or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Vaccine Controversy: A PubMed Compilation - 15 to start with
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vaccine Controversy: A PubMed Compilation - 15 to start with - Page 3

post #41 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

What percentage of people with autism are so disabled they can't respond to a survey? What's the rate of that in the general population? Is it even high enough to be detected by a survey like this?

You don't like the survey because it contradicts your opinion, that's cool. No problem. No need to trump up concerns with the study, you can just say you don't like it.

 

I would hardly call them "trumped up" concerns, they are perfectly valid. 

post #42 of 72

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment

 
This article does quite a good job of explaining how the real rate of autism has risen, and it isn't merely better diagnosis, awareness, etc.
 
 
http://www.autismspeaks.org/news/news-item/%5Btitle-raw%5D-348  (note: article is cited, so if people like they can go to the source.)

"Using a birth-cohort analysis approach, we saw, to no one's surprise, strong indications that the prevalence of the autism special education classification has been increasing dramatically over the past decade...The study also refutes the theory that the rising rate of autism can be attributed to "diagnosis shifting," 

 

Lastly, here is an article, on environmental factors and autism:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/05/study-environmental-factors-may-be-just-as-important-as-genes-in-autism/

For what it is worth:  I have worked with children for 20 years.  I can think of 7 kids I personally know with autism.  They range, quite drastically, in severity.  Most are not related to each other or part of a support group (i.e. I did not find them all in one place).  2 of the children might have been written off a "quirky" as opposed to autistic years ago, but the other 5 would not.
 
15 years ago I knew zero kids with autism.  
 
I have no idea if vaccines contribute in any significant way to autism.  I believe, with every fibre of my being, that real autism rates have increased (not just diagnosed more).  I have seen it with my own eyes.  As there are no genetic epidemics, it must be partly environmental.  
 
I almost wish MMR had never been linked to autism (not that it ever really was, but these things have a life of their own).  Maybe the scientific community would be more open to looking at environmental causes instead of primarily focusing on genetics, if their precious vaccines were never questioned.  
 
I have serious concerns with vaccines, but I hate severe autism more (and before anyone rants at me for hating severe autism, my two preteen nephews are still in diapers, one cannot speak at all, one is a flight risk, one is very, very agressive, neither can go out in public easily, neither can tell my sister when they are hurt and my sisters life is hellish).
 
edited to add:  I do think there is a genetic component as well.  My frustration with the whole "autism is a genetic condition" is it ignores the environmental component - and without knowing the environmental component - how can you (general you)  take steps to avoid it and safegaurd your family?  I do know some degrees of autism are easier on the family and individual than others, but none of them are a cake-walk, and severe autism can be very, very difficult.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 7/28/12 at 11:17am
post #43 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

What percentage of people with autism are so disabled they can't respond to a survey? What's the rate of that in the general population? Is it even high enough to be detected by a survey like this?
 

http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/researchers-focus-non-verbal-autism-high-risk-high-impact-meeting

 

About 25% cannot communicate in any significant way.

post #44 of 72
post #45 of 72
Kathy, I think it's defined still a matter of much debate in the scientific community how much of the increase we've seen in autism rates is due to diagnosis and how much is a real rise. I think out scientists believe both are at play (and that is my personal belief). There is an increasingly strong body of evidence that there is a definite genetic component to autism, studies with fraternal and identical twins provide some powerful evidence of that, but that doesn't rule out an environmental component, as well.
post #46 of 72

I thought this article was interesting.  It concludes that:

 

"Based on the abovementioned research, approximately 53% percent of the increase in autism prevalence over time may be explained by changes in diagnosis (26%), greater awareness (16%), and an increase in parental age (11%).  While this research is beginning to help us understand the increase in autism prevalence, half of the increase is still unexplained and not due to better diagnosis, greater awareness, and social factors alone."

 

http://blog.autismspeaks.org/2010/10/22/got-questions-answers-to-your-questions-from-the-autism-speaks’-science-staff-2/#_ftn2


Edited by kathymuggle - 7/29/12 at 7:51am
post #47 of 72

Some links on autism studies in this article - why the rate increase, no consensus so far.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111102/full/479022a.html#B12

 

Possible vax-autism link totally dismissed, but keep reading and there are some interesting stuff later on.


Edited by MamaMunchkin - 7/25/12 at 11:05pm
post #48 of 72

Here is another interesting read on genetics and environmental causes of autism

 

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/07/autism-genetics-vs-environment

 

"this would be merely an academic argument except that the U.S. government spends well over $150 million annually on autism research. Over the last 10 years, taxpayers have devoted roughly $1 billion to studying genes involved in autism and only about $40 million digging into possible environmental causes. Whoever wins this argument could sway future spending."

 

It is a good read for those interested in the genetics/environment issue.

post #49 of 72

I personally believe in a combination of both , a genetic predisposition as well as an environmental one . 

I have a friend , who does not and has never vacced her 3 kids and 2 of them fall under the autistic spectrum !

Same thing goes for vaccines !

Many people , especially on here , say " all my kids ( or siblings ) had an adverse reaction to a vaccine " And usually the same vaccine , so that seems to be more than a coincidence to me !

Other than that , it is very difficult to say , especially considering , how mach diagnostics have improved over the past few years and there a quite a few kids at my oldest ( disabled ) son´s school , who have received a different diagnosis , than they would have several years ago 

And before anyone says , I am not qualified to say , I also have a handicapped brother , even though both my son and my brother are damaged due to ( vacc-unrelated ) injuries sustained when they were babies , I personally know several people , who actually had a previous diagnosis changed or altered after re-evaluation in their teens or as young adults 

Plus , I also believe vaccinations play a role ( at least minor in most cases ) but not by actually causing autism . 

However , when a child , that has a predisposition for autism , gets vacced at roughly the same time autism shows the first symptoms , the body´s reaction to the vacc also triggers the first syptoms to appear ! 

post #50 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonttu View Post

I personally believe in a combination of both , a genetic predisposition as well as an environmental one . 

Of course autism results from a combination of genes and environmental influences. However, genes don't change as fast as autism has been rising. Autism was extremely rare when my parents were children. So obviously environmental factors are the most influential. And they are environmental influences that haven't always been there, at least in the present levels.

 

when a child , that has a predisposition for autism , gets vacced at roughly the same time autism shows the first symptoms , the body´s reaction to the vacc also triggers the first syptoms to appear !

So you do think vaccines can cause autism? As in, some kids who are genetically predisposed would not become autistic if they weren't vaccinated?

post #51 of 72
No , I DO NOT believe , vaccines are to blame for autism .
I believe , that SOMETIMES , a vaccine can make symptoms appear faster than they would have if not vacced , due to the naturally occuring reaction of the body and immune system to the vaccine .
But eventually , they will !
post #52 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonttu View Post
No , I DO NOT believe , vaccines are to blame for autism .
I believe , that SOMETIMES , a vaccine can make symptoms appear faster than they would have if not vacced , due to the naturally occuring reaction of the body and immune system to the vaccine .
But eventually , they will !

If this is the case, wouldn't it be better for the child to have a normal life as long as possible? And why do you think the child would necessarily eventually develop autism, even without vaccines? Would it be from a different environmental insult? If so, wouldn't avoiding one type of environmental insult (vaccines) lessen the severity of the inevitable autism? Autism is a spectrum.


Edited by ma2two - 7/30/12 at 10:28pm
post #53 of 72

Because it is not caused by vaccines , that´s why , autism is a mental disease , not a vaccine induced problem .

And the problem is , autistic kids develop symptoms around a certain age , which just happens to be around the same time , they are vacced , so it won´t make a difference, if you don´t vaccinate them or vaccinate them later , they will simply develop symptoms first and then get their vaccination 

On the contrary , it will only add another risk , that of catching a potentially dangerous illness , that would otherwise be prevented by the vaccine  

And environmental factors may only make it a bit worse , but that is also a questionable theory , since it is quite clear , that it is mostly a genetic problem . 

post #54 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonttu View Post

Because it is not caused by vaccines , that´s why , autism is a mental disease , not a vaccine induced problem .

And the problem is , autistic kids develop symptoms around a certain age , which just happens to be around the same time , they are vacced , so it won´t make a difference, if you don´t vaccinate them or vaccinate them later , they will simply develop symptoms first and then get their vaccination 

On the contrary , it will only add another risk , that of catching a potentially dangerous illness , that would otherwise be prevented by the vaccine  

And environmental factors may only make it a bit worse , but that is also a questionable theory , since it is quite clear , that it is mostly a genetic problem . 

Wow. A few things jump out at me. First, yes according to the DSM autism is a collection of behaviors, thus is a mental condition. There is no biological tests to either confirm or deny an autism diagnosis. However, there does appear to be some urine markers found in autistic people for example low levels of the antioxidant glutathione. Autistic children tend to have a whole host of medical issues including GI problems, unexplained fevers, high rate of infections, like ear, urinary, respiratory, skin conditions, allergies, etc, etc. Basically, immune issues, so there obviously is something physical going on.

 

Vaccines, do cause encephalitis, there have been many cases compensated in US courts. Vaccines also cause immune system deficiencies, see the thread on the Self-Organized Criticality Theory of Autoimmunity in this forum, here is a direct link to the study. Encephalitis can lead to seizures, seizures lead to brain damage, brain damage leads to behavioral problems which can look a lot like the definition of autism.

 

I would also be grateful if you can explain the mechanism of a genetic epidemic, especially such a fast moving one as autism. How to we get from 1 in 10,000 to a conservative 1 in 88 in 30 years without a major environmental cause? At this rate this genetic epidemic will wipe out the human race in the not too distant future. I think the questionable theory is your genetics as the primary cause for autism. 

post #55 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

What percentage of people with autism are so disabled they can't respond to a survey? What's the rate of that in the general population? Is it even high enough to be detected by a survey like this?
 

http://www.iancommunity.org/galleries/ian_research_report_may_2007_scratch/Child_Current_Dxv4.jpg

 

ASD is comprised of Autism, Aspergers and PDD.

 

It look like about 50% of the population has autism as opposed to Aspergers or PDD.  Given this, plus what we know of the ability for people with autism to communicate, I would say a good number of people with ASD would not be a be to fill out the survey.

 

That 50% of the population of ASD has autism lends a lot of credence to the fact that the rate is genuinely increasing. If 90% of those on the ASD had Aspergers, I can easily see an increase in diagnosis being the primary reason for our current numbers.  That is not the case though.  Autism would be diagnosed in any generation (and if they were not called autistic, it would not have matterred - everyone would have known something was not OK).  Autism is not not written off as quirky, etc.  It is a severe and debilitating.

 

Here is a list of symptoms - it says that 40% of people with autism never speak, and that only 33% will eventually live alone.   

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/autism-symptoms?page=2

 

It will be interesting to see what happens when the DSM changes its guidelines in the near future.  I expect, at least for a few years, it will make the situation less clear. 


Edited by kathymuggle - 8/3/12 at 7:25am
post #56 of 72

CDC estimates that the rate of autism in 8-year-olds in the US is 1 in 88 children . Why so many today ?

Consider , that no one was autistic before 1944 - because the condition had not been named or described .By 1953 , a doctor said , the diagnosis had "threatened to become fashion "

Is autism overdiagnosed or is it more prevalent for some reason ? Or could it be , that awareness and better diagnostic techniques identify people with autism , that would have once been diagnosed as something else ?

To most experts in autism and an autism epidemic , the biggest factors accounting for the boost in autism prevalence are the shifting description and increased awareness about the disorder .

Several decades after te introduction of autism as a diagnosis , researchers have reported , that professionals are still engaging in " diagnostic substitution " , moving people from one diagnostic category such as " mental retardation " or " language impairment " to the autism category . 

For instance , in one recent study , researchers at UCLA re-examined a population 489 children , who had been living in Utah in the 198´s . 

their first results in 1990 identified 108 children in the study population , who received a classification of " challenged " ( what we consider today as to be " intellectually disabled " ) but who were not diagnosed as autistic . 

