Well, hm. I've never heard this angle before, but it makes total, creepy sense....
The study found, "Although the debate about the nature of increasing autism continues, the potential for this increase to be real and involve exogenous environmental stressors exists."
According to the April newsletter of the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, this is the year the 2nd dose of the MMR vaccine was added to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices vaccine recommendations.
SCPI found 3 "change points" in autism trends - 1981, 1988, and 1995. And here is what correlated to those years (click to enlarge):
I've always read it was mercury in vaccines that was implicated in autism, although many studies state this isn't true. According to the SCPI newsletter:
Interestingly, the vaccines that can be associated with the autism trend change points never contained mercury, and some animal produced vaccines used universally in the US before 1979 contained levels of mercury as high, if not higher, than current levels.
In light of the EPA's findings, American Life League today joined SCPI in calling for a Fair Labeling and Informed Consent Act.
The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the same sort of ideological culprits we see covering up the abortion-breast cancer link are also involved here. This would be a huge, huge blow to embryonic stem cell experimentation, for instance. That, and/or big pharma sees huge class action lawsuits on the horizon if this is proven.
Right to Life of Michigan has posted 2 easy to read charts listing vaccines made with aborted fetal stem cell lines and their moral and potentially safer alternatives.
That virus-laden DNA of aborted babies could be wreaking havoc on the DNA of healthy children is completely plausible.
[HT: Yvonne B.]
As a nurse, what would you recommend a mom do in regards to vaccinating a 3-year old who needs the second MMR shot?
How can we verify which vaccine we're receiving and whether its made from aborted cells?Posted by: Jennifer at April 21, 2010 1:34 PM
I'm almost ashamed to admit that I probably never would've connected these (potential) dots, in a million years...
Wow. This makes too much sense, in a bone-chilling way. As someone with people on the autism spectrum in my family, this is just... gut-wrenching.Posted by: Paladin at April 21, 2010 1:35 PM
check out children of god for life (google it for the web address)Posted by: susan at April 21, 2010 1:37 PM
I have signed a waiver every year for shots for all of mine. They did get all of the infant vaccinations, but NO MORE.Posted by: carla at April 21, 2010 1:39 PM
:) Susan beat me to it... but Children of God for Life is the best resource I know, for that.
Also, there's a company which is now supplying ethical alternatives to aborted child cell-line vaccines.Posted by: Paladin at April 21, 2010 1:40 PM
I had Titre tests done and showed that my oldest kids were immune and didnt need the boosters.. =)
THANKS for Posting Jill =)Posted by: Yvonne at April 21, 2010 1:52 PM
We stopped immunizing completely after a serious reaction in my toddler son, now 15. My youngest, now 5, has never been immunized. I had NO IDEA aborted fetal tissue was even involved in creating vaccines!!! This upsets me greatly!!!Posted by: alma at April 21, 2010 1:55 PM
Great post, Jill!
We stopped vaccinating after we found out about the fetal cells in vaccines (among other substances that I would never want to knowingly inject into my children's bodies).
I assume that with the kind of physical consequences there are from using embryonic stem cells, that there must be some from using aborted fetal cell lines also. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were a direct connection between the aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines and autism.Posted by: bethany at April 21, 2010 2:07 PM
A few quick comments before I start the rounds on appointments for the day and then I'll comment more later.
I'm currently in the middle of an Autism research project, and as you know, the father of a ten year old son with autism.
At first, I thought that it may well be the vaccines, but have since come to a different conclusion. Autistic children present with a constellation of physical attributes that are present from birth, which clearly suggests a prenatal etiology.
They have enlarged frontal lobes with excessive myelination of the nerve fibers, enlarged amygdalas, expressive/receptive language disorders, unique hair whorl patterning, and in many cases intestinal dysplasias.
All of these and the rest of the symptoms come from tissues that arise from the ectodermal layer of the gastrula during embryological development and suggest a defect in a patterning gene responsible for how the tissues arising from this germ layer form.
Other genetic research has implicated mitochondrial defect, though such defect could well be a post-partum development arising from vaccine injury. The constellation of physical symptoms is really suggestive of a defect present at birth.
In my research, I've found autistic children have older fathers (late 30's+) in greater number than control subjects, the significance being that our stem cells for sperm accrue mutations to DNA as we age much the same as women's eggs.
The onset of autism in the late 80's corresponds with the baby boomers having children later than previous generations, as well as the increased number of vaccines and fetal cell vaccines.
All of that said, I support the development of vaccines that do not use cell lines from aborted babies.
This autism is a messy puzzle, but we are making great progress.
God BlessPosted by: Gerard Nadal at April 21, 2010 2:13 PM
What about the children who were developing normally talking etc. received four vaccinations and stopped talking, avoided eye contact and are now diagnosed with autism?
Just asking. :)Posted by: carla at April 21, 2010 2:16 PM
I'm running out the door, and will answer more tonight, but there are many genetically inherited diseases and conditions that are time bombs set to go off when triggered by a certain developmental stage or event. Schizophrenia is one example.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 21, 2010 2:35 PM
I have read a lot about vaccinations and autism. While I don't believe that vaccines CAUSE autism, I believe they are a trigger in a child with a predisposition for this. Some children are more prone to getting autism (boys overwhelmingly more than girls for example).
That being said, I respect the rights of every parent to act in the best interest of their child. If they wish to vaccinate, fine. Its their decision, but I feel the information pro and con should be out there and available.
My son got his first round of vaccines as a newborn and then after that I put my foot down and said NO WAY. The pediatrician was really NASTY about it so I found a new pediatrician who is very holistic in her approach and doesn't vaccinate her daughter either.
Who would want to inject aborted fetus, formaldehyde, aluminum, thimerosal, and all sorts of carcinogenic preservatives into their child? Most parents who vaccinate do so in blind faith because their docs told them to.Posted by: Sydney M. at April 21, 2010 3:16 PM
I'm reserving judgment on this one. It's possible, and it does avoid some of the obvious problems with the mercury/thimerosol theory, but it's too soon to say.
Still, it can't hurt to go with ethical, fetal-parts-free vaccines!
Due to the SIDS link to infant vaccines, I waited until my son was 2 before beginning immunizations. At which time I only chose polio, tetanus and pertussis for him. He will not be receiving the MMR. Until it is proven without a doubt that the MMR isn't a trigger for autism, I won't take the risk.
My 1 1/2 yr. old nephew has been seen specialists this year for what's looking like an autism spectrum disorder. He hasn't received any vaccines. Naturopathic doctors such as Dr. Joseph Mercola have written extensively on the vaccine-autism link and has suggested that environmental toxins are a much more likely cause, one in particular being the radiation from cell phones.Posted by: Bekah Ferguson at April 21, 2010 3:40 PM
Gerard, I also have two children on the spectrum, who do not have the physical characteristics you cite.
Having done a great deal of research on this, I think there are actually three sets of issues... one is children who are actually born with the underlying issues that will eventually surface. The second is children who are born with underlying issues that would not otherwise surface unless triggered by some external intervention. And the third is children who are not "technically" autistic but who are suffering from some sort of toxic overload that is causing their system to respond as if it were autistic.
It is the latter two groups for whom limiting exposure to toxic agents, be they heavy metals, fetal or animal DNA, or other can be the key to preventing the autistic response (whether it is autism OR merely an autistic mimic.)Posted by: Elisabeth at April 21, 2010 4:12 PM
I have read on this subject that those people who have mitochondrial disorders are at an increased risk to have severe reactions to vaccinations and should not get vaccinated. Perhaps this is why vaccines "set-off" autism - since these children have mitochondrial problems?Posted by: Marie larson at April 21, 2010 4:21 PM
These have been very interesting comments. Dr. Nadal, I also have a 10 year old son with Autism. As parents, we know our children are unrepeatable, but the challenges of autism can be very straining at times. I'd like to know when your research project will be available or will it be published? I've read many of the stories about the autism/vaccine link. Most are very compelling. I'm not sure what I believe. I tend to lean on the side of look how many lives vaccines have saved since they've been implemented. Of course, I would never condone the use of aborted fetal tissue. Our son, who is very verbal, has many of the typical autistic behaviors like echolalia, transient tics (motor and/or vocal), and by far the most challenging - obsessive/compulsive disorder. Interestingly, we found a very good pediatric neurologist that has been so right on with his disorder and the challenges/struggles. She's so in tune to the autistic mind, it's amazing. She believes autism to be anxiety based. Any thoughts or comments?
Thanks and God Bless!Posted by: Doe at April 21, 2010 4:36 PM
Autism is a neurobiological disorder. Anxiety is either psychological or chemical in nature.
The autistic child displays anxiety because of the way that sensory input effects him. He is not autistic because he has anxiety.Posted by: Elisabeth at April 21, 2010 4:44 PM
ARG... typing with bouncing baby on lap. Make that "affects"Posted by: Elisabeth at April 21, 2010 4:46 PM
Thanks for commenting Elizabeth. I understand autism is a neurological disorder. Since it is neurological, doesn't that mean my child has a disordered nervous system? It seems to make sense that he has anxiety and that the anxiety would be a manifestation of this. Please comment when you get a chance. Love those bouncing babies. :)Posted by: Doe at April 21, 2010 7:26 PM
To state that something is "anxiety based" would mean that the anxiety is the CAUSE of the autism.
Anxiety is a very understandable response to autism, not the cause of it.Posted by: Elisabeth at April 21, 2010 7:35 PM
Excellent comments Dr. Nadal. I just learned alot between the article and your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to write and look forward to more of your comments on this.Posted by: Dirtdartwife at April 21, 2010 9:45 PM
Elisabeth-where on the spectrum are your children? Not that it probably matters, as these children move all over the spectrum as they progress in therapy. My son started with moderately severe autism and today, six years later, presents more as a mild Asperger's.
There is a lesson in that. When I teach clinical courses in medical microbiology, I remind my students daily that we treat the patient, not the textbook. The evaluations and diagnoses are good as a direction for therapy and not at all a prescription for the future.
There are several possibilities regarding vaccines and safety. Personally, I think the idea of multivalent shots (7 diseases in one visit) is reckless and irresponsible on the part of the medical community. Each pathogen represented activates a unique cluster of white blood cells to initiate an immune response. Each cluster of cells releases chemicals that go to the brain to initiate fever and malaise. How many of us have marveled at how the babies slept so soundly and for so long after the shots? Too many. I believe that the immature brains are being swamped by these chemicals called cytokines and interleukins.
By baby #3 i was no longer deferential to CDC and FDA. We waited two years before giving shots, and then it was one disease every two months. Multivalent shots are designed to save cost by cutting the number of office visits.
My great fear as a microbiologist is that parents are turning away from vaccines in ever increasing numbers at the very time that we are being swamped by illegal immigrants from third world nations who are carriers of these diseases.
Many of us have not lived in a time when most of these diseases were prevalent. We forget the death toll, the blindness, deafness, paralysis that resulted in frightening number from these diseases. Often the outcome is worse, the older an individual is when they contract the disease.
A number of variables all appeared in the late 1980's, into the 90's:
Older parents (with more genetic mutations in the gametes)
Greater numbers of vaccines in the schedule.
More multivalent shots.
Finally, regarding the MMR. This concern began with a paper that was published in the British journal, Lancet. Recently the paper was declared by the Lancet to be a fraud. The damage has been done.
In my son's case, he suffered from regressive autism beginning around 15 months. Because my wife was pregnant when he should have gotten the first MMR, he was not vaccinated until 22 months. By then the autism was well under way, though incorrectly diagnosed for three more critical years.
Doe- When the paper is published, I'm sure Jill will let me give a little shout-out here ;-)
Posted by: Gerard Nadal
at April 21, 2010 10:15 PM
My oldest son was diagnosed with moderately severe autism as a toddler (age 3) and at not quite 14 is extremely high functioning Asperger's. If you didn't know, you wouldn't know... he just seems an odd, quirky, delightful (if somewhat rigid about routine and rules) child.
My youngest daughter is at the very tip-top of the spectrum with sensory integration disorder, mixed type (sensory seeking in some arenas, sensory avoidant in others).Posted by: Elisabeth at April 21, 2010 11:23 PM
Oh... btw, he was diagnosed at age 3, but that was just because it took time to get anyone to listen to me that he wasn't acting right... it actually started when he was about 16 months old.Posted by: Elisabeth at April 21, 2010 11:30 PM
I have never had my children vaccinated with unethical vaccines. I can't make heads or tails of the autism debate--so much passion on every side, hard to tell where the results are--but even if the vaccinations are purely beneficial, I will not have my children profit at the expense of other children's lives.
I am given to understand that the children who died to produce the rubella vaccine were actually killed, in part, in order to produce a vaccine, so that one is particularly bad, imo.
I mean no disrespect to those who have been affected by autism. I am still sick inside that I have vaccinated my children with cells from aborted babies.
