Vaccine Court did NOT say "no link" between vaccines and autism

[HamdenRice]

Just thought you might want to read the actual opinion. It is very complex and a lot more nuanced than it is being reported, and a lot more open minded than most pro-vaccine posters on this board.

At the risk of reducing a very complex opinion to a few take-away ideas, the court said that it was not persuaded by the specific disease model presented by the petitioner -- which was that the thimerosal damaged the infant's immune system, that the damaged immune system could not fight off measles, and that the measles caused brain and intestinal damage.

You might want to look at this post in GD for background:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5045479&mesg_id=5045479

and down load the Hastings Cebillo opinion from this website:

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/autism-testcases.htm

Of special interest is the Special Master's attempt to explain just what "general causation" theories he rejected and what specific causation theories -- ie theories that only applied to this specific patient -- were rejected.

[stopbush]

1. The science on the matter sides with the court, and in less-specific terms.

Time for the vaccines-cause-autism crowd to give it up. They're sounding an awful lot like a religious sect these days.

[HamdenRice]

2. "sides with the court" -- do you even know what the court said?

You would probably be very surprised if you read the opinion.

[stopbush]

3. Tin foil time.

The autism claims against vaccines are bogus. Or do you believe science says differently?

[tabatha]

4. Link to the scientific proof that it is not?

[GeorgeGist]

11. This should get you started ...

1: Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study.

Hornig M, Briese T, Buie T, Bauman ML, Lauwers G, Siemetzki U, Hummel K, Rota PA, Bellini WJ, O'Leary JJ, Sheils O, Alden E, Pickering L, Lipkin WI.

PLoS ONE. 2008 Sep 4;3(9):e3140.

PMID: 18769550

Related Articles Free article in PMC | at journal site
2: Acetaminophen (paracetamol) use, measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, and autistic disorder: the results of a parent survey.

Schultz ST, Klonoff-Cohen HS, Wingard DL, Akshoomoff NA, Macera CA, Ji M.

Autism. 2008 May;12(3):293-307.

PMID: 18445737

Related Articles
3: Media coverage of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism controversy and its relationship to MMR immunization rates in the United States.

Smith MJ, Ellenberg SS, Bell LM, Rubin DM.

Pediatrics. 2008 Apr;121(4):e836-43.

PMID: 18381512

Related Articles
4: Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders.

Baird G, Pickles A, Simonoff E, Charman T, Sullivan P, Chandler S, Loucas T, Meldrum D, Afzal M, Thomas B, Jin L, Brown D.

Arch Dis Child. 2008 Oct;93(10):832-7. Epub 2008 Feb 5. Erratum in: Arch Dis Child. 2008 Dec;93(12):1079.

PMID: 18252754

Related Articles
5: Continuing increases in autism reported to California's developmental services system: mercury in retrograde.

Schechter R, Grether JK.

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;65(1):19-24.

PMID: 18180424

Related Articles Free article at journal site
6: Mercury, vaccines, and autism: one controversy, three histories.

Baker JP.

Am J Public Health. 2008 Feb;98(2):244-53. Epub 2008 Jan 2.

PMID: 18172138

Related Articles
7: Vaccines and autism: evidence does not support a causal association.

DeStefano F.

Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Dec;82(6):756-9. Epub 2007 Oct 10. Review.

PMID: 17928818

Related Articles
8: A case study of a graphical misrepresentation: drawing the wrong conclusions about the measles, mumps and rubella virus vaccine.

Cox AR, Kirkham H.

Drug Saf. 2007;30(10):831-6.

PMID: 17867721

Related Articles
9: Developmental regression and autism reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Woo EJ, Ball R, Landa R, Zimmerman AW, Braun MM; VAERS Working Group.

Autism. 2007 Jul;11(4):301-10.

PMID: 17656395

Related Articles
10: MMR: marginalised, misrepresented and rejected? Autism: a focus group study.

Hilton S, Hunt K, Petticrew M.

Arch Dis Child. 2007 Apr;92(4):322-7.

PMID: 17376937

Related Articles
11: Immunizations and autism: a review of the literature.

Doja A, Roberts W.

Can J Neurol Sci. 2006 Nov;33(4):341-6. Review.

PMID: 17168158

Related Articles
12: No evidence of persisting measles virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from children with autism spectrum disorder.

D'Souza Y, Fombonne E, Ward BJ.

Pediatrics. 2006 Oct;118(4):1664-75. Erratum in: Pediatrics. 2006 Dec;118(6):2608.

PMID: 17015560

Related Articles Free article at journal site
13: Vaccines and the changing epidemiology of autism.

Taylor B.

Child Care Health Dev. 2006 Sep;32(5):511-9. Review.

PMID: 16919130

Related Articles
14: MMR-vaccine and regression in autism spectrum disorders: negative results presented from Japan.

Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Inaba Y.

J Autism Dev Disord. 2007 Feb;37(2):210-7.

PMID: 16865547

Related Articles
15: An enquiry into scientific and media discourse in the MMR controversy: authority and factuality.

Rundblad G, Chilton PA, Hunter PR.

Commun Med. 2006;3(1):69-80.

PMID: 16808426

Related Articles
16: Assessment of metallothionein and antibodies to metallothionein in normal and autistic children having exposure to vaccine-derived thimerosal.

Singh VK, Hanson J.

Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2006 Jun;17(4):291-6.

PMID: 16771783

Related Articles
17: Is there a 'regressive phenotype' of Autism Spectrum Disorder associated with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine? A CPEA Study.

Richler J, Luyster R, Risi S, Hsu WL, Dawson G, Bernier R, Dunn M, Hepburn S, Hyman SL, McMahon WM, Goudie-Nice J, Minshew N, Rogers S, Sigman M, Spence MA, Goldberg WA, Tager-Flusberg H, Volkmar FR, Lord C.

J Autism Dev Disord. 2006 Apr;36(3):299-316.

PMID: 16729252

Related Articles
18: The MMR vaccination and autism controversy in United Kingdom 1998-2005: inevitable community outrage or a failure of risk communication?

Burgess DC, Burgess MA, Leask J.

Vaccine. 2006 May 1;24(18):3921-8. Epub 2006 Mar 3.

PMID: 16564116

Related Articles
19: Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK.

Afzal MA, Ozoemena LC, O'Hare A, Kidger KA, Bentley ML, Minor PD.

J Med Virol. 2006 May;78(5):623-30.

PMID: 16555271

Related Articles
20: Could it happen here? Vaccine risk controversies and the specter of derailment.

Colgrove J, Bayer R.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2005 May-Jun;24(3):729-39.

PMID: 15886167

[HamdenRice]

5. You might want to read the court's opinion

That's the point of my post. I've given you the link. Read the court's opinion. It's not saying what you think it's saying, and it's not providing a "general causation" denial.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

13. Link, and it seems awful strange that something that isn't oh so

bad for the young has been such an attention getter by the EPA, FDA and the like.


http://www.fda.gov/CBER/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

[JuniperLea]

I'm not surprised at the knee-jerk reactions you're getting

Either no one has bothered to read at the link, or... who knows...

[Mike 03]

6. You are one of the DUer's whose opinion I respect highly. You are knowledgeable on

not only economic matters (and I've benefited greatly from your posts here on those issues) but apparently medical matters as well.

I respect your opinions enormously. Do you believe that vaccines cause autism?

(Like you, I have a very broad, unpredictable range of interests, so I am curious what other folks who also share this trait think about things.)

[stopbush]

7. Considering that the research that started the whole thing was faked,

and that no science has shown a link, well, why believe it?

See here: http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/02/the-data-fake-that-set-the-world-afire/

The Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics at Loyola University
The Data Fake That Set the World Afire

If it is actually the case that Andrew Wakefield faked, fudged, or whatever you want to call "making up" one's data, in his original studies regarding the effects of vaccines on children who later came to have autism, as reported in the UK's Times Online (here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece ), then his research misconduct didn't just set back scientific research 10 years--it set back an entire generation of children, their families, and a society grappling with autism, and that will do so for decades to come.

As Bad Astronomy's post predicts, Wakefield's outing--if it happens--may result in some losses from the antivaccination community, but it is unlikely that parents of children with autism are going to cease to cling to that explanation in the absence of an alternative one.

The bottom line is that it appears that Wakefield faked his data, and even though most of the other researchers had already backed away from the idea that MMR vaccination caused autism and in fact retracted the conclusion section of their paper in the Lancet in 2004, Wakefield has not. Even if he did, the damage has been done. A decade's worth of children with antivaccination parents have avoided shots that may have been perfectly safe for them while measles cases have been on the rise. Plus, with all the focus on vaccines as the problem, other causes for autism have likely gone overlooked.

The damage done by the Wakefield fake is inestimable to the research community, to families, and most importantly to the children suffering from autism. Yet, parents, clinicians and caregivers will still likely cling to a theory that will be shown to have had NO scientific merit from the beginning--because without some explanation and something to blame, it is very hard to move on.

BTW - thank you for your kind words.

[HamdenRice]

8. Thank you, you're so kind

I am not an expert on medicine, and just have a layman's interest in biology. I do have some expertise in environmental matters.

But funny coincidence is that on Fridays I often get together with a family/friend who is a professor of medicine, and we did so today. I had posted a bit about the case earlier, so I told her about the Court opinion and asked her whether she thinks autism can be caused by vaccines, and she said she thinks it's possible in particular cases.

The problem is -- as even the Court opinion notes -- epidemiology is not legal causation. The studies show that there is no statistical link at levels of statistical correlation that are mathematically "significant" between vaccines and autism. But that doesn't mean that the annecdotal accounts of particular parents are not true.

To use a blunt analogy, I could say that there is no statistical correlation between having Chinese-American parents and getting beaten by your parents with a baseball bat. In fact, there might be a negative correlation, and Chinese American parents may be less likely to beat their children. But that doesn't mean that if a particular Chinese-American parent beats his child with a baseball bat, it could not have happened.

Legal liability is sometimes based on the individual case, sometimes on the statistical correlation.

She also said that the problem with autism is that it's a "wastebasket" diagnosis that can be caused by many different things and actually can be several different conditions. She thought the petitioners might be better off arguing some theory of general brain damage, rather than autism.

[stopbush]

9. Thanks for the feedback from the professor.

It sounds like her opinion on vaccines causing autism fall into the "there might be a god" category.

What I find sad is that she would still hold onto even a slight belief that there's a connection, even when the original data was faked and there's no science to support it. She seems to be falling into the very trap that the article I cited mentioned: ie. clinging to a discredited theory simply because there's no alternative theory available to gravitate to.

[Howardx]

12. what did you think of the courts opinion?

you read it didnt you?

[stopbush]

27. I thought I was reading the courts' opinions when I went to the link provided.

No, I didn't download and read the entire decision(s) as outlined in the drill-down pdfs. Why would I do that? The one-sentence reasons provided from the records made clear why the courts denied the plaintiff's claims that the vaccines in question caused autism. I couple that with the myriad studies that fail to show any link between vaccines and autism. I couple that with the fact that the doctor who first advanced this theory falsified his evidence.

Taken as a whole, I don't see any reason to give any credence to the claims that vaccines cause autism.

[Mike 03]

14. Great post. I understand, entirely, from having studied epidemiology with respect to

particular cancers, that it is incredibly difficult to adjust for particular risk factors as well as cytogenic issues, and draw many conclusions.

So many studies contradict each other. I was researching Multiple Myeloma, and one study said that Yogurt increased one's odds by 6.0 per hundred thousand, which is a huge number! But nobody could replicate these results. And that is just one example in a sea of thousands for all sorts of illnesses and cancers.

Epidemiology fascinates me, but there are times when I'm not sure what use it is.

Thanks again for your response. You obviously are incredibly well educated on all sorts of issues and I always learn something from your posts here at DU. We are lucky to have you.

Mike

[Tumbulu]

38. I agree with you Mike 03, I find that I look for Hamden's posts in many forums

He is great and thank you for your posts as well.

[xchrom]

10. it's 'nuanced' IF you believe that vaccines cause autism.

the overwhelming amount of peer reviewed science says -- not.

[cosmik debris]

15. snippets from three decisions

Congress designed the Program to compensate only the families of those individuals whose injuries or deaths can be linked causally, either by a Table Injury presumption or by a preponderance of causation-infact evidence, to a listed vaccination. In this case the evidence advanced by the petitioners has fallen far short of demonstrating such a link. Accordingly, I conclude that the petitioners in this case are not entitled to a Program award on Michelle’s behalf.

Having carefully and fully considered the evidence, the undersigned concludes that the combination of the thimerosal-containing vaccines and the MMR vaccine are not causal factors in the development of autism and therefore, could not have contributed to the development of Yates’ autism. The weight of the presented evidence that is scientifically reliable and methodologically sound does not support petitioners’ claim. Petitioners have failed to establish entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act.

Petitioners have not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
Colten’s condition was either caused or significantly aggravated by his vaccinations Thus, they have failed to establish entitlement to compensation and the petition for compensation is therefore DENIED.

[xchrom]

17. exactly. nt

[cosmik debris]

18. Res ipsa loquitur n/t

[xchrom]

20. ...

:spray:

[varkam]

22. But what in the hell does it say? eom

[cosmik debris]

24. Beats me.

Maybe it is like the Bible, part allegory, part metaphor, part parable.

Maybe we should ask a preacher to explain it to us.

[varkam]

25. Sorry - bad law school joke.

Us law students have no sense of humor

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Quite correct. There is no underlying cause and effect

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

29. hammer hits thumb, thumb bruised - vaccines hit healthy child, child damaged

does the hammer cause the injury to the thumb, or is that just anecdotal evidence
and as some would say, worthless.

The accepted scientific opinion was that menopausal women should get hormone therapy.

20 years later, it is learned that hormone therapy can cause cancer in these women.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. If it were only that direct and clear. Many studies have clearly shown no direct causal link

[varkam]

32. You, my friend, are wasting your breath.

Be prepared to be called either a shill or a republican.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

36. Hormone Therapy pushed on women for 20 years - now we know it causes cancer

gee, if only there were a force willing to study, but some here at DU
think that unscientific.

Their idea of science is that you agree with their set opinion and look no further.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

37. Hormone Therapy pushed on women for 20 years - now we know it causes cancer

gee, if only there were a force willing to study, but some here at DU
think that unscientific.

Their idea of science is that you agree with their set opinion and look no further.

[truedelphi]

16. The fact that a court or a scientific panel makes certain statements doesn't, unfortunately

mean that the Press will not twist the statements every which way. In the end, the message will be what industry needs to have as the message. After all, who buys ads in newspapers, autisitic kids or Merck, Pfizer, et al. ?

See some research I came up with:
oldelmtree.com/discussion/index.php?topic=53.0

[slutticus]

21. "pro-vaccine"? LOL As opposed to what?......"irresponsible parent"?

[HuckleB]

23. I thought that was funny, too.

[varkam]

26. Sure - in much the same sense that no scientific study ever says that there is "no link"...

as that would just be silly given the nature of hypothesis testing.

What I'm taking from the opinion is that the petitioners advanced several theories under which they were claiming damages - all of which involved an element of sine qua non causation (including the ever-fashionable mercury susceptibility hypothesis). The court, of course, rejected all of their theories as failing to meet the preponderance standard.

It is true, as it is with any court case of this type, that the conclusions were focused specifically upon the respondent and not making a claim in general. Note, though, that throughout the opinion the experts that were retained by both sides were not necessarily talking about this case in particular, but were rather debating the scientific merits of the theories put forth by the petitioner.

So, in short, while the court's final conclusion was specifically in reference to the petitioner, the reasoning that was used to get there was not specific to the petitioner.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

28. recommended. and I see the same old shit is going on

the "crew" is flaming and spamming any threads that they disagree with.

That is a sign of defensiveness and means that we have to keep insisting on objective studies and
factual reporting.

Its funny how if you hit your thumb with a hammer, and it hurts, and you get a blister - that a doctor will say - Dont hit your thumb with a hammer.

BUT

If your healthy talkative child gets a big dose of vaccines, and then within days starts losing language, regressing socially - there are some who will say that there is no correlation.
Even when this happens again and again.

keep up the good work.

[varkam]

30. Go democrats!

[trotsky]

35. How can you possibly see anything?

You have everyone you disagree with on ignore, don't you?

How do you know what anyone else is saying on this thread?

[LeftishBrit]

39. Yet you say you are not anti-vaccine but merely against the fast-tracking of Gardasil.

Doesn't sound like it here!

[Liberal Veteran]

40. Now now....it is impolite to notice these things.

[Jim__]

33. Thanks for posting. Good information.

I wanted to read the decisions, and your link makes that very easy. Appreciate it.

[trotsky]

34. Well Hammy, you did clearly demonstrate one thing.

True fundamentalists will cling to their dogma no matter what evidence is discovered.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. It says no link has yet been found between the MMR vaccine, *or* thimerosal, and autism

The numerous epidemiologic studies done over the past ten years, when taken together, make it very unlikely that the MMR vaccination has played any significant role in the overall causation of autism. It is true, as the petitioners argue, that the available epidemiologic studies do not completely rule out the possibility that the MMR vaccine might be associated with some small subset of autism, such as regressive autism. However, there are three reasons why the epidemiologic evidence still must be said to provide significant evidence against the petitioners’ general causation theory set forth in this case. First, none of the numerous competent studies has yielded the slightest bit of evidence in the petitioners’ favor. Second, the failure of so many studies to find any association between MMR vaccine and autism, while not completely ruling out a possible causal role with respect to a subset of autism, at least casts considerable doubt upon the proposition that the MMR vaccine ever plays a role in causing any kind of autism, including regressive autism. And, third, five studies provide evidence that is directly relevant to the petitioners’ “regressive autism only” argument, supplying significant evidence against the theory that the MMR vaccine plays a causal role even in the subset of autism known as regressive autism.

So, how long do people have to look to find a connection, when there are obviously other factors that do cause autism? When does it become a wild goose chase that wastes experts' time that could be better put to following up theories that show a better prospect of helping those with autism instead?

And no, this is not just about thimerosal. You are not just "reducing a very complex opinion to a few take-away ideas"; you are completely leaving out a significant part of the decision. No link between the MMR vaccine and autism has yet been found.