Vaccines and Autism

[facetguy]

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...

This is a very reasonable response, and I think it's largely true. People do tend to cling to beliefs. But I still say the gov't blew it back in the day by being all secretive about vaccine info...that was a breeding ground for conspiracy theories. And back then, perhaps they had to be secretive; there was much less data available. It's arguable that these advocacy groups pushed the research to get done. Heck, no one had even added up the cumulative dosage of thimerosal in the vaccine schedule until more heat was on. Duh!

In the evolution vs. creationism instance, faith is faith and will almost never be changed. And waterboarding isn't torture and is valuable in certain circumstances (like an imminent terrorism plot); don't get all soft and leftie on me.

The UK and Denmark studies are about MMR and thimerosal, which we've already said have been well studied. They don't look at the entire vaccine schedule.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

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?

There was a large study done showing no increased risk between mercury containing vaccines and non-mercury containing vaccines. Do your homework.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

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.

I think one of the problems many of us have is the way the anti-vaccine crowd goes about this. At first, they KNEW that it was the mercury in MMRs that caused their kids to be autistic. We did a study that showed that to be false. They just seems to pick up a particular idea and run with it. Now, I'm deliberately not including you in that group. I think your approach of "we should do some further studies to make sure these are safe" is fair. I don't agree with it, but I can certainly see where you're coming from. You're not on TV every other week screaming about how vaccines caused brain damage in your child. You can see how the latter approach might rile us up a bit.

As for this thread - the articles that've been posted are utter crap and you know it. Yes, it did link to that EPA study which at minimum should raise a few eyebrows, but I don't think the commentary from the two opinion pieces are of any value.

 

[jonruh52]

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

Well yeah there's more mercury in a large plate of tuna, but it's not injected directly into you. And we need to address more than mercury but also the aluminum salts used in vaccines.

 

[jonruh52]

There was a large study done showing no increased risk between mercury containing vaccines and non-mercury containing vaccines. Do your homework.

I've read some studies that make these claims the problem is they don't hold up to what we've been taught about conflicts of interest and industry ethics. Not only was the data selectively obtained but the meat of the study made no sense to lead to such a conclusion. I wish I could find this study referred to so often(it's a large Danish study) but they followed kids that were given either one vaccine with thimerosal or one vaccine without, but then they were also given their entire regular vaccine schedule and it wasn't even tracked. They then checked how many autism diagnosis there were in the group after 10 years. But that's completely useless because the only thing that changed for these kids was simply one vaccine. Yet in their conclusion they say that using a vaccine without thimerosal had no difference on the outcome. It's such terrible manipulative science, it's hardly science, it's sham marketing almost. I'd never dream of doing a study like that, it's just so unethical and you'd think the same if you read these studies.

 

[facetguy]

I think one of the problems many of us have is the way the anti-vaccine crowd goes about this. At first, they KNEW that it was the mercury in MMRs that caused their kids to be autistic. We did a study that showed that to be false. They just seems to pick up a particular idea and run with it. Now, I'm deliberately not including you in that group. I think your approach of "we should do some further studies to make sure these are safe" is fair. I don't agree with it, but I can certainly see where you're coming from. You're not on TV every other week screaming about how vaccines caused brain damage in your child. You can see how the latter approach might rile us up a bit.

By its nature, the autism issue is a highly emotional one for parents. No doubt that fuels the fire. Public demonstrations are, however, an age-old method of gaining attention to one's cause, so I don't blame these groups for pursuing that approach, nor do I blame them for obtaining some celebrities to front them (any advertising person would say that is textbook tactics). And, yes, thimerosal and MMR were the two foci of advocacy groups initially. I don't really have much of a problem with that, and as I said earlier, it's arguable that the amount of saftey data we have today regarding these 2 vaccine-related issues would not exist had there not been the repeated call for this research by advocacy groups.

I'm not sure how or why you would be opposed to plugging any holes in the vaccine safety data with further research.

As for this thread - the articles that've been posted are utter crap and you know it. Yes, it did link to that EPA study which at minimum should raise a few eyebrows, but I don't think the commentary from the two opinion pieces are of any value.

I realized immediately that the OP article wasn't the greatest representation, so I posted the Kirby article which I still say was factual and informative, at the very least raising my awareness (and I'm sure the awareness of everyone else reading along) as to the existence of the EPA study and it's key findings. I don't see how that is utter crap. OK, his inclusion of the vaccine-related associations toward the end of course stems from his position on things, but he does follow this research more closely than you or I and therefore has a certain context. Remember, the EPA article suggests a role of environmental/exogenous triggers; various other gov't agencies charged with studying autism have suggested the same thing (discussed in other threads); and portions of these studies will include vaccines as one potential source of exogenous triggers, albeit a small one and one that likely impacts only a subset of susceptible kids (also discussed in earlier threads). So Kirby's not all that off-base.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I've read some studies that make these claims the problem is they don't hold up to what we've been taught about conflicts of interest and industry ethics. Not only was the data selectively obtained but the meat of the study made no sense to lead to such a conclusion. I wish I could find this study referred to so often(it's a large Danish study) but they followed kids that were given either one vaccine with thimerosal or one vaccine without, but then they were also given their entire regular vaccine schedule and it wasn't even tracked. They then checked how many autism diagnosis there were in the group after 10 years. But that's completely useless because the only thing that changed for these kids was simply one vaccine. Yet in their conclusion they say that using a vaccine without thimerosal had no difference on the outcome. It's such terrible manipulative science, it's hardly science, it's sham marketing almost. I'd never dream of doing a study like that, it's just so unethical and you'd think the same if you read these studies.

OK, I'll do your research for you.

Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California's Developmental Services System
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(1):19-24.
Conclusions The DDS data do not show any recent decrease in autism in California despite the exclusion of more than trace levels of thimerosal from nearly all childhood vaccines. The DDS data do not support the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal during childhood is a primary cause of autism.

Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 1 July 2006, pp. e139-e150

CONCLUSIONS. The prevalence of pervasive developmental disorder in Montreal was high, increasing in recent birth cohorts as found in most countries. Factors accounting for the increase include a broadening of diagnostic concepts and criteria, increased awareness and, therefore, better identification of children with pervasive developmental disorders in communities and epidemiologic surveys, and improved access to services. The findings ruled out an association between pervasive developmental disorder and either high levels of ethylmercury exposure comparable with those experienced in the United States in the 1990s or 1- or 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccinations.

Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Critical Review of Published Original Data
PEDIATRICS Vol. 114 No. 3 September 2004, pp. 793-804

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.

Get started on those and feel free to get back to me.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

By its nature, the autism issue is a highly emotional one for parents. No doubt that fuels the fire. Public demonstrations are, however, an age-old method of gaining attention to one's cause, so I don't blame these groups for pursuing that approach, nor do I blame them for obtaining some celebrities to front them (any advertising person would say that is textbook tactics). And, yes, thimerosal and MMR were the two foci of advocacy groups initially. I don't really have much of a problem with that, and as I said earlier, it's arguable that the amount of saftey data we have today regarding these 2 vaccine-related issues would not exist had there not been the repeated call for this research by advocacy groups.

I'm not sure how or why you would be opposed to plugging any holes in the vaccine safety data with further research.

Simply put, the evidence that I have seen tells me that vaccines are safe and I'm not sure I see the value in spending all this money on further research, outside of the basic science stuff perhaps.

My issue isn't that they have a problem with vaccine safety. They should just come out and say that. Instead, they find a pet reason why vaccines are bad and go after that like a bulldog. When that gets disproved, they pick another random variable to go after. I don't think these people will ever be satisfied because they'll always be able to find something new that they are sure connects vaccines to autism. In addition, this is leading to increased rates of unvaccinated kids. If you have a problem with vaccine safety, by all means champion it. Don't do something potentially life-threatening out of what looks to be a misguided fear.

I realized immediately that the OP article wasn't the greatest representation, so I posted the Kirby article which I still say was factual and informative, at the very least raising my awareness (and I'm sure the awareness of everyone else reading along) as to the existence of the EPA study and it's key findings. I don't see how that is utter crap. OK, his inclusion of the vaccine-related associations toward the end of course stems from his position on things, but he does follow this research more closely than you or I and therefore has a certain context. Remember, the EPA article suggests a role of environmental/exogenous triggers; various other gov't agencies charged with studying autism have suggested the same thing (discussed in other threads); and portions of these studies will include vaccines as one potential source of exogenous triggers, albeit a small one and one that likely impacts only a subset of susceptible kids (also discussed in earlier threads). So Kirby's not all that off-base.

Having just re-read, Kirby's first half is quite reasonable though it is just a summation of the EPA article. I even like how he gives a big ole list of things that could be potential environmental factors. However, there are a few inconsistencies in his larger discussion on vaccines. First, the vaccine schedule has been mostly consistent for the past decade or so and yet autism is still on the rise. Second, the vaccines he lists as being changed/added around 1989 were added piecemeal over 5-7 years yet the autism rate continues to increase at the same rate as the initial rise noted around 1989-1990.

I ask you this - how would you design studies to show which vaccines may or may not be harmful. A double-blind prospective study exposes half the kids to the potential for very nasty diseases. A retrospective study would likely be an all or none deal, as I think most anti-vaccine parents don't just refuse 1 kind. The basic sciences are useful, but without a good clinical trial they just hint at problems.

 

[facetguy]

Having just re-read, Kirby's first half is quite reasonable though it is just a summation of the EPA article. I even like how he gives a big ole list of things that could be potential environmental factors. However, there are a few inconsistencies in his larger discussion on vaccines. First, the vaccine schedule has been mostly consistent for the past decade or so and yet autism is still on the rise. Second, the vaccines he lists as being changed/added around 1989 were added piecemeal over 5-7 years yet the autism rate continues to increase at the same rate as the initial rise noted around 1989-1990.

I ask you this - how would you design studies to show which vaccines may or may not be harmful. A double-blind prospective study exposes half the kids to the potential for very nasty diseases. A retrospective study would likely be an all or none deal, as I think most anti-vaccine parents don't just refuse 1 kind. The basic sciences are useful, but without a good clinical trial they just hint at problems.

Perhaps one way would be to run the vax vs. unvax study that has been called for over the years. You get around the ethical violations of knowingly keeping kids unvaxed by utilizing a group of kids who are already not vaccinated per parental choice, and I'd bet there are a sufficient number of those to run a study with enough power. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

 

[thedrjojo]

This is a very reasonable response, and I think it's largely true. People do tend to cling to beliefs. But I still say the gov't blew it back in the day by being all secretive about vaccine info...that was a breeding ground for conspiracy theories. And back then, perhaps they had to be secretive; there was much less data available. It's arguable that these advocacy groups pushed the research to get done. Heck, no one had even added up the cumulative dosage of thimerosal in the vaccine schedule until more heat was on. Duh!

In the evolution vs. creationism instance, faith is faith and will almost never be changed. And waterboarding isn't torture and is valuable in certain circumstances (like an imminent terrorism plot); don't get all soft and leftie on me.

The UK and Denmark studies are about MMR and thimerosal, which we've already said have been well studied. They don't look at the entire vaccine schedule.

I thought about another one - that HIV doesn't cause AIDS (another area the government blew in containing... HIV, not the loons out there thinking HIV doesn't cause aids)...

Not to go too much into a tangent, but waterboarding is torture... torture in theory can be valuable (so your argument that it is valuable does not exclude it from being torture) although there is no evidence and reports actually proport that the use of waterboarding was detrimental and not valuable... its not soft and leftie to value our nations morals and our pledge agreement to not torture... but don't spit in my face and tell me its raining... we executed Japanese during WW2 for waterboarding calling it torture, so there is precedent...

to respond to facet, and doing the vax vs unvax study as you propose would not truely be a randomized study, would not necessarily be without biases in selection (ie, how are you recruiting the volunteers, are people already autsitic going to be jumping forward? what about all the unvax'd that get sick and die, how do you count them or know they weren't gonna be autsitic? there are so many confounders if you want this to be retrospective...) ... the only way you could do that would be to select from birth or even during pregnancy and, even if it wasn't going to be randomized into vax vs unvax, still look at it prospectively, and to get any power you need N in the 10,000's to 100,000's.

 

[K9VET]

LOL.

You know, I fully support the right of people not to give their children vaccines.

Within a few years the stupid will be bred out of the gene pool, and this problem will take care of itself.

Natural selection, FTW!

I assume that you're NOT part of the "stupid" population that will be bred out due to the lack of vaccinations?

Are you sure you learned evolution theory correctly back in college? Natural Selection implies that the survival of the fittest without the external influences of unnatural forces (like vaccines, for instance). As far as evidence is concerned, humans have been SUCCESSFULLY surviving and breeding on this planet for many thousands of years prior to the development of vaccines. Wild dogs in Africa are not vaccinated against distemper; nonetheless their population has never been seriously affected by the lack of mass vaccinations...

So, your argument that vaccines are promoting the survival of the fittest (i.e. the most intelligent in your view) is absolutely contrary to the evolutionary hypothesis, which ascertains the opposite - that vaccines are actually enabling the survival of the weakest - of those individuals unable to rely on their immune system to survive a natural infection.

Your argument that vaccines prevent human beings (or any other species) from being wiped out of the map is deeply flawed and reveals that your scientific thinking is very weak. (sad thing for a doctor)

I really support the right of people to pay thousands and thousands of Dollars for their medical education; no matter how much they pay, no one can beat the motivation of those really interested in learning.

"It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well" - (Rene Descartes)

PS: I vaccinate my kids

 

[cpants]

I thought about another one - that HIV doesn't cause AIDS (another area the government blew in containing... HIV, not the loons out there thinking HIV doesn't cause aids)...

Not to go too much into a tangent, but waterboarding is torture... torture in theory can be valuable (so your argument that it is valuable does not exclude it from being torture) although there is no evidence and reports actually proport that the use of waterboarding was detrimental and not valuable... its not soft and leftie to value our nations morals and our pledge agreement to not torture... but don't spit in my face and tell me its raining... we executed Japanese during WW2 for waterboarding calling it torture, so there is precedent...

to respond to facet, and doing the vax vs unvax study as you propose would not truely be a randomized study, would not necessarily be without biases in selection (ie, how are you recruiting the volunteers, are people already autsitic going to be jumping forward? what about all the unvax'd that get sick and die, how do you count them or know they weren't gonna be autsitic? there are so many confounders if you want this to be retrospective...) ... the only way you could do that would be to select from birth or even during pregnancy and, even if it wasn't going to be randomized into vax vs unvax, still look at it prospectively, and to get any power you need N in the 10,000's to 100,000's.

I think your examples are a bit political and more differences of opinion than people ignoring verifiable facts. The best parallel I can think of to the anti-vaccine crowd is the 9/11 deniers. Despite the fact that the events were witnessed by literally millions of people and despite prompt, thorough, and sound debunking of all of the crazy theories, 9/11 truthers still cling to the idea that the whole thing was a government conspiracy, we bombed the buildings, you name it.

 

[thedrjojo]

I think your examples are a bit political and more differences of opinion than people ignoring verifiable facts. The best parallel I can think of to the anti-vaccine crowd is the 9/11 deniers. Despite the fact that the events were witnessed by literally millions of people and despite prompt, thorough, and sound debunking of all of the crazy theories, 9/11 truthers still cling to the idea that the whole thing was a government conspiracy, we bombed the buildings, you name it.

2 of my 4 i do agree are politically based mainly... 1 is spiritually based (evolution) and HIV doesn't cause AIDS is a prime comparison of wack job science/conspiracy theory (or those that think the government developed HIV to wipe out the gays and blacks)

 

[DrArete]

.

 

[thedrjojo]

K9VET continues to show no logic in their posts, and is continuing to take fringe and extremist view points and fails to even acknowledge others positions or others points, even when supported by facts.

 

[Pharmavixen]

K9VET continues to show no logic in their posts, and is continuing to take fringe and extremist view points and fails to even acknowledge others positions or others points, even when supported by facts.

 

[morning]

What else has been increasing since 1988?

HIV (and other STDs?) The use of birth control. The use of "natural" health supplements. The use of diet pills. Older mothers.

Having never produced a single shred of evidence to support their whack opinions, anti-vaccine parents should quit yammering about it and keep their opinions and decisions to themselves. When they come up with ANYTHING that supports a link between vaccines and autism, they can come back to the debate table.

Someone in another thread on SDN said it best - correlation is not causation, but autism and vaccines aren't even CORRELATED except in the nutty minds of the anti-vaccine horde.

 

[Geethika]

There is no human DNA vaccines that is prepared from a aborted fetus. If at all such thing happen also, it has to be prepared individually for a single person, as DNA differs for every one.

 

[Substance]

Has anyone considered that autism cases are increasing because we're diagnosing it more often? Is that too difficult a concept for the public to grasp? Is it difficult because there's no vaccine to blame?

Segue:

I wonder if these kids are actually autistic, particularly the Asperger's diagnoses, or if they just don't relate to the *****s the school system forces them to associate with and therefore seem antisocial.

Anecdotally, I have seen a little awkward fat kid be labelled with Aspergers by a pediatron based on his interactions at school. BS! He's a weird looking fat kid - of course he isn't going to have a good social life at school! Frustrating.

 

[facetguy]

Has anyone considered that autism cases are increasing because we're diagnosing it more often? Is that too difficult a concept for the public to grasp? Is it difficult because there's no vaccine to blame?

Yes, of course this has been considered and cannot account for the rise in autism. Recent CDC data confirms this.

 

[Pharmavixen]

Yes, of course this has been considered and cannot account for the rise in autism. Recent CDC data confirms this.

I asked about this earlier in this thread (or maybe another); it hasn't been confirmed, far as I have been able to find out. What you have are a lot of people saying it's so, but when you keep in mind the diagnosis of Asperger's has only existed since the 1990s, I'm not satisfied it isn't largely just an excess of diagnosis.

 

[facetguy]

I asked about this earlier in this thread (or maybe another); it hasn't been confirmed, far as I have been able to find out. What you have are a lot of people saying it's so, but when you keep in mind the diagnosis of Asperger's has only existed since the 1990s, I'm not satisfied it isn't largely just an excess of diagnosis.

Assuming as you are for a moment that there isn't a real increase in autism cases happening, when then will this rationale of 'broader diagnostic criteria' expire? How slow is the learning curve among clinicians?

 

[cpants]

Assuming as you are for a moment that there isn't a real increase in autism cases happening, when then will this rationale of 'broader diagnostic criteria' expire? How slow is the learning curve among clinicians?

Like most things in medicine the increase is probably multifactorial. Part of it may be a true increase in autism incidence. Part of it may be changes in diagnostic criteria, age of diagnosis, and increased case recognition.

One other factor we aren't considering are economic and societal pressures. Even if nothing had changed with criteria/age of diagnosis, we'd probably see a boom in autism diagnosis right now. Why? Because it is a desirable diagnosis. Most of these kids would have previously been labeled as MR. A diagnosis of ASD means a lot more resources, special schools and programs from infancy, less social stigma (this can all be blamed on environmental factors, vaccines, the government), and a huge support system. For a parent with of a child with a developmental disorder, an ASD diagnosis can be desirable. Ask anyone in special education, a lot of these ASD dx's are dubious.

 

[facetguy]

Like most things in medicine the increase is probably multifactorial. Part of it may be a true increase in autism incidence. Part of it may be changes in diagnostic criteria, age of diagnosis, and increased case recognition.

One other factor we aren't considering are economic and societal pressures. Even if nothing had changed with criteria/age of diagnosis, we'd probably see a boom in autism diagnosis right now. Why? Because it is a desirable diagnosis. Most of these kids would have previously been labeled as MR. A diagnosis of ASD means a lot more resources, special schools and programs from infancy, less social stigma (this can all be blamed on environmental factors, vaccines, the government), and a huge support system. For a parent with of a child with a developmental disorder, an ASD diagnosis can be desirable. Ask anyone in special education, a lot of these ASD dx's are dubious.

Good thoughts. I wonder though if there has been a corresponding reduction in the dx of mental ******ation?

 

[J-Rad]

I am not going to post an extensive response (I may, or may not later)

I asked about this earlier in this thread (or maybe another); it hasn't been confirmed, far as I have been able to find out. What you have are a lot of people saying it's so, but when you keep in mind the diagnosis of Asperger's has only existed since the 1990s, I'm not satisfied it isn't largely just an excess of diagnosis.

Based on my experience in peds residency, there has long been a belief that there has been a true rise in the prevalence and incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders (amongst pediatricians and developmentalists as well as other ASD experts). The recent CDC study just put data to it. The community at large and the CDC study also believed and put data (respectively) to the idea that increasing diagnosis of children who once would have been diagnosed as mentally ******ed partially, but not wholly explained the increase. This is what annoys me about the Kirby's of the world. This study comes out and the medical community says "great, now we have some data behind our thoughts, lets press on.." by Kirby waves his arms saying "I told you so" (umm, what? The study backed up what we already thought...) out of his need to be a "prophet" (no real quotes, just my take on it). I would have once said that no-one said that there was no true rise in autism, however had I ever made the statement I would have had to concede that point after browsing (I think) Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" book. But Shermer is as irrelevant to the practice of pediatrics/behavioral pediatrics as Kirby is.

Assuming as you are for a moment that there isn't a real increase in autism cases happening, when then will this rationale of 'broader diagnostic criteria' expire? How slow is the learning curve among clinicians?

Not as slow as people are making out to be. Remember the CDC study came out of the mainstream medical community that is searching just as hard for answers (and in my view, in far more productive ways) as anyone else. They've put their money and effort where their mouths are as best as is ethically, financially, and practically as possible (dig up one of Old Bear Professor's erudite responses as to some of the challenges of research in this area).

Like most things in medicine the increase is probably multifactorial. Part of it may be a true increase in autism incidence. Part of it may be changes in diagnostic criteria, age of diagnosis, and increased case recognition.

One other factor we aren't considering are economic and societal pressures. Even if nothing had changed with criteria/age of diagnosis, we'd probably see a boom in autism diagnosis right now. Why? Because it is a desirable diagnosis. Most of these kids would have previously been labeled as MR. A diagnosis of ASD means a lot more resources, special schools and programs from infancy, less social stigma (this can all be blamed on environmental factors, vaccines, the government), and a huge support system. For a parent with of a child with a developmental disorder, an ASD diagnosis can be desirable. Ask anyone in special education, a lot of these ASD dx's are dubious.

Good thoughts. I wonder though if there has been a corresponding reduction in the dx of mental ******ation?

See above. But my one qualm is: Unless the people in special education are trained in pediatrics, developmental/behavioral peds, psychologists (along with some clinical social workers) trained specifically in autism, or speech language pathologists (who have a surprising facility with suspicion for ASDs as they often present primarily with speech delay) then I don't really care much what people in special education say. Teachers are good at teaching and figuring out things related to pedagogy (and occasionally they are OK with LDs), not at figuring out bio-psychiatric pathology or diagnostic criteria.

 

[jonruh52]

OK, I'll do your research for you.

Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California's Developmental Services System
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(1):19-24.
Conclusions The DDS data do not show any recent decrease in autism in California despite the exclusion of more than trace levels of thimerosal from nearly all childhood vaccines. The DDS data do not support the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal during childhood is a primary cause of autism.

Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 1 July 2006, pp. e139-e150

CONCLUSIONS. The prevalence of pervasive developmental disorder in Montreal was high, increasing in recent birth cohorts as found in most countries. Factors accounting for the increase include a broadening of diagnostic concepts and criteria, increased awareness and, therefore, better identification of children with pervasive developmental disorders in communities and epidemiologic surveys, and improved access to services. The findings ruled out an association between pervasive developmental disorder and either high levels of ethylmercury exposure comparable with those experienced in the United States in the 1990s or 1- or 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccinations.

Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Critical Review of Published Original Data
PEDIATRICS Vol. 114 No. 3 September 2004, pp. 793-804

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.

Get started on those and feel free to get back to me.

See you're quoting me the conclusions. Don't look at the conclusions because theses studies draw conclusions that aren't even based on the data collected in the study. They say something silly like "he pharmacokinetics of ethylmercury make such an association less likely" when the only study really done on ethylmercury would make it more likely and they should know this unless they're basing this entire study on creating the outcomes they want. The other silly thing is that first study talks about removing the mercury to now just trace levels. It went from 25micrograms to 15 micrograms on average. It's all in how you define trace and that's up to the manufacturer.

The problem here is people don't bother to read these studies and then think about it at all. Think about how you would've done a study to try and obtain actual scientific knowledge and you start to realize these studies sometimes contain data that's clearly been manipulated or had sets removed (sometimes researchers come out and even admit it later, or it's caught on meeting minutes) but the real problem is how they base these conclusions on things that just aren't there. We would never dream of doing a study so sloppily and basing claims unrelated to the data. It just really sends up a red flag for me and a lot of others, especially those that have reviewed a lot of legit toxicology studies.

 

[Rabbit Hole]

.