit and all their references.

Yeah, again the time thing rears its ugly head...I'll get to them, though. Thanks.

They even support Hilary Butler of all people. Ugh.

I don't know who that is.

I can't blame people for believing them, there is soooo much they put out. They and their sources do not stand under actual scrutiny though. This never deters them from spouting more and more junk.

Correct me on something, though: isn't this journal peer-reviewed? If their data is so bad, how does it make it through the process?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

This peer-review process is one I'm not familiar with, since I'm just a layperson. I hope somebody here answers the question. I'm suspecting NOT. If it's peers like Wakefield, then what use would that be? It's not published in any peer-reviewed publication any way. That site is not a peer-reviewed "publication". You'll find plenty of peers that are legitimate doctors that will tell you that site is anything but factual. I first came across references to it in the Health Fraud lists.

I'll try to dig up what the doctors there say about it.

 

[Dragon]

Shanek,

I've read your first link again and noticed a couple of things, firstly -

Because we did not request population data stratified by vaccination status, we were unable to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts as had been done in historical studies.
other limitations.

(my bold)
Now, that suggests theat they could have been supplied with the data stratified by vaccination status. If so, why didn't they ask for it? It would surely have made for more reliable findings.

Secondly, what are comments like these doing in a scientific paper? -

When physicians and parents are told that vaccines are virtually completely safe, they are less likely to connect a severe adverse event with vaccination. Thus, vaccine-induced adverse events are underreported and grossly underestimated. Prior to publicity hinting that such a link might exist, there were very few, if any, physicians or parents willing even to consider the possibility that late-onset autism may be linked with MMR vaccine.

It suggests to me that these gentlemen have an anti-MMR bias.

Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D. is Editor-in-Chief of Medical Veritas:The Journal of Medical Truth. Here is Vol. 1,Issue 1,
In his Message from the Editor-in-Chief he says

Adverse reactions to vaccines and other interventions invariably
start as a small number of poorly described reports
which are anecdotal and easily attributed to chance. As the
numbers increase, those in authority in public health discern
something might be wrong and closer scrutiny is needed. When
the numbers reach the hundreds, decision makers have to persuade
themselves that every adverse reaction is a false alarm—
not a single one is a true association. When that happens the
numbers support a causal relationship except for the skeptics
and those with conflicts of interest—who accept nothing but
“scientific proof.”

There are abstracts of the published articles in the above link which make it clear where this journal is coming from.


F. Edward Yazbak, M.D.,F.A.A.P. is even more prominent in the anti-vax firmament as Eos' links show. Here is a piece of his entitled Autism in the United States: a Perspective (pdf).
He believes that autism should be seen as a disease triggered by "environmental insult" to the immune system and that genetics only accounts for pre-disposition and is not the cause.
He does have personal experience of autism -

(from the above link)
Competing interests: Dr. Yazbak is the grandfather of a boy with regressive autism, typical "autistic" enterocolitis, and evidence of measles genomic RNA in the gut wall.

Edited to add - its 0049 in London, Goodnight!

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Healthfraud List Impression:

the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is an anti-vaccination, anti-medicine pack of loons.

Found Here

 

[shanek]

This peer-review process is one I'm not familiar with, since I'm just a layperson. I hope somebody here answers the question. I'm suspecting NOT.

They claim it is, all over their site. Any way we can find out for sure?

If it's peers like Wakefield, then what use would that be?

I don't know enough about the peer-review process to be able to comment on that.

It's not published in any peer-reviewed publication any way. That site is not a peer-reviewed "publication".

According to them, it is.

I'll try to dig up what the doctors there say about it.

Looking forward to it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Except that, as the paper pointed out, most diagnoses of autism in Denmark don't happen until after age 5. That may make the 0-4 age group too statistically insignificant to rule it out on that basis.

According to the Danish Census Bureau, there were 335,507 children between 0-4 in 2002 and 351,253 children between 5-9 in 2002 (the last year in Goldman). (The latter number is higher because of immigration).

Take a look at the graph again (Goldman, graph 2). You have about 43 cases per 100,000 for 0-4 year olds, and about 68 cases per 100,000 for 5-9 year olds. I would say that the 0-4 year age group is not statistically insignificant to rule it out on that basis.

Why are 0-4 year olds still diagnosed with autism, if they are not getting the thimerosal vaccine anymore?

Then ANSWER THE QUESTION: How does this paper "support my idea"? What "idea" of mine is it supporting?

I made my point on this. If you want a pissing contest, go elsewhere.

 

[Darat]

They claim it is, all over their site. Any way we can find out for sure?



I don't know enough about the peer-review process to be able to comment on that.



According to them, it is.

...snip...

It's a "failing" of the peer review process in that it actually means nothing in itself; it all depends on the quality of the “peers” doing the review.

You and I could start a journal about, say creationism, and then because we've read the Bible decide we are "peers" and then every paper that is submitted we could "peer review" and truthfully state "Our journal is peer-reviewed."

 

[Prester John]

I haven't followed all the links but here is one about what i believe to be the original paper (its not the paper but a nice summary).

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band118/b118-5.html

 

[shanek]

Secondly, what are comments like these doing in a scientific paper? - It suggests to me that these gentlemen have an anti-MMR bias.

I think you're taking it out of context. The first sentence of that paragraph reads: "Other historical studies concluding that there is no link between MMR vaccine and autism had insufficient follow-up time or inadequate statistical power owing to small sample size, utilized passive surveillance, demonstrated conflicts of interest, or had other limitations."

It's clear that they are referring to problems with the other studies and the effect they mention makes perfect sense to me.

In his Message from the Editor-in-Chief he says There are abstracts of the published articles in the above link which make it clear where this journal is coming from.

Thanks. I'll check it out.

F. Edward Yazbak, M.D.,F.A.A.P. is even more prominent in the anti-vax firmament as Eos' links show. Here is a piece of his entitled Autism in the United States: a Perspective (pdf).
He believes that autism should be seen as a disease triggered by "environmental insult" to the immune system and that genetics only accounts for pre-disposition and is not the cause.

Likewise.

 

[shanek]

Healthfraud List Impression:

Found Here

Well, as far as that link goes, it's nothing more than an assertion of Bowditch. The other links I think are going to be much more useful to me.