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;325:1134All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Editor: I would like to take this opportunity to thank Graeme
Johnston for providing the PDR link he did. It has made it much easier
for others to see the correct information I displayed.
Graeme Johnston says "Reading the whole document gives a different
and much clearer picture than just reading Travis Haws's selections did."
Hmmm...interesting, I wasn't talking about the whole document. I listed
severe reactions and then asked if one saw such a reaction, would they
recommend a second dose as the MMRthefacts site nonchalantly does. If one
but only looks under the severe reaction section in the link provided by
Graeme Johnston, they will see every single reaction I listed, and then
some. I did, however, leave out Diabetes Mellitus, pancreatitis,
diarrhea, vomiting, arthritis, paresthesia, aseptic meningitis, measles
inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE) etc. Oh, it also then mentions VAERS.
What a joke that has turned out to be as it is well known only 1 - 10
percent of adverse events are even considered or reported, and some of the
reported ones, like death, are stated as SIDS by the person reporting the
event? Or subdural hemorrhage is checked off indiscriminantly as SBS?
You telling me encephalitis coupled with vasculitis (just two of the
countless reactions) can't manifest as a SDH, brain edema etc.?
Interestingly, the site states "The following adverse reactions are
listed in decreasing order of severity, without regard to causality,
within each body system category and have been reported during clinical
trials, with use of the marketed vaccine, or with use of monovalent or
bivalent vaccine containing measles, mumps, or rubella". Of course
causality will never be admitted by our health officials. As shown by the
CDC dealing with data, that demonstrated a statistically significant
association between neurodevelopmental disorders and thiomersal exposure,
that one can see under the links in one of my prior responses
(http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7466/588-b#76162).
The site goes to greath lengths to disclaim any causal association
(of which I'm sure Graeme Johnston is referring us to), says reports of
"Post-marketing surveillance of the more than 200 million doses of M-M-R
and M-M-R II that have been distributed worldwide over 25 years (1971-
1996) indicates that serious adverse events such as encephalitis and
encephalopathy continue to be rarely reported." One question, who is doing
the reporting? How does this relate to VAERS complete failure of passive
reporting? How is this being assessed clinically? Back to some questions
in my prior response.
Then the site goes on, and this is found: "Although a causal
relationship between the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine and aseptic
meningitis has been shown, there are no data to link Jeryl Lynn mumps
vaccine to aseptic meningitis." What? You telling me that if one Mumps
strain (Urabe) can cause aseptic meningitis, we are to take comfort that
the experts think Jeryl Lynn can't despite the fact Urabe can and does?
Then Singh and/or Wakefield find Measles vaccine strain in the gut and
brain...all following massive increases of PDD's of which many also have
GI problems. Parents like Carol Johnston have video evidence of
regression and re-regression (you know Clifford Miller's CD and CDR proof)
following MMR vaccine. I wonder what dormant type of situation Rubella
vaccine strain is awaiting to unveil. Let's not forget the associated
risks of the three-in-one punch of DTaP, or HiB, Flu, Varicella, Polio,
Pneumococcal vaccines to an immature developing immune and neurologic
system/s. How many parents do you think are consently informed of the
multitude of potential reactions and that these reactions are likely 90%
plus under-reported?
Chalk it up to another of the all too common idiosyncrasies. An
idiosyncrasy that a prescriber of medicine would not prescribe most any
drug a second time, if the first resulted in a moderate to severe
reaction. But, in the name of vaccination, take a complete 180 degree
stance.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I've been following the argument about MMR for several years now. The
aspect I find most puzzling is the total reliance on epidemiological
studies to dismiss the MMR autism question. Please, has anyone besides
Wakefield actually examined these children directly? If not, why not? How
can a connection be dismissed based only on large population
epidemiological studies? How can an accurate assessment be made by looking
at children's medical records but not at the children?
Wakefield has said that he has now seen hundreds of children who have
autism and bowel problems. If MMR is not the cause of this syndrome, what
is? Who is researching the problem? Are the ill children being treated?
How?
I'd appreciate some answers.
Deborah Kahn
I do not have any autism in my family, which has been anti-vaccine
since the 1920's. Due to a vaccine reaction, of course.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Adam Jacob says the following:
"As I argued in my previous response, Goldman & Yazbak's attempts
to cast doubt on that finding do not stand up to scrutiny. I therefore
still believe that the findings of Madsen et al are valid."
The Madsen et al study never did any clinical science regarding the
children with autism. There were no immune blood panel tests, no spinal
tabs, and no colon biopsies.
I'm an Accountant by trade and know that math is a pure science but to use
math to come to a scientific conclusion without using clinical science is
faultly science.
It would be like me saying one plus one equals two (which is good,
valid math) and then coming to a scientific conclusion that the earth is
flat (invalid scientific conclusion, where's my science to prove that the
earth is flat?).
The Madsen study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
and the National Association for Autism Research (NAAR). The CDC promotes
vaccines and NAAR has consistently said there is no connection between the
MMR vaccine and autism while taking funding from pharmaceutical companies
such as Merck (who manufactures the MMR vaccine).
(1). The CDC would not fund a study that would go against their position
of promoting vaccines. NAAR would not fund such a study either since over
the years to the present they have not funded one study linking autism to
vaccines.
Again, where's the science by the Madsen et al? There has been no
clinical science done by Madsen et al. A computerized number study, yes,
but no clinical science.
References:
1. http://www.naar.org/news/render_pr.asp?intNewsItemID=99
Competing interests:
Founder of The Autism Autoimmunity Project and father to Eric Gallup, who was born normal and regressed into autism after receiving the MMR vaccine
Competing interests: No competing interests
At first I thought that Clifford Miller hadn't actually read my
responses when he said:
'The main premise for the Madsen paper has been shown to be invalid.
Mr [sic] Jacobs has already confirmed that.'
Then I realised that it is more likely that he hasn't read the Madsen
paper. He seems to be under the impression that the main premise of that
paper was a claim that the prevalence of autism is not increasing. Madsen
et al do not claim this: in fact, they agree that it is increasing (page
1481, paragraph 2, lines 10-15). The main finding of the Madsen paper was
that autism was no more common in children who had received MMR
vaccination than in those who hadn't.
As I argued in my previous response, Goldman & Yazbak's attempts
to cast doubt on that finding do not stand up to scrutiny. I therefore
still believe that the findings of Madsen et al are valid.
Competing interests:
As stated previously
Competing interests: No competing interests
As Ed Cooper rightly points out that any child predisposed to fits,
whether it is epilepsy or febrile convulsions that have been diagnosed,
will tend to have them in association with any infection, including wild-
virus measles, mumps, rubella and the common cold.
My son recently had tonsilitus with subsequently high temperature and
a 24 hour vigil of keeping him cool and sponged down I was painfully aware
of the risk of the seizure, because statistically the type of autism my
son has he an increased risk of developing seizures.
Many of the children involved in the UK MMR litigation developed
seizures after having MMR. I refer to the story of little Hannah Buxton.
http://66.70.140.217/a/mmr_killed.html
Carol Buxton, Hannah's mother was quoted as saying:
"She was suffering up to 40 fits a day but we were told that it would
take
months or years before a decision could be made. But 2 years after she
died our case was heard and the link between her illness and MMR was
agreed"
However I reiterate again that MMRtheFacts fail to mention any
possibility of a risk factor associated with seizures and skim over that
possibility with the statement "no scientific evidence".
The majority of children who have reportedly developed seizure after
having MMR have no known history or pre-disposition to seizure. So it
seems that all parents in order to make an informed choice should be made
aware of the possibility of seizures.
As a parent who took my children for immunisation I was never told of
the possibility of seizure, my son developed atypical measles 5 days after
MMR elevated temperature and rash, high pitched screaming. I would not
have termed this reaction as a "mild" illness.
My son subsequently became severely autistic.
Of course there is no proof that MMR causes autism either.
Being aware of this possibility of seizures, I find myself constantly
watching him, everytime he has a fluttering or rolling of the eyes,
watching him as he sleeps.
Perhaps this worry would prompt Ed Cooper and others to advise to
have MMR Booster to avoid the possibility of natural diseases with risk of
associated elevated temperature.
Again looking at the advice from MMRtheFacts. The parent who asked
the question has real concerns regarding the effects of the MMR. The
reply from MMRtheFacts makes no mention of due caution or even the
manufacturers advice. Would it have not been more appopriate to mention
the advice from the manufacturer rather than dimissing any risk with the
statement "no scientific evidence". As a parent reading this reply, I
would assume that there is no risk at all with the MMR.
Perhaps Ed Cooper feels this advice is wholly adequate for a parent
who has concerns to make an informed choice. Every parent contemplating
vaccination should be given a copy of the manufacturers leaflet in order
to make an informed choice.
