Yet the antivaccinationists are happy to use Wakefield's study as fact, without any support.
Go post your editorials and abstracts all you want.
OK. Here's Dr. Taylor's response to the criticism of his study.
Response to the MMR question
Raymond Gallup (July 8, p 161)2 dismisses our findings on the grounds that they are biased, since some of the authors are employed by a public-health authority. Such dismissal is absurd and insulting, especially in view of our record in identifying other adverse events attributable to MMR.4 His implication that we have something to hide by not immediately handing over our data to a US Congressional Committee is similarly ill informed. Ethical and legal issues surrounding patient confidentiality, data ownership, and data protection must be resolved before we could agree to such a request. Gallup asserts, without explanation, that our methods were flawed. We presume that he is quoting the false testimony that Andrew Wakefield gave to the US Congressonal Hearing on Autism and Immunisation on April 6, 2000, alleging that the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) had pronounced our methods to be wrong. This claim is totally unfounded, and Wakefield should withdraw it.
J H Roger (July 8, p 161)2 states that we used the wrong study design. This is a serious criticism, and we are surprised that he did not voice it at the RSS meeting he describes. We reject his allegation since he unreasonably criticises us for not setting out to test a hypothesis that had not been formulated. The data that generated the Wakefield hypothesis suggest an interval of 24 h to 2 months between MMR and first behavioural symptoms, typically regression.1 This finding is supported by parental reports as typified by that of David Thrower (July 8, p 161).2 It therefore seemed imperative to test the hypothesis that there was a close temporal association between MMR and regression and other markers of autism. Our methods were entirely appropriate for this purpose.
Roger implies that we should have used a case-control design. We compared first-dose MMR-vaccine coverage in autism cases born after 1987 and in the denominator population: this design is akin to an unmatched case-control study, with the entire population as controls. The groups did not differ. Moreover, coverage was constant when autism incidence was apparently rising. These findings provide further evidence that the very large reported increases in autism quoted by Thrower and Gallup cannot reasonably be attributed to MMR vaccine.
Roger states that the case-series method is unsuitable for investigating longer-term associations. In this instance, at least, it is not. In response to his reformulation of the Wakefield hypothesis to accommodate longer induction times, we did new analyses of our data. The results are negative, providing no support for the hypothesis that MMR increases the risk of autism at any time after vaccination.
Finally, Roger wrongly states that regression occurred typically 6 months after parental concern. Of the 93 cases with the two dates recorded, parental concern predated regression in only 21. The median intervals from concern to diagnosis we quoted4,5 are incorrect; the correct values are 19 months for core autism (n=198), 18·5 for atypical autism (n=100), and 48 for Asperger's syndrome (n=47).
At the RSS meeting, Roger began his talk by giving a moving personal account of what it is like to be a parent of a child with autism. We strongly endorse his and other parents' calls for more research into the cause of this disorder. However, those who, in the absence of any evidence of causality, condemn a vaccine that has saved countless children from premature death and disability, do no service to children, parents, or health professionals seeking to understand the causes of this distressing disorder.
*Brent Taylor, Elizabeth Miller, C Paddy Farrington
*Centre for Community Child Health, Royal Free Campus, Royal Free and University College Medical School, University College London, London NW3 2QG, UK; Immunisation Division, Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, London; and Department of Statistics, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes (e-mail:b.taylor@rfc.ucl.ac.uk)
1 Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998; 351: 637-41.
2 The MMR question. Lancet 2000; 356: 160-62.
3 Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington CP, et al. Autism and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal assocation. Lancet 1999; 353: 2026-29.
4 Miller E, Goldacre M, Pugh S, et al. Risk of aseptic meningitis after measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in UK children. Lancet 1993; 341: 979-82.
5 Farrington P, Pugh S, Colville A, et al. A new method for active surveillance of adverse events from diphtheria/tetanus/ pertussis and measles/mumps/rubella vaccines. Lancet 1995; 345: 567-69.
LOL. Well, I'll wait patiently for you to post the CRITICISM of Taylor's study from multiple sources, including that of Dr. Wakefield which was published in Lancet. I'm sure that's coming shortly.