MMR does NOT cause autism

[Rod Paradise]

Guys I think you're being far to "Scientific study will prove right" here.

Science is imperfect & it is very difficult for any human being to be objective - almost every study has an 'expected' result.

Also there can be misquoting of statistics.

I don't consider a study of 250 kids which says the occurence of autism is in line with the national average as any kind of proof tbh.

A study of autistic kids and looking at how and when the autism was diagnosed & when the MMR vaccine was recieved would be a far more reliable study IMHO.

To completely plagarise Simon Singh, in the OJ simpson trial the stat was used by his defense that "only 1 in 1000 abused wives are murdered by their husband", so arguing that proof he abused his wife was too tenuous a link to say he killed her.

A mathemetician after the case realised that was not the relevant stat. The relevant stat was "of murdered abused wives, 80% are killed by their husband".

Simliarly of kids who get the MMR vaccine 1 in 10000 develop symptoms of Autism * is not too relevant - of kids who develop autism X% did so soon after the MMR vaccine would be the stat I'd need to build me any confidence.

* completely made up for illustration purposes.

[Jon MW]

...
A study of autistic kids and looking at how and when the autism was diagnosed & when the MMR vaccine was recieved would be a far more reliable study IMHO.
...

like this one you mean? -

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/MMRUK.html

Which found that it was usually 4 years between being given the vaccine and the onset of autism.

The point is, it's not just this latest study of 250 - it's every study, whether it's been measured in dozens, hundreds or thousands - they've all came up with the same conclusion.

[Rod Paradise]

...
A study of autistic kids and looking at how and when the autism was diagnosed & when the MMR vaccine was recieved would be a far more reliable study IMHO.
...

like this one you mean? -

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/MMRUK.html

Which found that it was usually 4 years between being given the vaccine and the onset of autism.

The point is, it's not just this latest study of 250 - it's every study, whether it's been measured in dozens, hundreds or thousands - they've all came up with the same conclusion.

But Suzanne's just given you DIRECT evidence that her daughter showed symptoms very soon after - but no kids who showed it after was in the study?

Also diagnosis of autism/aspergers in toddlers is very difficult - the parents may know something's wrong, but proving it is hard for the doctors. I've known of parents who knew something was wrong not getting a diagnosis for 2-3 years.

Wonder why I'm not too convinced.

My grandad suffered from silicosis & died of breathing problems. Dr's report into his death - NO mention of silicosis.

Sorry mate - and the " it's every study, whether it's been measured in dozens, hundreds or thousands - they've all came up with the same conclusion" - where's the study of thousands?

[kinboshi]

Did you look at the massive study carried out in Japan?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524895.300

[Rod Paradise]

Did you look at the massive study carried out in Japan?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524895.300

Even in that report - "Other experts disagree, saying the apparent rise could be the result of changing diagnostic criteria and the rising profile of the disorder".

And it's still not a study of:

• Date kid has MMR
• Date Kids shows first symptoms - as noticed by parents
• Date Doctors diagnose Autism

Also the fact that it was withdrawn through links to meningitis isn't going to boost the confidence in the jab.

Also doesn't address the fact that 3 jabs are available (and should be in this country).

[Jon MW]

...
A study of autistic kids and looking at how and when the autism was diagnosed & when the MMR vaccine was recieved would be a far more reliable study IMHO.
...

like this one you mean? -

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/MMRUK.html

Which found that it was usually 4 years between being given the vaccine and the onset of autism.

The point is, it's not just this latest study of 250 - it's every study, whether it's been measured in dozens, hundreds or thousands - they've all came up with the same conclusion.

But Suzanne's just given you DIRECT evidence that her daughter showed symptoms very soon after - but no kids who showed it after was in the study?

Also diagnosis of autism/aspergers in toddlers is very difficult - the parents may know something's wrong, but proving it is hard for the doctors. I've known of parents who knew something was wrong not getting a diagnosis for 2-3 years.
...

It's a statistically insignificant number who showed it straight after.

This was also dealt with, they didn't measure it from final diagnosis.

[Rod Paradise]

...
A study of autistic kids and looking at how and when the autism was diagnosed & when the MMR vaccine was recieved would be a far more reliable study IMHO.
...

like this one you mean? -

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/MMRUK.html

Which found that it was usually 4 years between being given the vaccine and the onset of autism.

The point is, it's not just this latest study of 250 - it's every study, whether it's been measured in dozens, hundreds or thousands - they've all came up with the same conclusion.

But Suzanne's just given you DIRECT evidence that her daughter showed symptoms very soon after - but no kids who showed it after was in the study?

Also diagnosis of autism/aspergers in toddlers is very difficult - the parents may know something's wrong, but proving it is hard for the doctors. I've known of parents who knew something was wrong not getting a diagnosis for 2-3 years.
...

It's a statistically insignificant number who showed it straight after.

This was also dealt with, they didn't measure it from final diagnosis.

NO - they only used the diagnosis by a doctor, NOT parents who saw the difference in their kids.

Diagnosis of Autism and other PDDs is done by observation, not medically, so getting a doctor's diagnosis is very difficult particularly with under 2 year olds. Going from memory of Kinboshi's link (not working right now) the majority of the kids were given MMR between 1 & 2 years old. Doctors find it very difficult to diagnose any PDD at that age. An obvious falibility in the study.

[kinboshi]

Did you look at the massive study carried out in Japan?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524895.300

Even in that report - "Other experts disagree, saying the apparent rise could be the result of changing diagnostic criteria and the rising profile of the disorder".

Read it again.  Read what they are disagreeing about.  Both agree that there is no link between MMR and autism, and they are looking at what is causing the rise in cases of autism in Japan.

This rise CANNOT be due to MMR, as it was not used during this period.

[Rod Paradise]

Did you look at the massive study carried out in Japan?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524895.300

Even in that report - "Other experts disagree, saying the apparent rise could be the result of changing diagnostic criteria and the rising profile of the disorder".

Read it again.  Read what they are disagreeing about.  Both agree that there is no link between MMR and autism, and they are looking at what is causing the rise in cases of autism in Japan.

This rise CANNOT be due to MMR, as it was not used during this period.

I did read it, I did read what they are disagreeing about. They are disagreeing that the continued rise is due to 'other causes' and that the rise can be due to better awareness of autism, from the medical proffesion and the layman.

So, if that's the case what's the 'proof' that MMR does not cause Autism in a small amount of kids? 2+2=6 methinks.

Also the quoting of the time between the MMR jag and the diagnosis of autism is disingenuous at least in both the studies.

[AndrewT]

Bear in mind that autism isn't a disease where a doctor can do a blood test or similar and say 'yes, this child has autism - he developed it two weeks ago' - it is necessarily a fuzzy diagnosis on a fuzzy timescale, meaning there is plenty of scope for interpretation (and misinterpretation).

Some things are more or less certain.

Some children who receive the MMR jab will develop autism
Some children who receive the three separate jabs will develop autism
Many children who receive the MMR jab will not develop autism
Many children who receive the three separate jabs will not develop autism

People can very easily pick and choose between these to make definitive statements.

Scientists are not saying (and can never say) 'the MMR jab definitely 100% doesn't not have any effect on whether a child is autistic' - all they can ever say is 'no study has ever found a link between the two', which can always be countered by an anti-MMR advocate with 'you need to do more research then you'll find a link'. The anti-MMR stance is unfalsifiable.

Many similarities with a religious debate (including the fervour displayed by people).

[kinboshi]

Did you look at the massive study carried out in Japan?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524895.300

Even in that report - "Other experts disagree, saying the apparent rise could be the result of changing diagnostic criteria and the rising profile of the disorder".

Read it again.  Read what they are disagreeing about.  Both agree that there is no link between MMR and autism, and they are looking at what is causing the rise in cases of autism in Japan.

This rise CANNOT be due to MMR, as it was not used during this period.

I did read it, I did read what they are disagreeing about. They are disagreeing that the continued rise is due to 'other causes' and that the rise can be due to better awareness of autism, from the medical proffesion and the layman.

So, if that's the case what's the 'proof' that MMR does not cause Autism in a small amount of kids? 2+2=6 methinks.

LOL - and the foundation for MMR causing a rise in the number of cases of autism is..... where?

Also the quoting of the time between the MMR jag and the diagnosis of autism is disingenuous at least in both the studies.

Can you show me a study that shows a direct cause and effect between MMR and autism?

There aren't any studies that prove the link.  When studies show that rises in autism are not related to MMR, you say they are irrelevant. 

I say that milk causes autism in a small number of kids.  I have no proof, but I'll put it forward anyway.  Now YOU have to show me a study that disproves this, otherwise it must be true.

[kinboshi]

Many similarities with a religious debate (including the fervour displayed by people).

Yeah, but goddidit.

[Rod Paradise]

Did you look at the massive study carried out in Japan?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524895.300

Even in that report - "Other experts disagree, saying the apparent rise could be the result of changing diagnostic criteria and the rising profile of the disorder".

Read it again.  Read what they are disagreeing about.  Both agree that there is no link between MMR and autism, and they are looking at what is causing the rise in cases of autism in Japan.

This rise CANNOT be due to MMR, as it was not used during this period.

I did read it, I did read what they are disagreeing about. They are disagreeing that the continued rise is due to 'other causes' and that the rise can be due to better awareness of autism, from the medical proffesion and the layman.

So, if that's the case what's the 'proof' that MMR does not cause Autism in a small amount of kids? 2+2=6 methinks.

LOL - and the foundation for MMR causing a rise in the number of cases of autism is..... where?

Also the quoting of the time between the MMR jag and the diagnosis of autism is disingenuous at least in both the studies.

Can you show me a study that shows a direct cause and effect between MMR and autism?

There aren't any studies that prove the link.  When studies show that rises in autism are not related to MMR, you say they are irrelevant. 

I say that milk causes autism in a small number of kids.  I have no proof, but I'll put it forward anyway.  Now YOU have to show me a study that disproves this, otherwise it must be true.

You are missing my point completely.

Reports that go to great lengths to point out that there was a long time between MMR jab and autism but omit the problems with diagnosis of autism seem far more like propoganda than proper scientific study to me. Is there a definite link? I don't know but I do think there needs to be a correct study studying the right things in kids who are autistic and whose parents are the best judge of when the symptoms developed.

I've got friends and familly who have benefitted from Buteyko breathing techniques to halp their asthma. No clinical study has been accepted in the UK on the benefits of this technique. Who funds clinical trials in the UK? THe manufacturers of asthma medicines (none of which cure asthma). The one person to fund one (who is an Asthma nurse) had to sell her house to do so. Her study was picked apart and not accepted despite the technique being used to great success in Australia, New Zealand and the former USSR.

The link between coalmining and silicosis took a long time to be proved scientifically, why? Possibly cost to the Government (the whole reason for demanding that parents only choice is MMR).

In the end blind faith in religion, science, Government are all risky.

[taximan007]

The title of the thread is  "MMR does NOT cause autism"

Can this be stated to be categorically true in every case ?

[kinboshi]

Did you look at the massive study carried out in Japan?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524895.300

Even in that report - "Other experts disagree, saying the apparent rise could be the result of changing diagnostic criteria and the rising profile of the disorder".

Read it again.  Read what they are disagreeing about.  Both agree that there is no link between MMR and autism, and they are looking at what is causing the rise in cases of autism in Japan.

This rise CANNOT be due to MMR, as it was not used during this period.

I did read it, I did read what they are disagreeing about. They are disagreeing that the continued rise is due to 'other causes' and that the rise can be due to better awareness of autism, from the medical proffesion and the layman.

So, if that's the case what's the 'proof' that MMR does not cause Autism in a small amount of kids? 2+2=6 methinks.

LOL - and the foundation for MMR causing a rise in the number of cases of autism is..... where?

Also the quoting of the time between the MMR jag and the diagnosis of autism is disingenuous at least in both the studies.

Can you show me a study that shows a direct cause and effect between MMR and autism?

There aren't any studies that prove the link.  When studies show that rises in autism are not related to MMR, you say they are irrelevant. 

I say that milk causes autism in a small number of kids.  I have no proof, but I'll put it forward anyway.  Now YOU have to show me a study that disproves this, otherwise it must be true.

You are missing my point completely.

I'm not, but I think you're missing mine.  Lots of parents are willingly leaving their children susceptible to diseases that kill because of the hysteria surrounding one discredited report.  That was my initial point.

Reports that go to great lengths to point out that there was a long time between MMR jab and autism but omit the problems with diagnosis of autism seem far more like propoganda than proper scientific study to me. Is there a definite link? I don't know but I do think there needs to be a correct study studying the right things in kids who are autistic and whose parents are the best judge of when the symptoms developed.

Like I said, I hope a lot of money is being pumped in to find what causes autism.  However, as the Japanese study shows, there are lots of cases of autism that aren't being caused by MMR.  I'd love for them to find out what is causing the majority of these - wouldn't you agree?

I've got friends and familly who have benefitted from Buteyko breathing techniques to halp their asthma. No clinical study has been accepted in the UK on the benefits of this technique. Who funds clinical trials in the UK? THe manufacturers of asthma medicines (none of which cure asthma). The one person to fund one (who is an Asthma nurse) had to sell her house to do so. Her study was picked apart and not accepted despite the technique being used to great success in Australia, New Zealand and the former USSR.

I agree with this.  It's the same in a lot of areas, there is no funding to find proper solutions or determine the real causes of many illnesses and diseases.  Ulcerative Colitis is one.  The doctors aren't interested in providing a solution that looks at the cause, and are only concerned with treating the symptoms.  I have been to see 'specialists' in this field with a family member, and the specialist completely discredited the idea of diet having an impact.  Strange that, a bowel disorder being completely unrelated to diet.  His argument was that no proof of a link to diet had been proven.  But like you say, that's because no studies have been done.  Who would benefit?  Not the pharmaceutical companies who want their medicines to be used to treat the symptoms, rather than dealing with the causes.

However, I can say that the science shows that measles is caused by a virus, and a vaccination can be used to prevent measles in a child.  Without that vaccine, the child is in serious danger.  Choosing not to vaccinate your children against measles without a bloody good reason is defenceless (IMO).

The link between coalmining and silicosis took a long time to be proved scientifically, why? Possibly cost to the Government (the whole reason for demanding that parents only choice is MMR).

So what was the agenda behind the study in Japan that looked into the rise of autism?

In the end blind faith in religion, science, Government are all risky.

Blind faith in science?  That's surely a paradox.  The whole point of science is to look for the truth through putting forward a theory and testing it using the most advanced technologies and knowledge.  Science uses evidence to back up a theory, and if new evidence comes along that shows that a previously accepted 'truth' was in fact false, then science celebrates the development.  That's scientific progress. 

It's not based on 'blind faith'.  Science can be misused and also misrepresented, in the same way as statistics can be put forward to support both sides of a debate from the same study or piece of data.  This selective use of information can certainly be dangerous.  Which is what my original point was...