or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › From Acrodynia to Autism: Mercury Across Generations, More Evidence of Harm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

From Acrodynia to Autism: Mercury Across Generations, More Evidence of Harm - Page 2

post #21 of 114

How is it possible that so many unvaccinated children are autistic then? 

 

 In non-vaccinated AND vaccinated kids the onset of autism is often at toddler age and can be quite sudden, so in some, it would co-inside with the MMR. But as I said, that seems to be a coincidence. 

 

Mercury has been removed from vaccines anyway and the rate is still rising. Doesn't sound like a plausible cause and effect relationship to me. 


Edited by EineMutti - 11/20/13 at 2:31pm
post #22 of 114
Where is the data that supports your claim? So many??? REALLY?

I've never seen information at all on this. IRL I have yet to know of any.
post #23 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post

How is it possible that so many unvaccinated children are autistic then? 

I work for the NAS and it is quite shocking. In non-vaccinated AND vaccinated kids the onset of autism is often at toddler age and can be quite sudden, so in some, it would co-inside with the MMR. But as I said, that seems to be a coincidence. 

Mercury has been removed from vaccines anyway and the rate is still rising. Doesn't sound like a plausible cause and effect relationship to me. 


Didn't take that I was quoting when I replied
[/quo
post #24 of 114
Unfortunately there is a lot of environmental mercury, from the coal power plants that make a large proportion of our electricity, which is only starting to be more well regulated, and IMO is a far bigger issue than the trace amount of thimerosol in vaccines, and a form of mercury that is far more likely to injure us.
post #25 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

How is it possible that so many unvaccinated children are autistic then? 

 

I don't think mercury or vaccines are THE smoking gun.  I think there might be a number of environmental triggers for those susceptible to being on the ASD spectrum.

 

Here is an article that expresses my concerns:

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/26/generation_autism/

 

Mercury has been removed from vaccines anyway and the rate is still rising. Doesn't sound like a plausible cause and effect relationship to me. 

 

 Mercury was removed from childhood vaccines in 2001/2002. The stats for autism are based on birth cohort, and the current stat of 1/50 was based on those aged 6-17 in 2011/2012.  Well, a 17 year old in 2011 was born in 1994 - well before the removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines.   Mercury is still in most flu shots in the USA and elsewhere.  All pregnant women are urged to have one (although only about 50% do get a flu shot)

 

Now, eventually the birth cohort that received a lot of thimerosal in vaccines will age out  - of course those who received chimerical inter-utero will age in, but that is only (currently) 50% of the population.  Maybe there will be a gap between the two.  Of course the definition of ASD is set to change int he next few years, so that will muck up studying the numbers even more.  

 

In any event, I am not (nor have I ever) been convinced thimerosal is the smoking gun for autism. I still think it should not be in any vaccine  - mercury is a neurotoxin!  I think it could be the smoking gun for a small subset of the population - as is shown in the pink study.  Why not?  It is certainly plausible that a small subset of the population is sensitive to mercury exposure.  It is possible there is something else in the vaccine program that triggers autism in certain people.  There is strong anecdotal evidence, court cases and some studies that demonstrate we should be concerned.

 

In any event - I could be wrong - but I prefer to err on the side of caution.    Most vaccine-available diseases are so non-prevalent that there is little to lose by waiting until your child is 3 or so (and past when kids typically show signs of autism) to consider vaccinating your child.  

Have a good one,

 

kathy


Edited by kathymuggle - 10/26/13 at 5:52am
post #26 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post

Unfortunately there is a lot of environmental mercury, from the coal power plants that make a large proportion of our electricity, which is only starting to be more well regulated, and IMO is a far bigger issue than the trace amount of thimerosol in vaccines, and a form of mercury that is far more likely to injure us.

It would be interesting to see if there are autism clusters around the coal plants.   I think coal plants are mostly in appalachia, which is fairly poor, IIRC.  Area of poveryt have slightly less diagnosis of ASD (although they very well might have the same amount of cases) simply because seeking an ASD diagnosis, particulalry if your child is very high functionning, might not be on your to-do list when feeding people, lack of transport, etc, take up so much of your time. 

