MMR vaccine, 1 additional febrile seizure every 3,000 kids

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, toddlers have seizures every once in the while, and usually the kiddo is just fine. It's no big deal. But with high fever and/or seizure, it stands to reason that some kids could have brain damage and autism like symptoms. (The brain damage hypothesis, that one cause of autism is brain damage from various causes)

I am pro-vaccine. What I'm trying to do is to help build the middle ground of sensible, responsible people. Yes, vaccines are good, but like anything else there are some risks which people should be aware of.

In the following, MMR is Measles, Mumps, Rubella,

and MMRV is Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella (chickenpox).

So, one conclusion, get the MMR and the varicella vaccines separately! Put the odds even more in your favor.

Again, I am pro-vaccine (and a malaria vaccine would be a tremendous boon to the human race). I am also pro-being honest with people and trying to build a sensible middle. I personally have gotten an influenza vaccine three out of four of the last years.

Last edited by AardvarkGoodSwimmer on 26 Apr 2013, 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Please note: This CDC webpage references a single New England Journal of Medicine article from 2001. So yes, it may now be somewhat dated information.

Hey, I just wanted to say that it's nice to see someone else who wants to look at the facts and compare the risks and benefits instead of being a fundamentalist about it (either way).

I wonder if vaccines might be yet another thing kids on the spectrum are more sensitive to than NT kids. What I mean is, maybe a kid who was mildly autistic/aspie has a reaction like this and develops more severe symptoms, making the parents think the vaccine "made him autistic". That would only make sense if the regressive cases also had the "autism genes" as often as other autistics, and I'm not sure whether that's known.

Thanks for the nice compliment. And yes, that's my goal, to not be fundamentalist about it either way.

I'm going to ask a moderator to move this to the Parents' Discussion. Even though this may now be somewhat dated information, I do think parents have a right to know.

[Moved from Autism Politics, Activism, and Media Representation to Parents' Discussion]

First of all, is there evidence that separating the vaccines reduces the likelihood of febrile seizures?

I do appreciate looking at the evidence and not being fundamentalist about things - but you do realize that 1 in 3000 are the same as the odds of being hit by lightning - and that febrile seizures are actually fairly common during childhood any time there is a fever (most often, when babies catch the flu.) I am disinclined that this constitutes good evidence to support changing the vaccination policy.

The Vaccine controversies have been one of my special interests over the last couple of years. I have collected facts and figures along the way and have come to a similar conclusion you present here.

I am still collecting information on the pros and cons, that I provide in a very long blog post linked below.

The evidence is heavily stacked for vaccines; however, the real small risks involved and potential risk factor of vulnerability must be fairly addressed, if there is any hope to influence those people who feel like there is some type of government conspiracy involved.

My interest also lies in how the original Wakefield research, in 1998, presented only a possible association of an environmental trigger and developmental regression, in a small subgroup of 12 children studied.

Developmental Regression alone, is not Autism. It is associated with several other childhood conditions.

15 years later the media and even some respected 100% Pro vaccine individuals continue to spread a myth that the original 1998 research suggested an actual link between MMR and Autism. I document all those facts from resources in my blog post, linked below.

I have not been able to convince even Pro-Vaccine individuals to stop spreading that myth.

The problem some people cannot see is that the New England Journal of Medicine identifies a subgroup of individuals in the general population that are more vulnerable to government conspiracy theories than some others.

When "reputable" people continue to suggest that Wakefield's original research suggested an Actual link with Autism, and Wakefield denies that on the "Alex Jones type media", the facts are on Wakefield's side, per his actual 1998 research, which can be found in a simple Wiki search.

The same organization that officially finally retracted the statement of a suggestion of a possible association between an environmental trigger (MMR) and developmental regression, in the small subgroup of children studied, also released an official statement at the same time that there was no actual suggestion of link between Autism and Vaccines in that research.

Those conflicting reports have been a steady source of government conspiracy associated with vaccines, for over 15 years now.

There is evidence that Wakefield used his research to warrant a level of caution, in a press conference 15 years ago, in moving back to the "single jab" Measles Vaccine, that was potentially influenced by the possibility of material gain.

However, it is the global media and the global target audience of media that has spread this myth about the actual 1998 research that continues to this day in reputable news sources like the "BBC".

I have to give the "Guardian" credit for recently only suggested a possibility of link of Autism and Vaccines in the since retracted1998 research, as opposed to a suggestion of an actual link in that research.

When these debates happen in the media over this issue, it is often Wakefield that continues to get all the focus as the devil incarnate to some and a hero to others, while the facts are left out in the cold.

There is solid research, now in a study of several thousand individuals across the spectrum that suggests the possibility that GI illness may actually be part of a syndrome associated with the spectrum, as it has been identified in 25% of individuals on the spectrum in that study and identified in up to 70% of individuals in a smaller subgroup on the spectrum, in another study.

I do not think that most parents of children on the spectrum fall into what the New England Journal of Medicine describes as those vulnerable to government conspiracy theories.

However, there is a real correlation that is often seen when these children fall ill after vaccines, who are more vulnerable to the already identified side effects of high fever and febrile seizure.

One point of note is that the CDC officially recommends that children should be vaccinated separately before age 4 with the MMR and the Varicella vaccine, because they do identify and recognize that100% greater risk of febrile seizures.

I also link 2012 research from the Kaiser Vaccine Center in my blog post, or in the link to the vaccine debate, I provide in my blog post, which I was involved in on a "science" orientated website, associated with this issue.

I could not convince a major Pro Vaccine, and Wakefield opponent to change the incorrect wording he has been using that the 1998 research suggested Vaccines are linked to Autism.

It is almost like the heavier shaming of Wakefield is more important than amplifying the actual point that there is no peer reviewed and published research, to date, that actually suggets a link between the actual disorder of Autism and Vaccines, including Wakefield's research.

Well, I guess that was still like a blog post here, but if anyone is interested in getting at the details of the facts of this issue, the blog post below, related links of evidence that people usually do not consider when discussing this issue, and related discussion on the website I link to is of "short story size", instead of blog size, in totality.

This 15 year old global media vaccine controversy, with new broad band avenue of global debate, is fascinating to me as it goes much farther than the vaccines and this controversy alone.

It is also a reflection of how global connections in information and discussion, can create unwarranted mass hysteria, amplifying information that never really existed, like gossip that spreads from one side of the room to the other, in a family reunion.

The United States maintained herd immunity through the course of this entire controversy, as people were lost in 9/11 concerns here, and everything associated with that event, along with all the the other competing factors of interest in the media here. Herd immunity has remained consistently close to 95% in the assessed population, as reported by the CDC.

However, in the UK this was a headliner for over a decade in the BBC, Guardian, and particularly tabloid journalism like the "Daily Mail" that is much more popular and respected there, than what one might see with a "National Enquirer" here.

The result, in part, was a loss of herd immunity in the 80 percentile range and lower in some localities in Europe.

Wakefield had a role in this issue, in that 1998 press conference of a caution to move back to single jab measles vaccination, which he continued presenting as a concern and still does, but the global media and the target audience is what has made the difference in generating myths associated with this issue, and the original 1998 research that not even Wakefield agrees with.

http://katiemiaaghogday.blogspot.com/20 ... iated.html

Yes, and it is currently already the official recommendation of caution by the CDC. The evidence from 2012 is linked here:

http://www.dor.kaiser.org/external/news ... _Ages_4-6/

Recommendation from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/com ... qs-hcp.htm



The FDA still approves MMRV before age 4, and the CDC supports a choice when people choose not to follow their recommendation of caution.

I think more than anything else, this is proof that the CDC takes the risks and side effects of vaccines very seriously. CDC policies to date, provide no real concern of conspiracy per government supported coverups. which some people do think is part of this issue.

Fair enough - although (while I'm not a medical doctor) those odds still seem awfully long to me. However, if changes are made that keep immunity up I suppose it doesn't matter. (My husband is a paramedic and has seen the direct effects of our town losing herd immunity.)

The vaccine issue was stirred up again by the recent NYT article on Temple Grandin. I think this is a good response: http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2013/ ... nd-autism/

1 out of 3,000 still kind of jumps out at me. I would have guessed more like one out of several hundred thousand.

As far as what might cause (some) cases of autism, I might look for some funky autoimmune something, say roughly analagous to PANDAS.

Some doctors are skeptical about the whole thing, reasoning that kids get strep all the time and OCD comes and goes anyway, so of course you're going to have some stunning coincidences.

==================

I still think it's valid to draw a distinction between kids who seem to develop autism in rapid fashion vs. kids who seem to have had autism all along.

The problem is that often (not always, of course - I am generalizing) recent medical research does not go beyond finding correlations. Correlation does not mean causation, and it just isn't good science: it only offers a starting point.

For instance, there was a recent study that noticed a correlation between autism and gut flora. I happen to follow the American Society of Microbiology on social media and there was a lot of hubbub about this study. I asked if the study had done any screening to ensure that the often peculiar diets of the autistic children in the study had been controlled for...and received a somewhat sheepish no. Diet affects gut flora, and therefore needs to be controlled for in any study about it.

I read the article, and while I don't agree with Temple Grandin's recommendation addressed on her website last week that parents may consider not vaccinating their children with MMR, until age 5, if they have items on a list of what she considers genetic vulnerabilities, I think the author of that piece failed to make an effort to do simple research to check and see that Temple Grandin has been essentially saying this since 2010 in her Wall Street Journal interview after Wakefield's 1998 research was retracted, and her similar viewpoint had been listed on her website for a considerable amount of time that includes that more unsettling recommendation to consider not vaccinating with MMR until age 5, per the vulnerabilities she listed on her website.

The problem is no where did Temple Grandin suggest that GI problems are the issue in any of the text on her website or the interview in the WSJ and NYT.

The Author of that piece brings up research associated with MMR, that is not the research that Grandin was indicating, in the NYT, she was asking the research scientist about.

It has already been identified as close to impossible to do research on children with developmental regression specific to speech loss among children on the spectrum, and these very rare side effects, because the number of children reported with the problems are too small per epidemiological sample in the general population to even properly study the issue.

She only refers to fevers and wailing, which is within the parameters of the identified side effects of MMR, by the CDC.

She may have been making a logical jump that since MMRV has a higher risk than MMR before age 5, that M would be less risky than MMR before age 5 also.

The CDC does not provide that information, and as far as I know there is no research on febrile seizures indicating a Significant Severe Side Effect with the Measles Vaccine alone, beyond the moderate risk of fevers, and very rare risks of seizures and brain damage, that are identified in something like 1 in a Million cases with MMR.

MMRV per about a 1 in 1500 risk of febrile seizures overall, under age 4, is not nearly the risk of the disease of Measles in an otherwise healthy child.

The CDC would never offer a MMR plus V alternative recommendation over MMRV, if there was no other option, under age 5, for vaccination.

The CDC and other global health organizations have to consider herd immunity as the overall goal, and cost-benefit of all available vaccination options.

There is an identified Socio-Economic and Psychological issue where some people will seek or accept vaccinations with one visit to a healthcare professional over the option of three separate visits, which in some cases might otherwise never happen.

If there is a slightly higher risk of MMR over M, before age 5, the overall caution that Temple Grandin was suggesting is not warranted by the scientific information that currently exists.

It is generally accepted in Science that the Mumps and Rubella single antigen shots have less potential side effects than the Measles Vaccination alone.

I more often see people jumping to conclusions that are not warranted, than any time in the past in my lifetime, in media. This too is a newer phenomenon that comes with a shorter attention span of the general public.

It is amazing to me that of those that were calling her out in the media, that none of them appeared to have taken the time to type in Templegrandin.com, to get a clarification on what she said in the NYT article.

Since 8 days ago, all the information from her website associated with vaccines are gone as far as I can find any associated information, so apparently she may have identified that was not an appropriate recommendation to make on her website.

It will be interesting to see what is described in her book, the "Autistic Brain", marked for release in a few days.

As far as gut flora in (some) cases of autism, here's a link to UK's newsweekly The Economist.

And, yes, probably just a correlation at this time. Establishing causation (if it's there to be established) would probably require animal studies.

========

As far as being on the spectrum myself, I think I like to look at it as both a disability and a difference. I want to be accepted and appreciated for the human being I am.

You would have to combine this figure with the percentage of seizures that cause harm to measure the true impact of the vaccine.

Another point to consider is whether the children would have had a seizure in the near future (triggered by an infection etc.). In this case the vaccination would merely brought forward the seizure.

Finally a full scale infection (which would have been prevented by the vaccination) in childhood would have a far more serious impact on the child, possibly triggering a more serious seizure that would be more likely to cause autism etc.