quote:

---

Also a lack of understanding of the difference between causation and correlation. The lack of developmental progress (as well as the "positive" signs of diagnoses along the autistic spectrum) become apparent at the same time as vaccines are scheduled to be given. So, for example, is changing the car seat, and a similar correlation between the timing of development of autism and switching car seats can be shown.

---

This is exactly what has always bothered me about the claim that vaccines cause autism. I have read a great deal over the years, both mainstream and from alternative medicine and anti-vaccine groups. I am inclined to believe the findings that there is not a definitive cause and effect going on between vaccines and autism.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Fair enough Claudia.

In his defense, I will point out this conversation happened at 03:30, during a lull in the mid-term rush so I may be garbling the gist of the message.

As I say, I don't have enough expertise or knowledge to debate it either way.

-Trevor

Ela - so we don't know the causes of autism and as such, the vaccine theory cannot provide a sustainable claim of a direct link between one and the other?

[ July 11, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Ooh, good point. I've never seen coverage of that aspect of the issue in the general media, and it's so obvious once pointed out. It's always stuff about resistant staph in hospitals and such on the "news."

So I can add medicine to the list of things the media butchers coverage on.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Bah, if it bleeds, it leads. "Fair and balanced" reporting doesn't fit into the 6 o'clock newsbite.

And a total aside - I've always hated the term "practicing physician." Shouldn't you get it right before you play doctor?

Of course, I build that premise into my "practicing hedonist" joke.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
In my experience -- both as a science teacher and chatting with other moms I know IRL -- the difference between causality and correlation is COMPLETELY lost on far too many people. (CT, I love that bit about there being a similar correlation with car seats! I am so using that the next time someone tries to convince me that vaccines are evil.)

I have a friend who is convinced that the placenta previa she had with child #3 was caused by using an OTC yeast treatment. (After all, she had not used one during her earlier (or later) pregnancies, and she didn't have that problem with them. Besides, the problem showed up two weeks after she used the medication.) And she is quite intelligent.

I resent the fact that my (thoroughly vaccinated) kids are more at risk for disease (since no vaccine is 100% effective, and some are as low as 90%) because some of their peers are not vaccinated. OTOH, I don't see that there's much I can do about it.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
When my 7 year old was in infant, I read extensively on both sides of the issue. I decided at that time to delay vaccinations until 2 years of age. When he got the first round of shots at age 2, he became violently ill and remained so for three days. The doctors office refused to acknowledge that it even might be related to the vaccine. Back to the research, and I eventually decided against vaccinating at all.
I think it is commom to assume that non-vaccinating parents are working with too little information, or only biased information, and moreover that they thing all vaccines are evil. That is not always true- I made a well thought out, well informed decision that I feel was right for *my* family.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
I'd suspect the "violently ill " response was caused by an allergic reaction to the serum (carrying liquid) more than by any reaction to the vaccine itself.

I've always wondered why nowadays -- when purification of active ingredients is relatively simple -- the medical industry still insists on injecting folks with horse plasma, duck eggs, etc instead of using eg a saline solution as the carrier.

What the heck, it ain't as if they don't know that people react (sometimes very strongly) to alien proteins injected into the blood stream.

[ July 11, 2004, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
This well thought out decision was also based on the fact that your children are depending on other parents to vaccinate their children, yes?

If your child has a history of allergic reactions or is immuno-depressed, I understand.

Otherwise, it is a little irritating to me to vaccinate my child and know that other parents are relying on my own minutely risky, overwhelmingly responsible decision to protect their children. Kind of like the soldier who holds back just a little so the other soldiers will run into the brunt of the battle.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
CT, thanks for all the info so far. I'm looking forward to reading more.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Amka, exactly!

And it's not that my kids never had reactions to their shots -- they did. Never severe enough for a doctor's visit, but once bad enough to warrant a call to the doctor's office.

But I've heard enough from my mom to know that their reactions were not even comparable to actual bouts with measles or mumps. And my mom remembers a classmate in kindergarten dying of polio. Heck, I remember the misery of chicken pox, and was thrilled to be able to vaccinate my kids against it. And while one did have the pseudo-pox reaction, it was SO much milder than the real thing.

I also wonder at how knowledgeable a parent could be if all vaccines (some of which occasionally cause reactions to the vaccine itself, some of which can cause allergic reactions to the carrier or growth medium, and some of which almost never cause ANY reaction) are seen as equal.

My nephew (who goes to the same pediatric group as my kids) had a severe reaction to DTP (back before it was DTaP). So he never got that one again -- but he had all his other vaccinations. If I had a pediatrician who was ignoring my concerns about a vaccination, I'd consider switching doctors. Not decide that my kids didn't need one of the things that saves more lives per year per dollar than just about any other medical treatment I can name.

Somehow, I think that if a trip to an area where the majority of kids are NOT vaccinated was in the future, a lot of parents who choose not to vaccinate their kids might rethink their position.