If Ed Cooper feels that the industrial manufacturer in the interest
of self-protection is trying to cover every conceivable predisposing
factor, there are plenty of other conditions they could put there to cover
all possibilities . The list of side effects although formidable does not
cover all illnesses and conditions. Why not add autism or learning
difficulties or behaviour problems like ADHD, PDD and bowel problems like
IBD - because there is no "scientific evidence" that MMR causes this
either?
So, Ed Cooper assures parents that although it is mentioned by the
manufacturers, ignore it, the manufacturers put it there to cover
themselves, just in case!
I would ask Ed Cooper if a patient of his developed multiple seizures
following MMR would he deny involvement of MMR?
I wonder just how he would approach this situation?
Competing interests:
2 ASD kids following MMR
Competing interests: No competing interests
However, according to the PDR (my thanks to Graeme Johnston) "Due
caution should be employed in administration of M-M-R-II to persons with a
history of cerebral injury, individual or family histories of convulsions,
or any other condition in which stress due to fever should be avoided".
But not, apparently, in the UK.
Competing interests:
As above
Competing interests: No competing interests
Carol Johnston’s rapid response on “MMR The Facts” needs reading
slowly and carefully. Such a reading will show that the contradiction she
believes she has found between the reply on the Website and the
manufacturer’s leaflet does not exist. This is worth a reply because it
might alarm a user of the vaccine who skims through Carol Johnston’s
response and does not think it through.
“MMR The Facts” says: There is no scientific evidence to support the
suggestion that MMR causes [epilepsy].
Epilepsy is a predisposition to have fits, also known as convulsions
or seizures. In order to be able to say that a person has a
predisposition to fits, like any predisposition to any event, the fits
must occur on several, separate occasions.
There is one predisposition to fits that is, by convention, not
called epilepsy, and that is the predisposition to have a fit in response
to an infection, usually as the temperature rises. This is then called a
febrile convulsion. It is common among young children. The reason it is
not called epilepsy is that it is a predisposition that disappears after
early childhood. Unlike epilepsy, it is not associated with any other
brain abnormality and has no bearing on e.g. later life insurance risk or
suitability for any occupation.
“MMR The Facts” is correct to say that there is no scientific
evidence to support the suggestion that MMR causes epilepsy.
The manufacturer of MMR-II is also correct to say that possible
adverse reactions to the vaccine include a single or repeated fit. This
is because the attenuated infections produced by the live viruses in the
vaccine may lead to this as part of the response of the child to them,
often accompanied by fever. The manufacturer is not saying that there is
any risk that the vaccine may lead to a predisposition to have fits of any
kind. The manufacturer is saying that given the pre-existing
predisposition to have fits with fevers, this may occur after the
vaccination and the advised caution is to be alert to this possibility.
As “MMR The Facts” says, any pre-existing predisposition to fits –
and the industrial manufacturer in the interest of self-protection is
trying to cover every conceivable predisposing factor – any pre-existing
predisposition is not a contra-indication to vaccination, i.e. it is not a
reason not to give it. However, as the manufacturer says, it is a reason
to take precautions, e.g. to make paracetamol (acetaminophen) and plenty
of fluid available if the child shows any signs of the mild infections
produced by this attenuated live-virus triple vaccine.
It is worth pointing out that any child predisposed to fits, whether
it is epilepsy or febrile convulsions that have been diagnosed, will tend
to have them in association with any infection, including wild-virus
measles, mumps, rubella and the common cold.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Peter Flegg says:
[quote]For the record, I do agree with him that measles vaccine can
cause measles. However it is not "prominent"; and as my previous
references have shown, it comprises a negligible component of measles in
vaccinated societies.[/quote]
If you go by published references, this is indeed true. But here, we
have a problem.
In this country, there are regular outbreaks of "measles", which,
coincidentally, usually follow the MMR being administered in schools.
We are only one family, whose chidren have had "measles" twice. Yes,
"twice". Both times, following an MMR vaccination campaign. The second
time, I pleaded with the hospital to do both viral assays, and blood work,
but they declined on the basis that he wasn't going to die, and it was a
waste of health resources.
"Why" (I can hear you ask) "was your son in hospital then"? He was in
hospital, because our then doctor did not believe that it could be measles
a second time. The child concerned had a severe ear infection, which led
to him behaving as if he was more ill than he was, so the doctor decided
that he might have meningitis, hence an 'enforced' trip to hospital. Only
to find that the staff agreed it was measles. Until, that was, they saw
in his files, that he had had "measles" once before. So, they changed the
file to "morbilli-like infection". Hence the discussion. Was the first
one perhaps a "morbilli-like-infection" and the second measles? Shall we
do some tests to find out please?
The reaction was to run away and put their heads into the sand. What
you don't investigate, can't be used in evidence against you, Mr Flegg.
And that is the problem. YOU say vaccine-virus measles isn't common.
I say that it is common, but it isn't in the literature, because you and
yours do not investigate it, when you have the opportunity.
And you don't see it, because you don't expect to see it, and deny it
when it is in front of you.
And should you "see it" and find that vaccine virus-measles might be
so much more common than you previous thought, would you dare to publish
it?
And on a related note, we recently had a mumps outbreak locally.
Funnily enough, following a local MMR initiative. Not even a copy of
Takao Nagai's "Mumps vaccine virus genome is present in throat swabs
obtained from uncomplicated healthy recipients" (Vaccine 19 (2001)1353 -
1355 would convince the local doctor that it was even an issue worth
consideration. Such is the immunity to "novel" concepts, that vaccines
inflict upon doctors.
You (Peter Flegg) state in response to Carol Johnson:
[quote]The fact that as a consequence there will be some unusual
presentations, or infections in those already vaccinated, or more cases in
adults should not sway us from trying to prevent what are potentially
devastating childhood diseases.[/quote]
Tell me, Mr Flegg. What are some of the factors that can make these
diseases potentially devastating?
I've recently seen chickenpox in an adult who was vaccinated about
six years ago. She was severely ill, in bed for two weeks, and found it
very hard to get over. Afterwards, she was tested to see if she had an
immunodeficiency, and she didn't.
But there was one thing they never bothered to look at. The doctor,
at the beginning of the illness, when they didn't know it was chickenpox
advised the parents to use paracetamol to reduce the fever, which they
did, for several days..
The damaging role of chemical antipyresis to the immune system, is
something which doctors should be addressing as a matter or urgency.
While you may say this is another issue altogether from the
MMR/Vaccine issue, it is not.
I am deeply troubled by the current medical profession's blase advice
on the use of drugs to bring down temperatures ((which are the
"infections" way of using a "sprinkler" system to dampen down the effects
of the pathogen ("fire") ))~ advice which I believe can lead to infections
becoming more serious.
Fever is there for a good reason. To stop diseases becoming more
serious. To slow down, and get on top of pathogens. To eliminate the
resulting "complications"...
Fever has a vital function.
Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Vol 10, No 1 January-February, 1988.
New concepts on the pathogenesis of Fever,
Charles A. Dinarello et al:
Page 184:
“Elevated body temperature enhances the inflammatory response and
function of the immune system at the same time that it reduces the
replication of microbes and tumor cells.”
Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1991; 13: 462 – 472
Impact of Temperature Elevation on Immunologic Defenses.
Norbert J. Roberts.
Page 469: “Overall, it appears that temperature elevation within the
physiologic range most effectively enhances the processes involved in
initial antigen recognition and support for immunologically specific
response to challenge.”
Pg 470: “Accumulated direct and indirect evidence suggests an overall
beneficial effect of physiologic temperature elevation or fever on host
defense mechanisms.”
Antipyresis and Fever,
Barbara Styrt, MD, Barrett Sugarman MD.
Arch Intern Med – Vol 150, August 1990,
Pg 1594: “The decision to administer antipyretics is frequently made
without a documented rational. Current understanding of the mechanisms
and pathogenesis of fever suggests that the febrile process has a role in
host defense and that routine antipyretic therapy for fever is generally
unnecessary and conceivably harmful. “
Alas, I can only find one sane doctor prepared to come right out and
agree with me in this:
http://www.australianprescriber.com/index.php?content=/magazines/vol18no...
Aust Prescr 1995; 18: 233- 234.
Paracetamol: use in children.
Frank Shann, Intensive care Unit, Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne.
“Paracetamol may prolong infection and reduce the antibody response
in mild disease, and increase morbidity and mortality in severe
infection.”
“there is no evidence that antipyretics prevent febrile convulsions.”
