or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Anybody catch oprah today about possible autism/vaccine connection
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anybody catch oprah today about possible autism/vaccine connection - Page 7

post #121 of 181
Mahtob - that was a very interesting and thought inspiring post - thank you for taking the time to write it!

Peronally, I believe that there is so much junk in the very air we breathe, water we drink, and food we eat, we can never rule that out as a cause of the increase in autoimmune disorders and possibly ASDs. Even crappy old "A Baby Story" had a perinatalogist on, saying that environmental toxins are creating antibodies in women living in densely populated areas that cause blood clotting and subsequently miscarriage. Why isn't THAT all over the news? Instead of doing something about the environ toxins, they'd rather pump pregnant women full of various drugs.

FWIW, I also think the inundation of TV at early ages, plus overstimulating "educational" toys, do a fair amount of damage. How many parents do you know that actually follow the AAP recommendation of *no* TV until after age 2. I know of zero. (MDC doesn't count )

With that said, I'm still delaying MMR until after 2, possibly 3, just in case.
post #122 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahtob View Post
And fourth of all, the whole "cannot prove" thing. Well. I do think it is possible to prove within a reasonable doubt that X does not cause Y. I think we can all be reasonably certain that the sun does not rise because Bill Clinton gets an erection. Barring some extremely weird and complicated algorithm for that, it just makes sense, based on our understanding of causation through physical contact and/or some other kind of communication, that the sun's rising has to do with the rotation of the earth, which is caused by its orbit and its shape, which were caused by factors that happened around the formation of the solar system, which were caused by....
Well, I'm glad we can agree on some things.

Quote:
What scientists do, though, is they avoid making an absolute statement until it's been proven abstractly, that is, independent of almost any physical experience. So we have the laws of physics which rely on very little sensory data gathered by humans. But not a single scientist worth her title will ever affirm that he or she is completely certain of what the universe is made of. All that we learn about is considered, at best, a well-working theory of which we can be reasonably certain.
Yes, but if you read the document I provided, which explains the IOM's choice of words regarding vaccines and causation, then it is abundantly clear that this is NOT a situation of them simply saying, "We are reasonably sure vaccines don't cause autism, but as scientists, we refuse to say that we can prove that vaccines don't cause autism." They have a category for that. That category is "Evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship". There is no, "Evidence proves there is no causal relationship" category. The category they chose was meant to convey neutrality. It was designed to prevent the kind of confusion that would cause someone to say, "They have enough evidence, but they're resorting to science speak because scientists never say they can prove anything." The phrase was designed to inform people that there is insufficient evidence to make a judgement one way or another. They make that abundantly clear in their own description of their own phrase that they coined.

Not that I think you were disagreeing, Mahtob. Just going through it once again, in case anyone is still confused about what that statement meant.
post #123 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowpansy View Post
But, I disagree about science. Science has to be exact and if they cannot say something for sure, they won't even try.
This is not true. In publications, scientists (myself included) often word things to show that in theory there could be a link and to back up that theory here's a tiny bit of evidence. It may not be 100% conclusive evidence but the wording will lead the reader to where they want them to go. In science there is a thing called hypothesis which in essence is just a theory. If they didn't prove the hypothesis to be false then they won't say it's not possible, just not proven. If I do an experiment and part of my hypothesis was supported by the results then I'll "theorize" as to why that happened. Either way scientists "theorize" all the time. This is why before you can get papers published they have to be peer-reviewed which means other scientists try to objectively read your data and results and decide how likely your theory is. The results of studies usually can't be refuted (if the experiment was done right), it's the interpretation of those results that vary.

In other words, if my results are valid based on my experimental protocol that doesn't mean that I understand what the results are telling me. At this point, a scientist will theorize what they believe to be the bottom line. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong. Science is in no way exact.
post #124 of 181
Quote:
Third of all, I would again remind people that the statistics are for people on the autism spectrum, and that includes Asperger's, which wasn't even a category at the time the 1/3,000 statistics were published. As someone who could be diagnosed with Asperger's (I don't like labels, though), I am revolted by the idea that some people find it scary that there are more people like me. So I'm good at sudoku and I don't give a flying fart at a rolling donut what you think about me or how you feel. Do you have a problem with that? I could repair a radio when I was eight. I don't mind AT ALL that there are more people on the autistic spectrum. In fact, I wish there were more of us and fewer pathological liars (you might be fascinated to know that people with Aspergers and ASDs often are incapable of lying, or at least of lying well, even when trained their whole lives that telling the truth is not always such a great idea). I am emphatically not trying to downplay the difficulties of raising a child with severe autism who has lost all speech, or who is suffering from terrible isolation. I just want to emphasize that such people can also turn out wonderfully, and moreover, have a special place in our society, and that not all of these autism diagnoses are of such cases.

for autism increase in california...NO.

In California UC Davis/ Mind Institute generated a report (2002) that was not based on a wider criterium... they did not include aspi/asds... it was the hard to miss "Rainman" type.


Quote:
Key findings of the study are that:

• The observed increase in autism cases cannot be explained by a loosening in the criteria used to make the diagnosis.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=1&gl=us






they have another report due by an epidemologist later this year which will give even more data.
post #125 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
I don't think this necessarily accounts for the whole of the numbers, but it has to be a lot. Could be some, most, or all. I don't know. But it has to be at least a big chunk.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...act/117/4/1028
I have read that particular article before ~ but a few things. It doesn't actually study the increase in diagnosis but rather studies the increase in special education necessity..not necessarily the same thing.

While I certainly concede that there is likely some increase due to the change in diagnostic criteria (which conveniently muddies the water on this issue) ~ I cannot imagine that 1 in 150 children were suffering from some kind of mental disorder always.

This particular study does not address why there are a handfull of states this does not apply to...if it is actually the change in diagnostic criteria...shouldn't it apply to all states and not just some?

If you take the numbers "prior to the change in diagnostic criteria" and lump together all of the conditions requiring special education ~ and then do the same now ~ are the totals the same? I wouldn't think so...and I wonder why? Surely some would be attributed to better knowledge of learning disorders but were our children learning so terribly 20 years ago that these 1 in 150 were getting missed a lot of the time?

Instead of trying to do a smoke and mirrors act ~ why not just prove that the current schedule is safe and that there are no neurological effects? Why not do the safety trials needed to prove that things like aluminum and thimerosal really didn't do anything to our children?
post #126 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokidoki View Post
: Instead of trying to do a smoke and mirrors act ~ why not just prove that the current schedule is safe and that there are no neurological effects? Why not do the safety trials needed to prove that things like aluminum and thimerosal really didn't do anything to our children?

:

post #127 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by holly6737;
But, for all we know, someone in the deepest parts of some jungle far away from civilization might one day give birth to a guppy. Can you refute that?
Yes. No human will ever give birth to a guppy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by holly6737;
In the same way, while we can say, as far as we know (and the research supports this), that vaccines don't cause autism, we can't completely rule it out.
By your logic, the CDC would also be comfortable making the statement that a human may someday give birth to a guppy? Or, that unicorns could exist? Or that pigs might one day fly? Or that an over-sized alien might eat the earth for breakfast? If their statement indicates a ridiculous, remote possibility - then what relevance does anything they say have? Ever?
post #128 of 181

JM on the cover of People

Jenny and Evan are on the cover of People magazine! I am in Australia so can't get it, but I would be interested to hear what it says if someone happens to pick it up!

I am just so happy about the exposure this is getting. Even if she only had one message and that was "trust your instincts" I think that in itself is fantastic.
post #129 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozgirls View Post
Even if she only had one message and that was "trust your instincts" I think that in itself is fantastic.
:

My ds1 now 9 didn't receive any vaxes until 4. It was a fight, back then no one heard of not vaxing. My godson, 15 years ago, died of vaccine induced encephalitis, yes the 1 in whatever million, he was it. I saw him, I held him, I saw his mom go through it. It is forever ingrained. It began to changed my course. My first was vaxed on schedule even after this. I was young, 20, and no internet 14 years ago. My second dd had her 4 month shots and did have the dtap scream. She ran a 105 fever and was in the ER where some angel dr said no more "P" and staggered her shots for me so she wasn't vaxed until 3. So when ds1 came around, nothing entered him and my dr was awesome! She wholeheartedly supported me. We are military and had to leave my beloved dr for a military one who threatened to call social services on me for neglect. He did back down, but I never took ds back again unless he was really sick, which was once, once, and it was justt he stomach bug. DS2 will not be vaxed. I am now 35, stronger, have resources and WILL trust my mommy instinct above all else! That is what it is there for! Just look at that bright eyed precious boy in my siggy..... perfect.
post #130 of 181
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by holly6737;
In the same way, while we can say, as far as we know (and the research supports this), that vaccines don't cause autism, we can't completely rule it out.

By your logic, the CDC would also be comfortable making the statement that a human may someday give birth to a guppy? Or, that unicorns could exist? Or that pigs might one day fly? Or that an over-sized alien might eat the earth for breakfast? If their statement indicates a ridiculous, remote possibility - then what relevance does anything they say have? Ever?


I also wanted to say, as far as I'm aware, the question "do vaccines cause autism?" hasn't been fully investigated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the studies were on MMR and thimerosal, specifically. So only one piece of the puzzle. Can "vaccines" be exonerated?

Carly
post #131 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyMama
has anyone checked out the thread on the same issue in the special needs parenting forum? I don't usually frequent that forum, I was just there out of curiousity sake. Its interesting how differently the show is being received in that forum vs this forum. I admit I am curious as to why there is such a big difference.

Yes, I noticed the difference earlier today. Very interesting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
The neurodiversity crowd and the antivax crowd aren't exactly great friends.
JM, by siding more closely with the latter, was bound to make enemies with the former.

HOPING not to get in trouble here...just explaining the "other side's" viewpoint -

what has happened is that once in a great while, someone who is anti-vax (which I don't think personally is a bad thing) will come along and post in a thread how someone's child's problems are most likely due to vax's - without even checking if the child has been vaxed.

If you actually read the current thread about this same topic over there, you will see that the majority of people have NOT vax'ed their child, or delayed/seperated vaxes. There is another thread where someone asks if she should go ahead with the MMR, though she has major misgivings and worries about autism, and everyone responded NOT to vax her child if she has any worries.

The feeling is that autism is probably genetic. And that sometimes, enviromental factors can trigger it, whether that be a high fever from an illness, or a vax reaction. Sometimes, nothing triggers it, it just happens. But what I have learned in my research in trying to find a diagnosis for my child is that with many genetic syndromes, autistic traits are present. They're now including Rett Syndrome in the whole ASD umbrella of stuff. And Rett's has always been classified as a genetic disorder - my daughter was tested for it, and they tested three different genes for it (all tests came back normal.)

Anyway, it's not that we're gung-ho pro-vaxing on the board. It's more that we bristle up when anyone plays "armchair diagnoser" with us. Plus, add to the pot that we are also a little on the defense around her b/c many of us have been forced by our child's issues to depend on mainstream medicines and health care and doctors, and go against AP "rules", to do what's best for our children, and we have been criticized for that. Which really is sad, since we can second-guess ourselves enough as it is, and carry enough worries and doubts without some fly-by poster telling us how we're wrong.

Maybe I am a bit defensive about the SN board here because they have been the only group on the internet I have been able to join and feel at home in. Even though our children have a wide range of issues, some mild, some more severe, we are all there for each other. We cheer when someone's child eats a chicken nugget or takes two steps, or says a new word. Because that chicken nugget - while viewed by the world as an unhealthy food choice - is the second solid food your 3 yr old child with feeding issues will eat without gagging. Because you waited almost two years to see those two steps. Because your child is four and in saying a new word, has bumped up her vocabulary from 10 words to 11. I guess we live in a different world than most people.

But I'm not here to debate, just explain more about those of us on the SN's board, so that maybe you can better understand our thought processes. Then again, sometimes I can't follow my own
post #132 of 181
Mindi 22, thank you for that post. The Th1/2 thing is what has me most concerned and confused, because it seems like, especially with the boosters, will become more and more out of whack over time in terms of the immune response.
post #133 of 181
Quote:
Anyway, it's not that we're gung-ho pro-vaxing on the board. It's more that we bristle up when anyone plays "armchair diagnoser" with us. Plus, add to the pot that we are also a little on the defense around her b/c many of us have been forced by our child's issues to depend on mainstream medicines and health care and doctors, and go against AP "rules", to do what's best for our children, and we have been criticized for that. Which really is sad, since we can second-guess ourselves enough as it is, and carry enough worries and doubts without some fly-by poster telling us how we're wrong.

Maybe I am a bit defensive about the SN board here because they have been the only group on the internet I have been able to join and feel at home in. Even though our children have a wide range of issues, some mild, some more severe, we are all there for each other. We cheer when someone's child eats a chicken nugget or takes two steps, or says a new word. Because that chicken nugget - while viewed by the world as an unhealthy food choice - is the second solid food your 3 yr old child with feeding issues will eat without gagging. Because you waited almost two years to see those two steps. Because your child is four and in saying a new word, has bumped up her vocabulary from 10 words to 11. I guess we live in a different world than most people.

But I'm not here to debate, just explain more about those of us on the SN's board, so that maybe you can better understand our thought processes. Then again, sometimes I can't follow my own
That's cool. No worries.
post #134 of 181
Mindi22,

The innate immune response (cellular immunity) is non-specific. Th2 cells drive the adaptive immune response ("humoral immunity") and up-regulate antibody production to fight extracellular organisms and pathogens.
Innate immunity can be "permanent" because the cellular or bacterial particle is destroyed by phagocytic cells. The reason we don't get diseases as badly the second time of exposure is because of adaptive immunity. The body has seen the pathogen before and has antibodies to fight the disease. So, with vaccines the body has been exposed to the pathogen and has antibodies so a swift immune response is mounted.
post #135 of 181
I don't think that contradicts what she was saying, though. The issue is pushing Th2 over and over again, causing an imbalance. Even when kids who have been vaxxed get pertussis, it can be milder for this reason, right? Nonetheless, over time, the system skews further and further from what "natural" immunity would look like. It's like using cortisone, sort of. Works for a while, but then stops and is bad, maybe?
post #136 of 181
I may have misread her post, I will look back.
The point I am trying to make is that Th2 immunity is the reason that after second exposure you don't get as sick. And that is why a vaxed kid against pertussis will get a milder case, because he has adaptive immunity.
post #137 of 181
Certainly Th2 immunity is useful and appropriate in its place. The question is whether it works to try to get a sort of "free lunch." In other words trying to get the immunity without going through the illness. Perhaps, someday, they'll figure out a way to do shots that don't skew the immune system. Right now, it is a question and a valid concern I think.
post #138 of 181
Why would getting disease symptoms be better? The end result is still antibody production. They are separate processes. Natural exposure to chicken pox virus also results in antibody production, Th2 immunity.
Also, don't forget, some people get "natural" exposure to things like chicken pox and get immunity without symptoms. Myself included
post #139 of 181
I don't think the issue is getting sick, the issue is generating a Th1 and Th2 immune response. If you get a subclinical infection and still develop natural immunity, all the better. The body still mediated the disease as a "normal" infection, rather than as an injection designed to cherry-pick the response.
post #140 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillyMom View Post
Why would getting disease symptoms be better? The end result is still antibody production. They are separate processes. Natural exposure to chicken pox virus also results in antibody production, Th2 immunity.
Also, don't forget, some people get "natural" exposure to things like chicken pox and get immunity without symptoms. Myself included
No, the disease symptoms aren't always necessary. But just picture the steps of natural disease exposure:

bacteria or virus enter the nose or mouth
immune response starts up, etc.
eventually the entire immune system is activated, including the antigen forming process
in some cases actual sickness occurs, with fever, etc., resulting in further activation of the entire immune system
hopefully the body wins and immunity results.

vaccine exposure:

shot enters through the arm or leg
percolates into the capillaries
with the help of adjuvants an immune reaction occurs (maybe)
hopefully the body wins and immunity results

the vaccine exposure stimulates only one section of the immune system - and then we are back to the question of skewing

It seems to me that there is pretty good evidence in favor of this theory:

allergies and asthma are booming, so are auto-immune illnesses (okay, coincidence)

the few studies that compared unvaxed to vaxed kids found less allergies and asthma in the unvaxed (wow, more coincidence)

adjuvants, like aluminum for example, can cause antigens to form against any substance that happens to be in the body, rather than limiting the action to just the stuff that happens to be in the needle
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Anybody catch oprah today about possible autism/vaccine connection