[ July 11, 2004, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
I strongly believe that all children should be vaccinated, but I'm very interested to hear the parents' reasonings for not having it done. My children also had slight reactions to their shots, but like rivka, I figured that was better than getting the mumps, etc. My daughter had to have DT instead of DTP b/c pertussis (sp?) supposedly can sometimes cause problems for kids with epilepsy. What do parents who don't vaccinate their kids do when it's time for school? I thought all kids had to have them in order to be admitted.

space opera
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Schools are legally required (and I think this is federal law, but maybe it's CA law?) to allow parents to sign a form that says that they have knowingly (for religious, medical, or whatever reasons) opted NOT to immunize their kids.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
A friend of mine from college has never had a single vaccination. He and his family are Christian Scientists. I'm sure Brown gave him special permission to opt out of the required vaccinations. He has never been sick, as long as I've known him (~6 years). He does brush his teeth very well, and is very clean, but practices no other medicine-style care. He carries a card that declines medical help, and all his friends know that he'd rather they not call an ambulance or doctor if he's ever hurt.
 

---

Posted by WasabiTurtle (Member # 6691) on :
 
Yeah, Suneun, but that's because he has an aura of being really sketchy so that the germs don't even have a shot of getting in there.

Here's my take, and I am by trade a neuroscientist, so it's a decently informed take: There is no one cause of autism thus far. Even people who have been doing this for decades, such as Marcel Kinsbourne and Helen Tager-Flusberg, don't agree. The concept of regression, that a normal child loses language and turns autistic after a vaccination, is not well held, though. Vaccinations come at a time of developmental milestones, when simple babbling turns into complex wording and interaction with the environment goes from passive to active. Some of us think that an autistic child is initially capable of simple tasks, but when the changeover to more frontal, more adult actions is necessitated, the autistic brain isn't capable. Does this make sense? I can explain it better but I'm being a little sketchy so as not to drown people on my first foray.

There is a decent amount of evidence to suggest that autism is present earlier rather than later. People can often look back at first birthday party videos and note that the child is not interacting correctly. My nephew, who has Asperger's, was "strange" from the get-go. This "strangeness" merely becomes more pronounced when social demands are placed later in life. This is not to say that allergic reactions to the vaccine, as proposed by Kinsbourne among others, aren't a cause of autism. They are just not the primary cause. For me, it's genetics from day one, a bad roll of the dice, so to speak.

I want to leave with a final thought... There was recently an outbreak of polio in Nigeria, in the regions that refused vaccinations because they were supposedly part of a (zionist) plot to sterilize Muslims. Meanwhile, the Midwest has been hit with whooping cough and the UK is facing a measles in record numbers. Are the consequences of not vaccinating outweighed by the costs of vaccinating, or vice-versa? I think those diseases are more terrible than autism, with the potential to do greater widespread and long-term damage than autism.
 

---

Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
 
CT, does this mean Christy's finally having the baby? *crosses fingers* You will keep us informed, right?
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
My own belief on autism is that it is a genetic vulnerability, that can be activated by stressors particularly during the early development years. My sister, who has a daughter with autism, is currently touting the theory that fevers in particular can be implicated. Vaccinations cause fevers, of course, but so would the underlying illnesses as well as a variety of other bugs.

I waited until kindergarten to get my oldest immunized. But once I had other kids I couldn't concentrate all my anxiety into that one issue. I just thought I'd mention that I wasn't offered any religious/philosophical opt-out on the vaccinations. It was definitly "my way or the highway". I guess if I got pushy about it, who knows what would have happened. But I think the approach generally is to bully people who are disinclined to vaccinate, both on the part of schools and healthcare providers.

I understand epidemiologic medicine has different ethics. It is not "first do no harm". It is "sacrifice a few to raise the chances for everyone else."
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
pooka, I don't think schools have the obligation to OFFER the alternative. Simply to accept it if a knowledgeable (and pushy ) parent demands it.

As I said, maybe it's CA law -- or maybe the schools I'm familiar with just caved.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 

quote:

---

This well thought out decision was also based on the fact that your children are depending on other parents to vaccinate their children, yes?

---

quote:

---

I understand epidemiologic medicine has different ethics. It is not "first do no harm". It is "sacrifice a few to raise the chances for everyone else."

---

quote:

---

uk.news.yahoo.com/020502/80/cy5c0.htmlThursday May 2, 04:27 PMDeath risk from chickenpox jabBy Richard WoodmanLONDON (Reuters) - Vaccinating children against chickenpox could cause millions of adults to develop shingles, according to scientists.A team at the Public Health Laboratory Service said on Thursday that although vaccination would save thousands of children's lives, just as many adults could die from the complications of shingles.After a bout of chickenpox, the varicella zoster virus remains dormant in the body and may reactivate decades later to cause shingles, a painful rash that typically strikes chickenpox veterans after the age of 60.Marc Brisson and his team say their research shows that adults living with children have more exposure to the virus and enjoy high levels of protection against shingles.Being close to children means that adults keep being exposed to the virus, which acts like a booster vaccine against shingles, they believe.But if all children were vaccinated, adults who have had chickenpox would no longer be protected against developing shingles.Writing in the journal Vaccine, they called for a re-evaluation of the policy of mass chickenpox vaccination that has been introduced already in the United States and is imminent in many other countries.The researchers worked out a mathematical model which predicts that eliminating chickenpox in a country the size of the United States would prevent 186 million cases of the disease and 5,000 deaths over 50 years.However they said it could also result in 21 million more cases of shingles and, again, 5,000 deaths.The PHLS said in a statement it was working out what the impact might be of introducing a chickenpox vaccine in Britain."As more evidence becomes available, it will be shared with the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) which advises the Department of Health on the immunisation schedule."

---

quote:

---

but private schools traditionally have smaller numbers and more resources to handle those smaller numbers

---

This is a stretch, too, at least with Catholic parochial schools, and if you mean financial resources. Of course, one of the reasons they generally have more success with less money per pupil is that they have other, non-worldly resources to call on.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
 
You know, we had a neighbor whose first born seemed to be different right from birth-- especially because he wouldn't look at faces as much as a normal baby. My mom, a public health nurse who worked with babies a lot, used to wonder if he was autistic. Later he had a severe reaction to the MMR vaccine. They moved away, and I don't know if he was ever diagnosed as autistic, but I've often wondered if, rather than vaccines causing autism, kids with autism are more likely to have adverse reactions to vaccines? I've never seen any research addressing this, so I suppose there is no link, but I've always wondered...
 

---

Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
 
As a parent I am concerned about the current "schedule" of immunizations. When we are injecting so many at once it is hard to figure out which one the child is actually reacting to. As a new mom, I didn't give it any thought and immunized my oldest two "on schedule". As an older mom with my third, I did a lot of reading and prayer (some may roll their eyes at this but its a personal thing). I really felt that the current push to immunize by two was concerning. I can't find it now, but I know I read about studies that talked about how Japan used to immunize by two and their SIDS rate when up. When they went back to immunizing starting at age 2 their SIDS rate went down. I personally felt it was better to wait and started with the DTP at age 2. Two doses later we are okay but I'm not rushing it. I also have great concerns about the chemicals and heavy metals and foreign substances that the vaccinations are made in. Some utilize aborted fetus tissue to grow the culture in. Those things greatly concern me.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
Ooops- perhaps I should have been more clear at the start, and said I am homeschooling, not private schooling. While they aren't raised in a bubble, most of the of the families I know tend to keep sick kids home.(Where I have found, when parents rely on school, public or private, for childcare, some tend to dose up sick kids and send them) Most of the families we do playdates with are non-vaccinated or only partially vax.

CT, I know most of those articles are dated, but I have mostly researched in print form. My large burst of research was done when my 7 year old was an infant and toddler, and I have mostly kept up with alternative magazine. (Mothering, for example). Of course that could be called biased, but don't most of us, once we have made our minds up about something, tend to stick to our bias?

I have read some of these, but as I said, that was years ago and at this point I would be hard pressed to remember which.

ctm, my daughter is one of those kids that has seemed twitchy since birth ( not autistic, but digestive problems, ADHD, pica) and I would be most afraid of her having a severe vaccine reaction. Heck, she reacts to multi vitamins! I feel I just can't take chances with her especially.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I already like it:

quote:

---

Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in Edit: (100^200). This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."

---

And CT, I didn't mean to give anyone homework. But I am grateful for the info.

Dagonee

[ July 14, 2004, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."

---

 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
What exactly is Aspergers syndrome? I know it is a type of autism, I believe that it represents a "functioning autistic", as opposed to those who are completely withdrawn.

My cousin has autism, and if I am right about the definition then he has Aspergers syndrome.

Obviously, this thread hits home for me a bit more than some others do.

Kwea

[ July 18, 2004, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
What is Asperger's Disorder?
More
In medicalese

Asperger's is actually distinct from autism in several ways, although it is sometimes referred to as "high-functioning autism," and is on the same continuum.

My son is being tested right now (over the course of a couple months) for a bunch of things -- Asperger's is one of several possibilities that was mentioned. I guess we'll see in a few weeks when the testing is complete.

[ July 18, 2004, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Thanks, CT. He's actually already doing much better than he was 6 months ago -- different school (well, he's in camp now) and a good therapist. But yeah, it will be good to have a better idea of what we're dealing with instead of, "Well, it might be X, or possibly Y. And maybe a little Z . . ."

I'm learning new words, though. Never heard of a psychometrist before recently.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Yes, I knew that. Having two brothers with ADD, one of whom was later diagnosed as bipolar -- yeah, diagnosis is a useful tool, but not the Answer to Everything. Better than limbo, though, I'm hoping.

And I don't think I agree with your first sentence. Having to know the in-and-outs may imply sad things. But knowledge is a good thing, IMO. And somewhat reassuring.

Knowing what Asperger's was (in general terms, and because of Hatrack, natch) before it was ever mentioned as a potential issue with my son, helped me be more calm and accepting of the possibility. (Note: I said more calm. The gibbering idiot running around screaming inside my skull at the mention of the possibility was still there; I just managed to keep him mostly internal.)
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
You are, and you do. (((((CT)))))
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Wendy - some of us don't believe in prayer, some of us do.

Never feel like you have to justify what you believe in because people on this board may or may not share those or similar beliefs.

However, I do wish you the best for your children.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
That is a wonderful way to put it! CT, may I borrow that to hand out to my students?

[ July 18, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
This is great stuff, CT.

I just have to interject (sorry, but I really have to ) that I suspect, given the average ambient temperatures in Antarctica, that wearing flip-flops will affect ALL aspects of such a group's health.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*notices post count*

*wonders which of today's posts was the roll-over*

*avoids mentioning CT's post count*
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Actually, I think I will leave in the Antarctica bit in the version I give my students. See if they notice it.

This is totally going to be the first extra-credit reading of the year. Thanks!
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
Why am I skeptical about vaccination programs? (Is that the question CT?)

Of course, in addition to the researches I have read (which may, of course, be biased one way or the other, I have several issues.

One is that I believe too much medical intervention can harm the body as much as, or more than, too little. I do seek medical care when appropriate, which I admit we would do less often than the average mainstream parent. OTOH, my boys have been exceedingly healthy, and the issues we have had with Olivia do not seem to be they kinds one "catches". I have a 7, 5, and 2 year old and have only faced one ear infection! (Matthew, when he was 9 months old.) Even when I seek medical advice, I will evaluate it before going forward (Two examples- Olivia got an infected toe, and the doc prescribed oral Keflex. We decided giving a yeast prone child systemic antibiotics for her toe was not a good idea, and put in place a rigourous plan of washing, putting on neosporin, and then keeping it bandaged and dry, and it healed in 5 days. Two, the ER doc rx'd Tylonol with codeine for Matthew's arm, and we were just not comfortable giving him narcotics for something so minor). So, to bring this back to vaccines, I don't wish to load their systems with the additives and preservatives in vaccines for a disease that they may never be exposed to and if they are, they would most probably not have any lasting effects from.
I beleive the healthiest thing is to keep the child's immune system healthy and practice excellent hygiene, and seek medical treatment when they do get seek.

I also have an ethics issue with the way vaccines are presented. Most parents are kept well in the dark about exemptions, and are told they have have their child vaxed for XYZ, even where they have a legal right to claim an exemption. I do think most parents have chosen to view medical experts as having authority over them, perhaps because that takes a lot of research and decision making out of their own hands. That is their decision.I have chosen to be questioning, and take the decision making into my own hands. In my observances, parents who do that tend to make less then mainstream decisions, whether that is to treat ADHD with diet rather than drugs, to vax partially or not at all, or to birth at home (giving examples form my own life).
Umm, I went off on a rabbit trail there. I wanted to adress the concept that parents should feel obligated (often pressured) to vax their kids for the sake of public health. I think taking care of the puiblic health is essential, and I would hate to see sanitation suffer, for universal precautions to be dropped, etc. ( I could get into the interests of big business vs public heatlth, but that's awhole 'nother post). But when it gets down to injecting my children with something that *I* feel could do more damage than good, for the good of other people, I say that is a step too far and my first priority is to protect my children. Just liek I have chosen, somewhat against the grain, to protect them from pesticides, food additives and tobacco smoke.

So there are my thoughts for the moment, I *do* plan to look for more recent research, but those are the non-scientific aspects that inform my decisions.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
I admit, I ampretty sleep deprived right now and need time to read all these links.

I will be interested in your statistics- do they just list outbreaks in numbers, or do they also list outcomes?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Ooops. Um, if it helps, I blithely skipped past 7000 (and now 8000) with nothing more than a nod. I plan to do the same with 9000, unless something else comes up before then. (I figure, I did 1000, 3000, and 6000. The next in that sequence would be 10,000.)

Anyway, I really was NOT implying that you should feel obliged to do anything other than wave cheerfully as 6000 slipped past.

From what I've read of Scott Base, I don't think there's much indoors that is warm enough for flip-flops either. Lots warmer than outdoors, though.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I well remember your 5000 landmark.

Of course you did it on purpose! As I tell my students when they catch me making a mistake. "Thank you for pointing that out. I'm so glad to see you're paying attention!"
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
CT, thanks for all the info. We did the move this weekend, so I was Internet-less for the last 48 hours. Not to mention every muscle in my body feels sprung.

But I've been popping over to quackwatch since you posted it - good stuff, some of it quite amusing, some of it pretty scary.

I'll be going through the new links during breaks this week.

(And more info on both CT and Rivka is always a good thing!)

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
!@#$%^&*()_

I have tried TWICE to post a list of vaccine ingredients, and got the message that parentheses in HTML tag is not allowed. I may have to block out some time to type it all in. I do have questions though. Are all these additives really neccesary? And why the use of human dipoid cells from aborted embryos? I know many parents who abstain from those vaccines, who would get them if they did not use the human cells. Also, some vegans who would vaccinate if not for the animal tissue. If the medical community wants full compliance in vaccination, would they not be wise to *suggest* the drug companies replace ingredients parents will have moral objections to?

[ July 19, 2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: romanylass ]
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
And rivka, forgive me for not posting sooner that you and your son are in my prayers. I hope you get some answers.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Hey, CT, have there been any studies done on the possibility of a causal relationship between sonograms and autism? I haven't heard of any, but I was talking with my mother the other day and she mentioned that it was something she had suspicions about, although she had no proof--just a hunch.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
At the risk of being a berk Romany, check out the "Wow, I can make a bulleted list" thread.

Or look here.

1. Point 1
2. Point 2

quote:

---

By the way, I look forward to addressing the ethics of public health concerns in a separate thread. Of course, you should feel free to explore it as thoroughly as you chose here, but I think a good case for vaccinations can be made on the grounds of individual benefit as well. I think the public health concern adds additional impetus, but it does not tell the full story.

Given that Dag is interested in the link (or lack thereof) between autism and vaccinations, I'd prefer to focus my time on that question. The public health issue seems a bit of a red herring to the discussion at hand (that is, my discussion with Dagonee, although you -- of course -- might wish to have other discussions with other people in this thread).

I'll flag the public health thread for you, too, just in case you're interested.

---

quote:

---

Statistically significant associations were found between cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines at two months of age and unspecified developmental delay; three months of age and tics; six months of age and attention deficit disorder; one, three, and six months of age and speech and language delay and neurodevelopmental delays in general. According to a report in the Weekly Epidemiology Record that reviewed the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, "This safety assessment cannot currently exclude the possibility of subtle neurodevelopmental abnormalities in infants from a cumulative exposure to thimerosal in vaccines."7

---

quote:

---

The CDC maintains that ethyl mercury does not accumulate in the body and is less toxic than methyl mercury. And they cite a recent Institute of Medicine report which evaluated five large epidemiological studies and concluded that vaccines do not cause autism.

Skeptics argue that the large-scale studies could not have spotted a subset of children genetically vulnerable to the effects of vaccines.

"I don't know if anyone has addressed the right questions or even formulated the right questions," said Pessah, the MIND Institute toxicologist and director of the UC Davis Center for Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention.

---

 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I believe OT, in this context, means On Topic or Original Topic.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I don't trust the CDC as a neutral party, by the way. Just so you know. A coupld of things from out of there have been highly political. Now maybe I'm mistaking the amount of autonomy members of the CDC have to spew nonsense on their own. But, for instance, the theory that pro-life racketeering was responsible for the lower rate of abortions, when it turned out that more abstinence was a likelier cause.

Again, I believe that autism has been found in non vaccinated populations. I'm frustrated, however, that so much is put into dodging the blame rather than finding the cause.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I was pregnant with Rusty, so this would have been the Clinton administration. A finding was reported that the abortion rate was down, and an initial hypothesis was that intimidation by pro-life demonstrators was keeping patients away. You may recall that Janet Reno instituted the use of the Hayes Act to charge pro-life demonstrators with racketeering.

A study of the data, however, later showed that there was not evidence for that hypothesis. Abstinence was reported as a possibility, along with birth control/AIDS awareness. (This was still during the Clinton administration, IIRC). Still, we never know for sure- epidemiology is an inexact science. At least where it comes to pinpointing the social reasons that the rate of a condition may be changing.

Link It doesn't get into the causal stuff. There was something promising further down the search results (cdc.gov, search "abortion") but I was too tired to read it. Missed the higher maternal death rate. Did they really call it "maternal" death? Odd.

[ July 20, 2004, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Wow! Good stuff, of which I can't get through half today. But I will read it all - this topic interests me greatly, for a variety of reasons. Thanks for the research.

Is that part about human diploid cells for real? I've never heard of that before.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
When Eve needed rabies shots, I had to calm myself down after reading the possible effects. I focused on the numbers. I didn't know which vaccine she was using, and the Internet is a scary place for medical information. I just kept saying, "It's a tiny percent, it's a tiny percent." Of course, it turned out she took the vaccine that had to be recalled. I'm pretty sure she doesn't know how scared I was.

Of course, in that case, it was clear dangers of not taking the vaccine far, far, far outweighed any possible side effects. Stupid raccoon.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Do you think the fact that the traditional childhood illnesses are a generation behind us makes parents less consciously fearful of them, which makes them more willing to forego the vaccinations?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Dagonee, I don't know about CT's thoughts on the matter, but I think so.

I grew up reading books set in the early part of this century, where kids (and adults, for that matter) died -- or came close to dying -- of scarlet fever, polio, pertussis, and so on. I also grew up hearing from my mom about losing a friend in kindergarten to polio (the vaccine became common a few short years later).

Childhood diseases, with their potential for death and permanent harm, are very real to me. I get the impression this is not true of most parents who are my contemporaries.

[edit: cuz they're not all viral, and I do know better]

[ July 20, 2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
/slight tangent 1/ *sigh* it is interesting, many dog people are becoming anti-vaccination too. I don't have links offhand, but they are often the same people who go to BARF diets for their pets (Bone And Raw Foods)

Dogs are vaccinated much more frequently than humans in general. And some states (like Oklahoma) require by law more frequent vaccinations than are actually medically indicated, which does lead to occasional side effects. But there is clearly compelling public interest for it and side effects in animals are not regarded quite the same as side effects in humans. It appears though in both the canine and human circles a lot of the anti-vax info is "urban legend" rather than fact as well.

AJ
/end tangent 1
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Why would anyone ever want to feed a pet a diet called BARF?

I mean, ick!
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
/slight tangent 2/
There have been conclusive genetic links made to both Aspergers and autism. (The research has been presented here at hatrack before, but I can dig up the statistics of engineer parents of aspergers and autistic children, which are somewhat personally frightening considering that I'm an engineer.

These genetic links appear to me to be far more conclusive than much of the foggy science that is used in autism-vax links.
/end tangent 2/

/out-there hypothesis that I'm not sure how to test/
Is it possible that our "nationwide ADD" problem is inherited from our restless ancestors, who for the most part (other than the very small Native American population) travled far distances leaving friends and family behind to make it here? Perhaps it selectively weeded many of the ADD traits out of the European population remaining in Eurpope accidentally. From what I have heard (though I need numbers) ADD occurence in Europe is much lower. And it seems to be that some of the ADD traits that tie right into Asperger's and autism. I have no proof for any of this speculation so you can smack me if you wish CT.
/end of out-there hypothesis/

AJ
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
here's a typical BARF site with many more links. They are everywhere on the web. I'm not saying they are good science. I'm saying a lot of people are buying into it.

http://www.willowglen.com/barf.htm
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Besides being very interested in the actual answer to the question I posed at the start of this thread, I'm also interested in this because I'm fascinated by the way scientific inaccuracies spread, even when there's no political agenda involved.

For example, I still see people driving around with the tailgates down (or removed) on their pickup trucks. If I talk to them, the inevitably tell me it's to improve gas mileage by cutting wind resistance. I guess they think the interior side of the tailgate would be pushing against the wind. I ask them if they compared mileage on the highway with it up and down and they look at me like I'm crazy. Of course the wind hits the tailgate - look at it - it's big and flat!

What people don't realize is that really smart engineers thought of that. If you lie down in a pickup truck at the tailgate while going down the highway (don't - it's dangerous), you won't feel wind if you stay below the sides. Why? Because the air in the pickup bed is static, just like the air in your car when the windows are closed. Ride in a convertible with retractible back windows sometime to test this for yourself.

Lowering the gate lets that air flow out, lowering air pressure behind the truck, which increases drag. The difference is very small on some trucks, bigger on others, but it's consistent.

Despite this, everyone still seems to think lowering the tailgate improves MPG. And this is something they could test easily!

With something like medicine, there's no hope for a layperson. They have to find someone they trust to get the information from, like CT . This makes is much easier for people to be mislead by someone with an ax to grind.

I was at the ASCO annual meeting in San Francisco a few years ago, and they were being protested by a group decrying "Big Pharma's" insistence on pushing chemo instead of natural therapies. It's bad enough when misinformation wastes a few gallons of gas a year. When it causes someone to forego potentially life-saving treatment it's unconscionable.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Dagonee, I'll have to do some research. But from what I am aware of the static air in a pickup bed does have a drouge effect (like a kite tail, that does lower gas milage. Now I'm not sure if actually lowering the tailgate would change that. (and I wouldn't advocate lowering the tailgate for safety reasons) But, I suspect the areodyamics are on the side of the tailgate down people, and most engineers would admit it. I'll have to research further though for fact. To get the best gas milage in a pickup you actually need to put a shell on it from what I know of turbulent air flow.

And I can assure you the back seat of our convertible is horribly windy, and our gas milage does go down with the top down. though yes it could be minimized with different designs and probably are in Cadilac convertibles vs. Eclipse Spyders.

AJ
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
and lowering air pressure behind the truck is just as likely to create lift depending on the laminar and turbulent flows. (and air pressure will Always be lower behind a vehicle.)

Bottom line: if you want good gas milage Don't buy a pickup! If you want to haul large objects frequently then do. If you want to haul large objects infrequently, and good gas milage buy a mini-van.

AJ

[ July 20, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I can't find them right now, but I'm basing this on two studies done in university wind tunnels and actual highway testing at Consumer Reports (which was reporting results of MPG testing, not any wind properties).

Most convertibles with back seats have the passenger's head sticking above the back seat, which isn't quite analagous. Where I witnessed it for myself was in a friend's Audi TT, which hase the glass windows that rise up to the roll bars. Raising it makes the wind much less. Lowering it makes the wind blow from behind into your head.

The topper was found to be better than open bed; I think camper tops were the worst for obvious reasons.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
now that we are completely off topic... CT I eagerly await your next relevant post to the topic.

Actually I was speaking of my dogs riding in the back seat of the convertablwho were utterly miserable well below the body of the vehicle (Yeah I have wierd dogs that don't like to stick their heads out the window, I think it has to do with the size of their ears relative to their heads)

I'd love to see the windtunnel studies to see exactly what variables they were evaluating for and whether they were using laminar or turbulent flow or what combination thereof in the wind tunnel to begin with. Like many of these things the exact setup of the experiment can generally be constructed to give you the outcome you desire.

Also a pickup tailgate is not a "wing" shape. Wing shapes can be added to many vehicles to increase mpg, and I wonder if the unwashed masses think that the tailgate is actually acting as a wing.

AJ
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

Raising it makes the wind much less. Lowering it makes the wind blow from behind into your head.

---

quote:

---

/out-there hypothesis that I'm not sure how to test/
Is it possible that our "nationwide ADD" problem is inherited from our restless ancestors, who for the most part (other than the very small Native American population) travled far distances leaving friends and family behind to make it here? Perhaps it selectively weeded many of the ADD traits out of the European population remaining in Eurpope accidentally. From what I have heard (though I need numbers) ADD occurence in Europe is much lower. And it seems to be that some of the ADD traits that tie right into Asperger's and autism. I have no proof for any of this speculation so you can smack me if you wish CT.
/end of out-there hypothesis/

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I took formt he exceprt is that, while that survey does not PROVE that thimerosol exposure causes developmental delays, it certainly raises enough questions to call for further study, if possible, by a neutral party.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cool. I can understand that. What would convincing evidence to the contrary look like to you? (There are many such contrary studies cited in the CDC link re: autism above.)

---

quote:

---

Lol, if I had children I would sign them up for the GMO study myself. I feel that strongly that GMOs are just fine, and I suspect I know some parents that would actually be willing to do the same. But that's a side topic.

---

I'm with AJ, and I have kids. I know quite a lot about GMO foods too. Would have ZERO compunction about eating any that I know of.




(CT, if you're avoiding KamaCon for YOU, I totally (if sadly) support that. Oxygen masks! If you're avoiding it for the rest of us, the answer is simple. I will monopolize you! And I am not "being nice." Pfffft! I am really looking forward to meeting you! How about we take turns ranting at each other? Would that work for you?)

(You can go first! )
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*doubtful* It's going to have to be a commercial one -- the one my mom has simply won't take anything larger than a hand.

Are you planning to take an anti-inflammatory first? *tries desperately to re-rail post* Because that's what I was always advised to do before the MMR was administered.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Go in peace, and return in peace.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Bye! Have fun storming the mountain!
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
The toxic load theory seems odd to me. If you're so overloaded by environmental factors that you cannot process a vaccine properly the slightest increase in pathogens would make you get sick. Essentially you'd be in the advance stages of AIDS. This seems wrong to me.

I have big problems with unlabelled GMOs. People should be allowed some sort of a choice and they're being denied it right now. This squicks me out. And, I'll be honest, I'm leery of the whole GMO world. I don't think the laws regarding their testing are stringent enough, and the idea of copyrighting an organism gives me the willies. Although that may be more of a personal issue.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
CT don't feel so bad, I didn't mean for you to. It is just I realized my theory was basically speculation and you were trying so hard (and successfully for the most part) to keep the conversation fact based, which is why in my view you would have had a right to yell at me a little (ok kill is a bit extreme but I tend towards hyperbole at times.)

BtL, one of the main reasons I have no problems with GMO's is because of the pH of human stomach acid. Not one bit of any food actually gets incorporated raw into our own DNA. It still gets broken down to its basic building blocks which aren't any different than anything else we eat.

AJ

[ July 21, 2004, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Not all my issues with the labels have to do with health issues, but since you brought it up. I'm not particularly concerned with the extra DNA in the GMO. It can't do anything outside the cell and human cells aren't big on picking up free-floating DNA from their surroundings. And, like you say, it tends to get obliterated in the stomach. But every gene codes for a protein and those may not be destroyed upon entry. There may be an adverse reaction to those. Very slim chance. Then there's the fact that once you start tinkering with genes you're changing the internal environment of the organism and it may start retaining things that it never did before (much more likely than it suddenly starts producing something. And any new omissions will likely be caught during testing). I'm not so concerned about the impact of these things on people who eat them as I am the ecological impact, copyright concerns, the shadiness of the companies selling them (wrt to the practices behind their sales), things along those lines.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Ah ok. That makes sense. I can totally see where you are coming from.

AJ
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
CT, you didn't seem crotchety to me at all And thank you for the compliments on my pretty babies. I do think they happen to be pretty too (To this, I admit my bias).

Bob, great points about GMO foods. Even if they don't pose a danger to us, per se, if they pose an environmental threat I would still be unwilling to knowingly buy them. ( and anything that poses an environmental threat will eventually, in one way or another, affect us)
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
romany IMO that means you need to stop eating all corn on the cob.
(actually or anything else that includes cornmeal, cornsyrup etc. Corn was one of the first GMO foods.)

Hope it isn't one of your favorite foods...

AJ

[ July 21, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
Luckily, no.

Corn is one thing I will ONLY eat if it's organic.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Organic doesn't mean anything in the case of corn. Basically unless you go back and actually eat what is now called "indian corn" which is basically inedible and mostly used for harvest decorations, you are eating a genetically modified food.

AJ

And I'm wrong. Even "indian corn" is genetically modified. Here's interesting article on the subject which shows how long ago "genetic modifications" were taking place...
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,61210,00.html

I agree that the GMOs can have effects on the speicies with cross pollination etc. And they can find some allergies that cross over if they start mixing nuts with other plants. (So they stopped using nuts and plants that people have common food allergies to.) In otherwords I buy BtLs argument, even if I'm not personally terribly concerned about it. But to suggest that the actual ingestion of the stuff is dangerous because of its genetic content when you consider how many bacteria we still consume despite safe food handling practices is pretty absurd, to me.

AJ

[ July 21, 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Sadly, all organic means is that they have the letters "O-R-G-A-N-I-C" in that order somewhere on the label.

Anyway, no corn for you. Wheat's also bad. No potatoes. Tomatoes are getting worse. The amount of canola that's modified is steadily approaching 90% in north america (by far the most popular GMO) and that's just the tip of the ice berg.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
I definately agree with the opinion that there's a big difference between selective breeding and tinkering with a genome, and making cross species changes.

