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 (41-50):
kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 11, 2012 at 1:55 AM

Both of those linked are looking at the link between ONE vaccination and autism.  There are many other vaccines that are being suggested as possible links.

BTW, any study that starts out talking about Andrew Wakefield is a study with obvious bias, that sets out to prove a certain point, and likely has manipulated data.

Quoting emeraldangel2.0:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/public-health/vaccination-resources/pediatric-vaccination/relationship-between-mmr.page

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/upload/autismMMR.pdf


if these aren't to your liking, then google them yourself there are plenty more

Quoting Proud2BWeird:

Links to these studies, please.


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.




babiesbabybaby development

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Nov. 11, 2012 at 1:57 AM
Quoting maciymommieof3:


(source)

here's the scatterplot of all of the vaccination rates and all of the autism-six-years-later rates:

There's more than 51 data points as you can see: there's actually 355 because each state had seven different datapoints (1995 vaccines vs 2001 autism though to 2001 vs 2007). This scatterplot shows no correlation. You can tell just from looking at it, but the correlation coefficient confirms this, as it's a tiny r 0.012 (from a possible range of 0 to 1).

To be fair, that's a very noisy measure, because each state has unique characteristics, so the effect of vaccines will be diluted. However, it's still a useful sanity check, and shows that there can't be a major effect, otherwise it would be too big to get diluted.

To get around this I next looked at the change in the rates of vaccination from one year to the next, and correlated that with the corresponding change in future rates of autism, within each state. A "change" of 1 means no change, 0.5 means it halved and 2 means it doubled, etc.

Zilch. Correlation coeffiencent r is 0.034.

Maybe the changes year-to-year were too small? So I checked the changes between the last year, and the first year.

This made the changes bigger, because more tends to change over six years than in just one. And, to be fair, this does produces a slightly stronger vaccine-autism effect... but it's still tiny. The correlation coefficient here, r, is 0.18 which means that vaccination changes accounts for 3% of the variability in autism changes (r^2 = 0.034.) The p value is 0.20, statistically insignificant.

My conclusion is that this dataset shows no evidence of any association.

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 11, 2012 at 2:00 AM

This study has been proven to be flawed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/cdc-vaccine-study-used-fl_b_108462.html

Quoting greenie63:

This is a study from Denmark that studied children who were vaccinated and unvaccinated. They compared the two and there was no marked difference. I generally prefer to review more recent studies (this was done in  2002), but it is very interesting. I found this on the New England Journal of Medicine. It's lengthy and a hard read.  You can glance the abstract or review the full text. Here's the link;

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134#t=abstract


babiesbabybaby development

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 11, 2012 at 2:02 AM

There is no proof that vaccines do not cause autism, and there is no proof that it does.  To state definitively that they do not draws into question the bias of the person performing the study, which brings into question the validity of the study.

Quoting tweety101149:

 Ihave no idea if this is what you are looking for, but it is one of the latest links I could find.   Below is part of the article I found with link attached.  

Vaccine Cleared Again as Autism Culprit

By
Published: August 25, 2011
Yet another panel of scientists has found no evidence that a popular vaccine causes autism. But despite the scientists' best efforts, their report is unlikely to have any impact on the frustrating debate about the safety of these crucial medicines.

"The M.M.R. vaccine doesn't cause autism, and the evidence is overwhelming that it doesn't," Dr. Ellen Wright Clayton, the chairwoman of the panel, assembled by the Institute of Medicine, said in an interview. She was referring to a combination against measles, mumps and rubella that has long been a focus of concern from some parents' groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/health/26vaccine.html
 

Quoting maciymommieof3:

 We are looking for studies that show that children who have NOT had vaccinations have AUTISM......  did not look like that...I could be wrong as I only glanced.

Quoting emeraldangel2.0:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/public-health/vaccination-resources/pediatric-vaccination/relationship-between-mmr.page

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/upload/autismMMR.pdf


if these aren't to your liking, then google them yourself there are plenty more

Quoting Proud2BWeird:

Links to these studies, please.


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.



 



babiesbabybaby development

lancet98
by Silver Member on Nov. 11, 2012 at 2:04 AM

 

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.


Your statement that 'there is only one real study' is blatantly and fantastically untrue.

To state that the situation is completely ambivalent is also false.  

lancet98
by Silver Member on Nov. 11, 2012 at 2:06 AM


Quoting kailu1835:

This study has been proven to be flawed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/cdc-vaccine-study-used-fl_b_108462.html

Quoting greenie63:

This is a study from Denmark that studied children who were vaccinated and unvaccinated. They compared the two and there was no marked difference. I generally prefer to review more recent studies (this was done in  2002), but it is very interesting. I found this on the New England Journal of Medicine. It's lengthy and a hard read.  You can glance the abstract or review the full text. Here's the link;

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134#t=abstract



yeah huffington is a great resource for medical information (not).

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 11, 2012 at 2:07 AM

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.


babiesbabybaby development

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 11, 2012 at 2:08 AM

This study has been proven to be flawed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/cdc-vaccine-study-used-fl_b_108462.html

Quoting lancet98:


Quoting maciymommieof3:

 I don't want an article that remotely mentions "vaccines"...... Just baby's/kids who have Autism that have never been vaccinated.........

Ugeskr Laeger. 2002 Dec 2;164(49):5741-4.

[MMR vaccination and autism--a population-based follow-up study].

[Article in Danish]

Source

Center for Epidemiologisk Grundforskning, Institut for Epidemiologi og Socialmedicin, Aarhus Universitet, DK-8000 Arhus C. kmm@dadlnet.dk

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

It has been suggested that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination causes autism.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all children born in Denmark from January 1991 through December 1998. The cohort was established based on data from the Danish Civil Registration System. A unique person identifiable number given to all subjects enabled linkage with other national registries. MMR vaccination status was obtained from the Danish National Board of Health. Information on the children's autism status was obtained from the Danish Psychiatric Central Register which contains information on all diagnoses received from psychiatric hospitals, psychiatric wards, and outpatient clinics in Denmark. We obtained information on potential confounders from the Danish Medical Birth Registry, the National Hospital Registry, and Statistics Denmark.

RESULTS:

In the cohort of 537,303 children (2,129,864 person-years), 440,655 children had been MMR vaccinated. We identified 316 children with a diagnosis of autistic disorder and 442 with a diagnosis of other spectrum disorders. After adjusting for potential confounders, the risk for autistic disorder and other spectrum disorders was not increased in vaccinated compared with unvaccinated children (relative risk 0.92; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24 and relative risk 0.83; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07). There was no association between age at vaccination, time since vaccination or calendar period at time of vaccination and development of autistic disorder.

DISCUSSION:

This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism.

PMID:
12523209
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


babiesbabybaby development

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 11, 2012 at 2:11 AM

Um, identical twins are called identical twins because they carry the same DNA.  Not because they "look the same."  There are many fraternal twins that look identical, but their genes are different.

Let me put it this way... if you needed a tissue transplant, and your identical twin donated, you would not need immunosuppressants because your MHC markers would be identical.

If you are not identical, genetically, then you are fraternal.  Identical comes from ONE egg that splits, fraternal from TWO eggs.

ETA:

Quote:

Identical twins are the result of a single fertilized egg splitting into two separate embryos. The two embryos can share a single placenta and can be in the same or different sac. Since identical twins come from the same fertilized egg, they have the exact same DNA. They are always of the same sex and they have the same blood type. Testing the DNA of twins is one way to determine if they are identical or fraternal.
What you may be thinking of is different gene expression.
Quoting lancet98:

An identical twin study would NOT be the best method, because identical twins are not genetically identical.

Our ideas about 'identical twins' were formed centuries before we had the means to examine their genetics in sufficient detail.  They were termed 'identical' because their outward appearance was so similar.   Because of their appearance people ASSUMED they were genetically identical.

Studies of large groups of people can 'correct' for the presence or absence of vaccines; epidemiological studies like this have great value in establishing connections such as autism/MMR jab.   They have failed to do so - miserably failed, time and time again, over many years, both when the vaccine contained thimerosol (sp) and when it did not.

Further, there are THREE types of twins - identical (whom remember, are not genetically identical), semi-identical (who are less identical than identical twins) and fraternal twins, who are less genetically identical than even semi identical twins.   And most likely there are other kinds of twins yet to be understood.

It is already a very well documented fact that identical twins are discordant for a rather impressive number of disorders that have genetic origin...in 'identical twin' studies of autism, when  one identical twin has autism the other twin has it around 50% of the time, not 100% of the time, but this sort of result happens with other disorders that are genetic as well.   They simply are not identical genetically.

The idea of two people being genetically identical is not based in fact - even for clones.  The idea that a disorder that involves hundreds or thousands of genes is going to occur in the same pattern of a trait that involves ONE gene is - it's terribly misguided.  

Multiple-gene disorders inherit like a 'cloud' - the rate of occurance in the offspring is not like those little squares we drew in highschool biology for Mendel's spotted peas!   Further, a great many 'genetic mutations' are NOT inherited - they occur in the individual, they are 'genetic' but not in the sense most people think of.


babiesbabybaby development

ms-superwoman
by Silver Member on Nov. 11, 2012 at 2:13 AM

It has been studied and it was discredited.

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