Comments on: Study Says No MMR-Autism Link; NAA Says “Flawed”

By: MMR and autism: new study | Autism Library

MMR and autism: new study | Autism Library — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:56:36 +0000

[...] there is some discussion of the criticism as well as covered by AutismVox LeftBrainRightBrain black [...]

By: Regan

Regan — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:44:00 +0000

I got curious as to the recommended schedules in the US and elsewhere–
FWIW, Eleanor got her first MMR at 15 mos in 1998.

Recommended US Schedule persons 0-6 years
1st. Between 12 and 15 months
2nd Between 4 and 6 years

Canada recommendations persons 0-6 years
1st 12 months
2nd 18 months or between 4 and 6 years

UK recommendations
1st 13 months
2nd 3 years and 4 months or soon after

France
1st 12 months, unless entering day care centre, at which recommendation is 9 months
2nd <24 months

By: Emily

Emily — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:27:33 +0000

We thought it was 18 months, but our son’s schedule was supposed to be MMR at 12 months. That’s Texas. Do schedules differ state to state? We also just moved back from California two years ago, and I didn’t notice a huge difference in the schedules.

Regan…holy moly.

By: Regan

Regan — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:20:34 +0000

(Sorry, BTW, about so many comments).
One last eye-roller.
I actually read a suggestion that the reason that Mady Hornig authored the study and published the results was because “someone had threatened her family” (unsubstantiated).

(I think the bottom has fallen out of the paranoia and grasping at straws barrel.)
Y’all have a good weekend.

By: Regan

Regan — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:48:25 +0000

Will these organizations continue to support the idea that the original Wakefield studies are valid and ignore the new Hornig study?

Well, they seem to be working overtime to dismiss the reported results, and relevance in the big picture of the vast majority of published results to date. so I guess the short answer will be yes.

The publication itself seems to have created the equivalent of stepping into a yellow jacket nest. (Reading a couple of comments accusing Rick Rollins of being some kind of conspirator with UC MIND because of his published comments on the paper made for eyebrow-raising.)

I’m more interested in how the larger community, and the research and granting agencies are looking at these results.

By: farmwifetwo

farmwifetwo — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:42:29 +0000

MMR is given here at 18mths.

By: Emily

Emily — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:25:21 +0000

They give MMR here at 12 months, FYI.

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:08:31 +0000

Am trying to check (in the midst of some other things…..)—I’m wondering if they are still going to host her paper after this.

By: Regan

Regan — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:03:53 +0000

Respectful Insolence also discusses the new Hornig, et. al. paper and rebuts some of the criticisms in the NAA press release.

By: Sullivan

Sullivan — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:58:59 +0000

Do either SafeMinds or NAA or any of the vaccine/autism advocacy groups host the Berman paper? You know, the one that tried (really hard, like 10x harder) to see the effects of the Hornig mouse study and found it couldn’t be replicated?

My guess is no.

Will these organizations continue to support the idea that the original Wakefield studies are valid and ignore the new Hornig study?

My guess is yes.