Misleading reports about autism data - Page 11

[Rrrrrachel]

Like I said, only pointing out that the issue isn't settled.

[AbbyGrant]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

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.

(emphasis mine)

That's just uncalled for.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by 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

I read the link.  This is how they sum up:

"Our working assumption is that there are both more children affected and more detected."

I am not cherry picking the above quote - throughout the article they seem genuinely uncertain of whether the rise in numbers is due to affected or diagnostic (and what weight both "more affected" and "more detected" carry)  

I have not disputed this.  Indeed, I think it is the case that there are more affected or more detected.

My argument was with the word "epidemic."  Given the lack of a numerical definition of epidemic - I might be right.  Or not.  It is pretty subjective.  It does not really matter what you call it anyways - numbers are up.

(and vaccines aside - why wouldn't people want to call a spade a spade?  Or an epidemic and epidemic?  It might lead to increased funding, which can only be good for the autism community)

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by 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!

http://www.cogforlife.org/ratajczakstudy.pdf (same as some of Emmy's links)

Ratajczak is a retired senior scientist for pharma company. Her report is actually very informative towards the diagnostic/prevalence issues that have been discussed here too. Although she used the 1/110 figure as this was published last year.

Quote:

The MMR II vaccine is contaminated with human DNA from the cell line. This human DNA could be the cause of the spikes in incidence. An additional increased spike in incidence of autism occurred in 1995 when the chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue (Merck and Co., Inc., 2001; Breuer, 2003).

The current incidence of autism in the United States, noted above, is approximately 1/100.

The human DNA from the vaccine can be randomly inserted into the recipient’s genes by homologous recombination, a process that occurs spontaneously only within a species. Hot spots for DNA insertion are found on the X chromosome in eight autism-associated genes involved in nerve cell synapse formation, central nervous system development, and mitochondrial function (Deisher, 2010). This could provide some explanation of why autism is predominantly a disease of boys. Taken together, these data support the hypothesis that residual human DNA in some vaccines might cause autism.

and from Varivax insert: http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/v/varivax/varivax_pi.pdf

Quote:

Each 0.5 mL dose contains the following: a minimum of 1350 PFU (plaque forming units) of Oka/Merck varicella virus when reconstituted and stored at room temperature for 30 minutes, approximately 25 mg of sucrose, 12.5 mg hydrolyzed gelatin, 3.2 mg sodium chloride, 0.5 mg monosodium L-glutamate, 0.45 mg of sodium phosphate dibasic, 0.08 mg of potassium phosphate monobasic, 0.08 mg of potassium chloride; residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein; and trace quantities of sodium phosphate monobasic, EDTA, neomycin, and fetal bovine serum. 

...so how much DNA is destroyed in manufacturing process, do you have something to detail/give numbers on that?

Ratajczak believes it to be possible and Merck lists it on the insert.

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by 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.

Except there are some massive public health crises.  One is autism and another is autoimmune conditions.  Vaccines are known to cause brain damage.  Many of the compensated vaccine injury cases involve brain damage.  I believe that autism is a form of brain damage (thus having more than one potential cause).  There is nothing stupid about thinking we are missing something in that something that has a pattern for some kinds of brain damage might be through a less-visible process be causing brain damage we have trouble seeing clearly.  And not surprisingly, while we are missing it, we might not know it's there yet.  LOL

Your quotes and links tend to repeat something I have heard and read in many places:  The tend to state that "no link has been found."  I think that it is a huge leap to say that this means the same thing as links having been disproven.  It really doesn't mean that.  It just means we don't know if there is a link. Haven't found one.  If it's more complex than we are able to study or more complex than what we can evaluate with what we have so far studied, then we don't have the tools to know whether it is there yet no matter how authoritative a particular piece of narrowly-focused study results appears to be.  For the most part the only scientists I would respect to speak on this matter are those who can tell the truth and say that WE DON'T KNOW.  We know parts and pieces but we are dealing with something complex and we're having trouble evaluating it with such bits and pieces.  I'd really like people who don't know to stop acting like they do just because things like the idea of vaccine safety being proven have a lot of momentum behind them. 

It's sort of like the salesperson who told me treated wood was safe for children's jungle gyms.  (It was the kind that leaches arsenic.)  He knew it was safe because he'd "never heard of anyone being poisoned by treated wood".  Well, not too many of us have, although I think there were a few rare stories of that.  Almost everyone believed that treated wood was okay for railings, play equipment, and even picnic table tops.  Anyone could point to their healthy children as "proof" the stuff was harmless.  However, that type of wood had multiple precautions for handling AND just a couple of years later they stopped manufacturing and selling it because of the arsenic leaching problems. 

Anyhow even though these studies officially show a general shortage of immediate poisonings from vaccines, they are incapable of finding most of the relevant information to this question.  It looks like any vaccine-autism link is a little more complex than just the obvious and immediate poisonings that are easiest to link up.

By the way, my child has Asperger's and there is no day and age in which he would only have been considered "quirky."  I wish.  He is nowhere near normal in function, and he's on the "less autistic" edge of the spectrum.  He might have been considered "mentally retarded" in some way which is the kind of terminology I remember.  I once heard my son referred to as the "village idiot" in a casual comment...  An awful thing to say and obviously inappropriate, but it rather made sense with how we was acting at the time and SO many other times.  When I was young I didn't know anyone who was anything like my son, and now there are many affected kids even in our fairly small community... It's hard to picture that they were there and are just coming out of the woodwork.  Because these are behaviors that really, really stand out.

[Rrrrrachel]

I didn't say anyone was stupid, an we absolutely dont know, but so far there is no link. One also doesn't seem very plausible, but that's just my opinion. I make decisions for my family based on evidence, not emotion, and so far the evidence mostly points away from a link between autism and vaccines.

I don't think autism is a type of brain damage, by the way, I think of it as a brain difference, but I am no expert.

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't hear many people say "there absolutely is no way vaccines cause autism," but I often hear people say "vaccines cause autism, I just know they do" or something like that.

[slmommy]

I posted this earlier in the thread, but would like to throw it out once more, it's a great read.

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr

Pace Environmental Law Review - "Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury.

Quote:

This preliminary study suggests that the VICP has been compensating cases of vaccine-induced encephalopathy and residual seizure disorder associated with autism since the inception of the program. Through this preliminary study, the authors have found eighty-three cases of autism among those compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage.(9) This finding raises fundamental questions about the integrity, transparency, and fairness of this forum.   (page 3)

So... pretty much, VICP has already compensated autism as vax injury. Just under a different name. 

I don't know what in or how vaccines possibly are linked with autism, but it seems as though, in some cases, they DO play a major factor, as VICP apparently agreed. Maybe that frequency is extremely rare and maybe there are a gazillion other different factors/causes, but really, I don't think we can say that vaccines are not, never, linked with autism.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't hear many people say "there absolutely is no way vaccines cause autism," but I often hear people say "vaccines cause autism, I just know they do" or something like that.

hahaha, we must live on different planets because all I ever hear is that there is no way vaccines can ever, possibly, even remotely have a role in causing autism.  

and actually, I'm not even particularly interested/concerned in the vax/autism issue, I am more interested about safety of ingredients, totality and spacing of schedule, some vax I view less necessary... etc. but anyone who raises a vax question usually gets met with "oh, but you know vaccines don't cause autism right??" 

[Rrrrrachel]

Well, I can say they don't cause autism about as confidently as I can say anything doesn't, but most scientists admit we ultimately don't know.

There's a whole series of opinion pieces you can find about the questionable and inconsistent decisions the vaccine court has made over the years.

[AbbyGrant]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

My argument was with the word "epidemic."  Given the lack of a numerical definition of epidemic - I might be right.  Or not.  It is pretty subjective.  It does not really matter what you call it anyways - numbers are up.

(and vaccines aside - why wouldn't people want to call a spade a spade?  Or an epidemic and epidemic?  It might lead to increased funding, which can only be good for the autism community)

Yes numbers are up, but epidemic implies incidence is up to me (see definition about growth). I've never seen anyone use the word "epidemic" in relation to autism in a way that didn't mean incidence is up. Yet, that has not been established (yes yes there are the often cited study from UC Davis about the rates in CA, I can't find a link to the actual study though, and it's one study). So to me it's not calling a spade a spade to me.  Until there is more convincing evidence that there has been a significant increase in incidence of autism, I won't be calling it an epidemic. it seems alarmist to me at this point, and I don't think that's good for the autism community.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 


I don't think autism is a type of brain damage, by the way, I think of it as a brain difference, but I am no expert.

Totally anecdotal:

My 2 nephews?

One, I believe, was born autistic. He was different from day one

Nephew 2 was absolutely fine until 2.5.  He met all developmental milestone and was speaking quite clearly.   Around 2.5 he got a nasty virus and regressed over night.  I do not believe for one instance it was a co-incidence…a nasty virus happening at the same time as his regression?  His father also got the nasty virus, btw, so we know it was a virus.  This is not an argument for vaccines = autism, but it is an argument, to me, that environment plays an issue.   My sister showed doctors tapes of him before the virus and after and they were speechless.  

One might conclude that nephew one has a brain difference (although who knows if his brain was damaged in utero?).  Nephew 2 does have brain damage as far as I am concerned.  

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by AbbyGrant 

Yes numbers are up, but epidemic implies incidence is up to me (see definition about growth). I've never seen anyone use the word "epidemic" in relation to autism in a way that didn't mean incidence is up. Yet, that has not been established (yes yes there are the often cited study from UC Davis about the rates in CA, I can't find a link to the actual study though, and it's one study). So to me it's not calling a spade a spade to me.  Until there is more convincing evidence that there has been a significant increase in incidence of autism, I won't be calling it an epidemic. it seems alarmist to me at this point, and I don't think that's good for the autism community.

Of course I mean epidemic as "incidence is up."  

The numbers are up.  Many conservative and mainstream groups think numbers are up, even after accounting for differences in awareness and diagnostics.

If it is alarmist - well, maybe we need to be alarmed. 1 in 88…...

It might just be an "agree to disagree" item.  

Edited by purslaine - 4/24/12 at 5:14am

[littlest birds]

"Damage" versus "difference" really just seems to be a question of value judgment and cause.

If being autistic is a-okay if only everyone would just accept their "uniqueness" then I guess that would be difference. 

Damage suggests two things:  That it is not a-okay to be autistic, and that the difference is harm caused by something whether gradually or suddenly, whether earlier or later.  Damage fits pretty well, even when we haven't tagged the causes.  Because if there is a cause, that's damage and that is all there is to it.

[Rrrrrachel]

I guess I do feel like being autistic is ok?

[littlest birds]

I know Kathy, think of the adult population in 20 years! 

[littlest birds]

Rachel, I think that is a complicated question. 

Is it okay to cause harm?  No. 

Should we accept and support positively the people who are autistic?  Yes.  Should we treat them like we love them freaky quirks and all?  Yes.  Should we force them to change?  No.  Is "cure" the answer?  I doubt it.  But I think prevention could be and we are gonna be in bad shape if we don't try really really hard because autism is CRIPPLING.  Happy thoughts are great but when you can't function in major ways it is a really big deal.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I guess I do feel like being autistic is ok?

...so we can stop funding research and public services? Cause that would save US economy a decent chunk I think.

Caring for all people with autism over their lifetimes costs an estimated $35 billion per year.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press04252006.html

[Rrrrrachel]

Uh, no? Seems like there's some middle ground, there.

[Rrrrrachel]

Sorry, I don't mean to take away from the fact that we certainly need to keep researching and looking for a cause and if possible prevent it, and certainly need to support people who have it as necessary to allow them to live productive lives.