Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Dcdrac]

And the one person who did do a study that suppsoedly found a llink but did not really was the fraud wakefield, quackfield, who did it in a totally unethical uncontrolled way.

So RiJ the word of a proven fraud and quack a struck off Dr is worth more than all the population studies done in a correct, ethical and proper manner?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Of course, the simple test, which has no doubt been posited in this thread numerous times before:

If there is even one person with autism who didin't have any vaccinations, that would show that vaccinations are not the only cause.

So, Clayton and r-j, do you acknowledge that, if vaccines are at all to blame (which they aren't), then at least they aren't the only cause?

Oh, and to anticipate mercury as a possible cause, it hasn't been in the main vaccines for years now, so ingesting mercury via fish, or via amalgam, is simply not a cause.

 

[r-j]

As I cited before from 2002: A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism studied 537,303 Danish children.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134
I would agree that the Danish study rules out the MMR as a cause of autism.

And the Polish study as well.

Overall, the study found, children who had received the MMR vaccine actually had a lower risk of autism than their unvaccinated peers. Nor was there any evidence of an increased autism risk with the measles-only vaccine

. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/04/us-mmr-autism-idUSTRE60330220100104

Unless there is some conspiracy among the researchers (which I can not believe) then it seems there have been studies done comparing populations, and no link is evident that the MMR causes autism.

To save us all time, what is the usual Clayton response when faced with these studies?

 

[The Don]

To save us all time, what is the usual Clayton response when faced with these studies?

Ignore them or claim that because they were (or weren't) carried out in <Country X> on <Group Y> they are in some way invalid.

 

[r-j]

That would make this a complete waste of time! Which is how I feel about most conspiracy theories.

My opinion would be to make a web page with the info above clearly explained on it, and quote it and link to it when ever somebody says the MMR or the M causes autism.

This doesn't answer the mitochondria disorder issue, or all the other things, but at least we know the MRR isn't a direct cause of autism.

 

[Sherman Bay]

There is abso-fracking-lutely NO basis for the claim that a few antigens in vaccines are more challenges than the neonate's immune system can handle.

Except for the argument from personal incredulity, which seems to take precedence for some.

 

[Estellea]

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134
I would agree that the Danish study rules out the MMR as a cause of autism.

And the Polish study as well.
. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/04/us-mmr-autism-idUSTRE60330220100104

Unless there is some conspiracy among the researchers (which I can not believe) then it seems there have been studies done comparing populations, and no link is evident that the MMR causes autism.

To save us all time, what is the usual Clayton response when faced with these studies?

Wow, I wasn't expecting that. At the risk of sounding patronising, I'm impressed with your candor; it takes guts to do what you just did.

Este

 

[r-j]

It doesn't seem that way to me at all! I can't even imagine that there is some vast conspiracy over the MMR that extends to multiple countries, designed to cover up some terrible secret, nor can I swallow that those same Doctors, knowing there is danger, would give their own kids the vaccines.

Eliminating vaccines as a direct cause of autism is good science. To believe that we don't know, and I mean using hard science, what effects vaccines have on the worlds populations is insane. That there are no US or British studies, that is a bit much. Long term studies of large populations are essential for many things. With out such a scientific gathering of long term data, there is no way to know both the effectiveness of current and past vaccines, as well as any long term health risks associated with the growing number of vaccines being used.

I know from experience that you can (as an individual) have horrific reactions to vaccines, especially multiple ones at a time, while your health is compromised. Or even if in good shape. It's a crap shoot. But not for ASD.

The more we know the better we can do things.

I also found a study on the unvaccinated Amish that showed they also have autism, but at much lower rates. Probably genetic differences, but it would be good to know why.

But that's all going off in new directions.

 

[The Don]

That would make this a complete waste of time! Which is how I feel about most conspiracy theories.

The consensus is that whilst the OP may never be convinced, it gives an opportunity for the evidence to be collated and may sway the opinion of people reading the thread who are undecided or who are more amenable to considering the evidence.

 

[The Don]

I also found a study on the unvaccinated Amish that showed they also have autism, but at much lower rates. Probably genetic differences, but it would be good to know why.

One problem with Autism is that it's a spectrum of disorders with a somewhat subjective diagnosis. The lower rates in the Amish may have genetic factors or it may be that the Amish lifestyle may be more tolerant of autism spectrum disorders and so children may be less likely to be submitted for a diagnosis.

From this abstract:

https://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2010/webprogram/Paper7336.html

Further studies are underway to address the cultural norms and customs that may be playing a role in the reporting style of caregivers, as observed by the ADI. Accurate determination of the ASD phenotype in the Amish is a first step in the design of genetic studies of ASD in this population.

 

[Matthew Cline]

If there is this large population that was never vaccinated with the MMR, then it would be possible to do a study that shows what (if any) difference it made. If the autism in unvaccinated is the same as vaccinated, that sort of thing.

It's such a simple idea, it's hard to believe it hasn't already been done.

A prospective study hasn't been done, and never will be done, because of ethical reasons.

As for a retrospective study, there's several difficulties:

1) Difficulties with the study itself. Prometheus covers this with his "Let's put on a Study!" article (which unfortunately is only available via the WayBack machine).

2) What, exactly, would satisfy the anti-vaxxers? Would an unvaccinated vs vaccinated-at-all study do, or would it have to be unvaccinated vs fully-vaccinated? Would unvaccinated subjects have to be excluded if their mothers had gotten any vaccines while pregnant or while breastfeeding? Excluded if their mothers had had mercury-containing fillings? Excluded if their mothers had ever been vaccinated at all? I've seen the first issue raised by various anti-vaxxers talking about vaccine studies, and the other issues were raised by anti-vaxxers as to why a child was autistic despite being completely unvaccinated.

 

[Dcdrac]

A prospective study hasn't been done, and never will be done, because of ethical reasons.

As for a retrospective study, there's several difficulties:

1) Difficulties with the study itself. Prometheus covers this with his "Let's put on a Study!" article (which unfortunately is only available via the WayBack machine).

2) What, exactly, would satisfy the anti-vaxxers? Would an unvaccinated vs vaccinated-at-all study do, or would it have to be unvaccinated vs fully-vaccinated? Would unvaccinated subjects have to be excluded if their mothers had gotten any vaccines while pregnant or while breastfeeding? Excluded if their mothers had had mercury-containing fillings? Excluded if their mothers had ever been vaccinated at all? I've seen the first issue raised by various anti-vaxxers talking about vaccine studies, and the other issues were raised by anti-vaxxers as to why a child was autistic despite being completely unvaccinated.

you have hit the nail on the head, the anti vaxxers want an impossibly unethical study done so it cannot be done, s they say you cannot prove for certain MMR/vaccines do not cause autism.

They do not, but the anti vaxxers use the fact such a study has not happened to spread uncertainty and doubt, it is this uncertainty and doubt which causes parents to not immunise their children and directly casuses suffering and harm.

 

[r-j]

As for a retrospective study, there's several difficulties:

I can hear the cigarette makers laughing, since they used the same argument in the past.

1) Difficulties with the study itself. Prometheus covers this with his "Let's put on a Study!" article (which unfortunately is only available via the WayBack machine).

No, it's more like it's fortunate it's gone. Very unscientific, which is why you can't quote a scientific source to support your idea.

The interest in “doing a study” seems to stem from the idea that the only way to find if vaccines are connected with autism is to study unvaccinated children and compare their autism prevalence with vaccinated children. This is not true and is - in fact - not even the most effective way to study the postulated connection, as I will show later

.http://web.archive.org/web/20120618174349/http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=154

I stopped reading, as it is clearly an opinion piece.

2) What, exactly, would satisfy the anti-vaxxers?

I have no idea, but large studies of populations that are not vaccinated compared to the vaccinated is certainly scientific evidence. It's also essential to know how the vaccines are working.

I think one major reason such studies are resisted is evident in the one posted above, by the Polish researchers. One that studied all health issues would be a huge scientific database, and it would teach us things. But even just one that focused on the things people are all riled up over would be a start.

Why the resistance (which is obvious) to even the idea of a study? What is the real problem in regards to this?

 

[Dcdrac]

We know how the vaccines are working.

And we know they have no impact on autism.

 

[jaydeehess]

did the Amish study take into account age of parents?

 

[Estellea]

I can hear the cigarette makers laughing, since they used the same argument in the past.

No, and it's too bad you dismissed Prometheus' excellent explanation as to why there are extraordinary difficulties with a prospective study of vaccinated v. unvaccinated and even difficulties with a retrospective study.

No, it's more like it's fortunate it's gone. Very unscientific, which is why you can't quote a scientific source to support your idea.
.http://web.archive.org/web/20120618174349/http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=154

I stopped reading, as it is clearly an opinion piece.

I'm not sure how you can dismiss that post as an "opinion piece" when he qualifies his arguements very cogently with statistics. He has even offered to perform a study for the anti-vaxx contingent and they refused. There are not enough unvaccinated children to perform a study to represent a large enough difference if there is one. Where is this money coming from? Why don't the anti-vaxxers put their money where there mouths are and fund this study? I know many excellent scientists who would be willing to do this.

I have no idea, but large studies of populations that are not vaccinated compared to the vaccinated is certainly scientific evidence. It's also essential to know how the vaccines are working.

Again, what are you looking for? You need to know this before just vapidly declaring how useful a vaxx v. unvaxx study would be. Confounders? How do you control for those? Don't you think we already have a very good idea how vaccines are working?

I think one major reason such studies are resisted is evident in the one posted above, by the Polish researchers. One that studied all health issues would be a huge scientific database, and it would teach us things. But even just one that focused on the things people are all riled up over would be a start.
Why the resistance (which is obvious) to even the idea of a study? What is the real problem in regards to this?

That is in the works and I already linked to it several times: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12211 It starts with in utero environment and will follow participants for 21 years. I honestly don't know what you want if this doesn't satisfy you.

Este

 

[r-j]

There are not enough unvaccinated children to perform a study to represent a large enough difference if there is one.

Oh for Pete's sake. In England they are crying about how only 60% of children have been vaccinated with the MMR. In the US there is a huge population that refuses all vaccines (religion or some other idiotic rational), just one sect alone has 20,000 unvaccinated children in the last decade.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12211 just proves my point. There has never been a long term study done, much less one that is looking at any possible long term side effects or issues with vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.

According to this paper
http://paa2013.princeton.edu/papers/132073 there has been only one US study to even find out how many children are unvaccinated. And it says

The proportion of unvaccinated children rose significantly over the period, from about onequarter of one percent in 2002 (0.27%) to over half of one percent in 2004 (0.56%), over threequarters of one percent in 2007 (0.80%), and remaining high through 2010 (0.81%). While these proportions are very small, they represent a substantive change in the risk of disease over time: the number of unvaccinated children in the US doubled between 2002 and 2004 (from below 16,000 to over 32,000 children), increased by nearly 20,000 children in 2007 alone, and tripledby 2010 (to over 50,000 children nationally).

Don't just make things up, you lose all credibility. At 50,000 a year, there are plenty of people to study. At that rate there will be a half a million new people in a decade (there already are many times that).

This horsenonsense about not being able to do it, or it costs too much, or there are not enough people, or what ever excuse you choose, it isn't scientific, or reasonable at all.

That there are no long term studies to even know if the vaccines are working is a real black eye for the medical community. I noticed that one thing they "discover" when there is a measles "pandemic" (which is usually less than a hundred cases somewhere) is that many of the victims were vaccinated.

That little fact should send an alarm through the medical world, but it never does. Maybe they are too busy trying to stop their own creation from simply killing people at will. That creation being super mutated bacteria created by antibiotics. And spread by hospitals.

That kills more kids than Measles ever did.



(Hello! It's a conspiracy theory!)

 

[Dcdrac]

Persoanlly I am looking forward to this if it works

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110321134500.htm

 

[Dcdrac]

200 plus years of benficial treatment arising directly out of vaccination thats a pretty good long term population study.

Als0 we had the pre vacciantion times centuries worth of populations to draw on with people dying en masse from diseases we now routinely vaccinate against.

Seems pretty damn conclusive to me.

 

[r-j]

You are missing the obvious point. With no studies there is no actual data on how effective a vaccine is.

Of the 123 U.S. residents who were infected last year, more than 90 percent were not vaccinated or it was not known if they had been vaccinated, Parada said

. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/us-measles-indiana-idUSTRE81E20U20120215

That could mean a dozen vaccinated kids caught measles. That nobody knows the real number just makes the point. Unless measles breaks out, nobody knows if somebody is immune or not. Why no data on the protection from measles from the vaccines?

That just leaves the door wide open for frightened people to suspect the worst. Of course you can call them stupid and make fun of them for being ignorant, but that isn't science.