NAA ON MMR STUDY: Wrong Question Asked. Wrong Children Studied. Wrong Conclusions Reached.
CDC Misses Target With Flawed MMR/Autism Study
NAA says: Wrong Question Asked. Wrong Children Studied. Wrong Conclusions Reached.
Nixa, MO – A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study released today (Click HERE) claims there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The National Autism Association (NAA) says this study does nothing to dispel the growing public concern over a vaccine-autism connection and raises several questions concerning design and methodology.
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.
The CDC study was designed to detect persistent measles virus in autistic children with GI problems. The assumption being if there is no measles virus at the long delayed time of biopsy, there is no link between autism and MMR. But NAA says this underlying assumption is wrong. The questions should have been: Do normally developing children meeting all milestones have an MMR shot, develop GI problems and then regress into autism? Do they have evidence of measles and disease in their colons compared to non-vaccinated age and sex matched controls?
In the current CDC study, only a small subgroup of children was the correct phenotype to study. From page 7, “Only 5 of 25 subjects (20%) had received MMR before the onset of GI complaints and had also had onset of GI episodes before the onset of AUT (P=0.03).” The other 20 autistic children in the study had GI problems but the pathology developed before the MMR vaccine. Additionally, the controls all received the MMR vaccine and had gastrointestinal symptoms. The controls should have been free of exposure to vaccine measles in order to make a comparison relevant for purposes of causation.
Inflammatory bowel disease in the absence of MMR RNA does not mean that MMR shot didn't precipitate the GI disease and didn't precipitate autism. A similar example would be rheumatic fever where the infection is cleared quickly but damage to the heart and/or brain last a lifetime.
Public confidence in the safety of vaccines is at risk until safety studies are performed that are required by law, ethics, and science. NAA calls for a vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated study comparing all health outcomes including autism. The CDC is in charge of vaccine safety, owns patents to vaccines (according to a UPI Investigative Report from 2003) and is in charge of promoting vaccines. The public should demand that vaccine safety be taken away from an agency with such conflicts and support HR#1973, the Vaccine Safety and Public Confidence Assurance Act.”
For more information, visit www.nationalautism.org.
This is another bogus study. It will not boost any one's confidence in the vaccine program except for people who blindly trust and believe.
I have a huge problem with the placebo, how can you know what the vaccines do? Besides that, 23% of the control group later on got Prevnar.
Did this "control" group get the annual flu shots, too?
The only study that would convince me to trust the vaccine program is one where the control group is unvaccinated. Period.
Posted by: Samuel | September 05, 2008 at 07:44 AM
i was just reading MMWR, wich is put out by the CDC. this is a email put out to update the community on notifiable diseases, such as measles or mumps. i found it interesting that in the last 4 weeks there has not been a single case of the measles reported to the cdc. and yet all of these news worthy stories have come out. i also found it odd that everyone only talks about measles when talking about the MMR. this year there has been 276 cases of the mumps reported to the cdc. isn't mumps one of the M's in MMR?? so why isn't that news worthy? in 2007 there was 800 cases of mumps, and in 2006 6,584 cases!!! i never saw that on the news. that seems like more of an outbreak to me. am i crazy? or is something fishy about all of this? why now? wouldn't it seem that with 6000 mumps cases in 2006 that less parents were vaccinating then? so why now with the 126 cases of measles is there a huge problem? i was so confused by this i had to re-read it a few times to make sure iwas reading the right chart. does anyone else get MMWR weekly? just so i know i am not crazy or seeing things.
Posted by: jill | September 05, 2008 at 02:43 AM
i love how on abc news charles gibson says "ANY!" evidence of a connection. it only looked at 5 kids! and it only looked at GI problems. at least CNN is somewhat objective. well sometimes! if i had to do it all again, and i could go back before my son got autism. none of this would sway me over to the vaccinate side. i am so ashamed that i didn't do my homework 2 1/2 years ago. i think about this every day. i even once believed that people were crazy for not vaccinating their kids. all i have to say is KARMA. and i am paying it now. my daughter has not had a shot since she was 6 months old. that is when my research began, and Karma caught up with me! i am now on a much slower SAFER schedule with her. thank god for Karma. i will never judge again. too bad now people judge me.
Posted by: jill | September 05, 2008 at 12:29 AM
I don't think anyone is arguing that ALL people with autism and GI issues have measles infections in their gut. So how can the failure to find measles virus in the guts of two dozen kids with autism prove or disprove anything?
Posted by: Twyla | September 04, 2008 at 10:50 PM
I looked at some news organization websites. The only one I found that did not use the word "debunk" was CNN. However, their article had something else that I found very objectionable; it was this statement: "'This really puts this issue to bed,' said Andy Shih, vice president for scientific affairs of 'Autism Speaks,' an advocacy group." We definitely did not need Autism Speaks to come out with such a strong statement on this subject.
Posted by: Carolyn M. | September 04, 2008 at 10:06 PM
I cant even begin to post what words were coming out of my mouth when I saw this on the evening 'news' last night!
I love the post here in comments that said 'When a measles breakout of 130 people can be called an 'epidemic', yet over a million children in America alone with autism is not, there is something fundamentally wrong in this country.'
I wish I could PLASTER that all over the place, and feed THAT to the 'news' reporters....I mean, come ON people! Why arent people just getting the COMMON SENSE of all of this! I mean, I do not have a scientific degree, and even before I did my own research and reading, even I could understand the connection between vaccines and Autism...the more I have read, the more I KNOW the connections, and the more I read the 'science' the CDC has been showing 'proove' their vaccines are 'safe', the more I TOTALLY understand and KNOW they are full of CRAP! I have spent hours reading the studies THEY say PROOVE they are safe..but the same studies only PROOVE the vaccines ARE NOT SAFE! I can not believe it when I read them...they honestly think WE are THAT stupid? Come ON!
I feel a change and even though I know its still going to be a long and hard road ahead...I feel good about how vocal and how knowledgeable our community has become...and they are going SO crazy, that I believe they are going to REALLY screw themselves (more than they already have) considering how STUPID this current study is...and how FAST our community has responded...
AaRGH! I have so much to say, but I am sure you all have been thinking/saying the same things, so i will stop here..and just end by saying..
keep talking about this stuff, keep shouting the TRUTH! We will get there!
mom to ethan, alex, and megan
Posted by: Angie | September 04, 2008 at 05:12 PM
I have been noticing recently the use (both sides of the Atlantic) of the weasel term "debunked". Debunking is not disproving, it is just being rude - but apparently if you are just rude it is good enough these days. The BBC used the term debunked in relation to Wakefield and the BBC is no longer an august institution, it is just a rude and bullying instrument of the British government.
I am sure that what is going on over MMR and measles in the US now is a continuation of the UK strategy of the pharma over the last decade. When Wakefield supported the use of single vaccines in the UK in 1998 it was quite a common practice anyhow for people to pick and choose - this was removed when the pharma decided not to reapply for licenses for the component vaccines, which then became government policy. MMR was made a political issue in the UK by the pharma and the government, and this seems to being replicated in the US now. It remains an interesting question why - perhaps the most interesting question of all.
Meanwhile, the Hornig paper remains completely unreported in the UK media.
Posted by: John Stone | September 04, 2008 at 03:42 PM
Well, here's the thing that bothers me the most; they say that the study debunks the link, but all the study does is (very poorly) discredit the measles and GI issues. It does nothing about debunking encepalopathy caused by the MMR.
And they are spouting this as truth?
Posted by: Craig Willoughby | September 04, 2008 at 02:57 PM
Something is definitely going on. I listened to the radio this morning as I took my daughter to school; my husband had called me and said to turn on my radio because the station had said that there was a new study that "debunks any link between" a common vaccination and autism. I didn't hear anything else, so I went to their website later. There was an AP article by Lauran Neergaard, "No Link Between Measles Vaccine and Autism". She contributes to the fearmongering by stating, "New research further debunks any link between measles vaccine and autism, work that comes as the nation is experiencing a surge in measles cases fueled by children left unvaccinated." I have never heard this radio station say anything regarding vaccines and autism before, although the station may have done so while I was not listening. I am wondering why they (big Pharma and their media allies)are suddenly pushing so hard to have the MMR vaccine declared safe, and what they will do next.
Posted by: Carolyn M. | September 04, 2008 at 01:51 PM
100% agree...something's fishy. On my Baby Center mom's board for autism there are constant pop-up reminders to get our kids vaccinated (generally with Amanda Peet's puppy-dog eyes and overly-concerned face glaring at us). I get letters and phone calls from our insurance company reminding me to 'be a good parent' and continue vaccines for my youngest son (after watching what happened to his big brother, that's ain't happening).
Big Pharma is once again relying on scare tactics and celeb endorsements to convince frightened new parents to do the Every Child By Two routine.
This flawed study and the media bias towards vaccinating (and their insulting reference to popular organizations like TACA as 'fringe groups') doesn't help. When a measles breakout of 130 people can be called an 'epidemic', yet over a million children in America alone with autism is not, there is something fundamentally wrong in this country.
Posted by: Julie Swenson | September 04, 2008 at 11:53 AM
There is something that is really bothering me about this study.
Does anyone else notice the timing? With all of the media coverage of Measles over the past few weeks, and all of a sudden this? Is it me or does something smell fishy?
Posted by: Craig Willoughby | September 04, 2008 at 10:54 AM
I was interviewed for the ABC piece. The reporter who contacted me desperately wanted to balance the report, but the final cut just made it look like I was the old school mom still believing the MMR has any link to autism. I was stunned - I mean, that piece on ABC was the result of some of the staff actively trying to counteract what they admitted was a 'terrible' study.
Its actually hilarious in a way. They discredit Wakefield's study and then come up with something this ridiculous to discredit it. What a circus. And yes - the ABC description of how the MMR toxifies the body was um, bewildering at best.
Posted by: Sorsha | September 04, 2008 at 09:42 AM
You know, reading over this study, I see numerous errors, and I'm not even a doctor. What's up with the control group? Why was the control group exposed? If the doctors that support the autism-vaccine link were to release a study that is this poor, it would be labled as junk science. If the CDC and their pimps the pHARMa-scum (tm) release it, it's lauded as a "nail in the coffin for the MMR-autism connection." Argh! I can't stand hypocrits!!!
Oh, and anonymous? Nice cheap shot there. Now, go back to being a coward and go hide under your mommy's bed.
Posted by: Craig Willoughby | September 04, 2008 at 09:17 AM
Am I the only one who was upset that the way the vaccine was described was " having a small amount of the virus" Yes the study is BOGUS! I thought the media knew how to check there facts! So many parent are on the fence about this and they may have devistating results after bringing their children for this "safe""life saving" vaccine. I am so sad for our world
Posted by: Angie | September 04, 2008 at 07:33 AM
There are many many questions to do about this study in particular- and others pro and against. My concerns are related about how the same questions have been done once and again and again....
The Controversial questions
Then the original questions where all the Dr Wakefield et al and Drs Souza/Ward/Afzal et al based were
a-Are there Edmonton strain RNA genome copies in gut tissue of autistic children? And in the case of Dr Wakefield in the gut tissue- particularly ileum- of autistic children with specific gastrointestinal issues
b-IS there Edmonton strain RNA genome in PMCB in autistic children and /or altered IgG antibodies?
Now, after 4 years in average- for this study or much more and considering that the hypothesis to test is persistence- why the Edmonston primers strain- medium and long are used and not updated information at 2008 are used- form the immune system, microarray genes, Multiplex PCR and others considering also for example coinfections in gut? What if the positive/negative depends on the kind of primer used and the sequences? How they know if they are testing persistence, that they virus is in he same state - genoma status-that it was injected?
The questions were always done such As Dr Wakefield did-against him but not further elaboration of the hypothesis were presented.It was on/off...but things - and specially virus- are extremely complicated....
Even more, were the children selected considering his criteria?
“For inclusion in this group they required the presence of two or more of the following five current gastrointestinal symptoms:
• current persistent diarrhea (defined as watery/loose stools three or more times per day >14 days),
• current persistent vomiting (occurring at least once per day, or more than five times per week),
• current weight loss,
• current persistent abdominal pain (3 or more episodes [frequency not specified by authors] severe enough to interfere with activity);
• current blood in stool;
• past persistent diarrhea >14 days’ duration, and excluding current constipation”
Where are the improvements of the questions tested considering that if persistence is things such as virus sequence may change in time -4-to 6 years? or more?What about the nutritional status of the children-vitamin E, selenium, cis retinol.immune answer beyond antibodies?
What about the importance of the coinfections in gut bacterial/fungal?What about other virus such as herpes?
I don´t understand why once and again the same questions are done the same way using the same tools.... and telling that the same tools/criteria are used when they are not and so on.
Posted by: María Luján | September 04, 2008 at 07:30 AM
Who can believe these studies any more? I think only mainstream medicine does, but since mainstream medical is not helping our children, who cares what they think? If you can't help my child, than why do I care what you say. Luckily, I did my own research to help my children. There are studies that show correlation with autism and MMR. How come they never get publicity? I have seen them from time to time in my research.
Posted by: Heidi N | September 04, 2008 at 06:53 AM
It is fascinating to watch the UK media's silence about this (so far). What it has actually done is support the ethicality of tests for which the three doctors (Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch) are presently on trial at the General Medical Council, and it supports the validity of tests from O'Leary's lab. On the other hand (and after all these years) it is a very small study.
It looks like this being recognised by the British scietific establishment as a shot in the foot, and it also demonstrates the lack of independence of the UK media (recently commented on here by Anne Dachel).
Meanwhile, the other main charge against Dr Wakefield is crumbling embarrassingly:
Posted by: John Stone | September 04, 2008 at 03:33 AM
As the controversy grows more heated, the CDC continues to claim that their science shows no link.
Actually, it's the only course of action they can take. Could they ever possibly admit that through complete
oversight failure a generation of children has been damaged by their vaccines?
I found this report on the actions of the tobacco industry over the claim that smoking caused lung cancer. They also had the phony science and they knew the truth. All we have to do is remember Simpsonwood to see the striking similarity.
"The tobacco companies knew and for most part accepted the evidence that cigarette smoking was a cause of cancer by the late 1950s. The documents also reveal that the tobacco companies helped manufacture the smoking controversy by funding scientific research that was intended to obfuscate and prolong the debate about smoking and health. Today, the tobacco companies acknowledge that smoking is a cause of disease, but they have not materially altered the way they do business."
Posted by: Anne Dachel | September 04, 2008 at 01:29 AM
There's a perfect saying for this:
"If you don't want to find something, look where it isn't!"
Posted by: Anne Dachel | September 04, 2008 at 01:01 AM
Still more proof than the people pushing the link between vaccines and autism have given.
Posted by: Anoymous | September 04, 2008 at 12:30 AM
"But NAA says this underlying assumption is wrong. The questions should have been: Do normally developing children meeting all milestones have an MMR shot, develop GI problems and then regress into autism? Do they have evidence of measles and disease in their colons compared to non-vaccinated age and sex matched controls?"
Right! Controls in studies are supposed to be non-exposed. So, without any control subjects, they now can only say that a myriad of unknown variables could have caused the autism cases - or it was the the vaccines!
I watched the ABC report with Charlie Gibson and wondered how much these reporters checked this story out. Apparently they did a cut and paste job on this piece. Easy work if you can get it.
Posted by: sdtech | September 03, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Craig, the joke is definintely on us. How can such a small subject study come out of nowhere and determone without error that there is no link? The language used was unequivical. %@!^%$#^$%#%[email protected]^%&^*
Posted by: kat23 | September 03, 2008 at 09:56 PM
OMG, this study is an f-ing joke! Do ya think that they didn't find measles in the intestines because they didn't really look?
Unfortunately, it looks like th joke is on us.
Posted by: Craig Willoughby | September 03, 2008 at 09:17 PM
Five children only? And this is called a study?
How many sites in the intestine were biopsied? One?
If someone doesn't want to find the vaccine-strain measles lurking in the gastrointestinal tract, it won't be found.
Posted by: nhokkanen | September 03, 2008 at 08:35 PM