NYT: No Vaccine-Autism Link, Parents Are Told

[DeepModem Mom]

No Vaccine-Autism Link, Parents Are Told
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: July 20, 2005


WASHINGTON, July 19 - Top officials from three of the nation's premier public health agencies held an unusual news conference on Tuesday to say that childhood vaccines are life-saving medicines with no proven link to autism.

"The science says very clearly that vaccines save lives and protect our children," said one of the officials, Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

To many, that declaration might have seemed akin to an announcement so basic as that high cholesterol readings are linked with heart disease. But the officials felt a need to make a forceful defense of vaccines because a growing number of parents contend that a mercury-containing vaccine preservative called thimerosal caused their children to become autistic. Indeed, several parents held a vigil outside the news conference, with one holding a large sign blaming vaccines for her child's disorder.

Representative Dave Weldon, a Florida Republican who champions the notion that thimerosal has caused an explosion of autism cases around the world, attended the news conference and, after it ended, gave his own press briefing criticizing the public health officials....

***

Thimerosal was largely removed from all childhood vaccines in 2001....Joining Dr. Gerberding at the news conference were Dr. Duane Alexander, director of the National Institute of Child Health Development, and Dr. Murray M. Lumpkin, acting deputy commissioner for international and special programs at the Food and Drug Administration....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/20vaccine.html

[trotsky]

1. The dangers of not vaccinating...

are far, far more serious than even the most paranoid anti-vaccination crusaders can imagine the vaccines themselves are.

[leesa]

2. Right. You can vaccinate without the mercury added.

The link has been well proven, especially in a unique study within the Amish country (the Amish do not usually vaccinate), where not a single case of austism has ever been reported except in one child who had received vaccines.

[hallc]

5. Oh boy

Don't get me started. The statement you are making about Amish people not getting vaccinated is NOT true. I worked in an Amish clinic in Lancaster County, PA and witnessed the vaccinations of MANY Amish children. What is more probable is that there is a genetic component to Autism, that when combined with an environmental component causes the disorder. The reason that the Amish may not have a high incidence of Autism is because it wasn't present in their founding population, thus not in their gene pool. You could easily make the same argument for Cystic Fibrosis - it is VERY rare to find an Amish child with cystic fibrosis - its just not in their gene pool.

[Ilsa]

32. ITA.

"What is more probable is that there is a genetic component to Autism, that when combined with an environmental component causes the disorder."

I think this is well said and ITA. I only wish it was well-established for purposes of treatment research and insurance coverage. I was explaining to a friend yesterday that we with autistic children experience insurance coverage discrimination on anything related to autism because it is viewed as "developmental" and therefore the child should "grow" out of it.

In my case, I think my son is affected by some recent vaxes I had before I got pregnant, mercury amalgams of mine from years ago, and a genetic predisposition to be able to clear environmental "junk" from the body.

[HuckleB]

19. On the other hand...

Autism rises despite MMR ban in Japan:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7076

[PA Democrat]

126. FYI, the MMR vaccine never did contain thimerosal

[HuckleB]

127. I know.

That didn't stop some folks from trying to implicate it as a cause of Autism, however.

On edit: I do admit that it seems I should have posted something like this http://www.autism-biomed.org/thimerosal-pertussis.htm instead.

[Boomer]

3. * Deleted *

I'm too tired to write coherently.

[Ms. Toad]

14. I have to disagree with that.

- and it is a bad day for me to have run across it. I just finished giving my 14 year old an enema, to be repeated twice tomorrow morning in preparation for her annual colonoscopy. (She has has now hit 10 years of living with IBD - the point at which her cancer risk hits that of a 50 year old.) It is unlikely she will be able to keep her colon past her 20's - assuming we catch any developing cancer early enough for her not to die from it. In addition to the risk of cancer, she is on maintenance medication which costs several hundred dollars a month (fortunately we have insurance that pays for most of it), and which is known to cause kidney and liver damage with long term use. She is lucky because this relatively mild medication (compared to other IBD meds - including steroids) actually keeps her IBD under control.

Her IBD is very likely linked to her MMR vaccinations.

http://www.whale.to/a/crohns2.html - Lancet, 1995 Apr, 345:8957, 1071-4

>>In view of the rising incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis), we examined the impact of measles vaccination upon these conditions . . . the relative risk of developing Crohn’s disease in the vaccinated group was 3.01 (95% CI 1.45-6.23) and of developing ulcerative colitis was 2.53 (1.15-5.58). . . . Increased prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease . . . was found in the vaccinated cohort compared with their partners. These findings suggest that measles virus may play a part in the development not only of Crohn’s disease but also of ulcerative colitis.<< (Not the only mainstream study I have read establishing this link - just the first I could put my hands on)

I am not uniformly opposed to vaccinations. Certainly I would not argue with pushing vaccinations for polio and tetanus which have routinely fatal or debilitating consequences - BUT vaccinations are now being created, pushed, or made mandatory for illnesses that are relatively mild and for which the risks associated with the vaccinations may well be worse than the illness itself - like flu vaccinations for the majority of otherwise healthy individuals. The immune system is a complex system we do not yet understand - and given that autoimmune disorders (like IBD) have dramatically increased during the years in which vaccinations have also dramatically increased we need applaud, not condemn, parents who choose not to blindly accept the vaccination mantra.

In the mean time, I am hoping for a clean scope in the morning - and for years to come.

[trotsky]

31. One thing you should understand

is that by defending the use of vaccines, NO ONE is trivializing or dismissing autism or conditions like your daughter deals with. You're among liberals - we DO care about what others have to go through.

But it is worth pointing out that if your daughter had not had the MMR vaccine (which does not and never did contain thimerosal), she would have been at significant risk for contracting measles (which still kills people in this country - unvaccinated people, that is) and still developed Crohn's disease. There's also strong research indicating a link between exposure to cigarette smoke and Crohn's disease.

Basically I'm repeating what I said above. Yes, there are risks associated with vaccines. But the risks of the vaccines are trivial compared to the risks associated with catching the diseases they protect against.

[Ms. Toad]

135. What you (and others) are dismissing

are the valid concerns I have about pushing/mandating the use of vaccinations for relatively trivial illnesses (Rubella - except for pregnant women, mumps - as a childhood disease, flu for healthy individuals past infancy and before 50-60); for illnesses where the risk of exposure is relatively small (HiB at age 5 for school entry rather than illness prevention or for children age 0-5 who are not placed in daycare); or in combination vaccinations which the body generally finds harder to process (M-M-R, D-T-P).

There are illnesses for which there is little question that the risks of the illness outweigh the risks associated with vaccination - such as polio and tetanus - and I have little problem strongly encouraging vaccinations in those instances. My concern, is that the vaccination push is overly broad. For example, based on the assumption that vaccines are harmless and the vast majority of children are in day care before they enter kindergarten, HiB vaccinations are now mandatory for admission to kindergarten (the first time it is really possible to enforce mandatory vaccinations) - even if they are given at age 5 (when the risk virtually disappears) solely to permit the child to enter kindergarten, and even if the child is never placed in child care. Vaccination against chicken pox using a live virus is currently being urged for all children, even though the duration of the immunity created is unknown, and early indications are that using a live virus may create shingles later in life - which is probably the most significant risk associated with the illness itself.

Those of us who choose to selectively vaccinate based on a reasoned assessment of the relative risks are characterized as child abusers and paranoid anti-vaccination crusaders - even by self-described liberals - rather than as parents who are making difficult choices about appropriate medical care for our children.

By the way, nothing in my post - or the medical article from a mainstream medical journal to which I linked - identified thimerosol as the reason that the rate of crohns/ulcerative colitis for children given the MMR vaccination was 300% that of unvaccinated children, so your assertion that the MMR vaccine does not have thimerosol is irrelevant to the concern I raised, as is the correlation between cigarette smoke and crohns disease.

One of the traits I respect is independent thinking about difficult issues, which I have rarely seen in the vaccination debate on DU. Unfortunately, I am much more likely to encounter condemnation and name calling for failure to follow the rote party vaccination line. Particularly on days like today, as I wait for the results from the vaccine linked cancer screening for my teenage daughter, I have little patience for it.

There are real risks associated with vaccinations which are unrelated to the use of thimerosol. Before you dismiss the risks associated with vaccines as trivial in comparison to the risks associated with catching the disease I hope you will expand your horizons a bit, both with respect to the variety of illnesses for which vaccines are currently mandated or coerced, as well as the variety of concerns about the use of vaccines, of which thimerosol is only one.

[trotsky]

147. But you see, it's not just those who get vaccinated.

"Herd immunity" is the term often used to describe a population that is sufficiently immunized so as to prevent the transmission of a disease to those members of the "herd" who are not immune. There do not exist enough vulnerable individuals to form a chain of transmission of the disease.

This is why we vaccinate for diseases like rubella. They are not threats in and of themselves, BUT to certain individuals in the "herd," they can be deadly. We all accept a small risk so that others don't have to accept a very large and very real risk. That's part of being an enlightened individual in a modern society. Part of being "liberal," I dare say.

You may believe you are "making difficult choices about appropriate medical care for our children," but the bottom line is that you are being selfish and putting your (at this point unfounded) fears above the health & well-being of others in society.

I mentioned the lack of thimerosal in MMR just to point out that your bringing it into a discussion about an article saying there is no thimerosal-autism link was not germane to the topic.

By the way, your daughter's cancer is not "vaccine-linked," it is virus-linked. As I tried to point out, if the measles virus does indeed cause IBD, then she would have gotten it even if she hadn't been vaccinated but had caught measles instead.

Before you dismiss the risks of the diseases that no longer plague us and kill thousands of children, I hope that you will expand your horizons a bit too and look into the ravages these diseases once caused.

On edit: I found a study which may interest you regarding the MMR vaccine and IBD. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/01vol27/dr2708ea.html

[Ms. Toad]

205. So now I'm selfish,

as well as a child abuser and paranoid. I am not sure quite how you can be so confident about that in the absence of any knowledge of which (if any) vaccinations I have decided not to give my child, or why - which is my point.

There are valid arguments both in favor of vaccination (in some instances), against it (in some instances), or in favor of different implementations (in some instances when vaccinations are in the combined best interests of both society and the individuals, but the implementation creates risks). It is not a black and white issue. I have not seen anything in any of your responses here or in the parenting forum which allows for any of the shades of grey that are inherent in the field of medicine generally, and even more so in the field of immunology.

Some of us remember when radium pellets were routinely used to quell bleeding from fibroids because the radium pellets were "harmless." My great grandmother died from radium induced uterine cancer. Some of us also remember when chest x-rays were a routine part of every annual exam. My mother is now living with breast cancer - likely linked to the annual x-rays she received in the 30s as a child. Friends I grew up with in the 60s and 70s are having life threatening melanoma removed annually, which was caused by the acne radiation treatment they received as teens. Lots of DES daughters, sons, and grandchildren are living with the unexpected consequences of the miraculous anti-miscarriage drug used during their mother's and grandmother's pregnancies.

The negative impacts of many medical treatments we believed were miraculous during their early years often were not established for decades. Most of the miracle vaccinations that are currently mandatory have been developed in my lifetime - about a third of them in my teenage daughter's lifetime. In depth study and understanding of the immune system did not seriously begin until the AIDS epidemic hit in the mid 80s, and there is still a lot more that we do not know than that we do know about the immune system and its interactions with vaccinations. We do know that there is an increase in immunological disorders that corresponds to the increased use of vaccinations. We do know that vaccine created immunity is not the same as natural immunity - for one thing, vaccine induced immunity is generally not permanent. We also know that serious and reputable studies about the links between vaccinations and a variety of risks are still returning mixed results.

There may or may not ultimately be proven links, but the correlation should urge caution, rather than an unquestioning rush to mandate/coerce the use of every vaccination that comes along. It really reminds me of the rush to use radiation over at least half a century to treat so many different conditions before we really understood the other impacts radiation has on the human body. Just as with radiation for which there are valid and important uses, there are valid and important uses for vaccinations. I also suspect that when the dust settles we will ultimately wish we had been more cautious in our indiscriminate use of vaccinations, just as we now wish we had been more cautious in our indiscriminate use of radiation.

As an example, with respect to the MMR vaccinations, we could be more cautious and still protect at risk individuals by:

Splitting the vaccination into its component parts and giving them separately - they are easier for the body to handle separately than merged and at least one study links exposure to mumps and measles in the same year as increasing the risk for IBD.

Giving the vaccinations for generally innocuous illnesses at times geared to protect those individuals at significant risk, at the times of most significant risk. Neither rubella or mumps pose any significant risks for pre-teens. The rubella vaccination, at the time is is now given, often does not create immunity that lasts into adulthood, leaving the most vulnerable population (childbearing women) at risk for the worst possible period of their lives. I have not specifically researched the duration of the immunity created by the mumps vaccine - but my suspicion is that it is similarly a temporary immunity. The significant mumps related risks do not appear until post-puberty - at which time their vaccine induced immunity may no longer provide protection.

A reasonable approach, would be to require both mumps and rubella (potentially as a separate vaccinations) prior to entry into Junior High School or High School for those individuals who have not been naturally immunized by illness, rather than uniformly requiring it in infancy. That timing would be much more likely to protect the at risk population because a greater portion of the population would develop natural and permanent immunity, and those who did not do so would create a temporary immunity geared to protect them during the greatest at risk period. It would also separate the mumps and measles exposure by a period of years, which might reduce the correlation between the measles vaccination and IBD if it turns out that it is the simultaneous exposure which creates the increased risk.

As far as herd immunity, I am aware of the concept - and it is not always a positive thing. There are some early indications that mass vaccination for chicken pox - creating the herd immunity you are promoting - will increase the incidence of shingles because the body's immune response to the presence of naturally occurring chicken pox permits many who harbor the shingles causing virus to avoid the late life reactivation.

Although I suspect all this is falling on deaf ears, as far as you are concerned, a realistic and open discussion on the rush to mass and unthinking vaccination for everything needs to take place - and I hope this provides some nuggets for that discussion.

[trotsky]

225. The bottom line is,

others in society face an increased risk of a deadly disease because you chose not to vaccinate. People who vaccinated, but did not develop an immune response. Or people whose immune systems are compromised and cannot get vaccinated. Or people with certain kinds of allergies. There's quite a few folks in those groups and others, and they depend on the rest of us to stay healthy.

Your decision, like many others in a society, is not made in a vacuum. There are consequences to others.

I'm vaccinated, and my kids are vaccinated. We're safe. So the only reason I argue on these threads is to try and prevent harm to OTHERS. I have no selfish motivation for anything vaccine-related. I'm not employed by "big pharma," I don't own stock in them, I don't work for a "corrupt" government agency, yada yada yada. I've been accused of all of that and more at one time or another. But from my point of view, if I didn't give a rat's ass about anyone else, I'd just let these anti-vaccine threads go undisturbed. Hey, the more people that are vulnerable to deadly diseases, the more that will die, and less population means more resources and jobs for my kids. Neat, huh? But I'm not a freeper. That doesn't sound like a nice future to me.

So here I am. And obviously, most of what I say falls on deaf ears too. Think about your vaccine schedule change proposal. To protect pregnant women, they either need to have been vaccinated as well, OR not be exposed to a chain of individuals - ANY individuals - who are not immune to the disease. So in your example, that chain could include anyone up until the age you deem it "safe" to get the vaccine. Your proposal would subject pregnant women to MORE possible routes of infection, not less.

Are you an immunologist?

I wish you would also acknowledge that your daughter's condition, if any outside agent is responsible for it, is due to the measles virus - which she might have contracted anyways even if she hadn't gotten the MMR shot.

People have readily admitted on this thread that they'll never accept any data that disproves a thimerosal-autism link. Hey, at least they're up front about it, I guess. So you tell me what that does to a discussion.

[Ms. Toad]

227. Yes, my ears are deaf to

insistence that the current vaccination regime (and the trend toward more and more mandatory vaccinations for more and more trivial illnesses) is the only appropriate vaccination regime, and to insistence that those of us who question the mantra are selfish, paranoid, child abusers.

My ears are also deaf to assertions that no children should ever be given vaccinations.

Neither position is in the best interest of either the children being vaccinated, or the population as a whole. The point of my participation in this exchange is to encourage sorely needed discussion in the middle ground between the extremes, and to request the cessation of the knee jerk name calling reaction that occurs every time someone in DU suggests that the current vaccination regime is anything other than a miracle panacea which deserves our unquestioning support.

As to whether IBD is virus or vaccine linked, what has been observed is a 300% increase in IBD among MMR vaccinated children, not among children exposed to naturally occurring measles. That is a fairly significant change for what used to be an almost exclusively adult onset disease. The fact that the observed increase in IBD is correlated specifically with the MMR vaccination does not exclude the possibility that the linkage is related in whole or in part to exposure to the virus contained in the vaccine. That is, after all, one of the variables in the equation. On the other hand it is not the only variable. We have dramatically increased the percentage of children exposed to the virus, dramatically lowered the age of the exposure, dramatically increased the percentage of children exposed to the virus at the same time they are exposed to the virus that causes mumps (another observed correlation with the increase in IBD), and have combined exposure to the virus with the exposure to a host of other things that make up the vaccination. Each of these additional variables is specifically vaccine linked, since none of them is associated with naturally occurring exposure with any regularity, and each has the potential to impact how our bodies respond to the exposure.

Anyone who argues that we need to protect pregnant women from exposure to rubella, grown men from exposure to mumps, or infants and the elderly from exposure to the flu inherently acknowledges that how and when individuals are exposed to viruses makes a difference in the consequences of that exposure. There is no logical reason to believe that the timing and other variables associated with artificial exposure are exempt from making a difference in the consequences of such exposure - especially in the face of observed correlations between increased vaccine use and IBD, autism, and autoimmune disorders. Those correlations should urge caution, just as the recognized correlation between deafness and prenatal exposure to rubella urged caution regarding prenatal rubella exposure even before a causal connection or the mechanism of harm from that exposure were scientifically proven.

In the realm of science, observations of a correlation generally precede verification that the correlation is repeatable and/or a specific to a particular variable, with the underlying mechanism of causation often not discovered for some time. I would suggest that we are currently in the middle phase of that process, and that until we have moved beyond the middle phase by establishing or disproving the correlation it is prudent to be conservative in our use of vaccinations. We should not reject the use completely, since the use of vaccinations in many instances is critical to the control of devastating illnesses such as polio and small pox. On the other hand, we should also use vaccinations conservatively out of respect for the vast amount we do not know yet know. We failed to do that with nuclear medicine and DES with pretty disastrous consequences. We ought to learn from our mistakes.

In response to your question, I am not an immunologist. I am a scientist, and my work includes medical biology (by practice) in addition to applied mathematics, physics, and computer science (by both formal education and practice). My medical clients include companies you would identify as “big pharma.” I also have a daughter with an autoimmune disorder so I keep up with the medical literature as part of her care. In that role, I have to be informed enough about several specialities (allergy, immunology, rheumatology, GI, and ID) to be able mediate between specialists, each of whom wants to lay sole claim to her illness, rejecting the possibility that her illness might have the audacity to cross speciality lines. My cross specialty understanding of the mechanism of her particular disease path was developed and adopted by the Crohns & Colitis Foundation approximately five years after I independently developed it as the explanation that best described what I had observed with respect to the trigger and progression of my daughter’s IBD. In addition, the only times she has not been in remission in the 10 years since diagnosis have been when we inadvertently ignored the observed correlations on which I based that explanation.

I believe my education, current work, and experience in successfully identifying critical factors in three separate family illnesses ahead of the medical practitioners treating those illnesses all qualify me to engage in an intelligent discussion about the risks and benefits of the current vaccination regime. I would be delighted to continue the discussion if you have something to add beyond continued name calling or repetition of the vaccination mantra, but my tolerance for being called selfish and paranoid has come to an end.

[trotsky]

228. Everything I have read, and the doctors and immunologists I have spoken to

have a different opinion than you do, on virtually everything from the current vaccination schedule to the risks of disease to the "correlation" of various maladies to vaccination. (Did you know that the use of infant car seats also strongly correlates to the rise in autism? I.e., correlation does not mean causation.)

You are free to choose your own vaccination schedule, but let me just reiterate that other people may pay a price for your fears.

That is all.

[RobinA]

226. Not Falling On Deaf Ears

I happen to agree with your reasoned approach. I am in no way anti-vaccination, but I do think things are going a tad off the deep end with vaccinations for everything with the assumption that vaccination is perfectly safe. I think vaccination against the bad stuff is completely appropriate, including rubella, which can have some dastardly side effects. I do have a problem with Chicken Pox and HiB, among others, for everyone. Also flu for the healthy.

[Ms. Toad]

229. Those are the three vaccinations

I have opted not to give my daughter - although had I known 15 years ago what I know now I would have pushed for separate vaccinations rather than the D-T-P and M-M-R triple whammies, and would likely have delayed or rejected the mumps vaccination, delayed the rubella vaccination, and possibly rejected the pertussis vaccination.

Rejecting the HiB and the flu vaccine were no brainers. My daughter was never in day care - the primary risk factor for HiB. Flu vaccinations are based on a best guess of what virus might cause the flu in any particular year and are wrong as often as they are right. Messing with an already challenged immune system by using a vaccination that only has a 50% or so chance of actually creating immunity against the current version of the flu just doesn't make sense for someone with a healthy respiratory system.

Rejecting vaccination for chicken pox on the other hand was not an easy decision. My daughter is one of those for whom chicken pox could have been extremely dangerous, since folks with IBD tend to be on and off steroids unpredictably and chicken pox while on steroids is really bad news. Vaccination itself was also troublesome since the system has to be free of steroids for a period of time in order to be able to be vaccinated. It was by no means clear when the vaccination became available (and she had just completed her first - and so far only - round of steroids) that she could either safely have the vaccine - or safely go without it.

Even though the "herd immunity" for chicken pox would have been great from a selfish perspective, I don't believe my daughter's personal level of risk (or that of others in similar situations with respect to this illness) justifies requiring everyone else to accept the risks associated with a relatively new vaccine for an illness that is relatively innocuous for most individuals, particularly in light of the unanswered questions about the interaction of vaccines in general with our immune systems and questions about the specific relation of this vaccination to shingles.

Over time I rejected the vaccination, based on the relative stability of her underlying condition, and she eventually came down with chicken pox so the question is now moot.

Thanks for chiming in.

[Rich Hunt]

23. oh god, thanks

The last vaccination thread had ME a bit paranoid...about all of these anti-vaccination people.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Red herring

1) What is the risk of getting childhood diseases, and the lifelong effects of them? (You recover from Measles, Mumps, Rubella, but not from Autism.). The rates of autism used to be 1:2500. Today, the likelihood of a child having autism is 1:166.
2) The vaccines do (and did) not need mercury for a preservative. It was only used because single-use vials (which do not require the preservative) are more expensive. The phrase "the dangers of not vaccinating outweigh the risks of taking thimerosal" is analagous to "the dangers of starvation outweigh the risks of eating rat poison". Uh... eat, but don't eat rat poison.

My 6 year old is autistic, but did not display any symptoms until age 3. If a profit motive is what took his future from him, I will not rest until those responsible suffer in kind.

It is patently obvious that there's an environmental component to this epidemic, and Robert Kennedy's article was a big eye-opener.

[HuckleB]

42. Risk vs. benefit based on what is known is not a red herring, IMHO.

As for the Kennedy piece, this sums up my opinion of it:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/11950281.htm

Regarding a possible epidemic of autism, the epidemiology is hardly without question.

Is there an autism epidemic? Doesn't look like it:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26844

Autism "Epidemic?": A Newsmaker Interview With Morton Ann Gernsbacher, PhD, And Craig J. Newschaffer, PhD:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/508429

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. I read the article on changing diagnostic criteria.

The point they are missing is that diagnostic criteria changed in the '90's not because of some ill-defined desire to raise awareness, but because pediatricians were seeing more and more kids with autism spectrum disorders. The increase in occurence drove changes in the criteria, not the reverse.

Had the disorders which affect my son been as prevalent in 1950 as they are today, there is no doubt that the criteria would have changed at that time.

One in 166. Think about that. Among your circle of friends, you should know of several adult autistics. There are 10 in my school district alone out of only 1000 or so students, and it's not possible to mistake their behavior as on a normal spectrum - their deficits are obvious.

[HuckleB]

47. That would be an opinion.

However, it's not something that I've seen backed up by presented information, and it doesn't match my experience working in the field at the time the changes occurred.

Teachers, TA's, and other professionals working with children with Autism spent days and weeks discussing children who had gone without the diagnosis for years -- and who did not match anyone's prior experience with Autism as being Autistic -- who were suddenly given this label, usually without explanation or write up by some psychiatric professional. I'm sorry, but this part of the story has been missing from the equation for far too long.

And don't get me started on pediatricians, especially at that time. Their knowledge of developmental disorders was minimal, and their time with patients even more so. To say that they drove such a change would be remarkable, considering how many pediatricians I talked to and tried to educate on the basics during the late 80s through into recent years.

[Susang]

119. That is simply not true

The DSM underwent a major revision in the late eighties and since much more had been learned about autism spectrum disorders, it was included in the new edition of the manual. In the next revision (in 1994), they further fine-tuned the diagnostic criteria even further, based on the research that had been done on the disorder.

Children and adults who would have otherwise been classified with other disorders were now being identified as being autistic, due to the better training of teachers and healthcare professionals. When you look at the overall total of developmentally disabled children, their numbers haven't increased. Only the diagnostic categories they've been placed in have changed.

[PA Democrat]

131. I have now seen two peer-reviwed studies that have

concluded that the rise in the rate of autism CANNOT be explained solely due to better diagnosis.

The March 2005 issue of Pediatrics published research by epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of Minnesota that concluded that the recent rise in autism rates is NOT due solely to better diagnosis:

Some people have attributed the rising rate of autism to "diagnosis shifting," meaning children who in past years might have been classified as having mental retardation or speech/language difficulties are now being diagnosed as having autism.

This study refutes that theory.

"By looking at trends in other classifications, we see that this increase is not seen across the board in all ed classifications," Newschaffer said. "This is not a rising tide lifting all boats."

Increases in autism prevalence were greatest for kids born from 1987 to 1992. And while prevalence continued to increase among kids born after 1992, the increases were not as great.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthology/story?id=558681

And another study reached the same conclusion:

M.I.N.D. Institute report confirms autism increase,
generating worldwide attention, calls for action

UC DAVIS M.I.N.D. INSTITUTE • MEDICAL INVESTIGATION OF NEURODEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS
The unprecedented increase in autism in California is real and cannot be explained away by artificial factors, such as misclassification and criteria changes, according to the results of a large statewide epidemiological study presented to the California Legislature in October.

<snip>
“Speculation about the increase in autism in California has led some to try to explain it away as a statistical issue or with other factors that artificially inflated the numbers,” said UC Davis
pediatric epidemiologist Robert S. Byrd, who authored the legislative report. “Instead, we found that autism is on the rise in the state and we still do not know why. The results of this study are, without a doubt, sobering.”

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/newsroom/newsletter/v3_n1_MIND_News_winter02-03.pdf

[Susang]

208. I have a big problem with one of your studies

The John Hopkins study only examines administrative data collected for purposes of program services, not scientific data. What this means, in layman's terms is that the the data does not include all diagnosed cases, only the cases that are receiving services from the government.

The study also admits that there really is no accurate administrative data prior to 1992, as schools were not required to report the autism destinction in their special education reporting. It also admits that the data itself could be flawed, as many autism patients have multiple diagnosis and often are not in the state school special education system.

It helps when you actually read the study and not the ABC News article about the study.

In response, I give you this study ( I have more, if you are interested):

The changing prevalence of autism in California.

Croen LA, Grether JK, Hoogstrate J, Selvin S.

March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation/California Department of Health Services, California Birth Defects Monitoring Program, Oakland 94606-5226, USA. [e-mail]

We conducted a population-based study of eight successive California births cohorts to examine the degree to which improvements in detection and changes in diagnosis contribute to the observed increase in autism prevalence. Children born in 1987-1994 who had autism were identified from the statewide agency responsible for coordinating services for individuals with developmental disabilities. To evaluate the role of diagnostic substitution, trends in prevalence of mental retardation without autism were also investigated. A total of 5038 children with full syndrome autism were identified from 4,590,333 California births, a prevalence of 11.0 per 10,000. During the study period, prevalence increased from 5.8 to 14.9 per 10,000, for an absolute change of 9.1 per 10,000. The pattern of increase was not influenced by maternal age, race/ethnicity, education, child gender, or plurality. During the same period, the prevalence of mental retardation without autism decreased from 28.8 to 19.5 per 10,000, for an absolute change of 9.3 per 10,000. These data suggest that improvements in detection and changes in diagnosis account for the observed increase in autism; whether there has also been a true increase in incidence is not known.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12108622&query_hl=1

[HuckleB]

215. Gracias.

I hadn't noted that study previously. Thanks.

[Bo]

90. Did anyone read the brilliant Rolling Stone article on Autism?

[HuckleB]

91. Yes.

Brilliant isn't how I would describe it, however.

If you are interested in looking into Autism more thoroughly, there are dozens of links to much better sources of information on the matter on this board alone.

[trotsky]

46. Yeah, RFK Jr.'s article was an "eye-opener".

It also had numerous problems.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/robert_f_kenned.html

http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/06/saloncom-flushes-its-credibility-down.html

Some people recover from measles and mumps. Rubella is much milder, BUT if a pregnant woman catches it, it can do horrible things to the developing fetus.

My uncle had the mumps, and the disease sterilized him. It's not just surviving a disease, but HOW you survive too.

On edit: I remember reading something that exposed your "1 in 166" number for the statistical manipulation that it is. I'll see if I can find it.

On further edit: Here's an article, not the one I originally read, but still goes over the reasons why it's dishonest to banter that number about. http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=194

[upi402]

194. That's my view, but found out too late...

...my child was born a little before your sweet child. I am so sorry for these golden heart little ones. And don't think for a second I'm not grateful as hell for my child escaping it.

But school entrance is a hassle without vaccinating for kids born now that awareness is increased. Can we even ask for individual viles -non toxified immunizations?

How about travelers' vaccinations?

[hallc]

4. Its about time...

Not vaccinating your children should be considered child abuse. Now, I am sure i am going to get bitched at for that comment, but when you can prevent your child from getting deathly ill from a disease, the benefits far outweigh the risks. Recent autism studies have been showing that it is more environmental mercury exposure that is the possible culprit. People who make rash decisions on little evidence are responsible for their own ignorance.

[LeftyMom]

12. My child suffered an adverse reaction

to a shot that, in retrospect, he should never have recieved. It wasn't counterindicated, he was just not at great risk of exposure to or serious illness from the disease the shot was meant to prevent.

He hasn't had another shot, not because I made a "rash decision with little evidence" but because I made an informed decision based on my child's history and risk factors. Which is what doctors should be doing, rather than just administering every shot on a list, needed or not.

[Lilyhoney]

69. Welcom to DU.

:hi:

With that said,

"People who make rash decisions on little evidence are responsible for their own ignorance."


I would like to know what kind of research you did before giving your children their vaccines?

[hallc]

133. Children?

No children. But I am a scientist and a grad student. I have done extensive research on genetics in the Amish and Mennonites. I also intend to be an Infectious Disease PA - which should come in handy when all your un-vaccinated children come down with horrible diseases.

[Lilyhoney]

136. I welcome you to DU,

ask you a question, and you give what seems to me a hostile response?

[conflictgirl]

140. Since when does accepted medical practice trump parental rights?

When my oldest son (now almost 8) was an infant, the pediatrician called CPS on me because I chose not to give him the rotavirus vaccine. It was too new, and considering that he wasn't in daycare or regularly exposed to other kids who were, I didn't see the need for it. The investigation was dismissed after a home visit, but they kept a file on me nonetheless.

A couple years later, the rotavirus vaccine - yes, the very same one I refused and was investigated by CPS for refusing - was pulled from the market because a few babies died due to bowel obstructions caused by the vaccine.

Are you really saying it was child abuse that I refused that?

I could make a VERY long list of the number of times the medical community has been wrong in recent years. I do not think they have earned unquestioning obedience.

[TheWraith]

186. Bullshit.

To even suggest such a thing can only be the product of egomaniacal medical obsessiveness, where anything produced by so-called medicine is the godsend of all creation, and that the medical opinion of the day is tantamount to law. People like you would do well to have a little more humility and perhaps to realize that no, you're not the center of the universe, you're not the living gods that they taught you to think you were in med school, and to admit that there are things that you don't know. The attitude of doctors hasn't changed much since they ridiculed Semmelweis for insisting that doctors wash their hands between handling corpses and delivering babies. That was treated as an assault on the medical profession too, and the fact that it decreased the maternity ward's fatality rate from one out of five new mothers killed to one out of a hundred was considered no evidence.

To even suggest equating non-vaccination with child abuse is criminally stupid, reckless, and offensive--not only intellectually offensive, but a direct slight and assault against parents whose only concern is the wellbeing of their children. If you cared about anything except defending the priesthood, protecting the image that medicine can never be wrong, then you would apologize immediately.

[K8-EEE]

218. My You're Awfully Smug

I guess you haven't watched your child begin to retreat into another world immediately after having fever, rashes, and fussiness from a shot -- I guess you haven't kicked yourself a million times for not questioning what was in the goddamned thing. I guess you haven't heard the doctors tell you you're imagining things -- until finally getting a diagnosis of autism and being told your child needs a "team of experts" and you really have no idea what to do for her, so, make the check payable to....

If you haven't been there, you should really think twice about parents who question what's in the shot. I wish to hell I had asked more questions.

[DianeG5385]

6. I have three kids and a grandson,

Only one was born in the thimerosal period. He's autistic. His Doctor dismisses a connection. No one else in my family has ever been autistic...I can't accept there is no link because, not to bore you, there were extreme reactions and fever shortly after his vaccination and I believed BEFORE this was news that it was the triple vaccination (notice they don't do this anymore???) that took my son down...Took his future from him, his manhood, his independence. I try to accept, but I am angry. When you look at my darling boy, it would break your heart too...Thank God he has an amazing network of people who love him!!!!

[Eloriel]

9. I'm on your side, Diane

And my heart goes out to you. This problem is one of -- well, too many -- absolute evils perpetrated on an unsuspecting public by completely amoral corporations for whom greed is the ONLY thing. "They" keep assuring us there's no link, and there keeps being shown a link. It defies common sense.

I'm very, very sorry for what you and so many other parents have to suffer, and your beautiful son, as well. There is a special place in hell for these people, I'm sure. I'm angry too.

[DianeG5385]

11. I don't suffer, my son does!!!

He had to undergo an EEG last week for potential seizure disorder (never seen before meds)and it was the most painfull experience! He tried his hardest to be "still" and was crying....We'll probably have to do a redo...This is because, despite my desire to keep him OFF MEDICATION his agression made it necessary for me to consider this option....He has gained 25 pounds on Risperdol in only 2 months (he's a very tall 14 Y/O)...They added Concerta and after three weeks, it was NO WAY!!! he was so twitchy and confused his psychiatrist said off!!! He's back on one Risperdol a day and I think I was RIGHT to not medicate him...I am SOOOOO upset my baby has to suffer!!!!!

[Eloriel]

197. All I can say is, if I were in your place, I'd call that suffering too n/

[eridani]

24. What thimerosal period?

It's been in use since the 1930s.

[bunny planet]

36. the amount of vaccines children were scheduled to receive increased in the

early 90s. Kids at very young ages were then required to get three, four, and even five vaccines at a time. When I was a child, kids were not required to have that amount of vaccines, so I think the sheer number of vaccines is the difference rather than the fact that they always contained thimerasol.

My son had a very bad reaction to his 15 month vaccines, he went limp and ran a high fever for days, and then stopped talking (he had been talking like crazy before those shots). He completely changed, in 48 hours. He also developed a severe vision problem after the vaccines. He is thankfully almost completely recovered now, due to aggressive early intervention and just plain luck. Others have not been so lucky.

I do not advocate not vaccinating children, I think vaccines are necessary. I just requested non-thimerasol vaccines afterwards for my kids and have never had a problem since. I'm glad that they've finally taken the thimerasol out of the vaccines.

I will never believe that there wasn't a connection in my son's case. I believe what I saw with my own eyes in this instance. I think that some kids are just more sensitive to mercury in their systems and have more difficulty eliminating the substance, this sensitivity triggers neurological problems in that subset of kids. Just my opinion. There is absolutely no autism spectrum disorder in either my husband's family or my own, and I'm going back generations so in our case I don't think there is a hereditary link.

BTW, the NYTimes seems to be really invested somehow in debunking the possibility of the thimerasol link. They ran two articles a few weeks ago too, that each contradicted each other. What's up with that.

[MadisonProgressive]

37. Thimerosal was largely removed from all childhood vaccines in 2001.

Unfortunately, my son was born with autism in 1990 - in the Thimerosal hey-day....

[trotsky]

48. Yes, and what's very interesting is that in nations that banned

thimerosal even earlier, there has been NO DECLINE in autism.

The ban of thimerosal was part of a concerted effort to minimize childrens' exposure to mercury in ALL sources. Of course, the form of mercury found in thimerosal is different than that found in fish, the air, etc. and is metabolized differently. That no decline in autism has been seen seems to settle this debate.

[MadisonProgressive]

58. Well, you speak for yourself...

[trotsky]

59. I speak with evidence.

Canada and Denmark banned thimerosal in the 90s. There has been no dropoff in autism in either of those countries. So where's the link?

[MadisonProgressive]

81. Where is your link?

[trotsky]

84. Will this do?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/3/604

Results. A total of 956 children with a male-to-female ratio of 3.5:1 had been diagnosed with autism during the period from 1971–2000. There was no trend toward an increase in the incidence of autism during that period when thimerosal was used in Denmark, up through 1990. From 1991 until 2000 the incidence increased and continued to rise after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines, including increases among children born after the discontinuation of thimerosal.

[MadisonProgressive]

142. Interesting. Only one study from Denmark.

I'd like to see a study from the US, particularly the Madison, Wisconsin area.

[trotsky]

144. LOL

Oh, I see. Not good enough unless it's been done right on your block. Well, the US discontinued thimerosal in 2001 so in about 5-10 years we should have our hard data right here for you to come up with a different excuse.

Please note, this isn't a "study" per se, but an analysis of the medical records of autistic patients. Nothing was "studied" other than how many autism diagnoses were made over the years, and then compared against the timeline of thimerosal in vaccines.

Autism rates have continued unabated DESPITE thimerosal being absent from Danish vaccines for 13 years.

Sorry, but that's brutally hard data AGAINST any thimerosal-autism link.

[MadisonProgressive]

148. This debunks your Denmark Study - thank you lostnfound!

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/library/Danish%20Thimerosal-Autism%20Study%20in%20Pediatrics.pdf

[trotsky]

149. Not quite. See my response. n/t

[MadisonProgressive]

153. I did - you're all wet on this one.

[trotsky]

155. If you say so.

Oh, by the way, here's some info about a study in Sweden showing the same conclusion - no drop in autism since removing thimerosal.

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/autism2.htm

[MadisonProgressive]

159. When you find an American study, let me know.

[trotsky]

160. How dismissive.

How sad.

[MadisonProgressive]

170. Yeah, lt sure does suck, doesn't it.

[barb162]

171. Not only that, I think I would trust the American studies the least

Unless I knew where the funding was coming from, like the big, big hands of American pharma out there, I wouldn't trust the results

[lostnfound]

145. Denmark changed criteria to include non-hospitalized autism cases!

Yes, here it is. In 1995.

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/library/Danish%20Thimerosal-Autism%20Study%20in%20Pediatrics.pdf

"Autism counts were first based on hospitalized, inpatient records and then changed in the middle of the study period to add in outpatient records. This new outpatient registry was introduced in 1995. Therefore, their purported increases after 1994 can be explained entirely by the registration of an existing autism population that did not require hospitalization. The authors minimize this discrepancy and do not adjust for it in their chart (Figure 1), yet in a prior study using the same Danish data,4 outpatients exceeded the inpatients by a ratio of 13.5 times, and represented over 93% of total cases. This huge gap clearly invalidates their inpatient data, the corresponding time period from 1970-94, and any evidence for a rising trend of autism in Denmark. The authors claim that inpatient admissions were rising also, but the “data not shown”. They did not explain this omission, the only bit of credible data in their possession, since it compared
equivalent populations."

There's more debunking of the twisting of the Denmark data in the report for those who are interested.

[trotsky]

146. This critique is a distortion in itself!

Um, if thimerosal is responsible for autism, there should be no increase and in fact a decrease in autism cases no matter how one counts them!

I mean, you've removed the anti-vaxers #1 target (thimerosal) yet autism hasn't gone away - no matter how you count it. Seems to me this is just a case of hand-waving away evidence that doesn't fit with the anti-vaccination theory.

Blaxill is on record comparing autism to the holocaust, and while autism is certainly a serious mental health issue, it does no one any good to compare it to the loss of millions of lives under a tyrannical government.

[lostnfound]

152. That's ridiculous. "New cases being counted" does not equal new cases.

Further, no one is saying that thimerosol is the ONLY cause of autism. It might well be the MAJOR cause, but right now, it's just a working hypothesis -- one which is intensely under attack by the vaccine manufacturers and others with a vested interest. And of course, also by well-meaning people like yourself.

[trotsky]

154. Are you serious?

"New cases being counted"? Um, where are the cases to be counted coming from then?

Look, here's a more detailed smashing of Blaxill's "critique" so you can direct your latent animosity towards someone other than me.

http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk35.html

[lostnfound]

158. Yes. "New cases" come from existing cases of nonhospitalized patients.

Have to separate the data out by age and cohort.
A 9 yr old who lives with his parents, not hospitalized, but who has had the same condition since he was 2, would be a "new case".

[trotsky]

162. Yeah, and a 9-year-old

would not have received a thimerosal-containing vaccine. Thus it's another data point disproving a thimerosal-autism link.

The body of existing data, including the ecologic data presented herein, is not consistent with the hypothesis that increased exposure to Thimerosal-containing vaccines is responsible for the apparent increase in the rates of autism in young children being observed worldwide ("Autism and Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines Lack of Consistent Evidence for an Association" by Paul Stehr-Green, DrPH, MPH, Peet Tull, Michael Stellfeld, MD, Preben-Bo Mortenson, DrMedSC, Diane Simpson, MD, PhD). American Journal of Preventive Medicine (2003; vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 101-106)

[lostnfound]

187. Why do you say that? A 9-yr old would have received thimerosol in 1997.

I don't understand why are you are saying that he would not have received thimerosol-containing shots. It wasn't phased out until just a few years ago.

A 9-yr old would have gotten infant shots in 1997.

[trotsky]

188. In DENMARK.

No thimerosal since 1991-2.

Pay attention, please.

[lostnfound]

189. Oops. So the point would be valid for a 19 year old then, instead.

Existing cases were recategorized.

But no one is saying thimerosol is the ONLY cause anyway. Just one cause.

[trotsky]

190. Hold on a minute now...

Recategorization of other conditions as autism is also responsible for the bulk of the "epidemic" touted by the anti-vax crowd. How can you have it both ways?

Nonetheless, even if thimerosal is only "one cause," if there is no decrease in the number of autism cases following its elimination in vaccines, how can you say that it IS a cause at all?

In other words, what data will YOU accept that shows thimerosal does not cause autism? How is your theory falsifiable?

[lostnfound]

195. It's not my theory. And BTW I am not "anti-vax".

I'm against injecting mercury into infants, and I think it was incredibly irresponsible -- make that nearly insane -- for this to have occurred to begin with, and I happen to suspect that the hypothesis that says that thimerosol may be responsible for a significant portion of the increase in autism cases will turn out to be correct.

If it isn't correct, then I sure hope somebody figures out what is driving it.

The data that exists today is not IMO sufficient to disprove the hypothesis. And who can be trusted? If the CDC was being honest and objective, they might say 'we just don't know yet'. Instead they hold press conferences to counteract a blip in public opinion, in the absence of new data.

[trotsky]

196. They hold press conferences

to help assure the public that vaccines are safe, DESPITE the fearmongers who are succeeding in scaring people away from vaccinating at all - which is guaranteed to lead to health crises and fatalities.

[eridani]

134. 2001 was five years ago

Have we seen a decrease in autism since then?

And why do people discount other sources of mercury in the environment? One of six children is born with what the EPA considers to be unacceptable levels of mercury in the blood. That may make it difficult to statistically link thimerosal with autism, since "straw that broke the camel's back" effects are much harder to detect.

[HuckleB]

137. No one should discount other sources of mercury.

In fact, research seems to lean toward other sources being a possible factor in Autism etiology far more than Thimerosal. For some reason, the segment of the Autism community that is focused on Thimerosal hasn't gone down that road, however.

[trotsky]

151. That is the true shame here.

So many resources and so much attention is being heaped on vaccines when there's a lot more data suggesting that it's environmental mercury that's responsible. Just think what all that energy could do if focused on reducing the polluting sources of mercury that contaminate nearly everything we drink, breathe, and eat.

[PA Democrat]

156. Hmm... Parents of kids with autism are incapable of multi-tasking?

I know hundreds of parents of kids with autism and I can assure you that the time they spend even CONSIDERING the vaccine issue is infinitesimal compared other pressing issues related to autism prevention and treatment.

That is an insult to the hundreds of parents I know who have given up precious time to advocate for more funding for autism research for eduction for services for adults.

You know what is a true shame? The millions of dollars of profits the pharmaceutical companies reap from off-label use of drugs for children with autism. Especially considering the fact that the vast majority of those drugs have never been tested for safety in children. There is not one single drug approved by the FDA for the treatment of autism. And there is virtually no effort by the pharmaceutical industry to fund research in autism. Why bother when there are parents who are so desperate to help their kids that they are forced to play pharmacological roulette?

[trotsky]

157. When you're desperate for a scapegoat,

you'll find one eventually. In no way is my defense of vaccination a wholesale defense of pharmaceutical companies. But the thing is, there just isn't any solid data to back up the thimerosal claims. It's just anecdotal evidence and scare tactics.

[PA Democrat]

165. There is a profound irony in your description of parents as "desperate

for a scapegoat". "Refrigerator mothers" were the accepted scapegoat in the scientific community until the mid 1970's. There is a long history of the scientific community's betrayal of kids with autism. You would be much more successful in persuading parents to critically review research if you had a basic understanding of the basis for parental distrust rather than making comments such as this.

[trotsky]

167. But I'm not the one who is abusing parental distrust.

Parents want someone to blame. I understand that. But I also understand that the data does not support a thimerosal link and so I will fight that assertion wherever I see it rather than allow people to be distracted from what's really going to help them.

[PA Democrat]

172. Most parents do not "want someone to blame"

They want effective treatment and services for their kids. Those are the issues that are most pressing because they make a huge difference in the quality of our children's and our families' lives. I speak from the experience of regular contact with hundreds of parents of kids with autism. They also want to do as much as they can to prevent other children and families from facing the daunting challenge of autism.

Belittling parents and mis-characterizing their motives does nothing but undermine any chance for forging a good working relationship. Ignoring the history of failings and betrayals also is not helpful. I am not overly sensitive in my reaction to many of the remarks made here. I shared this thread with some other parents and their reaction was the same as mine. So whatever your intentions may be, you are not getting your message out effectively because of the tone.

[trotsky]

173. ???

Nearly all of what I have seen on this thread from the opposing point of view is assigning blame to thimerosal and vaccines and "big pharma" and Republicans and who knows what else.

If I'm "mis-characterizing their motives," I'd like to know how else I'm supposed to read that. I'm not ignoring any "history of failings and betrayals," I just don't see how that's relevant to the complete lack of scientific data to back up the claim that thimerosal is somehow responsible for autism.

[HuckleB]

217. True.

Most parents of children with autism do not want someone to blame. However, the small percentage of parents of children with autism who spend inordinate amounts of time focused on Thimerosal may be another matter, as is anecdotally evidenced by this thread and them there Google searches. Now, I fully admit that this is just a suspicion. I can't prove it other than via anecdote. So my suspicion remains in the same realm as the suspicion that Thimerosal is a main cause of the theoretical increase in autism. Wow. See how similar seemingly opposites can be when one looks deeper?

;)

[sybylla]

33. I feel very sorry for what you've gone through and

wish you and your son the best.

But I want to add that in this case a + b isn't automatically equal to c. My son had a severe reaction to a combination vaccine given at 6 weeks. No autism here. No obvious effects lasting longer than two days.

You were there and I'm sure the connection appears obvious. But I've heard people say their kids with autism never had a reaction to a vaccine. While you and I can see connections or contrary examples, we are at the mercy of the scientists to figure out exactly what happens to cause autism. Clearly, there aren't any solid answers on this yet.

And I am as disappointed as you that researchers don't have more information for those of us who have to live with it as well as those of us who want to prevent it.

[K8-EEE]

103. My Daughter Also

Her older sister had "single" doses. My youngest had the thimerosol & she is the first autistic person in my family, my husband's family. I'm talking classic autism. They told me she would never talk -- she does talk although like a much younger child.

She also had a fever and was very fussy for days after her shot and the Dr. was like, oh it's nothing.

If I could undo that shot....I would.

[bunny planet]

7. Isn't it too soon to do a definitive study? In 1989 more vaccines were

given to children, more exposure to thimerasol than ever before. That went on for a decade, and during that decade there was marked rise in autism, PPD, and attention deficit disorders among the population of children who'd been vaccinated during those years. Don't we now have to study the children during the next decade who are vaccinated without thimerasol to see if the incidences of these spectrum disorders goes down, in order for it to be a controlled, comparitive, reliable study. Scientists?

[hallc]

8. Not necessarily...

Just because there was in increase in those diagnoses during that time period doesnt mean there was an increase in disease. Autism, PPD, and ADD have been around for decades, they just weren't diagnosed as so. Whenever a new disease is discovered, there is always a surge of diagnoses, which increases the number of cases, but this isn't a correct representation of a surge in cases.

[goforit]

10. Hmmmm......hate to disagree. All european countries and Russia have

banned thimerosal long before the US did due to scientific proof that
autism and mental retardation had significantly increased. And the amount of thimerosal used
was half the amount per dose than what these damn US pharmaceuticals
insist on using.

[HuckleB]

17. Can you link me to stories on that?

Thanks.

[October]

38. Rolling Stone did a story -- it's outrageous!

He was so angry. It's completely disturbing that other countries stayed away from this...and did we destroy our batch? No...from what he told me, the article says we sold them to be used on poor kids in third world countries.

Edited to add: Frist is the pockets of big pharma. He has attached amendments to security bills (guaranteed to pass) that prevent people from suing Eli Lily. I said, I don't get it...don't these people have children? Why aren't they worried? He said in the article it stated that one congressman had a child born with autism, and that's what started the inquiry. (Sorry...I don't know his name...but it's in the Rolling Stone magazine.)

I have not yet read the piece myself, but we had a discussion on this just yesterday.

Our two children are 7 years apart, and unbeknownst to us...fell just outside the use of that vaccine procedure.

[HuckleB]

39. Thanks.

I've noted that article. I'm looking for more direct sources for the information, however.

Another interesting piece on the purported autism epidemic:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/508429

[goforit]

102. Salon had a huge article on it 3 to 4 weeks ago.

I do not have a link but I'm sure you can go
through their archives.

[HuckleB]

110. Thanks.

I know the article. I'm looking for more news sources, in addition to studies about this. It appears that Autism rates continued to increase in Europe after Thimerosal was discontinued, from what I've found today.

[Gyre]

15. Cost-benefit analysis

The cost of an autistic kid is extremely high, almost unimaginable. The benefit is prevention is high also. Since I don't view the MMR and DTP vaccines as conveying the major benfits the government would like us to believe. My kids will do without. As least until their nervous systems are pretty well developed.

Gyre

[HuckleB]

21. How did you come to that conclusion?

What data convinced you to make the decision you made?

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. Cost/benefit: no vaccines = cheap; a dead child = ?

Your call, but you seem a bit cavalier about the risks of NOT vaccinating.

Not to mention that most of the serious studies I've seen show strong evidence of a genetic link for autism, and that the neurological differences present in autism are such that they can only have occurred early in gestation (which rather rules out the vaccine idea). Making a medical decision because of unfounded paranoia based on what is at best anecdotal evidence is hardly a wise move.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Neurological differences

I prepared to agree that there is a genetic link for autism, but the rates of incidence have skyrocketed. Ask any teacher. They used to expect 1:2500, now it's 1:166. The gene pool hasn't changed that dramatically in the last 20 years. Something environmental is causing the epidemic.

I'm interested in your claim that, "the neurological differences present in autism are such that they can only have occurred early in gestation". Do you have any links to back this up? I've done a lot of reading on the topic, and have not found this to be true.

[HuckleB]

43. Regarding epidemiology:

Is there an autism epidemic? Doesn't look like it:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26844

Autism "Epidemic?": A Newsmaker Interview With Morton Ann Gernsbacher, PhD, And Craig J. Newschaffer, PhD:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/508429

Those teachers and professionals working with this population (of which I am one) noted a sea change in the mid-90s, where a whole swath of children who previously would not have been diagnosed as having Autism suddenly were getting the diagnosis. Heck, for funding reasons, many parents and even school districts "shopped around" to find psychologists and psychiatrists more likely to give the diagnosis. I know one family that went to eight professionals focused solely on getting a diagnosis of autism so they could get more services for their child. Since Autism is currently diagnosed solely on behavior, this purported increase in rates remains in question for many reasons.

-------------------

On edit:

As for etiology and development, that remains a big question among many, though we have a great deal of evidence to ponder.

Here are some links regarding this matter:

http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/genetics/03jangen.htm

http://www.neurodiversity.com/etiology.html

http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/genetics/02decgen.htm

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/jpn/vol-24/issue-2/0103.htm

[Donkeyboy75]

50. Even if you accept that autism is on the rise,

that doesn't mean it's related to vaccination. Many recent papers have put this theory to bed. The original paper was based on a very small sample size...and the article should never have been published. In fact, all but one of the authors has withdrawn the paper.

[lumberjack_jeff]

199. Perhaps so, perhaps not.

I'm not blindly credulous to the vaccine theory. But I AM incredulous to the "it's all genetics" and the "rate of occurence is unchanged" theories. An often quoted paper makes the case for a genetic cause based on an environmental correlation. The San Jose cluster of autism cases can best be explained, the theory goes, by the fact that geeks (with a genetic predisposition to autism) live there.

Now it couldn't possibly be that the children of wealthy geeks in Silicon Valley have something else in common, of course. Something environmental? possibly even their greater rate of pediatric care and earlier/more thorough vaccinations?

[Spider Jerusalem]

101. See Scientific American for February 2000;

there's an article that goes into some detail. (Googling "Scientific American" + "autism" may turn it up.)

And as far as the increase in rates of autism - there's been a change in what is considered "autism"; so-called "pervasive developmental disorders" are now counted as part of an "autistic spectrum", and people who at one time would not have been considered autistic now are (I'm one of them, for what it's worth; I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome at age 25).

[hallc]

29. Ok...

Do you know what diptheria is like? You get a pseudomembrane that stretches from each tonsil that when removed can cause your child to bleed to death. Tetanus causes you to have spastic paralysis and eventually succumb to respiratory failure. Measles, Mumps, and Rubella may not seem dangerous, but if infected, your child could have lasting effects for the rest of their life. And, may i remind you...you may not think there is much of a risk of these diseases now, but when people stop vaccinating their kids, the incidence rises, and these diseases will become prevalent again. Your actions don't just affect your kids, but other peoples kids too.

[girl gone mad]

27. The problem with that theory..

is that it can be easily disproven by looking for a rise in acases of autism in the older population, the ones that were not exposed to high doses of the mercury additive. From what I have seen, the rise only occured in the exposed age group.

[HuckleB]

35. Huh?

Thimerosol has been in use in vaccines since the 20s.

Further, it's very likely that no actual rise in cases of autism has occurred:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26844

[Psephos]

169. Self-delete (reposting to a different parent) n/t

[HuckleB]

18. Is there an autism epidemic? Doesn't look like it

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26844

Many of us who worked in the field before the mid-'90s noted the change, as we were astonished at the huge additional spectrum of kids that were suddenly being diagnosed as having autism, though they would not have been diagnosed as such in the past.

[hallc]

30. exactly what i have been saying

Just because you see an increase in diagnoses, doesnt mean there is an increase in disease.

[HuckleB]

88. Increase in autism is due to changes in diagnosis, 2004 study claims

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7436/364-b

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Dozens of studies over the past ten years have come to the same conclusion

but there are still people who refuse to believe it. This isn't going to convince those people, because they want something to blame; never mind that the weight of scientific evidence is against them.

[goddess40]

57. Who did those studies - drug companies

Sorry but I don't buy those so called studies - the link to the increase in autism related disorders follows the rise and fall of mercury in vaccines too closely to be discounted by some biased studies.

Just like * falsely linked Iraq to 911 the drug companies and their pals can twist the data to fit their agenda.

[HuckleB]

61. Sorry.

Many scientists and researchers, affiliated with pharms, with the government, with various research institutions, of varying funding sources, have noted the research, and it is incredibly difficult from as unbiased a standpoint as one can find to argue that mercury in vaccines had much if any effect on the matter. Those who argue for this connection simply disregard too much information in order to push their agenda, and pointing at drug companies doesn't change any of that.

[barb162]

96. Pharma just about owns the FDA, CDC, etc plus they have their

fingers in university funding. There was a great article in a Seattle paper within the last month recently about the MDs who are on the teams making recs on cholesterol levels, heart and other diseases for the government and they are basically on the payrolls of pharma bigtime. Pharma has its fingers in so many studies and fundings, I don't know if I trust any study anymore.

[HuckleB]

113. Well, hyperbole is great.

But it doesn't lead to understanding, and the MSM doesn't lead to understanding when it comes to coverage of science.

[barb162]

121. Hyperbole it aint. Google "adverse vaccine reactions"

There sure are thousands of personal stories out there that I doubt are hyperbole. And I am not just talking autism. Pharma, for both humans and pets, are pushing vaccines that they know are unhealthy. Finally some of the better vet schools are coming out with reduced vaccine schedules the last few years. And I know too many people who were okay one hour before a vaccine and in an ER 3 hours after a vaccine.

[HuckleB]

124. Hyperbole it is.

You continue to skew the conversation into other areas unrelated to the topic at hand. I can only assume that is because you don't have the evidence to back up your assertions.

Do you work in an ER? Do you administer vaccines and follow people around afterward? Do you believe every horror story you find using Google?

Why would those pharm conspirators at vet schools make such a change? Umm. Could it be because there is no great conspiracy?

[barb162]

128. I know an ER doc who was so damned sick of seeing people with

anaphalactic shock last flu season that he was telling all the patients not to get those "damned flu shots" anymore.

I have also been personally involved with doing adverse vaccine reaction reports with the FDA. And getting letters from them verifying they included them in their database of AVRs.

And I know a parent whose child became autistic after a vaccine. Anyone can say it was coincidence. It just amazes me ...all these coincidences.

[HuckleB]

129. You do, eh?

So where are the stats on that "epidemic" of anaphalactic shock? If you've done that sort of work for the FDA, I assume you know how to get a hold of that type of data. I will note that I recall my share of happy hours with ER docs during flu season, discussing just how severe it can get for some people. Interestingly, anaphalactic shock from flu vaccines hasn't come up.

All these coincidences in regard to kids with autism? Umm. What caused it before vaccines? What was the coincidence of the day at that time? And how have you verified the stories about these coincidences?

[barb162]

166. When MDs, dentists, vets, etc., don't report ADEs, they

don't get in the FDA database do they? Do they get paid to report these results to the FDA? France has a much better system and they are strengthening their laws to make reporting ADE's mandatory. Here there is only a voluntary system and a lousy voluntary system at best. My suspicion is that perhaps 1 out of a 1000 events or less get reported by the people administering the vaccines. Most people using the drugs don't even know they can report ADEs themselves and is there anyone out there in thr government telling them they can?


PS Late yesterday in GD I started a thread on Merck not testing Vioxx properly before putting it out in the market.

https://registration.dfw.com/reg/login.do?url=http://www.dfw.com%2Fmld%2Fstartelegram%2Fnews%2Fstate%2F12186209.htm



"Scientist testifies that Merck knew of risks



ANGLETON - Merck & Co., the third-largest U.S. drug maker, knew that its painkiller Vioxx posed health risks to patients a year before the company began selling the drug, a researcher testified Wednesday.

Nancy Santanello, head of Merck's epidemiology department and the company's corporate face at the nation's first Vioxx trial, said Edward Scolnick, president of the company's research unit, raised concerns as early as 1998 that Vioxx might cause heart attacks and strokes.

Merck started selling Vioxx in May 1999 and pulled it off the market in September after research linked the drug to those ailments.

snip

The suit is the first to come to trial out of more than 4,000 filed against Merck. It is being heard by state District Judge Ben Hardin in the Brazoria County Courthouse."
snip
-----

Let's face it already, pharma is putting stuff out there to the public and some of it isn't safe, drug company studies are often too small and short term, side-effects are minimized, the FDA is no watchdog, etc. I know the subject here is autism and this is a big stray away from that, but the problem is immense with pharma in this country. People and animals are dying and getting damned sick from some of the crap that pharma is always pushing.

[HuckleB]

178. So now we're on to Vioxx?

How many times can you change the subject? Ugh. It's not worth my time, anymore. Nevermind the baloney you're pushing about docs not reporting anaphalactic shock post-vaccination. I guess there's always an excuse when the information isn't available to back up a claim, eh?

:eyes:

Goodbye.

[barb162]

181. Pharma screwing up is one huge subject

Google adverse vaccine reactions, adverse drug reactions, maybe start reading all the horror stories about people dying because of the fuckass pharma. Ask yourself why there are so many thousands of lawsuits against pharma.

Oh, and good riddance


:eyes:

[Spider Jerusalem]

98. Not drug companies, universities.

Not in the US, either...one of the largest studies was conducted in Denmark (and it found a higher rate of autism in the UNVACCINATED population).


The increase in autistic disorders is related to a change in the idea of what CONSTITUTES an autistic disorder, too. Asperger's Syndrome, and otrher autistic spectrum disorders, WOULDN'T have been copnsidered autism not very long ago, and now are; this has a lot more to do with the increase than vaccines.

And dismissing something out of hand because it disagrees with what you want to believe is nothing more than willful ignorance.

[geebensis]

122. To my thinking...

Folks who cling to the vaccine-autism non connection have more in common with the Iraq-911 folks...

It doesn't matter how often they are informed of evidence to the contrary they insist the connection is there. No evidence will change their minds.

Even "W" has disavowed the Iraq-911 connection. Yet the true believers still cling to it.

So just like Bush falsely linked Iraq to 911 the scare mongers continue to link vaccines to autism, despite all of the evidence.

[PennyK]

16. One of RFK Jr.'s big causes

He will be the guest tomorrow night on The Daily Show.

[HuckleB]

20. SECRETIN SHOULD NOT BE USED TO TREAT AUTISM, RESEARCHERS SAY

http://www.hbns.org/news/autism07-19-05.cfm

[frustrated_lefty]

25. Vaccines accomplish good things.

I made sure my baby girl received the polio vaccine, DPT, and MMR vaccines.

I notice, however, the military has eliminated thimerosal from the anthrax vaccine which is administered to troops serving in the Middle East.

This isn't about being "anti-vaccine." It's about removing a toxic, detrimental substance from vaccines.

[K8-EEE]

105. Yes, It Is Not "Anti-Vaccine" To Not Want Mercury

shot into babies.

[earth mom]

26. My they love to use the scare tactics don't they?

All 3 agencies are in the back pocket of the pharma giants. After all the pharma giants can't be paying out millions-or is it billions?!-in compensation to children that have been harmed, now can they? :sarcasm:

Same shit that we've been hearing for years from these bastards just a different day. :grr:

[Mnemosyne]

28. Exactly. n/t

[HuckleB]

34. Scare tactics?

What are you talking about?

[K-W]

51. Portraying a call to keep mercury out of vaccines as

a threat to vaccine use.

It immunizes (pardon the pun) people against listening rationally to the other side if they think there is a danger of a polio outbreak.

[HuckleB]

66. Hmm.

So concern about people not vaccinating is a scare tactic. But unreasonably fomenting fear that leads to people not vaccinating is A-ok?

[K-W]

68. That isnt an accurate portrayal of the situation. EOM

[HuckleB]

70. So you're ignoring the consequences?

And you think that's just fine?

I don't.

[K-W]

71. No, you are just making stuff up.

Nobody is scaring people away from vaccines. And the officials are only causing more confusion if they pretend that people are.

[HuckleB]

73. I'm not making anything up.

It appears that you haven't read this page, much less spent much time in the real world of health care, if you are going to make that statement. It's time for you to chill. You made an argument that doesn't stand up to the evidence. Live with it. It's no big deal. Stop digging by trying to pass aspersions upon me. That's just crap.

[K-W]

78. I should chill out? You are the one pointing out my edits.

Whether you want to admit it or not, officials are charecterizing all questions about vaccinations as threats to the vaccination program as a whole. While you may be right about some of those questions, others are of no threat to people vaccinating.

I am saying that officials would be better off drawing that destinction and aknowledging the reasonable questions being asked by reasonable people who are not encouraging anyone not to vaccinate.

[HuckleB]

82. LOL! You just made my point.

And again, you are putting words in the mouths of "officials," while taking them out of the mouths of the most vocal of the Thimerosol ranters, who are well represented here at DU.

Why are you not questioning them, by the way?

On edit -- An interesting, well-thought out letter from a mother of a child with Autism, regarding the hyperbole being bantered about and more:
http://www.neurodiversity.com/mind_epidemic.html

[HuckleB]

72. Nice and very late edit.

Just because you can't answer the question, doesn't mean anyone is trying to scare people. On the other hand, the overblown hyperbole on this page and elsewhere has led to many parents not vaccinating, even with regard to vaccinations without Thimerosol. In other words, it looks like you've got it the wrong way around, at least if you're trying to argue for evidence based practices.

On edit: Very few days go by without my noting a parent who is forgoing vaccinations without Thimerosol because he or she "read something that scared me." I am constantly having to send information to prospective mothers regarding the big picture of the issues regarding Autism and vaccinations, even in regard to the mothers getting vaccinations many months before they want to start trying to conceive. And on and on it goes. The fear is very real, and has already been fomented. But again, it's on the other side of the ledger.

[K-W]

76. ignore

[HuckleB]

75. How many times are you going to edit that post?

On edit: It is an accurate portrayal. If you think it's not, show me how it's not.

[K-W]

77. As many times as it takes to express my opinion correctly. EOM

[Julius Civitatus]

44. Oxymoron! It's not the vaccines, it's the preservatives in it!

You can always count on the Bush administration to make strawman arguments like this. I don't think anyone is contending that vaccines are the cause for autism. There's reason to suspect that Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in certain vaccines, as the real culprit.

[AllyCat]

49. Vaccines are great, and even better without thimerosal

They had no trouble taking it out of contact lens solution. There is no reason there should have been so much balking to remove it from vaccines. Glad it's out of there now, but one has to wonder what damage it caused before that time.

Mercury just causes more and more problems the more we learn about it. Here in Wisconsin, our DNR has determined that every lake and stream in the state has toxic levels of Hg in them. That goes into the fish. Now that I am pregnant, I've been advised on certain fish to avoid due to the Hg content and the potential harmful effects on the baby. Good thing I am a vegetarian.

Given this information, one would think that autism could indeed be one of the many things caused by thimerosal and we should look at other sources of Hg besides vaccines.

[geebensis]

52. I spent a very unpleasant evening...

...getting literally screamed at by one of the vaccine-autism true believers. All I did was mention that there didn't seem to be any real evidence for the link, and all of a sudden I was one of *them* -- you know, the ones who are all part of a vast "big pharma" conspiracy to KILL as many people as possible.

If I'm in a charitable mood I'll say there are people with autistic children who are looking for answers and sincerely (but incorrectly) believe there might be something to the whole vaccine thing.

If I'm NOT in a charitable mood, and believe me I wasn't after having a woman spray spit in my face screaming at me, I say this: it's all about the money. Parents with autistic kids want money. They want money from the government. They want money from the companies that manufactured the vaccines. Parents with autistic children are being manipulated by hysteria generated by people who are looking for money. Money money money.

I have no problem with having my tax dollars go towards helping families with disabled children. Autism, Downs, you name it -- those families need our help.

But the vaccine/autism folks I've met aren't looking for a little help. They're looking for a class action jackpot. And since it looks like the they can't prove their case scientifically, they are switching to lobbying congress -- the same scientifically literate congress that made decisions on Terri Schiavo.

I'm feeling a little cynical today.

[earth mom]

53. You know what that's a pretty god damn RUDE assumption to make.

Do you have a child with autism? Probably not, so you feel it's okay to make nasty comments such as you made in rather a lengthy post for someone who has no child involved. Is what you posted the meme the pharma giants want to paint of the parents? As greedy and selfish? Ah, how kind of them-not! So do you work for them? Hmmm? Otherwise why make such a cold, nasty and vile post? :grr:


FYI-Parents of Autistic kids first and foremost want the children they had up until 1 year or so of age. The child that looked into their eyes and laughed and played-NORMALLY. A child with a future that includes being able to take care of themselves and interact with others. A child that someday will have a partner and children of their own.

What parents of Autistic children take high offense to is the cover up by pharma giants with the help of the U.S. Federal government that is WITHOUT A DOUBT going on. These parents take extreme offense to the blatant and absolute denial of any responsibility by those who ARE responsible! What a bunch of lying, sociopathic bastards! Oh, that's redundant isn't it!

How would you like a child you had to watch every waking moment so they did not harm themselves and in some cases others? How would you like to have to wipe a childs behind that is 10 years old, 15 y/o, 20 y/o and older because they are unable to do so themselves? How would you like to feel the absolute frustration of being unable to communicate with a child that looks normal but is unreachable?! How would you like to fight with school districts and insurance companies who do NOT want to foot the bill for any kind of treatment for these kids and continually find ways to dodge the appropriate care unless they are SUED?! How would you like to worry endlessly about how your child will fare and survive after you are gone when there are few if any who will fight for them as hard as you did?

Yeah, maybe parents of Autistic parents want some money to insure that their child gets the QUALITY CARE they deserve after they, the parents are dead. Instead of having the child ABUSED, EXPLOITED, or HOMELESS by an UNCARING, SELFISH, PETTY and CHEAP SYSTEM. Yeah, some money from those responsible would help the child for their ENTIRE LIFE. I guess that's just too fucking much to ask for by the pharma giants who POISONED them in the first place! :sarcasm:

Here's some good advice: DON'T judge other people before YOU walk in their shoes.

[geebensis]

55. Please re-read...

If you re-read my post you might see where I say I was feeling uncharitable after being screamed at and sprayed with spittle by someone who believes the autism-vaccine stuff.

I have a feeling if we were face to face I'd be wiping some of your spray off.

Here's what I think: there is no real scientific evidence for a link between autism and vaccines. And I'm no stooge of "big pharma".

Here's what I KNOW: Passion, anger, emotion, and heat are not substitutes for scientific evidence. Statements like "How would you like a child you had to watch..." are not substitutes for scientific evidence. The fact that your insurance company doesn't want to pay is not evidence.

I have complete empathy for your plight. As I said before, I have no problem using tax money to help you and others in similar situations.

But real studies, done in several countries, seem to indicate that there is no link between vaccines and autism. Or do US vaccine manufacturers and the US government control even foriegn scientists?

[PA Democrat]

54. I have an autistic daughter and your post is extremely insulting

I along with the vast majority of parents of kids with autism with whom I network want ANSWERS and we want SERVICES for our kids. I read everything I can find on autism research and I honestly don't know what to think about the causes of autism, but I do know this... If you had to face one fraction of the challenges that we parents who have kids with autism face every fucking day, you wouldn't be so insulting. Thanks for painting all of us as idiotic dupes, greedily trying to cash in on our kids' disabilities.

Spare me your "charitable mood". Autism research is STILL GROSSLY underfunded compared to other diseases and disorders with a much lower incidence. Yeah, it's all about MONEY for us parents. It's all about the money that hasn't been spent to determine the etiology and best treatments for autism.

Jeez, I shouldn't even read these threads, most especially given the fact that I've spent most of my entire fucking summer fighting for services that my child desperately NEEDS in an environment of shrinking budgets for the disabled. Get off your sanctimonious soapbox and get to know some families with kids with autism and you'll find that for every minute that they spend even considering a mercury autism link, that they spend thousands upon thousands of hours lobbying state, local and federal government for legislation and funding for research, for services and for education.

I'll be truly charitable and say that I hope you never have to experience the difficulty of raising a child with autism first-hand.

[geebensis]

56. But I'm on your side..

I'm on your side -- at least when it comes to providing services for you and people in similar situations.

I'm not on the side of the professional fundraisers who deliberately spread hysteria. They are out there. There are people out there making a good living spreading nonsense, and they most definitely have an agenda.

[PA Democrat]

79. You have a very insulting way of showing you are on "my side"

There are many in the scientific community who have an "agenda" of their own. Ever hear of Bruno Bettelheim? He was the leading "authority" on autism and his "research" that autism was caused by refrigerator mothers was widely accepted in the medical and scientific community until the mid 1970's.

When my daughter was diagnosed more than 10 years ago there was a huge effort within the "scientific" community to discredit the research done by a guy named Ivar Lovaas that showed that with intensive behavioral intervention begun early, children with autism can make significant progress. A lot of parents were denied that type of help for their kids with autism because of the huge egos of the established medical community. Now that type of early intervention is considered best practice because PARENTS led the effort to demand that the established medical and educational communities stop putting their egos ahead of our children.

Gee, you would think that given the fact that I am very active in the autism community, I would be just bombarded with solicitations from those "professional fundraisers" you describe. To tell you the truth, I am in regular contact with more than 100 families of kids with autism, and not one of them has filed a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers. But just go ahead and keep painting all parents with your broad brush as greedy bastards trying to win the lawsuit jackpot. Glad to hear you're on my side.

So how many letters have you written, how many phone calls have you made to your legislators to request better funding for research and services for people with autism? If you haven't taken any action other than bashing parents struggling to get help for their kids with autism, you are not on my side.

[geebensis]

85. Was I bashing you?

Only people I'm bashing are the autism/vaccine ranters. The ones spreading misinformation. The ones dismissing any evidence that doesn't fit their "theory". The ones who believe there is some kind of massive international conspiracy involving thousands of people. The ones who will never, ever change their minds no matter what evidence is presented. The ones who think scientific debates are won by whoever shouts the loudest.

I'm not painting "all parents" with a broad brush. I'm using a pretty fine one. And I don't think I'm painting you with it.

[PA Democrat]

97. Anyone who has the smallest remaining doubt is worthy of your contempt

unless you are feeling "charitable". Read your own post. And read mine. Parents of kids with autism have been SCREWED by the mainstream scientific community. Read The Creation of Dr. B: A Biography of Bruno Bettelheim and tell me that parents have no reason for a healthy amount of skepticism.

I have talked to a number of mothers of adult children with autism who were subjected to the cruelty of the "refrigerator mother" etiology of autism. Almost every parent of a child with autism has been at some point in time been let down by the very "experts" who are supposed to help their children. Understanding the basis for that distrust and working to actively engage parents goes a lot further than bashing any parent who does not worship unquestioningly at the altar of science.

[geebensis]

104. Abosolutely Untrue

You couldn't be more wrong about who I consider worthy of contempt.

The truth is the polar opposite.

It's those people *without* the smallest remaining doubt that I find scary. There is no logic and no evidence that will sway them.

For the record, I was denigrating emotionally charged "vaccine=autism" true believers. I had nothing to say about anything regarding autism beyond that.

From what I read I don't think my post even applied to you.

[PA Democrat]

109. Read your own words

If I'm in a charitable mood I'll say there are people with autistic children who are looking for answers and sincerely (but incorrectly) believe there might be something to the whole vaccine thing.

If I'm NOT in a charitable mood, and believe me I wasn't after having a woman spray spit in my face screaming at me, I say this: it's all about the money. Parents with autistic kids want money. They want money from the government. They want money from the companies that manufactured the vaccines. Parents with autistic children are being manipulated by hysteria generated by people who are looking for money. Money money money.

You did not restrict your utter contempt to those who do not have the "smallest remaining doubt". You said "people with autistic children who are looking for answers and sincerely (but incorrectly) believe there might be something to the whole vaccine thing."

Does "might" mean "absolutely is"? Is this opposite day?

[geebensis]

114. OK You win

I could have worded that more carefully. A few qualifiers here and there and we could be copacetic.

But my statement "Parents with autistic children are being manipulated by hysteria generated by people who are looking for money" still stands.

Peace.

Mike

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bunny planet]

115. Thank you PA Democrat, well said.

[HuckleB]

116. Like parents, "experts" come in all shapes and sizes.

A decent "expert" understands this about parents and children. So shouldn't parents also return the favor instead of branding every "expert" with the same iron?

Misunderstandings can evolve in many ways, and there is no doubt that haughtiness on the parts of the overeducated is at the top of that list. At the same time, one can also understand the frustration of professionals who must spend inordinate amounts of time dealing with repeated concerns about vaccines, many of which are promoted by anecdotal evidence screamed from Internet sites and other mediums. There is a desire to help, to help families work through all of the day-to-day developmental issues at hand, and that can and does often get lost in the hysteria that has grown around this issue. While professionals should be professional, they are also human, and are prone to frustration, too. Most want parents to air their concerns, as too many parents remain mum instead of airing questions. But frustration regarding this issue may be a part of the type of pronouncements made by these agencies and by professionals who "give up" and become flippant about the issue, rather than working to discuss and create understanding.

None of that discounts the far more pervasive frustration of parents. There is no comparison. But it might help to provide some understanding. Perhaps.

[PA Democrat]

118. I volunteer as a mentor for parents of newly diagnosed children w/ autism

and I always urge parents to work to establish as honest, open and respectful working relationship with the professionals that work with their children. I have never branded every expert with the same iron. I have had the true pleasure of dealing with some absolutely wonderful and caring researchers and professionals whose dedication and work have had a tremendous positive impact on the quality of my daughter's life. I have also sadly dealt with a few egotistical assholes and have advised other parents to steer clear if at all possible of these people.

I've also seen professionals who will treat an informed and educated parent much better than an uninformed and poorly educated parent. It was a real eye opener to see a number of professionals who had treated me respectfully insult and demean parents that were not as adept at successfully advocating for their child, even though they were trying to express very legitimate concerns.

I have seen some parents as well who behaved badly and rudely with professionals. I always try to steer those parents toward more effective methods of advocacy. But I have to admit, I will generally cut parents more slack than professionals given the very real stress of raising a child with autism. I have friends whose children smeared feces all over themselves and their homes unless watched constantly, children who will wander away from home in the middle of a blizzard if the parent turns their back for an instant, children who have open sores from self-destructive behavior, children who are up at all hours of the night, children who are aggressive and/ or destructive.

Please, cut us some slack if we seem a tad irreverent at times.

[HuckleB]

123. Cutting slack for irreverence is never an issue.

Most professionals appreciate it, in my experience.

Outside of a very select few physicians, most of the professionals I know are well aware of just how difficult life with developmenally disabled children can be. Most have cleaned up after their share of feces smearing, spent long hours tracking down lost children, and wanted to bang their own heads as they worked to discover the key a new series of SIB. Again, it's not the same as what parents live with, but don't think that professionals are as ignorant of such things as this post seemed to indicate you might believe them to be.

Irreverence is expected, BTW. I'm worried about people who have none. This is an equation with humans all around, and, as I noted above, professionals should be professional and held to a higher standard than parents, at least in regard to the points of the discussion at hand. And I have watched in horror as you have as some "professionals" treat lesser educated parents poorly (to be kind). As for egotism and assholes, alas, those categories know no bounds of profession or parenthood. I won't get started on that, however, as the stories on both sides of the aisle go on and on and on.

In the end, professionals must always remember that parents are human. Still, we all must remember that "professionals" are human, too, which, I suppose, was my only real point in posting my original response above.

[barb162]

207. I remember the Bettelheim stuff and am glad he has been so

discredited

[Cha]

175. I had to look up "Refrigerator Mothers"..

That was good science :sarcasm:

Your child is fortunate to have a fighter for a mother.

I just saw Robert Kennedy Jr. on The Daily Show last night and he was talking about the link between autism and thimerosal..

http://dadtalk.typepad.com/dadtalk/2005/06/autismthimerosa.html

I think the fatpharmas are denying everything because they don't want their lilly-livered asses SUED!

[HuckleB]

191. Unfortunately.

This isn't about pharmas. And Kennedy hasn't done his homework on this matter. I have lost an incredible amount of respect for him in the past couple months. He ignores far too much information while pushing a very one-sided argument about one possible small additional source of mercury, which actually pales in comparison to the other sources that may have an affect on some cases of Autism. I find that bizarre considering Kennedy's avowed environmentalist pedigree.

[K8-EEE]

106. I Can't Believe How Arrogant Some Of These People Are

I have an autistic daughter also and have found that a lot of the people who make up the cottage industry of various "experts..." are jerks.

[geebensis]

111. It is a sad fact...

It is a sad fact there there will never be a shortage of people willing to take advantage of the desperate and the sick.

[Bo]

92. I truly believe pharma companies are evil

In the amazon jungles the smell of pharma pills have the nickname as the smell of the devil

[bunny planet]

117. Cynical doesn't quite cover it.

Your words certainly explain how you could make someone angry enough to spit in your face.

Parents with autistic children are just looking for a class action jackpot? That is a reprehensible thing to say. You should be ashamed.

[geebensis]

120. I'll try again...

On a recent evening I was in the company of someone who got on a soapbox and went on a tirade about vaccines, conspiracies, autism, etc.

I made the mistake of saying that the evidence doesn't support the vaccine-autism connection. What followed was a frankly harrowing, screeching tirade where I was accused of being everything from brainwashed, a tool of "big pharma", and "in on the conspiracy".

I ended the confrontation immediately. Afterward I did some research on my tormentor and learned I was in the presence of one of the more notorious scare mongers in the booga-booga vaccine universe.

Believe me when I tell you, this was someone who makes a living scaring people, soliciting donations, selling "alternative medicine", and working a long term lobbying effort on congress.

I'm human. I got pissed. After I calmed down I was left with one thought:

People who tell you the evidence doesn't support a vaccine-autism connection aren't trying to sell anything. They're not looking for donations, selling speaking engagements and videos, linking "holistic" websites, or way out on the fringe.

On the other hand, people pushing the vaccine-autism idea generally want you to believe there is a vast conspiracy involving thousands, that vaccine manufacturers deliberately poison children, want you to buy their books, and want you to believe that western medicine is not only ineffective, but actively out to get you.

One position I find credible. The other I find reprehensible.

YMMV.

[bunny planet]

130. Your experience doesn't mean you get to paint all parents of autistic

children with a broad brush and characterize all people who are sceptical of some or even all of the studies as fanatics or people in search of lucrative lawsuits. That's the part that is offensive. Do you need to make such sweeping generalizations. Yes there are charlatans everywhere, and their are people in pain who are gullible or vulnerable everywhere. It's not the norm though. I know lots of people with children dealing with autism, myself included, and there isn't a fanatic among them. I'm sure there are such people, just not the norm. Your negative experiences with such people have kind of made you lash out at people here who probably don't deserve such treatment, at least not from what I've read on this thread.

I have a son with autistic spectrum disorder, I have my opinions about what happened to him, but I would never force my opinion on anyone else, I always read other opinions ( in fact, I read everything I can about the subject whether I agree with it or not, science, psychology, everything). I would NEVER condone not vaccinating your children, never get hysterical and call it an epidemic, look for a jackpot lawsuit, or spit in anyone's face for that matter. Sorry you've run into such people, it doesn't give you the right to assume completely different people are all like that individual that spit on you and actually talk to them (in this case write to them) as if they were. It doesn't give you the right to assume that all people who are still sceptical of what the medical establishment or the pharmaceutical companies tell them are conversely, taken in by charlatans and hysterical. That might not be what you were trying to get across but that is what came across in your posts. It seems a few people were insulted by what you said. Perhaps you should rethink how you are expressing what you wanted to express, there might be a better way to make your point.

[Nia Zuri]

60. I will never believe there is not a link

I delayed my son's vaccinations as long as I could. It is amazing how many shots they try to load onto tiny infants. The day after my sone was born, they wanted to vaccinate him for Hepatitis B(?)...the one that is largely sexually transmitted or via IV drug use. I was told that the state of California likes to have this particular innoculation as early as possible. No thank you, I think we can wait on that one. MMR which was recommended at 14 months, he got at three years. It just stands to reason that these little ones may just not be strong enough to handle triple doses on top of two or three seperate vaccinations at one time. My son is now 5 1/2 and is almost current with his immunizations, but believe me I took my sweet time. The only one I did let him have on schedule was for whooping cough which is around in my area...I was told that there is nothing sadder and scarier than a baby with that particular ailment. I got the feeling that some of these are necessary from a public health perspective (e.g. Hepatitis), but the state wants to get them done as early as possible just because it is easier to control the process when kids are small. My one day old son was not at risk of sexually/IV drug transmitted disease, but may as well get them while they're in the hospital. Just my two cents.

[trotsky]

63. Not to minimize your concerns, but...

it's been shown that the infant immune system is more than capable of taking on what's present in vaccines. I mean, it's not like we all start breathing in a sterile environment. The immune system had better be ready to handle foreign invaders, in large numbers, from day one.

[HuckleB]

64. What evidence did you use to come to your conclusions?

[geebensis]

67. self-delete

[Nia Zuri]

200. Anectdotal evidence and mother's intuition

[HuckleB]

224. You are honest.

I very much appreciate that.

[barb162]

99. I think you were being smart.

[LibertyorDeath]

62. The public was once told no link between cancer & cigarettes

That DTT is safe to use on crops
That asbestos was ok.

"Top officials from three of the nation's premier public health agencies"

Oh well then whatever they say must be true.

and so it goes.

Mercury is good for you acid rain is not a problem.

Top officials say stick your head up your ass it feels great.

If thimerosal was the problem you really think they're going to
admit it I mean what the fuck.

Does anyone here think they would come clean and admit it.

FUCK !

[HuckleB]

65. Who is "they"?

And why don't far more non-pharm tied researchers and scientists argue that the evidence leads to different conclusions than it appears to do?

[LibertyorDeath]

93. "They"

Big pharma
CDC
FDA
nation's premier public health agencies
AMA
You know "they" ie Dow Corning our breast implants are perfectly safe
here's the altered data that proves it.

Show of hands if you think the FDA has your best interest at heart.

There's one born every minute.

"And why don't far more non-pharm tied researchers and scientists argue that the evidence leads to different conclusions than it appears to do"

They do

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=negative+effect+of+thimerosal&spell=1

[HuckleB]

94. Thanks for the spin.

We're talking about etiology and epidemiology of autism here, not just the possible general negatives of Thimerosal. Unfortunately, most of what the CDC and others put out is very good science, and to dismiss it is to leave one with less information with which to make good decisions in this world. And there are many non-affiliated hucksters out there, especially that can be found using a generic Google search.

Junk medicine: increase in autism --
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1675936,00.html

Group lists top unfounded health scares of 2004 --
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050103/COLUMNISTS03/501030333/1019/COLUMNISTS

Context is everything sometimes.

[LibertyorDeath]

100. It comes down to this for me

I do not trust the agencies tasked with telling the public if

Thimerosal is or is not a causal factor in the increased incidence of autism.

All my children were vaccinated with non-Thimerosal containing vaccines.

[HuckleB]

112. Agencies?

Using studies from a variety of sources? Versus, uh, anecdotal evidence?

There is enough evidence regarding to Mercury to indicate that we should do everything we can to limit the exposure to infants, including in regard to Thimerosal. However, the near sole focus in regard to Thimerosal by those on this campaign indicates, well, I don't know what, but it sure does seem funny that more well-noted sources of mercury are on the backburner for them. And none of that means that this is the big bad bogie man that caused an epidemic that has been shown fairly clearly not to be an epidemic.

[LibertyorDeath]

222. I forgot the USDA suck shit also. yes agencies for fucksakes

Farmer Puts USDA Mad Cow Cover-Up in Context of "Big Lies" of Bush Gang


Edited on Fri Jul-22-05 12:40 AM by tiptoe

A potential future distraction from Plamegate (assuming the facts actually ever manifest):

Wisconsin Organic Farmer Puts USDA Mad Cow Cover-Up in Context of "Big Lies" of Bush Gang
From: THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER, July 19, 2005, Issue #414
Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective

COMMENTARY: LIES, COVERUPS HAVE BECOME STANDARD THROUGHOUT BUSH ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING USDA

JIM GOODMAN, WONEWOC, WISCONSIN: Why should we expect that we would be told the truth? Isn't that a bit antiquated, the concept that the Administration should be honest with us? When FDR gave his fireside chats, people listened and had hope; they felt he was being straight with them, telling it like it like it was. We want to believe our President and his Administration, have we now become accustomed to believing lies? and why are we so happy to do so?

We are now into our fifth year of happily accepting whatever drivel spews forth from the Administration. "I want to be the education President" so we accept No Child Left Behind. "Terrorists hate our freedom" so we get the PATRIOT act. "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and I know where they are" so we send our children to kill and die for lies. " The Social Security fund is in danger of insolvency" so we should impoverish our seniors, our disabled and all those less fortunate to the profits of Wall Street?

I am not a teacher (although I have been), nor am I a social scientist, a military tactician or an economist, but I can recognize an ongoing series of lies when I see it. Perhaps we are all so naïve that we believe, or once believed, that the USDA, CDC, FDA and all those governmental regulatory, safety and consumer protection agencies had our best interests at heart. I'm sure at some distant point in the past they did, but that was then, this is now.

Oops, that drug looked pretty good, it was heavily promoted, guess it did cause a lot of heart attacks. Sorry, we sort of ran out of vaccine.

Mad Cow? Not here, safest food supply in the world, those tests were all false positives. False negatives? No way, our testing uses the "gold standard" Well; it wasn't a "gold standard" at all. Late on Friday June 24, the USDA had to admit that their faulty and inadequate testing was responsible for covering up another domestic case of Mad Cow, for the past seven months.
--Full article--

Other recent Mad Cow news: Blood Donors Warned Over Human Mad Cow Disease -About 100 UK blood donors are being warned they may have vCJD - July 20, 2005

[HuckleB]

223. Another "look over there" response.

Why can't anyone deal with the actual information in regard to this issue? The bizarro world that chooses to ignore nearly all the information on the Thimerosal matter because, well, it seems that there must be an incredibly huge, massive, incomprehensibly large cover up that includes researchers and clinicians at all levels and in all institutions and private practices across the nation and the world. Amazing.

[HuckleB]

74. Genetic and Neurodevelopmental Influences in Autistic Disorder

http://cpa-apc.org/publications/archives/cjp/2003/september/nicolson.asp

[HuckleB]

180. I'M RESPONDING TO MYSELF, WITH LINKS.

In order to remind myself that this topic cannot be discussed openly and honestly at DU, and it's not worth my time to try anymore. It's like trying to use logic with an active anorexic. The emotional brain is in control, so it's almost useless to go there until the nutrition deficit has been overcome and the brain is getting the nutrients it needs to function. In this case, evidence bases mean nothing to those who don't want to see the evidence. Heck, whenever you've got people redefining what you actually wrote so they can respond to that instead of what you actually wrote, you know the discussion isn't going anywhere. So why try? OK. I know when it's time to stop wasting my time. Well, actually I don't, or I wouldn't be here now, and I wouldn't have bothered posting to this thread. But I'm trying to teach myself. Call me haughty. Call me stuck up. Call me arrogant. Call me every name in the book. Heck, someone compared those who find the Thimerosal theory lacking to Freepers on the other current LBN Autism thread. I can be haughty. I know it's a fault. I also can't say that such descriptors do anything to foment discussion, so while they very well describe those who foment the Thimerosal campaign, as well as myself and others who find it objectionable, I will not go there, at least not directly.

On edit:

But I will leave a few links to studies that actually show some possible links to etiology of Autism, and no, none of them regard Thimerosal, so they're not as dramatic as that possibility. Of course, no study has given that possibility as much credence as these.

Possible explanation for rise in Autism?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=5406

Rise in autism due to change in diagnostic practice?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=6003

Researchers find autism gene
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=6952

Autism and testosterone levels in the womb possible link
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=7417

Autism and immunologic disorders link
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=7863

Can a diet avoiding gluten and milk proteins reduce autism?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=9875

Scientists Discover Biological Basis for Autism
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=11412

New genetic hypothesis for the cause of autism
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=13104

Increased cases of autism probably due to improved awareness
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=18590

Researcher identifies cellular defect that may contribute to autism, Columbia
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=19365

Asthma, Allergies, Psoriasis During Pregnancy Linked to Increased Risk of Autism in Offspring, Study Says
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=19829

Autism linked to mirror neuron dysfunction
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=21971

Gene Mutated In Cancer Found in Some With Autism
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=22510

UCLA scientists pinpoint region of autism gene on chromosome 17
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=23854

Premature Births, Pregnancy Complications Associated With Increased Autism Risk for Infants, Study Says
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=24689

Susceptibility for type of autism may be in regions of two chromosomes, study
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=25792

Is there an autism epidemic? Doesn't look like it
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=26844

[HuckleB]

212. MAS LINKS.

The Genetics of Autism
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/5/e472?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Autism&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1122007924168_21328&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=pediatrics

Is There an Epidemic of Autism?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/107/2/411

Risk Factors for Autism: Perinatal Factors, Parental Psychiatric History, and Socioeconomic Status
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/10/916

Modern Views of Autism
http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2003/september/guesteditorial.asp

US Department of Education Data on "Autism" Are Not Reliable for Tracking Autism Prevalence
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/1/e120

The Prevalence of Autism
http://www.ont-autism.uoguelph.ca/fombonne-prevalence.html

Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Critical Review of Published Original Data
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/114/3/793

[geebensis]

80. Google up lawfirm+autism+thimerosal

There are plenty of lawfirms signing people up, even though there is not yet (AFAIK) a class action suit.

There probably never will be a successful class action suit, either.

That's why the focus has shifted to lobbying congress. Congress can vote to spend money on whatever they want, proof or no proof.

[HuckleB]

83. A letter well worth reading, written by a mother with an Autistic child.

http://www.neurodiversity.com/mind_epidemic.html

Also, of interest:
http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2005/04/autistics-in-school-1-in-473-not-1-in.html

[geebensis]

87. Great read

Very well written.

I'm going to borrow the author's term "panic-merchants".

[KamaAina]

108. You just found me a new website!

Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much)!

[HuckleB]

125. Sweet.

Glad to read it.

You're welcome. (De nada.)

:hi:

[HuckleB]

86. "I See a Different Conspiracy"

http://www.sarnet.org/lib/conspire.htm

[HuckleB]

89. On The Imaginary 1000% Increase In Autism (letter)

http://www.neurodiversity.com/imaginary_increase.html

[PA Democrat]

132. I don't know about a 1000% increase in autism, but there a two recent

peer-reviewed studies that conclude that the increase in the rate of autism is very real and NOT the result of better diagnosis.

Here are the links:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthology/story?id=558681

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/newsroom/newsletter/v3_n1_MIND_News_winter02-03.pdf (go to page 3)

Not so "imaginary" perhaps?

[HuckleB]

138. Perhaps. But perhaps not.

Those studies don't get to the whys, though that's the headline claim. And I don't see a justification in either piece for dismissing the diagnostic piece, which says a lot, IMHO. The MIND study makes a claim that diagnostic changes don't explain much of the increase but doesn't seem to be able to show why it is making that claim. Further, it doesn't address the matter of psychiatric professionals knowing much more about Autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders at all. I have grave problems with any study that claims there was no change in classification of children previously diagnosed only as mentally retarded now being diagnosed as autistic, as this has been shown repeatedly in other studies. Further, I know no one who worked in the field during that period who didn't note a sea change in this regard. I grant that I need to see the actual study, and that my last point is anecdotal, but it's also all encompassing, which is what leaves me quite cynical about it. Further, an epidemiological study such as this struggles to catch some very real world changes, and that may be why it really concludes, "we don't know why there seems to be a higher rate of diagnosis." OK. But if it's got nothing to do with the widening swath of those included in the diagnostic criteria and increased knowledge in regard to diagnosis, then I guess we can tighten up the diagnostic criteria again and there would be no change in the numbers? Something's not right about some of the statements made in these two pieces.

I am leaving town now for a week, but I am saving this thread to my favorites and will offer more discussion later, if you care to discourse. There are some very interesting uses of statistics here, and, well, I would like to link us to the actual studies rather than from MSM reports and newsletters that can be a bit too self-aggrandizing, IMHO.

[PA Democrat]

139. More here on ongoing California statistical study:

California's mysterious explosion of autism cases worsened in 2004, disappointing researchers who had hoped the number of new diagnoses would level off as they searched for an explanation for the neurological disorder.

The number of people treated for autism at regional centers operated by the state Department of Developmental Services increased 13 percent last year from 2003, according to agency figures.

<snip>
The state has used new, stricter criteria since 2003 for diagnosing autism, but that also has not made a difference. The number of new cases of mental retardation and cerebral palsy -- which also are diagnosed using new criteria -- fell since 2003.

<snip>
"Some people who were skeptical of the original Department of Developmental Services report (looking at the 10-year increase) now believe this is a serious public health policy concern, that the increases are legitimate beyond just better diagnosis," Huff said.

http://app.e2ma.net/app/view:CampaignPublic/id:327.64556433

[HuckleB]

141. An insomniac responds.

Thanks for the additional piece. On thing, however must be noted. While I don't know what they mean by "new, stricter criteria," I cannot imagine a scenario where the state would go back to the old DSM criteria from prior to the mid-90s. Talk about a set up for IDEA lawsuits of epic proportions. This means that something still seems odd about the way they're dealing with the rather large change in diagnostic criteria and awareness as a part of the equation.

OK. Back to sleep I hope. Back here in a week. No more computer for me.

[PA Democrat]

143. Hmmm..... My reason for posting this was to prove a point

It is not fair to tell parents to unquestioningly accept the results of other research regarding an autism thimerosal link, but then to dispute other peer-reviewed research that does not support your own personal belief that the rise in the incidence of autism is due solely to better diagnosis.

I read ALL published autism research with a healthy degree of skepticism. And the history of the scientific community with regards to autism fully justifies that skepticism. It really rankles me that when I as a parent express any degree of skepticism, there are those on DU who would paint me as some kind of anti-vaccine wacko. And I have NEVER advocated not vaccinating children.

But why the animosity toward people who face tremendous challenges to raise their kids with autism when we say that if there is even the slightest possibility that thimerosal may contribute to the development of autism in some children that it is best to remove that preservative? Apparently, even the vaccine manufacturers felt that it was a wise move when they voluntarily decided to remove thimerosal.

I see a very sad type of glee exhibited by some who take every opportunity to ridicule parents who have some remaining doubts. I look at every published research study with a hope that we are getting closer to finding the cause of autism and for finding more effective treatment. It is beyond pitiful that some here view those same studies as an opportunity to lord their superiority over stupid parents.

[HuckleB]

161. Really?

So you've got two studies in the face of dozens of others in this case. And in the case of Thimerosal, you've got no studies supporting its connection and dozens indicating no connection. And you have a point to make on this?

Call me a bit confused.

[PA Democrat]

164. Please provide citations for those "dozens"

that you claim provide irrefutable evidence that the increase in the rates of autism are due to better diagnosis.

[HuckleB]

177. Some of the more recent ones are on this thread.

If you want the full list, you'll have to wait until next week, though, if you have actually researched this issue as much as you indicate you have, I suspect you have seen many of them already. Heck, I suspect you can identify the problems with the studies you offered just as well as I can, but that doesn't fit into the game you're playing. I'm not at home anymore, and I'm rather tired of the constant spin put on this by folks with a clear agenda, who do not want to have an open, honest conversation.

By the way, when I say spin, I mean putting words in my mouth like "irrefutable evidence." It's ridiculous that I must waste my time having to correct what I say when people can't actually respond to what I actually write over and over and over again. Nevermind the game you pulled with your little "point" that comes out of comparing Oranges and Steel, which means, well, both items are earthly anyway. I guess I really thought for a while that you were willing to engage in honest, constructive conversation. Damn, but I was definitely wrong about that.

:eyes:

[PA Democrat]

192. Please, do me a favor. Don't "waste" any more of your precious time.

This is not how you conduct an "honest, constructive conversation". To quote you:

In order to remind myself that this topic cannot be discussed openly and honestly at DU, and it's not worth my time to try anymore. It's like trying to use logic with an active anorexic. The emotional brain is in control, so it's almost useless to go there until the nutrition deficit has been overcome and the brain is getting the nutrients it needs to function.

Yes, this has been a wonderful open and honest conversation. Parents have been accused here of seeking some type of lawsuit jackpot because the issue of thimerosal raised enough concern for many of us to demand it be removed from vaccines, or being accused of being anti-vaccine wackos when all we want is the safest possible vaccines for children.

Some recent research points to a deficiency of glutathione as a potential cause of autism. Read about the function of glutathione below and maybe you can understand why I feel so strongly about reducing the amount of mercury exposure in our air, water and food supply as well as its elimination from vaccines. We should have ZERO tolerance for mercury in our kids vaccines because it is easily eliminated.

<snip>

By analyzing blood samples from 95 autistic children and 75 healthy ones, researchers led by biochemist S. Jill James at the University of Arkansas determined that levels of this protective antioxidant were abnormally low in many autistic children.

They presented their work at the Experimental Biology 2005 conference in San Diego.

The finding is suggestive, several experts said, because glutathione also is crucial for neutralizing toxic heavy metals such as mercury, which is found in food, the air and, at one time, a vaccine preservative called thimerosal.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/816280661.html?did=816280661&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Apr+3%2C+2005&author=Robert+Lee+Hotz&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Study+Links+Free+Radicals+to+the+Spectrum+of+Autism%3B+A+metabolic+flaw+may+account+partly+for+the+range+in+severity+shown+in+children+with+the+developmental+disorder%2C+scientists+report.

And more disturbing research:


Absorption and initial distribution of total mercury proved to be similar for both thimerosal and methylmercury. However, injected thimerosal reacted differently from methylmercury in that it cleared from the infant much more quickly. Also the peak blood mercury concentration in the methylmercury group rose to a level three times higher than the thimerosal infants after the fourth dose. Brain concentrations of total mercury were significantly lower for the thimerosal group compared to the methylmercury group.

These results suggest that ethylmercury is dealkylated much more extensively than methylmercury, producing higher levels of inorganic mercury in the brain. While dealkylation is thought to be a detoxification mechanism that helps protect the central nervous system, previous work by Burbacher and his group has shown that inorganic mercury can affect certain types of cells in the brain such as the microglia. Recent reports have indicated abnormal microglia in the brains of children with autism.

According to the researchers, more research is needed to accurately predict how immunization with thimerosal-containing vaccines may affect children. "Knowledge of the biotransformation of thimerosal . . . is urgently needed to afford a meaningful interpretation of the potential developmental effects of immunization with thimerosal-containing vaccines in newborns and infants," the study authors write. "This information is critical if we are to respond to public concerns regarding the safety of childhood immunizations."

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/press/042105.html

And more:

<snip>

Increased Microglial and Astroglial Activation Are
Observed in the Postmortem Brains
of Autistic Patients
Our analysis of the neuropathological changes in brain
tissues of autistic patients showed extensive neuroglial
responses characterized by microglial and astroglial activation.
In the brains of autistic patients, the most
prominent histological changes were observed in the
cerebellum, characterized by a patchy loss of neurons
in the Purkinje cell layer (PCL) and GCL in 9 of 10
cerebella (Fig 1); one of these cerebella also showed an
almost complete loss of Purkinje cells from the PCL as
well as a marked loss of granular cells (Patient 3711, a
25-year-old male patient with epilepsy, see Fig 1B–D).
Only one cerebellum showed no evidence of Purkinje
cell loss (Patient 2004, a 8-year-old male patient; see
Table 1). In contrast, no significant histological
changes were observed in either region in the control
brains.

http://www.neuro.jhmi.edu/neuroimmunopath/pdf/4%20Neuroglial%20activation%20and%20neuroinflammation%20in%20the%20brain%20of%20patients%20with%20autism.pdf

[HuckleB]

202. Thanks for proving my point again and again.

Don't worry. I won't waste my time on those who cannot discuss a topic openly and honestly. And please don't feign that you don't know what I'm talking about. You can't dismiss the games you play by pointing the fingers elsewhere. That's just childish.

See post 180 for more links. That's the last I'll say to you on this matter.

[PA Democrat]

203. Wow

I post links to studies that you purposely choose to ignore, and call you out on your deeply insulting words and I am "childish"? I am not the only person here who finds your attitude offensive, or haven't you noticed?

I PITY any family that has the true misfortune of having to endure your boorish arrogance.

[HuckleB]

204. You just put words in my mouth again!

You can't be honest for a moment, and you're calling me boorish and arrogant. Get a mirror! It's interesting that the most virulent followers of the Thimerosal campaign are the ones who don't like what I post. Interestingly, they can't reply to what I post either. They've got to rewrite what I say in order create a caricature and argue against that, just like you've done repeatedly. And when they don't want to bother doing that, they just go off in any direction they can to avoid the topic but keep responding, or they just label someone with emotional tags: arrogant, boorish or freeperish. Whatever. It ain't honest.

I tried to discuss this matter with you openly and honestly, and you did not return the favor. I've now called you on that. I guess it's hard to find a mirror when you need it, eh?

Wow indeed. SHEESH!

:eyes:

[barb162]

206. ditto

You may or may not have noticed my posts which were on the general subject of pharma ( and I wasn't trying to hijack this thread) and the myriad cases of the drug companies putting drugs out in the marketplace that shouldn't have been. I find that deeply unacceptable especially when it result in death, sudden and non-sudden long term illnesses, etc. I found that poster an arrogant know-it-all.

[HuckleB]

209. That figures.

SInce you use the same tactics of not actually responding to what I wrote -- only a notch higher, as you refuse to even acknowledge evidence that your hyperbole is overboard.

Get a mirror! Arrogant describes your posts to a T. In fact, it's a fundamentalist form of arrogance that you are selling. Screw evidence! Screw honest discussion! Let's just jump up and scream and shout and call others names!

Sheesh. It's bloody pitiful.

Now I guess it's all about trying to build the mob. Ain't that a wonderful thing? Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Now where have I heard that before?

:eyes:

[barb162]

210. The only thing I notice as hyperbolic in its entirety is your post

Toodles, dear

[HuckleB]

211. You have no idea how much that explains.

[barb162]

213. Of course not. No one has any understanding or idea about

anything but you. You are the single fount of world knowledge and analytical thinking. And you have such a droll sense of humor to boot. Amazing.
Now, since I am tired, goodnight and toodles as before. I think this thread shouldn't be hijacked by you or me and we should probably leave it to the people who are deeply involved with the subject of autism

[HuckleB]

216. LOL!

I am deeply involved, and I tried to discuss with openness. Alas, discussion on this matter was hijacked long ago, though I'm sure the hijackers appreciate your contributions.

:)

Oh, and I do appreciate the laugh, especially considering the constant certainty of your claims. Laughter is the only way to respond anymore. You know, since someone broke your mirror and all.

[HuckleB]

95. FYI: Finding good caregivers (for Autistics) takes time, trust, creativity

Finding good caregivers takes time, trust, creativity -- A Lake Oswego mother writes a book advising how to hire in-home helpers for kids with autism disorders

http://www.oregonlive.com/metrosouthwest/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/metro_southwest_news/1120298333248160.xml&coll=7

"They arrived as strangers, but some eventually found a special place in the hearts of Lisa Lieberman, her husband, Craig Ackerson, and their son Jordan, 17.

They entered the family's Lake Oswego home as caregivers for Jordan, who has autism. Now, years after they've left, some retain a bond with him, sending e-mails and asking for him to come visit. One sent an art piece featuring leaves in remembrance of a boy who was fascinated with them.

Lieberman, a clinical social worker in private practice who often speaks at conferences around the country, said families can find caregivers who enrich their lives. She has written a book on how to do so.

But she doesn't claim the hiring process is easy.

..."

[David Zephyr]

107. Thimerosal

I am still a skeptic about thimerosal. This news conference does not change that one bit.

Childhood vacinations are great.

Thimerosal is a whole other subject.

I have an open mind on this, but there is just too much smoke around thimerosal that needs to be cleared up first.

[Robb]

150. If Thimerosal isn't harmful, why did they remove it in 2001? n/t

[trotsky]

163. It was part of an overall effort to minimize exposure to ALL forms

of mercury, regardless of source.

And it was also noted that people were beginning to shun vaccination because of the unfounded fears, which would lead to a much larger health crisis. Sadly, it's a case of giving in for the greater good.

Still no data to suggest that removing thimerosal has any affect on decreasing autism cases, though.

[eridani]

220. For the same reason that Proctor and Gamble--

--removed that "Satanic" logo that they used to have.

[Cha]

168. No wonder abc cancelled

Robert Kennedy Jr's report on the link between mercury in vaccines and autism.

Running on Scared!

[HuckleB]

179. Or...

it could be that it didn't pass the review of fact checkers. There is no way the piece he did on this matter would come close to passing muster, even as an opinion piece, in a true peer-reviewed journal. Now I know that most MSM reports wouldn't either, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't.

[Cha]

182. They wouldn't tell him why they

cancelled (edit)at the last minute. I call them chickenshits.

[HuckleB]

183. How do you know?

Just because he says so, doesn't mean it's so.

[Cha]

184. Sorry, I believe him..you can

make of that what you will.

[HuckleB]

185. I read his piece.

I don't know what to believe in regard to Kennedy anymore. I lost a lot of faith in the guy.

[Psephos]

174. This thread is a case study in how politics affects objectivity

The first precept of critical thinking is healthy skepticism. The second is to demand unbiased information, and to evaluate it without prejudice. The third is to be on guard against the seduction of believing something because you want it to be true. This third one is the hardest of them all.

A lot of people in this debate choose evidence to support what they already believe, rather than choose what they believe based on evidence. Same as the ID/creationist crowd.

Peace.

[Lilyhoney]

176. If you are ever in CA, let's go skating.

:hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

201. No, it's more of an example of how personal experience affects it.

It's easy for those to whom the debate is academic, or at worst a matter of professional interest, to dismiss the passion that the parents of autistics display as lunatic ravings.

It's harder when it affects you personally.

The point expressed earlier that parents who believe that there may be a partially environmental cause to autism are nothing more than money-grubbing creeps who wish to capitalize on their kids misfortune offends me more than anything I'd read from a freeper.

[robertpaulsen]

193. Did anyone else see RFK Jr. on The Daily Show last night?

Excellent & serious interview. I heard an audible gasp from the crowd when he said that after the outcry from parents with autistic children forced ABC to do the special, they edited it to look like a commercial promoting the pharmaceutical industry. I'm paraphrasing, but "commercial promoting the pharmaceutical industry" is basically what RFK Jr. said and I gasped along with everyone.

[Eloriel]

198. Yes! He was brilliant, utterly credible and put the LIE to big pharma

on this issue, as so many of us already knew in our hearts to be the case. Thank you for bringing it up. Is there a transcript of TDS, I wonder??

Oh, re the commercials -- there were TWO one on either side of the re-cut, now-benign and pro-pharma segment.

[electron_blue]

214. I totally disagree with what RFK said about the

scientific evidence being overwhelmingly in favor of an autism-vaccine link. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That did really stink about what ABC did to the show, though.

[Junkdrawer]

231. Here's a link to the RFK Jr. piece on the Daily Show...

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=16541

[HuckleB]

221. Dozens of Chemicals Found in Most Americans' Bodies

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/kids/la-na-chemicals22jul22,1,3669125.story?coll=la-health-kids

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Does the near sole focus on Thimerosal, by a loud minority, make any sense at all?



Dr. Monica Martin Goble: Feared autism-vaccine link isn't proven
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050722/OPINION02/507220315/1087/opinion

[blue neen]

230. IMHO, most of the posters on this thread who are questioning

a thimerosal/autism link are doing just that--questioning it, trying to research it, trying to find answers. Did thimerosal contribute to their child's autism?

You claim it didn't, and you provided many links to back up what you believe. There were also many links provided that suggest that there is a correlation between the thimerosal and autism.

One of the biggest fears that we have as human beings is the fear of the unknown. The people who have autistic children are living with huge unknowns in their lives. Their child has a neuological disorder whose cause is still unknown at this time. There are no known or effective treatments for it. They don't know if their child will talk, harm themselves or others, be toilet-trained, let alone be able to function in society. They don't know what to expect from schools, gov't. agencies, insurance companies. What behavior treatment methods work best, what interventions are effective? Should we put our child on strong medications just because NO ONE can give us any answers? WHO is going to care for our disabled child when we are gone?

In consideration of all those unknowns, they have every right to question a thimerosal/autism link. All that these parents are doing is trying to find answers in the little spare time that they have in their lives.

In case you are wondering, I personally believe that it is a combination of factors that cause autism, including genetics (particularly the glutathione theory), environmental toxins, and POSSIBLY thimerosal. That is my opinion, you have yours, and so do the other people on this thread. You'll interpret the articles you read your way, and everyone else will do likewise.

The one theme that stood out to me in this thread is that these parents need our support. My heart goes out to all of them.

I just returned today from Florida where I was caring for my mother who has early onset Parkinson's Disease. Guess what? They DON'T KNOW the cause of it. Most researchers believe that it is caused by a combination of genetic factors and environmental exposure. Exposure to what? They don't know. Do you think I'm going to keep my mind open to every possible cause and every possible toxin? You betcha!