Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.
MMR DROP IN CLINICS ACROSS WALES TOMORROW - please get yours(395 Posts)
You can turn up to various venues
Ystrad Mynach Hospital
Belle Vue Surgery Newport
Children's Centre, CRI
Children's Centre, llandough
Don't worry if you're not sure If your dc has had booster, you can still attend.
Please protect all our children
We also need to look at who funds the research. It would be awful to assume that a study of such seriousness was biased just because it was funded by a biased party, but the risk is there.
As an aside, I saw one 'credible' study that stated that autism rates were higher in those who had not received MMR, therefore
"In that case parents who did not have their children vaccinated with MMR would put them at risk of both harm from measles, and harm from being at increased risk of developing autism. "
LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 16:14:00
The Singh study has replicated the results of Wakefield's study. It has been poo-pooed by the media but the reasons for that are very unclear indeed.
I do need it spelled out clearer using credible studies. Show me one.
That's interesting, Lady. You have a research paper that supports Wakefield?
In the same way as you ask for credible studies from your others, will you show us yours?
If autism rates are higher in those who've not received MMR then could that be that there is more autism in the family leading to more concerns about it in the parents - hence deciding not to have the MMR ? So, genetic factors ?
But they do look at "regressive autism":
"There was no evidence that onset of autistic symptoms or of regression was related to measles-mumps-rubella vaccination."
"Results. The prevalence of childhood disintegrative disorder was 0.6/10 000 (95% confidence interval: 0.023.6/10 000); this very low rate is consistent with previous estimates and is not suggestive of an increased frequency of this form of pervasive developmental disorder in samples of children who are immunized with MMR. There was no difference in the mean age at first parental concern between the 2 samples exposed to MMR (19.3 and 19.2 months) and the pre-MMR sample (19.5 months). Thus, MMR immunization was not associated with a shift toward an earlier age for first parental concerns. Similarly, the rate of developmental regression reported in the post-MMR sample (15.6%) was not different from that in the pre-MMR sample (18.4%); therefore, there was no suggestion that regression in the developmental course of autism had increased in frequency since MMR was introduced. In the epidemiologic sample, the subset of autistic children with regression had no other developmental or clinical characteristics, which would have argued for a specific, etiologically distinct phenotype. Parents of autistic children with developmental regression detected the first symptoms at a very similar age (19.8 months) to those of autistic children without regression (19.3 months). Moreover, the mean intervals from MMR immunization to parental recognition of autistic symptoms were comparable in autistic children with or without regression (248 vs 272 days; not significant). In the epidemiologic sample, gastrointestinal symptoms were reported in 18.8% of children. Constipation was the most common symptom (9.4%), and no inflammatory bowel disorder was reported. Furthermore, there was no association between developmental regression and gastrointestinal symptoms (odds ratio: 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.063.2; not significant), and only 2.1% of the sample experienced both problems, a rate that did not exceed chance expectations.
Conclusions. No evidence was found to support a distinct syndrome of MMR-induced autism or of autistic enterocolitis. These results add to the recent accumulation of large-scale epidemiologic studies that all failed to support an association between MMR and autism at population level. When combined, the current findings do not argue for changes in current immunization programs and recommendations."
Etc. etc. etc.
Please go to google scholar and search on "Regressive autism MMR", you'll find the same story over and over again.
You wrote "There is no question at all that MMR causes autism". No, you are completely wrong there. In fact, there is no evidence at all that MMR causes autism. I have looked at the Singh paper in some depth, would you like my brief comments on it?
Aggh I lost my response :-(
John, the journal is down at the moment but you can find Singh's study just by googling. It is pretty famous!
Catherina - yes, apologies for misstating that. I meant "appears to support", rather than replicated. The study is NOT a replication.
Magdalen - The problem is the credibility of the studies. The first one here is a questionnaire. We need clinical evidence when it comes to vaccine safety. The second one is similar, however, the author is an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in the US, so again, we have to worry about bias.