4 years ago I had read something about ingredients and then never found much else. In fact, I asked our dr. and he looked at me like I was nuts. He insisted there was no such thing in the immunizations!
Bah.Posted by: carla at April 22, 2010 8:33 AM
As a priest who, in God's providence, is also a molecular biologist, I would just like to make several observations:
1. To Carla, when you vaccinated your children, you did not vaccinate them with cells from aborted babies. Vaccines are derived from cells but do not include cells.
2. I am confused by Jill's statement that "virus-laden DNA of aborted babies could be wreaking havoc on the DNA of healthy children is completely plausible." This statement makes no biological sense. One, vaccines do not routinely include the DNA of the cells in which they were cultured. Two, it is the proteins and not the DNA that generates the immune response in humans. Third, there is no clear mechanism to explain how DNA injected into a baby could "wreck havoc" on the baby's DNA especially since there is a blood brain barrier that prevents the movement of molecules from the blood into the brain!
3. Yes, autism is a great cross that invites families to grow in holiness. However, it is all too easy to draw firm conclusions from correlations that do not demonstrate cause and effect.Posted by: Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, OP at April 22, 2010 9:25 AM
Like you I also see many possible factors.
I have heard the use of prenatal ultrasound is being called into question, especially beginning so early in pregancy. Are we so certain this is so harmless to the developing brain nervous system? Remember when x-rays were considered "harmless'? I understand unborn children were x-rayed just out of curiousity. x-rays were considered safe, until there was an increase in childhood leukemia.
How long were autistic children misdiagnosed as retarded? Is diagnosis now more accurate? A friend of mine who teaches special ed., and who's experience and knowledge I have tremendous respect for, is convinced this is the case.
Were other personality and mental disorders confused with autism? Was the "quirky" or "nerdy" person or the one with difficulty establishing social skills autistic?
There are so many factors Gerard, and unfortunately no one simple answer.Posted by: Mary at April 22, 2010 9:37 AM
What's wrong with most of the unethical vaccines?
It's the culture medium.
You're NOT vaccinating your kid with "cells from aborted babies".
The viruses, or viral fragments used in some vaccines (at least at one stage of production) are produced by culturing in human cells which are unethically derived. These cell lines are produced from unborn humans who were killed.
You can read the various vaccine package inserts to see how the vaccines are produced. These are collected at the COGforlife site right here: http://www.cogforlife.org/packageinserts.htm
For one example, the MRC-5 cell line used in producing the varicella vaccine originates from lung fibroblast cells from a human fetus killed at 14 weeks development.
I often wonder if Rosemary Kennedy, the "retarded" sister of President Kennedy, was in fact autistic. From what I read of her behavior it would sound more like autistic behavior. Again, lack of proper diagnosis and education, as well as a lobotomy forced on her by her "father", Joe Kennedy, rendered this young woman to a lifetime in an institution, functioning at a 4y/o level. How many other children were condemned to her fate for the same reason, with or without the lobotomies?Posted by: Mary at April 22, 2010 9:55 AM
Do the cells come from aborted babies? Isn't that disgusting enough?
"These cell lines are produced from unborn humans who were killed."
Well golly gee whiz I feel so much better now! Thanks.Posted by: carla at April 22, 2010 10:47 AM
Well, there'll be no varicella vaccine for my baby! What is going on here with these vaccines? What are we, Nazi doctors??Posted by: Kelli at April 22, 2010 11:27 AM
Carla, I'm with you. It doesn't make me feel any better about it at all!
And you know what made me really angry- when I had my third baby, that was when I had made the decision not to vaccinate, and I had told the doctors this. Without my knowledge or consent, they gave him the routine Hep B shot (which at the time, I didn't know they routinely gave at birth)...that is one of the shots which (I believe, if I'm not mistaken) has the aborted fetal cell lines in it. (even if it doesn't, why would I want to inject my baby with hepatitis?)
I had to be extra careful to be specific in my birth plan and let the doctors know that under NO circumstances was my latest baby to have the Hep B shot.
The fact that three of my children have been injected with this sickens me.
"(even if it doesn't, why would I want to inject my baby with hepatitis?)"
To immunize him or her against the disease.Posted by: Hal at April 22, 2010 1:39 PM
Hal, I don't have hepatitis b, and I do not have any of the risk factors for the disease. Why then would I need to immunize my child against it, since pretty much the only way a newborn baby is going to get it is through the mother if the mother has the disease? Why shouldn't they test mothers for it before giving the baby a likely unnecessary shot?
