or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › "Baby's gaze May Signal Autism, a Study Finds"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Baby's gaze May Signal Autism, a Study Finds"

post #1 of 65
Thread Starter 

I know prosciencemum touched on this in another thread but since it was a little OT to debate it in that thread I thought I would start a new one. 

 

"The study, published online in the journal Nature, found that infants who later developed autism began spending less time looking at people’s eyes between 2 and 6 months of age and paid less attention to eyes as they grew older. By contrast, babies who did not develop autism looked increasingly at people’s eyes until about 9 months old, and then kept their attention to eyes fairly constant into toddlerhood.

 

The authors, Warren R. Jones and Ami Klin, both of the Marcus Autism Center and Emory University, also found that babies who showed the steepest decline in looking at people’s eyes over time developed the most severe autism." 

 

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/a-babys-gaze-may-signal-autism-study-finds/

 

I think this study is a huge step in the right direction. If we could identify signs of autism as young as two months of age that could mean huge improvements in early treatment and intervention.  I think it's also important because it means that parents who believe their child showed zero signs until after a vaccine may just not have know the signs were there.  This isn't a criticism of the parents, because as the study says, this isn't something than any human being would be able to see on their own.  "The eye-tracking differences are not something parents and pediatricians would be able to perceive without the technology and expertise of an autism clinic, Dr. Jones said." 

 

So what do you guys think about the study?  


Edited by teacozy - 11/8/13 at 9:25am
post #2 of 65

Very interesting. Regardless of vaccines playing a role, I think it would be a wonderful well baby checkup screening for pediatricians to implement. Maybe even an educational awareness program to instruct parents what they should watch for. 

post #3 of 65
In the US tho, it wouldn't rule out Vaxes in any way, since the full schedule is initiated @ or slightly before 2 months & the majority of doses are administered by 6 months . . .
post #4 of 65
Would finally close to book on links to MMR though - which at least used to be the main vaccine people were concerned about.

Might also rule out thimerosol since that's only in the multi vial flu shots. They don't get that before 2 months right?

And regardless of disproving or not any links to vaccines, clearly good for the children/families to be identified early and get the help and support they need. smile.gif
post #5 of 65
Well Thimerisol is tricky, because as soon as it was removed from the Childhood schedule, it migrated into the Prenatal/Fetal Schedule.

It was in both until the late 1990s, but only for Rh- women . . .

In the H1N1 year, a pregnant woman following recommendations & receiving her care @ a clinic could have received up to 75mcg.

Even this year, the blogess @ Red Wine & Applesauce just got some prenatal Thimerisol over the objections of her Pharmacist & OB. So it is certainly still available to pregnant women, the CDC & Dr. PO are fine with it. Some OBs are precautionary tho, so I would say it is about 50/50 amongst those who opt for Flu shots in pregnancy . . .
post #6 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Would finally close to book on links to MMR though - which at least used to be the main vaccine people were concerned about.

Might also rule out thimerosol since that's only in the multi vial flu shots. They don't get that before 2 months right?

And regardless of disproving or not any links to vaccines, clearly good for the children/families to be identified early and get the help and support they need. smile.gif

If the MMR and thimerosal are both potential factors in autism, this study doesn't rule out either, and it's unscientific to believe that it would. 

What you are trying to do is to rule out a potential factor by saying, "Well, this vaccine ingredient didn't affect THESE children (who lose eye contact by age X months)  who developed autism, therefore we can rule it out as a factor for ALL children with autism."  

Surely you can see how unscientific that is?  Not to mention how wrong?

 

You also seem to have forgotten that aluminum (an ingredient currently in many pediatric vaccines, including hep B, which is given at birth, and again at 2 months) is also suspected as a factor.

 

Some children might have different thresholds for different chemicals, with neurological results.  For some, that birth dose of hep B seems to be enough, as suggested by the study that showed infant boys receiving the hep B in the first months had a 3X greater likelihood of receiving an autism diagnosis later

 

Some children might be more sensitive to mercury, others to aluminum. Some might have vitamin D deficiency, resulting in glutathione deficiency and therefore impaired ability to excrete mercury and/or aluminum.

It is widely acknowledged that breastfed infants are much less likely to develop full-blown autism, and also generally accepted that breastmilk inhibits some of the effect of vaccination. So what an infant is fed may be a factor as well.

 

And you have no idea if the children who began to lose eye contact at age 2 months had already been exposed to mercury or aluminum via other means, such as by maternal vaccination, or by IV solutions, or by other means.

post #7 of 65
I realise no amount if evidence (or lack of evidence) will convince some.

Is there still a flat earth society? I think there might be!

I went to an interesting talk recently (about reporting climate change science in the media). They talked about where there are two opposing views on a subject, adding more studies, instead of revealing the "truth" will rather push the sides further apart. People on both sides pick the studies which confirm their views and come up with reasons to ignore the others.

Sound familiar?
post #8 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I realise no amount if evidence (or lack of evidence) will convince some.

Is there still a flat earth society? I think there might be!

I went to an interesting talk recently (about reporting climate change science in the media). They talked about where there are two opposing views on a subject, adding more studies, instead of revealing the "truth" will rather push the sides further apart. People on both sides pick the studies which confirm their views and come up with reasons to ignore the others.

Sound familiar?

SHOCKED - shocked I tell you! :dizzyA bunch of your fellow astronomers  are talking  about climate change and how some don't see eye to eye? There is not consensus on science or it's all the medias fault? Like the media is bias in favor on non-vaccers too? 

 

Is it any wonder the mantra to "just vaccinate" does not resonate when those in "science" differ


Edited by serenbat - 12/1/13 at 10:45am
post #9 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


Is there still a flat earth society? I think there might be!

Nasty comment!

post #10 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


I went to an interesting talk recently (about reporting climate change science in the media). They talked about where there are two opposing views on a subject, adding more studies, instead of revealing the "truth" will rather push the sides further apart. People on both sides pick the studies which confirm their views and come up with reasons to ignore the others.

Sound familiar?

 

Sure.  And yet….what is the alternative?  There is no good alternate to doing the studies and letting people make up their mind - even if you think they are wrong.  

post #11 of 65

Back to the original topic….

 

I think it is an interesting study.  I would like to see the whole study.  I skimmed the article yesterday and did not see a link to the whole study - maybe I missed it?

 

I would be interested in knowing how closely gaze was associated with autism development.  100%?  50%? What? 

 

I would be just as interested in knowing how gaze related to classical autism and regressive autism.  While some people claim vaccines can cause classical autism (i.e. those who seem different from birth) primarily through pregnancy or very early vaccination,  I am more interested in those who seem to be developing typically and then regress into autism, and the role vaccines might play.

 

I am not overly optimistic that this study will translate into changes in how early children are diagnosed.  Doctors would have to be trained to track gazes, and any child showing an atypical pattern would have to go in for a follow-up…and I just do not see it happenning on a mass scale.  We have known for years that  head circumference can be associated with a diagnosis of autism, yet kids are not screened for autism-potential based on head circumference (which would be a less subjective screening tool and easier to implement than gaze tracking).

 

Lastly, and in terms of vaccination implication - I think knowing your child has early warning signs for autism may make one less inclined to vaccinate according to the schedule - not more.  IIRC, something like 50% of younger siblings of those who have autism are not vaxxed on schedule.  Why?  Because their parents are not going to risk it.  If a child shows early warning signs of autism, I suspect many are going to do whatever they can to try and prevent it or lessen its intensity.  It almost doesn't matter whether or not vaccines are related to autism…even if only 1% of you thinks there is a vaccine-autism connection, you are going to avoid or proceed very cautiously if you think your child is vulnerable.   

post #12 of 65
post #13 of 65
Quote:

Thanks :)

post #14 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I realise no amount if evidence (or lack of evidence) will convince some.

Is there still a flat earth society? I think there might be!

I went to an interesting talk recently (about reporting climate change science in the media). They talked about where there are two opposing views on a subject, adding more studies, instead of revealing the "truth" will rather push the sides further apart. People on both sides pick the studies which confirm their views and come up with reasons to ignore the others.

Sound familiar?

No, it sounds like you're comparing those of us who disagree with you to members of a flat earth society.  That's extremely insulting, but if that's the best you can do as a response to my questions and points, then it would appear that you simply couldn't find a valid argument.

post #15 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

Lastly, and in terms of vaccination implication - I think knowing your child has early warning signs for autism may make one less inclined to vaccinate according to the schedule - not more.  IIRC, something like 50% of younger siblings of those who have autism are not vaxxed on schedule.  Why?  Because their parents are not going to risk it.  If a child shows early warning signs of autism, I suspect many are going to do whatever they can to try and prevent it or lessen its intensity.  It almost doesn't matter whether or not vaccines are related to autism…even if only 1% of you thinks there is a vaccine-autism connection, you are going to avoid or proceed very cautiously if you think your child is vulnerable.   

I worry IF this is even remotely an indicator how will this effect over all health care - if you have a fence sitter and the medical professional at the 2month check "indicates" there may be an issue - will they even be honest and tell that parent they know has concerns? Bottom line, if they are there for their 2month check you as a medical professional want to vaccinate that child, not have the parents go home without it done.

 

deeply concerning!

post #16 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I realise no amount if evidence (or lack of evidence) will convince some.

Is there still a flat earth society? I think there might be!
 

 

Funny enough, there actually is! They are pretty active and vocal, too.  http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0

 

"What evidence do you have?

The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empiricist approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses. Alternatively, when using Descartes' method of Cartesian doubt to skeptically view the world around us, one quickly finds that the notion of a spherical world is the theory which has the burden of proof and not flat earth theory.  

 

 

There are many pictures on the internet and in other media depicting the earth as being round. Why do these not disprove flat earth theory?

In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered.  Many of the videos posted here to "prove a round earth" by showing curvature will show no curvature or even convex curvature at parts. The sources are so inaccurate it's difficult to build an argument on them in either case. Furthermore, barrel distortion and other quirks of modern cameras will cause a picture to distort with little or no apparent altercation; especially without references within the picture. Photographs are also prone to distortion when taken through the bent glass of a pressurized cabin as well as atmospheric conditions on the outside. With this litany of problems, it's easy to see why photographic evidence is not to be trusted.

 

Their forum has a debate section which is pretty entertaining to read. 

post #17 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher View Post
 

Regardless of vaccines playing a role, I think it would be a wonderful well baby checkup screening for pediatricians to implement. Maybe even an educational awareness program to instruct parents what they should watch for.

 

^^^^ This.  I noticed 22 years ago that my infant refused eye contact.  When I tried to initiate eye contact she very obviously turned her head to avoid it.  I had no idea what that meant, until probably 8 years later when I read it somewhere and remembered vividly how dismayed I felt with my baby.  Like she didn't WANT to bond with me.  This should be part of every screening.

post #18 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by happydog View Post
 

 

^^^^ This.  I noticed 22 years ago that my infant refused eye contact.  When I tried to initiate eye contact she very obviously turned her head to avoid it.  I had no idea what that meant, until probably 8 years later when I read it somewhere and remembered vividly how dismayed I felt with my baby.  Like she didn't WANT to bond with me.  This should be part of every screening.

 

I agree.

Many autistic children can be seen on video, with perfectly normal eye contact--until a particular vaccine visit, often (but not always) the 12-15-month vaccine visit.   I've seen far too many "day before" and "day after" videos, where it's absolutely obvious that the child is engaged, developing normally, with normal eye contact the day before a vaccine visit, and utterly without eye contact the day after.

This is not true for every autistic child, but obviously there is an at-risk subgroup here. In fact, there is an older child on record who regressed into autism after rabies shots.  The 

 

  It would be wonderful if the families could point to the well-child visit records and say that the PEDIATRICIAN noticed normal eye contact until XX/XX date. It would also be helpful in terms of determining which babies might be at risk for such a reaction, if they are displaying signs of poor eye contact earlier.  These children could be vaccinated later, on a slower/reduced schedule.

post #19 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

I agree.

Many autistic children can be seen on video, with perfectly normal eye contact--until a particular vaccine visit, often (but not always) the 12-15-month vaccine visit.   I've seen far too many "day before" and "day after" videos, where it's absolutely obvious that the child is engaged, developing normally, with normal eye contact the day before a vaccine visit, and utterly without eye contact the day after.

 

You've mentioned these videos often, and i tried to look some up on my own. Those that I found were not very convincing at all-- not saying that the kids didn't have autism and/or weren't "normal" before vaccines, but the videos definitely didn't show it. Some of them were just photos, one of the kid smiling beforehand, another of the kid standing and crying or even looking out a window to symbolize how "withdrawn" they had become.

 

In other examples, the parent points out the child's excellent "eye contact" before vaccines, but this is demonstrated by showing the child who is clearly looking into the camera lens and not a pair of eyes. I don't think that really qualifies, since children with autism often demonstrate fascination with round or shiny objects. When my son was very young, in his photos he would often look away from the lens of the camera and obviously make eye contact with a person (like the person holding the camera or someone else in the room). Fascination by a camera lens shouldn't be considered "eye contact" even though that's what it looks like from the other side of the lens.

 

Anyway, I'd like to see some of these videos that you are saying do clearly show changes after vaccination.

post #20 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 
 

You've mentioned these videos often, and i tried to look some up on my own. Those that I found were not very convincing at all-- not saying that the kids didn't have autism and/or weren't "normal" before vaccines, but the videos definitely didn't show it. Some of them were just photos, one of the kid smiling beforehand, another of the kid standing and crying or even looking out a window to symbolize how "withdrawn" they had become.

 

In other examples, the parent points out the child's excellent "eye contact" before vaccines, but this is demonstrated by showing the child who is clearly looking into the camera lens and not a pair of eyes. I don't think that really qualifies, since children with autism often demonstrate fascination with round or shiny objects. When my son was very young, in his photos he would often look away from the lens of the camera and obviously make eye contact with a person (like the person holding the camera or someone else in the room). Fascination by a camera lens shouldn't be considered "eye contact" even though that's what it looks like from the other side of the lens.

 

Anyway, I'd like to see some of these videos that you are saying do clearly show changes after vaccination.

 

Look at these two photos, they were taken in 1958, by  Dr Gerhard Buchwald of his so Hans-Bernard at around 18 months old, the first photograph is before the smallpox vaccination, the second is after the vaccination in October 1958. Dr Buchwald described in his book, "The Vaccination Nonsense", 2004 Lectures", how is son changed.  Hans-Bernard was a normally developing baby. Following the vaccine, Dr Buchwald talks of changes that at first he and his wife did not notice. 

 

"He became restless, cried without reason, rubbed his head against solid objects and made scratching motions against the left and the right side of his head with his thumbs. His walking progress stagnated* He would lie on his back in his cot and trample against the horizontal bar at the top. When - a bit later - he managed to get hold of a pot or a plate, he would spin it like a top, causing considerable noise."

 

Dr Buchwald consulted the director of the pediatric clinic of Frankfurt, Prof, Bernhard de Rudder about his son who suggested he bring in photos of before and after vaccination.

 

"By means of a magnifying glass, he [Prof. de Rudder] was now able to ascertain that until about September 1958, the child was looking at the camera - respectively at myself - but afther that time, his look went into empty space, that is through the camera into the distance. De Rudder again carefully examined the ears, this time on the photos, then said that the child had been born with full intelligence, but that something had happened to the boy in the autumn of 1958 which had cause his current condition."

 

In examining the Buchwald's calender, the professor saw the entry for October 15, 1958 where Mr Buchwald had written "smallpox vaccination", the professor concluded that Hans-Bernard's vaccination had caused the encephalitis. Dr Buchwald disputed this because there were no severe illness, such as inflammation of the brain. Prof. de Rudder, replied:

 

"Dear colleague, you are mistaken. An encephalitis - especially a post vaccinial encephalitis - can occur without symptoms in a small child and can therefore take its course without being dectectable in any way from outside."

 

  

Before vaccination                               After vaccination

 

 

*Hans-Bernard took his first independent steps on the day of his vaccination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydog View Post
 

 

^^^^ This.  I noticed 22 years ago that my infant refused eye contact.  When I tried to initiate eye contact she very obviously turned her head to avoid it.  I had no idea what that meant, until probably 8 years later when I read it somewhere and remembered vividly how dismayed I felt with my baby.  Like she didn't WANT to bond with me.  This should be part of every screening.

 

 

Quote:
I understand the need for screening, but isn't this like closing the door after the horse has bolted? Why are researchers not looking at what is causing this lack of eye contact (infant bonding to parent)? Could it be the medicalized birth that most babies are subjected to, that is creating at least part of this situation?

I totally agree with the above.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › "Baby's gaze May Signal Autism, a Study Finds"