Autism Occurrence by MMR Vaccine Status Among US Children With Older Siblings With and Without Autis

[EAMom]

Has anybody had a chance to read this new paper? (Kim?) I skimmed it on my phone and haven't had a chance to read it closely. I think there are some fishy things about it, for one thing not very many African Americans were in the study.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2275444

 

Of course, all the media is lit up with how once again, here is another study that shows no link between MMR and autism..I need to take the time to read the paper more closely....did they look at any other vaccines in the study, or the age at which MMR was actually given to the siblings (1 year vs 4 year?) ? Maybe they were spaced out more, delayed, or other vaccines such as hep B or Chicken Pox were omitted?). Did they allot enough time for the siblings to actually receive an autism diagnosis, or did they "wrap up" the study before enough years had elapsed to see if the siblings were eventually diagnosed?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/no-link-between-mmr-and-autism-major-study-concludes?CMP=share_btn_fb

 

^^here are some snippets from some of the comments by readers

1) conflicts of interest
2) "As King suggests, there's no signal to suggest a relationship. The sampling on this is way off to make an adequate interpretation with confidence. The group size for unvaccinated kids with ASD siblings is 269. So given the "noisy" results, you'd be similarly valid in arguing the MMR reduces ASD risk."
3) good comments by John_MD (sorry for the weird copy/paste)

John_MD

8h ago

34

Can somebody help me out here? I just looked through the paper and the numbers as reported show that kids with autistic siblings who are NOT vaccinated are 39% more likely to get autism that those who are not! So in their attempt to show that vaccines don't cause autism in high risk children, they've it can actually reduce the risk of developing it! I really want this paper to be legitimate, but if the data collection was done at random, such a result would be quite unlikely (and maybe, the vaccines can cure autism, but that is even less believable than the original hypothesis).

The numbers are found here: http://amaprod.silverchaircdn.com/data/Journals/JAMA/933762/joi150033t2.png?v=635651498182930000

Reply |Pick

Report

• 

  100383 John_MD

  8h ago

  34

  I noticed the same thing in the original JAMA article. The relative risk is HIGHEST among the 5-year group kids whose siblings do not have ASD.

  Reply |Pick

  Report
• 

  6jjjjj John_MD

  8h ago

  12

  Yes, I did not get that either. I raised that question earlier here, and all the people here raised up a ruckus of indignation, but when it came down to it, could not explain it either.

  I wasn't sure if I go the stats wrong, and got 'no vaccine/ to vaccine' backwards. I was also reading this from the article:

  "The pattern in RRs across these groups was such that lower RR estimates (commonly extending into the protective range, ie, below 1.0) were observed at younger vs older ages and in children with older siblings with vs without ASD. Although protective estimates tended not to reach statistical significance, this pattern is worth further consideration. It is possible, for example, that this pattern is driven by selective parental decision making around MMR immunization, ie, parents who notice social or communication delays in their children decide to forestall vaccination. Because as a group children with recognized delays are likely to be at higher risk of ASD, such selectivity could result in a tendency for some higher-risk children to be unexposed."

  The way they are talking about it there, is that parents who DON"T vaccinate the second child, get the protective benefit. Is that right?

  In that case, according to this study, it means that children who do NOT get vaccinated, and are siblings of ASDs, get a 44% reduction in ASD risk if they don't get vaccinated.

  I am kind of confused on how they are presenting the data.

  Reply |Pick

  Report
• 

  John_MD 6jjjjj

  8h ago

  12

  I think what they are saying is that vaccines do not reduce the risk of autism, but parents who know their kid is likely going to be autistic (especially knowing that their sibling is), are more likely to shy away from vaccinating their child. BUT here lies the problem: this self-selection makes the study less valid since now we don’t know what would have happened had the high risk children who were not vaccinated and are not autistic been vaccinated (we don’t know how many of them there are, but we know that the samples are not random).

  Reply |Pick

  Report
• Loading…
• 

  6jjjjj John_MD

  8h ago

  12

  Yes I think what you are saying makes sense. But I think this study was kind of confusing, as to how it presented its data. It could have made it a little more clear.

  Reply |Pick

  Report
• 

  100383 John_MD

  8h ago

  23

  Exactly. The cell size is TINY for the unvaccinated child with an ASD sibling.

[EAMom]

Also...I didn't see where they noted if the younger sibling was male or female. Maybe those that had an autistic (male) kid #1 only chose the vaccinate kid #2 with MMR if kid #2 was a girl, knowing that males are at higher risk for autism. So that would skew results as well.

Does that make sense?

[kim]

EAmom,

 

A headline blurb about this study was on our local news last nite. My response was that it just doesn't matter now. When you have a senior scientist at the CDC making the claims that he did (with no media coverage and states like CA pushing this legislation through) and you read documents like this......Pay particular attention to the first email in this string. The blacked out heading is "It just won't go away." This is discussing the thimerosal findings. How are we supposed to trust any of this now?

 

http://www.safeminds.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Verstraeten-emails-1999-2000-regarding-VSD-data.pdf

 

The only thing that I looked at in the study you're asking about, was who was involved

 

Funding/Support: This project was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, and the US Department of Health and Human Services under contract HHSN-271-2010-00033-C

 

These studies can so easily be designed or later manipulated to give the result that's desired, they just don't phase me any more. I'm sure there will plenty of discussion coming by people who are better equiped to take it apart than I am.

[MomWithOCDSon]

My "so what?" moment on this comes from considering the broader picture, and heeding the work and opinions of true experts who have earned my trust, like Dr. Bock. Maybe the MMR, in isolation, isn't in and of itself directly correlated to incidences of autism. But if the entire vaccine schedule were to be studied as a whole, then they would actually be examining (and properly so, IMHO), the cumulative impacts of frequent and continuous insults to the immature immune system, as well as repetitive doses of the "inert" preservatives/agents like thimerasol and aluminum. Perhaps the MMR is just "the straw that broke the camel's back" in some instances and thus direct causation isn't demonstrable. That doesn't mean it isn't a contributing factor.

[fuelforall]

Pharma money, hand in hand with government....

 

The organization that conducted the study is the Lewin Group, a corporate healthcare consulting firm based in Falls Church, Virginia. The Lewin Group works with a wide range of players in the medical establishment. Most notably major pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Novo Nordisk among others. It should be noted that at least two out of these three corporations are not only vaccine proponents, they are vaccine manufacturers. The Lewin Group also works with a number of major medical and pharmaceutical associations and organizations like the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America association.

In addition to working with the federal, state and local governments, the Lewin Group works with a variety of foundations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Heritage Foundation as well as a large number of hospitals, health systems, and healthcare providers. The Lewin Group is especially involved in major medical insurance programs like Blue Cross Blue Shield, Health Now New York, LA Care Health Plan, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Wellcare among many others.

In addition to these big connections to pharmaceutical companies and the medical establishment, the mainstream media attempts to present the Lewin Group as being free from the influence of their own clients and associates. In addition, the mainstream media conveniently leaves out the fact that the Lewin Group is not independent in as much as it is owned by the nation's largest health insurer, United Health Group.

[EAMom]

Great article by Sharyl Atkinson, this study is mentioned

 

http://sharylattkisson.com/what-the-news-isnt-saying-about-vaccine-autism-studies/#comment-79561

[EAMom]

Awesome comment by "Lily" under Sharyl's article:

 

My reply to someone asking what red flags stood out to me on scanning this study:

 

So here is why that study should not end the debate once and for all. Statistical studies can exclude groups, include groups and make all sorts of adjustments so that outcomes can be manipulated. Additionally these studies are only in regards to MMR and autism. MMR is not the only vaccine implicated in autism or reported to have resulted in autistic spectrum disorders. This is a very narrow view that does nothing to actually disprove a causal link. These are simply numbers. Contrast that with multiple studies linking not only MMR, but Hep B and combination administration of various vaccines with abnormal anomalies found in autistic children as well as increased rate of autism.

