Can the MMR or other vac ever cause autism?

[StarlightMcKenzie]

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

Hmm Beachcomber, so you're not going to explain why Hooker made out that excluding non-birth certificate data from your in-depth analysis was inexplicable and suspicious and could only point to fraud, when he did the same thing himself - i.e. ditched 41% of the data in order to get more reliable results (a 'strength' of his study)?

See noblegiraffe that sort of post makes me question if you are discussing this in good faith. It also very much comes across as though you have made your mind up that Hooker is some sort of villain (based on what, I don't know) and that the CDC are beyond reproach or incapable of behaving corruptly (again based on what exactly, I don't quite know!).

The CDC operates under conditions of extreme conflict of interest in an area that involves a lot of money, a lot of power, a lot of responsibility and which is inherently tied to an industry which is not known for its lily white reputation, transparency and altruism.

I don't know what you think makes Hooker corrupt but I know why I don't trust the CDC (the Thorsen affair for example).

I have already said I don't have a problem with DeStefano et al having two groups - one with birth certificate data and one without. I don't have a problem with them running different analyses on the two groups. I don't have a problem with them excluding one of the groups from an analysis - as long as there is a reason for doing so and that that is clear in the presentation or discussion of results. I don't have a problem with Hooker doing any of those things either. You seem to have a problem with Hooker doing it but I'm not sure what you actually mind about it.

What I have a problem with is what Thompson has said DeStefano et al did. And that is to manipulate data to dilute the statistical significance of the results of an analysis run according to the protocol of their study.

Can you really not see the difference between excluding a group (nearly half your cases) in order to not have to present the findings of the data of all your cohort and excluding a subgroup (with a specific attribute) in order to make sure that results you think you have found are not due to an entirely different attribute/variable to the one you think you have identified?

Hooker's explanation of why he ran an analysis on the birth certificate cohort is perfectly simple. Again I don't think you are reading things properly because you are so keen to disagree with Hooker. He wants to make sure that what the data shows is actually a result for African American males and not simply a factor of low birth weight (because low birth weight was more common in African American newborns). Therefore he runs an extra analysis excluding low birth weight subjects - he can only run this analysis on the 'birth certificate cohort' because he doesn't have birth weight data for the other group. What Hooker has done is add information and refine his results - and he still sees statistical significance within the male African American subgroup.

What Thompson said DeStefano did was the opposite. They excluded a group in order to dilute results. They presented less information than they had. Hooker confirmed his statistical significance. DeStefano (according to Thompson) buried his. Can you really not see how these are rather different things . Maybe if you stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions you will be better able to see that the issue is not excluding a group per se.

I say that because you say this;

when he did the same thing himself - i.e. ditched 41% of the data in order to get more reliable results (a 'strength' of his study)?

Hooker didn't ditch 41% of the data on that final test. He didn't have data to ditch. He excluded the group because he didn't have the data he needed on that group. Can you really not see that?!

Have just seen this which says pretty well what I say above but in better depth and clarity. Please read it noblegiraffe and don't just ignore it because it comes from that pesky parents website.

www.ageofautism.com/2014/09/more-questions-than-answers-further-comments-on-the-2004-cdc-study-destefano-et-al-2004.html#more

Can you really not see the difference between excluding a group (nearly half your cases) in order to not have to present the findings of the data of all your cohort

Why do you think that they excluded the group in order to not to have to present the findings on all the data? They could have also not reported the findings on all the data because the data was unreliable and missing lots of records. They didn't present data on whether the child was first born was a risk for autism either. Another cover up? Do you have to present all your findings on all of the data however unreliable the findings might be?
That's a scientific debate, perhaps. But not presenting findings that you think are unreliable and are explained by a more comprehensive analysis which you do present doesn't smell of fraud, cover-ups and racist experiments to me.

I don't know what you think makes Hooker corrupt

Mainly his words and his actions. I'd not even heard of him till the start of this thread, so you can see my train of thought regarding him develop over my posts.

Sofiaames So how would you test for Vit D deficiency in a mother whose child is now a teen? What are the symptoms of Vit D deficiency so I can wrack my brains and work out if I was deficient whilst pregnant?

I think with all the different 'causes' of autism be that low birth weight, order of birth, black or white and birth trauma it shows that we are still nowhere nearer to finding a definitive cause and possibly there will be no definitive cause. I do hope your father can find something which can lead towards a cause so children can be protected from the off.

Personally I feel that something we have done or introduced over the last 100 years has exacerbated the rise in autism. What? I don't know but I feel it is something that has been a world wide environmental event such as CFC gases or even the Hiroshima bomb testing. And it is probably something that we will never learn

I think there is a lot of confirmation bias on this thread from the people who don't want to believe there is any possibility of a link between MMR and autism. You are picking holes in Hooker's paper and making excuses for DeStefano. Even though you don't know why Hooker hasn't included exact figures, you are thinking the worst but with DeStefano you are making excuses e.g the birth certificates may have been difficult to find out of state, it would have been an administrative nightmare, out of state birth certs may not have had the same info, they only removed data that was unreliable or incomplete. You don't actually know any of these things either but you are more prepared to believe what has been said in that paper because it agrees with what you want to believe yourself.

Debs75 obviously you can't test 15 years later, but there are several things that you can do (and are being done). One can make assumptions (fairly reasonable) that if you are dark skinned and lived in a northern country when you were pregnant (and were not a field worker) you were almost certainly Vitamin D deficient when pregnant. I forget the exact statistics but something in the range of 90% of dark skinned adults and 75% of light skinned adults in northern countries are Vitamin D deficient in studies done "today" which would lead one to believe that those figures might be similar in adults 15/20 years ago. The only significant natural source of Vitamin D is from sunlight and we spend much less time outdoors today than we did even 30/40 years ago and there is much more wide spread fluidity of populations with dark skin people living in sunless countries. All of this could explain an increase in Vitamin D deficiency. What my father has done is to add to all this demographic information (which can be interpreted in different ways) an analysis of the biochemical pathways that show how vitamin d works in various body functions (brain, sleep, digestion) including ones that are connected to autism. He thinks that it looks very likely that Vitamin D deficiency is a culprit and since it's cheap and harmless to supplement, he thinks that everyone (not just pregnant mothers) should be supplementing.
The symptoms of Vitamin D deficiency (as with many nutrients) are not super obvious much of the time. Depression and more severely, broken bones, are some of the most obvious symptoms. But Vitamin D has implications in mood disorders, digestion/satiety, sleep, brain function and probably lots more that they don't know about.

By the way, there is some indication (needs to be further studied) that vitamin d supplementation can help with some of the behavior issues in autistic people.

Why do you think that they excluded the group in order to not to have to present the findings on all the data?

Um, because one of the authors has come out and said so in a legal statement that I have quoted several times on this thread.

And because a non CDC scientist has accessed the data through a FOIA request and exposed the result that they are being accused of not presenting.

And because I can read the study and see that there is an unexplained gathering of data that was never analysed.

And because I can read the study and see how shaky the conclusion is if it isn't based on the subject data for the total cases.

And because I can read DeStefano's comments and see how biased he is and what a cavalier approach he has to the scientific method.

And because I have read documents pertaining to the matter where Thompson describes their results as 'problematic' and 'sensitive' and 'legally sensitive'.

And because the CDC do not have a good past record in being honest and transparent on vaccine safety. No doubt due to their outrageous conflict of interest.

You say that Hooker's words and actions show him to be corrupt. Really? Which ones? Daring to question the CDC? Daring to ask for their data? Daring to reanalyze the data after being told to do so by a senior CDC scientist who admits to having manipulated said data? Daring to suggest that dumping 41% of your subjects when it suits you and for no solid scientific reason is not good science? Daring to speak out about these things? Daring to record a scientist admitting to corruption in the government's handling of the biggest medical controversy of our time?

I totally agree with MrsWhiskersonTheFirst, there is a lot of confirmation bias on this thread. Plus a refusal to comment on any of the very damning things that Thompson has said and written let alone the way the CDC has behaved (for example the Thorsen affair and I imagine it will be the same for the link to the Verstraeten cover up...)

don't want to believe there is any possibility of a link between MMR and autism.

Why would I want to believe either way? I don't have any particular investment in the issue. I read the paper in the OP out of a casual, not a professional or personal interest, and wasn't impressed.

I have to sat I was even less impressed when it appeared to come along with a bullshit conspiracy video that a 9/11 truther would have been ashamed of. It was embarrassing.

How the whole thing has been presented to the anti vaccine community is appallingly dishonest. Racist experiment FFS. Deliberately inflammatory stuff.

Even though you don't know why Hooker hasn't included exact figures, you are thinking the worst but with DeStefano you are making excuses e.g the birth certificates may have been difficult to find out of state

Yeah, because researchers having to apply to access out-of-state birth certificate data is exactly as difficult as adding another column on a table, something which the computer would probably even fill in for you.

they only removed data that was unreliable or incomplete

The data was unreliable because it was incomplete. And I know it was incomplete because they said it was, and handily included the numbers in an easy to read table (Hooker take note). Given that the reasons for missing race data might not be random, given earlier comments about the issues of identifying your race in the US, simply getting rid of records with missing data could have introduced a source of bias.

The description of the race split/birth certificate/control thing is covered in table 5. And also covered in the paragraph on pg 264 beginning 'Among case and control children...' (sorry, can't C&P on here) where they have summarised the findings.

MrsWhiskerson, it's not about who wrote what and what I want to believe or whatever, simply that one paper presents scientific results and the other doesn't. I understand this sounds exaggerated if it's not your field, but the Hooker data just means nothing without sample sizes.

Um, because one of the authors has come out and said so in a legal statement that I have quoted several times on this thread.

Not in the legal statement I read. I can't find the bit where he said 'we tampered with the data to make it fit the findings we wanted to report, then reported those'.

He said statistically significant data was omitted. Where does it say that they weren't intending to do a race analysis on the birth certificate data? From what I understand, they had the two sets of race results. They could have presented the total sample ones, I agree, then explained why they were unreliable, compared them to the more reliable ones and explained how controlling for other factors showed race wasn't an issue. Or they could have not reported the unreliable ones, because they were unreliable and what would presenting unreliable results that they would only have to then compare to reliable results achieve apart from possibly confusing people?

Both options are ok, IMO. I understand Thompson's desire for transparency. Given how heated this issue appears to be, I can also understand the desire to not present results that you don't have confidence in that certain quarters could run away with.

I don't know what I would have done, tbh. I don't think either option is evil, I think the case could be made for either course of action.

Given the current furore, I would be interested in seeing what a qualified independent statistician (who knows about sample sizes and whose calculations had the right title) doing a proper analysis would make of the data.

Sorry, sofiaames, you've been saying very interesting things and I have not replied to you. Vit D has come up in a lot of diverse areas recently, hasn't it, I think the link to MS is looking pretty solid? I stopped taking vitamin supplements a few years ago, when studies started to show evidence they could be doing more harm than good, but maybe I should look at D again. Esp for the kids.

Noblegiraffe you are making things up.

It is sort of fascinating to read your posts and see the bias in them.

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.

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub­ group for a particular vaccine.

And because I can read the study and see how shaky the conclusion is if it isn't based on the subject data for the total cases.

No offence, but you don't appear to have a very good grasp of statistics. You have been told by Hooker how to read the paper, that's not the same thing.

Yes, Beachcomber, I know. I responded to that in my previous post.

Boulevard ...no worries. Not to open another can of worms, but most of those studies saying that supplements do more harm than good are generally flawed and looking at the wrong things. There is a wealth of evidence showing the opposite. Unfortunately many in the medical field look at the most immediate and obvious results (like broken bones) and are not considering longer term effects (like life span) and the more complicated effects (like mood or sleep). They are also not considering the biochemical explanations for much of this. Some proposed supplement effects don't stand up to biochemical scrutiny, but others get even more obvious and clear. It's not expensive to test Vitamin D levels (here in the USA it's becoming fairly standard as part of an annual checkup) and it's also even cheaper to just supplement....although always better to have base numbers if you can afford it.

No offence, but you don't appear to have a very good grasp of statistics. You have been told by Hooker how to read the paper, that's not the same thing.

You know, noblegiraffe, I think this might be the most thought provoking thing you have posted on this thread AFAIC. I know it was meant to be a dig at me and I guess to make the point that laypersons are a bit too thick to understand The Scientists and The Science and that we can therefore be Told What To Think by Maverick Scientists who are up to no good.

Well, this is what I think to that.

First of all, statistics - well I think my grasp of them is similar to most people who haven't studied stats or who use them for a living. That is I don't know the ins and outs of a lot of the formulas and methods. What I do know is how relatively easy it is to manipulate statistics. Which of course means in turn that it is much easier to manipulate the results of an epidemiological study than a clinical study. The CDC have (AFAIA) only been involved in one clinical study to examine children suspected of vaccine induced autism (and it was a mess, we can discuss it if you like but I don't want to digress in this post). They prefer to churn out epidemiology (if possible from countries that don't have the same vaccine schedule as the US). And in medicine, epidemiology is considered a highly useful tool but one with limitations - such as it cannot be used to disprove causal association. And it is not a diagnostic tool. One of its other major limitations is of course that it is dependent on statistics and therefore vulnerable to data manipulation.

Secondly, you say that I have 'been told' by Hooker 'how to read the paper'. For me this is the most interesting part of what you say. It made me think about how dependent the general public are on organisations like the CDC (and UK equivalents). Indeed how dependent the press are on such organisations to provide them with information. And it made me think about how much we need organisations like the CDC to be transparent, to be open to the public, to be uninfluenced by financial gain, to be free from corruption, to be free from conflict of interest and to have the power to make truly independent decisions. The CDC is there to serve the public and it should answer to the public.

But the CDC isn't any of those things. Did you know for example that in 2002 the CDC sold the contract for the holding and maintenance of the VSD database (the record of reports of vaccine reactions) to a private company. This means that citizens can no longer access the database using the FOIA. This means that no-one can check that the CDC is telling the population the truth about the safety of vaccines (past and present) that the CDC is responsible for that population having. The CDC is in a position of massive conflict of interest and nobody is allowed access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

Now back to MMR, Hooker, etc. The CDC are responsible for the fact that American children have the MMR. If there is something wrong with the MMR, the buck stops with the CDC. DeStefano et al is a study done by the CDC to attest to the safety of the MMR. It doesn't take a genius to work out the conflict of interest here.

