Formal Debate Thread: Vaccinated children are more likely to have autism than unvaccinated children. - Page 3

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

The actual numbers- "Thirty-seven percent of the parents responded. Among the 359 respondents, 68% stated that all of their children had received at least 1 immunization, and 17% reported that some of their children had received at least 1 immunization. Only 14% of the parents reported that none of their children had received immunizations."  from this - http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/06/23/peds.2009-2599.abstract

To add to this:

It looks like 1/271 children have autism.   http://www.opposingviews.com/i/myth-amish-don-t-have-autism  

here was their method of collection to determine autism rates:

" Families were approached and asked to participate in a brief interview regarding their children. Two primary screening instruments were used: the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) and the DSM-IV-TR Checklist (a tool created by the authors)...Children screening positive on either the SCQ or DSM-IV-TR Checklist were seen for a more comprehensive clinical evaluation by two licensed psychologists."

So…to sum up - the Amish do vaccinate less (quite a bit less - 32% completely unvaccinated, and who knows how many selective/delayed ) and they have less autism.

Of course, their lower autism rates might be due to factors other than vaccinating, but I think it is worth further study.

[Rrrrrachel]

Right, neurological disorders LIKE autism, whatever that means, not autism.  Here are the results from that survey for boys with Aspergers broken down by vaccination status:

Quote:

Unvaccinated: 2%
Partially vaccinated: 3%
Fully vaccinated: 2%
Fully and Partially combined: 2%

Hmmm . . . Doesn't look like vaccination status is really that significant.

Here are the results for boys with autism:

Quote:

Unvaccinated: 2% of total
Partially vaccinated: 7% of total
Fully vaccinated: 3%
Fully and Partially combined: 4%

Here are the results for boys with all the ASD's combined:

Quote:

Unvaccinated: 4% of total
Partially vaccinated: 8% of total
Fully vaccinated: 5%
Fully and Partially combined: 5%

Hmmm, still not that significant.

It gets really interesting when you look at girls.

Girls and aspergers:

Quote:

Unvaccinated: 1% of total
Partially vaccinated: 1% of total
Fully vaccinated: 0%
Fully and Partially combined: 0%

Whoa, wait a second, more autism in the unvaccinated group then the vaccinated group??

Girls with autism

Quote:

Unvaccinated: 1% of total
Partially vaccinated: 2% of total
Fully vaccinated: 1%
Fully and Partially combined: 1%

All ASD

Quote:

Unvaccinated: 3% of total
Partially vaccinated: 3% of total
Fully vaccinated: 1%
Fully and Partially combined: 1%

Wow, again, more likely to have autism if you're in the unvaccinated group.

Let's jump right to the finale, boys and girls combined with all ASD:

Quote:

Unvaccinated: 4% of total
Partially vaccinated: 6% of total
Fully vaccinated: 3%
Fully and Partially combined: 3%

Whoa!  Looks like you're more likely to have autism if you're unvaccinated that fully and partially vaccinated combined!  

By the way, you can download this data from generation rescue and do the math for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

The actual numbers- "Thirty-seven percent of the parents responded. Among the 359 respondents, 68% stated that all of their children had received at least 1 immunization, and 17% reported that some of their children had received at least 1 immunization. Only 14% of the parents reported that none of their children had received immunizations."  from this - http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/06/23/peds.2009-2599.abstract

Oh, goody.  The actual numbers.

37% responded, and of that 37%, 68% stated that their children had received at least 1 immunization. That's 25%.  Not 68% of Amish families vaccinating, 68% oof the 37% who responded.

So, as far as we know, it's possible that 75% of Amish families don't vaccinate at all. We know that 25% say that their child got at least one shot.

And you're comparing that with the 35 shots that non-Amish children get from birth to age 6, per the CDC immunization schedule?

Great.  Now we're getting somewhere.

Conclusion: Amish children, up to 75% of whom are unvaccinated, and 25% of whom have received one immunization, have a far lower incidence of autism than non-Amish children who received 35 vaccinations by the age of 6.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Right, neurological disorders LIKE autism, whatever that means, not autism.  Here are the results from that survey for boys with Aspergers broken down by vaccination status:

Hmmm . . . Doesn't look like vaccination status is really that significant.

Here are the results for boys with autism:

Here are the results for boys with all the ASD's combined:

Hmmm, still not that significant.

It gets really interesting when you look at girls.

Girls and aspergers:

Whoa, wait a second, more autism in the unvaccinated group then the vaccinated group??

Girls with autism

All ASD

Wow, again, more likely to have autism if you're in the unvaccinated group.

Let's jump right to the finale, boys and girls combined with all ASD:

Whoa!  Looks like you're more likely to have autism if you're unvaccinated that fully and partially vaccinated combined!  

By the way, you can download this data from generation rescue and do the math for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

I can't access the study, only the abstract.

How many autistic girls were there in the study, total?

How many cases of autism were there in the (unvaccinated) population who did not respond to the survey?

[Rrrrrachel]

Taxi, I tried to find a link to the original data for you, but strangely generation rescue seems to have removed it from their site since the last time I looked.  I will continue to try and find it.

[Taximom5]

Thank you, Rrrrrachel!

[Rrrrrachel]

Both of Olmstead's assertions, that the Amish don't vaccinate and that they don't have autism, are wrong.

http://suite101.com/article/autism-among-the-amish-a157559

Quote:

In the first place, it is true that some Amish sects forgo vaccination. However, many Amish communities fully adhere to vaccination schedules for their children. The Amish attempt to forsake modern conveniences that they believe have not improved our lives. Many members of the Amish community do not forsake common, sensible public health practices that protect their children from contagious disease.

 

Read more at Suite101: Autism Among the Amish: A Vaccination Myth Deconstructed | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/autism-among-the-amish-a157559#ixzz1yxKdpy00

Quote:

Commentators also argue that the rates of autism are low in the Amish community. Again, this is not true. Pediatricians who work with the Amish community report that members seek out treatment for their children for symptoms that resemble autism or can easily be diagnosed as a form of autism. Dr. Kevin Strauss is a pediatrician at the Clinic For Special Children in Lancaster County. Mr. Strauss states, "The idea that the Amish do not vaccinate their children is untrue." Dr. Strauss also states, "We see autistic behaviors along with seizure disorders or mental retardation or a genetic disorder, where the autism is part of a more complicated clinical spectrum.”

Read more at Suite101: Autism Among the Amish: A Vaccination Myth Deconstructed | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/autism-among-the-amish-a157559#ixzz1yxKkZSCb

The Amish are a closed community.  It is likely that Autism often goes undetected in their communities.  They also have a somewhat separated gene pool.  Both of these make any potential difference in the Autism rate (and it is only potential) not very meaningful when it comes to vaccines.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Oh, goody.  The actual numbers.

37% responded, and of that 37%, 68% stated that their children had received at least 1 immunization. That's 25%.  Not 68% of Amish families vaccinating, 68% oof the 37% who responded.

So, as far as we know, it's possible that 75% of Amish families don't vaccinate at all. We know that 25% say that their child got at least one shot.

And you're comparing that with the 35 shots that non-Amish children get from birth to age 6, per the CDC immunization schedule?

Great.  Now we're getting somewhere.

Conclusion: Amish children, up to 75% of whom are unvaccinated, and 25% of whom have received one immunization, have a far lower incidence of autism than non-Amish children who received 35 vaccinations by the age of 6.

Whoa.  That's some mighty interesting data interpretation. Run that by me again, how you got that 75% are unvaccinated and 25% have received only one immunization.  So you're saying that 75% of the Amish don't vaccinate at all, 25% only get one vaccine, and that's it?  No one does anything else?  

If I read you right, you're saying that since 37% of the people responded to the survey and 68% of respondents said that their kids had at least one vaccine, that means that 25% of all Amish families got one shot?  If that's what you are say, sorry, you're not interpreting the data correctly.  If you're saying something else, I apologize, and I'm not understanding your math.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Both of Olmstead's assertions, that the Amish don't vaccinate and that they don't have autism, are wrong.

I would agree with this.  They seem to have a lower vaccination rate and a lower autism rate - but not "none."

I still think "lower" is very interesting!

The Amish are a closed community.  It is likely that Autism often goes undetected in their communities.  The figure of 1/271 I posted upthread was from trained counsellor going door to door and doing a screening.  Those suspected of having autism were confirmed through psychologists. I accept their method of data collection.

They also have a somewhat separated gene pool.  Probably true.  

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Whoa.  That's some mighty interesting data interpretation. Run that by me again, how you got that 75% are unvaccinated and 25% have received only one immunization.  So you're saying that 75% of the Amish don't vaccinate at all, 25% only get one vaccine, and that's it?  No one does anything else?  

If I read you right, you're saying that since 37% of the people responded to the survey and 68% of respondents said that their kids had at least one vaccine, that means that 25% of all Amish families got one shot?  If that's what you are say, sorry, you're not interpreting the data correctly.  If you're saying something else, I apologize, and I'm not understanding your math.

The data only accounts for 25 % (68% of the 37% who responded) having gotten "at least one shot."

You can't assume that anyone who didn't respond to the survey received any vaccines. You can't assume that anyone who did respond to the survey received more than one vaccine, because that question was never asked.

[ModerateMom]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

The data only accounts for 25 % (68% of the 37% who responded) having gotten "at least one shot."
You can't assume that anyone who didn't respond to the survey received any vaccines. You can't assume that anyone who did respond to the survey received more than one vaccine, because that question was never asked.

Likewise, you can't assume that anyone who didn't respond to the survey DIDN'T receive any vaccines...you can't assume anything about them at all because they are not in the data set. And you can't assume that anyone who did respond to the survey DIDN'T receive more than one vaccine, because that question was never asked.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Thimerosal-free vaccines BEGAN to be introduced in 2001.

Vaccine manufacturers continued to sell and distribute the thimerosal-preserved vaccines for as long as their shelf life was good.

Pediatricians continued to use thimerosal-preserved vaccines for as long as the shelf life was good.  My pediatrician was still giving them in 2004, and the expiration date had not yet been reached.

Interesting. The below article (from Science Based Medicine) claims that the removal of thimerosol was started in 1999, that in 2001 all recommended infant vaccines were available in thimerosol free versions, and that the last lots of infant vaccines containing thimerosol had expiration dates of 2002. 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/mercury-in-vaccines-and-autism-a-failed-hypothesis

I admit they don't find a primary source, so I'd be happy to be corrected with one. Are they lying, or was your doctor administering vaccines beyond their expiration date? 

If this is the case the children born in 2000 did have a lower thimerosol "load" than the previous study, although it may not have been completely zero. We've discussed this before in a previous thread. :) It'll be the next release of the data which will be for completely "thimerosol in vaccine free" children. 

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

The data only accounts for 25 % (68% of the 37% who responded) having gotten "at least one shot."
You can't assume that anyone who didn't respond to the survey received any vaccines. You can't assume that anyone who did respond to the survey received more than one vaccine, because that question was never asked.

Uh. Not how math or statistics works.

[Rrrrrachel]

Jennifer, thanks for sharing your perspective.
Edited by Rrrrrachel - 6/27/12 at 4:58am

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Interesting. The below article (from Science Based Medicine) claims that the removal of thimerosol was started in 1999, that in 2001 all recommended infant vaccines were available in thimerosol free versions, and that the last lots of infant vaccines containing thimerosol had expiration dates of 2002. 

According to http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm114923.htm

"On July 1, 1999, CBER notified all vaccine manufacturers by letter that the use of thimerosal in biologic products would continue to be evaluated. As part of the evaluation, CBER requested that all manufacturers of thimerosal-containing vaccines provide information to CBER regarding their plans for thimerosal as a preservative in U.S. licensed vaccines."

That's very different from SBM's implication that all vaccine manufacturers began removal of thimerosal from all childhood vaccines immediately in 1999. That obviously didnt happen. In fact, thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines are still manufactured in the US, and sent to developing countries--where the rate of autism is steeply rising.

The letter sent by the CBR requested that if the manufacturer intended to remove thimerosal from their product(s), the following information needed to be discussed:

"*proposed studies to assess the effect of removing thimerosal on sterility, potency, stability, and immunogenicity of the product;
*feasibility of eliminating or reducing the amount of thimerosal, using alternative preservatives, or reformulating the product solely for single dose containers;
*anticipated manufacturing changes as a result of removing thimerosal, if any; and,
*approximate time-line necessary to evaluate and implement removal.

If the manufacturer intended to continue using thimerosal in their product(s), an explanation was requested as to why that decision was made." 

On May 31, 2000, the FDA notified vaccine manufacturers that its review of mercury compounds in drugs and foods concluded that reducing or eliminating thimerosal from vaccines is merited:
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/ucm105869.htm

This is quite a different timeline than that presented by SBM.

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I admit they don't find a primary source, so I'd be happy to be corrected with one. Are they lying, or was your doctor administering vaccines beyond their expiration date? 

 

I stated very clearly in my post (that you quoted) that my pediatrician was giving a thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccine in 2004, and that the expiration date had not been reached.

Many other parents have reported the same thing.

Blogs like SBM'S can say whatever they want; it's not necessarily the truth. Clearly, US pediatricians were sold TPV's as late as 2004. With the continued manufacturing of TPV's in the US, it would not have been difficult for Pharma reps to sell the cheaper TPV's to pediatrians, nor would it have been illegal; there was no ban on TPV's. The move to thimerosal-free was strictly voluntary. There was a request in place, not a policy.

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

It'll be the next release of the data which will be for completely "thimerosol in vaccine free" children. 

No, because even babies born today are not completely thimerosal-free. Their mothers receive thimerosal-preserved flu shots while pregnant, so the babies are getting an even earlier hit of thimerosal, during a period of greater risk.

They are also getting early flu shots beginning at 6 months--and the majority of flu shots, as discussed earlier, are thimerosal-preserved.

According to Dr. Boyd Haley (and many others), http://preventdisease.com/news/09/100609_vaccine_aluminum.shtml,

"Aluminum at levels present in vaccines increases the toxicity of thimerosal, which is ~49.6% ethylmercury by weight. Thus when an infant, toddler, or pregnant woman is injected with a vaccine or a combination of vaccines containing aluminum compounds and thimerosal, the likelihood of adverse effects is increased."

So we also have to consider the effect of all the aluminum-adjuvanted pediatric vaccines in conjunction with the aluminum-adjuvanted AND thimerosal-preserved flu shots--which means we can't assume that the next release of data regarding autism will reflect a generation unexposed to heavy metals from vaccines.

Unless, of course, there is a separate vaxed vs. unvaxed study.

[Rrrrrachel]

The majority of pregnant women and six month olds do not get a thimerosal flu shot. The majority I don't even think get a flu shot period, and a significant portion of those who do get a thimerosal free version.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Uh. Not how math or statistics works.

That's exactly how statistics are manipulated: questions are asked that leave such details wide open to interpretation: "did the children receive at least one vaccination?"

The children could have received only one--the birth dose of hep B, for example.

The children could have received 35.

Only 37% of the parents responded to the survey, and only 68% of THEM said that their child received "at least one vaccination."

Whoever designed--or tweaked-- the survey obviously didn't want it known how many and which vaccinations were received.

[pek64]

A look at those disputed numbers.

68%+17%+14% is only 99%, so 1% is unaccounted.

37% responded, so if there were 100 families, 37 are represented in the survey/study.

68% of those responding hadgiven all their children at least one vaccination.
That means 25 families of the total of 100 gave all their children at least one vaccination. It says nothing about the total number of children.

17% of those responding had given some of their children at least one vaccination.
That 11 familes gave some children at least one. No idea how many children.

14% of those responding had given their children no vaccinations.
That's 9.5 families. Again, no numbers of children.

All in all, there is no data to support either claim, since no numbers of children were provided, in my opinion.

[Rrrrrachel]

That's not usually how surveys work. You don't look at the response rate and then only apply the results to that percent of the population. If the sample was chosen appropriately even with a low response rate (and this one isn't ad at all, often response rates are much much lower) the idea is that the sample is representative of the population, so we expect the proportion in the sample to be similar to the overall proportion in the population.

Is it possible they only got surveys back, coincidentally, from only the families that vaccinated? Sure,but it's extremely unlikely. Either way, the Amish do vaccinate and the Olmsted article was wrong.

[pek64]

And either way, no numbers of children were provided, so no conclusions can be made about the percent of the children who were vaccinated.