or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Misleading reports about autism data
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Misleading reports about autism data - Page 8  

post #141 of 586

double post  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by purslaine - 4/23/12 at 8:07am
post #142 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

 

 

Do you think there is a difference in meaning between "vaccines cause autism" and "vaccines trigger autism in a significant subgroup?"

 

I think there is a huge difference.

 

Vaccines do not cause autism in most people.  Period.  Lots of people get vaccines without developing autism or autistic-like tendencies.  It is not a case of "take a and get b."  

 

Do I believe vaccines (broad terms - be it an additive, the schedule, or the number of vaccines) may be one piece of the puzzle in environmental causes in genetically susceptible individuals?  Yup.  Could I be wrong?  Sure.  Many, many parents believe vaccines play a role in their child's autism - more I think than is coincidence or parents re-arranging timelines in their heads to suit a hypothesis.  The vaccine community has not taken parents seriously with regards to this issue.  It is quite patronising.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by purslaine - 4/23/12 at 12:16pm
post #143 of 586
I have a hard one taking it seriously because there's just so much research to the contrary. You could just as easily say eating vegetables causes autism. There's not even any theoretical science to suggest either one.
post #144 of 586

       Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

I don't agree. Compared to the US schedule, Danish children get FAR fewer vaccines (US gives literally 3 times as many vaccines to children 5 and under), and they get them significantly later (beginning at 3 months rather than at birth--that is significantly later in terms of body weight, brain development, digestive system development, and immune system development). In addition, they do not get the hepatitis B vaccine, which is given at birth to US babies, and which IS linked with autism in at least one study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170)

 

Doesn't this indicate that vaccines may indeed play a significant role in the high autism rate in the US?

 

No, not to me.  Sorry.  I'm not saying it's impossible there is a link just that these types of comparisons are pretty useless and indicate nothing to me. Comparing the autism rates is not comparing apples to apples.  There is huge variation in how it's diagnosed and how data is collected (the links I provided give some insight into this). Also, Denmark added PCV sometime between 2006 and 2008 (I can't tell exactly when) plus they do dTaP at 5 which I think was not counted by Generation Rescue for whatever reason and they give Hep B to at risk groups so they are up to 16 or possibly 17. Plus other European countires do give Hep B routinely at birth now yet have lower autism rates.  And I'll point out again that Japan had 1 in 475 when Denmark had 1 in 2200 even though they had 11 versus 12  vaccines.  And I'm not sure where the 36 in the US came from as I could only come up with 33 (but I admit my math skills might be off) and that's if a child received the flu shot every year. I'm not even sure why the flu shot was considered "mandatory" as it seems to be one many people can and do skip, but since it's on the schedule I'll let it go.  And according to the survey I linked earlier, only 62.8% of children in the US age 19 to 35 months were fully vaccinated (from data collected from 1995 and 2001). I admit this is sheer speculation, bit I suspect that the vaccination rates would be higher in a country like Denmark given their health care model and their demographics.  The survey has some clues why I think that.  So,all that to say, I don't think there is probably that huge of a difference in the amount of shots very young children are getting in Denmark and the US yet according the GR data, the autism rate is enormously different.  The difference in vaccines doesn't add up to the difference in autism rates. Also, less and less people are vaccinating on schedule, yet the autism rate keeps rising.

post #145 of 586
It's not even a done deal that our autism rate actually is rising that quickly. Certainly the number of children diagnosed has risen, but that is largely due to an improved (and expanded) definition of what autism is and better diagnosis as a result of that expanded definition and greater parental awareness (guess what got really popular in the 90s, the Internet!)
post #146 of 586

       Quote:

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's not even a done deal that our autism rate actually is rising that quickly. Certainly the number of children diagnosed has risen, but that is largely due to an improved (and expanded) definition of what autism is and better diagnosis as a result of that expanded definition and greater parental awareness (guess what got really popular in the 90s, the Internet!)

 

Oh, I agree.  By rate, I meant those diagnosed not the actual incidence. And you just came up with a new one. The internet causes autism!

post #147 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's not even a done deal that our autism rate actually is rising that quickly. Certainly the number of children diagnosed has risen, but that is largely due to an improved (and expanded) definition of what autism is and better diagnosis as a result of that expanded definition and greater parental awareness (guess what got really popular in the 90s, the Internet!)

 

I think that argument can be made with regards to Aspergers.  People who used to be written off as "quirky" are now given the label of Aspergers. It is a case of more diagnosis, not more cases.  I am not so sure that is the case with more classical or moderate-severe autism - whose rates are increasing as well.  Classical autism would have been diagnosed in any era.  

 

Anecdotally, I remember no kids from my youth who had autism - I now know several.  I don't think it is just heightened awareness on my part - because I do remember kids with other disorders.  I am 40, for what is it worth.

 

 

post #148 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

       Quote:

 

Oh, I agree.  By rate, I meant those diagnosed not the actual incidence. And you just came up with a new one. The internet causes autism!

 

Except children are diagnosed long before they become addicted to WoW and internet forums winky.gif

 

(I hope a little levity is OK).

 

Seriously, though, just because there are numerous theories on environmental causes does not mean we should throw up our hands and stop looking.  Our children and families deserve better.

 

 

 

 

 

kathy


Edited by purslaine - 4/23/12 at 11:57am
post #149 of 586
There is no such thing as "classical autism," it is a spectrum disorder and people with autism fall all along the spectrum. Aspergers is actually a type of autism, so people diagnosed with it would "count" in statistics about autism.

The diagnosis criteria for autism were expanded pretty drastically in 1994, so yes, the definition and diagnosis absolutely have changed and people are diagnosed now that wouldn't have been before, plus there is a lot more parental awareness. Not to mention there's more funding attached to serve kids with autism so schools have more of an incentive to get kids diagnosed. A lot of the data just doesn't support this huge increase, either.
post #150 of 586
My reference to the Internet was in terms of parent education and advocacy. Parents are better equipped than ever to recognize autism in their own kids and push to get a diagnosis.
post #151 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

My reference to the Internet was in terms of parent education and advocacy. Parents are better equipped than ever to recognize autism in their own kids and push to get a diagnosis.

 

Oh I know.  I was just trying to throw in a little humor.  Sorry. 

post #152 of 586
Oh ok smile.gif. Just wanted to make sure I had been clear!
post #153 of 586

       Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Except children are diagnosed before long before they become addicted to WoW and internet forums winky.gif

 

(I hope a little levity is OK).

 

Seriously, though, just because there are numerous theories on environmental causes does not mean we should throw up our hands and stop looking.  Our children and families deserve better.

 

 

kathy

 

Yes but there is a correlation between the rise of the interwebz and the rise in autism rates.  Perhaps maternal use of computers or the internet affects children in utero.  orngtongue.gif  Wireless devices in the home.  yikes2.gif Parents spending time online. nono.gif (that sort of takes us back to refrigerator mothers).

 

Clearly I'm okay with a little levity, but yeah, I agree we should still keep looking which I've always maintained.  That said, I think researchers need to use time and money wisely, and I often take things with a grain of salt, sometimes a large grain of salt. 

post #154 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Oh ok smile.gif. Just wanted to make sure I had been clear!

 

No problem. smile.gif

post #155 of 586

While discussing possible causes of autism, you might want to consider the possibility that WiFi and other electromagnetic pollution might cause harm. This is not a joke, and should be investigated.

 

Funny, we invent new medicines, foods, and technologies, unleash them on the public, then wonder why people are getting sick. Deny, deny, deny any relation.  Only after massive damage will there be an investigation. Also, consider this.....some people believe autism is mainly genetic. Well, is there something in our food/environment that could damage DNA of the parent and/or child? Of course (electromagnetic pollution can)! Is damaged DNA related to autism? The mystery continues.

 

I just don't understand why vaccines aren't considered to be a possible cause. One possible cause, among many others.

 

post #156 of 586
Because there is nothing in vaccines to act as a mechanism for that kind of thing. It's like asking how do you know bowling doesn't cause acne, because the two are totally unrelated.

From what we know about autism and what we know about vaccines there's no mechanism in the vaccine that would effect the body that way. When we look at the ingredients we have a pretty good idea how they all act and what thy can and cannot do, and they simply don't behave that way.

There is increased evidence that autism starts in the womb rather than as a result of some kind of postnatal environmental factor.
post #157 of 586

What could cause a change in the fetus? Or, is autism purely genetic, with no cause at all? Seriously, do you really think it's purely genetic? It's ok if you do, but I want to know why. There must be a reason. Something that interferes with genes...a genetic mutation.

 

Electromagnetic pollution can cause mutation. So can aluminum, found in vaccines and elsewhere throughout the environment.

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/autisms-genetic-biomarkers-found

 

While the autistic brains studied had a surplus of neurons in early life, they went on to lose neural connections faster as time went on. UC researchers hypothesize that a genetic mutation may muffle the expression of genes which code for proteins that repair damaged DNA, eventually causing irregular brain development. But if scientists definitively link autism to a sequence of changes in gene expression and unusual neural growth, "then it becomes possible to target and reverse any one of the thousands of steps in that sequence."

 

SO, if you believe that autism starts in the womb, there could certainly be a reason why.

post #158 of 586
There are lots of things that the mother is exposed to that influence the fetus.

It's just not true that the amount of aluminum in a vaccine can impact DNA. Your child is exposed to more aluminum in breast milk during the first six months of life than vaccines.
post #159 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There are lots of things that the mother is exposed to that influence the fetus.

It's just not true that the amount of aluminum in a vaccine can impact DNA. Your child is exposed to more aluminum in breast milk during the first six months of life than vaccines.

 

Interesting. Do you have a source for that? (I'm genuinely curious - no snark here)

post #160 of 586
I do! Children's hospital of Philadelphia is a great resource for all kinds of vaccine info. They have a vaccine education center. In the first six months of life a child would receive about 4 milligrams of aluminum from breast milk and 10 milligrams from breast milk, or 40 milligrams from formula, or 120 milligrams from soy formula. Aluminum is the most common metal found in nature, so you are exposed to it throughout your life in food, water, even air.

www.chop.edu/export/download/pdfs/articles/vaccine-education-center/aluminum.pdf
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Misleading reports about autism data