MMR vaccine is not linked with autism, says Danish study
BMJ 2002; 325 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7373.1134/a (Published 16 November 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;325:1134
All rapid responses
I went looking for the highly-paid Danes who fearlessly inject toxins into infants to discuss the demolition by Ulf Brånell and myself of the first Danish MMR study. (NEJM refused to publish it so here it is, on the net: http://www.whale.to/a/branell.html or http://66.70.140.217/a/branell.html )
When I turned up at Statens Serum Institut with my vaccine-injured
child so that we could discuss their work, they told the receptionist to
tell me they would call the police. I said they were welcome to do so and
that I would call the media so they could watch a vaccine-injured child
being chucked out into the snow by vaccinators. And that was that.
I also issued a challenge to the Danes: if they really believe in
their studies and really think that vaccines are harmless and that I and
all the other victims are victims only of our own imaginations, they
should let me vaccinate them with all the childhood vaccines, the dose
being adjusted to their body weights, assuming an average weight at
vaccination of 5 kilos. They would then be exposed to the same risks as
the infants they vaccinate. They refused. I have repeated this offer to
various people on a number of occasions and had no takers. Nobody in the
world seems willing to do it. I shall now repeat the offer in the most
illustrious forum possible: the BMJ. Let us sort out the vaccine
controversy. Are any doctors willing to let me vaccinate them? Let us all
gather at the offices of the BMJ, you can then roll up your sleeves and
let’s see what happens to you.
The Danes may be shy, but this is where you will find me:
alandavidrees@hotmail.com
Competing interests:
Father of a vaccine-injured child.
Competing interests: No competing interests
You wonder why Janice Hopkins Tanne did not report this in the latest
edtion of BMJ, rather than the Mayo Clinic study.
Competing interests:
Parent of an autistic child
Competing interests: No competing interests
On November 16, 2002, Janice Hopkins Tanne reported “MMR vaccine is
not linked with autism, says Danish study” [BMJ 2002;325:1134 ] (1) thus
endorsing the findings of the CDC-funded Madsen study that had just been
published in the NEJM. (2)
The Tanne article precipitated FIVE rapid responses in the BMJ until
September 2004 when Goldman and Yazbak published “An Investigation of the
Association between MMR Vaccination and Autism in Denmark” (3) in the Fall
Issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS) and
compared the prevalence of autism and autistic disorders in Denmark before
and after the introduction of MMR vaccination.
In a commentary in that same issue, Stott, Blaxill and Wakefield (4)
supported our finding, namely that autism had indeed increased in Denmark
after 1987, when the MMR vaccination program was inaugurated. The authors
also quoted S. Suissa, Professor of Epidemiology at Mc Gill University who
directly contradicted Madsen’s findings relative to MMR vaccination and
autism.
There have been, in the last four months, over ONE HUNDRED rapid
responses to Tanne’s article in reaction to our investigation but none
from Dr. Madsen. Drs. Rumbold, Jacobs and Grove were particularly angry
with us and the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Dr. Madsen also chose not to write to JPandS but Drs. Grove and
Jacobs did and their letter was published in the following issue of the
Journal. (5) In their letter, Dr. Jacobs disclosed for the first time some
liaisons with SmithKlineBeecham and Aventis-Pasteur. We were happy to
respond (5) and pointed out, among other things, that Madsen himself
reported an increase in autistic disorders in Denmark in the nineties. (6)
A detailed and most informative letter by Trelka and Hooker
criticizing the Madsen conclusions was also published in that same issue
of JPandS. (5)
The findings of the Madsen study were a major argument for
discontinuation of legal aid and the abrupt ending of MMR litigation in
the UK. They also influenced the decision of members of a special
committee of the IOM who decreed in February 2004, that an MMR-autism
connection did not exist.
Since his conclusions and findings were questioned in the Journal of
American Physicians and Surgeons, there has been no reaction from Dr.
Madsen, his declared co-authors or his sponsors. This is rather unusual.
Authors have always personally responded to challenges in peer-reviewed
journals.
As the Madsen study is starting to fade away, like other
epidemiological studies before it, it is even more unusual that its
defense has been delegated to Dr. Jacobs.
The epidemic of regressive autism on the other hand has not relented
(7, 8) and while clinical studies looking at auto-immune causes remain
limited and under-funded, a whole generation of children is being lost.
Because it is so unusual for the CDC to fund a study in Denmark, some
aspects of the relationship between the parties involved deserve
attention.
On December 10, 2002, Walter O. Spitzer, MD, MPH, FRCPC, Emeritus
Professor of Epidemiology at Mc Gill University testified about the just-
published Madsen MMR study at a Special Session of the House Committee on
Government Reform. Professor Spitzer had several issues with the study and
its funding by the CDC: “The concerns are about the process of funding,
the interaction of sponsors with protocol formulation and approval,
compliance with protocol, the role of investigators vis-a vis sponsors in
the actual conduct of research and the input of CDC epidemiologists in the
preparation of the report with its conclusions.”
Professor Spitzer also asked several questions: “Was there a
protocol? Who approved it? Were there changes as the study progressed? Who
approved the changes? Who monitored work-in-progress? Who approved the
final report? Was there a Scientific Advisory Board? What exactly was the
role of the CDC and its professionals?
To date, no one has attempted to respond or answer Dr. Spitzer's
questions.
May be Dr. Jacobs can.
May be he will also be able to tell us what happened to Dr. Madsen.
References
1.http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/325/7373/1134/a
2."A population-based study of MMR and autism", Madsen KM, Hvlid A et
al NEJM 2002;347:1477-1482
3.Goldman GS, Yazbak FE: An Investigation of the Association between
MMR Vaccination and Autism in Denmark. JAmPhysSurg 2004; 9(3):70-75
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/goldman.pdf
4.Stott C, Blaxill M, Wakefield AJ: MMR and Autism in Perspective:
The Denmark Story. JAmPhysSurg 2004; 9(3):89-91
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/stott.pdf
5.http://www.jpands.org/vol9no4/correspondence.pdf
6.Madsen KM, LauritsenMB, Pedersen CB, et al. Thimerosal and the
occurrence of autism: Negative ecological evidence from Danish population-
based data. Pediatrics 2003;112 (3Pt1):604-6
7.http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/autism/pdf/AutismAlarm.pdf
8.Yazbak FE. Autism in the United States: A Perspective
JamPhysSurg 2003;8:103-107
Competing interests:
Grandfather of a child with regressive autism
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor,
Referring to the work of Dr Wakefield and the MMR vaccine Dr Harris
said "We now know that was a nonsense story. Not only is MMR an effective
and safe vaccine, but the controversy around it was fabricated on the
basis of not just wrong science, but bad science." [1]
Dr Harris may believe the MMR vaccine is safe but to prove the
“controversy around it was fabricated” perhaps he can address the “Yazbak
challenge”[2]:
“To prove me wrong ….. show me:
ONE normal child who has evidence of both MMR antibody and Myelin
Basic Protein auto-antibodies in his serum or his CSF
Or
ONE child who regressed after MMR vaccination and who does not have
one of the following: The gut findings described by Wakefield, a
suggestive pattern of urinary polypeptides, elevated serum measles virus
antibody, MMR antibody or Myelin Basic Protein auto-antibodies.”
JUST ONE NORMAL CHILD with the above mentioned features is all that
is required Dr Harris.
………………………………….
Now hear the Silence.
No more talk of “fabricated” wrong science or bad science from Dr
Harris or anyone else.
Michael Innis
References:
1.BBC News Wednesday 5th January 2005 10.10 GMT
2.Yazbak F.E A black spot…on a Great Journal Rapid Responses 1st
January 2005.
Competing interests:
As previously declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I have been following the thread of discussion since the publication
of the Madsen et al paper on the MMR vaccine not having a causal
relationship to the onset of autism. There has been heated discussion on
both sides of the position the paper presented; but only Goldman and
Yazbak have published a paper that challenges the assumptions and
statistical analysis of the data.
Months have past and Madsen et al have not responded to the
challenge. Are they hiding under Rock? Or is this an admission that they
got it wrong. I know for sure, if it were me, after all that hard work,
if I believed I got it right, I would defend my work with all my strength.
If I learned that I got it wrong I know I have the courage to admit my
errors.
Madsen and coauthors please reappear and let the world know where you
stand!!!
Competing interests:
Grand-Dad of a Vaccine Damaged Beautiful Child
Competing interests: No competing interests
I support the letter posted by John Stone. If the authors of these studies consider that the criticisms of those studies are wrong, they should say so and explain why.
Competing interests:
Parent of ASD child
Competing interests: No competing interests
Once again we had to put up with Dr Evan Harris MP on the radio
yesterday morning (5 January) denouncing concern about the safety of the
MMR as discredited and "bad science" [1]. Yet the remarkable fact is that
to the best of my knowledge these two papers which form the bulwark of the
British Government's scientic defence - government sponsored studies
supporting government policies - have never been defended in print by the
named authors against the most scientifically disciplined, and principled
criticisms. Nor have the journals which originally published the papers
allowed any of these criticisms to be aired. By any objective academic
criteria it is the Government epidemiology which is the "bad science", and
which today stands completely condemned.
[1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4147969.stm
Competing interests:
Parent of an autistic child
Competing interests: No competing interests
I think the point is worth stressing that in his 40 or so posts on
Rapid Responses regarding vaccination and autism Adam Jacobs has never (a)
declared specific links with Smith Kline Beecham and Aventis Pasteur or
(b) been clear about the nature of the services he provides for his
clients i.e. writing medical papers. But he was sufficiently motivated in
writing to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons to declare his
specific links to MMR manufacturers for the first time, which he should
certainly have done earlier in Rapid Responses.
Furthermore, following his letter "In defence of medical writers" [1]
in which his principal point was that medical ghost writers were often
named on papers, he failed twice to respond to my published challenges to
list any papers on which he was named, or of which he was author. I submit
also that he should have been clear about the nature of the services he
provided to drug companies and other clients when writing on the topic of
autism and vaccination both in BMJ and Journal of American Physicians and
Surgeons. Lastly, I note that he terms authoring medical papers as
"providing consultancy services to a variety of pharmaceutical
manufacturers" [2], an odd turn of phrase unless of course he is referring
to still other services which we do not know about.
This is all very interesting but I am still not sure we have got to
the bottom of it.
[1] 28 October 2004,
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7472/0-g#82383
and following.
[2] Declaration in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons vol 9
no 4 p.100 http://jpands.org/jpands0904.htm
CORRECTION. The full URL for my response 'A letter the Lancet failed
to publish' (22 December 2004) mentioned in my previous post should have
been http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7467/642#90113
Competing interests:
Parent of an autistic child
Competing interests: No competing interests
Peter Flegg states:
"There is even a genetic basis for some of these "failures"- some
individuals can actually have a specific genetic defect in measles
antibody production."
Does this not lend weight to the argument against the indiscriminate
mass vaccination programme? What other genetic "failures" might be found
if politics would only let the research be done? One that makes a few of
us more sensitive to mercury toxicity than others? One that causes a few
of us to mimic neonatal Rubella induced neurological damage post MMR? One
that makes a few of us susceptable to Measles induced neurological damage
post Measles/MMR vaccination? Think what we might discover and prevent
one day...
Meanwhile the "collateral damage" (i.e. ruined lives) of the one-size
-fits-all programme continues to taint what good it has achieved.
C Johnson (not Carol Johnston)
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: So Unusual - but where is the explanation?
Should not Adam Jacobs and Matthew Grove finally explain - when there
are such great interests at stake over this issue - why they stuck their
professional necks out to such a degree, when the authors had abandoned
the field and there was no apparent benefit to them in acting as proxy?
Jacobs has still not disclosed his competing interest with Smith Kline
Beecham and Aventis Pasteur in BMJ Rapid Responses, and we are still
surely owed an explanation.
Competing interests:
Parent of an autistic child
Competing interests: No competing interests