Posted by: bethany at April 22, 2010 2:26 PM
Plus, a newborn baby's body is not as well equipped to able to deal with the toxins that are injected from vaccines before 6 weeks of age, as their blood brain barrier is not yet developed. It is very dangerous to vaccinate a newborn baby.
They vaccinate babies because they are a captive audience. They know that while one subset of at risk persons will likely get the vaccines (health care workers), those at risk due to their own poor choices are unlikely to get vaccinated, so they just want it "over and done with" so to say.
Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, are you familiar with the latest research that shows that the rotavirus vaccine made by GlaxoKlineSmith contains the DNA of a pig virus? It is not the only vaccine to contain foreign DNA, but it has been pulled frmo the market. For now they are saying that the viral DNA does not cause disease, but I don't know how easily we should accept that assessment: http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20100322/pig-virus-found-in-gsk-rotavirus-vaccinePosted by: Elisabeth at April 22, 2010 3:33 PM
Thanks for the comments everyone.
Dr. Nadal, I look forward to your paper.
Fr. Nicanor, I do agree - children, especially those with special needs, can be a means of sanctification for a family. In my most trying moments, I'd be mad at God for allowing this. But, as you grow in your faith, transformation takes place. Now, I could not imagine life without our precious gift, our beautiful boy with Autism. They are all, just as God's Word tells us, fearfully and wonderfully made.Posted by: Doe at April 22, 2010 7:18 PM
My youngest daughter is at the very tip-top of the spectrum with sensory integration disorder, mixed type (sensory seeking in some arenas, sensory avoidant in others).
Posted by: Elisabeth at April 21, 2010 11:23 PM
Elisabeth, I just wanted to share that I can relate to many of the challenges you may be facing. I have a moderate sensory processing disorder (mixed type) and ADD. It was discovered when I was a child by my pediatrician and I was referred to occupational therapist (both the occupational therapist and the neurologist I saw for ADD ruled out Aspergers). As an adult, I still cope with the symptoms from time to time.
Also, my husband has a severe sensory processing disorder (and severe conductive hearing loss), which was disruptive in his childhood, and he still struggles with the symptoms of his sensory processing disorder from time to time.
I would be glad to have someone with who to discuss these challenges and what works for them.Posted by: Rachael C. at April 22, 2010 9:50 PM
Pharmer, Carla and others,
Note that these cell lines have been cultured and used since the 1960’s well before Roe v Wade.
The MRC-5 cell line was developed in September 1966 from lung tissue taken from a 14 week fetus aborted for psychiatric reason from a 27 year old physically healthy woman.
Original paper reference (Nature 227: 168-170, 1970)
The WI-38 cell line was developed in July 1962 from lung tissue taken from a therapeutically aborted fetus of about 3 months gestational age.
Original paper reference (Exp. Cell Res. 25: 585, 1961)
These are two among many other human cell cultures widely used for many purposes in medical manufacturing, diagnostics and research. They are often used to culture viruses including Adenoviruses; Herpes simplex Virus; Respiratory Virus; and Rhinovirus. If your doctor has taken a sample from you for virus testing it MIGHT have been cultured for testing with some of these cells.
I used to manufacture these and other cell lines for Baxter healthcare. We shipped these cell cultures to clinics and hospitals all over the USofA. MRC-5 are used more often than WI-38 in diagnostics.
For Ari, I've used a lot of strategies I've learned from the following books: Raising a Sensory Smart Child, The Out of Sync Child, and The Out of Sync Child has Fun.
We keep her active in her play and in sports, lots of gymnastics and swimming. We also brush her skin with a natural bristle brush. Naps used to be a nightmare, now we've learned she requires a heavy (weighted) blanket on top of her to feel right.
When we first had her diagnosed (I knew what I was looking for and she received her diagnosis at 16 months)... I asked her evaluator, "Wait a minute, are you telling me I have a one year old adrenaline junkie on my hands?" She grinned and said, "Essentially, yes."
