|RESULTS: The true incidence of autism spectrum disorders is likely to be within the range of 30-60 cases per 10 000, a huge increase over the original estimate 40 years ago of 4 per 10000. The increase is largely a consequence of improved ascertainment and a considerable broadening of the diagnostic concept. However, a true risk due to some, as yet to be identified, environmental risk factor cannot be ruled out. There is no support for the hypothesis for a role of either MMR or thimerosal in causation, but the evidence on the latter is more limited. CONCLUSION: Progress in testing environmental risk hypotheses will require the integration of epidemiological and biological studies.
I do not have acess to the full text - I would be interested in what data was used. This study is from 2005. With the numbers increasing anually from what I understand. Are health care providers improving their diagnostics from year to year?
I would be interested to see any subsequent biologocal studies.
|Rates of diagnosis of autism have risen since 1980, raising the question of whether some children who previously had other diagnoses are now being diagnosed with autism. We applied contemporary diagnostic criteria for autism to adults with a history of developmental language disorder, to discover whether diagnostic substitution has taken place. A total of 38 adults (aged 15-31y; 31 males, seven females) who had participated in studies of developmental language disorder during childhood were given the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule--Generic. Their parents completed the Autism Diagnostic Interview--Revised, which relies largely on symptoms present at age 4 to 5 years to diagnose autism. Eight individuals met criteria for autism on both instruments, and a further four met criteria for milder forms of autistic spectrum disorder. Most individuals with autism had been identified with pragmatic impairments in childhood. Some children who would nowadays be diagnosed unambiguously with autistic disorder had been diagnosed with developmental language disorder in the past. This finding has implications for our understanding of the epidemiology of autism.
How conclusive can a study of 38 people be? Perhaps indicative of a trend, but far from conclusive. (One of the 'problems' with the Wakefield study is that it was done on 12 children - enough to perhaps indicate a trend, but nothing conclusive ). Again, I don't have access to the full text.
This is the newsest of the 3 studies posted by Carrie, and is a study done in the UK from what I can understand in the abstract. I wonder if a similar study done in the USA would be draw the same conclusions?
|METHODS: Literature review and interpretation.
I would like to see what literature was reviewed, but don't have access to the full text
|CONCLUSIONS: There has (probably) been no real increase in the incidence of autism. There is no scientific evidence that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or the mercury preservative used in some vaccines plays any part in the aetiology or triggering of autism, even in a subgroup of children with the condition.
From the study that reviewed literature.
I am still trying to get my head around this. I find it quite weird that these studies seek to establish no true increase in the incidence of autism while simulatneously seeking to establish no link between autism and vaccines, specifically thimerosol and MMR. And those who have read the studies proving thimerasol to be just fine know how flawed they are.
The information available really is a mess.
I am not yet sure for myself that there is no true increase in the incidence in autism. If there were no true increase what would that mean? Who stands to gain by a study that finds no increase in incidence?
I also did not see who funded the studies. That might help answer some of my questions.
It does seem to be fairly well established that the environment for the fetus and newborn are critical. It just looks dishonest to not try and figure out if vaccines are not an environmental trigger for some chidren. Including vaccinating pregnant women. And a perception of dishonesty will undermine trust in the scietists who keep concluding there is no link, with highly flawed studies.
Some more dreaming, But I think the quickest and most cost effective way to improve parent trust in vaccination is to compare unvaccinated children with vaccinated and see if anything significant emerges. Speak to parents who are concerned and ask them what answers they are looking for - design the study in conjunction with them and take it from there. Trying to intimidate and mandate is only going to work to the disadvantage of those who view vaccination as essential to public health. It shouts "I do not have any real facts, but I am going to bully you anyway"