When the researchers went back and applied today´s autism diagnosis criteria to the same 108 kids , they found that 64 of them would have received would have received an autism diagnosis today , along with their diagnosis of of intellectual disability .

Further evidence comes from developmental neuropsychologist Dorothy Bishop and colleagues , who completed a study investigating re-evaluation of adults who had been identified in childhood as having developmental language disorder rather than autism .

Using diagnostic tools to evaluate them today , Bishop´s group found , that a fifth of these adults met the criteria for an autism spectrum disorder , when they previously had not been recognised as autistic .

Another strong argument against the specter of an emerging autism epidemic is , that prevalence of the disorder is notably similar from country to country and between generations .

A 2011 UK study of a large adult populationfound a a constant prevalence of about 1 % among adults , similar to that found in UK children and about where the rates are now in US kids . 

In other words , there are as many adults as kids walking around with autism , suggesting stable rates across generations , at least when people bother to look at adults .

And back in 1996 , Lorna Wing ( the autism expert , who translated Asperger´s seminal paper ) tentatively estimated an autism spectrum prevalence of 0.91 % that keeps popping up in studies today .

It appears that quite a few people , that were warehoused in insane asylums in previous centuries would now be diagnosed more accurately  

post #57 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonttu View Post

CDC estimates that the rate of autism in 8-year-olds in the US is 1 in 88 children . Why so many today ?

Consider , that no one was autistic before 1944 - because the condition had not been named or described .By 1953 , a doctor said , the diagnosis had "threatened to become fashion "

Is autism overdiagnosed or is it more prevalent for some reason ? Or could it be , that awareness and better diagnostic techniques identify people with autism , that would have once been diagnosed as something else ?

To most experts in autism and an autism epidemic , the biggest factors accounting for the boost in autism prevalence are the shifting description and increased awareness about the disorder .

 

 

According to numerous mainstream sources ( 2 listed up thread) about 50% of the increase can be attributed to awareness, shifting diagnosis, increase in parental age, etc.  That leave 50% unaccounted for.  

 

 

 

A 2011 UK study of a large adult populationfound a a constant prevalence of about 1 % among adults , similar to that found in UK children and about where the rates are now in US kids . 

 

I read that study.  Most of the 1% they found were listed as mild.  They did not find many  moderate-severe cases, yet, once again, about 50% of the population with ASD are moderate to severe.  Why did they not find new moderate to severe cases?  Perhaps because 0.5 of the adult population (half of 1%) are not moderately to severely autistic - yet 0.5 of the child population is.  Hmmmm…real increase, anyone?  

 

 

post #58 of 72
Thread Starter 

Ah, the old "better/broadened diagnosis chestnut and junk (manipulated) science. There are studies that clearly demonstrate (using the same diagnostic criteria in DSM- VI) there has been a real and dramatic increase in autism since 1988 and that there was next to no Asperger's prior to 1989*.

 

Autism Figures - Exisiting Studies Show Shocking Real Increase Since 1988

 

To further back up what Kathy is saying:

 

 

 

 

Quote:

People who use the argument that there is no real increase in autism start out usually by using incorrect terminology.  They speak of “higher functioning autism” like Asperger syndrome.  It is a common mistake [or done deliberately].

“Autism” refers to what is known variously as “typical”, “Kanner”, “childhood” “classic” or “infantile” autism and that is the benchmark. Not the “higher functioning” kind others try to lump in with it like Asperger’s Syndrome. Autism makes up around 30% of UK autistic spectrum cases and Aspergers around 70%.

 

 

* Reichenberg, Israel – 1 in 1190 – CHILDREN with childhood autism and next to no Asperger cases [figures in 2005 - for 17 year old conscripts for Israeli military all born in 6 year period ending 1988].

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #59 of 72

Well , but no matter what CREDIBLE study we look at , the conclusion is very clear and obvious AUTISM IS NOT CAUSED BY VACCINES  

post #60 of 72
I'm wondering if we can even agree on what constitutes a CREDIBLE study. Sometimes it seems as though the only 'credible' study is the one supporting a specific idea (for both sides).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Vaccine Controversy: A PubMed Compilation - 15 to start with