Research Paper On Autism And Vaccines Chart

Autism rates in developing countries have risen remarkably in the past 20 years. For children born in 1992, according to the U.S. CDC, about 1 in 150 would be diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). For children born in 2004, about 1 in 68 children would receive an ASD diagnosis.[1] It is difficult to compare autism rates from the 1990s and later with rates from the 1940s through the 1980s: in earlier years, autism was associated primarily with very severely affected individuals and the rate of autism was estimated to be only about 1 in 10,000 people.[2] Beginning in the 1990s, our understanding of the spectrum of autism has expanded greatly, and now individuals who would most likely previously not have been thought of as having autism may be classified with one of a variety of ASDs.[3]

Whether the high rates of autism today are due to increased diagnosis and reporting, changing definitions of autism, or an actual increase in development of ASD is unknown.[4],[5] Regardless, researchers and worried parents alike have speculated about causes of autism, and the issue has been widely studied. The role of vaccines has been questioned, along with other possible risk factors for ASD, such as genetic predisposition, advanced parental age, and other environmental factors. Vaccines have perhaps received more scrutiny that any other speculated cause of ASD, and the great majority of scientists, physicians, and public health researchers have come to the conclusion that there is no association between vaccines and autism.[6] Some, however, still question whether vaccines play a role in ASD development, and so the public health and medical establishments continue to address these concerns.

The MMR Hypothesis

The story of how vaccines came to be questioned as a cause of autism dates back to the 1990s. In 1995, a group of British researchers published a cohort study in the Lancet showing that individuals who had been vaccinated with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) were more likely to have bowel disease than individuals who had not received MMR.[7] One of these researchers was gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, MD, who went on to further study a possible link between the vaccine and bowel disease by speculating that persistent infection with vaccine virus caused disruption of the intestinal tissue that in turn led to bowel disease and neuropsychiatric disease (specifically, autism). Part of this hypothesis – that vaccination was associated with autism – had been suggested previously a few researchers. For example, Fudenberg, in a small pilot study published in a non-mainstream journal, posited this relationship[8], as did Gupta in a review of possible treatments for autism.[9] This hypothesis had not been systematically investigated when Wakefield began to interrogate it.

In 1998, Wakefield, along with 12 co-authors, published a case series study in the Lancet claiming that they found evidence, in many of the 12 cases they studied, of measles virus in the digestive systems of children who had exhibited autism symptoms after MMR vaccination.[10] Though in the paper they stated that they could not demonstrate a causal relationship between MMR vaccination and autism, Wakefield suggested in a video released to coincide with the paper’s publication that a causal relationship existed between the MMR and autism: “…the risk of this particular syndrome [what Wakefield termed autistic enterocolitis] developing is related to the combined vaccine, the MMR, rather than the single vaccines.”[11] He then recommended that the combination MMR vaccine be suspended in favor of single-antigen vaccinations given separately over time. (Wakefield himself had filed for a patent for a single-antigen measles vaccine in 1997 and so would seem to have a potential financial interest in promoting this view.[12])

Reaction to the Wakefield publication was immediate. Press outlets covered the news widely and frightened parents began to delay or completely refuse vaccination for their children, both in Britain and the United States. MMR vaccination rates in Britain plummeted.[13]

Over the next twelve years, the possibility of a link between MMR and autism was studied exhaustively. No reputable, relevant study confirmed Wakefield’s findings; instead, many well-designed studies have found no link between MMR and bowel disease or MMR and autism.[6],[14]

In 2004, then-editor Dr. Richard Horton of the Lancet wrote that Wakefield should had revealed to the journal that he had been paid by attorneys seeking to file lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.[15] In television interviews, Horton claimed that Wakefield’s research was “fatally flawed.”[16] Most of the co-authors of the study retracted the interpretation in the paper[17], and in 2010, The Lancet formally retracted the paper itself.[18]

Three months after the retraction, in May 2010, Britain’s General Medical Council banned Wakefield from practicing medicine in Britain, stating that he had shown “callous disregard” for children in the course of his research. The council also cited previously uncovered information about the extent to which Wakefield’s research was funded by lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers on behalf of parents of children with autism.[19]

On January 6, 2011, the BMJ published a report by Brian Deer, a British journalist who had previously reported on flaws in Wakefield’s work. For this new report, Deer spoke with parents of children from the retracted study and found evidence that Wakefield committed research fraud by falsifying data about the children’s conditions.[20]

Specifically, Deer reported that while the paper claimed that eight of the study’s twelve children showed either gastrointestinal or autism-like symptoms days after vaccination, records instead show that at most two children experienced these symptoms in this time frame. Additionally, while the paper claimed that all twelve of the children were “previously normal” before vaccination with MMR, at least two had developmental delays that were noted in their records before the vaccination took place.

