Slate article on congressional hearings

[Rrrrrachel]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/04/congress_hearing_on_vaccines_is_a_farce_of_dangerous_antivax_nonsense.html

Let me be clear right off the bat: Vaccines don’t cause autism.
It’s really that simple. We know they don’t. There have been extensive studies comparing groups of children who have been vaccinated with, say, the measles, mumps, and rublella (MMR) vaccine versus those who have not, and it’s very clear that there is no elevated rate of autism in the vaccinated children.

[MamaJenese]

Thanks for the link I will be passing it along. 

[Rrrrrachel]

I sent some time looking through the links embedded in the article, too. They are mostly other articles, not pubmed studies or anything, but they were also really interesting.

[Chicharronita]

I'm glad at the end he points out:

Quote:

I want to clarify two things I wrote in the original version of this article. One was to say that studies have compared vaccinated to unvaccinated children; that's true, but the studies were not done with completely unvaccinated chaildren. [sic]

I'm waiting for the day those studies come out! 

[Rrrrrachel]

This just in!

http://www.aerzteblatt.de/pdf.asp?id=80869

[prosciencemum]

The rest of that quote chicaronitta posted where the author is voluntarily correctly some minor factual inaccuracies in his post.

"[Addendum: I want to clarify two things I wrote in the original version of this article. One was to say that studies have compared vaccinated to unvaccinated children; that's true, but the studies were not done with completely unvaccinated chaildren. The linked Dutch study, for example, looked at just the MMR vaccine, and others looked at vaccine timing, total dosages, and other factors. I edited the text to make that more clear. Also, I mistakenly wrote that the MMR vaccine had thimerosal in it; that was simply an error on my part and I have corrected the text. Note that neither of these two points changes my argument at all: vaccines do not cause autism, and this fact has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.]"

I particularly liked the Forbes.com article on the hearing which is linked through his post too.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/04/congress_hearing_on_vaccines_is_a_farce_of_dangerous_antivax_nonsense.html

Yet CDC's Julie Geberding admits that vaccines can trigger autism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxJE92R0ss

[prosciencemum]

The general consensus of science (before someone asks I'm not going to link a single report here because I mean the summary of many many reports) is that vaccinating your child will not make them any more likely to develop autism than not vaccinating them. 

If there is any evidence of a link between autism and vaccines (if I understand this right - which I may not) it seems to be that things which stimulate a child's immune system (which can include vaccines, but also anything else which stimulates the system) might trigger autism in some cases. However even if that is true it means that a child who developed autism triggered by a vaccine would have eventually had the autism triggered by some other immune system stimulation (getting a virus - perhaps even an VPD virus). The antigens in vaccines are weakened and therefore would seem less of an effect on the immune system than developing the full blown disease. 

So even if this link is there (and I don't know that we should be taking Julie Gedberding's word for in a youtube video) it means the child would get autism anyway - the only difference is the timing of the trigger (and the protection, or lack of it, from the VPD). 

We should move on from blaming vaccines for every case of autism and try to spend the money helping these children and families (in my opinion).  

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

So even if this link is there (and I don't know that we should be taking Julie Gedberding's word for in a youtube video) it means the child would get autism anyway - the only difference is the timing of the trigger (and the protection, or lack of it, from the VPD). 

The vast majority of kids who develop regressive autism do so between 15-30 months  (wikipedia).

Avoiding known triggers during that time seems wise.

and…you don't like Julie Gedberding from the CDC??????

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

The general consensus of science (before someone asks I'm not going to link a single report here because I mean the summary of many many reports) is that vaccinating your child will not make them any more likely to develop autism than not vaccinating them. 

If there is any evidence of a link between autism and vaccines (if I understand this right - which I may not) it seems to be that things which stimulate a child's immune system (which can include vaccines, but also anything else which stimulates the system) might trigger autism in some cases. However even if that is true it means that a child who developed autism triggered by a vaccine would have eventually had the autism triggered by some other immune system stimulation (getting a virus - perhaps even an VPD virus). The antigens in vaccines are weakened and therefore would seem less of an effect on the immune system than developing the full blown disease. 

So even if this link is there (and I don't know that we should be taking Julie Gedberding's word for in a youtube video) it means the child would get autism anyway - the only difference is the timing of the trigger (and the protection, or lack of it, from the VPD). 

We should move on from blaming vaccines for every case of autism and try to spend the money helping these children and families (in my opinion).  

No, not necessarily, Hannah Polilng's mother had the same mitochondrial defect as Hannah and she does not have autism.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

The rest of that quote chicaronitta posted where the author is voluntarily correctly some minor factual inaccuracies in his post.
"[Addendum: I want to clarify two things I wrote in the original version of this article. One was to say that studies have compared vaccinated to unvaccinated children; that's true, but the studies were not done with completely unvaccinated chaildren. The linked Dutch study, for example, looked at just the MMR vaccine, and others looked at vaccine timing, total dosages, and other factors. I edited the text to make that more clear. Also, I mistakenly wrote that the MMR vaccine had thimerosal in it; that was simply an error on my part and I have corrected the text. Note that neither of these two points changes my argument at all: vaccines do not cause autism, and this fact has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.]"
I particularly liked the Forbes.com article on the hearing which is linked through his post too.

Wow.  What mistakes.  It does not seem like the author of the article cited by the Op is credible at all. 

ETA:  the author of the article is an astronomer and skeptic.  Yeah.  If I want random peoples POV, I can read that here.

ETA take 2:  Forewarning:  skeptic site - i.e sites that like to bash non-vaxxers.  

[Rrrrrachel]

We are capable of deciding for ourselves who is and isn't credible.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

If there is any evidence of a link between autism and vaccines (if I understand this right - which I may not) it seems to be that things which stimulate a child's immune system (which can include vaccines, but also anything else which stimulates the system) might trigger autism in some cases.

I think you do not understand the link between autism and vaccines.  It's far more complicated than you say here, and for many children with regressive autism, it involves many other things bsides a basic immune reaction, for example, vitamin defeciencies, glutathione depletion, mitochondrial disfunction, and heavy metal toxicity.

However even if that is true it means that a child who developed autism triggered by a vaccine would have eventually had the autism triggered by some other immune system stimulation (getting a virus - perhaps even an VPD virus). 

That is a most unscientific assumption.

WE DO NOT KNOW THAT someone whose autism was triggered by a vaccine would have autism triggered by a virus.  We don't even know if it's likely.  But it seems very UNlikely, because if that's all it takes, we would have seen just as many severe autism cases 40 years ago--and the rate then was 1 in 10,000.  Even if we were talking about a simple immune reaction to a virus casuing autism (which is unlikely, see above explanation), exposure to that virus at a later age, or at a time when the child is stronger, healthier, and has a more highly developed immune system, would likely result in something milder than the profound regressive autism that we see in 1-2-year-olds.

We should move on from blaming vaccines for every case of autism and try to spend the money helping these children and families (in my opinion).  

Nobody has blamed every case of autism on vaccines.  Even Mark Blaxill and Dan Olmstead, authors of the excellent book, Age of Autism,:  Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-made Epidemic (http://www.amazon.com/Age-Autism-Medicine-Man-Made-Epidemic/dp/B0055X6B9G) explain quite thoroughly how some of the original autistic children diagnosed by Leo Kanner were likely to have been exposed to mercury--and not necessarily through vaccination.  You can read about it here:  http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/11/autism-from-a-flu-shot-the-ominous-clue-from-kanners-autism-case-7.html

[prosciencemum]

Taxi - I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this as on so many things related to vaccines.

However, since there's no metallic mercury in vaccines (and never has been) that last comment (and the related link) seems to me to be completely irrelevant.

Hydrogen is explosive, water (Hydorgen dioxide) is not. Chlorine will poison you, table salt (sodium chloride) makes food taste better (although not so great in massive quantities, but then neither is water). Metallic mercury is very poisoness to humans. No-one denies this, however it is irrelevant to thimerosol (a mercury compound) which in any case is no longer In any childhood vaccines (and was never in all of them), and only found in the usa in multi-dose vials of the flu vaccine.

(Edited to correct typo relevent - irrelevent - that was a bad one!).
Edited by prosciencemum - 12/6/12 at 2:33am

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

ETA take 2:  Forewarning:  skeptic site - i.e sites that like to bash non-vaxxers.  

I've also noticed it always does so. 

[prosciencemum]

It you can make it through some of the insulting language about choices to not vaccinate, you will notice that Phil Plait (the "Bad Astronomer") who writes this blog, is very angry about the death of Dana McCaffery (died of whooping cough in 2009 at age 4 weeks). Frankly her entirely preventable death makes me angry too, although I believe polite discourse is usually more helpful to the discussion so I try my hardest not to let that anger rule my comments. Phil's also not bound by the MDC UA to respect your choices. He makes it clear that he has no respect for the choice not to vaccinate and believes people who have made that choice have contributed to the death of Dana McCaffery. So he doesn't hold back on his opinions. Neither do many on the "anti-vax" side either. 

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

It you can make it through some of the insulting language about choices to not vaccinate, you will notice that Phil Plait (the "Bad Astronomer") who writes this blog, is very angry about the death of Dana McCaffery (died of whooping cough in 2009 at age 4 weeks). Frankly her entirely preventable death makes me angry too, although I believe polite discourse is usually more helpful to the discussion so I try my hardest not to let that anger rule my comments. Phil's also not bound by the MDC UA to respect your choices. He makes it clear that he has no respect for the choice not to vaccinate and believes people who have made that choice have contributed to the death of Dana McCaffery. So he doesn't hold back on his opinions. Neither do many on the "anti-vax" side either. 

prosciencemom….

I don't think he is bound by the MDC UA.  I don't really care what he writes on other sites.  That being said, a good chunk of people here are non-vaxxers and sick of non-vax bashing, so I figured I would give them a little warning to avoid the link if they were not in the mood.

I was upset by the picture of the baby.  No one likes it when a baby dies……however….

Pro-vaxxers are sooooooo critical of others telling their story of their vaccine injured child (anecdotes), even when it is many stories they dismiss it as anecdata, yet they pull out their own stories, don't they?

The science around the pertussis upswing is not primarily related to non-vaxxing.  Even the CDC admits this.   http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html   I find it interesting that other VADs are not on the upswing in the same way pertusssis is, yet non-vaxxers are blamed for the upswing.  Even if he or anyone thinks non-vaxxers do play a part in the pertussis upswing, may I suggest they aim their daggers at the huge number of adults who do not get their boosters???? Failing to do so make it seem like the real reason they are angry is not about vaccination rates, but something else.

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't think pointing out that something is an anecdote is the same as being sooooo critical of it. Personally I don't have a problem with people sharing their stories of vaccine reactions. I do have a problem with them presenting it as science, though.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't think pointing out that something is an anecdote is the same as being sooooo critical of it. Personally I don't have a problem with people sharing their stories of vaccine reactions. I do have a problem with them presenting it as science, though.

hmmm guess I live under a rock. I've never seen a poster make a claim that an anecdotal story they share is scientific proof of anything 

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

prosciencemom….

I don't think he is bound by the MDC UA.  I don't really care what he writes on other sites.  That being said, a good chunk of people here are non-vaxxers and sick of non-vax bashing, so I figured I would give them a little warning to avoid the link if they were not in the mood.

I was upset by the picture of the baby.  No one likes it when a baby dies……however….

Pro-vaxxers are sooooooo critical of others telling their story of their vaccine injured child (anecdotes), even when it is many stories they dismiss it as anecdata, yet they pull out their own stories, don't they?

The science around the pertussis upswing is not primarily related to non-vaxxing.  Even the CDC admits this.   http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html   I find it interesting that other VADs are not on the upswing in the same way pertusssis is, yet non-vaxxers are blamed for the upswing.  Even if he or anyone thinks non-vaxxers do play a part in the pertussis upswing, may I suggest they aim their daggers at the huge number of adults who do not get their boosters???? Failing to do so make it seem like the real reason they are angry is not about vaccination rates, but something else.

Might I suggest another scapegoat for the pertussis resurgence? Do as Dutch researcher Dr. Fritz Mooi suggests--Point your finger at the drug companies, which Mooi contends have been lagging on developing a new vaccine because it adversely affects their bottom line. (I can't cut & paste, but you can find the 2010 article on kpbs.org)

There's no use in persisting with the narrative that the unvaccinated are to blame for these pertussis outbreaks when a CDC official has made it unequivocally clear that the notion is false.