Yes, but only 20 of those 298 ASD children had exposure to SSRIs.
And if course there is nothing on the Zoloft insert about SSRIs causing autism. Becaus we can't say that they do.
I understand what you meant in your earlier post, but no.
97% is not equal to 1/33.
3/100 is 3%, not 97%.
97% is actually about 32/33
Absolutely, especially mild depression, which is far more common than severe depression.
"The more researchers delve into the research behind antidepressants — the class of drugs commonly prescribed to treat depression — the more they find that perhaps the majority of antidepressants’ treatment effect is based upon the simple belief that the drug will help."
"A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that the medications work no better than a placebo in those with mild or even moderate symptoms of depression."
"This review examined trials which compared antidepressants with 'active' placebos, that is placebos containing active substances which mimic side effects of antidepressants. Small differences were found in favour of antidepressants in terms of improvements in mood. This suggests that the effects of antidepressants may generally be overestimated and their placebo effects may be underestimated."
"Based on 17 trials (3229 participants in total), there was evidence of an increased risk (64%) of suicide-related outcomes for those on antidepressants compared with those given placebo. Where rates of adverse events were reported, this was higher for those prescribed an antidepressant. There was no evidence that one particular type of newer generation antidepressant had a larger effect than the others when compared to placebo."
"About 11 percent of people in the U.S. are taking antidepressants according tofresh figures out from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antidepressant use has surged almost 400 percent, when you compare the figures from the three-year period ending in 2008 to the six years ending in 1994, the year the eye-opening memoir Prozac Nation was published."
And the numbers go even higher for young people:
"But wait, there's more. Nearly 4 percent of adolescents (ages 12-17) are on an antidepressant."
So if there IS a link between antidepressants and autism, then it looks like autism rates will continue to go up, even if the vaccine-autism link is addressed.
Great. We've got serious problems caused by both vaccines AND antidepressants. It looks like, in both cases, the pharmaceutical industry lied about safety/efficacy, and convinced the medical industry to prescribe these unnecessary medications to people, and the FDA was either clueless or ignoring the problems.
This whole last page supports my point, actually.
I said "vaccine are not an easy fix - people will not want to change the vaccine program even if vaccines are implicated in autism" and rachel disagreed. I am simplifying, but it is all upthread.
What do we have on the last page?
mild attack on the study
pointing out the study is preliminary
-pointing out that depression is serious and of course pregnant women should not just go off it!
What we don't have is:
Hey - that is interesting! Autism is serious. Maybe this is cause for caution? Should pregnant women be told about this? Any other studies? Any alternative to anti-depressants?
I am not sensing from pro-vax forces a willingness to change or even consider change…why would it be different if it were vaccine implicated in autism? It wouldn't.
www.14studies.org has some excellent discussion of the flaws of the "myriad studies that tell you that vax has no relationship to autism." The site also discusses the studies that do indicate just such a relationship. In fact, at least one of the studies that purports to show no relationship actually does show that relationship.
Is conflict of interest concerning? Funny, it does not seem to be when most of the vaccine studies come from vaccine manufacturers and vaccine manufacturers sit on boards of CDC advisory committees…...
Science Based Medicine has some analysis: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/14-studies-later .
Sure. I can agree to that.
I took a look on the 14 studies pages, and it seems the critiques have individual authors.
If you click on "read more" you will find the list of authors within each review. You do have to read a bit, sometimes the names are embedded in the document instead of at the top.
Science Based Medicine has some analysis: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/14-studies-later
The SBM "analysis," written by Adventist Medical Center internist Mark Crislip basically says, "oh, these studies make perfect sense" while completely ignoring the valid criticisms explained by www.14studies.org.
Instead of discussing the points made by 14studies, he makes a nice little attack on the whole idea of a (gasp) government cover-up of data, suggesting that anyone who believes that (gasp) the government would cover up data would also believe "that the REAL widespread, well funded, conspiracy between researchers, industry and government is suppress the truth about the Kennedy assassination. And man made global warming. And the Trilateral Commission. And the Holocaust. And UFO’s. And Big Foot. And Homeopathy. And Fluoridation. And the Loch Ness Monster. And and and and…"
Yeah, in lieu of actual discussion, we see an awful lot of insults thrown at those who question and criticize vaccine safety. Crislip is also good at making it look like he is discussing 14studies' points--but if you do a side-by-side comparison, he's not even touching on those points. Nice sleigh-of-hand--but it doesn't fool anyone who bothers to actually read both, side-by-side and point by point
Just to give one example:
Pediatrics, Thomas Verstraeten, MD (November 2003)
A disaster. The most widely quoted study, and the only study ever done with American data on American children, reached a neutral conclusion, asked the wrong question, and the author left to join a vaccine company before its publication. And, the world's most incriminating and public "secret meeting" calls the entire study into question. If this is the CDC's best work, we're all in trouble. Recently, the former CDC Director called this study "unhelpful and potentially misleading."
In this study they looked at HMO records of 124,170 infants for associations between neurodevelopemental disorders and thimerosal exposure. They then reevaluated the same disorders on another 16,717 children in another HMO. They found different associations between neurodevelopemental disorders and thimerosal exposures at the two HMO’s. And when it came to autism and attention deficit disorder, there were no increased risks that they could determine.
Crislip's critique of 14Studies' critique: Their main issue with the paper was the politics and bias behind it. What about the science?
Gee, somehow Crislip doesn't even mention that this is a study held up to "prove" that vaccines aren't linked with autism? No mention that "the study initially found statistically significant dose-response effects between increasing doses of mercury from thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and various types of neurodevelopmental disorders. " ALso no mention that it was later found that approximately 1/3 of the children in this study had actually received thimerosal-free vaccines, but were counted as having received thimerosal-preserved vaccines.
And it's pretty much the same for all those studies. Crislip mocks and jeers at 14Studies, and summarizes the studies as though he were paid to market them, but doesn't actually discuss the points made by 14Studies.
Yeah, like how 14Studies actually wanted studies designed to be accurate, scientific, free from conflict of interest, and all that stuff, rather than set up with rigged data, etc.