And I grow my own potatos, one of a very few crops I don't kill ( I can also grow squash.)
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
actually BtL, now in the US people aren't allowed to use the word "organic" on a product unless it adheres to these standards.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/NOPhome.html

but when you get down to the fine print there is a lot of wiggle room. Like how you can convert a dairy to "organic" status.

AJ
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*laughs at Google ads*

Isn't soy the number one GMO crop? (And of course, soy protein and other soy stuff is added to an incredible assortment of foods.)
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
On the original subject of autism, I'm the child of two engineers. I wonder if I can blame my lack of social skills on Asperger's? Hmmm....

I'm not particularly concerned about GMO crops. I wouldn't have a problem eating them, though I do think there should be labels. Having a choice is important. However, I think the fear can sometimes be damaging when shipments of food to starving countries are rejected. If our population continues to grow, we may need to grow more genetically modified crops just to feed everyone.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
CT,

Just so you know you didn't waste your time finding that stuff for me, I just wanted to let you know I've finally finished those links. Lot of good information out there.

And QuackWatch is just fun (and a little scary).

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Discover magazine listed the debunking of the autism/vaccination link as the 18th most important science story of the year.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Update
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Thanks for the update, rivka.

I'm still waiting for someone to systematically refute Kennedy's article on the subject. I can't find reliable information that speaks directly to his accusations.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
My husband's employer's daughter just got whooping cough. She's 11. They're now recommending an extra dose of the vaccination for kids between 10 and 13 because immunity doesn't last for everyone and the larger number of unvaccinated children is leading to more and more cases of whooping cough, especially in that age group. (Kids over 14 are generally large enough to recover without incident.)
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
That's good to know, kq. I have to remember to ask my pediatrician about that.
 

---

Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
 
This is so strange. I was just talking to my room mate about this because of an article that came out last week in a local paper. We promised each other we would find more info on it and share. Now I can look like a google queen, with NO effort. Sweet.

And, where in the world did CT's posts go from the beginning of the thread? It looks like Dag is having an animated conversation with himself. And congratulating himself on a point well made . Funny as that is, I'd like to read Claudias view too...
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
rivka, I can't find the original article I read about it, but here's one about new vaccine approved to boost pertussis immunity in teens.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Here's another one about doctor recommends pertussis booster, but I still can't find the one with the new recommendation.
 

---

Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
 
Sigh. I would have been a big poster in this thread if I'd been around then. Now it's not readable because all of CTs posts, possibly others, are missing.

By the way, pertussis immunity wears off for everyone as far as I know but in the past no one cared because it's usually only a serious disease for infants or small children. My son had it at age 4 or 5 and he got over it without any problems. In Canada, they are currently contemplating introducing boosters for pertussis to go with tetanus/diphtheria shots to avoid cases of pertussis in adults.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I hadn't realized this was one of the threads CT had removed her posts from.

And I wish I could remember WHAT only holds a hand.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 

quote:

---

pertussis immunity wears off for everyone as far as I know

---

quote:

---

In Canada, they are currently contemplating introducing boosters for pertussis to go with tetanus/diphtheria shots to avoid cases of pertussis in adults.

---

That's what the first link I posted is about-- the FDA has approved the TDaP (tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis) vaccine for use in teens (and, I think, adults). There's a big push to vaccinate adults and teens, for whom it's not a serious problem, to keep them from infecting smaller children (for whom it can be) going on here, too.
 

---

Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
 
Interesting. Do you think your mom may have had pertussis as an adult without being aware? That may have boosted her immunity.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Nope. She also got immunity to something on the first try that most people have to have two or three shots to get immunity for (I forget which one it was, something health care workers have to get.) She almost never gets sick; when she does, about once every two years, it's usually just a cold.
 

---

Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
 
Nice. It's a good thing she checked rather than just getting all the extra boosters!

I wondered since I'm immune to a couple things I wasn't immunized against and never (noticably) had either. Clear I was exposed and developed immunity without symptoms.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Yeah, my mom has been exposed to TB about ten gazillion times and never had even a positive skin test.

The only thing I seem to be immune to is poison ivy. *sigh*
 

---

Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
 
Pertussis is on the rise throughout the US. In Hawaii, we've investigated more than 100 cases since January, when we typically have fewer than 5 cases a year. Basically, the population goes in cycles and right now, most of the adolescents and adults in the US are not immune. It's not a huge issue because pertussis is typically milder in teens and adults, but the concern is that unimmunized infants will be exposed, and that's a serious health risk.

The new pertussis vaccine is not just a new recommendation, it's an entirely new vaccine, and it was only recently (within the last 6 months or so) licensed. Before that, there was no PERT vaccine licensed for use in anyone over the age of 7. It's generally accepted that PERT vaccine only provides 7-10 years of protection, so that leaves a huge group of people unprotected.

One of the things we do to prevent the spread as much as possible is to treat ALL close contacts of pertussis cases with a full course of antibiotics, whether or not they are symptomatic, regardless of immunization history. We define a close contact as anyone who is in the same room with the case for 5 hours or more per week - which includes the entire household, of course, but also daycares, preschools, co-workers, athletic teams... it's a big job, and not everyone is cooperative.
 

---