“Immunity. Too many parents and health workers think that infection
is bad, infection causes fever and that therefore fever is bad. In fact,
fever is often a beneficial host response to infection, and moderate fever
improves immunity. Therefore it may not be a good idea to give drugs that
reduce temperature to patients with several infection. I have recently
reviewed the results of 9 controlled trials in mammals of the effect of
paracetamol or aspirin on mortality of virus excretions.. Four trials
found that aspirin increased mortality in bacterial or viral infection.
Viral shedding was increased by paracetamol or aspirin in 3 studies,
possibly increased in one, and not affected in two (one used only
pharyngeal washings, and one had only 9 subjects in the aspirin and
placebo groups). One study found that antibody production was impaired by
both paracetamol and aspirin, but no effect on antibody production was
detected in the study with only 9 subjects in the aspirin and placebo
groups. This evidence suggests that aspirin and paracetamol increase
mortality in severe infection, and that they may prolong the infection and
reduce the antibody response in mild disease.”
Conclusion: There is little evident to support the use of
paracetamol to treat fever in patients without heart or lung disease, or
to prevent febrile convulsions. Indeed paracetamol may decrease the
antibody response to infection, and increase morbidity and mortality in
severe infection.
It should be explained to parents that fever is usually a helpful
response to infection, and that paracetamol should be used to reduce
discomfort, but ***NOT TO TREAT FEVER ***"
end of quote
Chickenpox treated antipyretically with Tylenol/Ibuprofen provokes
bacterial skin infections into fulminant necrotising fasciitis (Pediatr
I(Pediatrics Vol 103, No 4, April 1999, 783-784 and 785-790) (Infect
Med1999 16 (5):307) Just two of many references for antipyretic induced
complications of chickenpox.
"There is overwhelming evidence in favor of fever being an adaptive
host response to infection... as such, it is probable that the use of
antipyretic/anti-inflammatory/analgesic drugs, when they lead to
suppression of the fever, result in increased morbidity and mortality
during most infections; this morbidity and mortality may not be apparent
to most health care workers..." Infect Dis Clin North Am 1996 Mar;10(1) :
1-20.)
J. Paediatr. Child health (1993) 29; 84 –85:
Paracetamol: When, why and how much.
Editorial
“in patients without heart and lung disease fever is harmful only at
temperatures over 41 o C; such high termperatures are usually caused by
heat stroke or brain injury, and they do not respond to paracetamol or
aspirin.”
“There is no evidence that antipyretics prevent febrile convulsions”
As to my friend's daughter, while she didn't get necrotising
fasciitis, I have to wonder if the reduction of the fever increased the
severity of the chickenpox. After all, it does with the flu, so why not
with chickenpox?
Pharmacotherapy December 2000; 20: 417 – 422;
(http://id.medscape.com/reuters/prof/2000/12/12/04/20001201clin003.html)
As reported on internet, by “Health Scout” and Reuters medical News
for the professional:
Findings. Those with influenza A who took antipyretics were sick
much longer than their flu-infected counterparts who took nothing.
Health Scout : Quoting Dr Leland Rickman, Associate clinical
professor of medicine, University of California:
“an elevated temperature may actually help the body fight the
infection quicker or better than if you don’t have a fever.”
Quoting Dr Karen Plaisance, Associate Professor at the University of
Maryland School of Pharmacy and one of the study’s authors “Influenza A
sufferers who were treated with aspirin or acetaminophen extended their
illness from five days to about 8 ½ days.”
Acta Paediatr Jpn 1994 Aug; 36(4) 375 – 378.
Risks of antipyretics in young children with fever due to infectious
disease.
Sugimura T, et al.
“The objective of this study was to determine whether paracetamol
(acetaminophen) affects the outcome of children with fever due to
bacterial infectious disease….. the data suggest that frequent
administration of antipyretics to children with infectious disease may
lead to a worsening of their illness.”
Given that doctors have been advising parents to use antipyretics for
as long as they have been on the market, and given that you, Mr Flegg, are
concerned at the potential severity of these diseases, would it not be an
appropriate idea to actually look at first line advice that the medical
profession gives?
These illnesses can be devastating, but are far less likely to be
devastating, provided they are in younger children, and are not
accompanied by the routine, across the board use of antipyretics like
liquid paracetamol or tylenol, which seems to be the standard advice of
doctors these days. Not to mention the deaths, and potential liver and
kidney toxicity of such compounds.
