Few swayed by fraud finding in autism study

amother

Sun, Jan 09 2011, 10:06 am

amother wrote:

I met a woman who has 2 kids that both have autism.
Yes they both came out with it when they hit the age of 2
Neither of them were vaccinated.

how do you explain the link with that? Many claim that 2 is simply the age that the signs are manifested and it's coincidence that it falls out after the vaccination.
Considering the 2 childrent I met and the fact that they are not the only ones, it makes sense.

On the other hand others claim that if someone has a pre-dispositon to it the vaccination can trigger it. makes sense too but how do you prove that is so and not simply as in the case of the 2 kids I met that weren't even vaccinated.

Even among those who are 100% convinced there is a link between MMR and autism, nobody is saying that vaccination is THE singular cause of autism. Clearly autism existed before the MMR ever came along.

I have met moms who swear their children changed dramatically within hours of getting the vaccine. Sure, there are genetics involved and sure, 2 may be the age this stuff surfaces anyhow... but the vaccine seems to have played a role in pushing a child who may have already been predisposed to this over the edge. It may have happened anyhow eventually, or maybe not. Or maybe it would happen, with more moderate symptoms. Who knows. But it's very hard to discount these stories from moms.

MommyZ

Sun, Jan 09 2011, 1:33 pm

amother wrote:

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove causation or even correlation.

seeker

Sun, Jan 09 2011, 3:34 pm

I'm not prepared to "pasken" one way or the other. However:

1. The original theory behind this study was that the mercury in vaccines was causing autism. Based on this, they removed the mercury from the vaccines. Had the theory been correct, one would expect to see a drop in the incidences of autism since then. However, during this time the rate of autism rose dramatically.

2. If there were a relationship between vaccines and autism, one would expect to see lower rates of autism in the population that declines vaccines. However, the rate of autism has increased in both vaccinated and un-vaccinated children in similar proportions.

3. The theory was based on claims that children started exhibiting symptoms of autism shortly after their 1 1/2-year-old vaccinations. Note that autism is a social/communication condition and this is the age when social communication really begins to emerge in neurotypical children; hence it makes a lot of sense for the gap to widen at this time and symptoms to become noticeable.

4. Furthermore, studies of home videos of infants later diagnosed with autism showed that early signs were usually present within the first year of life even when parents did not notice any cause for concern until after the age of vaccination.

I could probably dig up the research to support what I'm saying but it's been a couple of years since I researched it myself so I don't have links or citations offhand. Just sharing. Here are two more points to ponder:

A. NO cause for autism has yet been identified. It is a complex disorder and is identified and treated based on symptoms alone, with no known underlying factors. So I do believe that it's possible that what we call under the umbrella of autism may in fact be a few different things affected by a few different factors. For example, maybe there is a genetic predisposition that can be triggered by environmental factors in certain cases. So there may be room for caution amongst people who have a family history of autism, particularly if close relatives claim the vaccine theory. However, the evidence does not indicate any reason for widespread rejection of vaccines.

B. The vaccine program has been highly effective in eliminating major, dangerous diseases, and its efficacy relies on the majority of the population participating. No vaccine is 100% effective for 100% of the population, and some people are not candidates for vaccination for various reasons (too young for certain ones, compromised immune system, e.g.) But if the majority of the population is innoculated, the germs basically stop spreading altogether and even these most vulnerable people will be protected because there's no one to catch it from. With so little evidence of potential danger, it makes no sense to choose the ACTUAL, PROVEN danger of childhood diseases. When my parents were children there were massive epidemics of deadly and crippling diseases such as polio and measles (yes, measles can be deadly). When Salk started vaccinating for polio he was an international hero and for good reason. People who deny vaccinations for their children without good reason are playing with fire and endangering not themselves, but the whole community. We have already seen mumps start to come back; it did not only affect those who weren't vaccinated but also those who were too young to have been vaccinated (and these are the ones it's most dangerous for) as well as the small percentage whose vaccines didn't work. Chas veshalom polio could be next. It's terrifying.

Aribenj

Sun, Jan 09 2011, 11:33 pm

nylon wrote:

Studies HAVE been done. Ones that weren't paid for by Merck. After people were forced to drop the thimerosal angle, they went on to aluminum. They've never been able to find a plausible mechanism for how vaccines cause autism.

BTW, you do know that Wakefield got paid by solicitors? If we're going to play the financial interest game, there's plenty to go around. People touting the link are happy to sell you "cures".

Thats a good point.

I'm not saying that vaccines are the sole cause of autism. Perhaps the link between thimerosal and autism has been disproved. Perhaps the link between aluminum and autism has been disproved. Vaccines also contain formaldehyde, human, chick, cow and guinea pig fetal tissue, ammonia, MSGs and who knows what else. Has anyone ever tested the interactions between all of these ingredients and the possible link to not only autism but many other disorders we see more and more today?

Think of it this way. Lets say (and Im totally making up numbers here, but the basic premise is the same) a safe amount of mercury is under 10. The chicken pox vaccine your child had today was 7. The tuna sandwich he had for lunch was another 4. Then the soil in the playground behind the old building with the lead paint (that you dont know about) you always take him to has another 2. The batteries in his toy he changed himself have another 3. Finally, the vegetables (not organic, sprayed with pesticides) he had for dinner has another 3... So that puts him WAY above 10. More like double that. And these are the only sources of mercury I know of, but I can guarantee you we are exposed to way more then that.

So are vaccines safe? Maybe. If that were the only toxins we were exposed to. But they're not.

MaBelleVie

Sun, Jan 09 2011, 11:44 pm

Aribenj wrote:

nylon wrote:

Out of that scenario, why make vaccines the first to go? Vaccines save peoples lives on a daily basis. No one is going to die from lack of tuna fish, or not being allowed to change batteries. Cut out every other possible toxin, but please don't put other peoples children at risk.

Signed, someone who has a close relative who can note vaccinated due to compromised immunity. We worry about exposure to fatal disease that can be.spread by friends whose parents choose not to vaccinated.

Barbara

Mon, Jan 10 2011, 12:37 am

MaBelleVie wrote:

Aribenj wrote:

nylon wrote:

Better yet, let's start researching the actual causes, without presuming the results.

I can't understand why a study that involved only 12 children was considered so persuasive in the first place, particularly when the person performing the study has steadfastly refused to conduct a larger study or otherwise replicate his results. But in any case, we're now at a point where it has been shown that Wakefield falsified the medical records of every single one of the subjects and, as to 5 of the subjects (nearly 1/2), removed references to the fact that there were concerns about developmental delays BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE VACCINES.

How many years, how many millions of dollars that should have been spent researching what is really going on, have been lost because of Wakefield. He should be hated, reviled, public enemy no 1.

Now we need to start fresh, with the idea that no one knows what causes autism (or, indeed, if there is a single cause), and go on from there.

Chayalle

Mon, Jan 10 2011, 10:55 am

amother wrote:

My brother has severe Aspergers and PDD, both under the Autism umbrella. My mother was a crunchy Mamma and she didn't believe in vaccinating before age 2. So I don't believe there is a link between vaccinations and autism. I vaccinate on schedule and B"H have seen no adverse reactions in my children.

FYI my mother said that from birth there was something different about my brother. He was her 10th child. Everyone (including my father) dismissed her concerns though and said she was imagining it. I remember him to be a gorgeous, adorable baby but by age 2 he was "different". I do think that the symptoms manifest themselves slowly, so they are not immediately apparent except (maybe) to the most discerning (like my mother).

Hence the speed to blame vaccinations, since they are given at the developing stages.....

mominlkwd

Mon, Jan 10 2011, 4:34 pm

Barbara wrote:

MaBelleVie wrote:

Aribenj wrote:

nylon wrote:

That!!