UK "Faked" National Autism Data To Declare MMR Vaccine "Safe"
Posted on February 10, 2010 by johndstone http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/uksurveyautismlink/ UK children are nearly 5 times more likely to have autistic conditions than adults according to the results of the first ever UK government survey to assess the numbers of adults with the condition: ["Autism Spectrum Disorders in adults living in households throughout England - Report from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007" The NHS Information Centre.] But the British public were told instead that the survey shows rates in adults and children have always been the same so that that vaccines like MMR cannot be to blame for the increasing rates in children. The UK National Health Service funded the survey and made these claims. Survey Authors Couldn't Find Enough Adult Autistics There were early rumours in 2008 the authors could not find numbers of adult ASC cases matching numbers in children. The survey failed to find a single case of an adult with "typical" or "classic" autism, found in approximately 30% of ASC children. "Typical" or "classic" autism is a type of ASC controversially claimed in 1998 might be associated with the MMR vaccine. The authors also failed to find sufficient adult ASC cases overall - just 19 in 7,451 adults, being "higher functioning" ASCs - mainly Asperger's Syndrome. This represents an overall rate of just under 1 in 300 potential adult cases and not the officially claimed 1 in 100 for children. The authors say that if they had carried out the survey differently they might have found four times as many adults - a further 46 or 47 ASC cases to come up with the same figure as for children. Using already estimated data they claimed to be able estimate-on-the-estimate that the adult autism rate for the entire UK is the same as in children [1 in 100]. The survey's original design meant it was highly unlikely any cases would be "missed" and instead that cases would be over-estimated. This calls into question the authors' claims to be able to estimate such a large number of "missed" cases. The survey design was broadly based. An unlikely 72% of the adult participants were selected as potentially having one of four mental illnesses [rather than just ASC]. The study was also designed so that those most likely to have an ASC were interviewed and those unlikely to were excluded. Whilst designed to estimate the maximum number, the survey as published was also based solely on data for Asperger's Syndrome from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007 and not other ASCs. That is not what the NHS has been telling the media and public. The study authors stated in their prior May 2008 news release that there were to be two surveys in their study, the second to cover other ASCs: University of Leicester to lead audit of adults with autism Eurekalert 9-May-2008. But neither the media nor the public were told by the NHS that the second survey had not been carried out and that no data from it was included in the final survey report. It is not credible that for none of the other psychiatric conditions in the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007 it seems was it considered necessary to "estimate" "missed" cases - and particularly not an unusually high 3 out of four cases. The data used is the identical data collected from the identical subjects by the same people at the same time as part of and using the identical study design. And therefore also the prevalence of ASCs in adults cannot be 1% in any event and also cannot be the same as in children [also contrary to the public claims made by the NHS]. On the basis of the results so far the NHS would have had to claim the prevalence of ASCs in adults is substantially greater than in children and it would have to explain how that could be. Details of how the missed Aspergers cases were estimated were not provided. None appear in the survey report to show how the authors calculated this to arrive at an estimated overall adult ASC prevalence figure of 1 in 100. The NHS also needs to explain of how it came to issue a news release claiming this survey was of the prevalence of adults with ASCs when it is not. This appears to show that the NHS funded a survey report, assured the Statistics Authority of its validity as "national statistics" when even the title of the report is not accurate and then used it in the media and in public to bolster a policy position when not justified in doing so. The explanation given of the calculation of "missed cases" appears to be that of all potential cases of adults with ASCs identified by telephone interview only 630 were selected for interview. The researchers then estimated what they thought they would have found if they interviewed all "potential cases" and multiplied up the 19 cases found to arrive at 73. Difficulties with this include the remarkably high numbers of adults identified as "potential" ASC cases - more than one in every two adults - or half [ie. 2,854 adults out of a possible 5,329 eligible for consideration]. This demonstrates the inaccuracy of the probabilities the researchers assigned to potential ASC cases and in particular the bias to substantially over estimating the potential numbers of ASC cases. This is compounded by only 19 cases being found in those deemed most likely to have an ASC and selected for interview. The estimate of 1 in 100 is also based on what appear the very same and remarkably inaccurate "probabilities" for selection devised by the researchers. This does not appear scientific. It is also compounded by the same researchers claiming wrongfully that their results are for all adults with ASCs when the documented facts show the data was collected for potential Asperger Syndrome cases only. [Added 16/Feb/2010] Autism In Children Already Higher Than 1 in 100 A further problem with the survey is that two recent formal peer reviewed journal published studies have found the rate in children is not 1 in 100 but much higher. A 2006 study [Baird] found a rate in children of 1 in 85 and a recently published study by Baron-Cohen et al of 2005 data found a rate of ASC's in children of 1 in 64 when children not yet diagnosed were taken into account. This gives a rate of ASC in children 5 times higher than the 1 in 300 indicated by the survey's results. Neither of these studies are mentioned in the survey although members of the same team were involved in the Baron-Cohen study, and Professor Baron-Cohen was a consultant to the survey. Impossible for Adult ASC Rate to Be Same as Childrens' The authors inexplicably also fail to explain how their estimate of ASC rates in adults is the same as in children when their results show ASC rates in adults and children are significantly different:- * Aspergers Syndrome rates in adults on these results are 40% higher than in children; * correspondingly Aspergers Syndrome cases in children compared to adults would have to have substantially decreased for this to be so; * the rate of "classic" autism has leapt from zero in adults to 30% of ASC cases in children; * adults with "classic" autism do not exist. Identical Figures - A Remarkable Coincidence The addition of the authors' hypothetical "estimated" cases provides exactly the same rate of 1 in 100 previously accepted for children. This is despite the authors themselves warning the results should be approached with caution because of the inaccuracies. In such circumstances if rates were the same then a similar figure might be expected but not exactly the same one. The 1% figure for children was stated in pre publicity announcing the start of survey: University of Leicester to lead audit of adults with autism Eurekalert 9-May-2008. "Author bias" in favour of finding a pre-determined figure favourable to the study funder is a well-known phenomenon in formal medical literature. Breaching the codes of practice prohibiting the release of national statistics for government policy purposes the UK National Health Service's publicity put out to the media on publication of the survey focussed on claiming ASC rates in adults and children were identical and that therefore the MMR vaccine did not cause ASCs. This was not the stated purpose of the survey and the authors make no mention of the vaccine-autism issue. Media stories included: Autism rates back MMR jab safety Michelle Roberts BBC Tuesday, 22 September 2009 and Autism just as common in adults, so MMR is in the clear Sarah Boseley The Guardian Tuesday 22 September 2009. Survey Does Not Live Up To Its Title The survey was originally announced to establish the UK adult autism rate for the first time by finding what were then being claimed to be "missed" adult cases of autism. -------------------------------------------------------- Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath Vaccination Information & Choice Network, vaccinedangers@gmail.com voicemail US 530-740-0561 Vaccines - http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccineclass.htm Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo2.htm
0 comments:
Post a Comment