AskDrSears - The Vaccine Book: February 2008

New Study on MMR and Autism Fails to Show Any Useful Results

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

A new study in England on 250 kids (98 of whom have autism) examined blood samples to look for evidence of measles infection in the bloodstream. They found no difference in blood antibody levels or the presence of the actual virus between neurotypical kids and kids with autism. They concluded that this study showed no link between the MMR vaccine and Autism.

While this may sound interesting and useful on the surface, these researchers failed to do a study they way it really needs to be done. The original researchers who demonstrated a possible link between MMR vaccine and intestinal inflammation, intestinal inflammation and autism, or a possible link between the MMR and autism (four separate studies – Thompson in The Lancet 1995, 345(8957):1071-1074; Wakefield in The Lancet 1998, 351:637-641; Uhlmann in Molecular Pathology 2002, 55(2): 84-90; Kushak in The Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2005, 41(4): 508) actually looked at either inflammation or the actual presence of measles infections in the INTESTINES of their patients with autism. I give a detailed summary of each of these studies, as well as many studies that show NO LINK between MMR and autism, on pages 255 through 259 of The Vaccine Book.

This latest study only looked at blood samples. But that’s not where measles causes any sort of problem. So, in my mind, this latest study doesn’t really help us get to the bottom of this issue.

What type of study DOES need to be done? Well, someone from a large university or medical center needs to do a large study involving many hundreds if not thousands of children and duplicate Wakefield’s and Uhlmann’s research (which only involved about 100 children). Ever since Wakefield did his research, and a few years later Uhlmann duplicated it in a larger study, and Kushak added some more clues, no one else has actually done an intestinal study that disproves their findings. No one has come up with any intestinal research that contradicts them. The only studies that have been done are ones that look at MMR and autism from other angles, such as population statistics and blood samples. I summarize all of these studies in my book.

Would someone from a large, credible, and authoritative academic institution do some useful research on this subject so that parents and doctors can stop worrying about this issue? All that’s been done so far is to criticize Wakefield and others and attack them personally, but no one has re-done their studies to prove them wrong. If anyone does find any research before I do, please let me know.

New Study Suggests Delaying Vaccines May Lower Risk of Asthma

Friday, February 1, 2008

A new study to be published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology by the University of Manitoba (Canada) looked at 14,000 infants given the DTP vaccine in 1995. The study found that of all the infants who started the vaccine series at the recommended age of 2 months, 14% of them later went on to develop childhood asthma. Babies who delayed the vaccine until age 4 months or older only had a 6% asthma rate. The DTP shot was given in the U.S. and Canada at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, with a booster at 18 months and 5 years, to protect against Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis (Whooping cough).

This is a very interesting study, but I would like to make several comments:

1. This MAY show that the early introduction of a vaccine can trigger a hyperactive immune response that later increases the risk of asthma. BUT everyone should realize that this study was done with an OLD VACCINE that was taken off the U.S. market in the late 90s. We no longer use this vaccine. So the question is, does this finding ONLY apply to that ONE vaccine, and is now irrelevant, or do we apply it to all vaccines? So far, this only shows a possible connection with the old DTP vaccine.

2. IF people delay all vaccines until 4 months based on this study, they leave their babies open to infection with Pertussis, Meningitis, and Rotavirus, all of which cause infant fatalities each year.

3. I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't make that choice to delay shots. Vaccine reactions DO happen, and everyone is looking for a way to decrease the risk of a reaction. I just like to point out there is disease risk as well.

4. Now, IF a baby has severe colic (linked to food sensitivities and an irritated nervous system) or develops early eczema (allergic rash) or allergic wheezing in the first 2 months of life, a parent could conceivably decide to delay shots so as not to exacerbate their baby's allergic condition. This would be a question of risk versus benefit of the vaccine.

Overall this study raises an interesting question, but doesn’t really help parents decide what to do with vaccines NOW since it applies to an old vaccine that is no longer used. What would be nice is if someone did this type of research on the entire vaccine series – Does delaying ALL vaccines until 4 months or later reduce the risk of asthma and other allergies? Now THAT would be an interesting study. The only problem is that we would be risking disease exposure in the delay-vaccine group. Any volunteers?

Labels: Vaccines and their diseases