As the cochrane review stated, there is a huge body of 'evidence' but little of it adequate.
Oh yes, sorry, the "no question" thing. Sorry my earlier response vanished - I did address that. If you read it again, it shows I am saying that I am in no way saying mmr is responsible for all forms of autism, as demonstrated by the fact that there is autism in my own family that was caused by something completely different.
I looked at what Singh found, and this study attempted to find it too, but couldn't
LGF - Singh has written a lot of studies, but they don't lend support to Wakefield's claims. There is
Singh VK, Warren RP, Odell JD, Cole WP. Antibodies to myelin basic protein in children with autistic behavior. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993;7:97-103
which found some but not all children with autism to have specific antibodies to myelin basic protein (MBP). This study did not look for measles virus, nor did study look for mumps or rubella virus or administration of the MMR. It also predates the Lancet study, so could no specifically lend support to it. The other one that is often cited is:
Singh VK, Jensen RL Elevated levels of measles antibodies in children with autism Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 292-294.
which claims just what the title says. However, the findings of this study have been refuted by several other studies, such as Baird G, Pickles A, Simonoff E, Charman T, Sullivan P, Chandler S, Loucas T, Meldrum D, Afzal M, Thomas B, Jin L, Brown D. Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders. Arch Dis Child. 2008 Oct;93(10):832-7.
Juggling - yes. Absolutely. The study tries to hint that MMR protects against autism and that by not getting it, in fact you are putting your child at risk of 'catching' it.
OP - it might be worth starting a new thread for this weekend's clinics as this thread has lost its raison d'être!
I will hazard a guess you refer to V K Singh's paper titled "Phenotypic expression of an autoimmune autistic disorder (AAD): A major subset of autism".
Now I have come across Singh before because this paper is one of the ones that is included in a list of 28 papers which supposedly support Wakefield's. This list of 28 "studies" pops up all over the place, I remember a happy afternoon spent fisking it some time ago. The reason I remember this paper in particular is that it was just about the only entry on the list that might be genuinely construed as supporting Wakefield's claims.
I have also come across is as its a favourite of antivaxers, and have therefore looked at the paper as a whole. The below are some of my comments, though I am a scientist by trade this isn't my area of expertise, and all errors are mine.
The major problem with the study is that the findings have not been replicated. Singh is claiming to have identified "a major subset of autism" which he calls "autoimmune autistic disorder" or AAD. In his conclusion he speculates that if 75% of the American autistic population have AAD or autoimmunity then up to 1.9 million individuals could "benefit directly from autoimmunity research".
You'd think, perhaps, that AAD would be a topic of much research. However, if you go to Google scholar and search for "autoimmune autistic disorder" it pulls up just 42 results. The vast majority of these appear to be papers referencing Singh's papers, or papers by Singh himself. Actually just using Google (rather than the scholar version) you just get references to Singh's paper, including one from Age of Autism for the first three pages, after which I got bored.
Back to the paper itself, and the conclusion which begins boldly:
"Current scientific research from laboratories worldwide has demonstrated that autoimmunity is the core of the problem in a vast majority of of people affected with autism/ASD."
He then refers to his references 2, 3, 4 & 41. If you check out these references they have one thing in common, they're all authored by one V K Singh. Actually almost a exactly a third of his references share this feature.
Now, as I say this isn't my area of expertise but this number of references to your own papers strikes me as rather exceptional.
Back to the paper though:
Let's go to page three under "Immune findings in autism". It reads "Immune studies in laboratories around the world have have shown the existence of autoimmune problem (TABLE1) in children with autism/ASD" and then a list of references. Of these references twenty of the twenty nine are works by a V K Singh. If you look at table one the same pattern is apparent. If these autoimmune problems are genuinely being found in autistic children in "studies in laboratories around the world" you'd really think he wouldn't have to rely so heavily on his previously published work to demonstrate this.
On to some of the results he presents.
We have the "MMR antibodies" found in autistic children (page 5). To quote the paper "...we invoked the hypothesis that an atypical measles infection may be etiologically linked to brain autoimmunity in autism. There is considerable credence to this hypotheses is based on studies of autoimmunity-inducing cytokines that have been reported in the literature. First, autistic children have significant increases in autoimmunity-inducing cytokines such as interleukin-12 (IL-12) and interferon-y (IFN-y) in favour of a Th1 immune response." Then gives two references to papers authored by, you guessed it, V K Singh. If the literature genuinely has enough evidence reported to give his hypothesis credence you'd think he'd refer to some papers other than his own, to give his hypothesis a bit more, er, credence. Then at the end of the page he writes "it is quite conceivable that MMR vaccine might also be involved in the pathogenesis of autism". Then refers to another two papers, authored again by a V K Singh.
Moving on to those unsolicited letter from parents of autistic children. I am rather surprised they were even included in a published paper. These are letters written to the authors after publication of a paper on "Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism". This group of parents can hardly be said to be drawn at random from the population.
Moving swiftly on, however, to the conclusion (as this post I'd already hideously long). They begin "Currently scientific research from laboratories worldwide has demonstrated autoimmunity is the core of the problem in a vast majority of people affected with autism/ASD." That bold claim again, and again the only reference given to back it up are authored by Singh VK. "We have identified and characterized the autoimmune subset as a major subset of autism and designated it as an AAD".
To which I think one might respond, well you have, but I don't see anyone else doing so.
This is the major problem with this paper, the fact that it makes extremely bold claims which it itself fails to back up with independent studies (no matter what claims are made about studies from laboratories around the world have found, if that were true it'd be great if some of those studies were referenced). No one else seems to be using the terminology AAD to describe a major subset of autism, and the only people keen on citing this study are the anti-vaccination bunch.
So, that's a brief summary of some of the things I find less than inspiring about the paper. Like I say this is not my area of expertise, and all errors of judgement and fact in the above are mine.
By the way, I am not doubting there is an autoimmune link in some cases of ASD. The above refers to Singh's paper, not to any other- so please don't link to other papers by different authors which are looking at autoimmunity as if this negates what I have said above, because it doesn't. I am talking about Singh and his "AAD".
You wrote there was a credible study stating:
"In that case parents who did not have their children vaccinated with MMR would put them at risk of both harm from measles, and harm from being at increased risk of developing autism."
That doesn't sound like a quote from a scientific study to me. I found it here at Bandolier:
"What is Bandolier?
The first issue of Bandolier, an independent journal about evidence-based healthcare, written by Oxford scientists, (RAM AND HJM) was printed in February 1994. It has appeared monthly ever since and has become the premier source of evidence based healthcare information in the UK and worldwide for both healthcare professionals and consumers."
Where they end the article:
"And the systematic review and meta-analysis was within a whisker of having a statistically significant result that went the other way, that there was a reduced risk of autism in children who had been vaccinated with MMR. Perhaps it is too early to say, but another study like the ones we have so far would nail it down. In that case parents who did not have their children vaccinated with MMR would put them at risk of both harm from measles, and harm from being at increased risk of developing autism."
The article itself refers to this:
Now I don't have the full paper, but who wants to join be in a bet that the rather cheeky quote doesn't appear in the actual paper?
LGF says - 'As the cochrane review stated, there is a huge body of 'evidence' but little of it adequate.
LGF - cites Singh et al and Wakefield et al. 2 examples of the inadequate studies Cochrane was talking about.
Crikey you lot - give it a rest will you?
Have you read the title of this thread? Where does it ask for a discussion about the safety of the MMR or single jabs?
It's intended as a source of information for people living in the South Wales area.
Thanks for that
This thread was intended to advertise the extra vaccination clinics being held in South Wales.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.