 

Ok - really quick google search:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/18/2166631/june-18-news-autism-is-twice-as-likely-in-children-living-near-high-air-pollution-areas/

 

"Researchers from Harvard University’s School of Public Health found that pregnant women exposed to high levels of diesel particulates or mercury were twice as likely to have an autistic child compared with peers in low-pollution areas. The findings, published today in Environmental Health Perspectives, are from the largest U.S. study to examine the ties between air pollution and autism. …"

post #27 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

Where is the data that supports your claim? So many??? REALLY?

I've never seen information at all on this. IRL I have yet to know of any.

 

Many parents who have one child on the spectrum refuse to vaccinate their subsequent children. Fair enough, really, I would do the same. But because there seems to be a genetic component, the subsequent children turn out to have autism as well. Not all, but many. We have many siblings here, one vaccinated, one unvaccinated kid (not hundreds mind you, but about 20), both severely affected by autism. 

 

The NAS will soon publish a study about this.

 

If you visit a school with severely affected children and ask around, you will find the same. 

post #28 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

"I disagree.  Lots of studies use parental reports. "

 

That's true, but they do not rely on parental reports for *diagnoses*.  They generally rely on parental reports for lifestyle data, dietary data, etc.  In a serious scientific study, diagnoses are done by health care providers who know how to do it.  Also, I don't know of a single scientific study that uses GRANDPARENT reports.  Grandparents have limited contact with the grandchildren and are thus very unreliable when it comes to reporting on them.

 

Epigenetics, perhaps?  Alternately, autism has numerous environmental triggers.  There is not necessarily one thing that causes autism, it might just be environmental input overload in a susceptible individual.

 

 That's reasonable, and it actually shows that the paper's conclusion is invalid.  If epigenetics played a role, then the paper's conclusion ("The results support the hypothesis that Hg sensitivity may be a heritable/genetic risk factor for ASD.") is incorrect, because whatever epigenetic factor cause the ASD was not inherited.  If it were inherited, the grandparents would have had the epigenetic factor, and thus they would have had ASD as well.  If ASD has numerous environmental triggers, then the issue is not mercury.  Again, they claim it was the mercury that caused pink disease that somehow made the grandchild susceptible.  But if it were mercury, the grandparents would have ASD, because they were exposed to LOTS more mercury.  So whether epigenetics or multiple environmental triggers is the answer, the study's conclusion is wrong.

post #29 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Ok, I did a little more digging.  The 23% is correct.  I am not sure this is overly low for as a mail out survey, but I can agree it has limitations.  

 

Here is one quote on how they tried to minimize bias:

 

"In order to minimize response bias, the true purpose of the study was not included on recruitment materials sent out to potential participants; instead, recruitment materials indicated that the purpose of the study was to investigate the general health outcomes of the descendants of pink disease survivors."

 

The gap between the pink survivor rate of ASD and the general public in grandchildren at the time of the study ( 1/25 versus 1/160) was so high that even if everyone who did not return the survey did not have ASD in their family (quite doubtful) ASD would still be more common in Pink Survivors.

 

Around 525 people returned the survey.  The ASD rate among grandchildren of those who return the survey was 1/25.  For ease of math, let's assume everyone was talking about one offspring (obviously not the case, but assuming one per general public and one per Pink Disease survivors makes it easy ).

 

1/25 out of 525 is 21.  21 cases of ASD out of the 2300 survey sent out is a rate of 1/110 (ish) .  The general rate for the public at the time was 1/160.  

 

How exactly does the author's statement reduce response bias?  It specifically says they told the people that "the purpose of the study was to investigate the general health outcomes of the descendants of pink disease survivors."  Once again, if a person has an axe to grind over their pink disease, they are more willing to return a survey that is investigating how the disease affected their descendants. Their statement actually probably ENCOURAGED response bias.
 

Your math once again assumes that the diagnoses of autism were correct.  But they were not done or confirmed by medical professionals.  So there is no way to know what the real rate of ASD among the grandchildren was. 

post #30 of 114
Ethyl mercury (thimerosol), methyl mercury (coal, into fish, etc), and mercuric sodium (teething powders-- not sure how it breaks down in humans?) are all different, in how they affect us, bind, get excreted, etc. in this thread we are discussing methyl mercury and teething powders, so I would like to make sure that vaccine (thimerosol, ethylmercury)-autism discussions go elsewhere. There's plenty of other discussions about that.
post #31 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

Many parents who have one child on the spectrum refuse to vaccinate their subsequent children. Fair enough, really, I would do the same. But because there seems to be a genetic component, the subsequent children turn out to have autism as well. Not all, but many. We have many siblings here, one vaccinated, one unvaccinated kid (not hundreds mind you, but about 20), both severely affected by autism. Is this some type of sick joke?? :irked 

 

This is to count as evidence? This is disturbing on so many levels to even put this out there! IF this is what counts in your book (20), please get out into the REAL world a bit more!!

 

The NAS will soon publish a study about this.

 

If you visit a school with severely affected children and ask around, you will find the same. Actually IRL I have found the complete opposite.

It's quite clear from your other posts that you don't feel there is even an increase, let alone any connection that is "medical", all you have provided is antidotal evidence that thus far is not supported by the REAL medical community - NO data and actually there are a growing number of physicians and organizations (govt run ones too) that do see an increase and as Kathy has pointed out data supports it as well, your claims are just that, nothing real. Multitudes of evidence and numerous previous threads have also shown this.

post #32 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

It's quite clear from your other posts that you don't feel there is even an increase, let alone any connection that is "medical", all you have provided is antidotal evidence that thus far is not supported by the REAL medical community - NO data and actually there are a growing number of physicians and organizations (govt run ones too) that do see an increase and as Kathy has pointed out data supports it as well, your claims are just that, nothing real. Multitudes of evidence and numerous previous threads have also shown this.

 

There is an increase, but the cause is unknown. Diagnosis criteria could have changed. Globalization and higher exposure to different viruses could be a trigger. Changes in food could be one, too. No-one knows for sure. This is what the REAL medical community says.

 

There are no "multitudes of evidence" that support the idea that vaccinations cause autism. At least not scientific evidence. And if there is, I have yet to see the discussing, passionate mother who understands any of it. 

 

 

Response bias is a real problem in statistical survey. There are methods of empirical Social Science to reduce this. Of of those methods is to throw out results from a study that only has a 23% response.

 

Anecdotal evidence is very, very useful though. Sociological research is split into qualitative and quantitative research. Anecdotal evidence is part of the qualitative.

 

Let's say, statistical research shows that is a very strong link between socio-econimic status (income, job-position and educational qualifications) of parents and educational achievement of their children. 

 

This is very true. In Germany, only 7% of kids with parents of the lowest socio-economic status manage to get a University degree. Compared to 80% of kids who have parents in the academic world.

 

That does NOT mean that ALL children of parents who have a degree and a high income and job-position will study, nor does it mean that children of deprived household have no chance. This is where the anecdotal evidence comes in and one can analyse HOW it is possible, even though it is unlikely. Saying that "my parents were poor and have no degree, but I am doing awesome" does not negate the strong link.

 

Same goes for all studies. Anecdotal evidence is used when a parent says: "My kid was normal, then had the MMR and in the next few months developed autism". That is a good anecdote and deserves proper research. Then you find parents whose children have not been vaccinated and have autism anyway. That concludes that there is no cause and effect relationship, BUT there might be a link. So you get in the quantitative research which.... shows no link between the two. Unlike my previous example. 

 

There are really not so many links between things than we think. One study might show a correlation between autism and mercury and one does not. That, generally means that there isn't one.

 

A theory is a system of axioms, which are hypotheses that do not negate each other. As soon as a hypothesis has been negated in quantitative research, there really is little point in keeping going.

 

So many articles claim "correlations" between this and that and forget that there is a thing called "intervening variable" and then make up their own mind.

 

It took me FIVE YEARS and an MA in sociology to even understand the simplest study and distinguish between good ones and bad ones.

 

There is so little point in sitting in front of google and digging out links that support what YOU want, because in the end, all facts are chosen facts and even the people who did the research often had a "wish" about their outcome. Mums discussing vaccinations online and googling links are wasting their time, because they do NOT understand what an intervening variable even is, a yes-response, a closed questionnaire, the theory of correlation coefficient r compared to chi-aquare. Not even the journalists who "try" to report about Professor XYZ's research really get it right. How many times my old Profs have been upset because their so carefully conducted study has been misrepresented by the media. The problem is that professor XYZ's research about about the side effect of vaccinations is full of Covariant and factor analysis and the question if longitudinal is better than cross-sectional data. It is HARD to understand, it NOT visible for most of the public and there is higher maths involved to grasp just the basics. 

 

 

 

And then consider the fact that, in order to see unbiased, scientific material, google is not the place. Even google scholar is rather chopped up and doesn't show it all. Many good studies are not published for the reader and are done by Universities and only available on Moodle.

post #33 of 114

You misunderstood. It is not about keeping secrets per se, it is just not published online for everyone to see. But then, neither is Harry Potter (unless you go and download it illegally, but you won't find many seeders on a torrent about sociological studies). 

 

It is their work, it is their patent, their "baby" and sometimes, you have to purchase a book to see it or be lucky and get the Moodle link if it is your Prof. 

 

Or, as I said, it is misunderstood, because it is hard to understand. 

post #34 of 114

Serenbat, I thought Mutti's response was very good and well thought out.  

 

If you disagree maybe you can point them out and tell us why?  Just saying "The rest of your post= rolling smiley face" isn't very helpful in this kind of discussion. 

post #35 of 114
Again just want to point out that this current debate is not linked directly to OPs posted study, do we need to go here again?
post #36 of 114

 

Just some FYI ElneMutti - people around here DO read, and when you post that there hasn't been an increase (haven't actually increased)  in one section but go to post that there is in another- it really makes you look inconstant - others take notice!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

There is an increase, but the cause is unknown. 

post #37 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Serenbat, I thought Mutti's response was very good and well thought out.  

 

If you disagree maybe you can point them out and tell us why?  Just saying "The rest of your post= rolling smiley face" isn't very helpful in this kind of discussion. 

maybe you don't know you can't cross post from sections tea?

 

as I stated others do read! 

post #38 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post

Again just want to point out that this current debate is not linked directly to OPs posted study, do we need to go here again?

it certainly doesn't belong here and but when you purposely go off topic (some call it avoiding) and go on to post things that our not correct - other have every right to comment on it

post #39 of 114

There is an increase of diagnosed autism. It didn't used to be defined as a "spectrum". There "might" also be an increase in AS disorders in general, I did say that I am not sure. This is where you find studies that say both again and you have to make up your own mind.

 

Sorry my opinions aren't made of concrete.

post #40 of 114

The REAL medical world would like a new study about this.

 

But the criteria to get it "right" are not easy.

 

You would need several Professors of Medical Sociology with absolutely no personal interest in EITHER outcome. You would need at least 10 000 vaxxed and 10 000 unvaxxed children. The picking has to be done by simple random sample and the groups wouldn't be allowed to differ much from each other in intervening variable (socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol, genetic defects in family, etc, etc).

 

Then you divide each group into 10, so a 1000 kids.

 

Then you make your closed questionnaire or get data from a reliable source, or both. The people who conduct this research also aren't allowed to have a personal interest either way, or it could be suggestive. 

 

If the results of each group don't differ by more than 5% from each other and all ten studies that include the correlation coefficients and the variables "autism" and "vaccination" (or whichever part of the vaccination is currently blamed, as that changes, too) you have a result. 

 

Show me that study and we can talk about "vaccination causes autism". :thumb

 

Until then, the debates between pro-vaxxers and vax-skeptics do not differ much from a good old religious debate where one party goes to a pro-Christian site and the other to an atheist site and they debate with each other until red in the face.

 

It's a waste of time, really. Go out and play with your kids. Mine is in Germany just now, or I would, too. 

 

Sources: Schnell, Hill, Esser: Methods of Empirical Social Science

Atteslander: Methoden der Empirischen Sozialforschung

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › From Acrodynia to Autism: Mercury Across Generations, More Evidence of Harm