When she was 2, I woke up to see her standing in the window sill behind my bed, looking down at me. She smiled and said, "Hi, Mommy! I do a forward roll!" Not on me she didn't! (To this day I wonder how long she was standing up there.)Posted by: Elisabeth at April 22, 2010 11:49 PM
I am curious to know if any of the non-vaccinated children have developed Autism?Posted by: Francie Rubis at April 23, 2010 12:29 AM
Tom, do they always use these cell lines in testing for these diseases? Or is there another way to do so? I was hospitalized a year and a half ago because of an outbreak of HSV, and they took about 4 days to test to find out that's what it was.Posted by: Amy at April 23, 2010 12:39 AM
Francie, here's an article you might find interesting :)Posted by: bethany at April 23, 2010 7:06 AM
Francie, the Amish population does not vaccinate and from what I have read (sorry no citation on hand at moment) the only cases of autism that they have experienced have been from children they adopted into the community who were previously vaccinated. That is, at this time, the closest we have to a controlled study on the subject.Posted by: Elisabeth at April 23, 2010 12:55 PM
Very interesting, however very anecdotal. The Amish are a very closed community and thus the possible genetic factor may not be there. There may be children on the autism spectrum that go undiagnosed, as I'm sure children have for generations. Amish children who are considered mentally challenged may in fact be autistic.
Prenatal ultrasound has raised some questions concerning autism. I don't believe Amish women have them routinely, as do non-Amish women. This would not prove or disprove a connection between autism and ultrasound.
Francie, the Amish population does not vaccinate
Posted by: Elisabeth at April 23, 2010 12:55 PM
Actually, many of them do, as long as the bishop of their district does not disapprove.
the only cases of autism that they have experienced have been from children they adopted into the community who were previously vaccinated.
That claim has been disputed, hasn't it? I can't seem to locate the source I wanted to cite, but this article might interest you. I've also seen the CSC research criticized, so I'll leave it to the researchers to sort it out.Posted by: Fed Up at April 23, 2010 4:02 PM
Out of sheer curiosity, if there is a link between ultrasounds and autism, what is the gestational period for this to be a risk? I can understand that one ultrasound can be a risk factor, or many can be a risk factor. But at what gestational period would this be taken into consideration. I've normally only had one or two ultrasounds during my pregnancies but my last two, I've had more than "normal". I had roughly six ultrasounds all throughout my pregnancy with my last baby because they could never find her heartbeat and I had two ultrasounds a week for 8 weeks with my son (at the end of the pregnancy) because of low water. I would be interested to see if this really does play a part. My son is only 2 but I've always thought he might be on the spectrum due to no eye contact... but only to learn he's one heck of a strong willed kid and wants to see what he wants to look at.Posted by: Dirtdartwife at April 23, 2010 4:15 PM
Hi DDW 4:15PM
I haven't seen any studies, if any even exist. I just read a doctor's remark concerning ultrasound and his questioning just how "safe" it really is, considering that you are bombarding a very fragile and developing nervous system with soundwaves.
I've just checked "google" DDW and it looks like there are numerous articles on the subject. You may want to check it out.Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2010 5:43 PM
My opinion as a medical professional would be that the earlier in gestation an ultrasound is done, the more likelihood of damage. I about gagged when I read that Tom Cruise bought an ultrasound machine when Katie Holmes was pregnant. These diagnostic machines are not toys.
During my pregnancies, ultrasounds were done only when there was serious cause for concern about the fetus, and then no more than necessary. I had one for my third child to determine if I had indeed miscarried. Thankfully I had not.Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2010 5:52 PM
The "study" being touted by Ms. Janek is, of course, utter nonsense:
http://tinyurl.com/3ypumfw (scroll down to the second part of the article)
Object on religious grounds if that is your belief, but there is zero--I repeat zero--evidence that DNA from fetal cells has anything to do with autism. Certainly the finding of likely nonexistent "changepoints" isn't:
The SCPI "study" is nothing more than lying with statistics--and doing so badly. Of course, I have to ask: Why is it that you have to find bogus "science" to "prove" your beliefs? Aren't your religious beliefs enough?Posted by: Orac at April 24, 2010 7:29 AM
While your source offers an interesting theory about autism being part of the natural process, it by no means resolves this issue. Theories and studies concerning autism will go on forever. People have to look at the evidence and draw their own conclusions.
My daughter does research, in fact she has been published as a first name author, and she has told me the most important rule of research: No one study will ever resolve an issue once and for all. There will always be another study to counter that study, and one to counter that.Posted by: Mary at April 24, 2010 7:58 AM
1) As far as I know it is the Amish of Lancaster County that do not vaccinate. I know it is anecdotal and that there are differing opinions. However, there are more flaws with the "studies" that "discredit" the information than there are with the original information (which no one really thinks is definitive, just interesting).
