Ben Goldacre writing in Bad Science, exposes the dishonesty in recent newspaper reports on how “MMR causes autism”. Ben does what the newspapers should have done and actually contacts noted autism researcher Simon Baron-Cohen and other researchers quoted in the newspaper, and finds out what they actually said and think. A sample:
But in fact, the two “leading experts” concerned about MMR were not professors, or fellows, or lecturers: they were research associates. I rang both, and both were very clear that they wouldn’t really describe themselves as leading experts. One is Fiona Scott, a psychologist and very competent researcher at Cambridge. She said to me, very clearly: “I absolutely do not think that the rise in autism is related to MMR.” And: “My own daughter is getting vaccinated with the MMR jab on July 17.”
She also says, astonishingly, that the Observer never even spoke to her, before incorrectly reporting that she has a privately held view that MMR might be partly to blame for autism. I say “reporting,” but in some ways, it’s more like an accusation. Dr Scott horrified. She simply does not believe that MMR has caused a rise in autism.
Ben concludes the news media, in its need for alarmist stories, is more of a problem than dishonest researchers such as Andrew Wakefield. It's worth reading Ben’s entire post.
Edit July 22, 2007
Ben comments on the newspaper’s lame attempts to retract and apologize cover up its errors. Sample:
This is beyond childishness. They were wrong. They should have clarified the closeness of the relationship in the article, and if they’re making amends now, they should do so properly. But instead they’re still trying to cover up (rather ironically for a story effectively claiming a cover up about autism).
My daughter is 8 months old adn has been stuck with vaccine needles prety much once a month. There is a tremendous amount of data out there showing that MMR (or any other vaccine for that matter) is not the cause of Autism.
However, vaccines are a method of immunization that requires your immune system to act as if a real virus was invading. To me, it does not make sense, from an evolutionary perspective to have multiple vaccines at once. If this were to happen in nature, we would simply die from measles, whooping cough and polio all at the same time (i dont really know which vaccines they mix up and shoot in on the same day). Do we really think our immune systems are that robust?
so I asked our pediatrician to inject my daughter once a month with a vaccine (instead of cocktails every couple of months). And if we can get it, a single vaccine (mmr is actually 3 vaccines). Guess what... our daughter has never even had a slight fever or any symptom from any vaccine. She is not nervous about going to the doctor, and she is not in pain for longer than 2 minutes after the injection.
We dont do this because we are worried about autism, we just do this because it makes more sense for her health in general.
Autism IS scary. Its a horrific thought that your child might have it (the rates are up to as high as 1 in 150). However these rates are rising for more reasons than simply something biological. We are classifying autism in people we never would have thought to be autistic before. They were slow, or strange, or introverted. Many people who were classified as retarded are now being reclassified as autistic. Hence the rise!
That isnt to say, there is not any biological rise, there may be. And there may in fact be a anthropological cause to it. I think we can safely say it is not MMR by now.
Im surprised no one is linking ultrasound to autism, to me that is a far more likely cause because we are shooting energy at tiny fetuses (feti?) and many radiologist technicians dont actually know the specifics of what their machines are doing (such as knowing what Mechanical and Thermal index means). Using MI's of greater than 1 has been shown to cause cell disruption. fetuses dont have many cells to spare. The rise of autism correlates pretty well with the increased use of US.
Now before you get all wacky on me..I am not saying that US is the cause (I have no data). I am saying i am surprised it is not really regarded as a possibility, it seems more plausible than vaccines to me.
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 21, 2007 at 07:42 PM
oh my god the typos! sorry!
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 21, 2007 at 07:43 PM
Hardly surprising. The telling quote from the post is "Ben concludes the news media, in its need for alarmist stories, is more of a problem than dishonest researchers such as Andrew Wakefield". Surprise, surprise. It was the media who terrified us into banning DDT, silicone breast implants, stopped us buying apples with the ALAR scare and now are more than likely pushing us to make hasty judgements about climate change.
It's no wonder that "established" outlets are scrambling. The race to the bottom only seems to have accelerated and the lack of any real reporting honesty is a continuing worrisome trend.
Posted by: Citizen Deux | July 22, 2007 at 05:22 AM
"...and now are more than likely pushing us to make hasty judgements about climate change"
yak, while there are certainly many doomsayers calling it the end of the humanity (for which there is nothing to suggest anything of the sort) there is overwhelming data to not only show it is happening but also that it has an anthropological cause. There is also tons of data that shows 'alternative' theories that continue to be rehashed from 20 years ago can be put to bed now.
However, your point is certainly well taken. The media has a job: present news in a way that is profitable. Even publicly funded news outlets have to do this, instead of profits, they have to stick to a measly budget. I dont see how this is done without fear mongering, vacuous news about celebrites and other such puff pieces. Do you?
Its one reason I am pretty happy about the various critical thinking blogs around.
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM
Do we really think our immune systems are that robust?
Yes. They face hundreds or even thousands of antigens every day. What's a few more that they'd get exposed to if vaccines weren't so robust a defense?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 22, 2007 at 09:37 AM
The MMR in question has was approved in the USA in 1971. If you are an American in your early thirties, you have most likely received that vaccine at least once. Also, there is a specific immunological reason that it is not given before a child's first birthday (there are several studies in PubMed showing the quality of immune response for the MMR).
It was approved in the UK in 1988 because of problems with their version's mumps component.
So why did it become a problem just in the UK? Is it really a problem with the vaccine, or with a certain personal injury lawyer paying a medical "researcher" for some specific results, even to the point of providing a set of test subjects from his client list?
By the way, a very good biography of the developer of the measles, mumps and combined MMR vaccine was released last June. It is a must read:
http://www.amazon.com/Vaccinated-Defeat-Worlds-Deadliest-Diseases/dp/0061227951/
Posted by: HCN | July 22, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Techskeptic, just-so stories and conjecture are not a substitute for science. I always find it remarkable how many people say "To me", follow it with a guess, and think that in doing so they have insights beyond the ken of researchers. Do you believe that no specialist ever thought to consider whether multiple vaccinations could be harmful and that it the possibility was never investigated?
For my simplified perspective, as someone with no relevant expertise, I prefer Bronze Dog's. Pathogens do not queue up politely to visit. They're everywhere and not shy about dropping in. That's why there's a need for vaccination in the first place, though not so much of a need for each individual in areas where public vaccination programs have put a dent in disease prevalence.
One story, where there can't really be controls and there's no way to compare to choices you didn't make, doesn't prove anything about what are the best choices. It certainly seems that your choices "work for you", but do you really have any evidence to support your claim that "it makes more sense for her health in general"?
Posted by: wrg | July 22, 2007 at 07:37 PM
"Do we really think our immune systems are that robust?"
You can't have it both ways. You "think" children immunte system is too weak to handle vaccines made of either dead viruses, viruses capsids proteins, or attenuated viruses. So far so good.
Now how do you *think* an unvaccinated child will handle a real measles, mumps, rubella or tetanus infection ?
Take your time. Think it through.
Posted by: _Arthur | July 22, 2007 at 08:12 PM
What is the harm in injecting your child with the same vaccinations that other children get, in the same time frame but in a more steady manner? can you think of a single reason why that would, in fact, be worse? ( i can think of one... the child doesnt get vaccinated for something he may get infected with, but this can happen on the abbreviated schedule also)
I agree, I do not have data that fundamentally states this is a better method than the normal way. but sometimes you folks get crazy in your need for data.
For example, if I go outside and it rains and I get wet I dont need more data to prove that I will get wet when it rains on another day. I've collected enough data that I get wet when I go outside on rainy days. Do I really need to collect another dataset, and prove the hypothesis that using an umbrella will prevent the wetness condition?
Tons of children have effects from vaccinations, ask any doctor. Not autism, but certainly fever, pain, discomfort, sweats, chills, rashes etc etc, sometimes even symptoms of the disease they are trying to protect.
My anecdotal evidence of data, my data set of 1, tells me that less vaccinations, more often is better. how did I come up with it? Well, like thinking about needing an umbrella, I know that children often get negative reactions to vaccinations, because it uses your immune system.
Most of the antigens your body has to fight are not viral, they are bacteria, various compounds or particulate. Correct me if I am wrong, but there are beneficial bacteria, and no beneficial viruses (although I know there are are number of viruses that do not harm us). So, again, not a doctor, dont have a huge dataset, doesnt it make sense that your body fights of viruses less often? Why do viral infections take sooo much longer to fight off than bacterial?
And yes, I think tons have researchers have thought of injecting children a slower more steady way. However, as much as we would like to not admit it, health insurance companies want to increase money taken in, and decrease money going out. Fewer doctors office visits accomplishes this. The current method is even better for some parents, since they do not want to go to the doctor every month with their child.
Instead of saying my way is silly, how about producing some data that shows a slower, more steady vaccination schedule does not, in fact, produce less side effects. A study like that would take away my obvious bias.
again, I used the umbrella as a solution to what I saw was a problem, and is worked. You dont always need a huge dataset.
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 23, 2007 at 07:12 AM
BTW, arthur,
they key word there is OR. My whole point is that your body, while infused with antigens daily, does not fight measles mumps rubella AND tetanus at once.
In fact we take special care to give our childrens immune system a chance to develop. we sterilize bottles, we wash our hands before feeding them. We wipe them down with alcohol cloths.
Then we inject them with between 3 and 5 weakened viruses and expect no reaction.
Once again, I'm not saying the vaccinations are bad, I'm saying the schedule is.
BTW, "Techskeptic" does not refer to technology skepticism. It referes to technological product skepticism. Look up companies like Steorn, MPG-cap and Medis to see what I mean.
Posted by: | July 23, 2007 at 07:18 AM
Techskeptic:
I couldn't help but comment on this, because it bares so much resemblance to the 'big pharma' cries of anguish:
However, as much as we would like to not admit it, health insurance companies want to increase money taken in, and decrease money going out. Fewer doctors office visits accomplishes this.
So how does this account for the MMR vaccine being used in Britain or other countries with a national health service?
Yes I understand it saves them money in the same way that it saves an health insurance company to have fewer doctors visits to pay for, but your comment borders on the same paranoia that we hear from your average MMR=autism conspiracy theorist. 'It's a conspiracy by the health insurance companies.' is no different to 'It's a conspiracy by big pharma.'
This is off topic somewhat, but why do so many Americans seem to assume that health insurance is the way every country models health care systems?
Hell I was watching a documentary on either the History or Discovery channel the other day called "2057", which claimed to be predicting future trends. It was about health care and treatment and one of the examples was set in France, a country with a very efficient and large national health service free at the point of delivery, but the show talked about people needing health insurance and differing treatments for those with and without it. A hole in the theory you could drive a galaxy through really, and certainly cause to question the level of research done. French people don't need health insurance.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | July 23, 2007 at 03:00 PM
LOL
I knew someone would comment on the "big bad companies" aspect of that last post. I dont htink every country required health insurance and i wish ours didn't.
Its not a conspiracy.... even in a nationalized health care program, wouldnt they rather pay for less frequent doctors visits?
And its not just MMR. it MMR, whooping cough, tetanus, pneumonia, polio, and a number of other ones that I am forgetting now. A normal schedule has your child getting 2 to 4 injections with each one having multiple antigens in them.
Think of it this way... why dont they just inject you child with all 15 vaccinations at once (again I am not sure of the number of unique vaccinations a child gets). Probably because its bad to some degree.
Dont you think the question was simply asked, "How many can we give at once" and voila! we have a money saving schedule.
That doesnt mean less, more often, isn't better.
Here let me post it in a way that will feel better to some of you:
Problem: A large percentage of children get side effects from vaccinations (1 in 4 for DtAP, 1 in 3 for MMR, etc etc http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm)
hypothesis: multiple antigens are placed in the body at once, challenging the immune system.
Experiment: vaccinate more often with only one vaccine at a time
Results: no fever, discomfort, rashes or any other side effect detected. N=1.
In a couple of years we may go for n=2. You guys could one day help with some more to add to the population for the results of this study.
LOL.
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 23, 2007 at 03:32 PM
Techskeptic, could you kindly tell what studies show that it is safer to get the vaccines singly, rather than the multiples?
For instance, what has been Japan's experience? When they went to single jabs, did the rate of autism go up or down? Do they still have measles in their country? Why did were several university campuses in Japan closed last spring?
Something that would counter this:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124
By the way, you should read
http://www.amazon.com/Vaccinated-Defeat-Worlds-Deadliest-Diseases/dp/0061227951/
Posted by: HCN | July 23, 2007 at 08:11 PM
Jeez, do you even read the posts before you start blathering away?
I have said, multiple times, it has nothing to do with autism.
I have linked the sides effects of each and every vaccination and the probability that they will occur.
I have given you a hypothesis-experiment proposal with a result.
I have fully stated that there is no study that says a more frequent schedule is better IN REDUCING VACCINATION SIDE EFFECTS, NOT AUTISM in particular (although some of the vaccinations have a very low, severe brain disorder side effect - they dont say what it is)
Read the umbrella example. you dont need a study for every single common sense action.
The whole point is that there are no studies. OR at least I am not referring to any. Each vaccination has a probability of giving a side effect. You reduce the chances of having a side effect in that one session if you jab only once.
You dont need a study when simple math is right in front of you. However, My contention is that reducing the number of jabs, strains your immune system less, and will result in less side effects over all. I have 1 data point.
Is there any reason to single jab of any vaccine less often with more chemicals? If not, why wouldn't you use a schedule like this if your doctor will let you?
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 24, 2007 at 06:11 AM
err. that should have said:
Is there any reason NOT to single jab any of the vaccines MORE often with LESS chemicals?
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 24, 2007 at 06:13 AM
Look at me, I did exactly what I accused you of doing (I didnt read that link you posted).
That was a good one. And its one I will refer to in the future with regard to the safety of vaccination. But it doesnt address what I am talking about. vaccine side effects.
The vaccine schedule I have described since the beginning gives that same number of vaccines in the same amount of time over all. Its just a single injection per visit with more visits. The contention is that this will drop the odds of a side effect at each visit. My contention is that it will drop the odds of side effects overall through the course of the entire vaccination time (what is that? the first 3 years or so, I can never remember). This study doesnt look at that.
Posted by: | July 24, 2007 at 06:24 AM
No studies... just your feelings to stretch out the vaccines and subject your child to multiple more jabs (with increased possibility of local site infection).
Yeah, that sounds very "scientific".
Still, you should look into how well it worked to control measles (not) in Japan.
Posted by: HCN | July 24, 2007 at 08:42 AM
hmm please link to what you are talking about. Here is what I found in japan: it made no difference in the occurrence of side effects or even deaths due to measles. However the number of people that got vaccinated increased (which may or may not be due to the number of injections and side effects of those reactions).
from:
http://pws.prserv.net/mpjr/mp/dm130303.htm
"Japan, by contrast, switched entirely to single jabs. This has resulted, says the Health Department, in a measles epidemic in Japan and 79 deaths from the disease between 1992 and 1997.
On the face of it, then, this seems a strong argument for sticking with MMR. But Dr Hiroki Nakatani, director of the Infectious Disease Division at Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare, has a very different story to tell.
He says that in 1989, when Japan first introduced MMR, there were 34 deaths from measles; in 1990, there were 53 deaths; in 1991, 39; and in 1992, 14.
Then, in 1993, the Japanese government moved from recommending MMR to single vaccines instead. The number of deaths from measles per year has since remained at between 14 and 25.
So in fact, in the years Japan was using MMR there were on average rather more deaths from measles -- quite apart from the deaths and serious damage done by the vaccine -- than since single jabs were introduced.
This may well have been because take-up of vaccines during the MMR years never reached more than 68 per cent. By contrast, said Dr Nakatani, take-up of the single measles vaccine has now reached 95%, utterly disproving the
UK government warnings that the single jab would cause a steep decline in use.
Its true that if you look at deaths in one place vs death in another one may be better Many articles point out that japans # of deaths due to measles is higher than Britain's, but that has nothing to do with vaccination schedule, it has to do with %population that actually get vaccinated or not.
You are still not understanding the procedure: it is exactly the same number of jabs. Why is this so hard for you?
I am not splitting out the MMR. Im preventing combinations of MMR + other jabs in the same session. same number of jabs, same time span, different frequency.
Why not give all the vaccinations in one single session?
tell me how your study is going with the umbrella in the rain. Im sure you are looking for good statistical data before you actually decide to use one.
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 24, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Techskeptic,
do you know what the difference is between a live vaccine and an inactivated one?
Because only live vaccines are likely to present the immune system with much of a challenge since the others are unable to reproduce.
Apart from MMR what other childhood vaccines (e.g. the UK schedule http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/article.php?id=97 ) are live?
Posted by: PJ | July 24, 2007 at 11:42 AM
I am not sure that makes a difference for what I am talking about. Live or not, they ALL have mild, moderate and severe side effects.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
Here are all the vaccines we give our kids (in america):
* Hepatitis B
* Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV)
* DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis)
* Hib (meningitis)
* IPV (polio)
* Influenza
* MMR (measles, mumps, rubella)
* Varicella (chickenpox)
* MCV4 (bacterial meningitis)
* Hepatitis A
we stick them more than once with each of these (boosters). Further we are adding vaccines to this list (chickenpox is relatively new, and we are adding HPV to the schedule when girls are a little older).I had the DTaP split out, because they are available that way. But the MMR I cant get split apart.
Looks like the polio vaccine is no longer live. So I am not sure what is left (I cant find a decent list).
Looks like the flu vaccines are live.
Looks like chickenpox is live.
Yet another good reason to split apart the injections (single shot in each session) that I just realized, is that if there is a moderate or severe reaction, then you know exactly which one caused it. there is no question of "was it DTaP or was it HiB?". Again, not sure which ones they give on the same day, but you get the point, right?
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 24, 2007 at 07:17 PM
In 2000 at least 80 people DIED from measles in Japan. Explain how that works with your statement "Here is what I found in japan: it made no difference in the occurrence of side effects or even deaths due to measles."... From:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/measles-epidemic-strikes-japan/2007/05/25/1179601669854.html ...
"In Japan, however, the Government bowed to public pressure in 1994 by repealing laws that made childhood immunisations mandatory. In 2000 there were an estimated 200,000 cases of measles and 88 deaths."
The subject of Wakefield's "research" was the MMR. This is the vaccine was licensed and approved for use in the United States of America in 1971. Most Americans who are in their late thirties and younger have been given this vaccine at least ONCE.
Why is it that only its approval in the UK in 1988 was there any problem found in it? Or considering the absense of data... was this data conjured from faked test results? If you read the testimony from:
ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/index.html ... you will find that from the testimony of Bustin and Chadwick that Wakefield committed actual FRAUD!!!
Now, please, for the second or even third time... present what actual scientific papers show that it is safer to go with SINGLE jabs (with multiple chances for injection site infections that have no relation to the vaccine manufacture) than with the decades old multiple vaccine MMR.
What, prey tell, are you gaining form single jabs are you gaining other then increased COST and increased chance of local site INFECTIONS are you gaining from single jabs? (and since your kid is only 8 montth old, the MMR will not be a factor for four more months).
Posted by: HCN | July 25, 2007 at 12:03 AM
I'm not sure where people are missing Techskeptic's point. Here's my take on the issue:
I've had a number of tetanus shots over the course of my life, due both to regular boosters and being accident-prone. One of the side-effects of a tetanus shot is pain at the injection site, like a nasty bruise, for a few days.
Now, let's say I'm scheduled to get a tetanus shot, with the side-effect of injection-site pain, and Vaccine X, which also claims injection-site pain as a potential side-effect.
Now, since side-effects vary in frequency and severity from person to person, we'll say that there's a chance that I'll not have any injection-site pain, there's a chance that I'll get injection-site pain from one of the vaccines, and there's a chance that I'll get injection-site pain from both vaccines, effectively doubling the pain.
So, I have two choices: I can get both shots on the same day, or I can get them a week or so apart. There are benefits to both choices.
If I decide to get them both on the same day, I can save money and time by only going to the doctor's office once. There's a chance (1 in 3, roughly) that I'll get double the side-effect pain, since both shots share that effect. But if that happens, it'll only last for a few days, and then the pain subsides. There's an equal chance that I'll only get normal pain, or that I won't have pain at all.
If I decide to get them on different days, spread out far enough that the side-effect symptoms wouldn't overlap, then I don't get the benefit of a compressed doctor's visit. What I get instead is a modified probability: there's a chance that neither side-effect will happen, there's a chance that I'll only get a side-effect from one drug, and there's a chance that I'll get the side-effect from both drugs. Unlike in the first situation, though, if the latter happens, I won't have double the pain at the same time. Instead, I have a constant pain, the same as I would get with just one side-effect manifesting, but for an extended period of time.
So, the variable side-effect-related options come down to the chance for twice the pain for a short time, or the regular amount of pain for twice the time.
And this, I think, is where the recommended trends come in. The reasoning, I'd imagine, is that each vaccine has some risk of side-effects, generally mild. By giving all the vaccines at once, even if the patien manifests all the side-effects, at least they'll only be in pain for a short period of time. Plus, given children's typical apprehension around doctors and needles, they'll probably prefer the single visit to drawing the procedure out.
Techskeptic, however, opts for the alternative approach, in which the prolonged schedule may result in milder symptoms, but may also result in symptoms for a longer period of time. The ultimate effect is pretty much the same, it's only the severity and duration of side-effects that's affected.
I'm sure there are more nuances to the situation than this; I tried to simplify things down to probabilities. If things were this simple, we'd probably find that about the same number of children experienced side-effects regardless of scheduling, but that children who received all the shots at once might have more severe effects, since they may be reacting to multiple vaccines at the same time.
Incidentally, I'd wonder if that may figure into Techskeptic's data collection. It may be possible that your child is experiencing side-effects from some of the vaccines, but since they are milder due to the extended schedule, you don't notice. If a child reacts to all the vaccines at once, and ends up with a 100.1 fever, that's going to be more noticeable than a child reacting to one at a time and getting a 98.9 fever each time, for example.
Posted by: Tom Foss | July 25, 2007 at 12:03 AM
HCN: Techskeptic isn't advocating splitting apart the MMR vaccine. TS is saying that, at a typical vaccination appointment, the child will get the MMR shot, then other shots containing other vaccines. Each of these, MMR and Vaccine 1 and Vaccine 2, are single jabs. What TS is suggesting is, instead of doing 3 single jabs in one appointment, doing 3 single jabs in 3 appointments.
At least, that's how I'm seeing it. Correct me if I'm wrong, TS.
Posted by: Tom Foss | July 25, 2007 at 12:07 AM
techskeptic (?) wrote "Yet another good reason to split apart the injections (single shot in each session) that I just realized, is that if there is a moderate or severe reaction, then you know exactly which one caused it. there is no question of "was it DTaP or was it HiB?". Again, not sure which ones they give on the same day, but you get the point, right?
Uh, no I don't. I have not seen any real reason why a series of modified pathogens introduced in one injection at once is more dangerous than singly over a longer period of time, there by leaving the child more vulnerable to various pathogens. I am still not convinced... you need to try harder (actual references might help... did I miss them?)
Have you even tried to find one paper at www.pubmed.gov ? Just asking because I did post:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124
What have you posted to counter that? Come one, give me one lead!
You do know that the Japanese had a DIFFIRENT MMR? Right? (look up the difference between Urabe and Jeryl Lynn). And even when they abandoned it, their rate of autism went up, as did the numbers of measles cases? You do know why they closed several college campuses last spring, right? You did, didn't you?
WAIT!!! You asked why all the vaccines are not given at once! Did you even check to see why the MMR is not given before age ONE!!! Here is what you said "Why not give all the vaccinations in one single session?"
Well... for one reason there have actually been studies done to show what the immunological reactions are to the vaccine are at certain ages starting at the age 6 months (it has something to do with passed down immunology from the mother from birth and breast milk). If you had searched PubMed for MMR you would have known that. But you did NOT. (My own anecdote is that breast milk is not the best vaccine... my 6 month old daughter suffered through chicken pox despite only being fed breastmilk and some cereal. This was way before there was a chicken pox vaccine, and before I found out how dangerous chicken pox COULD be to infants!).
Now for the the "who knows how many times" please show the studies that it is "safer" to jab the baby singly at least three times as much... than to use the combination vaccines (of course knowing that the MMR in question was licensed in the United States of America and in use for OVER 35 years... are you of the age that something you had may not be appropriate for YOUR kids?).
Come on... you can do it!!! Show that it is safer to vaccinate for pertussis, Hib, diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis, chicken pox, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella as single jabs versus the combined jabs. Perhaps you might want to refer back to the information contained here:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/pink-chapters.htm
Posted by: HCN | July 25, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Tom Foss, I missed your statement, I was still posting. I am sorry. But since this blog post was titled "MMR Scares Dubunked", I assumed that "techskeptic" would have included MMR as a scary combined vaccine, without any valid evidence.
I have still not seen any evidence that combined vaccines are more evil than spacing them apart.
I actually have my original vaccine card from the (cough, cough) mid-20th century era that I was born in. Did you know that the Polio vaccine was referred to as "Trivalent"? That was because it was for the three major strains of the virus the vaccine was created for (if it worked was another question).
Where did this fear of being vaccinated for multiple strains of pathogens come from?
Where is the actual evidence that it is safer to vaccinate a child multiple times SINGLEY for pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, mumps, polio, measles, rubella, Hib and who knows what else?
And who wants to go back to the "good ol' days" when some of those diseases were common place (like last spring in Japan with measles, or last year in the American Mid West with mumps --- where the "mild" disease of mumps caused four previously healthy people to become DEAF!:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm55d518a1.htm )
Posted by: HCN | July 25, 2007 at 12:57 AM
And Techskeptic's not saying anything about "evil," just about the prevalence of vaccination side-effects. TS is proposing a hypothesis--"children who receive the individual vaccination shots on an extended schedule are less likely to experience the side-effects associated with the injections"--and an experiment to test it--"give some children the normal vaccinations, with the exact same number of jabs given to other children, but over a slightly extended schedule rather than in one visit, and compare the number who get side-effects in the experimental group with the number who get side-effects normally."
This has nothing to do with autism, nothing to do with splitting up the MMR vaccine into several different shots, and nothing to do with evil. All it has to do with is the fact that some children experience side-effects like fever and pain for a few days after receiving their vaccinations.
Posted by: Tom Foss | July 25, 2007 at 06:13 AM
HCN: Techskeptic isn't advocating splitting apart the MMR vaccine. TS is saying that, at a typical vaccination appointment, the child will get the MMR shot, then other shots containing other vaccines. Each of these, MMR and Vaccine 1 and Vaccine 2, are single jabs. What TS is suggesting is, instead of doing 3 single jabs in one appointment, doing 3 single jabs in 3 appointments.
At least, that's how I'm seeing it. Correct me if I'm wrong, TS.
Thank you tom. Apparently I was not able to delineate that as succinctly and eloquently as you were able to.
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 25, 2007 at 06:20 AM
This has nothing to do with autism, nothing to do with splitting up the MMR vaccine into several different shots, and nothing to do with evil. All it has to do with is the fact that some children experience side-effects like fever and pain for a few days after receiving their vaccinations.
Yes, Tom apparently you were able to read through my posts, while HCN kept going on about autism and more injections and increased chance of infection none of which I was talking about.
Before you get all snotty, HCN, like I asked you before, you should actually read the post you are responding to.
However, to answer one of your questions:
In 2000 at least 80 people DIED from measles in Japan.Explain how that works with your statement....
Easy, there was a lower vaccination rate in Japan than in the UK or America.
According to:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1177963
"To prevent spread among school-age populations, a second dose of MMR vaccine is recommended....During 1997 and 2001, a total of 156 (82%) of 191 countries provided a second opportunity to receive a vaccination through supplementary immunization activities or through routine health services. Japan remains as one of the remaining 35 countries that do not give a second opportunity for measles vaccination"
"a nation-wide survey conducted in 2000 showed that measles vaccine coverage in Japan was 81.4%, which is not enough to prevent outbreaks"
And then you come in with this snappy response...
Uh, no I don't. I have not seen any real reason why a series of modified pathogens introduced in one injection at once is more dangerous than singly over a longer period of time, there by leaving the child more vulnerable to various pathogens
Then you didnt understand what I was saying, probably because, once again, you didnt read the post. If I eat carrots, shrimp and butter in one meal and I break out in hives.. how do you know if it was the carrots, the shrimp or the butter? Are you saying that each vaccine doesnt come with its own set of side effects (even though I posted them twice?).
This explains a lot
"I assumed that "techskeptic" would have included MMR as a scary combined vaccine, without any valid evidence"
You are an angry silly man.
Read the posts before responding.
Thanks Tom, I appreciate your clearly superior communication skills (than I have).
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 25, 2007 at 06:44 AM
Oh NOES! bad code! Sorry!
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 25, 2007 at 06:45 AM
LOL I screwed up the whole page.. may this will fix it....
fixed?
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 25, 2007 at 06:46 AM
"I am not sure that makes a difference for what I am talking about. Live or not, they ALL have mild, moderate and severe side effects."
But they would likely have those side effects whatever. As has been pointed out above the immune system encounters antigens every day. The 'overwhelmed' immune system argument:
"However, vaccines are a method of immunization that requires your immune system to act as if a real virus was invading. To me, it does not make sense, from an evolutionary perspective to have multiple vaccines at once. If this were to happen in nature, we would simply die from measles, whooping cough and polio all at the same time (i dont really know which vaccines they mix up and shoot in on the same day). Do we really think our immune systems are that robust?"
only works with live vaccines, because otherwise all you're doing is giving an adjuvant plus antigens, which means you get a fixed response to any given antigen, plus a general response to the adjuvant - which can't be any worse than multiple shots of antigen plus adjuvant - otherwise what is your 'robust' point supposed to be saying?
The inactivated virus components are not reproducing, they are not 'stressing' the immune system, they are simply presenting an antigen to it, by what mechanism are you suggesting that the immune system is overwhelmed by a few bits of protein?
Posted by: PJ | July 25, 2007 at 12:29 PM
an allergic response is one of many immunological responses to an antigen. Each of the various vaccines have a probability of a severe allergic response. Fever is an immunological response to an antigen, each of the vaccines have a side effect probability for fever. etc etc.
Tom Foss has best articulated what my point is. I looked, and I dont see a study that proves or disproves my hypothesis, and I only have one data point, plus it makes sense to me (see umbrella argument). The stronger argument for single injection vaccinations sessions (as opposed to single injection vaccinations) is that it becomes easy to figure out which injection is causing the immunological response.
Again, I am focusing on the side effects of vaccinations which are well documented and show up as often as 1 in 3. But even the strong side effects (like severe brain damage or seizures) that are only one in a million, if your child got it, wouldn't you rather know exactly which injection caused it?
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 25, 2007 at 02:45 PM
Techskeptic - I see your hypothesis that splitting the antigen challenges apart will lead to less side effects - what I can't see is why you think this, I don't see any physiological reasoning, any more than I see any physiological reason for the claim that there would be less allergic side effects if you gave them all at the same time (I can actually see an argument that less adjuvant challenges would lead to less side effects overall). i.e. you claimed right at the beginning that it just seems obvious to you that spliting the vaccinations is the best thing to do, but I can't see what your reasoning is, i.e. why do you think that other than just some hunch based on nothing at all?
As to the knowing which component caused any given side effect, no, I don't see the benefit in that, if my kid gets a side effect that is a bad thing, and really matters very little what component gave it to him. In terms of formulating vaccine schedules I can see arguments for it, but often those trials have already been done, and additional trials with the combined vaccine schedule have also been done - so there'd be no benefit.
Posted by: PJ | July 26, 2007 at 02:33 AM
Thats why I like these discussions. Besides HCNs bizzarre display of hysteria without actually reading the posts (now I know how the God Zombies must feel sometimes), most people have good logical arguments and I can learn something. I have now learned that the immune system is far more capable than I gave it credit for.
For example, I have come across this since we started talking about this
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109073542.htm
Thats what these comment sections are for, no?
However, I still go back to the fact that if you stay on the same overall schedule, with the same shots, its best to spread them out as best you can. Why? Tom foss explained it best but here goes:
1) my supposition is that two simultaneous immunoloigcal responses is worse than one (i.e. being allergic to two antigens at once is worse than being exposed to only one). Perhaps I am wrong on this. I can think of one way that I am wrong. If you get a fever from two of the proteins, its unlikely that you will have a temperature that rises twice as much. However, it would be worse if you get a fever from one of them and a severe rash from another. It is true, my way you get a fever first and a rash second (a month later), I think that is better, you may not.
2) as I understand it, more than one company makes each vaccine, and they have different versions or carriers for the vaccine. So if you show an allergy or other severe reaction to a vaccine, you arent going to stop vaccination altogether. No, you should switch to perhaps another form of that vaccine for the booster shot that comes next.
3) reporting. If there is a moderate or severe reaction it is best if that goes into the body of data about that vaccine. THe only good way to do that, is to do a single jab per session. Its the same reason you should report a robbery even if they only stole your ipod, its so the incident gets into the statistical crime data for your area of town.
if my kid gets a side effect that is a bad thing, and really matters very little what component gave it to him
Im not sure you would say that if your kid had a severe reaction (seizure, brain damage, etc) or even a moderate one (severe rash). Are you? Wouldnt you want to know exactly what caused that, and try to find a way to avoid it in the future (by switching manufacturers or formulations or something?)
Now I have questions:
Why dont we shoot up our kids with 15 vaccines on the first day of life? If the infant can actually handle 10,000 antigens at once? What could the harm be in exposing them to 15 of them?
Why do we sterilize the bottles and pacifiers etc etc for the for few months of their life? If they are so robust, why dont we just clean the bottles like we do when they are 6 months old?
Last question: Why dont we use transdermal patches that wont hurt the kids for vaccinations?
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 26, 2007 at 08:33 AM
I think that this is the book to which HCN was attempting to link.
If I may, let me recommend Arthur Allen's Vaccine as the best book on this subject I've come across. Allen spends some time on Paul Offit's vaccine development efforts, so there's some overlap with HCN's recommendation.
I think the answer to Techskeptic's question lies in the practical details of vaccine development, rather than any fundamental limitations of the immune system. Multiple-component vaccines have an obvious advantage in requiring fewer shots, but adding components also adds immensely to the complexity of clinical trial design and safety monitoring. Add to that the differing requirements of each component in age and frequency of administration, and it is remarkable we are able to combine even three components in a single vaccine. The idea that the immune system may be overwhelmed by too many antigens at once has a certain intuitive appeal, but does not appear to be an accurate picture of reality.
Posted by: jre | July 27, 2007 at 02:13 PM
hmmm... no, that only answers why there are no 7 component shots. It doesnt answer why we dont give 7 shots on the first day of life (I think there are 7 unique shots we give kids).
Maybe it does, to some degree, do they say things like "dont give DTaP at the same item as MMR because we have not tested that combination"?
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 27, 2007 at 03:05 PM
Now, while I was able to explain why TS sees a benefit in splitting up the shots, I can also see the danger. Any medical-types, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, when you get a vaccination, whether the virus is alive or dead, the body's initial response is to treat the virus as if it were a live and dangerous invader, right? That's why we develop antibodies to dead viruses; the WBCs treat them as they would any live virus. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
So, a patient may experience side-effects or immunological reactions, whether or not the virus is alive. After all, things like fever are the body's reaction to infection, not an effect of the live virus. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that our child ends up experiencing some immunological or pharmacological side-effects for each of the jabs.
Now, if we spread out the shots, and little Johnny has a reaction to each of them, that's several days or weeks that his body is actively dealing with a perceived infection. The side-effects are mild, but they're prolonged. Which means that he's spending a good deal of time dealing with vaccine-related issues, leaving his immune system less able to protect against actual infections.
If, instead, Johnny gets all the jabs on the same day, he's going to be miserable for a few days with all the side-effects stacked one on the other, but he'll recover relatively quickly. I think the biggest reason for keeping the jabs on the same day is probably related to this; the more you do in one day, the less time the body has to spend dealing with it and making itself vulnerable to other infections.
Partially because infants on the first day of life are still (in general) receiving antibodies and immunological benefits from their mothers' breast milk. Their immune systems are still learning and developing.And, furthermore, there's a bit of a difference between exposing a child to 10,000 antigens when they have their body's natural barriers (skin, hair, saliva, etc.) to protect them, and putting those antigens directly into their bloodstream or on their mucous membranes.
Posted by: Tom Foss | July 27, 2007 at 03:37 PM
Thanks Tom
"Which means that he's spending a good deal of time dealing with vaccine-related issues, leaving his immune system less able to protect against actual infections"
the more you do in one day, the less time the body has to spend dealing with it and making itself vulnerable to other infections.
why would the immune system be less able to protect? Why would the the 10,000 antigen capability get diminished during the response to one particular antigen? As I now understand it, its a massively parallel mechanism. It should not matter to the rest of the immune system if part of it is dealing with an antigen. Right?
But again, not an expert, and am willing to hear from someone more familiar with the topic.
I understand that there may be perceived benefit from some parents to reduce the amount of time that their child experienced side effect. I guess at this point it is just opinion, because I would rather reduce the severity (i.e. if different side effects are experienced from different vaccines, I would rather my child get a headache and then a month later, get a rash instead of at the same time). Further, if my child ever gets a serious side effect, I want to know exactly what caused it. So, I guess we are down to my opinion, rather than a distinct medical reason for single jab visits , more often.
Partially because infants on the first day of life are still (in general) receiving antibodies and immunological benefits from their mothers' breast milk. Their immune systems are still learning and developing.
And, furthermore, there's a bit of a difference between exposing a child to 10,000 antigens when they have their body's natural barriers (skin, hair, saliva, etc.) to protect them, and putting those antigens directly into their bloodstream or on their mucous membrane
Tom, this sounds like you fell into my original trap, thinking there is a developmental time for the immune system to 'become complete'. If that were true, when is it over? If its over in say 3 months (when we start injections) Why not shoot em up with all the injections on that day? The papers I have now read (some linked here) suggest that the immune system is fully formed by the time the child is born.
Posted by: Techskeptic | July 27, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Vaccines, on the other hand, introduce the virus directly into those vulnerable bits, the bloodstream. And your immune system treats it like an active infection, even though it's weakened or dead. Your immune system's dealing with that, so if another direct infection, or another virus that isn't caught by the external defenses, comes in, it'll find a somewhat preoccupied immune system. The immune system has a finite number of resources, and maybe going after two (perceived) active infections isn't going to tax those resources, but I imagine it'd be better if it were only going after one.
I'd say it's never over; that's why we give vaccinations, because the immune system is able to learn and adapt. A newborn has been exposed to very few infections and antigens, and their immune systems are still receiving input from breast milk, as well as learning to fight those 10,000 everyday infections. I'm sure the immune system is fully functional at birth, but a large part of the immune system's effectiveness is due to the adaptations it makes when exposed to different antigens. Again, that's why we give vaccines.A child spends its first few months being exposed to all those general infections, and building that system of beneficial bacteria and fungi (unless that symbiotic system is in place at birth, which is possible, but seems somewhat unlikely); its defenses are learning and increasing their effectiveness at a high rate, so it can deal with the things that all of us are constantly exposed to without knowing it.
But, like you, I'm no expert. Someone should bring Orac in on this, methinks.
Posted by: Tom Foss | July 28, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Just passing through.
One quibble: vaccines are not injected into the blood, they are injected into muscle. You don't need to have Orac pipe in, but you can try reading the CDC "Pink Book". Each chapter isreferenced with papers that you can more likely get from your local library (if they have a subscription to the journal service).
As noted before there are specific reasons the MMR is not given before a child's first birthday. It has to do with it not being effective before a certain age.
All you have to do is to put into specific search words into the www.pubmed.gov website to find several studies on this... oh, and other vaccines. So TS, if you absolutely refuse to consider my answers try there instead, well because I am just NOT reading your comments anymore... especially after comments like "Why dont we shoot up our kids with 15 vaccines on the first day of life? If the infant can actually handle 10,000 antigens at once? What could the harm be in exposing them to 15 of them?". Plus, the cherry picking pre-2000 information on Japan was priceless (news report today show some schools are still closed after 4 months). Sorry.
Here is where you can find the CDC "Pink Book":
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/pink-chapters.htm
It includes the "Principles of Vaccination", "Immunization Strategies" and "Vaccine Safety". It also has chapters on each disease, including history, diagnosis, plus risks of both the disease and vaccine.
(enough blog systems now automate links, so I don't generally bother anymore... and the book by Paul Offit is more relevant to the MMR, because it is the biography of that vaccine's creator... let's see what is the title of this blog post... Hmmmm... oh, yeah "MMR Scares Debunked")
Posted by: HCN | July 28, 2007 at 11:56 AM
HCN’s pink book chapters link for easy clicking.
Just one factoid from that link – 2 in 1,000 children who get Measles will die from it.
Posted by: Skeptico | July 28, 2007 at 12:14 PM
And I apologize for not doing any research in these posts, it really has been somewhat negligent of me.
I'll definitely take a look at this. Now I'm interested!Incidentally, my dad either had measles or mumps as a kid; he survived (obviously), but the combination of the fever and medication ended up stripping a lot of the enamel off his adult teeth. I'm glad to say I never had to go through that, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine.
Posted by: Tom Foss | July 31, 2007 at 11:40 AM
HCN,
You obviously know a lot on this matter, which is why it is frustrating that you dont actually bother to read or understand my posts before you answer them (as seen by your incessant need to bring up autism when I wasnt referring to it, even from the start). And I do listen to your answers, you are just presuming I dont, perhaps I am not understanding them in the way you intend. You combative style of communication does nothing to help that.
As for cherry picking data, I didnt, I posted the pre-2000 data to show that separating the MMR shot did nothing to hurt measles infection rate, in fact it stopped it like it should. Then you brought up year 2000 rate of infection, to which I responded that this too had nothing to do with splitting up the MMR shot, it had to do with the low rate of vaccination over all that year (86%) and lack of boosters given. So yeah, basically, I really cant understand what you are generally talking about because you respond to things I either didnt write (links to autism) or things you just misunderstood (cherry picking data). Thats a shame.
Why is asking about getting 15 shots at once beyond your tolerance level for questions. Did you just miss the point? Do I really have to spell it out for you to understand and be able to communicate an answer? I dont need a dissertation, its just discussion. I'm not doing a PhD on this, its just discussion. You obviously are far more versed on this matter than I am. Its too bad you are unable to converse with people about it. Are you like that in person too?
jeesh.
Tom,
And your immune system treats it like an active infection, even though it's weakened or dead. Your immune system's dealing with that, so if another direct infection, or another virus that isn't caught by the external defenses, comes in, it'll find a somewhat preoccupied immune system. The immune system has a finite number of resources, and maybe going after two (perceived) active infections isn't going to tax those resources, but I imagine it'd be better if it were only going after one
This is EXACTLY why I proposed my one shot at a time method in the first place. Folks here have pointed out, and HCN has provided links (and so did I at another place), that shows that this is probably not a worry when there are only 3 shots at most, well below the number of 'wars' your body can fight at once. But it is why I asked about the 15 shots. I was wondering what the limit was. And if there is a limit, presumably using less shots would be better, all the way to the other limit where using only one shot at a time would be best, if your doctor will allow you to use it. However, since my worry about three shots at once really isnt one with respect to the vaccines themselves (as shown by the various links above), I then switched over to the other three reasons i posed for doing one shot at a time (but not splitting the complex vaccines).
I'm actually surprised people didnt balk at my initial suggestion that fetal ultrasound imaging may be the reason for some of the increase in rate of autism. Why dont people freak out about that as much as vaccines? The spread of its use has increased faster than vaccination (I think). to be clear, HCN, I am not suggesting that it IS the reason, I wondering why people dont freak out about it, I know for a fact that they use intensity levels that have been shown to tear cell walls (I used to work with ultrasound). I can look for a link later if anyone is actually interested in discussing that aspect.
Posted by: Techskeptic | August 01, 2007 at 09:41 AM
Incidentally, Techskeptic, I hope you're reading the Pink Book links that Skeptico and HCN supplied. I've just gone through the first section-and-a-half, as well as the first Appendix, and it's already answered a lot of my questions regarding this topic.
Specific to this conversation, it seems I was half-right in my understanding of why doctors wait to administer MMR, in that it has to do with nursing. It's not explicitly stated as much, but piecing together what little I know about the immunological benefits of breast milk with what's stated about live attenuated vaccines (like MMR), I've come to the following conclusion (again, someone correct me if I've reasoned this out wrong). Live attenuated vaccines must replicate in order to produce an immunological response; the presence of antibodies due to prior injection or passive immunity (such as what you would get through the placenta and from breast milk) can interfere with this viral growth, causing the immune response to be diminished or less effective. Passive immunity usually wears off within several months, and so it's recommended to wait at least 3 months between administration of antibody-containing supplements and the injection of a live attenuated vaccine.
So, before the doctors can administer MMR with any hope of it being effective, they have to wait until the passive immunity bestowed through pregnancy and nursing has waned enough that it will not interfere with the growth of the live attenuated viruses.
Of other interest to this discussion is a general principle on simultaneous administration:
Emphasis mine. So it seems that my thoughts about immunological weakness were more off the mark than my thoughts about passive immunity, and that the vaccination schedules are based more on the type of vaccine and the child's immunity and likelihood to be exposed to the diseases than on the maturity of the immune system and its ability to handle multiple invaders.
Posted by: Tom Foss | August 01, 2007 at 10:54 AM
yes that is the same conclusion I have come to after reading many of the posts and links here (thank you folks, even if HCN could have been more eloquent and decent about it).
As a reminder, we are not off schedule. My daughter will have the same amount of vaccinations as other kids in the same amount of time. We are still holding to the more evenly distributed schedule due to the side effect reason. And as of today, I'm really glad I did. Our daughter had a moderate side effect to one of the injections a few days ago. Nothing huge, she broke out in hives with a fever. Now, when we get a booster for that injection, we can go to an alternative manufacturers product and hope for a better response. Perhaps we will get the same problem, perhaps not, but at least we are able to identify exactly what did it and take action. I do understand that there is a probability that this may have been a one time reaction to that vaccine, and that there is a probability the the alternative manufacturer may cause the exact same response. But at least we can try to avoid it in the future, or at worst, just be prepared for a few crappy days when the next booster comes.
As for ultrasound:
I think, assuming I'm reading this right, that people are more open to the idea of ultrasound-generated autism than vaccine-generated autism because the former makes some measure of sense and has not been (to my knowledge) adequately tested, while the latter has been repeatedly tested with no positive result, and makes no logical sense besides.
I think you read it wrong. what I was saying is that people are not clamoring about US as a possibility as a reason for increased autism. They still, to this day focus on vaccination. Why? I think its because they think its like a video camera. A video camera does not send out any intense energy to capture an image (well there is that flash!). But now there are clinics where you can get motion capture US images of your children (it looks truly freaky) and people gobble it up.
I guess I'm just surprised that there isnt a stink about it, while there continues to be a stink about vaccines.
Here they discuss how the mechanical index should not exceed 1
https://e-edcredits.com/SonoCredits/article.asp?TestID=29
this number is too high, as cell disruption can happen with MI as low at 0.7. The key s to avoid cavitation. mentioned here:
http://math.vt.edu/people/damir/texts/projects/drug_ac.html
This looks like it covers it, but I cant get to it
http://jdm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/2/77
I realize these links are relatively obscure and not at pub med. I couldn't find articles on this specific concern there, so perhaps you are right, its just not generally studied or at least not well concluded. I dont have my US studies here from when I was working on a US project. Maybe I am opening my self to another berating from HCN. But this is a topic I do know about. The impulse from a collapsing cavitation bubble can be amazingly large (its why ultrasonic cleaners work).
The thing is that sonograph technicians know how to use the machine, but generally are not familiar with the technology, and crank it up to 1.4MI. They do this because most people are fat (in america, and not just big from pregnancy) and you need more intensity to get through it. so they just leave it high, even for skinny women.
Anyway, for a normal weight woman, 0.7MI is more than enough to get good contrast and examine the fetus.
Knowing all this, wouldnt you ask your sonograph technician to turn it down as much as possible when viewing your tiny little 6 week old fetus? BTW, even those fetal heart rate monitors are ultrasound, i dont know the intensity of those.
OK, after this little blurb, you can probably guess that I asked the technician to turn it down. He didnt even know how to, but thankfully he was the kind of person who was willing to learn and listen. I have absolutely no data about links between US and autism or any health related effect. Im sure imaging an 8 month old fetus is no problem (even if they lose a few cells- however they do image the inside of the spine so Us energy does hit the spinal cord too). But the frequency of imaging (not the sound frequency, i mean how often they encourage imaging), intensity that they image (now, i mean the machine) at and early fetal age at which they start are what concern me. And I am rather amazed that it hasn't been called out by more people as a possibility, at least enough to get a real good study going on it. If we were going to actually try to find out what is causing increase in autism rate (after pulling out categorical reasons), I would put that high on the list of things to check.
whoo! what blather!
Posted by: Techskeptic | August 02, 2007 at 07:30 AM
from the pink book:
Vaccine-preventable disease rates in the United States areat their lowest level ever. In 2004, only 37 cases of measles,10 cases of rubella, no cases of diphtheria, 34 cases of tetanus,and no wild-type polio were reported to CDC. Given these immunization successes, one might question the continued interest in strategies to increase immunization levels.
why are there ANY cases at all? These are unbelievably low rates. 10 cases of rubella? Was it one hot spot?
hmmm i guess this answers it:
"Most reported rubella in the United States since the mid-1990s has occurred among Hispanic young adults who were born in areas where rubella vaccine is routinely not given."
We vaccinate our children to protect them from diseases introduced to our population through immigration (as I recall, japan was the #1 importer of measles to the US)
Posted by: Techskeptic | August 02, 2007 at 07:44 AM
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/genrec.pdf
this seems to be the most appropriate part to this discussion on vaccines.
thank you skeptico and HCN for providing it. It also explains that what we are doing is not different in its effectiveness than the normal method:
"Increasing the interval between doses of a multidose vaccine does not diminish the effectiveness of the vaccine."
There may be timing where we extend a single injection by a month or two, depending.
Is breastfeeding overrated?
"Breastfeeding also does not extend or improve the passive immunity to vaccine-preventable disease that is provided by maternal antibody except possibly for Haemophilus influenzae type b."
We use a bottle, not everyone is capable of breast feeding, and we have truly gotten some stares.
Posted by: Techskeptic | August 02, 2007 at 08:08 AM
I imagine that fear of needles might play a subconscious role, as well. In any case, I'm not entirely convinced that ultrasounds are to blame either, but it does seem to me to be a more plausible explanation, and warrants some study.
I was just thinking that, actually. If the actual safety guidelines say no greater than one, then I'd absolutely ask that it be at least left at that setting.Incidentally, what are MI, as far as units?
In many cases, it has to do with people who are not vaccinated for religious or other reasons, and it spreads among those people, and people for whom the immunity has diminished. I know there was a measles outbreak near my college a year or three ago, and all the Christian Scientists and whatnot had to get special warnings.Posted by: Tom Foss | August 02, 2007 at 09:14 AM
Incidentally, what are MI, as far as units?
from the first link...
" The MI is calculated by dividing the spatial-peak value of the peak rarefractional pressure (rated by 0.3 dB/cm-MHz at each point along the beam axis) by the square root of the center frequency."
I believe the MI is unitless (but that definition does not imply it), but the derated spatial peak time average intensity has units of mW/cm2. These two values are related.
Well I found this... looks like it has everything you would want to know on the subject...
http://folk.ntnu.no/htorp/Undervisning/MEDT8002/litteratur/01hecs255.pdf#search=%22derated%20quantity%20safe%20ultrasound%22
they describe thermal and mechanical issues resulting from incorrect use of imaging ultrasound. almost nothing about fetal imaging and its effects. Mostly concerned with direct effects (like breaking capillaries) but no epidemiological results.
As I said though, MI of 0.7 and above can cause cavitation, that was my limit for the sonographer.
Posted by: Techskeptic | August 02, 2007 at 10:02 AM
argh, i dont know how you link properly in these comment sections. here:
http://tinyurl.com/2cxvvq
Posted by: Techskeptic | August 02, 2007 at 10:04 AM
"In any case, I'm not entirely convinced that ultrasounds are to blame ..."
neither am i. At this point its a hypothesis, however, since I have a skinny wife, there is no reason to use high MI levels or to have exposed our daughter to US energy just to see her or determine the sex (which we found out anyway at 24 weeks when they were measuring fetal growth using ultrasound). The same precautions we do for x-rays should be done for US. Do it as infrequently as possible and at as low of an intensity and exposure time as possible, then it should be totally safe.
Posted by: | August 02, 2007 at 10:22 AM
LOL! it wasnt a reaction to the immunization! It was Roseola Infantum that she happened to acquire shortly after the injection! LOL! that sure makes me at least understand how those parents of autistic children feel when they detect the autism right after an injection!
At least I was able to see the facts as there were in the end!
Posted by: Techskeptic | August 02, 2007 at 02:38 PM