After examining the records for all twelve children, Deer noted that the statements made in the paper did not match numbers from the records in any category: the children having regressive autism; those with non-specific colitis; or those showing first symptoms within days after receiving the MMR vaccine. The Lancet paper claimed that six of the children had all three of these conditions; according to the records, not a single child actually did. (See a table entitled “Comparison of three features of the 12 children in The Lancet paper with features apparent in the NHS records, including those from the Royal Free hospital” that breaks down the comparison between the Lancet numbers and the medical records in the Deer article here.)

In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor in chief Fiona Godlee and co-authors Jane Smith and Harvey Marcovitch examine the damage to public health caused by a tiny study based on parental recall with no control group – a study that turned out to be almost entirely fraudulent, but whose impact continues to this day.[21]

Although the findings of Wakefield’s paper have long been discredited by scientists, the evidence that the data itself was falsified makes this report by the BMJ a landmark moment in the history of vaccines. Evidence is strong that the original study should not have been published not merely because it was poorly conducted, but also because it was a product of research fraud.

The Thimerosal Hypothesis

MMR is not the only vaccine or vaccine component that has been targeted for scrutiny by those who suspect vaccination might be related to autism. After the MMR controversy died down, critics turned their questions to thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines. (Thimerosal had never been used in MMR, as antimicrobial agents are not used in live vaccines.[22])

In the late 1990s lawmakers, environmentalists, and medical and public health workers became concerned about environmental exposures to mercury, particularly from consumption of fish. With heightened attention to known and potential harmful effects of such exposures, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1999 requested that drug companies report on amounts of mercury in their products. The results for mercury in vaccines, in the form of thimerosal, exceeded FDA guidelines for exposures to the kind of mercury found in fish. Mercury in fish appears in the form of methylmercury, which is not readily metabolized and excreted in the human body. It is known to cause, at certain levels of high exposure, harmful neurological effects. The mercury in thimerosal metabolizes in the body to ethylmercury, a compound that, while not widely studied at the time, was thought to be much less harmful than methylmercury.[23]

The FDA had a dilemma: there were no recommendations for exposure to levels of ethylmercury. Should they apply the methylmercury guidelines to ethylmercury? Was there cause for concern about exposure to mercury in childhood vaccines? Unable to answer these questions immediately, together with the American Academy of Pediatrics and other groups, they called for vaccine companies to reduce or eliminate the use of thimerosal in vaccines. Additionally, studies were planned to investigate whether there were harmful effects in children exposed to the amount of mercury in vaccines.

Activists and others became concerned about the safety of thimerosal at this point, and they posited that autism could be an outcome of exposure to mercury in vaccines. The Institute of Medicine undertook a comprehensive safety review of the issue. Their preliminary report, published in 2001, stated that the committee did not find enough evidence to support or reject a causal relationship between mercury in vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders.[24] However, their final report, published in 2004, came to the conclusion that the large body of evidence gathered on the question since 2001 favored rejecting the hypothesis that mercury in vaccines was associated with neurodevelopmental disorders.[6] Since then, evidence from many studies has continued to support rejecting an association between thimerosal and autism.[25], [26]

Today, thimerosal is no longer used in most childhood vaccines, though some forms of influenza vaccine available in multi-dose vials may contain the preservative.[23]

Other Hypotheses

After thimerosal was removed from most vaccines, autism rates did not drop. Rather, they continued to rise.[1] Some vaccine critics shifted their attention from a hypothesized mercury exposure/autism connection to other targets. One such target is the number of vaccines given to children. Many vaccines have been added to the childhood immunization schedule since the 1980s, and some critics have voiced concern that this increase in vaccine exposure results in autism. However, no evidence of an association between increased exposure to vaccines and autism has appeared.[27] Others have focused on the aluminum adjuvant in some vaccines as a potential cause of autism. Yet the amounts of aluminum used in vaccines are small in comparison to other exposures to aluminum, such as in breast milk and infant formula. Aluminum in vaccines has not been implicated in any infant or childhood health problems.[28]

