Misleading reports about autism data - Page 17 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
#481 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 08:29 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I know that people think autism is caused by different things for different people, so I'm not posting this study to prove anything, just because I think it was interesting.  It talks about how brains develop during the second trimester and how they think they might be developing a "time zone" for when autism develops in the womb (for some people, at least).

 

http://autismsciencefoundation.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/finding-the-time-zone-for-autism/

 

Thanks for the article!

 

Both of my nephews were born with large heads and had large heads throughout infancy.  This article helps to explain why (aside from their big-headedfather, lol).

 

Here is an article on head circumference and autism.  

http://www.sheknows.com/sheknows-cares/articles/966/could-a-big-head-mean-autism

 

I have occasionally wondered if measuring head circumference in infants would give us clues on who to watch carefully for signs of ASD - as early treatment does yield better results.

purslaine is offline  
#482 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 09:15 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

       Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Moreover, way back at the beginning of this thread, a few pro-vaxxers suggested that the population of non vaxxers (1/100) was too small to study.


I think I was the one that brought up the point that there are probably not enough unvaccinated children that could and would participate in a study (and that they probably have other differences). Not that anyone cares, but I just wanted to mention that believing there is no credible evidence to support an autism/vaccine link (and even evidence to show that there isn't one) does not make one a "pro-vaxxer." (and yeah I know that some that believe there is a link are not necessarily "anti-vax".) I'm just trying to be realistic, and I'm coming at this from the perspective of autism not vaccines if that makes any sense. I don't have a vaccine agenda.  Just wanted to put that out there

AbbyGrant is offline  
#483 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 09:20 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The percentage of non vaccinated children is more like 4/1000 than 1/100, and they definitely tend to be similar in other ways.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#484 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 09:30 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

 

 

 

What we keep saying is that studying non-vax vs. vax populations makes it too hard to control for too many variables. And a randomized double blind study is unethical. The "retrospective" studies that have been done so far don't tell us much, and certainly don't point to a connection. Could there BE a connection? There could be - but studying monkeys isn't going to get us there, and studies that are random and double blind are unethical, and retrospective studies have told us almost nothing so far.

 

You put it in nicer words, but the result is the same:  The pro vax community throwing up obstacles to exploration.

 

 

 

Nevermind the fact that no matter WHAT studies are done, and no matter WHAT they find (unless they find that vax=autism), the anti-vax community will not accept them, and will still try and state that they rigged it to make sure they found no link.

 

Maybe? 

 

I suspect there are non-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers who are so entrenched in their position that they will not move.  There is a lot at stake, a lot of frustration, distrust, etc on both sides.  

 

So…this generation of people might be a lost cause when it comes to vaccine/autism discussion.

 

Time changes things, however.  A 100 years from now people will not be sitting around discussing this.  The answer will either be solved, or people will have moved on.  

 

 

 


I didn't "put it in nicer words" - there are obstacles. They were not put there by the Pro-vax community. They exist due to ethical concerns, and limitations that are outside EVERYONES control. Anti-vax/non-vax communities included. This cannot be pinned on the pro-vaxers or the vaxers alone.

 

Look at it this way.

 

In order to do a randomized/double blind study that everyone wants, whatever children are chosen to participate will be injected with something. All of them must be injected (half with vax, half with a placebo). Each half cannot know which half they belong to. They cannot know. Would non-vaxers be comfortable not knowing their childs vax status? Of course not! Would vaxers be comfortable not knowing their childs vax status? Of course not!

 

You cannot blame that on pro-vaxers. You just can't. It's not the pro vaxers fault - its a limitation. A blameless limitation. Please, tell me how the pro-vax community is putting up roadblocks??

AbbyGrant likes this.
Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#485 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 10:16 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The percentage of non vaccinated children is more like 4/1000 than 1/100, and they definitely tend to be similar in other ways.

 

I have never heard that.  A quick google search showed a variety of figures, from 1/100 to 1/3000.  I would expect non-vax rates to be higher than reported as some people do fly under the radar with such things.  

 

In real life I know of 4 families where the kids have received no vax.  I live in rural Ontario, not an area known for non-complaince.

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#486 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 10:24 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

       Quote:


I think I was the one that brought up the point that there are probably not enough unvaccinated children that could and would participate in a study (and that they probably have other differences). Rrrrachel did too.   I spent far too long checking, lol.  Not that anyone cares, but I just wanted to mention that believing there is no credible evidence to support an autism/vaccine link (and even evidence to show that there isn't one) does not make one a "pro-vaxxer." (and yeah I know that some that believe there is a link are not necessarily "anti-vax".) I'm just trying to be realistic, and I'm coming at this from the perspective of autism not vaccines if that makes any sense. I don't have a vaccine agenda.  Just wanted to put that out there.  Agreed.  There are some people who are non-vax who do not believe there is a autism/vax connection.  In discussions and polls, autism often falls near the bottom of the list of reasons why people choose not to vax.  

 

I am probably guilty of sweeping terms - mostly out of laziness. It is easier to write "non vaxxer" than "non-vaxxer who also beleives there is an autism/vax connection".  

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#487 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 10:39 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
No vaccinated children tend to be clustered rather than evenly dispersed, so personal contact is not a good measure. I know lots and lots of families that don't vaccinate. I'm going of a statistic from aap that said 99.6% of children are vaccinated.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#488 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 08:31 PM
 
littlest birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: a dream-filled fixer-upper
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Sort of OT but I just wanted to comment on the "social symptoms" of autism mentioned upthread. 

 

I think that the reason the weaknesses are so obvious in social areas is that social skills require more nuanced observation, certain kinds of attention and information processing, and most especially quick adaptability to incoming information.  It's still a lack of awareness of one's environment, lack of connection with that environment, unawareness of and inability to sort incoming information, inability to comprehend certain kinds of complexity.  I see it as all stemming from one basic issue.  Disconnection. 

 

It's not that the social aspect is a special category making autism different from other things that may go wrong in the brain, but that the multilayered complexity of socialization puts the human brain to its most rigorous test of all.  Even though an autistic may be able to use their brain for lots of information storage, and for considering for instance the complexities of some engineering challenges, and even though an autistic brain may have a unique perspective from which any of us could learn, those skills are still far simpler than the nuanced relationships among humans.  I find in my experience that the autistic mind favors simplicity and is rather binary.  Losing the ability to deal with a high level of complexity is a loss of something central and important to what makes the human brain what it is.  The "fanciest" part, evolutionarily.  Whenever and however it happens, because there seems to be a core loss of function shaping all other symptoms, It still seems like fairly straightforward damage.  I find it plausible that that damage occurs in utero during development and has genetic components.  I also find it completely plausible that vaccines trigger new damage in vulnerable populations.  Or that they worsen milder problems.  

 

The thing with vaxes for me is that there is more complexity to our biology than we are studying or able to study.  We need to be humble, as we aren't really that good at medicine yet.  I suspect that adjuvants used in the first days and weeks of life can have a lifelong effect by teaching the new immune system what to respond to and how much to respond; helping it learn what is the environment it will face.  The earliest impacts can have an enormously disproportionate influence, and we just don't know what those effects all are.  They are programming the body for a lifetime.  We only recognize fairly immediate side effects, but the side effects lists--and compensation claims records--consistently list for instance so many autoimmune problems that I am shocked people don't worry about those.  I suspect vaccines of not being safe.  I've never especially though they were a primary cause of autism--but I do think it is plausible and that we are not studying seriously enough.  

 

Here we are with thousands of unvaxed kids and because we can't do a double blind we aren't even willing to look at the differences in known available populations?  We know it won't be an ideal study.  We would need to take the observations with a grain of salt since we understand there are some other factors we can't control for.  That doesn't mean we wouldn't learn a lot from it.  

 

What if instead of kicking patients out of their practices for not vaccinating, doctors signed them up as eligible candidates for collecting this data?  Some parents might be unwilling but many would be glad of decent treatment and a doctor who doesn't attack them.  Many of these moms are not paranoid sorts who avoid doctors.  Many many non-vaxers are struggling to establish a relationship with a decent pediatrician willing to accept them.  There are also already lots of doctors who have been seeing children in these categories, and it seems like it would be simple to check for information on independently-diagnosed autistic children later on for the unvaxed alongside an equal number of their vaxed local peers.  Since a data collection study does not administer anything or alter anyone's health it is a lot simpler.

 

I rarely think in terms of conspiracy, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if some studies had already been done of the data and the patterns reflected badly on vaccination.  "Well, those results must NOT be accurate--the study must be flawed: The unvaccinated might only have half the incidence of autism because they have more vegetables in their diets or mom is more attentive to them.  Better toss out those results.  Then the party line became  "such studies are useless and we have a list of reasons not to do them."  If the numbers would reassure many thousands of parents about vaccines, I expect there'd be plenty of money behind it just because being able to publicize such results even with some flaws in the study would be such good PR.  It would make so many people more willing to get their kids vaxed.

 

Anyway, good night y'all.


ME&treehugger.gifHE... loving our: wild.gifdd(18) ~~violin.gifds(13) read.gifdd(13)~~ peace.gifdd(10)
 
 

littlest birds is offline  
#489 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 08:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Littlestbirds, you bring up some very interesting ideas.

I think the biggest roadblock put up by the pro-vax community is the idea that the double-blind study would be the only valid study that could be done regarding comparison of vaxed vs. unvaxed populations.

Nobody would consider doing a double-blind study to compare peanut allergy rates amongst 2 different communities; yet studies have been done, and their results are considered valid and scientific: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968474,00.html

Interestingly, this article http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/02/25/2498789.htm suggests that vitamin D deficiency plays a role....
BeckyBird likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#490 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 09:01 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,880
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)

Littlest Birds,

 

Your post deserves

ovation.gif

 

 


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#491 of 586 Old 04-26-2012, 10:58 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The German study already attempted to do this, and look how thoroughly the results were dismissed here.
Super~Single~Mama likes this.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#492 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 04:53 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlest birds View Post

 

I rarely think in terms of conspiracy, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if some studies had already been done of the data and the patterns reflected badly on vaccination.  

 

Ok, I will throw some "conspiracy" stuff out there... I'm not going to defend it. You guys can take it or leave it. Honestly, you can look at this whole thing and aftermath and it will further whichever position you already hold I believe.

 

Vaccine Safety Datalink is a project collecting data on millions of people and thousands of children since 1990.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/VSD.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Safety_Datalink

 

After EPA expressed concerns over ethylmercury exceeding methyl guidelines, and other issues with mercury in pharmaceuticals, they used this data to look at ethylmercury exposure. It was presented at conference in Simpsonwood, GA and yes, it is what Kennedy wrote about, but his article had many problems, including asserting that rota vax had mercury, which is simply not true.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Simpsonwood_CDC_conference

 

Quote:
 meeting was held to discuss a study done by Dr. Thomas Verstraeten and his co-workers using Vaccine Safety Datalink data as a project collaboration between the CDC's National Immunization Program (NIP) and four HMOs. The study examined the records of 110,000 children.
 
Although this conference is apparently concerned with the effects of mercury in the form of thimerosal on infant brain development, participants seemed to have limited knowledge about mercury. None of the well known experts were invited, such as Dr. Ascher from Bowman Grey School of Medicine or Dr. Boyd Haley, who has done extensive work on the toxic effects of low concentrations on the CNS.

The conference followed a study that showed that mercury in vaccines may have caused neurodevelopment problems.

http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/cdcfdaexperts.htm

 

This link has important quotes/summary of the transcript: 

http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/cdcfdaexperts.htm or 

http://www.safeminds.org/government-affairs/foia/Simpsonwood_Overview.pdf

 

The whole transcript is very long, and only made available because of freedom of information act: http://www.safeminds.org/government-affairs/foia/Simpsonwood_Transcript.pdf

 

Quote:
 Their first analysis (and from all indications the most accurate of their efforts) obtained by SafeMinds under the Freedom of Information Act must have been, as documented in the Simpsonwood transcript, terribly disturbing to them. It showed a 2.48% increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in children who had received the mercury laced vaccines (see graph 3 at the top of page 15 of the above report).

 

Please go look at graph 3 http://www.safeminds.org/government-affairs/foia/ThimerosalVSDstudy001.pdf it is concerning Thimerosal exposure and autism.

 

 

As far as I understand it, data was lost, presentation from this meeting unavailable, further study could not repeat results, and head researcher went to work for vax company. Thomas Verstreaten - 

 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/5/1039.full, and in regards to this:

"written by the Centers for Disease Control, the federal agency in charge of the vaccine program. The lead author, Thomas Verstraeten, left to take a job with Glaxo SmithKline — a vaccine manufacturer — after the study was written and before it was published. The U.S. Congress later cited this as an ethical violation."

http://www.fourteenstudies.org/studies.html

 

Also, as far as I understand from reading the transcript, the thimerosal/neuro associations also held true when applied to antigens or aluminum, as those things coincided with the thimerosal levels of those vaccines, so no, it is not as simple as we have taken out thimerosal, and also this info stresses the age/development of children receiving thimerosal, which now, many babies are in utero via flu vax. 

 

Anyway, I'm not going to defend these things. You can read them or not. All these sites are biased. The original transcript is unaltered pdf. 

You can also argue this is all bs as the findings were not repeated.

 

Someone mentioned tics earlier, as far as I recall, the positive association between tics and speech disorders  and thimerosal exposure was very significant according to Verstraeten at the Simpsonwood Conference.

 

I really hesitate to put these things here, but you can take it or leave it.

 

The one thing I took from it mostly, was a bunch of experts pretty much sitting around and admitting "we" know VERY little about true safety of adjuvants. 

VSD is collecting tons of data, and it includes partially/delayed/unvaxed kids. These were the results from the first go of looking at thimerosal exposure.  shrug.gif

 

ETA: Here is a searchable Simpsonwood Transcript: http://pt.scribd.com/doc/2887572/Simpsonwood-Transcript20Searchable

 

 

BeckyBird and Bokonon like this.
Slmommy is offline  
#493 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 05:38 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Littlestbirds, you bring up some very interesting ideas.

I think the biggest roadblock put up by the pro-vax community is the idea that the double-blind study would be the only valid study that could be done regarding comparison of vaxed vs. unvaxed populations.

Nobody would consider doing a double-blind study to compare peanut allergy rates amongst 2 different communities; yet studies have been done, and their results are considered valid and scientific: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968474,00.html

Interestingly, this article http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/02/25/2498789.htm suggests that vitamin D deficiency plays a role....

 


The other studies have been done! They don't show a causal link. Or any link. Comparing peanut allergies to vax reactions are 2 completely different things. Please, continue comparing apples and oranges.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#494 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 05:55 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
It's not the pro vax community that is demanding a double blind study. The pro vax community, in general, feels like the research that already exists is significant and meaningful.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#495 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 06:21 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

       Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

I think the biggest roadblock put up by the pro-vax community is the idea that the double-blind study would be the only valid study that could be done regarding comparison of vaxed vs. unvaxed populations.Nobody would consider doing a double-blind study to compare peanut allergy rates amongst 2 different communities; yet studies have been done, and their results are considered valid and scientific: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968474,00.html

 

I think the only reason anyone in the "pro-vax community" even mentioned such a study was because some in the vaccine skeptical (does that sound better than anti-vax?) community suggested it both here and elsewhere (I did a little digging online). Some questioned why it would be unethical.  And I think all anyone has ever done was explain the challenges of doing observational studies, even some in the vaccine skeptical community. 

 

When the German study that showed no difference in colds, asthma, and gastrointesitnal infection between the groups was brought up, the small sample size of unvaccinated and the potential health issues that might keep one from being vaccinated were brought up by the vaccine skeptical. I think this illustrates the limitations of observational studies and how they can be dismissed if one does not support the findings. 

 

Also, notice in the article linked about peanuts, a researcher said he "can't draw conclusive explanations from his observational study." So it's being followed up by an NIH study where they will study children at high risk of allergies, and "half of the study participants will avoid peanuts, while the other half will consume them regularly from 11 months to 3 years of age." Then "researchers will measure the rate of allergy in both groups by age 5.


edited to fix typo
Super~Single~Mama likes this.
AbbyGrant is offline  
#496 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 08:08 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

       Quote:

 

I think the only reason anyone in the "pro-vax community" even mentioned such a study was because some in the vaccine skeptical (does that sound better than anti-vax?) community suggested it both here and elsewhere (I did a little digging online). Some questioned why it would be unethical.  And I think all anyone has ever done was explain the challenges of doing observational studies, even some in the vaccine skeptical community. 

 


edited to fix typo

 

Here is the thing, though:  it does not matter why the pro-vax is heistant to study the issue more, it just matters that they don't. There are many ways to further study an issue.  I can think of 3 that been suggested in this thread alone.  I get that studies have limitations and cost money - but it is the only way the question : do vaccines contribute to autism at all will be answered.  

 

I have heard several posters say on this thread that there is no point in further studies as non-vaxxers will never accept them anyways.  I do not think that is true.  I think a large scale, unbiased study (or as close as one can get) would help.  Several study like that would help even more.  You are correct when you say I might not change my mind - but who really cares?  My vax decisions were made a number of years ago.  There is generation of parents now and in the future who need information to make decisions, and the studies we have now have  numerous issues/flaws in them.

 

I do get that at some point the scientific community is going to make the call that they have studied the issue enough.  Fine.  If I do not think they have studied the issue enough (or well enough)  I am not going to vaccinate my children.  It is that simple.  I will take my chances with diptheria (which we all know is not going to happen) over injecting someone with something I think might contribute to autism - thank you very much.   

 

As per the assertion that any money that goes towards proving or disproving an autism/vax connection is money being taken away from autism - that is true - but the money we are talking about could be a tiny percentage of the total cost of autism.  TIny.

 

I am not sure what the pro-vax community wants the non-vax community to do.  Vax our children and shut up?  (I am certain that is what they want, lol)  That is unrealistic.  Parents are not going to vax their children if they believe vaxxes may cause more harm than good.  Shut up?  Also not going to happen - if a parent believes their child was harmed by vaccines, many of them are going to shout it from the rooftops - as they should.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BeckyBird and Slmommy like this.
purslaine is offline  
#497 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 08:11 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
No one is refusing to study anything. We could all agree it needs more study and guess what? Nothing would happen! Unless a researcher somewhere finds it a compelling enough topic an is able to get funding, nothing will happen.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#498 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 08:17 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

No one is refusing to study anything. We could all agree it needs more study and guess what? Nothing would happen! Unless a researcher somewhere finds it a compelling enough topic an is able to get funding, nothing will happen.

 

Do you think people should vaccinate a child in spite of a lack of compelling evidence  (compelling as defined by the parent - the one who has the final say in whether or not to vaccinate their child) ?

 

purslaine is offline  
#499 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 08:29 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
It's difficult for me to answer that. I would have to ignore all the compelling evidence that exists. I don't think parents should make health decisions based on speculation and anecdotes but based on actual research and science. Take from that what you will.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#500 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 08:40 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I sense a winding down of the conversation (although I could be wrong).

 

Taximom -  I want to thank you for starting this conversation.  flowersforyou.gif

 

The possible autism/vax connection is often the elephant in the room.  People are often afraid to bring it up, for fear of strife and backlash.  

 

There have been an incredible number of links and thoughts from numerous posters of all stripes - hopefully it will help some make a decision or point them in a direction for further study.

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#501 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 09:02 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

Here is the thing, though:  it does not matter why the pro-vax refuse to study the issue more, it just matters that they refuse. There are many ways to further study an issue.  I can think of 3 that been suggested in this thread alone.  I get that studies have limitations and cost money - but it is the only way the question : do vaccines contribute to autism at all will be answered.  

 

I have heard several posters say on this thread that there is no point in further studies as non-vaxxers will never accept them anyways.  I do not think that is true.  I think a large scale, unbiased study (or as close as one can get) would help.  Several study like that would help even more.  You are correct when you say I might not change my mind - but who really cares?  My vax decisions were made a number of years ago.  There is generation of parents now and in the future who need information to make decisions, and the studies we have now have  numerous issues/flaws in them.

 

I do get that at some point the scientific community is going to make the call that they have studied the issue enough.  Fine.  If I do not think they have studied the issue enough (or well enough)  I am not going to vaccinate my children.  It is that simple.  I will take my chances with diptheria (which we all know is not going to happen) over injecting someone with something I think might contribute to autism - thank you very much.   

 

As per the assertion that any money that goes towards proving or disproving an autism/vax connection is money being taken away from autism - that is true - but the money we are talking about could be a tiny percentage of the total cost of autism.  TIny.

 

I am not sure what the pro-vax community wants the non-vax community to do.  Vax our children and shut up?  (I am certain that is what they want, lol)  That is unrealistic.  Parents are not going to vax their children if they believe vaxxes may cause more harm than good.  Shut up?  Also not going to happen - if a parent believes their child was harmed by vaccines, many of them are going to shout it from the rooftops - as they should.

 

Those who insist that vax cause their childs autism, will never believe any amount of evidence pointing to the contrary. They just won't. They don't have to - but its frustrating that there is so much insistence that vax=autism when thats just not the case the vast majority of the time, and perhaps is never the case.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#502 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 09:24 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Ok well I'll put this in there, from my post #492.

VSD data of 110,000 kids, after - children excluded - preemies, congenital and perinatal problems, hospitalizations over ten days at birth or during first three months, etc.

http://www.safeminds.org/government-affairs/foia/ThimerosalVSDstudy001.pdf

 

Also, Verstraeten talks at Simpsonwood that some of the children involved in the data may not be old enough for diagnosis and addresses other possible problems with sample size.

 

untitled.bmp

All the other links dealing with this are in my previous post.

 

 

 

Quote:
Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 162: "When I saw this, and I went back through the literature, I was actually stunned by what I saw because I thought it is plausible. First of all there is the Faeroe study, which I think people have dismissed too easily, and there is a new article in the same Journal that was presented here, the Journal of Pediatrics, where they have looked at PCB. They have looked at other contaminants in seafood and they have adjusted for that, and still mercury comes out. That is one point. Another point is that in many of the studies with animals, it turned out that there is quite a different result depending on the dose of mercury. Depending on the route of exposure and depending on the age at which the animals, it turned out that there is quite a different result depending on the dose of mercury. Depending on the route of exposure and depending on the age at which the animals were exposed. Now, I don't know how much you can extrapolate that from animals to humans, but that tells me mercury at one month of age is not the same as mercury at three months, at 12 months, prenatal mercury, later mercury. There is a whole range of plausible outcomes from mercury. On top of that, I think that we cannot so easily compare the U.S. population to Faeroe or Seychelles populations. We have different mean levels of exposure. We are comparing high to high in the Seychelles, high to high in the Faeroe and low to low in the U.S., so I am not sure how easily you can transpose one finding to another one. So basically to me that leaves all the options open, and that means I can not exclude such a possible effect."

http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/cdcfdaexperts.htm

Jennyanydots likes this.
Slmommy is offline  
#503 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 09:38 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Dr. Egan, pg. 77: "Could you do this calculation for aluminum?"

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 77: "I did it for aluminum…Actually the results were almost identical to ethylmercury because the amount of aluminum goes along almost exactly with the mercury one."

 

Dr. Caserta, pg. 234: "One of the things I learned at the Aluminum Conference in Puerto Rico that was tied into the metal lines in biology and medicine that I never really understood before, is the interactive effect of different metals when they are together in the same organism. It is not the same as when they are alone, and I think it would be foolish for us not to include aluminum as part of our thinking with this."

 

http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/cdcfdaexperts.htm

 

 

Transcripts of the Puerto Rico Aluminum Conference mentioned:

http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/AL%20-%201.pdf

http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/AL%20-%202.pdf

BeckyBird and Jennyanydots like this.
Slmommy is offline  
#504 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 09:43 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

 

Those who insist that vax cause their childs autism, will never believe any amount of evidence pointing to the contrary. They just won't. They don't have to - but its frustrating that there is so much insistence that vax=autism when thats just not the case the vast majority of the time, and perhaps is never the case.

 

So what?  That is a lousy reason not to do further research.

 

Can you imagine - we don't think smoking is good for you, so lets not study it as some people will always believe smoking is fine.  Yes, apples to oranges - but I think you get my point.

 

I do hear your frustration, though.  This is a very divisive debate, with lots of stubbornness on either side.  I do think the intent on both sides is good, though, which is the health and safety of children.  

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#505 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 09:52 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My personal thoughts of the issue, and not about autism, more just vax and general health, reactions, later in life conditions and disorders...

 

I read recently a book where Holistic dr (disclosure) is speaking about how we are all bowls so to speak, and during our lives our bowls fill up with toxins, at different rates depending on what we are exposed to, and/or how well we can remove toxins from our bodies. I think people are born with different sized bowls, or may have genetic/prenatal issues.  When the bowls fill up or spill over, this may be the cause of some medical conditions.

 

Super~single, you asked earlier about L-Glutathione and what Taximom posted, L-Glutathione is thought to help remove toxins from your system. 

 

I don't see why vaccines should be ruled out of being just one more environmental toxin thrown on top of everything else, with possibility of genetic issues as well. 2cents.gif

BeckyBird and Jennyanydots like this.
Slmommy is offline  
#506 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 10:14 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

 


I've never said to never ever do any more research whatsoever. NO ONE IS. Just that research has its limitations, and the studies that everyone wants (which are definitive, concrete, and bullet proof) are very difficult to do in an ethical, responsible manner. That is NOT the same as saying, "Oh shoot, who gives a damn, lets just stop researching." And that there might be other links that need to be looked into maybe more than the vax one, and that might show an indirect link.

 

In this thread, posters have said (I am paraphrasing)

 

-we should move on - studies have been done

--shot down several suggestion for study (or "pointed out the limitations and explained why the research probably would not be done")

-said they think the non-vax community would never accept the research, anyway.

 

Let's turn this around:  do you think we should do further research on the vax/autism connection?  What kind?

 

Also, claiming that its the "pro-vax" community that is putting up barricades to further study is a completely false statement - and you and at least one other poster keeps saying it, or implying it, lowers your credibility - alot.

 

My credibility is lowered because I disagree with you? ROTFLMAO.gifYou have a different interpretation of  statements than I do, that is all.  

 

There is really no need to get personal.   I have not cast aspersions on your credabitlity, and I would appreciate if you behave equally respectfully.  Keep it about the ideas and not the person.  I would like you to edit.

 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#507 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 10:19 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

      Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Here is the thing, though:  it does not matter why the pro-vax refuse to study the issue more, it just matters that they refuse. There are many ways to further study an issue.  I can think of 3 that been suggested in this thread alone.  I get that studies have limitations and cost money - but it is the only way the question : do vaccines contribute to autism at all will be answered.

 

They refuse? There was discussion about the limitations, and I recall one of the more staunch supporters of vaccines on this thread saying they do not want further study, but that's not what's actually happening. Someone earlier linked what various government agencies have outlined for further vaccine safety study including ASD. And at least one major autism group that encourages vaccination says they are funding study into the underlying biology of autism which could help figure out if a small subset of children might be at risk.

 

 

ETA - sorry I don't post fast enough...I'm like one page behind already... don't mind me shy.gif

Super~Single~Mama likes this.
AbbyGrant is offline  
#508 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 10:24 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

 


I've never said to never ever do any more research whatsoever. NO ONE IS. Just that research has its limitations, and the studies that everyone wants (which are definitive, concrete, and bullet proof) are very difficult to do in an ethical, responsible manner. That is NOT the same as saying, "Oh shoot, who gives a damn, lets just stop researching." And that there might be other links that need to be looked into maybe more than the vax one, and that might show an indirect link.

 

In this thread, posters have said (I am paraphrasing)

 

-we should move on - studies have been done

--shot down several suggestion for study (or "pointed out the limitations and explained why the research probably would not be done")

-said they think the non-vax community would never accept the research, anyway.

 

Let's turn this around:  do you think we should do further research?  what kind?

 

Also, claiming that its the "pro-vax" community that is putting up barricades to further study is a completely false statement - and you and at least one other poster keeps saying it, or implying it, lowers your credibility - alot.

 

There is really no need to get personal.  It is pretty low.  I have not cast aspersions on your credabitlity, and I would appreciate if you behave equally respectfully.  Keep it about the ideas and not the person.  

 

 

 

It does lower credibility. Of the entire anti-vax movement/"I don't vax because it gives people autism"" community (I do completely 100% understand that there are many people who do not vax for reasons completely unrelated to autism) If you want to be seen as understanding how research works, you can't blame it on the vaxers/pro-vaxers when a limitation is presented - its not a limitation put there by the pro-vaxers. It's not personal - personal would be calling you a child abuser for not vaxing (I don't believe that, but there are those who do. There are also those who believe the opposite - child abuse by vaxing).

 

I don't give a damn if its studied more. I think there are other more valuable studies that should be done. Maybe an indirect link will be found. I don't know. I don't do scientific research, and I don't think vax causes autism - not directly anyway.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#509 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 10:24 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I actually believe in the toxic basket theory, and I try to keep mine and y families toxic baskets as empty as possible by buying and eating organic food, getting good nutrition to support my body in removing toxins, using non-toxic cleaners and personal products, etc. do I think vaccines add to my daughters toxic basket? Sure, but very, very little. She will get more exposure to toxins, particularly aluminum and mercury (and the much more pernicious methyl mercury, at that) from other exposure. A typical five year old has 100mg of aluminum accumulated in their system, a tiny tiny fraction of that comes from vaccines. It's extra ironic to me when I meet people who don't vaccinate because of they've "heard too many things," and then they turn around and use tide, and febreeze, and cascade, and all kinds of other crap around their kids all the time!

Is there some risk to adding even that tiny amount to her basket? Sure, but it's far less than the risk of contracting a vpd. It's like how the health benefits of eating fish outweigh the risk from the mercury.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#510 of 586 Old 04-27-2012, 10:37 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I actually believe in the toxic basket theory, and I try to keep mine and y families toxic baskets as empty as possible by buying and eating organic food, getting good nutrition to support my body in removing toxins, using non-toxic cleaners and personal products, etc. do I think vaccines add to my daughters toxic basket? Sure, but very, very little. She will get more exposure to toxins, particularly aluminum and mercury (and the much more pernicious methyl mercury, at that) from other exposure. A typical five year old has 100mg of aluminum accumulated in their system, a tiny tiny fraction of that comes from vaccines. It's extra ironic to me when I meet people who don't vaccinate because of they've "heard too many things," and then they turn around and use tide, and febreeze, and cascade, and all kinds of other crap around their kids all the time!
Is there some risk to adding even that tiny amount to her basket? Sure, but it's far less than the risk of contracting a vpd. It's like how the health benefits of eating fish outweigh the risk from the mercury.

I agree with you on some of this. I dont think having vax concerns or not believing in the "established safety" of adjuvants necessarily precludes anyone from vaxing.... sure lots of non-vaxers feel that way too, but some people do still decide risk/benefit falls on vax side. 

 

I think most people are attracted to sel/del for these reasons. I wish more pedis and drs. would be accepting of that, and that there could be more flexibility with state mandates/exemptions. Personally, I also wish some vax were available separated. 

 

I think if the more extreme pro-vax contingent were more accepting to del/sel, it would possibly improve compliance and vax rates. We already pointed out other western nations have more delayed, selective schedules and no regulations for school entry. I wish those things were a bit more respected/accepted than the "we have no evidence" that this matters line. Clearly some people are unhappy with the study or lack of establishing "no evidence."

Slmommy is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off