Vaccines and Autism

[K9VET]

I wonder if you guys have seen this study?

Study Confirms Autism Boom - Correlates with Aborted Fetal DNA in Vaccines

By John Jalsevac

Washington, DC, April 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A recent study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed 1988 as a “change point” in the rise of Autism Disorder rates in the U.S. - a date that pro-life leaders say correlates with the introduction of fetal cells for use in vaccines.

While the EPA study does not speculate into the cause of the jump in autism rates, and makes no mention of aborted fetal cells, the researchers point out that it “is important to determine whether a preventable exposure to an environmental factor may be associated with the increase.”

According to the pro-life group Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), which specializes in vaccine research, that “environmental factor” may well be the use of aborted fetal cells in vaccines.

The group pointed out in its most recent newsletter that 1988 is the same year the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices began recommending a second dose of the MMR vaccine, which included cells derived from the tissue of aborted babies.

Analyses of autism rate data published by SCPI identify 3 clear change points in U.S. autism disorder trends: 1981, 1988 and 1995, all of which the groups claims roughly correlate with the use of vaccines (Meruvax, MMRII, and Chickenpox) that were cultivated with the use of tissue from aborted children. The group says that it has been unable to identify any other factor that might correlate to the change in autism rates.

“The only environmental event correlating with these statistical autism trend ‘change points’ which would impact almost all children was the introduction of vaccines produced using human fetal cells and containing residual human DNA and cellular debris,” said SCPI.

Pro-life groups say that the research by EPA adds to an increasing body of evidence implicating the use of aborted fetal cell material in the nationwide vaccinations impacting nearly every child born in the United States.

American Life League has joined Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute in calling for a Fair Labeling and Informed Consent Act in light of the findings.

“For years the evidence has pointed toward the link between vaccines using DNA from aborted babies and the rise of Autism Disorder rates,” said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League.

“Parents need and deserve to know the risks associated with vaccinations made from lines derived from the bodies of aborted children.”

SCPI has affirmed that they are continuing to study the impact of residual human fetal DNA in vaccines on the brain development and autism in children, and will present their studies at the International Society for Autism Research in May 2010.


For more information:

Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute http://www.soundchoice.org/

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mr hawkings]

There is no human DNA in vaccines from aborted fetuses or any other source.
Dont believe everything you see on the internet

 

[FutureCTDoc]

What is up with these autism-vaccine link loons? There is no link between autism and vaccines. If you believe so, you are flying in the face of science and reality.

 

[NAGNAM]

Very few things piss me off more than the anti-vaccine nutjobs. I can't think of any of those things at this moment.

 

[KeyzerSoze]

1988 was also the year that the Scotch Whiskey Act was enabled:

Jump to: navigation, search

The Scotch Whisky Act 1988 (citation 1988 c.22) was an Act to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, passed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II on 28 June 1988, with the long title "An Act to make provision as to the definition of Scotch whisky and as to the production and sale of whisky; and for connected purposes.".

The act first set out a definition for Scotch whisky - "whisky (distilled and matured in Scotland) as conforms to a definition of Scotch whisky contained in an order made under this subsection by the Ministers".[1]

It also makes it illegal to sell whisky as "Scotch whisky" if it does not conform to the definitions laid out in the Act, or sell whisky with an alcoholic strength of more than 94.8%.

While the EPA study does not speculate into the cause of the jump in autism rates, and makes no mention of aborted fetal cells, the researchers point out that it “is important to determine whether a preventable exposure to an environmental factor may be associated with the increase.”

According to the pro-life group Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), which specializes in vaccine research, that “environmental factor” may well be the use of aborted fetal cells in vaccines.

The group pointed out in its most recent newsletter that 1988 is the same year the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices began recommending a second dose of the MMR vaccine, which included cells derived from the tissue of aborted babies.

 

[zenlike]

There are two reputable, large scales studies (n > 100,000), one in the UK and the other in Denmark, that show no correlation between the introduction of the vaccine in '88 and autism rates.

 

[DrArete]

I wonder if you guys have seen this study?

Study Confirms Autism Boom - Correlates with Aborted Fetal DNA in Vaccines

By John Jalsevac

Washington, DC, April 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A recent study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed 1988 as a “change point” in the rise of Autism Disorder rates in the U.S. - a date that pro-life leaders say correlates with the introduction of fetal cells for use in vaccines.

While the EPA study does not speculate into the cause of the jump in autism rates, and makes no mention of aborted fetal cells, the researchers point out that it “is important to determine whether a preventable exposure to an environmental factor may be associated with the increase.”

According to the pro-life group Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), which specializes in vaccine research, that “environmental factor” may well be the use of aborted fetal cells in vaccines.

The group pointed out in its most recent newsletter that 1988 is the same year the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices began recommending a second dose of the MMR vaccine, which included cells derived from the tissue of aborted babies.

Analyses of autism rate data published by SCPI identify 3 clear change points in U.S. autism disorder trends: 1981, 1988 and 1995, all of which the groups claims roughly correlate with the use of vaccines (Meruvax, MMRII, and Chickenpox) that were cultivated with the use of tissue from aborted children. The group says that it has been unable to identify any other factor that might correlate to the change in autism rates.

“The only environmental event correlating with these statistical autism trend ‘change points’ which would impact almost all children was the introduction of vaccines produced using human fetal cells and containing residual human DNA and cellular debris,” said SCPI.

Pro-life groups say that the research by EPA adds to an increasing body of evidence implicating the use of aborted fetal cell material in the nationwide vaccinations impacting nearly every child born in the United States.

American Life League has joined Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute in calling for a Fair Labeling and Informed Consent Act in light of the findings.

“For years the evidence has pointed toward the link between vaccines using DNA from aborted babies and the rise of Autism Disorder rates,” said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League.

“Parents need and deserve to know the risks associated with vaccinations made from lines derived from the bodies of aborted children.”

SCPI has affirmed that they are continuing to study the impact of residual human fetal DNA in vaccines on the brain development and autism in children, and will present their studies at the International Society for Autism Research in May 2010.


For more information:

Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute http://www.soundchoice.org/

I also heard that lemons reduce the number of traffic accidents.

 

[Neuronix]

Pirates prevent global warming.

 

[facetguy]

A different analysis of the new EPA study: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/autism-vaccine-epa-study_b_548837.html

 

[Starpower]

The change was most likely due to a correlation with the DSM being changed at that time to include Autistic Spectrum Disorders.

 

[J1515]

A different analysis of the new EPA study: www.huffingtonpost.com.....

Will you ever learn?

 

[Apollyon]

I also heard that lemons reduce the number of traffic accidents.

Pirates prevent global warming.

Damn you scientists with your science-y charts and graphs and stuff!

 

[K9VET]

Very few things piss me off more than the anti-vaccine nutjobs. I can't think of any of those things at this moment.

You don't need to be rude and intolerant just because of an article. There are good and bad stuff in the medical literature. How will you find out what is right or wrong if don't check the data or read?

 

[K9VET]

There is no human DNA in vaccines from aborted fetuses or any other source.
Dont believe everything you see on the internet

Is it possible that the vaccines contain other embryonic antigens? Just wondering.

 

[illegallysmooth]

You don't need to be rude and intolerant just because of an article.

I doubt anyone's personality here was formed from the article.

There are good and bad stuff in the medical literature.

Interesting point!

How will you find out what is right or wrong if don't check the data or read?

Precisely.

.

 

[smq123]

You don't need to be rude and intolerant just because of an article. There are good and bad stuff in the medical literature. How will you find out what is right or wrong if don't check the data or read?

"LifeSiteNews" and "Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute" do not qualify as "medical literature."

The original study cited in the article does NOT make any mention of "aborted fetuses" in vaccines. The LifeSiteNews added that, extrapolating conclusions that the original study by the EPA had never intended.

How will you find out what is right or wrong if you don't critically analyze the articles that you read?

 

[DrArete]

.

 

[facetguy]

Will you ever learn?

Like him or not, Kirby does a good job of reporting some of the important implications of the new EPA study. You can choose to read the article and learn something, or you can be juvenile and ignore it. Your choice.

 

[J1515]

Like him or not, Kirby does a good job of reporting some of the important implications of the new EPA study. You can choose to read the article and learn something, or you can be juvenile and ignore it. Your choice.

I refuse to read anything from the huffington post or entertainment weekly. I will stick to reputable journals, thank you very much.

 

[facetguy]

I refuse to read anything from the huffington post or entertainment weekly. I will stick to reputable journals, thank you very much.

As long as you get the info somehow.

 

[cpants]

Like him or not, Kirby does a good job of reporting some of the important implications of the new EPA study. You can choose to read the article and learn something, or you can be juvenile and ignore it. Your choice.

How do you know he's done a good job? You've also read the EPA study and come to the same conclusions? I hope so.

You continue to post articles by whack jobs printed in dubious sources. The source DOES matter when you are reading about any topic, but especially science, and especially areas of science which are controversial. Post whatever you want, but don't expect us to read or appreciate articles by anti-vax nutjobs. Most of us don't have the time to pick through them and separate fact from fiction.

 

[facetguy]

How do you know he's done a good job? You've also read the EPA study and come to the same conclusions? I hope so.

You continue to post articles by whack jobs printed in dubious sources. The source DOES matter when you are reading about any topic, but especially science, and especially areas of science which are controversial. Post whatever you want, but don't expect us to read or appreciate articles by anti-vax nutjobs. Most of us don't have the time to pick through them and separate fact from fiction.

What is anti-vax nutjob about the article I posted? He raised my awareness to the existence of the study (and likely your's too), discusses the study's potential contribution to finding something resembling a cure for autism (which you'll agree is important), and discusses the characteristics an environmental trigger "candidate" should have (again, important you'll agree). This is information that I doubt any of you would have had prior to my posting the article. So, go ahead and try to be all Ivory Tower, but sometimes you can learn things from sources other than randomized placebo controlled trials.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

What is anti-vax nutjob about the article I posted? He raised my awareness to the existence of the study (and likely your's too), discusses the study's potential contribution to finding something resembling a cure for autism (which you'll agree is important), and discusses the characteristics an environmental trigger "candidate" should have (again, important you'll agree). This is information that I doubt any of you would have had prior to my posting the article. So, go ahead and try to be all Ivory Tower, but sometimes you can learn things from sources other than randomized placebo controlled trials.

Unfortunately, with the rampant amount of misinformation that's printed these days, "learning" from sources such as the Huffington Post is pretty rare. I prefer (and I would think most scientists also would) to go directly to the scientific article and analyze it for myself rather than let someone else do the thinking for me and risk misinterpretation. When this is combined with the fact that a lot of the "science" articles in the HP contain tons of misinformation, I would rather not waste time reading that article at all. I would gain much more insight into the study by reading the study itself.

It would be better if you actually linked the study (I'm not necessarily speaking of this particular thread...just saying in general) rather than an HP article trying to analyze that study. You would raise awareness of the study and more people would actually be willing to read the study and discuss it. I'm okay with being "all Ivory Tower" about this kind of thing and, to be honest, I expect others to be that way as well with regards to scientific literature.

 

[facetguy]

Unfortunately, with the rampant amount of misinformation that's printed these days, "learning" from sources such as the Huffington Post is pretty rare. I prefer (and I would think most scientists also would) to go directly to the scientific article and analyze it for myself rather than let someone else do the thinking for me and risk misinterpretation. When this is combined with the fact that a lot of the "science" articles in the HP contain tons of misinformation, I would rather not waste time reading that article at all. I would gain much more insight into the study by reading the study itself.

It would be better if you actually linked the study (I'm not necessarily speaking of this particular thread...just saying in general) rather than an HP article trying to analyze that study. You would raise awareness of the study and more people would actually be willing to read the study and discuss it. I'm okay with being "all Ivory Tower" about this kind of thing and, to be honest, I expect others to be that way as well with regards to scientific literature.

Your points are all well taken. No one is saying to forgo reading the scientific literature and instead just read HuffPo. Of course there is value in reading the literature directly. And of course there is tons of misinformation out there, including (perhaps especially!) on HuffPo. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Truthfully, would you have learned of this EPA study if not for a non-journal source? Probably not, speaking for myself at least. I'm busy too and can't get to every journal every time. Sometimes pieces like this one have value. And in this case, Kirby has tipped me/us off to these findings. Often, that does trigger some further reading on my part, often from the original source. But not every time; I don't have time for that. In this case, I now know that the EPA feels as though the rise in autism began around 1988, that this further suggests some type of environmental trigger, and that there are certain criteria that such a trigger should have to be taken as a serious possibility. I didn't need to get that from NEJM, and yet I have learned something. I understand the push for evidence-based everything, but my advice to you would be to remain open to sources other than double blind RCTs at times. Sure Kirby comes at things from a particular vantage point, but he also stays on top of these studies, whereas you and I would never see them otherwise. So read them with your filters engaged and take from them what you will. And, as an aside, don't be so certain that everything you read in medical journals doesn't have some kind of angle either.

 

[cpants]

Your points are all well taken. No one is saying to forgo reading the scientific literature and instead just read HuffPo. Of course there is value in reading the literature directly. And of course there is tons of misinformation out there, including (perhaps especially!) on HuffPo. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Truthfully, would you have learned of this EPA study if not for a non-journal source? Probably not, speaking for myself at least. I'm busy too and can't get to every journal every time. Sometimes pieces like this one have value. And in this case, Kirby has tipped me/us off to these findings. Often, that does trigger some further reading on my part, often from the original source. But not every time; I don't have time for that. In this case, I now know that the EPA feels as though the rise in autism began around 1988, that this further suggests some type of environmental trigger, and that there are certain criteria that such a trigger should have to be taken as a serious possibility. I didn't need to get that from NEJM, and yet I have learned something. I understand the push for evidence-based everything, but my advice to you would be to remain open to sources other than double blind RCTs at times. Sure Kirby comes at things from a particular vantage point, but he also stays on top of these studies, whereas you and I would never see them otherwise. So read them with your filters engaged and take from them what you will. And, as an aside, don't be so certain that everything you read in medical journals doesn't have some kind of angle either.

Of course I'm open to hearing about articles from third party sources. I'm even open to interpretation and analysis of those articles from third party sources. But when I am reading this kind of analysis, I am very mindful of the source and author. If it's a source I trust, I may read analysis. If not I may go right to the original paper if it's a topic I'm interested in or else just ignore it. For most people HuffPo is not a legit place to read scientific opinions and analysis.

This thread exactly proves my point. Go back and read the OP, which is a commentary citing the same exact study your Kirby article does. It goes on to interpret this data as proof that autism has something to do with aborted fetal tissue in vaccines. Should we read that article and say, "wow they raise some interesting points, everyone should keep an open mind" as you seem to do with every turd the HuffPo authors squeeze out? No, we should see that it comes from a fringe pro-life website, and take anything it says with a huge grain of salt. Commentary and third-party analysis has very little value without carefully considering the source and how much you trust it.

 

[facetguy]

Of course I'm open to hearing about articles from third party sources. I'm even open to interpretation and analysis of those articles from third party sources. But when I am reading this kind of analysis, I am very mindful of the source and author. If it's a source I trust, I may read analysis. If not I may go right to the original paper if it's a topic I'm interested in or else just ignore it. For most people HuffPo is not a legit place to read scientific opinions and analysis.

Agreed. Although, I don't think of Kirby as a source of science but as a journalist who reports on these studies.

This thread exactly proves my point. Go back and read the OP, which is a commentary citing the same exact study your Kirby article does. It goes on to interpret this data as proof that autism has something to do with aborted fetal tissue in vaccines. Should we read that article and say, "wow they raise some interesting points, everyone should keep an open mind" as you seem to do with every turd the HuffPo authors squeeze out? No, we should see that it comes from a fringe pro-life website, and take anything it says with a huge grain of salt. Commentary and third-party analysis has very little value without carefully considering the source and how much you trust it.

I understand what you are saying. In fact, it was the source in the OP's post that triggered me to link to Kirby's article for a more reasoned discussion of the EPA study without all the pro-life etc baggage. Reading the OP's article, you will quickly note that it says "While the EPA study does not speculate into the cause of the jump in autism rates, and makes no mention of aborted fetal cells...", but then proceeds to spin about the fetal cells. Contrast that with Kirby's article, which quotes extensively from the EPA study in a straight, factual way. If you had just read Kirby's friggin' article, you would have saved us both some time here.

 

[Pharmavixen]

Surely a journalist's interpretation of a scientific journal article is hardly worthy of discussion here. You need to look at the original journal article.

Who cares what some journalist thinks? You want to understand something, you go to the source data. It's our duty as educated people to interpret the data correctly, not parse the mainstream media for every stupid thing written by somebody who, say, sells homeopathic remedies on his other website.

And there's all the bull**** treatments for autism, like chelation therapy to get rid of the "mercury poisoning." There's an industry behind all this misinformation, taking advantage of everything we don't know, which is a lot, and filling that gap by exploiting the guilt of desperate parents. If people all stopped believing that mercury had a role in the cause of autism, nobody would buy the alternative "medicine" products that are supposed to get rid of that mercury.

Lots of money to be made from desperate, gullible people.

 

[deleted89854]

For the record, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and most of the internet are worthless when it comes to reporting or interpreting scientific reports. If you are in any position of clinical authority and you intend to use novel findings in your practice, it is your responsibility to learn how to properly read and critically analyze the literature. Looking at the actual study would have told you instantly that the whole fetal cells business is complete crap. The main link is to some pro-life "research" institute. Nowhere in the actual study does it mention fetal cells or their use in vaccines. Kirby dedicates about half of his crappy "summary" to vaccines, when the actual study does not mentioned them as a toxin of interest (only that they have been research with regards to autism and found not to be associated).

Here, watch. I can cherry pick sentences from the actual study to make my point also:

"earlier diagnosis contributed to increases in AD cumulative incidence in at least two of our selected studies and, likely, to studies in our worldwide data set "

"A recent analysis of the California database from the early 1990s through about 2006 suggests that changing diagnostic criteria may account for about a 2.2-fold higher cumulative incidence of autism, relative to the 7-fold increase observed over 11 birth cohorts (22). It is unknown how consistently previous AD criteria were applied"

"In British Columbia, Canada, changes in the assignment of special education codes may account for at least one-third of the increase in autism prevalence from 1996 to 2004"

"In a 2004 report, the Immunization Safety Committee of the Institute of Medicine determined that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between either MMR or thimerosal- containing vaccines and autism"

Have you figured out yet that it's better to read the damn study yourself, rather than have some idiot pick out pieces that fit his hypothesis and present them as the results of the study? Do us all a favor and next time link to the actual study instead of some hack using the study to push his agenda.

 

[facetguy]

For the record, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and most of the internet are worthless when it comes to reporting or interpreting scientific reports. If you are in any position of clinical authority and you intend to use novel findings in your practice, it is your responsibility to learn how to properly read and critically analyze the literature. Looking at the actual study would have told you instantly that the whole fetal cells business is complete crap. The main link is to some pro-life "research" institute. Nowhere in the actual study does it mention fetal cells or their use in vaccines. Kirby dedicates about half of his crappy "summary" to vaccines, when the actual study does not mentioned them as a toxin of interest (only that they have been research with regards to autism and found not to be associated).

Here, watch. I can cherry pick sentences from the actual study to make my point also:

"earlier diagnosis contributed to increases in AD cumulative incidence in at least two of our selected studies and, likely, to studies in our worldwide data set "

"A recent analysis of the California database from the early 1990s through about 2006 suggests that changing diagnostic criteria may account for about a 2.2-fold higher cumulative incidence of autism, relative to the 7-fold increase observed over 11 birth cohorts (22). It is unknown how consistently previous AD criteria were applied"

"In British Columbia, Canada, changes in the assignment of special education codes may account for at least one-third of the increase in autism prevalence from 1996 to 2004"

"In a 2004 report, the Immunization Safety Committee of the Institute of Medicine determined that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between either MMR or thimerosal- containing vaccines and autism"

Have you figured out yet that it's better to read the damn study yourself, rather than have some idiot pick out pieces that fit his hypothesis and present them as the results of the study? Do us all a favor and next time link to the actual study instead of some hack using the study to push his agenda.

Big Guy, there are thousands of studies published every week. You will hear about a tiny fraction of them. You may believe you are reading every study that is published, I'm not sure. But obviously that is just impossible. So, if a journalist who happens to closely follow a particular area of science writes an article about a new study and I in turn see his or her article, I see that as a plus. As stated earlier, if the study sounds interesting or important enough, I'll read it directly. Otherwise, I take the info from the article, assimilate it with my current knowledge base, deem portions of it crap or worthwhile, and tuck it away somewhere in the old grey matter. I'm not afraid that reading the journalist's article is somehow going to poison me or something silly like that. So, go ahead and rely 100% on your direct-only-reviews of medical literature, but I'm here to tell you that you will miss a lot of things, things that just might prove helpful to you and your future patients. Now go take a deep breath and relax, would ya.

 

[kdburton]

the following data PROVES that autism is caused by vaccines...

 

[WestcoastMedicine]

The only study that ever showed a link was the initial one that started the media hype. It was by Wakefield in 1998 out of somewhere in the UK, I believe Scotland.

1. The study looked at 12 children
2. 7 of the 8 authors asked to have their names taken off the study because they admitted it was inaccurate.
3. Wakefield just had his medical license revoked last year ( I forget why they said, I'm sure you can google it)
4. It later turned out that Wakefield and associates were influenced by a lawyer who wanted to make money off of autism-vaccine claims
5. Wakefield was involved with a company that was making a competing vaccine to the current MMR vaccine that they were claiming to cause the autism.


Tens of thousands of patients have been studied since by many unbiased organizations showing no link whatsover.

Compare that to their 12 patients.

There has never been any study since Wakefield's showing a link.

This isn't even taught as a possibility in medical schools. It is well accepted that there is no link.

Do we know what causes autism, no, but there is no evidence that is from vaccine, period, end of story, stop selling jenny mccarthy's crap books....

 

[deleted89854]

Big Guy, there are thousands of studies published every week. You will hear about a tiny fraction of them. You may believe you are reading every study that is published, I'm not sure. But obviously that is just impossible. So, if a journalist who happens to closely follow a particular area of science writes an article about a new study and I in turn see his or her article, I see that as a plus. As stated earlier, if the study sounds interesting or important enough, I'll read it directly. Otherwise, I take the info from the article, assimilate it with my current knowledge base, deem portions of it crap or worthwhile, and tuck it away somewhere in the old grey matter. I'm not afraid that reading the journalist's article is somehow going to poison me or something silly like that. So, go ahead and rely 100% on your direct-only-reviews of medical literature, but I'm here to tell you that you will miss a lot of things, things that just might prove helpful to you and your future patients. Now go take a deep breath and relax, would ya.

What I was trying to relay to you is that when you rely on other people to do your mental heavy lifting for you, it makes you reliant on their interpretation of the data. David Kirby is an anti-vaccination advocate. How do you think he will interpret the EPA study? My guess is that he will make it all about vaccines, when in fact the study hardly mentions it.

You don't have to read every study there is, but if you're going to try and make definitive statements you should at least attempt to read the article all by yourself. I hope you don't take the same approach to treating patients, because if I'm going to perform a new surgery/prescribe a new medication/recommend a new therapy you'd better damn well believe I've read the paper myself. The fact that your rely on the Huffington Post, of all places, for your trenchant analysis of the medical literature tells me that you probably lack the education to do so. Or you're just intellectually lazy.

I'll relax when you quit cluttering this forum with your garbage links.

 

[facetguy]

The only study that ever showed a link was the initial one that started the media hype. It was by Wakefield in 1998 out of somewhere in the UK, I believe Scotland.

1. The study looked at 12 children
2. 7 of the 8 authors asked to have their names taken off the study because they admitted it was inaccurate.
3. Wakefield just had his medical license revoked last year ( I forget why they said, I'm sure you can google it)
4. It later turned out that Wakefield and associates were influenced by a lawyer who wanted to make money off of autism-vaccine claims
5. Wakefield was involved with a company that was making a competing vaccine to the current MMR vaccine that they were claiming to cause the autism.


Tens of thousands of patients have been studied since by many unbiased organizations showing no link whatsover.

Compare that to their 12 patients.

There has never been any study since Wakefield's showing a link.

This isn't even taught as a possibility in medical schools. It is well accepted that there is no link.

Do we know what causes autism, no, but there is no evidence that is from vaccine, period, end of story, stop selling jenny mccarthy's crap books....

We don't know what causes autism. So the search continues. MMR and thimerosal have been thoroughly studied. The data may not be as complete for the other vaccines in the schedule. Either way, vaccines alone cannot account for the entire rise in autism cases. The new EPA study appears to put a time stamp on when the increased numbers of cases began, in 1988. It's a starting point from which further investigation can begin to consider what trigger (likely an environmental factor) entered the picture around that time. As discussed in other threads, various government agencies are or will be investigating these environmental triggers, and, like it or not, vaccines are on that list of triggers, although they are but a small part. Some have said we should stop wasting resources on researching these environmental triggers and should be focusing instead on genetic factors. I disagree, and so apparently do the authors of the aforementioned EPA study:

(the abstract from the study, emphasis mine):

"Autistic disorder (AD) is a severe neurodevelopmental
disorder typically identified in early childhood. Both genetic
and environmental factors are implicated in its etiology. The
number of individuals identified as having autism has increased
dramatically in recent years, but whether some proportion of
this increase is real is unknown. If real, susceptible populations
may have exposure to controllable exogenous stressors.​

Using literature AD data from long-term (

​

​

∼10-year) studies, we determined cumulative incidence of AD for each cohort within each study. These data for each study were examined​

for a changepoint year in which the AD cumulative incidence

first increased. We used data sets from Denmark, California,
Japan, and a worldwide composite of studies. In the Danish,
California, and worldwide data sets, we found that an increase
in AD cumulative incidence began about 1988​

-1989. The Japanese study (1988-1996) had AD cumulative incidence increasing continuously, and no changepoint year could be calculated. Although the debate about the nature of increasing autism continues, the potential for this increase to be real and involve exogenous environmental stressors exists. The​

timing of an increase in autism incidence may help in screening​

for potential candidate environmental stressors."

So, how about we quit with the knee-jerk reactions that anything autism related must be associated with Jenny McCarthy or Andrew Wakefield, and let's quit with the notion that it's all just genetic and can't possibly be environmental/exogenous, and let's try to remember that not everyone who tries to help a family with an autistic child is automatically a money-thieving charlatan.​

​

​

 

[facetguy]

What I was trying to relay to you is that when you rely on other people to do your mental heavy lifting for you, it makes you reliant on their interpretation of the data. David Kirby is an anti-vaccination advocate. How do you think he will interpret the EPA study? My guess is that he will make it all about vaccines, when in fact the study hardly mentions it.

I learned of the existence of the EPA study from Kirby's article, plain and simple. That isn't exactly relying on other people to do my mental heavy lifting for me. And from what I've seen, Kirby isn't an anti-vaccination advocate; you are mischaracterizing him because you stubbornly refuse to read anything he has written. How informed can you be about the guy when you won't read anything he has ever said?

You don't have to read every study there is, but if you're going to try and make definitive statements you should at least attempt to read the article all by yourself. I hope you don't take the same approach to treating patients, because if I'm going to perform a new surgery/prescribe a new medication/recommend a new therapy you'd better damn well believe I've read the paper myself.

For at least some of your future treatments (and perhaps more than that), you will simply rely on what others have done before you, and that doesn't always mean there's good data behind the treatment or that those who came before you have read the literature completely. I don't fault you for that -- that's the way it is --but you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

The fact that your rely on the Huffington Post, of all places, for your trenchant analysis of the medical literature tells me that you probably lack the education to do so. Or you're just intellectually lazy.

I'll relax when you quit cluttering this forum with your garbage links.

 

[Neuronix]

 

[deleted89854]

Where did I say I hadn't read the article? I prefer to know what I'm talking about before I make definitive statements. How do you think I learned that vaccines featured so prominently in his article? I noticed in the pieces of the study you posted that nowhere does it mention vaccines as a cause for the spike in autism cases. Their conclusions are that environmental factors likely contribute to the increase in autism cases. To which I say, "Duh".

David Kirby wrote an entire book about how mercury in vaccines causes autism and is a featured author on the Age of Autism website (which shares his dislike of vaccines). I challenge you to find a favorable opinion of vaccines in anything he has written.

Ok, I'm bored. Since my contributions have pretty much consisted of bitching thus far, here's an article I found interesting. It concerns how a drug developed to treat fragile X syndrome may be useful to treat autism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/health/research/30fragile.html?scp=1&sq=fragile%20x&st=cse

 

[facetguy]

Where did I say I hadn't read the article? I prefer to know what I'm talking about before I make definitive statements. How do you think I learned that vaccines featured so prominently in his article? I noticed in the pieces of the study you posted that nowhere does it mention vaccines as a cause for the spike in autism cases. Their conclusions are that environmental factors likely contribute to the increase in autism cases. To which I say, "Duh".

David Kirby wrote an entire book about how mercury in vaccines causes autism and is a featured author on the Age of Autism website (which shares his dislike of vaccines). I challenge you to find a favorable opinion of vaccines in anything he has written.

Ok, I'm bored. Since my contributions have pretty much consisted of bitching thus far, here's an article I found interesting. It concerns how a drug developed to treat fragile X syndrome may be useful to treat autism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/health/research/30fragile.html?scp=1&sq=fragile x&st=cse

Kirby has stated in his writings and public speaking that he is not anti-vaccine. Heck, even Jenny McCarthy says she's not anti-vaccine. These folks have an issue with vaccine safety and want more safety-related research. And in his book (which I read several years ago now so the details are a bit sketchy) he reports on how various grassroots autism advocacy groups came into being, how most attempts at gaining access to research data were blocked by the various gov't agencies, and why there is so much skepticism on the part of the autism community. You must admit, the gov't (and medicine) has not done a very good job at quelling the concerns of parents out there. The "trust us, we know what we're doing" line hasn't worked. Perhaps you can take the lead at putting together a PR campaign that puts people's concerns to rest.

 

[Rabbit Hole]

Kirby has stated in his writings and public speaking that he is not anti-vaccine. Heck, even Jenny McCarthy says she's not anti-vaccine. These folks have an issue with vaccine safety and want more safety-related research. And in his book (which I read several years ago now so the details are a bit sketchy) he reports on how various grassroots autism advocacy groups came into being, how most attempts at gaining access to research data were blocked by the various gov't agencies, and why there is so much skepticism on the part of the autism community. You must admit, the gov't (and medicine) has not done a very good job at quelling the concerns of parents out there. The "trust us, we know what we're doing" line hasn't worked. Perhaps you can take the lead at putting together a PR campaign that puts people's concerns to rest.

Sorry, we don't practice conspiracy-based medicine around here. You should go back to researching the "New World Order" and "UFO sightings" or go join a cult so you'll be with like-minded brainwashed people.

 

[facetguy]

Sorry, we don't practice conspiracy-based medicine around here. You should go back to researching the "New World Order" and "UFO sightings" or go join a cult so you'll be with like-minded brainwashed people.

I'll keep it simple and ask you: why do so many parents (and others) out there continue to have concerns about vaccinations? If the science is so crystal clear, and the various government agencies have done such a stellar job of communicating to these parents, why the continued concerns? Many here will answer by saying that the Jenny McCarthy's of the world are to blame for drilling crazy ideas into peoples' heads. "It's hard to unscare someone", or some such thing. But it still comes back to the authorities charged with educating the public not doing a good enough job. And, as I stated above, doing a good enough job does not equal "just trust us", because that doesn't work. (And, as a young medical student, you should get used to the fact that your future patients won't always automatically trust you either; patients are becoming more sophisticated that way). No need to bring in UFOs and conspiracy theories; this is the current state of affairs and snide comments aren't productive. For such an established program as vaccinations, this shouldn't even be an issue. Let's get this overwith so these kids can get vaccinated with vaccines that everyone has confidence in.

PS Had you read Kirby's book, you would understand why there is so much skepticism out there. He documents extensively.

 

[cpants]

Why do parents or patients in general have any misconceptions about the cause and/or cure for disease? It's health illiteracy and it's very common. In the vaccine case there have been various missteps by the government, physicians, and industry, as well as a huge antivaccination campaign which regardless of their statements Jenny McCarthy and David Kirby are a part of.

You're right that we need to do as best as we can to develop a trusting relationship and educate our patients. Your wrong that persistent mistrust or misconceptions provides any evidence whatsoever for lack of vaccine safety or justifies more research spending. No amount of research will be enough to quell vaccine fears, since these fears are not based on scientific concerns, but rather misinformation and conspiracy theories.

 

[facetguy]

Why do parents or patients in general have any misconceptions about the cause and/or cure for disease? It's health illiteracy and it's very common. In the vaccine case there have been various missteps by the government, physicians, and industry, as well as a huge antivaccination campaign which regardless of their statements Jenny McCarthy and David Kirby are a part of.

I would add that those missteps helped create the antivaccination campaigns in the first place, and the continued missteps during the formative years of those antivaccination campaigns only exacerbated the problem. This all should have been handled better from the start.

You're right that we need to do as best as we can to develop a trusting relationship and educate our patients. Your wrong that persistent mistrust or misconceptions provides any evidence whatsoever for lack of vaccine safety or justifies more research spending. No amount of research will be enough to quell vaccine fears, since these fears are not based on scientific concerns, but rather misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Let's not mix the issues. The mistrust or misconceptions don't provide the evidence of lack of vaccine safety or justify more research. The lack of safety data (at least according to some) does. And if the safety data exists, and I mean safety data about all aspects of the entire vaccination schedule, not just MMR and thimerosal, then the gov't should have no difficulty presenting that to the public in a very straightforward fashion. So why isn't this done? It seems crazy to allow the mistrust and misunderstanding to continue if it's so easy to rectify.

 

[jonruh52]

I don't see how so many of you can just say anti-vaccine proponents are crazy and automatically believe vaccines are safe. We've all had basic chemistry, we know mercury is neurotoxic, well overall extremely toxic, and we also know aluminum is quite toxic once it's in the body, it just doesn't absorb that well so we rarely worry about it(but having it injected is another story). I'm disappointed with how little we learn about toxicology so I try to study more when I can and from what I've read mixing mercury and aluminum increases their toxicity by well over 10x. Those of you that have had some basic toxicology know about the multiplier rule when combining toxins. I've never seen any studies that claim there's no correlation between autism and vaccine, but I've seen health department statistics that clearly show a correlation. Now correlation doesn't mean causation of course but it is highly suspicious, especially since we know autism doesn't cause vaccines, so we can rule out reverse correlation obviously. Have any of you actually looked at actual data or are you just going along with press releases and marketing?

 

[smq123]

I don't see how so many of you can just say anti-vaccine proponents are crazy and automatically believe vaccines are safe. We've all had basic chemistry, we know mercury is neurotoxic, well overall extremely toxic

Most vaccines nowadays don't contain mercury/thimerosol. So what's your point?

And, to be honest, having seen an unvaccinated child who suffered permanent brain damage from pneumoccocal meningitis, I would rather take the chance and give my kids a trace of thimerosol, than run the risk that they end up dead or permanently mentally disabled.

Have any of you actually looked at actual data or are you just going along with press releases and marketing?

Have you actually looked at the actual composition of these vaccines or are you just going along with the hype and fear-mongering?

 

[facetguy]

Where's Keyes been? I miss seeing more of that guy.

 

[Pharmavixen]

And if the safety data exists, and I mean safety data about all aspects of the entire vaccination schedule, not just MMR and thimerosal, then the gov't should have no difficulty presenting that to the public in a very straightforward fashion. So why isn't this done? It seems crazy to allow the mistrust and misunderstanding to continue if it's so easy to rectify.

But the safety data is there - tons of it, all over the CDC website. There's no conspiracy to hide data. With so many pdfs uploaded to the interweb, public access to tons of good medical data, and clear interpretations in lay language, are all over the place. Good information is more easily accessed now than any time in history.

There are safety data. The safety of vaccines is unequivocal and obvious, and is reiterated over and over again by the CDC and public health agencies. When children are not vaccinated, more of them die, end of story. But it's like arguing with creationists: when you point out the data, they ignore it, and say, "Where are the data? Where is the proof?"

What's more interesting is why there is the deliberate spread of this misinformation.

 

[facetguy]

And, to be honest, having seen an unvaccinated child who suffered permanent brain damage from pneumoccocal meningitis, I would rather take the chance and give my kids a trace of thimerosol, than run the risk that they end up dead or permanently mentally disabled.

Don't label me an anti-vaxxer or anything, but appropriately vaccinated kids suffer these same complications too (i.e., vaccine failures). In case you're wondering, yes my kids are vaccinated.

 

[illegallysmooth]

I don't see how so many of you can just say anti-vaccine proponents are crazy and automatically believe vaccines are safe. We've all had basic chemistry, we know mercury is neurotoxic, well overall extremely toxic, and we also know aluminum is quite toxic once it's in the body, it just doesn't absorb that well so we rarely worry about it(but having it injected is another story). I'm disappointed with how little we learn about toxicology so I try to study more when I can and from what I've read mixing mercury and aluminum increases their toxicity by well over 10x. Those of you that have had some basic toxicology know about the multiplier rule when combining toxins. I've never seen any studies that claim there's no correlation between autism and vaccine, but I've seen health department statistics that clearly show a correlation. Now correlation doesn't mean causation of course but it is highly suspicious, especially since we know autism doesn't cause vaccines, so we can rule out reverse correlation obviously. Have any of you actually looked at actual data or are you just going along with press releases and marketing?

I'm so sick of hearing this. There's more mercury in a serving of fish (not just tuna).

 

[smq123]

Don't label me an anti-vaxxer or anything, but appropriately vaccinated kids suffer these same complications too (i.e., vaccine failures). In case you're wondering, yes my kids are vaccinated.

Children who wear bicycle helmets can still suffer terrible head traumas. People who wear seatbelts still sometimes die in car accidents. People who watch their diets and exercise frequently still often have high cholesterol and may even suffer a stroke/heart attack. Does this mean that people shouldn't wear seatbelts or bicycle helmets? Or that people should be encouraged to eat as much junk food as they want and become couch potatoes?

Just because a preventive measure doesn't prevent a bad outcome 100% of the time doesn't mean that it's invalid or useless.

 

[facetguy]

Children who wear bicycle helmets can still suffer terrible head traumas. People who wear seatbelts still sometimes die in car accidents. People who watch their diets and exercise frequently still often have high cholesterol and may even suffer a stroke/heart attack. Does this mean that people shouldn't wear seatbelts or bicycle helmets? Or that people should be encouraged to eat as much junk food as they want and become couch potatoes?

Just because a preventive measure doesn't prevent a bad outcome 100% of the time doesn't mean that it's invalid or useless.

Thus my disclaimer to not label me an anti-vaxxer. You had emphasized unvaccinated in your post. My point was that these horrible outcomes happen to both vaxxed and unvaxxed kids, and it's horrible in either case. (I will admit, however, I do sneak some junk food once in awhile.)

 

[thedrjojo]

I'll keep it simple and ask you: why do so many parents (and others) out there continue to have concerns about vaccinations? If the science is so crystal clear, and the various government agencies have done such a stellar job of communicating to these parents, why the continued concerns? Many here will answer by saying that the Jenny McCarthy's of the world are to blame for drilling crazy ideas into peoples' heads. "It's hard to unscare someone", or some such thing. But it still comes back to the authorities charged with educating the public not doing a good enough job. And, as I stated above, doing a good enough job does not equal "just trust us", because that doesn't work. (And, as a young medical student, you should get used to the fact that your future patients won't always automatically trust you either; patients are becoming more sophisticated that way). No need to bring in UFOs and conspiracy theories; this is the current state of affairs and snide comments aren't productive. For such an established program as vaccinations, this shouldn't even be an issue. Let's get this overwith so these kids can get vaccinated with vaccines that everyone has confidence in.

PS Had you read Kirby's book, you would understand why there is so much skepticism out there. He documents extensively.

Another poster mentioned it, but I counter this argument with these other "why do they do this in the face of so much proof" arguments:

-Evolution vs Creationism
-The myths about the safety health concerns of abortions (and why laws are made forcing doctors to spew information not backed up by science or data)
-That waterboarding is torture and the US has considered it torture in ther past

People cling to their beliefs, people search for answers and grab onto them whenever they get a chance and refuse to, even in the face of insurmountable evidence, refuse to let them go...

just look at the UK and Denmark studies that included over 100,000 individuals and showed no link to autism and vaccination, and the argument should have ended...