Send response to journal:
Re: Increase in autism
 

EDITOR---This letter in response to the news that the increase in autism is due to a change in definition and not MMR vaccine (1).

Surveys conducted in the 1960s and 1970s examined the prevalence of autism as defined by Kanner (2), which today is looked upon as a narrow definition. Autism prevalence studies published before 1985 showed prevalence rates of 4 to 5 per 10,000 children for the broader autism spectrum and about 2 per 10,000 for the classic autism definition (3).

In the United Kingdom in 1979 Lorna Wing and Judith Gould (4) studied the prevalence in the Camberwell area of London and found a prevalence of 5 per 10,000 for those with an IQ under 70 and 15 per 10,000 with impairment of social interaction, communication and imagination or a total prevalence of 20 per 10,000. In Japan (5) a survey of children under 18 years showed that 2.33 per 10,000 had early infantile autism (2). The average prevalence rates of autistic children born between 1968 and 1974 was 4.96 per 10,000 children with boys to girl ratio of 9:1. A Swedish study from Gothenburg (6) of children born during 1962-76 found in 1980 that 2.0 per 10,000 had infantile autism.

Since 1985 there has been reported higher rates of autism from several countries, partly as a result of a broader definition and partly as a true increase in the number of cases (7). A study from the United Kingdom in 2001 (8) reported a prevalence rate of 16.8 per 10,000 children for autistic disorder and 62.6 per 10,000 for the entire autistic spectrum disorders. In Sweden a study of Asperger syndrome found a prevalence of 36 per 10,000 for Asperger and 35 per 10,000 for social impairment or a total prevalence of 71 per 10,000 for suspected and possible cases (9).

Studies in the United States have also found higher prevalence rates in recent years. One study from 1998 in Brick Township, New Jersey found 40 per 10,000 three to ten year old children for autistic disorder and 67 per 10,000 children for the entire autism spectrum (10). Data from California can show the dramatic increase in autism prevalence (11): In 1970 the prevalence rate for autism was 4 per 10,000, in 1997 it was 31 per 10,000 and in 2002 it was 31.2 per 10,000. The last published study was from five counties in Atlanta, Georgia (3) with a prevalence rate of 34 per 10,000 children aged 3-10 years.

AUTISM IN ISRAEL

To our knowledge there has only been one study of the incidence of autism in Israel, which was conducted in the north region for children born between 1989-93 in the Haifa area (12). This study was conducted through three service providers, where children with autism would have been registered and 26 children were found (21 males and five females), which resulted in an incidence rate of 10 per 10,000. Again as in other studies the male to female ratio was 4.2 male:1 female. The age at initial assessment and diagnosis was 32 months. There has not been any studies on the prevalence of the entire autistic spectrum disorders to date.

There is data on the total amount of children and adolescents treated by ALUT (Israel Society for Autistic Children) with 361 in 1993, 422 in 1995, 591 in 1998 and 641 in 1999(13), so here an increase can also be observed.

CONCLUSION

In recent years there has been a lot of concern about the possible increase in the prevalence of autistic spectrum disorders (14). Studies have shown an increase, but during these last twenty years the diagnostic criteria and definition have also changed, so many factors are at play, but it is evident that there has been an increase.

We therefore agree with the latest news (1) that the increase in autism is due to a change in the definition and not the use of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, as found by the researchers at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

AFFILIATION

Joav Merrick, MD, DMSc is professor of child health and human development, director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the medical director of the Division for Mental Retardation, Ministry of Social Affairs, Jerusalem, Israel. E-mail: jmerrick@internet-zahav.net. Website: www.nichd-israel.com

Meir Lotan, MScPT, is a physiotherapist working at the Zvi Quittman Residential Center, The Millie Shime Campus, Elwyn Jerusalem with special interest in physiotherapy aspects on intellectual disability, Snoezelen and physical activity for children and adults with intellectual disability. He lectures on assistive technology at Department of Physical Therapy, Haifa University and Ben Gurion Univeristy. E-mail: ml_pt_rs@netvision.net.il

Eli Carmeli, BPT, PhD, is currently a Senior Lecturer of Gerontology and Anatomy and the chairman of the Department of Physical Therapy Department, Stanley Steyer School of Health Professions, Sackler Faculty of Medicne, Tel Aviv University. E-mail: elie@post.tau.ac.il Website: http://www2.tau.ac.il/Person/medicine/HealthSchool/researcher.asp?id=agfhfiffl

REFERENCES

1. Tanne JH. Increase in autism due to change in definition, not MMR vaccine. BMJ 2005;330:112-d.

2. Kanner L. Autistic disturbances of affectice contact. Nervous Child 1943;2:217-50.

3. Yeargin-Allsopp M, Rice C, Karapurkar T, Doernberg N, Boyle C, Murphy C. Prevalence of autism in a US Metropolitamn area. JAMA 2003;289(1):49-55.

4. Wing L, Gould J. Severe impairments of social interaction and associated abnormalities in children: Epidemiology and classification. J Autism Dev Disord 1979;9(1):11-29.

5. Hoshino Y, Kumashiro H, Yashima Y, Tachibana R, Watanabe M. The epidemiological study of autism in Fukushima-ken. Folia Psychiatr Neurol Jpn 1982;36(2):115-24.

6. Gillberg C. Infantile autism and other childhood psychoses in a Swedish urban region. Epidemiological aspects. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1984;25(1):35-43.

7. Fombonne E. The prevalence of autism. JAMA 2003;289(1):87-9.

8. Chakrabarti S, Fombonne E. Pervasive developmental disorders in preschool children. JAMA 2001;285:3093-9.

9. Ehlers S, Gillberg C. The epidemiology of Asperger syndrome. A total population study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1993;34(8):1327-50.

10. Bertrand J, Mars A, Boyle C, Bove F, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Decoufle P. Prevalence of autism in a United States population. Pediatrics 2001;108:1155-61.

11. California Dept Dev Services. Autistic spectrum disorders. Changes in the California caseload. An update: 1999 through 2002. Sacramento, CA: California Health and Human Services, 2003 (www.dds.ca.gov)

12. Davidovitch M, Holtzman G, Tirosh E. Autism in the Haifa area. An epidemiological perspective. Irs Med Ass J 2001;3:188-9.

13. Ben-Arieh A, Tzionit Y, Beenstock-Rivlin Z, eds. The state of the child in Israel. A statistical abstract 2000. Jerusalem: Isr Nat Council Child, 2001.

14. Hyman SL, Rodier PM, Davidson P. Pervasive developmental disorders in young children. JAMA 2001;285(24):3141-2.

Send response to journal:
Re: Dubious Diagnostic Disconnect
 

First, the quoted figure of "36000 children" who cases were examined is in error, the correct number being 3,000. 36,000 children with developmental disorders in one county might have raised the eyebrows of even our somnolent public health department by now. But even without such errors, the findings are fantastic enough. This appears to be yet another “cooked” study undertaken by pediatricians with a questionable agenda. If there is no real dramatic increase in autism, then there is nothing really to be alarmed about, especial over possible iatrogenic factors like toxic vaccines at the source. Problem solved, we can all go home. But the disorders of only 124 out of 3,000 children were correctly identified? If the diagnostic skills of their own specialty doctors have only a 4% accuracy rate on this one disorder alone, in one county alone, Minnesota has a public health emergency on their hands, one should think.

How many children in Minnesota are suffering from potentially dangerous medical treatments for illnesses they don’t have, and the ones they do have being neglected, due to such amazingly poor diagnostic skills? One wonders what the malpractice insurance rates are going to look like there after the news of this story gets around. It appears that the researchers didn’t just cook their paper a little; they let the cake burn to a crisp. Anything that looks too bad to be true probably isn’t true.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Increase in autism - have I missed something
 

I am completely confused. Are Mer(r)ick et al saying there has been an increase, or are they saying there has not been an increase? Are they saying this is what they think or they saying that the sources that they cite establish it as a scientific fact (whichever it is)? What predisposes them to believe (if this is what they believe) that autism is static in incidence? If they believe that there has been an increase after all what predisposes them to believe that MMR is not implicated?

There are, of course, various investigatory methods for establishing whether their children may have suffered environmental or vaccine damage if they are interested.

Send response to journal:
Re: This could be a real increase...
 

Some years ago, the increase in breast cancer was believed to result from increased surveillance. This has since been replaced by acceptance of a real, biological increase in breast cancer. This is currently the state of the debate regarding an "increase" in autism.

I think increased maternal testosterone may produce autism, among other disorders. I also think the "secular trend," the increase in size and earlier puberty in children actually is an increase in the percentage of individuals of higher testosterone within our populations with time. As they increase in time, so do their characteristics and associated phenomena. So, an increased number of mothers of higher testosterone should produce an increase in the numbers of offspring with autism, and other disorders. This is why I think the "increase" in autism is real and may eventually be accepted in the same manner as the increase in breast cancer.

(Some suggest the secular trend is due to increased nutrition. I suggest increased calories do not cause the trend but simply accelerate it. That is, increased nutrition increases reproductive rates and "appears" to cause the trend.)

Send response to journal:
Re: 20 years ago, my children look autistic too
 

About 20 years ago, I walked into the Stanford Autism Clinic to receive the most devastating news of my life, AUTISM. I didn't even know what the word meant, but it didn't take me long to know, it would completely change my life. If I were to take my same child in today, and have him diagnosed by BRYNA SIEGAL, who set forth the criterian of DSM3r for most of the major colleges, universities and qualified researchers, she would have said the same thing, as she said then, AUTISM. She further diagnosed my infant in my lap as having some kind of developmental suggestion of autism. I thank her for that. Because of that reality bite, I was able to put my daughter into early intervention, which my son didn't have, and today she is extremely high functioning. BUT STILL AUTISTIC.

The point I am making is, I don't see these journals, and these authors having any forms of judgement, that ASD as they call it, is a crisis of untold proportions! I still think 1/166 children according to NIH is an epidemic no matter how you slice it, and beyond that 1/6 children having forms of developmental, psychological and mental problems in our nation, a crisis-even though we don't put it under the umbrella of autism.

All these arguments of underconnectivity, and brain not maturing, etc etc, is all worth our time and efforts, but we must ask how can regression happen in a child who seemed to develop milestones, and then lose them? For the children who seemed to not develop at all into a cogent normal child, the same questions need to be asked, just backing them up to what happened in utero. In my mind, their are many ways to destroy neurons and pathways, beyond a vaccine, it has to be a combination of factors, immune and metabolic genetics and what kind of exposures these parents have had and oxidative stress in it's many forms...

What is more damning, is that these people refuse to look at the biological aspects of autism, the etiological environmental agents causing autism, beyond the MMR, such as mercury toxicity in mothers and birthing process known to cause autism in monkeys via immediate cord clamping, and the other aspects of autism such as poor immune quality, metabolic quality and autoimmune HLA propensity. Had they done their homework, we wouldn't be here worrying about definitions, but worrying why so many of these children are being damaged, knowingly, or unknowingly. My bet is knowingly.

Most of the time, parents who have children with autism don't need to be reinforced that they are making up what they saw in reality or that they are refridgerator parents and can't accept reality, and test with impunity in their children, such as autistic enterocolitis, an immune process of autoimmunity due to molecular mimicry, or a systemic persistent infection in the CNS and gut that came out of "thin air", or an infection that is known to cause demylination, such as lyme (which is in my estimation the first cause of autism). My son had a clear vaccine reaction, with high pitch screaming, febrile convulsions etc. What these people also fail to tell parents is that when the child is vaccine reacting, they are reacing to and with and for fever suppression medicines, known to further exasterbate the situation but recommended while vaccine reacting, with the viruses in vaccines, pulling the infection deeper into the immune system and ruining the fever response and immune quality of the child. I wish, I wish for the day, that these people would take their dunce caps off, and see reality, see, and feel our children for who they really, really, are...systemically ill.

Fiddle dee, these people are fiddling with the definitions, while children are suffering. If you want parents on your boat, you best find a way to listen to them, and see their tests that show their children are sick. Instead, we want to know if we diagnosed the child right? I almost don't care about the diagnosis, as much as how sick my child is?

Send response to journal:
Re: Autism rise misrepresented
 

In response to your article that the rise of autism is directly related to awareness, I need to point out that, while it is true that certain conditions were once not recognized as autism, even profound autism (which has always been recognized as autism) has increased dramatically. In the four-year span December 1998 to December 2002, for instance, there was a 97 percent increase in just strictly-defined autism cases in California (DSM III and DSM IV autism, excluding children with other PDDs such as Asperger’s Syndrome). I remain neutral as to whether the vaccines contribute to this factor, although it is important to clarify this. The link between vaccines and autism cannot be completely disregarded as there are a very small percentage (less than 1%) of children who are at risk for developing negative reactions to vaccines because of inability to process thimerosal.

In summary, because of the chain of events started since vaccines were mandated, it simply cannot be ruled out until a definate cause is "ruled-in". Parents should not be discouraged from having their children vaccinated, but their decisions should be made after knowing the facts, and knowing that like many other medical procedures, there are risks involved.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Increase in autism - have I missed something
 

I cannot help but wonder whether William Barbaresi might not have noticed a greater increase in the incidence of autism, had he continued to look at more recent years, beyond 1997. In the 1990's, there was a significant increase in the number of vaccines added to the childhood vaccination schedule in the States.It would also be interesting to know what the incidence of other forms of ASD/PDD, ADHD, and other related neurological disorders were for the years studied.

Although I live in Canada, my youngest son, who was born in 1994, did not receive his diagnosis of ASD/PDD until 1999. An older brother of his did not receive his Asperger's diagnosis until a few years later in 2001. With vaccines, some adverse effects may take time to become apparent and it may take years to get a diagnosis.

The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS), has just experienced the largest number of new intake cases of children with professionally diagnosed full syndrome autism during the 2004 Fourth Quarter reporting period in its 36-year history. They added a record 807 children (October-December) with full syndrome autism, not including any children with any other autism spectrum disorder (such as PDD-NOS, Asperger's etc.). In the 2003 Fourth Quarter, they had 676 intakes with autism. In the Fourth Quarter of 1994, they had 142 intakes with autism. They certainly don't believe that the increase could be due to better diagnosing.

For an interesting look at what may be going on in the States with regards to vaccines and the politics at play, one can tune in to Autism One Radio at http://autismone.org/radio/ . In the archive, there is a segment where Teri Small interviews Doctors Mark and David Geier. It is well worth a listen and contains reference to the part testosterone, along with thimerosal may play in the development of neurological disorders.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Increase in autism due to change in definition, not MMR vaccine
 

I have not seen any clinical science done to explain why children with autism have tested positive for myelin basic protein antibodies, have elevated measles antibody titers or measles in the gut. At the same time this is not found in normal children.

Where is the clinical science to explain this other than what Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Dr. Vijendra Singh have found? I see computer based number studies to disprove a MMR vaccine link to autism but where is the clinical science to explain measles in the gut, elevated measles antibody titers and myelin basic protein antibodies? It is nice to have computer based number studies but where is the clinical science?

As far as an increase in autism due to a change in definition, then where are all these kids coming from? We never had autism in our family and when our son was born he was normal. He regressed into autism after receiving the MMR vaccine and we have the videotapes that show his speech was progressing and after the MMR, he lost his capabilities to speak. I have talked to hundreds of other families that saw the same thing.

If there is no autism epidemic then maybe we can insist there was no tsunami, only better earthquake detection.

While Janice Hopkins Tanne says Autism epidemic. What Autism epidemic?

I say Tsunami. What Tsunami? It would be the very same analogy. Think about it!

Whole generations of children are being written off by the medical community as non-entities. Even worse they are being denied and deprived of proper medical treatment. All because the medical community wants to deny an MMR vaccine link to autism.

Shameful!!!

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Autism rise misrepresented
 

I do not know where Caroline Gulian got the information that there is a "very small percentage (less than 1%) of children who are at risk for developing negative reactions to vaccines because of inability to process thimerosal". From most of what I have read and heard over the past year, beginning in large part last February during the February 9th, 2004 Institute of Medicine's Vaccine Safety and Autism Review, the picture has become clearer in my mind that vaccine ingredients may indeed play a part in the development of neurological disorders, as may other sources of heavy metal neurotoxicants (including maternal dental amalgams) and other factors, such as testosterone levels, diet, and use of antibiotics etc. From what I can make sense of, it seems that there are at least several/perhaps many factors which can contribute towards children developing atypically neurologically but the addition of neurotoxicants to vaccines certainly does not help!

I found Janice Hopkins Tanne's article "Increase in autism due to change in definition, not MMR vaccine" downright confusing. Towards the end of the article, she was comparing the effects of vaccines which did or did not contain thimerosal in Minnesota and Denmark. How did she get from discussing autism and MMR to thimerosal? Supposedly, there is no thimerosal in MMR vaccines.

Despite all of this, the US CDC has issued an alarm that 1 out of 6 American children have a neurological disorder. I am truly surprised that more folks are not at least somewhat upset by this revelation. The CDC has also found that either 1 out of 5 or 6 (heard conflicting numbers here)women of child-bearing age have too much mercury in their systems and this may impact on their fetuses.

In any case, here in Canada too, we have a whopping number of children with various disorders and their numbers are also not decreasing.

Even though our government agencies seem to be busy burying their heads in the sand, there are folks who are ready and willing to stand up and try and corret this problem. Have a listen to Autism One Radio at http://www.autismone.org/radio/ .

Send response to journal:
Re: Looking Out of Olmsted County
 

In her “News Roundup”, (1) Ms. Janice Hopkins Tanne reports that according to a recent study from the Mayo Clinic: “Changes in the definition of autism, rather than use of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR vaccine), led to increased diagnosis of autism in the United States and probably in Europe”.

This sweeping conclusion was based on a review and analysis of available data for the period between 1976 and 1997 from relatively isolated Olmsted County, Minnesota.

According to the US census Bureau, the population of Olmsted County was 84,104 in 1970 and 124,277 in 2000 (2).

The authors identified 124 (one hundred and twenty four) children under 21 with autism, reviewed their charts and concluded that: “Most had not been diagnosed as having autism, but rather as having developmental delay, delayed speech and language development, attention deficit or hyperactivity disorder, and mental retardation”.

AUTISM; DEFINITION and DIAGNOSIS

In the United States, (3) the definition and diagnosis of autism have been based since 1994 on the clear criteria outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV).

The diagnosis is usually made by trained physicians and reviewed by Special Education specialists in the different school districts, before services are provided.

Because of the cost involved and the shrinking Special Ed budgets, it is unlikely that services would be provided to anyone who does not clearly fit the criteria.

In 1994, there were 22,780 children diagnosed with autism and autistic spectral disorders (ASD) aged 6 to 21 in US schools according to the US Department of Education (DOE) reports to Congress. This number increased on average by 22% per year (18.28 - 26.48%/yr) to reach 140,972 in 2004. (3, 4)

According to the same sources, the number of children with autism aged 6 to 21 attending Minnesota schools increased from 296 in school year 1992-1993 to 4,116 in 2002-2003, a 1300% increase in 10 years. The number of such affected students reached 5,076 in school year 2003-2004, a 23% increase in a single year. (4)

In January 2004, HHS, CDC and AAP jointly issued an “Autism A.L.A.R.M.” warning that the prevalence of autism (autistic spectrum disorders) in the United States was 1 in 166 children. (5)

According to recently released figures by the California Department of Developmental Services (6, 7), a record 807 NEW cases of Type I autism (aged 3 years or older and not including children with other ASD) were admitted into the system in the Fourth Quarter of 2004. This is the largest number of new cases for any October to December period in 36 years. It is 16% higher than the Fourth Quarter of 2003 (676 new cases) and 468% more than the last 3 months of 1994 (142 new cases).

On average, California added 9 new children with type I autism DAILY to its system from October 1 to December 31, 2004.

To put all this into perspective, while there were apparently 124 children with autism in Olmsted County, MN in 21 years, according to the Mayo Clinic study, California will register the same number of new cases in the next two weeks.

In school year 2003-2004, there were 19,034 children with autism/ASD aged 6 to 21 in California and as mentioned earlier, 5,076 in Minnesota.(4) In 2003, the population of Minnesota was estimated at 5,059,375 (8) and that of California at 35,484,453 (9). The percentage of children with autism (ages 6 to 21) to the population was therefore 0.1 in MN and 0.05 in CA, a surprising and alarming finding indeed.

The team from the Mayo Clinic can not tell parents that autism represents a small change in definition, when these parents are facing children who convulse, scream and bang their heads all day, or who have severe bloody diarrhea or severe constipation for two weeks at a time, or who meltdown in the supermarket and at church or who freak out when the garage door opens or when the neighbor starts his lawn mower, or who can never be left alone for a minute … and who were born normal and will certainly need help for the rest of their lives.

One can only also imagine the outrage of school superintendents (who are responsible for the training and education of these children until they turn 21) or municipal and state legislators (who have to fund all the needed services), when informed that all the challenges they are facing now always existed but with a different name. The fact is that public authorities and school districts are overwhelmed by the recent rapid increase of their financial responsibilities.

MMR and AUTISM

According to the CDC, the UK DOH and other “experts”, no one knows what is really causing this recent epidemic of autism, whatever it is called and however it is defined, but one thing is absolutely certain: It is not caused by vaccines or thimerosal and certainly not by the MMR.

Obviously many parents who have seen their children literally disappear after receiving an MMR vaccination are convinced otherwise.

In hundreds of these children, a specific type of enterocolitis has been identified; Some have evidence of measles virus genomic RNA in the CSF, some in the gut wall and some in both sites.

Many affected children have specific patterns of urinary polypeptides, high serum measles and MMR antibody titers and elevated Myelin Basic Protein auto-antibody levels.

In fact, it will be safe to say that it is impossible to find ONE normal child who has evidence of both MMR antibody and Myelin Basic Protein auto-antibodies in his serum or his CSF or ONE child who regressed after MMR vaccination and who does not have at least one of the following: The typical enterocolitis of autism, a suggestive pattern of urinary polypeptides, elevated serum measles virus antibody, MMR antibody or Myelin Basic Protein auto-antibodies. (10)

Those who want to deny that MMR can precipitate autistic regression in genetically predisposed children will keep studying old clinic records in North-West London and Olmsted County, MN, look for evidence in spreadsheets in Denmark and produce epidemiological studies that will not stand up to scrutiny.

On the other hand, those who are searching for the truth, will use their time and talent to interview parents and examine children.

References

1. BMJ 2005;330:112 (15 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7483. 112-d

2. http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popcd/pc27109.htm

3. Yazbak FE. Autism in the United States: A Perspective J .Am Phys Surg 2003; 8(4) 103-108 http://www.jpands.org/vol8no4/yazbak.pdf

4. http://www.ideadata.org/tables27th/ar_aa3.htm

5.http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/autism/pdf/AutismAlarm.pdf

6. http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/autism/autism_main.cfm

7. SAR Volume 9, Number 6, Wednesday, January 12, 2005

8. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html

9. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

10. A Black spot on a Good Journal

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7477/1293#90879

Send response to journal:
Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do!
 

"...children with autism have tested positive for myelin basic protein antibodies, have elevated measles antibody titers or measles in the gut. At the same time this is not found in normal children... where is the clinical science to support this?"

Y'know, about a year ago I followed the threads of responses on this topic, and was asking the very same question. No-one, it seems, is able to come up with any sort of answer....

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do!
 

Sir

I think Jamie should read Vijendra Singh's research, perhaps contact him in the States; he will no doubt be able to explain to Jamie the basic science behind that statement.

Regards

John H.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do!
 

As the parent of a child diagnosed by three independent physicians as having autistic enterocolitis I am troubled that anyone doubts that there is not only an autism pandemic but that individuals who are looking for evidence of severe immune system dysfunction, gastrointestinal disease and neuro- immune dysfunction can't seem to "find it". I am trained as an attorney but I have no problem finding these articles. I point you to two of recent interest that relate directly to my son's condition: Neuroglial activation and neuroinflammation in the brain of patients with autism, Annals of Neurology, 2005; and Spontaneous Mucosal Lymphocyte Cytokine Profiles in Children with Autism and Gastrointestinal Symptoms: Mucosal Immune Activation and Reduced Counter Regulatory Interleukin- 10.

My child was treated at the Royal Free in Dec of 1999 since that time he has been diagnosed with MRNA in his terminal ileum and cerebral spinal fluid. He just had a grand mal seizure the day before his 11th birthday and his bowel disease has progressed to the point he is in constant pain. This weekend he will be admitted to Childrens Memorial Hospital in Chicago for an endoscopy/colonoscopy and a surgeon will be on call in case a gastric tube is necessary. I suggest that everyone in this debate who can't find the evidence isn't really looking for it.

Send response to journal:
Re: Misdirection! or What's the Issue?
 

I think that this article misses the point entirely!

Children, as young as babies have immature/undeveloped (weak) immune systems. Children of today have immune systems which are being assaulted from a diversity of toxic, biological (chemical and microbial -- air, water and soil) sources, that frequently did not exist 1/2C or 1/4C ago. And those environmental toxins that did exist were at a greatly reduced concentration (over-all) from today. For various reasons, a child's immune system may be tipped into an inability to cope with i.e. protect against being overwhelmed by whatever harm is next coming at it (both prior to and in consequence of - MMR).

Vaccinations work by assaulting the immune system. Why are we placing our childrens' health at risk by assaulting our childrens' precious, delicate immune systems - 3x over (MMR) - when a single dose would function as required in the promotion of health? Answer -- private, for- profit driven that is now combined with and within public, financial efficiency!

Why would anyone place a mercury base (thimerasol) in a vaccine to provide to anyone -- let alone our children and our elders? Why do we call it thimerasol instead of mercury? Could it be for the same reason that retailers and manufacturers state - Ritalin - rather than amphetamine/ speed? Answer - public, financial efficiency that is private for-profit- driven!

How about we go back to vaccinating our children (under the age of 6), which includes our babies and toddlers, with a single dose vaccine, regardless of how inefficient this is in time, effort and finances AND see what happens? How about we don't discuss the pros and cons of experimenting on our children in the name of health promoting efficiency, by allowing known toxins to be force-fed to our children under the mask of a potential good for our children! Masking what? Masking whom?

And oh yeah! Who paid for this study and in what manner(s) was it paid? I think that it is time that all research investors and their investments were made known as a given in any research experiment. e.x. List of Investors/Investments -- akin to Purpose, Methodology and Results.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Misdirection! or What's the Issue?
 

I do agree with Ms Hill’s comments: children born today have to face many more pollutants/toxins than those born 100 years ago and even 30 years ago. A child born today starts conception with some strikes: both parents are intoxicated/contaminated and they pass those toxins to the newly conceived child. During his/her nine months of intrauterine development also faces toxic challenges; then the child is brought into a more toxic world. This is a fact for every child born today and the parents, particularly the mother, can only control so much. Control we can, but that is another topic.

There is another important point she brings up: “Why do we call it thimerasol instead of mercury?” In reality thimerosal is benzoic acid with mercury (C9H9HgNaO2S), also called thiomersal or, even more clearly: sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate. Thimerosal is metabolized by the body into thiosalicylate and ethylmercury. “Thio” means that you find a sulfur molecule. Thiosalicylate is a salicylate. A point to remember is that benzoic acid and salicylate are used interchangeably.

For those parents, like me, who wondered where their child sensibility to salicylates and benzoates came from, thimerosal is the most probable answer.

Many children suffering from autism are also suffering from ADHD and dyslexia. They won the largest lotto ticket price: autism, ADHD and dyslexia. Some other children, like my daughter, won a smaller price: ADD and dyslexia.

You are right Ms Hill, thimerosal should be called what it is: a salicylate with mercury, a more than double edge sword.

With the exception of Professor Boyd Haley, to my knowledge no one has looked into the toxicity of the thiosalicylate part of thimerosal. His team found it to be not “as toxic on enzymes” as ethylmercury. As he pointed out, it does not mean that for some individuals it will not be toxic. Further study is needed. Until today, nobody is looking into it. Not even at the FAUS (Feingold Association of the US) anyone was aware of thimerosal being a salicylate. Another pharmaceutical best kept secret!

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Looking Out of Olmsted County
 

Dr. Yazbak apparently hasn't read the latest quarterly report from the California Department of Developmental Services (1) as he makes the assumption that was made by Rick Rollens, a board of directors member of the University of California Davis, Medical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders institute (UC Davis MIND institute) (2) in a letter published in the online newsletter, "The Schafer Autism Report". That assumption is that the 807 new cases added to the rolls of the California DDS who are tallied as clients with "autism" are all toddlers. In fact, only 159 of them were 3, 4 or 5 years old when the data were collected.

If I may re-emphasize, in 3 months time, in the whole State of California 159 new clients were added to the DDS rolls who were aged 3 to 5. They also added 131 youths 14 to 17 years old, 202 young ones 10 to 13 years old and 172 grade school kids, 6 to 9 years old. This totals 664 children under age 18. I also noted that they added 55 individuals aged 18 to 21, 49 people aged 22 to 31 and one person aged somewhere between 32 and 41. Further, there were 25 recently enrolled, middle-aged autistics between 42 and 51 years old, 11 new autistic clients aged between 52 and 61, and 3 autistics new to the State or to the diagnosis who were over 62 years of age.

As for how "functional" these people on the autism spectrum are, it should be noted that doctors here in California have been known to give a diagnosis of autism to a child who might otherwise be diagnosed as having Aspergers syndrome just so that they can get the services they need from the DDS regional centers because they generally refuse to help kids with an Asperger's disorder diagnosis. It might be further noted that Dr. Peter Szatamri in a presentation at the MIND institute last year said that if doctors rigourously followed the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual -fourth edition) guidelines there might be no one with a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome (3). As I understand it, it is sometimes perfectly legitimate to diagnose a person who seems like an "Asperger's" person as an "autistic disorder" person. But letting the California DDS speak for itself, it's data show that 82.57% of all their autistic clients have no "severe behaviors" and about 62% have normal intelligence . If you add in the ones with "mild" or "moderate" retardation, you account for about 80% of the DDS clients.

Interestingly, about 94% don't have any "Special Health Care Requirements", also 610 people or about 2% of these autistics are able to live "independently".

As for Mr. Yazbak's misuse of the United States Department of Education numbers, I have addressed this before on the British Medical Journal's Rapid Response board in response to another autism related article. My points are also made in my analysis of these data in a letter that was published in the Schafer Autism Report (4). I also recommend a very good article by James Laidler M.D. on this subject (5).

I would caution anyone to inspect carefully the sources of statistics that show shocking increases in the numbers of autistic children. When I have done so, I have found that the numbers do not measure what they are said to measure.

Camille Clark

References: 1)http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/quarterly.cfm

2)http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/html/our_team/directors.html

3)http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/html/events/index.htm

4)http://www.geocities.com/autistry/conspiracy.html

5)http://www.autism-watch.org/general/edu.shtml

Send response to journal:
Re: Almost Five Years Ago
 

“Autism - Present Challenges, Future Needs - Why the Increased Rates?”: A special hearing of the US House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform was held on April 6, 2000. (1)

The subjects for the three panels testifying were: “Autism - A Parent’s Perspective”, “Autism - The Vaccine Connection”, and “Autism - Treatment Options and Research”

I attended this hearing and for the sake of brevity will limit my comments to the testimony of Drs. Brent Taylor and Vijendra K. Singh of the second panel. Other witnesses on the vaccine connection panel were Drs. Andrew Wakefield, John O’Leary, Coleen A. Boyle and Paul A. Offit.

In sworn testimony, (2) Dr. Taylor reported findings of his epidemiological study (3) of children with autistic disorders in North East London. He concluded his testimony by saying: “However as a result of my work I believe I can say with confidence, that whatever causes autism, it is not MMR”.

Noteworthy is the fact that nine days earlier (March 28, 2000) Dr. James Roger, commenting on that same Taylor study at a Royal Statistical Society Meeting in London had “…showed how the currently published data, including that from this study, are consistent with an appreciable number of autism cases being triggered by MMR vaccination.” (4)

C P Farrington PhD, a statistician and Taylor’s co-author was present at the RSS meeting.

Dr. Singh (5) described his previous and on-going research and his findings by saying: “…I had already found that many autistic children had antibodies to a specific protein of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine…These viral antibodies were also related to positive titers of brain MBP (Myelin Basic Protein) autoantibodies. This was most probably the first laboratory-based evidence to link measles virus and/or MMR vaccine to autoimmunity in children with autism. Collectively, these observations led me to speculate that autism may be caused by a measles- or MMR vaccine-induced autoimmune response… The onset of autism (or autistic regression) post-immunization should no longer be regarded as merely a coincidence …”

Taylor has published another epidemiological study since the April 2000 hearing.(6)

Citing confidentiality, he has consistently refused to reveal or share his raw data for review.

Doctor Singh, on the other hand, has been willing to discuss his findings with anyone willing to listen and has continued to evaluate patients. The thrust of his research has been to compare, with impeccable methodology, the serological findings of children with autism to those of unaffected children.

He has published several peer-reviewed articles, some of which are listed for convenience. (7-16)

The following are a few findings of just two of the studies.

When serum antibodies of 125 autistic children and 92 control children were assayed by ELISA or immunoblotting methods, an unusual MMR antibody was detected in 75 of 125 (60%) autistic sera but NOT in any of the control. In the autistic sera, the measles HA protein detected was unique to the measles subunit of the vaccine.

Over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for Myelin Basic Protein (MBP) autoantibodies suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism. (14)

The level of measles antibody, but not mumps or rubella antibodies, was significantly higher in autistic children as compared with normal children (P = 0.003) or siblings of autistic children (P <or= 0.0001).

Immunoblotting of measles vaccine virus revealed that the antibody was directed against a protein of approximately 74 kd molecular weight. The antibody to this antigen was found in 83% of autistic children but NOT in normal children or siblings of autistic children. (15)

At a Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology (17), Singh and Associates reported that in their careful study, a significant number of the children with autism had antibodies to MBP (up to 88% positive) and to MMR (up to 65% positive) while ALL normal children DID NOT.

They also reported that analysis of paired serum and CSF samples from 7 children with autism revealed a high degree of serological association and correlation between MMR and MBP antibodies.

They concluded that MMR vaccination might cause autoimmunity and neurological manifestations in some children.

So here we are once more: Apples and Oranges.

There is a striking difference between the science, the strength and the lasting power of studies in which actual children are evaluated and those looking at epidemiological data, whatever their quality.

For many of us, there is no comparison.

None …whatsoever!

References

1.http://www.whale.to/v/autism.html

2.http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/vaccination/Taylor_paper.pdf

3.Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington, Cetropoulos M, P, Favout-Mayaud, JL, Waight P, Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 1999; 353: 2026- 29.

4.http://64.41.99.118/vran/vaccines/mmr/regressive3_mmr.htm

5.http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/16/congressional_autism_testimony.htm

6. Taylor B, Miller E, Lingam R, Andrews N, Simmons A, Stowe J. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study BMJ 2002;324:393-396 ( 16 February )

7. Singh VK. Brain, Autoimmunity and autism. Invited presentation at the Annual Conference of the Long Beach Chapter of Autism Society of America (ASA), Long Beach, California; October 13-14, 1995.

8. Singh VK, et al. Immunodiagnosis and immunotherapy in autistic children. Presented at the International Congress of Neuroimmunology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Sept. 8-11, 1987.

9. Singh VK, et al. Antibodies to myelin basic protein in children with autistic disorder. Brain Behavior and Immunity 7: 97-103.

10. Singh VK. Neuro-immunopathogenesis in autism. In: NeuroImmune Biology: New Foundation of Biology, Vol. 1: 443-454).

11. Singh VK. Immunotherapy for brain disease and mental illnesses. Progress in Drug Research 48: 129-146.

12. Singh VK. Cytokine regulation in autism. In: Cytokines and Mental Health, Edited by Z. Kronfol (2003) pp. 369-383, Kluwer Acad. Publishers, Boston, MA.

13. Singh VK, et al. Serological association of measles virus and human herpesvirus-6 with brain autoantibodies in autism. Clin. Immunol. Immunopathol. 89: 105- 108

14. Singh VK, et al. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and autoimmunity in children with autism. Journal of Biomedical Science 9: 359-364

15. Singh VK and Jensen RL. Elevated levels of measles antibodies in children with autism. Pediatric Neurology 28: 292-294

16. Singh VK. Plasma increase ofinterleukin-12 and interferon-gamma: Pathological significance in autism. Journal of Neuroimmunology 66: 143-145

17. http://www.icdrc.org/measles_autoimmunity.html

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Looking Out of Olmsted County
 

This is not to comment on the validity of Mr. Rollen’s data or conclusions, or Ms. Clark’s response. This to state that in a commentary published in the Schafer Autism Report(1), after Rollen’s report, titled What's Wrong With The Latest Increase in California Autism,(2) I warned our readers that “these numbers are data that are not controlled” and “at best provide good clues, amongst other good clues.”(3)

1. www.sarnet.org

2. www.sarnet.org/lib/vol.01-06.htm

3. www.sarnet.org/lib/vol.01-07.htm

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Looking Out of Olmsted County
 

Apparently, Camille Clark has not read the statistics on our website provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that mention one in 166 children are diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. (1) Five years ago, the CDC said it was 1 in 500 children. Two years ago, the CDC said it was 1 in 250 children. Clearly, the CDC shows there is an autism epidemic.

The US Department of Education using the same diagnostic criterion since 1991/1992 when they first started to record autism figures across the USA. Recent figures show a 1,055% increase nationwide from the 1992/1993 figures. (2)

Parents of children with autism can tell their own stories especially when there was never a history of autism in their families until recently. For those who doubt, I would be glad to bring them along in my car when we visit our son in an out-of-state residential school. Eventually, when there are more Erics in residential placement and the bill comes in, the general public will realize the true extent of this epidemic. When people look at their payroll check and see the tax bill they will understand.

References:

1. http://taap.info/A.L.E.R.T..htm

2. http://www.taap.info/stats.htm

Send response to journal:
Re: Vaccinate the vaccinators
 

Vaccinate the vaccinators.

Pro-vaccinators simply refuse to listen to victims, such as myself and refer to ludicrous statistical studies that are easily pulled to bits in commentaries like this one: http://www.whale.to/a/branell.html or http://66.70.140.217/a/branell.html

They engage in endless theoretical debates at no personal risk. It is for this reason that I have turned to the courts: http://w1.sydsvenskan.se/Article.jsp?article=10056591 http://www.metro.se/content/acrobat/skane/SEMMA_20041228_A_Metro.pdf

The courts will decide that in a legal sense the evidence that vaccines cause autism is overwhelming, as Clifford Miller has pointed out in his article on the unreliability of scientific papers as evidence: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7440/602-c#52948

But even then there will be a problem, as long as talk is cheap and the pro-vaccinators risk nothing in asserting that vaccines are harmless.

They have put the lives of our children on the line. It is time for them to put their own lives on the line. I challenge them to let themselves be vaccinated. If they really believe in their studies and really think that vaccines are harmless and that I and all the other victims are victims only of our own imaginations, they should let me vaccinate them with all the childhood vaccines, the dose being adjusted to their body weights, assuming an average weight at vaccination of 5 kilos. They would then be exposed to the same risks as the infants they vaccinate. I have already made this offer to various people on a number of occasions, most recently in the BMJ http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/325/7373/1134/a and had no takers. Nobody in the world seems willing to do it. Here is another challenge: Paul Offit says that children could tolerate 10,000 vaccines. Is anybody willing to do this, including Offit himself? Dr Salisbury is more modest: 1,000 vaccines are no problem at all. Here is my third challenge: is anyone willing to subject themselves to a thousand jabs, including Salisbury himself?

Is anybody in the world willing to accept any or all of these three vaccine challenges? Madsen? Smeeth? Adam Jacobs? Brian Deer? Anders Hviid? Brent Taylor? Anyone? Anyone at all? After all, there’s no danger is there? It’s safe, isn’t it? You want to set a good example don’t you? You want to allay our suspicions and put our fears to rest, don’t you? Here is your opportunity! Let us all gather at the offices of the BMJ. You can then roll up your sleeves and let’s see what happens to you after a few jabs.

You can mail me at alandavidrees@hotmail.com

Alan Rees

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Looking Out of Olmsted County
 

I would like to introduce sociological, historical, biophysiological, and personality psychology perspectives to go along with the statistical perspective in this discussion. And I will include my own personal, necessarily biased, perspective.

Autistics have been around for at least a few hundred years. They have not always been called "autistics", however. Research done by an honors student at the University of California, Davis, along with professor Dean Simonton, showed that when analyzed carefully there was evidence that Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton were high-functioning autistics. (1) This statistically based research was done to see if there was any validity to the assertion by Simon Baron-Cohen that these famous men were probably autistic.

Albert Einstein had 2 sons and a daughter. His daughter, born out of wedlock before his first marriage, was gravely disabled, and probably died in childhood. He is said to have described her as a "mongoloid idiot" (4). One of his sons is said to have been "schizophrenic". I point this out because if Einstein had other relatives who were seriously developmentally disabled, they were not entered into any statistical database as such, even though they may have been autistic. Of course, the same would be true about Isaac Newton's relatives (he had no children). We need to keep in mind that the idea of autism as a psychological diagnoses is not ancient. Until fairly recently autism was called “childhood schizophrenia” and even today there are many people on the autism who carry the misdiagnosis of “schizophrenia” or “schizoid personality” or even “Obsessive Compulsive Disorder” or “Attention Deficit Disorder” (5).

"Peter the Wild Boy", of history, who was "adopted" by King George I, was described in such a way as to make one believe he was most definitely autistic. If one wants to give some credence to the idea that some autistics have large heads into adulthood then one might look carefully at the size of Peter's head as shown in depictions of him done from life (3). Dr. Rodier’s research into the embryology of autism shows that there is good evidence that at least some autistics start out that way from day 21 post conception, she shows how one can see the signs of the early developmental trajectory of these autistics by looking at their facial features. Some of these same facial features are seen on two men painted by the famous Spanish artist, Velazquez. Both men are jesters with names indicating that they are “fools”. I speculate that many of the “natural fools” who were picked to be court jesters, such as Peter the Wild Boy, were in fact autistic.

Can we go back in time and use the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) on every child to discover how many of them were autistic? No. However, based on a lifetime of observation of strange people born before 1959 (my birth year), I speculate that if there a is 1 person on the autism spectrum out of 166 typical people in the United States now this ratio could possibly have the same for many, many years. For absolute clarity I should point out that I and one of my children account for 2 of those Autism Spectrum data points, and I won’t bore you with descriptions of our blood relatives. Further I would like to remind everyone that there were massive cultural changes in the United States starting in the 1960’s which gave people who previously would not have had a chance to procreate, such a chance. I understand that similar cultural changes have taken place in the United Kingdom. I don’t think it takes much imagination to see that people who used to be called “strange”, “deviant”, “changelings”, “natural fools” or “psychotic” could have been “captured” using the ADOS had it existed then.

Finally, we need to examine the possible motives of people who claim that they have no relatives who fit the “broader autism phenotype” as well as the motives of those who are pressing the “autism epidemic” into the public psyche. There are many parents of Asperger’s and autistic children who know they are on the autism spectrum and a few who are in denial about this. A study done by Leboyer et al. concluded that a pattern of familiality of hyperserotoninemia was found in the mothers of autistic children (7). That paper cites a study by Cook, which concluded that, “Among relatives, hyperserotoninemia has been linked to obsessive–compulsive behavior in parents”. It may suit parents to deny that they have any autistic traits themselves. It may suit people who are trying to beg money from the government for legitimate research and treatment to exaggerate the threat that autism poses to the future health of their nations and to the future of the comfort of potential parents and even the psyches of the future siblings of future autistic children (8).

For further reading I suggest the journal article, “Accomodation, resistance and transcendence: three narratives of autism.” (9)

Camille Clark

1) Personal email communication with the student and Dr. Simonton.

2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2988647.stm

3)http://www.stmarysnorthchurch.com/peterTheWildBoy.asp also http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/grub/wildboy.htm

4)Page 237. Zackheim M. 1999. Einstein’s Daughter: The Search for Lieserl. Penguin Putnam.

5) “...we will therefore use the terms “pschotic,” “schizophrenic” and “autistic” interchangably.” (303) Lovaas & Newsom. 1976. Handbook of Behavior Modification. Ch 9 “Behavior Modification with Psychotic Children” Prentice Hall. also: “Doctors ‘fail Asperger’s patients’” BBC. 10 September, 2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3096248.stm

6) http://images.clevelandart.org/oci/magnify/1965/1965.15.jpg also http://www.artchive.com/artchive/v/velazquez/velazquez_calabazas.jpg

7) Leboyer M., Whole Blood Serotonin and Plasma Beta-Endorphin in Autistic Probands and Their First-Degree Relatives. 1999. Biological Psychology. 45:158-163

8) http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/html/news/mind_psa.htm also http://www.mering.com/home.htm (click on “portfolio”, then click on “UC Davis MIND Institute” from the drop down menut to see print ads from the “Cold Hard Facts” campaign.

9) Gray D., Accomodation, resistance and transcendence: three narratives of autism. 2001. Social Science & Medicine. 53: 1247-1257.

Send response to journal:
Re: The Autism Epidemic-Recognize It or Pay for the Consequences of It
 

Studies over the years have said there isn't an autism epidemic but better diagnosis. Families who have children/adults with autism know better. They know there is an autism epidemic because they live with the child/adult who is affected.

Anyone that lives in the US knows that the Federal government is having trouble with financing Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. As children with autism reach age 18 they are eligible for Medicare and Social Security payments. Also, as parents age they can no longer keep their adults with autism at home and they are admitted to residential centers or group homes. Before age 21, school boards in the communities pick up the costs. After age 21, the Division for Developmental Disorders in the states pick up the costs.

As time goes on, more and more children will become adults and various states and the federal government will pick up the costs. As time goes on, Federal and state taxes will skyrocket to pick up the costs for providing housing and care for adults with autism. As time goes on, even the skeptics who think that there is no autism epidemic, will realize there is an autism epidemic. They will realize this when they see even though their gross income is high, their net income is very low because taxes will be prohibitive.

I hope that more will be done to prevent this by funding research that will stop the autism epidemic and develop treatments that will help those who have been affected adversely by vaccines. It is much better to have people that can take care of themselves rather than be dependent on others. There are two paths we as a society will pursue. We can help stop the epidemic and help those who are afflicted get better. Or we can allow the epidemic to grow and become a financial strain on society. Which path will we go down?

As the figures from the US Department of Education show (1), there are thousands of children afflicted with autism and in talking to many parents I know they are just like my son, who is non-verbal and cannot care for himself.

References:

1. http://www.taap.info/stats.htm

Send response to journal:
Re: Historic autistic geniuses
 

Just to note that in an earlier correspondence Camille Clark ignored my post about Beethoven and heavy metal toxicity [1]. Historic examples do not preclude environmental damage being implicated.

[1] Stone: 'Unlocking the secrets of Beethoven's hair' 28 October 2004 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/7472/939#82329

Send response to journal:
Re: The problem is lack of institutional memory.
 

Dear Sir,

In the debate on whether or not the increase in Autism is real, there is something that has been forgotten. The people who pontificate on these things are "medical" ~~* experts*~~ , who by and large, are rotated in their jobs, and rarely have more than a decade in any specific area.

However, the people who can really answer these questions are people like my husband, who spent the whole of his working life, until retirement, in the schoool system.

He has also had 15 more years to sit back, watch and listen.

When I read the original article to him, his comments were revealing. Along the lines of... "In my first three decades as a teacher, any autistic spectrum disorder was such a novelty, that it was the major focus of discussion at both regional and national conventions.

If the increase in Autism isn't real, but simply recognises that medical people then, were too stupid to diagnose what was in front of their eyes, then why did we not see it then? Were we stupid too? And where are all these adults who should be walking around with autistic spectrum disorders, that we never saw as kids?

And why is it that autism spectrum disorders are SO common now, that rather than talk about them with interest at conventions, teachers are exhausted off their feet. They are more likely to share desperation tactics about how to try to devise workable systems in classrooms where two or three of these children spend their time disrupting everyone else's lives and thinking?"

As far as he is concerned, he can look back, and see a time when teaching was very straightforward. Autism in actuality was so rare, that the children got excellent care in his school. Why? Because there was only likely ever, to be one, in any school, if that. Far more likely, was the problem of highly bright children, held back by a system which took away their self initiative and imagination. But at least Teacher aide could be diverted when needed to provide the support that the rare autistic child needed, when they needed it.

Now, there are so many autistic children, or children with behavioural problems almost identical to autism, that Teacher Aides are just about needed for normal children, let alone Autistic spectrum children.

If the medical profession honestly thinks that the "increase" in autism is an artifact produced by historical diagnostic ignorance, they should think again.

Because in the minds of people who DO remember a time when Autism was something you checked in the dictionary as to how to spell the word, such a statement isn't just ludicrous; it also raises questions, and these questions are:

What have doctors got to hide, that they want to try to persuade people that a "real" increase (that we as long term teachers see as a "real" increase,) was actually a result of their own stupidity?

Are doctors trying to tell us, that we, as teachers, were also so stupid that we didn't see "autism" then, but do now?

What does such an "explanation" show about their new-found intelligence today?

Hilary Butler.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: The problem is lack of institutional memory.
 

I wrote at least a couple of years ago to the bmj.com on precisely this issue.

During the seventies when my own interest in this once very rare disorder began to emerge, if I told people about this interest they usually thought I was saying `artistic` as `autistic` was unheard of.

As Hilary Butler says, the incidence was SO low that the behaviours we now see in front of us in every classroom - the BEHAVIOURS Camille, not the DIAGNOSES - were confined to very few children who invariably were found alternative schools as they could not be taught and managed in the school system.

As the epidemic of autistic BEHAVIOURS has risen dramatically in the last few years, the system has introduced various measures and sleights of hand to make us all think that these BEHAVIOURS were all there before but not seen.INCLUSION policies put pressure on everyone including EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNAL PANELS to ensure these BEHAVIOURS are not viewed as autism but MISINTERPRETED as something else - anything else but not autism given the legal challenge/iatrogenic issue - and increasingly seen to be the fault of the parents. Independent professionals such as myself are targeted.

Teaching hospitals are removing diagnoses and reinterpreting the BEHAVIOURS which now have teachers and assistants on their knees trying to cope yet forced into saying they can cope - especially in Educational Tribunals.

Tried and tested intensive methods and facilities which used to be in place when the numbers of autistic children were manageable are now being removed from schools with staff forced into introducing wholly ineffective `BEHAVIOURAL` policies with `the child must take responsiblity for his own BEHAVIOUR` at their pivot. This is because the numbers of children with autistic BEHAVIOUR problems has sky rocketed, so its cheaper and easier to blame the child or the parent to limit the resource costs. It also conveniently shifts the focus of the real causes.

The system has polished up its methods for focusing on parents who are blamed for causing their children's disorders, but it dare not introduce the methods to help the children as this is not only expensive but tantamount to admitting what it refuses to accept - that there is an epidemic of autistic spectrum disorders and that there must be an explanation.

Focused, intensive but costly interventions delivered by specialists are being replaced by general `programmes` drawn out of the cascade model after someone attends a one day seminar then passes on information on a photocopied sheet to be delivered by classroom assistants on the lowest hourly rate of pay.

The whole thing is a massive, massive scandal.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: The Autism Epidemic-Recognize It or Pay for the Consequences of It
 

I read the book, "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young" (1) by Joe Galloway and Lt. Col. Hal Moore. I saw the movie based on the book,"We Were Soldiers" starring Mel Gibson. It mentions an actual event in 1965 in Vietnam and besides giving the soldier perspective, it gives the family perspective. During the Vietnam War, 58,000 American soldiers died.

At present the autism figures documented by the US Department of Education are 140,920. (2) Hundreds of parents that I speak to tell me out their children with autism and how they suffer. That they are non-verbal, have aggressions and constantly need round the clock help.

Why I bring up "We Were Soldiers" is that families are fighting a war when it comes to dealing with their children. War is hell and so is autism when families and children affected have to deal with problems associated with it. Ask any parent who has to get medical care or education for their child. Ask any parent who has to deal with aggressions like we did involving, head-butting, biting, kicking, scratching and pulling hair. When a child with autism is non-verbal many of his behaviors can be probably be connected to the fact that he/she cannot speak.

As long as there is no research for autism and autoimmunity involving the MMR vaccine, I believe the following US Department of Education figures for autism will continue to explode. These are conservative projections for the coming years.

2004-2005      164,000
2005-2006      187,000
2006-2007      210,000
2007-2008      234,000
2008-2009      258,000
2009-2010      282,000
2010-2011      306,000
2011-2012      330,000
2012-2013      355,000
2013-2014      380,000
2014-2015      405,000

Can we afford the body count in human and financial terms?

Raymond Gallup
United States Navy Reserves 1965-1971
Active Duty 1966-1968
Radioman Third Class
USS Vulcan AR-5
Norfolk, Virginia

References:

1. http://www.lzxray.com/

2. http://www.taap.info/stats.htm

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: The problem is lack of institutional memory.
 

An interesting paper has been published on Biomedcentral this week on the incidence of Autism and PDDs (pervasive developmental disorders). It concludes that, “Better ascertainment of diagnosis is likely to have contributed to the observed temporal increase in rates of diagnosis of PDD, but we cannot exclude a real increase.” [1]

See: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/2/39

[1] Smeeth, Liam; Cook, Claire; Fombonne, Eric; Heavey, Lisa; Rodrigues, Laura C; Smith, Peter G. & Hall, Andrew J. Rate of first recorded diagnosis of autism and other pervasive developmental disorders in United Kingdom general practice, 1988 to 2001. BMC Medicine 2004, 2:39; doi:10.1186/1741-7015-2-39

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Vaccinate the vaccinators
 

I see none of the vaccine proponents have accepted the challenge set forth by Alan Rees. Come on people, put your money where your mouth is. So be it, I'll step up and accept the challenge by Alan Rees of receiving the 1,000 or 10,000 "tolerable" jabs, according to Drs. Salisbury and Offit, respectively. However, I will only bring my sleeveless shirt and shorts to the offices of the BMJ if a few stipulations are met such as:

1) I'm SECOND in line behind Drs. Salisbury, Offit or any other staunch vaccine proponent. Perhaps some of the others that were mentioned?

2) That the vaccines are independently confirmed as the real deal with all adjuvants. In other words, that they are not just saline, lactated ringers or sterile water.

3) That Salisbury or Offit first undergo a more appropriate follow up period post-innoculation than the current, self-serving towards a non- reaction, absurd and perplexing 72 hrs. Let's say follow up of 60 - 90 days post-innoculation (although a year or longer is probably more appropriate). That should hopefully permit any chronic adverse vaccine reaction to reveal itself. During the follow-up period, investigation into any potential adverse vaccine reaction is monitored via a multi-team approach consisting of internists, hematologists, neurologists, infectious disease specialists, immunologists, pediatricians, radiologists, ophthalmologists, rheumatologists, MSbP specialists, SBS specialists, pathologists, forensic pathologists etc. with all appropriate COMPLETE blood, path, lab, CT, MRI, culture, protein, vitamin, assays, LFTS, histamine, intracranial pressure etc. evaluations.

4) That status post the innoculation follow-up period, intentional exposure to the "preventable" disease pathogens (and mutated variants) occurs to test for efficacy.

5) That every single adverse vaccine reaction Drs. Salisbury, Offit or myself encounter are documented. Preferably via photographs and very detailed pathological/clinical/biochemical/physiological/histological/forensic descriptions and that they are made available to the public. And that a similar reporting mechanism of severe vaccine reactions is made MANDATORY as VAERS and similar reporting systems have and are failing miserably.

6) That if a serious adverse vaccine reaction (challenge) can be traced to a likely vaccine or adjuvant culprit, then a dechallenge and rechallenge case is investigated. Should the dechallenge (cessation of sign/symptom/disease) alleviate the sign/symptom and a rechallenge (second jab) bring the sign/symptom henceforth, then the reaction be documented as PROOF of a vaccine etiology. The rub here is that ailments such as autism or permanent brain damage, myelin basic protein antibodies, MMR antibodies, hemorrhagic lymphocytosis, cerebral palsy, diabetes, SIDS etc. can't really be dechallenged very well. That is unless there is some form of regression, progression and then re-regression, of course. However, brain swelling, hemorrhage, thrombocytopenia, elevated histamine, vasculitis etc. should hopefully be able to be dechallenged and rechallenged more readily. You know, a clinical style of investigation as opposed to the ludicrous, biased agenda meeting pharmaceutical supported non-data revealing, epidemiology studies our public health officianodos hang their hat on.

7) Should Drs. Salisbury or Offit meet their demise or suffer any other chronic or permanent debilitating severe adverse vaccine reaction sequelae (you know, the ones they and ilk claim are non-existent) during their 60 - 90 day follow up period or dechallenge/rechallenge inquiry, all bets are off. I'm putting on my kevlar jacket. The only vaccine reactions permitted or encountered are the ones mentioned during "informed" consent such as fever, rash, local swelling, mild form of the disease or even a, temporally limited, febrile type of seizure (problem is, these forms of seizure are rarely discussed). I may be stupid, but I'm not that stupid.

Come on ladies and gents, isn't it about time to alleviate some fears, or at least back yourselves up? I may be scared to death from what I understand about severe adverse vaccine reactions and the disease shift from "preventable" to chronic uncurable disease, but am willing to put myself on the line...provided the ones mandating the ever increasing numbers of vaccines are as well. Let's get to the "bottom" of this. Let's see if you're as confident as you sound or if you're hiding behind the badge.

If the challenge is not met, then perhaps Salisbury, Offit and others will now be more "thoughtful" with their unsupported propagandaesque public statements. Our children deserve it!

thaws@dentsply.com

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: The problem is lack of institutional memory.
 

I believe that Lisa Blakemore-Brown’s letter to the Rapid Response board was mainly addressed to me. If it was, I’d like to point out that writing in all capitols letters is considered to represent yelling according to internet etiquette (1). If the use of all capitols was merely intended to bring my attention to certain words, it was not necessary as I can read fine, and my hearing is actually quite acute.

As a professional person, Lisa Blakemore-Brown must know that science depends on the controlled gathering of facts, with operationalized definitions and careful monitoring of biases and interrater reliability. Her repeating of anecdotes is not convincing to me. Those who have worked in the field of research with autistic children for decades certainly must have a sense of how many children are being brought to them as patients or study subjects. World recognized autism research experts, Fred R. Volkmar, Catherine Lord, Anthony Bailey, Robert Schultz and Ami Klin cooperated on writing an article for the “Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry” that was published about a year ago (2). It was titled, “Autism and pervasive developmental disorders.” The article was a review of research reported on in the last decade.

It’s a very long article, and I can’t quote all of the “good parts” because I find that about half of it is “good parts”, but here is some of what they have to say on the epidemiology of autism; “Since the mid-1960s, over 30 epidemiological studies of autism have been conducted. Several recent reviews of these studies are available (e.g., Baird et al., 2001; Wing & Potter, 2002; Fombonne, 2003a; Croen, Grether, Hoogstrate, & Selvin, 2002a). The most noteworthy aspect of recent epidemiological work has been the observation of an increase in prevalence. The rate for studies published between 1966 and 1991 was 4.4 cases per 10,000, while that for 1992–2001 was 12.7 (Fombonne, 2003b). The increase in rate has led to dramatic claims, particularly in the lay media, for an ‘epidemic’ of autism. Several factors complicate the interpretation of the apparent increase, however, including changes in diagnostic practice, increased awareness of the disorder, earlier diagnosis, issues of study design and case ascertainment, and the problem of ‘diagnostic substitution’ (e.g., choosing to use a label of autism as opposed to a label of mental retardation for educational purposes; the latter problem may be a particular source of difficulties when investigators rely primarily on educational case records (Wing & Potter, 2002; Fombonne, 2001; Croen, Grether, & Selvin, 2002b). For Croen, Grether, and Selvin’s example, the current (DSM-IV and ICD-10) approaches to diagnosis were specifically designed (Volkmar et al., 1994) to be applicable over the entire range of intellectual ability with a reasonable balance of sensitivity and specificity in both lower- and higher-functioning individuals. (139)” I would sum this up as meaning that even though some studies have included higher functioning autistic individuals, they still were not able to find more than 12.7 people, that is people, not just children, who probably fit the autistic disorder diagnosis out of 10,000. That number may be larger than was previously reported.

In the realm of speculation, I will go so far as to say, perhaps, the rate at which new autistic babies are being born in the last 20 years has doubled. But, if one starts with “very rare” and doubles that, one still does not get “common”. For example, gold nuggets are very rare, if the numbers of gold nuggets were to double overnight, they wouldn’t become “common”. No one would say then that there we were suffering an outbreak of gold nuggets. “Of course,”, one may say, “no one would say that because gold nuggets are valued and autistic children and adults are not.”

My speculatory “doubling” of the presence of autistic children in the last 50 years, or even the tripling of them could be accounted by social and cultural changes in the way mates are selected these days compared to the way the were selected in the 1950’s. The rate at which people procreate outside of somewhat carefully planned for marriages has certainly increased in the last 50 years.

There are people on the autism spectrum in my family and my ex-husband's family. One was sent to a state hospital for retarded children in the late 1940's. She was soon released because her stepmother didn't want her to suffer there. She married pregnant while quite young and had several other children. She was definitely on the autism spectrum as is at least one of her grandchildren. It is easy for me to see how genes for autism have been in circulation for many years, and how they can combine and produce autisic children, entirely apart from toxins.

I am under the impression that people think that adults on the autism spectrum, like myself, who express our opinions on issues surrounding the topic of autism, are entirely against the funding of treatment, teaching and care of autistic children and adults. This is a rather bizarre misinterpretation of what we say, since in no way has any of the autistic advocates said this. What we do say is in harmony with these quotes from the above cited journal article. “Treatment research for children and adults with autistic spectrum disorders tends to be inspired by various psychological models, i.e., rather than focusing primarily on empirical work on current treatments. (150)” and “ A major concern is the large, and possible growing, gap between what science can show is effective, on the one hand, and what treatments parents actually pursue. Another concern is the extent to which the full benefit of scientific research is translated into best practices in actual classroom settings. (155)” This same point was made by Dr. Diane Twachtman-Cullen in her presentation at the University of California, Davis, Medical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders Institute’s “Summer Institute” this past summer. She did not advocate Applied Behavioral Analysis in her presentation but rather new methods based on new research into autism.

Camille Clark

1) http://www.allbusiness.com/articles/InternetTechnology/1397-34- 1786.html

2) Volkmar FR, Lord C, Bailey A, Schultz RT & Klin A. (2004) Autism and pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45:1, 135–170.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Vaccinate the vaccinators
 

I can understand the idea of ‘vaccinate the vaccinators’ but unfortunately it may not be a productive exercise. Vaccinations are usually given to children when their immunity is in an early state of development as well as is their neurological system. At that time in their lives vaccinations can have a very different effect to those that are given in later childhood or adulthood.

The parts of the brain that are affected in autism or autistic spectrum disorder are amongst those that mature at a comparatively later period in the child’s life than do others. Margaret Kennard described what came to be known as the Kennard Principle. [1] Her principle suggests that it is, “better to have your brain injuries early”. This refers to the fact that the infant’s brain is very plastic and early damage can be repaired by dint of other pathways being established. However, in the case of autism and its associated damage (including damage causing autism because of its location) those parts of the brain are not being called upon at the time of damage by vaccination (or other causes). Thus there is no immediate reparation called for by the system.

Since formulated, this principle can be seen to explain why autistic features do not develop at the time the damage is caused. Sometimes deficits can be delayed or re-emerge or result in anomalous behaviour later on, depending on timing and brain location. [2] If, for example, an insult (which can either be acquired or genetically targeted to unfold) is to a region that has not yet matured, one may see behavioural disturbances only then when the anatomic substrate becomes critical for some neuropsychological function. This is what is called “growing into a deficit.” The phenomenon of “growing into a deficit” has been suggested, for example, as one of a number of possible explanations for the regression in functioning sometimes seen in cases of autistic spectrum disorders in children at around age 19 to 22 months.

It is reasoned that the functions specific to the maturation of the limbic system’s amygdala and hippocampus, considered to be affected in autistic individuals, become developmentally important. At around this age, the normal developing child develops representational memory, flexible accommodation schemes, and the ability to learn in novel situations, functions in part attributable to the maturing amygdala and hippocampus. Things might start to fall apart, it has been speculated, at a time when these brain areas, found to be too small with too densely packed cells and with reduced complexity of dendritic arbors in autistic subjects, are supposed to mature and subserve age-appropriate functions. [3] [4] [5] Similar factors may also determine late onset of other neurologic conditions that may have their origin much earlier in the perinatal period. For example, temporal lobe epilepsy may sometimes result from high forceps delivery, although seizures do not emerge until early adolescence.

REFERENCES

[1] Kennard, M. A. (1942). Cortical reorganization of motor function: Studies on a series of monkeys of various ages from infancy to maturity. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 47, 227-240.

[2] Kolb, B. (1995). Brain plasticity and behaviour. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

[3] Bauman, M. L., & Kemper, T. L. (1994). Neuroanatomic observations of the brain in autism. In M. L. Bauman and T. L. Kemper (Eds.), The neurobiology of autism (pp. 119-145). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

[4] Bauman, M. L. (1997). Research on the underlying central nervous system mechanisms associated with disorders of communication, relating, and learning. Paper presented at the November 14, 1997 463 conference of the Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental and Learning Disorders, Rockville, MD.

[5] Overman, W. H. (1990). Performance on traditional matching to sample, non-matching to sample, and object discrimination tasks by 12 to 32 month-old children: A developmental progression. In A. Diamond (Ed.), The development and neural bases of higher cognitive functions: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (pp. 365-383). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Send response to journal:
Re: A previously unreported study by Smeeth et al
 

I must congratulate Alan Challoner (above 'Re: Re: The problem is lack of institutional memory' 25 January 2005) for discovering this study and agree with him that it is interesting, particularly because of its recognition of the inadequacies of the General Practitioners Research Database, and its acknowledgement that there was quite probably a real rise in autism during the period following the introduction of MMR, thus further negating the authors' previously published Lancet paper [1] which arrived amid immense publicity two months earlier.

By contrast with that paper which was first item on the BBC News on the morning of 10 September 2004 [2] the existence of this one seems to have been first spotted by an expert in the field some two and a half months after its publication on 9 November 2004 (apparently submitted on 16 February 2004 as the storm clouds were gathering round Dr Wakefield). Could there possibly be any reason why they did not wish this study to receive as much publicity as the other?

[1] Smeeth et al, 'MMR vaccination and pervasive development disorders: a case control study' Lancet, 2004, 364, 963-969.

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3640898.stm

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do!
 

My apologies to those who have responded to my post and perhaps mis-understood me.

I side with the 'anti-MMR' people in as much as, no matter how many meta-analyses or epidemiological studies are done, the fact is that there are children out there (in increasing numbers, it would seem) who are becoming severely ill when they get their MMR vaccinations; not only that, but these children are showing up with similar problems (ie. autism/ neurologucal signs, gut disorders, measles viruses popping up in places where they really shouldn't be). Those who are apologetic for MMR have failed (as far as I can see) to provide an explanation for this that does not point the finger at the MMR jab.

My point was not that there is no science to show that children are suffering as a result of MMR vaccination - there is, indeed, evidence that points that way. What has not been forthcoming, as far as I can see, is scientific evidence that exonerates the vaccine as the cause of thes problems.

SOMETHING has made these children desperately ill. My question to MMR apologists is: if it wasn't the jab, what was it?

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccinate the vaccinators
 

I completely understand and agree with most of Alan Challoner's arguments. Especially regarding the apparent vulnerability of the developing infant, toddler and child. And that some "abnormalities" may not be seen until that particular system is needed to mature and function. However, I don't buy that children which are walking, verbally and physically communicating, terror free, potty trained etc. "grow into a deficit" of complete dependence without some external variable. Which coincidentally and often seems temporally related to vaccination schedules. Isn't that odd. Are we suppossed to believe regression from "growing into a deficit" is some form of a broader system oriented apoptosis per say. "Programmed regression"? "Programmed disorganization"? Sounds like a cop-out to me; especially as a neurologic system would be rather mature to be able to walk, talk, understand short phrases, be potty trained, eat independently etc.

I actually think the challenge could accomplish a great many things. Given the outline I proposed, which could be customized, we could do a great deal of investigation into the effects/affects vaccines and adjuvants can have on the body. Effects/affects at a physiologic/biologic/histologic/neurologic/biochemical etc. level. Not just looking for vaccine induced antibodies which may or may not mean a whole lot. A style of research akin to Wakefield and Singh, but prospective and taken to the next level. A multi-system, multi-organ level; both broad and at the cellular level and biochemical level. For one example, pre, peri and post-innoculation brain imaging such as CT, MRI, EEG or PET studies would certainly reveal brain function prior to, during and post-innoculation.

These types of clinical/biologic studies have been done on animals (primarily pertussis related) and on a small number of humans prior to the work of Wakefield, Singh etc. And they didn't paint a pretty picture. During the same time these studies were being done, guess what, the officianodos relied on epidemiology. I can certainly provide further details and references if desired.

I'm willing to be a guinea pig as long as the staunch proponents step up to the plate first. After all, I'm not the one mandating vaccines and widespread non-consented research on our children. But nevertheless, I am still willing if it will help future generations. Shouldn't we first test the "mature" "stabilized" adult to see if they can handle the ever increasing to thousands of "innocuous" jabs, according to Salisbury and Offit? Especially before experimenting on vulnerable children or making such bold sweeping statements. Anyone in medicine knows that chidrens responses are much less predictable than an adult.

I've included a rather brief follow-up period to accomodate, what I'll dub, chronic "growing into vaccine damage" deficits. It could certainly be extended and should with what Alan Challoner says. But is still better than the utterly perplexing current follow up of 72 hrs. Something that is obviously more related to political and legal issues than medical reasoning.

Let's take Wakefield's, Singh's and others research to the next level. Let's look at the children, with consent, that are already being experimented on.

Or, we can inject millions of children and wait, watch, twiddle our thumbs and then look at subjective behavior or a bunch of numbers from seriously flawed, manipulated or subjective data banks such as provided by big pharma, the GPD or VAERS to "reassure" public confidence and save face simultaneously. Only to be left scratching our heads wondering what on earth is going on with these medically "unexplained" symptoms.

Parents of vaccine damaged children can then be left to pick up all of Humpty Dumpty's pieces while the King's horses and King's men cry foul and blame the parents in a slew of ways. All topped off with public scorn for questioning vaccines and going against the "greater good".

When in reality, such families should be saluted, awarded a purple heart for serving their country and then placed on a stretcher and exhaustively helped.

Send response to journal:
Re: Science, or brass neck?
 

With all due deference to Hilary Butler is the problem lack of institutional memory or is it selective choice of evidence? In the chain of evidence those parents who report iatrogenic events simply - against all ethical or medically sound practice - have to be pushed out of the way, while official science takes place in a solipsistic vaccuum.

Camille Clark may have excellent hearing but she is also very careful who she listens to.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: A previously unreported study by Smeeth et al
 

For the record, this is what the authors state:

“Contributing practices must meet a range of data quality criteria before they are included in the GPRD. The quality of the information in the database, including the completeness of recording of diagnoses made in medical facilities outside the practice, has been validated in a number of independent studies and has been found to be high. There is excellent agreement between prescribing data from the GPRD and national data from the Prescription Pricing Authority.” They also explain that inaccuracies of diagnostic descriptions of different PDDs within the GPRD reflect changes in the definition of PDD and changes in the coding systems used to classify cases (and not inaccuracies within the GPRD).

and:

“Much of the increase [in autism and other PDDs] may be due to better ascertainment related to changes in diagnostic practice and improved recognition of the conditions.” (Indeed most of the paper is taken up with an explanation as to exactly why the authors think this is the case).

One should not confuse a study’s caveats with its conclusions. I am also unclear as to why Stone feels this study “negates” the authors’ previous study (2) which is based on the same data set.

(1) Smeeth L et al. Rate of first recorded diagnosis of autism and other pervasive developmental disorders in United Kingdom general practice, 1988 to 2001. BMC Medicine 2004, 2:39

(2) Smeeth L et al. MMR vaccination and pervasive development disorders: a case control study. Lancet, 2004, 364, 963-969.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do!
 

He no doubt is aware that there are plausible autism theories aplenty, some of which are supported by a sound scientific evidence base. The fact that autism predated MMR should tell him that MMR cannot possibly be the sole cause (and even if we accept that there may have been a real rise in the number of cases in recent years this tells us nothing about the other possible causes).

So much attention has been grabbed by the MMR issue that it threatens to derail other attempts to find the answers to the perplexing question. Unfortunately researchers and epidemiologists have concentrated on the first part of Robertson's question by attempting to show it "wasn't the jab". They have responded to public and media concern by carrying out expensive studies in a largely futile attempt to restore faith in the vaccine. (I say futile, because no matter what the results are, these exercises will never reassure those who are convinced of MMR’s role in autism).The second part of Robertson's question: "then what is it?" has been neglected by comparison. I wonder how many other autism studies might have been funded into, for example, the dysregulation of the UBE3A gene expression, or a systematic analysis of dipeptidyl peptidase IV deficiencies, or the role of u-opioid neural receptors if the funding did not all seem to end up in the exonerate-MMR pot?

The point is that MMR (nor anything else for that matter) can never be absolved from blame; no-one can prove a negative association. There are sufficiently powerful anecdotal reports of autism onset post-MMR to suggest it is a factor, albeit in a small minority of cases. Let us assume that in a predisposed/genetically susceptible individual, a cascade of events is triggered that will result in neural damage that manifests as autism/PDD. One of these possible events may be MMR, but then it might equally well be single measles vaccine or natural infections that are responsible. Clearly more work is needed, but I am concerned that the research agenda is being hijacked by the perceived need to address the MMR issue in particular. The continual focus on MMR to the exclusion of other factors is potentially detrimental to the field of autism research in general.

The reluctance to vaccinate with MMR (to avoid a fraction of the cases of “autism” which occurs at an overall rate of about 3 per 10 000 person years) will merely result in natural measles infection at some point. This has an attendant 500 per 10 000 risk of otitis or pneumonia, 50 per 10 000 risk of fits, 10 per 10 000 risk of encephalitis (5 per 10 000 with permanent neurological damage) and an overall 10-20 per 10 000 risk of death. Even higher morbidity and mortality rates occur in a third world setting. One doesn’t need a maths degree to see why the “vaccinators” recommend vaccinations.

One response to this might be that few of those who have not had MMR have yet succumbed to measles. These unvaccinated children are reliant upon the herd immunity of their vaccinated companions, who still exist in considerable numbers. But this state of affairs is likely to be short lived if measles/MMR immunisation trends continue to decline.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccinate the vaccinators
 

(hmm..been there, done that...)

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Science, or brass neck?
 

Dear Sir

In reply to John Stone:

<<<<<<<<With all due deference to Hilary Butler is the problem lack of institutional memory or is it selective choice of evidence? In the chain of evidence those parents who report iatrogenic events simply - against all ethical or medically sound practice - have to be pushed out of the way, while official science takes place in a solipsistic vaccuum.

Camille Clark may have excellent hearing but she is also very careful who she listens to. >>>>>>>>

On the one hand, we have people at the cutting face, the parents and the teachers, and the communities, and the psychologists run off their feet, with, what is to them, a real, increasing, evolving problem. These people, faced with the realities of the changes in their roles as teachers, nurses, parents etc, are being asked to believe that really, they are kidding themselves? Perhaps their rampant relatives who went awol, or rampaged over mountain, or were "eccentrics" were really... autistic. Perhaps they were called something else, out of convenience.

Obviously, teachers are stupid. And parents, who say none of their forebears were autistic, are liars. After all, Einstein's gonads weren't much good, and much of his family were "queer".

I can understand this. After all, diphtheria, until the early 1900s, included all forms of croup. It was only in an effort to prove the efficacy of the diphtheria toxin-antitoxin, that a concerted effort was made to separate the croup from the diphtheria, because that then made the toxin-antitoxin look the best thing since sliced bread.

The argument that Aspergers are often diagnosed as Autistic in order to avail them of benefits has its parallels in Polio. Those well versed in the medical literature can provide all the articles showing that in the 50's, doctors often diagnosed non-paralytic polio (that which would be non -paralytic by today's diagnosis) as paralytic, for two reasons. It justified quarantining the family (to fit the social psychohysteria of the time) , and allowed the family to have access to health funding to feed, clothe etc the family until such time as the "family muzzle" was removed. In my extensive polio archives I have many articles discussing the fact that 99% of paralytic polio cases would resolve within a week, with no residual damage, at that point, let alone at 60 days.

So the medical profession has always suited themselves as to how they diagnose things. This happens, even now, in the country with regards people damaged or injured in the public health system. Whereas all hospital admissions and deaths are usually admitted to in the official yearly statistics, the figures for medical error, iatrogenic anything, and hospital infections are withheld. On the grounds, according to one newspaper article, that the Health Department doesn't want the public to "misunderstand" anything.

So yes, if you use medical data, and especially, "cooked" medical history, then you have to accept that one sign of epidemiological times is that, indeed, data can be massaged, manipulated, skewed and jury-rigged to mean exactly what the data-constructor wishes it to say.

The problem with that, is that most people assume that medical history is accurate, when it is not. So, when the medical profession says that X drug wiped out X disease, public believe that, when actually the situation is far more complex than that.

Usually WHEN you have to look at that data in the historical sense, it doesn't make sense. Because if you know the truth you could then say: "Well, the data on Diphtheria is nonsense, because it included all forms of croup, and sometimes other respiratory disorders, such as suppurative tonsillitis, and so, by dividing up the data later, that makes it look like Diphtheria took a plumetting, when, what actually happened, was that doctors became more accurate in diagnosis. So the EXTENT of the historical statistical decline is an artificial construct. It's not nearly as "dramatic" as the graphs show.

Same with Polio. You could say that the American historical mountain of paralytic polio treated at home (as opposed to the well publicised cases in hospitals and on iron lungs) is also a constructed artefact. Had the diagnosticians been forced to adhere to today's standards, and only that data provided we would see that the current showing a steep decline (which is "of course" due to a vaccine), is actually a dubious, crafted manipulation.

Which is perhaps why the United States Polio Surveillance Units data, from 1954 to 1963 are no longer in most medical libraries. They are... mysteriously.. absent. And which is why, in my opinion, most people have never had explained to them, why, after the Salk vaccine was dropped everyone had to have a full, new course, of the Sabin vaccine. At a point where polio had declined, 90 something percent, a couple of years before.

But because people don't know the truth, then haven't the means to think it out for themselves. The same applies with the argument on Autism. Various groups, for whatever reason, are massaging data, and reconstructing history and explanations, to suit their viewpoints.

I know what the US Polio Surveillance Units stats say, courtesy of a doctor who provided them. Were they available to all medical historians it would be interesting to sit back and watch the arguments as statisticians from the Health Department tried to justify the historical statements about polio vaccines.

The problems with using ANY historical arguments to say that Autism has always been around at the rates that it is now, and using Einstein, and other anecdotes to back it up, is that they are unproveable, because we can't go back in time to check out why people "constructed" the data to suit themselves, or whether Einstein's "schizophrenic" child was actually schizophrenic.

Camille tells us why they mash the data NOW, but who is there to tell us why or how, they did it then?

Of what relevance is that to teachers at the coal-face?

When we talk about "data", or "choice of evidence" in the medical sense, we are talking epidemiology and semantics.

As the famous saying goes "Epidemiology is like a bikini. What is revealed is interesting. What is concealed is crucial."

Semantics is the 'art' of medicine. Just look at how any article is written. Doctors are the masters of multi-facetted words, and hedging bets. "Seems to be", "could have been" "either" "or". Rarely do you see anything definitive, except when it comes to public propaganda.

That has ever been the case. Though it is changing. I've kept immunisation brochures from years back. My favourite is one that says "Be wise, Immunise" at the top, and at the bottom "Immunisation means you won't get it."

These days, while the first statement is still used, as its such a cute sound bite, they have realised its very stupid to use the second one. But they still come out with pearlers.

Like a notice put onto an Auckland medical school's notice board addressed to General Mangers/Business Managers by the Occupational Health Service, about the flu vaccine which said:

"The vaccines are accepted as being effective, provided the great majority of staff are vaccinated."

(Come now, it either "works" for the individual, or it doesn't!)

I couldn't resist relieving the notice board of such a magnificent example to add to my collection.

In terms of "who" one listens to, just as it is easy for epidemiologists to "construct" data or make statements, (like the above statement) it is also easy for certain "groups" of people to construct explanations which means that responsibility for their predicament, can be blamed on forebears gonad, "jeans" ~ anything, but ~ not ~ something ~ that might actually mean a person has to really look seriously at an issue. So long as everyone feels that it "just happens" then its and acceptable variant of "norm".

I go back to my original argument.

Talk to older teacher, who taught for their whole, long, careers. When you teach children, you are dealing intimately with a brain, and teaching a brain how to think, extrapolate, read "hidden" social messages, behave appropriately, compute accurately, act on stage, etc....

The brain of any autism spectrum child is so unique as to be unmistakeable. While Autistics have difficulty in understanding the difference between them, and non-autistic people, because they cannot experience what they have not got, the reverse isn't the case.

To non-autistic people, any person with any autistic spectrum sticks out more than a mile, not only because their body language reading abilities, word interpretation, and behavioural responses are limited, but also because of that, you can't teach autistic children in the same way, as you teach non-autistic people.

Teaching autistic spectrum children, either mild or major, is hugely difficult. Something I don't think autistic people appreciate.

Therefore......

One of the groups who will know whether an increase is real, or not, is NOT the epidemiologist, who manipulates data to suit their own needs and end, nor the group itself, as they cannot see themselves as others do, and may have a need to justify their "justifications".

One of the groups who will know whether an increase is real, or not, are the people charged with trying to teach and educate "that" group. They are the ones at the coal face, who couldn't give a toss whether than child is diagnosed as having weta-faced-protrusion, or crocodile-cantering -disorder. All teachers know is that they "have" to get a result, not go by any diagnosis.

They don't give a toss about "labels", because one autistic cannot be taught like another. They are all different, as are non-autistic people all different. As far as teachers are concerned, the epidemic is real. No amount of data massaging, or politically paliative pandering is going to change what they face, every day, when they step into the classroom.

"Choice of evidence" is irrevelant when trying to reveal to autistics those things that come easily to non-autistics. A job that is nigh on impossible. Right now, many have their backs to the wall, and some are ready to climb over it, and run like mad.

All of us as individual have the problem that our "hearing" is affected by the circles in which we moves, and the limitations of our ability to fully perceive other groups around us. Doctors and statisticians have similar problems. To admit a real increase might force them to question certain practices and procedures, be they historical or current.

Teachers don't have that luxury. They have to deal with what is, not what they would like to perceive it to be. And they deal in numbers, classroom sizes, not in individual patients. They have to "do" a job. The do not construct either data, or diagnoses.

Were Camille, or doctors or epidemiologists, to talk to Camille's teachers from the 1960's and 1970's, then talk to long term teachers today, they might hear another view point. The question is, whether they want to.

Sometimes people get stuck in ruts. And you know the definition of a rut. "A grave without an end". That's why so much of medical history, doesn't say what it should do. Because people chose to write, only from the mindset, or viewpoint of their own little grave.

Which makes it all the harder to sort out the real wood, from the real trees, in so many issues, not just autism. Were that not the case, there would be a lot less "argument" within medicine, and we'd not be here today, arguing "this", or any other toss.

Hilary Butler.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccinate the vaccinators
 

I wonder - given Alan Challoner's assurance that it is probably much less risky to vaccinate a doctor than a baby - whether there are now any takers for the Alan Rees- Travis Haws challenge?

Send response to journal:
Re: Imbalance in autism studies? Yeah, probably, but...
 

First of all, apologies for the semantic error that seems to have crept into my posts about proving a negative. Gimme some slack, I'm a busy bunny :)

As I have said before, I feel that MMR is the best weapon we have against measles, mumps and rubella, and the lives saved by it probably outweigh the relatively few lives affected by autism in its wake. I'm also 'pro-vaccine' in general due to the wide spectrum of health benefits it has brought the world. Nevertheless, I DO worry about these lives that autism has taken over, particularly in my position as (Godwilling) a future member of the medical profession. This is the side of things that matters most to one concerned with human life, but it is a side hidden under the numbers of epidemiological reports so often quoted by 'official' figures. If MMR is somehow involved in the onset of autism in these children (and the timing of exacerbations, as well as the presence of virus proteins throughout the body would suggest that it is), then surely this is worth investigation? Which brings me on to...

"I am concerned that the research agenda is being hijacked by the perceived need to address the MMR issue in particular. The continual focus on MMR to the exclusion of other factors is potentially detrimental to the field of autism research in general."

I agree, but there is a reason for this; namely, that 100% of parents are actively pushed by the government into giving this vaccine to their children - ergo, everyone is potentially affected by this specific issue. In addition, as above, we have a number of 'pointers' which implicate the MMR vaccine.

Wakefield and those who came after him may well be on a wild goose chase at the expense of other avenues (isn't most science like that anyway?), but I respect them because their care for the patient has led them to do an awful lot more than those who sit and quote numbers at us.

Gosh, this 'reasoning' lark is fun! Maybe John Stone and I should get together to write a 'weekly challenge' for the Tony Floyds of this world - how about, "what have you done to investigate these children's cases and explain the presence of measles virus in their bodies?" for starters? :D

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Peter Flegg on a previously unreported study by Smeeth et al
 

The complete and utter inadequacy of the General Practitioners Research Database for researching Pervasive Development Disorders and Autism has been discussed in minute detail, not least in these columns [1,2] and I did not note any intervention from Peter Flegg. It is quite obvious that the caveat is not some mere marginal or technical matter. What it demonstrates is that any firm conclusion based on the study is groundless. It tells you that failing to detect the possible influence of MMR on PDD incidence, given the quality of the data, was effectively inevitable. Why, then, embark on the study at all? What purpose were these seven leading professionals serving for the three years of the study's preparation [3]? And why bury one half of the study when you have launched the other half on the national news [4]?

Is not this typical of modern British government?

[1] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7467/642

[2] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7466/588-b

[3] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/323/7305/163

[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3640898.stm

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccinate the vaccinators
 

Peter Flegg seems to have missed the core issue. That of Salisbury and Offit claiming 1,000 or 10,000 jabs are perfectly safe. This is the core of my accepted challenge. Shouldn't one put their money where their mouth is with such bold sweeping statements.

I'm glad to note Peter Flegg has butted in line. I'm right behind you, all the way! I would certainly hope you wouldn't have your kids butt in line in front of you on this one.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do!
 

What I find interesting is that if a measles vaccination can cause autism, so can "wild type" measles, the kind your child can pick up at the playground if the herd immunity fails. The wild type is more likely to kill your child or make him blind or otherwise maim him.

Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, who is closely associated with Dr. Wakefield, he of the original flawed research, has written on one of his websites (1) that he has seen children with autism caused by the "wild type" measles virus. Quoting Dr. Bradstreet; "If you are concerned about measles (as I am, having seen 3 children with wild measles induced autism), consider giving the Measles (Rubeola) vaccine by itself, without mumps and rubella."

Dr. Bradstreet does vaccinate his own children, one of whom is autistic as I understand it.

There is a kind of locked in mentality going on among the people who will not take, "No", for an answer and who counter, "No, there is no causation between vaccines and autism" with, "Conspiracy!". It is amazing that they are still crying out about traces of mercury in vaccines when there are potentially dangerous toxins at higher concentrations floating around us and in our food and water. I don't believe these are causing autism either, but these pollutants do cause things like asthma and cancer. I hope that those who are so focused on environmental toxins and measles viruses will focus on diseases that are actually caused by environmental toxins and viruses and leave autism to the scientists who are examining it carefully using the scientific method.

For anyone who is interested, I took the flu vaccine this year with it's thimerosol additive, as did my adult child with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Also, it has been shown that children who "regress" into autism were not normal before they experience regression.(2)

Camille Clark

1)http://www.gnd.org/autism/overview.htm http://www.gnd.org http://www.icdrc.org 2)Rogers SJ. Developmental regression in autism spectrum disorders. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2004;10(2):139-43.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do!
 

Peter J Flegg may well be right in his assumptions about lack of herd immunity and its consequences. However, that does not make insistence on MMR vaccinations at a very young age a correct solution.

As I have pointed out before, the right procedure is for the single measles vaccine to be given in place of the MMR. The Mumps and Rubella vaccinations can await a period in the child’s life when its immunity system has matured and is more capable of dealing with them.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do! (Peter Flegg)
 

(1) Is it too much to ask for Peter Flegg to cite a source when he quotes statistics?

(2) It would help Government/medical establishment credibility if there was some genuine concerned attention to those who report adverse reactions to vaccine rather than simply shouting them down, and refusing to investigate the cases.

(3) It would help Government/medical establishment credibility if there was more than minimal show of concern at the causes of the sudden proliferation of autism. The Smeeth studies represent another three years of (deliberately?) wasted time.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Imbalance in autism studies? Yeah, probably, but...
 

I am genuinely touched by Jamie Robertson's suggestion that we should collaborate on a weekly column (where?), though less than convinced that we share a community of view. I have to say that I had measles once and my son has autism, and I know which is the bigger problem. So perhaps did the 1300 claimants in the UK MMR litigation, although it does not necessarily end there. There must have been many more unwilling to submit to the roller-coaster ride and lottery of the law sustained over uncertain years. Nor does it end with MMR or autism: my son had raging fever - went red down one side with DPT HiB - and we were told to take no notice and give him Calpol (all normal apparently and nothing in the notes). And there is the mercury which was secretly being injected into our children until this last autumn (perhaps there are batches still being used).

And Jamie is still telling himself and us that it is probably only a few cases, but quite apart from what many parent witnesses say, he seems to have fallen for the Madsen/Smeeth line that if there are any MMR cases they cannot be statistically significant - disregarding all that has said and demonstrated in these columns and elsewhere about these studies.

Peter Flegg is concerned that the MMR issue has got in the way of investigating autism. Well that is an interesting proposition. Properly investigating these concerns in no way obstructed any other line of investigation. The only real obstruction was what people in the Government or medical profession knew or feared would happen if autism was properly investigated. If they were so certain that the pathology was going to come up negative why was it necessary to persecute Andrew Wakefield? Why was it necessary to stall research on environmental and iatrogenic causes of autism? Why was it necessary to produce all this flawed, inconsequential epidemiology? The answers are, I think, self-evident - and Jamie, while being exceedingly brave, is also far too optimistic.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Imbalance in autism studies? Yeah, probably, but...
 

I am genuinely touched by Jamie Robertson's suggestion that we should collaborate on a weekly column (where?), though less than convinced that we share a community of view. I have to say that I had measles once and my son has autism, and I know which is the bigger problem. So perhaps did the 1300 claimants in the UK MMR litigation, although it does not necessarily end there. There must have been many more unwilling to submit to the roller-coaster ride and lottery of the law sustained over so many uncertain years. Nor does it end with MMR or autism: my son had raging fever - went red down one side with DPT HiB - and we were told to take no notice and give him Calpol (all normal apparently and nothing in the notes). Then there is the mercury which was secretly being injected into our children until this last autumn (perhaps there are batches still being used). All this does not even touch on the SIDS and MSBP debate.

Jamie is still telling himself and us that it is probably only a few cases, but quite apart from what many parent witnesses say, he seems to have fallen for the Madsen/Smeeth line that if there are any MMR cases they cannot be statistically significant - disregarding all that has been said and demonstrated in these columns and elsewhere about these studies.

Peter Flegg is concerned that the MMR issue has got in the way of investigating autism. Well that is an interesting proposition. Properly investigating these concerns in no way obstructed any other line of investigation. The only real obstruction was what people in the Government or medical profession knew or feared would happen if autism was properly investigated. If they were so certain that the pathology was going to come up negative why was it necessary to persecute Andrew Wakefield? Why was it necessary to stall research on environmental and iatrogenic causes of autism? Why was it necessary to produce all this flawed, inconsequential epidemiology? The answers are, I think, self-evident - and Jamie, while being exceedingly brave, is also far too optimistic.

Send response to journal:
Re: Swedish doctor prosecuted for refusal to hand over patient data
 

Christopher Gillberg has written several articles saying there was no link to autism and the MMR vaccine. These articles did not include immune blood panel tests and/or colon biopsies (no clinical science to prove his point).

As a reminder, Christopher Gillberg is a Scientific Advisory Board Member of Cure Autism Now (CAN). (1) Why did Christopher Gillberg destroy data if he was really worth his salt? What did he have to hide?

Below is the following article about Christopher Gillberg titled, "Swedish doctor prosecuted for refusal to hand over patient data." This is from http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Swedish_doctor_prosecuted_for_refusal_to_hand_over_patient_data

Stockholm – A well-known Swedish doctor and researcher at Gothenburg University has been prosecuted, together with the Vice-Chancellor and the President of the University Council, for failing to hand over sensitive data on patients to outside critics.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman, an offical appointed by the Parliament, decided to press charges against Professor Christopher Gillberg, MD, Professor Gunnar Svedberg, (Vice-Chancellor) and Arne Wittlöv (President), for failing to comply with a court order from February 2003.

The court had ordered Gillberg and his colleagues to hand over sensitive data on patients and their relatives to two critics of their research: Eva Kärfve, a sociologist, and Leif Elinder, a pediatrician. The basis for the court's decision was the section of the Swedish constitution relating to freedom of the press. Since the university was a public body, it was obliged to turn over any documents to any citizen upon request unless the document was protected by a specific paragraph in the Secrecy Law.

The university argued that the material should be protected by a paragraph referring to the confidentiality of information about patients. The courts decided, however, that they could hand over the data (about 70 shelf feet of documents) if they specified a proviso that would preserve confidentiality. The university was thus ordered to first write a proviso (set of conditions) for Kärfve and Elinder and then hand over the data.

Gillberg and the other members of the research group refused to comply. They referred to the promise they had given to the participants in their studies that all the data would be kept completely confidential. They also argued that the data was particularly sensitive since the research concerned psychological and psychiatric disorders among children, and that it was impossible to anonymize the data beyond possible identification. When they had pursued all legal avenues without success, someone apparently destroyed the documents in May 2004.

The Gillberg group received considerable support from other medical researchers and from their university. They felt that important clinical research could be jeopardized unless complete confidentiality could be promised to the patients.

Eva Kärfve stated that she was happy with the prosecution and that it would "strengthen the protection of research in Sweden."

References:

1. http://www.cureautismnow.org/research/boards/3349.jsp

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Imbalance in autism studies? Yeah, probably, but...
 

A 'respondent' has recently suggested:

>Maybe John Stone and I should get together to write a 'weekly challenge' for the Tony Floyds of this world

I have never posted a response to this article and, until today, had never read it or the replies posted.

If putting 'challenges' to random people who have not being involved in the process at all is what you want to do, nobody will stop you.

Send response to journal:
Re: Different, but united, views
 

"And Jamie is still telling himself and us that it is probably only a few cases, but quite apart from what many parent witnesses say, he seems to have fallen for the Madsen/Smeeth line that if there are any MMR cases they cannot be statistically significant"

Forgive me if I have come across as indifferent to the scale of the autism problem; in no way am I playing down the plight of children and parents. Rather, would I be right in saying that, were no measles vaccine available, the numbers succumbing to the virus would be greater than those currently diagnosed as autistic? Also, I was making the general point of "lies, damned lies and statistics" which I suppose applies to many walks of life, not just vaccine reactions. Mind you, even if I AM being too optimistic, the questions I have been asking all along remain unanswered. Speaking of which...

"If they were so certain that the pathology was going to come up negative why was it necessary to persecute Andrew Wakefield?... Why was it necessary to produce all this flawed, inconsequential epidemiology?"

Hear, hear! Maybe this can be the second question posed on our little discussion forum :O) On that topic, a very smart man once said to me that the sign of real unity is not that we have no differences; it's how we work around those differences and treat each other in the light of such. It's because of this that I have more respect for John stone - who is at least willing to discuss the issue in hand - than I have for a number of pro-MMR people who do little but throw numbers, not patients, at us.

Send response to journal:
Re: Epidemiology and manipulation
 

"Doctors are the masters of multi-facetted words, and hedging bets. 'Seems to be', 'could have been' 'either' 'or'. Rarely do you see anything definitive, except when it comes to public propaganda. "

Well said! Although whilst the doctors are good, the politicians are better :O)

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do!
 

Camille Clark writes: For anyone who is interested, I took the flu vaccine this year with it's thimerosol additive, as did my adult child with an Autism Spectrum Disorder.

So did my mother. Three weeks later she had her first heart attack.

Days later she had another.

She was allowed out of hospital a day or two before Christmas. Our family spent Christmas Day together not knowing how long my mother had left in her life.

Christmas night she had a massive heart attack - as reported by the Registrar.

Our choice was stark - if we left her she would certainly die. If we allowed her to have a thrombylising treatment she could die of a haemorrhage - but her chances were better than leaving her.

She came out of hospital after New Year, at least alive, but, as someone who had NEVER in her life had a problem with her heart, and who became ill after the vaccine, I was then able to find out about many other adverse reactions and they could all have been my mother. No history but myocardial infarction after the flu vaccine.

I too reacted to my first vaccinations. Out for the count all Christmas Day - so whats cooking for me? Do we not have a right to know?

I am eternally grateful to the staff at Frimley Park for saving my mother's life, but I am not grateful to a system which allows all this to happen.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do! (John Stone)
 

In response to John Stone's first point, I apologise for not giving a source for my figures on measles complications. These were taken from one of my Infectious Disease texts and converted into rates per 10 thousand (to make them comparable to autism rates given with the same denominator).

References for measles complication rates are available online. The CDC gives a death rate of 22 per 10 thousand in the 1989-1991 epidemic (1). In the Netherlands during the 1999 epidemic, there were (per 10 thousand cases) 10 deaths, 17 encephalitis, 229 hospitalised (124 pneumonia). 95% of cases had received no vaccination whatsoever, and 4% had only one MMR dose (2).

It may be difficult to get precise rates because of the possible under-reporting of mild cases (as well as the possible over-reporting of non-measles viral rashes). Nevertheless, measles is hardly as benign as some in the antivaccination lobby would have us believe. In the UK between 1980 and 2002 there have been 147 recorded deaths from measles (3).

Regarding John Stones second point about the need for genuine attention to investigate cases of adverse reactions to vaccine, I am in full agreement.

(1) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053391.htm

(2) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/413794.

(3) http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/measles/data_death_age.htm

Deaths

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Different, but united, views
 

Jamie Robertson writes: "Rather, would I be right in saying that, were no measles vaccine available, the numbers succumbing to the virus would be greater than those currently diagnosed as autistic?" The answer is absolutely not. The number of deaths a year from measles had fallen in the UK from somewhere of the order of 10,000 in the early part of the last century to round about 100 in the decade and a half before monovalent vaccine was introduced in 1968 [1]. I am not indifferent to the fact that measles vaccine may have played a part in eradicating fatalities from measles but it only covered the final one percent, while improvements in nutrition and environment were far more significant.

[1] http://www.whale.to/m/measlesdeaths1.html

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Different, but united, views
 

Jamie should consult the two recent Rapid Response articles by F Edward Yazbak to get some idea of the magnitude and significance of the two ends of the problem:

(1) 'The MMR and Single Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccines: the REAL Facts' 11 January 2005, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7477/1293#92190

(2) 'Looking out from Olmsted County', 18 January 2005 (above), http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7483/112-d#93089

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Different, but united, views
 

Jamie Robertson writes: "Rather, would I be right in saying that, were no measles vaccine available, the numbers succumbing to the virus would be greater than those currently diagnosed as autistic?" The answer, despite John Stone’s attempt to suggest otherwise, is an unequivocal yes.

I personally have sympathy for Mr Stone’s position regarding MMR and possible autism, but he will find that “pro-vaccinators” will have little truck with his views if they are not coloured by deliberate misuse of facts to present vaccine-preventable diseases as worse than their possible complications.

In the absence of immunisation, a highly contagious infection like measles will be almost universal. Complications are not unique to the malnourished, they are well documented within epidemic outbreaks in western countries which have occurred each time vaccine coverage slips. Perhaps one of the most powerful arguments for vaccination comes from a French study on the likely numbers of complications prevented by using vaccines over the last 35 years. I quote:

“In France over the period of time considered, almost 2 million meningitis, 60 000 encephalitis, 170 subacute sclerosis panencephalitis and more than 5600 neurological sequaela including more than 600 deafness cases have been avoided as a result of the MMR vaccination programme. Moreover, 590 000 pneumonia, more than one million of acute otitis media and 300 000 orchitis, 3000 rubella infection cases occurring during pregnancy have also been avoided. Overall, more than 12 000 deaths have been avoided as a result of the MMR vaccination.” (1)

(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14613687&dopt=Abstract

Send response to journal:
Re: Response to Peter Flegg
 

My thanks to Peter Flegg for detailing his sources for measles fatalities.

I am also very grateful to him - and I am sure others will be as well - for his support over monitoring adverse reactions to vaccine. The culture of denial has been with us for a long time from the Department of Health and the medical profession whenever these events are reported. Parents are under intense moral pressure to have their children vaccinated, but who could advise them to do so on the present basis that if anything does go wrong it will almost certaily be denied. There is, of course, an immense backlogue of cases to be examined, and a great question mark must hang over the safety and effectiveness of many of the current products if objectively monitored. But it is excellent that at least one senior doctor has spoken up.

Send response to journal:
Re: A question for Peter Flegg.
 

Dear Sir,

I was going to respond in detail, to Peter Flegg's statistics, but family matters have intervened, so it will have to wait.

In the meantime, a related issue has arisen. In checking out my own texts, I note that depending on the year of the text, figures vary. Depending on the author, there are disparate views on the overall severity of measles.

I have other information from the USA, which it will be interesting to get Peter Flegg's response on, in the future.

But in going through New Zealand deaths and complications, I was struck by the number of deaths in which the "patient" was 'metabolically disadvanted' by either primary immunodeficiency, intercurrent conditions (such as non-Hodgkins Lymphoma), intercurrent illnesses not related to measles, or suppressive medical treatments.

Recent research done in this country, has also found that children admitted to hospital with measles have third world nutritional deficiencies, and are now routinely treated with Vitamin A.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=9006061

Perhaps Peter Flegg might like to provide the UK data for deaths and complications, and discuss the nutritional status of hospital measles admissions, so that doctors and parents can analyse the data, and divide them into the relevant groups in order to best assess the "real" risks for X child, rather than be cajoled into accepting a "one size fits all" policy.

Sincerely,

Hilary Butler.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: "...we should collaborate on a weekly column (where?)"
 

I would be honored to publish such a column weekly in my daily digest, the Schafer Autism Report (email circulation ~20,000). However, doing so must not detract from your "David" presence here, addressing the lurking medical nemesis "Goliath" amongst the readership of these Rapid Response pages. I can offer no monetary compensation as we have no advertising (expenses are paid out of my son's disability "pension"). Perhaps someday our children will thank you themselves.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do! (John Stone)
 

Sir

I think it essential that Peter Flegg qualifies his reporting of measles and vaccine death rates as it is irrefutable that deaths from measles are now most common in adults and babies less than one year of age since the introduction of measles vaccines. This important fact is constantly overlooked by provaccinators yet it should sound the death knell for measles vaccines.

Flegg says, “95% of cases had received no vaccination whatsoever, and 4% had only one MMR dose” yet does not explain why. Is it not because many of these were babies too young to vaccinate whose vaccinated mothers are incapable, due to their own vaccinations, of protecting their children as their grandmothers once did by conferring life-saving immunity on their charges as they also could have had they remained unvaccinated? Historically only about 3% of under ones caught measles, their mothers’ protection being indomitable, now 25% of those babies catch measles and are at highest risk of death along with adults who no doubt add greatly to the majority of the remainder of the “95%” unvaccinated dead.

It has long been accepted that measles is most fatal in adults and under ones (much less so in infants for whom the disease is mildest) who were safer before vaccines as they would have acquired life-saving natural immunity through early infection at the infant stage and through maternal antibodies.

This should, and does, mean that the introduction of measles vaccines actually increased the potential death rate from wild measles; a very convenient fact when misused, by vaccinators and manufacturers to market their deadly wares, out of context. Historically a death rate from measles of about 1 or 2 cases per 10,000 was reported before vaccines were introduced – there being some 3 to 4 million cases occurring with about 500 deaths. Then in 1989-91 after vaccines were introduced came a report of 55,000 cases occurring with 166 deaths, some 3 per 10,000 dying thus the measles vaccine era became more dangerous than the pre-vaccine era (1).

Flegg does suggest that mild cases, and cases of rash that might be misdiagnosed, can affect statistics. Traditionally there was said to be underreporting as much as ten fold of measles cases such that an announced death rate of 1 per 1000 should have read 1 per 10,000 suggesting that traditional methods of managing measles are much safer than vaccination.

Perhaps Peter Flegg could find out for us just how many of the “95% unvaccinated”, for whom measles was fatal, were of the most at risk group ie. adults, and babies less than one year of age, that would necessarily be least vaccinated?

When one adds to this vaccine era increased death rate those deaths and serious ADRs caused by vaccination (2) one begins to understand just how, and why, measles has become so deadly.

Regards

John H.

1. http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/Sept_13_02/Scandal33.htm

2.http://thinktwice.com/s_mmr.htm

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do! (John Stone)
 

Under normal conditions, healthy children do not die from or become disabled from the complications of measles and if they do, questions should be asked about their management.

Before I am overwhelmed by people quoting from the Department of Health Handbook ‘Immunisation against Infectious Diseases’ where it states in paragraph 22.1.5,

“Before 1988 (when the MMR was introduced) more than half the acute measles deaths occurred in previously healthy children who had not been immunised,”

they should first check the source for this statement - ‘Deaths from measles in England and Wales, 1970-83’ (in the bibliography of the Department of Health handbook it omits ‘1970-83’ from the title), Miller CL BMJ 1985;443-4,(1). The definition of ‘healthy’ is somewhat less than straight forward. It is stated in this study that almost half of the people who died from measles between 1970-83 (270) had a ‘pre-existing condition.’ “The ‘pre-existing conditions’’ in the 126 previously abnormal individuals included:

Cerebral palsy (24), mental retardation (20), Down’s syndrome (19), various congenital abnormalities (22), Immune deficiency or Immunosuppression (9), Lymphatic leukaemia (19)....”In those with pre- existing conditions most were grossly physically or mentally abnormal or both.” (ref 2)

I think that most people, medically qualified or otherwise, would agree that there is probably a gradient between these individuals and healthy ones, yet the rest are quoted by the Department of Health Handbook as being ‘healthy.’

Most importantly, the author states:

“no attempt was made to establish vaccination history.”

This is pretty amazing really – to go to the bother of trawling through all that data and not record such a crucial price of information – we are supposed to be scientists after all.

So we do not know how many of the people who died in the study were vaccinated or not but we do know that over 70% of cases of measles in outbreaks may be vaccinated (3). So if measles vaccination is not saving the lives of ‘healthy’ children, how can it possibly hope to save the lives of those with ‘pre-existing conditions’ as those with poor immunity produce less antibodies in response to vaccination anyway

To clarify this matter I wrote to Dr David Salisbury, Principle Medical Officer, Immunisation and Infectious Diseases Group at the Department of Health and one of the editors of the book (also the person to whom professional queries were to be directed). I wrote to him in March of 1999. My questions were:

1) Where was the additional information from 1984-88 obtained (the paper only covered up to 1983)? and

2) As the paper stated that, ‘no attempt was made to establish vaccination history,’ where the information on vaccination status was obtained?

He did not acknowledge or reply to this letter, nor to the two further letters that I sent to him in June and July 1999. I also left messages with his secretary on numerous occasions to no avail. In October of 1999 I wrote to Alan Milburn, then Secretary of State for Health, complaining about the lack of response from Dr Salisbury and asking Mr Milburn to furnish this information for me. This letter was not acknowledged or replied to. However, a letter that I sent to Mr Milburn regarding another matter was acknowledged by return of post and answered within the usual time (so it was nothing personal!).

The inability to supply the requested information leads me to give little weight to this widely quoted statement in the Immunisation against Infectious Diseases Handbook and also increases some of the serious doubts I have about some of the other statements made in this and other publications by the Department of Health.

Then we have to ask how the children with measles who died were managed.

Standard medical advice is to suppress all fevers with Calpol (paracetamol) or Ibuprofen. This is not very helpful when fever is a useful response to infection with a virus or bacterium and runs contrary to the body’s natural attempts to throw out toxins and right itself. In addition, Calpol is metabolised in the liver. The liver is a major component of our immune system and is generally much better occupied in carrying out its immune functions during an illness than blocking itself up detoxifying Calpol.

Parents no longer seem to be given common sense advice about how to look after a child with an infection – put them to bed, open the window, avoid dairy products, plenty of fluids, don’t feed unless hungry and then only easy to digest food in small amounts and more rest.

We are all told that symptoms are the problem and must be gotten rid of. But children only get infectious diseases – whether vaccinatable or non vaccinatable when they need to learn what to do with their immune system or when they need a ‘clean out’ – to put it unscientifically – before taking a developmental leap.

If you look carefully at children after they have been supportively nursed through an infectious disease, you will always see them do something new, depending upon their age and circumstances. An infant may produce a tooth; a toddler who kept banging into things will walk confidently; a six-year old who is not reading will suddenly start to read. It is rather like a snake that has to crack off the old skin before it can grow, children go through these crises before they can move on to the next step. I have often seen children with endless snot or lots of warts have both of these cleared by a healthy bout of chicken pox.

Such infectious diseases do not improve the population, in the harsh Darwinian view of things, by killing off the weak and leaving only the strong ones to reproduce; they actually give each individual child the opportunity to strengthen their own individual immune system and make the best of what they have.

However, we as a society are not set up to allow the timely unfolding of such events. We teach people to fear all symptoms and expect their immediate removal. In the UK more than 50% of mothers with children under five work away from home, so are not there when their children need to be nursed. So they give them the calpol plus or minus the non-indicated (for viral infections) antibiotics and/or antihistamines (to dry up that cough) so that they can send them back to school/ nursery/ childminder so they can get back to the office where time off to care for sick children is not viewed so sympathetically as time off to take the car to the garage, not to mention the intense pressure that parents are put under by schools to have their children there every day to keep up their attendance figures in order for the school not to be penalised by the government.

Is it any wonder that so many children with measles end up in hospital – the last place they should be with their lowered cell mediated immunity, and that some of them die – and here I am talking about well nourished children who live in houses and have clean water supplies – not starving children in developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition, live in inadequate, poorly ventilated housing and drink sewage - where measles or infectious diarrhoea is the last straw that breaks the camel’s back.

And so I reiterate, under normal conditions, if healthy children do die from or become disabled from the complications of measles, questions should be asked about their management.

References:

(1) Immunisation against infectious diseases HMSO London 1996 para 22.1.5, p126

(2) Miller CL, Deaths from measles in England and Wales, 1970-83,BMJ 1985;290:443-4

(3) Hutchins S, Markowitz L, Atkinson W, Swint E, Hadler S, Measles outbreaks in the United States 1987 through 1990 Padiatr Infect Dis J 1996;15:31-8

Send response to journal:
Re: Random challenges...
 

Re: Tony Floyd, your name came to mind after reading your comments about another article concerned with MMR on these boards, where you made no attempt to address the plights of specific patients, rather you simply quoted epidemiological studies. Don't worry about it, it's nothing personal :O), but it was a good example of the kind of attitude that worries me (and quite a lot of other people!)

Apologies for any confusion or offence - Jsr

Send response to journal:
Re: We have a right as parents to know.
 

John Stone has made some excellent comments. I too had measles so did my neighbours and most of my friends, we are all fit. I agree if I had to choose between measles and Autism there is no competition. My boys are really suffering. First no one admits they have Autism and then when I push for help and education I get the blame and with it the label Munchausen by Proxy. I get told I like labels so why is it me that has the label??

There are professionals who see the problems with vaccines as John Stone says one is Andrew Wakefield. I too want to know why he is being persecuted if there is not a problem.I also wish to know why other professionals who see a problem also get persecuted, what is being covered up?????

Mercury has been taken out of the MMR since August I believe. It seems odd to me that Mercury was also said to be a problem in dental fillings and caused many health concerns, it is obvious that if it caused a problem whilst in fillings in our teeth it would also cause problems when injected into the BLOOD STREAM of a small baby,common sense says this would be dangerous, so why when it was found to be dangerous in our teeth was this allowed to continue to happen???

Miss Blakemore-Brown has said in her response we should be made aware of side effects but we continue to be kept in the dark. It is the most vulnerable members of the community who are having these vaccines babies,the elderley and the frail,parents have the right to know what they are having their children vaccinated with just as the elderley have a right to know what they are being vaccinated with and also the associated risks. It is only when the damage is done we look for answers just as Ms Blakemore-Brown did when her mother became ill. We need to know before not after it is only fair a life time of Autism is not especially for our children.

Send response to journal:
Re: The life sentence versus the death sentence
 

I do not in principle accept that these are necessarily alternatives, nor is there some way that I could consider the deaths of small numbers of children a matter of indifference, yet I recall the spontaneous reaction of an old doctor friend when I told her at my mother's funeral that we had an autistic child: "That's a life sentence". And indeed it is not only a life sentence for the child, it is a life sentence for a family. But you don't get out in a dozen years for good behaviour, nor is it even just a life sentence since hideous logistic human problems outlive you.

This is not written in any spirit of self-pity: what I would like to point to is the way the nebulous diagnostic aspects of the disorder have been exploited by governments across the world to evade the truly calamitous nature of what is happening. I used to think if children suddenly dropped dead rather than being rendered helpless that something would be done. Little did I realise the awful truth, that in those circumstance - an alternative known scenario - the parents would most likely stand accused of murder.

I can only conclude that the responsibility for a parent of having your child vaccinated is far too great. If anything does go wrong the medical profession and the Government will not want to know about it, and that is not a rational basis on which to proceed.

Send response to journal:
Re: Enoch Powell found the same problems
 

When Enoch Powell became Minister of Health in 1960 he found that there was intense resistance of the professions to anything that could even be misinterpreted as lay invasion of clinical and scientific judgement. [1]

He also noted later that the government and the politicians responsible for the NHS can accomplish anything (humanly speaking) with the medical profession and nothing against it. [2]

In terms of vaccination politics, nothing seems to have changed.

[1] Shepherd, Robert. Enoch Powell: A biography. Pimlico 1996. (pp205)

[2] idem (pp206)

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do! (John Stone)
 

Recent responses indicate that there is still a lot of misinformed opinion concerning measles infection. Rather than replying to specific points from individual posters, I hope that a closer look at studies from one country should help cover most of the points raised (1,2).

Finland is a well-developed country that has for many decades had an excellent medical infrastructure and a better-nourished and healthier population than many other western nations. Anti-vaccinationist lore will tell us that “99%” of measles cases mystically disappear with improvements in hygiene and nutrition. If that were true, then Finland should have been virtually measles-free for much of the last century.

On the contrary, in the 1970s the annual average incidence of measles was 336 per 100 thousand of the population (equivalent to about 17000 cases), with measles encephalitis affecting about 100 children each year.

In 1982, a comprehensive MMR vaccination campaign took place, and it says much for Scandinavian efficiency that 97% of the target population was immunised within 5 years. By 1987, measles notifications had dropped to 317 cases, a more than 98% decline. Childhood encephalitis cases were reduced from 19.8 per 100 thousand child years in 1974 to 2.5 in 1985 and 1986.

Several detailed studies were conducted throughout the programme, which monitored vaccinees for adverse effects and allergic reactions. A double blind cross over trial was even conducted in 1162 twins to check the pattern of short-term reactions to vaccine, which were all minor. Febrile convulsions occurred in 7 per 100 000 vaccinees, thrombocytopenic purpura in 3.3 per 100 000, and there was only one case of measles encephalitis which resolved uneventfully in a 7 year old girl with leukaemia.

Small outbreaks of measles have been reported since the start of the programme, occurring almost exclusively unvaccinated individuals. In one outbreak in 1989-1990 there were 1748 cases of measles, with over 90% occuring either in those under one (140 cases) or over 12 (the peak incidence being over 230 cases in 15 year olds).

Studies like these (and there are several others) clearly show that the prevention of measles is both necessary and achievable. Reliance on good nutrition to protect one’s children is a futile gesture – if your are not immune, you are susceptible and may still develop complications despite being “healthy” and having the best available care on hand. I agree that the severity of some measles complications may be mitigated by good nutrition and good health care. This however is not an argument for thinking measles is benign, or trying to prevent it in the first place. It takes some convoluted logic for anti-vaccinationists to say on the one hand that a measles complication like encephalitis does not matter because we are “so good at treating complications nowadays” and yet on the other hand say we should not give vaccines because they might have dreadfully debilitating side effects such as encephalitis (cue universal shock and horror).

It is also a bit worrying that we should adopt a culture of assuming that we don’t need to stop our children getting ill because if they do our health service will fix them. As a corollary, head injury mortality has dropped in recent years with the advent of better neurosurgical intensive care, but I hope there aren’t any anti-vaccinationists telling their children not to bother with crash helmets or seat belts.

John Heptonstall talks about the death rates from measles in infants under one year old being higher than in other children. Infants have higher complication rates for just about every infection going, not just measles, and if through vaccination you can stop children over one year old catching and dying from measles, of course most deaths will then be recorded in infants under the age of one. Forgive me if I fail to see why this is an argument that is so powerful that it should “sound the death knell” of vaccination completely, thereby leaving everyone vulnerable. I did say that cases of non-measles rashes can affect statistics, but Heptonstall is wrong to assume this works in only one direction. When measles is rife, many mild cases will go unnoticed or unreported. However, when measles is rarer, it is often greatly over-reported, since the number of true measles cases will make up a tiny proportion of all the other possible childhood exanthems. The Finnish studies clearly showed this (they checked serology of all reported cases).

Studies like those in Finland do not address the issue of autism, they merely emphasise that the overall medical benefits from vaccines like MMR greatly outweigh the risks. Even if autistic spectrum disorders can be triggered by MMR, and there is sufficient evidence to suggest this happens only infrequently, it is not a reason to abandon vaccination against one of the most contagious and potentially debilitating childhood infections (as anti-vaccinationists would have us do).

Perhaps I could give a bit of advice to some of those posting on the topic of MMR/autism. It is one thing to strive for better information and research on the causes of autism and its links with MMR, something I can support. Having read your testimonies and of your frustrating efforts to get even half sensible answers to your questions, I can better understand your situation and the barriers you face. However, it is another thing entirely to assume that your enemy’s enemy is your friend, and adopt the uninformed and unobjective opinions of the extreme end of the antivaccination lobby who can only endanger lives with their propaganda.

(1) Peltola H, Heinonen OP, Valle M, et al. The elimination of indigenous measles mumps and rubella from Finland by a 12-year, two-dose vaccination program. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1397–402.

(2) Koskiniemi M, Vaheri A. Effect of measles, mumps, rubella vaccination on pattern of encephalitis in children. Lancet 1989;1:31-4.

_

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do! (John Stone)
 

What an excellent response from Jayne Donegan. She really knows what she is talking about and she puts her knowledge to great use. I am very grateful to anyone out there who takes the time and effort to make a difference by supporting our vaccine damaged children and teenagers. It is about time people started to wake up to the real facts as it is long overdue. Alot of skullduggery has been going on and if allowed to continue, many more of our precious children will be harmed.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Different, but united, views--and properties of Helium and Lead
 

Wow, Helium is not only a great gas for anti-gravity inflation, but also makes people talk and write funny.

I recall, not too long ago, Tony Floyd shouting forth these stats that Peter Flegg just quoted. Let's cross-analyze these figures from France with some known International mortality statistics in the U.S and U.K. in the measles pre-vaccine era. I doubt France is too unlike the U.K. or U.S., so let's look close to home.

Renowned pediatrician and vaccine researcher, Robert Mendelsohn cites figures that by 1955 (eight years before the first measles shot), death from measles in the U.S. had declined on its own by 97.7 percent to .03 deaths per 100,000 population. (1) Figures in the U.S. and U.K. from International Mortality Statistics (2) confirm this figure that between 1915 and 1958 death from measles had decreased by 98 percent.

Let's take .03 deaths per 100,000 measles cases and look at Flegg's 35 year stats. --.03 deaths per 100,000 population in a current U.S. population of 300,000,000 (inflated from 1955) equals 90 deaths per year. Thus, over 35 years we would have 3,150 deaths from measles at a 1955 nutrition, hygiene and management level (no measles vaccine until almost a decade later). Taking a different angle, we would have to greatly inflate the current population 3.33 times to one billion and then over 40 years, we would arrive at 12,000 deaths.

John stone recently cited, in this thread, a reference to numbers of pre-vaccine era measles deaths in England. Let's look at those. Starting with 1925, apparent deaths from measles was 5,337. In 1957 (a good average from that time), there were 95 deaths. A reduction from 5,337 deaths in 1925 to 95 deaths in 1957 is a 98.3% decrease. Hmmm...that sounds familiar. A trend that I would say was likely to continue as it is a steady long term trend. So, nature, improved nutrition, hygiene and management etc. took care of 98% and vaccines jumped in and is supposedly taking care of the remaining 2% that for whatever reasons nature, hygeine, management etc. couldn't continue on with?

If you were a betting person and in Vegas, where would you put your chips? On nature and other factors or would you stack em behind vaccines?

Compared to the French stats Flegg quoted as a scare tactic, we have 3,150 U.S. deaths over 35 years (without continuing the declining non- vaccine trend) and 3,325 English deaths over 35 years (without coninuing the declining non-vaccine trend). Looking at the pre-vaccine trend no one in their right mind could claim measles vaccine was responsible for eliminating all 3,000 plus deaths. And, these figures are no where near the French 12,000! Then again, perhaps the french are more susceptible to disease or harbor more virulent measles virus? Better send them some Vitamin A. Keep your scare tactics where they belong.

Mendelsohn had this to say regarding encephalitis complications from measles..."The incidence of 1/1000 may be accurate for children who live in conditions of poverty and malnutrition but for everyone else, the incidence of true encephalitis is probably more like 1/10,000 or 1/100,000" Hmmm...to vaccinate or improve overall health? Additionally, 75 % of these cases will NOT show evidence of brain damage. (3) Do you think we'll ever know the percentage of cases of vaccine induced encephalitis that show evidence of brain damage? Doubtful with today's status quo of acknowledging and tracking adverse vaccine events.

Makes you wonder how much Helium is in Frances, Flegg's and Floyd's statistical air. Sorry to fill your Zeppelin with Led, but somebody had to bring you back to earth.

1) Mendelsohn, Robert. How to Raise a Healthy Child...In Spite of Your Doctor. Ballantine Books, 1984 pp 236-37

2) Alderson, Michael. International Mortality Statistics (Washington, DC: Facts on File, 1981) pp 182-83

3) Neustaedter, R. The Vaccine Guide. (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1996) p 142

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Different, but united, views
 

Peter Flegg writes: "I personally have sympathy for Mr Stone's position regarding MMR and possible autism, but he will find "pro- vaccinators" [sic] will have little truck with his views if they are not coloured by deliberate misuse of facts to present vaccine-preventable as worse than their possible complications."

I have no certain idea what this means. I am very wary of giving factual status to the extravagant extrapolations of the study he cites about the consequences of not implementing MMR in France (if we are going to 2 million cases of meningitis, why not 20 million?), as against the hard data I cited regarding the situation prior to the introduction of monovalent measles vaccine in the UK.

Send response to journal:
Re: Anti Vaccine?
 

Peter Flegg seems to suggest that some of us who have vaccine damaged children are now anti vaccine. I for one am not anti vaccine, I see vaccine as a vital tool in control of serious illness and prevention of premature death. I am very anti multi vaccine in young and vulnerable babies. I am also very concerned that Mercury was injected into the blood stream of tiny babies even when found to be a problem in dental fillings. I am also concerned that there is very limited litrature on the possible side effects of multi vaccines such as MMR especially when cases of MMR damaged children are being successfully won in court and any litature that is available is not given to a parent to read before a young baby is vaccinated. I also wonder why Mercury was taken out and why Tony Blair was reluctant to say whether his young son had been given the MMR. If Mr Blair and the government were so confident in the MMR vaccine then I am sure he personally would wish to share his confidence with us by announcing that his son had been given the MMR vaccine thus relieving much fear and speculation.

It is with trepidation I notice that as this topic has progressed on BMJ rapid response more and more parents with vaccine damaged children many of these Autistic are writing responses, does this not say anything???? Surely this fact alone should indicate that the problem is more widespread.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Different, but united, views--and properties of Helium and Lead
 

Travis Hawes wants to play the numbers game, so let me indulge him. He quotes Mendelsohn, whose measles estimates bear little resemblance to the hard data coming out of authorities such as the CDC in the last few decades (but then, he did have a book to sell). Let us assume that measles causes encephalitis in only "probably 1/10,000 or 1/100,000" cases as Mendelsohn guesses (he has no evidence for this figure). Around 4 million infants are born in the USA each year. So without measles vaccination, Mendelsohn predicts between 40 and 400 cases of measles encephalitis annually, of whom, guess what, "only" 25% will have permanent brain damage (there’s luck for you!). Using rates based on recent outbreak data for complications, we would be more likely to see 4000 cases of encephalitis each year and between 4000 to 8000 deaths (1).

Is Travis Hawes perhaps confusing helium with the nitrous oxide that dentists are exposed to?

(1) CDC. Measles, Mumps, and Rubella -- Vaccine Use and Strategies for Elimination of Measles, Rubella, and Congenital Rubella Syndrome and Control of Mumps: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 1998 47; (RR-8) 1-57.M

Send response to journal:
Re: The emperor has no clothes
 

Peter Flegg writes:

"Studies like those in Finland, do not address the issue of autism, they merely emphasise that the overall medical benefits of vaccines greatly outweigh the risks. Even if autistic spectrum disorders can be triggered by MMR, and there is sufficient evidence to suggest that this only happens infrequently, it is not a reason to abandon vaccination against one of the most contageous and potentially debilitating childhood infections (as anti-vaccinationists would have us do)."

Time was when the Finish study was held up for convenience as proof that MMR did not cause autism and inflammatory bowel disease [1]. Subsequently it became apparent - as Dr Flegg admits - that it shed no light on the matter whatsoever. A review of the data regarding the incidence of autism and bowel disease in Finland post MMR (and other emergent health problems) can be found in an article by F Edward Yazbak 'Finland's Health Paradox' [2]. To quote Ed Yazbak in regard to autism:

"In a study published in 2000 in the Journal of European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry [3] M Kielinen et al described a significant rise in autism in the northern provinces of Oulu and Lapland which represents 1/8 of the total population of Finland. The Kielinen study included all children born in the two provinces, between 1979 and 1994. Every single one of those children was eligible and most likely received the MMR vaccine. The authors personally reviewed all records of children with autism to determine that they fufilled the criteria of ICD-10 and DSM-IV. The cumulative incidence of autism was 12.2 per 10,000, a significant increase when compared with the previously reported incidence of 4.75 per 10,000 reported by Vinni and Timonen. The increase in the younger children, all born during the second half of the MMR campaign, was even more striking. In the 5 to 7 age group the cumulative incidence was 20.7 per 10,000 or more than 1 in 500. There is no reason to believe that the incidence of autistic disorders is significantly different in other provinces."

Peter Flegg states "there is sufficient evidence to suggest this (MMR triggering autism) only happens infrequently". "Suggests" is a weak word but I wonder which authorities he cites because many flimsy studies do not add up to a single strong one. I have not noticed strong defences of the Madsen and Smeeth papers, least of all by the authors of them, whose long term silence is all too apparent. "Even if autistic spectrum disorders can be triggered by MMR... it is not a reason to abandon vaccination against one of the most contageous and debilitating childhood infections (as anti- vaccinationists would have us do).

Well, that is not what Dr Wakefield proposed, but look what happened to him all the same. We do not have any sensible answers, which in itself demonstrates that there is a problem. At the same time I find Peter Flegg's assertion that the price we have paid is somehow worthwhile outrageous. If this is the best way medical science can protect the population then heaven help us. I wonder which parents are going to buy that one?

[1]'Study rejects vaccine safety fears' http://news.bbc.uk/1/hi/uk/86315.stm

[2] At: http://wwww.redflagsweekly/conferences/vaccines/2004_May16_4.php . Unfortunately access is no longer free.

[3] Kielinen et al, European Child and Adolescent Psychology 9: 162-7 (2000)

Send response to journal:
Re: Response to Donegan
 

Donegan asks why vaccination history was not established in this study – This indeed would have been useful to know, but perhaps retrospectively establishing contact with parents many years after the event was impractical. I also imagine it would be insensitive and inappropriate to question parents on their dead child’s vaccination status. Looking at the list of pre-existing conditions, it is apparent that many of these individuals had contraindications to vaccination, so presumably were susceptible for the reason that they were not vaccinated. Children for whom vaccinations are contraindicated rely on the good levels of herd immunity in the population for their protection. It is of little comfort to these children’s families to realise that herd immunity is being eroded by the unwillingness of others to take responsible action.

The Miller paper indicates that the ratio of deaths to measles notification showed no decline over the period studied (1.5 per ten thousand). This indicates that while vaccination may prevent measles, it does not in any way alter the outcome of measles infection. Children who are unhealthy/malnourished/immunodeficient will suffer disproportionately from measles complications. The fact that over half the deaths occurred in apparently “healthy” people should sound alarm bells about the potentyail severity of the measles and not be dismissed lightly, as Donegan seems to do.

Donegan states if healthy children die or are disabled from complications of measles, “questions should be asked about their management.” I am afraid Donegan has a very quaint view as to what can be done to prevent a complication such as encephalitis supervening in a child with measles. Standard care for what is a very unpleasant illness for most children will include anything to make them more comfortable. Advice such as “open the window, avoid dairy products” etc. is unlikely to have any impact whatsoever on the development of complications.

The bottom line is that normal, healthy children can and do die from measles irrespective of their preliminary or subsequent medical care. I find efforts to shift the blame for these deaths on someone’s failure to “open a window” (when the infection is likely to have been prevented in the first place through vaccination) rather saddening.

Donegan also states “we do know that over 70% of cases of measles in outbreaks may be vaccinated.” This is a misrepresentation of the truth. Even the single source she quotes for this information does not say this (2). It explains how the majority of cases in school age children in the USA in the mid 1980s occurred in those who had previously been vaccinated. The majority of cases in pre-schoolers and adults still occurred among the unvaccinated. This discovery led to a change in USA immunisation policy in 1989 with a requirement that all children receive a second vaccination before they attend school, a strategy that has been extremely successful. Measles outbreaks in the more recent past are now largely confined to unvaccinated individuals, both in the USA and in Europe (3-5), and Donegan knows this.

The inference that vaccine is ineffective because vaccinated individuals can become infected is false. In Canada researchers studied siblings of measles cases during one outbreak (6). Superficial perusal of the results might give the impression that vaccination is ineffective, because “66% of siblings developing measles were immunised” (and anti-vaccinationists tend to myopically view such figures with glee). In fact a closer look at the data reveals the good protective effect of vaccination – All 17 unvaccinated siblings of index cases caught measles (giving an attack rate of 100% in unvaccinated individuals) but only 41 of 441 vaccinated siblings developed measles (giving an attack rate of 9% in vaccinated individuals), and without vaccination, there would have been a further 400 cases in the outbreak. This is not the first time Donegan has been caught out by her misrepresentation of the true facts.

(1). Miller CL, Deaths from measles in England and Wales, 1970-83,BMJ 1985;290:443-4
(2) Hutchins S, Markowitz L, Atkinson W, Swint E, Hadler S, Measles outbreaks in the United States 1987 through 1990 Padiatr Infect Dis J 1996;15:31-8.
(3). MMWR. Epidemiology of Measles -United States, 2001–2003. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004 Aug 13;53(31):713-6.
(4). Yip FY, Papania MJ, Redd SB. Measles outbreak epidemiology in the United States, 1993-2001. J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S54-60.
(5). Muscat, M et al. Measles in Europe in 2001-2002. Euro Surveill. 2003 Jun;8(6):123-9.
(6). De Serres G, Boulianne N, Meyer F, Ward BJ. Measles vaccine efficacy during an outbreak in a highly vaccinated population: incremental increase in protection with age at vaccination up to 18 months. Epidemiol Infect 1995; 115: 315-323.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My goodness - someone else feels as I do! (John Stone)
 

Sir

It’s difficult to appreciate why Peter Flegg responds thus when faced with insurmountable evidence of vaccine failures, damage and potential obsolescence. The provaccinators’ protestations usually contain so little proof that one wonders how they can place limitations on highly credible scientific reflections given by what Flegg refers to as an antivaccination lobby. His assertions are so easily refuted, with evidence that has appeared in Rapid Responses before, one wonders if he ever got the message: -

1. I have not heard of an anti-vaccination lobby that said, “measles would disappear with improvements in hygiene and nutrition”. I have read that a child who catches measles will experience an innocuous disease of childhood if the child has access to good hygiene and nutrition. Avoidance of measles was not sought in my childhood, it was expected and not feared. It was part of one’s journey through childhood.

2. I think measles encephalitis probably has more to do with poor management of the disease than expectation.

3. What use “short term” follow up for vaccination; do vaccinators insult public intelligence? How do the reported gradual, insidious, developing symptoms that form a chain of events post-vaccination and conclude in a serious, often life threatening, illness that is so destructive to children and families show up in “short term” studies? Where are the prospective clinical studies, comparing unvaccinated with vaccinated, that vaccinators are so reluctant to perform?

4. Finland is interesting, certainly in the early 1980s the Fins tried to lead the world by eradicating various childhood diseases through vaccination and, as Flegg says, by 1987 the rate of measles notifications had dropped significantly as had those of childhood encephalitis. However, what Flegg fails to mention is that Finland coincidentally experienced an enormous increase in childhood insulin dependent diabetes (IDDM), quickly leading the world. From 1987 Finland saw a 57% increase in IDDM in under 15s, and the highest rise from 1987 to 1996 in 1-4 year old children. One must suspect the Fins' mass vaccination campaign of this horrendous development.

5. The eradication of MMR with 2 doses of MMR from 1982 in Finland was also accompanied by another strange development. Researchers found that 665 vaccinated patients with clinically diagnosed disease had confirmed measles in only 0.8%, mumps in 2% and rubella in 1.2% of the 665. What had replaced measles, mumps and rubella through vaccination?

6. Certainly I spoke about death rates from measles being higher in under ones and adults; I did not refer to “about every other disease” – Flegg’s red herring. The fact that more under ones die than over ones is because the more girls there are vaccinated the more future mothers there are that have lost their natural protection for their future offspring and contributes greatly to the fact that 1-2/100,000 died before vaccines were introduced and 3/100,000 since – a possible tripling of the old death rate from measles during the vaccine era.

7. The death knell ought to sound for any medical intervention responsible for the tripling of deaths from any disease; why exempt vaccines from good scientific sense?

8. During the vaccine era notifications of measles have been suppressed by physicians who took the extraordinary position that a measles-vaccinated child could not possibly suffer measles! I know of numerous such cases; and I also remember the Hungerford area study in the 90s which found around 97% of all measles diagnoses were incorrect.

9. Referring to measles as “one of the most contagious and potentially debilitating childhood infections” Flegg must refer to its impact on 3rd world nations, areas of the world devastated by a disease we unwittingly introduced, not our communities.

10. It does not appear to be the “antivaccination lobby” that adopts uninformed and unobjective opinions but the provaccinators and their executive arm – the physicians and health visitors - who ply the vaccine trade in apparent blind obedience amongst the population having little sense or education to support their application of this questionable medical intervention. I find that those who awake and question the science so often become anti-vaccinators.

Some vaccines, rather than induce immunity, appear to alter diseases to another form that may be more dangerous. This is never admitted as a consequence of vaccination by provaccinators yet coincident with a reduction in the number of notifications of childhood diseases we have seen an explosion in the number of notifications of diabetes, ASDs, asthma, cancers and leukaemias, ADHD, psychosis, MS, ME/CFS, and arthritis which have long been suspected of developing as a result of vaccination.

The points I make above are well covered in my rapid response “Vaccination mythology” at http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7229/240#6390, 23 Jan 2000.

Regards

John H.

Send response to journal:
Re: How accurate are the statistics anyway?
 

Dear Sir,

Dr Flegg states first:

>>>>>> “pro-vaccinators” will have little truck with his views if they are not coloured by deliberate misuse of facts to present vaccine-preventable diseases as worse than their possible complications."<<<<<

He then quotes Finnish measles infection/complication statistics as if they are the last word on accuracy, to back up his point of view.

In the interests of discussion here, I would like to post the following.

The first is a personal e-mail, as a result of study following my children's SECOND bout of measles.

The reply from CDC had no confidentiality statement on it, and given that the CDC epidemiologist stated what he saw as the truth, I see no reason why he should have any qualms about the full publication here, of his honest answer to an honest question:

Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 5:32 PM To: nipinfo@cdc.gov Subject: CDC Measles Statistics

To Whom It May Concern : Measles. Could someone please explain the discrepancy?

According to the CDC - www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/va

"MEASLES - Before measles immunizations were available, nearly everyone in the U.S. got measles. There were approximately 3 to 4 million measles cases each year. An average of 450 measles-associated deaths were reported each year between 1953 and 1963.

In industrialized countries, up to 20% of persons with measles are hospitalized, and 7% to 9% suffer from complications such as pneumonia, diarrhea, or ear infections.

Although less common, some persons with measles develop encephalitis, resulting in brain damage. It is estimated that as many as 1 of every 1,000 persons with measles will die."

Now, if there were approximately 3 to 4 million measles cases each year and an average of 450 measles-associated deaths were reported each year between 1953 and 1963... that means, if my maths is correct, approx 0.01285% of people infected with measles died, that is, one in 7777 cases... so how do they arrive at "1 of every 1000 persons with measles will die"?

If there is an average of 3.5 million cases of measles per year.. and 1 in 1000 ie: 0.1% of people are expected to die.. then the CDC predict 3500 to die each year... There is a BIG difference between past experience ie. 450 people dying every year and a predicted 3500...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was their answer:

Thank you for your question concerning measles death rates. I can try to provide an explanation of the seemingly contradictory data you ask about.

Let's start with the raw numbers. Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were REPORTED annually (with epidemic cycles every 2- 3 years). The ratio of REPORTED deaths to REPORTED cases was approximately 1:1000.

You can do the calculations yourself. Here are the data for reported measles in the U.S. from 1953 to 1963 (source: Summary of Reportable Diseases, United States, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, various issues):

Year # cases # deaths rate

1953 449146 462 (1.0 per 1000)

1954 682720 518 (0.8 per 1000)

1955 555156 345 (0.6 per 1000)

1956 611936 530 (0.9 per 1000)

1957 486799 389 (0.8 per 1000)

1958 763094 552 (0.7 per 1000)

1959 406162 385 (0.9 per 1000)

1960 441703 380 (0.9 per 1000)

1961 423919 434 (1.0 per 1000)

1962 481530 408 (0.8 per 1000)

1963 385156 364 (0.9 per 1000)

The average annual rate of reported deaths to reported cases during this time period (1953-1963) was 0.85 deaths per 1000 cases.

It is assumed that cases were severely under-reported - the ACTUAL number of cases (reported and non-reported) in the pre-vaccine era is estimated to have been 3-4 million annually, significantly higher than the reported number of 500,000 cases.

The ACTUAL number of deaths is also estimated to have been higher than the reported 500. Exactly how much higher is an complicated issue. We generally assume that surveillance of measles-related severe events, such as deaths, is likely to be better reported than sicknesses that don't end in death. However, it is possible that many deaths due to measles were not reported as such. They may have been reported as death from pneumonia, which is often a complication of measles. If we assume that the ratio of deaths due to measles among unreported cases was the same as the ratio among reported cases, then your figure of 3500 might be an accurate guess at the ACTUAL number of deaths in these years. For this reason, we can use only REPORTED data (cases and deaths) to estimate mortality rates (in this case, about 1 reported death per 1000 reported cases).

An additional complicating factor is that death from measles is quite age-specific. We know that infants and children less than 5 years of age, and adults 20 and over, are at much higher risk of death than school-age children. So the number of deaths is a function of the age group that is most affected.

During the prevaccination years, measles was mostly a disease of school-aged children, which would tend to lower the number of total deaths, and the death rate. Most adults were immune from having survived measles as a child.

During 1989-1991, on the other hand, measles mostly affected preschool-aged children, and the death rate increased considerably, as you can see below.

Here are the actual data on cases and deaths from measles in the United States for 1990 through 1998 (source: Summary of Reportable Diseases,

United States, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, various issues):

Year # cases # deaths rate

1990 27786 64 (2.3 per 1000)

1991 9643 27 (2.8 per 1000)

1992 2237 4 (1.8 per 1000)

1993 312 0 (0.0 per 1000)

1994 963 0 (0.0 per 1000)

1995 309 2 (6.5 per 1000)

1996 508 1 (2.0 per 1000)

1997 138 0 (0.0 per 1000)

1998 89 0 (0.0 per 1000)

The average annual rate of reported deaths to reported cases during this time period (1990-1998) was 1.7 deaths per 1000 cases.

In recent years, surveillance has been much better, and it is believed that REPORTED numbers of cases and deaths more accurately reflect ACTUAL numbers of cases and deaths.

In any case, you can see that the rate (at least among reported cases) has remained more or less the same. 1 to 2 reported deaths occur per 1000 reported cases. It is statistically reasonable to assume that this is also the rate among unreported cases, depending on the age group affected.

On this basis, we predict that about 1 person will die from measles, ON AVERAGE, for every 1000 persons with the disease.

Now, in addition to the numbers, there are a lot of other things to consider in determining number of cases and numbers of deaths and rates.

First, old data are likely to be way off. Reporting systems were simply not very good. The numbers given are the absolute minimums, and are probably very, very low.

Second, when denominators (# of cases) are higher, rates of death tend to be lower then when denominators (# of cases) become very small - this is because a single death in a population of 500 cases, for example, gives a very, very high death rate of 2 per 1000). As the size of the denominator decreases, it is very hard to find a rate with any confidence - it is hard to ensure that the rate obtained is applicable to the general population.

A single death in 1998 would have made the death rate 10%!

Third, the absolute numbers (because of the fact that reported data is likely to be inaccurate and also because the denominators are diminishing (over time) are generally meaningless. What is meaningful, in contrast, is the general trend. In this case, the trend that we see is that the numbers of cases and deaths due to measles have steadily and significantly decreased over time to almost nothing.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

William Atkinson, MD Medical Epidemiologist National Immunization Program Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Add in to the mix, this:

GPS MISDIAGNOSE MEASLES IN 97% OF CASES

PULSE (UK), January 18, 1997

Measles is wrongly diagnosed in 97 per cent of cases, according to new data from the Public Health Laboratory Service.

An evaluation of 12,000 notifications and salivary samples from suspected cases showed the vast majority of people with a measles-like rash has some other condition instead, according to Dr Mark Reecher, consultant in public health medicine at the Public Health Laboratory Service, Colindale.

'We're not saying for one minute that GPs are poor at making a diagnosis -these findings simply show how inherently difficult it is to make a diagnosis based on clinical symptoms alone. Any doctor would find it difficult to differentiate between viruses. 'Previously we had a lot of measles infection in the community and these other viruses were submerged, but as the incidence of measles subsides we are able to see more clearly what other viruses are lurking in the background,' he said.

According to Dr Roger Buttery, consultant in communicable diseases at Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority, many patients probably had common viral infections such as cytomegalovirus or Epstein Barr virus. He also said that measles was not the only condition being misdiagnosed. 'Hardly any cases of suspected mumps were confirmed from salivary tests, which is surprising as you would think it had a fairly clear clinical picture,' he added.

Rubella, however, which has more ambiguous symptoms, was correctly diagnosed in about 25 per cent of cases. 'We think we know what many of these illnesses look like, but diagnostic tests show there is great diversity and what we think is classic mumps may well he something else,' he said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So my questions to Mr Flegg are these:

On this basis,

1) exactly how can so-called facts be enshrined in concrete?, and

2) if diagnosis is now so hit and miss, and uncertain anywhere, how do we know that measles of the present is actually measles, let alone measles of the past? and

3) On this basis, does the medical profession actually know very much?

Using the data above, assuming that the measles we see, is measles, you could make a very good case to suggest that it is the VACCINATION PROGRAMME itself that has increased the current death rates, by "spreading" cases through two groups of people who, prevaccine, didn't normally get measles.

Something which has been discussed in medical literature, but rarely, as its a point the medical profession studiously avoids. But which would be counter-argued by spouting the assumption that if everyone was vaccinated, there would be no measles.

The point is that etiology, and epidemiology is certainly not the simple issues that Peter Flegg puts forward. The statistics used to justify the vaccination in the first place, were never secure, and were based on crystal ball evaluations, and possibly, mistaken diagnoses all around.

People have a right to know that statistics are not the be all and end all of any discussion. Because there are statistics, and then there are .... statistics. And diagnoses,... and then there are .... diagnoses.

Hilary Butler.

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Response to Donegan
 

“Almost half of the people who died from measles between 1970-83 (270) had a ‘pre-existing condition’.”this is the message of the paper by CL Miller (1), the one that the Immunisation Handbook (Department of Health 1996) uses as the source for it’s claim that, “Before 1988 (when the MMR was introduced) more than half the acute measles deaths occurred in previously healthy children who had not been immunised,” (2)

CL Miller adds that: ”In those with pre- existing conditions most were grossly physically or mentally abnormal or both.” I am not suggesting that it does not matter if those with ‘pre-existing conditions’ die from measles. I am contesting the Immunisation Handbook’s claim that,

“Before 1988 (when the MMR was introduced) more than half the acute measles deaths occurred in previously healthy children who had not been immunised,”

Dr Flegg says that ‘it would have been useful to know’ – the vaccination history.

Useful – it is crucial if we do not know the vaccination history then we don’t know whether the measles vaccination is helping or not – if we don’t know whether children who have complications or die of measles are vaccinated or not, how can we know whether there is any point in vaccinating against measles in the first place?

I can also imagine it would be insensitive and inappropriate to question parents on their dead child’s vaccination status – especially if their children had been vaccinated – it might certainly make the parents question the effectiveness of that vaccination.

But why would it be necessary to ask the parents – are there not such things as medical records? Or is it a complete waste of my time that I write down notes every time I speak to a patient if these are not able to be used in the future for such data gathering. The investigators had access to the notes. Would it not be Dr Flegg’s standard practice to ask whether a patient admitted with a vaccinatable disease had been vaccinated against that disease?

Dr Flegg says: “The fact that over half the deaths occurred in apparently “healthy” people should sound alarm bells about the potential severity of the measles and not be dismissed lightly, as Donegan seems to do.” Dr Flegg has seems to have missed the point that these children may very well be not ‘healthy’ at all – just not actually, “grossly physically or mentally abnormal or both.” (not my words – those of CL Miller) and that the Department of Heath’s statement that “half the acute measles deaths occurred in previously healthy children who had not been immunised,” is just an attempt to scare parents into vaccinating their children – often against their better judgement.

Dr Flegg says that advice such as “open the window, avoid dairy products” etc. is unlikely to have any impact whatsoever on the development of complications. Has he ever tried giving such advice, or doing it himself? – If he hasn’t, how would he know? It is certainly the case in my experience but I am afraid that I cannot produce studies in medical journals to quote from because nobody does such studies – these interventions are too simple, straight forward and free.

Dr Flegg says: “I find efforts to shift the blame for these deaths on someone’s failure to “open a window” (when the infection is likely to have been prevented in the first place through vaccination) rather saddening.” – I find it saddening that we don’t know how many of these deaths would have been prevented by vaccination, because we don’t know whether they were vaccinated or not – if vaccination were safe and effective – I would be all for it.

Dr Flegg then quotes papers regarding outbreaks of measles in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, claiming that vaccination is ‘protective’ because less people who are vaccinated get measles than those who do not get measles. If there were no vaccination, most people would get measles. What is wrong with getting measles? – it is a normal part of childhood development. It is certainly not great fun to be hot with sticky eyes, a rash and maybe a cough for as long as two weeks – and it certainly is hard work to nurse someone who is ill with the measles – or any childhood illness, whether there is a vaccine for it or not – but most parents make many sacrifices for their children – it is part of being a parent and life is not without it’s trials, at any age. I am sure that all of the parents with vaccine damaged children would gladly nurse their children through such an illness many times over, rather than have them suffer the living death to which they are now condemned.

But the main point of even having a vaccine is surely to try to stop death and disability.

As for the issue of herd immunity (which is supposed to protect those who are unable to be vaccinated with live vaccines) and the 95% levels that are supposed to be necessary eradicate measles, this figure is based on no more science than that 60% levels didn’t do it, nor 70%, nor 80%, nor 90% and when we get to 95% levels and measles is still circulating (it will be causing deaths in small babies by then, whose vaccinated mothers did not pass over good quality, long lasting, antibodies to natural measles) we will be told that 99% levels are needed – as well as more booster doses, based on nothing more than guess work – whoops, I mean ‘mathematical projections’ like the ones Dr Flegg quotes to tell us how many complications of measles have been avoided in countries who vaccinate against it, and to predict that so-called epidemic that was used as an excuse to vaccinate seven million school children with Measles-Rubella vaccine in 1994 – causing , I think, 577 acknowledged severe reactions (cup looking pretty empty there)

If cars performed as reliably as vaccines, no-one would buy them.

“This is not the first time Donegan has been caught out by her misrepresentation of the true facts”, says Dr Flegg. He should read Hilary Butler’s ‘How accurate are the statistics anyway?’ (4th February 2005, above) regarding ‘true facts’.

I do not get caught out by misrepresentation of the true facts, rather my conclusions based on the methods and results of studies are often different to those of the authors.

The CONCLUSIONS of the authors, drawn from their results in their studies are often not the same as mine because I carefully sift through the method and the results section and form my own conclusions. This course of action was recently supported in the BMJ (6th Nov 04) as being the correct was to read a scientific paper. Indeed in: Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports M Montori et al specifically advise readers of scientific papers to: “Read methods and results only?” And the reason.. “The discussion section of research reports often offers inferences that differ from those a dispassionate reader would draw from the methods and results.” (3)

Doctors read scientific papers very poorly, they are often very unselective in what they believe, due to time pressure and from not realising that there is a need.

(1) Immunisation against infectious diseases HMSO London 1996 para 22.1.5, p126

(2) Miller CL, Deaths from measles in England and Wales, 1970-83,BMJ 1985;290:443-4

(3) M Montori et al (BMJ 2004;329:1093-1096

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Different, but united, views--and properties of Helium and Lead
 

Seems like I struck a nerve with Peter Flegge. There may be nitrous in a dental office, but there isn't halothane. Then again, I doubt Peter Flegge frequents the O.R. very often, so I'm probably off base there.

Incidence Shmincidence. Isn't all the hoopla spouted by Flegg and others that measles is highly contagious and highly deadly and if it weren't for vaccines we should all live in a bubble and have our food and waste delivered via some extravagant conveyor belt or vacuum/tube system. All arriving and departing "goods" will be decontaminated with acid. Why stop there, let's just decontaminate the entire earth with some toxic aerosol.

My main point was mortality, not incidence, but how convenient for Flegge to go off on a tangent, again. Especially how Flegge calls Mendelsohn a "guesser". Wow, that's exactly how I interpreted Flegges cited French study. For, how could one ever know what vaccinations prevented WITHOUT a control group. From the abstract, that's all the study did. Without even reading the study, I threw it to the wasted heap pile where others are found like Madsen, Smeeth, etc. etc. Just a bunch of "trying to sound intelligent" speculation.

Flegge may think Mendelsohn has a book to sell, but what does big pharma have for sale? Maybe Adam Jacobs can let us know? How about Dr. Flegge, maybe he knows?

Ninety deaths per 300,000,000 people, sounds like good odds to me. England went from some 16,000 deaths to less than one hundred BEFORE vaccines. Undisputable evidence of decreasing virulence. Even Flegges 4,000 figure of encephalitis sounds like good odds to me. Especially with tens of thousands of kids showing autism, developmental delay, speech issues...overall neurodevelopmental abnormalities (I recall last figure around 1:166 in the U.S.) I guess, in a way, kids are ending up with a "bubble" lifestyle. How horrifically sad. Like Dr. Yazbak says, "and a generation has been lost".

I wonder how far sewage systems, clean water and a diet could go to help the underdeveloped world as compared to vaccines, ARV's and other drugs. Then again, a clean up wouldn't provide nearly the return on investment now would it. Much better dollar wise to keep em sick.

You know, there was a time where most every kid caught chicken pox, and now there is a current time with increased incidence of pediatric shingles. Hmmm...few days of pox or chronic shingles. Clear-cut to me. That yearly cold or flu I may encounter is a nuisance, but I'll take my luck vs. injecting who knows what into my blood stream. Thank God for good health, nutrition, clean water and quality management, otherwise I suppose I could die.

1.5 years ago, Colorado had a horrible flu epidemic despite massive uptake of vaccines. I recall being able to count the numbers of alleged flu deaths (what caused their death...dehydration, poor management, predisposing conditions?) on my phalanges (and no I don't have extra digits), and then thinking why are people freaking out like we're in a nuclear holocaust? Rushing to and fro to get that jab. For at least one month, there was not one single news show that didn't talk about the "incredibly deadly" flu. Now, this year, we started with a shortage of flu vaccine which was reserved for the most vulnerable. The shortage has turned into millions of surplus going down the drain. And, wow, the flu season has been very mild?

Ponder that one.

P.S. in case you were wondering, I know how to spell Flegg

Send response to journal:
Re: Obscured sight, when removing speck, perhaps?
 

Dear Sir,

Mr Flegg says:

>>>>>>>He quotes Mendelsohn, whose measles estimates bear little resemblance to the hard data coming out of authorities such as the CDC in the last few decades (but then, he did have a book to sell).<<<<<<<<<<

It is extraordinary that Mr Flegg would consider Dr Mendelsohn's information estimates, and CDC's data "hard" when, as posted above, the CDC's own epidemiologist admits that some of its own data is, to quote him, "inaccurate" and "generally meaningless".

Actually, the epidemiologist above, freely admits that at best, CDC's own data are purely "estimates".

Hilary Butler.

Send response to journal:
Re: Nutrition, infection and immunity.
 

Dear Sir,

Peter Flegg says this:

>>>>Reliance on good nutrition to protect one’s children is a futile gesture – if your are not immune, you are susceptible and may still develop complications despite being “healthy” and having the best available care on hand. I agree that the severity of some measles complications may be mitigated by good nutrition and good health care. This however is not an argument for thinking measles is benign, or trying to prevent it in the first place. <<<<<

He also says:

>>>>It is also a bit worrying that we should adopt a culture of assuming that we don’t need to stop our children getting ill because if they do our health service will fix them. <<<<<<

He says: >>>Having read your testimonies and of your frustrating efforts to get even half sensible answers to your questions, I can better understand your situation and the barriers you face. <<<<

From my point of view, this is quite incorrect.

Mr Flegg does not understand my position at all. He understands what he thinks my position is, in so far as his baseline is his preconceived ideas of what my position should be. And the same will apply to his interpretation of the opinions of John Stone, or anyone else as well.

Let us look at some of the issues above. The first is his knowledge of the medical literature on nutrition in relation to measles or any infectious diseases. Mr Flegg says:

1)... Reliance on nutrition to protect ones child is a futile gesture.

I disagree. For these reasons:

In Infectious Diseases of Humans, Dynamics and Control (Oxford Press ,1991) the authors state that “the severity of measles is greatly affected by the child’s nutritional state”.

In Tropical Doctor (October, 1982, Part 2 pgs 219 ) "Why measles makes so many children blind ." J.J.M. Sauter says:

“The clinical picture in malnourished measles patients is very typical and entirely similar to that of diseased children suffering from severe vitamin A deficiency, i.e. xerophthalmia… the immediate favourable reaction to a single massive oral dose of vitamin A clearly indicate that these malnourished measles patients are suffering from vitamin A deficiency. Measles is nothing but the precipitating catalyst in this process, owing to its deleterious effect on all the epithelia, in particular on the conjunctival mucous-producing goblet cells.”

The author also says that children with conjunctival xerosis (xerophthalmia stage XIA) treated with 100,000 international units (IU) of Vitamin A for five consecutive days healed within two weeks with no corneal scars.

Left untreated, these children stay blind. So what is the problem? And infection, or their nutrition. No, reliance on nutrition to protect ones' child is not a futile gesture...

To continue:

“Subclinical Vitamin A Deficiency: A potentially Unrecognised Problem in the United States” by Deborah Stephens et al. (Pediatric Nursing, September-October 1996, Volume 22, No 5 pgs 377 – 389) is compulsory reading because it shows that America has these problems as well. The medical literature, in my opinion, makes it clear that New Zealand – and any other country that has complications and deaths, has a vitamin A deficiency, as well as multiple other nutritional deficiencies. Why is it that most of the problems with measles are in children who either have immunodeficiencies, or come from a lower socio-economic strata? As I mentioned above, new studies here, have confirmed widespread broad spectrum third world nutritional deficiencies in this country. And its not just lower socio-economic children any more. Frankly, watching some of the upper strata feeding their babies, doesn’t fill me with confidence either.

Pediatric Nursing 1996 details a study done in Wisconsin, which found that 72% of children with measles had deficient levels of Vitamin A, and the more severe the deficiency the more severe the illness and the complications. Another one analysed, a study in New York looking at children under two with measles, showed that 22% were deficient, and another 26% were borderline. The more deficient a child, the lower the level of measles-specific antibodies, and the higher morbidity and mortality. It also mentioned the American Association of Pediatricians (AAP) who recommend that Vitamin A be given to measles children but only to those with an immunodeficiency, ophthalmological evidence of Vitamin A deficiency, impaired intestinal absorption and moderate to severe malnutrition, eating disorders, or those who have recently immigrated from areas where high morality rates have been observed.

An interesting comment is made at the end of the Pediatric Nursing article, which says that any child found to be at risk for Vitamin A deficiency should also be considered high risk for other nutritional and health problems.

One other of many other factors which have to be looked at is the fact that a bad diet makes viruses worse. Not only does poor diet weaken your immune system, it also makes viruses in the body mutate into more dangerous forms. The researchers of this study said that it is likely to be something humans deficient in selenium and other nutrients could be at risk of – and that their findings could extend to other viruses as well. Furthermore this study indicated that once the mutations had occurred, those with normal nutrition are more susceptible to the newly potent strain (8 June 2001 www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_309902.htm )

I could put here, a lot more articles, and some even more recent, but I would bore everyone to tears, so lets get down to the specifics.

Both our children had measles. Not once, but twice. Peter Flegg talks about "misdiagnosis", but I know a doctor who blood tests all children for measles specific rises in antibodies, and she tells me that children in their practice have had measles repeatedly. Not once, but at least twice. The only possible "error" in this calculation is laboratory error, and if that is so, fine. Except for one thing. It would make a mickey mouse poster show of all the infectious disease laboratory diagnoses in this country for at least the last 10 years. Absolutely no "official" figures could be trusted.

No medical journal has published her findings. I don't wonder why.

The oldest son had no problems. But then, he doesn't have an immunodeficiency.

The younger child did have bronchial/ear complications, both times. But this child has test results which put him border-line dysgammaglobulinemia.

I didn't spurn vaccination ON THE BASIS that the system could fix up the complications.

I spurned vaccination on the basis that I do believe that the potential consequences of vaccination can be worse than the disease. And that I, as a knowledgeable mother, should be able through nutrition, and supplements, to mitigate any effects of measles should my children get them. I was well armed before that even came about.

Even worse perhaps in Mr Flegg's eyes, though I went to the medical profession for official, proper diagnosis, I REFUSED to allow the medical system to inflict on my child, what it thought was necessary to clear up those complications. Antibiotics.

And in doing so, I was able to quote articles like the following, but here I use this more recent one, since it illustrates the point much better:

British Medical Journal (BMJ) (Volume 514, 1 February 1997, page 316) “Managing Measles” which stated:

>>>>“What is surprising and rather disturbing, however, is the

***lack of published scientific information on issues that are central to developing a sound basis for managing measles.****

A recent review of clinical problems associated with measles has highlighted the paucity of data on risk factors, aetiology [cause], natural course, and management (except vitamin A) of the common complications of measles.” <<<<

Professor Hussey then goes on to talk about the fact that prophylactic antibiotics are not beneficial in reducing mortality, and about the unnecessary complications such as antibiotic associated diarrhoea, severe drug reactions and the emergence of drug resistant organisms.

The British Medical Journal, as we have seen, considers itself, an independant repository of wisdom, and I agree in general.

Given that I am allergic to just about every antibiotic under the sun, because my parents always availed themselves of anything a doctor chose to write on a prescription pad, I'm not about to trust the future lives of my child to a doctor.

I want my children to be able to use antibiotics in the future should they get something that really warrants it. Though the way the other parents of the world carry on, I doubt whether that will be a reality actually.

As to other related points with regard to measles, an article following Professor Hussey’s one mentioned above(on pg 317) titled “Reducing vitamin A deficiency” by Andrew R Potter is good and states that

>>>>“the elimination of Vitamin A deficiency ultimately will depend on raising living standards… reduction in poverty, improvement in housing, sanitation, water supply, women’s education and primary health care…this doesn’t just apply to third world countries.”<<<<<

And how about this article:

Richard D. Semba, in “Vitamin A, Immunity and Infection” (Clinical Infectious Diseases, 1994; 19:489-499) really has his head screwed on. His article starts out

>>>>“although vitamin A has been known as “the anti- infective vitamin since the 1920’s…”<<<<<

He goes on:

>>>>>“From human studies there are six general lines of evidence:

1) infectious diseases are associated with Vitamin A deficiency

2) Vitamin A deficiency is associated with increased morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases

3) Specific immune alterations take place during vitamin A deficiency in humans

4) Vitamin A and its metabolites are essential to T and B-cell growth and function

5) Vitamin A supplementation enhances immunity in humans

6) Vitamin A supplementation or fortification reduces severe morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases in children. <<<<<

Semba also says

>>>>>“A deficiency of Vitamin A may be associated with a variety of infectious diseases including diarrhoeal and respiratory diseases, schistosomiasis, malaria, tuberculosis, leprosy, rheumatic fever, and otitis media.” <<<<<<

So he is talking about ALL infectious diseases. And that Vitamin A and its metabolites are essential to T and B-cell FUNCTION which is what Chandra was talks about years earlier here:

Nutrition and Immunity (Ranjit K Chandra, 1988) - a book worth reading. Page 257:

>>>> “Current evidence suggests that the complications following measles, are probably closely linked to immunodeficiency, occur during and soon after the exanthem [spots], in the medium term thereafter, and many years later.”

“ We have conducted a number of studies to relate the immunodeficiency of measles to the subsequent course of the disease [whole long list] ....these studies, which were carried out during the acute stage of measles, have shown a critical breakdown of defence mechanisms that could be linked to severity of outcome. It was demonstrated that profound immunosuppression in early measles, which chiefly affects the T and B-cell subpopulations and the specific antibody response to measles, in most cases distinguished between children who subsequently died or developed persistent pneumonia (> 6weeks) from those who recovered. Seventy-seven percent of children with a lymphopenia[1] of < 2,000 cells/mm (to the power of 3) during the rash failed to recover, 30% died and 47% developed chronic chest disease. All the patients who died and many of those who progressed to chronicity failed to produce adequate complement-fixing antibodies. When depression of immunity was less severe (> 2,000 lymphocytes/mm3) recovery was more frequent and mortality insignificant. Sequential studies revealed that the severe quantitative defect in lymphocytes was transient in the majority. When this effect persisted for at least 15 days after appearance of the rash, it was nearly always associated with a poor outcome. In the group of children who finally recovered, there was a more rapid reversal of immunoparesis[2] than in those who died or developed chronicity. Severe lymphopenia (<2,000 cells/mm3) as an index of clinically severe measles was uncommon in mild cases (5%) and was present in 9% of non-measles hospital infections. In the latter it was unrelated to mortality. Among African children, there was a histocompatability-linked genetic susceptibility to the development of severe lymphopenia in measles associated with HLA AW32.” <<<<

The authors go on to say (on pg 259)

>>>>> “It is likely that viral infections (such as influenza and other respiratory viruses) that predispose to secondary bacterial superinfection (especially by staphylococci) do so on the basis of immunodeficiency; it appears that superinfection with opportunistic bacteria, fungi, and protozoa is related to the immunoparesis induced by cytomegalovirus (CMV). The establishment of a number of viruses, Measles, EBV, HSV, and Hepatitis B viruses may also require a period of immunoparesis at onset of infection” <<<<

Question: Is it "immunodeficiency", or is it nutritional insufficiency??? As we have seen, from new studies in this country, nutritional insufficiency is rampant in developed country.

There is also this:

“Vitamin A prophylaxis” (Arch Dis Child, September 1997; 77 (3) 191 – 194 online http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/archdischild;77/3/191), by Alfred Sommer, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health. He says:

>>>>“Vitamin A appears to play an important part in growth and haemoglobin synthesis… affects iron metabolism reducing the severity of anaemia…restores the normally differentiated epithelia, providing a more effective barrier to infection; and up-regulating immune competence.”

“For example, children admitted to hospital with severe measles who were randomized to Vitamin A supplementation developed a far greater immune response than control subjects” <<<<<

He goes on to state that even:

.... “mild Vitamin A deficiency increases morbidity among children, and subclinical Vitamin A deficiency is associated with elevated morbidity and mortality” and “It is noticeable that high-dose Vitamin A supplementation has reduced morbidity and mortality even among children with no clinical signs of Vitamin A deficiency” and “Clinical trials suggest that Vitamin A supplementation may reduce the incidence of acute respiratory infections among low-birth weight infants and among children who are especially susceptible to respiratory infections”<<<<<

He says:

>>>“Animals with normal Vitamin A status who are given additional Vitamin A have less severe infection when challenged with a wide variety of pathogens” <<<<<

Well, if that applies to humans too, what are the implications of this?

He also says that:

<<<<“the depression in circulating lymphocytes following surgery can be reversed by the administration of high-dose Vitamin A to adults”.>>>>

Were I to continue in this vein, in posting more OF THE articles like this, I would probably constipate the BMJ website, overload its bandwidth, and be the ultimate cure for insomnia. I have deliberately chosen older ones, to show that this knowledge is nothing new.

However, Peter Flegg goes on to say that:

>>>>>Improvements in nutrition/environment will certainly reduce mortality from measles, and we can see how through the 20th century we in the West have been the beneficiaries of this. <<<<<

This is not so, as the new studies in this country shows. Many children, who now land up in hospital, have not been the beneficiaries of better nutritional knowledge, otherwise the tests performed on them, wouldn't show clinical nutritional deficiencies as show below

See here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=9006061

And:

>>>>This trend petered out in the middle of the last century,and case fatality rates have remained steady since then.<<<<<

In real terms the mortality from measles is now higher in the United states as can be seen from the raw data above.

This trend was first noted in an article in the BMJ, on 11 May 1991, page 1106, in an article on measles in New York City. Which commented that of the 2000 cases of measles in the first five months of 1991, 8 had died.

The article then qualified this by saying that the eight were "mainly immunocompromised" suggesting perhaps that such a high death rate was an aberration.

Perhaps they were also "nutritional", as per Chandra et al.

Hilary Butler.

Send response to journal:
Re: Dr David Salisbury caught out but nevertheless bats on
 

Peter Flegg gleefully accuses Jayne Donegan of misrepresenting the facts about measles and measles vaccination.

From the facts of Dr Donegan’s response, it would seem that David Salisbury, Principle Medical Officer at the Department of Health missed the opportunity in 1999 to put her straight on the facts, on the facts as Dr Flegg thinks he knows them. Surely, it is Dr Salisbury who has been caught out and not the unfairly maligned Dr Donegan. Surely, it is time Dr Salisbury did a catch up and came clean about vaccine safety and efficacy and the true presentation of facts. Alleged misrepresentation of the facts can lead to allegations of ‘serious professional misconduct’ and even worse - and Flegg surely knows this.

PS. Am I the only one who found incomprehensible the last paragraph of Flegg’s ‘Response to Donegan’?

Send response to journal:
Re: Response to Flegg
 

Editor,

In his response to Jayne Donegan Peter Flegg says,” I also imagine it would be insensitive and inappropriate to question parents on their dead child’s vaccination status.”

The dead child’s vaccination status is precisely what the parent’s should be questioned on. It is probably the most important question, judging from the information I receive, and what is more it doesn’t take joint home visits by police and paediatricians to investigate the `scene of death/crime’.

Vaccine deaths occuring within 28 days of being vaccinated are not unknown. The “crime” is usually attributed to the parent because of the ignorance of the harmful effects of some vaccines on some children.

Failure to enquire the vaccination status of the dead child makes a mockery of the investigation.

Michael Innis.

Send response to journal:
Re: Shifting the costs
 

One issue which is seldom touched upon in these discussions is that it must always have been part of the rationale of the vaccine programme to eradicate the cost to the state of having to accomodate routine childhood diseases - no bad thing in itself. The trouble is that as so often a local bureaucratic saving, which may seem like a thoroughly good idea at the time, it may turn out to have costs elsewhere (such as those mentioned by Raymond Gallup above). But, of course, you never get the total audit. For the bureaucrat it is simply a success to have unloaded the cost on to someone else.

We see this now also with special educational needs with bureaucratic strategies which shift the real cost back on to the children and their parents.

Send response to journal:
Re: Confusion, truth and in which corner are you sitting?
 

I cannot speak for others but I was not vaccinated against measles as my childhood was spent largely in the 1930s. However, I did not contract measles.

Send response to journal:
Re: Mumps and Rubella????
 

Dr Flegg has repeatedly given facts and figures on the incidence of measles. Very interesting although most confusing as I thought the MMR was a combination vaccine??? So why has he not mentioned facts and figures of current incidence of Mumps and Rubella? If it is only measles that is of huge concern then why the triple vaccine??