"The increasing evidence that aluminum/adjuvants cause . . . " - Page 5

[Rrrrrachel]

Parental report of autism diagnosis. Funny hoe that kind of reporting is sometimes junk science and sometimes completely conclusive. Hmmm.

[kathymuggle]

Well, I doubt parents are wrong on if their child has autism.

Once in a while, we hear from parents who say "we think so and so might have autism" but they are often in the process of getting a diagnosis. That is part of the reason when when talk of autism statistics we look at birth cohorts from 8 years back. It can take a while for a diagnosis.   Most kids with autism have an official diagnosis - it is a complicated disorder involving education plan, outpatient services, etc.  

Parental reports can be accurate - it depends (to some degree) on the nature of what they are reporting.  

[Rrrrrachel]

Also interesting how sample size only matters sometimes. In that study:

"The autism group had 33 kids total. Of these, 9 of 31 (29%) were given the HepB vaccine. Compare this to 1,258 of 7,455 (17%) of the non-autism group who were given the HepB."

That is well below the threshold necessary to reliably provide statistical significance.

[kathymuggle]

Yes, small sample size can be an issue.

I found this as well - it might be the same study as before.    Yes, small sample size - but the abstract says they found statistically significant evidence.

It does say the study comes from a time when thim was in Hep B in the USA - it is worth noting for our non-American parents that Canada still uses a Hep B vaccine with thimerosal.  This is a little old, but it looks like the UK's shot does as well.  :http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4472485.stm.

And ,of course, (OT) but thim is still found in some flu vaccines given to pregnant women.  Ask for a thim-free shot if you going down this path, lurkers!!

"This study investigated the association between vaccination with the Hepatitis B triple series vaccine prior to 2000 and developmental disability in children aged 1–9 years (n = 1824), proxied by parental report that their child receives early intervention or special education services (EIS)...The odds of receiving EIS were approximately nine times as great for vaccinated boys (n = 46) as for unvaccinated boys (n = 7), after adjustment for confounders. This study found statistically significant evidence to suggest that boys in United States who were vaccinated with the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine, during the time period in which vaccines were manufactured with thimerosal, were more susceptible to developmental disability than were unvaccinated boys."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02772240701806501

[Rrrrrachel]

Kathy, regardless of what it says I have a difficult time buying into statistical significance when one of your groups had a sample size of 7. That strains credulity.

[Rrrrrachel]

Both of these studies have some issues with methodology, although its hard to be sure because I haven't seen the full study doe the second. The hep b vaccine became part of the schedule in 1991. In both studies they studied children old enough to not have gotten the vaccine because it wasn't on the schedule. Since both autismdiagnosis rates and rates of early intervention have increased over time due to issues entirely unrelated to vaccination, these older children would be less likely to be diagnosed with these conditions and more likely to be unvaccinated.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

 Since both autismdiagnosis rates and rates of early intervention have increased over time due to issues entirely unrelated to vaccination, 

Please do tell us what these issues are, and how you know that they are entirely unrelated to vaccination.

[Rrrrrachel]

Well, taxi, primarily increased efforts at early diagnosis and intervention, as well as expanded diagnosis criteria for various developmental delays.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Kathy, regardless of what it says I have a difficult time buying into statistical significance when one of your groups had a sample size of 7. That strains credulity.

The statistical significance words were theirs.

Still, I hear you.

However, if study number one showed an increase in a developmental issue, and study 2 also showed an increase, it might mean something.  Yes, small sample size - but the fact two show similar issues is concerning.  If there are other studies, it would be more concerning.

This has a wealth of links critical of Hep. B:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/anti-therapeutic-action/vaccination-hepatitis-b

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Well, taxi, primarily increased efforts at early diagnosis and intervention, as well as expanded diagnosis criteria for various developmental delays.

Well, Rrrrachel, there has been no expanded diagnostic criteria for autism since 1994, when DSM-IV was published.  That's 18 years ago, and autism rates are still increasing.  Early diagnosis and intervention have not changed over the last 15 years that I can see.

And autism rates continue to skyrocket.

Even the UC Davis MIND Institute admits that autism rates are skyrocketing, that it's NOT just better diagnosis, and that environmental factors are likely.

You still haven't told us how you know that autism has nothing to do with vaccines. I'm sure Hannah Poling's parents would like to know this, too, as well as the families of the children compensated by the US government for their "vaccine-induced brain damage" (which just happened to be autism).  Oh, and the Italian government recently admitted that the MMR caused an Italian child to regress into autism.  They might like to hear how you know that autism is entirely unrelated to vaccination.

[Rrrrrachel]

Taxi that study was done right in that time frame and included children old enough that they would've been impacted by the 1994 change. There have also been a lot of increased efforts to identify special needs children in that time frame. I'm sorry you're not aware of that.

[Rrrrrachel]

Idea passed in 1986 and one requirement was states had to implement child find programs to identify special needs children early and provide services. So that was gettin off the ground during this time frame. There's also the influence of the Internet. That's just off the top of my head.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Taxi that study was done right in that time frame and included children old enough that they would've been impacted by the 1994 change. There have also been a lot of increased efforts to identify special needs children in that time frame. I'm sorry you're not aware of that.

SINCE 1994, there has not been any change in diagnostic criteria for autism. Children born in, say, 1995, would not have been diagnosed until 1997 at the earliert--at which time the 1994 changes would have been in full swing for 3 YEARS.

And yet autism rates continued to rise.

Ask any teacher.  Every teacher my kids have had, in 6 different schools including preschools, have said the same thing:  they never saw the number of kids with autism spectrum disorder when they first started teaching. They saw maybe 1-3 kids that had such issues in the whole grade back in the 1980's.  According to the teachers, most of those kids did not have official diagnoses.

Nowadays, it's 3-5 kids per classroom--some diagnosed, some not. (I know many parents of children with autistic spectrum disorders who refuse an official diagnosis so that the kid doesn't get "labeled;"  they opt for a label of "gifted" instead, which still allows for an IEP.)

Ask any principal who has worked in schools for 20 years or more,--they are very nervous about the number of kids with moderate to severe autism in the public school classrooms, as that affects the school's performance on standardized tests.  They, too, will tell you that they never saw anything like this at the beginning of their careers.

And finally, ask the colleges and universities who have had to retool their teacher education programs to reflect the changing characteristics of the children their students will end up teaching.

http://neatoday.org/2012/04/18/increase-in-autism-highlights-need-for-inclusion/

"Throughout the country, more and more educators face the challenges of educating students with Autism Spectrum Disorder, despite having had little of the necessary experience or training.

[Rrrrrachel]

Taxi the second study was done and used children as old as nine. The first was done I. A similar timeframe and used children as old as 17.

I'm not addressing the larger issue of what amount of increase in the autism rate is due to diagnosis criteria. I'm only discussing possible confounding factors with these two specific studies.

[Rrrrrachel]

And I am a teacher.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

And I am a teacher.

Aren't you primarily an adult or young adult teacher?

[Rrrrrachel]

I've taught elementary aged students all the way through adults.

[kathymuggle]

I work in a public library that has school visits.  I definitely see more autism now than in the past….

Anyhow….autism aside for a moment….

If your childs risk of contracting hep b under 19 is 1.39 in 100 000 and the risk of anaphylaxis from the vaccine is 1/600 000   (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-science/infectious-diseases/topics-interest/viral-hepatitis/hepatitis-b/hepatitis-b-vaccine.page)  I  might take my risk with Hep B.  Anaphylaxis carries a significant risk of death.  

(for extra fun: read the last 2 paragraphs of the above article.  In the second to last paragraph it says VAERS is not very useful, and in the last paragraph it instructs us to look at the VAERS results!  The difference:  in one scenario VAERS was supporting their pro-vax view, in the other it was not )

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/24/12 at 7:39pm

[Rrrrrachel]

Well, I disagree that's the only difference.

If the risk of not vaccinating is more than six times higher than the risk of vaccinating, I'll take the vaccine.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Well, I disagree that's the only difference.
If the risk of not vaccinating is more than six times higher than the risk of vaccinating, I'll take the vaccine.

That's not a valid assessment of how the risks compare.  You are only considering the risk of anaphylaxis rather than the risk of severe adverse reaction.

Heck, if anaphylaxis were the only risk of vaccines, this forum probably wouldn't exist.