Increase in autism due to change in definition, not MMR vaccine
BMJ 2005; 330 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7483.112-d (Published 13 January 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:112All 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.
Dear Sir,
Further to Peter Flegg's reply. From the first reference he gave us,
which is indeed the study published in the Lancet (although other reports
of this study include other information of relevance), I would draw Peter
Flegg's attention to the following:
Page 64:
"the overall protection by BCG, for all ages was seen to be nil."
....for children 1 month to 9 yrs, was 27% for either strain, 25% for
Danish strain and 17% for French strain, the levels of protection in all
four instances being statistically not significant.
Again, the discussion on page 63 (and 65) is interesting, as they
considered the protective level for 5 - 12.5 years to be 69 percent. Then,
in discussing the discrepancy levels between that, and the two other
groups, they consider it statistically insignificant as well. Perhaps
that's because the confidence levels were so wide, and lie on either side
of zero, if they looked too hard, they might come up with a different
interpretation.
So they opted for the politically correct language, and said that the
numbers should be interpretted "with caution".
In other words, "we don't really have a clue what we are looking at,
because actually it looks pretty bad."
There was also noticed, in children, in a detailed discussion on page
63, excess cases of tuberculosis in the vaccinated children in the first
five years of life, and again, between 12.5 - 15 years of age, a pattern
also seen in another trial at Madanapalle, in South India, where more
cases were seen among the vaccinated during the first three years, and
after 9 years of age...
It is also noted that much of the article was spent trying to find
reasons to explain away the results, and none were found.
The most telling remarks were on Pgs 67-68:
"Thus even if BCG offered protection in those initially uninfected
(which it does not) the public health value of BCG can be only in
preventing childhood mortality caused by disase resulting from
haematogenous spread. The impact on infectious cases can at best be only
marginal...
In conclusion.... has shown that BCG offer no protection against
adult type bacillary tuberculosis. Consequently BCG cannot be expected to
reduce the transmission due to tuberculosis. This observation of failure
to protect could not be attributed to defects in methodology, inadequate
sample size, prior exposure to environment mycobacteria or to most of the
disease being a result of exogenous reinfection. These unexpected results
have led to several studies which would eventually increase our
understanding of the host responses and immune mechanisms in
tuberculosis."
This last part in particular, underscores the little "can of worms"
above, which Peter Flegg and others have studiously chosen to ignore.
Which is the fact that not only does Mr Flegg have little idea about
neonatal immunity and the "differences" between neonates, adolescents and
adults,, or how vaccines actually "work" inside the body apart from
supposed final antibody response but...., as this study points out...., Mr
Flegg also has little understanding about "host responses and immune
mechanisms."
The problem is that this professional ignorance doesn't just stop
with Tuberculosis.
Sincerely,
Hilary Butler.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I would like to apologise to Dr Rumbold and agree with him words are
important and I have got them wrong. He is quite right of course when he
says being sloppy with the facts is the basis of most conspiricy theories
and also as I found to my cost are the basis for false allegations of
Munchausen by Proxy by medical professionals, so I have copied her words
directly from her post.
Sudan 1 versus Thimerosal/Thiomersal
'Babies and old people don't eat these vaccines - they are injected
right into the bloodstream thereby vastly increasing their toxic power.'
I still agree with C. Johnson as blood is on the needle after a
vaccine is injected into a muscle it must enter the bloodstream.
Competing interests:
The mother of two children with Autism one MMR vaccine damaged.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The post said straight into the bloodstream - which means intravenous
or intraarterial. Being sloppy with the facts is the basis of most
conspiracy theories, so it is important to correct factual inaccuracies.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I agree here with C Johnson when a vaccine is administered into a
muscle the site of administraton bleeds therefore indicating that it is
entering the blood stream at some point. I would like to point out that
actually Miss Blakemore-Brown did not say in her response that the vaccine
was given intravenously or as Dr Rumbold says directly into the
bloodstream, what she actually said is 'right into the bloodstream of a
small baby' and as C Johnson points out the site bleeds when the needle is
stuck in thus bearing out it must enter the blood stream, unless muscles
do not contain blood.
I would like to also ask the question Miss Blakemore-Brown asks can
someone tell us all 'Why it is ok for a tiny baby with an immature immune
system to have Mercury injected into its body????????'
She also asks 'If we drew a line of danger would eating a toxic
product be better or worse than having it injected?'As we already know
that mercury in dental fillings when digested causes health problems, I
would now like to ask have the government and health professionals thought
of yet another way to get Mercury into our bodies or is this something
they are now working on for future generations????
Competing interests:
The mother of two Autistic children one MMR vaccine damaged.
Competing interests: No competing interests
At the risk of opening a whole new can of worms concerning another vaccine, I would just make a few comments in response to Mr Lucas' points about BCG vaccine.
BCG is a hodge-podge of attenuated mycobacteria strains. It is no doubt declining in overall efficacy as a vaccine, and there are intensive efforts underway to find better alternatives, which are sorely needed.
I do not recollect any studies where BCG being shown to be "worse than ineffective" in India. This may be what his favourite anti-vaccination web site claims, but a proper reference would be appreciated if it exists. Lucas may be referring to the TB Research Centre BCG trials in south India, which studied nearly two thirds of a million subjects (1).
In this trial, BCG was shown to be ineffective in preventing pulmonary tuberculosis in adults and it was of low efficacy in preventing TB in children. This is not quite the same thing as being “worse than ineffective”. Other recently reported long term trials have shown some protective efficacy against TB (2). BCG is still protective to a considerable degree against more invasive extra-pulmonary TB manifestations like meningitis and miliary TB, particularly in childhood, as demonstrated by at least two meta-analyses (3,4). BCG obviously has a very minor role to play in preventing transmission of TB as a public health measure, but it does reduce the complication rate and associated mortality.
Vaccine science can certainly have its mysteries, as Lucas refers to them, but the fact that some countries use different approaches to TB control is hardly surprising. There is logic behind the differing recommendations for BCG vaccination in different geographical regions, and this is mainly based on the epidemiology of TB. In areas with low TB prevalence such as the USA giving BCG is not felt to be beneficial. (Another reason is that in the USA, they prefer to use skin tests of reactivity to tuberculin for diagnostic purposes, and this is not feasible in patients who have had prior BCG). The UK saw a drop in cases of TB into the 1990s and phased out its BCG programme in response, but cases were already starting to rise at this time on the back of the burgeoning HIV epidemic and influx of people from high TB prevalence areas, hence the resumption of the programme (hiatuses in vaccine supply notwithstanding).
(1) http://www.trc-chennai.org/bcg1.pdf
(2) Aronson NE, Santosham M, Comstock GW, Howard RS, Moulton LH, Rhoades ER, and Harrison LH. Long-Term Efficacy of BCG Vaccine in American Indians and Alaska Natives: A 60-Year Follow-Up Study. JAMA. 2004:291 (17): 2086-91.
(3) Rodrigues LC; Diwan VK; Wheeler JG. Protective effect of BCG against tuberculous meningitis and miliary tuberculosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 1993 Dec;22(6):1154-8.
(4) Colditz GA; Brewer TF; Berkey CS; Wilson ME; Burdick E; Fineberg HV; Mosteller F. Efficacy of BCG vaccine in the prevention of tuberculosis. Meta-analysis of the published literature. JAMA 1994 Mar 2;271(9):698-702.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I'd be surprised if anyone really believes vaccines are administered
intravenously. Most of us have seen the process for ourselves - I don't
remember any search for a vein! The point being made, I believe, is that
unlike Sudan I, which may be eaten in food and digested etc., Thimerosal
is stuck in with a needle, where it gets straight to the blood - I DO
remember bleeding at the intramuscular injection site; that's why they get
you to press your baby's wound and stick a plaster on!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I am very grateful for my medical colleagues' correction on this. As
the `scandal ` re Sudan 1 relates to a genotoxin being eaten, if we drew a
line of likely danger would eating a toxic product be better or worse than
having it injected - albeit in the muscle?
Can someone tell me why it's OK for a tiny baby with an immature
immune system to have mercury injected into its body?
Competing interests:
Specialist in Autism
Competing interests: No competing interests
Ms Blakemore-Brown is mistaken on an important point. No vaccine is
injected directly into the bloodstream. In any case it is not the case
that parenteral administration always increases the toxicity of a
substance.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Blakemore-Brown claims that mercury-containing vaccines are injected directly into the bloodstream. They're
not intended to be. A reminder about injection technique is available here.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intramuscular, not intravenous
It is not OK to be injecting babies with various vaccines, no matter
what the method of delivery of vaccines is. I find it objectionable that
some governments are happy to to engage in this practice. I do not believe
that most young children in the States need anywhere near the vaccines
that they are subjected to.
Aasa Reidak
#318-45 Carlton Street
Toronto, Ontario M5B 2H9
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests