New Study: Hepatitis B Vaccine Triples the Risk of Autism in Infant Boys

[Marnica]

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/09/d...fant-boys.html

“Boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD compared to later- or unvaccinated boys.

I found the description in the journal as well but can't attach a pdf (or just don't know how!)

[mamadelbosque]

Wow. Thats incredible, and highly disturbing. SO glad my boys are unvaxed!!!

[bbrandonsmom]

Ds had hepb at 2m, and ds1 none.

[carriebft]

The first thing that pops up is that the prevalence of autism in this group is 1 in 238 (in the groups with HBV data, the prevalence was 1 in 241). Seems a bit low.

Secondly, there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups (HBV/no HBV) in their autism prevalence (p = 0.07).

Take for example kids aged 17 in the 1997 survey. When were they born? That’s right, 1980.

When was the Hepatitis B vaccine introduced? 1991.

more here:

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=3140

[mysticmomma]

thanks for pointing that out. I'm a non vaxer, but that study seemed... questionable at best.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by carriebft

more here:

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=3140

That post you linked to is the typical response I see to anything that is ever posted against anything vaccine releated. The poster goes after David Kirby stating he is saying (and the study) that Heb B vaccine causes autism. This is not what eiither are saying. The fact that the study hasn't even been published yet and it's already being ripped apart by people like this is fairly typical IMO. This site is anti David Kirby and Anti anything realted to Vaccines and autism as far as I can see in the few articles and commenst I read

I'll wait and read the study for myself before drawing any conclusions

[Sileree]

Yeah, really. If AofA can be claimed to be biased, that blog sure is also.

[carriebft]

You can do the math yourself if you want...it is right there to do, you don't even have to wait for it to be accepted and published.

I suppose I could have done it myself as well, but I admit it: my z (etc) calculations suck. Let's just say stat was not my strong point.

[Jugs]

I'd like to see the study myself as well; the poster is rather confusing. They hypothesized that ASD prevalence would be higher in the younger boys, which I'm guessing correlates with a higher HBV uptake and earlier thimerosal exposure in the younger boys.

[Jugs]

Take for example kids aged 17 in the 1997 survey. When were they born? That’s right, 1980.

When was the Hepatitis B vaccine introduced? 1991.

Perhaps I am slow tonight, but I don't understand why this is a problem.

[LisaSedai]

When was the Hepatitis B vaccine introduced? 1991. .

Uh... I got the series of Hep B vax in 1988.

[Ritske]

It's not like they claimed all the children received it at birth, so what exactly is the discrepancy supposed to be? Some received it within 6 months of birth, some later, and some not at all.

[carriebft]

You are going to have multiple problems, such as the kids who got it in their late childhood- way after the autism diagnosis would have ever come up. Also, you are going to have kids who probably were still getting the discontinued plasmid vaccine vs the one that is used today. You are going to have the teenagers in the 1997 one being born and growing up at very different times than the young kids in the 2002 study. That is a major source of flaw. The date may be off, but the Hep vaccine used today was not introduced until the late 80s at eh earliest.

Also, how can you look at two groups who are born at way different times, using different vaccines, getting vaccinated at different times (some way after the period where autism sets in) and claim that there is a connection within these groups concerning the vaccine.


This "study" will probably go the way of the Hornig poster.

[Jugs]

That makes sense, Carrie. I do like their hypothesis though, so I am anxious to see in the full text how they went about adjusting for those differences. I think the fact that they were born at such differing times is actually a very good thing to look at; the eldest children would have been born at a time before routine HBV, let alone routine HBV at birth. It makes a nice companion to this study:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...l~jumptype=rss

[Juvysen]

What a strange set up for a study. Why would they do that? And how on earth would it pass peer review? I mean, being born in two different time periods could really have a lot of effects on other things. Epidural use, may have changed drastically during that time (I honestly don't know). pitocin use? ear ache medications? I dunno, just seems like a broad possible spectrum. I can't imagine they could possibly control for all of it.

ETA... for that matter, the possibility of the mother having the flu vaccine during pregnancy? Or using piles of hair spray? I dunno.

[Ritske]

I have no idea what's in the study, so there's no point arguing for or against it, but it might be a good idea to look at the amount of each ingredient each person received at specific ages, separate the children into groups with similar exposures, etc. At the very least, if you look at kids from the 80s compared to kids from the 90s, then kids from 2K onward, it might paint an interesting picture.

[carriebft]

It has not been peer reviewed or published or anything. It was just a poster presentation.

[Minarai]

Here's what I found fishy about that article...
Why just BOYS?!? Girls can get autism too, you know! I'm living proof!

[Ritske]

I think it was because Generation Rescue found boys were 3 times more likely to get it or something like that.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by carriebft

It has not been peer reviewed or published or anything. It was just a poster presentation.

I believe it is undergoing peer review right now which is why it hasn't been published yet.