OT: MMR vaccine not associated with autism, even in at risk children

[TonyLieske]

Sorry to rain on your theory but since i actually work in vaccine mfg for Merck i can say that we do not use multi dose vials for any of our products. The last one was the pneumovax vaccine but we recently stopped, everything is either a 1 dose vial or a 1 dose, pre-filled syringe.

Our company actually makes these vials (although we sell to Merck, you are not one of our larger customers...I assume you are buying from our competitors) and yes it is absolutely true that there has been a constant trend toward more and more single dose (2ml and 3ml) vials. That being said, I believe there are still some vaccines going in to multi dose vials (5ml-10ml) at your competitors, but they are only a small fraction of the totals and are more likely to be specialty items, not high volume stuff like MMR or the flu.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

data is data and no one can explain the increased rise in autism in thedeveloped world that is coincidental with the onset of vacinations.

Statements like this drive me nuts. Small pox vaccinations can be traced back to the late 18th century and probably even earlier. The first rabies vaccine was in the late 19th century. Modern vaccinations began in the early 20th century. The "onset of vaccinations" did not just start a few decades ago. Again the MMR vaccine has been around since the 60s. The rise of autism diagnosis does not mirror the onset of vaccinations - that is just not true.

Meanwhile the modern diagnosis of autism has changed dramatically in the last 60 or so years. It wasn't long ago that it was being lumped in with schizophrenia. The rate of diagnosis grew dramatically as the definition of autism was refined and studies grew - most of this diagnosis/treatment advance occurred in the 1980s - which also happens to mirror the rise in cases. It's more accurate to say that the rise in autism in the developed world is more strongly tied with the increase in resources associated with autism research and treatment.

None of this should diminish the importance of research and treatment related to autism - even related to vaccines if there is a reasonable scientific purpose for doing so. The problem is that all this talk over vaccinations causes baseless worries in some parents and they avoid vaccinations and create a very real public health threat.

 

[RUGT]

Der please stop! You haven't read a word I have posted correctly. Stop pushing your agenda. I have none other than this is no answer right now. You viewpoint is more damaging than the MMR/Autism zealots.

I have not disputed all the studies that MMR is not DIRECT cause. However there are no studies that it could be a CONTRIBUTING cause. I guess you don't know the difference.

You conclusion that anything is 100% eliminated from being a CONTRIBUTING factor is as just as false and does more harm in the fundraising field.

There has been dramatic increase in Autism, a terrifying increase but people like you have all the answers.

You talk about my arrogance. You think your are such an expert. From the start I have admitted that I don't know and nobody else knows.

And it's very apparent that you don't care what people are doing to help.

What evidence are you looking for? A deity descending from the skies and saying "oh yeah vaccines don't cause nor contribute to autism"? It is clearly evident from your posts that you at some point believed or still believe that vaccines cause autism, and I would place a large wager that if this article concluded the opposite, you would be taking it as dogma. Why are you so hung up on vaccines? Seriously, why not potatoes or legos? More than likely because you actually believed the wakefield study or believed someone who believed in it since there is literally no other reason why someone would randomly point to vaccines as a cause for autism.

And the answers you are looking for will never happen. That isn't how science works. There is enough evidence out in the world for anyone with two functioning halves of a brain to conclude there is NO relationship (either small, contributing, or direct) between vaccines and autism. Still not accepting the evidence is generally a sign that you are some zealot who believes the opposite and creates a mythical burden of proof that is simply not achievable.

 

[BeKnighted]

One reason for the persistence of the claim of a link between vaccination and autism is that people look very hard for explanations for inexplicable events, and particularly want explanations that make those events not their fault. Since autism diagnoses often are coincident with vaccinations, and vaccination is done at the behest of doctors, it's something of a perfect storm.

 

[TonyLieske]

One reason for the persistence of the claim of a link between vaccination and autism is that people look very hard for explanations for inexplicable events, and particularly want explanations that make those events not their fault. Since autism diagnoses often are coincident with vaccinations, and vaccination is done at the behest of doctors, it's something of a perfect storm.

I actually don't have any blood relatives with Autism (or any ASD) so its hard for me to put myself in their shoes, but yeah I wouldn't be surprised if there is some of what you describe impacting peoples opinions. It is human nature, for better or worse.

 

[T2Kplus10]

One reason for the persistence of the claim of a link between vaccination and autism is that people look very hard for explanations for inexplicable events, and particularly want explanations that make those events not their fault. Since autism diagnoses often are coincident with vaccinations, and vaccination is done at the behest of doctors, it's something of a perfect storm.

Just like the second gunman and the government's involvement in 9/11. People need to give it up, a crazy man killed Kennedy, and 19 crazy young muslims knocked down the WTC. And yes, vaccines don't cause autism. The rise of autism also coincided with many other issues - older parents, better diagnostics, etc.

 

[vkj91]

One reason for the persistence of the claim of a link between vaccination and autism is that people look very hard for explanations for inexplicable events, and particularly want explanations that make those events not their fault. Since autism diagnoses often are coincident with vaccinations, and vaccination is done at the behest of doctors, it's something of a perfect storm.

Also doesn't hurt that until recently manufacturers were listing it as a side effect in their literature and websites.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

One reason for the persistence of the claim of a link between vaccination and autism is that people look very hard for explanations for inexplicable events, and particularly want explanations that make those events not their fault. Since autism diagnoses often are coincident with vaccinations, and vaccination is done at the behest of doctors, it's something of a perfect storm.

Yes you're right that a lot of it is looking for answers where there currently are no answers. That is the root of it but the perpetuation of this anti-vaccine movement is largely due to ignorance and an unwillingness to do some very basic fact checking.

I hate to be so blunt but people would rather believe social media, blogs, and celebrities rather than the actual medical community. They would rather believe someone with no medical or scientific background rather than the American Academy of Pediatricians.

As a parent, I understand the irrational fear that can take over when it comes to your own children. But that shouldn't be a permanent reality. Reason has to take over at some point.

The medical community has made mistakes and we can't just accept everything as gospel because medicine is constantly evolving and new discoveries are around the corner. But even healthy skepticism doesn't support the anti-vaccine problem.

 

[jcg878]

Funny. So tell me what is causing the dramatic rise in Autism. So you say vaccines aren't a part of because there is no data to support it. There is also no data to disprove it either.
Vaccines may not be a direct cause but they can be a part of a combination of things that is different today than it was 20 years ago. Some of you read a study and than put your head in the sand. I knew to many friends who have children with Autism to be be satisfied with studies declaring that a singular event doesn't cause Autism. Until we can find a link to why there is a staggering increase in Autism please don't declare anything out!!

Why not declare things 'out' that are ruled out? There are plenty of data to disprove any link betrween vaccines and autism.

We should be investigating the real culprit instead

 

[mdh2003]

I just had to give Whitebus my first ever "Like".

Not for the addle-brained logic (although at least this seems to be passionately well-intentioned). But for the ubiquitous messageboard-dig-your-heels-in-double-down. Gotta respect a man with strong convictions.

 

[CornerTavern]

Yes you're right that a lot of it is looking for answers where there currently are no answers. That is the root of it but the perpetuation of this anti-vaccine movement is largely due to ignorance and an unwillingness to do some very basic fact checking.

I hate to be so blunt but people would rather believe social media, blogs, and celebrities rather than the actual medical community. They would rather believe someone with no medical or scientific background rather than the American Academy of Pediatricians.

As a parent, I understand the irrational fear that can take over when it comes to your own children. But that shouldn't be a permanent reality. Reason has to take over at some point.

The medical community has made mistakes and we can't just accept everything as gospel because medicine is constantly evolving and new discoveries are around the corner. But even healthy skepticism doesn't support the anti-vaccine problem.

THIS

 

[T2Kplus10]

Why not declare things 'out' that are ruled out? There are plenty of data to disprove any link betrween vaccines and autism.

We should be investigating the real culprit instead

This gets a like! :)

 

[RU85inFla]

Again you say Im saying stuff I specifically didnt say.

Just say the words I think its ill advised to continue research this link given the limited research funding and I'll believe you when you say you dont think that there is a link.

85 - you say we dont know the outcome - but given that the initial research was fraudulent, and the recent research shows no basis for it being true even by chance (i.e. the guy fraudulently posited a theory which ended up being true) then why bother.

And of course you can direct research. Which is why we arent researching pizza and umbrellas.

Im being mypoic because the topic is myopic. If the topic were what are the actual causes of autism and should we research them, then answer is obviously yes - we should. But thats not the topic. The topic on which you commented and said - NOTHING can be ruled out is the MMR vaccine and its link to autism - a link that clearly lives on and one which you specifically wont let go of.

I guess I was wrong in thinking you were a smart guy. In statistical analysis there are these things called sample sizes and significance levels. As I said, but you may have missed, I don't think vaccines is the cause for Autism in every child, not even close. However, it might be a small contributor and needs to be studied further. The tests we have conducted prove that there is not a significant difference in the level of Autism between one group and the other. However, you might want to brush up on how sample sizes effect significance levels, understand population sub-segments and re-read the chapter about type 2 error. All issues you conveniently ignore.

In the other thread I posted a link to a book that a pediatrician friend of mine wrote after her daughter presented ASD. I did not know the girl prior to onset but a number of colleagues say the change was rapid, as in days, and it occurred after an immunization that my friend gave her daughter. Coincidentally it was documented that it was the bottom of the vial of a multi use vaccine. At this point my friend dedicated her practice to working with Autistic Children. While that one incident is in no way shape or form proof of causation, stories like hers got her thinking.

I am speaking out of turn here and others may have better information but about 10 years ago I know she and a number of physicians working with Autistic children provided a significant amount of data to the CDC to begin investigating this issue. At that point analysis was done and never shared back - conveniently lost by the CDC. As you might imagine this caused a little suspicion. It would be quite fair to say that there is a strong link between CDC leadership and Big Pharma. So what did the Autism folks do, they fought back with the likes of Jenny McCarthy.

There is a ton of politics and a ton of money in this debate and both sides have behaved poorly, but I do have one last question. If vaccinations don't cause Autism, in any way shape or form, then why don't vaccinations contain Thimerosal anymore and why are pharmaceutical companies moving away from multi use vaccines?? Seems in a time when we are trying hard to control healthcare costs we are introducing more costly solutions. Very strange behaviors, wouldn't you agree!!

 

[RUGT]

Also doesn't hurt that until recently manufacturers were listing it as a side effect in their literature and websites.

Source? I found one manufacturer who has one package insert listed by the FDA from 2005 for one drug (tripedia, used to vaccinate against Tdap) which just listed autism under reported adverse affects. The full quote in the entire 13 page document which is:

"Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine."

So I guess I don't really understand your point other than to mislead people into thinking this is a common tactic by ole 'Big Pharma', when that literally couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[vkj91]

Source? I found one manufacturer who has one package insert listed by the FDA from 2005 for one drug (tripedia, used to vaccinate against Tdap) which just listed autism under reported adverse affects. The full quote in the entire 13 page document which is:

"Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine."

So I guess I don't really understand your point other than to mislead people into thinking this is a common tactic by ole 'Big Pharma', when that literally couldn't be further from the truth.

Little sensitive aren't you? My post had nothing to do with Big Pharma, you have no idea how I view Pharma. Maybe it was just one company that listed it...can't remember so I'll take your word. Whether it's 1 or 100 doesn't really matter though because it was still listed at one time. Could have been a mistake or oversight but if people want to rail on others for spreading misinformation maybe they should list them as well?

 

[Upstream]

and why are pharmaceutical companies moving away from multi use vaccines?? Seems in a time when we are trying hard to control healthcare costs we are introducing more costly solutions. Very strange behaviors, wouldn't you agree!!

Accepted practice for multidose vials is to dedicate them to single-patient use (such as insulin vials for a single diabetic patient). There is a higher risk of cross-contamination and infection when multidose vials are shared among multiple patients.

 

[UMRU]

When kids eat food off the floor (heck even off of the table), they have an immune response; when kids get a cold, they have an immune response; when they get a cut, they have an immune response; when they have an earache, they have an immune response; allergic reaction, an immune response; a rash, an immune response; inflammation, an immune response.....and....

when they get vaccinated, they have an immune response. Why should the immune response to a vaccine cause autism, but the countless other immune responses kids mount essentially every day not cause autism?

 

[RcoasterA]

Der, I am impressed by your reason and ability to argue with a clear head and keeping such sain responses. I really enjoy what you are writing and wanted to let you know.

As for those that are mad at Der, don't be fooled for a second that believing research that shows vaccination has no relationship to autism means that you are tired of people researching autism. I guarantee you everyone would like this affliction cured. The problem is this:

If people said pasta caused autism, and you stopped eating pasta, it wouldn't really matter, because no one gets hurt. The problem with not getting a vaccination is that it has truly harmful effects for not only your child, but for those around them. It's a dangerous thing to recommend doing, and it should actively be shot down when people bring this up without proving why this should be done.

 

[LocalDC]

wow, just wow...the unwillingness to accept the possibility that injecting children with multiple agents from a very young age could have an adverse effect-and to consider it a closed case, an impossibility, is hard to accept. sounds more like a religious battle--maybe that's why there are religious exemptions.
if people want to think all vaccines are always without question safe and can never cause an immune reaction which can never effect brain function..well, that is your right--just not sure why you are calling the other side dogmatic--oh wait, yes I do

 

[RU4Real]

wow, just wow...the unwillingness to accept the possibility that injecting children with multiple agents from a very young age could have an adverse effect-and to consider it a closed case, an impossibility, is hard to accept. sounds more like a religious battle--maybe that's why there are religious exemptions.
if people want to think all vaccines are always without question safe and can never cause an immune reaction which can never effect brain function..well, that is your right--just not sure why you are calling the other side dogmatic--oh wait, yes I do

Science is a pretty basic thing. The OP can probably articulate this better than I. He likes to do that. Of course, his explanation would take us all about 11 hours to read. :)

The point is this - even if you adjust for changes in diagnostics, the rate of autism does not track - not even closely - the rate of vaccination, which has been constant for decades.

So for the vaccine/autism connection to be even remotely considered, you would have to demonstrate the specific mechanism. Nobody is doing that. All that's been provided - the ONLY thing that has ever been provided - is the loose correlation specified in the Wakefield paper, which has since been proven fraudulent.

Note that it wasn't simply rebutted - it was proven (by an actual investigative court in the UK) to be fraud.

It's not a religious argument. It's an argument based in very, very simple mathematics as applied to the scientific principle. You say it's possible for vaccinations to cause autism. We say that there has never been presented a single shred of evidence to support that statement and, in fact, every single shred of evidence offered in the context of the discussion disproves the assertion.

It puts your argument in a logically difficult position.

 

[Pitt-Chains]

Normally, I might post this on the CE board, but I think after all the bullshit, manufactured, anti-vaccine fear mongering from Jenny McCarthy and the anti-science crowd, largely based on Wakefield's discredited/fraudulent "studies" in the UK, purporting a link between vaccines and autism, we need to spend some time reeducating people on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. The latest study on MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccines confirms that no link to autism exists, even in populations of children considered at risk for autism. Kills me that we had to waste precious scientific resources on something all experts already considered safe, instead of on some much more important research.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahae...utism/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix

As an interesting aside, has anyone seen the report on the woman in Canada, who was an anti-vaccine zealot, but who was recently wavering on that stance and considering getting vaccines for her kids? Sadly, before she could vaccinate them, all 7 of her children came down with whooping cough (pertussis) - they should all survive, but they've been through hell, because of it. I can't imagine a parent denying the protection vaccines afford their children. Mind boggling.

http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2015/...s-her-seven-children-contract-whooping-cough/

There will still be parents that will not rule out MMR to Autism, my wife included.