2) I have not heard anything about u/s and autism. I have heard, and again it is more interesting than definitive, that the rate of being left-handed goes up with the number of ultrasounds. Now, if that can be affected by ultrasound, then there is reason to suspect that other brain patterns may be interfered with, as well.
3) As I stated before, I highly doubt there is any one cause of autism. Therefore, any study which claims to prove or disprove that any one factor is THE cause is highly suspect at best (and generally speaking, the ones designed to disprove that something is the sole cause of autism is done to protect the interests of those doing the research... I think there is something inherently corrupt in saying that because something is not the only cause of a complex issue that it has no impact.)
A complex combination of genetic susceptibilities and multiple environmental impacts is far likelier. It just doesn't make for such nice headlines, now does it?Posted by: Elisabeth at April 24, 2010 10:39 AM
1) I understood the point you were making and yes it is an interesting observation. I was just saying for everyone's info that there are so many factors where the Amish are concerned that its hard to draw much of any conclusion from it. Do we know for absolute certain there are no autistic Amish children or what their numbers are? No. Are there others factors in Amish genetics, diet, lifestyle, and environment that would decrease the risk? As my daughter pointed out, no study ever settles an issue or gives a final answer. I expect this will be debated, studied, and the studies studied for a long time to come! :)
2) If you "google" "ultrasound and autism" you will find articles, studies, and debates on this issue. I think it brings up some troubling questions about the "safe" practice of routine ultrasound of the unborn.
I don't know if you're aware of this Elizabeth, but in my time x-rays were viewed as safe and even fun. They were performed at carnivals and your shoe salesman might even x-ray your foot. Unborn babies were x-rayed out of curiousity. There was an increased incidence of childhood leukemia in these children. Only later would we realize x-rays were to be treated with respect, and a lot of it.
I hope autism, like leukemia, isn't the price our children are paying.
3) You're absolutely correct.Posted by: Mary at April 24, 2010 11:26 AM
Great question. I do most of my research on the internet. I constantly find contradictory information, some of which is easy to disprove and some that I wouldn't know the difference.
I'm not sure what you are implying by suggesting that a vaccine/autism link or even an aborted fetal cells/autism link would 'back up my beliefs'. For me, that neither contradicts nor upholds my faith in God or the Bible. I am still doing research into vaccines to make a decision on what is the healthiest choice for my children.
To answer your question, and I can only speak for myself, but my 'religious beliefs' are enough. I wouldn't say that I have 'religious beliefs' though, because that implies a level of superstition or even old wives tale methodology. I have a relationship with God and since I know Him well, I believe and trust Him; just like I know my husband and His character and whether he is honest and deserving of my trust.
God has never failed me and everything I have done research on, both through Scripture and science, has always backed up God's Word. My faith is founded on evidence.
Hope you are having an enjoyable Sunday. :)Posted by: Heather M at April 25, 2010 5:28 PM
The autism-vaccine debate is thankfully being put to rest since there seems to be little evidence to support vaccines as a cause of autism. They have been making rubella vaccines from aborted rubella-infected fetuses since the 1960's so I find it difficult to believe that there is any correlation with autism. Please do not start this debate up again with mere correlations. By all means, please seek vaccines that are not made from aborted fetuses but not because of an irrational fear of autism, because it is the right thing to do.Posted by: Marianne Veniero, PhD at April 29, 2010 11:16 PM
It is not irrational. Am I supposed to be impressed by your PhD and therefore shut my mouth in the presence of your massive brain? pulease.
At one time M.D's and PhD's in this nation trotted out to defend asbestos and lead in gasoline. They said there was no correlation between cancer and brain injury and the asbestos and lead. They said the science was not there and touted their degrees to shut up any "common" folks who didn't agree with them. And guess what? THEY WERE WRONG.
There is DEFINITELY a link between vaccines and autism. You may not think so Marianne, but there are many educated folks who do, including my pediatrician.Posted by: Sydney M. at April 30, 2010 9:26 AM
Go Sydney!Posted by: bethany at April 30, 2010 11:59 AM
You have to wonder about someone with a PhD who doesn't understand that most scientific discoveries and advances are made because someone noticed a correlation and followed up on it...
What exactly is that PhD in? Literature?Posted by: Elisabeth at April 30, 2010 12:34 PM