Lancet retracts study linking autism to vaccines

[FrekeChild]

I just want to say thank you to Waterlily and all of the medical professions out there that spend their lives researching disease and the human body to make life better for all of us. A combined effort between many doctors in person and many other countless medical professionals and their research, gave me 8 more years than I should have had with my mother, and for that I am eternally grateful.

Sorry for the off-topicness, I just felt it needed to be said after reading waterlily's post.

 

[princesss]

I know a lot of you are interested, so here is a thread that links to "research" - a quick spot check shows that one "expert" got his PhD online from a school that isn't accredited and was involved at a high level in a multi-level marketing company (aka pyramid scheme) for some miracle juice, and while other links are apparently to studies, I can't find what journals they're published in. I don't have time to go through all of them, nor do I have the experience reading medical studies to see how much is bunk vs. how much might have merit, but for those of you so inclined, that seems to be the thread to check out.

 

[cara]

Um, that page of 'evidence' is scary. Here's just one snippet:

"I was working in one of the oldest lung illness treatment centres in Germany, and just by chance, I looked at the files of those people who had fallen ill during the first German epidemic of smallpox, in 1947...We had always been told that the smallpox vaccination would protect against smallpox. And now I could verify, thanks to the files and papers, that all of those who had fallen ill had been vaccinated. This was very upsetting for me." - Dr. Buchwald, M.D.

So... if the smallpox vaccine CAUSES smallpox, how was this disease eliminated from the face of the earth after plaguing humans for millenia?

It is a scary movement resistant to reason and contradictory evidence.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/5/2010 12:35:58 AM
Author: cara
Um, that page of ''evidence'' is scary. Here''s just one snippet:

''I was working in one of the oldest lung illness treatment centres in Germany, and just by chance, I looked at the files of those people who had fallen ill during the first German epidemic of smallpox, in 1947...We had always been told that the smallpox vaccination would protect against smallpox. And now I could verify, thanks to the files and papers, that all of those who had fallen ill had been vaccinated. This was very upsetting for me.'' - Dr. Buchwald, M.D.

So... if the smallpox vaccine CAUSES smallpox, how was this disease eliminated from the face of the earth after plaguing humans for millenia?

It is a scary movement resistant to reason and contradictory evidence.

Not sure if anyone noticed this, but TropicGal10 (Rockhugger''s former moniker here), is the HOST for that forum, so we are really, really not going to going to get any unbiased info from her.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I started reading though that thread and was very bothered by it. Everyone is talking about things as if they are experts but no one is actually citing anything. GAH!

 

[Porridge]

Date: 2/5/2010 12:43:17 AM
Author: TravelingGal
Not sure if anyone noticed this, but TropicGal10 (Rockhugger''s former moniker here), is the HOST for that forum.

There is actually no point arguing this cr@p anymore. We ask for one thing, and get an emotional outburst about things that weren''t even said.

Case closed. Rockhugger, I hope some day you will learn to let go of the anger and open your mind.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 2/5/2010 2:56:35 AM
Author: Porridge

Date: 2/5/2010 12:43:17 AM

Author: TravelingGal

Not sure if anyone noticed this, but TropicGal10 (Rockhugger''s former moniker here), is the HOST for that forum.

There is actually no point arguing this cr@p anymore. We ask for one thing, and get an emotional outburst about things that weren''t even said.


Case closed. Rockhugger, I hope some day you will learn to let go of the anger and open your mind.

Yes. It is very sad, Really.

 

[iheartscience]

Wow! Good find, TGal!

 

[KimberlyH]

Any way I can prevent the birth of my kid that''s due in 5 weeks so as to avoid her having contact with certain factions of society? I like her better where she is, protected from those with the inability to objectively research and deduce rational, logical conclusions from said research paired with their total lack of foresight regarding their obligatrion to society as a whole.

And a totally worthless proclomation, in case my thoughts are discredited because I don''t have a child with autism, I work with children with autism and other special needs in two capacities (as an educatior and behavioral consultant) -- which means I''ve done a lot of reading/studying/research -- and have endless amounts of sympathy for the challenges their families face as a result. I find hope in knowing that all of the parents I have come into contact with are able to distance themselves from the correlation of vaccine injections and autism diagnosis and recongize that there is no valid evidence that their children are autistic because they vaccinated and as a result protected them and those they are exposed to from potentially life threating diseases. It makes me a bit less scared to actually have my child living on the outside.

 

[Ella]

Please stay on topic.

 

[icekid]

A valiant effort, ladies...

Seriously though, the literature speaks for itself.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I saw this today and immediately thought of this thread.

 

[zhuzhu]

"Curr Opin Neurol. 2010 Jan 16. [Epub ahead of print]
Three hypotheses for developmental defects that may underlie some forms of autism spectrum disorder.

Rubenstein JL.

Department of Psychiatry, Nina Ireland Laboratory of Developmental Neurobiology, Center for Neurobiology and Psychiatry, Rock Hall, Room RH 284C, UCSF MC 2611, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Molecular and genetic insights into the etiology of autism spectrum disorders are now available. The field now needs to understand how these perturbations affect development and function of the brain. RECENT FINDINGS: Herein I review the genetic mechanisms known to predispose to autism spectrum disorders, and attempt to consolidate many of these within cellular/molecular pathways that regulate development of neural systems that underlie cognition and social behaviors. In addition to the clear relationship of many susceptibility genes to activity-dependent neural responses, I propose the existence of three additional mechanisms that may contribute to autism spectrum disorders: evolutionary-driven expansion of cerebrum and cerebellar size; imbalance in the excitatory/inhibitory ratio in local and extended circuits; the hormonal effects of the male genotype. SUMMARY: Understanding these mechanisms opens the possibility to therapeutic interventions."

 

[Prana]

Sort of off topic here, but a question that formed nontheless.

Are you planning on sending your kids to college? I''m pretty sure that these vaccines are required. Aren''t they also required for most public schools as well?

I have an Aunt that is anti vaccine. She vaccinated her older kids but suddenly became very anti everything (school, most medical visits, government, etc) and her youngest aren''t vaccinated. I notice that if you discuss it with her, she has no cold hard FACTS to support her reasoning. Only opinions that are self-formed or from the college of Wikipedia.

I find it scary how ill informed and close minded you seem to be RH. You are knowingly and willingly putting those who do not have a choice of contracting these diseases at risk.

If you are going to advocate and fight for your cause and your beliefs, give us some FACTS, not just opinions and beliefs of angry parents looking for a source of blame.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 2/6/2010 10:40:50 AM
Author: girlface
Sort of off topic here, but a question that formed nontheless.

Are you planning on sending your kids to college? I''m pretty sure that these vaccines are required. Aren''t they also required for most public schools as well?

I have an Aunt that is anti vaccine. She vaccinated her older kids but suddenly became very anti everything (school, most medical visits, government, etc) and her youngest aren''t vaccinated. I notice that if you discuss it with her, she has no cold hard FACTS to support her reasoning. Only opinions that are self-formed or from the college of Wikipedia.

I find it scary how ill informed and close minded you seem to be RH. You are knowingly and willingly putting those who do not have a choice of contracting these diseases at risk.

If you are going to advocate and fight for your cause and your beliefs, give us some FACTS, not just opinions and beliefs of angry parents looking for a source of blame.

Look back up the thread to my citation of the book entitled "Denialism". This anti-everything fact-resistant paranoia is a growing trend in the US. It''s not just happening regarding vaccines either. The more data you offer up, the more distrustful people with this mindset get. It''s like they''ve made a decision that nothing from the scientific community is worth a damn, but anything promulgated by a nice grandma or a snake oil salesman has GOT to be OK. Bizarre. Anyway, it''s an interesting book.

Long story of how, but at work we kinda got started on this topic - probably because a co-worker noticed the above-mentioned book that I''d brought. Anyway, one guy came around and said his wife had flat out said no to the MMR. He''s a great guy, but it was hard not to bang my head. And the other gal got started on smallpox, spouting forth that "Well, yes, it doesn''t happen HERE in the US, but in 3rd world countries they have it." I was like, uh, no, and finally I said, "Show me the data". She got defensive, and said, "Well, I remember that''s what they said when they finally quit vaccinating - that it wasn''t erradicated." So HER facts were a bit out of date. (no outbreaks in the wild since 1980, btw, according to the CDC)

Resistance to reason (as a reaction to information and change overload I suspect) is a growing trend, and bodes ill for this country.

 

[Blenheim]

Vaccines are "required" for public schools and daycares, although you can get exemptions. I think (don''t quote me on this) that most states allow medical and/or religious exemptions. My understanding is that medical exemptions could be granted for a particular vaccine that a child has shown a reaction to, and not for general reasons like not wanting to expose your child to formaldehyde. Some, like Michigan, also allow philosophical exemptions, which is a bit broader.

 

[Prana]

Thanks for your reply Blenheim. I''m sure it differs quite a bit from state to state as well.

And Ksinger, I did read your thread about the ''Denialism'' book. I have also been noticing this ''trend'', so to speak. I can''t believe there is a book about it!

 

[ksinger]

Date: 2/6/2010 12:01:46 PM
Author: girlface
Thanks for your reply Blenheim. I''m sure it differs quite a bit from state to state as well.

And Ksinger, I did read your thread about the ''Denialism'' book. I have also been noticing this ''trend'', so to speak. I can''t believe there is a book about it!

Another good one, if you''re interested, is "The Age of American Unreason" by Susan Jacoby. Same vein.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

From what I gather, the children in question aren''t in the mainstream school system. The older one has special needs and is home schooled and the other is a toddler and cared for at home vs. daycare.

 

[lyra]

I''m almost 50. We didn''t have all the vaccines back in the day. I contracted measles, but had no spots so the doc told my mom he thought it was leukemia, and they started making decisions about how to treat *that*. Luckily, the spots appeared right about then. When I got pregnant though, the doc at that time said I didn''t have enough measles anti-bodies, so I had to watch out. I was immunized as an adult later on, and also had the DPT booster.

When I was in school, I very clearly remember the science teacher putting a drop of mercury on our desk to "play with". Yep, it was fun to touch and move around. My husband and his brother ate asbestos as kids. We all lived and had healthy lives.

I vaccinated my kids. No problems. The chickenpox vaccine was not available then, and sadly, my oldest daughter ended up with one noticeable pox scar on her forehead. My youngest was exposed but never developed a full blown case, kind of like me with measles.

I asked my oldest daughter what she would do with regards to vaccinations and she said she was going to vaccinate for everything that was possible, absolutely! She''s 22 and is needle phobic, but believes strongly (as do I) that it is socially irresponsible to do otherwise.

If you want conspiracy theories, read some Richard Preston books. See how easy it would be for terrorists to bring down the country with small pox for instance. How portable it is, how little space it takes to set up a lab and weaponize it. Scary stuff that is actually plausible. YMMV, but my family will remain vaccinated against everything possible for generations to come.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Well, I really don't want to repeat myself, as I have already said a lot about this issue in other threads.

But, on the argument that these diseases being harmless, for many people they will have no long term effects. But for a small percentage, there will be grave consequences. When immunization rates decline and the disease runs rampant, than that small percentage equates to a large number of people who will either die or have permanent physical or neurological damage from these diseases.

Back to the immunization autism debate. I really like this editorial, it is from a mother who has an autistic child and runs a large organization. I wish she and her orginization was getting more media attention than Generation Rescue. CNN editorial

Here is a page that has several references to studies regarding vaccine safety citation page

 

[Ellen]

 

[february2003bride]

Date: 2/6/2010 11:05:19 AM
Author: Blenheim
Vaccines are ''required'' for public schools and daycares, although you can get exemptions. I think (don''t quote me on this) that most states allow medical and/or religious exemptions. My understanding is that medical exemptions could be granted for a particular vaccine that a child has shown a reaction to, and not for general reasons like not wanting to expose your child to formaldehyde. Some, like Michigan, also allow philosophical exemptions, which is a bit broader.

Blen- I know that in Virginia if you get a blood test to see if your child is immune to whatever shots they need to get enrolled, and have a reason (medical and/or religious) then a child can be exempt from the required vaccines.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Ellen, thank you for your input. Had RH provided evidence to back her views such as these I''m sure this thread would have ended differently. There''s no question that you have firm beliefs where this is concerned; however, you also have clearly done your research. In my heart of hearts, had RH or someone else come on vehemently arguing the opposite side, we still would have requested published scientific evidence to back it up. We''re naturally a bunch of skeptics here, we always have been, we always will be. I appreciate you taking the time to do what we asked of RH. Perhaps now she can cite these references when she is in another conversation like this in the future. It would certainly help her argument.

 

[kama_s]

The paxil (GSK) lawsuit is the biggest joke ever. I don''t have all the papers I pulled a few years ago to base my argument at the moment, but as a neonatal toxicologist who specializes in teratology (i.e., birth defects), I think my input would be worth something. There was one study that showed women on paxil had increased incidence of having kids with congential heart defects. HOWEVER, what the study failed to take into account was the regular % of women who have babies with birth defects - that is, with EVERY pregnancy, you have a baseline risk for having a baby with birth defects. So, to put it in numbers, 1-3% of all babies born have some form of a birth defect JUST BY CHANCE (and congenital heart disease is a very common form of birth defect). What this paxil study failed to do, however, was take into account that a % of their study population would just by chance have a baby with congential heart disease. So essentially, the study was FLAWED. There is NO INCREASED risk for having a baby with birth defects if a mum uses paxil (or any other SSRI) in pregnancy.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 2/6/2010 5:08:59 PM
Author: Ellen


So let's say for the sake of argument that the study really is/was bogus. It has no credit/merit whatsoever. Then somebody should have caught it, in review, before it ever got printed. Nuff. said. The end.

Hi Ellen,

Thanks for taking the time to share with us the "bad apple stories" you found from both academia and industry. Yes it is true that within ANY organization and ANY neighborhoods you can and will find some that do not hold up the high ethical standards that we all would like to see. It does not mean that as a whole, the medical organization/company/association are not trust worthy. I understand that it is entirely your perogative should you chose to conclude that "the medical profession, at least at the upper levels (which in turn influence/advise the lower levels), is NOT looking out for our best interest.". I can share my humble opinion with you though, that it is just a unfortunate belief to hold on to for the sake of your own health. In the case of vaccination, should one chose to not vaccinate because of the fear of the "big guys not looking out for my interest", the harmful consequences is not just to you but to others in your community as well.

As for your criticisms about the Lancet publishing the original 1998 article, please take a look at the original abstract on Pubmed here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9500320?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&linkpos=2&log$=citationsensor

What you will notice is a series of "comment articles" shown as links above the original abstract. We as scientists DO review peer's works, we do question the validity of the data, and just as definitive causal link is difficult to prove, definitive non-causal link is just as difficult to prove. One of the reasons why the original article (now shown to be flawed) was published could be found from one of the replies in 2005 (Volume 351, Issue 9106, by AJ Beale). He said:

"(address to Lancet editorial board) By publishing Andrew Wakefield and colleagues'1 work purporting to show a link between MMR vaccination and inflammatory bowel disease and autism and related problems you give increased credence to their report. The Lancet is a prestigious, peer reviewed journal with high public profile. The profession, journalists, the public, and especially distressed parents of ill children suppose that a publication in your journal will be true. In this example you print a commentary, which if it had been a peer reviewer's report, should have led to the rejection of the paper.

The result of publication and the subsequent general publicity is predictable, from previous experience well documented by E J Gangerosa et al (Jan 31, p 356)3 for whooping cough vaccine. Such publicity has led to parents refusing vaccination for their children and a resurgence of the disease (and deaths), and more anguish for the parents who expected recompense from the courts which usually failed for lack of evidence of causality. Also it frightened many manufacturers from continuing development and production of vaccines.

If my predictions are correct, then I think you will bear a heavy responsibility for acting against the public health interest which you usually aim to promote. Moreover, you will only increase the anguish of the parents of the sick children with whom all doctors will sympathise."

Unfortunately his prediction turns out true.

In my opinion, Lancet published the original article as a commentary as it WAS a nice PILOT STUDY that provided an interesting hypothesis to investigate further by other scientists (any scientist in their right mind should know sample size of 12 is too small to draw any definitive conclusion). What Lancet failed to predict is how distressed parents can turn a scientific PILOT DATA into FACT and use it for the wrong reason - sees vaccination as an imaginary enemy to blame for their misfortune so they feel better.

Unlike you or even Dr. Beale, I support Lancet's original publication of this controversial - provided that they used ethical and accurate means of obtaining their data. Because the original paper has given us a new point of view (generate a new hypothesis) to test to uncover the truth. The consequences of having mislead some people to refuse vaccinating their children were a result of MISINFORMED READERS, which is the fault of LACK OF SUFFICIENT EDUCATION ON INTERPRETATION OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES.

I wish you and RH the best of health, even in the absence of trust for your medical professionals.

 

[icekid]

Ellen, you are a nice lady and I believe your intentions are genuine. However, you''ve just slapped me (and most physicians) across the face.

As a community, we are WELL aware of the untoward influence that pharmaceutical companies can have. In fact, my department flat our denies them access to any of us residents as well as attendings. This is certainly not true everywhere, but it becoming more and more commonplace.

Your physicians are trained NOT to take NEJM, Lancet as gospel. No, instead we are trained to critically apprise the literature and take from it. We combine this with what we see in practice and experience. This is no easy task, to be sure, but we do our best.

Big Pharma certainly has its problems and scandals in the past. There are bad people, bad companies throughout any part of life. That simply does not make ALL physicians unethical liars, all medications poison. Would you deny life-altering, life-saving treatment because it was developed by a big drug company? Throw the baby out with the bath water???

Ellen, nothing you have posted has proven ANYTHING except that there are bad, deceitful people in this world. This is just not evidence that vaccines cause autism.

I work way, way too hard to see my field maligned so viciously.

 

[kama_s]

Date: 2/6/2010 7:39:15 PM
Author: icekid
Ellen, you are a nice lady and I believe your intentions are genuine. However, you''ve just slapped me (and most physicians) across the face.

As a community, we are WELL aware of the untoward influence that pharmaceutical companies can have. In fact, my department flat our denies them access to any of us residents as well as attendings. This is certainly not true everywhere, but it becoming more and more commonplace.

Your physicians are trained NOT to take NEJM, Lancet as gospel. No, instead we are trained to critically apprise the literature and take from it. We combine this with what we see in practice and experience. This is no easy task, to be sure, but we do our best.

Big Pharma certainly has its problems and scandals in the past. There are bad people, bad companies throughout any part of life. That simply does not make ALL physicians unethical liars, all medications poison. Would you deny life-altering, life-saving treatment because it was developed by a big drug company? Throw the baby out with the bath water???

Ellen, nothing you have posted has proven ANYTHING except that there are bad, deceitful people in this world. This is just not evidence that vaccines cause autism.

I work way, way too hard to see my field maligned so viciously.

Very very well said, especially the high-lighted bit.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Date: 2/6/2010 7:39:15 PM
Author: icekid
Ellen, you are a nice lady and I believe your intentions are genuine. However, you''ve just slapped me (and most physicians) across the face.


As a community, we are WELL aware of the untoward influence that pharmaceutical companies can have. In fact, my department flat our denies them access to any of us residents as well as attendings. This is certainly not true everywhere, but it becoming more and more commonplace.


Your physicians are trained NOT to take NEJM, Lancet as gospel. No, instead we are trained to critically apprise the literature and take from it. We combine this with what we see in practice and experience. This is no easy task, to be sure, but we do our best.


Big Pharma certainly has its problems and scandals in the past. There are bad people, bad companies throughout any part of life. That simply does not make ALL physicians unethical liars, all medications poison. Would you deny life-altering, life-saving treatment because it was developed by a big drug company? Throw the baby out with the bath water???


Ellen, nothing you have posted has proven ANYTHING except that there are bad, deceitful people in this world. This is just not evidence that vaccines cause autism.


I work way, way too hard to see my field maligned so viciously.

Could not have said it better myself. I also am aware of the influence the pharmaceutical companies have and have made a point to keep pharm reps and formula reps out of my practice as well. I use a lot more generic drugs than some others in my practice and I believe that is because I really try to make a point to look at guidelines from the NIH and my professional organization rather than ads in some of the journals I receive (which I never asked for).

Please don''t lump us all into one big group of evil, money driven people.

 

[KimberlyH]

Ellen, I have no doubt that some people who work at pharmaceutical companies have done unethical things. I also believe it's safe to assume most medical professionals enter their field out of a desire to help others and most people who work for pharmaceutical companies are scientifically driven and passionate about finding cures for disease rather than the two groups both being largely made up people who want to harm large blocs of society simply so they can make some dough.

There are no absolutes in science, which means on some occasions vaccines may cause reactions in recipients, this does not equate to all vaccines and the people who make and give them being bad. It's simply an illogical leap. And it most certainly isn't enough evidence to assume that autism is caused by vaccines. We are society filled with doom, gloom and negativity (just turn on the news) and we're always looking for someone to point the finger at. Most families who have been affected by autism would find comfort in assuming some external thing caused their child to be special needs rather than thinking thier child simply ended up being that 1:100 and it very likely could be the result of genetics (see Janine's post, she doesn't have an autistic child but I believe her husband is older than the average parent and she was offended by the idea that the age of the father may be a contributing factor). Is it easier for me, someone without a child with autism, to say vaccines don't seem to be the cause? Absolutely, I don't have the emotional ties that a parent would. But it also makes me objective and in my work, everyday, I spend time with these kiddos and their parents who are searching for answers and I read and I research and I observe and it simply doesn't make sense that vaccines are the answer to "Why us?" It has nothing to do with not being open minded, it has to do with forming a reasoned opinion based on a lot of experience.