BBC: MMR is safe

[hazlinh]

bbc story

I've been digging around myself and found a paper that was published in the October 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Danish Researchers at the Statens Serum Institute in Copenhagen were able to compare the incidence of childhood problems like autism and ADHD in children who were vaccinated with a thimerosal-containing pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine and those with thimerosal free version (thimerosal was removed from Danish vaccines in 1992). The researchers used an identifiable register on all childhood vaccinations going back to 1990. They found that there was no dfference in the risk of autism in those children who got the vaccine with or without thimerosal. The exhaustive study included records on all 467,450 children born in Denmark between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1996. The researchers found no significant difference between the incidence of autism and other such problems in children who received the vaccine with or without thimerosal and no indications of a dose response relationship between autism an the amount of ethylmercury received through thimerosal. Dr Melbye who carried out the study said that previous studies had not examined personally identifiable data and that his team were able to look at the incidence curve for autism and found no sign that it correlates with thimerosal exposure. However, the researchers did find a dramatic increase in the number of diagnosed cases of autism-spectrum disorders during the study period, similar to what has been observed in other countries. The reason for this is unclear and this study was not designed to answer this question.

As a scientist myself, I would say that the results from this study are more valid than those of Wakefields because it was an exhaustive study (over 400,000 children) unlike Wakefields (6 if I remember correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong). As I said before, my older brother, who is in his 40s, is autistic but as a child, doctors did not know this. It is only recently that doctors have been able to identify this condition and I believe that that is the reason for the increase in numbers for this disorder.

message withdrawn

message withdrawn

Thanks for that, I had posted before I saw previous message. I will certainly do more research into this before I draw any conclusions. Trip to the university library beckons, I feel.

The main problem with the epidemiological studies and MMR is that the numbers affected by MMR are too samll- they will never be picked up. There are other problems as well- the delay between developing and diagnosing autism for example. As a personal example I was fairly sure by 17 months that my son was autistic (and I can tell you when his regression started- and we have video that backs that up) - but he wasn't diagnosed until after the age of 3. And now he is towards the severe end of the spectrum- in terms of being 5 and non-verbal. During his 3rd year of life I was repeatedly told that he "definitely wasn't" autistic by a number of professionals.

The clinical studies are limited to date - but vaccine strain measles virus has been found in the guts and spinal fluid of affected children and that has to be explained. It's worth looking at the autism research unit's homepage as well. They are beginning to collaberate with researcher's looking into Gulf War syndrome and there are interesting metabolic similarities between gulf war vets with the syndrome and autistics.

Uhu- I have a copy of the colombia mouse paper (about thimerosil/dtp's) that I can email you if you would like. Contact me through mumsnet if you want and I'll forward it on.

Jimjams Thanks for the offer but funnily enough, one of my friends who works for a pharmaceutical company has a copy of this so I will be getting a copy from her.

FWIW, my older brother was developing normally until the age of 5 when he stopped speaking and interacting. The doctors did not know what was wrong with him so he had to go to a special school until age 16. We now know that the problem was autism and we have no idea why it happened. However, as he got older he got better and had a lot of support from the school, which sadly now no longer exist. He is in his 40s now, has worked since age 16, is a brown belt in Kung Fu , has a girlfriend, goes out drinking with friends and leads, by his standards a full life. HTH

The interesting thing about the colombia paper (from my point of view) is the link to autoimmunity (loads in ds1's family history) but also the fact that glutamate receptors show structural changes. DS1 cannot have MSG or yeast exctract or gelatine because of the glutamate in it.

Sorry to introduce myself so late in the conversation. But, two questions linger in my mind whenever I consider how safe the MMR is:

1- What is wrong with single jabs? Can't the govt just say "oh alright then, have them singly."

and

2- What is causing the rise in Autism? If it isn't MMR, shouldn't someone be looking into what is causing it? As our national health system, isn't it their job to do SOMETHING about it?

What really gets me going is that the goverment seems to think that their role of protecting the greater population overrides my role of protecting my single child. I'm sorry but that line of thinking is so outrageous it almost leaves me speechless (I said almost). My child. My choice. PERIOD.

1. That would be too obvious!

2. Even though MMR may be affecting small numbers it isn't behind the rise. The rise does shadow the amount of thimerosil given to babies quite closely. The govt prefers to subscribe to better diagnosis- this will be partly true- especailly at the higher functioning end of the spectrum. However California figures didn't include AS PDD etc and they still show a huge rise. A lazy assumption perhaps.

It's interesting that the whole debated was sparked by Dr Andrew Wakefield controversial paper proporting a link between MMR and autism. His work has now been discredited but the fall out from his irresponsible actions continue. It's interesting how his supporters have remained mute over the revelation that he was paid £550000 by the Legal Aid Board to try to establish a link between MMR and autism and that he promptly failed to inform his 12 co-authors. Ten of the co-authors have retracted their support and Wakefield is now facing disciplinary procedures from the GMC.

The debate on thiomersal seems to have replaced the vacuum left by the discredited work of Wakefield. From what I have read so far, MMR formulation has never contained mercury in the UK. Some previous formualations of the whooping cough vaccine contained thiomersal but no risks have fully been established. Now the debate has turned on the 3 in 1 and 5 in 1 vaccines and I just get the sinking feeling that people are desperately looking for any reason to justify their disagreement for the current policy on the vaccination for children.

There is another interesting point to consider regarding the reasons why campaigners object to multiple vaccinations being given simultaneously. Babies and children are naturally exposed to many viruses everyday that give rise to infections and their immune system copes without being overloaded. Why should it be any different when they are given vaccines?

Over 500 million doses of MMR has been administered in over 80 countries for nearly 30 years. The National Autism Society says that regressive autism has remained constant since the introduction of MMR. I think it is time people looked at the bare naked facts and stopped listening to the rhetoric of unqualified scaremongerers.

Wakwfield's work has not been discredited. Some co-authors "withdrew an interpretation" (made in the press not in the original paper) although quite how you withdraw an interpretation I have no idea.

His work has continued- as has O Leary's in Ireland- and they have found vaccine strain measles virus in the guts and spinal fluid of autistic children. O leary thinks this isn't enough to prove causation, whereas Wakefield is more suspicious of it.

The leagl aid board funding was an attempt to discredit Wakefield. He hadn never hid the funding, and in fact his research has far less conflict of interest than people like Elizabeth Miller or people who are funded by drugs comapnies.

IN the States the thimerosil issue has been big for years. MMR has never had the publicity it did over here. The reason it has become a bigger issue in the UK in recent years is because the UK was pretty much the only country still using it in standard peadiatric vaccinations. OZ and NZ binned it several years ago and the States has started to phase it out a number of years ago. Recently several States have banned it. Of course research like the Colombia paper - and Walsh's work on metallothionein have begun to appear as well.

posted this on here before- but this was Wakefield's response to the accusations

Serious allegations have been made against me and my colleagues in
relation
to the provision of clinical care for children with autism and bowel
disease, and the subsequent reporting of their disease.

These allegations have been made by journalist Brian Deer who has
expressed,
in front of witnesses, his aim of destroying me.

All but one of the allegations, which are grossly defamatory, have been
shown to be baseless. One allegation remains against me personally.

That is, that I did not disclose to the Lancet that a minority of the 12
children in the 1998 Lancet report were also part of a quite separate
study
that was funded in part by the Legal Aid Board .

It is the Lancet's opinion but not mine that such a disclosure should have
been made since it may have been perceived as a conflict of interest.
This
is despite that fact that the funding was provided for a separate
scientific
study.

It needs to be made clear that the funds from the Legal Aid Board were not
used for the 1998 Lancet study, and therefore I perceived that no
financial
conflict of interest existed.

The Lancet defines a conflict of interest as anything that might embarrass
the author if it were to be revealed later. I am not embarrassed since it
is
a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest. I am, however,
dismayed at the way these facts have been misrepresented.

Whether or not the children's parents were pursuing, or intended to pursue
litigation against the vaccine manufacturers, had no bearing on any
clinical
decision in relation to these children, or their inclusion in the Lancet
1998 report.

It is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest at any time
in
relation to the medical referral of these children, their clinical
investigation and care, and the subsequent reporting of their disease in
the
Lancet.

As far as the 1998 Lancet report is concerned, it is a matter of fact that
we found and reported inflammation in the intestines of these children.

The grant of £55,000 was paid not me but to the Royal Free Hospital
Special
Trustees for my research group to conduct studies on behalf of the Legal
Aid
Board. These research funds were properly administered through the Royal
Free
Hospital Special Trustees.

The Legal Aid research grant to my group was used exclusively for the
purpose of conducting an examination of any possible connection between
the
component viruses of the MMR - particularly measles virus - and the bowel
disease in these children. This is entirely in line with other studiesthat
have been funded by the Legal Aid Board (latterly the Legal Services
Commission) and reported in the BMJ . If and when this work is finally
published, due acknowledgement will be made of all sources of funding.

It is unfortunate that, following full disclosure of these facts to the
editor of the Lancet, he stated that in retrospect he would not have
published facts pertinent to the parent's perceived association with MMR
vaccine in the 1998 Lancet report. Such a position has major implications

for the scientific investigation of injuries that might be caused by drugs
or vaccines, such as Gulf War Syndrome and autism, where possible victims
may be seeking medical help and also legal redress.

Health Secretary John Reid has called for a public enquiry. I welcome this
since I have already called for a public enquiry that addresses the whole
issue in relation vaccines and autism.

It has been proposed that my role in this matter should be investigated by
the General Medical Council (GMC). I not only welcome this, I insist on it
and I will be making contact with the GMC personally, in the forthcoming
week.

