In a recent post, the Age of Autism highlight the death of a baby girl where MMR was found to be a contributing cause. The US government settled with the parents, which is exactly what they should have done. The vaccine was at fault and this child died as a result.
But of course the anti-vaccinationists at AoA can’t leave it at that. They say:
God rest her little soul and comfort her parents, who tried to do right by her and ended up losing her. No, we don’t want to see children dying of preventable childhood diseases, don’t bother us with that canard. We also don’t want to see an ounce of prevention turn into a pound of death.
An ounce of prevention and a pound of death.
Lets establish a few facts shall we? The fact that children are dying right now of vaccine preventable diseases is no canard. Two have died in the UK since 2006 of measles. 345,000 died worldwide of measles in 2005. To belittle and dismiss the deaths of these people – mostly children – as ‘a canard’ is nothing short of evil. Using this little girls deaths to get a cheap shot in at a vaccine that has helped bring about a drop in worldwide deaths from 873,000 in 1999 to 345,000 less than a decade later goes beyond cynical to almost pathological.
What needs to happen for these people to see what it is they are promoting? Should we transport those 345,000 deaths from some dusty locale far, far away to New York? Atlanta? Washington DC? Manchester? Edinburgh? Would it seem real enough then to these soccer moms and weak men desperate to please their Mother Warriors? Would they still be burbling on about an ounce of prevention?
Lets have a look at the VAERS database for 2006. The year Madyson Williams received her MMR shot. According to VAERS there were 22 incidents involving ‘death’ and ‘MMR’. One of these reports stated:
the rpt stated info was recv as “hearsay” through small town grapevine
Another:
The reporter stated “a little girl up the street died after an allergic reaction to MMR.”
Another:
The consumer reported that she “heard of a patient who died after the second MMR shot.”
Another:
Information has been received from a consumer concerning her neighbor’s son who on an unspecified date was vaccinated with a dose of MMR II (Enders-Edmonston, Jeryl Lynn, Wistar RA 27/3). On an unspecified date, post vaccination, the patient developed autism and eventually jumped in a lake and died…….The reporter refused to provide information beyond what was on the VAERS form . The reporter refused to provide the name and telephone number of the actual parents of the child.
There is a type of person who seems to feel it necessary to make everything – everything – about them. I hate vaccines therefore ‘my neighbours son’ died of them. I hate vaccines therefore ‘a little girl up the street’ died from them. the AoA article shows exactly the same casual disregard for human life in pursuance of their agenda. Disgusting and immoral.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Kev,
You were doing well until your last list of facts. Based on the science, you can’t make statements of fact about lack of causation.
The only thing you can say is that based on the best available studies, there is no evidence of causation. To state otherwise, is to misinterpret the science.
Schwartzy boy is right on that.
Technically, you can never make statements of fact about lack of causation of absolutely anything. But this is kind of silly. For example, if I say, “puppies don’t cause pancreatic cancer,” that’s technically wrong.
Nitpicking, all you can say accurately is that “there’s no evidence of causation” or that “we can’t reject the null hypothesis.”
And thus I prove once more why I am not a scientist 😀
Lisa Jo wrote:
Hi Lisa Jo,
From your use of “mainlining”, it’s difficult to tell if you are attempting to be dramatic or are simply ignorant about some of the specifics. Vaccines are not “mainlined”. With respect to injecting air, do you understand what quantity and route of administration would be required to support your assertion that it is NOT perfectly safe if injected? Are either of your statements actually relevant to vaccine administration?
Read up Lisa Jo, and consider urging others to do so. Really, please read the article (your blogging may benefit).
Linked Article
Mostly animal research, I think, but yes, see “Merck Index” and “CAS Registry”.
Clinical trials and vaccine safety surveillance data aside…
Generation Rescue couldn’t have written your question better themselves. Wonder aloud about GR’s infamous “too soon”, but slice out the ethics and social responsibility in the name of curiosity. The real question should be, “Is there any scientific evidence to support such investigation with respect to autism?”. If you find any, please share it.
Joseph,
If you intend this to be an accurate analogy, I say Strawman.
If you trying to say that epidemiology is even close to being the final word on accurate causation analysis, you’re not doing your homework. They haven’t even done any of the gold standard studies, so we’re a long way from stating any lack of causation with any certainty.
Why? I think it’s as good an analogy as any.
Gold standard studies (randomized, double-blind trials I believe is what you mean) is rarely used to determine causation, because it can’t be done. Take, for example, tobacco and cancer. How is causation determined there? Through epidemiology.
This is a departure from the original argument, though, which was about how you can never prove a negative statistically.
Joseph,
You can certainly test for causation/correlation through randomized double-blind studies. That’s how drugs are associated with negative side effects today. That’s how we discovered that HRT was on balance detrimental for the majority of women using it — It was a large scale long term NIH funded study. Any general arguments about the inability to study this properly is a cop out.
You also assume that all epidemiology is equal, when clearly it is not. Are you attempting to compare the epidemiological studies done on smoking to the ones done between autism and vaccines? Are you also trying to say that it was only through epidemiology that smoking was determined to be causative of numerous health issues? I know from reading several of these old smoking studies that they used control groups to compare smokers to non-smokers. Again, something that is not done with vaccination.
Both your analogies are inaccurate, and I say strawman again.
But you’re right, it is a departure, and like I stated, you can’t make a factual statement on lack of causation as it is not supported by science. In this case it’s even worse, because even the lack of correlation is supported by weak flawed epidemiology.
DO’c –
Here’s the problem: most of us are not steeped in the research as members of this group clearly are. While I do blog about autism in its broadest sense, I am not an expert on vaccines, medical research, or the history of epidemiology. Nor, to be frank, do I think it’s appropriate for an “autism” blogger writing to a general audience to write reams of science-heavy content on vaccines – which, in my opinion, are in FACT only tangentially relevant to autism in the first place.
I assume that when you say “Generation Rescue couldn’t have written your question better themselves,” you’re attempting to slam me. In fact, though, that’s my whole point! Those are precisely the types of questions being asked, not just by GenRes but by thousands of parents reading US magazine, watching Oprah, and so forth.
If you simply blow off the questions as unworthy of being answered respectfully, those people will walk away and find someone (probably at Genres) who will treat them as caring, concerned parents – and not as fools who deserve scorn.
I appreciate the link, and the content in your reply. In fact, it’s because I thought you would likely HAVE some of that information that I asked.
You say: “Wonder aloud about GR’s infamous “too soon”, but slice out the ethics and social responsibility in the name of curiosity. The real question should be, “Is there any scientific evidence to support such investigation with respect to autism?”. If you find any, please share it.”
Here, perhaps, is evidence for why an answer to this question might be worth finding: parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children on the basis of “too much too soon.” They, like many people, use common sense, rather than scientific research, to guide their decisions. It takes a whole lot of science to counter the demands of common sense – as I’m sure you’re well aware, being as you are a student of the history of science.
Lisa (autism guide)
You assume incorrectly. It’s to point out the lack of ethics and missing scientific support in how the question is framed in the first place. Whether or not vaccines have anything to do with autism is a scientific question (albeit, one that has largely been answered). It is not about you.
Valid point. Perhaps framing the questions in a way that would encouraging scientific understanding without excluding the ethics would be something to consider, and important to point out. I don’t suggest this would be easy, but it would seem desirable over justification of parroting the question of the perceived masses with an appeal to popularity.
Can you please show me the studies done to “prove” the safety of vaccines? I would like the actual number of children that they studied on/each vaccine used/with every reaction recorded. Also if it isn’t too much trouble, cite all your sources that show that the ingredients in each vaccine is safe to be INJECTED (since you feel the amount isn’t hazardous) I can find sites that claim these ingredients in small amounts are safe to touch, inhale, ingest (also many that state they are NOT safe) but none on the safety of them when they are injected directly into the bodies of INFANTS!!!
I’d like to give you all the benefit of the doubt, since you have tried so hard to discredit us so I am hear to listen to what you have to say/prove! Thanks
Go to http://www.pubmed.gov and plug in the name of the vaccine you are interested in, and you will get a long list of studies.
If you can only access the abstract, go to your local municipal library and see if they subscribe to a service that will get you the entire paper. If they do not, travel to your closest medical school and use their library (most state-supported medical schools let the public use their libraries).
Also, you should check on the schedule and the use of each vaccine. For instance, the MMR is not used on infants, in the USA it is not given until the child is at least 12 months old (it also has never contained neither thimerosal nor aluminum salts). Some diseases are particularly deadly to infants, like rotavirus, pertussis and haemophilis influenzae b… and others are more dangerous if infection is early in life (like HepB… which can be transmitted by saliva).
For an overview of the vaccines and their schedule go to:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/pink-chapters.htm
You will find a chapter on each vaccine preventable disease (with their history, incidence and vaccine risks/effectiveness). Plus there are chapters on vaccine science and safety.
At the end of each chapter there is a bibliography. That is a selected list of papers used to write the chapter. You can find those papers by going to PubMed and using its search window.
Thank you for your interest in learning the real science versus myth when it comes to vaccines. Good luck with your research.
Another Voice Re; "Children do suffer adverse reactions from vaccines. The evaluation is usually made that the benefits of vaccination far, far outweigh the risks, except where there are known adverse predispositions. While I support vaccinating children, I do feel that more research is required into detecting predispositions that many result in adverse reactions."
So why are we willing to vaccinate our children without these studies being done first? I mean I'm all for "the greater good" but so far my child suffered because of it, and I am sorry if you think I am selfish but I don’t want to use my kids as guinea pigs for the safety of another child. What mother would? I mean am I supposed to go around saying that I chose my daughter to get Autism because I chose to vaccinate her for the greater good? What makes your child more valuable than mine? And if that’s the case you all should be thanking me for choosing to save your child from the Measles and in return my daughter has a lifelong sentence.
Cont'd…
Re; "No, most medical professionals, as well as parents, do not feel there are too many too soon"
That’s funny because I have not met one parent yet (who are actually aware of the amount) that say they are not concerned with the amount of vaccines given (with the exception of ppl here, but that’s a whole other issue) So can you please forward that study done please. I'd like to see what the actual survey question was/how many ppl were involved/and what year it was taken, thank you. And then you say in the same sentence "Re: "The most recent surveys show that parents agree and immunizations are on the rise"
So they agree that it’s on the rise, but not concerned? Again, I'd like to see that study in full please.
suzanne, RE; "question RE your list of “practically mandated” (in CA) vaccines.
7 of the 42 vaccines by time they reach kindergarten on your list are “FLU”.
Do Canadians routinely get flu shots? I don’t know very many people who chose to get them here in USA."
Yes they are recommended (and very pressured into) getting the flu shot EVERY YEAR starting at 6 months of age. A scare tactic you say? Nope, just the facts. I find it funny that when I state a fact I am trying to scare ppl, but when the gov. states stats from ALL OVER THE WORLD (which will clearly give you a higher number then what would really be affecting us here) it is just them stating a fact too… LOL please you need to learn what is really a scare tactic and what is reality. And trust me, we do NOT need to scare anyone, the reality is scary enough!
Cont'd from above…I chose to use the Canadian schedule because I live in Canada, I also looked at the US briefly and there is not much different. The list I provided came right from the health Canada website so I assure you that it is what’s given here. Including the flu shot because you can NOT go ANYWHERE without being brainwashed and pressured into getting the flu shot. (again, talk about scare tactic ?)
RE; “Also, our school district openly offers waivers for basically personal choice. I think any US public school has waivers, but I noted it in a few obvious places in our back-to-school info.”
That really shocks me because I have almost 600 members in my group (many US citizens) and I have yet to find one that has ever been offered the “waivers” most have no idea that they even had a choice. It took them to look into it themselves and then pass the messege along. So not sure where you get your info from (?)
Re; “I hope, as you search for truth, that you know that the diagnostic criteria for ASDs has changed tremendously in the past 20 years.
DSM-I (1952) Autism not specifically coded
DSM-II(1968) Autism was not included as a separate diagnostic category
DSM-III ” Infantile Autism” included
There were only six characteristics listed and each of these six symptoms must be present in order for an individual to be diagnosed with infantile autism. Due to some controversy surrounding the descriptor infantile, this category was changed to autistic disorder in 1987.
DSM-IV(1994)
The category of pervasive developmental disorders added. with 5 subtypes Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, Rett’s Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS).
pretty substantial changes, don’t you think?
How was ANYONE to receive an Autism dx prior to 1980?”
Cont'd…
And lastly, If Autism (in other forms) were around back then, can you please show me the stats of these ppl? You must have them to state that Autism hasn’t risen, it was just called something else. So please if you don’t mind, give me the number of ppl disabled (with autistic like symptoms) from 1930-1980. And those of who were vaccinated for anything to help me understand the true numbers in respect to the vaccines. Thanks so much!
Re; “Thank you for your interest in learning the real science versus myth when it comes to vaccines. Good luck with your research”
I am interested in learning science versus experiences, not necessary myths because it is clear that many children develop Autism right after the MMR and it is clear that many children die of SIDS hours or days after the DTaP. I have personally witnessed both. Granted I have never personally seen any child die of chickenpox, the flu or the measles but I do know that they exist. This is why I want to find out as much as possible in order to make an informed decision whether or not to vaccinate because unfortunatly there is no right answer, you are risking the life of your child either way. I simply want to find out the “odds” of a child developing these diseases this day and age AND suffering from it (in developed countries) rather than just developing it and getting over it and then in turn being immune to it for life (hence no need to vaccinate in the first place) So I thank you for your time and information, I will be looking into this a great deal. I do want to also apologize to anyone here who took offense to my immature literature earlier. I am able to admit when I am wrong (in the way of treating you not my stance on vaccines) and admit that my ways of speaking to you were neither respectful nor called for. I do however want to voice my concern with vaccines and the schedule we subject our infants too… regardless if we feel vaccines outweigh the risks or not we must admit that there too many too soon.
’08 Canadian Vaccine Schedule(US,almost same)
(Vaccine-Age)
Flu-Prenatal
HB-Birth
DTaP-2mos (3 doses)
Hib-2
PnC-7-2
MenC-2
DTaP-4
Hib-4
PnC7-4
MenC-4
DTaP-6
Hib-6
PnC7-6
MenC-6
Flu-6
MMR-12mos
Var-12
PnC7-12
DTaP-18mos
Hib-18
MMR-18
FLU-18
FLU-2yrs
FLU-3yrs
DPTP-4yrs
FLU-4yrs
FLU-5yrs
Please note: 42 vaccines by time they reach kindergarten
HPV-9 through 13yrs
DT-14yrs
HB-15yrs
FLU-6yrs to death
DT- Every 10yrs
~Compared to 10 vaccines 28 years ago. Also in retrospect whether we believe vaccines to be a cause or a trigger, one must also admit that each rise in cases of Autism coincided with each vaccine added to the schedule. 1983 we saw 1 in 10,000 diagnosed with Autism with only 10 vaccines (selectively given) where as now there’s 1 in 150 (higher in some areas) and we give 41 vaccines.(practically mandated) We can argue all day as to who to “believe” more but at the end of the day you have to look at ALL angles and decide for yourself and your child what outweighs what. I have already made my decision not to vaccinate, but that does not mean I will not continue to research and better understand. So thanks again, Chris for providing even more to look through!
To Madi, who might possibly be Madison’s Mom, allow me to clarify.
When I said that the benefit of vaccine usually far out weighs the risk, I was not speaking of the general good. I feel that the risks posed by vaccination are far less than exposing the children in my family to many of these diseases. That is my personal position.
Not once did I refer to the common good or even say what you should or should not do. You will make your own decisions, so please don’t say things like “I don’t want to use my kids as guinea pigs for the safety of another child” to me. I never asked you to do anything of the sort, or even vaguely implied such a thing.
The latest survey on immunization uptake, 2007, is on the CDC web site; look under press releases. It is there for you to read, draw your own conclusions. It will give you more information to evaluate; hopefully it will be helpful.
Dear Madison’s Mom
I have a question RE your list of “practically mandated” (in CA) vaccines.
7 of the 42 vaccines by time they reach kindergarten on your list are “FLU”.
Do Canadians routinely get flu shots? I don’t know very many people who chose to get them here in USA.
Padding the number of vaccines in the schedule seems like a scare tactic of anti-vaxers to me.
here’s a list of what my kids had pre-K
DTaP (that’s 3 vaccines in one) x4
Polio x3
MMR (3 in one)x1
Hib x3
varicella x1
pnemococcal x4 by age 2
(I get 26, but I stink at math)
(boosters rec’d age 7 =DTaP, Polio, MMR, Varicella)
26+8=34 to be up to date
Also, our school district openly offers waivers for basically personal choice. I think any US public school has waivers, but I noted it in a few obvious places in our back-to-school info.
I hope, as you search for truth, that you know that the diagnostic criteria for ASDs has changed tremendously in the past 20 years.
DSM-I (1952) Autism not specifically coded
DSM-II(1968) Autism was not included as a separate diagnostic category
DSM-III(1980) ” Infantile Autism” included
There were only six characteristics listed and each of these six symptoms must be present in order for an individual to be diagnosed with infantile autism. Due to some controversy surrounding the descriptor infantile, this category was changed to autistic disorder in 1987.
DSM-IV(1994)
The category of pervasive developmental disorders added. with 5 subtypes Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, Rett’s Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS).
pretty substantial changes, don’t you think?
How was ANYONE to receive an Autism dx prior to 1980?
And now people are all shocked and scared that the numbers rose.
Madison’s Mom states “regardless if we feel vaccines outweigh the risks or not we must admit that there too many too soon”.
No, most medical professionals, as well as parents, do not feel there are too many too soon. Most doctors feel that a child’s system would not be adversely impacted by many times the number of immunizations called for in the schedule. The most recent surveys show that parents agree and immunizations are on the rise. Nationally, 77% of children are reported to be fully vaccinated according to the most recent CDC survey. The public school systems in some states, such as Indiana, report vaccination rates that are considerably higher; low 90%. (Source MSNBC)
That having been said, I would not want to overlook some real concerns that arise from vaccination. Children do suffer adverse reactions from vaccines. The evaluation is usually made that the benefits of vaccination far, far outweigh the risks, except where there are known adverse predispositions. While I support vaccinating children, I do feel that more research is required into detecting predispositions that many result in adverse reactions.
Another Voice Re; “Children do suffer adverse reactions from vaccines. The evaluation is usually made that the benefits of vaccination far, far outweigh the risks, except where there are known adverse predispositions. While I support vaccinating children, I do feel that more research is required into detecting predispositions that many result in adverse reactions.”
So why are we willing to vaccinate our children without these studies being done first? I mean I’m all for “the greater good” but so far my child suffered because of it, and I am sorry if you think I am selfish but I don’t want to use my kids as guinea pigs for the safety of another child. What mother would. I mean am I supposed to go around saying that I chose my daughter to get Autism because I chose to vaccinate her for the greater good? What makes your child more valuable than mine?
And if that’s the case you all should be thanking me for choosing to save your child from the Measles and in return my daughter has a lifelong sentence.
Re; “No, most medical professionals, as well as parents, do not feel there are too many too soon”
That’s funny because I have not met one parent yet (who are actually aware of the amount) that say they are not concerned with the amount of vaccines given (with the exception of ppl here, but that’s a whole other issue) So can you please forward that study done please. I’d like to see what the actual survey question was/how many ppl were involved/and what year it was taken, thank you.
And then you say in the same sentence
“Re: “The most recent surveys show that parents agree and immunizations are on the rise”
So they agree that it’s on the rise, but not concerned? Again, I’d like to see that study in full please.
suzanne, RE; “question RE your list of “practically mandated” (in CA) vaccines.
7 of the 42 vaccines by time they reach kindergarten on your list are “FLU”.
Do Canadians routinely get flu shots? I don’t know very many people who chose to get them here in USA.”
Yes they are recommended (and very pressured into) getting the flu shot EVERY YEAR starting at 6 months of age. A scare tactic you say? Nope, just the facts. I find it funny that when I state a fact, I am trying to scare ppl…. but when the gov. states stats from ALL OVER THE WORLD (which will clearly give you a higher number then what would really be affecting us here) it is just them stating a fact too… LOL please you need to learn what is really a scare tactic and what is reality. And trust me, we do NOT need to scare anyone, the reality is scary enough!
I chose to use the Canadian schedule because I live in Canada, I also looked at the US briefly and there is not much different. The list I provided came right from the health Canada website so I assure you that it is what’s given here. Including the flu shot because you can NOT go ANYWHERE without being brainwashed and pressured into getting the flu shot.(again, talk about scare tactics (?)
RE; “Also, our school district openly offers waivers for basically personal choice. I think any US public school has waivers, but I noted it in a few obvious places in our back-to-school info.”
That really shocks me because I have almost 600 members in my group (many US citizens) and I have yet to find one that has ever been offered the “waivers” most have no idea that they even had a choice. It took them to look into it themselves and then pass the messege along. So not sure where you get your info from (?)
Re; “I hope, as you search for truth, that you know that the diagnostic criteria for ASDs has changed tremendously in the past 20 years.
DSM-I (1952) Autism not specifically coded
DSM-II(1968) Autism was not included as a separate diagnostic category
DSM-III ” Infantile Autism” included
There were only six characteristics listed and each of these six symptoms must be present in order for an individual to be diagnosed with infantile autism. Due to some controversy surrounding the descriptor infantile, this category was changed to autistic disorder in 1987.
DSM-IV(1994)
The category of pervasive developmental disorders added. with 5 subtypes Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, Rett’s Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS).
pretty substantial changes, don’t you think?
How was ANYONE to receive an Autism dx prior to 1980?”
And lastly, If Autism (in other forms) were around back then, can you please show me the stats of these ppl? You must have them to state that Autism hasn’t risen, it was just called something else. So please if you don’t mind, give me the number of ppl disabled (with autistic like symptoms) from 1930-1980. And those of who were vaccinated for anything to help me understand the true numbers in respect to the vaccines. Thanks so much!
Re Madison’s Mom,
This last post seems to be a republication of things you said yesterday and were responded to.
Hopefully you have been to the CDC web site and read the results of the survey for yourself. I thought that was fairly impressive, 77% of children being vaccinated according to the CDC recommended schedule because the parents approved the administration of the vaccination. That is the CDC schedule, of course, not what you were publishing. Did you notice that over 90% of children were closely following the schedule and only missing one vaccination.
A report on measles in the USA between Jan and July 2008:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/18/2111
Some selected quotes (the full report is available free online after a short advertisement):
“During January-July 2008, 131 measles cases were reported to CDC, compared with an average of 63 cases per year during 2000-2007.* …
This is the lowest percentage of imported measles cases since 1996….
During April 18-21, the other seven children in the household became ill with fever and rash. Three of the children developed pneumonia and were evaluated by a health-care provider who suspected measles; all three tested positive for measles-specific IgM antibody….The number of measles cases reported during January 1–July 31, 2008, is the highest year-to-date since 1996…In the United States, measles caused 450 reported deaths and 4,000 cases of encephalitis annually before measles vaccine became available in the mid-1960s.1…
Measles is one of the first diseases to reappear when vaccination coverage rates fall.”
“So why are we willing to vaccinate our children without these studies being done first?”
wE Aren’t we haven’t and it doesn’t look like it’s ever going to happen either. Not check for safety? Where did you dig up that lie. There are hundreds of peer reviewed safety studues on vaccnies. Offit says they’re the most comprehwnsive safety studies ever done. Why don’t you look up Pubmed rather than endlessly repeating things that just aren’t true? It’s tiresome. First you’ve got this totally unreal world that has to somehow mangle everybody’s immune system to the point that they can’t live with some of the earth’s commonest elements – like aluminium or they somehow can’t cope with the tiny number of antigens in 6 vaccines yet are expected to cope with millions more of a load on a daily basis. Then you expect us to believe that kids are guinea pigs for vaccines. They aren’t and they never have been.
Chris, maybe you can clarify something for me because I must admit I suck at Math:
From your link above: “Among those measles cases reported during the first 7 months of 2008, 91% were in persons who were unvaccinated or of unknown vaccination status. Of the 131 cases, 89% were imported from or associated with importations from other countries” So, as far as I am aware we document the vaccines we get here in Can/US, so it seems to me where they say “of unknown status” would only be people from other countries. And then it says one line further that 89% were imported… so this is where I get confused. They say that 91% is unvaccineded OR unknown and if we document our vaccines here then really it could be saying that only 2% were confirmed unvaccinated(?)and the rest would be imported. I am sure you are going to have some “scientific” answer for me, so please allow me to remind you that I am just trying to clarify. It just seems fishy that they say 91% are unvaccinated OR UNKNOWN. So really it COULD me that 89% are vaccinated but werent documented right? Which again would mean that only 2% were not vaccinated! Please clarify. Thanks
Something else to concider. In the 1950s, before the vaccine was developed and incorporated into childhood immunization, there were an estimated 4 million cases in the United States each year. You’ve stated 450 fatalities and 4000 serious complications/per year. Whoa, that sounds HUGE right. But if I was a parent trying to weigh the odds of my child contracting the disease and having a serious complication or even death I would notice that the IF my child got the measles there would only be a 0.1% chance of developing encephalitis and an even smaller chance of death at .01% oods. Whereas (although YOU don’t have the “scientific proof”) I will also see that 1 in 150 kids “develop” Autism, with MANY reports of occurrence right after the MMR (measles) vaccine. So Hmm… I’d have to say I’d rather take the less than 1% chance of getting Measles and dieing that a 1 in 150 chance of getting Autism. But like you said we all have to make the decisions that is best for children. And just for the record, your stats also indicate that out of the 4 Million cases there are now 3,999,550 people immune for life from the disease (so even if there were outbreaks, they wouldn’t have to worry and the “unvax’d” wouldn’t have to worry about those ppl either) and 3,996,000 ppl got it, got over it with NO complication and are now immune for life!!! Sounds like pretty good odds to me!
