Also, before you conduct large expensive tests on vaccines, you must first show they are causing problems. So far the many many studies in several countries show no connection. And going on your plan of only single valent vaccines would leave many children vulnerable (please read the excerpt of Ben Goldacre’s book I posted above). Multivalent vaccines include DTaP, influenza, polio, rotavirus, meningococcal, and pneumococcal. Do you realize how many additional needle jabs you are asking for?

Michael:

The Japanese did not merely stop MMR vaccinations, they replaced them with single valent vaccines.

How is that working for them? From Progress Toward Measles Elimination — Japan, 1999–2008:

. However, during 2007–2008, Japan experienced a large measles outbreak, which resulted in exportation of measles cases from Japan into countries where measles elimination had been achieved. ….. Measles continues to be endemic in Japan, with most cases occurring in children before school entry, except for 2007 and 2008, when a shift to an older age group was observed.

Michael continued:

We don’t yet know what causes autism. The correlation with vaccines is obvious, through the timiing of autism’s diagnosable symptoms, through regression, through the increasing diagnosis of autism in conjunction with an increasing vaccine load… these are all indications, not proof, of an association that needs further investigation.

And it has been studied, using large populations in several countries. There really is no reason to spend more money on researching the ephemeral connection to vaccines, especially the MMR vaccine. Which has been used in the USA since 1971.

There are some indications of genetic connections, and perhaps some exposures in utero of something (rubella is already known to cause autism!). Some papers of interest:

Trends Genet. 2009 Dec;25(12):536-44. Epub 2009 Nov 10.
Copy-number variants in neurodevelopmental disorders: promises and challenges.
Merikangas AK, Corvin AP, Gallagher L.

Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2009 Nov;9(8):795-803.
Autism genetics: emerging data from genome-wide copy-number and single nucleotide polymorphism scans.
Weiss LA.

Lancet. 2009 Nov 7;374(9701):1627-38. Epub 2009 Oct 12.
Autism.
Levy SE, Mandell DS, Schultz RT….

Autism spectrum disorders are characterised by severe deficits in socialisation, communication, and repetitive or unusual behaviours. Increases over time in the frequency of these disorders (to present rates of about 60 cases per 10,000 children) might be attributable to factors such as new administrative classifications, policy and practice changes, and increased awareness. Surveillance and screening strategies for early identification could enable early treatment and improved outcomes. Autism spectrum disorders are highly genetic and multifactorial, with many risk factors acting together. Genes that affect synaptic maturation are implicated, resulting in neurobiological theories focusing on connectivity and neural effects of gene expression.

There have been multiple studies showing no correlation between MMR and autism, or vaccines and autism. The evidence is fairly solid – and there is no evidence for a correlation. (follow the link I provided)

The timing of vaccines and autism diagnosis is a coincidence only – and not a big one as vaccines are spread out throughout childhood, and so are likely to coincide with any childhood illness.

Plus, as we investigate autism further we are finding that the onset is BEFORE the vaccine schedule. There are subtle signs reliably detected even in infancy.

The significance of the Japan study is for the MMR. That is how it is cited. In fact – Wakefield himself was advocating replacing the MMR with single valent vaccines (for which he had patents pending).

Your recommendations are without scientific backing.

I will take issue with only 2 as I know for the most part this information will fall on deaf ears.

First, Brian Deer and the “faked data” has not only been proven to be a lie, but The Times was requested by the PCC to remove those stories related to the faked data from it’s website, which it did. That action was taken by the PCC based on a complaint filed by Dr Andrew Wakefield.
Then in an unprecedented move, The Times reposted the stories in defiance of the PCC. The PCC, for the first time ever, backpedalled, and claimed that since the issue was part of the ongoing GMC investigation it was postponig it’s judgement on the complaint until after those proceedings. However, the GMC was not investigating any allegations of faked or fixed data regarding Dr Wakefield’s landmark study. So why did the PCC lie? To wait for the forgone conclusion of the GMC so it would havea little more weight behind denying the truth of Dr Wakefield’s complaint? Only the PCC knows for sure.

Second, the Japan study. One of the classic mistakes made by shills is to continue to quote this study in defense of vaccines.
The Japanese did not merely stop MMR vaccinations, they replaced them with single valent vaccines. That the author would leave that little bit of information out speaks to his integrity and desire to get to the truth. As a side note, anything with Fombonne’s or Madsen’s name on it is not admissable as evidence vaccines are safe. If you want the details I can provide them, but this is not a very hospitable environment for the truth.

What is the truth?
We don’t yet know what causes autism. The correlation with vaccines is obvious, through the timiing of autism’s diagnosable symptoms, through regression, through the increasing diagnosis of autism in conjunction with an increasing vaccine load… these are all indications, not proof, of an association that needs further investigation.

The only ethical way to approach this is to create a toxin-free vaccine schedule and conduct a large long term study (5 years should suffice) comparing the progress of kids with and without vaccine toxins. Among the removable toxins are adjuvants and preservatives. These 2 substances are there to increase profit margins by; reducing expensive antigen or shipping large quantities of vaccine instead of profit robbing single doses (which do not require preservative). Other substances are non-self endotoxin and DNA fragments, expecially since adjuvants will intensify/prolong infant immune reaction to these toxins. Finally, no multi-valent injections. Only single valent doses with a medically determined safe time interval between them.

What we should all be after is the truth, the original poster in this blog is not interested in the truth and you should all be taking him to task for it.

Mr. Matthewson, you can now stop beating that dead horse, and banging that dead parrot on the table.

The science has been done, the link between vaccines and autism does not exist. It is a dead link… “It’s not pinin’! ‘It’s passed on! This link is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch it’d be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now ‘istory! It’s off the twig! It’s kicked the bucket, it’s shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-LINK!! ” (hat-tip to Monty Python and the dead parrot sketch)

You may have some legitimate points about changing of management styles and management beurocracy at academic institutions, but that certainly is not where the majority of the blame should lie. Even if you are correct, the fault of the institution is small compared to Wakefield’s responsibility. Part of the way science works is that people are expected to behave in an ethical manner (similar to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”). Wakefield obviously behaved in a highly unethical manner. A University is not industry and academic researchers are expected to bear the responsibility and liability for their own work much more so than within industry.

It is also important to remember that it was not necessarily just the publication that began the scare, but rather the comments Wakefield made to the press that went far beyond what was said within his paper. He made much stronger statements about his research (and continues to do so) than he could have ever gotten away with within a publication. How should the university have managed that? Do you want academic researchers required to submit all of their public statements to a university panel prior to those statements being made, as would occur in an industrial setting?

Bottom line is, we are all responsible for our own actions. The failure of a system can only go so far as to take blame for an individual’s unethical choices or conduct.

“Plus, being managed by your department has it’s problems since it involves human nature. Often, faculty members do not play nice with one another; it would be quite an issue if one’s ’supervisor’ had a personal dislike of you. That supervisor would have the power to block any publications regardless of the quality. That job is already part of the peer review process of all quality journals.”

are indicators of extremely low standards of management in these institutions. What you describe does indeed happen and it is positively Victorian.

You say : “Therefore, either follow the rules or be fired.”

You have missed out “cause a national or even international health scare, then get fired”. How much better to get rid of Victorian standards of management and avoid unnecessary deaths. Young researchers would welcome this, old professors would lament the loss of empires.

And then there is the adversarial behaviour of the civil service. This needs fixing

Again I get a global “smear” for no apparent reason. There were serious institutional failures in the Wakefield case, I cannot understand why contributors are so anxious to gloss over these.

I used to feel sorry for the doctors who had to perform research in a lonely vacuum but it seems that no-one else here gives a damn.

Not many nationally recognized professors would go along with being ‘managed’ by their department or institute. If a professor wanted to be managed, then they’d have gone into industry instead. Plus, being managed by your department has it’s problems since it involves human nature. Often, faculty members do not play nice with one another; it would be quite an issue if one’s ‘supervisor’ had a personal dislike of you. That supervisor would have the power to block any publications regardless of the quality. That job is already part of the peer review process of all quality journals.

In addition, part of applying for funding is the requirement of submitting all the necessary legal and ethical documentation, especially if human subjects are involved. That’s meant to ensure that the research is being conducted in a proper manner. It is up to the researcher to be familiar with the ethical rules and follow those guidelines.

If someone wishes to do research and be paid by the government for this research the overseeing medical college should supervise that research. This happens at the beginning of a project but it should continue. A senior, academic manager in the college should be assigned managerial responsibility for the project, there should be occasional reviews, the senior member of staff should take a look occasionally, go over the notebooks, watch the procedures etc.

When a paper comes up for publication the work (including notebooks) should be reviewed by a publication committee and the manager should sign it off and take managerial responsibility, along with the committe. This is taxpayers money that is being spent. You can bet that if a senior member of the faculty had had to sign off Wakefield’s work and take responsibility it would not even have been published.

I remember many medics going through my lab, using our research facilities, doing “a bit of research” for their MDs or other advancement of their medical careers. Most were almost entirely unmanaged. Many were excellent but god knows what some of them were doing, certainly their “supervisors” or managers didn’t. Almost all of them would have been happier if the college had taken some interest in their work.

Daedalus: “What changes might governments implement to prevent such things in the future?”

Improve medical college management. Ensure that scares are managed through consultation. If required, to control a scare and protect the community, amend treatment routines so that, with effort, patients can obtain alternative treatment if they really must.