Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

The Garbage my 'friends' believe!!

Posted by on Mar. 29, 2013 at 2:41 PM
  • 13 Replies
  • 438 Total Views



THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS

Children’s Hospital Medical Center, MLC-3021 3333 Burnet Ave. 
Cincinnati, OH 45229-3039 
513-636-7140 FAX: 513-636-7141

Embargoed until 12:01 AM, ET, March 29, 2013

For more information or to obtain a copy of the article, contact: Becky Lindeman, 513-636-7140, journal.pediatrics@cchmc.org.

The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by "Too Many Vaccines Too Soon"

Cincinnati, OH, March 29, 2013 -- Although scientific evidence suggests that vaccines do not cause autism, approximately one-third of parents continue to express concern that they do; nearly 1 in 10 parents refuse or delay vaccinations because they believe it is safer than following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) schedule (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf). A primary concern is the number of vaccines administered, both on a single day and cumulatively over the first 2 years of life. In a new study scheduled for publication in The Journal of Pediatrics, researchers concluded that there is no association between receiving “too many vaccines too soon” and autism.

Dr. Frank DeStefano and colleagues from the CDC and Abt Associates, Inc. analyzed data from 256 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 752 children without ASD (born from 1994-1999) from 3 managed care organizations. They looked at each child’s cumulative exposure to antigens, the substances in vaccines that cause the body’s immune system to produce antibodies to fight disease, and the maximum number of antigens each child received in a single day of vaccination.

The researchers determined the total antigen numbers by adding the number of different antigens in all vaccines each child received in one day, as well as all vaccines each child received up to 2 years of age. The authors found that the total antigens from vaccines received by age 2 years, or the maximum number received on a single day, was the same between children with and without ASD. Furthermore, when comparing antigen numbers, no relationship was found when they evaluated the sub-categories of autistic disorder and ASD with regression.

Although the current routine childhood vaccine schedule contains more vaccines than the schedule in the late 1990s, the maximum number of antigens that a child could be exposed to by 2 years of age in 2013 is 315, compared with several thousand in the late 1990s. Because different types of vaccines contain varying amounts of antigens, this research acknowledged that merely counting the number of vaccines received does not adequately account for how different vaccines and vaccine combinations stimulate the immune system. For example, the older whole cell pertussis vaccine causes the production of about 3000 different antibodies, whereas the newer acellular pertussis vaccine causes the production of 6 or fewer different antibodies.

An infant’s immune system is capable of responding to a large amount of immunologic stimuli and, from time of birth, infants are exposed to hundreds of viruses and countless antigens outside of vaccination. According to the authors, “The possibility that immunological stimulation from vaccines during the first 1 or 2 years of life could be related to the development of ASD is not well-supported by what is known about the neurobiology of ASDs.” In 2004, a comprehensive review by the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is not a causal relationship between certain vaccine types and autism, and this study supports that conclusion.

###

NOTES FOR EDITORS

"Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism," by Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH, Cristofer S. Price, ScM, and Eric S. Weintraub, MPH, appears in The Journal of Pediatrics (www.jpeds.com), DOI 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.02.001, published by Elsevier.

ABOUT THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS

The Journal of Pediatrics is a primary reference for the science and practice of pediatrics and its subspecialties. This authoritative resource of original, peer-reviewed articles oriented toward clinical practice helps physicians stay abreast of the latest and ever-changing developments in pediatric medicine. The Journal of Pediatrics is ranked 4th out of 115 pediatric medical journals (2011 Journal Citation Reports®, published by Thomson Reuters). URL: www.jpeds.com

ABOUT ELSEVIER

Elsevier is a world-leading publisher of scientific, technical and medical information products and services. The company works in partnership with the global science and health communities to publish more than 2,000 journals, including The Lancet(www.thelancet.com) and Cell (www.cell.com), and close to 20,000 book titles, including major reference works from Mosby and Saunders. Elsevier’s online solutions include SciVerse ScienceDirect (www.sciencedirect.com), SciVerse Scopus (www.scopus.com), Reaxys (www.reaxys.com), MD Consult (www.mdconsult.com) and Nursing Consult (www.nursingconsult.com), which enhance the productivity of science and health professionals, and the SciVal suite (www.scival.com) and MEDai’s Pinpoint Review (www.medai.com), which help research and health care institutions deliver better outcomes more cost-effectively. A global business headquartered in Amsterdam, Elsevier (www.elsevier.com) employs 7,000 people worldwide. The company is part of Reed Elsevier Group PLC(www.reedelsevier.com), a world-leading publisher and information provider, which is jointly owned by Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV. The ticker symbols are REN (Euronext Amsterdam) REL (London Stock Exchange), RUK and ENL (New York Stock Exchange).

by on Mar. 29, 2013 at 2:41 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
emmy526
by New Owner on Mar. 29, 2013 at 2:44 PM

they are passing this aroun fb like wildfire, believing every word this article says...i am totally shocked they are that naive, being as they are supposedly into natural, green,, organic, healthy living...i will be posting links to scientific studies but i'm sure since this article came from a pedi publication, no one will listen at all....smdh...who knew they were THAT naive?  i sure didn't..now it has me questioning their intelligence altogether.

jellyphish
by Bronze Member on Mar. 29, 2013 at 2:59 PM
5 moms liked this
You know what would be awesome? If autism was the only concern with vaccines. I HATE that it's the ONLY focus. It's like focusing on sleep deprivation as the only detriment of meth use. (Not to diminish the importance of severity of autism and vaccines, just to point out that's only one of a million really scary issues)
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
delilahsmom1177
by New Member on Mar. 29, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Agreed. I am not scared of autism at all. I am worried about all the chemicals.

Quoting jellyphish:

You know what would be awesome? If autism was the only concern with vaccines. I HATE that it's the ONLY focus. It's like focusing on sleep deprivation as the only detriment of meth use. (Not to diminish the importance of severity of autism and vaccines, just to point out that's only one of a million really scary issues)


I'm a tattooed,pagan,pro-choice,pro-legalizing marijuana,pro-gay marriage,anti-war,non-vaxing,tree hugging,animal loving,book reading,animal testing free,depression battling, trying to raise a free spirit and letting her be who she is but still teaching her important life lessons,fighting for equal rights at the same time,don't like it get over it.

emmy526
by New Owner on Mar. 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM
3 moms liked this

well, i found an ally so we are bombarding his wall with 'info'...seems this friend reads the headlines of an article and makes judgement on that alone....smh....he scoffed at the Herd Immunity Theory article, until i told hiim to follow the references provided.  I also provided links to fraud in Merck, and lies from the CDC

FebPenguins
by Member on Mar. 30, 2013 at 6:56 PM


Quoting jellyphish:

You know what would be awesome? If autism was the only concern with vaccines. I HATE that it's the ONLY focus. It's like focusing on sleep deprivation as the only detriment of meth use. (Not to diminish the importance of severity of autism and vaccines, just to point out that's only one of a million really scary issues)

Perfectly said. I recently said something similar about breast cancer. People don't just find out they have BC in October. It isn't all about the pink ribbon (men can get BC too!!) or the mamograms. (BTW: you will NEVER catch me getting a mamogram.) AND it is NOT the CANCER that makes everyone so sick, it is the freaking treatment~chemo and radation.

And in the very same way, I am not in any way diminishing the above things, it just seems the focus is all wrong.

sally310
by New Member on Mar. 30, 2013 at 9:08 PM

I am interested in why you would never get a mamogram?   More info please!!!!

emmy526
by New Owner on Mar. 30, 2013 at 9:11 PM

if a person has very minimal risk for breast cancer, why subject yourself to needless radiation?  The failure rate for reading mammo's is astounding, and lots of women are getting needless treatments.  


Quoting sally310:

I am interested in why you would never get a mamogram?   More info please!!!!



sally310
by New Member on Mar. 30, 2013 at 9:14 PM

OK, thanks.

notjstanothrmom
by Member on Mar. 30, 2013 at 9:16 PM
Exactly. Autism is of very little concern to me when I think about vaccination. I think there is A LOT more wrong with them than the autism link.

Quoting jellyphish:

You know what would be awesome? If autism was the only concern with vaccines. I HATE that it's the ONLY focus. It's like focusing on sleep deprivation as the only detriment of meth use. (Not to diminish the importance of severity of autism and vaccines, just to point out that's only one of a million really scary issues)
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
liliem
by Member on Mar. 31, 2013 at 1:58 AM

This makes no sense. It proves nothing. How can this be passed as science. They took 256 kids vs. 752 - right there there is a descrepancy.  Where are the non-vaxed? We know not EVERY KID gets it. But it still could cause it in 1 in 5.. This does not prove it doesn't. WTH.... Then they go and spew off numbers that don't mean anyting, because I actually read the original statements and it has nothing to do with anything being injected into the body. What a BS article.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN