I'm trying to find a copy of the actual study.
That's not a snarky or rhetorical question. I just haven't heard the argument. (And to be fair, I don't follow all of the threads here).
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor Private Parts are Private Property!
A quote from Geraldine Dawson at Autism Speaks (not involved in study):
"This study shows definitively that there is no connection between the number of vaccines that children receive in childhood, or the number of vaccines that children receive in one day, and autism.”
Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences). Vaccines save lives.
Funny, Dawson's comment is a scientifically different conclusion from the study's conclusion.
Further perspective can be gained here: http://autism.about.com/b/2009/09/10/is-autism-speaks-mis-spending-its-money-your-opinion-requested.htm
Many of the comments are interesting as well.
Seems like there is a question of whether Autism Speaks is a front group for the pharmaceutical industry, who is directly benefitting from Autism Speaks, while families of severely autistic children, who are desperate for immediate help, are not benefitting an any way shape or form.
But even the mildly affected autistic community dislikes Autism Speaks: http://www.examiner.com/article/why-autistic-people-don-t-like-autism-speaks
I suspec that that dislike extends to Chief Scientific Officer Dawson, who pulls in a salary of $650K and oversees funding of studies that attempt--and fail--to find the non-vaccine cause of autism.
For those whose autism IS linked with vaccines, this is like attempting to prove that cigarettes are not linked with lung cancer.
Is this the study? I found it on your link above.
"Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism," by Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH, Cristofer S. Price, ScM, and Eric S. Weintraub, MPH, appears in The Journal of Pediatrics (www.jpeds.com), DOI 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.02.001, published by Elsevier.
Why don't I trust Elsevier, you ask? It is part of the Reed-Elsevier group.
"The Lancet, the journal the paper was published in, is owned by global publishing giant Reed-Elsevier. Reed-Elsevier own 2,460 scientific journals, as well as the magazine New Scientist."
"Reed-Elsevier's CEO, Sir Crispin Davis, is a non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline. And his brother, Sir Nigel Davis, was a judge who withdrew legal aid from families who claimed their children were damaged by GlaxoSmithKline's MMR vaccine."
"Worse still, in 2009 the pharmaceutical giant Merck was sued for paying Elsevier to create a fake journal to promote their products."
(And, for those of you interested, Reed-Elsevier was also the company Peter Power of Visor Consultants was running mock terror drills for on the morning of 7/7.)
"This is the sickest species the world has ever known."
Dr.John Bergman, speaking about the human species.
It also had SIDS as a side effect.
I will look for the actual insert I am speaking of. But I just remember thinking WTH? So much time spent saying vaccines do not cause autism and then it's listed as a side effect.
I'm no scientist. I'm just a mother who thinks that doesn't make any sense.
Wife to one amazing husband , SAHM to DS 10/09, DS 10/19, one furbaby , and lots of !
Well, some of us actually have children at home today, so it's not like we have unlimited time to search for and analyze studies, let alone post 20 times a day.
But so far, what jumps out at me (including some copy/paste):
"Of the remaining 752 controls included in the analysis, 186 had an SCQ score <16 but had indications of speech delay or language delay, learning disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or attention deficit disorder, or tics, or had an individual education plans."
186 of the 752 controls had possible symptoms of autism. Those were the CONTROLS? Nearly 25% of the CONTROL group may have had possible symptoms of autism????
Also, they studied the possible relationship of autism to total antigenic exposure. Most of the scientists who ARE seriously questioning whether vaccines are causally related with autism are not worried about antigenic exposure as they are worried about the effect of things like aluminum and thimerosal. "Admittedly, this approach assumes that all proteins and polysaccharides in a vaccine evoke equivalent immune responses, whereas some proteins actually may be more likely than others to stimulate an immune response.14 "
"How evidence of early neurodevelopmental delays would have affected our results is not clear; it might have resulted in lower vaccination levels if parents were concerned about vaccinating their children, or possibly higher vaccination levels through more frequent contact with the healthcare system. " BUT THEY DID NOT COMPARE VACCINATED VS UNVACCINATED CHILDREN.
"We thank Dr Paul Offit for his assistance in determining the antibody- stimulating protein and polysaccharide content of specific vaccines.
Aha--now we know why:
1) the focus of the article is on the relationship between vaccine antigen exposure and autism (rather than the cumulative effect of heavy metals from vaccines)
2) why there is no comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (surely if they were combing through the records of three different managed health cares, they could have found some unvaccinated individuals, even back then).
Most importantly, it explains the MASSIVE discrepancy between the conclusion of the study and Geraldine Dawson's ridiculous conclusion:
STUDY CONCLUSION: "It can be argued that ASD with regression, in which children usually lose developmental skills during the second year of life, could be related to exposures in infancy, including vaccines; however, we found no association between exposure to antigens from vaccines during infancy and the development of ASD with regression."
Geraldine Dawson's conclusion: "This study shows definitively that there is no connection between the number of vaccines that children receive in childhood, or the number of vaccines that children receive in one day, and autism.”"
At a very cursory glance, I would say the title should really be:
"antigen level from vaccines not linked to autism in vaccinated individuals"
That is not quite the same no connection between full schedule and autism.
There is a battle of two wolves inside us. One is good and the other is evil. The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?). We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...
I'm sure folks will come along and explain how that's not what it means at all (), but for your reading pleasure:
I'm trying to find a copy of the actual study.
Well, now that we've explained that the conclusion of the study is not at all what your thread title says it is, what would you like to do about it?
In my skimming it appears to me that they took about 1000 kids who had been vaccinated and looked at the number of antigens received by all of them via vax and then determined the group of kids with autism got the same number of antigens as the group of kids without autism, which ya know makes sense if they are all on the same or similar vax schedules.
As i said I was skimming... do you see a chart showing children broken down by number of antigens received? Is there any children listen in a zero group?(i am on my tablet and not going to attempt to open the pdf on here.)
Looks like they also examined thimerosal exposure as a secondary analysis and found no relationship.
Still waiting for an answer. After all, you DID (rather snarkily) say,
I'm sure folks will come along and explain how that's not what it means at all
And then you admitted that both the title of your thread and the article did not match the conclusion of the study itself:
Yeah when I wrote the original thread title, Kathy, the full study hadn't come out yet I was going based on the article. The study is definitely limited in scope to the concept of "too many too soon".
So what would you like to do now? Would you like to change the title of your thread?
And do you have any comment on the fact that the study ADMITTED the possibility that some autism cases may be related to vaccines? "It can be argued that ASD with regression, in which children usually lose developmental skills during the second year of life, could be related to exposures in infancy, including vaccines..."
Or do you prefer to leave the title of your thread as is, which may mislead readers in to wrongly believing that the "new study shows no connection between the full autism schedule and autism?"
Okay... on page 4 I am seeing three charts called Distribution of total cumulative antigen exposure among asd cases and controls, by age range
0 - 3 months there were 48 and 42 percent in the 0-25 range, next when they include up to 7 months it drops to 0 and 1 percents, and lastly when it groups 0 to 2 years the number in the zero to 25 group is totally zero.
So what am I missing? Where would unvaccinated children receive antigens that would place them in higher level groups by the age of two?
Based on the Zero to Two chart showing no children with zero antigens, I think it is safe to assume that this was a study of vaccinated children, possibly on varying schedules.