Conclusion

Most scientific and medical experts are satisfied that no connection exists between vaccines and autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Still, critics continue to question the issue. Not only do they question the relationship between MMR and thimerosal and autism, they bring up further culprits they believe might play a role in development of autism. Researchers continue to examine these questions, but there is no evidence that these factors play a role in autism development. Most autism researchers hold that the causes of autism are many and include genetic and environmental factors, but do not involve vaccines.[4],[5] 

Sources

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Autism Spectrum Disorder: Data & Statistics. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  2. Rice, C.E., Rosanoff, M., Dawson, G., Durkin, M., Croen, L.A., Singer, A., Yeargin-Allsopp, M. Evaluating changes in the prevalence of the autism spectrum disorders (ASDs).Public Health Reviews. 2012; 34(2): 1.
  3. Hertz-Picciotto, I., Delwiche, L. The rise in autism and the role of age at diagnosis. Epidemiology. 2009; 20(1): 84.
  4. CDC. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Research. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  5. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Autism spectrum disorder fact sheet. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  6. Immunization Safety Review Committee, Institute of Medicine. Immunization safety review: vaccines and autism. National Academies Press, 2004. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  7. Thompson, N.P., Pounder, R.E., Wakefield, A.J., & Montgomery, S.M. Is measles vaccination a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease? The Lancet. 1995; 345(8957): 1071-1074.
  8. Fudenberg, H.H. Dialysable lymphocyte extract (DLyE) in infantile onset autism: a pilot study. Biotherapy. 1996; 9(1-3): 143-147.
  9. Gupta, S. Immunology and immunologic treatment of autism. Proc Natl Autism Assn Chicago.1996;455–460
  10.  Wakefield A, et al. RETRACTED:—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998; 351(9103): 637-641.
  11. Deer, B. Royal free facilitates attack on MMR in medical school single shots videotape. No date. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  12. Deer, B. Revealed: Wakefield’s secret first MMR patent claims “safer measles vaccine.” No date. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  13. Offit, P.A. Autism’s False Profits. New York: Columbia University Press; 2008. See Chapters 2 and 3.
  14. See a list of such studies in this Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Vaccine Education Center document.
  15. Horton, R. A statement by the editors of The LancetThe Lancet. 2004; 363(9411): 820-821.
  16. Laurance, J. How was the MMR scare sustained for so long when the evidence showed that it was unfounded? The Independent. September 19, 2004. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  17. Murch, S.H., Anthony, A., Casson, D.H., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A.P., ... Walker-Smith, J.A. Retraction of an interpretation. Lancet. 2004; 363(9411): 750.
  18. The Editors of The Lancet. Comment: RETRACTION:—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet. 2010; 375(9713): 445. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  19. Meikle, J., Boseley, S. MMR row doctor Andrew Wakefield struck off register. May 24, 2010. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  20. Deer, B. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ. 2011; 342: c5347. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  21. Godlee, F., Smith, J., Marcovitch, H. Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ. 2011; 342: c7452. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  22. World Health Organization. Thimerosal in vaccines. July 2006. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  23. Most of this narrative refers to the facts and chronology outlined in the Food and Drug Administration’s Publication Thimerosal in Vaccines.
  24. Immunization Safety Review Committee, Institute of Medicine. (2001). Immunization safety review: measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. National Academies Press. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  25. CDC. Science summary: CDC studies on vaccines and autism. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  26. American Academy of Pediatrics. Vaccine safety: examine the evidence. (122KB). Updated April 2013. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  27. DeStefano, F., Price, C.S., Weintraub, E.S. Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2013; 163(2): 561-567.
  28. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Vaccine Education Center. Vaccines ingredients: Aluminum. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  29. CDC. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Research. Accessed 01/25/2018.
  30. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Autism spectrum disorder fact sheet. Accessed 01/25/2018.

Last update 25 January 2018

Six Studies

Dr. Hotez apparently thinks there are exactly SIX papers, when viewed collectively that “back up my pro-vaccine sentiments and position.” As I mentioned earlier, in introducing these papers, Dr. Hotez goes on to narrow the definition of what the papers collectively address, which is really to refute three “allegations” that link vaccines to autism:

  • the MMR vaccine,
  • trace thimerosal used in some vaccines,
  • the close spacing of vaccines. [Oddly, none of Dr. Hotez’s papers actually address this third issue!]

You’d think at this point Dr. Hotez would then divide the scientific papers into these three allegations (MMR, thimerosal, and timing of administration) and lay out his argument. But, he doesn’t. Some of the studies he cites sort of fit two of his “big three” allegations, some really don’t, it’s pretty disorganized. But since he only cites six studies, let’s just take a look at what they say. And one quick note: all of the links in Dr. Hotez’s blog post are to study summaries. You have to PAY (or have proprietary access) if you want to actually read these studies. I pay, and I read the actual study, which is why you will find quotes and insights in my analysis that may not be present in the summaries he links to. And, trust me, journalists NEVER read the studies (except David Kirby).

Study #1: JAMA MMR study from 2015

Autism occurrence by MMR vaccine status among US children with older siblings with and without autism. JAMA Jain A, Marshall J, Buikema A, Bancroft T, Kelly JP, Newschaffer CJ (2015) Full study here.

This study was written by three employees of The Lewin Group, which is a health care consulting firm that works for pharmaceutical companies. While that alone may not invalidate the findings of the study, this conflict was never reported in any of the press of this study, and it certainly isn’t mentioned by Dr. Hotez. The Lewin Group’s website reveals that at least four of the companies they consult for are vaccine manufacturers. (If they had found an association between the MMR vaccine and autism, do you think they would have published this study?)

The purpose of this study was to look at children who had older siblings diagnosed with autism. The question being asked was, “Do the younger children of a sibling with autism have a different autism rate depending on whether or not they received the MMR vaccine?” The authors concluded that, “these findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD.”

The study suffers from a fatal bias that the CDC is well aware of known as “healthy user bias” which means that sick people do NOT get vaccinated, while healthy people do. It also highlights something that was true for my son and is true for all American children: they receive 24 OTHER vaccines before their first MMR vaccine. The best explanation I have seen for how this “healthy user bias” invalidates Dr. Hotez’s first study cited was written at the amazing website Vaccine Papers, I encourage you to read the entire deconstruction of this study there. They write:

“A substantial problem with the Jain study is that parents observing developmental delays or autism symptoms will avoid MMR vaccination. Consequently, sick children (e.g. vaccine-injured children) will become concentrated in the “unvaccinated” group, even if the problems are caused by vaccines (i.e. non-MMR vaccines). This of course will conceal an association between MMR and autism. If the effect of parental vaccine avoidance is large enough, it will create a negative association (i.e. the incidence of autism will be higher in the unvaccinated group). Jain etal report such a negative association (since all but one odds ratio is <1.0), whether or not a child has an older sibling with ASD.”

In plain English: The study authors hypothesized that a child with an older sibling with autism would be more likely to have autism. So, they looked at these younger siblings, comparing those who had and had not received the MMR vaccine. However, they made no controls for ANY OTHER vaccines the younger siblings had received. For their study purposes, they used the term “unvaccinated” to mean any younger sibling who had not received the MMR vaccine, even if they had received 24 other vaccines! This is the kind of science that happens when people are trying to respond to an allegation, rather than solve a real world problem. If a parent had stopped vaccinating right before MMR because they were seeing developmental regression and the child ended up with autism, that child was still counted as an “unvaccinated” child with autism. If I’m still confusing you, this excellent explanation should clear things up, the final conclusion of this excellent analysis addresses the point that I have been trying to make:

The Jain study only looked at MMR. Media reports about this study have falsely and deceptively asserted that the Jain study shows that “vaccines” in general do not cause autism. In reality, the Jain study says nothing about other vaccines. The MMR vaccine is the only vaccine that has been much studied in relation to autism, and all of the MMR-autism studies suffer from HUB. The other likely more dangerous aluminum-containing vaccines, given at younger ages, have hardly been studied at all. It is a blatant lie to claim that the science shows “vaccines” generally do not cause autism.
The science actually shows the opposite. Controlled animal experiments overwhelmingly prove that immune activation (i.e., interleukin-6) in the developing brain causes autism. Animal experiments also prove that aluminum adjuvant causes brain damage, at dosages human infants routinely receive from vaccines. There is also evidence that aluminum stimulates interleukin-6.

For those who are prepared to really dive in, Vaccine Papers provides a great overview here of how “Healthy User Bias” can skew results, which is the fatal flaw of this paper:

Healthy User Bias: Why Most Vaccine Safety Studies Are Wrong

Healthy User Bias: Why Most Vaccine Safety Studies Are Wrong
Click for list of papers in this post. Vaccine safety studies are typically done by comparing health outcomes of those…vaccinepapers.org

Categories: 1

0 Replies to “Research Paper On Autism And Vaccines Chart”

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *