Temporal coincidence or real change?
Real change
Testimony to the House Government Reform Committee by Andrew J. Wakefield, M.D.
Many pediatricians have expressed the opinion that, for autism, any association between MMR vaccination and the parents' recognition of the child's behavioral problems is coincidental. Such an assumption is inappropriate in the absence of a thorough history and investigation. For example, symptoms of classical, early onset autism are often noticed initially, in the first and second years of life the child does not develop in the way of normal siblings and peers. Parental concerns about the child's development are often expressed in the second year, when these differences become evident. MMR vaccine is given routinely at this age, and coincidence is therefore inevitable. However, in children with autistic regression, the pattern is of loss of speech, language and social skills, accompanied by bizarre behaviors, in a previously developmentally normal child. This is consistent with an early onset disintegrative psychosis. Furthermore, loss of speech and language are accompanied by symptoms of excessive thirst, bowel disturbances, self-injury, and a self-limited diet associated with cravings for particular foods. Atopy and recurrent, refractory upper respiratory tract infections are prominent features. These symptoms do not feature in the exclusively behavioral descriptors of the diagnostic manual for the autism - DSM-IV.
Testimony to the House Government Reform Committee by Shelley Hendrix Reynolds
Many
in the medical community continue to dismiss this as a mere happenstance because
autism often coincides with the time of vaccination and state that there is no
scientific evidence to back this up. My
question to you is, how long does it take for a coincidence to surface time and
again, case after case after case before it can become a viable hypothesis,
especially, when the solution to solving the problem seems so apparent?
How can pharmaceutical companies concoct substances with mercury,
formaldehyde, antifreeze, lead, aluminum and live viruses not expect that as
they continue to pour these highly toxic and reactive substances into children,
increasing dose after dose, all on the same day even, that it WON'T alter their
developing minds and bodies? Why would it be so completely impossible for
a child to actually contract a chronic form of the disease rather than have a
"proper immunological response," especially when their immune systems
may not be up to par? And
where is THEIR scientific evidence to back up the claim that this cannot happen,
when it is published in the very package inserts, in their writing, that they
have not studied the effects of vaccines for more than a few weeks? Or longer
than the incubation period of the disease itself? Or
what happens when you give multiple doses in one day or combine different
diseases into one hypodermic needle?
Autism: a unique form of mercury poisoning
Importantly,
the timings of vaccinal Hg-exposure and its latency period coincide with the
emergence of autistic-symptoms in specific children. Moreover, excessive mercury
has been detected in urine, hair, and blood samples from autistic children; and
parental reports, though limited at this date, indicate significant improvement
in symptoms subsequent to heavy-metal chelation therapy.
Measles/autism timelines - The Lancet, v.354, Sept. 11, 1999, p.950
Temporal coincidence
There was no temporal association between onset of autism within 1 or 2 years after vaccination with MMR (relative incidence compared with control period 0.94 [95% CI 0.60-1.47] and 1.09 [0.79-1.52]). Developmental regression was not clustered in the months after vaccination (relative incidence within 2 months and 4 months after MMR vaccination 0.92 [0.38-2.21] and 1.00 [0.52-1.95]). No significant temporal clustering for age at onset of parental concern was seen for cases of core autism or atypical autism with the exception of a single interval within 6 months of MMR vaccination. This appeared to be an artifact related to the difficulty of defining precisely the onset of symptoms in this disorder. (Note: it is interesting that this important significant result was dismissed as an artifact.) (Click here for some opposition to Taylor paper.)
Because
the incidence of autism among 2 to 5 year olds increased
markedly among boys born in each year separately from 1988 to
1993 while MMR vaccine coverage was over 95% for successive
annual birth cohorts, the data provide evidence that no correlation
exists between the prevalence of MMR vaccination and the rapid
increase in the risk of autism over time. The explanation for the
marked increase in risk of the diagnosis of autism in the past decade
remains uncertain. (Click
here for some opposition to Kaye paper.)