Will a New Study End the MMR-Vaccine Controversy? It's Unlikely!
The study analyzed 25 children with autism and 13 without the disorder. All of the children had gastrointestinal disturbances, as the 12 children in the 1998 report did. The timing of the first MMR shot was about the same in both groups. There were no links found between the timing of the vaccine, which typically is first given when children are 12- to 15- months old, and the onset of autism, or vaccination and the bowel ailments.The study was actually an attempt to replicate the extremely controversial study undertaken by British researcher Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield is undergoing disciplinary action for professional misconduct by Britain's General Medical Council and 10 of his collaborators formally withdrew their original Lancet study. Despite all of the negative publicity surrounding Wakefield and his work, Wakefield's findings remain a key to what has become a growing anti-MMR movement. A recent outbreak of measles is being blamed on parents avoiding the vaccination in order, in theory, to avoid autism.
A Scientific American story expands on the specifics of the study:
Researchers examined cells in biopsies (from 25 children with both autism and GI problems and 13 with just GI disturbances) to determine whether they contained genetic sequences of the measles virus. They only found a detectable amount of the virus remnants in one child in each group (4 percent of the autism and GI kids, 8 percent of the GI-only tykes). This indicates that autism is not related to the MMR vaccine or to the presence of measles sequences in the intestinal tract, says Columbia epidemiologist Mady Hornig, adding that the results were replicated in three different labs.A Reuters article even notes that the labs themselves were blinded to the purpose of the study - and that one of the labs was actually involved in supporting an MMR/autism connection:
The samples were analyzed in three laboratories that were not told which came from the children with autism. One of the labs had been involved in the original study suggesting a link between measles virus and autism.There are some who believe this study will put the MMR/autism controversy to rest. Those hopeful few are wrong."We found no difference in children who had GI complaints and no autism and children who had autism but no GI complaints," Dr. Ian Lipkin of Columbia University told reporters in a telephone briefing.
Before this story even hit the Google headlines, I had received an email from the National Autism Association. The NAA is specifically focused on pressing forward the very controversial message that "autism is not a lifelong incurable genetic disorder but one that is biomedically definable and treatable." Here, in part, is what the NAA had to say last night:
For years, parents have claimed that MMR triggered their child’s subsequent GI (gastrointestinal) disease and autism. In a 2002 paper where the majority of autistic children were found to have measles in their intestines, the children examined showed a clear temporal link between MMR exposure and regression. The CDC’s attempt to replicate the 2002 study fell far short of proving the safety of the MMR vaccine. [note: I don't know why this refers to a 2002 study, since the Wakefield study took place in 1998.]The NAA is not alone in questioning the validity of this study; journalist David Kirby is quoted in Scientific American as saying the study is too small. In fact today, as the public media announces the study's findings, dedicated groups of activists are spreading the word that the study is nothing like the final word on the MMR/autism question.
If this study, which was specifically and carefully designed to address parents' concerns, is refuted before it even becomes news, it's hard to imagine what, if anything, could shake parents' faith in the MMR/autism connection.
I fully support parents' right - and duty - to carefully consider the health of their children. As a parent, I'm more than supportive of a movement to ensure the safety and efficacy of vaccines - and every other medication, supplement and treatment offered to our children. But are we, at this point, looking at an issue of faith or science?
Comments
How has the paper been “refuted before it even becomes news”? Or do you mean “criticized”?
Did Kirby think Wakefield’s 1998 study was too small? (Hornig looks at 38 kids, Wakefield 12).
I could us some clarification on that last sentence – who is “we” ? Anti-vaccine activists jettisoned science years ago to make room for wishful thinking and guerrilla marketing. That’s not the same as faith. Faith gives us the strength, in the words of the serenity prayer, to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Ignoring or recklessly explaining away quality research in favor of David Kirby’s opinion isn’t faith – it’s spiritual suicide.
Five children is a pitifully small sample for a study. That’s all who got the MMR before gastrointestinal symptoms were observed.
How many sites were biopsied — one? In an intestinal tract that in adults is 26 feet long?
Why didn’t the study examine the actual children whose biopsies already show vaccine-strain measles in their guts? The NVICP, Federal Omnibus Autism Proceedings and VAERS are full of them.
I know a child who got 2 MMR’s by mistake, spaced closely. He’s got measles in his gut. Talk with Katie Wright and others about their son’s MMR injuries.
That MMR study is lame, lame, lame but in our bullet-point, skim-read society the headline and conclusion are all that most people read. This isn’t science — it’s damage control, pure and simple.
I use the term “refute” with this dictionary defintion: “To deny the accuracy or truth of.” In fact, the NAA (along with others) have denied the accuracy and truth of the research findings.
I use the term “we” to refer the autism community at large, of which I am a member. We may disagree with one another, but we do share an interest in autism.
Re faith: you’ve chosen to define the term on the basis of a particular prayer – which is absolutely fine to do. A dictionary definition which I use, however, is “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”
I hope this makes things clearer.
Lisa (autism guide)
Allow me to do your journalistic homework for you, Lisa.
http://jcp.bmj.com/cgi/data/55/1/DC1/1
This is a link to the 2002 study that NAA refers to in its press release. Dr. Wakefield has authored many studies, not just the 1998 Lancet paper.
thank you, Wendy. Today’s study, however, was supposed to have replicated the 1998 study.
Wakefield has been very busy during the intervening years. In fact, I interviewed Thoughtful House (Wakefield’s Texas-based organization) on this very subject, and published a Q&A article with them on this site (which I referenced in my blogpost). Here, again, is the URL: http://autism.about.com/od/vaccinesandautism/a/thoughtfulhouse.htm.
Lisa (autism guide)
Lisa, the ‘98 study looked at intestinal pathology and found GI disease in children who regressed after receiving the MMR. It didn’t look for Measles virus in the tissue.
The 2002 study is the one where MV was found in 75 of 91 patients.
Lisa,
From what I see, Hornig (2008)is an attempt to replicate parts of both the Wakefield (1998) and the the 2002 Uhlman et al. study. Uhlman is the one that showed PCR data supposedly showing MV in the intestines of the kids tested. Wakefield (1998) discussed the issue of regression/GI/MMR.
The 2002 study, reported MV in 75 of 91 patients. But, it appears very clear now that this was incorrect. There was much discussion in the press conference about why, with the suggestion made that contamination could have happened before the samples reached the O’Leary laboratory. You can add to that the Bustin testimony at the Omnibus about possible problems at the time in the lab that did the measurement.
The “Damage control” that is going on is from groups like NAA, Generation Rescue and the like who can’t even accept the word of Rick Rollens that this is a good study, well performed.
How about now they take it to the next level? Tell me that the combination of the MMR plus the rest of the vaccines given to children at around 12 – 18 months does not trigger Autism? I think this is what they need to look at, not any one vaccine, but the combination of all those vaccines given at one time. Look at the immunization schedule; Between 12 and 18 months a child could receive 9 vaccines (the MMR combines 3 in one and is counted as 1)
Such a load could have negative effects on our children’s little bodies. That’s been my thinking since my son was diagnosed with mild Autism 2 years ago.
re·fute
–verb (used with object), -fut·ed, -fut·ing.
1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
2. to prove (a person) to be in error.
In all of the definitions I’ve found so far, “to refute” implies the use of facts or evidence to prove something false. Even when used within the context of chess, the word implies a demonstration “that a strategy or move is less advantageous than previously thought, usually by providing a better strategy on the opposing side.”
The word you should have used is “repudiate”, which means to reject without justification. I can repudiate heliocentrism all day long, but I could never refute it.
What facts and data have David Kirby and the NAA marshaled to “refute” Hornig’s carefully executed scientific study?
“How about now they take it to the next level? Tell me that the combination of the MMR plus the rest of the vaccines given to children at around 12 – 18 months does not trigger Autism? I”
Sergio, read the study. The kids were given the regular vaccine schedule. The MMR (as a part of the schedule) didn’t cause autism.
I still think they’re looking in the wrong place. Another study out on plastics and baby bottles. Everyone keeps looking at vaccines. How about the chemical released from the plastic combined with let’s say other things like vaccines?
My son has GI issues, also had a GI endoscopy and biopsies of the stomach and intestines. His GI issues are known to be hereditary and unrelated to his autism or MMR vaccine. His gut issues also started at 8 months old.
I am disgusted once again by the media’s attention given to this so called study. Why don’t they give the attention to the parents of these kids? I am an aunt of a child with autism. I participated in the Green Our Vaccine Rally in DC on June 4, 2008. I really hope someday soon they will start reporting the truth so more children do not have to become “vaccine injured”.
I also don’t understand why the public has such a hard time understanding that vaccines are all about the all mighty dollar. Everything else in America works this way. I am not anti-vaccine, just pro-safe vaccines.
AutismNewsBeat – you’re such a jerk.
It really ticks me off how you always bash Lisa with your pseudo-intellectualism. We know what she means.
Plus, when you prattle on about faith vs. science, you know not of what you speak. But you are blind to your own ignorance. You really are. Your unquestioning -faith- in vaccines makes no more logical sense than the anti-vaccine crowd’s blind opposition to vaccines.
In fact, now that you mention it, I don’t know ANYONE who is “anti-vaccine”. You are arguing against straw men. The parents I know who are “concerned” about the role of vaccines, simply follow a modified schedule.
Your dismissal of an autism “epidemic” is sophistry and dead orthodoxy. You simply define “real autism” as “Kanner’s autism” and say, voila!, no epidemic. Your logic is always along the lines of (with apologies to George Will), “If we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham.”
I know you are beyond any self-examination or insight. So I’ll just await your caustic response.
And I’ll probably feel bad tomorrow for wording this so strongly. I’m just tired of seeing the same hostility toward Lisa, and the same warmed-over pseudo-arguments out of you, post-after-post-after-post.
But I do implore you, stop this constant “gotcha!” game with Lisa. She is SO generous with her time in maintaining this blog. She really does a helluva job breaking down the complex into simple terms. She does a dam-better job of keeping her objectivity than you do. And she doesn’t sound like a broken record!
-Bob
As long as people continue to say things like ‘vaccines are all about the mighty dollar’, the controversy will continue and many will just sluff off the person that makes that statement. Everyone in America of course needs to have income, using that against vaccines is unfair.
Vaccines were created for a purpose, plain and simple. To suggest otherwise is unfair to all those who were effected by a childhood preventable disease or those who have died. I will mention again, my mother suffers from long term effects of contracting a disease when she was a child. She also had neighbors of which her playmates died. If it wasn’t for vaccines, we’d still have small pox. There was a time parents were begging scientists to created prevention so their babies didn’t die. Go to South Dakota, visit the Dead Wood cemetery and see the hundreds of graves in the children’s section. Those poor babies never had the chance that our kids now have and how horrible for those parents to loose about all their children in a matter of months.
The mighty dollar? How about the mighty life? In some countries, Measles is very much the highest death rate of children.
“Sergio, read the study. The kids were given the regular vaccine schedule. The MMR (as a part of the schedule) didn’t cause autism.”
Sullivan, read my entry. I didn’t say the MMR vaccine causes Autism; I would like to see a study that shows that the ‘cocktail’ of immunizations given to kids these days does not cause Autism. I have been reading study after study, every day for the past 2 years and have yet to see something like this. I have spoken to 2 doctors who think this could cause a problem/act as a trigger for some children.
It may not be the vaccines, I do not know what causes Autism… I just need an answer; My little boy deserves an answer.
Bob, I am more than willing to refute your claims, but I would have to use big words, which you, by your own admission, are not comfortable with. But if it makes you feel better, I did just end a sentence with a preposition.
The synapse in the brain does not fully connect until age 2 years. The MNR is to much on the baby brain. How about separating the vacine. That is not possible as it would cost to much. The Measles mumps or rubella will not kill a person. Although rubella is dangerous if a women comes in contact with it while pregnant.
If you do your research you will see that in Europe autism is not as prevalent as it is in North America. They do not give this needle like we do.
Actually, the measles can kill people and generally it’s babies and young children that it does kill. If you look at Africa, you’ll see it’s one of leading causes for mortality rates for children. Measles can also cause complications such as Encephalitis.
Prior to the development of the measles vaccine, 5.7 million people died each year.
If one was to research Europe, one would find they have many outbreaks of mealses. You also can not rely on autism rates compared to other countries since the diagnosis of such varies per country.
pardon my ignorance…. but is there any study completed or data collected on the number of children diagnosed with autism who have NOT received the mmr vaccination. I would be extremely interested to know the facts and numbers on this one.
Yes. Japan made MMR optional in the early 90s, then made it mandatory again 10 years later when colleges and universities started closing down due to measles outbreaks. Children born in that MMR- optional period were no more likely to be diagnosed with ASDs than kids born since.
There are other studies.
the experience in Japan doesn’t really answer the question. they stopped using MMR, they continued giving babies the M the M and the R vaccines, sometimes at the same visit, sometimes separated by one month gaps.
on the dangers of measles, please see:
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/02/02/measles-the-grim-reality/
analyzing the varied statistics from the CDC on this disease
if they are telling weird stories about one disease, are they trustworthy on everything else?
Why are people using anecdotal evidence like it’s a trump card to the debate at hand?
If you know a child who started showing signs of autism around the time he or she got vaccinated, it does not mean that vaccinations must cause autism. I wish these parents would realize that just because they interpreted something they saw in some way, does not make it fact. Apparently “Faith” means “Denying scientific evidence because you’re stubborn.”
Why can’t people stand back and realize that the child they know isn’t the only child in the world. Millions of children are getting vaccinated at any point in time. And at the same time at any time 1000-2000 of those million children will start showing signs of autism. If you don’t believe that those cases can overlap, it’s not just stubbornness, its stupidity. There is no scientific or statistical evidence showing that vaccinations cause autism. In fact statistical evidence states otherwise.
I’m not at all an expert in autism, or vaccinations, I just use a little critical thinking. I suggest you do the same.