The Status of Research Into Vaccine Safety and Autism

http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/healthcare/02.06.19/opening_statement.htm ^ | June 19, 2002 - 11:00 a.m. | Dan Burton

[rubbertramp]

I read your article and it has no merit.

A while ago, in this area, there was an outbreak of whooping cough. I knew many mothers who vaccinated their children and these children got whooping cough. I knew many mothers who because of religious reasons did not vaccinate their children against whooping cough. These children in the same area, going to the same schools did not come down with whooping cough.

The big lie is that these vaccinations actually protect against the disease. They don't. No where in that article do they say that those who were not innoculated against measles were the ones that got the disease.

We have pro-choice in so many things, why not vaccination. If the vaccine is so good, people will choose it on its own merits. The fact of the matter is that it is worse than the disease. Autism is a living death, in many cases.

[Al B.]

FYI, here are Dr. Wakefield's prepared remarks before the Burton committee on June 19, which I thought were reasoned and not overreaching and indicative of someone who is objective.  As Dr. Wakefield himself has said in a letter printed in The Lancet, "we have published studies that both do, and do not support a role for measles virus in chronic intestinal inflammation: this is called integrity."  He then went on to say that his latest work was strongly implicative of MMR vaccines in autism and inflammatory bowel disease.

Those that seem to be screaming loudest against Wakefield's research are those that probably have a vested interest in doing so.  Read the first paragraph of Wakefield's House statement to see what I mean.

I was particularly interested in his comments from his testimony about the MMR re-challenge work that he has done.  Re-challenge studies are among the best tools a researcher has in associating cause with effect:

---

Re-challenge and biological gradient effects for MMR/MR vaccines

A further key piece of evidence comes from examination of “re-challenge” and “biological gradient” effects for possible vaccine-related adverse events.

Re-challenge refers to a situation where re-exposure of an individual to an agent (e.g. vaccine) elicits a similar adverse reaction to that seen following the initial exposure. The secondary reaction associated with re-challenge may either reproduce the features associated with the primary challenge, or may lead to worsening of the condition that was provoked or induced by the initial exposure.

During the course of our clinical investigation we have observed that some children who received a second dose of MMR, or boosting with the combined measles rubella (MR) vaccine, experienced further deterioration in their physical and/or behavioural symptoms following re-exposure. In a report of April 2001, the Vaccine Safety Committee of the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) stated that, in the context of MMR vaccine as a possible cause of this syndrome, “challenge re-challenge exposed would constitute strong evidence of an association”[1].

In the context of adverse vaccine reactions, a biological gradient refers to an increasing severity of, or increased risk of developing, a particular disease outcome. More severe bowel disease in children with regressive autism who had received more than one MMR/MR would be an example of this.

We have undertaken systematic evaluation of re-challenge and biological gradient effects in children with regressive autism who have undergone investigation at the Royal Free Hospital.

“Exposed” – children with normal early development & regressive autism who had received more than one MMR/MR - were compared with age and sex matched “unexposed” – children with normal early development & with regressive autism who had received only one MMR but otherwise similar baseline characteristics to the exposed group. Comparisons included: secondary (2o) developmental/behavioural regression; 2o physical deterioration, prospective, observer-blinded scores of endoscopic & microscopic disease severity.

In a preliminary analysis exposed children scored significantly higher than unexposed children for:

(i) secondary regression on the basis of analyses performed at the different levels, including :

q parental history

q excluding those whose secondary regression occurred following publication of the 1st suggested MMR-autism link in 1998; and,

q inclusion of only those for whom independent corroborative evidence of secondary regression was obtained from the records;

(ii) secondary physical symptoms;

(iii) presence of severe ileal lymphoid hyperplasia; and,

(iii) presence and severity of acute mucosal inflammation.

No measures of disease were worse in unexposed than exposed children.

These data identify a re-challenge effect on symptoms and a biological gradient effect on severity of intestinal inflammation that provide evidence of a causal association between MMR and regressive autism in these children.

---

Also of note is Dr. Arthur Krigsman's testimony.  Dr. Krigsman of NYU offered supporting evidence of Dr. Wakefield's findings in that he has observed the same pattern of bowel disease in children with regressive autism.  He plans to have the samples from his patient group independently tested for the presence of the measles virus.

Seems that the list of "quacks" supporting Dr. Wakefield is growing.

As I said to you on another thread, independent research into the CDC VSD database will be a critical factor in determining whether this journey Dr. Wakefield seems to be on is valid or just a wild goose chase.  This is especially so since there simply isn't going to be a mad rush to step forward and duplicate Wakefield's results.  Too many careers and too much vested interest to protect.

[bonesmccoy]

You make no sense. Thimerosal was removed from most vaccines over the last two years. Please point to the EXACT POSTING. I will not go searching hundreds of posts to locate the message YOU chose to note. Seeing how you haven't been able to post a quote or a reference, I think this is a dead donkey.

[bonesmccoy]

It doesn't matter what Dr. Wakefield says. It matters what the rest of the research community in BOTH the UK and the USA say. The research data is complete and the clinical evidence is clear. Wakefield is incorrect.

[CholeraJoe]

just do what that pretty pharmacuetical saleswoman tells you and take your trip to Aruba every year.

I got a trip to Aruba coming up in a couple of months, rubber. Wanna join me?;-)

[Al B.]

It matters what the rest of the research community in BOTH the UK and the USA say.

Yeah sure. I remember in 1973 when NIMH researcher George Crane was called a quack by the research community when he was the lone voice writing about the neurotoxicity of antipsychotics. Today his "quack" views are enshrined in the PDR and the DSM.

Time will tell who's right. We need to hear more from independent researchers on this and less name-calling from the vested-interest "establishment."

[bonesmccoy]

Exactly how much money do you want to spend in research for this matter? You don't appear familiar with the studies. How many papers need to be written and how much public health work needs to be done to refute these strange assertions?

[rubbertramp]

LOL. I am sure you earned your perks the old fashioned way...through hard work.

So shall we put it on Pfizers tab or Eli Lillys?

[CholeraJoe]

Pfizer's going to be a little strapped for cash what with the Pharmacia acquisition and all. Let's hit up Uncle Eli Lilly.

[Al B.]

You don't appear familiar with the studies.

You're right, but you've definitely gotten me interested.

How many papers need to be written and how much public health work needs to be done to refute these strange assertions

According to you, none.  Tell you what, why don't you tell me what studies I need to read to come to the same conclusion you have.  I promise you I'll read them.  I can look them up, so don't go to too much trouble.  Just something descriptive enough that will allow me to find it.  Thx.

[bonesmccoy]

OK. Go to medline and look up any paper published on the vaccines you discuss.

There is so much data out there that it's not worth me rewriting all the other guy's papers.

[Timesink]

The fact people like you keep posting this stuff reminds me of the UFO craze.

Heh, you're closer than you know. One of Art Bell's shows from just this past week consisted of several hours of conspiratorial ranting about vaccines, mercury, autism ... everything you see in this thread and much much more.

[bonesmccoy]

I'm not wasting any further time on idiotic rants.

[Al B.]

LOL. You're the one who said he'd reviewed the literature fully. I was simply trying to get some pointers to the literature so I could read the same papers you did. Sorry I asked.

You did read them, didn't you? You weren't just blowing smoke when you said:

I've reviewed the literature fully and the issue is about as moot as can be.(your post 21)

????

[bonesmccoy]

Please read at will any of my previous ad nauseum postings. At this juncture you remind me of the behavior of a needy 3 year old. We have given you sources and resources. If you can't go to medline and enter "vaccine" into the search engine...that's your problem!