BMJ 2002;325:678 ( 28 September )
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/325/7366/678,
FDA. http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/02/slides/3882S1_05_Nourjah-
Ahmad-Karwoski.ppt
You may say that if you give the MMR vaccine, then such antipyretic
"advice" is redundant, but that is not true. Vaccines do not always
protect. In fact, very often, they do not. And besides which, fever is
not just related to Measles, Mumps and rubella.
Many parents don't just see the foundations of the "vaccine" sacred
cow as being suspect, they are coming to realise that the WHOLE MANNER in
which the medical profession approaches ALL infectious disease is based
upon quicksand.
Doctors treat all infections as if they are something to be fought,
put out, smothered, killed, anti-bioticized, a battle against biological
terrorists, when what medicine should be looking at is working with and
supporting the immune system, finding appropriate mechanisms to assist the
body to do what it is designed to do.
I cannot help but look at the increase in serious meningitis and
other serious complications of infectious disease, without wondering
whether some of the alleged dangers of these diseases lies fairly and
squarely at the iatrogenic door of people who advise inappropriate
treatment methods in the first place.
To treat fever the way you now advise, is inappropriate, non-
scientific, has no benefits, and actually huge potential risks. Even the
WHO admits current advice is wrong.
http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-
96862003000500012&lng=en&nrm=iso
It's time doctors stopped treating parents who don't want to
vaccinate their children, as paraiahs of society.
And its also time doctors got their act together in re-educating
themselves, so that they can give parents proper, sensible, appropriate
advice on how to assist the body in getting on top of infectious pathogens
in the most effective way, which will not contribute to increased disease
morbidity and mortality.
Hilary Butler.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Harold Buttram, MD is right on all counts in what he says about the
lack of independent, long-term safety studies done on any vaccines and the
lack of studies comparing unvaccinated subjects with vaccinated subjects.
Vijendra Singh, PhD. has done numerous studies that show children
with autism have elevated measles antibody titers. (1) Andrew Wakefield,
MD has done numerous studies that show children with autism have measles
in the gut. (2)
Another recent study by Dr. Wakefield and associates (3) shows that there
are children with autism that have measles in the spinal fluid. Where is
the CDC, NIH and FDA when it comes to this science? Nowhere to be found
since they have to protect the pharmaceutical companies over the public
interest.
The recent controversy about the deaths caused by Vioxx manufactured
by Merck is just one more example of the FDA looking the other way when it
comes to public safety. The anti-depressant drug scandal where they were
causing suicides in the USA is another example of the FDA looking the
other way.
Meanwhile the epidemic of autism continues to skyrocket as in the
case of this year's figures (2003/2004) from the US Department of
Education that shows a 1,055% increase from the 1992/1993 figures. (4)
So when will this autism epidemic be stopped and help provided to the
victims? I don't have a crystal ball but when the numbers become too
staggering and the costs too prohibitive to the communities involved, then
something will be done. The disgrace is that nothing has been done so far.
References
1. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/singh.html
2. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/wakefield.html
3. http://www.jpands.org/vol9no2/bradstreet.pdf
4. http://www.taap.info/stats.htm
Competing interests:
Founder of The Autism Autoimmunity Project and father to Eric Gallup, who was born normal and regressed into autism after receiving the MMR vaccine
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Limits of epidemiological studies
Deborah Kahn and Raymond Gallup both question the relevance of
epidemiological studies designed to answer the question 'does MMR
vaccination cause autism?'
If MMR vaccination did cause autism, then you would expect to find
that autism was more common in children who had received MMR vaccination
than in those who did not. Surely no-one can argue with that?
Epidemiological studies have consistently found that autism is not more
common in children who have received MMR than those who have not. This
provides very strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR causes
autism.
Clinical examination of individual children is no doubt very valuable
in the management of those individual children. But I have a question for
Kahn and Gallup: how would you design a study based on clinical
examination of individual children that could answer the question of
whether MMR causes autism?
Kahn and Gallup may not be aware that by trying to claim that
epidemiology is irrelevant, they are keeping some rather dubious company.
The same tactic has been used by the tobacco industry, who have tried to
claim that there is no proof that smoking causes lung cancer, on the
grounds that the evidence that it does is all epidemiological [1].
References:
1. Iida K, Proctor RN. Learning from Philip Morris: Japan Tobacco's
strategies regarding evidence of tobacco health harms as revealed in
internal documents from the American tobacco industry. Lancet
2004;363:1820-24
Competing interests:
As stated previously
Competing interests: No competing interests