Time to stop studying the link between vaccines and autism? - Mothering Forums

 219Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 09:51 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,027
Mentioned: 586 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3680 Post(s)
Time to stop studying the link between vaccines and autism?

In the last few days there has been an article and a video posted by the "Healthcare Triage" series arguing that further studies looking into whether there is a link between vaccines and autism won't do any good and that they should stop.

"Another Study Proving That Vaccines Don't Cause Autism Won't Do Any Good" http://io9.com/it-might-be-time-to-s...onv-1717671402

"The reason the study/study arms race won’t work is, without knowing it, anti-vaccination advocates have picked up a trick from their most hated enemy—Big Pharma.We know about publication bias. Studies that show a result, any result at all, are more likely to get published than studies that show no result. For some time, the same thing would happen during the testing phase of any drug. If a drug didn’t show positive (or positive enough), results in a test, it was always possible to keep testing until the tests returned the result that a company wanted. There are legitimate reasons to repeat or modify a test, but repetition is also a way to make a drug look effective when it’s not. To put a stop to this, in 2007 Congress passed a law requiring drug companies to register every test of a medical drug or device, and to make the results available to the public.

But, in this case, political groups pull the same trick. It sounds reasonable to insist that everyone keep testing, keep testing, keep testing, until you realize that only one result is going to be acceptable. And if that result comes up, none of the other tests are going to matter."

And here is the youtube video, only about 6 minutes long if anyone is interested in watching it.


He makes a point that because there is so much overwhelming evidence that vaccines don't cause autism, even if a single study was able to find a link it wouldn't matter much. It wouldn't and couldn't "undo" the massive amount of data we already have that shows no link. There would have to be overwhelming evidence from multiple large, well designed studies showing a link for it to matter and at this point it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

So for discussion, do you guys agree or disagree? Should we continue looking for a link? If you are non vax, is there any (realistic) evidence that would convince you vaccines don't cause autism? Or is the anecdotal evidence always going to override "real" evidence in your mind?

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 10:14 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,363
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3199 Post(s)
The problem is that the studies that have been done were set up not to find a link. That is putting it fairly bluntly.

Kind of funny that that they talk about how pharma rigs studies to cover up stuff and then uses that to justify not doing an unrigged study to take off the cover.

What this is really about? Avoiding a comparison between vaxed and unvaxed kids.
Mirzam, applejuice, 95191 and 2 others like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#3 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 11:02 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,802
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2598 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

So for discussion, do you guys agree or disagree? Should we continue looking for a link? If you are non vax, is there any (realistic) evidence that would convince you vaccines don't cause autism? Or is the anecdotal evidence always going to override "real" evidence in your mind?
These questions make me a bit twitchy - they seem sweeping and assumptive. Hi my name is Kathy - I am non-vax, but I do not think or act exactly like all other non-vaxxers in the world, nor they, me.

I will preface this by saying I think there might be a link between vaccination and autism in a small group of people. Vaccine court agrees with me. I also do find massive amounts of anecdotes somewhat convincing - or at least convincing enough to give me pause and examine closely if vaccination is worth it if there is even a slight probability there is a link. For some diseases, the answer is a straight up no. Many non-vaxxers do not think there is an autism/vaccine link at all; they have other concerns with vaccines. I think autism is multi-factorial. I do not think there is one cause of autism, although there can be one thing that triggers it, if that makes sense.

So - to answer your question:

I think most studies are micro versus whole: they look at if this element (say thimerosal) causes a spike they cannot explain away. They do not look at vaccines as a whole, and they certainly do not look at multiple factors. I understand why (controlling for co-factors is important) but for this and numerous other reasons I do not think studies are designed in such a way that they give us whole answers, and cobbling things together piecemeal leaves a lot to be desired.

I am actually ok with them looking at things other than a possible autism/vaccine connection. Resources are limited and if they feel they have devoted enough to it at the present - so be it. I acknowledge that it is their call. I am also going to refrain from vaccinating (or would if my kids were young) and yes, the unknowns around vaccination are part of the reason. I am not holding this over their heads - they do not have to continue to search, and I do not have to vaccinate. The end.

I fervently wish they would devote more money to research on environmental triggers for autism in general. It is a hugely underfunded condition, and environmental triggers are an underfunded area of an underfunded condition. I think the lack of spending on autism is shameful.

The only way I personally will lay down my "vaccines can play a part in autism" gauntlet is if they find the smoking gun for the surge in autism and that is proven by autism numbers starting to drop. Similar to back or side sleeping and SIDS, or smoking and lung cancer.


Tea - I know you are busy, but short of a mini disaster, I hope you stay and post, seeing as you started this thread.
applejuice, 95191, Nemi27 and 1 others like this.

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 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-21-2015 at 07:08 AM.
kathymuggle is offline  
 
#4 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 11:03 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,135
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 643 Post(s)
more like time for the media to stop trying to control everyone's mind... by far this is the dumbest thing i've read today...so, scientists who want real answers and keep looking, should just throw their hands in the air, give up and forget all about it, because after all, any evidence they might find, contrary to what msm says, does not fit in with scientific facts at all.

Quote:
He makes a point that because there is so much overwhelming evidence that vaccines don't cause autism, even if a single study was able to find a link it wouldn't matter much.
might matter to the mother who's child suddenly developed it 'for no reason'.

'They' kept looking for a link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, after decades of denial that it caused harm, even drs endorsing smoking...remember that? Guess what? a link was found! even if it had been only one single link, it started a chain reaction.
emmy526 is offline  
#5 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 11:11 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,135
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 643 Post(s)

old footage of drs endorsing camel cigarettes, actors endorsing the polio vaccine, march of dimes, and msm all repeating the exact same headlines from all over the usa (watch for tv station call letters on the anchor's clip) <-- some of those get to be a bit much, tho - the anchor clips.
applejuice and 95191 like this.
emmy526 is offline  
#6 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 11:22 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,363
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3199 Post(s)
I'd flip the headline from "Time to stop studying the link between vaccines and autism?"

Time to finally start studying the link between vaccines and autism.

Offer up an example of one of those wonderful studies...
Mirzam, applejuice, 95191 and 2 others like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#7 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 11:23 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,027
Mentioned: 586 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3680 Post(s)
Thanks for the reply @kathymuggle .

I think there is a lot of evidence that autism is largely genetic (sibling and twin studies have confirmed this) and while there is probably some kind of environmental component in addition, evidence is showing more and more that whatever that may be occurs in utero.

A couple examples:

"The symptoms of autism may not be obvious until a child is a toddler, but the disorder itself appears to begin well before birth.

Brain tissue taken from children who died and also happened to have autism revealed patches of disorganization in the cortex, a thin sheet of cells that's critical for learning and memory, researchers report in the New England Journal of Medicine. Tissue samples from children without autism didn't have those characteristic patches.

Organization of the cortex begins in the second trimester of pregnancy. "So something must have gone wrong at or before that time," says Eric Courchesne, an author of the paper and director of the Autism Center of Excellence at the University of California, San Diego." http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...ts-in-the-womb

Another interesting study:

"Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine have figured out how to measure an infant’s risk of developing autism by looking for abnormalities in his/her placenta at birth, allowing for earlier diagnosis and treatment for the developmental disorder. The findings are reported in the April 25 online issue of Biological Psychiatry.

Senior author Dr. Harvey Kliman, research scientist in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences at the Yale School of Medicine, and research collaborators at the MIND Institute at the University of California, Davis, have found that abnormal placental folds and abnormal cell growths called trophoblast inclusions are key markers to identify newborns who are at risk for autism.

Kliman and his team examined 117 placentas from infants of at-risk families, those with one or more previous children with autism. These families were participating in a study called Markers of Autism Risk in Babies – Learning Early Signs. Kliman compared these at-risk placentas to 100 control placentas collected by the UC Davis researchers from the same geographic area.

The at-risk placentas had as many as 15 trophoblast inclusions, while none of the control placentas had more than two trophoblast inclusions. Kliman said a placenta with four or more trophoblast inclusions conservatively predicts an infant with a 96.7% probability of being at risk for autism." http://news.yale.edu/2013/04/25/auti...rmal-placentas

There is also the evidence that many children with autism have larger than average heads from infancy (don't have time to look for the actual study right now).

The eye gazing study is another small piece of the puzzle (although that started at 2 months vs infancy, it is still interesting)

My opinion is that these studies in combination with the already published vaccines/autism studies shows definitively in my mind that vaccines are not the cause of autism.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 07-15-2015 at 11:35 AM.
teacozy is offline  
#8 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 12:51 PM
 
EMRguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: FEMA Zone 4
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 603 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
more like time for the media to stop trying to control everyone's mind... by far this is the dumbest thing i've read today...so, scientists who want real answers and keep looking, should just throw their hands in the air, give up and forget all about it, because after all, any evidence they might find, contrary to what msm says, does not fit in with scientific facts at all.
Exactly, when does it stop being science and becomes religion?
applejuice likes this.
EMRguy is offline  
#9 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 12:58 PM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 600
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
He makes a point that because there is so much overwhelming evidence that vaccines don't cause autism, even if a single study was able to find a link it wouldn't matter much. It wouldn't and couldn't "undo" the massive amount of data we already have that shows no link. There would have to be overwhelming evidence from multiple large, well designed studies showing a link for it to matter and at this point it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

So for discussion, do you guys agree or disagree? Should we continue looking for a link? If you are non vax, is there any (realistic) evidence that would convince you vaccines don't cause autism? Or is the anecdotal evidence always going to override "real" evidence in your mind?
As I think I've said before here, I think more studies of this would be a waste of resources. It is hard for me to imagine a scientist (or a granting agency) who sincerely wanted to find out the causes of autism thinking that vaccines represent a promising hypothesis, at this point. The only reason I could envision for a scientist to do these studies is to convince people who still suspect a link that one does not exist, and I think the likelihood of convincing those people through any study that could feasibly be performed is miniscule. There are innumerable places where this money could be better spent.
teacozy likes this.
Jessica765 is offline  
#10 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 01:00 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,363
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3199 Post(s)
As I said above, I'm still waiting for the first real study on the topic...
Mirzam, applejuice and 95191 like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#11 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 01:19 PM
 
mamabear0314's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,201
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 389 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
He makes a point that because there is so much overwhelming evidence that vaccines don't cause autism, even if a single study was able to find a link it wouldn't matter much. It wouldn't and couldn't "undo" the massive amount of data we already have that shows no link. There would have to be overwhelming evidence from multiple large, well designed studies showing a link for it to matter and at this point it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

So for discussion, do you guys agree or disagree? Should we continue looking for a link? If you are non vax, is there any (realistic) evidence that would convince you vaccines don't cause autism? Or is the anecdotal evidence always going to override "real" evidence in your mind?
As I think I've said before here, I think more studies of this would be a waste of resources. It is hard for me to imagine a scientist (or a granting agency) who sincerely wanted to find out the causes of autism thinking that vaccines represent a promising hypothesis, at this point. The only reason I could envision for a scientist to do these studies is to convince people who still suspect a link that one does not exist, and I think the likelihood of convincing those people through any study that could feasibly be performed is miniscule. There are innumerable places where this money could be better spent.
That's my thought as well.

Last edited by mamabear0314; 07-15-2015 at 01:41 PM.
mamabear0314 is offline  
#12 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 01:35 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,363
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3199 Post(s)
I will cheerfully agree that there has been a huge waste of resources on "autism/vaccine" studies.

Still waiting for the first real study on the topic.

There is an interesting parallel with the thousands of studies that supposedly showed efficacy of flu vaccines for the elderly. Cochrane wasn't kind on the quality of the studies. Another big waste of money, which continues both for the studies and for the flu vaccines given each year to the elderly.

It would be interesting to do a collection of vaccine studies that didn't have serious problems. Could we find 1,000 decent studies? Perhaps 500? Out of how many thousands upon thousands?

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#13 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 02:58 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 337
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
If it is entirely predisposed during pregnancy and considered genetic (though there is the obvious problem that epigenetic twin studies show definitive DNA changes based on environmental factors = hence genetic doesn't meant that it isn't also environmental), then you wouldn't have the Somali situation happen - a population without Autism suddenly having a high incidence in Autistic children once they move to the US.

I do not believe that Autism has one definitive cause, therefore, vaccines may play a role major or minor to some children that may be already predisposed or if not predisposed add to other possible factors. While there certainly are children who are autistic who aren't vaccinated, that seems to be more uncommon than the other (however, only a statistical analysis of all autistic children with the variable of vaccines could determine if this was significant). While certain infants may be predisposed or at birth already have certain Autistic genetic/structural/etc. changes, that also does not mean that the surrounding environment would never contribute. It may be that there are two types of Autism or ASD - one formed at birth and one that arrises seemingly out of the blue.
To study this you would need to have a cohort of infants - test for these specific alterations at different periods, asses development every two months or so, and also assess what if any changes were seen after vaccination. Throw in a nonvax group for good measure and you would have a pretty interesting study.

While there are studies that claim Autism is in no way related to vaccines, we do know that it is not entirely true considering the vaccine court. In some cases unfortunately it is true. Therefore, do we want to figure out what or who should be wary with studies? Or would we rather just assume that everything is fine for everyone?

I also agree that other factors should also be studied related to this topic - not just vaccines. However, as both the editors in chief of the Lancelot and the New England Journal of Medicine (former) have stated that at least 50% of the peer reviewed studies are false (often purposefully false) (and this is giving the benefit of the doubt), I think peer reviewed studies no longer have the same confidence measure that they used to. That is unfortunate because it makes it even more difficult to wade through which studies are blatant conflicts of interest and driven by market factors and which studies are validly scientific. I think that is why vaccine critics often disregard studies because common sense measures, such as using a placebo in animal studies aren't done. Therefore, it is impossible to truly understand what the study truly means.
Nemi27 is offline  
#14 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 03:12 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,628
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1644 Post(s)
They should stop wasting taxpayer money on "their" studies. Ask yourselves why taxpayer money should be spent trying to prove pharma's products safe. These are the companies who pushed ahead with marketing in full knowledge that their other products maim and kill but so long as the fines are a joke, no one goes to jail and the shareholders are happy it's a gamble they are willing to take. And we're supposed to believe that they wouldn't put profit over children.

Don't look to the people who created the problem to solve it. It isn't going to happen.
samaxtics is offline  
#15 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 06:21 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,802
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2598 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Thanks for the reply @kathymuggle .

I think there is a lot of evidence that autism is largely genetic (sibling and twin studies have confirmed this) and while there is probably some kind of environmental component in addition, evidence is showing more and more that whatever that may be occurs in utero.


There is also the evidence that many children with autism have larger than average heads from infancy (don't have time to look for the actual study right now).

.
Thanks for all the links. I did not quote them, as that would be a big wall of text, but I do appreciate them.

Here is an article on the twin study:
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science...ore-just-genes

"Then came the game changer: In July we learned the results of the largest study to directly assess twins with autism (192 twin pairs). It revealed a significantly lower autism concordance between identical twins—just 70 percent. Even more surprising, the researchers discovered a much higher than expected overlap between fraternal twins—around 35 percent. That’s considerably more than the overlap seen among different-age siblings, which numerous studies have shown to be lower than 15 percent.
The conclusion: In the presence of an underlying genetic predisposition, the environment shared by twins—but not different age siblings—appears to significantly affect the risk that a baby will develop autism. In particular, this suggests that autism’s non-genetic, or “environmental,” risk factors involve the environment of the womb—from conception through birth. Further research is needed to pinpoint the nature of these influences and how they affect early brain development."


The head thing...sad sigh. Up until a few minutes ago, I had the head -size thing in my head as a really good thing - an early predictor of autism in a certain segment of the population. This article is putting the head-size thing into question, though....results are all over the board and it might just be that being large in toddlerhood overall is a very soft marker for autism.


http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/ne...ference-autism


"Having an enlarged head in early childhood is not a reliable marker of autism, according to two new studies published in August in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry."


I think that it is entirely possible that many cases of autism result from the environment in the womb. This does not mean it is all or even mostly genetic - after all, we know womb environmental womb influence can cause issues - FAS is one such example.


Another one, more on topic, that I bring up as an FYI any chance I get is is the possible link between anti-depressents and autism:


http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/04...isk/68613.html


"A new Johns Hopkins study discovers an association between prenatal exposure to antidepressant medications, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and developmental delays (DD) in boys.
Researchers from the Bloomberg School of Public Health found that early prenatal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — commonly prescribed for depression, anxiety, and other disorders — increased the risk for ASD three-fold."

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 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#16 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 10:44 PM
 
sortacrispy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Through the Wardrobe
Posts: 218
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Thanks for all the links. I did not quote them, as that would be a big wall of text, but I do appreciate them.

Here is an article on the twin study:
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science...ore-just-genes

"Then came the game changer: In July we learned the results of the largest study to directly assess twins with autism (192 twin pairs). It revealed a significantly lower autism concordance between identical twins—just 70 percent. Even more surprising, the researchers discovered a much higher than expected overlap between fraternal twins—around 35 percent. That’s considerably more than the overlap seen among different-age siblings, which numerous studies have shown to be lower than 15 percent.
The conclusion: In the presence of an underlying genetic predisposition, the environment shared by twins—but not different age siblings—appears to significantly affect the risk that a baby will develop autism. In particular, this suggests that autism’s non-genetic, or “environmental,” risk factors involve the environment of the womb—from conception through birth. Further research is needed to pinpoint the nature of these influences and how they affect early brain development."


The head thing...sad sigh. Up until a few minutes ago, I had the head -size thing in my head as a really good thing - an early predictor of autism in a certain segment of the population. This article is putting the head-size thing into question, though....results are all over the board and it might just be that being large in toddlerhood overall is a very soft marker for autism.


http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/ne...ference-autism


"Having an enlarged head in early childhood is not a reliable marker of autism, according to two new studies published in August in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry."


I think that it is entirely possible that many cases of autism result from the environment in the womb. This does not mean it is all or even mostly genetic - after all, we know womb environmental womb influence can cause issues - FAS is one such example.


Another one, more on topic, that I bring up as an FYI any chance I get is is the possible link between anti-depressents and autism:


http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/04...isk/68613.html


"A new Johns Hopkins study discovers an association between prenatal exposure to antidepressant medications, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and developmental delays (DD) in boys.
Researchers from the Bloomberg School of Public Health found that early prenatal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — commonly prescribed for depression, anxiety, and other disorders — increased the risk for ASD three-fold."
I read a really interesting hypothesis by Simon Baron-Cohen (no, not the Borat actor but he is his cousin ) that postulates autism is basically extreme male brain. When you think about it, it kind of makes sense, as all the strengths of people with autism tend to be more traditionally male strengths (i.e. mechanical/spatial aptitude, linear thinking) and their traditional weaknesses (social difficulties, trouble regulating/processing emotions) tend to be things women (overall) are good at. And of course, it would explain why boys are much more likely to be autistic than girls.

Baron-Cohen believes antenatal exposure to testosterone is the biggest trigger of autism, which again makes sense with twin vs other sibling comorbidity.

A lot of physical traits which have been tentatively linked to autism (larger heads, index finger length in relation to middle finger) are also linked to testosterone exposure in utero.

Now WHY we suddenly have so much more potential testosterone circulating in pregnant women is a different discussion, but I always thought his theory was very compelling. Here's an article about him.

http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/in...mind-in-autism
Turquesa, kathymuggle and Nemi27 like this.
sortacrispy is offline  
#17 of 115 Old 07-15-2015, 10:58 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 8,476
Mentioned: 164 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2107 Post(s)
I could almost agree with the premise of this thread if it weren't for William Thompson's admission of deliberately omitting data on autism in African-American boys. That's a huge red flag and calls for some follow-up.

It's extremely rare for me to agree, however, that it's time to completely stop researching anything or pursuing any hypothesis. In the social sciences, we call this premature closure of inquiry, i.e. "I've already heard what I want to, so don't confuse me with any more facts."

I'm the crunchy mom Dr. Amy warned you about.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
#teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RIP old MDC. We miss you!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
#18 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 05:14 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,027
Mentioned: 586 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3680 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Thanks for all the links. I did not quote them, as that would be a big wall of text, but I do appreciate them.

Here is an article on the twin study:
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science...ore-just-genes

"Then came the game changer: In July we learned the results of the largest study to directly assess twins with autism (192 twin pairs). It revealed a significantly lower autism concordance between identical twins—just 70 percent. Even more surprising, the researchers discovered a much higher than expected overlap between fraternal twins—around 35 percent. That’s considerably more than the overlap seen among different-age siblings, which numerous studies have shown to be lower than 15 percent.
The conclusion: In the presence of an underlying genetic predisposition, the environment shared by twins—but not different age siblings—appears to significantly affect the risk that a baby will develop autism. In particular, this suggests that autism’s non-genetic, or “environmental,” risk factors involve the environment of the womb—from conception through birth. Further research is needed to pinpoint the nature of these influences and how they affect early brain development."

Yes, the bolded is what I have been arguing. Evidence points to the environmental factor being something that occurs in utero. In other words, not childhood vaccines.


That siblings of an autistic child have a roughly 1 in 5 chance of developing autism (about 1 in 3 if the sibling is a boy IIRC) is evidence that there is a strong genetic component. Ditto identical twin studies that show identical twins have a 70-90% chance of also developing autism. If there was not a strong genetic component then we would expect that number to be the same as that of fraternal twins. Instead, we see that the risk is double or more of that found in fraternal twins.

The brain and placenta studies are additional evidence that show babies are born with autism.

@nemi - links to the Somali information? (Primary sources please)

@sortacrispy - That is an interesting theory. I wonder if women with PCOS are more likely to have a child with autism? Many have higher than normal levels of testosterone.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 07-16-2015 at 05:47 AM.
teacozy is offline  
#19 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 05:25 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,027
Mentioned: 586 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3680 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
As I think I've said before here, I think more studies of this would be a waste of resources. It is hard for me to imagine a scientist (or a granting agency) who sincerely wanted to find out the causes of autism thinking that vaccines represent a promising hypothesis, at this point. The only reason I could envision for a scientist to do these studies is to convince people who still suspect a link that one does not exist, and I think the likelihood of convincing those people through any study that could feasibly be performed is miniscule. There are innumerable places where this money could be better spent.
At this point I have to agree. The evidence is simply overwhelming that vaccines have absolutely nothing to do with autism. People who aren't convinced with the available evidence are unlikely to ever be convinced. I agree that money should be spent elsewhere.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#20 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 06:05 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,802
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2598 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Yes, the bolded is what I have been arguing. Evidence points to the environmental factor being something that occurs in utero. In other words, not childhood vaccines.


That siblings of an autistic child have a roughly 1 in 5 chance of developing autism (about 1 in 3 if the sibling is a boy IIRC) is evidence that there is a strong genetic component. Ditto identical twin studies that show identical twins have a 70-90% chance of also developing autism. If there was not a strong genetic component then we would expect that number to be the same as that of fraternal twins. Instead, we see that the risk is double or more of that found in fraternal twins.

.
I am not denying there is a genetic component. I don't think very many people do. There is an expression - genetics loads the gun, but environment pulls the trigger. This explains the discrepancy almost everyone sees in the true number of autism cases in the past versus now. I am an advocate for looking into environmental reasons for autism as there is very little we can do about genetics (and at this point there is no autism gene in the vast majority of autism cases) but there is a lot we can do about environment.

Even if I agree with you that autism typically begins in utero, it does not exclude vaccines being an issue for a few reasons:
- lets say it begins in utero for 80% of people, that leaves 20% vulnerable outside utero. We would have to look at the research to determine if evidence points to all cases beginning in utero or some, as well as how good this evidence is.
-DTaP and flu shots are given to pregnant women
-ASD is a spectrum. I know one young gentleman who lives with his girlfriend and is currently attending college; I know another who is about the same age who wears diapers, can barely speak, is extremely difficult to bring out of the house and will live in a group home shortly. Even if autism begins in utero, if environmental factors in or out of utero can exacerbate the condition, that is something we need to know.
applejuice, rachelsmama and Nemi27 like this.

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 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#21 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 06:22 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,802
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2598 Post(s)
I thought this was a useful article on the interplay between genetics and environment.

http://www.nrdc.org/living/healthrep...als-autism.asp


"How might environmental chemicals contribute to the risk of developing autism? One possibility is that these chemicals trigger ASD in children who inherited genes that make them susceptible to autism. These genes could be "turned on" or activated by an exposure in the womb, during childbirth, in early life, or during the toddler years.
Another possibility is that chemicals in the environment cause spontaneous gene alterations, called "de novo" mutations because they arise anew rather than being inherited. Mutations are fairly common but normally our DNA-repair mechanisms keep them from causing disease. When DNA-repair mechanisms fail, these mutations can lead to diseases such as cancer. Several de novo mutations have been detected in children with ASD. Some of these mutations are in genes related to brain development.
Environmental chemicals also could cause de novo mutations in the one or both of the parents. If these mutations occurred in egg or sperm cells, they could be passed on to the next generation. This could help explain why older fathers and mothers are more likely to give birth to a child with ASD."
applejuice, Deborah and Nemi27 like this.

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 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#22 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 06:46 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,363
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3199 Post(s)
One quite obvious possibility is that something happens in the womb. But this something wouldn't necessarily turn into major health and developmental problems without further triggers.

Most of the people I've encountered who discuss a vaccine/autism connection agree that heredity plays a role. The MTFHR (?) problem, and many other factors. In reality, the people working on the vaccine/autism connection have identified more real genetic factors that the people who are focused on the genetic factors, which is pretty funny when you think about it. A lot of what has been turned up in one study as a genetic factor vanishes in the next study and then a different gene or set of genes is pointed to and then a third study says no, not that one, this one and this one.

There are similarities to the problems with lead exposure. At a certain level of lead exposure every child will be damaged. But I suspect that at very low levels, the degree of damage depends on variations in vulnerability. Which could include other environmental factors--for example poor black kids are not only more likely to be exposed to lead paint, but to other toxic chemicals, to poor nutrition...and then when you add in the excessive vaccine schedule it wouldn't be surprising if the injury rate is higher.

I do get tired of the "anything but vaccines" and "the science has spoken" games. In all too many cases it is utterly obvious that vaccines contributed to the damage and what has spoken is not good science, but press release science.
Mirzam, applejuice, Nemi27 and 1 others like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#23 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 07:13 AM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Listening to William Control
Posts: 31,346
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
What are they afraid of? How do we live in a society of free thinkers and at the same time want to squelch research? I have no dog in the fight over if autism is caused by vaccines but it makes no sense to me to try and ban research.
applejuice, EMRguy and Nemi27 like this.
Arduinna is offline  
#24 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 07:16 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,363
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3199 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
What are they afraid of? How do we live in a society of free thinkers and at the same time want to squelch research? I have no dog in the fight over if autism is caused by vaccines but it makes no sense to me to try and ban research.
Especially when the research they claim has settled the question s a big pile of fakery and statistical manipulation. What this is about is preventing real research on the problems of vaccines and vaccine injury.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#25 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 08:07 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,628
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1644 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sortacrispy View Post
I read a really interesting hypothesis by Simon Baron-Cohen (no, not the Borat actor but he is his cousin ) that postulates autism is basically extreme male brain. When you think about it, it kind of makes sense, as all the strengths of people with autism tend to be more traditionally male strengths (i.e. mechanical/spatial aptitude, linear thinking) and their traditional weaknesses (social difficulties, trouble regulating/processing emotions) tend to be things women (overall) are good at. And of course, it would explain why boys are much more likely to be autistic than girls.

Baron-Cohen believes antenatal exposure to testosterone is the biggest trigger of autism, which again makes sense with twin vs other sibling comorbidity.

A lot of physical traits which have been tentatively linked to autism (larger heads, index finger length in relation to middle finger) are also linked to testosterone exposure in utero.

Now WHY we suddenly have so much more potential testosterone circulating in pregnant women is a different discussion, but I always thought his theory was very compelling. Here's an article about him.

http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/in...mind-in-autism

I would hardly call his hypothesis compelling. It could be called harmful. He called for a discussion on pre-natal screening and we know where that will end up; pregnancies being terminated based on something that is far from proven. And what is more problematic is the subjects in his paper had "autistic traits"- they weren't even confirmed to have autism.

Quote:
First of all, it is by no mean proven that an excess of testosterone is implicated in autism. Whilst the recent study from Auyeung et al. conducted on 235 non-autistic children suggests that there is a relationship between higher levels of testosterone and higher autism trait quotients, it should be highlighted that the quotient of autism that was measured in this study relied on the use of two parental questionnaires (the Childhood Autism Spectrum Test and the Child Autism Spectrum Quotient) and not gold standard psychometric measurements of autism, which are based on observations made by trained psychologists and paediatricians.

The study seemed to rely on earlier research that suggested a link between autism and high levels of testosterone, but these were equally controversial. One piece of research, also conducted by Simon Baron-Cohen, suggested that individuals with high functioning autism have a low empathy quotient, and this was attributed to excess maleness, i.e. testosterone. However, the empathy test used for these studies relied essentially on measuring empathy within a social context, which, not surprisingly people with Asperger’s are poor at, as they frequently do not have full social understanding irrespective of their empathic abilities. A second type of research, also led by Simon Baron-Cohen suggested that the ratio between the length of the second and forth digit (2D:4D) in people with autism is indicative of an abnormally high level of embryonic exposure to testosterone. These abnormalities in 2D:4D ratios have not been replicated by others, and are, at best, very indirect evidence of testosterone secretion. In fact, other genetic factors are also known to influence this ratio.
I have yet to meet another parent of a child labeled with autism that says their child is not empathetic.

Quote:
A study, also from Cambridge University, Published in 2008, in the ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’, showed that males working as stock traders had higher testosterone levels. Traders with elevated testosterone were found to be more confident and have a risk-taking appetite, which is hardly compatible with autistic traits.
all above quotes (my emphasis) from this link: http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/05/a...tosterone.html

Last edited by samaxtics; 07-16-2015 at 08:41 AM.
samaxtics is offline  
#26 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 09:48 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 600
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
What are they afraid of? How do we live in a society of free thinkers and at the same time want to squelch research? I have no dog in the fight over if autism is caused by vaccines but it makes no sense to me to try and ban research.
Nobody's trying to "ban" research. But in a world of finite resources, every dollar you spend researching X is a dollar that is not spent researching Y. There is not infinite money to research every hypothesis from every possible angle forever. So you have to have debates about when it makes sense to stop researching some things.
teacozy likes this.
Jessica765 is offline  
#27 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 09:54 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
Nobody's trying to "ban" research. But in a world of finite resources, every dollar you spend researching X is a dollar that is not spent researching Y. There is not infinite money to research every hypothesis from every possible angle forever. So you have to have debates about when it makes sense to stop researching some things.
Please this old song!

Well they seem to have plenty to spread around for lobbying.

Shall we talk about how much BIG Pharma gave to the CA congress?

There is no endless supply of money when greasing palms!

If research really mattered money wouldn't be a factor. It's called desire.
95191 is offline  
#28 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 10:06 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,027
Mentioned: 586 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3680 Post(s)
@kathymuggle

Even if we agree that a small percentage of cases is triggered sometime after birth (although I will reiterate again that present evidence points to autism being genetic and/or caused by an environmental factor during development in the womb) that still doesn't mean vaccines trigger it. Studies have shown over and over that there is no link.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#29 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 10:09 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,027
Mentioned: 586 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3680 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Please this old song!

Shall we talk about how much BIG Pharma gave to the CA congress?

There is no endless supply of money when greasing palms!
It's interesting that usually the same people that try and say Big Pharma is pushing the vaccine law to make tons and tons of money also make the argument that, overall, only a very small percent of kids in California aren't vaccinated.

Getting only a tiny percent of kids up to date on their vaccines isn't going to be a big money maker for Big Pharma.
devilish likes this.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#30 of 115 Old 07-16-2015, 10:15 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 8,476
Mentioned: 164 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2107 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
Nobody's trying to "ban" research. But in a world of finite resources, every dollar you spend researching X is a dollar that is not spent researching Y. There is not infinite money to research every hypothesis from every possible angle forever. So you have to have debates about when it makes sense to stop researching some things.
Agreed. A lack of funding for research doesn't equate to a ban on that research.

Years ago, everybody was up in arms about a "ban" on embryonic stem cell research. There was actually no ban. Researchers just got turned down for federal grant money. They were clearly very powerful people because their cries of protest, ("anti-science!!!!") became a presidential campaign issue. (By contrast, when the homeless shelter I worked for didn't earn a public grant, no one would have listened had we shouted, "anti-homeless!!")

(As an interesting aside, Neil de Grasse Tyson once noted that the Bush, Jr. Administration was actually more pro-science, in the sense that it funded more scientific research, than Obama. There was a lot of noise about the Republican War on Science, especially with ESCR and global warming, but more funding for science was coming from Republicans. I haven't fact-checked any of this).

So getting back to vaccines, yes, the author is simply discouraging others from funding vaccine-autism research. That doesn't mean that funding sources will go away, or even that funders and potential funders will listen to his plea.

Even in the off-chance of a national ban on such research, scientists in other countries could pursue such investigations.
applejuice, 95191 and Nemi27 like this.

I'm the crunchy mom Dr. Amy warned you about.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
#teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RIP old MDC. We miss you!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

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



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Online Users: 1,758

9 members and 1,749 guests
91mj , barnetta , IceFlake , idler , KerriB , PrayerOFChrist , rs3gold55 , sarrahlnorris , skyrocket
Most users ever online was 21,860, 06-22-2018 at 08:45 PM.