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

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?

 

 

November 10, 2012
Follow us on Twitter Become our friend on Facebook

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?

  digg  
Pin It

child receiving vaccine Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?

 

 

by Vera Sharav
Alliance for Human Research Protection

 

The Centers for Disease Control issued an alarming report: 1 in 88 US children are afflicted with autism-an increase of 25% between 2006-2008.

 

On March 29, 2012, the US Centers for Disease Control reported startling evidence: the number of children diagnosed with autism in the United States increased 25% between 2006 and 2008. The autism rate jumped from 1 in 100 (2006) to 1 in 88 children (2008).  The autism rate is even higher for boys: one in 54 compared to girls, one in 252.

 

This CDC report was featured as headline news throughout the media-but not The New York Times, which buried the CDC news report on page A20.

 

Yesterday, The Times published on its front page an article under the headline, "Scientists Link Gene Mutation To Autism Risk," reporting that three teams of  scientists found several rare spontaneous gene mutations in a few individuals with autism whose father was over age 35. The scientists suspect that such gene mutations may result in a 5 to 20 times higher risk of developing autism.

 

The scientists' reports were published in NATURE-abstracts accessible: herehere and here

 

"The gene mutations are extremely rare and together account for a tiny fraction of autism cases, suggesting that the search for therapies will be a long one, and that what is loosely known as autism may represent a broad category of related but biologically distinct conditions. There are likely hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rare mutations that could disrupt brain development enough to result in social and developmental delays."

 

If rare gene mutations are suspected to be the cause of  5% to, at most, 20%  autism, it leaves the most important questions unanswered:
What about the cause of autism in 80%  (possibly 95%) of autistic children unanswered?

 

To date, only the MMR vaccine and mercury in vaccines have been studied.

 

With so many millions of children affected by autism-and the spiraling increase in that number-shouldn't scientists take seriously the eye witness reports by thousands of parents who blame vaccines for triggering autistic spectrum in their previously healthy children?

 

There is a pressing need to examine without prejudice whether the vaccine-autism association is valid by comparing  autism (and other health) outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children.

 

Why is such an obviously necessary research approach so contentious and, therefore, neglected?

 

Whose financial investments are threatened by an analysis of data comparing the health of children vaccinated with those not vaccinated?

 

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/841/9/

 

Unvaccinated Children Madness

By J.B. Handley
Age of Autism

 

Dan Olmsted: Has the government ever looked at the autism rate in an unvaccinated U.S. population, and if not, why not?

 

Julie Gerberding: In this country, we have very high levels of vaccination as you probably know, and I think this year we have record immunization levels among all of our children, so to (select an unvaccinated group) that on a population basis would be representative to look at incidence in that population compared to the other population would be something that could be done.

 

But as we're learning, just trying to look at autism in a community the size of Atlanta, it's very, very difficult to get an effective numerator and denominator to get a reliable diagnosis.

 

I think those kind of studies could be done and should be done. You'd have to adjust for the strong genetic component that also distinguishes, for example, people in Amish communities who may elect not to be immunized (and) also have genetic connectivity that would make them different from populations that are in other sectors of the United States. So drawing some conclusions from them would be very difficult.

 

I think with reference to the timing of all of this, good science does take time, and it's part of one of the messages I feel like I've learned from the feedback that we've gotten from parents groups this summer (in) struggling with developing a more robust and a faster research agenda, is let's speed this up. Let's look for the early studies that could give us at least some hypotheses to test and evaluate and get information flowing through the research pipeline as quickly as we can.

 

So we are committed to doing that, and as I mentioned, in terms of just measuring the frequency of autism in the population some pretty big steps have been taken. We're careful not to jump ahead of our data, but we think we will be able to provide more accurate information in the next year or so than we've been able to do up to this point. And I know that is our responsibility.

 

We've also benefited from some increased investments in these areas that have allowed us to do this, and so we thank Congress and we thank the administration for supporting those investments, not just at CDC but also at NIH and FDA.
*  *

 

I'm sure Julie Gerberding had a point with her answer, for the life of me I don't know what it was.

 

Not to be outdone, Dr. Paul Offit recently got into the act with his own perspective on studying unvaccinated children (at least he concedes the studies don't exist):

 

"No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines."

 

Health care seeking behavior? Ethics of studying kids who haven't gotten vaccines?

 

Let me get this straight: we have the most complex and raging health epidemic amongst our kids in modern times, and no plausible explanation for cause from the mainstream authorities. Meanwhile, we have tens of thousands of case reports of kids regressing into autism after vaccination, but it's just too complicated and unethical to study unvaccinated kids?

 

"Health care seeking behavior" is the notion that parents who do not vaccinate their children may be less inclined to seek an autism diagnosis if there is a problem with their child's development. Fair enough, that MAY be true. But, in a well-designed study that issue could be dealt with in a very straightforward way: you independently evaluate every single kid for neurological disorders. Would that be expensive? Yes. Would it be thorough? Yes. Would it mitigate any issues related to health seeking behavior? Yes.

 

It's also interesting to consider a study completed by the CDC and published in Pediatrics, Children Who Have Received No Vaccines: Who Are They and Where Do They Live? The study noted:

 

"Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75,000, and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children."
And, it continues:

 

"Why do some parents avoid vaccinating their children? Our results indicate that parents of unvaccinated children are much more concerned about vaccine safety than are parents whose children receive 1 vaccine dose. In a survey of parent's beliefs and practices regarding vaccinations and autism, siblings in families in which there was an autistic child were 3 times more likely to be unvaccinated, compared with siblings in families in which there was a child with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In response to concerns about the perceived risk of autism resulting from vaccinations, parents might have avoided having their sons vaccinated at a higher rate than their daughters, as a result of knowing that they have risk factors for autism and knowing that the rate of autism is 4 times greater for boys than for girls."

 

What are the chances that white, upper middle-class families with an annual income in excess of $75,000 who are very concerned about vaccine safety don't pursue an autism diagnosis if their child is exhibiting the signs of autism? Probably close to nil, but science can still account for that.

 

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/unvaccinated-children-madness.html

 

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children: Some Data are In and They are Disturbing

By Maria  D.  Majewska
Age of Autism

 

While  in western countries  government officials  and their corporate sponsors  aggressively  resist conducting the studies comparing health of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children , such studies have been, in fact, conducted in Africa.   Below is the abstract of one such study from Guinea-Bissau, which  shows doubling of   mortality rate among infants vaccinated with a single  dose  of DTP vaccine, and more than quadrupling after the second and third dose.    VAERS data also show high infant mortality in the US  after DTP vaccination (much higher than from pertussis, diphteria and tetanus together,  hence  it  is clear that DTP vaccine is  harming more children than saving.  In the EU,  there is a relatively high incidence of pertussis (more than 20 000 per year), but  total mortality due to this disease was  4 in 2009.   At the same time, infant  mortality index in western EU  countries  is 2 or 3 times lower than in the US.  These data speak for themselves.

 

Int J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr;33(2):374-80.

 

The introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine and child mortality in rural Guinea-Bissau: an observational study.

 

Aaby PJensen HGomes JFernandes MLisse IM.

 

Bandim Health Project, Apartado 861, Bissau, Guinea-Bissau. psb@mail.gtelecom.gw

 

Comment in:

 

Int J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr;33(2):381.

 

Abstract

 

BACKGROUND: and objective Previous studies from areas with high mortality in West Africa have not found diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine to be associated with the expected reduction in mortality, a few studies suggesting increased mortality. We therefore examined mortality when DTP was first introduced in rural areas of Guinea-Bissau in 1984-1987. Setting Twenty villages in four regions have been followed with bi-annual examinations since 1979.

 

SUBJECTS: In all, 1657 children aged 2-8 months. Design Children were weighed when attending the bi-annual examinations and they were vaccinated whenever vaccines were available. DTP was introduced in the beginning of 1984, oral polio vaccine later that year. We examined mortality for children aged 2-8 months who had received DTP and compared them with children who had not been vaccinated because they were absent, vaccines were not available, or they were sick.

 

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mortality over the next 6 months from the day of examination for vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

 

RESULTS: Prior to the introduction of vaccines, children who were absent at a village examination had the same mortality as children who were present. During 1984-1987, children receiving DTP at 2-8 months of age had higher mortality over the next 6 months, the mortality rate ratio (MR) being 1.92 (95% CI: 1.04, 3.52) compared with DTP-unvaccinated children, adjusting for age, sex, season, period, BCG, and region. The MR was 1.81 (95% CI: 0.95, 3.45) for the first dose of DTP and 4.36 (95% CI: 1.28, 14.9) for the second and third dose. BCG was associated with slightly lower mortality (MR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.30, 1.33), the MR for DTP and BCG being significantly inversed. Following subsequent visits and further vaccinations with DTP and measles vaccine, there was no difference in vaccination coverage and subsequent mortality between the DTP-vaccinated group and the initially DTP-unvaccinated group (MR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.44).

 

CONCLUSIONS: In low-income countries with high mortality, DTP as the last vaccine received may be associated with slightly increased mortality. Since the pattern was inversed for BCG, the effect is unlikely to be due to higher-risk children having received vaccination. The role of DTP in high mortality areas needs to be clarified.

 

by on Nov. 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM
Replies (101-110):
Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 12:09 PM
1 mom liked this
Lol!!! You my dear are one smart and quick witted cookie.

Quoting romalove:

 


Quoting Momniscient:

Lol! Well I have a LOT of years to go before that happens for me :)


Quoting romalove:


 



Quoting Momniscient:

It's adorable. But I'm guessing he also grew out of it and didn't make decisions that would affect those around him based on his insistence that trees were the cause of wind?



Quoting romalove:



 




Quoting Momniscient:

That is a really really apt analogy.





Quoting romalove:




 





Quoting Momniscient:





Do you know anything at all about Wakefield and actual medical research other than what you were spoonfed by 'alternative' sources?





Quoting kailu1835:





Do you even know anything at all about Wakefield and his research, other than what you were spoonfed by the mainstream media?





Quoting Momniscient:





Are you really serious?





Really? Wow.





Quoting kailu1835:





If you say so.  The facts say otherwise.  He lost his license because of a few different things, partly because of intimidation and supression from the medical community.





Quoting lancet98:





 





Quoting kailu1835:





That's not entirely true.  Wakefield was not the first doctor to link vaccines (not just MMR) with autism, and his paper was not debunked because of fabriacated evidence, but because it was too small a group to be considered scientific.  It also had to do with a conflict of interest.





Quoting EmmaZate:

The only thing I knew about these studies is that the doctor who wrote the original paper linking autisim with vaccines fabricated evidence and lost his lincence.









You are wrong.   Size of sample was just one of many of Wakefield's problems.   You don't lose your medical license for having one little study with a small sample size - again, you're perpetuating lies.

























 I know that Wakefield used just a few kids who were friends of his child as his sample, and then he manufactured results anyway, and was being paid by someone who was anti-vax for the "research".





One more time, many of the autism symptoms that people notice come at about the same time of certain vaccinations, and people make a connection but that may not mean it's a proper connection.  I have said this before, but I'll say it again, when my son was four we were walking near woods on a windy day.  He noticed the trees moving and said the trees were making the wind blow.  I corrected him and told him no, the wind is blowing the trees, but I could not convince his four year old self that what he observed, trees moving and wind blowing, didn't mean the trees weren't the causation of the air moving about him.




 Thanks.  One of my favorite Michael stories.  :-)



 I will admit he is still pretty stubborn, but once he hit his 20's he started listening to me a little more.  I guess I became less stupid LOL.


 Nonsense, you don't have to wait, you can decide I'm not that stupid right now!  :-)

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
mrsjksimmons
by on Nov. 12, 2012 at 12:20 PM

I believe it's genetic. My nephew has autism and he showed signs almost from birth. He is vaccinated (as far as I know). They think my SIL is autistic and that she has a very mild form. My nephew was diagnosed as PPD-NOS. I think that maybe, in children who are already at risk, it may make them show the signs and symptoms earlier. I truly do believe that we are only realizing the extent of ASD and so it looks like more children are contracting it but really we are realizing how big ASD is. Back in the day, they would have been the "retarded kid" or "weird kid" or the "kid who can't talk right" and got the shit teased out of them. http://kidshealth.org/kid/health_problems/birth_defect/mental_retardation.html This is a good definition of what mental retardation is and how there are so many conditions within that definition. Now we realize that each delay is something different. Every kid who has developmental problems doesn't have the same thing.

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 1:23 PM

I look at all sides, knowing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Do you?

Quoting Momniscient:

Do you know anything at all about Wakefield and actual medical research other than what you were spoonfed by 'alternative' sources?

Quoting kailu1835:

Do you even know anything at all about Wakefield and his research, other than what you were spoonfed by the mainstream media?

Quoting Momniscient:

Are you really serious?

Really? Wow.

Quoting kailu1835:

If you say so.  The facts say otherwise.  He lost his license because of a few different things, partly because of intimidation and supression from the medical community.

Quoting lancet98:


Quoting kailu1835:

That's not entirely true.  Wakefield was not the first doctor to link vaccines (not just MMR) with autism, and his paper was not debunked because of fabriacated evidence, but because it was too small a group to be considered scientific.  It also had to do with a conflict of interest.

Quoting EmmaZate:

The only thing I knew about these studies is that the doctor who wrote the original paper linking autisim with vaccines fabricated evidence and lost his lincence.


You are wrong.   Size of sample was just one of many of Wakefield's problems.   You don't lose your medical license for having one little study with a small sample size - again, you're perpetuating lies.






babiesbabybaby development

LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Nov. 12, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I don't know who these 'people' are, but it has no bearing on any perceived limits on research.

Quoting kailu1835:

There have been plenty of studies that show links between vaccines and various disorders, autism included, but not the only one.  People keep focusing on the MMR shot, but there are many shots that have been called into question.  Everyone is so focused on the MMR (especially pro-vaxxers) and completely ignoring all the other vaccines in question.

Quoting LindaClement:

Actually, there is only one study that has ever managed to even suggest a link, and that study's authors have been discredited for making up the data.


It helps to do a scholar search rather than a google search...

Quoting kailu1835:

There is only one real study that is highly touted by the medical community regardless of the fact that it has been shown to be flawed.

Quoting LindaClement:

It has been studied. It continues to be studied.

Whoever says it isn't and hasn't is either not looking very hard, or has an axe to grind.





Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Except you are espousing a spoonfed opinion that lies nowhere near 'the middle.'

Wakefield was a dangerous hack who needed to lose his license. He did more damage in one fraudulent and egotistical study than is imaginable. And there are STILL people who will champion him as a martyr who was 'silenced' because it fits into their parenting philosophy of "I am smarter than real medicine because of people like Dr. Wakefield."


Quoting kailu1835:

I look at all sides, knowing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Do you?

Quoting Momniscient:

Do you know anything at all about Wakefield and actual medical research other than what you were spoonfed by 'alternative' sources?


pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Most of "these studies" have been financed by Big Pharmacy. 

Quoting LindaClement:

It has been studied. It continues to be studied.

Whoever says it isn't and hasn't is either not looking very hard, or has an axe to grind.


pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 5:55 PM

A dangerous hack? LOL. 

Quoting Momniscient:

Except you are espousing a spoonfed opinion that lies nowhere near 'the middle.'

Wakefield was a dangerous hack who needed to lose his license. He did more damage in one fraudulent and egotistical study than is imaginable. And there are STILL people who will champion him as a martyr who was 'silenced' because it fits into their parenting philosophy of "I am smarter than real medicine because of people like Dr. Wakefield."


Quoting kailu1835:

I look at all sides, knowing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Do you?

Quoting Momniscient:

Do you know anything at all about Wakefield and actual medical research other than what you were spoonfed by 'alternative' sources?


pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Read.....Evidence of Harm explores the heated controversy over what many parents, physicians, public officials, and educators have called an "epidemic" of afflicted children. Following several families, David Kirby traces their struggle to understand how and why their once-healthy kids rapidly descended into silence or disturbed behavior, often accompanied by severe physical illness. Alarmed by the levels of mercury in the vaccine schedule, these families sought answers from their doctors, from science, from pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines, and finally from the Center for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration-to no avail. But as they dug deeper, the families also found powerful allies in Congress and in the small community of physicians and researchers who believe that the rise of autism and other disorders is linked to toxic levels of mercury that accumulate in the systems of some children.

An important and troubling book, Evidence of Harm reveals both the public and unsung obstacles faced by desperate families who have been opposed by the combined power of the federal government, health agencies, and pharmaceutical giants. From closed meetings of the FDA, CDC, and drug companies, to the mysterious rider inserted into the 2002 Homeland Security Bill that would bar thimerosal litigation, to open hearings held by Congress, this book shows a medical establishment determined to deny "evidence of harm" that might be connected with thimerosal and mercury in vaccines. In the end, as research is beginning to demonstrate, the questions raised by these families have significant implications for all children, and for those entrusted to oversee our national health.

See how the CDC is not our friend. 

Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Coming from you...

That's a serious validation.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

A dangerous hack? LOL. 

Quoting Momniscient:

Except you are espousing a spoonfed opinion that lies nowhere near 'the middle.'

Wakefield was a dangerous hack who needed to lose his license. He did more damage in one fraudulent and egotistical study than is imaginable. And there are STILL people who will champion him as a martyr who was 'silenced' because it fits into their parenting philosophy of "I am smarter than real medicine because of people like Dr. Wakefield."


Quoting kailu1835:

I look at all sides, knowing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Do you?

Quoting Momniscient:

Do you know anything at all about Wakefield and actual medical research other than what you were spoonfed by 'alternative' sources?




Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 6:01 PM

LOL

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Read.....Evidence of Harm explores the heated controversy over what many parents, physicians, public officials, and educators have called an "epidemic" of afflicted children. Following several families, David Kirby traces their struggle to understand how and why their once-healthy kids rapidly descended into silence or disturbed behavior, often accompanied by severe physical illness. Alarmed by the levels of mercury in the vaccine schedule, these families sought answers from their doctors, from science, from pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines, and finally from the Center for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration-to no avail. But as they dug deeper, the families also found powerful allies in Congress and in the small community of physicians and researchers who believe that the rise of autism and other disorders is linked to toxic levels of mercury that accumulate in the systems of some children.

An important and troubling book, Evidence of Harm reveals both the public and unsung obstacles faced by desperate families who have been opposed by the combined power of the federal government, health agencies, and pharmaceutical giants. From closed meetings of the FDA, CDC, and drug companies, to the mysterious rider inserted into the 2002 Homeland Security Bill that would bar thimerosal litigation, to open hearings held by Congress, this book shows a medical establishment determined to deny "evidence of harm" that might be connected with thimerosal and mercury in vaccines. In the end, as research is beginning to demonstrate, the questions raised by these families have significant implications for all children, and for those entrusted to oversee our national health.

See how the CDC is not our friend. 



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