Vaccine related autism study?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good overview on why this problem is persisting. From Mother Jones:
=========================
Study: You Can't Change an Anti-Vaxxer's Mind
A new study examined multiple strategies for communicating about the safety and importance of vaccines. None of them worked.
—By Chris Mooney

| Mon Mar. 3, 2014

Vaccine denial is dangerous. We know this for many reasons, but just consider one of them: In California in 2010, 10 children died in a whooping cough outbreak that was later linked, in part, to the presence of 39 separate clusters of unvaccinated children in the state. It's that simple: When too many children go unvaccinated, vaccine-preventable diseases spread more easily, and sometimes children die. Nonetheless, as scientifically unfounded fears about childhood vaccines causing autism have proliferated over the past decade or more, a minority of parents are turning to "personal belief exemptions," so-called "alternative vaccine schedules," and other ways to dodge or delay vaccinating their kids.

So as a rational person, you might think it would be of the utmost importance to try to talk some sense into these people. But there's a problem: According to a major new study in the journal Pediatrics, trying to do so may actually make the problem worse. The paper tested the effectiveness of four separate pro-vaccine messages, three of which were based very closely on how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) itself talks about vaccines. The results can only be called grim: Not a single one of the messages was successful when it came to increasing parents' professed intent to vaccinate their children. And in several cases the messages actually backfired, either increasing the ill-founded belief that vaccines cause autism or even, in one case, apparently reducing parents' intent to vaccinate.

The study, by political scientist Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College* and three colleagues, adds to a large body of frustrating research on how hard it is to correct false information and get people to accept indisputable facts. Nyhan and one of his coauthors, Jason Reifler of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, are actually the coauthors of a much discussed previous study showing that when politically conservative test subjects read a fake newspaper article containing a quotation of George W. Bush asserting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, followed by a factual correction stating that this was not actually true, they believed Bush's falsehood more strongly afterwards—an outcome that Nyhan and Reifler dubbed a "backfire effect."

Unfortunately, the vaccine issue is prime terrain for such biased and motivated reasoning; recent research even suggests that a conspiratorial, paranoid mindset prevails among some vaccine rejectionists. To try to figure out how to persuade them, in the new study researchers surveyed a representative sample of 1,759 Americans with at least one child living in their home. A first phase of the study determined their beliefs about vaccines; then, in a follow-up, respondents were asked to consider one of four messages (or a control message) about vaccine effectiveness and the importance of kids getting the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

The first message, dubbed "Autism correction," was a factual, science-heavy correction of false claims that the MMR vaccine causes autism, assuring parents that the vaccine is "safe and effective" and citing multiple studies that disprove claims of an autism link. The second message, dubbed "Disease risks," simply listed the many risks of contracting the measles, the mumps, or rubella, describing the nasty complications that can come with these diseases. The third message, dubbed "Disease narrative," told a true story about a 10-month-old whose temperature shot up to a terrifying 106 degrees after he contracted measles from another child in a pediatrician's waiting room.

All three of these messages are closely based on messages (here, here, and here) that appear on the CDC website. And then there was a final message that was not directly based on CDC communications, dubbed "Disease images." In this case, as a way of emphasizing the importance of vaccines, test subjects were asked to examine three fairly disturbing images of children afflicted with measles, mumps, and rubella.

The results showed that by far, the least successful messages were "Disease narrative" and "Disease images." Hearing the frightening narrative actually increased respondents' likelihood of thinking that getting the MMR vaccine will cause serious side effects, from 7.7 percent to 13.8 percent. Similarly, looking at the disturbing images increased test subjects' belief that vaccines cause autism. In other words, both of these messages backfired.

Why did that happen? Dartmouth's Nyhan isn't sure, but he comments that "if people read about or see sick children, it may be easier to imagine other kinds of health risks to children, including possibly side effects of vaccines that are actually quite rare." (When it comes to side effects, Nyhan is referring not to autism but to the small minority of cases in which vaccines cause adverse reactions.)
=======================

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"The issue of Wakefield’s own single-shot MMR vaccine is an interesting one. In June 1997, Wakefield lodged a preliminary application for a patent on “A pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of an MMR virus mediated disease comprising a double dialysed leucocyte extract containing a transfer factor”, which could be “adapted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus” [http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm]. On the surface, this seems pretty damning. However, there are other factors to consider, such as the attitude of Wakefield’s employers and the government over commericalisation of research findings. In a statement [http://briandeer.com/wakefield/mmr-questions.htm] released by Wakefield in answer to Deer’s accusation that he patented his own vaccine ready to profit when the existing MMR vaccine was discredited, he said: “No vaccine or anything resembling a vaccine was ever designed, developed or tested by me or by any of my colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital…it has never been my aim or intention to design, produce or promote a vaccine to compete with MMR… it was our intention, at one stage, to conduct a formal therapeutic clinical trial of a compound [transfer factor] that might have the ability to promote the body’s immune response to measles in order to assess the effects of this therapy upon the disease in children with regressive autism and bowel disease…. the aim of the patent was to generate funding for the research programme and a new Centre for Gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital. This can be substantiated by contemporaneous documentation. The patent application was motivated by two main factors. First, it was felt that there may be difficulty in raising traditional grant funding for cutting edge, controversial work that was vulnerable by virtue of the fact that it might conflict with perceived wisdom and the commercial interests of others. Secondly, there was, and is, a government-led emphasis on commercial exploitation of discoveries within the medical school.” We would be very interested to see the “contemporaneous documentation” that Wakefield refers to here, and in the closing chapters of Callous Disregard, he hints that a future volume will go into detail on this topic."===http://anh-europe.org/news/wakefield-hits-back-at-bmj-over-“fraud”-claims

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What was the other patent for?

 

So he patented a replacement for a measles vaccine, one for children with autism and/or bowel disease. Then he published fraudulent studies "proving" that traditional vaccines caused autism and/or bowel disease.

 

So was the other patent for a new MMR vaccine or not? It's a simple question.

 

No it wasn't a replacement measles vaccine at all. It was a supplemental transfer vaccine to help autistic kids with bowel disease who had already been vaccinated with MMR. What's so horrible about that?

 

"it was our intention, at one stage, to conduct a formal therapeutic clinical trial of a compound [transfer factor] that might have the ability to promote the body’s immune response to measles" - that's what vaccines do. When might you need to use this? In children with autism and/or bowel disease. It would sure make him a lot of money if you could "prove" that regular vaccines actually _caused_ autism and/or bowel disease.

Like I said - he patented a replacement for a measles vaccine, one for children with autism and/or bowel disease. Then he published fraudulent studies "proving" that traditional vaccines caused autism and/or bowel disease.

 

No it wasn't a replacement measles vaccine at all. It was a supplemental transfer vaccine to help autistic kids with bowel disease who had already been vaccinated with MMR. Nothing was to be replaced. Proving MMR caused bowel disease would not have made him any more money either.

 

From the actual patent:
"The present invention relates to a new vaccine for the elimination of MMR and measles virus, and to a pharmaceutical or therapeutic composition for the treatment of IBD; particlarly Crohns' Disease and Ulcerative Colitis and regressive behavioral disease (RBD.) . . .
At present vaccination is used for the prophylactic prevention of the measles virus . . . unfortunately as have shown previously in the above mentioned patent application the use of this vaccine has been shown to be instrumental in the development of Crohn's Disease . . .
What is needed is therefore a safer vaccine which does not give rise to these problems. I have now discovered a combined vaccine/therapeutic agent which is not only most probably safer to administer . . . "

Sorry. Wakefield himself claims it is a replacement vaccine that is safer than the existing vaccine. He "proved" this through his now-debunked fraudulent study.

So the CDC is covering up issues - and THIS guy is the guy you believe?

 

"The claim appears to be that, whilst at the Royal Free Hospital, I was developing a new vaccine to compete with MMR and that I conspired to undermine confidence in MMR vaccine in order to promote this new vaccine, and that this represented a conflict of interest. This is untrue. The facts are that:

no vaccine or anything resembling a vaccine was ever designed, developed or tested by me or by any of my colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital;

it has never been my aim or intention to design, produce or promote a vaccine to compete with MMR;

my genuine concerns about the safety of MMR are wholly unrelated to any desire or opportunity to develop a competing vaccine;

there was no conspiracy as insinuated by the Sunday Times article;

there was no conflict or interest, actual or perceived.

In contrast, it was our intention, at one stage, to conduct a formal therapeutic clinical trial of a compound that might have the ability to promote the body’s immune response to measles in order to assess the effects of this therapy upon the disease in children with regressive autism and bowel disease. This compound is known as Transfer Factor and whilst there is a large scientific literature on this subject, the nature and mechanism of action of Transfer Factors are largely unknown.

The Transfer Factor that was intended for use in the trial was to be against measles virus. I have urged and continue to urge parents to have their children vaccinated against measles using the current vaccines. This would be in direct conflict with the intentions that are part of the claim that I was developing a new vaccine to bring onto the market. Whether a Transfer Factor could ever protect children against measles is entirely speculative and is something that was never studied or pursued by me or any of my colleagues.

The Channel 4 programme implies commercial aspirations for personal gain. In fact, the aim of the patent was to generate funding for the research programme and a new Centre for Gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital. This can be substantiated by contemporaneous documentation.

The patent application was motivated by two main factors. First, it was felt that there may be difficulty in raising traditional grant funding for cutting edge, controversial work that was vulnerable by virtue of the fact that it might conflict with perceived wisdom and the commercial interests of others. Secondly, there was, and is, a government-led emphasis on commercial exploitation of discoveries within the medical school.

Transfer Factor (TF)

A clinical trial of measles-virus specific transfer factor was planned in order to determine whether there was benefit to children with regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease. It is not known at this stage whether this therapy would work. The purpose of the trial was to start to answer exactly this question as well as to monitor the safety of TF in these children.

This was a treatment trial, not a vaccine trial. A trial of TF was based upon an extensive scientific literature, demonstrating safety and efficacy of TF in different diseases. I consulted widely with experts in the UK and US on the history and scientific background to TF both prior to and in the planning of the trial.

The protocol was extensively peer-reviewed with written endorsement from experts in the UK and US. The trial protocol was submitted to, and subsequently approved by, the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust. The trial protocol was approved by the participating physicians. The trial was funded by charitable foundations after independent peer-review.

The trial was cancelled due, in part, to my departure from the Royal Free.

The Patent

A provisional patent filing was made for the use of measles virus-specific TF in regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease (Regressive Bowel Disease; RBD).

The reference to the possible use of TF to protect children against measles infection – the thrust of the Sunday Times’ conspiracy theory – was put in as an afterthought in the patent. It was entirely speculative and never pursued in any shape, manner or form.

The provisional patent filing was entirely speculative and was for a possible therapy; as such, it had no bearing on the 1998 Lancet paper.

It constituted no potential conflict until the patent was awarded. When the patent was later awarded, this fact was communicated directly to the Editor of the Lancet in order that it might accompany a letter, written in response to a paper by Taylor et al that claimed to find no evidence of a link between MMR vaccine and autism. The editor did not consider the patent disclosure of sufficient significance to publish it alongside my letter.

Since it was awarded, the patent has been disclosed in relevant publications. The claims have since been abandoned.

Drs Nick Chadwick (NC) and Ian Bruce (IB): measles virus detection in intestinal biopsies.

NC was employed as a post-graduate researcher in my laboratory, studying for a PhD. He investigated various technologies for measles virus detection using gene amplification. Due to problems within the laboratory with contamination and the need for additional expertise, we collaborated with IB at the University of Greenwich. IB and NC developed a technique that increased the sensitivity of measles virus detection over standard methodology from approximately 1 million viral copies in a reaction to 10,000 copies. In other words, even with the enhanced technique, the technology could not detect this virus when present below 10,000 copies.

We published the fact that we could not detect measles virus in Crohn’s disease using this technique. This publication went ahead on my recommendation, despite some resistance to publishing negative data. I considered that failure to publish negative data was inconsistent with good scientific practice and proceeded to publication.

By the time we applied the viral detection technology to the intestinal tissues of children with autism, new and more sensitive technology had come to my attention. This includes the technique of TaqMan PCR and was state-of-the-art technology being used by a few expert centres, including that of Professor John O’Leary (JO’L), then at Cornell University in New York. I went to New York to meet with JO’L. He presented evidence that his technique could detect down to 2 viral copies, compared with NC’s 10,000.

The advantages were obvious and the possibility that NC’s results were falsely negative (i.e. that the virus was present in the tissues but at very low levels that NC’s technique could not detect) could now be addressed by the new technology.Using JO’L’s technology the virus was detected in controlled studies and these results were published. They confirmed that our previous results were falsely negative due to the limitation of the technique we were using. TaqMan PCR, one of the techniques used by JO’L to detect measles virus in the autistic children, is now the gold-standard and the technology used by NC has been abandoned. On entirely scientific grounds I was proven correct on this occasion. The facts stated above can be supported by contemporaneous documentation."

 

Let's see if this is true. We will go to the "Claims" section of the patent. That's the section where the goals of the patent are called out.
Claim 2 - "A composition according to claim 1 adopted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus."
So one of the primary goals of the patent is as a vaccine.

Looks like Wakefield is lying through his teeth. (Not surprising; he has a lot of deaths on his head, and I can see him wanting to fabricate a story that makes him blameless.)

 

But it was to be used in trial runs, and used to treat measles AND bowel syndrome. That would never replace MMR vaccine, which doesn't treat bowel syndrome to begin with, and furthermore treats for mumps and rubella. How can you possibly claim a measles transfer factor vaccine for bowel syndrome would replace MMR vaccine. It couldn't.

Seems to be alot left out of your quotes of that patent. Do you have a link to the whole thing? I like to judge statements in their stated context.

 

A replacement for the measles vaccine - that was patented as "A composition according to claim 1 adopted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus" - could not replace the measles vaccine?

You'd have to ask Wakefield, since he filed a patent for a replacement measles vaccine. (BTW he's been an advocate of three separate vaccines, not surprisingly.)

http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm

 

The claims all focus on the treatment of MMR virus mediated irritable bowel syndrome IBS. Read the full list. Note that the IBS is MMR virus MEDIATED, meaning it was, as he believed, caused by the MMR vaccine. So I find it hard to believe he was advocating this as a substitute for MMR. That would mean all these kids would be treated for IBS who don't even have it. It would also mean they wouldn't be vaccinated against mumps and rubella.

 

*headdesk*

The risk that is posed by a group of non-vaccinated individuals far outweighs the perceived risk of autism from vaccinations, by a large margin.

None the less... if parents don't want to have their kids vaccinated, fine, that's their choice. However, it is my belief that those children should not be allowed in public schools at the very least, and honestly I do not feel they should be permitted in areas of high transmission potential (such as theme parks, et al).