Can the MMR or other vac ever cause autism?

[StarlightMcKenzie]

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25114790/

My father recently published a paper showing that Vitamin D deficiency in the pregnant mother is probably the main cause for most autism. He has done a review of the literature and studies that exist already and added to that his own work on examining the biochemical pathways involving Vitamin D and showing how a deficiency could cause autism.

Look, I'll make it easy for you and highlight the specific sentences.

From the DeStefano et al 2004 conclusion;

Vaccination before 36 months was more common among case children than control children, especially among children 3 to 5 years of age, likely reflecting immunization requirements for enrollment in early intervention programs.

From the Hooker discussion;

within the earlier Destefano et al. [14] study, the coauthors interpreted this result as an artifact of “healthcare seeking behavior” citing that autistic children would receive their vaccines earlier in order to enroll in State of Georgia early intervention programs. However, it is highly unlikely that this type of behavior would be seen exclusively in African American males

From Thompson's statement:

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

There is something called population stratification that can cause spurious associations.
I don't think any authors controlled for this effect in the African American group in the original study. It could be that the "black" males with higher incidence of autism had a different genetic background than the controls (which is highly plausible, as there seems to be a strong genetic effect in autism). It can be worse with small group samples.
If Hooker really thinks that there is an effect for "black" males - whatever black means or even of African origin, as genetically different African groups can be more different than any white groups - then he should have run a proper study with genetic characterization and matching of controls and cases.

It has been shown that there is a higher rate of autism in people with dark skin (not just in the USA), but my father suggests that this is due to Vitamin D deficiency (and of course, unrelated to vaccinations of any sort).

There are some studies looking at the rates of autism of Somalians in Minneapolis and Sweden and at the rates of that same (genetically similar) population in Somalia and the rates of autism are much much higher in the countries with little sunlight.

Lweji, you too are missing the point of what Hooker has done.

It isn't so much that "Hooker really thinks that there is an effect for "black" males" as "Hooker really thinks that CDC scientist's are guilty of misconduct and the reason he thinks so is because one of them told him, so now he is re-running the data to see if what his informant has told him shows up. And it did. So now Hooker thinks a proper study is needed to examine what the original 2004 data showed up".

If Hooker had designed a totally new study rather than re-examine previous CDC data it wouldn't shed any light on Thompson's claims of data manipulation.

SofiaAmes, your father's work sound very interesting. I have come across the vitamin D theory before and also info about the Somalian population in Minneapolis. I suspect that the answer to 'autisms' is a big jigsaw puzzle and that there will be many many factors involved. And we need to be honest and examine all of them and follow where science and logic lead us.

The difference between what my father is doing and most of the previous studies is that he is looking not only at the epedimiology, but also at the biochemistry that explains the theories. There may be some permissive genetic factors that add to the Vitamin D deficiency/autism connection, but at the moment it seems that solving the problem may be as simple and as cheap as supplementing all pregnant mothers with Vitamin D.
Beachcomber if you google my father (Bruce Ames) you will find his papers and his body of work.

sorry...I butchered the spelling of epidemiology

But then studies comparing autism rates between black Ethiopian boys born in Israel and those born in Ethiopia living in Israel show very different rates of autism. I linked to it earlier. And vitamin d from sunlight would be similar in Israel and Ethiopia, much different to between Sweden and Somalia, or Minneapolis and Mogadishu. would your father still say vitamin d deficiency looking at another horn of African immigrant population group?

I would have to see the details of the ethiopian vs. Israel study and whether they controlled for other factors (like the amount of time spent in the sunshine) to comment. But in any case, my father and his colleagues looked at hundreds of studies of all different types (including many that measured vitamin d levels in the pregnant mothers and new borns) and combined that information with biochemical analysis to back it up.

i wonder if the exclusion of childen born outside of the state of georgia was so as not to include those african american children born in state of minnesota of somali origin from the MMR autism study?

It isn't so much that "Hooker really thinks that there is an effect for "black" males" as "Hooker really thinks that CDC scientist's are guilty of misconduct and the reason he thinks so is because one of them told him,

Thing is, if Hooker's analysis is balls then what exactly has been covered up? If the CDC can justify their approach (e.g. a reason for only looking at race on the subgroup such as it having complete race records and a similar race profile between case and controls, compared to the whole population which was missing over 100 race records and for which the racial profiles weren't as similar?) then where's the fraud?

so now he is re-running the data to see if what his informant has told him shows up. And it did.

Sometimes someone with a massive agenda looking at some data and finding exactly what they were hoping to see is a black mark rather than a positive.

So now Hooker thinks a proper study is needed to examine what the original 2004 data showed up".

Is that before or after he makes a video accusing the CDC of running a racist experiment and deliberately harming children? It would have to be after, wouldn't it? Incidentally, are you annoyed at Wakefield and Hooker for poisoning the well with that particular turd?

SofiaAmes, wow, you must be very proud of him. Thanks for the heads up.

Noblegiraffe. You still aren't reading/thinking properly about this. You are too focused on wanting Hooker to be wrong/dishonest/a nincompoop/guilty of something.

I already commented on the video.

Look at the conclusion of the 2004 DeStefano paper. It says;

Vaccination before 36 months was more common among case children than control children, especially among children 3 to 5 years of age, likely reflecting immunization requirements for enrollment in early intervention programs.

Now let's change that (following what Thompson has said, what Hooker has demonstrated and keeping in mind DeStefano's shockingly openly biased and nonscientific comment about autism starting in the womb).

Let's change it to this (by putting the full complement of children back into the study, i.e. including those who were excluded on the grounds of their birth certificate status);

Vaccination before 36 months was more common among case children than control children, especially African American children likely reflecting immunization requirements for enrollment in early intervention programs.

Now most people with an inquiring mind would have an issue with that conclusion because it isn't logical or scientific. The second part (requirements for enrollment in early intervention programs) does not explain the first observation (especially African American children).

Which is why Hooker says the following in his discussion;

it is highly unlikely that this type of behavior would be seen exclusively in African American males (by this type of behavior he means immunizing children within a certain timescale as a requirement for accessing certain programmes).

And this is why he is careful to specify that;

a statistically significant relationship between first MMR age and autism incidence was seen in the general (all races) population within the earlier Destefano et al.

and that;

The results show a strong relationship between child age at the administration of the first MMR and autism incidence exclusively for African American boys

When you take the above and add it to Thompson's admission of cooking the books with regards to stats they found for African American children (and DeStefano's cheerful admission of omitting data because it didn't fit into his world view) then it really doesn't look very good for the CDC.

Two CDC scientists have admitted to discarding data and breaking their study protocol (opps!). If you put the discarded data back into their study, the original conclusion of the study is no longer supported by the data (double oops!).

Now you, noblegiraffe, may wish to assume that Hooker's analysis is 'balls' and that he is 'a liar' and 'dishonest or incompetent'. That isn't enough for me. I want an independent inquiry into Thompson's admission and the data of the original study. I want DeStefano put on oath before Congress and asked to explain himself.

Beachcomber - noblegiraffe has made my points very well.

I am a little lost on what argument you guys are making. Is it that the CDC has suppressed data and therefore they are bad, or that the CDC has suppressed data and therefore the Wakefield study isn't shoddy? Or both? Or am I really just completely lost.

By the way, it wouldn't surprise me that the CDC and or the FDA have suppressed/withheld data, but it could just be incompetence rather than malicious.

And one does have to remember that the somali blacks are from a completely different part of africa than the majority of the american blacks and therefore there may be a genetic component that separates them significantly. Although the Vitamin D deficiency argument would apply to both groups.

SofiaAmes, my argument is that a senior CDC scientist has admitted that they suppressed data (Dr Thompson) and that his co-author has admitted that they discarded data 'because everyone knows autism starts in the womb' - and that this is very serious and needs looked into.

The second part of my argument is that I find it utterly bizarre that people/the media are chattering away about how Hooker must be biased because he has a son with autism and therefore that makes him an incompetent liar, rather than listening to what Thompson and DeStefano have admitted and demanding that they and the CDC are asked to explain themselves.

ok, I get that (and in theory agree with you...although I am fairly sure justice will never happen...it doesn't seem to anywhere else when the government is involved), and the media will always chat away about irrelevant things because they are selling papers and not really after the truth for the most part and are generally fairly uneducated about science for the most part.
But I am still not clear if you are implying that there is some validity to the wakefield "study" after all because of all these improprieties.

