View Full Version : Autism and vaccines

12-06-2009, 12:47 AM
It would seem that new and ongoing research has maybe got a link between the two. For those interested in the debate I present this

LINK (http://www.thecenternj.com/images/Autism_Press_Release_Full_Version.pdf)

12-06-2009, 07:40 AM
this hypothesis has been disproven by every single scientific research that has been done on it. In one case (don't have the reference because I am in NJ but can get it when I return to work tomorrow), they studied data in which the vaccine was given to all children, then stopped for a number of years and then reintroduced. there was no change in the rate of autism in children being identified.

however, if a baby is exposed to rubella in the first trimester of a pregnancy it increases the risk of developing autism by a factor of 40.

I do wish that these groups would put their boundless energy into something that would actually help families dealing with this condition. :twocents:

12-06-2009, 10:17 AM
If you could remember to post the source that would be awesome Bambi. I'm getting very interested in this one. This crew it seems weren't seeking to link autism with vaccines at the outset but the path they found themselves on pointed in that direction. If I could determine the ties and connections of the various study groups who claim to have shown no connection between the two were most certainly above board both in methodology and persuasion/influence (if any) then I could better understand perhaps the invalidity of the "Center For Modeling Optimal Outcomes" research and be in a better position to question the idea of cellular absorption and the possible imbalances caused by glutamate - gelatin/glycine absorption. As one can see at the end of this press release there are really no hard conclusions drawn but more a cry for the medical community to evaluate the model presented. Right or wrong is not important in this debate, but that the condition be identified and dealt with is paramount. I'm like a little skinny dog halfway down a Ferret hole with this I understand but ever since I learned to read I have found inconsistency fascinating and worthy of study:)

12-06-2009, 10:42 AM
Not a single real scientific paper has ever even shown a link in any way. It is just fear mongering period and it has caused increases in preventable diseases which is almost criminal. It was a manufactured controversy.


12-06-2009, 10:58 AM
Outstanding Link AL, much to go through here, should shut me up for at least a month:) I'm not swayed one way or the other on this debate at present, just cross checking the evidence. The arguments against vaccines being the cause would seem to indicate no connection and the conspiracy runs high on this one as you would expect but some questions still remain unanswered for me and me being me, I'll keep digging till I get those answers :)

12-06-2009, 05:23 PM
Ok…After spending the last 8 hours digging through the mush, I can find no scientific testing that has been done disputing the “Center for Modeling Optimal outcomes” findings. Correct me if I’m wrong but studies involving mercury, squalene and other elements have failed to produce but nothing to definitively say the centers findings are off base by any stretch. Still I’d like to look at Bambi’s material to see if in fact I’ve missed something. Once again It’s important to note the Center did not set out to challenge other research but went off on a tangent of their own and inadvertently made this discovery. It’s all very well to say test have been done time and time again and in each case there has been no proof but unless testing has involved this new proposal it’s irrelevant. I could also post far too many comments I’ve come across regarding parents who’ve seen their normal healthy child go down the toilet within weeks to months following vaccination…Far too many to list here. Quite frankly to say they’ve all been bamboozled by a cottage industry of fear mongering in one sweeping statement would just be plain bad observation. As recent as the centers findings are and as lacking as this specific research is, I’m going to have to say they’ve by no means had their day in court, so to lump them in with research that failed to produce results using totally different testing criteria would be a vast mistake! Then again, if someone knows of research having been done that specifically wipes the Centers findings out, I’m all ears!

12-07-2009, 04:49 AM
First, let's look at the document from The Center For Modeling Optimal Outcomes. It's not a peer reviewed document. Which, considering the importance of the outcome is strange. Such an important scientific discovery would instantly make you world famous. If published in a peer reviewed magazin. Also, it would have a very deep impact. But nothing has been published so far. No research documented and reviewed.

But let's not discard them so easily. I started researching the company itself. They're a thinktank. They do not posses any research facilities themself, they are not connected to a university or research institute of any kind. So, besides this document, what have they done so far...
"The Center For Modeling Optimal Outcomes" -autism - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=%22The+Center+For+Modeling+Optimal+Outcomes%22+-autism&aq=f&oq=&aqi)=
As you can see, the only thing of importance they've published so far is on healthcare budgets. Which makes me sceptical of their research abilities.
Now, reading carefully into the document, it seems all they've done is literature studies. There's no problem in that, with all the seperate studies being done, creating an overview is a very good thing. Basically, they took all the studies they could find and made a conclusion about all the work that has been done.
The problem is, there's no way to find which studies have been used. Which data they used and how the conclusion has been drawn up.

And they are not the first to do this. Because of all the public attention this subject has been getting, loads of scientific research went into this subject. And there has been literature studies on those as well, to give us a nice overview of the subject...
Autism and vaccination-the current evidence. [J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2009] - PubMed result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614825?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=2)
Now, here we DO have a peer reviewed document. All their data can be traced back and reviewed. And it's been done by people with experience with scientific research.

Here we have two documents contradicting each other. Now, everybody should make up their own mind, but given the background of each document, I know which one I'm putting my money on...

12-07-2009, 11:16 AM
Good job 42. To read the article is to know that the center don't do research in the traditional scientific sense and I hope I didn't confuse that issue with any allusions to the contrary. They are indeed a think tank with a big box of data:) Correct me if I'm wrong but the peer reviewed study you are placing your bet on concerns only the matter of Thimerosal as an agent in vaccines and not the geatin/glycine absorption proposed in the Centers model which I see as a possible key difference. If they are correct in their conclusion that glycine and glutamate are a homeostatic pair and the scientific community can all get on the same train by determining exactly how cellular absorption works then perhaps it may be determined that there is a link between vaccines and autism. It's a risky proposition obviously to fly this article in front of the many studies having been performed on the idea of a link of any sort and yes it may fall flat on its face in the long run, but any possibility no matter how remote deserves examination before being tossed into the bad ideas pile. On the peer review front, at the end of the article William McFaul states “We are not opposed to vaccines. Science has irrefutably proven their value. We are merely asking the medical research community to
evaluate our model for homeostasis in order to ensure the ingredients in vaccines are not disrupting
the body’s processes. We are also seeking cancer research centers willing to spend the time to allow us to explain how the model for assessing homeostasis between substances will enable their scientists to identify causal paths for numerous forms of cancer.” This would seem to be asking for review of the data big time:)

12-09-2009, 02:46 AM
The article I quoted looked at both thiomerosal containing vaccins (which are a lot) and the MMR in particular. Besides, all they did is look to find a link between the vaccine and the occurances of autism without looking at a possible cause. What it boiles down to is this: injecting with the MMR vaccin does not increase the chances of autism. These are real world observations. Even if the center has found some mechanisms explaning a link, in reality there is no link.

I don't think their claim is very hard. I'm guessing all they doing right now is generating attention to their model so people will buy it. Guess it got a little bigger then they expected. Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to bring down the center, I'm sure they have a very interesting model on cellular absorption. Their marketing just got a life of its own... ;)

Although I encourage people to be sceptical of any subject involving your health. Mistakes have been made in the past, and plenty of them. And it will happen again. We just have to be carefull not to bark up the wrong tree... ;)

12-15-2009, 10:06 PM
The possible cause was the cellular absorption of glycine! "Even if the center has found some mechanisms explaining a link, in reality there is no link". I can not get my head around that statement without going into a feedback loop:) The total tonnage of parents who've witnessed firsthand their child shift to autism shortly after receiving an Mumps, Measles, Rubella jab just can't be thrown out as total gibberish without a plausible explanation re coincidental circumstances or even a working hypothesis ie Child consumed a "Big Mac" after jab causing the condition, or something IMHO. I don't know what I would tell these parents quite frankly. "It just looks like there is a connection to you because your child became Autistic following a vaccine, in reality the test show it couldn't happen!" There you have it...First hand accounts vs. Scientific study. Parents are most definitely WRONG! It's the amount of parents facing this reality and their observations which I find troubling. I'll keep slanted testing for big Pharma out of the equation until I have more sources. I am well aware of the data stacked against me on this one but I remain skeptical:)

PS...With total respect to the debate and your opinion:)

12-16-2009, 10:17 AM
okay I am finally back in my office and can add some more research to this post.

first of all let me say that after reviewing the research it is my personal opinion that those who continue to push that vaccines lead to Autism are doing more harm then good.
that way you know where I stand on this issue.

1. Madsen et. al 2003 Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data -- Madsen et al. 112 (3): 604 -- Pediatrics (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/112/3/604)
published in PEDIATRICS Vol. 112 No. 3 September 2003, pp. 604-606
the main ingredient linked to ASD and vaccines was the use of Thimerosal in vaccines. Let me quote:

Results. A total of 956 children with a male-to-female
ratio of 3.5:1 had been diagnosed with autism during the
period from 1971–2000. There was no trend toward an
increase in the incidence of autism during that period
when thimerosal was used in Denmark, up through 1990.
From 1991 until 2000 the incidence increased and continued
to rise after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines,
including increases among children born after the discontinuation
of thimerosal.
Conclusions. The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing
vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an
increase in the incidence of autism. Our ecological data
do not support a correlation between thimerosal-containing
vaccines and the incidence of autism. Pediatrics 2003;
112:604–606; autism, vaccine, thimerosal, mercury, population,

2. Madsen et al, 2002: did a retrospective cohort study of all children born in Denmark between Jan 1991 and Dec 1998. of 537,303 children 82% received the vaccine. there was no difference in the rate of autism in vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. [MMR vaccination and autism--a population-based fo... [Ugeskr Laeger. 2002] - PubMed result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12523209)

3. Honda, Shimizue and Rutter, 2002 No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of au... [J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005] - PubMed result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15877763) looked at the city of Yokohama in which vaccinations were given between 1989 and 1993 and then discontinued.

RESULTS: The MMR vaccination rate in the city of Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1992, and not a single vaccination was administered in 1993 or thereafter. In contrast, cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993. CONCLUSIONS: The significance of this finding is that MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD.

4. Fombonne et al, 2006: Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations:

The prevalence of pervasive developmental disorder in thimerosal-free birth cohorts was significantly higher than that in thimerosal-exposed cohorts (82.7 of 10000 vs 59.5 of 10000). Using logistic regression models of the prevalence data, we found no significant effect of thimerosal exposure used either as a continuous or a categorical variable. Thus, thimerosal exposure was unrelated to the increasing trend in pervasive developmental disorder prevalence. These results were robust when additional analyses were performed to address possible limitations because of the ecological nature of the data and to evaluate potential effects of misclassification on exposure or diagnosis. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination coverage averaged 93% during the study interval with a statistically significant decreasing trend from 96.1% in the older birth cohorts (1988–89) to ~92.4% in younger birth cohorts (1996–1998). Thus, pervasive developmental disorder rates significantly increased when measles-mumps-rubella vaccination uptake rates significantly decreased. In addition, pervasive developmental disorder prevalence increased at the same rate before and after the introduction in 1996 of the second measles-mumps-rubella dose, suggesting no increased risk of pervasive developmental disorder associated with a 2–measles-mumps-rubella dosing schedule before age 2 years. Results held true when additional analyses were performed to test for the potential effects of misclassification on exposure or diagnostic status. Thus, no relationship was found between pervasive developmental disorder rates and 1- or 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella immunization schedule.

when you have individual stories linking the exposure to the vaccine with diagnosis of ASD you are looking at correlational data. to infer causality is a incorrect but often people do just that. However, research into factors that lead to a greater risk of having a child with autism are as follows:

1. exposure to rubella in utero. also mumps, herpes and CMV are all linked to greater risk.
2. Prematurity
3. birth complications
4. pre natal medication exposure: specifically: Valporic Acid (seizure medication)
4. some evidence that parental age (mothers and fathers over 40) might be related to increase risk
5. prenatal exposure to pesiticides (agricultural and pet pesticides), hazardous air pollutants. however these need to be replicated before we can be definite on this.
6. extreme prenatal stressors: some evidence that there is an increase of children with ASD who's mothers were in the Quebec Ice storm, and Hurricane Katrina.
7. genetics. we know that the risk is higher in siblings and with identical twins. However, efforts to locate the genes have been frustrating and no one trigger has been identified.

We also know that the prevalence rate for ASD has been growing steadily over the past several years. HOwever, we also have different diagnostic critieria then we did in the 60's and 70's so it's hard to tease that out.

so that is my :twocents:+++++

happy reading :)

12-16-2009, 10:21 AM
It's fetus exposure to the sounds of PlayStation during gestation :evil2:

12-16-2009, 11:06 AM
It's fetus exposure to the sounds of PlayStation during gestation :evil2:

don't even get me started!!! there was this person who set up a whole clinic in Toronto. He charged parents thousands of dollars. his premise was that autism was caused by noise exposure in utero. :rolleyes:

12-16-2009, 11:20 AM
Thanks for the links Bambi but I'm confused:confused: Thimerosal has been studied to death and can safely be ruled out as having any relationship in the development of autism so we can safely say vaccines do not have any relationship to this condition?. What I am suggesting is perhaps some new studies need to be done on the stabilizer found in the MMR's, hydrolyzed gelatin (Glycine). If indeed it's true that glycine triggers an imbalance between amino acid neurotransmitters thereby changing the absorption rate of different cells possibly causing wide-spread disruption apparently resulting in systematic problems in the mind and body associated with classic autism, then we need to look at this. In essence, if we rule out across the board the notion that vaccines and autism may be linked because we've tested and concluded that Thimerosal poses no threat, then our testing is biased toward one ingredient...Am I wrong here? Should we not take the results of the Centers model and test with the same diligence we afforded Thimerosal?...Just to be safe!

12-16-2009, 12:33 PM
no Michael you are are not wrong but not all vaccines contain thimerosol and it was discontinued. however, epidemiological studies that look at the rate of ASD and vaccination continue to find no link whatsoever.

it would be a simple explanation but it is not true. we would be better off looking at the effects of pesticides and solutions on the developing fetus. Current research looking at siblings of children with ASD are finding that the features of ASD are there at a much younger age then can be accounted for by vaccines.

12-16-2009, 12:46 PM
Fair enough...point taken. That was to be my next question, had the vaccines still been administered sans the inclusion of Thimerosal with results suggesting no link. Apparently, as you suggest, this is the case. Thanks for the input. As an aside, kitten found a bag this morning and payed inside it for a long time. She is now covered throughout with very tiny sparkles. First thing I thought was to bath her until I saw the tiny sparkles are everywhere in the house. Right away I'm thinking "She's going to lick herself clean and ingest all these sparkles and who knows what they are...Plastic, glass, metal?...Did anyone test them?...Are they safe to consume?" Sometimes my imagination gets on top of me :D

12-16-2009, 01:31 PM
hey no problem. glad to debate with you anytime :D

re; kitty. I've had many a kitty poop glitter and tinsel. seems to do no harm and makes the litterbox festive :evil2: