or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › new study looks at both pre and post natal exposure to ethlymercury
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

new study looks at both pre and post natal exposure to ethlymercury

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/22131

"Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism"

very well done study, looking at both pre and post natal exposure with patient interviews and good records. They conclude no increased risk of any of the autism categories.


please excuse the typo in title
post #2 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/22131

"Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism"

very well done study, looking at both pre and post natal exposure with patient interviews and good records. They conclude no increased risk of any of the autism categories.


please excuse the typo in title
It's funny (now I havent read it yet and you can bet that when I have a good hour to sit down and take a careful look I will) but I don't care what it concludes, I will never get any vaccine while pregnant, nor will any future infant of mine get any vaccine with thimerosol in it. EVER
post #3 of 47
Quote:
They conclude no increased risk of any of the autism categories.
Yet she says...

Quote:
"No single study can definitively establish or disprove the hypothesis that thimerosal exposure increases the risk of autism spectrum disorders," DeStefano and colleagues pointed out, given that randomized trials would be unethical.
and also admits to limitations in their study.
post #4 of 47
Thread Starter 
Right, its another piece of the puzzle...a puzzle with a lot of pieces showing no evidence. I thought this piece was interesting especially because it speaks to a lot of the things people complain about with other autism/ethylmercury studies (regression, in person interviews, prenatal exposure through immunoglobins, flu shots, etc, etc etc).

It is very well done. I recommend taking a look at the full thing. If you need access to the full thing, a few science bloggers have it and most are willing to email you if you ask.
post #5 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
It's funny (now I havent read it yet and you can bet that when I have a good hour to sit down and take a careful look I will) but I don't care what it concludes, I will never get any vaccine while pregnant, nor will any future infant of mine get any vaccine with thimerosol in it. EVER
I don't think they were saying go out and get vaccines while pregnant; i believe the idea was to counter the often used argument that flu vaccination while pregnant could be the cause of ASDs; I see that a lot here, esp in threads concerning unvaccinated kids and autism ("well, maybe the mom had vaccines while pregnant" kwim?)
post #6 of 47
I have to admit to reading only the medpagetoday article and not yet the full text version. But, I was very impressed that they took into account pre-natal exposures via mom's vax during pregnancy. I'm curious as to how they would have calculated it?
post #7 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASusan View Post
I have to admit to reading only the medpagetoday article and not yet the full text version. But, I was very impressed that they took into account pre-natal exposures via mom's vax during pregnancy. I'm curious as to how they would have calculated it?
They used records from people who were in HMOs, so there were records for all of the moms as well as the kids. They looked at ethylmercury exposure via vaccines (flu shot, TD, Tdap), and immunoglobulin (such as RhoGam).
post #8 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

Quote:
They conclude no increased risk of any of the autism categories.
Yet she says...

Quote:
"No single study can definitively establish or disprove the hypothesis that thimerosal exposure increases the risk of autism spectrum disorders," DeStefano and colleagues pointed out, given that randomized trials would be unethical.
and also admits to limitations in their study.
Yeah...I defy you to find me a research study that doesn't "admit" to limitations. There is no such thing as a perfect research study. Part of being a good researcher is properly noting the limitations of the study, and that doesn't preclude it from being strong research. At all.

Also? Not to pick on you, but stating that they failed to find a significant increase in autism risk, and then stating that they can't disprove the autism hypothesis, is not contradictory. In science, the only way you can DISPROVE a hypothesis is through direct experimentation, which, as they mentioned, is impossible here. That doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist, and it certainly doesn't mean that evidence isn't a strong indicator of the nature of a relationship (or lack thereof).

This is the kind of stuff you learn in research methods 101. These articles are written with the expectation that the reader will have a grasp of research methodology, and when it's not the case, the results are often misinterpreted.

It's actually a really, really interesting study.
post #9 of 47
I have not read the study, only the article posted.

I did find this:
Quote:
Prenatal exposures were calculated from mothers' receipt of immunoglobulins, tetanus toxoids, and diphtheria-tetanus immunizations during pregnancy.
No mention of influenza vaccines.

With regard to dose of thimerasol, I am pretty sure the DT and the influenza both have 25 micrograms of mercury. So it is not really a relavant point. Excpet that there is no mentions in this text of influenza vaccines.
post #10 of 47
Thread Starter 
it's in the full text, which is available for free on the pediatrics site. They did look at flu vaccine as well as the others.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ds.2010-0309v1
post #11 of 47
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628441

eta: I have not read this study entire and and not expressing an opinion on it one way or the other, just posting it for your reading pleaseure (or displeasure)
post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
I did some research about this study you quoted, and it seems to be a very sketchy study. The author touts the "review" it received from the Institute of Chronic Illnesses....which is a company registered at his own home address.

Also, the author runs a business selling Chelation therapy, and has a more than tiny vested interest in convincing parents that their children need chelation.

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/98/

Some studies are more trustworthy than others.
post #13 of 47
Thread Starter 
There is a ton wrong with the Geier study; not sure if it would be a thread throw off here- maybe we could start a new one to discuss it. I suppose one huge issue is that its the Geier's doing it-- ya know, the ones pumping autistic kids full of Lupron (at levels higher than adult dosage!)
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
Ok, did you actually read that study, or just the abstract? Cause there are some pretty big problems with the quality of that study. Like the small sample size. And the lack of information about how subjects were chosen. The lack of cohort-matching. Should I go on? I don't think that study and the study just published in Pediatrics can even be mentioned in the same breath.
post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
So what criteria are you using to judge the validity of this study vs the one mentioned in the OP?
post #16 of 47
Marnica- I really don't mean this in a snarky way. But you said:

Quote:
It's funny (now I havent read it yet and you can bet that when I have a good hour to sit down and take a careful look I will) but I don't care what it concludes, I will never get any vaccine while pregnant, nor will any future infant of mine get any vaccine with thimerosol in it. EVER
You're obviously not basing your choices on the science behind it, then. Which is certainly your choice. But why, then, try to DISPROVE it if you're not interested in the validity of it? KWIM?
post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntrovertExtrovert View Post
I did some research about this study you quoted, and it seems to be a very sketchy study. The author touts the "review" it received from the Institute of Chronic Illnesses....which is a company registered at his own home address.

Also, the author runs a business selling Chelation therapy, and has a more than tiny vested interest in convincing parents that their children need chelation.

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/98/

Some studies are more trustworthy than others.
Oh I couldn't agree with you more.
post #18 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
Marnica- I really don't mean this in a snarky way. But you said:



You're obviously not basing your choices on the science behind it, then. Which is certainly your choice. But why, then, try to DISPROVE it if you're not interested in the validity of it? KWIM?
Not trying to disprove anything Heather. I simply posted a link to a study. As PP has mentioned, they do not feel it is a valid study due to author conflict of interest. No skin off my nose. People are free to make whatever choice they feel is best. And to assume that I discount science because I said I didn't care what this study concluded is wrong. I have done my research 5+ years of it. The conclusion I have come to has been after many hours of pouring over scientific studies and trying to reconcile what I find on both sides of the equation with what I feel in my heart is the best choice for my kid.

As to the others posters - IT WAS JUST A LINK. Did I state any opinion on it one way or the other?
post #19 of 47
Thread Starter 
If you meant me, I would like to clarify that i said ONE reason it is suspect to me is the author. There are tons of other reasons, which I thought would throw the thread off topic. but they seem to have been covered; though mercury diagnosis angle as not yet but, again, I would discuss this in a dedicated thread if you want.
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
If you meant me, I would like to clarify that i said ONE reason it is suspect to me is the author. There are tons of other reasons, which I thought would throw the thread off topic. but they seem to have been covered; though mercury diagnosis angle as not yet but, again, I would discuss this in a dedicated thread if you want.
No I was actually referring to intovertextrovert.

No Im not interested in discussing it in a separate thread, although others may be. As I mentioned I do not feel thimerosol is safe based on my years of research. I choose to not give any vaccines with it to my child, myself or any future children. Others are free to inject away based on what they have concluded. I sleep pretty well at night with the choices I make. I truly am not interested in disproving anything. I have learned that this is futile anyways there will ALWAYS be valid scientific information that lands on both sides. I'm not really sure what I expected from posting that link to the article since it's pretty clear most folks responding to this thread have come to other conclusions which is totally fine.
and now I am
from this thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › new study looks at both pre and post natal exposure to ethlymercury