FEAT DAILY NEWSLETTER
Sacramento, California http://www.feat.org
“Healing Autism: No Finer a
Cause on the Planet”
March 7, 2001 Search
www.feat.org/search/news.asp
Time Trends in Autism and in MMR Immunization Coverage in
California
Loring Dales, MD; Sandra Jo Hammer, RN, PHN; Natalie J.
Smith, MD, MPH
[The following is the abstract to the above paper being
widely reported today in the media.
Included are excerpts of quotes made in response as reported in various
newspapers.]
Considerable concern has been generated in the lay and
medical communities by a theory that increased measles-mumps-rubella (MMR)
immunization among young children may be the cause of an
apparent marked
increase in autism occurrence.
To determine if a correlation exists in secular trends of
MMR immunization coverage among young children and autism occurrence.
Retrospective analyses of MMR immunization coverage
rates among
children born in 1980-1994 who were enrolled in California
kindergartens
(survey samples of 600-1900 children each year) and whose
school
immunization records were reviewed to retrospectively
determine the age at
which they first received MMR immunization; and of autism
caseloads among
children born in these years who were diagnosed with
autism and were
enrolled in the California Department of Developmental
Services regional
service center system.
Main Outcome Measures
Measles-mumps-rubella immunization coverage rates as of ages
17 months
and 24 months and numbers of Department of Developmental
Services system
enrollees diagnosed with autism, grouped by year of birth.
Results
Essentially no correlation was observed between the secular
trend of
early childhood MMR immunization rates in California and
the secular trend
in numbers of children with autism enrolled in California’s
regional service
center system. For the 1980-1994 birth cohorts, a marked,
sustained increase
in autism case numbers was noted, from 44 cases per 100
000 live births in
the 1980 cohort to 208 cases per 100 000 live births in
the 1994 cohort (a
373% relative increase), but changes in early childhood
MMR immunization
coverage over the same time period were much smaller and
of shorter
duration. Immunization coverage by the age of 24 months
increased from 72%
to 82%, a relative increase of only 14%, over the same
time period.
These data do not suggest an association between MMR
immunization among young children and an increase in autism occurrence.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/current/rpdf/jbr00284.pdf
From excerpts of the research paper itself, the authors
acknowledge
the insufficient quality of the data for purposes of
drawing conclusions
based on the reported rates of autism. They give six different reasons for
this.
Then, contradicting themselves, they go ahead and draw a
conclusion
anyway (see below).
“Difficulties in interpreting the increasing numbers of
autism cases
are highlighted in the California Department of Developmental
Services 1999
report, which repeatedly stressed that its data cannot be
interpreted as
measuring trends in the actual incidence of autism. It is
unknown how many
children with autism have not enrolled in the system and
as the system
expanded and matured over time, the proportions of
children enrolling in the
system who were born outside of California may have
changed over time.
“Recommendations have been made for a detailed
investigation into the
apparent increases in autism cases, carefully evaluating
the extent to which
apparent increases in autism are real as opposed to
artifact, as well as
evaluating factors that may have contributed to any true
increases including
immunizations. Such investigations are in progress (Robert
Byrd, MD,
University of California Davis Medical Center, Department
of Pediatrics,
written communication, November 1, 2000).
“The data presented herein have some limitations. It would
have been
useful to examine individual immunization and autism
records on the same
children, however, these could not be linked. Further, the
childhood
immunization coverage data used in the study do not
provide precise
quantification of the percentages of children who received
the combined MMR
vaccine product vs separate injections of the measles,
mumps, and/or rubella
components.”
But an improperly drawn conclusion is made anyway:
“However, the issue here is, assuming that the secular
trend noted in
the report represents a true increase in autistic disorder
incidence, what
is the evidence that MMR immunization may be associated
with this trend?. .
.”
How can they assume the report represents a true count
when they just
gave six reasons above, why it cannot? Then based on this false assumption,
they draw this conclusion:
“The lack of correspondence between the trends in MMR
coverage and
numbers of autistic disorder cases does not support the
hypothesis that
increasingly widespread MMR immunization of young children
is associated
with the marked secular trend of increasing numbers of
autism cases enrolled
in the California Department of Developmental Services
regional service center system.”
What could be the real purpose for this misleading
exercise, if not as
for propaganda?
-LS
* * *
Media Quotations in Response
In the LA Times:
. . .Dr. Bernard Rimland of the Autism Research Institute
in San Diego
argues that it is not the vaccine—known as MMR—alone that
triggers autism,
but the entire burden placed on the immune system by the
22 separate vaccines that are now given to children between birth and age 2.
“By focusing on MMR, these guys are missing the boat,” he
said. “It’s
much too early to dismiss the [vaccine] hypothesis.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20010307/t000020117.html
In the St. Petersburg Times:
“None of us are anti-vaccine. We all want the very best
for our kids,”
said Rick Rollens, co-founder of Medical Investigation of
Neurodevelopmental
Disorders, a research center at the University of
California at Davis, who
blames the autism of his son, Russell, on immunizations he
got as an infant.
“But I think the vaccine manufacturers and the public
heath community
have failed in providing us with proof that these vaccines
don’t cause
problems.”
http://www.sptimes.com/News/030701/TampaBay/Study_answers_autism_.shtml
In the San Francisco Chronicle:
“Quite frankly, something that appears in a journal that
is controlled
by the American Medical Association, which is one of the
world’s No. 1
promoters of vaccine policy, needs to be taken with a
grain of salt,” said
Rick Rollens of Sacramento. He is the father of a
10-year-old autistic son
and has been vocal in asking for research into the
possible link between
vaccines and autism.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/07
/MN152164.DTL
In the San Jose Mercury News:
Some parents of autistic children, however, remain
convinced that the
vaccine may have caused the disease, in part because the vaccine
typically
is first given at 12 to 15 months, slightly before parents
usually first
detect the problems that characterize autism. A second
dose is recommended
at 4 to 6 years.
Lenny Schafer, whose 12-year-old son is autistic, still
believes the
MMR vaccine could have played a role.
“Parents are just desperate for hard science on this,”
said Schafer,
who is based in Sacramento and helps run a
financial-support organization
for parents of autistic children. “This study is not going
to convince the
average parent one way or another. It’s just going to make
things really
confusing. Parents are real gun-shy on vaccines and they’re
getting more
so.” http://cgi.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/vaccine.htm
In the Sacramento Bee:
In Sacramento, the MIND Institute, part of the UC
Davis Medical
Center, was established in 1999 to try to solve the
mystery. Two parents who
helped found the institute said Tuesday that they want to
see more studies
before they’ll believe MMR isn’t a culprit.
Rick Rollens feels strongly that vaccines (although not
MMR) had a
hand in the development of autism in his son Russell at 7
months of age.
Russell is 10 now.
“Until we get good independent science research into this
question,
the spin control that the public health community
continues to put out on
this issue just doesn’t pass the smell test,” Rollens
said.
Another Sacramento father of an autistic son, Chuck
Gardner, was likewise
suspicious of the state Department of Health Services as a
source of unbiased research.
“Three words,” he said: “Conflict of interest.”
Dr. Robert Byrd, a pediatrician at the MIND
Institute who was not
involved with the state autism study, said he did not see
any flaws in the
study’s methodology.
“Irrespective of who’s doing the study, if MMR were to be
the prime
reason, we’d see a different curve (in the data),” said
Byrd, who is doing
his own epidemiological study of autism in California,
trying to figure out
the factors behind the rise.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/news/local03_20010307.html
>> DO SOMETHING ABOUT AUTISM NOW <<
Subscribe, Read, then Forward the FEAT Daily
Newsletter.
To Subscribe go to www.feat.org/FEATnews No Cost!
Lenny Schafer, Editor Catherine Johnson PhD Ron Sleith Kay Stammers
Editor@feat.org Unsubscribe: FEATNews-signoff-request@LIST.FEAT.ORG
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.