 

[Abro1975]

"U.K. has pulled Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s license to practice medicine in the United Kingdom."
"In February, editors of the Lancet retracted Wakefield’s controversial paper, telling the Guardian “It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false.”

Full story :

http://healthland.time.com/2010/05/24/doctor-behind-vaccine-autism-link-loses-license/

PS- RU1994 in his post above, makes it as clear to a non scientist, non physician as I have seen in many posts and articles about this topic.

 

[RU205]

Vaccinations don't cause autism. We need to move on from this discussion.

 

[RU1994]

I feel the need to repost this from above....

Normally don't post often, but this one hits close. I am a pediatrician, researcher, and epidemiologist. There are some here that are using facts and critical thinking, and many that still are adhering to popular beliefs and misunderstanding what scientific research is all about. A few things to consider:

1) Science is not about proving anything 100%. By nature, that is impossible. Can we ever prove that vaccines absolutely do not contribute to to autism? No. Only if we studied all 6+ billion people on Earth could that be possible, and even then, it would not account for the multi-factorial (epigentics as someone above pointed out) nature of many diseases. Using the best science and nearly 100,000 children, the link with a high degree of certainty minimizes the risk of autism from vaccines

2) Surveillance Bias. Do you know why more kids have autism? In part its because our generation of parents looks for any signs of imperfection, or not "competing" with other young children. They alert the primary doctor, who now also has a bias towards diagnosis. Bam...you child has autism-spectrum disorder. I am CERTAIN that MANY people in previous generations have ASD but were not diagnosed. Why? Because nobody was looking for it. Many of my teachers in med school and since have some ASD, I am sure of it. It was just not en vogue to diagnose. Also, ASD seems to have a tendency for more wealthy Caucasian populations, of which there are many more in the US now that 30+ years ago. This may go hand in hand with increased surveillance.

3) Time of Diagnosis. It is in many ways coincidence when ASD is diagnosed, as it is during the age that many vaccines are administered (from 1-4 years of age). The chance of diagnosis of Autism is most likely to be in this window, which makes me think the chicken (autism) came before the egg (vaccines) in most cases. In terms of time, also note that the agent thought to contribute, Thimerisol, has bee absent in vaccines for 15 years.

4) Societal Benefit. People who refuse to vaccinate based on hearsay are the most selfish in the world. They depend on others who are vaccinated to protect their children. They use idiots like Jennie McCarthy and Facebook moms to make their conclusion. Vaccines save lives. Vaccines have probably saved your life, you just take it for granted. I have seen infants die of pertussis (whooping cough), children die of measles, pneumococcal, and Hib sepsis, and have seen the torture suffered by an 8 yo with tetanus. The number of adverse events from vaccines compared to the number of people protected is miniscule. They put young infants, children with cancer and other immune suppressed at risk because of your selfishness. Every time I see a child diagnoses with a vaccine-preventable disease, it makes me cringe. Do you all know why child mortality from infection is so rare in the United States? Because we vaccinate. It is not voodoo, it is common sense.

 

[LocalDC]

Well, we have two areas of disagreement --again. One is that all these kids had spectrum problems and that at some point they came out-if I understand you correctly, totally unrelated to a vaccine always. I wonder how it can be that a vaccine can cause a death or other disability but not autism. Clearly, we must agree that there have been some deaths and some problems from vaccines, no? So if those can happen why would a brain injury of the autistic nature be excluded from possibility.
Secondly, if a chemical can trigger an autoimmune reaction in different parts of the body, such as gluten (again, hopefully no one disputes this) why can't a chemical injected cause an immune reaction in the brain.
Not saying people should or should not vaccinate--or that all or even many cases of autism are due to vaccines.

 

[Ty Webb]

Until they have the reason for the dramatic rise in autism than statements like this are completely stupid. Nothing has been eliminated. ..period!

One reason has been explained to people like yourself. Over the last 3 decades, the ability to diagnose and understand children that fall on the spectrum has grown immensely. The reason autism is up is not that something nefarious is out there giving it to people, it's that there have been great advances in diagnosing it and as such, 30 years ago there were many people who had autism that simply weren't diagnosed as having autism. As someone said earlier, kids that fall on the spectrum today would likely not have been on the spectrum back in the 90s or when Wakefield falsified his study.

 

[ArminRU]

You always hear about anti-vaccers, but I've never found one in the wild. I cannot believe these people exist.

 

[LocalDC]

please don't tell me that the increase is "alleged" and based on better diagnostics ---did you grow up in this country?

 

[Ty Webb]

please don't tell me that the increase is "alleged" and based on better diagnostics ---did you grow up in this country?

I am not sure what this means. But yes, there are studies out there that suggest that one big reason for the rise in autism numbers is the better and more accurate diagnosis available today.

For example, a large number of people diagnosed with autism today would never have been diagnosed as having autism back in 1980 when classifications started to change. In 1980, autism was really only diagnosed in children less than 30 months old.

 

[WhiteBus]

One reason has been explained to people like yourself. Over the last 3 decades, the ability to diagnose and understand children that fall on the spectrum has grown immensely. The reason autism is up is not that something nefarious is out there giving it to people, it's that there have been great advances in diagnosing it and as such, 30 years ago there were many people who had autism that simply weren't diagnosed as having autism. As someone said earlier, kids that fall on the spectrum today would likely not have been on the spectrum back in the 90s or when Wakefield falsified his study.

The stupidity of diagnosis theory blows my mind. So many of you have no clue.

 

[niarte]

Well, we have two areas of disagreement --again. One is that all these kids had spectrum problems and that at some point they came out-if I understand you correctly, totally unrelated to a vaccine always. I wonder how it can be that a vaccine can cause a death or other disability but not autism. Clearly, we must agree that there have been some deaths and some problems from vaccines, no? So if those can happen why would a brain injury of the autistic nature be excluded from possibility.
Secondly, if a chemical can trigger an autoimmune reaction in different parts of the body, such as gluten (again, hopefully no one disputes this) why can't a chemical injected cause an immune reaction in the brain.
Not saying people should or should not vaccinate--or that all or even many cases of autism are due to vaccines.

I am finding this response funny. I really hope you are referring to celiac disease and not the garbage theory of all disease gluten sensitivity. Is it possible for vaccines to be a cause of autism? Sure? Has it been studied? Yes. Do they cause autism? Conclusively no they do not. Again and again, study after study. Time to stop pouring money down that rabbit hole dug by the charlatan Wakefield.

 

[Ty Webb]

The stupidity of diagnosis theory blows my mind. So many of you have no clue.

Then explain it instead of your condescending response.

 

[niarte]

Coincidentally - link today from Science Based Medicine, not the same one as posted earlier.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/still-no-association-between-mmr-and-autism/#more-37033

 

[LocalDC]

yes, I am referring to the garbage theory of gluten sensitivity...
by the way, it appears the world may not be flat--don't want to upset anyone

 

[WhiteBus]

Then explain it instead of your condescending response.

You stupid response doesn't explain your stupid theory. The % of the former unreported is nothing compared to the actual number that is happening today. Your viewpoint that more are categorized then in the past is true but you are clueless that it adds up to the numbers being reported today.

 

[WhiteBus]

Then explain it instead of your condescending response.

Your the the expert. Please explain your complete BS theory. If you don't think the amount of actual kids becoming Autistic as a % is not a on a dramatic rise you must be the dumbest person on the planet.

 

[Ty Webb]

Someone sounds drunk.

 

[RU205]

a new way to diagnose something can increase the incidence. For example, the breast cancer rate was steady for a long time. From 1980 to 1987 the rates spiked because of new ways to diagnose it. So women who had no idea they had breast cancer were getting detected earlier.

 

[WhiteBus]

Someone sounds drunk.

Yes you do. Put down the bottle and go to bed

 

[niarte]

yes, I am referring to the garbage theory of gluten sensitivity...
by the way, it appears the world may not be flat--don't want to upset anyone

And this is the very nature of the problem that you see on this thread. Sorry ... not real either ...