Can anyone help me refute this Danish study?

[guestmama9911]

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/19/1477

They studies their entire population of children and concluded no correlation between vaccines and Autism. I am against vaccinating and have been for quite some time, but I admit that this study does seem to throw me off.

[guestmama9911]

Never mind, I just figured it out on my own. this only addresses one vaccine, not the whole schedule.

[RiverSky]

I had subscribed to this thread, but not responded. Which one did it study?

[Ensemble]

Can you find another study of equal quality which finds a different result? Maybe that would help.

[Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Ensemble

Can you find another study of equal quality which finds a different result? Maybe that would help.

I have no idea if this will help you, but...

http://www.ageofautism.com/files/den...lts_survey.pdf

[Ophelia]

Safeminds critiques about the Danish studies:

http://safeminds.org/research/commentary.html

[guestmama9911]

Hahaha, that's exactly what I needed. 6 of the 17 study authors are empoyed by a vaccine maker!!

[guestmama9911]

I've been having a fun back-and-forth with a pro-vaccine British GP on my blog in my comments. She believes all our unvaccinated children are spreading disease and a threat to society and blah blah blah.

She cited several studies similar to this Danish study but all have the same flaw - they compared children vaccinated and not vaccinated with the MMR, not children completely unvaccinated to vaccinated children.

Her Japanese study was especially amusing. They broke up the MMR into individual doses and the rate of autism didn't change, therefore proving that the MMR does not cause autism and thus making all us non-vaccinators crazy. So, they didn't change the vaccine schedule at all? just broke up one vaccine? Thereby vindicating all vaccines? Brilliant.

I don't have proof one way or the other, but don't throw BS at me and call it definitive science!

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by alisaterry

I've been having a fun back-and-forth with a pro-vaccine British GP on my blog in my comments. She believes all our unvaccinated children are spreading disease and a threat to society and blah blah blah.

She cited several studies similar to this Danish study but all have the same flaw - they compared children vaccinated and not vaccinated with the MMR, not children completely unvaccinated to vaccinated children.

Her Japanese study was especially amusing. They broke up the MMR into individual doses and the rate of autism didn't change, therefore proving that the MMR does not cause autism and thus making all us non-vaccinators crazy. So, they didn't change the vaccine schedule at all? just broke up one vaccine? Thereby vindicating all vaccines? Brilliant.

I don't have proof one way or the other, but don't throw BS at me and call it definitive science!

I think a lot of those studies were designed to look at Wakefields claims and his call for separating the vaccines. It's not so much a flaw in the study so much as the study is dealing with the previous claimed mechanism for harm. By the sound of it Wakefields original claims are pretty well refuted.

Have you got a list of the studies being sited? The epidemiological aspect is a special interest of mine.

[shuttlt]

That made me wonder. Are there any epidemiological studies that show higher autism rates in vaccinated populations? Is this what the SafeMinds criticism of the Danish study is trying to claim? I'm finding it very difficult to decrypt the argument.

[guestmama9911]

She was trying to tell me that those of us to don't vaccinate our children are doing harm, and used these studies as an example of the harmlessness of vaccines, basically saying that if the MMR didn't cause autism, all vaccines are vindicated. She's been backpeddling recently which has been fun to watch, so I've decided not to worry about it so much.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by alisaterry

She was trying to tell me that those of us to don't vaccinate our children are doing harm, and used these studies as an example of the harmlessness of vaccines, basically saying that if the MMR didn't cause autism, all vaccines are vindicated. She's been backpeddling recently which has been fun to watch, so I've decided not to worry about it so much.

I think you have Wakefield to thank for why a British GP would feel that way. We took a different route through the vaccines cause autism than the US, I think.

[Deborah]

Shuttit,
The problem with the Japanese study is simple. They didn't actually separate the shots. Wakefield recommended a year between shots. In Japan they either gave them all at the same appointment, thereby duplicating the MMR in 3 shots, or they spaced them a month apart.

About 90% of the material I've seen "refuting" Wakefield is similar to this study.

What I haven't seen is for scientists to actually examine a group of children who got sick following their MMR to figure out if there was a connection for that group of kids. Actual case histories, biopsies, physical exams, all that boring stuff.

I wonder why no one wants to actually look at the sick children?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Shuttit,
The problem with the Japanese study is simple. They didn't actually separate the shots. Wakefield recommended a year between shots. In Japan they either gave them all at the same appointment, thereby duplicating the MMR in 3 shots, or they spaced them a month apart.

I have nothing but other peoples interpretations of these studies at the moment. For the moment, I'll take your word for it.

About 90% of the material I've seen "refuting" Wakefield is similar to this study.

The evidence that I am familiar with refutes the claims upon which he originally made his claims.

What I haven't seen is for scientists to actually examine a group of children who got sick following their MMR to figure out if there was a connection for that group of kids. Actual case histories, biopsies, physical exams, all that boring stuff.

The Krigsman study should do for this. Has it been published yet?

[guestmama9911]

The Danish study:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/19/1477

The Japanese study
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...35419/abstract

[guestmama9911]

I'm not finding any references to a Kirgsman study. Do you have more info on that?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by alisaterry

I'm not finding any references to a Kirgsman study. Do you have more info on that?

It's the one Wakefield links to in his rebuttal to Deer (the link doesn't work). It was down to get presented at a conference a few years ago. It's the only one I've head of that claims to have validated Wakefield.