New Autism Data

[facetguy]

+1 for quoting HuffingtonPost and not some stupid quacky pseudoscience site like ScienceBasedMedicine.org.

Sorry. I didn't realize that ScienceBasedMedicine.org was the only site we were supposed to cite. I'll try to ignore the remainder of the internet next time. In the meantime, you might wish to expand your reading list a bit.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[facetguy]

Vaccines have been given since the times of Jenner, Thimerosal has been in vaccines for decades. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228 The increases in autism and autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) are recent. With other heavy metals i.e. Copper, Arsenic and Lead there has not even been a proposed link in children with exposure to these. In fact the hallmarks of toxicity to these are very different than ASD or autism. If thimerosal, an organomercury caused autism, it should be seen in groups with exposure to heavy metals. Also the amount of thimerosal given in all vaccines is within CDC limits. Since no one has conclusively proved a link between autism and vaccines and vaccination has been widespread for several decades and there is increased surveillance for these disorders as well as a wider definition of autism when considering ASD, there are other possibilities.

Thanks. That was helpful.

 

[gd152]

Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. ScienceBasedMedicine.org is about as quacky as the rest of them. At least HuffingtonPost's sole purpose isn't to cover their own ass.

 

[facetguy]

Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. ScienceBasedMedicine.org is about as quacky as the rest of them. At least HuffingtonPost's sole purpose isn't to cover their own ass.

My bad.

 

[deleted89854]

Meat, I don't quote the HuffPost because I confuse it for NEJM. It's news, not a medical journal. And like him or not, Kirby stays in tune with the news of the autism research community. Tell me you didn't learn anything about the ongoing and upcoming research projects he mentioned? Even the scienceblog guy skipped over the fact that there are more studies forthcoming on the environmental contributions to autism. Lighten up.

The thing is, I actually like some of the things in the Huffington Post. I like their political coverage, even if it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Some of their entertainment news is amusing as well. However, I keep in mind that it has an extremely liberal bias. And that's ok. Where I don't like bias is in my coverage of medical issues and science. And it annoys me that the site gives a forum to people advocating for Andrew Wakefield, whos misinformation and fraud resulted in not only unnecessary procedures performed on children but the resurgence of preventable diseases thanks to *****s like Jenny McCarthy taking his research as gospel. Just because David Kirby writes it doesn't make it news.

I'm not so sure what's controversial about saying there may be an environmental component to autism. Maybe it's related to mitochondrial disease or fever or the flavor of Captain Crunch you prefer. Linking to case reports or chart reviews does not prove anything, but it does provide questions we might want to answer with definitive research studies. The fact that he's arguing for trials with vaccinated vs unvaccinated children tells me that Kirby hasn't really learned anything from the events of the past week. The fact that he's discounting the importance of a high impact journal removing the study upon which all this vaccination paranoia has been based, along with the UK revoking the credentials of the author, tells me that further funds are going to go to waste looking at vaccines while the real cause of autism remains undetermined.

 

[facetguy]

The thing is, I actually like some of the things in the Huffington Post. I like their political coverage, even if it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Some of their entertainment news is amusing as well. However, I keep in mind that it has an extremely liberal bias. And that's ok. Where I don't like bias is in my coverage of medical issues and science. And it annoys me that the site gives a forum to people advocating for Andrew Wakefield, whos misinformation and fraud resulted in not only unnecessary procedures performed on children but the resurgence of preventable diseases thanks to *****s like Jenny McCarthy taking his research as gospel. Just because David Kirby writes it doesn't make it news.

I'm not so sure what's controversial about saying there may be an environmental component to autism.

I agree. Others don't (see Regnvejr earlier in this thread, for example).

Maybe it's related to mitochondrial disease or fever or the flavor of Captain Crunch you prefer. Linking to case reports or chart reviews does not prove anything, but it does provide questions we might want to answer with definitive research studies.

Answering questions with more definitive research is the idea, I agree. Again, there are those who disagree.

The fact that he's arguing for trials with vaccinated vs unvaccinated children tells me that Kirby hasn't really learned anything from the events of the past week.

Such a study (vax vs. unvax) could produce some interesting data. And I'm not even sure you'd have to deal with any ethical issues because (unfortunately) there is probably a large enough pool of unvaccinated kids out there to study. In other words, one wouldn't have to withhold the vaccine for the sole purpose of doing the study. I can gather that a vax vs. unvax study wouldn't be at the top of your list?

The fact that he's discounting the importance of a high impact journal removing the study upon which all this vaccination paranoia has been based, along with the UK revoking the credentials of the author, tells me that further funds are going to go to waste looking at vaccines while the real cause of autism remains undetermined.

True enough that the real cause(s) of autism remain undetermined. I'm not sure the proposed and ongoing government studies Kirby mentions are a waste though. And these studies aren't just about vaccines; vaccines appear to be a small part. As to Wakefield, I don't think anything good can come from having one's research officially withdrawn from a journal like the Lancet. I think what Kirby meant was that between the late 90s and now, there has been and now will be more investigation into the causes of autism and that pulling Wakefield's study at this point doesn't change any of that.

 

[deleted89854]

Such a study (vax vs. unvax) could produce some interesting data. And I'm not even sure you'd have to deal with any ethical issues because (unfortunately) there is probably a large enough pool of unvaccinated kids out there to study. In other words, one wouldn't have to withhold the vaccine for the sole purpose of doing the study. I can gather that a vax vs. unvax study wouldn't be at the top of your list?

It would be below the bottom. If that study were to get funded, it would be to the exclusion of something legitimate. Massive epidemiological studies are not cheap or easy to perform, especially when it's concerning something as hard to measure as environmental exposure. Also, when you are unable to perform a RCT (this would be impossible here due to the ethical issues of exposing a child to a preventable disease) it becomes more difficult to assure equal populations are being studied. If vaccines are more commonly deferred by affluent white families, the finding are no longer applicable to the general population. If there is an environmental trigger it will require an incredible investment to find it, because in this instance chart reviews and case studies aren't going to cut it.

 

[facetguy]

It would be below the bottom. If that study were to get funded, it would be to the exclusion of something legitimate. Massive epidemiological studies are not cheap or easy to perform, especially when it's concerning something as hard to measure as environmental exposure. Also, when you are unable to perform a RCT (this would be impossible here due to the ethical issues of exposing a child to a preventable disease) it becomes more difficult to assure equal populations are being studied. If vaccines are more commonly deferred by affluent white families, the finding are no longer applicable to the general population. If there is an environmental trigger it will require an incredible investment to find it, because in this instance chart reviews and case studies aren't going to cut it.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure the ethical issue of exposing the child to preventable disease applies, as there are already a number of kids (a large enough number, I don't know) who have not been vaccinated for whatever reason (religious, philosophical, medical exemptions, etc), so there's the control group. You raise a good point about the demographics of unvaccinated kids.

And I agree that large, expensive studies should be done to try to settle this. (Just think of the tens of billions being thrown around in Washington as though it were nothing; a tiny fraction of that is all that would be needed.)

 

[FutureCTDoc]

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure the ethical issue of exposing the child to preventable disease applies, as there are already a number of kids (a large enough number, I don't know) who have not been vaccinated for whatever reason (religious, philosophical, medical exemptions, etc), so there's the control group. You raise a good point about the demographics of unvaccinated kids.

And I agree that large, expensive studies should be done to try to settle this. (Just think of the tens of billions being thrown around in Washington as though it were nothing; a tiny fraction of that is all that would be needed.)

Those kids who are unvaccinated are protected by herd immunity, if no one elects to get vaccinated there is a tragedy of the commons type issue. When most individuals are vaccinated the susceptible pool is reduced and the ability to spread is hindered. Look at poliomyelitis in America most individuals are immunized, there are exceedingly few cases of polio. In countries with lower vaccination rates i.e. Nigeria. If the vaccination rate falls below a certain threshold there is the ability to have pandemics. In America people who are not vaccinated get a free ride, "the tragedy of the commons", they have minimal incentive to be vaccinated as they are unlikely to get ill as long as 85%+ of individuals are vaccinated. CNN just put this up http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lancet.retraction.autism/index.html

 

[facetguy]

Those kids who are unvaccinated are protected by herd immunity, if no one elects to get vaccinated there is a tragedy of the commons type issue. When most individuals are vaccinated the susceptible pool is reduced and the ability to spread is hindered. Look at poliomyelitis in America most individuals are immunized, there are exceedingly few cases of polio. In countries with lower vaccination rates i.e. Nigeria. If the vaccination rate falls below a certain threshold there is the ability to have pandemics. In America people who are not vaccinated get a free ride, "the tragedy of the commons", they have minimal incentive to be vaccinated as they are unlikely to get ill as long as 85%+ of individuals are vaccinated. CNN just put this up http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lancet.retraction.autism/index.html

Yeah, but we're not talking about the importance of vaccination. If we were, you'd be right. But we are talking about the feasibility of a study comparing autism rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Yeah, but we're not talking about the importance of vaccination. If we were, you'd be right. But we are talking about the feasibility of a study comparing autism rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids.

There are numerous studies that show there's no link between vaccination and autism. Why should we waste more money debunking a myth that's already been disproven? As someone else asked, how many studies is enough for you? How much money do we need to waste before the antivaccination crowd finally agrees that there's no link between autism and vaccinations?

I'd rather spend that research money looking for actual causes of autism.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

Yeah, but we're not talking about the importance of vaccination. If we were, you'd be right. But we are talking about the feasibility of a study comparing autism rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids.

It would be difficult to be representative of the US population, people who elect not to vaccinate are a very self-selecting group. Also define autism. Asperger's and other high functioning forms of autism are questionable diagnoses to include in said study for 2 reasons A) The criteria are vague B) These are often questionable diagnoses. I think the wave of autism is because we're looking for it, just like ADD/ADHD, MPD and fibromyalgia. Look at pertussis in adults, there is a lack of surveillance and cases go unreported. As people look for milder forms of any disease, the diagnosis rate tends to tick up.
DSM-IV: http://www.autism-watch.org/general/dsm.shtml
JHU on Adult Pertussis: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heic/id/pertussis/

 

[facetguy]

There are numerous studies that show there's no link between vaccination and autism. Why should we waste more money debunking a myth that's already been disproven? As someone else asked, how many studies is enough for you? How much money do we need to waste before the antivaccination crowd finally agrees that there's no link between autism and vaccinations?

I'd rather spend that research money looking for actual causes of autism.

As noted earlier in the thread, studies are underway or forthcoming to examine the possible environmental triggers of autism, and these studies will (hopefully) be very thorough. As such, they will look at, among many other things, vaccinations.

 

[facetguy]

It would be difficult to be representative of the US population, people who elect not to vaccinate are a very self-selecting group. Also define autism. Asperger's and other high functioning forms of autism are questionable diagnoses to include in said study for 2 reasons A) The criteria are vague B) These are often questionable diagnoses. I think the wave of autism is because we're looking for it, just like ADD/ADHD, MPD and fibromyalgia. Look at pertussis in adults, there is a lack of surveillance and cases go unreported. As people look for milder forms of any disease, the diagnosis rate tends to tick up.
DSM-IV: http://www.autism-watch.org/general/dsm.shtml
JHU on Adult Pertussis: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heic/id/pertussis/

This is a commonly cited explanation for increasing autism rates. However, newer data is questioning the validity of this explanation. For example, this CDC study (discussed earlier in this thread):
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5810a1.htm

At the very least, the issue is not settled.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

This study included PDD-NOS, which is poorly defined and also looked at some other records i.e. Special education. The number they give of 1 in 110 is inaccurate in the sense that ASD, Asperger's, PDD and PDD-NOS are counted to come to that number. The number of individuals with autism, not ASD, PDD, Asperger's and PDD-NOS is estimated at 1 per 2000. I would not lump these with the traditionally defined autism.

Definition: http://childstudycenter.yale.edu/autism/pddnos.html

 

[Regnvejr]

Meat, I don't quote the HuffPost because I confuse it for NEJM. It's news, not a medical journal. And like him or not, Kirby stays in tune with the news of the autism research community.

But not with the actual science. He is the Autism version of the creationists.

 

[Regnvejr]

Sorry. I didn't realize that ScienceBasedMedicine.org was the only site we were supposed to cite. I'll try to ignore the remainder of the internet next time. In the meantime, you might wish to expand your reading list a bit.

Ah, creationists also want us to read ICR and Answeringenesis for "scientific information." Trying to have us read biased, anti-scientific crap doesn't broaden our horizon or scientific knowledge.

 

[Regnvejr]

I agree. Others don't (see Regnvejr earlier in this thread, for example).

When are you done lying about my posts? Are you deliberately trying to be a lying *******?

 

[Regnvejr]

Yeah, but we're not talking about the importance of vaccination. If we were, you'd be right. But we are talking about the feasibility of a study comparing autism rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids.

The studies of the vaccine are in, there is no found or even indicated link. Trying to go further on the vaccine crap is unethical in pushing a personal belief in direct contradiction of science, and take resources away from legitimate research. Again, this is like creationists insisting that a study is done on the validity of Intelligent Design or creationism when the data is already in to the contrary.

The vaccine question is done, there is no data indication contribution, neither in general, nor in sub groups. The more you push it, the more you show anti-science dogma.

 

[Regnvejr]

As noted earlier in the thread, studies are underway or forthcoming to examine the possible environmental triggers of autism, and these studies will (hopefully) be very thorough. As such, they will look at, among many other things, vaccinations.

Anyone still looking at vaccines is a quack.

 

[gd152]

The studies of the vaccine are in, there is no found or even indicated link. Trying to go further on the vaccine crap is unethical in pushing a personal belief in direct contradiction of science, and take resources away from legitimate research. Again, this is like creationists insisting that a study is done on the validity of Intelligent Design or creationism when the data is already in to the contrary.

The vaccine question is done, there is no data indication contribution, neither in general, nor in sub groups. The more you push it, the more you show anti-science dogma.

That's not true. A 1998 research paper was retracted. The vaccine-autism question still remains, and given the claims, will remain for some time.

 

[Regnvejr]

http://www.cnn.org/2010/OPINION/02/03/singer.autism.study.vaccines/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Time to regroup on autism

By Alison Singer, Special to CNN
February 3, 2010 7:38 p.m. EST

Editor's note: Alison Singer is co-founder and president of the Autism Science Foundation. She has a daughter and an older brother with autism

................Once you put a scary idea in someone's head, it is very hard to reassure them, even in the presence of compelling science. Anti-vaccine autism activists continue to view Wakefield as a hero willing to take on the establishment and fight for their children.
In the meantime, his research has had a lasting negative effect on children's health in that some people are still afraid of immunizations. In some cases, the younger siblings of children with autism are being denied lifesaving vaccines, despite mountains of scientific evidence indicating no link between vaccines and autism. This is the Wakefield legacy.
But the aftereffects of Wakefield's false claims don't stop there. Thousands of parents of children with autism were persuaded to pursue "detoxification" treatments to reverse nonexistent vaccine damage. At best, these treatments waste time and money. One child died from this "therapy."
In addition, pediatricians have found it hard to maintain constructive relationships with some families given their implicit accusations that mainstream medicine had harmed their children....

 

[Regnvejr]

That's not true. A 1998 research paper was retracted.

And about 15-20, covering about 8 mill kids have not.

The vaccine-autism question still remains, and given the claims, will remain for some time.

Of course it will remain. For example, Creationism is still around 150 years after publishing "The origin of Species" and a ton of subsequent research. Lots of questions are posed, and they are all contradicted by science. To people who "know," evidence matters little.

So are we scientists, basing out practice on evidence-based medicine, or are we quacks?

 

[facetguy]

But not with the actual science. He is the Autism version of the creationists.

Again, Kirby is a source for NEWS, not original research.

 

[facetguy]

When are you done lying about my posts? Are you deliberately trying to be a lying *******?

During a discussion of possible environmental triggers of autism vs. a purely genetic explanation, Meathooks had said:

I'm not so sure what's controversial about saying there may be an environmental component to autism. Maybe it's related to mitochondrial disease or fever or the flavor of Captain Crunch you prefer.

And I agreed. I then said that not everyone agrees though, and cited you as an example. Why? Because you said this, and I quote:

they are also the group who makes the claims about increased autism rates, the ones whose agenda is that there must be some environmental connection that makes it preventable.

When the genetic links and predispositions are clear, insisting that there are curable causes that will eventually make these kids absolutely and completely normal is a pipe dream.... It is parents refusing to accept reality and pushing for what we already know is false. Pushing more in that direction will merely take resources away from real issue research into autism, all because some parent can't accept that these kids never will be able to say "I love you" to their parents.

[continues...]
There has been environmental claims for many decades now. They ALL have turned into dead ends. Yes, people oh so much WANT there to be an environmental factor so it can be easily treated. Wishful thinking is not science and does not produce results.

Your words, sir, not mine. You can always revise your comments, but don't pretend you didn't say them.

 

[facetguy]

The studies of the vaccine are in, there is no found or even indicated link. Trying to go further on the vaccine crap is unethical in pushing a personal belief in direct contradiction of science, and take resources away from legitimate research. Again, this is like creationists insisting that a study is done on the validity of Intelligent Design or creationism when the data is already in to the contrary.

The vaccine question is done, there is no data indication contribution, neither in general, nor in sub groups. The more you push it, the more you show anti-science dogma.

Those actually doing the research apparently disagree, as additional study is already underway. Please direct your criticisms their way. Calling me names will do nothing.

And what is it with you and the Creationism thing?

 

[gd152]

And about 15-20, covering about 8 mill kids have not.
Of course it will remain. For example, Creationism is still around 150 years after publishing "The origin of Species" and a ton of subsequent research. Lots of questions are posed, and they are all contradicted by science. To people who "know," evidence matters little.

So are we scientists, basing out practice on evidence-based medicine, or are we quacks?

Maybe you haven't been around long enough to figure out how things work.

DDT is good for you, right?, PCB's aren't dangerous and were never released into the public water supply, right?, Dioxin is safe as well, right?

This is the way things work in the real world. If somebody makes an oopsie, they cover their tracks, and the public doesn't find out until decades later. And the government is usually found to assist in the cover-up.

The CDC doesn't like admitting when they're wrong. In fact, because of a bill George W. Bush drafted, they can't now. If they've been duped by the pharmaceutical industry, it's illegal for them to admit they are wrong by releasing vaccination data. Vaccination side effect data is now classified information that is beyond the reach of even the FOIA.

So the news you are hearing now from the mainstream media about vaccines? Practically worthless. They get it all straight from CDC press releases.

Autism rates have only dramatically increased to populations given thimerosal. Does that tell you anything at all? Even here in the United States, those that don't receive thimerosal, such as the Omish, haven't experienced an increase in autism.

If you want to start digging, why don't you comment on Robert Kennedy's Rolling Stone Piece, or a couple of his speeches about this big mess? Try to pick apart the data behind this graph (it's accurate). Read through the dozens of studies published on this issue.

You obviously haven't done so.

Your creationist argument is a silly one and only proves that you know little about the issue at hand.

 

[deleted89854]

Maybe you haven't been around long enough to figure out how things work.

DDT is good for you, right?, PCB's aren't dangerous and were never released into the public water supply, right?, Dioxin is safe as well, right?

This is the way things work in the real world. If somebody makes an oopsie, they cover their tracks, and the public doesn't find out until decades later. And the government is usually found to assist in the cover-up.

The CDC doesn't like admitting when they're wrong. In fact, because of a bill George W. Bush drafted, they can't now. If they've been duped by the pharmaceutical industry, it's illegal for them to admit they are wrong by releasing vaccination data. Vaccination side effect data is now classified information that is beyond the reach of even the FOIA.

So the news you are hearing now from the mainstream media about vaccines? Practically worthless. They get it all straight from CDC press releases.

Autism rates have only dramatically increased to populations given thimerosal. Does that tell you anything at all? Even here in the United States, those that don't receive thimerosal, such as the Omish, haven't experienced an increase in autism.

If you want to start digging, why don't you comment on Robert Kennedy's Rolling Stone Piece, or a couple of his speeches about this big mess? Try to pick apart the data behind this graph (it's accurate). Read through the dozens of studies published on this issue.

You obviously haven't done so.

Your creationist argument is a silly one and only proves that you know little about the issue at hand.

If you're going to make declarative statements and expect to be taken seriously, at least cite scientific articles. You linked to (in order of credibility): The Washington Post, Rolling Stone, a picture of a cow, and Wikipedia. Is it really so difficult to do a PUBMED search to find, you know, legitimate information?

Here. None of these were funded by the CDC:

Thimerosal does not cause autism.

(From the NEJM):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=79

"CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins and deficits in neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years. "

(From Pediatrics)
PUBMED ID: 15342856

"CONCLUSIONS: Studies do not demonstrate a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ASD, and the pharmacokinetics of ethylmercury make such an association less likely. Epidemiologic studies that support a link demonstrated significant design flaws that invalidate their conclusions. Evidence does not support a change in the standard of practice with regard to administration of thimerosal-containing vaccines in areas of the world where they are used."

(From JAMA): This one has an N of 470,000 children
PUBMED ID: 14519711

"CONCLUSION: The results do not support a causal relationship between childhood vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccines and development of autistic-spectrum disorders."

Your chart (without reference) shows autism went up along with the number of vaccines given. This is called correlation. Congrats on finding the chart though. That must have been difficult.

Of course, it's all one big conspiracy, you see. Every single scientist throughout the country got together and decided that we're going to cover this one up, despite the fact that this sort of finding would lead to fame and prosperity (I think Andrew Wakefield has made a couple of bucks off this whole 'controversy').

An attending once told me (while I was doing something stupid repeatedly), "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time".

You're welcome.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Maybe you haven't been around long enough to figure out how things work.

DDT is good for you, right?, PCB's aren't dangerous and were never released into the public water supply, right?, Dioxin is safe as well, right?

This is the way things work in the real world. If somebody makes an oopsie, they cover their tracks, and the public doesn't find out until decades later. And the government is usually found to assist in the cover-up.

The CDC doesn't like admitting when they're wrong. In fact, because of a bill George W. Bush drafted, they can't now. If they've been duped by the pharmaceutical industry, it's illegal for them to admit they are wrong by releasing vaccination data. Vaccination side effect data is now classified information that is beyond the reach of even the FOIA.

So the news you are hearing now from the mainstream media about vaccines? Practically worthless. They get it all straight from CDC press releases.

Autism rates have only dramatically increased to populations given thimerosal. Does that tell you anything at all? Even here in the United States, those that don't receive thimerosal, such as the Omish, haven't experienced an increase in autism.

If you want to start digging, why don't you comment on Robert Kennedy's Rolling Stone Piece, or a couple of his speeches about this big mess? Try to pick apart the data behind this graph (it's accurate). Read through the dozens of studies published on this issue.

You obviously haven't done so.

Your creationist argument is a silly one and only proves that you know little about the issue at hand.

Try reading some actual studies before making ignorant comments please. There has never been any link found between vaccination and autism. Meathooks was nice enough to provide the conclusions of a few studies. I suggest you read them over and realize how ridiculous this whole antivaccination stance is.

 

[gd152]

If you're going to make declarative statements and expect to be taken seriously, at least cite scientific articles. You linked to (in order of credibility): The Washington Post, Rolling Stone, a picture of a cow, and Wikipedia. Is it really so difficult to do a PUBMED search to find, you know, legitimate information?

I read PubMed daily, thank you - 1-2 hours per day. I would like to see you comment on the following vaccine-autism animal model conducted in monkeys:

"Compared with unexposed animals, significant neurodevelopmental deficits were evident for exposed animals in survival reflexes, tests of color discrimination and reversal, and learning sets," the authors reported. "Differences in behaviors were observed between exposed and unexposed animals and within the exposed group before and after MMR vaccination. Compared with unexposed animals, exposed animals showed attenuation of amygdala growth and differences in the amygdala binding of [11C]diprenorphine. Interaction models identified significant associations between specific aberrant social and non-social behaviors, isotope binding, and vaccine exposure."

One of the Saturday abstracts makes the further point that the research "revealed significant differences between exposed and unexposed animals" in the kinds of developmental behaviors a mother might be able to observe, "with delayed acquisition of root, suck, clasp hand, and clasp foot reflexes." They conclude by noting that "This animal model examines the neurological consequences of the childhood vaccine regimen, Functional and … brainstem anomalies were evident in vaccinated animals that may be relevant to some aspects of autism. The findings raise important safety issues while providing a potential animal model for examining aspects of causation and disease pathogenesis in acquired neurodevelopmental disorders."

Awaiting your comments.

 

[psy]

Compared with unexposed animals, exposed animals showed attenuation of amygdala growth and differences in the amygdala binding of [11C]diprenorphine.

Ok so according to the paper you quoted vaccines is associated with smaller amygdala.
From this paper: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/05/04/49133.aspx

"Toddlers with autism appear more likely to have an enlarged amygdala"

so...if autism is associated with enlarged amygdala and vaccines is associated with smaller amygdala...
Can I promote all infants be vaccinated just so they can have an "attenuated amygdala" and thus have less association with autism?


On a more serious note. Amygdala function is greatly influenced by the presence of alcohol. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122542541/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

How about we focus on alcohol and its relationship to autism and leave this anti-vax thing behind.

 

[Pharmavixen]

Autism rates have only dramatically increased to populations given thimerosal.

Wrong!! Autism rates continue to rise even though thimerosol hasn't been in childhood vaccines for many years.

If I'm wrong, prove it. Post the studies.

 

[Regnvejr]

Again, Kirby is a source for NEWS, not original research.

Kirby is a source for make-belief "whatever fits my political/social agenda." Claiming validity for his unsubstantiated, quote-mined and misrepresenting claims that are designed for an agenda rather than for finding facts, that just makes you seem dishonest.

 

[Regnvejr]

...Your words, sir, not mine. You can always revise your comments, but don't pretend you didn't say them.

All I have to do is to point out that you are dishonest and deceptive. For one, despite your attempt at making my post look like a response to meathook, it was actually a reply to one of your posts,
"...Are we talking about anti-vaccine advocates? I thought we were talking about figuring out why autism rates are increasing at a frightening pace. Why does this discussion always get derailed by talk of anti-vaccine advocates?"

So, I am not talking about environmental factors in general, but rather about those claimed by the anti-vaccine nuts. THOSE were my words, your dishonest attempt at quote-mining none withstanding.

Likewise, your dishonest attempt, with bolding, to make it look like I'm doubting all environmental factors rather than those that, as I pointed out, are being postulated "that makes it preventable. "

So, all in all, your characterization of my views is incorrect. You can retract, or it is obvious that you're dishonest.

 

[Regnvejr]

Those actually doing the research apparently disagree, as additional study is already underway. Please direct your criticisms their way. Calling me names will do nothing.

As long as you persist in being dishonest, I'll call you on it. If you don't like it, the solution is simple. You simply just have to stop being dishonest

And yes, the "additional study" is the root of the problem, an attempt to find a connection that has already been shown absent, taking resources away from what could be useful information instead.

And what is it with you and the Creationism thing?

That you and yours argue like creationists and want everybody else to accept crap because you "oh, so much believe in it" just like the creationists do

 

[Regnvejr]

Maybe you haven't been around long enough to figure out how things work.

I know exactly how anti-science loons work, having dealt with creationists for decades. Seeing their techniques repeated in this tread by anti-vaccine nuts like you and facetguy.

DDT is good for you, right?,

Cartoon from what appears to be some form of a "back-to-nature" survivalist group. No science there.

PCB's aren't dangerous and were never released into the public water supply, right?,

Washington Post. Article about a company polluting vs. the EPA. No science there.

Dioxin is safe as well, right?

Claims by companies, again vs. the EPA. No science there.

So you are trying to declare science unreliable by associating it with corporate profits. As bogus as claiming that tobacco companies conducted health research So starkly dishonest and utterly irrelevant to real science.

(You know, the stuff conducted through the application of the Scientific Method! because, given your response, I'm not sure you know what the Scientific Method is. What is your connection to the health care field, again?)

This is the way things work in the real world. If somebody makes an oopsie, they cover their tracks, and the public doesn't find out until decades later. And the government is usually found to assist in the cover-up.

Fascinating mis-characterization of the Scientific Method. Needless to say, it is a serious misrepresentation. Perhaps you need a primer: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Or you do know and just deliberately misrepresented the SM?

The CDC doesn't like admitting when they're wrong. In fact, because of a bill George W. Bush drafted, they can't now. If they've been duped by the pharmaceutical industry, it's illegal for them to admit they are wrong by releasing vaccination data. Vaccination side effect data is now classified information that is beyond the reach of even the FOIA.

So you are saying that unless data is controlled by the CDC, it doesn't exist? That's even more ignorant. You REALLY don't get science or medicine at all. Why are you here? Certainly, you are not a health care professional or in training to be one. Leaves you a political hack of some kind or another.

So the news you are hearing now from the mainstream media about vaccines? Practically worthless. They get it all straight from CDC press releases.

That is the DUMBEST claim I have heard all week. Utterly *****ic. I don't get my medical information from mainstream media. Who ARE you? You have NO science background, NO comprehension of the Scientific Method, NO comprehension of medical research or medical data flow.
You make rambling claims unrelated to reality, there is no reality in you, only political dogma of some weird kind or another.

Autism rates have only dramatically increased to populations given thimerosal.

A flat-out lie. I really don't see any reason to continue this. You are not honest, you have no knowledge, your claims are false or flat-out lies. Exactly like creationists, flat-earthers, no-moon-landing and all those loons. There is no purpose in interacting with you at all.

 

[Regnvejr]

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-autism-chemical1-2010feb01,0,1654619.story

Health
Industrial chemical OSR#1 used as autism treatment

Used for toxic cleanup, it's also sold as a dietary supplement, even though it hasn't been evaluated for safety.

By Trine Tsouderos
February 1, 2010

An industrial chemical developed to help separate heavy metals from polluted soil and mining drainage is being sold as a dietary supplement by a luminary in the world of alternative autism treatments.

The supplement, called OSR#1, is described on the company website as an antioxidant not meant to treat any disease. But the site lists pharmacies and doctors who sell it to parents of children with autism, and the compound has been promoted to parents on popular autism websites.

"I sprinkle the powder into Bella's morning juice and onto Mia and Gianna's gluten free waffle breakfast sandwich," wrote Kim Stagliano, managing editor of the Age of Autism blog and mother of three girls on the autism spectrum, in an enthusiastic post last spring. "We've seen some nice 'Wows!' from OSR."

A search of medical journals unearthed no papers published about OSR#1, though the compound's industrial uses for toxic cleanup have been explored in publications such as the Journal of Hazardous Materials...............

 

[facetguy]

Kirby is a source for make-belief "whatever fits my political/social agenda." Claiming validity for his unsubstantiated, quote-mined and misrepresenting claims that are designed for an agenda rather than for finding facts, that just makes you seem dishonest.

I'm dishonest now. You do enjoy the name calling thing, that much is clear. What's not clear is how Kirby's writings make me dishonest?

 

[facetguy]

All I have to do is to point out that you are dishonest and deceptive. For one, despite your attempt at making my post look like a response to meathook, it was actually a reply to one of your posts,
"...Are we talking about anti-vaccine advocates? I thought we were talking about figuring out why autism rates are increasing at a frightening pace. Why does this discussion always get derailed by talk of anti-vaccine advocates?"

Maybe you aren't getting enough sleep or something, I'm not sure. But I was in no way attempting to make your post look like a response to Meathook. In case you aren't aware, everyone else can read the posts, too. I was quite clear about pointing out what you had said. Your words were from an earlier post by you, and they are self-evident. Nice try on the spin tactic though.

So, I am not talking about environmental factors in general, but rather about those claimed by the anti-vaccine nuts. THOSE were my words, your dishonest attempt at quote-mining none withstanding.

Spin.

Likewise, your dishonest attempt, with bolding, to make it look like I'm doubting all environmental factors rather than those that, as I pointed out, are being postulated "that makes it preventable. "

Spin.

So, all in all, your characterization of my views is incorrect. You can retract, or it is obvious that you're dishonest.

Don't hold your breath for that retraction.

 

[facetguy]

As long as you persist in being dishonest, I'll call you on it. If you don't like it, the solution is simple. You simply just have to stop being dishonest

And yes, the "additional study" is the root of the problem, an attempt to find a connection that has already been shown absent, taking resources away from what could be useful information instead.

Why, in your learned view, are these latest studies being done? (I already know what you'll say, but I'm curious nonetheless.)

 

[facetguy]

Seeing their techniques repeated in this tread by anti-vaccine nuts like you and facetguy.

As I've already made clear, I'm not anti-vaccine at all. Do I get to call you dishonest now?

Who ARE you?

I have to admit; the big red letters are my favorite. (They don't always hang around too long though.)

 

[facetguy]

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-autism-chemical1-2010feb01,0,1654619.story

Health
Industrial chemical OSR#1 used as autism treatment

Used for toxic cleanup, it's also sold as a dietary supplement, even though it hasn't been evaluated for safety.

By Trine Tsouderos
February 1, 2010

An industrial chemical developed to help separate heavy metals from polluted soil and mining drainage is being sold as a dietary supplement by a luminary in the world of alternative autism treatments.

The supplement, called OSR#1, is described on the company website as an antioxidant not meant to treat any disease. But the site lists pharmacies and doctors who sell it to parents of children with autism, and the compound has been promoted to parents on popular autism websites.

"I sprinkle the powder into Bella's morning juice and onto Mia and Gianna's gluten free waffle breakfast sandwich," wrote Kim Stagliano, managing editor of the Age of Autism blog and mother of three girls on the autism spectrum, in an enthusiastic post last spring. "We've seen some nice 'Wows!' from OSR."

A search of medical journals unearthed no papers published about OSR#1, though the compound's industrial uses for toxic cleanup have been explored in publications such as the Journal of Hazardous Materials...............

Objection, Your Honor. Irrelevant.

Sustained.

 

[deleted89854]

I read PubMed daily, thank you - 1-2 hours per day. I would like to see you comment on the following vaccine-autism animal model conducted in monkeys:

Compared with unexposed animals, significant neurodevelopmental deficits were evident for exposed animals in survival reflexes, tests of color discrimination and reversal, and learning sets," the authors reported. "Differences in behaviors were observed between exposed and unexposed animals and within the exposed group before and after MMR vaccination. Compared with unexposed animals, exposed animals showed attenuation of amygdala growth and differences in the amygdala binding of [11C]diprenorphine. Interaction models identified significant associations between specific aberrant social and non-social behaviors, isotope binding, and vaccine exposure."

One of the Saturday abstracts makes the further point that the research "revealed significant differences between exposed and unexposed animals" in the kinds of developmental behaviors a mother might be able to observe, "with delayed acquisition of root, suck, clasp hand, and clasp foot reflexes." They conclude by noting that "This animal model examines the neurological consequences of the childhood vaccine regimen, Functional and … brainstem anomalies were evident in vaccinated animals that may be relevant to some aspects of autism. The findings raise important safety issues while providing a potential animal model for examining aspects of causation and disease pathogenesis in acquired neurodevelopmental disorders.

Awaiting your comments.

For someone who reads Pubmed so much, you seem to have a hard time finding anything there to support your thesis. This is from a poster presentation at the International Meeting for Autism Research, and the study was led by Andrew Wakefield, who as I stated earlier, recently had his UK credentials revoked and his study removed from the Lancet. It has never been published in a scientific journal, nor has it been subjected to peer review.

Anyway, looking at the two paragraphs (there is no study, so I can't critique methods or results) shows an increased incidence of behavior disorders and changes on MRI in monkeys. Normally, I'd think "that's interesting. Perhaps we should evaluate the effects of vaccines on children and see if they have an increased incidence of behavior changes as well." Except they did that study already, with a sample size of half a million kids. I guess my take away from that study is that we should probably think twice about our current monkey vaccination program.

 

[facetguy]

This was on Google News on my homepage, and I had to post it. It's a statement from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey regarding Dr. Wakefield. Don't shoot the messenger! I'm not advocating any of this!! It's just timely and of interest given our discussion in this thread.

http://www.generationrescue.org/wakefield_statement2.html

 

[J-Rad]

Oh, WTH...why not
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/03/singer.autism.study.vaccines/index.html?hpt=Sbin

 

[Pharmavixen]

Okay, I'll bite. From Jenny McCarthy's site:

It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues.

Here's a link to 25 articles refuting the link between autism and MMR. I've checked 5 so far, and all 5 were publicly-funded. One author even proudly stated at the start of his paper that none of his research has ever been funded by industry.

 

[Regnvejr]

New example of herd-immunity failing when enough are not vaccinated:



http://www.cnn.org/2010/HEALTH/02/08/mumps.outbreak.northeast/index.html?hpt=T2
...
Only seven of the infected are not Orthodox Jewish, but they all had exposure to the community, Terjesen said. The average age of the sick is 21, she said.
Lakewood, New Jersey, Rabbi Yehunda Pirutinsky was surprised when his 14-year-old son was diagnosed with mumps a week ago. Lakewood is in Ocean County.
"He was completely vaccinated," Pirutinsky said. "So it was a surprise to us he came down with mumps."
Anyone fully vaccinated from mumps receives two doses of the vaccine, according to the CDC. Of the New Jersey cases, 77 percent were vaccinated, Terjesen said.
But the vaccine is not 100 percent effective, according to the CDC. At two doses, the vaccine is 76 to 95 percent effective, the CDC says on its Web site......

 

[deleted89854]

I'm not too interested in what Drs. McCarthy and Carrey have to say about this. Do we have any idea what Bono thinks about autism? I don't think I can really decide on this one until all the celebrities weigh in.

You really need to change the RSS feeds you subscribe to.

 

[facetguy]

I'm not too interested in what Drs. McCarthy and Carrey have to say about this. Do we have any idea what Bono thinks about autism? I don't think I can really decide on this one until all the celebrities weigh in.

You really need to change the RSS feeds you subscribe to.

1) Not a feed/subscription (well, I guess Google News is technically a subscription).

2) As stated earlier, it was timely. It also contains a link to a study that pertains to the current subject matter.

3) I get all my best health information from celebrities.

4) I'm researching Bono's view and will report back. He thanks you for your interest.

 

[deleted89854]

I don't know what timely means. It happened recently? Professor McCarthy stating an opinion on the monkey study (which gp152 pasted earlier in this very thread) is neither noteworthy or timely.

Oh, and I was incorrect about the monkey study. It was actually published in the journal Neurotoxicology (so at least someone reviewed it - Pubmed ID 19800915) in October 2009. 20 monkeys (13 Hep B vaccine with thimerosal added, 4 saline, 3 nothing) were tested regarding neurological development. Not randomized, not blinded, unequal sample size, small effect = not significant. Never mind the fact that one of the authors has been discredited and the study is funded by anti-vaccine group. Also, thimerosal is no longer a part of the HBV vaccine (why did they add it?)