MMR Question

[stacey05]

I have been wondering about the MMR. I think the MMR that is used today is the MMR II, right? Well, I was wondering if anyone knows if it was a different mmr back in the 70's? I saw that I received it when I was 5, so that would have been in 1973. I am wondering because it seems the MMR has been around awhile and when I was a child we didn't really have the autism numbers we have now. So, I guess what I am wondering is why is the mmr implicated in autism now when it doesn't seem to be one of the newer ones? Unless, the one used now is somehow different than what was used when I was younger? Also, does anyone know when the MMR II came out or what is different about it than the original? (if it is different?)

Autism is not the only reason I don't vax, but it is a concern of mine. I had a friend whose son had a regressive autism and we don't know if it was the vaccines or not. It was really sad to watch. I just wonder why more people aren't suspicious of hib since it is newer than mmr and is usually given as a booster with the mmr? I have had my doubts about both of these vaccines and strangely enough, hib and measles bother me the most! I would really like my kids protected against those, but I still have doubts about these vaccines. I was only thinking of hib vaccine for my 2 1/2 yo (would never give a child this young the mmr) and I still wonder about the mmr now that my other son is 8 years old. I'm curious if he would handle it better than being a toddler. I worry because he struggles with croup/allergies/asthma and I wonder if he would handle measles ok or not? Thanks for your help!

[Marnica]

n the United States, the original MMR vaccine was licensed in 1971, and the second dose was introduced in 1989. Now, the vaccine is sold by Merck as M-M-R II,the latest version which came out in Dec of 2007 as far as the package insert reports anyway.

The MMR II vaccine contains the Enders Edmonston measles strain, the Jeryl Lynn mumps strain, and the RA 27 3 rubella strain. I think the original MMR may have had different strains and amounts of the virus in it although I have not had any luck finding an insert about the first MMR used in the 70's and 80's. If anyone has links please post!

[Sileree]

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/o...-mmr-shot.html

"In 1990, Merck & Co., manufacturer of the mumps-measles-rubella vaccine known as the MMR, made a significant but little-noticed change: It quadrupled the amount of mumps virus in the combination shot, from 5,000 to 20,000 units. Then in 2007 it reversed course, reducing the amount to 12,500 units. Neither the measles nor the rubella (German measles) component of the MMR was changed at all -- each remained at 1,000 units throughout."

[Cavy]

Versions of MMR are evolving all the time, and differ internationally (we don't have the same version of MMR in Britain as you have in the USA, but do we have similar scares over autism link).

[heathergirl67]

I think there was probably less awareness of autism 30 or 40 years ago. I can't help but wonder if there weren't a LOT more autistic kids than were actually reported, but their parents just dismissed them as "quirky" or a "wierd kid", etc. Every study investigating a link between autism and vaccines comes back in the clear. And there's so many things that kids today are exposed to that kids back then weren't exposed to. I'm just not sure how people decided it was vaccines that caused autism, and not any of the other number of variables. And the doctor who started out the whole "vaccines cause autism" thing was actually a relative of someone involved with a lawsuit with the vaccine manufacturers. A lawsuit that was initiated before he started his study.

The newest research show something really interesting, though. A disproportionate number of people with autism have a metabolic disorder. (These are both autistic people who have been vaccinated and those who have not.) When they get overly hot- like a fever- their autistic traits are much more pronounced. Since fevers can be a side-effect of vaccines, for many parents the first time they've noticed their child's autistic traits are during a fever from the vaccine. So they incorrectly assume that the vaccine caused the autism. When in fact, the fever from the vaccine made the symptoms of the already-present autism worse. I thought it was interesting, I hope you do too!

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

I think there was probably less awareness of autism 30 or 40 years ago. I can't help but wonder if there weren't a LOT more autistic kids than were actually reported, but their parents just dismissed them as "quirky" or a "wierd kid", etc. Every study investigating a link between autism and vaccines comes back in the clear. And there's so many things that kids today are exposed to that kids back then weren't exposed to. I'm just not sure how people decided it was vaccines that caused autism, and not any of the other number of variables. And the doctor who started out the whole "vaccines cause autism" thing was actually a relative of someone involved with a lawsuit with the vaccine manufacturers. A lawsuit that was initiated before he started his study.

The newest research show something really interesting, though. A disproportionate number of people with autism have a metabolic disorder. (These are both autistic people who have been vaccinated and those who have not.) When they get overly hot- like a fever- their autistic traits are much more pronounced. Since fevers can be a side-effect of vaccines, for many parents the first time they've noticed their child's autistic traits are during a fever from the vaccine. So they incorrectly assume that the vaccine caused the autism. When in fact, the fever from the vaccine made the symptoms of the already-present autism worse. I thought it was interesting, I hope you do too!

With regard to the sentence I bolded, are you saying that there has been scientific inquiry into the long and sort term safety of vaccines? Are you suggesting that the scientific community has asked the right questions and has the evidence to present to parents who raise legitimate concerns when it comes to the safety profile of vaccines?

Where have you read claims that vaccines are the one and only thing that cause autism? I have become aware of many different possible aetiologies, of which it is possible that vaccines could be one for SOME autistic children.

This is a very sensitive debate, and I believe it is imperative to use language very carefully. Differentiate between fact and opinion. Unfortunately there is very little fact in the debate and no shortage of opinion.

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

I think there was probably less awareness of autism 30 or 40 years ago. I can't help but wonder if there weren't a LOT more autistic kids than were actually reported, but their parents just dismissed them as "quirky" or a "wierd kid", etc.

Can you please show me the 1 in 50 autistic 50 year old men in NJ then?

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

With regard to the sentence I bolded, are you saying that there has been scientific inquiry into the long and sort term safety of vaccines? Are you suggesting that the scientific community has asked the right questions and has the evidence to present to parents who raise legitimate concerns when it comes to the safety profile of vaccines?

No, I am not suggesting that. That's why I didn't say it. What I said is that every study I've seen that investigates the link between autism and vaccines comes back with the conclusion that there is no link. And at no point did I suggest that parent's concerns were silly or illegitimate.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Where have you read claims that vaccines are the one and only thing that cause autism? I have become aware of many different possible aetiologies, of which it is possible that vaccines could be one for SOME autistic children.

I've read that on the Mothering.com community boards. And it seems to be the popular opinion in my area. At no point did I say that 100% of people believe that vaccines are the only thing that cause autism. I was relaying what I was picking up on.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

This is a very sensitive debate, and I believe it is imperative to use language very carefully. Differentiate between fact and opinion. Unfortunately there is very little fact in the debate and no shortage of opinion.

This is where we agree. In that same vein, I think it's also important that we take what a person is saying at face-value and don't read into some subtext that's not there.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

Can you please show me the 1 in 50 autistic 50 year old men in NJ then?

No. I don't know a lot about New Jersey. I do know that there are many adults who are clearly autistic who have never had the formal diagnosis. I'm not suggesting that there has been no rise in autism. I believe there has. I was just wondering how accurate the statistics back then were.

[ASusan]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

The newest research show something really interesting, though. A disproportionate number of people with autism have a metabolic disorder. (These are both autistic people who have been vaccinated and those who have not.) When they get overly hot- like a fever- their autistic traits are much more pronounced. Since fevers can be a side-effect of vaccines, for many parents the first time they've noticed their child's autistic traits are during a fever from the vaccine. So they incorrectly assume that the vaccine caused the autism. When in fact, the fever from the vaccine made the symptoms of the already-present autism worse. I thought it was interesting, I hope you do too!

bolding mine.

I think that more often, the opposite is the case - that fever lessens the symptoms of autism.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ct/120/6/e1386

Fewer aberrant behaviors were recorded for febrile patients (with Autism) on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist subscales of irritability, hyperactivity, stereotypy, and inappropriate speech compared with control subjects.

and

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...cb51fd655a8fee

Some children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) exhibit improved behaviors and enhanced communication during febrile episodes. ...Fever transiently restores the modulatory functions of the LC-NA system and ameliorates autistic behaviors.

And that a current hypothesis is that SUPPRESSING fever - and/or using acetominiphen around the time of vaccination - is linked with developing autism.

http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract&id=82575

The blocking of fever inhibits processes that evolved over millions of years to protect against microbial attack.

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20030462

Schultz et al (2008) raised the question whether regression into autism is triggered, not by the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, but by acetaminophen (Tylenol) given for its fever and pain. Considerable evidence supports this contention, most notably the exponential rise in the incidence of autism since 1980, when acetaminophen began to replace aspirin for infants and young children.

If you can get the full text of this last article, it's really interesting. I'm in the middle of reading it.

citation: Good, P. Altern Med Rev. 2009 Dec;14(4):364-72.
Did acetaminophen provoke the autism epidemic?

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

No, I am not suggesting that. That's why I didn't say it. What I said is that every study I've seen that investigates the link between autism and vaccines comes back with the conclusion that there is no link. And at no point did I suggest that parent's concerns were silly or illegitimate.

Thank you for clarifying. I find it interesting that you use the word 'come back with the conclusion that there is no link'. The conclusion is obviously what comes at the very end of a long process, requiring the formulating of a question, the design of the study, collection of the data and the ability to suspend bias. If at any point along that way there is interference in the scientific method, the conclusions obviously are open to criticism. For me, a conclusion to a study needs to be seen in the context of the study itself.

I have said all of that, as I would be interested to know your opinion on a study that has looked at a vaccine autism link that would be considered scientifically vigorous, from the asking of a relevant question, through to the conclusion.

I've read that on the Mothering.com community boards. And it seems to be the popular opinion in my area. At no point did I say that 100% of people believe that vaccines are the only thing that cause autism. I was relaying what I was picking up on.

It is very easy to refute the claim that vaccines cause autism for all autistic children. I do not think that anyone who has looked into the debate more carefully would make a claim like that. Parents who believe their child was vaccine damaged are going to make that claim, with or without the scientific communities backing. Someone who makes a broad claim for all Autistic children cannot be taken seriously.

This is where we agree. In that same vein, I think it's also important that we take what a person is saying at face-value and don't read into some subtext that's not there.

If you are are insinuating that I did not take what you wrote at face value, I think there is nothing wrong in clarifying positions in online discussion. At face value your post could be read to say the science is there, there is no connection. That is partially true at best.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Thank you for clarifying. I find it interesting that you use the word 'come back with the conclusion that there is no link'. The conclusion is obviously what comes at the very end of a long process, requiring the formulating of a question, the design of the study, collection of the data and the ability to suspend bias. If at any point along that way there is interference in the scientific method, the conclusions obviously are open to criticism. For me, a conclusion to a study needs to be seen in the context of the study itself.

I have said all of that, as I would be interested to know your opinion on a study that has looked at a vaccine autism link that would be considered scientifically vigorous, from the asking of a relevant question, through to the conclusion.



It is very easy to refute the claim that vaccines cause autism for all autistic children. I do not think that anyone who has looked into the debate more carefully would make a claim like that. Parents who believe their child was vaccine damaged are going to make that claim, with or without the scientific communities backing. Someone who makes a broad claim for all Autistic children cannot be taken seriously.



If you are are insinuating that I did not take what you wrote at face value, I think there is nothing wrong in clarifying positions in online discussion. At face value your post could be read to say the science is there, there is no connection. That is partially true at best.

ASusan- Those links are very interesting! I was referring specifically to the research being done into autistic people with a metabolic disorder, so I wonder whether their results will be the same as autistic people without a metabolic disorder? To the best of my knowledge there are no completed studies out about this yet. Just like with your last few links, it's still in the research phase.

Ema-adama- Whenever I see your name I think edamame. Haha, maybe I'm just hungry.

Bolded: I don't really believe that any person can be 100% unbiased on a subject that they're researching. That's why I rely greatly on solid, reproducable scientific method. And that's why, like you, I prefer to know the specifics of the studies so I can make a judgement call on whether or not it was a valid study. That's probably why I have so little patience for opinion articles that vaguely reference a study, but not enough that I can investigate myself.

Italicized: I hope I spelled that right! I'd be more than happy to give you my opinion. Did you have a particular study in mind?

[Tracy]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

No. I don't know a lot about New Jersey. I do know that there are many adults who are clearly autistic who have never had the formal diagnosis. I'm not suggesting that there has been no rise in autism. I believe there has. I was just wondering how accurate the statistics back then were.

The MIND institute here in California has done several reports on stats which included the severe "Rainman" type who were dx with it in the 1960s..The kind that doctors could not miss back then. The rates have skyrocketed.