This whole unpleasant episode has been conflated to provide those opposed
to
addressing genuine concerns about vaccine safety with an opportunity of
attacking me - an attack that is out of all proportion to the facts of the
matter.

I stand by everything that I have done in relation to the
care,investigation
and reporting of the disease that I and my colleagues have discovered in
these desperately ill children.

My family and I have suffered many setbacks as a direct consequence of
this
work. As a family, we consider that our problems are nothing compared with
the suffering of these children and their families. For the sake of these
children, this work will continue.

current Wakefield research

Did you see the new report published in Neurology that showed that people who get the Hep B vaccine are up to three times more likely to develop multiple sclerosis?
Children do not, as a rule, get five diseases simultaneously. There is evidence that multiple vaccinations DO cause damage (as was disclosed during the inquiry into Gulf War syndrome). It is clearly a nonsense to say that vaccines have no side effects and are solely beneficial. You may well believe that vaccines are more beneficial than they are harmful, but that is not the same as there being proof that they cannot cause harm.

Also, if your autistic child suffered agonising bowel disease and every other doctor told you that you and your child were imagining it, you might be quite grateful to a doctor who actually listened to parents and children and cared about them.
The way Wakefield has been treated in this country gives him huge credence as far as I am concerned.

I read that report about HepB, Aloha. And what did we all have before we went to live abroad?? A bucketful of HepB jags.

jimjams, i thought the lancet said they regretted publishing it.

And his reasons made little sense bundle. he has been criticised in many quarters for bowing to politics- and putting politics before science. That side of the argument isn't publishd though.

The fact remains there is no research that directly contradicts Andrew Wakefield's as no-one is bothering to look at the children. Epidemiological studies which fail to even take on board that Wakefield et al are talking about a subgroup within the autistic population are useless.

And Aloha makes some very good points. Andy Wakefield was approached by parents- he examined their children and was surprised by what he found, he tried to talk to the dept of health to raise his concerns and was given the bursh off, so he went public. For whatever reason he decided that he couldn't keep quiet. Now initially I think he thought larger numbers were involved than have shown to be the case, and as he was highly respected and at the time one of the next hot things in the field I doubt he realised the devastating effect it would have on his career. Politically he would - with hindsight- have been more sensible to take the O Leary approach. To publish the research "oh look we've found vaccine strain measles virus where it shouldn't be" but then go on to say "but of course that means nothing at all".

As Aloha says he is one of the few doctors who doesn't think the average mother of an autistic child is an imbecile. He also seems to have a good understanding of how devastating autism is. And here's a big one- he doesn't subscribe to the view gthat autism is triggered by ABV (anything but vaccines). It always makes me laugh that when I say "oh ds1 regressed rapidly after his eczema herpeticum and we have video showing him gaze monitoring before, but not afterwards, and that's when he began to eat just bread having eaten everything we put in front of him a few weeks before" pretty much anyone is happy to accept that (medics included)- after all herpes is a nasty virus. However if I say "oh and he stopped talking a month after his measles jab" they look distinctly uncomfortable. Why in their eyes is fregression following a naturally aquired infection OK, but regression following an attenuated strain injected into the body not acceptable? Now I'm not particularly convinced the measles jab was involved in ds1's case but the reaction does make me raise my eyebrows. Open minded? Hmmmm

For years the medical community said it was impossible to get SSPE from MMR- then children who had never had natural measles began getting SSPE (not very many- it's very rare) So they said that these children "must have had mealses without anyone noticing"- yep that big killer disease- and no-on noticed. Finally it was conceded that a few unfortunate children had aquired SSPE through MMR. It's very dangerous to assume that vaccinations can never do any harm.

message withdrawn

and hep B vax contains thimerosil (some do/did anyway)- and MS is autoimmune. There's quite a lot of literature on mercury induced autoimmunity that I am just starting to read (slowly!)

Twiglett, I'm a chemist (degree and PhD). Why?

message withdrawn

No drug or vaccine is 100 percent safe, not possible.
They all have side effects and affect people in different ways surely?

When I was discussing vaccination with a GP I did say 'look, if you can tell me categorically that these vaccines are 100% safe and there is NO chance of ds being damaged then I'll have him vaccinated'. Naturally I didn't get that reassurance. It's just not something that I'm prepared to take a risk. I don't want my son to be the one in million.

I'm sure this has been said on similar threads before but just because a link cannot be found does not mean a link does not exist. Science is a process and all that. Whooping cough was the same and it was many years before that debacle came out, rather lamely, in the press.

But Portree, your ds isn't 100% safe everyday when you take him out the door of your house. That doesn't mean that you lock him in a closet for the rest of his life. You make balanced decisions about risks. However, you need to know what those risks are. Asking your gp to promise you that anything is 100% safe is unrealistic. Perhaps you would have been given more useful information if you had asked your gp to place (in his/her opinion) the risk of the vaccination in line with other daily events and the risk of catching and/or being damaged by some of the diseases the jab prevents. Maybe those comparisons would give you a better starting point for making an informed decision.