 

So red flag number one would be: This study only focuses on MMR vaccine and does not indicate what vaccine or vaccines were implicated in those that received an autism or pdd diagnosis.

 

Red flag number two: While it makes sense to speculate that the potential for increased susceptibility to ASD would increase among siblings with potential similar genetic predispositions, there is nothing in this study that narrows down who has similar genetic predispositions. If genetics are implicated in ASD (vaccines aside) then this study does nothing to even prove a genetic link regardless of vaccination. Yet we know from other studies that there are specific gene mutations more prevalent in children with ASD.

 

Red flag number 3: The categorization of children with autism in this study is based on having at least two ICD codes. These codes include diagnosis for autistic disorder, specified pervasive developmental disorder and unspecified pervasive development disorder. This is quite a broad categorization that encompasses a vast array of symptoms, severity of symptoms and most important causative factors. By this vague method of categorizing autistic children the study can very well be including children with developmental delays or cognitive dysfunction where vaccination was never implicated as a causative factor. A more accurate study would be of children with regressive autism, in which the regression followed closely after vaccination. If you read up on those reporting ASD as a result of vaccination, there is a very common story and pattern that occurs very shortly after vaccination including, inconsolable high pitched crying/screaming, arching the back, loss of eye contact, loss of speech, inflammatory bowel disease with chronic diarrhea and foul stools, seizure disorders, toe walking, stimming, sensory issues etc. While issues with social skills, speech, coordination can all be developmental disorders, the vast majority of those reporting vaccine induced autism encompass the former symptoms listed above.

 

Red flag number 4: If you read the discussion, you will see there are variables that can potentially effect the accuracy of this study. Variables that can alter study outcomes are present in all studies, especially statistical studies such as these.

 

Red flag number 5: No information on gender in relation to siblings etc. is present. Autism is 5x more prevalent in boys.

 

Red flag number 6: This study used children not only administered MMR trivalent but monovalent vaccines AS WELL. It is well known among doctors conscientious about vaccine injury that administering monovalent (single antigen) vaccines greatly reduces the incidence of vaccine adverse reaction. Many of those with a previously injured child were known (prior to Merck discontinuing distribution) to opt to use monovalent vaccines with subsequent children.

 

While we have studies, evidence, and successful court cases showing plausible METHODS of causation between vaccination and autism, we are being told to rely on questionable statistical data as our proof of no link. These studies do nothing to disprove the known issue (and valid reason for compensation) of vaccine induced encephalopathies. They dont disprove that vaccines interfere with gastrointestinal bacteria. They dont disprove known mechanisms of vaccine induced autoimmune disorders. They dont disprove the evidence of abnormally elevated titers of vaccine antigens in autistics. The list goes on and on..This study addresses one vaccine, one adverse event and a questionable sample group. I find it very timely that this study is plastered everywhere the night before the education committee vote. The media always focuses on this one vaccine, this one condition and always brings up Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield (whos study btw has been replicated and never directly implicated MMR). They never address the long list of other adverse conditions and deaths attributable to vaccines. They never address the lack of safety studies on the full childhood schedule, nor the lack of true placebo in pre-licensure studies. The issue here isnt just autism. The fact that this one issue is the sole focus of the entire complex issue of vaccines should also be a red flag to anyone seeking the truth.

[EAMom]

More (copied from another forum) relevant info:

 

This CYP450 enzyme is key to effective detoxification. Everyone is pharmaceutical research knows this.

 

There are some interesting variables regarding genetic testing and pharmaceutical medications. To simplify, 90% of pharmaceutical drugs in use, including adjuvant detoxification, require the CYP450 enzyme.

 

33-43% of Americans have an impaired CYP450 enzyme.

 

http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/developmentresources/druginteractionslabeling/ucm110632.htm

 

The risk of adverse drug reactions to vaccines is worse for people with asthma, on blood thinners and seizure medications. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2008/0601/p1553.html

 

CYP450 can either increase the rate of drug elimination (ultrametabolizers, leading to faster metabolic clearance potentially resulting in reduced effectiveness and need for higher doses) or decrease drug metabolism (poor metabolizers, which may increase the potential for drug interactions and adverse events). Toxicity and cancer are closely linked.

 

CYP450 varies by ethnicity. This leads to great diversity in individuals' susceptibility to environmental, chemical and drug toxicity.

 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/776653_1

 

Africans are especially susceptible to the drug interactions with the CYP450 enzyme: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/14/34

 

Since 1997, the FDA requires testing about the CYP450 with all new pharmaceuticals. Not old ones. Not vaccines.

 

Additionally, 40-60% of Americans have another genetic polymorphism, MTHFR, which further impairs detoxification. We do not test if people have these genetic issues before prescribing medications, or vaccinations. Although, the drugs are only tested on people without these genes.

 

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MTHFR

 

Preventable Adverse Drug Reactions: A Focus on Drug Interaction: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/DrugInteractionsLabeling/ucm110632.htm

[EAMom]

And more (copied from another forum) on African Americans (who are conveniently under represented in this study):

 

Mayo Clinic Discovers African-Americans Respond Better to Rubella Vaccine - Findings May Help Make Immunizations More Effective and Safer

 

This Merck vaccine immunologist consultant says that genetics cause different responses - and perhaps safety - in African Americans, Caucasians and Hispanics. That the "one size fits all" approach to vaccines is dated.

 

"We may be able to reduce costs. We may be able to reduce the amount of side-effects. If you only need half as much vaccine to reach the same level of protection, we are adding cost, and potentially risk, by giving you double what you actually need."

(Time stamp 3:30.)

 

"If we have seen this kind of dramatic difference with this vaccine, will we see it with another vaccine? The answer is yes. We have seen that with other vaccines."

(Time stamp 3:50.)

 

Wow. EVERY legislator needs to see this video!! Stop the presses, this video needs everyone to see it!

 

I'm still fascinated about the impaired CYP450 detoxification (of pharmaceuticals and adjuvants) occurring in some races and wondering if that isn't a variable of the "more responsive" immunity Poland is observing.

 

The whole point of the adjuvants is to increase responsiveness to the vaccine, per my understanding. It would follow that 'too much' adjuvant creates hyper-immune responses (ie autoimmunity issues over time).

 

We need a transcript of this video before it disappears.

 

Mayo Clinic: http://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-discovers-african-americans-respond-better-to-rubella-vaccine/

[EAMom]

BTW...there are many more good comments on this study here

http://sharylattkisson.com/what-the-news-isnt-saying-about-vaccine-autism-studies/#comments

[kim]

eamom,

 

I started something on the Hep b thread and kind of dropped the ball. I think you might get a lot out of some of Hilary Butler's work on the immune system.

 

http://www.beyondconformity.org.nz/hilarys-desk/vaccines-and-neonatal-immune-development

 

about 1/3 of the way down, you'll see this

 

Let’s look at this issue, working backwards. In 2010, A medical article was published which discussed the human neonatal system and how it was similar to mice. So using mice, the author showed how, “... myosin immunisation with complete Freund’s adjuvant and additional lipopolysacchride (LPS is an endotoxin), induced (autoimmune) disease. These findings clearly indicate that a potent adjuvant effect can overcome the relative genetic resistance to autoimmune disease. At the same time, we showed that blocking either IL-1B or TNFa inhibits the development of disease even in highly susceptible A/J mice”

 

 

What was so enlightening about this series was the fact that some of the vaccines were forcing a T cell dependent response when a baby is programmed not to have that response. Remember when I linked to the offit paper about how he acted like forcing that to happen was just the greatest thing? If you take polysaccharides and attach a protein and absorb it on aluminum, you get an anamnestic or memeory response (rise in titer after challenge/re exposure). When polysaccharides alone are used in infants or elderly, that doesn't work very well and you can actually get hyporesponsiveness. Think S pneumonia here and HiB.

 

She also explains in "going viral," how the pertussis vaccine allows the mutation of the virus. I kept reading about the vaccinated being more susceptible and how the mutation was in response to the vaccine, but I didn't know how or why.

 

http://www.beyondconformity.org.nz/hilarys-desk/going-viral-part-2

[EAMom]

speaking of mice...I just ran across THIS from 2004:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccine-links-to-autism/

"But now, a landmark study by Dr. Mady Hornig, from the Mailman School Of Public Health, Columbia University, is adding to the mercury worries, asAttkisson finds out.

Hornig injected a strain of mice with genetic tissues similar to those found in children with mercury-laden vaccines equivalent to what kids got in the 1990's. The mice developed profound brain problems.

So what types of behavior did Hornig see in the mice, and how does that compare with what we call autism? Dr. Hornig answers, "All sorts of strange behaviors that were repetitive in nature, where animals would just keep repeating the same behavior in a very stereotyped fashion."

It wasn't just repetition -- the mice withdrew from their surroundings like autistic children. They resisted change and developed brain abnormalities affecting emotion and thinking, also like autistic children."

Of course, the PANDAS parents will recognize Hornig's name from this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19668249

[kim]

eamom, that video is a " WOW." I watched it after I responded to you.

 

I just read where one of the outbreaks of measles was among somilians who had become fearful of the vaccine. We discussed the higher incidence of autism in the somalian children on this forum when all of that was happening. Another irony, that they can use an outbreak in that population to force vaccination for education.

[EAMom]

Kim...

"The best study on this was in a primate model identical to humans, here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=24277828 If you read that you will see that primates (people) who are re-exposed to the bacteria after they have had whooping cough naturally, throw out the bacteria immediately, so it doesn’t have a chance to stick around. The problem with the pertussis vaccine is that it creates “original antigenic sin” and affects the immune system so that the vaccinated have a shorter lived and skewed version of immunity. Because of the radical difference in vaccinated vs naturally convalesced people, vaccinated people, can’t throw out the bacteria on re-exposure, like those whose immunity is from the disease. The vaccinated people then harbour the bacteria for up to 7 weeks, allowing the bacteria to change into new strains which then evade the vaccine, and those strains are then spread to everyone else.

If the pertussis vaccine created herd immunity and vaccinated people never spread the bacteria, the development of new strains would never have happened because naturally immune people can’t “carry” the bacteria. That’s why, in the old days, pertussis was primarily limited to a very narrow age range of people with no immunity – usually ages 3 – 11. Very rarely did babies, adolescents, or adults get whooping cough. Now, it’s endemic throughout all ages, courtesy of a vaccine which skews the immune response to the bacteria, and as a result creates a climate in which the bacteria can mutate but only in the vaccinated. " http://www.beyondcon...ng-viral-part-2

^^ but once the bacteria mutates, couldn't it spread to others regardless of vaccine status? This seems to imply that it would only affect the vaccinated? Can you explain?

Edited April 27, 2015 by eamom

[kim]

EAmom,

 

I don't think she is saying that it can't be spread to others in fact the opposite. If you were vaccinated with the aP vaccine which contains pertactin as an antigen, the antibodies will be trying to respond to that component and it's not there anymore. That is the original antigentic sin part. The people who recover from natural infection won't become colonized upon re exposure at all, so the bacteria would have never hung around in the body and had a chance to mutate.

 

I think the part that confused you was

and as a result creates a climate in which the bacteria can mutate but only in the vaccinated.

 

 

It can only mutate in the vaccinated, but can be spread to others. It would be interesting to know if the unvaccinated kids in outbreaks were recovering faster with less severe illness. If vaccinated kids are having a harder time throwing it off, it would be good evidence that the imprint on the immune system with pertactin wa hindering their recovery. Does that make sense?