Surprise Surprise: No link between the MMR and autism
February 5, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
There is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, according to the largest ever published study about this controversial issue. The study appears in the Archives of Disease in Childhood and was led by Gillian Baird, a pediatrician at the Newcomen Centre for Child Development. Almost 250 children aged 10 – 12 and born between July 1990 and December 1991 in the south Thames area of England were studied. 98 of the children had an autism spectrum disorder, 52 had learning difficulties, and 90 were developing normally. All the volunteers had received the MMR vaccine but not everyone had gotten both the doses needed for maximum immunity. From Reuters:
The researchers took blood samples from the children and found no abnormal immune response in any of them marked by higher antibody levels or presence of a measles virus still left in the body from the shot, Baird added.
[Dr. Andrew] Wakefield, whose research has been widely discredited, had pointed to these two factors as a way to explain the link but the latest findings do not back up that case, Baird said. Wakefield said in a newspaper interview last year he believed it was biologically plausible the shot could cause autism.
“There was no difference across any of the groups no matter how you cut them up,” Baird said in a telephone interview. “The response to the MMR vaccine was the same in every group.”
Before Wakefield’s study, more than 90 percent of British children received the vaccination, a figure that dropped to 80 percent before recovering to a current 85 percent, according to government figures.
The Herald also notes that the study found that special needs children and autistic children tended to not receive the second dose of the MMR, “perhaps because their parents refused the second dose after their child developed abnormal symptoms.” No evidence of bowel symptoms (enterocolitis) was found in the autistic children, either, whether or not the children had had a regression (one of Wakefield’s claims was that the measles virus in the MMR caused bowel disorder and autism).
Further coverage is in The Guardian; in DrKoop.com; in Scientific American, and many more.
Other studies published in 2007 2008 that refute a link between autism and a vaccine (such as the MMR) or something in vaccines:
Health officials from San Diego County have confirmed that three siblings, none of whom were vaccinated, have been diagnosed with measles. Two of the siblings attend the San Diego Cooperative Charter School in Linda Vista, which (according to the Union-Tribune)) ” the highest percentage of students not vaccinated for measles among any campus in the city”: 10 percent of the school’s 380 students are not vaccinated. According to county health officials,
one of the three children traveled to Switzerland with his or her family and was the first to become ill. That child likely transmitted the virus to the two siblings, said Dr. Wilma Wooten, the county’s public health officer.
Officials from the county health department met Monday with parents of the non-vaccinated children at Cooperative charter school, and four agreed to have their kids inoculated.
Students not vaccinated will be barred from attending the school until Feb. 21 – after the infection period for the current outbreak has passed.
Many parents with children at Cooperative are particularly concerned about shielding their kids from exposure to harmful chemicals, such as pesticides and paint, said school principal Wendy Ranck-Buhr.
But what about shielding them from infectious, and potentially fatal, diseases?
Just to state it again: There is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
No link between the MMR vacine and autism!
Why am I not surprised, eh?
Not that stating the fact does anything, but oh well.
Cliff
“But what about shielding them from infectious, and potentially fatal, diseases?”
Exactly. I was just saying to Marshall last week how amazing it is that we don’t have to experience the horror of sitting up through the night through several nights watching our children every minute and removing the membrane from over their throats so that they don’t suffocate as a result of a diphtheria infection. Doze off, and your child may die. If you have several children suffering sequentially, the chances that you doze increase. We didn’t have to bury any babies whose lungs burst from whooping cough. We don’t have children who are blind or disfigured or deaf or brain damaged from measles, mumps, or rubella. I know two older people who had siblings who died of diphtheria, despite their parents’ best efforts. My mother clearly remembers classmates who were well one day and in an iron lung the following week thanks to a polio outbreak. Day-to-day existence, which now is only sometimes frustrating, occasionally anxious, and always frenetic, would be sharp with constant pain and fear, at least for me, if it weren’t for vaccines.
I’m reading a biography right now of an Elizabethan figure, and most of the children born to the women mentioned in this biography die in infancy or childhood. MOST OF THEM, not half, not a minority, but MOST. Not one single family escaped the loss of several children. Do you know anyone personally these days who has lost several children to infectious disease? Probably not, and vaccines are part of the reason.
Hi Kristina, I’ll play devil’s advocate, but actually more as an exercise in hypothesis testing:
(Necessary Disclaimer: I’m not a proponent of the vaccine hypothesis)
The most coherent argument I’ve heard for the vaccine-autism link is that the vaccine may interact with a genetic predisposition in very small percentage of children, leading to autism. If this is the case, the results of the Baird’s study could be explained: the non-autism kids did not develop autism from the vaccine because they did not have this potential genetic vulnerability. No differences between the groups are found because the gene interaction is immediate leading to brain changes but not showing any other sign of vaccine toxicity. According to this theory, most children are safe to take the vaccine because they do not have the genetic vulnerability. Now, this reminds me of the some evolutionary psychologists confirmatory logic – things can be explained through a hypothesis that is almost impossible to test. But that is not quite the case with the vaccine-genetic issue, although testing this hypothesis is a very complicated task. First we would need to find a very specific genetic anomaly that is present in children with autism. OK. Several potential gene candidates have already been found (See for example this recent article review http://www.translatingautism.com/2008/01/autism-and-genes-in-news.html) But then we would have to find a link between that genetic vulnerability and the physiological processing of the components of the vaccine. That is, showing how the genetic vulnerability changes the way children process the vaccine and then how this change leads to the brain maturational changes that lead to autism. We are probably a decade from seeing results of such studies! Meanwhile, what we do know is that children with autism represent a extremely small proportion of the children that have receive the vaccines in question and that failure to vaccinate exposes your child to potentially deadly diseases – a hypothesis that has been tested and tested for about a century!
Cheers,
NLLD
Translating Autism
didn’t someone recently describe that the autism/vaccine crowd is beginning to switch to more of a faith-based mindset? something comparable to “intelligent design”, where they quote research…until the research contradicts them, at which point they criticize the value of research? it was an interesting point. this study, in particular, should really kick them into anti-research mode. “vaccines cause it. the research saying otherwise just proves the existence of a conspiracy”.
confusion works in mysterious ways.
what’s the name for that sort of fallacy? post hoc ergo propter hoc? ignoratio elenchi? i can’t remember. it’s nihil novi, either way.
M, that’s part of what we teach our students when we cover pseudoscience. Some key characteristics that tip you off that something is a pseudoscience include (1) accusations of a conspiracy involving “the establishment,” which aims to suppress; (2) claims of global or unrelated effects on body systems; (3) use of scientific-sounding jargon that typically has no real scientific meaning; (4) the presence of a notably skewed bias or agenda; (5) a reliance on confirmation rather than refutation; (6) a lack of application of the scientific method or dismissal of findings derived from said application; (7) untestable hypotheses; and (8) use of emotional, agenda-driven language.
I can think of at least two examples in the world of autism that fit these criteria quite well and have, in fact, used them in my classes as illustrative. I also used intelligent design, which is a beautiful example, as well.
I don’t know whether vaccines cause autism or not and, as far as I’m concerned, it wasn’t vaccines that caused my son’s autism. However, I think it’s a huge exaggeration to point out that measles, mumps and rubella are fatal diseases. I had all three of them when I was still an infant back in the seventies and, as you can see, I’m still alive! One might say that although this was the case for me, it wasn’t the same for others, and I very much agree with that. But then, why can’t we possibly accept the fact that some children are more vulnerable to vaccines, as some are more vulnerable to diseases? I don’t really know if there is a scientifically accepted way to test what would have happened to children who (their parents claim) became autistic by vaccines, if they hadn’t received the vaccines. Although, as I have already said, my son didn’t become autistic by vaccines and I seriously doubt if anyone actually did, the whole subject is a big question mark in my head.
I am sorry, by Kristina is correct in saying these are serious and potentially deadly conditions. Some examples of mortality rates in children:
Measles .01-10% (depending on country)
Paralytic Polio; 5–10%
Diphtheria: 5-10%
Tetanus 11%
You can check the rates at the cdc website, webmd, or any other reputable website.
Nestor
Translating Autism
Emily: “that’s part of what we teach our students when we cover pseudoscience”.
You’re my new favorite teacher.
(Wait, wait. Kristina Chew is my favorite, I forgot. Hmm. You tie for first! Prizes will be awarded at the noon assembly).
@M, It is post hoc ergo propter hoc and I’m very flattered to be in such company…… pseudo being from the Greek for “false, deceptive, lying.”
@translating autism regarding the notion of “genetic predisposition”—-I find this phrase is regularly used as a sort of way to (if this makes sense) “keep all bases covered.” Those who believe that a vaccine or something in a vaccine caused a child to become autistic seem to assign varying weight to genes, depending on their argument (to make a rather over-generalizing assertion).
Does anyone understand the laughter of Dr. Shorter and the unidentified woman on this tape? I don’t think SV40 is funny.
http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/09/stunning-interview-with-merck-chief-of.html
Thanks for highlighting this study Kristina; want to take a look at the full paper as soon as I have a chance.
I am a little like Cliff and others in thinking that to those who are already convinced that vaccines are at fault will not be swayed by 100 such studies…I have no doubt the reaction will be forthcoming.
Emily, thanks for that summing up of pseudoscience indicators…that’s now on the bulletin board.
Come on has anybody ever thught it may be the time frame in which these shots are given that is causing Why are we insuch a hurry to have them all done in two years while the babies brain is still growing. yhe government would never admit if it did Those shots are dangerous and Im tired of the US governemnt covering it up and then when they are sutistic ask us to deal with it. Forms should be available at all schools ]
for any parent to waive them
Come on has anybody ever thought it may be the time frame in which these shots are given that is causing the autism ,Why are we in such a hurry to have them all done in two years ,while the babies brain is still growing? The government would never admit if it was the cause of autsim Those shots are dangerous and Im tired of the US governemnt covering it up and then when they are autistic ask us to deal with them. Forms should be available at all schools for any parent to waive them if they feel it necessary for their child.
Im sick and tired of people denying the shots dont cause damage Ime and my childs teacher watched my child double in hyper activity and watch his speech diminish after his 5 year immunization shot ! I didnt want to give it to him, but the school makes it too dificult to get it waived One country in europe spread the shots out and found autism rates went down
My question is about the validity of a study of persistent measles infection in children on the autistic spectrum with no gastrointestinal problems. Those who work in the field are aware that a substantial number of children on the spectrum who have significant gastrointestinal distress. They would be the best population to study if you were truly trying to figure out whether a subset of autistic children have persistent vaccine-strain measles infections in their intestines. What this study did was to look for the car keys in the darkened parking lot, not under the light. No surprise they didn’t find anything, but it still doesn’t tell us a thing about whether autistic children who have significant gastrointestinal symptoms and pain also have persistent measles infection in their intestines. I hope a follow-up study addressing this overwhelming flaw is conducted.
I didn’t think the vaccine base was thinking that the MMR vaccine caused autism. I thought they said that the MMR vaccine was what set off gut/digestion/bowel issues, already after the onset of autism.
” yhe government would never admit if it did Those shots are dangerous and Im tired of the US governemnt covering it up…”
See hallmarks of pseudoscience, above.
‘Translating Autism’s’ post on genetic environment interactions on hypothetical vaccine induced ‘autism’ makes an excellent point. No such studies have ever been attempted but there is research in other vaccines that demonstrate how genetics may determine individual susceptability to adverse vaccine reactions..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070613114124.htm
It is interesting that this study found genetic variants on chromomes 2 and 11 were associated with increased susceptability to an adverse reaction to samllpox vaccine since it was only two months prior to that that the Autism Genome Consortium reported genetic variants on the same chromosome 2 and 11 in the AGRE database of multi incidence families.
The tools for associating specific genetic variants to specific environmental insults are in their infancy and remain relatively crude.
Emily,
What effective rate for a medical procedure would make science a pseudoscience?
There is ample empirical evidence that vaccines are the cause. There are an amazing number of parents who noticed significant regressions immediately after vaccinations. It’s simple cause and affect since. Not all parents noticed this, but there is a large number who have.
This study does not prove vaccines are not the cause. At best it removes some factors as the cause (it didn’t touch on heavy metals). It also needs to be repeated for verification.
I’m not making a claim one way or another. Just pointing out that this is not conclusive. The best conclusive test would be to stop giving vaccines. Not saying that is what should be done, only pointing out that from a scientific/logic view, that would be conclusive results, not this or even a battery of trials.
Logic isn’t as simple as it’s being portrayed here.
There are indeed many parents who have gotten their stories out regarding a vaccine-autism correlation; interesting too to note would be accounts of their children prior to diagnosis. What kinds of play did they have? Interests? Joint attention?
I said it a while ago on this blog and I say it again. I do not believe there is a link between autism and vaccines. We should be directing our limited resources in other areas.
Gerard Petillo
Parents of ANGELS
Bronx NY
http://www.bxangels.org
Great to hear from you Gerard—-hope you and yours are well and I completely agree with you.
What is annoying about the “it can’t be the vaccine crowd” is the unwillingness to seriously consider the possibility that there can be a correlation between autism and vaccines for many children. Obviously this is not case for all children … as with my son who is autistic and was never vaccinated. However, I am willing to consider the possibility that it may the case for many … despite what any “scienctific” study reveals either way. It is arrogant to believe that we can fully understand all aspects of any disease or disability or to believe that “science” can explain or disapprove all things. So called science has always lagged behind and sometimes eventually supported what was considered to be anecdotal evidence in the past.
Myth has co-existed with science since the ancient Greeks, and the vaccine-autism link is one of the latest incarnations of myth “versus” science, as a way to explain the world. Best wishes—-
I wish we could take all that collective energy focused on pointing at vaccines and start putting pressure to look at other scientific possibilities.
FYI – In a recent case against vaccine manufacturers, expert witnesses for the plaintiff were found not qualified for reasons of expertise, knowledge, skill, experience, training or education using the Frye-Reed test, a test used to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence and expert scientific testimony in Maryland courts.
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/140/
Government admits link and loses lawsuit. For those who doubt the causal link go to:
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/health/stories/2008/03/06/autism_0306.html
Mac
And for those that dismiss intelligent design, you don’t have to view it as a science, it is simply common sense. Some parts of the anatomy like the eye have irreducible complexity. Why would evolution produce a lens and without the muscles to focus your lens. Evolution can not explain the complexity.