I'm not arguing that a CDC scientist admitting to cooking the books validates Wakefield et al's findings in the original Lancet case study (the subject of the two studies are quite far apart scientifically). However this could end up giving weight to Wakefield's hypothesis that the timing of MMR administration affects certain subgroups.

ok, got it. I think I missed that there was a second study that you all were talking about.

It's certainly possible that the "trauma" of a vaccination could have unintended side effects on an already compromised (either genetically and/or environmentally) patient. My ds has mitochondrial disease and as a result his autonomic system does not always work properly. He has much more severe reactions to things that a "normal" child wouldn't even notice (like missing a night's sleep or a long fun day at a party, or a bump on the head, or a needle in his arm). And those reactions can be both physical and mental (and perhaps are more than short term).

It's just unfortunate that the shoddiness of the Wakefield "study" shut down any exploration of other possibilities. (Including any significant media coverage of my father's paper).

Sofia, one of your dad's papers has been quoted and referenced in this latest 'shoddy' study which has been withdrawn due to concerns about its validity.

I do hope it doesn't have any effect on his work.

oh dear. I wonder if my father realizes that. He is so busy doing science that he's oblivious to what happens in the real world. He has become the darling of the alternative medicine crowd because of his work on nutrition and although he is just plodding along doing the same real science he has always done, the media can twist things. Unfortunately there isn't big money in nutraceuticals the way there is in pharmacology, so there isn't a lot of money going into research in nutrition as a method for treating disease and illness.

Vaccination before 36 months was more common among case children than control children, especially African American children likely reflecting immunization requirements for enrollment in early intervention programs.

Or 'Vaccination before 36 months was more common among case children than control children, especially in the 3-5 year age range (2.34) and also in African American boys (3.6 per Hooker). When data for African American boys was restricted to those of normal birthweight, the effect was less marked (2.64 per Hooker). However, more than 100 records were missing race data. When we looked at the birth certificate data and adjusted for maternal age, gestation, birthweight and other factors, the results for African American children were not statistically significant (1.68). These records were not missing any race data. However, looking at the birth certificate data and adjusting for maternal age, gestation, birthweight and other factors, vaccination before 36 months was still seen as more common in case than control children in the 3-5 age range (2.63).

In 1991, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act11 mandated the provision of special education programs for children with autism beginning at approximately 36 months of age. Thus, the case children who were 3 to 5 years of age in 1996 would have been most affected by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act special education requirement and 98% of these children had been enrolled in preschool special education programs.

Therefore this persistent finding of increased risk in children between 3-5 years who are vaccinated before 36 months despite adjusting for other factors likely reflects immunisation requirements for enrolment in these early intervention programs.

No?

Noblegiraffe, you know I sort of get your resistance to address what Dr Thompson and Dr DeStefano have admitted. It kinda shakes your world to face up to potentially devastating corruption in government bodies that should be looking out for children.

I remember very well the day I realised what was going on and it was hard to reconcile, cynic that I am.

We're all personally touched and affected by such events. But, painful though it is, we have to follow the science and reality.

I think Dr Thompson has done a brave thing in speaking out and I think we should listen to him. And let it be on our conscience if we do not.

Right, here's what you posted from Sharyl thingy

The CDC’s DeStefano acknowledges that he and his study co-authors changed their study analysis plan midstream, which resulted in reducing the statistical vaccine-autism link among black boys. But he says they did so for good scientific reason.

“[Vaccine] exposure around [three years of age] is just not biologically plausible to have a causal association with autism,” DeStefano says. “I mean autism would’ve already started by then…it probably starts in the womb. So I think from a biological argument, it’s implausible this was a causal association.”

Sharyl is being a lot bit dishonest here, isn't she? She has taken a quote from Destefano when he was talking about something else, and presented it as if it was about ignoring black boys.

The quote about why they decided to look only at birth certificate data for race (which, incidentally, is not the one Sharyl presented):

Dr. Frank DeStefano: I think what [Thompson's] saying there was a larger, um, uh, odds ratio or association among the–the larger group and that there was not, uh, as strong an association among the birth certificate sample. And I mean, what I say to that, I think we discussed that, uh, as I recall, this was like, you know, over ten years ago, and, uh, I think at the time we had consensus among all co-authors that the birth certificate sample provided the more valid results because it could uh, it had more complete information on, uh, on race for one, and secondly, more importantly, it had information on important factors that, uh, had to be you know controlled for particularly in studies of autism, in particular, it would be things like birth weight, the mother’s age, the mother’s education. So I think for those reasons we were able to adjust for these factors and we thought, you know, we uh, our opinion was that that the results of the birth certificate sample provided the more reliable results. And I think, you know, as I recall, we all came to consensus and, uh, signed off on that, uh, in the paper.

So the reason they decided to use birth certificate data for race was because they agreed it was more valid as it contained complete information on race (as I suspected previously) and because it controlled for other factors which were associated with race.

Now the quote involving the quote about biological implausibility:

DeStefano: No, I mean, I think, you know, the other, the other important consideration here is looking at what, what time period we’re talking about. We’re, you know, autism, as you probably are aware, is a condition that really probably has its start while the child is still in the womb. And, you now, it doesn’t, some of the behaviors and such don’t come apparent, become apparent until maybe the child is one, two, three years old. But, uh, uh what we know about autism that, uh, the, uh, characteristics or behavioral signs do become ava–, you know, apparent by 24 months of age, so. So we had different cut-offs, before 18 months of age, there was no difference in, in any group in terms of, uh, vaccination levels, between the cases and controls. At 24 months of age, when, uh, au—you know—behaviors of autism or some features of autism become apparent, there was no difference between the, uh, cases and controls in any group, it was at 36 months where there was a slight differen—and the difference was we’re talking about a difference between 93% versus 91%, not a, a big difference. But, so that’s at 36 months. And at 36 months, an exposure around that time period is just not biologically plausible to have a uh, uh, a causal association with autism. I mean autism would’ve already started by then. [I me?] I reiterate it probably starts in the womb, but even if you’re saying, you wanna call it starting by the time some behavioral features become apparent, it had started before 36 months. And then, you know, we, from, so I think from a biological argument, it’s implausible this was a causal association. And then I think we have, uh–pretty convince–

Attkisson: Let me just, let me just interrupt what, before I lose that thought. So you already made up your mind regardless of what the stats show that if it, certain things show that it didn’t make sense, you wouldn’t, you would try to find out a way to…

DeStefano: No, that’s not we said, I’m just saying, you know, you interpret, you interpret findings, also, you know, there’s the statistics, then you have to also interpret, bring in things like biological plausibility, how do you interpret these results? So I think we had pretty strong evidence that these results at 36 months were primarily a reflection of requirements to attend early intervention special education programs for the for the children with autism. And why do we say that? We say that because the effect was almost all seen in children 3-5 years of age and those were the ones that early education programs and 98%, you know, 98% of that of that age group was in special education programs for which vaccination was of a requirement.

Attkisson: Is there any possibility that it is biologically plausible and you just haven’t, you know, that that’s, the consensus is that it’s not, among you guys, but that it is and you’re overlooking that?

DeStefano: I’m, I’m not aware of any data would, that would s–, you know, that would say that, uh, you would have, um, onset of autism after 36 months.

So the quote was about the increased risk in kids (not just black kids - this risk was in the birth certificate group too, where there wasn't a statistical significance for black kids) aged 3-5 who had their MMR between 24 and 36 months, and why they explained that through the healthcare program initiative which 98% of them attended and which required vaccination. Given that the 36 month risk was not seen in the older age group, who were much less likely to have been required to attend these programs, that does seem plausible.

I can't see anything to get particularly worked up about here.

I have noticed an awful lot of misrepresentations of the facts going on. It gets a bit boring to read something supposedly bad, and then actually dig into the reality and find something much more mundane.