According to John Briffa this is a devastating critique of the Honda et al study that showed there was no relationship between MMR rates and autism in Japan. Basically it claims that even though MMR rates don't correlate with autism rates this is because single measles jabs also cause autism! The data used is not the local single jabs rates for the area studied by Honda et al but the national Japanese rates. I don't know why Briffa thinks this argument supports the MMR-autism link, it looks like a simple post hoc rationalisation to me.But let's look at this data (plotted top right), vaccination rates (national MMR + single measles, and local MMR) shifted by one year (the Japanese measles vaccines are given at 1-year according to Nakatani et al and Honda et al) plotted against autism rates (cumulative up to seven years) by year of birth - overall autism spectrum and autism with regression are plotted*. Here we can see that there is minimal relationship between overall rates of autism spectrum and combined vaccination rates, and essentially no relationship with autism with regression.
This can be better seen in the figure on the right where the regressions of total measles vaccination rate against autism incidence are plotted - with neither even approaching statistical significance (p>.3), and correlation coefficients .3 and -.2 for autism spectrum and autism with regression respectively. Note that the correlation between MMR vaccination and overall autism spectrum is -.7, so MMR protects against autism!***For those interested in these things, autism rates are from Honda et al, and measles vaccine rates are estimated from the figure in Nakatani et al.
**No, obviously I don't think this really.
UPDATE
Here's a bit of fun, let's try another national vaccination rates vs. local autism rate graph. California is apparently a popular target, so how does autism rate (as determined by autism case load - dodgy, but like I say, just a bit of fun) compare with US national vaccination rate (1-year time shift, WHO data)?
Well here it is top right, not very convincing (although r=.7, p<.01). It nicely demonstrates that correlations are fairly common in time series (because all you need for a correlation is a trend for both things to increase with time) but also shows that the relationship is far from a 'dose-response' (sic) since autism keeps climbing while vaccination rates plateau. It accords fairly well with the figure on the left from a study of MMR vaccination rates and autism in California from JAMA which also found little relationship, with a plateau in vaccination rates and a continuing rise in autism.
This is also an interesting figure (below) from a study in the BMJ based on the UK general practice research database. It found that there was no relationship between UK MMR coverage (which remained very high for cohorts from 1988 to 1993) while autism rates continued to climb and nicely reflects the US vaccination plateau.
79 comments:
That has got to be the most crap graph I have ever seen. Can't you do better than that?
Where did the "national MMR plus meales" figures come from?
The Nakatani paper is just measles.
If you want MMR plus measles figures to compare, then take Terada's MMR plus measles figures and compare them against Honda/Rutter's overall ASD rates.
Two different districts in two different cities in Japan but the match is remarkable.
So remarkable that the likelihood of being coincidence is somewhat small. And no doubt there is a statistical formula somewhere to calculate the likelihood of such a close correlation.
The Nakatani paper is not just measles which is why there is a decline in vaccination rate 1988-1994 during the MMR scare - this also explains why, before the MMR scare, the local MMR coverage is practically the same as the national vaccination rate (i.e. at this point measles vacination was the MMR).
And another thing. Why the 1 year time shift?
Japanese children according to Nakatani have measles vaccination between 12 to 72 months, subsequently extended to 90 months.
And coverage in the population under 3 years old is around 80% so most Japanese children will be vaccinated somewhere around age 2 so you should have applied a two year and not a one year shift.
Very sloppy work if I may say so (and too late to complain - I just did).
And one more thing PJ, whilst I am looking - it is not correct to claim Nakatani sets out combined measles and MMR figures.
Nakatani states clearly these are measles figures and specifically states "It should be noted that alleged cases of aseptic meningitis among children who received measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR)vaccine contributed in particular to the low coverage of measles during the period from 1989 to 1993."
If a Japanese author intends to refer to measles vaccine and to MMR vaccine then the paper will state so. They are not sloppy like one too many of you Brits.
Also, these are from official Japanese government figures which are separate for MMR and for measles uptake - obviously. If the Japanese author added the figures together for the graph the author would have so stated expressly.
If you have seen that said somewhere, let us know - I have not spotted that in the paper so far and believe it is not there.
Your suggestion also starts to get into complications over the rubella figures and the fact there are no mumps figures.
Still sloppy I see PJ.
Anonymous, putting aside your misreading of the data from these studies for a moment, can you confirm it your hypothesis that single measles vaccinations cause autism? That seems to be your position.
When do we see the press conference announcing this startling revelation (one that that no antivaxer has previously dared to propose?) Careful, you will be compromising Wakefield's future earnings from his single vaccine patent if you keep going on like this....
PJ, oh ye of small brain - what is an "anti-vaxer"? What a sad state of mind you exist in (as well as being very sloppy with your maths).
Surely this is an issue of safety for children - the balance of risk versus benefits?
And who says only MMR is a cause of autism? Look at this evidence to Parliament where the child in question (and what terrible suffering) only had the single measles:-
DEGENERATION OF OLIVER THROWER INTO AUTISM FOLLOWING VACCINATIONS
http://tinyurl.com/5xxomh
And did no one ever tell you that the one and earliest proven cause of autism is rubella virus - discovered after the rubella pandemics of 1964-5. It is recorded in the medical literature.
So why limit yourself my man, when you can have any potential encephalitis causing agent as a suspect, including a proven one?
Anonymous brings up Oliver Thrower... a quick google search reveals that this is an anecdote that was only revealed when the child was nine years old.
The MMR has been used in the USA since 1971. Where is the evidence of a large upsurge of autism starting over 35 years ago in that much larger and more litiguous country?
Give us real statistics. Skip stuff were the mumps strain is the Urabe version, but stay with the Jeryl Lynn strain which is now used in the UK... and (need I remind you again)? has been used in the USA since 1971.
I've been told by the spelling gods that I misspelled a word or two:
I meant litigious.
HCN is a well-known autism pandemic denialist and zealot who pops up all over the place repeating clichés - yawn and attacking people. Google "HCN autism" - yawn.
Look at the boring tactics - HCN cannot criticise the stated facts - as David above cannot - so both bring in diversions from the fact PJ has been shown to be wrong - boo hoo sob sob.
And HCN cannot tell the difference between anecdote and witness testimony (eg. David Thrower on son Oliver Thrower) and cannot tell the evidential power of lots of people independently telling the same story amounting to proof. Lots of people say exactly the same. They are called witnesses and what they say is witness evidence. And did you not know HCN that the most important evidence in medicine is the evidence of the patient? You are just out of it.
Answer the facts HCN or shut up - for good - I don't see you expressing any concern about the autism pandemic or any urgency to stop this happening to kids.
Shame on you HCN - but it is because HCN is a denialist zealot.
You are just another of the nasties with nothing sensible to say who gets off on slagging people off.
I see you cannot answer the facts or the statistics. What kind of useless response is "give us real statistics". You can't give us real statistics.
And you give rubbish facts like "Jeryl Lynn has been in use since 1971" - really? How fascinating. So what? And in how much use, how many doses, how many kids, at what ages, whose version and with how many other vaccines at the same time?
What a pointless comment HCN.
Take a look here at the pointlessness of mumps vaccination:-
http://tinyurl.com/69zkfx
And here to see it is unethical to give it because there is no point but exposes kids to the risk of adverse reactions:-
http://tinyurl.com/6apodm
And here to see that it cannot be justified as a public health measure because it is pointless:-
http://tinyurl.com/5yppko
Can't you do any better? I'll answer that for you - no. Take a day off HCN - for good. People like you are a hazard to the safety of our kids and just pander to profiteering drug companies.
Anonymous
Let it go, Briffa's paper is post-hoc reivsionist nonsense and you know it.
edit:
revisionist.
Anonymous, re: Nakatani et. al.
The authors state that concerns over meningitis caused by MMR vaccines are an explanation for the "low coverage of *measles* during the period from 1989 to 1993." In other words, they are counting MMR as a measles vaccination, so when MMR uptake fell, measles coverage also fell. See also the left column of page 108. These statement makes no sense unless the authors are counting MMR as a measles vaccination.
Also - if you look at the graph on page 104, you will see no line for MMR. Yet it would be absurd to simply ignore children who received MMR when thinking about measles coverage. Clearly, the authors *are* taking MMR shots into account, not separately but in terms of the number of people vaccinated vs. measles and vs. rubella. If this were not the case, the figures for measles and rubella in this paper would be meaningless.
And again - the graph on page 104 is of "immunization coverage", i.e. the % of kids who received protection against the disease in question. It is not a graph showing the use of any particular vaccine. If it were, it would not report on simply "Polio", because there are two different polio vaccines.
Woobegone. Nakatani has no national figures for MMR uptake because there are none. Japanese districts started to drop MMR in the very first year of its use.
This is the reason Terada and Honda/Rutter have gone for districts and not for national figures. The districts/wards they use figures from are ones which continued MMR for 4 years when others dropped it almost immediately.
Summary: Nakatani has no national MMR figures because there are none and cites only measles vaccine uptake figures.
Heh, a proper foaming at the mouth internet crank - haven't had one of those since I last wrote about abortion. My guess is the same person that wrote the 'devastating critique'.
To maintain that the Nakatani figures do not include MMR you have to have some evidence (not assume on the basis that you don't like the implications) that in 1989 in Yokohama MMR vaccination rates were 80% while the rest of the country had MMR vaccination rates below 20% (because you are assuming the Nakatani figures are only single jabs, which have coverage of 80%, only leaving 20% of people to get the MMR). Doesn't seem to coincide with the Kurashiki graph where the ratio of MMR to single jabs was something like 4:1.
Funny how this data would also suggest that single measles uptake went down rather than up when the MMR scare began - obviously our prescient author had warned the Japanese public about the dangers of the single jabs too. Strange that the single jabs rate then went back up after the MMR was discontinued and single jabs brought in nationally. Fickle people the Japanese obviously. And, again, not fitting with Kurashiki where single jabs rates climbed in the MMR scare period. Funny too that there wasn't a drop in single measles vaccinations with the introduction of the national MMR programme, even though, as seen in Kurashiki, most measles jabs would have been with MMR (that we're told Nakatani doesn't record).
If I'd thought Nakatani only showed single jabs I'd have added those figures to the MMR rates in Yokohama to estimate overall measles vaccination (and the graph would have fit even less well).
Interesting that it is claimed that there are no national Japanese figures for MMR (a national vaccination programme) but that there are figures (in Nakatani, from government sources) for single jabs only. Funny government they have in Japan. And funny of Nakatani to try and compile measles vaccination rates in a discussion of measles prevention, but failing to mention that they don't have data for MMR and that this was a government vaccination programme so figures for single jabs from that period will be massive underestimates.
The reason I applied a one year shift was the same reason as Honda et al - because the MMR and measles single jabs programmes give jabs at one year of age (as both Honda et al and Nakatani et al state). The figures, as Nakatani et al point out, will unfortunately include some children older than that, but you cannot just decide that most people are vaccinated at two years of age and impose a two year shift because you want the lines to fit better. The extra individuals vaccinated older than three (likely to be a minority of vaccinations) will result in decreased real vaccination rates for 1-year olds and thus make the curves fit even less well.
Now, please enlighten us with more secret facts about the Japanese vaccination system - you were going to tell us why Nakatani's paper on the 8 routine vaccinations in Japan up to 2001 doesn't include figures on mumps vaccination (a vaccine that has never routinely been given except when combined with the MMR 1989-1993) and how this proves the measles figures don't include MMR vaccinations.
Curious how the World Health Organisation figures are the same as Nakatani et al (both supplied by the Japanese government) and the WHO records these as vaccination rates for "measles containing vaccines" (i.e. MMR and measles single jabs). This is consistent with the WHO figures of "measles containing vaccines" for the UK (where almost all measles jabs are from the MMR) which records the current 80% vaccination rate.
PJ - the evidence that the Nakatani figures are for measles vaccinations is that the paper says so and it is peer reviewed.
It is you who claims in the teeth of the plain words of the paper and without evidence that what the authors state clearly are measles vaccination figures include MMR vaccination figures.
And there are no national Japanese MMR vaccination figures. If you claim to the contrary, find them. If you can find them, I should be most interested as national figures do not exist. If you say they do, then please come up with them.
Whilst you are about it, show us all where it says in the Nakatani paper that the rubella vaccine figures also include MMR.
If there is a "foaming at the mouth internet crank" here that that can only be the crank who came up with the crap graph on this blog with all the mathematical and methodological errors in it - Heh?
There are no other candidates for that description.
That really is a bizarre position to take.
Have you ever heard of the WHO? They're quite a big organisation. They report figures of "measles containing vaccines" for Japan from official estimates as well as their own estimates - and these accord closely with those reported by Nakatani et al indicating that the Nakatani figures cannot possibly be simply single measles jabs only (I presume you will claim that they are also the figures for single jabs only, and excluding MMR).
The evidence that the Nakatani figures include MMR is overwhelming (as outlined in the above comments). Your only evidence (apart from attempting to resolve your cognitive dissonance) is that Fig 2 in Nakatani reports "measles" immunisation coverage. Of course there is no reason to believe that someone wouldn't include figures from MMR (mumps, measles, and rubella) immunisation as part of "measles" vaccination figures (you know, because "measles" is, like, "measles"). Nakatani says: "The trends of vaccination coverage are collected by the MOHLW [Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare], and are shown in Fig. 2. It shold be noted that alleged cases of aseptic meningitis among children who received measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine contributed in particular to the low coverage of measles during the period from 1989 to 1993." Since Japanese people moved to single jabs to avoid MMR (to avoid the Urabe mumps strain in the MMR vaccine) the figures for single jabs would have gone up, rather than down.
[incidentally, we're not talking about rubella here, but the figures for rubella vaccination closely track those for measles during the MMR period - funny that]
PJ,
Whatever point you think you are making it is irrelevant to the fact your graph is crap and meaningless.
But produce the evidence asked for. All you produce is argument.
Oh, and why are you still going on about this? Remind us why you think it relevant to anything - your comment 03 June 2008 22:56 is a paragon of opacity.
Be that as it may, produce the evidence that what the authors state clearly are measles vaccination figures include MMR vaccination figures.
And please produce the Japanese national MMR vaccination figures so we can see they exist.
Show us where it says in the Nakatani paper that the rubella vaccine figures also include MMR.
Ah, I hadn't realised you were just too stupid to understand what I was saying.
PJ,
I see you still cannot provide the evidence.
It is insult time instead. We will soon see who can justify calling whom "stupid".
Still waiting ....... tick, tock.
The fundamental argument here seems to be your assertion that Nakatani's figures don't include MMR vaccinations, only single measles jabs. Apart from the numerous reasons to believe you are wrong as outlined above, the WHO figures for national Japanese vaccination coverage by "measles containing vaccines" (i.e. MMR and measles single jabs) are the same as those of Nakatani during the MMR vaccination period i.e. if the Japanese government and WHO estimates of national rates including MMR are the same as Nakatani's figures (derived from the Japanese government) then Nakatani's figures must include MMR vaccinations. If you want to check this you can look at the link to see the WHO figures.
As for national MMR figures for Japan or mention of MMR in the rubella section of Nakatani's paper - these are utterly irrelevant to our discussion and the presented claim that total measles vaccination rates have a dose response relationship with autism - smomething that the data demonstrate is clearly not the case.
Do you understand what I am saying? So how will you attempt to explain away the WHO data, or will you ask another irrelevant question and ignore my answer?
PJ,
Allow me to explain to you why what you say is irrelevant on all counts.
You have put up a graph which is not of the data Briffa cites. You then criticise John Briffa over that graph which you created which he is not talking about.
I could leave it there but it is worth taking this further.
In your different graph based on different data, you also got the numbers wrong. You got the time shift wrong. You then failed to find a correspondence. Hardly surprising in the circumstances. This was because of your own errors.
You then criticise John Briffa when you are the screw up. Nice going.
What you say is irrelevant including your interminable droning on whether Nakatani contains measles data (which it does) or measles and MMR data (which the authors make no claim it does and which you still have failed to provide proof it does).
Let me explain this in as many words of one syllable as I can muster.
Briffa cited Terada data compared to Honda/Rutter data. Briffa did not cite Nakatani data against Honda/Rutter data.
The reason Terada data was compared to Honda/Rutter is simple. It has already been spelt out for you. You either do not understand or you choose not to understand.
By now you have made so many screw ups over the data and you keep digging deeper that it seems likely you will lose too much face to admit this or there is another reason (read on to find out).
It seems to me the reason why the data Briffa refers to is the Terada data compared to Honda/Rutter data (and not the data you refer to) was because of all the districts in Japan, Kurashiki City and Kohoku Ward, Yokohama are ones where they continued using MMR for four full years from 1989 to 1992, whereas other districts stopped in 1989 and reverted to single measles vaccine within hardly an eyeblink of offering MMR.
Those districts and others like them did not seen a fall in vaccination rates at all or like the ones seen in Kurashiki City or Kohoku Ward.
That means the national measles uptake figures for Japan cannot be compared to either Kurashiki City or Kohoku Ward.
If you do compare themm you do not get a match. But then, you knew that all along didn't you.
That is why you put up a wholly fake graph claiming it to be what it is not. It is not the graph or data John Briffa was referring to.
So what do you want to admit to? Intentionally putting up a false graph or in your own words "you were just too stupid"?
Maybe both apply? How did you think you were going to get away with doing a Kev Leitch.
And he is another totally unreliable blogger. See here:-
"Lies, Damn Lies and Blog Posts"
http://tinyurl.com/64oha7
Dear Anonymous,
Can you confirm you are Clifford Miller?
If not, it might be appropriate to use/invent a name, rather than anonymous. It will take a fraction of the time it takes to write a comment, and makes exchanges more civil and easier to follow.
Best wishes,
Political Scientist
So you don't want to look at the WHO data then? Worried it might disprove your claim about the Nakatani figures? Good job you've posted a load of extra stuff to distract from that.
I'm bored of you now, but just thought I'd quote the following from Miller's devastating critique Briffa linked to:
"Further, the Nakatani paper indicates this similarity in the data is unlikely to be coincidence. The Nakatani paper shows the national vaccination rates in Japan. These are closely similar in profile to that shown for Kurashiki City. It is also reasonable to expect that the national vaccination rates would be similar for Kohoku Ward (data in the Honda/Rutter paper)."
So it would be perhaps unfair on Miller to say this is him, since Miller has stated the exact opposite of anonymous above. Unless we thought that Miller would be liable to say completely contradictory things to try and salvage his argument when in a corner?
PJ,
Thanks for the vindication - you can be relied on to give a distorted picture.
Not only do you provide a fake graph (a charge you have no defence to) but I have just checked what you quoted.
You quote half of what was said. Miller said :-
..... "And after the 150% increase in measles and rubella vaccinations and the doubling in the JE vaccine uptake, the graph shows that autism incidence doubled. Incidence rose from 60 in 10,000 (1991-92 births) to 120 in 10,000 (1995-96 births). The same applies to the peaks in the graph in 1990 and 1994. The 1990 peak was 80 in 10,000 and the 1994 peak was double that at 160 in 10,000."
This was comparing what happened after MMR was withdrawn and showing the correspondence with the increase in autism.
Thanks - looks like you go down on the fake graph and on misquoting people. A Kevin Leitch clone.
Ah yes, you brilliantly disproved that Miller said what I quoted through the medium of quoting the another sentence that doesn't change the meaning of my quote in any way.
The strange obsession with Kevin Leitch suggests we're dealing with someone from here.
Anony said "And HCN cannot tell the difference between anecdote and witness testimony"
Witness testimony is an anecdote.
It is not science.
PJ,
I quoted the whole thing giving the full meaning. You did not. People can see that for themselves.
Still trying to distract from the demolition of your shabby efforts I see.
HCN,
Now PJ has been trashed. We can move on to other matters.
Here we demonstrate that if witness testimony is anecdote then by the same standard, all observational scientific evidence is anecdotal too.
This is just so funny.
A scientist is a witness of what the scientist has observed so that account is anecdotal evidence.
Hey, HCN can you see where this is going to end up yet?
Christ almighty - the loon's self confident logical fallacies lead them to misunderstand the difference between anecdote and scientific study. And they're really pleased with themselves!
PJ,
Thanks for the insults. Shows you are unable to deal with the logical conundrum HCN has started.
HCN claims witness testimony is anecdotal. A scientist is a witness and reports the experiment.
Both are anecdotal on HCN's analysis.
As you say "the loon's self confident logical fallacies lead them to misunderstand the difference between anecdote and scientific study".
Exactly. Looks like you and HCN both then.
Who's the "loon" now?
It is not my logical fallacy.
Hey, HCN can you see yet where this is going now?
Tnanks.
PJ,
Correlation coefficients for the correct graphs look like this:-
0.79 = correlation coefficient between Terada Measles & MMR Uptake vs Honda/Rutter ASD rates
0.82 = correlation co-efficient Honda/Rutter ASD Rates vs Japan Measles % Uptake Nationally.
Not a bad fit for this data. You can work out the p values if you like.
I thought you said:
"That means the national measles uptake figures for Japan cannot be compared to either Kurashiki City or Kohoku Ward.
If you do compare themm you do not get a match. But then, you knew that all along didn't you."
Changed your mind now you think they support your position?
PJ,
Welcome back.
I look forward to your answer to HCN's conundrum.
Do you agree the correlation coefficients then?
Incidentally, how does this piece of reasoning work?
"Japanese children according to Nakatani have measles vaccination between 12 to 72 months, subsequently extended to 90 months.
And coverage in the population under 3 years old is around 80% so most Japanese children will be vaccinated somewhere around age 2 so you should have applied a two year and not a one year shift."
Vaccination, according to both Honda and Nakatani is at age 1-year:
"The Japanese MMR vaccination program targeted one-year-olds between April 1989 and April 1993, then was discontinued. Therefore, children born during the years 1988 to 1992 received the MMR vaccine in years 1989 to 1993 at one year of age." (Honda)
Fig.1. of Nakatani indicates that measles shots are given at 1-year and the period of regular vaccination extends through the second year of life but is regulated until the age of 7.
As Nakatani points out, the vaccination data are confused by the inclusion of older children, particularly a problem after the MMR scare. And estimates of vaccination coverage under 3 suggest 80% coverage. You seem to think that this means that we must assume all children are vaccinated at 2-years old. This is utterly unsupported by the data, which gives no such indication (all we can conclude is that around 20% of those vaccinated are 3 or older), and one might think this decision was rather more motivated by thinking the two lines fit better if you shift by two-years.
But at least nice to see you seem to have accepted that the Nakatani data is a reliable measure of measles vaccination rates - even if it highlights your willingness to take contradictory positions based on whether they supprt your a priori view.
I make the 2-year shift coeffs .8 (p<.01) for autism spectrum and .3 (non-sig) for autism with regression. I haven't bothered to estimate the Kurashiki data because it doesn't add anything to the national data.
As to your irrelevant spat with HCN, witness testimony is anecdote. To make something not anecdote you need scientific rigour and controls (we shall call it data). It is possible to make a collection of anecdote into data (e.g. by doing a survey) providing you understand the limitations and have necessary controls.
In the case of parents claiming their children got autism with regression from MMR, there is nothing other than anecdote (e.g. Wakefield's Lancet paper) to suggest that the reason for this is that MMR caused the autism rather than it being a result of coincidence or recall bias.
PJ,
Wonderful. I see you have had your buddies working hard on the problems.
You still have not dealt with HCN's conundrum. How do you classify these forms of evidence. Which is anecdote and which is scientific evidence:-
A) The scientist records the experiment in a notebook.
B) The witness records the experiment in a notebook
C) The scientist goes shopping and records with scientific rigour what he purchases.
D) The witness goes shopping and records with scientific rigour what he purchases.
Which is anecdote and which is scientific?
If we are to rely on what you say we need some straight answers. After all, you did say of HCN's logical fallacy that "the loon's self confident logical fallacies lead them to misunderstand the difference between anecdote and scientific study."
So as you know the difference, tell us and why.
Can you see yet where this is going?
Response to your other queries to follow.
PJ,
Here are some questions for you regarding timeshifting.
These will help you understand why a two year time shift is valid and why a one year time shift is not.
That the data is a closer match confirms the two year time shift is also the correct choice. Your poorly matching correlation coefficients show that the one year time shift is wrong as does the visual match from the graphs.
Here are the questions:-
A) How old is a one year old in years months and days the day before the second birthday?
B) If one year olds are targeted, what is the best estimate you can give for the average age of vaccination in years months and days?
C) If 80% of 3 year olds have been vaccinated; vaccination does not start earlier than age one; and one year olds are targetted, what is the mean age of vaccination in years months and days and what is the range likely to be?
D) If you apply a one year time shift, what proportion of children have you erroneously included who have not yet reached their first birthday and will not have been vaccinated?
I thought you were the mathematical and statistical wiz kid.
It is a bit of a dissppointment so far I have to say.
Your comment about Nakatani does not make much sense. The Nakatani data ipso facto must correspond to the most reliable record of national measles vaccine uptake in Japan because its source is from the only record there is.
That does not mean it is the most accurate comparison on a regional basis. For example, about 50% of London, England's five year olds have not had one or both MMR doses but the British national MMR uptake figures are much higher. This means the British national figures are not a reliable guide to London, England MMR vaccination rates.
Here is another question for you to help you understand why part of the figures in a series can be a good match well but another part of the same series of figures may not:-
Each one of the data points on Graph A are an 80% match to the data points on Graph B and all points overall are an 80% match.
But the second half of the data points on Graph C match graph A 100% and overall Graph C is an 80% match to Graph A.
Will the curve of Graph C or that of Graph B more closely follow Graph A and provide a closer visual match to Graph A?
I have used a notional percentage match instead of correlation coefficients to assist readers who are not particularly mathematical.
Anonymous : Re "HCN's Conundrum" (not a very difficult one I must say)
When a scientist reports data, they will hopefully have ensured that it is meaningful data from which inferences can be drawn. A randomized controlled trial gives meaningful data.
By contrast when someone says that their child got autism after being vaccinated, this isn't evidence for anything. This is not because it is anecdotal per se, but because what we have is in effect an observational study with a sample size of 1, no comparison group, and no standardized measurement. It can't demonstrate causation or even correlation. Even if 10,000 people say the same thing, the situation is no better, because all we then have are 10,000 equally bad studies.
Anecdotes must not be ignored, of course. Almost all evidence starts off as anecdotal evidence - at one time there was only anecdotal evidence that penicillin killed bacteria. Faced with numerous reports that vaccines trigger autism, the appropriate response would be do some proper scientific studies and find out, Are the reports accurate? This is exactly what happened and the answer is no.
P.S I don't wish to imply that anecdotes are never meaningful. Obviously, when there is no reason to believe that there could be an error or a misunderstanding, anecdotes can be relied upon. Unless they have a motivation to lie people are generally reliable when simply describing events ("My child became autistic"). However, it is much more difficult to determine causality and in such cases where there are grounds for doubt, you need science.
"That the data is a closer match confirms the two year time shift is also the correct choice. Your poorly matching correlation coefficients show that the one year time shift is wrong as does the visual match from the graphs."
This quote sums up why you do not understand the scientific method. You argue, and obviously think, that a 2-year time shift is appropriate because it matches your theory better. That isn't science, that is circular reasoning.
As to your questions about ages, again you seem to misunderstand. The vaccination programme targets children when they turn 1-year old i.e. 1 year 0 months, but, the period of routine vaccination continues up until the end of the second year (i.e. until 2 years 0 months. Therefore there is a skewed distribution, with most children vaccinated at around 1 year 0 months, and the number vaccinated throughout that year decreasing to be the lowest at around 2 years 0 months. I couldn't say exactly what the average age would therefore be, but something like 15 months wouldn't seem unreasonable. So, if you wanted to be rough and ready you could assume 18 months, average the 1-year and 2-year shifted vaccination rates, and you'd get a slightly larger correlation coefficient (say .6) that would not be statistically significant. What you could never do is a 2-year shift because "the data is a closer match".
Incidentally, this approach ignores children older than 2 years, but then we're into some difficulties with differential catch-up rates over the vaccine cycle (e.g. probably more catch-ups after the MMR scare, which would decrease the correlation) and the decreasing vulnerability to autism with increasing age of vaccination (by which I mean that the risk of developing autism after vaccination is much lower in a 6-year old because they've already passed the risk period, in Honda almost all had autism by 5). But unfortunately we don't have the data to address that (i.e. the two peaks aren't reproduced).
You are right that national data isn't necessarily a good fit for local vaccination rates - but I'm afraid you don't get around that by using the vaccination rates from a different locality and just assume they're more accurate (although in this case they seem to follow the national rates pretty closely - as the quote from Miller above points out).
Your speculating about % fits of bits of graphs is irrelevant, and actually undermines your case, because the correlations between vaccination rate and autism rate are driven by the low autism rate early on and the higher autism rate later - they don't follow each other any closer than that.
I don't want to get into a discussion about anecdote versus data particularly, as far as I can see you want to say that as a scientist is reporting what they found in an experiment they are just as reliable as someone reporting an anecdotal experience. Which is true to some extent.
But, it is not the fact of the reporting, but the nature of the experiment or experience that makes it more or less reliable as scientific data.
I'm baffled as to why you're so pleased with yourself over eliding the distinction. Presumably if some bloke tells me his car can fly, you think that's just as good as a bunch of engineers and physicists pointing out that the scientific evidence suggests I may not want to go for a ride with him over that cliff.
It is probably also worth noting that you attack me for misrepresenting John Briffa, yet Briffa is attempting to use Miller's 'critique' to discredit the Honda study.
Honda found no relationship between autism, or autism with regression, and MMR vaccination specifically. This is the hypothesis that has been advanced by most anti-MMR campaigners who claim that there is a specific 'immune overload' from the MMR, and they often advocate single jabs instead. The current 'epidemic' of autism is supposed to have been caused by the introduction of MMR vaccination. The anecdotes of parents supposedly identify a specific gut-regressive autism complex shortly following MMR.
Yet, Miller's argument accepts that Honda found no relationship with MMR, but then argues a whole new post hoc theory that any measles vaccine causes autism (even single jabs which have been used for many years in many countries and no one has ever claimed or noticed an association before), as does another vaccine. Even if you believed Miller's argument it in no way discredits the Honda paper, which is the purpose Briffa intended, because Miller's theory rejects the idea of both the unique deleterious effects of MMR over single jabs, and also (implicitly) the alleged specific association between autism with regression and MMR.
So I am quite right in criticising Briffa because Miller's critique, even if it were correct (which it isn't), has no bearing on whether Honda et al found a relationship between MMR and autism. Therefore it is a misleading obfuscation on Briffa's part that implies he either doesn't understand Honda (and Miller), or he doesn't care because he wants to beat the evidence against an MMR-autism link with any rhetorical stick he can find.
Hi PJ,
JAPANESE DATA
On the graph issue, birth years and the vaccination reporting years are not coterminus. The relevant vaccine uptake reporting period was April to March.
eg. 60-70% of kids born in 1990 were vaccinated during the 1992 reporting year.
And that is why the data fits. The fact the data does fit provides a double check.
EVIDENCE ISSUE
The logical conundrum arises from assuming witness evidence of the guy in the white coat is reliable and all other witness testimony is not.
You don't know what is reliable until you have collected and tested the evidence regardless of who provides it.
One scientist's evidence can be just as unreliable as any other witness's evidence.
It is a leap of faith to substitute for "reliability" assumptions as to reliability. That is not scientific or wise.
anonymous: No-one is accusing the parents of autistic children who believe that their children were damaged by vaccines of lying or being unreliable. I am sure that they sincerely believe it.
The question is whether they are correct that vaccines caused the damage or whether in fact the autism would have happened anyway. This is something which no anecdotal witness testimony can resolve - it requires controlled studies with comparison groups. The best witness in the world could not tell you whether vaccines cause autism.
Woobegone,
Thanks. The issue of causation is much simpler to establish.
Epidemiology forms no part of the assessment. Standard pharmacology and practice in the assessment of adverse drug reactions is all that is required.
The assessment is a clinical issue.
Whilst epidemiolgoy can establish general causation it cannot establish specific causation and the one thing it cannot do is prove A does not cause B.
Hence, all the epidemiolgical studies in this area are useless.
"On the graph issue, birth years and the vaccination reporting years are not coterminus. The relevant vaccine uptake reporting period was April to March.
eg. 60-70% of kids born in 1990 were vaccinated during the 1992 reporting year."
What is your evidence for these claims?
PJ,
This is something you either know or you don't. Check it out yourself.
The Japanese start new vaccination programmes on 1st April, they introduce new or changed vaccination laws 1st April and they calculate their vaccination statistics 1 April to 31 March.
Anyone born in the prior year will be vaccinated during the subsequent year and the stats reported in the year after that.
The numbers vaccinated on and after 1st April will be at least 50% of those born in the prior year. Normal distribution indicates it is unlikely that during 1 January to 31 March as many as 50% will be vaccinated. Vaccination starts on Jan 1. The probability is that more vaccinations occur in the period 1st April to 31 December.
60-70% is a reasonable statistical estimate.
I have no problem if you want to dispute it. The probability that the match between the Kurashiki City data and Yokohama is coincidence is vanishingly small.
Arguing coincidence is not an attractive or convincing approach with the strength of the visual match in the graphical data and the correlation coefficients backing that up.
You are more than welcome to try.
"This is something you either know or you don't. Check it out yourself.
The Japanese start new vaccination programmes on 1st April, they introduce new or changed vaccination laws 1st April and they calculate their vaccination statistics 1 April to 31 March."
How, by magic? I see from Nakatani that the MMR programme was introduced and ended in April, but there is no indication there that statistics would not be based on calendar years.
Dear Anonymous/ Mr. Miller,
You write:"HCN is a well-known autism pandemic denialist [sic]".
Are you implying that there is an "autism pandemic"? Given the WHO define a pandemic as requiring three conditions :
* the emergence of a disease new to the population.
* the agent infects humans, causing serious illness.
* the agent spreads easily and sustainably among humans.
Are you contending that autism is infectious, and spreads "easily and sustainably" among humans?
PJ,
Thanks for the updated graphs of Californian MMR against autism. Here you are again giving us more irrelevant tosh.
You need to update your medical and scientific knowledge.
In the USA the emerging medical and scientific consensus is this is not a one vaccine or even a vaccine only cause issue.
The Japanese data shows us it is not an MMR only issue.
Get up to speed with the real world.
The Hannah Poling case shows this is a multiple vaccine and multiple toxin issue.
The US CDC has even recommended not using Pro-Quad vaccine. Didn't you know that?
The experts’ questions from the CDC telephone conference March 11 with CISA about mitochondrial dysfunction, vaccines and autism included
○ Do we vaccinate children with known MtD sooner? More slowly?
○ Do we develop an efficient test for MtD before vaccination begins?
○ Do we alter schedule somehow, to lower risk of immune over-stimulation in susceptible children?
○ Do we set a maximum number of vaccine exposures on any one day?
○ Do we allow MMR to be separated out, on request of parents?
○ Do we separate MMR from Varicella on same day?.
○ Do we set new limits on kids playing “catch up?”
And subsequently the top vaccine safety research issues the CDC has set are:-
- Is immunization associated with increased risk for neurological in children with deterioration in children with mitochondrial dysfunction?
- Is MMRV vaccine associated with increased febrile seizure risk? [AND THE ANSWER IS YES - SEE ABOVE CDC RECOMMENDATION ON PRO-QUAD]
- Are varicella varicella and MMRV vaccines associated with increased risk for clinically important events related to virus risk reactivation?
- Is thimerosal associated with risk for tics and/or Tourettes Tourettes?
- Is acellular pertussis vaccine associated with risk for acute neurological events?
So just how many kids around the world are you aiming on ensuring get autism, ADHD, tics, asthma, allergies and all the rest?
Your unscientific approach and closed mind is a testament to the genius of stupidity.
How about going back to stamp collecting, model cars or train spotting?
No need to reply.
"Your unscientific approach and closed mind is a testament to the genius of stupidity."
Nice. I think that has put the 2008 Dunning-Kruger prize for irony in the bag. Beyond even Dr Briffa's reach.
plh
Dear Anonymous/ Mr. Miller,
I hate to badger you, but I'm utterly intrigued. To repeat my question:
"Are you contending that autism is infectious, and spreads "easily and sustainably" among humans?"
Further, might it not be appropriate to answer some on the criticisms made of your reasoning prior to introducing new - and apparently entirely random - information?
Best wishes
Political Scientist
Yawn. No one prepared to respond to the facts - how tedious.
Yawn. Still working on it PJ? Or should I say jdc or clara?.
What is the next gem?
You've constantly changed your position as your previous ones are proved wrong, and, as Political Scientist intimates, failed to answer the highly pertinent questions directed to you.
So no one is going to respond to your latest barrage of irrelevant points. We're bored of you.
Hey PJ,
Anonymous answered all your issues. You are the one who failed to answer.
Answer the criticisms of your position.
John Smith
Talking about yourself in the third person? Bad sign mental health wise.
I thought the debate was progressing well despite pj's apparently inability to produce data out of Japan (no pj, the WHO is not a Japanese organisation, it's not even a UN organisation, it's basically a private company is it not - so why rely on data out of a private company when the Japanese have their own publicly accountable data from which to extract the salient points for anonymous?). Nevertheless your arguments were well formed albeit short on original data.
Unfortunately the unpleasant unevidenced attacks - let's face it they didn't even muster reason -on anonymous by HCN, Colmcq, political scientist and the like spoiled a good show.
Any data-based responses to rebut the compelling arguments of anonymous yet guys?
It would be poor form to attack Briffa AND anonymous without data-based argument on the same blog.
Dear Anonymous/ Mr. Miller,
I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Perhaps I can explain myself better. You describe HCN as a "pandemic denialist [sic]". As a pandemic is (still) defined as requiring three conditions :
* the emergence of a disease new to the population.
* the agent infects humans, causing serious illness.
* the agent spreads easily and sustainably among humans;
this raises the question:
"Are you contending that autism is infectious, and spreads "easily and sustainably" among humans?"
Best wishes
Political Scientist
Dear Mr. Smith,
"Unfortunately the unpleasant unevidenced [sic] attacks - let's face it they didn't even muster reason -on anonymous by HCN, Colmcq, political scientist and the like spoiled a good show."
I've just re-read this entire comment thread, and I'm afraid I can't find where I "attacked" anonymous - let alone "unpleasant" or "evidenced" "attacks" which "didn't even muster reason [sic]".
Could you refer me to the comment where I did so, please?
Best wishes,
Political Scientist
"no pj, the WHO is not a Japanese organisation, it's not even a UN organisation, it's basically a private company is it not"
Not. It is "the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system".
"so why rely on data out of a private company when the Japanese have their own publicly accountable data from which to extract the salient points"
So what is this Japanese data that differs from what the WHO reports as the Japanese government "Official country estimates" or what Nakatani et al report is from the Japanese "Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare"?
It is interesting to note that anonymous's last claim about Japan was that when they report data for vaccinatipn coverage in (say) 2002 the actual period covered is April 2001 - March 2002, which would be a very odd system indeed (since only 3 of those months are even in 2002) but when challenged seemed curiously unwilling to support this bizarre claim.
John also makes bizarre claims divorced from any factual basis suggesting that he is in fact 'anonymous', forced to register as 'john' because I turned off anonymous comments. So he ought to lay off the third person references. I'm still not sure whether he is Miller though.
For pj
I think the apt word is (and I highlighted it in red for your benefit) autonomous.
from Wikipedia………
Specialized agencies
The specialized agencies are autonomous organizations working with the United Nations and each other through the coordinating machinery of the Economic and Social Council.
· ILO - International Labour Organization
· FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization
· UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
· WHO - World Health Organization
· World Bank Group
For political scientist
"I've just re-read this entire comment thread, and I'm afraid I can't find where I "attacked" anonymous - let alone "unpleasant" or "evidenced" "attacks" which "didn't even muster reason [sic]".
I’m not sure which ‘Mr Smith’ you refer to, as it was I who made the comments. I will respond.
Your
“Further, might it not be appropriate to answer some on the criticisms made of your reasoning prior to introducing new - and apparently entirely random – information”
‘Attacks’ anonymous by suggesting he/she is not acting appropriately.
You ‘fail to evidence’ that attack.
Accusing one of failing to act appropriately is an ‘unpleasant’ act.
Your
“Are you contending that autism is infectious, and spreads "easily and sustainably" among humans?”
Appears not to ‘muster reason’ – where does anonymous suggest that autism is infectious?
"I think the apt word is (and I highlighted it in red for your benefit) autonomous."
No, in response to your claim that:
"the WHO is not...even a UN organisation"
The appropriate word is 'UN', I've highlighted it for you in this quote from the wikipedia entry:
"The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that acts as a coordinating authority on international public health."
John
wrote at 11 June 2008 17:32:00 BST
"I’m not sure which ‘Mr Smith’ you refer to, as it was I who made the comments. I will respond."
Which was rather strange, as John
had written at 09 June 2008 21:26:00 BST signed himself
"John Smith".
Are you in fact different people? How curious that you choose the exactly same name as a previous commentator. Why, it's as if you were the same person...
pj
The WHO is an agency, it is not of the UN, it has a relationship with the UN as is the World Bank; it is no more UN than is the World Bank; it is autonomous, has its own constitution and is ordered by its own Assembly. It has no control over UN activities nor has the UN control over WHO activities – other than that through the UN requiring the WHO to adhere to certain UN process/policy (as would any group which sought to have a relationship with a corporation, it has to adhere to certain rules and regulations) to remain in said relationship.
The UN does not in any way organise the WHO and vice versa.
http://www.who.int/governance/eb/constitution/en/index.html
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter9.htm
Article 57
1. The various specialized agencies, established by intergovernmental agreement and having wide international responsibilities, as defined in their basic instruments, in economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related fields, shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 63.
2. Such agencies thus brought into relationship with the United Nations are hereinafter referred to as specialized agencies.
Article 63
1. The Economic and Social Council may enter into agreements with any of the agencies referred to in Article 57, defining the terms on which the agency concerned shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations. Such agreements shall be subject to approval by the General Assembly.
2. It may co-ordinate the activities of the specialized agencies through consultation with and recommendations to such agencies and through recommendations to the General Assembly and to the Members of the United Nations.
"John" [who should not be confused with John Smith, or anonymous] has claimed that I [1] make an "unevidenced" "attack" on anonymous which [2] doesn't even "muster reason[sic]". Addressing these points in turn:
[1]"John"'s evidence for my "attack "on anonymous consists of quoting:
“Further, might it not be appropriate to answer some on the criticisms made of your reasoning prior to introducing new - and apparently entirely random – information”
although strangely omitting the question mark at the end.
I fear you he is confusing an "attack" with a "polite request phrased as a question using the subjunctive mood and a modal verb".
I would say this is a common mistake, but it is not.
[2] John also writes:
“Are you contending that autism is infectious, and spreads "easily and sustainably" among humans?”
Appears not to ‘muster reason’ – where does anonymous suggest that autism is infectious?
As anonymous contends that there is
an "autism pandemic" [which, for those who can't face ploughing through the entire comment thread, occurs at 04 June 2008 07:35:00 BST], and as a pandemic (still) require three conditions :
* the emergence of a disease new to the population.
* the agent infects humans, causing serious illness.
* the agent spreads easily and sustainably among humans.
then if you claim there is an "autism pandemic", you must also believe that autism spreads "easily and sustainably among humans"
I don't know what "muster reason" means, but clearly it is reasonable to ask if anonymous
"Are you contending that autism is infectious, and spreads "easily and sustainably" among humans?"
As I did twice, but was not favoured with an answer.
"the WHO is not...even a UN organisation"
"The WHO is an agency, it is not of the UN"
So, according to john/anonymous, all UN agencies, including the WHO, and, say, UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) have nothing to do with the UN!
"`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'"
pj
or should I direct this to Humpty Dumpty?
"One of the recent major objects of cooperation between UN and WHO is the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These goals represent the focal point of the UN system's action in development. They have been agreed by heads of State and Government in 2000, and since then, the UN and its specialised agencies have been working towards their achievement. In particular, the WHO is involved because MDGs are strictly related to health. For this reason, the WHO has been called to cooperate with the UN on these fundamental directions of work.
The independence, that the WHO has from the UN, is guaranteed by the UN Charter which delegates to it certain 'international responsibilities' in the field of health. The outstanding autonomy of the WHO is shown by the careful analysis of its Constitution, of the current corporate strategy and of the proposed programme budget 2002-2003, which will follow in the third chapter of this second part. Further ensuring this independence is the fact that the Director-General of the WHO is not appointed by the UN Secretary-General, like in other specialised agencies, but by the members of the EB. The Secretariat itself also possesses a high level of independence in choosing the means to carry out the assigned work[20].....
If the mandate of the WHO is determined by its nature as a specialised agency of the UN, it will be partly influenced by the UN main directions of work, and it will partly maintain its own independence. The right balance between these two aspects has to be found so as not to misinterpret WHO's mandate..
"the mandate of the WHO is determined by its nature as a specialised agency of the UN"
Clearly proving that:
"the WHO is not...even a UN organisation"
It must be interesting in your world!
pj suggests that
"the mandate of the WHO is determined by its nature as a specialised agency of the UN"
means that the WHO is a UN organisation
whereas john states that it clearly means that the WHO is a specialised agency of the UN, it is not a UN organisation as it does not exist as part of the UN per se but as an 'add on' through its 'special relationship with the UN. It has its own constitution, selects its own staff and executive, formulates its own policies and practices, develops its own budgets, is independent of the Un in all things it wishes to be, it does not require approval of the UN except if it engages in acts (is 'subcontratced' in effect)that are controlled by the UN -the UN has no authority over the WHO nor vice versa; the WHO chooses to utilise practices and principles that accord with the way the UN does its business, as it wishes to align itself closely with the UN for its own sake, not for the global population nor for the UN, that's how it maintains prestige as a UN specialised agency under UN charter. That is analogous to an agency such as the British Psychological Society that holds a Royal Charter - providing for it to be a specialised (psychology) agency by 'Royal' Charter, it is not a Royal organisation.
Why would pj wish to declare that the WHO is a UN organisation when the WHO needs to bear no allegience to the UN if it so wishes?
Why would pj fail to respond to anonymous' clear points on the Briffa attacks and Honda/Rutter debacle?
political scientist
There are other derivations of the concept of pandemic...not least
ep·i·dem·ic ( p -d m k) also ep·i·dem·i·cal (- -k l)
adj.
1. Spreading rapidly and extensively by infection and affecting many individuals in an area or a population at the same time: an epidemic outbreak of influenza.
2. Widely prevalent: epidemic discontent.
3. An outbreak of a contagious disease that spreads rapidly and widely.
4. A rapid spread, growth, or development: an unemployment epidemic.
pandemic - epidemic over a wide geographical area; "a pandemic outbreak of malaria"
epidemic - (especially of medicine) of disease or anything resembling a disease; attacking or affecting many individuals in a community or a population simultaneously; "an epidemic outbreak of influenza"
pandemic - existing everywhere; "pandemic fear of nuclear war" general - applying to all or most members of a category or group; "the general public"; "general assistance"; "a general rule"; "in general terms"; "comprehensible to the general reader"
I think anonymous' use of the word pandemic was unreasonably attacked by you - autism has indeed reached pandemic proportions - and vaccinations are probably one of the, if not the, most credible causes of that pandemic.
The latest paper by Geier et al (2008), using the US VSD data, adds inevitable weight to the already tremendously compelling chain of evidence demonstrating the vaccine links to autism and numerous other pandemic childhood neurological disorders.
Until politicians and scientists are capable of the kind of integrity required to admit children have been failed by vaccine theory and practices, the globe will see ever increasing numbers of dead and damaged children blighting future generations.
John/john Smith/ john stone/anonymous
"There are other derivations of the concept of pandemic...not least"
Derivations?
political scientist
I thought you'd fall for that red herring - it was created to emphasise my point that you and the others on this blog really have nothing positive to offer - especially when your negative points are readily rebutted by anonymous and myself.
Where was your rebuttal of my point that you so readily attacked anonymous with a definition of pandemic that ignored colloquial use of the term?
What does it take to have you people admit failure, and use your obvious creative - albeit oft misguided - talents to safeguard children from the ravages of the destructive vaccines?
"Where was your rebuttal of my point that you so readily attacked anonymous with a definition of pandemic that ignored colloquial use of the term?"
Attack?
political scientist
I see you are still, as pj and the others, avoiding the issue of responding with sensible evidenced material on Briffa and anonymous' data.
for "Attack" I suggest you refer to your oracle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack
with particular reference to
Attack, a journalese word for "criticise"
"sensible evidenced material on Briffa and anonymous' data."
are you using "sensible" and "evidenced" in the "colloquial" sense?
Both
yawn
Post a Comment