• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

To me, 4:1 ratio boy/girls with autism clinches anti-vaccine debate

metzomagic

Scholar
metzomagic
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
124
Folks, hi,

Haven't been here on the forums for a while, not since the 'great speaker cable debacle' involving Michael(s) Fremer and Lavigne anyway. Being an engineer, and an electrical one to boot, that sort of carry-on really piques my interest. But now there's another issue that's caught my attention...

Over on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog last week, there arose a bi-polar discussion (well, aren't they always) between the critical thinkers and the anti-vaxxers regarding the recent appearance of the 'Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey Road Show' on Larry King. I was reading up on autism and ASD on Wikipedia as a refresher before joining the discussion when this little gem of information leapt out at me:

The prevalence of ASD is about 6 per 1,000 people, with about four times as many males as females

So... if autism is, according to the anti-vaxxers, caused by the mercury in the thiomersal that is used as a preservative in the vaccines (but not since 2001 or so, let's not even go there), then why is the disorder so much more prevalent in males? According to my admittedly limited knowledge of things biochemical, why would a (supposed) neurotoxin be selective according to gender? I posed this very question (in so many words) on Phil's blog, but never got an answer from either camp. But to be fair it was towards the very end of the comments, and I suppose interest had waned by then.

And so I'd like to revive the discussion here. It would seem to me that this would be a strong argument against the anti-vaxxers if it has any scientific basis. Remember, we're looking for a sort of slam-dunk argument along these lines:

Anti-vaxxer: "It's the mercury in the MMR vaccine that causes autism."
Skeptic: "Then why are 4 times as many males affected as females?"

Please discuss.

Regards,
MetzO'Magic
 
Last edited:
Actually never thought of that argument. But then again for a long time i have thought it a myth. It is only recently that i have been convinced that the 4:1 ratio is real, and not just an artifact of the diagnosis criteria being boy oriented.

So if i told anyone that 4:1 ratio was a myth, this is me saying i was wrong. :)

It is good to investigate and doubt even one self.
 
Sparring with antivaxxers is an exercise in frustration.

Just to prepare you: I have brought up the same point before, and here are the most common replies:

  • males are more susceptible for genetic reasons
  • this is Big Pharma propaganda - according to objective estimates, males and females are equally represented. I thought you were a skeptic!
  • this is a misleading artefact of the diagnostic criteria - according to objective estimates, males and females are equally represented. I thought you were a skeptic!
 
Oh, and also. Their reply will probably end up being something at least as stupid as this:

Girl brains are more effective, and more mature than boy brains, so the effect is less pronounced/it takes more to hurt them.
 
And do you remember their replies to
  • males are more susceptible for genetic reasons - Explain or source
  • this is Big Pharma propaganda - according to objective estimates, males and females are equally represented. I thought you were a skeptic! - Explain or source
  • this is a misleading artefact of the diagnostic criteria - according to objective estimates, males and females are equally represented. I thought you were a skeptic! - Explain or source
Though i will admit i have said the latter one(well, besides the last sentence) for other reasons. But i was proven wrong, as i wrote above :)
 
metzomagic said:
Anti-vaxxer: "It's the mercury in the MRR vaccine that causes autism."
Click to expand...


A couple of quick notes:
1) the MMR vaccine never used the preservative Thiomersal
2) This just a pet peeve of mine but a portion of Thiomersal metabolizes or degrades to ethylmercury and is then expelled from the body as that chemical and at no point is it exactly "Mercury" per se even though it is referenced as such by proponents and opponents of vaccines alike. Methyl mercury, elemental mercury, and mercury sulfides are not interchangeable, have different chemical properties, and different toxicities and should be differentiated.
 
portlandatheist said:
A couple of quick notes:
1) the MMR vaccine never used the preservative Thiomersal
2) This just a pet peeve of mine but a portion of Thiomersal metabolizes or degrades to ethylmercury and is then expelled from the body as that chemical and at no point is it exactly "Mercury" per se even though it is referenced as such by proponents and opponents of vaccines alike. Methyl mercury, elemental mercury, and mercury sulfides are not interchangeable, have different chemical properties, and different toxicities and should be differentiated.
Click to expand...

portlandatheist, hi,

Re. your point 1)... well there you go. I just checked the FDA's page concerning the use of thiomersal in vaccines and you are correct. It was *never* used in the MMR vaccine. Guess this skeptical thinker should get his facts straight before trying to make a case :-\

I guess with all the to-ing and fro-ing that was going on in these discussions, I either picked up that bit of factual misinformation from an anti-vaxxer, or just confused it with the use of thiomersal in vaccines in general.

I agree completely with your point 2). I read up on these distinctions already.

Thanks for the info,
MetzO'Magic
 
Last edited:
I wonder how you could sort out the genuine autism kids from the ones who’s scum parents just want them to have autism (like our fav low life publicity whore Jenny) so they can get attention.
 
blutoski said:
Sparring with antivaxxers is an exercise in frustration.

