Sunday, August 28, 2011

Review of 1,000 Studies: No Link between Vaccines and Autism |

Review of 1,000 Studies: No Link between Vaccines and Autism |

Vaccines can cause inflammation of the brain, fainting, and seizures. But autism? Apparently not.

The Institute of Medicine has done a comprehensive review of the studies on vaccines. They reviewed 1,000 studies and found no link between vaccines and autism and type 1 diabetes. The findings are that vaccines are generally OK. Vaccines have been a highly controversial area, especially in the autism community. Last year there was a fraudulent study; several celebrities have trumpeted the risks of vaccines.

The Institute of Medicine gathered experts to review the studies. The Institute of Medicine, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, is a non-profit group outside the framework of the U.S. federal government. It provides independent guidance and analysis to improve health conditions. Their review indicates that few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines.

Vaccines Can Cause Short-term Problems

The review committee did find that in rare cases, vaccines do cause problems including inflammation of the brain, fainting, and seizures. They also found less clear evidence that certain vaccines may impact allergic reactions and temporary joint pain. They also found convincing evidence that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine can lead to fever-triggered seizures in some…but that the effects are almost always without long-term problems.

Experts Say Report Disproves Claims of Autism Link

The report disproves claims made by the British physician, Andrew Wakefield who reported in 1998 that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine contributed to autism. The U.K.'s General Medical Council in 2010 revoked Wakefield's license to practice medicine due to glaring problems with his research.

1 comment:

  1. I would wonder how this meta-analysis was conducted. It seems as if they just reviewed prior articles on a particular topic, rather than an exhaustive study of all the information that has been published.

    I have read and have copies of (or just citations for some) studies that would suggest otherwise. The "catch" is that (and I'm guessing, here) the above news article references a meta-analysis of research studies that looks solely for a direct causal relationship and no other type of relationship.

    The most recent research (that I've looked at) has been pointing to a necessary collusion of factors whereby the element(s) in the different vaccines can be a critical component tipping the event horizon to "cause" autism. But the vector need not be from a vaccine, but can come from another part of the environment.

    The critical piece of information to keep in mind, here, is that no research has yet held a sufficient study design to detect the effects of specific nuerotoxins (yes, thimerosol and mercury are known to be neurotoxic). What I mean is that an effective study design would be too invasive and would violate ethical standards, therefore have never been done.

    The existing research studies only are able to claim that the prevalence rate of autism diagnoses is not correlated with MMR vaccines at a statistically significant level. In layman's terms, this just suggests that it isn't statistically likely that the MMR vaccine is the sole causal factor for autism. No research study involving the MMR (or any other) vaccine has tested vaccines in collusion with other contributing neurotoxins. No research, to date, had a research design that attempted to account for multiple, possible contributing factors *prior* to the knowledge of an autism diagnosis. Relevant studies have been conducted forensically - after the fact (of the diagnosis).

    Although there is a current, multiple-year study being conducted across multiple sites, including Dr. Levy and others @ the Center for Autism Research, others at Drexel, and through additional research universities and institutions. They're collecting data on currently pregnant families where there is a child with an existing diagnosis. It should be interesting, but I'm guessing it'll be inconclusive considering what I've learned about what they're collecting.

    But I have a short lit review regarding the potential causality of autism, embedded in another paper I wrote. It's crappy, for my standards, but I'd be happy to forward it to you. Let me know. kyle a b.