Autism - MMR vaccine link 1998 study retracted

[Snow]

The Lancet, a highly respected weekly medical journal published in England, in 1998 published a study that strongly implied a link between autism and MMR vaccination.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994743

- snip -
The original paper, which was based on parental and medical reports of just a dozen children, suggested a "possible relation" between autism, bowel disease, and MMR. The paper added it "did not prove an association".
- snip -
Ten of the original 13 authors of the controversial 1998 medical report which implied a link between autism and the combined MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella, have retracted the paper's interpretations.

The retraction will be printed in the 6 March issue of The Lancet, which published the original paper. One author could not be reached and two others, Peter Harvey and lead author Andrew Wakefield, refused to join the retraction.
- snip -
The retraction "is to be strongly welcomed", says Brent Taylor, head of pediatrics and child health at the UK's University College London. "There is overwhelming evidence that MMR vaccine does not cause autism," Taylor told New Scientist, citing several of his own studies. "This disputed paper is the only evidence in the mainstream medical press that it might."
- snip -

I wonder if our favorite anti-vaccine site, the whale, has picked up on this. Those of you worrying about whether to have your children vaccinated, hope this helps. I note with some amusement that as yet none of the usual crowd who worry about vaccinations seem to have noticed this bit of news - or if they have, haven't posted on it yet. But maybe I'm being overly cynical......

[trotsky]

1. Great find, Snow!

If I remember our anti-vaccination adherents correctly, this was a HUGE part of their argument. And now it's gone. Sadly, I'm pretty sure it won't change many minds.

[kath]

8. Yeah, it probably won't change many minds -- those people would rather

cite anecdotes than rely on any kind of real scientific evidence.

[SeattleDem]

2. was in NY TImes today too

but a much briefer little blurb.

Mother Jones has a contrary piece this month purporting the link, which will probably give folks more ammunition. It's a lengthy piece, and actually, a reasonable argument.

However, as I always say on this topic, I am amazed at people getting outraged over thimerosol in vaccines when mercury in our environment is a much bigger problem. If one of the causal factors in autism in mercury-induced neurotoxicity, why aren't the people who fight vaccinations rabid environmentalists? Why don't we ever hear them complain about the huge quantities of mercury that we now know cross the placenta? What about corporations spewing mercury emissions, which land in our soil (where we grow food), get into the fish we eat, etc? End of rant.

[trotsky]

3. Good rant.

I've brought that up to anti-vaccination people, and it gets ignored. "IT'S DIFFERENT, BECAUSE WE ARE INJECTING IT!" No, it's not. Mercury goes everywhere in your body no matter how it got in. Ah but what's the use?

[sendero]

4. There are those...

... who still think the vaccines are culpable but are less convinced that mercury is the culprit.

There are lots of other possibilities. In any event, in the fullness of time the truth will come out. And when slimy Repukes start slipping riders in legislation that exempts the makers of any responsiblity, well that is a smoking gun to me.

[bleedingheart]

9. You are correct...

My mom remembers her neighbors burying a two year old because of diptheria...today that would be a rarity...back then it was commonplace.
I love old cemetaries and especially those with beautiful/thoughtful inscriptions...and many of the graves are of children who died due to illnesses that are preventable today because of vaccines...

I also agree that our environment has more mercury to worry about...

[depakid]

5. The question remains

What accounts for the rather dramatic increases in the number of autism cases over the past 20 years? I've seen some of the criticims of the California study, but I don't find them very convincing (especially the ones claiming that the increase is due to solely to wider recognition and diagnosis, like Fombonnes recent statement to the BBC.

I think there's something more going on here- and that it's probably environmental.

What's your take?

[Snow]

6. My take is that the increase is due to wider recognition and

diagnosis. Sorry about that. There've been a couple of very good arguments with the california study, which is based on referrals into a state services program, that show while diagnoses of autism have risen, at the same time diagnoses of the icd code for 'mental retardation not otherwise specified' have dropped at the same rate. Lisa Croen is the author to look up on this. Mind you, this doesn't mean either Lisa or I or anybody else say, "well, that's it, case closed." and stop looking. We simply have strong doubts that there is a steep rise. The causes, however, are still a mystery, and we'd rather not clap the first suspect to come along into jail but keep looking for the real killers. My personal favorite, and one for which I've submitted a grant proposal to the feds, is that mothers who have a jumpy immune system (as shown by their having asthma or allergies) and who get a viral infection in the first trimester have an elevated risk of an autistic child. There's some nice animal models supporting this - look up Paul Patterson.

Changes over time or space is rates of a disease can be useful in suggesting hypotheses - but they can be misleading as well. Advocate groups often think they have to draw attention to a disease by magnifying the problem. They don't, not really - and that kind of thing can backfire when doubts are raised.

[bleedingheart]

7. I have to agree, I think it is wider recognition and more knowledge

of what is autism and what is mental retardation.

My son has Asperger's and to be honest I don't think it came from his vaccines. In fact, the people at Children's Hospital told me that this particular variant seems to run in families and I seriously think both my husband and his father have it but have been able to cope anyways because fortunately it isn't as debilitating as the more severe forms of autism.

[Snow]

22. Have you heard of the 'silicon valley hypothesis'?

It sounds a bit like a joke or something, but apparently there's more autism/aspergers than you would expect based on statewide rates in the silicon valley area. The hypothesis goes that since, autism is a spectrum, people who go into ultra-geeky & mentally challenging fields in the computer industry have some autism characteristics. Then you put them all together in large numbers, they start getting married & having kids, and, boom! - a little outbreak of autistic spectrum disorders amongst the kids. Interesting idea, eh?

[depakid]

11. Intersting that you'd mention an asthma connection

because rates are indisputably up and its a major public health concern (which of course, deserves its own thread). As you probably gathered from some of the other threads like this I've posted on- I'm not one to clap the manacles on the first suspect to come along- and I haven't really analyzed the numbers in detail- but the rise was dramatic enough that I question whether it can all be explained away. Could be it can, but it makes sense in any event to keep on looking.

It's an interesting hyposthesis you have about women's immune responses to prenatal viral infections- I've seen some psych articles discussing similar things with respect to schizophrenia. Definitely something worth checking out. I hope you get your grant.

I'm familiar with Patterson (as anyone who's ever read any neuroscience should be). I haven't had occasion to look at that particular work, though. He's still at CalTech I assume? Which means you probably know him.... Very cool.

[Snow]

13. The schizophrenia link is very solid....

but it occurs following viral infection in the second trimester, not the first.

Asthma, hmmmm. I think rates are up, but to my mind we haven't ruled out the alternatives very well yet. There're definitely some diagnostic shifts that have occurred - whether those are enough to explain changes I don't know. The biggest problem is lack of a uniform diagnostic tool - the ISAAC questionnaire comes close, but is not sufficiently valid yet, and is not universally used.

Re Paul Patterson - yup, he's still at caltech, in fact he went in on the proposal I mentioned as a co-investigator - helped me quite a lot writing the background for it. He's got this autistic mouse model, and he's published that, and he's also got a schizophrenic mouse model. Not sure how he tells when the mice are schizophrenic - have to ask him. I've got to get over there sometime & have a tour of his lab; haven't ever done that.

[Snow]

10. Just a little kick for the evening...

:kick:
and to allow our loyal vaccine opposition a look at the news.

[Snow]

12. And a final kick for those who might've missed it

:kick:
Hmmm. still none of the 'concerned about vaccines' crowd showing up. You folks are reading this, right? Isn't it refreshing to have a bit of good news instead of fright and doom?

[IconoclastIlene]

14. I have always wondered if the prevention is worse than the disease

for instance, why in hell vaccinate kids against chicken pox; I am not sure but most likely, more kids die from the reaction to the vaccination than the disease itself. Yes, I know adult chicken pox is very dreadful, however, most survive. Big deal, I have 1 little scar on my forehead from chicken pox that I got when I was two years old; from my older sibling who started school, of course.

I would like to see no vaccinations for any disease other than say life threatening ones like small pox, polio and that type of very serious disease, antibiotics for strep and staph of course are necessary.

I am not sure that today, even, if scarlet fever, whooping cough or pertussis would be fatal and I wonder how many kids get severe reactions from these vaccinations?

I never had german measles nor did I have the vaccine. I refused the vaccine when it was offered when I was an adult.

Vaccinations are big business, of course....$$$$$$

[Bridget Burke]

17. A little research wouldn't hurt...

"Measles has been called the greatest killer of children in history. Despite the availability of an effective vaccine that was developed more than 30 years ago, the measles virus still affects 50 million people annually and causes more than 1 million deaths. The highest incidence of measles and its associated morbidity and mortality is observed in developing countries. However, it still occurs infrequently in the United States and other industrialized nations....

"In the preimmunization era, approximately 130 million cases of measles and 7-8 million measles-related deaths occurred around the world each year (child mortality rate, 7%)."

www.emedicine.com/derm/topic259.htm

Measles is not one of the "life threatening" ones?

Regulation of the companies that produce vaccines is a good idea, but modern medicine has its good points.

[AngryAmish]

18. Why vaccinate for chicken pox?

Because it is a deadly disease easily prevented. My cousin almost died from chicken pox (a month in the hospital, a week on a ventilator). If you look at the statistics, we are much better off with vaccinations than without them.

[Snow]

19. Chicken pox can be sneaky -

you think you get through without much worse than an itch and a fever, then decades later you get herpes zoster - shingles. Very nasty disease. Also, all these diseases are much worse in patients who are compromised in some fashion. Immune-compromise is obvious, but most of the common childhood diseases are much nastier in children if the nutritional status is lacking in certain essentials. I think of it as a Gaia correction factor - an ordinary disease becomes a population decimator when too many people aren't getting enough of the right kind of food. So to protect these people, since the world is now so interconnected, we vaccinate even those for whom the disease would most likely not be a big deal. Sometimes it's hard to predict, however, whether the disease will be a big deal or not. One of my sisters caught measles when she was three or so, in the early 50's, developed pneumonia and was a pretty sick kid. And you would've thought she would have come through it; no problem.

[Snow]

20. By the way, on the $$$$ thing - I don't know for

sure one way or the other - I would guess I agree with you, that the pharm companies do well off vaccine sales, especially in recent years with some price controls lifted, but I frankly don't know - have not looked into it.

Having said that, I find myself concerned over an attitude which might be phrased thusly "They make big bucks from it, therefore it's likely useless or even harmful." To a fair degree, I'll not argue that we have reason for such cynicism, but being so absolutist about it blinds us to some things that might be beneficial, even though people are making bucks off it. I understand why you would be doubtful, but simply that there's a heavy profit motive behind vaccines doesn't mean the vaccine itself is harmful/useless.

[Snow]

21. Sorry, another one - scarlet fever -

we don't have a vaccine for that; it's bacterial, streptococci. And for some reason that nobody understands, strep strains in recent decades have been very well behaved. Nevertheless, scarlet fever is still a very nasty disease. You'll likely survive it, but there's a strong possibility of heart damage, which will get you eventually.

[R Hickey]

15. Snow - I bet you didn't know this about vaccination

Around thirty years ago, during what I call my 'reproductive years,' I caught herpes, but cured myself by "self-vaccination."

What I did was, find a sore, and before it had completely healed, scratched it with a needle, so as to re-infect myself.

My theory was to endure two sores back-to-back, giving my immune system a longer time to recognize the virus, and get a 'fix' on it.

I had been getting herpes sores at a rate of about one every six weeks for a couple of years. But after my only attempt at "self-vaccination," I since have averaged only about one sore per five years, and the sores were much less severe.

I told a couple of similarly afflicted friends about "self-vaccination," and they later told me it worked for them too.

[Snow]

16. Fascinating. Louis Pasteur lives, eh?

so you zapped a herpes sore with your needle, kicked it up a notch & your immune system finally woke up & got pissed. Makes sense on an intuitive level, but I gotta tell you, my immunology is barely at the "oh, there's different types of t-cells?" level.