MMR and peer review

Re: MMR and peer review

Roger Meacock — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:56:51 GMT

Here's the Yazbak Goldman paper:

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (J Am Phys Surg), 2004; 9(3): 70-75

Roger

Re: MMR and peer review

Niall Taylor — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:00:59 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]You're completely missing the point that the original research that was used to disprove autism was fundamentally flawed because it only looked at autism incident rate in children in Denmark below the age it is diagnosed there. Based on the more recent figures that included children of an age to be diagnosed there has been a significant increase post MMR. It would appear that those with a vested interest in denying the autism link have been the ones sampling the figures to suit themselves.[/quote]

That's only what it says in your cut and paste from a load of anti-vaccination sites.

Have you read the actual studies?

Niall

Re: MMR and peer review

Roger Meacock — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:13:19 GMT

Niall

You're completely missing the point that the original research that was used to disprove autism was fundamentally flawed because it only looked at autism incident rate in children in Denmark below the age it is diagnosed there. Based on the more recent figures that included children of an age to be diagnosed there has been a significant increase post MMR. It would appear that those with a vested interest in denying the autism link have been the ones sampling the figures to suit themselves.

I believe that there has been a recent ruling in the UK courts that has resulted in damages being awarded to an autistic child from a vaccine company.

Roger

Re: MMR and peer review

Niall Taylor — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:13:30 GMT

Roger, you didn't post any studies, just a couple of press releases.

The MMR vaccine does not cause autism, no matter how desperately those parties with a vested interest in such a connection might wish to believe otherwise.

Niall

Re: MMR and peer review

Roger Meacock — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:40:10 GMT

Whilst the science behind the suggestion that human DNA becomes incorporated into the vaccine recipient may well be wrong it doesn't negate the observation that there was a rise in autism that coincided with the change in the vaccine.

I assume that as neither review you point to covers the other posted study summary that contradicts the Madsen study about the rise in autism in Denmark once you actually start including the ages when autism is actually diagnosed in children there that you accept the finding of that report?

Roger

Re: MMR and peer review

Niall Taylor — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:43:25 GMT

There are links to the original paper and some comments here - http://www.rationalvetmed.org/papers_r-s.html#Ratajczak2011

Very interesting to note the contrast between the conservative tone of paper ("Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes - A review ") and the screaming hyperbole of the anti-vaccination crowd including Mercola (as usual) and CBS (as usual).

The author knew full well she would never get such nonsense past the editors of a respectible journal so she has to give interviews to get her wacky ideas aired - human DNA infiltrating itself into the nuclei of recipients, the idea that the use of human cell lines was ever kept secret - you can see the ingredients of the vaccine on wikipedia for goodness sake. This is more complete rubbish from an agenda driven self-interest group determined to profit from scaremongering.

Read the paper - the clue is in the title - THEORETICAL. She is just making this up - measles virus, thiomersal, squaline, Mercola's "micro-vascular injuries" - all these have been shown to have no connection whatsoever with autism, this is just the latest in a long line of anti-vaccine rhetoric with no respect for science or evidence.

Niall

Re: MMR and peer review

Alex Gough — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:14:25 GMT

Commentary on this review can be found here and here

One of the comments below the blog made me laugh, a reductio ad absurdum of the concept that human DNA from vaccines is somehow getting into the genome of people who are vaccinated:

"Screw autism-- people with cat allergies are at risk of becoming cats!!!!! WHY WONT THE CDC LOOK INTO THIS???"

Alex

Re: MMR and peer review

Roger Meacock — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:11:36 GMT

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE

A new study has confirmed a definite causal link between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism - and it has used the same data employed by an earlier study that governments have relied on to deny the link. The vaccine increases the risk of autism by 850 per cent, or nearly 500 per cent if we allow for greater diagnostic awareness, one of the major arguments put forward for the sudden increase in autism.
This conclusion contradicts that of the Madsen study carried out in 2002, which found no link, and which governments have gratefully clung to ever since. So why the enormous discrepancy between the two trials? Autism is usually diagnosed only at age 5 or older, or it is in Denmark from where the data for both studies has been gleaned. The Madsen study monitored the progress of vaccinated children in Denmark only for four years, so it's hardly surprising that few, if any, cases of autism were established. Less severe cases, which might have become apparent even later, were certainly not included in the findings.
The new study, carried out by American paediatrician Dr Fouad Yazbak and Dr G S Goldman, tracks levels of autism in Denmark from 1980 - seven years before the MMR vaccine was introduced in Denmark - until 2002. Prevalence of autism among children aged from 5 to 9 stood at 8.38 cases per 100,000 in the pre-vaccine years of 1980 to 1986, and then rose to 71.43 cases by the year 2000.
Dr Samy Suissa of McGill University had similar problems with the Madsen study. When he analysed the statistics he discovered that the rate of autism increases to a high of 27.3 cases per 100,000 two years after vaccination compared with just 1.45 cases in non-vaccinated children.
No doubt in the spirit of the public's right to know, government officials will be broadcasting the latest findings as loudly as they did the Madsen conclusions. Strangely, they have been silent thus far.

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE

DNA in vaccines linked to rise in autism

12 July 2011

A former drug company researcher has found a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism. She has discovered that autism cases rose dramatically after human tissue was added to the vaccines.
Aborted embryo cells are used in the manufacture of 23 vaccines given to infants and children, including the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) shot – and researcher Helen Ratajczak has detected a sudden rise in autism cases from 1983 onwards when the MMR ‘mark II’ version was introduced.
The later version is contaminated with human DNA from cells, and this could be the cause of the sudden rise, says Ratajczak, formerly a researcher with Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals.
Remnants of the DNA have been discovered on the X chromosome in eight genes associated with autism, which could also explain why boys are more likely to develop autism.
(Source: Journal of Immunotoxicology, 2011; 8: 68-79).

Re: MMR and peer review

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:13:10 GMT

Uh oh - time to move this thread to the 'Controversial' section.

Re: MMR and peer review

Roger Meacock — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 21:29:59 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]If the world operated in the way you are suggesting, no medical practitioner would get to begin any form of treatment as the time taken to warn the owner of all possible adverse effects of ANY medication would consume more than most allotted consultation times.[/quote]

LOL. I see - so owners are fully informed up to the point you want them to be! Glad we've cleared that one up.

I don't offer sham treatments - I get results and ongoing recommendations but that's not part of this discussion. I suggest you educate yourself on the benefits of mushrooms in the treatment of cancer but there's probably too many scientific papers to choose from ... and only £60 /month!!

I wish I could thank you for the memories too but you've provided nothing of significance to remember!

Roger

Re: MMR and peer review

James Laidlaw — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:44:21 GMT

Note I asked you to stop tarring the profession, not me. If the world operated in the way you are suggesting, no medical practitioner would get to begin any form of treatment as the time taken to warn the owner of all possible adverse effects of ANY medication would consume more than most allotted consultation times.

Incidentally - do you warn owners of the lack of any scientific information suggesting benefits of any of the sham-treatments your website links to? £60 a month mushroom based immune boosters for cancer patients?

Really, well and truly I am going to ignore you from now on. Thanks for the memories.

James

Re: MMR and peer review

Roger Meacock — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:11:59 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]

"I doubt very much when owners are warned (if they are at all)"

Quit tarring the profession. We do warn.

[/quote]

Get off your high horse, stop taking every post as a personal comment about you and get real James or did I miss the part when we became MRCVS that we all became sainted too? I'm sure there are many vets who do as you say you do and warn owners - but of what exactly? Statistically, as with any normal distribution curve, there will always be some who either forget in individual cases or who do not warn as standard so forgive me for covering all eventualities in my post. However when there have been posts that try to claim that adverse reactions are only transient and mild it is not unreasonable to presume that owners are not being fully warned that there is a very small risk of more serious reactions too or do you expect these vets that are in denial of more serious adverse reactions have warned owners about risks they don't think exist?

If you read all my posts in a calmer manner you would realise that I am questioning the way vaccination is carried out - not the idea of vaccination itself. I have only stated questions others more qualified than I in the human field are asking but it seems anybody questioning the status quo is somehow doing something they shouldn't. If there is nothing to worry about then why are these questions such an issue to discuss and research if the results are going to be so great?

Re: MMR and peer review

James Laidlaw — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 21:41:58 GMT

"I doubt very much when owners are warned (if they are at all)"

Quit tarring the profession. We do warn.

Oh, and we had a dog die last week from confirmed infectious canine hepatitis infection. But at least it never had to experience vaccinosis. Just DIC, discomfort and death.

Switching the Roger volume on my laptop to off now.

James

Re: MMR and peer review

Roger Meacock — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 20:20:59 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]Sarcasm does you no favours.[/quote]

I wasn't being sarcastic. Most owners have no belief on vaccination or else they are unlikely to have the vaccine in the first place. They have no vested interest in not accurately relaying the order of events. As previously posted it is human nature for anybody including a vet to interpret a series of events in a way that absolves them of any perceived (real or not) blame. Given the attitudes to vaccinosis (as defined in my previous post) displayed in this thread I don't know how you can dare suggest there is no bias within the veterinary profession!!

Roger

Re: MMR and peer review

Roger Meacock — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 20:11:28 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Why do you think that some people have found it necessary to invent a new word to describe an suspected adverse reaction to a vaccine? What was wrong with suspect adverse reaction?[/quote]

Hi Arlo,

That's how language develops. It's quicker to use one word than 6. With vaccination being so widespread it is a natural term to evolve to describe an adverse reaction to a vaccine.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Indeed, do you think there is something misleading, even scaremongering about this new word?[/quote]

No I don't. The word in itself has no implication of incidence or severity. With vaccination being so widespread a small % of adverse reaction leads to a relatively higher absolute number of cases that justifies the term. An adverse reaction means all unwanted reactions to the vaccination other than sero-conversion which includes transient and mild reactions which we might assume are just that or may be indicative of the start of something more serious that takes longer to manifest. If owners are to be fully informed then it is perfectly reasonable to say before vaccinating that "there is a small risk of vaccinosis". I fail to see how this is any more scaremongering than saying "there is a small risk of adverse reaction to the vaccine", unless of course owners are not being warned in advance at all because some vets consider the risk is too small to mention and may precipitate the owner not having the vaccine at all.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]As a layman, I can understand 'suspect adverse reaction'. It correctly infers an element of doubt.[/quote]

Well according to Prof Day's article it would appear to be generally accepted (except in this discussion) that there are adverse reactions that are more than just suspect. To quote his exact words "... attention has shifted to the small risk of adverse reactions." and " ... there is evidence that occasional adverse reactions to vaccines occur."

I doubt very much when owners are warned (if they are at all) that the precise words "suspect adverse reaction" is used by the majority of vets either. I strongly suspect that the word suspect is dropped by most who do give advance warning.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]As a layman, the term 'vaccinosis' means a medically diagnosed condition. Indeed, that is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines -osis.[/quote]

Medically qualified people are making the diagnosis so what's your problem?

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Am I right in saying that in the great majority (all?) of cases, an adverse reaction could only be described as 'suspected', and not a confirmed 'pathological state' (OED).[/quote]

No - you're wrong! You're choosing to believe the majority opinion who are biased against the group who have started using the word vaccinosis because they don't like the fact that they practice a treatment they don't understand. It's a very western philosophy to automatically disagree with everything someone says once you disagree with one aspect of what they say. See above - Prof Day's quoted words talk about evidence that adverse reactions occur.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]And if that is true, would you not agree, therefore, that vaccinosis is at best misleading, and at worst a lie.[/quote]

No I don't agree. I think it's a perfectly valid term that simply means "an adverse reaction to a vaccine". How some homeopaths might then describe that adverse reaction in terms of interference to the life force etc is a separate issue from the meaning of the word itself.

I think it now perfectly clear that it is far from a lie which must therefore cast doubt on those who are so vehemently denying that which the mainstream scientific community states there is evidence to support.

Roger

Re: MMR and peer review

Bob Russell — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:25:02 GMT

I have just googled Assinosis. My definition would be a medical pain in the b*m. The Urban dictionary says it is a disease that makes someone a persistent A**ehole!

-osis sounds grand and important but it is meaningless without the support of medical evidence.

Re: MMR and peer review

Niall Taylor — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:31:39 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Not sure if this has been noted before but the Oxford English Dictionary comes back with 'No Search Result' when vaccinosis is entered. It is not a defined medical term so should (must) not be used as synonymous with adverse reaction.[/quote]

And if you do a search on pub med, the term only appears twice, both times in pro-homeopathy Journals.

Bob is right Arlo, linguistically speaking you can stick '-osis' on the end of the word 'vaccine' and come up with a word that sounds as it it ought to mean something but the term is not one that is used in science or medicine. It is, as loads of people have said a pseudoscientic term used solely by practitioners of imaginary medicine.

Roger is disingenuously attempting to conflate the terms 'suspected adverse reaction' and 'vaccinosis' to put "miasmatic disturbances of the life force" on the same footing as vaccine associated sarcoma.

The reason the distinction is important is that 'vaccinosis' people believe vaccines are bad no matter what, and any research (as has been done with MMR) which finds a vaccination to be safe is dismissed under a flurry of quack conspiracy theories. They are not interested in finding the real truth about vaccinations and identifying genuine adverse reactions so they can be adressed rationally, they are just interested in proving their pre-conceptions.

Niall

Re: MMR and peer review

Bob Russell — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:06:23 GMT

The -osis's I have checked are all there. I am sure not all -osis's will be listed but the standard ones are.

Re: MMR and peer review

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:53:48 GMT

Yes, but to be fair, I'm not sure that the OED defines every use of the suffix: '-osis'. The question is whether the suffix is being correctly used in this case.

Re: MMR and peer review

Bob Russell — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:49:54 GMT

Not sure if this has been noted before but the Oxford English Dictionary comes back with 'No Search Result' when vaccinosis is entered. It is not a defined medical term so should (must) not be used as synonymous with adverse reaction.

Re: MMR and peer review

Kate Richardson — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:28:35 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]So, owners' versions of events are more likely to be the truth than a fully qualified veterinary surgeon's version?[/quote]

The fact that you've stated that question in the way that you have suggests that you have little regard for the truth of any owners' versions of events. Wow - that's a statement and a half! Is there another type of vet other than a fully qualified one?

[/quote]

Sarcasm does you no favours. Of course I have regard for owners' versions of events, however there is a world of difference between an owner's often naturally biased interpretation of events and an unbiased, yes unbiased, scientific interpretation of events by the veterinary surgeon. An owner may hear 'this is possible, but unlikely related to x,y or z' as ' it is absolutely nothing to do with x,y or z'. Which option they hear will depend upon how much regard they have for a veterinary opinion, and their own beliefs.

Re: MMR and peer review

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:53:55 GMT

Roger, a few questions from a layman for you.

Why do you think that some people have found it necessary to invent a new word to describe an suspected adverse reaction to a vaccine? What was wrong with suspect adverse reaction?

Indeed, do you think there is something misleading, even scaremongering about this new word?

As a layman, I can understand 'suspect adverse reaction'. It correctly infers an element of doubt.

As a layman, the term 'vaccinosis' means a medically diagnosed condition. Indeed, that is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines -osis.

Am I right in saying that in the great majority (all?) of cases, an adverse reaction could only be described as 'suspected', and not a confirmed 'pathological state' (OED).

And if that is true, would you not agree, therefore, that vaccinosis is at best misleading, and at worst a lie.

Re: MMR and peer review

Roger Meacock — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 14:33:48 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]Your statement "it is not surprising that the first reaction is to deny all liability by denying the possibility of an adverse reaction" Roger, is pretty damning of the profession, and not the way I practice.[/quote]

James, I'm pleased to hear you say that's the way you practice but let's not forget we are human too. It is human nature when someone cares about what they do to feel guilty and maybe deny potential liability even where none exists at times. So no I'm not damning the profession in this situation in the way you might think. If you don't think the low rate of reporting in the UK compared to the USA has a human nature explanation then it would be more damning to consider that it is more calculated than I have suggested. I don't see why there should be such a difference in reported adverse reaction rates between the UK and USA when there are comparable vaccination regimes.

I have never said that vaccinosis is in any way mystical or different to an adverse reaction. Vaccinosis is an adverse reaction to a vaccine - that's all there is to it. Where there seems to be a diffeence of opinion is what constitutes an adverse reaction. It would appear that the majority only wish to recognise an acute episode very close in time to the vaccination. In my and other's opinions this is only part of the picture.

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]You can continue to blame us for not doing our jobs, or not looking out for our clients, or not looking out for the best interests of our animals, but all it does is makes me wonder if this is how you expect the majority of the profession operates, is it merely just a reflection of how you tend to operate?[/quote]

No I certainly don't operate in that way. I don't think the majority of the profession operates in this way but I am increasingly coming across situations where unnecessary diagnostics and procedures are being over-stated and pushed in other areas. I have no doubt that much of this is being done with good intention but seemingly with little thought for the individual situation at hand.

Roger

Re: MMR and peer review

James Laidlaw — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:26:15 GMT

Isn't it against the code of conduct to speak ill of the profession...?

Your statement "it is not surprising that the first reaction is to deny all liability by denying the possibility of an adverse reaction" Roger, is pretty damning of the profession, and not the way I practice. I assume it is also not the way the majority of veterinary professionals practice too. As professionals we tend to explain the risks vs benefits to our clients and allow them to make informed decisions based on the information they are given, sometimes guiding them, but never lying to them, or by covering up the truth. Which is, the fact that adverse reactions do exist, but they are NOT some magical, mystical "vaccinosis" evidence, they are simply adverse reactions.

And they do get reported.

And they happen so infrequently that the risk of adverse reactions is outweighed by the benefits of vaccination.

Hence why the profession continues to vaccinate.

You can continue to blame us for not doing our jobs, or not looking out for our clients, or not looking out for the best interests of our animals, but all it does is makes me wonder if this is how you expect the majority of the profession operates, is it merely just a reflection of how you tend to operate?

James

Re: MMR and peer review

Roger Meacock — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:07:30 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]So, owners' versions of events are more likely to be the truth than a fully qualified veterinary surgeon's version?[/quote]

On the basis that very many owners know their animals better than than a vet who only occasionally sees them and that the adverse reaction started shortly after vaccination and developed over the following hours after the vet left, then yes I believe the owner's version of events as I have no reason to doubt their validity or sincerity. Most owners are only considering their animal and how to get things put right. An individual vet on the other hand will naturally feel under pressure to not put themselves in a place where they can be perceived to be to blame. I don't think any vet wants to think that something we do has caused any harm although that invariably happens with adverse reactions that are largely unpredictable unless you're Simon Neuhoff who feels they are largely predictable affairs and would therefore be open to litigation. If there is that feeling of potential vulnerability to reproach either legally or in any other way it is not surprising that the first reaction is to deny all liability by denying the possibility of an adverse reaction and hence why they are so under-recognised and under-reported.

Roger