Nowadays, when I see kids called "autistic" in my office, usually they are merely retarded, and don't really meet the criteria for autism. I suspect it's like a lot of epidemics we see: we lower the criteria for diagnosis, and voila an epidemic.
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.