Like most parents who are not vaccine experts or epidemiologists I can read an epidemiological paper concerned with vaccination and generally I can understand what it is telling me. But I am dependent on the authors to tell me stuff. If they don't write stuff up, or they bury and manipulate data or fail to report on an analysis they ran, I will not have that information. And neither will other parents. And neither will journalists reporting on health matters. And neither will general practitioners who are reliant on researchers for their information. And neither will other scientists looking for references and contexts for their own hypotheses and research. And neither will clinical researchers seeking to understand the mechanisms and etiology of a condition.

DeStefano et al published their paper in 2004, ten years ago - in that time it has been read by a great many people. But people are not mind readers and we couldn't know that they had failed to report statistically significant findings. Now that we do know, it isn't difficult to see why, (if it turns out that Dr Thompson is correct) that makes the conclusion of their study utter nonsense. It also isn't difficult to see why this is a very very serious matter and one that needs to be thoroughly investigated by Congress in an open and transparent manner that is accessible to citizens.

again - CDC spokeswoman statement

The 2004 CDC study was designed as a case-control study. This means, children with autism (cases) were specifically identified, and children without autism (controls) were identified to be similar to the children with autism in other respects. When data are collected in a specific way for a specific type of statistical analysis (a case-control study in this instance), using those data in a different type of analysis can produce confusing results. Because the methods in Dr. Hooker’s reanalysis were not described in detail, it is hard to speculate why his results differed from CDC’s. We would be interested to learn more about how he analyzed the data to reach the conclusions made in his study.”

Interesting post.

Scientific language can be somewhat cryptic and manipulated.

"African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis"

I think this sentence means exactly that and the author couldn't, in conscience, say any more than that. He couldn't show that MMR causes autism, only that there is a link between MMR and diagnosis of autism. And, indeed, the diagnosis could cause taking up MMR.
But the way it's written can be interpreted as MMR first and autism later, which is not necessarily the case.

How would you read if it was
""African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to have received an autism diagnosis"
Then it would imply that the diagnosis had been prior to the MMR vaccine.

But, as far as it seems from the papers, both sentences are correct, although they seem to convey somewhat different impressions.

Both DeStefano and Hooker think that the way the data was collected is a strength of their study.

1. A strength of the current study is that the MADDSP data were collected independently of the design used in the analysis. These data were collected as part of the diagnoses individuals received as part of their participation in special education program and as such, the healthcare providers in no way were thinking about the potential association between vaccine exposures and potential health outcomes.

2. Information bias was further reduced by the fact that the clinical and behavioral data and the vaccination data came from independent record sources and the information on both exposure and outcome was recorded before the publicity about a possible association between MMR and autism.

One of the quotes is from DeStefano, the other from Hooker. But they are both saying the same thing.

but the data was collected for a different form of statistics.

Can you expand CatherinaJTV? Seems a bit worrying if statistical methods are so unreliable that you get a completely different result depending on the one you use. I find that hard to believe. Anyway Hooker says that he confirmed his results by using a similar desgin to DeStefano. Plus we have Dr Thompson who says that DeStefano et al did find similar statistical significant values to Hooker - they just chose to omitt them.

From Hooker;
The Pearson’s chi -squared test contained in the SAS® software was utilized for current statistical analyses, and a two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. This is in contrast to the original Destefano et al. [14] (CDC) study, where a case–control study design was used, where 3 control children were matched to each case child, and analyzed using conditional logistic regression dichotomized for the three age cut-offs at 18, 24 and 36 months. Pearson’s chi-squared is, in general, a more conservative analysis and therefore chosen for the present study. However, our results were also confirmed using a conditional logistic regression design similar to the Destefano et al.

the information on both exposure and outcome

Sure, it's a strength.
But Hooker's language in that statement is misleading.
Something is called exposure because it's what we are starting with, and outcome are the variables that we want to see if they show up after exposure.
It can work well as a cohort if you start off with exposed and non exposed individuals (eg. vaccinated and not vaccinated) and then see which have the outcome after exposure (eg. are diagnosed for autism, not having shown signs at the time of enrollment).
But it doesn't really work, if your original data was from a case-control study, where you pick people who have or who don't have autism and then see which have had the vaccine so far. You'd have to have reliable times and characterization regarding autism at the time of vaccination, to be able to change data gathered from a case-control study to a cohort study analysis.
And that is a problem with the Hooker analysis.

Also, often exposure and outcome do not have the strict meaning of cause and effect, but rather the fixed variable that is our starting point, and outcome as the variable that we want to see if it's in association with the "exposure". They do not mean cause and effect.