Ok, back to the Japan study. Firstly there is a conflict of interest issue here. Also the funding source for the study was not disclosed.
From this link; here
"One of the co-authors of the Honda paper was Professor Sir Michael Rutter, of the Institute of Psychiatry, who had prepared a draft report for GlaxoSmithKline, one of the defendant drug companies in the UK litigation but who was not retained by them."
Secondly in Japan the MMR was withdrawn but was replaced with single vaccines. It was recommended that the vaccines be given 4 weeks apart but health records show that they were often administered on the same day. Even if the 4 week recommendation had been followed to the letter, it would not be long enough to avoid the synergestic effect of giving the 3 viruses within close proximity. Vaccines would need to be given at yearly intervals in order to achieve this.
See here for more detailDr Wakefield explains why his intial recommendation was to replace MMR with single vaccines given at yearly intervals.
In fact the Honda study demonstrates how open epidemiology can be to interpretation and manipulation. In reality the study can be used as strong evidence that there is a link between vaccines and autism.
Scroll down to last response by Clifford Miller to see full text; although the whole page is worth reading.
"The problems with the Honda/Rutter MMR/autism paper from Japan are only just the start of this. The fact of a dip in autism followed by a large rise when vaccinations increased over 150% in 1993 in Japan (according to official Japanese government figures) is actually evidence of at least two things. It is strong evidence of a causal association between the combination of vaccines and autism-like and related disorders.
It is also evidence of the existence of a dechallenge/rechallenge case series at a population level. Now that is beyond any doubt powerful. The dechallenge occurred by taking MMR away with a positive dip in autism on a population level. This was followed by a rechallenge with a positive rise in autism by reintroducing the single vaccines in place of the MMR. The single vaccines were meant to be administered at 4 week intervals, but according to an NHS publication, Japanese children received them on the same day."
Wakefield makes a similar comment in his response that I link to above;
"In light of the biological nature of viral interactions and the protracted effects on the immune system of measles exposure in particular (either as natural infection or vaccination) it is evident that, although MMR vaccine itself was discontinued in this infant population beyond 1993, for all practical purposes, because of the behaviour of these viruses, children vaccinated according to the recommended schedule were still receiving 'M-M-R' at age one year. In other words the administration of the separate vaccines in close temporal proximity amounts, in biological terms, to overlapping exposure. Such close proximity of exposure is clearly atypical and something that would have been very rare with natural infection to measles, mumps and rubella viruses. The Japanese data are therefore not at odds with the original interpretation and the subsequent recommendations referred to earlier. They are entirely consistent with what is known about the behaviour of these viruses. The authors of the Japanese study make the error of examining MMR as an isolated exposure without giving any consideration to the arguments that have been put forward or the data upon which those arguments were based.
In light of these observations the data could be interpreted as indicating a major influence of the pattern of exposure to these vaccine viruses on ASD incidence in this Japanese population. Moreover, it suggests a possible re-challenge effect of close temporal exposure to these vaccine viruses on ASD incidence at the population level, whereby the exposure has been introduced, removed and then re-introduced. Nonetheless the interpretation by Public Health authorities that this is the 'last word on the subject' and that these data prove that MMR is safe is misleading and suggests a very limited perspective of the issues and a misunderstanding of the previously published concerns that have guided the research of those involved with the examining the safety of measles vaccines. Enthusiasm to exonerate the MMR vaccine is no excuse for misrepresenting the published basis for the safety concerns. "
Sorry for increasingly long posts but 'tis complicated!