Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
[KEEP IT CIVIL MOD WARNING POST#143,218] Lancet finally withdraws Wakefield study
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
OutlawPete wrote: »Like this one?
Elevated Levels of Measles Antibodies in Children with Autism
A lecture the author gave also on the subject.
Have you seriously read that study? It says some autistic kids have high levels of measles antibody.
This means very little. BUT if we were to take the meaning from it that you will want to take from it, then it would mean that the way to prevent autistism is to stop kids getting measles.
And how would we we do that?
As for the remark about our swine flu study...we had, like most academic research groups, an agreement that the data we find belongs jointly to us and the drug company. We do what we like with it, and so do they.
I'm not aware of huge amounts of direct marketing, as the govt decided to use our vaccine, because of the results.
As for the links...anti-vaccine girl in "drug companies are bastards" shocker. Drug companies are cocks. I despise virtually everything about them. Most medics I know despise them.
BUt it doesn't mean much when they publish their results. Whether we like it or not, drug companies develop drugs that save lives. They also market in a very dishonest way.
So, we need people who just take the papers and look at the numbers, and don't get distracted by the other stuff. That is why people like me make decisions, and why people like you quote "the Australian" newspaper as evidence.0 -
-
-
-
eightyfish wrote: »All you can criticise is one sentence on a website which has a page about the paper? Come on. I agree with your point about that sentence, but that is a one line editorial whim from whoever wrote the article on Bandolier and absolutely no reason to conclude the the studies are "a joke" or "refuted".
I meant that quote was a joke not the study. It has been refuted but all studies that have come out have been, so no real significance in that.
If you want me to post the points made in an article I have about the study's so-called shortcomings then I will. Or I could scan it for you as it doesn't appear to be online, it's a few years old.eightyfish wrote: »The actual paper itself is attached.
I have a paper copy of the study and must admit when I first read it a few years ago, although it seemed impressive, it didn't really make much impact on the public. Perhaps that is down to Wakefield, perhaps not.
Back then, or just the year before, most people seemed more obsessed on whether or not Cherie Blair was getting her kids vaccinated more than anything about new studies.
Say what you want about Wakefield but the media went overboard with their reporting of the paper and completely misrepresented his original study, which was in essence just a small case study. Why it got that much attention I don't know. Again, maybe that was down to Wakefield and of course, the fact that The Lancet backed him also meant that in a way they were endorsing any comments that he was then to made.
I read many criticisms of the GP Database Study shortly after it came out and nobody that I came into contact with, that you would feel should be aware the study, actually were and that includes a diagnosis specialist and an Autism organization here in Dublin.eightyfish wrote: »Even if you find a line or two in a paper that you don't agree with, unless that forms the crux of their argument there it is no reason to dismiss the whole thing. And the sentence you have a problem with has nothing to do with the data dismissing an MMR/autism link.
Fair point and I don't dismiss it. I just don't believe that it is the holy grail of studies that it's be portrayed to be. I think some flaws are quite obvious to be honest.
For instance, the study deals with the 70's, 80's and 90's GP records.
If you were to Poll Autistic children's families that received a diagnosis of Autisim (rare as it was back then) you will find that their GPs did not record this information let alone make a diagnosis themselves.
St Micheal's House in Dublin would have been the catch all for Down Syndrome and Mentality Handicapped kids back then. Autism was something quite different entirely at the time. It was something that you would associate with Savants and people with Aspergers.
If I visited by GP and she was to ask after my sister, she would say "Oh, you have the handicapped sister". Just thinking about it here now I don't I ever heard a GP refer to her as Autistic to this day.
Sh did not receive a diagnosis until her 20's (1999/2000) and I doubt my family's story is in any way unique. I realise the UK was slightly ahead of us in diagnosis skills but not by much.eightyfish wrote: »A paper with a sample size of 12 (Wakefield's original, I think) does not have the same weight as a paper with a sample size of 200.
You won't get an argument from me on that, in fact I think it's laughable that it received the attention that it did. In fairness though Wakefield makes no assertion of proof of anything in the study and in fact in the study he actually suggests further research is needed.
As Wakefield said in 2004:"We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children
that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In
most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles,
mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations
are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible
relation to this vaccine.""How can you retract the suggestion that a 'possibility' needs further investigations?eightyfish wrote: »This is why it is important to show that it is not the case that, "there is evidence to suggest that vaccines play a role in SOME children developing Autism.", as you say, in light of all research.
The Hannah Poling case alone is evidence that 'vaccine damage' can lead to 'autistic regression' in some children.
The Singh study also is evidence that vaccines play a role. The volume of parent's that report 'regression' in their child directly after vaccination may not be 'scientific evidence' but it is very relevant anecdotal evidence.eightyfish wrote: »I genuinely recommend you read Bad Science, the book I mentioned earlier.
I seen an interview with the author, that was enough
I have conceded many times on the thread that there is no 'scientific evidence' that Vaccines play a role in children developing autism.
Quite frankly, if there was 'scientific evidence' of an association then we wouldn't be having the debate, it would just be stated and that would be the end of the matter.
People feel that there is evidence because of the Hannah Poling case, the Singh study, one of the Japan studies, the volume of a parent's anecdotal experiences etc etc.
Nobody believes for a second that all this is 'scientific evidence' so it's pointless to keep stating the fact that it is not.
At the end of the day 'anecdotal evidence' is still 'evidence'. Circumstantial evidence is still 'evidence' and as long as these things are not completely and utterly ruled out then you will still get people believing that there might be a connection and calling for further studies in this areas.
If you think that convincing me, or anyone reading this feels as I do, that the GP Database Study (amongst others) has put the whole debate to bed then you are mistaken.
Wakefield's Primate study may very well be junk science (I'm not saying that it is by the way) but I can't see it not being finished and published. In fact this whole Lancet retraction could very well have the effect of making him even more relevant.
America love a conspiracy and should he start the rounds of 60 Minutes and the like saying that he was persecuted and then finish and publish the primate study. He could just cause the biggest drop in child vaccines we have ever seen.
From what I have read about the Phase II part of the study, it would seem that it points the finger at vaccines ten times more than the original paper did, so God knows what will happen if that see the light of day.0 -
-
eightyfish wrote: »For now, however, this is my last post on this topic because I don't think there's any more to say.
I think I'll join you. This argument is as much about science as debating the merits of scientology
0 -
-
OutlawPete wrote: »What has that got to do with anything or are you just trying to imply that I am anti-vaccination again? I'm not.
"As it stands" yes.
Maybe it will turn out that there is some environmental reason that these kids have a hyper-immune response and not anything to do the vaccines or even the vaccines ingredients, which seems to be where Singh is going next.
However, that won't be known until further studies are carried out.
If people are totally anti-vaccine then they are just wrong but I don't hear too many of them to be honest and the Wakefield study being withdrawn will most likely mean even less.
It will be an important day though when the parent's of autistic children, who are calling for further studies in areas like this, can do so without being labeled as 'anti-vaccination' and told they are responsible for people's deaths.
Which is precisely what had me posting on the thread in the first place.
Comments like that should never have been made.
The thread is about Andrew Wakefield's Autism case study, what has science got to do with it?
If you didn't understand my comment about no vaccines=lots of measles in the context of this paper, then you haven't understood the paper.
As for it being an important day or whatever when Singh's work is followed up....well it has been, 3 times I think (at least twice I can remember). Bigger studies have shown no difference in measles antibody levels between autistic kids and controls.
That's no surprise to anyone who understands the measles antibody response, because Singh's "high antibody level group" were on average younger than the control group, while the other studies were case control studies.
Anyway, good luck with your quest.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
OutlawPete wrote: »I understood your point, just don't agree with it. Your determined to portray yourself as able to see studies in a way that others can't. It's getting tedious at this stage.
Measles antibody response is not as complex as you are trying to suggest. I myself, have been reseraching it now since 2002 and all that anyone would need to know, can be read online within a few short hours. It's not rocket science but I understand why you'd like people to think that it is.
The study's main significant findings concern the Autistic children's hyper-immune reaction to the vaccines when compared to the controls. You can twist the study on it's head if you like but you know very well that you are just being dismissive of Singh's significant observations that immune response is part of Autism jigsaw as it suits your arguments.
He himself is not making any wild claims of his findings and suggests further research is needed.
In fact last year (ten years after Dr.Singh's call to congress) another researcher made similar statements after their review of the studies in this area:
Autism and immune factors: A comprehensive review.
Do you know something they don't?
I would imagine I know a lot about vaccines that they don't.
Though I've no idea why i'm still replying here.
You didn't understand my point if you can "just disagree with it". You haven't the foggiest understanding of how to read a paper. But that's not your fault, and I'm not blaming yuo for it.
Measles immunology is highly complex. Read Plotkin if you want to get your head around it. But it will take a long time to go any more in depth than that for someone like you.
You need to start reading the papers you link to. The "comprehensive review" doesn't implicate vaccines at all. The authors wouldn't be exactly world authorities on vaccines, but here's what they say about vaccines in that paper:what the paper actually says wrote:
.2. Vaccines
Concerns regarding the possible role of the MMR vaccine in autism were raised by Wakefield et al. (1998), who reported that in 8 (67%) of 12 children, the onset of behavioral problems had been linked, either by parent or physician report, with MMR vaccinations. However, 10 of the 13 authors later recanted this interpretation of the findings (Murch et al., 2004) and numerous epidemiological studies have not supported involvement of the MMR vaccine in autism (Chen, Landau, Sham, & Fombonne, 2004; Fombonne & Chakrabarti, 2001; Taylor et al., 2002; Uchiyama, Kurosawa, & Inaba, 2007). A multi-site study, conducted in 351 children with PDDs and 51 typically developing children, used caregiver interviews to determine early-acquisition and loss of social-communication milestones (Richler et al., 2006). The authors reported that there was no evidence that onset of autistic symptoms or of regression was related to MMR vaccination. Furthermore, Fombonne, Zakarian, Bennett, Meng, and McLean-Haywood (2006) surveyed 27,749 born from 1987 to 1998 in Montreal, Canada, ruling out an association between PDD rates and trends in MMR vaccination use and the introduction of a two MMR vaccine dosing schedule. A study by Afzal et al. (2006) assessed leukocyte preparations from 15 children with documented evidence of the MMR vaccination and autism (n = 13) or PDD-NOS (n = 2). Several assays designed to target multiple regions of the measles virus genome sequence were used to examine the preparations. No sample was found positive by any method. The authors concluded that the study failed to substantiate reports of the persistence of measles virus infection in autistic children with developmental regression. Recently, a case–control study was conducted to assess whether measles vaccination was involved in the development of PDDs. This was determined by signs of persistent measles infection or persistent immune response via circulating measles virus or raised antibody titers in MMR vaccinated children with PDDs versus controls (Baird et al., 2008). There was no difference between cases and controls for measles antibody response and no dose response relationship between autism symptoms and levels of antibody. In addition, there was no evidence of a differential response to measles virus or the measles component of the MMR vaccine in children with PDDs versus controls.
Croen et al., 2008 L.A. Croen, M. Matevia, C.K. Yoshida and J.K. Grether, Maternal Rh D status, anti-D immune globulin exposure during pregnancy, and risk of autism spectrum disorders., American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 199 (234) (2008) e1–6.Croen, Matevia, Yoshida, and Grether (2008) examined the relationship between maternal Rh D status, prenatal exposure to anti-D immune globulin, and autism risk in the offspring. A case–control study (cases, n = 400; controls, n = 410) was completed and cases were children with a PDD (n = 400), whereas controls (n = 410) were children without a PDD, matched on gender, birth year, and birth hospital. Maternal Rh D status as well as anti-D immune globulin exposure were ascertained from prenatal medical records. No case–control differences were noted for maternal Rh negative status or anti-D immune globulin exposure. The authors concluded that these data support previous research that prenatal exposure to thimerosal-containing anti-D immune globulins does not increase PDD risk.
This is what happens when you just read abstracts.
there has certainly been inconsistencies in studies looking at some of the other potential autoimmune relationships with autism. But vaccine immunity has been the one area where there is plenty of uniformity in results. Except for Singh's dodgy stuff. But most people reckon Singh doesn't understand measles age-related immunology. I suspect they're right
I found this to be useful when starting out:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Read-Paper-Evidence-Based-Medicine/dp/1405139765
Take care.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement