Technology1 min ago
Mmr Jab And The Non-Existent Link With Autism
http://
It would seem that there still some people that believe that there is a link between the MMR jab and autism. Why is this urban myth taking so long to die ?
It would seem that there still some people that believe that there is a link between the MMR jab and autism. Why is this urban myth taking so long to die ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@CllrChris
//I draw the obvious conclusion - that although MMR may be a factor in autism it is by no means an only cause. //
That's not an obvious conclusion to me. I conclude that autism is a spontaneously occuring illness and, if MMR -is- genuinely causative then it ought to elevate the small percentage of occurrence into a conspicuously higher percentage of occurrence.
Gathering together 12 individuals who have already developed autism for a study into digestive system problems was a selection process which deliberately excluded all their contemporaries who also had also received MMR but developed no side effects.
Coincidence, not causation. If somebody had catalogued every other substance which the 12 had ingested or come into contact with by the time they were age 3, wouldn't you expect at least one or two items in common, _in addition to_ MMR?
//Dr Wakefield's work concentrated of autism involving gut problems - a small sector of the subject - I wonder what the Japanese outcome was on that side of autism? //
I don't know the answer to that. I was only recapping what jim had said.
//I draw the obvious conclusion - that although MMR may be a factor in autism it is by no means an only cause. //
That's not an obvious conclusion to me. I conclude that autism is a spontaneously occuring illness and, if MMR -is- genuinely causative then it ought to elevate the small percentage of occurrence into a conspicuously higher percentage of occurrence.
Gathering together 12 individuals who have already developed autism for a study into digestive system problems was a selection process which deliberately excluded all their contemporaries who also had also received MMR but developed no side effects.
Coincidence, not causation. If somebody had catalogued every other substance which the 12 had ingested or come into contact with by the time they were age 3, wouldn't you expect at least one or two items in common, _in addition to_ MMR?
//Dr Wakefield's work concentrated of autism involving gut problems - a small sector of the subject - I wonder what the Japanese outcome was on that side of autism? //
I don't know the answer to that. I was only recapping what jim had said.
I have a friend with an autistic son and she is utterly convinced the MMR caused it, all her Facebook statuses (sp) are about autism, a few weeks ago a similar report to this http://
@cllrchris
LazyGun is a he not a she.
The GMC were unequivocal in their assessment of Wakefield and his work.He was found guilty of 36 - 36!- charges, amongst which were 4 charges of dishonesty and 12 counts of abuse of developmentally challenged children - 100% in fact of those children who were used in his fraudulent case study.
In depth investigation by the BMJ, late 2011 early 2012 concluded that Wakefield deliberately falsified data in his study, and made false claims about the neurological status of the children abused as part of this unethical study.
The way you and other defenders of Wakefield represent him, readers could be forgiven for thinking this was some poor victimised plucky researcher, who had stumbled upon a genuine issue, bravely soldiering on with some original research that "big pharma" and "the gubmint" wanted to repress.
On the contrary. His actions in falsifying his study. the conflicting interests generated by payments from a lawyer seeking to bring a class action suit and registering a patent for a single dose measles vaccine all suggest he was a mercenary charlatan.
And no, it does not annoy me that he still retains his academic qualification. I am just happy he is barred from practising as a doctor here in the UK, and is unlicenced to practice and unlikely ever to obtain a licence to practice in the US.
The legal article you refer to in AoA simply details Wakefields own face saving attempt to sue C4 "Dispatches" back in 2006. He had to drop the case and pay costs. Justice Eady, the presiding judge, was less than complimentary about Wakefields motives in bringing that action. in fact he had little doubt that Wakefield brought the action to suit his own ends, but never intended to go through with it.
Then, when Brian Deer and the BMJ published their respective analyses of his work back in 2011/2012 he again threatened to sue,going as far as filing papers at a court in Texas - which was thrown out by a Texas judge.Another face saving measure.
So, to recap -The only reason a link was ever made between the MMR vaccine and measles is this utterly discredited study, for which Wakefield falsified data and made exaggerated and hyperbolic claims on the TV.
Set against that, we have Millions upon millions of doses of MMR administered around the globe, with no indication of any link to autism. We have had several reviews of thousands of studies looking at vaccine safety, the MMR vaccine, and autism, without any sign of a link.
Given this overwhelming evidence showing no link,only the faithful, diehard anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists still believe in the myth that Wakefield created. Everyone else however has to live with the persistent harm done,as demonstrated with the recent measles panic in Swansea.
I am rather curious about something though, cllrchris. You only joined the site yesterday, and all your postings and comments on AB to date relate specifically to this question. How did you stumble across the site, the question and the subsequent answers at all?
LazyGun is a he not a she.
The GMC were unequivocal in their assessment of Wakefield and his work.He was found guilty of 36 - 36!- charges, amongst which were 4 charges of dishonesty and 12 counts of abuse of developmentally challenged children - 100% in fact of those children who were used in his fraudulent case study.
In depth investigation by the BMJ, late 2011 early 2012 concluded that Wakefield deliberately falsified data in his study, and made false claims about the neurological status of the children abused as part of this unethical study.
The way you and other defenders of Wakefield represent him, readers could be forgiven for thinking this was some poor victimised plucky researcher, who had stumbled upon a genuine issue, bravely soldiering on with some original research that "big pharma" and "the gubmint" wanted to repress.
On the contrary. His actions in falsifying his study. the conflicting interests generated by payments from a lawyer seeking to bring a class action suit and registering a patent for a single dose measles vaccine all suggest he was a mercenary charlatan.
And no, it does not annoy me that he still retains his academic qualification. I am just happy he is barred from practising as a doctor here in the UK, and is unlicenced to practice and unlikely ever to obtain a licence to practice in the US.
The legal article you refer to in AoA simply details Wakefields own face saving attempt to sue C4 "Dispatches" back in 2006. He had to drop the case and pay costs. Justice Eady, the presiding judge, was less than complimentary about Wakefields motives in bringing that action. in fact he had little doubt that Wakefield brought the action to suit his own ends, but never intended to go through with it.
Then, when Brian Deer and the BMJ published their respective analyses of his work back in 2011/2012 he again threatened to sue,going as far as filing papers at a court in Texas - which was thrown out by a Texas judge.Another face saving measure.
So, to recap -The only reason a link was ever made between the MMR vaccine and measles is this utterly discredited study, for which Wakefield falsified data and made exaggerated and hyperbolic claims on the TV.
Set against that, we have Millions upon millions of doses of MMR administered around the globe, with no indication of any link to autism. We have had several reviews of thousands of studies looking at vaccine safety, the MMR vaccine, and autism, without any sign of a link.
Given this overwhelming evidence showing no link,only the faithful, diehard anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists still believe in the myth that Wakefield created. Everyone else however has to live with the persistent harm done,as demonstrated with the recent measles panic in Swansea.
I am rather curious about something though, cllrchris. You only joined the site yesterday, and all your postings and comments on AB to date relate specifically to this question. How did you stumble across the site, the question and the subsequent answers at all?
The study I was referring to was this one:
http://
I think I might have exaggerated the population involved in the study, either by implication or otherwise, so sorry about that. But still, 300,000 children is rather greater than 12.
The most recent Cochrane Review includes 14.7 million children and also finds no link between MMR and autism, and a whole host of other conditions.
http://
http://
I think I might have exaggerated the population involved in the study, either by implication or otherwise, so sorry about that. But still, 300,000 children is rather greater than 12.
The most recent Cochrane Review includes 14.7 million children and also finds no link between MMR and autism, and a whole host of other conditions.
http://
Enough has been said to give OP his answer.
But LazyGun (apologies for previous gender error) makes a fair comment when he says I only joined yesterday. True - and I would be a little suspicious too in his place. So I'm trying hard to remember which link I clicked from where! I think it was something that was posted on Facebook.
Anyway - I have more than a passing interest. You will probably be aghast - :-) - to learn I sit on the local and county council health committees. The question of MMR has of course come up before. I have done my research (as I should of course) and looked a both sides (much to the horror of my collegues who insist I should believe nothing of what Dr. Wakefield has said because he is "discredited".) The Orwellian nature and scale of the maliciousness against Dr. Wakefield is breathtaking (IMHO)! I'm sure you believe every word you have put into these columns. You must forgive me if I do not.
You now know much more about me than I do about you. A bit of research would easily lead you to me. But you might not blame me if I also wonder at connections to the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry of yourself and others on such forums. But I will not ask.
But LazyGun (apologies for previous gender error) makes a fair comment when he says I only joined yesterday. True - and I would be a little suspicious too in his place. So I'm trying hard to remember which link I clicked from where! I think it was something that was posted on Facebook.
Anyway - I have more than a passing interest. You will probably be aghast - :-) - to learn I sit on the local and county council health committees. The question of MMR has of course come up before. I have done my research (as I should of course) and looked a both sides (much to the horror of my collegues who insist I should believe nothing of what Dr. Wakefield has said because he is "discredited".) The Orwellian nature and scale of the maliciousness against Dr. Wakefield is breathtaking (IMHO)! I'm sure you believe every word you have put into these columns. You must forgive me if I do not.
You now know much more about me than I do about you. A bit of research would easily lead you to me. But you might not blame me if I also wonder at connections to the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry of yourself and others on such forums. But I will not ask.
I was just interested, cllrchris. I was imputing nothing. I found this site initially because of the crosswords section.
You are right, it does concern me that you are apparently in a position of responsibility over public health issues when you believe as you do in Wakefield and reject all the mounds of evidence to show just how wrong and how fraudulent he was. It concerns me because you claim an objectivity and a dispassionate approach to reseraching the evidence and weighing it accordingly. Your defence of Wakefield suggests you are rather more partisan and far less informed than you think you are.
To impute a conspiracy is simply absurd. The scope of researchers, scientists, doctors, clinical trials specialists, all the worlds medicines regulatory authorities, all of those specialists manufacturing the vaccines in the first place, select committee politicians would all have to be in on it.
If you truly are in a responsible position looking at matters of public health, then live up to the position. Take the advice of specialists, properly appreciate the sheer weight of evidence that there is no causal link between the MMR vaccine and Autism, rather than letting some faith-based certainty that " plucky maverick brilliant researcher Wakefield was wronged" guide your decision making on behalf of the public you are supposed to be serving.
You are right, it does concern me that you are apparently in a position of responsibility over public health issues when you believe as you do in Wakefield and reject all the mounds of evidence to show just how wrong and how fraudulent he was. It concerns me because you claim an objectivity and a dispassionate approach to reseraching the evidence and weighing it accordingly. Your defence of Wakefield suggests you are rather more partisan and far less informed than you think you are.
To impute a conspiracy is simply absurd. The scope of researchers, scientists, doctors, clinical trials specialists, all the worlds medicines regulatory authorities, all of those specialists manufacturing the vaccines in the first place, select committee politicians would all have to be in on it.
If you truly are in a responsible position looking at matters of public health, then live up to the position. Take the advice of specialists, properly appreciate the sheer weight of evidence that there is no causal link between the MMR vaccine and Autism, rather than letting some faith-based certainty that " plucky maverick brilliant researcher Wakefield was wronged" guide your decision making on behalf of the public you are supposed to be serving.
And you jomifl? You think LG is too polite? You think perhaps you should be rude to people who don't share your views on this? Way to go on how never to be able to convince somebody with rational argument!!
As I said before - it's clear that we have given the OP his answer as to why this "urban myth" continues.
However, you jomifl wish me to give scientific chapter and verse. I won't of course. First it would take me too long (you really would snigger if I tried wouldn't you?). Second, if you read back you will see that I have never said MMR did cause autism - only that there was some evidence and Dr Wakefield was not allowed to continue his research - therefore the science is not complete. Third, if you want SOME of the science that SUGGESTS MMR MAY cause autism then the internet has it all. Here for instance -:
http://
is one recent, peer reviewed, insult, personal abuse and emotive verbaige free, plain language (if extremely long and scientific in its presentation) piece of research. Surprisingly (you may think) this study seems to support Dr Wakefield's research. There are across the internet very many articles that attack Dr Wakefield - claiming to have some pseudo-scientifc base. I know proving a negative (MMR does not cause autism) is proably impossible. But ignoring a positive (such as shown in this linked study) must be irresponsible.
Except there are too many entrenched positions - and too much at stake of course - for anything rationale to ever be agreed between the warring parties. And the great mass of people are caught in the middle wondering what on earth to make of it all.
As I said before - it's clear that we have given the OP his answer as to why this "urban myth" continues.
However, you jomifl wish me to give scientific chapter and verse. I won't of course. First it would take me too long (you really would snigger if I tried wouldn't you?). Second, if you read back you will see that I have never said MMR did cause autism - only that there was some evidence and Dr Wakefield was not allowed to continue his research - therefore the science is not complete. Third, if you want SOME of the science that SUGGESTS MMR MAY cause autism then the internet has it all. Here for instance -:
http://
is one recent, peer reviewed, insult, personal abuse and emotive verbaige free, plain language (if extremely long and scientific in its presentation) piece of research. Surprisingly (you may think) this study seems to support Dr Wakefield's research. There are across the internet very many articles that attack Dr Wakefield - claiming to have some pseudo-scientifc base. I know proving a negative (MMR does not cause autism) is proably impossible. But ignoring a positive (such as shown in this linked study) must be irresponsible.
Except there are too many entrenched positions - and too much at stake of course - for anything rationale to ever be agreed between the warring parties. And the great mass of people are caught in the middle wondering what on earth to make of it all.
Sure you linked to the right study? I've read that as best I could, searching for the key words "vaccine", "MMR", etc., and didn't find any mention of them. That study seems to be about genetic markers for Autism and how they are similar to and different from other diseases, rather than any link to a vaccine, though I may be missing something.
And indeed I was missing something, courtesy of this blog:
http://
That briefly explains the link to Wakefield's research. On the face of it this site seems like a pretty decent place to go for all things on autism, but there's far too much for me to read at the moment. I did notice this one, though:
http://
which describes a paper specifically looking for links between vaccinations in general and autism. Not sure if you'd found this site before or not, but I offer it up anyway.
http://
That briefly explains the link to Wakefield's research. On the face of it this site seems like a pretty decent place to go for all things on autism, but there's far too much for me to read at the moment. I did notice this one, though:
http://
which describes a paper specifically looking for links between vaccinations in general and autism. Not sure if you'd found this site before or not, but I offer it up anyway.
Without taking up time on this - this review extract of the article from another source -
"...... scientists and physicians from Wake Forest University, New York, and Venezuela, reported findings that not only confirm the presence of intestinal disease in children with autism and intestinal symptoms, but also indicate that this disease may be novel. [viii] Using sophisticated laboratory methods Dr. Steve Walker and his colleagues endorsed Wakefield’s original findings by showing molecular changes in the children’s intestinal tissues that were highly distinctive and clearly abnormal.
From 1998 Dr. Wakefield discovered and reported intestinal disease in children with autism. [ix] Based upon the medical histories of the children he linked their disease and their autistic regression to the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR vaccine). He has since been subjected to relentless personal and professional attacks in the media, and from governments, doctors and the pharmaceutical industry. In the wake of demonstrably false and highly damaging allegations of scientific fraud by British journalist Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal, Dr. Wakefield is pursuing defamation proceedings against them in Texas. [x]
While repeated studies from around the world confirmed Wakefield’s bowel disease in autistic children [xi] and his position that safety studies of the MMR are inadequate, [xii] Dr. Wakefield ’s career has been destroyed by false allegations. Despite this he continues to work tirelessly to help solve the autism catastrophe.
The incidence of autism has rocketed to a risk of around 1 in 25 for children born today. Mean while governments, absent any explanation and fearing loss of public trust, continue to deny the vaccine autism connection despite the concessions in vaccine court."
Make of it as you will - it certainly appears to back up some of Dr Wakefield's original findings.
But the point is that such studies litter the internet - they can be easily found by anybody who wanted to look. This is why people continue to have doubts on MMR. That surely answers OP's question. Doesn't it??
"...... scientists and physicians from Wake Forest University, New York, and Venezuela, reported findings that not only confirm the presence of intestinal disease in children with autism and intestinal symptoms, but also indicate that this disease may be novel. [viii] Using sophisticated laboratory methods Dr. Steve Walker and his colleagues endorsed Wakefield’s original findings by showing molecular changes in the children’s intestinal tissues that were highly distinctive and clearly abnormal.
From 1998 Dr. Wakefield discovered and reported intestinal disease in children with autism. [ix] Based upon the medical histories of the children he linked their disease and their autistic regression to the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR vaccine). He has since been subjected to relentless personal and professional attacks in the media, and from governments, doctors and the pharmaceutical industry. In the wake of demonstrably false and highly damaging allegations of scientific fraud by British journalist Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal, Dr. Wakefield is pursuing defamation proceedings against them in Texas. [x]
While repeated studies from around the world confirmed Wakefield’s bowel disease in autistic children [xi] and his position that safety studies of the MMR are inadequate, [xii] Dr. Wakefield ’s career has been destroyed by false allegations. Despite this he continues to work tirelessly to help solve the autism catastrophe.
The incidence of autism has rocketed to a risk of around 1 in 25 for children born today. Mean while governments, absent any explanation and fearing loss of public trust, continue to deny the vaccine autism connection despite the concessions in vaccine court."
Make of it as you will - it certainly appears to back up some of Dr Wakefield's original findings.
But the point is that such studies litter the internet - they can be easily found by anybody who wanted to look. This is why people continue to have doubts on MMR. That surely answers OP's question. Doesn't it??
...CllrChris there is a huge difference between suggesting that children with autism have gastrointestinal symptoms and pathology, and linking the disease to MMR as Andrew Wakefield did.
" I know proving a negative (MMR does not cause autism) is proably impossible. But ignoring a positive (such as shown in this linked study) must be irresponsible."
MMR is not even mentioned in the particular study you gave a link to - if you have links to other studies which do I would be interested to see them.
Health News Impact Daily which you quote is to my mind not a reliable source...
http://
..they support Dr Burzynski and his unproven cancer treatments among others.
http://
" I know proving a negative (MMR does not cause autism) is proably impossible. But ignoring a positive (such as shown in this linked study) must be irresponsible."
MMR is not even mentioned in the particular study you gave a link to - if you have links to other studies which do I would be interested to see them.
Health News Impact Daily which you quote is to my mind not a reliable source...
http://
..they support Dr Burzynski and his unproven cancer treatments among others.
http://
@cllrchris
" Surprisingly (you may think) this study seems to support Dr Wakefield's research."
Except that it doesn't. And if you think it does, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wakefields original paper. Trying to link Wakefields piece of fiction to some genuine research should be seen for what it is - a revisionist attempt to regain some lost credibility. Its pathetic.
Prior to Wakefield, there was no evidence linking the MMR vaccine to Autism. There was however, amongst a few parents,a suspicion borne out of confusing correlation with causation.
And you repeat this nonsense about Wakefield being "stopped" from "carrying on his research". Except that it has been conclusively demonstrated that the study he conducted was designed with one aim only - to "find" a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism. 11 of the 12 children selected for this study were part of the litigation organised by a lawyer attempting to sue the Vaccine Court in the US. Further, it has been shown that he falsified his data, claiming onset of ASD - like symptoms within a short time after the MMR jab, when in fact they had been diagnosed with ASD prior to receiving the jab at all. Lets not forget the 0.5 million squid he was paid by the lawyer bringing suit against the Vaccine Court, nor his own potential financial benefit if he could shake confidence in the MMR and bring out his own single dose measles vaccine he had patented.
So - fraudulent study. Now couple that with being unethical - This study involved invasive procedures on developmentally challenged children without the approval of his hospitals ethics board.
Indeed, by specifically and mendaciously linking enterocolitis in ASD children to the measles virus and the MMR vaccine for monetary gain, he has hampered legitimate researchers enormously,setting back the needed research by decades.
This revisionism by Wakefield and his fans should be seen for what it is.
Anyone really interested in the scope and the background to this should read Brian Deers excellent articles in the Times.
http://
" Surprisingly (you may think) this study seems to support Dr Wakefield's research."
Except that it doesn't. And if you think it does, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wakefields original paper. Trying to link Wakefields piece of fiction to some genuine research should be seen for what it is - a revisionist attempt to regain some lost credibility. Its pathetic.
Prior to Wakefield, there was no evidence linking the MMR vaccine to Autism. There was however, amongst a few parents,a suspicion borne out of confusing correlation with causation.
And you repeat this nonsense about Wakefield being "stopped" from "carrying on his research". Except that it has been conclusively demonstrated that the study he conducted was designed with one aim only - to "find" a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism. 11 of the 12 children selected for this study were part of the litigation organised by a lawyer attempting to sue the Vaccine Court in the US. Further, it has been shown that he falsified his data, claiming onset of ASD - like symptoms within a short time after the MMR jab, when in fact they had been diagnosed with ASD prior to receiving the jab at all. Lets not forget the 0.5 million squid he was paid by the lawyer bringing suit against the Vaccine Court, nor his own potential financial benefit if he could shake confidence in the MMR and bring out his own single dose measles vaccine he had patented.
So - fraudulent study. Now couple that with being unethical - This study involved invasive procedures on developmentally challenged children without the approval of his hospitals ethics board.
Indeed, by specifically and mendaciously linking enterocolitis in ASD children to the measles virus and the MMR vaccine for monetary gain, he has hampered legitimate researchers enormously,setting back the needed research by decades.
This revisionism by Wakefield and his fans should be seen for what it is.
Anyone really interested in the scope and the background to this should read Brian Deers excellent articles in the Times.
http://
And you think Dr Burzynski's cancer treatment is discredited too?? What a hot-bed of authoritarian medical orthodoxy there is all here on this AnswerBank? Wonder where it all comes from? Did you frighten other more reasonably openminded people away with the angry, scornful responses? Dear oh dear. Never mind.
I'm suspecting we'd be on opposing sides of almost any medical controversy. (ie - dare I even suggest "fluoridation" for a topic - try me in a separate question!! :-) )
As I said - OP has the answer to his question here. That is enough.
I'm suspecting we'd be on opposing sides of almost any medical controversy. (ie - dare I even suggest "fluoridation" for a topic - try me in a separate question!! :-) )
As I said - OP has the answer to his question here. That is enough.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.