[olePigeon]

Medical journal recants 1998 study linking autism to vaccine - The Globe and Mail

Fat chance. I'm sure they'll invent some other connection between vaccines and autism.

Just FYI: Even when a science journal comes to the wrong conclusion, the publication isn't recanted. This is important for referencing procedural data, results, etc. for future testing. It's doubly important to keep records so you can figure out what (if anything) went wrong.

So if your first thought is that this study went 12 years with contestation, it's wrong. Almost immediately after the study was published, there were glaring anomalies such as the data reported by Wakefield did not match the data reported by the hospital; nevermind that the symptoms for autism in the children tested were apparent (as recorded by the hospital) before the children were vaccinated. There were also no symptoms of any bowel disease reported by the hospital, but reported by Wakefield.

When journals are recanted, it is often because the data was falsified and the journal holds no academic merit.

[turtle777]

Interesting article on autism in the WSJ: Studies Seek Reasons for Autism's Rise - WSJ.com



-t

[ghporter]

Jenny's child did not have autism to start with. He suffered seizures and the resultant brain damage impaired his development. It "looked like" autism, but what it seems 99.999% of people don't understand is that autism is a descriptive diagnosis, not some specific root cause disease like mumps or cerebral palsy.

One major reason we're seeing such a rise in diagnoses is the fading away of a stigma attached to having a child with autism. This has led to more attention being paid to symptoms and an increase in presumptive (and temporary) diagnoses.

The LA area appears to have not just a fairly high population of people with time on their hands but a robust publicly funded pediatric health system. And lawsuit averse physicians. Giving a kid a label seems to be no longer a big deal, and lots of doctors are willing to assign such labels to kids with anything from speech delays to extra shyness. If there were a specific, singular organic cause for the set of symptoms we call autism, this would not be a problem.

IMO, "autism" is the '00's and 10's version of ADD in the 70s and 80s. Applying a description does not in any way address a cause or mechanism.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Jenny's child did not have autism to start with. He suffered seizures and the resultant brain damage impaired his development. It "looked like" autism, but what it seems 99.999% of people don't understand is that autism is a descriptive diagnosis, not some specific root cause disease like mumps or cerebral palsy.

One major reason we're seeing such a rise in diagnoses is the fading away of a stigma attached to having a child with autism. This has led to more attention being paid to symptoms and an increase in presumptive (and temporary) diagnoses.

The LA area appears to have not just a fairly high population of people with time on their hands but a robust publicly funded pediatric health system. And lawsuit averse physicians. Giving a kid a label seems to be no longer a big deal, and lots of doctors are willing to assign such labels to kids with anything from speech delays to extra shyness. If there were a specific, singular organic cause for the set of symptoms we call autism, this would not be a problem.

IMO, "autism" is the '00's and 10's version of ADD in the 70s and 80s. Applying a description does not in any way address a cause or mechanism.

My son is autistic, and this is right on the money. There are so many kids with just the label that it's really hard to get past that when getting help for him. He's got other challenges, but "autism" is a help and a hindrance at times in securing services for him.

The main reason that I've seen for throwing the label around so carelessly (you know it was careless when the child is "cured" a few years later) is because that's where the Federal dollars are flowing, and that's the only way to get insurance and/or public schools to pay for therapy. And therapy can be $60k - $80k per year, easily. And sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

From what I've seen personally, it started with Federal programs (early intervention) and then went to state programs, and now local school districts are giving out diagnoses and "curing" kids.

Every week I see kids getting expensive treatment who are no more autistic than anyone right off of the street. In the meantime, people wait YEARS to get access to effective therapy programs. Or, they pay out the wazoo. Or their insurance plays a game with them. The waiting list for some programs is 12-15 years, and it will only get worse.

Is there a vaccine connection? Who knows? My son's 60-something pediatrician thinks so. He's seen too much of this stuff with no explanation over the past 20 years. Given my family's genetic predisposition to react to vaccines (paralysis, etc.) he's recommended that we NOT vaccinate anymore. And not vaccinate the other kid, with a letter from him to the school system when the time comes. Now, he's just one guy ... but maybe he knows what he's doing. Draw your own conclusions.

BTW, that genetic predisposition wasn't important until the son started to go backwards a few years ago.

Folks have known that the Wakefield study was CRAP for many years, nothing new. It's official now, so what?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Folks have known that the Wakefield study was CRAP for many years, nothing new. It's official now, so what?

Hopefully it'll encourage people to get their children vaccinated and ignore the bullsh*t coming out of those morons. It's unbelievable the number of people that believe that vaccines cause autism thanks to Oprah.

What I find ironic is how critical some people will be over proven medicine, but the very same people will willingly submit themselves to useless homeopathic remedies. If only they'd be just as critical of everything they do.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

What I find ironic is how critical some people will be over proven medicine, but the very same people will willingly submit themselves to useless homeopathic remedies. If only they'd be just as critical of everything they do.

Why? Are homeopathic remedies suspected of being harmful?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why? Are homeopathic remedies suspected of being harmful?

They're not governed by the FDA until someone gets hurt or killed. By then the company has made millions of dollars. It's an ongoing cycle. They sell products as curealls until someone gets sick or killed, the products gets pulled from the shelf, then they modify it and sell it again until someone gets sick or killed.

I'm seeing commercials on television for "clinical studies" advertising a cure for diabetes by using their all natural product; insinuating that the person doesn't need to continue taking insulin. I guarantee we're going to see people ending up in the ER in diabetic shock because crap like this, and several people will die before the FDA takes action.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm still unclear: do they actually cause harm, or do they simply not do any good? There is a difference. I wouldn't congratulate anyone for throwing money away on something that doesn't work, but I can at least recognize the difference between that and avoiding something they believe is actively harmful.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm still unclear: do they actually cause harm, or do they simply not do any good? There is a difference. I wouldn't congratulate anyone for throwing money away on something that doesn't work, but I can at least recognize the difference between that and avoiding something they believe is actively harmful.

It depends. We can't say categorically that everything labeled "alternative" causes harm. Some such things are bad for you. Others are benign. Others are not directly harmful, but because they replace actual necessary medicine, they still cause people who take them to get ill. (I mean, if you want to get technical, carbon monoxide poisoning is really just it replacing oxygen in places where oxygen is needed.)

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm still unclear: do they actually cause harm, or do they simply not do any good? There is a difference.

No testing is done by the FDA (unlike with medicines), so that you have to ask that question is the problem. Nobody knows.

[ort888]

How much of this is really on Oprah? Did she say she believes this stuff or did she just have these people on her show?

Did she also have the other side on her show?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It depends. We can't say categorically that everything labeled "alternative" causes harm. Some such things are bad for you.

Which ones? I'm just not familiar with them, that's why I'm asking.

Others are not directly harmful, but because they replace actual necessary medicine, they still cause people who take them to get ill.

This part of the argument is irrelevant. We're talking about whether people are more skeptical of modern medicine than they are of homeopathy. So the standard of comparison is a vaccine they are told is actively harmful. Which homeopathic treatments are believed to be actively harmful?

[Chuckit]

There's an endless list of things that are bad for you, and since alternative medicine literally has no standards, any of them could be labeled as such. So, to pick a small sample of unproven things that have been used as medical treatments: hemlock, trepanning, bloodletting, castration.

[smacintush]

I would make a distinction between homeopathy and the rest of the "alternative" remedies. Homeopathy has actually been proven to be useless and harmless, because there are actually NO effects at all. The only ones that have effects are the ones that are not actually homeopathic but are being sold as such.

[olePigeon]

There's a slight, but important difference: while homeopathy is alternative medicine, not all alternative medicine is homeopathy. By definition, homeopathy doesn't do anything. It is the act of relying on it instead of proven medicine that is harmful.

Many alternative medicines, however, are directly harmful because the manufacturers are not required to prove the effectiveness or safety of their products. Many weight loss, immunity booster, memory improvement, etc. products have resulted in organ failure and even death. Perpetuating the false idea that because a little bit of something is good for you, obviously a lot is better.

The companies that sell these things are not held liable because what they do is perfectly legal, so long as they take reasonable measures to remove the product from store shelves.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I would make a distinction between homeopathy and the rest of the "alternative" remedies. Homeopathy has actually been proven to be useless and harmless, because there are actually NO effects at all. The only ones that have effects are the ones that are not actually homeopathic but are being sold as such.

Yes (hey, we agree on something.)

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by finboy 

My son is autistic, and this is right on the money. There are so many kids with just the label that it's really hard to get past that when getting help for him. He's got other challenges, but "autism" is a help and a hindrance at times in securing services for him.

The main reason that I've seen for throwing the label around so carelessly (you know it was careless when the child is "cured" a few years later) is because that's where the Federal dollars are flowing, and that's the only way to get insurance and/or public schools to pay for therapy. And therapy can be $60k - $80k per year, easily. And sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

From what I've seen personally, it started with Federal programs (early intervention) and then went to state programs, and now local school districts are giving out diagnoses and "curing" kids.

Every week I see kids getting expensive treatment who are no more autistic than anyone right off of the street. In the meantime, people wait YEARS to get access to effective therapy programs. Or, they pay out the wazoo. Or their insurance plays a game with them. The waiting list for some programs is 12-15 years, and it will only get worse.

Is there a vaccine connection? Who knows? My son's 60-something pediatrician thinks so. He's seen too much of this stuff with no explanation over the past 20 years. Given my family's genetic predisposition to react to vaccines (paralysis, etc.) he's recommended that we NOT vaccinate anymore. And not vaccinate the other kid, with a letter from him to the school system when the time comes. Now, he's just one guy ... but maybe he knows what he's doing. Draw your own conclusions.

BTW, that genetic predisposition wasn't important until the son started to go backwards a few years ago.

Folks have known that the Wakefield study was CRAP for many years, nothing new. It's official now, so what?

Federal dollars do indeed get people to look into a subject. And we're probably catching more "borderline" cases nowadays because we're looking harder at younger kids. But I treat really affected kids every day and one of the biggest issues I face is whether or not my employer can afford for me to treat them. It depends on the insurer, the doctor's formal diagnosis, and a lot of other things. I've seen kids with "developmental delay" diagnoses that kept them in spite of hitting all the points in the DSM definition simply because the doc knew that the parents' insurance didn't really cover autism but did cover developmental delays. I've also seen kids with autism diagnoses that were really just brats. Seriously.

There IS an issue with immunizations-but it isn't that they "cause autism." It's that nobody's immune system handles an onslaught of multiple invaders well, and kids' systems are both more sensitive and less developed. As an informed healthcare consumer, I strongly believe that the only thing doctors get out of giving kids a butt-full of immunizations all at once is fewer clinic visits that feature horrible crying. Spacing the shots out over several months is not only a better way for their immune systems to handle the vaccines, it gives the physician more opportunities to actually check how the child is developing. Good pediatricians do this monitoring with quick and cheap "well baby" appointments, and all of 'em could spread the vaccines out too if they just started thinking more about the kids.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It depends on the insurer, the doctor's formal diagnosis, and a lot of other things. I've seen kids with "developmental delay" diagnoses that kept them in spite of hitting all the points in the DSM definition simply because the doc knew that the parents' insurance didn't really cover autism but did cover developmental delays. I've also seen kids with autism diagnoses that were really just brats. Seriously.

Believe me, I understand what you're saying about codes & coverage, and the PDD-NOS thingy. What most folks don't realize, too, is that coverage can "go away" at any point.

The brat thing happens with kids and parents too, I see both every week. Some parents can't handle any deviation from "normal" for their kid, so they'll push for the 299.00 code until they get it. Taking services from kids who could really benefit.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Medical journal recants 1998 study linking autism to vaccine - The Globe and Mail

Fat chance. I'm sure they'll invent some other connection between vaccines and autism.

Just FYI: Even when a science journal comes to the wrong conclusion, the publication isn't recanted. This is important for referencing procedural data, results, etc. for future testing. It's doubly important to keep records so you can figure out what (if anything) went wrong.

Just FYI - it's The Lancet.

The Lancet is so politically biased and in the pocket of government that I'd believe Tom Cruise's account of the origins of life on Earth before I believed any of their guff.

The Shitish government wants the Shitish people to take the MMR vaccine coz it's cheaper, so The Lancet publishes stuff to support that stance. It's that simple. No more, no less.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Just FYI - it's The Lancet.

The Lancet is so politically biased and in the pocket of government that I'd believe Tom Cruise's account of the origins of life on Earth before I believed any of their guff.

The Shitish government wants the Shitish people to take the MMR vaccine coz it's cheaper, so The Lancet publishes stuff to support that stance. It's that simple. No more, no less.

But you're wrong; the Lancet has been caught with their collective drawers down for having supported a charlatan and fraudster, and they are scrambling to retrieve their trousers. MMR vaccine prevents tens of thousands of children from dying every year. In the UK in 2008, there were 2 deaths from measles, with over 5000 cases reported. In the US, there were less than 200 cases reported in the first 3/4 of 2008, and no deaths in that period. In contrast, before widespread immunization in the US, tens of thousands of cases of encephalitis and thousands of deaths due to measles were reported every year.

The problem is not immunizations as such, nor the specific immunizations themselves. It appears to be a combination of two factors that seems to link these immunizations with autism. The first is timing: most people only begin to notice the symptoms of autism spectrum disorders at around the 24 months of age point-when the child is typically vaccinated for MMR at around 18 months. Note that the CDC recommends this vaccine at any point between 12 and 24 months, but it is often not administered until 18 months.

The second, more compelling issue is that these immunizations are not only combined into one treatment, but that other vaccines are also administered at the same time. The CDC recommends that children between 12 and 24 months receive MMR, DTP, Varicella, HepA and HepB. Most of the time, all of most of these vaccines are provided in a single "well baby" visit instead of spreading them out over a long enough period for the child's immune system to handle the different vaccines individually. Does this cause problems? Often, children spend several days sick or at least "under the weather" after these immunizations; some children have significantly more difficulty adapting and integrating these vaccines.

If pediatricians took the simple precaution of not administering more than one vaccine at any visit within the same month of another vaccination, fewer children would be ill from vaccinations, and the potential of disrupting these children's immune systems would be drastically reduced. But if parents simply shy away from vaccinations in general instead of insisting that their children be safely immunized, one shot at a time, then the doctors aren't going to change their habits.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

But you're wrong

No I'm not. The Lancet is in the pockets of the UK government. Period.

The only reason this is an issue over here is that the government won't pay for separate M/M/R vaccines on the NHS and the population seems to believe that their tax payments entitle them to anything but the cheapest way of doing things.

Now, whether or not the combined MMR jab gives peeps autism I really don't know. Or care (since I get all my health care privately). I'm simply stating a fact that The Lancet is tainted. Everyone under 25 looks like they've got some form of autism to me (does Simon Cowell cause autism?!).

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No I'm not. The Lancet is in the pockets of the UK government. Period.

The only reason this is an issue over here is that the government won't pay for separate M/M/R vaccines on the NHS and the population seems to believe that their tax payments entitle them to anything but the cheapest way of doing things.

Now, whether or not the combined MMR jab gives peeps autism I really don't know. Or care (since I get all my health care privately). I'm simply stating a fact that The Lancet is tainted. Everyone under 25 looks like they've got some form of autism to me (does Simon Cowell cause autism?!).

Why would the NHS be expected to pay for three separate jabs that have been proved to be far less effective than a single jab. So far ALL the evidence for MMR vaccine having any relationship to autism has been either disproved or shown to be faulty.

On the other side giving 3 separate jabs means many people miss out one or even two of the jabs leading to failure of the herd immunity. Your private healthcare makes no difference to this or the effects on public health for the general population.

Like all vaccines MMR has a % that it fails to protect. These people rely on the collective herd immunity to protect them and with the lowering of take up rates for the vaccine it is these people that make up the statistics of increased incidents of the illness occurring in the population. So other peoples decision not to have a vaccination results in other people catching the disease. It's purely common sense and good heath care for teh NHS to offer only the most effective treatment, as long as this treatment has no real side effects, which it doesn't.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Like all vaccines MMR has a % that it fails to protect. These people rely on the collective herd immunity to protect them and with the lowering of take up rates for the vaccine it is these people that make up the statistics of increased incidents of the illness occurring in the population. So other peoples decision not to have a vaccination results in other people catching the disease. It's purely common sense and good heath care for teh NHS to offer only the most effective treatment, as long as this treatment has no real side effects, which it doesn't.

I'd like to point out that, in spite of having received the MMR vaccine at some point in my childhood (maybe twice-I don't recall that far back), I HAD all three diseases. I don't think the vaccines "didn't take" as much as that I simply didn't build up enough immunity for it to prevent the diseases. I was uncomfortable (I do remember that!) in each case, but I did not stay sick as long as expected in each case.

Doofy, Simon Cowell probably has a higher chance of causing autism than immunizations. While certain strains of mumps vaccine have been demonstrated to have caused occasional very mild and transient meningitis, these cases have been without lasting effects, and the strain of mumps used has been changed to avoid the problem entirely.

The three viruses are compatible with each other, the vaccines prevent relatively similar diseases, and are supposed to be administered at a point when the child is still somewhat protected by maternal immunity; the immune reaction to the vaccine is supposed to establish in the child his/her own "memory T cell" immunity. That it is not expected to confer 100% immunity in 100% of the population with one treatment helps point out that the viruses used in the vaccine are relatively mild-both measles and mumps viruses in the vaccine are cultured in chicken eggs, making those viruses better adapted to chickens than humans, though their surface proteins are identical, so they trigger an identical immune response.

Studies have concluded that in children with autism, there are subtle signs of something out of the ordinary long before the decline in language and social activities begins; the time linkage to immunizations demonstrates a logically fallacy, not a cause-effect connection.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

It's purely common sense and good heath care for teh NHS to offer only the most effective treatment, as long as this treatment has no real side effects, which it doesn't.

"Common sense" and "good health care" in the same sentence as "NHS"?

You are young. You'll learn.

[Big Mac]

So anyone else here think that it's at least plausible that throwing so many different vaccines at babies soon after birth at one time could possibly have deleterious effects on their nascent immune system? I think it's plausible.

Regarding Glenn's point about Autism being the new hip diagnose that has replaced ADD, I don't know if I buy that. Based on second hand observation of autistics, there's a big functional difference between those diagnosed ADD and those diagnosed as autistic. I realize you're not saying that the two are equivalent diagnoses, but to equate the two seems to miss the point that there's a substantial gulf between kids who can't sit still versus kids who can't communicate with the world in a normal fashion and who often have developmental challenges.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So anyone else here think that it's at least plausible that throwing so many different vaccines at babies soon after birth at one time could possibly have deleterious effects on their nascent immune system? I think it's plausible.

It's not that it's plausible or implausible. It certainly IS plausible. Which is why it's been investigated. And been proved to have no effect.

Plausible does not equate to actual. You can eliminate plausible effects simply by investigating if they in fact do exist. Your argument is one for carrying out basic research. Which has been done.

[Big Mac]

But Doofy says the research may not be reliable. . . Guess I'll have to look into it. At least I'm still a couple of years away (by my own estimation) from having to seriously think about parental issues; hopefully by the time I'm ready to be a father the science will be even more clear.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But Doofy says the research may not be reliable.

Not really. I don't know about the research. Here's what I know:

1) The Lancet is unreliable and in the pocket of the UK government.

2) In general, if you do the exact opposite of whatever the UK government tells you, you'll usually come up smelling of roses.

The controversy here is caused by the NHS not giving parents the choice to single jab. This is due to cost (the NHS is broke - all those one-legged lesbian African muslim equality advisors don't come cheap) and also due to the fact that the single jabs are unlicensed. I wonder why the government hasn't licensed them?
You can get the single jabs, just not for free on the NHS.

Does the multi-jab cause autism? I've no idea. But when I finally get around to having kiddos, I ain't risking it for the sake of a $500 one-off deal.

As to The Lancet being unreliable...

Wiki reads: "The Lancet has taken a political stand on several important medical and non medical issues." Why would a medical journal take a political stand on non-medical issues?

For example, here's another bit from Wiki: "In a 2009 editorial, it accused Pope Benedict XVI of publicly distorting scientific evidence on condoms to promote Catholic doctrine on chastity in AIDS prevention. The Vatican defended itself by pointing to an earlier Lancet article published in 2000 which asserted that condoms could not possibly be sufficient in solving the AIDS crisis."

And again: "A December 2003 editorial by the journal, titled "How do you sleep at night, Mr Blair?", called for tobacco use to be completely banned in the UK. The Royal College of Physicians rejected their argument."

Does that sound like a medical publication which can be trusted?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So anyone else here think that it's at least plausible that throwing so many different vaccines at babies soon after birth at one time could possibly have deleterious effects on their nascent immune system? I think it's plausible.

I actually said that several posts up. I did NOT say that I thought the practice could cause autism, but that it can't be a great thing for the kids. This is especially true today because we are noticing more and more children with a variety of allergies that were not common or even noticed when I was a child just a few decades ago-there's no way to know if the "historically safe" growth media used for producing these vaccines is actually safe for today's children if we continue to bombard these kids with multiple vaccines all at once.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Regarding Glenn's point about Autism being the new hip diagnose that has replaced ADD, I don't know if I buy that. Based on second hand observation of autistics, there's a big functional difference between those diagnosed ADD and those diagnosed as autistic. I realize you're not saying that the two are equivalent diagnoses, but to equate the two seems to miss the point that there's a substantial gulf between kids who can't sit still versus kids who can't communicate with the world in a normal fashion and who often have developmental challenges.

There are a whole lot of kids who show up with diagnoses of "autism" or "pervasive developmental disorder" that functionally cannot demonstrate enough attention to watch you bat your eye. Attention span and ability to focus are enormously important functional skills; most of the people that are told they have ADD by NON-PROFESSIONALS (and a lot told by family doctors instead of qualified psychologists) are simply distractible, whereas distractibility is only one, relatively minor facet of ADD.

On the other hand, my point was not about function or appearance. In the 60s it was common for teachers to "recommend" that kids be treated because the child did not attend and focus as well as his or her peers (or maybe because the teacher didn't have the needed skills to get that child's extended attention). In the 70s, such children were "identified" by teachers, and schools had established processes for referring them to doctors with a suggestion that the child had ADD. In the 80s, parents took the teachers' word for it and asked their doctors for drugs for the kid right away. Unfortunately in each decade a lot of family doctors prescribed not only Ritalin but a number of amphetamines (dexamphetamine was a big contender) without fully understanding what the whole thing about ADD was, let alone being actually qualified to diagnose it.

Today, a child that is overly shy in public may be "identified" and even labeled at school. Parents who don't socialize their only-child offspring by taking them to play groups or day care may notice poor social performance and label their children. (I think the higher incidence of single-child families may be related to spurious concerns about autism.) And there are a huge number of organic problems that can cause regression in ALL skills and produce a set of symptoms that may look like autism, even though devastating neurological problems like non-epileptic seizures can cause significant brain damage (Jenny McCarthy's son Evan falls into this category: he suffered seizures at two and was later diagnosed with autism).

My point was that people are looking for autism, and that parents are for the most part not feeling ashamed that their child may have a disability like this. Looking for the symptoms is a Very Good Thing! Early identification and treatment have been shown to be enormously helpful in producing much better outcomes. I've seen kids who were identified and began therapy at very young ages who are now much more functional and may not even fully qualify for the diagnosis of autism because of their early therapy. But not every child who does not want to play with others is autistic, and way too many people who have never even seen the DSM are way too free with bandying about their opinions about whether or not a child is autistic.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Medical journal recants 1998 study linking autism to vaccine - The Globe and Mail

Fat chance. I'm sure they'll invent some other connection between vaccines and autism.

Just FYI: Even when a science journal comes to the wrong conclusion, the publication isn't recanted. This is important for referencing procedural data, results, etc. for future testing. It's doubly important to keep records so you can figure out what (if anything) went wrong.

So if your first thought is that this study went 12 years with contestation, it's wrong. Almost immediately after the study was published, there were glaring anomalies such as the data reported by Wakefield did not match the data reported by the hospital; nevermind that the symptoms for autism in the children tested were apparent (as recorded by the hospital) before the children were vaccinated. There were also no symptoms of any bowel disease reported by the hospital, but reported by Wakefield.

When journals are recanted, it is often because the data was falsified and the journal holds no academic merit.

Unfortunately, Wakefield seems to have, through his less than ethical life, developed a very cult-like following. Jenny and Jim are "fighting for" Wakefield and to prevent his work from being "suppressed.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OP

Maybe Oprah, Jenny McCarthy, and Jim Carry will finally shut the hell up

Fat chance.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I'd like to point out that, in spite of having received the MMR vaccine at some point in my childhood (maybe twice-I don't recall that far back), I HAD all three diseases. I don't think the vaccines "didn't take" as much as that I simply didn't build up enough immunity for it to prevent the diseases.

That's pretty much the same thing. You could just say it "didn't take" because you "simply didn't build up enough immunity".

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm still unclear: do they actually cause harm, or do they simply not do any good? There is a difference. I wouldn't congratulate anyone for throwing money away on something that doesn't work, but I can at least recognize the difference between that and avoiding something they believe is actively harmful.

A "harmless" treatment like homeopathy can indeed be quite harmful if it means not getting proper treatment for a significant period of time.

OTOH, other naturopathic medicines do indeed have some effect, and just like scientific medicines they can do quite a bit of harm if used inappropriately. The worst might be spiked over-the-counter herbal medicines. These were relative common as illegally imported chinese medicines for example. You'd find pill forms of chinese herbs... with ASA mixed in. Patients would take these chinese herb pills and suddenly feel better... not because of the herbs but because the ASA would reduce fever and pain.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That's pretty much the same thing. You could just say it "didn't take" because you "simply didn't build up enough immunity".

Exactly. The vaccines at the time were intended/expected to confer sufficient immunity with a single dose-which didn't work. Basically the medical community wound up recommending two doses for everyone.

[Big Mac]

Couples having children later on in life is a correlated factor. The latest study blames female age more than male age, but both obviously play a role.

Age of mother affects child's autism risk: study | Reuters

It seems like Autism risk has many factors.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Jenny and Jim are "fighting for" Wakefield and to prevent his work from being "suppressed.

Wow, didn't see that coming.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Couples having children later on in life is a correlated factor. The latest study blames female age more than male age, but both obviously play a role.

Age of mother affects child's autism risk: study | Reuters

It seems like Autism risk has many factors.

Yeah, I read about that. It's pretty interesting. The man's age becomes more important if the woman is under 30, but then the woman's age is more of a factor when she is older than 30.