Misleading reports about autism data - Page 10

[AbbyGrant]

       Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

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.  

As far as the US goes (I have no idea about Canada or other countries) the rate of 1 in 88 is for ASD (autism spectrum disorder) which includes PDD-NOS (pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified; it's been referred to as "sub-threshold" autism), Asperger's Syndrome, and Autistic Disorder, so I haven't seen a rate of each disorder. Autistic Disorder and PDD-NOS were added to the DSM in 1987 (AD was Infantile Autism added in 1980). Asperger's Syndrome was added in 1994. Criteria for Autism Disorder was expanded in 1994. The IDEA was signed into law in 1990 and was amended in 2004 to further improve services for children with disabilities.  Some of the data used to determine the CDC rate was based on was educational diagnoses which wouldn't have happened all that long ago. Then there is the advocacy groups and the internet increasing awareness of the issue and the services available through early intervention and the schools.  

Now, I'm not ruling out the fact that the incidence of ASD could actually be on the rise, but I think expansion of the diagnosis, increased awareness, improved educational services and early intervention, and various other changes explain a big chunk of the increase in the rate of autism in US. In other words. I just don't think there is an "epidemic" as it's often referred to although I wouldn't rule out an increase. I'm tempted to offer some anecdotal evidence, but I'll stop. 

      Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

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.

I'm about the same age, and I knew a little boy when I was a kid who had autism. His mom was friends with my mom.  I still remember my mother trying to explain to me what being autistic meant and she was fumbling for words and saying it was something like being "retarded" but "different." I've read a few places that people with autism were often diagnosed with other issues like mental retardation. 

I also remember that the kids in special education were kept very separate from the rest of the kids at school as I think was pretty standard back then. Also, it was more common for children with disabilities  not be in regular schools. So considering all that, it's no wonder I didn't know or see more.  Also, looking back, I do wonder if a few kids that had behavior issues or were quirky would be diagnosed with ASD if they were in school today.

Edited by AbbyGrant - 4/23/12 at 3:48pm

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

There is not a substantial difference between aluminum introduced through an injection and aluminum introduced through a meal.  If you have a scientific explanation to the contrary, please share it.  One person asserting on an internet discussion forum that they go straight to the blood (and I guess the idea is that means they might as well be injected directly into the blood stream? not much medicine backing that idea up) isn't going to cut it, though.

Can you please back this up somehow? Other than paul offit says so? I would also be highly interested in some studies about the safety of adjuvants, I just provided quite a few suggesting the opposite. If you don't want to read them or entertain the possibility, I don't know what more I can say. 

I would also like to know how it is possible that injecting antigens into body, along with toxic substances (often many at the same time) = same as "natural" exposure to antigen through normal immune system routes?... Also, while I am sure children come into contact with many, many bacteria and viruses within first years of life, realistically, how many kids would really come into contact with diptheria, pertussis, hep B, rota, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, cp, hep A, polio, all the pc strands, several flu strands, meningococcal strands, hib, etc. within the first 15-24 months of life... repeatedly? (on top of all the other things we can't vax for that they will be exposed to anyway)

That also goes against my common sense.

ETA: I am in no way asserting connection b/t aluminum and austism, to be quite frank, the possibility of connection b/t autism and vax isn't my largest concern about vax. But to state that aluminum adjuvants are totally safe goes against quite a bit of info and some medical concern. 

ETA more: Wouldn't the fact that babies are being exposed to quantities of aluminum in formula and/or bm stress the issue to trying to avoid further possible exposure?

Can you tell me how long it would take for aluminum injected into soft tissue to be eliminated? 

Edited by slmommy - 4/23/12 at 2:58pm

[Rrrrrachel]

Bokonon: Very scientific, thank you.

[Rrrrrachel]

Aluminum injected into the soft tissue, like aluminum otherwise introduced to the body, is mostly eliminated in a matter of days. A small part does accumulate in the body, whether ingested or injected.

Decades of safe use of aluminum adjuvants supports the fact that they are safe in small quantities.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Aluminum injected into the soft tissue, like aluminum otherwise introduced to the body, is mostly eliminated in a matter of days. A small part does accumulate in the body, whether ingested or injected.
Decades of safe use of aluminum adjuvants supports the fact that they are safe in small quantities.

I would like a study(ies) to support this. Particularly concerning aluminum adjuvants starting at/days after birth. Thanks. 

Where and how much accumulates? Along with all the other environmental/alimental exposure?

ETA: lots of things are used for decades and "deemed" to be safe - DES for example. That is not a good enough line for me. Decades of use... you can not assert that it is safe, well unless there is a ton of medical literature I am missing out on.

[Rrrrrachel]

Even though it's a little like asking for research that shows broccoli is good for you, I am working on it, I will dify this post vs. adding new ones as I find studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122
Using these updated parameters we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21527299
This one is from Glaxo smith Klein so I suspect it will go over like a lead balloon, but it does a good job explaining the way they assess the safety of various adjuvants during vaccine development,

This one is great because it's a big meta analyses: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871632
"We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/6/1394.full.pdf
"However, quantities of mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, human serum albumin, anti- biotics, and yeast proteins in vaccines have not been found to be harmful in humans or experimental animals."
"The safety of aluminum has been established by experience during the past 70 years, with hundreds of millions of people inoculated with aluminum- containing vaccines."
"The half-life of elimination of alumi- num from the body is approximately 24 hours.41 Therefore, the burden of aluminum to which infants are exposed in food36


http://archive.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/documents/Aluminumws.pdf

"More pharmacokinetic data are needed but there is an apparent wide margin of safety with the use of aluminum adjuvants and reported adverse events have been mostly minor and of low incidence."

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm
"The risk to infants posed by the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low, according to a study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."
Edited by Rrrrrachel - 4/23/12 at 4:24pm

[slmommy]

gotta go feed DD, will look later. Maybe you can find a handful like the handful I posted suggesting issue with aluminum adjuvants.

[Rrrrrachel]

Again, no one is disputing they are dangerous in large quantities.

I've seen that first one you posted before. It's from a college of ophthalmology (?) and it isn't a study, it's just a paper someone wrote. I also don't see where it says it was peer reviewed.

[slmommy]

I had edited and added more besides the Tomljenovic one...

but what that one does say:

Quote:

infants and children should not be viewed as "small adults" with regard to toxicological risk as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults;

would kinda make the first link you posted moot... as far as I can tell ATSDTR's MRLs are based off adults and not newborns? 

The second link, I just can't read much of anything from the abstract alone, I don't really see any conclusions, just alluding to what they will discuss.

and the third link

Quote:

 We have reviewed evidence of adverse events after exposure to aluminium-containing vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP), alone or in combination, compared with identical vaccines, either without aluminium or containing aluminium in different concentrations.

so what are the studies comparing... dtp with thimerosal vs aluminum/less aluminum? Yes I realize placebos are impossible. 

 Anyway this is totally off topic for this thread. I really do no see enough evidence in "we have been doing it for decades and the majority of people don't automatically drop dead" as good enough evidence. I don't believe those links you posted really address possible long term issues either. If anyone has any info about how the newborn body processes injected aluminum, I would be interested. And aluminum in combo with all other vax ingredients, which I suppose doesn't exist as would be impossible/unethical.

 I am not anti-vaccine, but I really think there is enough evidence to give a bit of pause/question the safety of some vax ingredients and practices. I don't think that necessarily precludes anyone from the decision to fully vaccinate, but to deny possible issues over adjuvants just seems extremely arrogant and/or in denial.

[Rrrrrachel]

That's not what the scientific community is doing, though. They continue to examine the idea both through studies and a theoretical understanding of biology, and they keep coming to the conclusion that it's safe!

I think you are marginalizing the 80 year track record of safety. It's not nothing.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your other articles, although several seem to be referencing the same study or about aluminum toxicity in general not adjuvants, I just keep seeing that first one in different places.

[emmy526]

Quote:

Study finds time related association between the introduction of fetal cell lines in vaccines and autism:

In 2010 a published survey claims to have found an association between the use of vaccines made from aborted fetal cells and autism. McDonald and Paul found that the increase of autism holds correlation to the introduction of these types of vaccines, respectively, in the years 1981, 1988 and 1995.

http://www.lifenews.com/2010/04/21/nat-6272/

http://www.all.org/pdf/McDonaldPaul2010.pdf

HV Ratajczak (2011) studied the correlation of autism and the introduction of these vaccines and also supports a possible connection. According to Dr. J Mercola (07/10/2011) this was reported by New CBS:

“That Ratajczak reports that at the same time Vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most Vaccines (with the exception of flu shots still Widely Which Contain Thimerosal), They Began making some Vaccines Using human tissue. 

Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 Vaccines. She discuss the Increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA MMR Vaccine two, and suggest the two could be linked. “

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/theoretical-aspects-of-autism-causes-a-review1.pdf

The number of 23 vaccines contaminated with aborted human fetus is also confirmed by other medical sources:

“Today, more than 23 vaccines are contaminated by the use of aborted fetal cells. There is no law that requires that consumers be informed that some vaccines are made using aborted fetal cells and contain residual aborted fetal DNA. While newer vaccines produced using aborted fetal cells do inform consumers, in their package inserts, that the vaccines contain contaminating DNA from the cell used to produce the vaccine, they do not identify the cells as being derived from electively aborted human fetuses.”

The same group og physicians claims that there could be relations between this type of vaccines and diseases like diabetes, lupus, MS and autism:

“How could the contaminating aborted fetal DNA create problems? It creates the potential for autoimmune responses and/or inappropriate insertion into our own genomes through a process called recombination. There are groups researching the potential link between this DNA and autoimmune diseases such as juvenile (type I) diabetes, multiple sclerosis and lupus. Our organization, [3] Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), is focused on studying the quantity, characteristics and genomic recombination of the aborted fetal DNA found in many of our vaccines.”

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1758/2/

[Rrrrrachel]

This thery does it hold up to scientific scrutiny. Fetal cells are used to grow the virus cells, but DNA is fragile and it is mostly destroyed in producing the vaccine, whats left is extemely fragmented and incapable of recombining to create a complete protein. It certainly can't insert itself into your DNA, that's why gene therapy didn't work!

[purslaine]

A couple of people have come on and said they are not sure autism is an epidemic.

Some of it may depend on how you define epidemic.  A quick google search did not give definitive answers - but rather talked about subjective things, such as this, from Merriam-Webster:

: affecting or tending to affect an atypically large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time <typhoid was epidemic>—

Take a look at the table on this link (CDC).  It shows an increase in autism from 1/150 to 1/88 between 2002 and 2008.  6 years!  If that increase had been  from 20 years ago, yeah, an argument in awareness could be made.  But 6 years?  Autism was very much on the radar in 2002 - I doubt very many diagnosis's were missed due to lack of awareness.  

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

[Rrrrrachel]

Check out the commentary the CDC published to go along with that. Written by the director of the nimh it explains how this data does not necessarily reflect a real increase of prevalence of autism and improved diagnosis cannot be rules out as the cause.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2012/autism-prevalence-more-affected-or-more-detected.shtml

[Rrrrrachel]

This article does a great job describing the British study mentioned in the above link.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/05/autism-epidemic-more-likely-were-just-better-at-diagnosis.ars

[AbbyGrant]

       Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

A couple of people have come on and said they are not sure autism is an epidemic.

Some of it may depend on how you define epidemic.  A quick google search did not give definitive answers - but rather talked about subjective things, such as this, from Merriam-Webster:

: affecting or tending to affect an atypically large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time <typhoid was epidemic>—

Usually when I've seen "epidemic" used about autism, it's in regard to the increasing rate, so I think people are often using the other MW definition:

3 : characterized by very widespread growth or extent

I think changes in diagnosis and many other factors that I've previously listed are responsible for at least good portion of the increase.  For that reason, I can't say I consider autism an epidemic.

     Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Take a look at the table on this link (CDC).  It shows an increase in autism from 1/150 to 1/88 between 2002 and 2008.  6 years!  If that increase had been  from 20 years ago, yeah, an argument in awareness could be made.  But 6 years?  Autism was very much on the radar in 2002 - I doubt very many diagnosis's were missed due to lack of awareness.  

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

I linked that page in my first post on this thread. Notice that those rates were for birth years 1994 to 2000.  In my previous post, I listed lots of changes that occurred during the 90s to explain some changes that likely affected the rates.

edited to clarify...I'm tired and not being very articulate

Edited by AbbyGrant - 4/23/12 at 6:20pm

[Rrrrrachel]

Here's a whole series of studies with similar findings.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16919130?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA
"There has (probably) been no real increase in the incidence of autism. There is no scientific evidence that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or the mercury preservative used in some vaccines plays any part in the aetiology or triggering of autism, even in a subgroup of children with the condition."


http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/4/1028.abstract
"CONCLUSIONS. Prevalence findings from special education data do not support the claim of an autism epidemic because the administrative prevalence figures for most states are well below epidemiological estimates. The growing administrative prevalence of autism from 1994 to 2003 was associated with corresponding declines in the usage of other diagnostic categories.". (in other words, what we used to call something else we now call autism)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15816809?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA
"Much the strongest evidence concerns the importance of susceptibility genes, but such genes have yet to be identified. Specific somatic conditions (such as tuberous sclerosis and the fragile X anomaly) account for a small proportion of cases. Over recent decades there has been a major rise in the rate of diagnosed autism. The main explanation for this rise is to be found in better ascertainment and a broadening of the diagnostic concept. Nevertheless, some degree of true rise cannot be firmly excluded. However, the epidemiological evidence on the main hypothesized environmental explanation, namely the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, is consistently negative."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14695031
"Frequency of exposure to drugs and presence of preexisting clinical illnesses in autistic children and their mothers were compared with nonautistic children and their mothers over time. According to published studies, the incidence of boys diagnosed with autism rose dramatically in the 1990s. Numerous published studies have concluded that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is not responsible for the large rise in diagnosed autism. In our study, boys diagnosed with autism had medical and drug histories, such as vaccines, before diagnosis, that were closely similar to those of nonautistic boys, except that developmental and sensory disorders were far more common in autistic boys. No material differences during pregnancy were found between the mothers of autistic boys and those of nonautistic boys in relation to illness or drug therapy. In the early 1990s, boys with diagnosed developmental disorders were infrequently diagnosed with autism. In the later 1990s, such boys more often were diagnosed with autism.
CONCLUSION:
A major cause of the recent large increase in the number of boys diagnosed with autism probably is due to changing diagnostic practices."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18384386?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
"Rates of diagnosis of autism have risen since 1980, raising the question of whether some children who previously had other diagnoses are now being diagnosed with autism. We applied contemporary diagnostic criteria for autism to adults with a history of developmental language disorder, to discover whether diagnostic substitution has taken place. A total of 38 adults (aged 15-31y; 31 males, seven females) who had participated in studies of developmental language disorder during childhood were given the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule--Generic. Their parents completed the Autism Diagnostic Interview--Revised, which relies largely on symptoms present at age 4 to 5 years to diagnose autism. Eight individuals met criteria for autism on both instruments, and a further four met criteria for milder forms of autistic spectrum disorder. Most individuals with autism had been identified with pragmatic impairments in childhood. Some children who would nowadays be diagnosed unambiguously with autistic disorder had been diagnosed with developmental language disorder in the past. This finding has implications for our understanding of the epidemiology of autism."

http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v82/n5/full/icb200476a.html
This article does a great although highly technical job comparing the amount of aluminum that's present in blood through ingestion to the amount that is in blood from injection. It also describes how injected aluminum is eliminated from the body.
Edited by Rrrrrachel - 4/24/12 at 9:05am

[Taximom5]

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090218_autism_environment/index.html

UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute study shows California's autism increase not due to better counting, diagnosis

"The incidence of autism by age six in California has increased from fewer than nine in 10,000 for children born in 1990 to more than 44 in 10,000 for children born in 2000.
A study by researchers at the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute has found that the seven- to eight-fold increase in the number children born in California with autism since 1990 cannot be explained by either changes in how the condition is diagnosed or counted — and the trend shows no sign of abating."


On is thread, we have one group of people saying thing like, "here are studies that show a link between vaccines (or specific vaccine ingredients) and autism, and that may help explain why there has been such a drastic increase over the last decade."

Then there's the other group--the one posting things like, "these vaccines/ingredients have been used safely for ages, so they couldn't possibly cause any harm, and those studies indicating harm, and a relationship to autism, those can't be right, and there isn't a real increase in autism, anyway."

Funny, the tobacco manufacturers made pretty much the same arguments...

Now, if the pro-vaccine group actually admitted that vaccines have caused severe harm to many individuals, that the harm is far greater than vaccine manufacturers admit (and therefore greater than doctors know), that yes, of course, something should be done about it immediately, but in spite of that, they still believe in the importance of vaccines, then I would think we were dealing with real mothers on this forum.

But to systematically attempt to dismiss EVERY concern about vaccines, to attempt to dismiss EVERY last study that does indicate vaccine harm (but say nothing of the obvious and far worse flaws in the studies that supposedly indicate safety)--and then to pretend that there has been no real increase in autism? The agenda there is obvious.

[Rrrrrachel]

Now it's a little rude to discount my worth as a mother based on my take on research and statistics being different than yours. I don't think we need to go the personal attack route.

I am just pointing out that the idea that there is an autism epidemic as a result of an actual increase in the prevalence of autism is not a done deal, there's research and opinions on both sides of the issue. I'm not saying autism hasn't had a real increase (actually I said earlier I did think it had) but that increase may not be as drastic as we're sometimes led to believe. Just providing a little bit of the other perspective.

Yes, vaccines cause harm. All medical treatment comes with risk, and there are some rare but serious side effects from vaccines. But no, I don't think there's been some conspiracy to hide the prevalence of serious outcomes or that we've somehow missed tons and tons of them. I don't think serious side effects are somehow more prevalent than I've been lead to believe, and I think vaccinating is, by far, the less risky choice. I think this because it is what the preponderance of data and research tells me.

And yes, I do think almost a century of clinical practice that hasn't lead to some kind of mass public health crisis means something. I'm not sure why you feel so threatened by my opinion or sharing some studies or facts that support vaccines as safe. Surely there's room for both perspectives.

[Taximom5]

So far, I've only looked at the second link posted above by Rrrrrachael, who interestingly left out the lengthy responses to that article, posted by 2 University professors, a PhD candidate, and a pediatrician, all of whom were severely criticl of the original article, and explained why, in great detail.

Diagnostic Substitution and ASD: A Brief Comment on Shattuck
John P. Tuman and Danielle Roth-Johnson (Visiting Assistant Professor, Women's Studies, UNLV), Jennifer L Vecchio (M.A., Ph.D. Candidate, Clinical Psychology, UNLV)
Pediatrics published online May 19, 2006

The obfuscation of the iatrogenic Autism epidemic
Kenneth P Stoller, pediatrician
International Hyperbaric Medical Assoc


http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/4/1028.abstract/reply#pediatrics_el_1943