Japan Autism Link Revisited

It's been over two years now since the Yokohama study was released. This is the study that supposedly dispelled the possible link between vaccines and autism.

But did it really?

The problem I have with the study is that they do not mention how much mercury was actually in the vaccines, both before and after. And yes the kids were still vaccinated. All they did was give one shot instead of three separate shots. But how much mercury was in the damn vaccines? Hello? And did they really go from 3 shots to one shot, or did they go from 3 shots on three separate visits to 3 shots in one visit? This study really does leave me with a sick stomach. Why so much obfuscation?

Here is the Guardian article claiming the link was dispelled.




Now check this out:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7491/558-a#99989

There is way too much rebuttal on this page, and it contains many links to yet even more rebuttal. I'll just post some of the commentary.

John Stone:

Perhaps the most striking single emerging point is that when MMR was abandoned in Japan it was largely replaced not by three staggered injections, but three separate injections administered in the same visit. The study therefore sheds no light on Andrew Wakefield's original proposition that it was advisable to space the shots a year apart, but this point is not acknowledged and would seem to invalidate its main claim. I think the authors, and other MMR proponents, should be prepared to discuss this point.

John P. Heptonstall:

Takahashi et al 2003 (1), although a small study that requires larger follow-up, makes two very important observations. The team found a “statistically significant association of ASD with monovalent measles immunisation, non-mumps and non-rubella immunisation” and that “results suggest a decreased risk of developing ASD with MMR compared to monovalent antigens”.

Taking Honda et al together with Takahashi et al, one might suspect that

1. Replacing MMR vaccine with monovalent measles vaccine may be expected to cause a rise in the incidence of ASD and

2. If monovalent measles vaccine poses a significant risk of ASD then MMR, which contains the equivalent of a monovalent measles component, might also be expected to pose a risk of ASD.

The rate of increase in ASD throughout the period of Honda et al, 1988-96, might not result solely from any increase attributable to monovalent vaccines but also to other as yet unspecified agents and any alterations to the criteria for diagnosis under review through that period and beyond.

Thimerosal, and therefore ethyl mercury, is suspected of causing ASD. If this is the case, the study period being for children born between 1988 and 1996 includes children born between 1988 and 1992 who may have received MMR vaccine, and up to 150ug mercury in scheduled DTP (3 doses of 25ug in first year of life) and Japanese Encephalitis (JE) vaccines (3 doses of 25ug between 3 and 4 years of age), whereas those born between 1993 and 1996 would be likely to have received monovalent vaccines and no MMR (banned in April 1993) vaccine plus a potential for up to 75 ug mercury as they would not have attained the age for JE vaccination (3 to 4 years of age) before study end 1996.

Also statistics show there was considerable parental concern over MMR vaccines prior to withdrawal as uptake dropped from almost 70% in 1988 to 1.8% in 1992 – and some parents may have become suspicious of other vaccines during the study period confusing the study outcome.

In addition to ethyl mercury there are other potential agents of cause of ASDs and other adverse effects within the MMR and M, M and R vaccines. They range from the attenuated viruses themselves (measles virus was found in autists and not controls by Singh et al and Wakefield et al; MMR vaccine virus was found in the brains of autists and not controls by Singh et al; rubella virus has long been associated as congenital rubella with autism) and adjuvants such as neomycin (2) which is a highly toxic antibiotic and gelatine (3) which has caused anaphylaxis after MMR vaccination. If MMR and monovalent vaccines cause ASDs the constituents must be investigated and adjuvants might feature more highly if, as Takahashi et al suggests, monovalent vaccines carry greater risk of causing ASD; each child may have received several monovalent jabs instead of a single MMR jab.

To complicate analysis further, the Japanese MMR vaccines used at the time of these studies were of different types and might present separate risks for causing ASDs. Kimura et al 1996 (4) shows that Standard MMR was associated with 16.6 cases of aseptic meningitis/10,000 recipients compared to Biken MMR which had 0 cases/10,000, Takeda MMR with 11.6/10,000 and Kitasato MMR with 3.2 cases/10,000 recipients of the vaccine. One might reasonably expect any risk of ASD to vary with vaccine type.

Rather than an uninterrupted increase in incidence of ASD from 1988 to 1996 as the conclusion suggests, the incidence varied considerably during the 8 years covered. The 47.6 (per 10,000) 1992-3 incidence almost returned when it dropped from 85.9/10,000 in 1990 back to 55.8 and 63.3 respectively in 1991 and 1992. In 1993 it jumps to 96.7, then to 161.3 in 1994, then falls back to settle at 115.3 and 117.2 in 1995 and 1996. I see no scientific merit in ignoring those considerations and concluding that a rise in incidence from 47.6 to 117.2 over 8 years when MMR was withdrawn in 1993 proves that MMR had no part to play in that increase. Important statistical variations may have been ignored.

Children born between 1988 and 1992 might have lesser risk of ASD from MMR compared with monovalent vaccines but a greater risk from a potential 150ug mercury intake which contrasts with the 1993-96 cohort who may have realised a greater risk of ASD from the monovalent vaccines but a lesser risk of mercury-induced ASD from a lesser potential intake of 75ug mercury. Other vaccines carrying additional toxic burdens might add to the risk such as the 6 or more doses of neomycin injected via varicella, rubella, OPV, mumps and measles vaccines and 4 doses of gelatine injected with mumps, measles, rubella and varicella vaccines. These variables might eventually explain why Honda et al’s incidence rate is not of constant increase.

Contrary to Cole’s and Evan Harris’s rather overenthusiastic acceptance of Honda et al 2005, when one considers both the Honda and Takahashi studies one must surely suspect that both MMR and monovalent/single antigen vaccines are probable causes of ASDs. If that is the case all haste is required from Members of Parliament and the Health Protection Agency to direct that identification of the risk posed by MMR and monovalent vaccines to our children is a national priority.

Regards

John H.

References

1. "An epidemiological Study on Japanese Autism concerning Routine Childhood Immunisation History" by Takahashi H et al, Jpn. J. Infect. Dis 2003; 56: 114-117

2. Kwittken PL et al “MMR vaccine and neomycin allergy”, American Journal of diseases of children 1993; 147(2): 128-9

3. Kelso JM et al “Anaphylaxis to measles mumps and rubella vaccine mediated by IgE to gelatine”, Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology 1993; 91(4): 867-72

4. Kimura M et al “Adverse events associated with measles mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccines in Japan”, Acta Paediatrica Japonica 1996; 38(3): 205-11

Clifford G. Miller:

The problems with the Honda/Rutter MMR/autism paper from Japan are only just the start of this. The fact of a dip in autism followed by a large rise when vaccinations increased over 150% in 1993 in Japan (according to official Japanese government figures) is actually evidence of at least two things. It is strong evidence of a causal association between the combination of vaccines and autism-like and related disorders.

It is also evidence of the existence of a dechallenge/rechallenge case series at a population level. Now that is beyond any doubt powerful. The dechallenge occurred by taking MMR away with a positive dip in autism on a population level. This was followed by a rechallenge with a positive rise in autism by reintroducing the single vaccines in place of the MMR. The single vaccines were meant to be administered at 4 week intervals, but according to an NHS publication, Japanese children received them on the same day.

Ron Paul and the RedState "Republicans"

There are not many places where you can find such a heavy concentration of "eccentricity" as on RedState! Here's some examples of their fine reasoning skills:

RedState open letter


by mbecker908:

** Rep Paul is a complete and total moonbat on the war. He has no clue about the face of the enemy, he has no clue about real progress against aQ in Iraq

Let's see, 14000 deformed babies... hundreds of thousands dead. Millions displaced. Keeping in mind the thought of even just 0.1% of these angry and shattered people turning to terrorism as their only solution, I'm sure we're making great progress against aQ! But of course when you just put your hands over your ears and say "la la la la" I guess it becomes much easier to believe whatever you want to believe.

** Nobody who supports a cut-and-run strategy in the Middle East deserves the slightest hearing or consideration from the American people.

So here you have someone from RedState admitting that they do not care about issues of legality, morality, etc. Big surprise! "Winning" is all that matters, even though it has become a well understood fact that there is no military solution for Iraq. So the greatness of the human intellect has been reduced to that base primal instinct to avoid "cutting and running"!! What a sad creature is this mbecker908.

As you note, Rep Paul has served 10 terms in Congress. In 20+ years he has yet to actually accomplish anything. Voting "no" and opposing stuff is not an accomplishment.\

Ha. I dont know what to say. It's like when you're at war, and the enemy is flooding in, and the soldiers on the frontline are holding back the flood, and people like mbecker908 can only say those soldiers have not accomplished anything because they have not advanced their position! Almost every piece of legislation that comes out of congress is bunk. It should be voted against. As long as the lobbyists write the bills and the congress dont read them, hell yeah you vote NO!


by Moe Lane:

We don't tolerate chickenhawkers here, Ironman77.

Scram, militarist.

A fine example of rational discourse. Ironman77 will probably not be around RedState for very long... why? Because he made an intelligent statement or two. I think you get up to three strikes, and then you're out!


by libertaspraesidium :

I do not know that many libertarians that have the potential of actually winning, show me one and i will vote for them.

Would you vote for Adolf hitler if you thought he could win? I bet you would you lil bootlicker. Here's a thought... why not vote for the candidate you think is best, and let your choice be known to the world, instead of feeding this pathetic system where winning is all that matters yet none of us really win anything at all?

by Icarus:

Voting "No" is not a plan. Voting "No" is not a vision for the future.

Again, lobbyists writing bills that the congress dont read is a plan? Abolishing the federal reserve is not a plan for the future? Reducing the size, scope, and debt of government is not a plan for the future? Not only is it a plan, but it is a very conservative plan. You know ...con-serv-a-tive... something most of these people on RedState wouldn't know anything about.

by Icarus:

My point is, in absence of a plan to tell the electorate why any other alternative might be better, the electorate that is dependent on these programs will vote en masse against the candidate that says these programs are unconstitutional, but offers nothing better in return.

Hey, don't blame others for the fact that you're uninformed, pal. Ron Paul has a plan. Just because it hasn't been spoonfed to you by Billy-O doesn't change that fact. My god...


by mbecker908:

Obviously the folks who support this nincompoop have no clue what the word "leadership" means. So let me give you a couple of examples. Please note that I am simply providing examples of what leadership is, I'm not necessarily endorsing the individuals or their positions on the issues.

ok now i dont recall anyone swearing to be a good leader when they take their oath. What I do remember is some vague remark about... oh... protecting and defending the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. So why don't we first focus on getting politicians to uphold the oathes they do take, rather than making up some crap that isn't even part of their oath of office? Here's a thought... why not let the people lead? hmmm? You authoritarians are a funny lot.


by streiff:

His view of the Constitution could probably get about 1, or less, other members of Congress to vote for it so his view is simply as irrelevant as it is silly. Have fun supporting this guy and if you feel like you have to make a third party run, go for it.

Oh yeah that's a really intelligent statement. How about you fake conservatives go form your own damn fake third party, and let the real conservatives be where they belong. Dumbass.

by Icarus:

I think you will also find here, however, that there are a lot of us who oppose Rep. Paul who are also not apologists for the Republican status quo.

Yeah right, name one. You are pretty much all a bunch of apologists for a status quo that doesnt even remotely represent traditional republican values. Some of the smarter ones on RedState actually realize that Bush is not a conservative, and they realize that maybe something should be done about it, but obviously have not a freakin clue what that might be! How's that leadership thing workin for ya?

by Vladimir:

It's the ones you don't mention that scare the crap out of me and disqualify Paul from getting Vladimir's vote in any circumstance. The war. Isolationism. Israel. Monetary policy. Energy policy. Trade policy.

Ron Paul is not an Isolationist. The war was a lie. No other candidate has a sensible solution for our monetary policy. For an energy policy, we need to go more liberal, but first we need to stop feeding the big energy companies. If that sounds like a contradiction, well, you've got to keep in mind that it is the little guys who innovate, and it's the big guys who usually profit from such innovations. So the little guys should get subsidies and the big guys should be told to piss off.

As did streiff above, I echo many of the concerns in Mbecker's & Icarus's comments.

Of course you do. That's what you guys do best. Echo. :P

by Vladimir (cont'd)

The nature of the support* raises a red flag for me

*By that I mean: Troofers, Jew-haters, paleocons, tax protesters, etc.

Oh the troofers. lol. Does that make you feel better to call "them" names? Tell me something. How does seeing molten iron pouring out of a building make someone a "troofer"? How does knowing that a yellow-orange liquid must be at least hundreds of degrees hotter than jet fuel or office fires can reach make someone a "troofer"? How does seeing white smoke pouring out of the basement 10 seconds before the collapse make someone a "troofer"? How does seeing the tops of the WTC towers and surrounding buildings shake violently 10 seconds before the collapse make someone a "troofer"? How does listening to dozens of eyewitnesses speak of a countdown at WTC 7 make someone a "troofer"? I think it's more likely it makes you an idiot for not being able to add up 2 plus 2.

As for the jew haters. Well anyone who supports Israel's current leadership to the point where it gets their whole country turned into a police state must be a jew hater as well as just a hater in general.

by docj

Explain to me how Dr. No is going to win an election when, just to quote the penultimate paragraph of the article...

Three-quarters of the population is worried about growing income inequality, Pew found, while two-thirds favor government-funded health care for all. Support for a government safety net for the poor is at its highest level since 1987...

That is precisely why you need to support Ron Paul. Whether he wins or not, he will shift the political waters over to more conservative grounds. Those other candidates aren't going to do that. All they will do is make the entire election about Iraq. And besides, Ron Paul is the only candidate who even attempts to address the issue of income inequality at its root: the federal reserve banking system of ever growing inflation which prices out the poor and middle class. The truth is, Ron Paul could allow taxes to rise and it still would hurt the middle class less than allowing this fiat monetary system to continue on its present course into oblivion. I wonder... what will RedStaters say when the value of the dollar is cut in half once again? Will they finally start seeing that as the tax that it is? Just how far does it have to fall before they decide that there is more to the concept of taxation than just what they take out of your paycheck?!


by Scorpio:

The above poster claims that some Ron Paul supporters are "new" to politics. This is not that much of an excuse. Whether or not they have been in politics for decades or minutes, they should conduct themselves with respect and dignity.

One does not show respect for tyranny.

BTW, I want Paul to say that terrorism is a threat and disavow the Truthers in his campaign before I regard his supporters as anything but kooks and Democrats.

Of course terrorism is a threat. Especially now that we've bombed and killed thousands of Iraqis then gave them hundreds of thousands of guns to... meditate and reflect with! So yeah, of course terrorism is a threat. But so is stepping off your front porch every day. (More people fall and kill themselves than die to terrorists.) But that doesn't mean I need 6 policemen to hold my hand every time I go out the door. Goodness... grow some backbone will ya?

Well, it just goes on and on... there's like 250 comments so far, and most of them are pretty absurd. I do gotta hand it to all the Ron Paul supporters who chimed in. Their usernames will get deleted in a few days, but it's a noble effort anyway!