Lancet retracts study linking autism to vaccines

[RockHugger]

Date: 2/4/2010 10:23:09 AM
Author: princesss

Date: 2/4/2010 10:10:41 AM
Author: RockHugger
*Children in villages with little or no medical aid available die of things we can vaccinate against.*

EXACTLY! I am not arguing giving kids in developing countries vaccinations!! I am arguing giving kids vaccinations in developed countries where the risk of the vaccine does NOT outweigh the risks of the disease.

The risk TO YOU does not outweigh the risk of the disease. My (again, hypothetical) child having to possibly fight off multiple vicious diseases that can (and do) leave the children disfigured and/or dead, or risking being in the 1% that suffers serious side effects is not a question to me. I''d rather risk being in the one percent than being in the percentage of children that are negatively affected by these diseases (which, and I''m sorry I don''t have numbers on me, is obviously higher than 1% since we felt the need to develop a vaccine against them).

Even with medical intervention, there are VERY serious complications from diseases that we vaccinate against, and they would affect far more than 1% of the population if we allowed them to come back.

By the way...please read the vaccine insert for the HiB vaccine. Interesting stuff in there expecially where it tells you there is a 50% increase in contracting hib 2 weeks after the vaccine (in small small print). My child has less of a chance contracting hib her whole life, then during those 2 weeks post vaccination.

I am also currious how many people would be on the pro side of the fence if ther child was actually effected by vaccine damage. From what I am reading, the pro vaccine people here either dont have kids, or have kids who have not been damaged. I think its a perfect example of "it cant happen to me".

How yould you feel if this was your child... would you still support the vaccine?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C4Xf6_c8zE

 

[RockHugger]

Well if you vaccinate and trust the vaccines...you should have nothing to worry about your children catching something from mine...now would you?

 

[princesss]

Date: 2/4/2010 10:42:48 AM
Author: RockHugger
Well if you vaccinate and trust the vaccines...you should have nothing to worry about your children catching something from mine...now would you?

Your child could infect hers before her baby is able to be vaccinated. Children are not fully immunized until, what? 18 months? So up until that point your choice not to vaccinate could, quite literally, kill her child.

And it's not a case of "It couldn't happen to me" to say we'd vaccinate. It's a case of "These deadly diseases very well COULD happen to me/my child, so I'm going to protect against them to the best of my ability."

Would you still be so anti-vaccine if your child was disfigured or died from a disease that you chose not to vaccinate against? Or if their 5-year-old body/immune system could fight off measles, but it killed your neighbour's newborn?

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Edit. Nevermind.


On the subject of epidemics, there is measles around in the area where I live at the moment. DD's friends have it, she's been exposed to it. Now, I have it. I'm over the worst actually, but it is horrible. My mother thought I'd already had it, but apparently not.

Right now, i'm grateful that we had the chance to protect her against this disease, because it's nasty even without the potential complications. She appears entirely unharmed by the vaccine, for which I'm also grateful.

 

[neatfreak]

Rockhugger,


All I ask is that you provide facts to back up your claims. You keep telling us look her look there, it''s a fact. Well then SHOW US.

And you mention that there were high quality studies that prove the link with the Amish but are not believed because of small sample size? That just can''t be true. MANY studies have small sample sizes, but if they are done well, with the proper statistical power, they can still be valid. So where is this study that is so great?

So far you have only provided a youtube link which isn''t exactly credible information.

Last, you are projecting the same thing you are accusing us of projecting onto others. You claim that just because your kid had measles and was fine that all kids with measles are fine. NOT TRUE. If you look at the worldwide death and disfigurement rates of these diseases BEFORE vaccines they were HUGE. Many many many more kids dying or being disfigured from these awful diseases. Now the death rates are lower, but if we stop vaccinating they will begin to run rampant there. They are like a burgular lying in wait for someone to leave a house. Mark my words that they will be back and likely worse than before.

Again, if you truly believe that vaccine death rates are worse than the diseases themselves why don''t you find some numbers from a credible source and post the links?

 

[meresal]

Date: 2/4/2010 10:41:05 AM
Author: RockHugger
By the way...please read the vaccine insert for the HiB vaccine. Interesting stuff in there expecially where it tells you there is a 50% increase in contracting hib 2 weeks after the vaccine (in small small print). My child has less of a chance contracting hib her whole life, then during those 2 weeks post vaccination.

I am also currious how many people would be on the pro side of the fence if ther child was actually effected by vaccine damage. From what I am reading, the pro vaccine people here either dont have kids, or have kids who have not been damaged. I think its a perfect example of 'it cant happen to me'.

How yould you feel if this was your child... would you still support the vaccine?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C4Xf6_c8zE

Where is the proof that this exists?

That is the arguement here. Many of us don't believe it, and you do. Simple. You are asking us to have an opinion on something that we don't believe. THAT is our opinion. We don't believe it.

 

[princesss]

Date: 2/4/2010 10:54:26 AM
Author: neatfreak
Rockhugger,


All I ask is that you provide facts to back up your claims. You keep telling us look her look there, it''s a fact. Well then SHOW US.

And you mention that there were high quality studies that prove the link with the Amish but are not believed because of small sample size? That just can''t be true. MANY studies have small sample sizes, but if they are done well, with the proper statistical power, they can still be valid. So where is this study that is so great?

So far you have only provided a youtube link which isn''t exactly credible information.

Last, you are projecting the same thing you are accusing us of projecting onto others. You claim that just because your kid had measles and was fine that all kids with measles are fine. NOT TRUE. If you look at the worldwide death and disfigurement rates of these diseases BEFORE vaccines they were HUGE. Many many many more kids dying or being disfigured from these awful diseases. Now the death rates are lower, but if we stop vaccinating they will begin to run rampant there. They are like a burgular lying in wait for someone to leave a house. Mark my words that they will be back and likely worse than before.

Again, if you truly believe that vaccine death rates are worse than the diseases themselves why don''t you find some numbers from a credible source and post the links?

NF, ever the calm voice of reason. Great post.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 2/4/2010 10:42:48 AM
Author: RockHugger
Well if you vaccinate and trust the vaccines...you should have nothing to worry about your children catching something from mine...now would you?

MY children no because they are fully vaccinated. But what about babies that can't be vaccinated and have compromised immune systems? Or cancer patients? Or the elderly? Or any number of other people whose immune systems are compromised and can't be vaccinated?

Would YOU want to be responsible for your child with their "harmless" measles killing a 1 month old baby? Or a grandmother?

This is a time when you need to think more broadly than yourself and be socially responsible. And the socially responsible thing to do is vaccinate.

And as to your other question, I would still feel the same way that I do about vaccines now if my child had a bad reaction to one. It's the socially responsible thing to do.

 

[Porridge]

I'm curious to read the credible sources behind your opinions too RH. Could you please point us in the direction? Are they available on PubMed?

I'm also wondering about this money trail. I understand why you would be concerned about that of course - I think you live in America is that correct? So medicine is private, people pay the doctor, the doctor pays the drug company, everybody involved gains. Sick people mean big money for drug companies.

Consider us here in Europe. A population over twice the size of America, a very large and influential government. Medicine here in the majority of countries is free to the public. Vaccines are provided by the government. Free. It is financially beneficial to have the population as healthy as possible, because medicine and treatment costs the government. Drug companies are very strictly regulated. Why in the world would the governments be funding companies that were causing damage to health? It wouldn't make financial sense.

 

[Blenheim]

Date: 2/4/2010 9:39:29 AM
Author: princesss

Date: 2/4/2010 8:41:12 AM
Author: RockHugger
And HH, please answer my question. Would you feed your new born baby formula containing mercury formeldayde or aluminum? I am not picking on you...I ask that to everyone here who is pro vaccine.

Not a parent, but as somebody that is VERY pro-vaccine, if that formula had the same proven results and the same risks as vaccines (because there is risk, and it is unfortunate that some kids react badly to the vaccines), yes. I would shove that bottle in their mouth so fast I''d give the Flash a run for his money.

You ask why vaccinate in a country with low mortality rates? Because it''s vaccinating that keeps the mortality rates down. It''s not like diseases recognize borders, and having a history of low mortality rates would keep killer diseases at bay. If we (and this is we as a country) fail to vaccinate our children, we put them at far more serious risk than if we don''t. Kids die of these diseases in developing countries because they are not vaccinated. That''s not a risk I''m willing to take with my (hypothetical) child''s life.

And I''ll chime in as a parent. I have knowingly exposed my son to mercury, as I sometimes eat tuna and other fish that contains some amount of mercury and a little bit does make it into my breastmilk. I''m sure that there are also small amounts of other bad stuff in there from environmental factors. But the risks from him being exposed to that amount of mercury (and other toxins) are very low, whereas the benefits of him drinking my milk are high. So I feed it to him. Same thing with vaccines: I''m more concerned with the risks of not vaccinating than with the possible effects of the trace amounts of heavy metals or toxins, and so we vaccinate.

 

[dcgator]

While I do not care to add to the particular ongoing discussion, I would like to point out that there are other factors that scientists believe may cause Autism. Please see the link http://how-old-is-too-old.blogspot.com/2009/06/fathers-age-and-autism.html

While of course there is no definite cause of Autism proven (at this point), I think that this makes a lot more sense. In a society where couples are waiting longer to concieve and many men are getting remarried and having children later in life, the correlation/causation is hard to ignore.

Just another theory to consider.

 

[elrohwen]

Date: 2/4/2010 9:57:30 AM
Author: RockHugger

Date: 2/4/2010 9:53:55 AM
Author: meresal

Date: 2/4/2010 7:45:28 AM
Author: RockHugger
I understand what you are saying...but on the other hand, children are also dying every day from these vaccines. Personally, I would rather take the small risk of a complication from one of these illnesses (and the risk of death from measles, mumps, pertussis, ect is VERY VERY small...UNDER 1%) then inject my child with something I KNOW can kill her (See VAERS) or cause lifelong injury. You mention in developing countries. But people dont die often from the measles in developed countries. So why vaccinate in countries that have a low death rate? Out of convienence? Personally, I would rather have my child in the hospital with an IV for 2-3 days (and have MANY times due to other illnesses) then suffer seizures for the rest of her life, or live with autism. Now in countries that cant handle complications, yes the vaccine would outweigh the risk. But it no longer outweighs the risk in the deveolped countries of the world.

In one post you say that a 1% risk of Austim isn''t so easy to swallow when it is YOUR child who developed Autism... but then in this post you dismiss a 1% chance of DEATH as being nothing to worry about.

It''s not that thier isn''t ''risk'' in developed countries. It is YOUR opinion that THIS 1% is worth the vaccination.

Your twisting my words. Under 1%. If people are comparing risks of vaccinating and risks of not, the risks of vaccinating are higher. And that is just Autsim. The risk % doesnt include seizure disorders, cancers, deaths, allergic reactions ect.

There may be a 1% rate of autism, but there is no proof that the 1% is a result of vaccines. So I''m not really seeing your argument? You''re arguing that 1% of vaccinated children get autism which is just absolutely ridiculous.

 

[LabRatPhD]

I have been following this thread and didn''t want to comment, but feel the need to since I am involved in the field.

I am a 4th year PhD student in cell and molecular biology with a focus in neuropharmacology. I study how drugs affect the brain. I have been involved with biomedical research ever since I was 16 and now it is my life. Some of the attitudes expressed here are attitudes that I deal with on a day to day basis when I tell outside folks what I do for a living. I realize that these attitudes arise because people are very invested in why they feel the way they do, but that doesn''t make it right to discredit people who work all their lives to contribute to elucidating the big mysteries in medical biology.

The autism study that was retracted from the Lancet was a poorly executed and unethical study. If you do a quick search on PubMed, the NIH portal for all scientific journals, you will find HUNDREDS of elegant studies that find autism to have a strong genetic predisposition. Autism is a spectrum disorder and it is very difficult to trace its origins because there is a spectrum of phenotypes. Since it is also a neurological disorder, it is likely that many, many genes play a role in development of the disorder. Big pharma is NOT evil in its intentions. As someone who has worked in that industry, I am insulted by the idea that we are all driven by money. Big pharma researchers are comprised of people who busted their butts for 6-7 years as overworked and underpaid graduate students and for another 2-3 years as postdoctoral researchers to even make it through the front door of one of those labs. You can bet that MOST of these people are dedicated to learning more about diseases and finding ways that we can treat and prevent them.

We also need to keep in mind that bacteria/viruses are ORGANISMS like us, but just not as complex. Their genetics dictate them to survive and procreate to further the species, just like us. If we do not try to prevent their spread through vaccinations, they will run rampant. By not vaccinating, you are doing a disservice to others by allowing these organisms to have hosts and to further their genetics.

Rockhugger, I know you feel passionate about your stance and it must be difficult to see your child ill, but I urge you to please educate yourself on all of the research that is out there. Please understand how studies are conducted when reading drug inserts. Most people do not understand how drug clinical trials are done. Please understand how vaccines work.

My children will be vaccinated and I am thankful I was vaccinated.

Sorry, I will get off my soapbox now and head back to the lab!

 

[janinegirly]

Date: 2/4/2010 12:09:46 PM
Author: dcgator
While I do not care to add to the particular ongoing discussion, I would like to point out that there are other factors that scientists believe may cause Autism. Please see the link http://how-old-is-too-old.blogspot.com/2009/06/fathers-age-and-autism.html

While of course there is no definite cause of Autism proven (at this point), I think that this makes a lot more sense. In a society where couples are waiting longer to concieve and many men are getting remarried and having children later in life, the correlation/causation is hard to ignore.

Just another theory to consider.

Oh geez here we go. Having kids older is linked to autism.

. Uh so how come it's more common in boys? Larry King's kids seem fine. Seriously don't get your medical advice from blogs and internet conspiracy theorists or celebrities with weak credentials.

 

[elrohwen]

I''d also like to point out the obvious on the whole money trail issue - vaccines are given once to young children. If a child gets sick (from not being vaccinated) the possible medical bills are far far higher than what was paid for the vaccine. If "big pharma" was really in it to make money, wouldn''t they be better of not vaccinating and letting people get sick?

Imagining that they make their huge profits on the sale of cheap vaccines (given once in your life) just doesn''t make sense.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 2/4/2010 10:14:51 AM
Author: RockHugger

Date: 2/4/2010 10:11:47 AM
Author: chemgirl
If it became common practice to not vaccinate, and these diseases were treated with antibiotics, we would end up with a lot of antibiotic resistant bacteria! I''m more concerned with having multiple strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria that are nolonger covered by the old vaccines due to mutation. Vaccines rob these bacteria of the chance to become something far more dangerous than they are currently.

Also, I''m curious as to what is actually in antibiotic as far as toxic material is concerned. I know that bioreactors used to produce certain antibiotics (ie semi synthetic penicillins) require addition of acid and base to maintain their desirable pH. There will be residual salts in the fermentation broth. Separations after the fact is not 100%.

My point is that claiming that we can treat these diseases with antibiotic rather than vaccination isn''t really ideal

Most the vaccine ''preventable'' diseases are viruses and would not use antibiotics. For many of the complications, IV fluids and fever control are the treatement.

My youngest (2) has never come into contact with an antibiotic. She has never had a bacterial infection and if she did, I actually use raw garlic smoothies for that (dont get me wrong, I give the ''treatment'' 3 days to work, if it doesnt I would use antibiotics...but it has never come to that). It contains Acillin wich is a natural antibiotic (effective against MRSA BTW). I mix raw garlic cloves, veggies, and applecider vinager together and have the kids drink it 2x a day when there is an illness.
As hokey as it sounds it works wonders. I had a MRSA infection and was hospitalized on and off for 4 months on heavy antibiotics including Vancomyacin and Zyvox. I said screw this and invented my ''garlic smoothie''. I have been MRSA free sence. But that is a whole ''nother topic .

Seriously? Then you need to come to my house, because I can''t get my kid to drink anything except apple juice and milk - I need to know your secret on how you get your kids to drink a mix of garlic, veggies & vinegar!

Do you hide it in something else, or do they drink it straight?

 

[cara]

While this study being withdrawn is nice for publicizing the issue, scientifically this study had already been discredited by multiple much larger, more powerful studies that found no link between vaccination and autism. If a study isn''t repeatable, the scientific community will start to question its findings. If multiple, massive, well-designed studies are done on an issue and find *nothing* to support the findings of one small preliminary study, the scientific community will dismiss the small study and move on. But sadly in this case, the anti-vaccine movement siezed on the initial, small study with an intensity that is not rational, and no amount of contradictory evidence or further study from the scientific or medical communities will convince them that their theory is incorrect.

The Lancet study in question included 12 children, and found 8 of them had GI and developmental issues that might have been related to immunization. Of course, the lead author had committed scientific misconduct, and 10 of the 12 authors later withdrew their support for the study. The scientific misconduct is why the Lancet is withdrawing the paper - if they had just published a small, poorly designed study that saw a correlation that later bigger, better-designed studies found not to exist, the Lancet would not have taken the extreme action of withdrawing the paper. That''s big news in science, and doesn''t just happen when someone is wrong on an issue of scientific findings or has a fluky study result. Its the intentional fraud and ethical problems by the lead author driving the withdraw. *Maybe* it will make a dent in some of the anti-vaccine irrationality, or give comfort to some parents that don''t know who to believe or what to think.

 

[elrohwen]

Three things that haven't been brought up.

1) Kids with Downs have a higher incidence of autism already. But you really think it's the vaccines that did it??

2) Asperger's did not used to be considered part of the autism spectrum. As kids with asperger's have been included, clearly it appears that the rate of diagnosis has dramatically increased when we're just considering a wider range to be a part of the spectrum. (Asperger's was only included in the DSM-IV in 1994 as an official diagnosis)

3) If vaccines really are a cause of autism, why are boys affected so much more than girls? Are girls immune to whatever problems vaccines bring? I doubt it. Rather, the split between boys and girls is likely caused by genetics because environmental factors should affect the genders equally for the most part.


It just kills me that the vaccine-autism argument has absolutely zero proof except for the opinions (opinions - not studies) of a few people, yet people jump on the bandwagon every day.

 

[CNOS128]

Date: 2/4/2010 12:17:57 PM
Author: janinegirly

Date: 2/4/2010 12:09:46 PM

Author: dcgator

While I do not care to add to the particular ongoing discussion, I would like to point out that there are other factors that scientists believe may cause Autism. Please see the link http://how-old-is-too-old.blogspot.com/2009/06/fathers-age-and-autism.html


While of course there is no definite cause of Autism proven (at this point), I think that this makes a lot more sense. In a society where couples are waiting longer to concieve and many men are getting remarried and having children later in life, the correlation/causation is hard to ignore.



Just another theory to consider.

Oh geez here we go. Having kids older is linked to autism.

. Uh so how come it''s more common in boys? Larry King''s kids seem fine. Seriously don''t get your medical advice from blogs and internet conspiracy theorists or celebrities with weak credentials.

Well, just because two things are "linked" doesn''t mean they always happen together. Sure, plenty of older parents don''t have children with autism. That doesn''t mean there is no link. From what I''ve read there have been studies in the last few years (not just celebrity conspiracy theories) that do suggest a link (or correlation, if you will) between parents'' age and incidence of autism.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/11/1268

 

[cara]

Date: 2/4/2010 12:17:57 PM
Author: janinegirly

Date: 2/4/2010 12:09:46 PM
Author: dcgator
While I do not care to add to the particular ongoing discussion, I would like to point out that there are other factors that scientists believe may cause Autism. Please see the link http://how-old-is-too-old.blogspot.com/2009/06/fathers-age-and-autism.html

While of course there is no definite cause of Autism proven (at this point), I think that this makes a lot more sense. In a society where couples are waiting longer to concieve and many men are getting remarried and having children later in life, the correlation/causation is hard to ignore.Just another theory to consider.

Oh geez here we go. Having kids older is linked to autism.

. Uh so how come it''s more common in boys? Larry King''s kids seem fine. Seriously don''t get your medical advice from blogs and internet conspiracy theorists or celebrities with weak credentials.

Janine, there is actually some scientific evidence to support a link between parental age and autism and schizophrenia. There was actually a thread on it on ps here that has more info, but long story short, genes are thought to play a role in both these diseases and certain types of genetic mutations are more common with eggs and sperm from older parents. Its not solid findings yet (ie, there could be other reasons for the old parent-neurological disorder link), but also not crackpot level either.

As for the Larry King comment, one old guy''s healthy kids do not a scientific study make. Just like RockHugger''s one kid that safely survived measles doesn''t mean its a perfectly innocuous disease.

 

[janinegirly]

I was being sarcastic with LK comment, obviously I am aware that any link does not mean 100%.

I have not read these studies but I am not aware of it receiving significant press/coverage - certainly not as much as the vaccine hype. And again does not explain why boys are more likely than girls to be diagnosed with autism. Also wouldn't we see a cluster of autism cases in cities then? (where it is very typcial for parents to be "older").

In my non-scientific testing of my circle (immediate and non immediate), 2 couples have children with autism--both boys, both born to young parents. I have geesh, maybe 80% of my friends with kids who had them older..not one has autism. Completely subjective observation, but one I pay attention to.

 

[cara]

Date: 2/4/2010 10:42:48 AM
Author: RockHugger
Well if you vaccinate and trust the vaccines...you should have nothing to worry about your children catching something from mine...now would you?

Rockhugger, vaccines are not 100% effective at providing immunity, even when they are perfectly safe and well designed. And there are some people in the population that can''t get vaccines for whatever reason - too young, too old, compromised immune system, allergic. THOSE people are at risk for getting the disease. If they live in wonderful, rational world where most everyone is vaccinated, then the not-vaccinated and the rare was-vaccinated but didn''t develop full immunity people are protected by herd immunity. Disease can''t sustain itself because too many people are immune. If the people who think its not safe/natural/necessary routinely don''t vaccinate, then those that can''t get vaccines or did get vaccines but didn''t develop immunity are vulnerable to getting the disease, because the disease can survive in the community being passed around among those not immune.

On that front. Glad your little one now has immunity, presumably. Sorry she had to get so spotty for it.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 2/4/2010 1:48:10 PM
Author: janinegirly
I was being sarcastic with LK comment, obviously I am aware that any link does not mean 100%.


I have not read these studies but I am not aware of it receiving significant press/coverage - certainly not as much as the vaccine hype. And again does not explain why boys are more likely than girls to be diagnosed with autism. Also wouldn't we see a cluster of autism cases in cities then? (where it is very typcial for parents to be 'older').


In my non-scientific testing of my circle (immediate and non immediate), 2 couples have children with autism--both boys, both born to young parents. I have geesh, maybe 80% of my friends with kids who had them older..not one has autism. Completely subjective observation, but one I pay attention to.

Interestingly Janine they do find Autism clusters often among both highly educated parents and in cities. Could be a flukey correlation of some kind, could be that these kids are more likely to be diagnosed, but could also be the idea that old parents are more likely to have kids with autism and these are the same parents that are more likely to be affluent and more educated.

I wouldn't take it personally, it's just one of those things like your risk of having a child with downs goes up as you get older, it likely is a similar mechanism. And we need to remember the RELATIVE risk. I am making these numbers up but if people in the general population have a 1% chance of having a child with autism and that doubles for "older" moms, then that is still only 2% of those kids born to older moms that will have autism. Out of 100 kids that's only 2 compared to 1 of younger moms. So statistically it doesn't actually change much.

So we need to think about relative risks and effect sizes when we talk about risks doubling, etc. Yes if a risk is 30% and that doubles, that is HUGE. But a risk that is 1% and doubles isn't huge when you really think about how it affects children.

 

[elrohwen]

Date: 2/4/2010 1:48:10 PM
Author: janinegirly
I was being sarcastic with LK comment, obviously I am aware that any link does not mean 100%.

I have not read these studies but I am not aware of it receiving significant press/coverage - certainly not as much as the vaccine hype. And again does not explain why boys are more likely than girls to be diagnosed with autism. Also wouldn''t we see a cluster of autism cases in cities then? (where it is very typcial for parents to be ''older'').

In my non-scientific testing of my circle (immediate and non immediate), 2 couples have children with autism--both boys, both born to young parents. I have geesh, maybe 80% of my friends with kids who had them older..not one has autism. Completely subjective observation, but one I pay attention to.

Genetically, boys and girls are different and genes will affect them differently. It''s very possible to have genetic conditions linked to one gender over another. I think this is actually a huge piece of information that suggests a genetic link over something like vaccines or diet.

 

[E B]

Date: 2/4/2010 1:54:34 PM
Author: neatfreak

I wouldn''t take it personally, it''s just one of those things like your risk of having a child with downs goes up as you get older, it likely is a similar mechanism. And we need to remember the RELATIVE risk. I am making these numbers up but if people in the general population have a 1% chance of having a child with autism and that doubles for ''older'' moms, then that is still only 2% of those kids born to older moms that will have autism. Out of 100 kids that''s only 2 compared to 1 of younger moms. So statistically it doesn''t actually change much.

From the Washington Post article about the study released in 2006:

"Children of fathers who were 15 to 29 years of age had a risk of about six in 10,000 of developing autism. Children of fathers in their thirties had a risk of nine in 10,000. Children of fathers in their forties had a risk of 32 in 10,000, and children of fathers who were older than 50 had a risk of 52 in 10,000." (Source)

Oddly enough, the ratio of males to females was almost 1:1.

 

[janinegirly]

The correlations are still too unsubstantiated to me to seem remotely credible. Educated people in urban areas may also be more likely to take their children to doctors regularly, have access to information and therefore be included in whatever data is accumlulated to track this stuff.

I can appreciate the fact that it is all relative and that genetics come into play. Particularly when you hear about more than one child with autisim in the same family.

However I do not think it helps the debate when vague correlations which are not yet based on anything substantiated or accepted by the medical community are thrown into the mix. JMHO.

Anyway I''lll leave others to debate it to the bitter end...

 

[cara]

Janine, its a risk factor hypothesis. Parental age would be one of many risk factors. My understanding is that both autism and schizophrenia are thought to be multifactorial diseases, with possibly multiple genetic factors determining a child's predisposition to the disease, and then environmental triggers also playing a role in whether or not the disease manifests and how severely. Clearly the science on all of this is not all figured out yet.

Some of the odd traits you mention (autism affects boys more, and you know kids with autism born to young parents) are found in some genetic diseases for which we have a much clearer understanding of what is going on. Some genetic diseases affect boys more severely than girls. Sometimes they are sex-linked (on the X-chomosome) so boys just get it more frequently, but its also possible for a disease just to affect boys more. On the age thing, think of Down's syndrome. Older mothers are at much higher risk of having a child with Down's, but the risk for a young mom is not zero. And it turns out that 70% of Down's babies are born to young moms because they have so many more babies than older moms.

As for why the parental age-autism link hasn't gotten as much press, clearly I think the devotion to the vaccine hypothesis is not rational. And there's not much to be done with the parental age thing (no special diet, no anti-vaccine campaign). Plus the science isn't totally solid on it, its just in the initial stages yet. And the schizophrenia research is more solid, but doesn't have the same cache as the autism stuff. Its just as devastating a disease, but hits young adults not toddlers and hasn't received as much press on rising incidence.

ETA: In the other thread I posted some actual scientific studies on the parental age issue - they are correlation studies, but the effects are real and some of the studies attempt to correct for education and other factors and still see an age effect surviving the correction. Those studies were published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, so they have recieved some level of support from the scientific community. As for dismissing it because its not scientific dogma yet, well, sometimes you have to go with the data you've got! I think someone posted asking for speculation on what might be causing autism if not the vaccines.

 

[janinegirly]

Date: 2/4/2010 2:09:08 PM
Author: cara
Janine, its a risk factor hypothesis. Parental age would be one of many risk factors. My understanding is that both autism and schizophrenia are thought to be multifactorial diseases, with possibly multiple genetic factors determining a child''s predisposition to the disease, and then environmental triggers also playing a role in whether or not the disease manifests and how severely. Clearly the science on all of this is not all figured out yet.

Some of the odd traits you mention (autism affects boys more, and you know kids with autism born to young parents) are found in some genetic diseases for which we have a much clearer understanding of what is going on. Some genetic diseases affect boys more severely than girls. Sometimes they are sex-linked (on the X-chomosome) so boys just get it more frequently, but its also possible for a disease just to affect boys more. On the age thing, think of Down''s syndrome. Older mothers are at much higher risk of having a child with Down''s, but the risk for a young mom is not zero. And it turns out that 70% of Down''s babies are born to young moms because they have so many more babies than older moms.

As for why the parental age-autism link hasn''t gotten as much press, clearly I think the devotion to the vaccine hypothesis is not rational. And there''s not much to be done with the parental age thing (no special diet, no anti-vaccine campaign). Plus the science isn''t totally solid on it, its just in the initial stages yet. And the schizophrenia research is more solid, but doesn''t have the same cache as the autism stuff. Its just as devastating a disease, but hits young adults not toddlers and hasn''t received as much press on rising incidence.

Ok, makes sense but "science isn''t totally sold on it" is a big but.. And yes I think if there was direct proven link there is something that can be done about it on an individual level. With DS the risk increases significantly after 40--and at least for me, I think that that (among other obvious reasons ) is one reason I am much less inclined to have children after 40.

 

[lover in athens]

no idea why i''m jumping in on this debate...i''ve only skimmed most of the posts, but i can''t begin to tell you how annoyed i am.

like NF, i AM a parent. i am a well-educated "scientist" (physician), and you couldn''t pay me a million dollars to NOT immunize my kids.

yes, MOST of the deaths from measles are avoidable with antibiotics (measles creates an immunosuppressed state in which the afflicted are more susceptible to bacterial infections such as otitis media and pneumonia--these CAN be cured with abx in a country such as ours). but what about the more rare sequelae such as encephalitis and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis?? there is NO cure for these and they often have horrible morbidity (permanent brain damage and the such) and potential mortality. the latter often doesn''t develop until years after the measles infection (often >10). your kid might have had a relatively benign measles course, but still could be affected by SSPE...SCARY, SCARY STUFF.

coby is 15 months and has had every recommended vaccine so far, and will continue to get every one i can POSSIBLY give to him!

 

[RockHugger]

If you want studies done, please research it. I am very busy with 2 kids and cant be sitting here looking up studies for you, expecially sence I know you dont have an open mind to the issue. I have done years of research on the subject, and hundreds of hours reading studies and vaccine insert information. Those who vaccinate should be doing the same before they inject a chemical into their baby. Parents research carseats, formula, diapers ect...but never put a second thought about what is being injected into their baby. That is what makes me very uncomfortable about the whole situation. Reseach with an OPEN mind. There is a forum on justmommies.com under choosing not to vaccinate. There is ALOT of study information archived there. Check it out.

If you know of any studies NOT funded by pharmacy companies on the safety of heavy metals in vaccines...please show me. I know I would rather have a study showing something is safe instead of a study showing it doesnt cause a claimed illness before using a product!

As for my child making someone elses baby sick, did you know vaccines dont prevent you from transmitting the disease? A completely vaxed 6 yr old, can carry the measles/pertusses to your unvaxed baby, giving him/her the measles. The 6 yr old can carry it, but because of the vaccine wont catch it (if hes lucky and it works). So my child not being vaccinated is no greater risk then your vaccinated child to those at risk of illness. In fact, the rotovirus and some forms of the polio virus vaccines actually shed for up to 2 weeks after vaccination, exposing anyone in contact to the illness. That really tickes me off about the new DTaP vaccine promotion. "Vaccinate yourself to protect your baby". Bull Turds. You can still transmit pertussis with the vaccine!

As for the garlic smoothie question, what I do is blend 1 clove of garlic, 2tbs of apple cider vinager and a can of V8. Then serve right away. My 8 yr old will drink it like that, but my younger one wont. For her I substitute the V8 with apple juice and she drinks it. Or blend apple juice, bananas or whatever else tastes yummy in with the garlic and ACV. We had the swine flu over the summer and that blend kicked it within 3 days. But you need to use the garlic right away, and raw because the acillin degenerates within an hour, and is heat sensitive.