Just to prepare you: I have brought up the same point before, and here are the most common replies:

* males are more susceptible for genetic reasons
Click to expand...

blutoski, hi,

Yes, males are more susceptible for genetic reasons, it would seem. So what would chemicals in vaccines have to do with that? The brain chemistry can't be that fundamentally different between the sexes that a neurotoxin would have a more pronounced effect in males, could it? Or am I following a completely flawed line of reasoning here?

Regards,
MetzO'Magic
 
IIRC, the ratio of boys:girls who stutter increases with age. At a young age the ratio is roughly even, but as children grow up it increases to 4:1 because more girls 'recover' than boys.
 
metzomagic said:
I was reading up on autism and ASD on Wikipedia as a refresher before joining the discussion when this little gem of information leapt out at me:

The prevalence of ASD is about 6 per 1,000 people, with about four times as many males as females
Click to expand...

Is there a non-wikipedia source available?
 
metzomagic said:
portlandatheist, hi,

Re. your point 1)... well there you go. I just checked the FDA's page concerning the use of thiomersal in vaccines and you are correct. It was *never* used in the MMR vaccine. Guess this skeptical thinker should get his facts straight before trying to make a case :-\

I guess with all the to-ing and fro-ing that was going on in these discussions, I either picked up that bit of factual misinformation from an anti-vaxxer, or just confused it with the use of thiomersal in vaccines in general.

I agree completely with your point 2). I read up on these distinctions already.

Thanks for the info,
MetzO'Magic
Click to expand...


This confusion is common, though.

The reason is that in the US & Canada, Thimerosal was proposed as causal due to some sort of toxicity, whereas in the UK, a completely unrelated theory about the MMR "triple-jab" vaccine overloading the immune system was proposed.

In the US, the response was to remove Thimerosal, while in the UK, the response was to advocate dividing the MMR into three seperate inoculations.

It's understandable that people get the two unrelated (and often contradictory) proposals conflated.
 
TobiasTheViking said:
And do you remember their replies to
  • males are more susceptible for genetic reasons - Explain or source
  • this is Big Pharma propaganda - according to objective estimates, males and females are equally represented. I thought you were a skeptic! - Explain or source
  • this is a misleading artefact of the diagnostic criteria - according to objective estimates, males and females are equally represented. I thought you were a skeptic! - Explain or source
Though i will admit i have said the latter one(well, besides the last sentence) for other reasons. But i was proven wrong, as i wrote above :)
Click to expand...

Pfft. In a lunchroom, neither the skeptic nor the antivaxxer will have references available.

I'm just saying that the ratio argument has less rhetorical weight than you'd expect.

The other problem is that antivaxxer advocates do have citations by the truckload. It's a cottage industry.
 
metzomagic said:
blutoski, hi,

Yes, males are more susceptible for genetic reasons, it would seem. So what would chemicals in vaccines have to do with that? The brain chemistry can't be that fundamentally different between the sexes that a neurotoxin would have a more pronounced effect in males, could it? Or am I following a completely flawed line of reasoning here?
Click to expand...

It's not a reasoning problem so much as assignment of burden of proof. It's pretty difficult to show that an as-of-yet-unidentified mutation can't do this or that, because by definition we know nothing about it.

The problem is that it's plausible that a mutation could make men more vulnerable to some type of environmental provocation. If PKU was sex-linked, it'd be a sensitivity to Aspartame that would manifest as much more common in males. Pretty much any defect on the X Chromosome will produce a phenotype more often in males.
 
Last edited:
kedo1981 said:
I wonder how you could sort out the genuine autism kids from the ones who’s scum parents just want them to have autism (like our fav low life publicity whore Jenny) so they can get attention.
Click to expand...

Well, this is the purpose of diagnostic criteria. When surveys are conducted, they are not interested in parents' opinions.
 
As a parent with an Asperger's daughter I have never been too convinced of the MMR argument. It certainly didn't chime any bells in our experience. However, I have sort of followed the debate on and off over the years (Noglet now being nearly 19 and doing well at college). However, recently on the Guardian comment pages I encountered a couple of people opposed to vaccines. Initially I supposed that they merely had question marks/reservations about the impact of MMR but the more the discussion went one the more it seemed to descend into some surreal conspiracy theory. I, frankly, found the anti-vaccine people a little disturbing. I am not sure I even scratched the surface of the full gamut of the stuff they subscribe too.

Obviously Noglet is one of the 1 in 4 and if testosterone were an issue would she not be quite butch? She is in fact very pretty and feminine and costs me a fortune in clothes and shoes :(
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
IIRC, the ratio of boys:girls who stutter increases with age. At a young age the ratio is roughly even, but as children grow up it increases to 4:1 because more girls 'recover' than boys.
Click to expand...

TobiasTheViking said:
Ehm... no.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall reading that somewhere, too, but there's no source I can find that confirms it. According to ASHA, the 4:1 ratio shows up at school age.

Boys are more likely than girls to be diagnosed with quite a few speech, language and learning disorders. Make of that what you will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom