Does the Latest Study Used to Prove MMR Doesn't Cause Autism and GI Problems Show Something Else?

[Scattershoot]

When I was looking at the Hornig study that is being used to show MMR vaccine does not cause autism and GI problems, I find this nestled in the middle:

Analyses in all three laboratories found two ileal biopsy samples with MV F gene and H gene RNA: one from a boy in the AUT/GI group, the other from a boy in the control group. Real-time RT-PCR indicated a range of 2–7 molecules per PCR reaction, corresponding to approximately 50–500 MV RNA molecules per 100 ng of total RNA extract (Table 3). Sequence analysis confirmed that products of these samples were authentic

I guess this gets ignored as statistically insignificant because the measles virus was found in both a case study and control, so that throws it out. Kind of like when they use aluminum in the "placebo" and both groups have reactions but it doesn't count and the vaccine is called safe because it happened in both groups.

So 2 out of 38 children with GI problems had measles in the gut. How is that ignored? That's 5%. I'd call that significant, especially when this study was done to try to chop away at Wakefield's earlier findings. The last thing they wanted to find was measles in the gut. I also find it interesting that they can only come up with 25 case studies to disprove Wakefield. Extremely small sample size.

Maybe since one of the children wasn't given the psychological diagnosis/ opinion of autism, it is ignored. This is another example of how the autism diagnosis gets in the way of real understanding.

[shuttlt]

Much of what you've said goes a bit beyond my current level of knowledge. One question does occure to me though...

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

Maybe since one of the children wasn't given the psychological diagnosis/ opinion of autism, it is ignored. This is another example of how the autism diagnosis gets in the way of real understanding.

Without a method of seperating people into autistic/non-autistic presumably it is impossible to tell whether measles in the bowel is associated with autism? Surely even a study designed to demonstrate a link would need to do this?

Perhaps this is a retread of our previous conversation.

[mkmoro311]

If the CDC wan't to disprove that vaccines does not cause Autism fine! Then start doing the research that can pin point what is causing it!

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by mkmoro311

If the CDC wan't to disprove that vaccines does not cause Autism fine! Then start doing the research that can pin point what is causing it!

I think it might be easier to show that vaccines don't cause autism (in as much as science can show that anything doesn't happen).

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Without a method of seperating people into autistic/non-autistic presumably it is impossible to tell whether measles in the bowel is associated with autism? Surely even a study designed to demonstrate a link would need to do this?

I think the important part of the study is that measles was found in the gut of 2 of the 38 children who had the MMR and GI issues (that's 5%). It was verified by two gene markers. Reports on the study ignore this.

Here's one of the problems once again. Autism occurs on a spectrum. It's a very wide range actually. The autism diagnosis itself involves social skills, communication skills and basically repetitive behaviors. I've worked with children diagnosed with autism by other professionals that I didn't think were autistic and vice versa. It's an opinion. A lot of children are obviously autistic in the sense of the diagnostic criteria, but many are not. It's no different than how one professional can see ADHD and another a little boy with a lot of energy.

If you have a study of children diagnosed with autism, such as this, to what degree are they autistic? What was the criteria to pick the 25 autistic children? How did they only come up with 25 when there are huge numbers now? It took 10 years to come up with a biological research study to combat Wakefield's "suggestion" that MMR needs more research, and this is all they got?

This is why I believe the autism diagnosis in relation to MMR is a red herring. Who is to say that the one control who tested positive for gut measles, couldn't have been diagnosed with autism by another professional? If that had been the case 2 out of 20 case studies would have had MMR, autism and GI problems. That would have been 10% and sent quite a message. Instead we get the statistically insignificant thing because one was a case study and one a control. Like I said, how the children were chosen becomes huge, which is why I wonder about the very, very small number of case studies. When findings are not going the right way sometimes research subjects "drop out" of studies.

There are issues all over the place, but the biggest issue is that the study itself reports that 2 out of 38 with GI problems tested positive for measles on 2 gene markers. If they would just list a set of behaviors without the mental health diagnosis attached, I think this would be less distracting and more valuable.

This is why it is important that Wakefield has come up with a new condition he calls autistic enterocolitis, which includes the speech and language issues and self-limiting behaviors. I don't like the fact that he used the word autistic in it, but it is a start, and I can see why he did it.

[carriebft]

I think the study clearly talks about how the kids were chosen and the criteria of medically indicated bowel surgery; thus they were not taking random volunteers to have a colonoscopy; rather, they looked for those willing to participate who also were already having medically indicated colonoscopies plus fit the other criteria (ASD, MMR, GI, relapse...etcetc).


It does not surprise me that they could only find so few given what they were looking for.

And considering the studies done prior, the number they got here is pretty average.

Plus, IMO, they did not get the results there were looking for. I doubt hornig went into this assuming she would come out the other side having not substantiated her prior study outcomes. same with O'Leary.

[shuttlt]

Scattershoot,

I will print the study off and read it on the train on my way home from work. You make interesting points.

It seems to me that I understand you a little better now on your dislike of the whole behavioural diagnosis thing. It clarifies things further now that I see you prefer, if not entirely approve of, Wakefields 'autistic entercolitis'. I kept wondering whether you were against any formal method of classification.

[mommy2maya]

as for the length of time, these studies take years and years before findings are published. I doubt this all started last year.

[Scattershoot]

It clarifies things further now that I see you prefer, if not entirely approve of, Wakefields 'autistic entercolitis'. I kept wondering whether you were against any formal method of classification.

I understand what Wakefield is trying to do. He wants to bring it all together in a sense so these children, and their parents, are not going in different directions for understanding and help. I think this is a very good thing. Again, I don't like the "autistic" part of the new diagnosis, but at least it is taking it down the medical direction, rather that leaving it as a behavioral distinction.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

I understand what Wakefield is trying to do. He wants to bring it all together in a sense so these children, and their parents, are not going in different directions for understanding and help. I think this is a very good thing. Again, I don't like the "autistic" part of the new diagnosis, but at least it is taking it down the medical direction, rather that leaving it as a behavioral distinction.

I guess this depends very much on whether Wakefield is right in his conclusions. That's what the study you quotes is supposed to refute isn't it? I mean, it can't be a good thing to move autism in a medical direction on the basis on a wrong theory. Medicalisation in and of itself isn't good, no?

I guess one of the proofs will be whether it leads anywhere. Better diagnostic tests? Better treatment?

[Scattershoot]

I think the study clearly talks about how the kids were chosen and the criteria of medically indicated bowel surgery; thus they were not taking random volunteers to have a colonoscopy; rather, they looked for those willing to participate who also were already having medically indicated colonoscopies plus fit the other criteria (ASD, MMR, GI, relapse...etcetc).

A case study of 25 is still very, very small to universalize (It‘s actually a much smaller number but more on that in a minute). It is being touted as the definitive biological research response to Wakefield. What is more important to me, other than the indiscriminate nature of autism diagnosis, is that 2 children with serious GI problems were found to have measles in the gut. I still don’t see how this is ignored.

It does not surprise me that they could only find so few given what they were looking for.

They could have called me. I know about a dozen families off the top of my head.

And considering the studies done prior, the number they got here is pretty average. Plus, IMO, they did not get the results there were looking for. I doubt hornig went into this assuming she would come out the other side having not substantiated her prior study outcomes. same with O'Leary.

It's a very small sample size. And it is even worse than that because only 5 of the 25 children had the MMR shot BEFORE GI complaints or autism. How hard were they trying to see if MMR was involved in causing these problems when 20 out of the 25 were vaccinated AFTER the conditions questioned began and therefore weren’t even relevant to the study to prove causation? So they really only studied 5 children total to see if MMR may have caused GI probs and autism. What if that one case study who came back positive for measles was one of the 5. That would make it 20%.

What’s just as important is that they were obviously testing for persistent measles infection. These children had the conditions for a while. Who is to say the impact isn’t immediate after the shot, and the virus moves on. To assume the measles virus would still be hanging around enough to be detected much later on could easily be missing the entire point. Ten years after the polio virus supposedly causes paralysis should a large amount of the polio virus still be found in the body? If there is little to none found, does that automatically mean polio could not have done the damage?

A more common sense study would be to compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (completely). Look at a large group that has received the MMR and has serious GI problems and tests positive for measles in the gut compared to a group of completely unvaccinated children (they could also have GI problems). Of course, if they had difficulty finding unvaccinated children with such serious gut issues that would say an awful lot.

I personally think this is a sorry excuse for a study on many levels, and for the vaccine movement to be pushing these 5 case studies as the end of the debate is silly.

Hornig’s prior study that showed mercury causes neurological problems in mice is about 100 years after the fact. Since thimerosal was never in the MMR, I don’t see how this study was related to her earlier mouse study.

O’Leary’s role was limited, so to say he couldn’t replicate findings is a stretch. He didn’t conceive, design or perform the experiments. There is no funding in replicating O’Leary’s original results. It's not like he just sits around all day trying to replicate his earlier findings. Somebody has to pay for all that. The pharmaceutical companies sure aren’t going to do it. The families involved the first go around were ridiculed, harassed and blamed for spreading fear and starting an epidemic. Who is going to sign up for that again? This is the only biological study in 10 years to try and do so, and it basically used 5 children. And on top of all that, they found measles in the gut of 2 of the children.