“Madison’s Mom” seems to have overlooked a few things in her “vaccination math”. She seems to be arguing that not vaccinating with the MMR vaccine would lead to the permanent disability of 0.1% and the death of 0.01% of each new generation (about 4.25 million new children a year = 425 deaths and 4,250 disabilities) but would “save” 28,300 children each year from autism. Hard to argue with those numbers – except, of course, that nobody has shown that the MMR vaccine causes autism.
Here are a few facts to chew on.
When Japan discontinued the MMR in favor of individual vaccines, the rise in autism prevalence they were experiencing (similar to that seen in the US, UK, Canada, Europe, etc.) did not decrease. What did change was that Japan suffered a significant increase in measles and mumps.
OK, let’s assume – for the sake of discussion – that the MMR vaccine did cause a fraction of the cases of autism seen in the US. Why wouldn’t we also see the same risk (or higher!) of autism in children who come down with the wild-type measles virus?
After all, even the most fervent supporter of the MMR-causes-autism hypothesis – AJ Wakefield – has no data suggesting that the wild-type measles virus would have any less effect than the vaccine strain – and all indications are that whatever the vaccine strain can do, the wild-type virus can do – better, faster and deadlier.
So, of the four and a quarter million newborns this year, we could expect 425 deaths, 4,250 “serious complications” and over 28,000 cases of autism (1 in 150). Except that’s not what was seen prior to the measles vaccine.
Thus, we are forced – if we persist in blaming autism on the MMR vaccine – to postulate that children today are somehow more genetically “fragile” – which would explain how the attenuated measles vaccine strain virus can cause a complication that was not noted during the time when 95+% of all children got the wild-type virus.
In that case, we have even more incentive to vaccinate our children! After all, if the watered-down, weakened measles vaccine strain is supposed to be causing 1 in 150 of our children to become autistic, what will happen if the wild-type measles virus returns?
Frankly, I expect the wild-type measles virus to make a return in the next decade, since I have little faith in the general public’s ability to reject a good story in favor of good science. When that happens, we’ll have an uncontrolled study of what happens to autism rates when MMR uptake diminishes. We’ll also have an uncontrolled study of what happens when a highly contagious and dangerous virus returns to a population that has not been “selected” by that virus for at least two generations.
Prometheus
MM said “Something else to concider. In the 1950s, before the vaccine was developed and incorporated into childhood immunization, there were an estimated 4 million cases in the United States each year.”
Where did you get that figure? Because if you go up thread to Nov. 7th, you see that someone posted the number of cases and deaths per year from 1950 to now. The number of measles cases in the 1950s ranged between 320000 cases to 760000 cases per year. That is about ten times less than “4 million”.
By the way, the percentages are different because they are counting different things. Some of the people who are being counted are in more than one of the things being counted. Next time you read the article, write down the various categories, like “not vaccinated”, “vaccinated once”, “American who went abroad”, etc. It might make it clearer for you.
If you “suck at math” I would suggest you work to rectify that condition. Community colleges are very good at providing remedial education, and a beginning statistics course only requires that you know basic 9th grade algebra.
The main thing to remember from that article is that when the MMR vaccine is skipped, measles is the first disease to return. It is very communicable.
Prometheus said “After all, if the watered-down, weakened measles vaccine strain is supposed to be causing 1 in 150 of our children to become autistic, what will happen if the wild-type measles virus returns?”
By killing all of the kids who would be so sensitive to the MMR it makes them autistic. That way, they would be dead instead of autistic.
Then we are back to MM’s first comment where she said “So in other words, yes measles are confirmed. But no one dies of it unless you already have an underlying condition.”
By the way, MM’s numbers were off by a factor of 10. Prometheus’ quote should be:
“She seems to be arguing that not vaccinating with the MMR vaccine would lead to the permanent disability of 1.% and the death of 0.1% of each new generation”
Prometheus, I am arguing that by not vaccinating, and if Measles happens to make a come back (like you said is going to happen) that the percent of ppl getting measles might be high but the amount of ppl that would actually die or develop swelling of the brain from it are extremely small (.01%-.1%) I love your scare tactics tho when you use the actual # of deaths… Just like the CDC, good for you my little robot, as they would say!
I couldn’t be bothered to comment further on anything you’ve just babbled about.
Now on to the next post, Chris: Re; “Where did you get that figure? Because if you go up thread to Nov. 7th, you see that someone posted the number of cases and deaths per year from 1950 to now. The number of measles cases in the 1950s ranged between 320000 cases to 760000 cases per year. That is about ten times less than “4 million”.
Ok first of all, unlike you, I choose not to take someone’s “word” for it, and good thing I didn’t because they were WRONG! I got that figure right from the CDC website. (which was a citation of the link from an above post, hmmm) “before the measles vaccination program began, when an estimated 3–4 million persons in the United States were infected each year, 400–500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and another 1,000 developed chronic disability from measles encephalitis” http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm
Here a few more for you to take a look at and I strongly urge you to contact them to let them know that you feel they are wrong!
http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2008/r080821.htm
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/measles-cases-highest-since-1996-25639-1/
http://www.pharmacytimes.com/EPT/2008-09-04_03.asp
http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/cdc-measles-cases-highest-since-1996.aspx?googleid=246156
Click to access mm57e501.pdf
I can find about 100 more, if you like.
Re: “If you “suck at math” I would suggest you work to rectify that condition. Community colleges are very good at providing remedial education, and a beginning statistics course only requires that you know basic 9th grade algebra.”
Haha, funny you say that… now that you can clearly see that my MATH IS CORRECT then maybe you and your friends on here can go together. Maybe some simple English classes would do you’s good as well for most of you can’t seem to understand this language.
And just to let you all know, that I wont resort to name calling or belittling no matter how much you do. So keep making yourself look jouvanile!
alyric excaggerates about as well as Dr. Offit. Safety studies are specific to the vaccines in question.
In the case of MMR, an extensive well documented scientific review performed by the well respected Cochrane group found the safety studies of MMR vaccine to be inadequate.
They likewise came to the same conclusion regarding the safety aspects of mass flu vaccination.
A similar situation exists with Gardasil, since it did not undergo any sort of safety testing on the population it is currently being mandated for.
Beware of generalized blanket statements about safety such as those parroted by alyric.
Scwartz said “In the case of MMR, an extensive well documented scientific review performed by the well respected Cochrane group found the safety studies of MMR vaccine to be inadequate.”
So what is the relative safety of actually getting measles? The possibility increases as the MMR scare stories create more pockets on those who skip the vaccine.
Oh, are you among those that think that children who cannot survive measles without getting permanent neurological damage or actually die, were those children who should not be allowed to grow up?
Oh, a man of contradiction, lol
Scwartz, we are not allowed to show the %’s of complications from contracting Measles because it shows a VERY SMALL amount and rather than them opening their eyes to the truth they claim we don’t “care” about those .01% of people who die. And yet it IS ok for the government to admit that the vaccines cause severe reactions/death in SOME children. Well what about THOSE kids, you heartless jerk!
Give me a break, its about weighing the pro’s and con’s and LIKE I SAID, I’d rather take the chance that my kids get the measles with a less then 1% chance of complications and in turn be 100% immune to it for life.
I know you don’t think that Autism is triggered by the toxins in vaccines but I don’t give a shit what you think. I know through enough research that it does. And I don’t need anyone to tell what to think, and that includes you or your damn government.
Re; “So what is the relative safety of actually getting measles? The possibility increases as the MMR scare stories create more pockets on those who skip the vaccine.”
I already told you, try and keep up!
Measles come and go… with the slight chance of complications (.01% member)?
What part of that did you not understand?
“Oh, are you among those that think that children who cannot survive measles without getting permanent neurological damage or actually die, were those children who should not be allowed to grow up?”
Again, CONTRADICTION (?)
Are you among those that think that children who cannot survive vaccines without getting permanent neurological damage or actually die, were those children who should not be allowed to grow up?
Answer your own damn question.
HCN,
You clearly missed the point as usual. The question was how well was the safety tested on vaccines. The answer in some specific cases is not very well. Thus, in those cases, you can’t really measure the risk.
Additionally, you also have to include a comparison to single measles vaccine.
MM said “Scwartz, we are not allowed to show the %’s of complications from contracting Measles because it shows a VERY SMALL amount and rather than them opening their eyes to the truth they claim we don’t “care” about those .01% of people who die. ”
It is 0.1% who die, that is one out of 1000. And about one out of 100 who get encephalitis (there is a percentage of those who come out okay, some become blind, some deaf, and some permanently neurologically damaged).
You still have not explained how you got “4 million per year cases”, when the reality is one tenth of that. A number with six digits in the “hundred thousands” range, and a number with SEVEN digits is in the “million” range. Look at the list I posted on Nov. 7th. The numbers from the 1950s are six digits with a comma in the middle to help you count the number of digits (they only have one comma… the underlines are to keep the columns in the blog software that collapses spaces, so it is easier to read).
And yes you can show how many have complications of measles, as long as you use real numbers from actual public health databases (like Health Canada, NHS, CDC and the equivalents of other countries). Because it is much smaller than the MMR (which is about 1 in over a million). There is no real evidence that the MMR has any thing to do with autism, and lots of studies to show it does not.
Yet, you still have that statement that is is okay that the boys in England died from measles because they had pre-existing conditions. They should not have been exposed to measles in the first place. Herd immunity should have protected them, but due to type of bad information you depend on, that protection was eroded.
Schwartzy said “The question was how well was the safety tested on vaccines.”
The Cochrane studies ALL say more research is needed. Just find me one that doesn’t. Even the Cochrane review on the effectiveness of homoepathic Oscillococcinum says with “Further research is warranted but the required sample sizes are large.”, see:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16855981
(Oscillococcinum is a commercial product where a bit of duck liver has been diluted so much that by the numbers used would be one duck atom to all the atoms in the known universe… and yet that Cochrane review said more research is warrented!)
The MMR has been around since 1971, and like all medical products has been thoroughly tested. Then, and more recently with two dozen studies, including the recent Hornig study that showed it was safe.
Right now I am trying to find that Hornig study, and I am finding editorials (like Wakefield whining), reports on outbreaks of mumps and measles, like this (sticking to one URL):
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008 Feb 29;57(8):203-6.
Outbreak of measles–San Diego, California, January-February 2008.
and this:
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2008 Sep 13;152(37):2032-6.
[An outbreak of measles at an emergency room]
… and more reports that the MMR is safe:
Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Oct 8. [Epub ahead of print]
Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination and Asthma-like Disease in Early Childhood. (the conclusion says that the MMR is protective against asthma like disease!).
Oh, I found the Hornig study, it was hit #19 for the search term “mmr vaccine”:
PLoS ONE. 2008 Sep 4;3(9):e3140.
Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study.
HCN,
Missed the point again I see. The Cochrane report didn’t just say that they would like to see more research. In both cases, they were surprised by the glaring lack of research (especially in the MMR case) into safety. The exact wording was “inadequate”. If you actually read the details of the report, they outline reams of methodological flaws in the very few studies that even qualified, one wonders what these peer reviewed authors were thinking.
In the case of the Flu vaccine the issue is even worse, because not only are the safety aspects unknown WRT mass vaccination (as recommended by the CDC) but the efficacy data itself was severely flawed and highly questionable.
Your inaccurate portrayal and dismissal of the conclusions of their extensive reports is completely unjustified by your weak argument.
Hello friends –
We’ll also have an uncontrolled study of what happens when a highly contagious and dangerous virus returns to a population that has not been “selected” by that virus for at least two generations.
You might be surprized to learn this, but I agree completely, and indeed, this is a very scary thing, in my opinion. If we do get another epidemic of measles, it will actually be much worse than the great old days. Also included in our list of those who will fall ill is a large number of adults for whom the protection from vaccination has waned over time, and for whom getting measles as a child would have been much less problematic than getting the measles as an adult.
One need look no further than what happened in California in the 1989 – 1991 to see an example of the difference in disease profile and deaths when a vaccinated population encounters measles at a high rate. Near 20% of those who died were grown adults, and the number of people infected that were not children was large compared to what you would expect to see in a developing country. Likewise, the number of infants under one was very large; likely the result of vaccinated mothers providing less immunity than their counterparts who had measles as children.
We are doomed.
– pD
HCN, you said: “It is 0.1% who die, that is one out of 1000, You still have not explained how you got “4 million per year cases”, when the reality is one tenth of that. And yes you can show how many have complications of measles, as long as you use real numbers from actual public health databases (like Health Canada, NHS, CDC and the equivalents of other countries”
Ok here we go again, NO, IT IS 0.01% that dies!!!
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm
http://www.pharmacytimes.com/EPT/2008-09-04_03.asp
http://www.vaccineinformation.org/measles/qandadis.asp
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/14/1660
I’ve got more if you like? But I am getting a little tired of proving you wrong over and over again. A little help on your end would be nice!
So I’ve corrected you on your math, I showed you where I got my stats from and it does come from the sites you requested. And again, I have shown you the reality… yep I think I’ve pretty much summed it up for you…. Is there anything else I can do for you?
BTW, you should talk to Chris (above) because he’s going to take some math classes, and I suggest you join him!
Again to refresh your memory: 450 deaths out of 4 million cases is ONLY ***0.01%***
Ok, 4 with 6 zero’s after it = 4 MIILION (?)
Balance the odds pal!
Your references are just repeats of the same or similar CDC report, where someone used the ESTIMATED value. I found the source in the CDC Pink book on measles ( w w w .cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas-508.pdf ) there is this quote from page 10 (6 in the pdf file): “Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2–3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3–4 million annually.”
I believe you now. It would have helped if you gave the source first.
But that does not make measles any safer than the MMR vaccine. Even at a death rate of one in 10000, that is still not good odds… especially with possible neurological damage at one in 1000. If you read this paper, archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/160/3/302 … you will see they estimate there was about a one in 5000 chance of measles causing mental retardation (they did not count the cases of blindness, paralysis, deafness and other neurological injuries that do not impact cognition).
The data I posted on Nov. 7th is the REPORTED numbers, which is noted to be from:
Click to access appdx-full-g.pdf
Look at those tables and tell me which year measles had more than a million cases.
Anyway, using Excel, I added up ten years of data and did some math for you. Note that I am using the RAW reported data, not a press report with an estimate.
Year___ Cases_____Deaths
1950___ 319,124___468
1951___ 530,118___683
1952___ 683,077___618
1953___ 449,146___462
1954___ 682,720___518
1955___ 555,156___345
1956___ 611,936___530
1957___ 486,799___389
1958___ 763,094___552
1959___ 406,162___385
Total_5,487,332__4950
4950 divided by 5,487,33 = 0.0009
0.0009 times 100 = 0.09%
Or closer to .1% than .01%
Now that is in the 1950s. In the time between 1987 and 1991, the numbers were worse. Since reporting is better, it is assumed that the numbers would be more accurate (corrected typos):
Year____Cases___Deaths
1987____3,655____2
1988____3,396____3
1989____8,193___32
1990___27,786___64
1991____9,643___27
Total:_62,673__128
128 divided by 62,673 = 0.002
0.002 times 100 = .2%, or one death out of 500 about twice that of the 1950s reported data (or twenty times that of the estimated data).
Schwartzy, with a Cochrane review claiming that more research was needed curing influenza homeopathic duck liver, I am underwhelmed with any of their editorial comments. Especially with the incredibly large numbers of research that has been done in the past decade.
The “MMR causing autism” parrot is dead: ‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! ‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig! ‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
(cut and pasted from w w w . mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm)
Someone is using selective quoting, or making a mountain out of a molehill.
First to get the studies from the 1970s is difficult when they were papers on actual paper hiding in libraries. From:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16235361? .. “We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2004), EMBASE (1974 to December 2004), Biological Abstracts (from 1985 to December 2004), and Science Citation Index (from 1980 to December 2004). Results from reviews, handsearching and from the consultation of manufacturers and authors were also used.”
Note that the journal services only went back to 1974, but the vaccine was APPROVED in 1971 (all of those studies for the approval would only be found printed on actual paper).
From (I mung after one URL, because this blog seems to hate me when post more than one): w w w.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004407/frame.html
This is the part that someone is clinging too, but seems to skip the second sentence:
“Authors’ conclusions
The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.”
(it means, yeah, it causes problems but you have to remember that it prevents even nastier problems with measles, mumps and rubella).
Then, the plain language summary says “Measles, mumps and rubella are three very dangerous infectious diseases which cause a heavy disease, disability and death burden in the developing world. Researchers from the Cochrane Vaccines Field reviewed 139 studies conducted to assess the effects of the live attenuated combined vaccine to prevent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) in children. MMR protects children against infections of the upper airways but very rarely may cause a benign form of bleeding under the skin and milder forms of measles, mumps and rubella. No credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn’s disease was found. No field studies of the vaccine’s effectiveness were found but the impact of mass immunisation on the elimination of the diseases has been demonstrated worldwide.”
To repeat the pertinent part of that:
“No credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn’s disease was found.”
HCN,
You’re back at it again, shifting the argument to match your opinions.
I see you didn’t bother addressing any of the specific issues in the Cochrane MMR report. Of course, why bother reading the details and address them, when it’s far easier to create a strawman and argue against that right?
Are you actually trying to imply that this is an adequate safety study? Let’s see, it involved the enormous number of 25 people in both the study and control groups. The study methodology was also designed around a very small objective.
Maybe that’s why you just don’t get it. I think you need to go read up on what constitutes a real safety study.
Lots of google. No attention to details.
HCN, thank you for re-posting the reported CDC numbers. You are being helpful.
Re; “But that does not make measles any safer than the MMR vaccine”
What I am telling you is, that the % of getting the measles and having complications or even death (whether its 0.01% OR 0.1% like you think) is sooo small that I’d rather take that chance. That way, if any of my kids to get it (and survive) they will be immune for life and thus wouldn’t need to be subjected to the vaccines, where I am extremely uncomfortable with in the first place. Now you can say that you haven’t found any studies done by Pharma or the Gov. or the scientists they hire to do the studies that prove a link between Autism and vaccines… I can tell you that I don’t need them to tell me what they find, because I have seen first hand hundreds of kids regress into Autism RIGHT AFTER the vaccine, including my Madison. That’s causation enough for me… and like I said I don’t care for you to keep quoting your “pink book” site because I’ve already told you that I don’t trust the ppl behind it. I trust what I see with my own eyes and you can call me what you want but I am confident with my decisions not to vaccinate. Now it’s been a blast arguing who is MORE RIGHT with you but I have said my piece and you will be glad to know that I am leaving this discussion… Its not going anywhere, other than where its already gone… and I don’t need to keep hearing the same things. Peace!
Schwartz, correct me if I’m wrong but the Cochrane reviews are systematic reviews – i.e. they look at the whole, not the detail then conclude based on the entirety of evidence, for and against. I’ve never really understood why anyone picked out any quote from a Cochrane review other than the overall conclusion.
Madi – this is the second time you’ve promised to leave this discussion. I’ve carefully read everything you’ve put forward between those two times and have concluded that you are the worst kind of zealot. Not only do you not understand the points being made – you don’t care how they affect real people. My only hope is that this time you make good on your promise to stay away.
Kev,
They Cochrane group outlines their methodology in the review. They outline their methodology in collecting applicable studies for the study. After they have identified a large number of candidates, the Cochrane Group has a well established methodology which they use to evaluate the set of studies for inclusion in the review. Inclusion criteria includes analysis of potential bias, study methodology and other factors. This analysis was done by two independent researchers acting independently.
The studies remaining were analysed by the group in detail. The data, study designs, results, conclusions, bias, and methodology are discussed in their analysis. There is plenty of detail on a per study basis in the review. The results outlined in the MMR review (and the more recent influenza reviews) provided strong evidence for me that studies on vaccine safety — shocking for a vaccine this old — were grossly overestimated by most people. This is noted quite clearly in the conclusion which is what I was quoting from. Many of the studies by some of the big name study authors thrown around in this debate are exposed as clearly overblown and ultimately poor in bias, design, or conclusions. So picking out a quote from the details of the review are fully pertinent especially when debating the merits of a study from someone like Fombonne for instance.
However, their statements about inadequate safety studies is straight from the review summary and fully backed up in detail within the review.
The conclusion includes recommendations that MMR still be used but that recommendation is not based on any of the studies they reviewed — they state that if you read the recommendations carefully.
However, the recommendation was not the question that was asked here: Have the safety aspects been appropriately studied? The Cochrane report answers that question in quite a bit of detail for the MMR and flu vaccines.
Alyric made a blanket statement (almost always wrong just by the type of statement) that it was contrary to the best available evidence in these specific cases. HCN tried to imply that the more recent Hornig study was an example of a safety study. That’s a joke.
I am always surprised that so many people disregard Cochrane group findings without reading them in detail. I originally read the review because someone was using it to illustrate that safety had been adequately addressed. Imagine my surprise when I read the details.
Schwartz,
What really matters in a Cochrane Review is the Main results and Author’s conclusions. Cochrane’s Reviews originally started out as meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials. They still use the RCT as the gold standard methodology. The authors are supposed to be super-critical. Thus, almost every observational epidemiological study ever done will be “exposed as clearly overblown and ultimately poor in bias, design, or conclusions.” There’s a joke among epidemiologists that if the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report had been contracted out as a Cochrane Review, we’d still be arguing about whether smoking causes lung cancer.
So why not quote the actual Main results and conclusions relevant to this discussion?: “(1) Exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with… autism. (2) [The authors] could not identify studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR that fulfilled [their] inclusion criteria even though the impact of mass immunisation on the elimination of the disease has been largely demonstrated. (3) The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre– and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.”
I actually disagree with both the Cochrane Collaboration’s conclusions about MMR safety and with your statements about MMR safety. Much of the problem comes from the fact that people in vaccinology debates rarely explicitly define vaccine “safety.” The FDA definition of safety is “the relative freedom from harmful effect to persons affected, directly or indirectly, by a product when prudently administered, taking into consideration the character of the product in relation to the condition of the recipient at the time,” but this doesn’t help us much. However, if if we extend this to a simple quantitative definition, such as Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI)/Adverse Events Following Disease (AEFD), we actually get somewhere. For example, based on a meta-analysis of a whole lot of follow-up studies, it looks like 2 percent of all recent measles cases in recent outbreaks in industrialized countries are hospitalized. On the other hand, 0.1% of MMR vaccinations lead to hospitalizations because of AEFI, usually because of high fever or febrile convulsions. So for measles, the AEFI/AEFD = 0.1/2 = 0.05, meaning the risk of hospitalization after MMR vaccination is about one two hundredth of the risk of hospitalization after having measles. I could go into more detail on these and other data on MMR vaccine safety, but I don’t want steal my own thunder, since I plan to do one or more blog posts on this issue in the near future.
Incidentally, the Hornig et al. study is not a classic vaccine safety study, but it does contribute further towards our understanding that the MMR vaccine is probably safe. One more solid study reporting no evidence of causal association between the MMR vaccine and autism.
Epiwonk,
I appreciate your insight and impressions of the Cochrane methodology. However, the MMR review did include RCT studies in the mix, and they had problems too. I also don’t see why everyone is so quick to disregard the analysis of the issues of most of the studies they looked at, especially when many of those same studies are held up as evidence of safety. People are very fast to ignore the limitations of these studies and these reviews are a very good reminder. The peer-review process for publication is not effective
Because I posted the results in response to the idea posted: All vaccines have been rigorously safety tested. I’m discussing the general safety conclusions based on the study evidence here. I’ve discussed at length the full conclusions of the study, so I’m not trying to hide anything as everyone seems to think. As stated above, their conclusions on efficacy and recommendations of continued use are NOT based on the peer-reviewed evidence. That is irony for you.
I agree completely.
So we agree that this is the crux of the problem. There are a few main avenues of capturing AEFIs for these vaccines: 1) RCTs pre and post licensure 2) Adverse event reporting from general use 3) Large Post Licensure studies like the HRT study
Under category 1) reviews from Cochrane show that the original RCTs don’t tell us much. Additionally, many vaccine studies have very short followup tracking periods, which don’t really tell us about any issues that might occur past the typical 30-60 days. (interestingly, the rota virus vaccines had a much longer followup after the intessuption problem was discovered)
Under Category 2) the data collection is completely unregulated and our best estimates tell us they capture a fraction of the real issues, and even then, many of these may be misclassified. This is one of my biggest issues with today’s system of pharmaceutical tracking in general. Disease reporting is far more regulated and even reporting of Influenza has significant issues.
Under Category 3 we don’t have any for MMR (or influenza, and the early Gardasil results are focussed on efficacy, and even that isn’t encouraging).
Although I agree with your approach to the analysis we can’t ignore the quality of the data at our disposal. The issue I see is that the available data is very poor and we all know that garbage in = garbage out.
I have been reading the blog post about this issue on vaccines and I have a questions. When the vaccines were stop between 1989 and 1991 and Measles /DEATHS increased. Did the number of Autism drop?
I personally would rather have a child with Autism from what I have learn about the problem the hardes part is the lack of inter personal relationships and the medical expenses and future care of the child. However many children Handicapped by pyhsical and or metal problems and their parents face the same problems and self blame or think that their child’s problems will go away if they blame some one or something else. It would be better to have a LIVE Autistic child then a DEAD child from Measles, polo, chickenpox.
If the vaccine kills it should be taken off the market. But if a some one has the miss fortune of haveing an adverse reactions from a vaccine other then death, maybe a lot more test (not studies) be done on the victims and their family member.
Did the mothers or fatherf or even a sibling ever have the same vaccine? Why didn’t they become Autistic?
Now I agree we should leave it up to the parents as to vaccinate a child or not but the government should provide each and every parent all the studies made by government ,pharmacies, independent studies and whack jobs to make their minds up.
Then if they decide not to vaccinate their child and it gets one of the illness. We all pray that they don’t have a underlieing medical problem at the time an get over it and don’t DIE.
To Madison’s Mom I’d like you to think of this if your child got Autism form the vaccine and Millions of children world wide didn’t then maybe your child has a weakness or an undiagnosed or hidden medical problem.