Aucun lien n'est prouvé entre la vaccination et l'autisme

De Wikidébats
Aller à : navigation, rechercher


Sous-arguments

Il y a un consensus scientifique sur l'absence de lien

La cohorte de Vaccine (2016) fait actuellement consensus au sein de la communauté scientifique.

Cela est reconnu même par de grandes associations de soutien aux autistes et des associations internationales indépendantes luttant contre Big Pharma

Même de grandes associations de soutien aux autistes (https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism) et des associations internationales indépendantes luttant contre Big Pharma (http://www.cochrane.org/CD004407/ARI_using-combined-vaccine-protection-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella) croient en l'absence de lien entre le ROR et l'autisme.

Etudes scientifiques

Vaccine (2016)

« There has been enormous debate regarding the possibility of a link between childhood vaccinations and the subsequent development of autism. This has in recent times become a major public health issue with vaccine preventable diseases increasing in the community due to the fear of a ‘link’ between vaccinations and autism. We performed a meta-analysis to summarise available evidence from case-control and cohort studies on this topic (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar up to April, 2014). Eligible studies assessed the relationship between vaccine administration and the subsequent development of autism or autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Disagreement was resolved by consensus with another author. Five cohort studies involving 1,256,407 children, and five case-control studies involving 9,920 children were included in this analysis. The cohort data revealed no relationship between vaccination and autism (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.06) or ASD (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.20), nor was there a relationship between autism and MMR (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01), or thimerosal (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.31), or mercury (Hg) (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.07). Similarly the case-control data found no evidence for increased risk of developing autism or ASD following MMR, Hg, or thimerosal exposure when grouped by condition (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.98; p = 0.02) or grouped by exposure type (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.95; p = 0.01). Findings of this meta-analysis suggest that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. Furthermore, the components of the vaccines (thimerosal or mercury) or multiple vaccines (MMR) are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. »

Objections à l'étude de Vaccine (2016)

Cette cohorte ne considère qu'une partie des vaccins incriminés dans l'autisme
« The inclusion criteria contradicts the study’s title “Vaccines”, which by presumption include the full compliment of the 71 doses of vaccine prior to 18 years of age in the United States (CDC, 2014). The study only looked at thimerosal containing, and MMR vaccines, which excluded; rotavirus, haemophilus influenzae type b (HIB), pneumococcal, poliovirus, partial influenza doses, varicella, hepatitis A, human papillomavirus (HPV), and partial meningococcal. The old studies did include some of the Hepatitis B, and DTP, which included cumulative Hg dosage, and the MMR, however left out the subsequent nine vaccines. »
Le dosage de mercure n'est pas considéré en comparant population vaccinée et population non-vaccinée
« This study repeatedly speaks of "cumulative mercury dosage", meaning that there was not a comparison between vaccinated verses unvaccinated. They simply studied individuals that had some mercury compared with other groups that had more. For example, smoking a few cigarettes a day, compared to those that smoke a pack a day shows no correlation to lung cancer, therefore smoking is safe. This was their inclusion criteria in a nutshell... »
Le seuil de signification statistique est trop élevé
« After viewing the p-value results I immediately know that the researchers must have set the “level of statistical significance” or alpha higher than 0.05 (Burns, B., Grove, S., pg. 377). I would have preferred all the p-values to be < 0.01 especially when consenting to a medical procedure (vaccination) due to the known risks involved (autism). Decreasing alpha to 0.01 will decrease Type I errors and increase Type II errors. A Type I error states; “something is significant when it is not” (Burns, B., Grove, S., pg. 377). Inversely a Type II error would say that something was not significant when it was, so it would err on the side of caution especially when using pharmaceuticals as your independent variable. So in these articles that would translate as a Type I error showing that vaccinations were statistically significant in not being causal in autism when in fact they were. »

Bibliographie

Plutôt « pour »

Plutôt « contre »

Ni « pour » ni « contre »

Arguments détaillés connexes

Débats connexes