Can the MMR or other vac ever cause autism?

[StarlightMcKenzie]

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

It is indeed down to risk factors, Bunbaker. And for some, the higher risk is from vaccination.

Anyone who makes a blanket claim of 'no, absolutely not' is talking bollocks. Of course it is possible - ANY vaccination can have serious side effects, why would MMR be any different?

I don't believe it can actually cause Autism but I do believe it can strengthen autistic traits through the experience of vaccinations and the potential for brain damage (which is rare). There is also a correlation ( I can't remember the study but perhaps someone else can) that seemed to indicate the age of vaccinations appear to be the same age when parents first notice autistic traits.

As I've said I knew about the autism long before anybody stuck needles in him.. why is that then?

And I resent the tone in this thread that autism is some sort of brain damaged disease.. no wonder I encounter ignorant fucks out there in the real world who go on as though it is catching

Well yes they can.

It's a very personal choice. Nothing is fool proof.

And I don't think any one thing 'causes' autism anyway

Another perspective i find quite amusing.

nightofthelivingdad.net/2014/08/13/why-we-didnt-vaccinate-our-child/

Sorry nightofthelivingdad.net/2014/08/13/why-we-didnt-vaccinate-our-child/

What is the benefit of this sort of thread? Both my dcs are AS for 14 years Ive wanted to know why but for what benefit? So i can be sure it was my fault? Useful! Can it change my dcs diagnosis? No! So why put myself through this ridiculous torture of wondering? I wanted babies I got them and I thank my lucky stars I did. My dcs are as amazing as anyone else's. So keep your theories I'm not interested.

And gamerchick I'm with you!

Do people believe this still? I thought all the vaccines cause autism stuff had been thoroughly debunked now?

Imagine a world in which the editor of The Lancet had sent David Wakefield's paper to a different reviewer, who had seen it for the piece of bad science it was and sent it back with 'not for publication'? There would be a fair few children still alive now, and many more not permanently injured.

There are a couple of things you have to remember whenever looking at a study that is billed as a “reanalysis” of an existing data set that’s already been published. The first is that no one—I mean no one—”reanalyzes” such a dataset unless he has an ax to grind and disagrees with the results of the original analysis so strongly that he is willing to go through the trouble of getting institutional review board (IRB) approval, as Hooker did from Simpson University, going to the CDC to get this dataset, and then analyzing it. Think, for instance, the infamous “reanalysis” by homeopaths of the meta-analysis of Shang et al that concluded that the effects of homeopathy are placebo effects. The reanalysis did not refute the original meta-analysis. The second thing you have to remember is that it’s pretty uncommon for such a “reanalysis” to refute the original analysis. Certainly, antivaccine “researchers” like Hooker try to do this all the time. Occasionally they get their results published in a bottom-feeding peer-reviewed journal (Translational Neurodegeneration doesn’t even appear to have an impact factor yet), as Hooker has. It means little.

scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/22/brian-hooker-proves-andrew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/

We reanalyse data all the time and not because we have an axe to grind - just because we are interested in things that weren't included in the original studies.

Ilovexmastime - It's Andrew Wakefield and it wasn't just hispaper. You may find this useful re the number of measles deaths.

To add to Bore's thoughts as Trans Neuro seems to be a journal that mainly deals with neurone generative disease such as Parkinson's it seems a strange match for this paper. To me it would suggest they have trawled round to find anyone who would publish and other journals have turned it down.

paper is withdrawn, pending "further investigation"

Starlight, you may be aware of this already but just in case here is a bit of info about all this.

Dr Hooker has been in contact for some months with Dr Thompson who was one of the authors of the original 2004 paper. Dr Thompson has said that the data was manipulated by CDC scientists in order to hide the findings with regards to autism risk in African American boys. In other words the CDC are guilty of scientific fraud and withholding public health information from the general public.

Dr Thompson is being called a whistleblower which I guess in a way he is in that he contacted Dr Hooker with this information and seems to have confessed about his part in all this. It seems that he didn't intend to go public though.

Dr Thompson has released this statement.

www.rescuepost.com/files/william-thompson-statement-27-august-2014-3.pdf

A copy of a letter that he wrote to Director of the CDC Julie Gerberding in 2004 has been published on the internet too.

www.naturalnews.com/images/CDC-Gerberding-Warning-Vaccines-Autism.jpg

And yes, Dr Hooker's paper has been removed pending 'further investigation'. Here is the statement made in the journal.

"This article has been removed from the public domain pending further investigation because the journal and publisher believe that its continued availability could cause public harm. Definitive editorial action will be taken once our investigation is complete."

Which is an interesting sort of statement IMO. It doesn't say that the paper has been removed because the science is bad.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened, quite a few papers regarding vaccines and autism have been removed now from the public domain. (And of course some just don't get published at all.)

There is of course a virtual blackout on this story in the media.

CNN have this article up in which they seem to think that the most important thing to report is that the validity of Hooker's paper is being questioned. You have to read quite far down to get anything about Dr Thompson, and it is only a couple of sentences and they do not refer to him as a whistleblower.

Surely the news story is that a senior CDC scientist has admitted to manipulating data and failing to publish findings that suggest a temporal relationship between MMR and the development of autism in a subset of the population. And the fact that the CDC knew this in 2004 and yet have been saying the opposite since then. And if a journalist was really doing their job, they might also mention that this 2004 study, which one of its main authors says is fraudulent, was used as scientific evidence against the thousands of children in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings. And if that journalist was really not being told what to write on the ball they might also link this story to that of Poul Thorsen, one of the authors of the famous 'Danish studies', which was also used in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, and who is now wanted for financial fraud.

Bizarrely, the CDC do not seem keen to actually pursue Thorsen, despite him having stolen a million dollars from them. Indeed they still use the studies he authored as proof of MMR's safety - they have failed to re-visit the studies and data to examine them for scientific fraud despite their main author being a known criminal. And of course the studies Thorsen has authored haven't been 'withdrawn' despite him being wanted for fraud and money laundering. Indeed Thorsen is free and not in hiding, working in Denmark and as late as 2013 published papers on autism with a certain Dr. Diana Schendel who used to work for the CDC along with him and who now coincidentally works for Thorsen’s former employer Aarhus University in Denmark - the place where the fraud took place. How cosy

It's very hard to argue with this excellent point made by SafeMinds;

While failing to bring him to justice, it remains unconscionable that the very Justice Department responsible for indicting him and for prosecuting his case, continue to use papers he co-authored to substantiate legal decisions that absolve vaccine damage.

I do like the deliberate misquote Beachcomber
it actually says

"his article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation.

Thanks for that bruffin - I hadn't noticed. I copied and pasted the quote and didn't notice that there was a section missing. Thanks for giving the full thing. Sorry to everyone for the mistake. I didn't deliberately misquote, it was a genuine oversight.

I should have linked to the journal! www.rescuepost.com/.a/6a00d8357f3f2969e201b8d05e1ca1970c-pi

What is your opinion on Dr Thompson saying that the original study was fraudlent?

Or on the CDC and the US Department of Justice failing to pursue Thorsen? Or on their using his studies (and Dr Thompson's) as evidence in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings?

Someone once linked to an American doctor who explained really clearly about all the trials that had been done to establish if there was any link between autism and MMR.
He said that there had been more trials carried out with MMR than with any other vacinne and that no link had been found.
Can't remember what he was called...does anyone else remember?

Thats what you get for relying on Natural news etc for your info.

Actually the quote didn't come from Natural News - it was from Age of Autism which is an online newspaper authored by parents of children with autism. I can link to it if you like.

Now that I have gone back and looked at it I see how what happened - I copied the Age of Autism commentary without realizing that their commentary was a sarky editing of the quote. They do provide a screen shot of the actual statement and a live link to it in the journal. As I say, my mistake and I apologize for it.

Are you going to comment on my questions about Dr Thompson admitting to scientific fraud within the CDC? Or on Thorsen and financial fraud? Or on how both those issues make the conclusions reached at the Omnibus Autism Proceedings problematic to the extent of needing re-visited and reexamined for their validity?

How would you feel if your case had been dismissed by the Omnibus Autism Proceedings and you were now reading that one of the studies used as evidence against you is being called fraudulent by one of its authors? And that the author of some of the other studies used as evidence against you is wanted by the Department of Justice (the same DoJ which dismissed your claim of vaccine damage?).

How would you feel knowing that the CDC knew that the data in a study used to dismiss thousands of claims of vaccine damage had been manipulated?

Nobody trusts Age of Autism either, but the same misquote is on Natural News.

Why do you say that bruffin? Age of Autism is a lifeline for thousands of parents of children with autism. It is authored by parents, for parents. Loads of people trust it.

What is your opinion of what Dr Thompson says about scientific fraud within the CDC?

Age of Autism is a vitriolic, libelous, disgusting parody of a newsletter. They portrayed their perceived "adversaries" as eating a baby for Thanksgiving - how can such negativity be a "life line". Have you tried The Thinking Person's Guide to Autism? Much more positive and actually supportive of parents of autists and autists.

I suppose anything is possible, but both my dc's have autism. One had single jabs, the other had the MMR.