Autism - Vaccine Debate

[socratic001]

Some evidence to support the claim of an autism - vaccine link can be found here.

snowdrop-snowdropblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/further-evidence-for-autism-vaccine.html

tbh my had signs before they hit 12 months so dont feel MMR was to blame either

When they look at numbers of adults with an ASC, it's the same number as children. There isn't a difference. Even in adults who are older and never had any of these vaccines.

What changes is children's brain patterns. They're not born with brains that are one shape and one set-of-uses. Bits of the brain change use as they grow, and in autism, the brain itself continues to keep changing when it should jolly well stop it. That's visible from before birth, according to the brain scientists I've listened to.

So...the changes can happen at the same time as a vaccine is given, but they're not caused by the vaccine as far as anyone can see. Some say the vaccine may trigger bigger changes in the brain that would have happened anyway at some stage because the brain is designed to take on an autistic shape and use.

Early days. Much more research to be done, of course, but there's no firm evidence to show more numbers since vaccines started - just better diagnostic understanding.

DS1 has always been an oddbod, I remember saying there was something "wrong" the day he was born. He's had all the jabs and nothing has changed.

Having said that, I am delaying DS2's because he isn't talking yet (no words at all at 19 months) and I would like him to be a little before I jab him!

I knew DS2 was "different" from him being about 6 weeks old. There was just something, but I couldn't tell you waht, that made me think he wasn't quite "normal". I mentioned it to a few people, my HV included who brushed it under tha carpet.

DS2 had all his vaccinations as well, but I knew before he had them done they wouldn't affct him anymore than what he already was.

Until last November we blamed ds's on the MMR but he has been diagnosed as having sensory processing disorder and a lot of the signs where actually there from a very young baby.
I think we blamed other things he had the cord around his neck and 2 falls before he was 16 months old we just realised he is who he is and NOTHING we've done is at fault.
Took us long enough.

The vaccination route is just one route, which I feel may lead to autism in some children, - however we need more evidence before we are able to make a causal connection. There are other routes too, - such as the genetic route for some children. Then there is brain injury.

My own son suffered profound brain injuries at birth and displayed many 'autistic' symptoms. It's an interesting piece of research though isn't it?

Autism is many things. I know some kids who ended up in intensive care/HDU after vaccinations and changed dramatically post vaccination. It would seem obvious that in those cases vaccinations may well have played a role.

Genetically autism is heterogenous.

Epigenetics almost certainly important in some cases.

In our family I believe the key lies in the immune system (because of the high number of cases of autoimmune conditions and ds1's regression following a virus). DS1 didn't regress post vaccination, but I think he has the pre-disposition (in his genetic make-up) that he could have.

And immune system and gut can interplay too (in a way that seems important in our family- but too long to go into).

We've just been referred to genetics. I think the genetic counsellor might regret asking for information from us and a suggestion of things we'd like investigated, I have sent rather a long and wide ranging reply and an interesting paper I came across

Well my boy went blind and had other problems the day after his 3 month jab. While, luckily, he regained his sight within a year I definately blame that vaccination for causing his autism.

In America a doctor managed to succesfully sue the vaccine makers through the civil courts for causing her daughters autism. But it has not been widely reported here at all - although it was written up in the autism files mag a few months ago.

Anyone else's symptomns start within a week of getting a vaccination?

The study in question is really not anything to get excited about.

It seems to be a continuation of a study Hewitson and co publised a little while ago.

The first thing that's worth noting is the small numbers of macaque monkeys, only 11 and the unevenness between control and intervention groups, 9-2.
This would be enough to dismiss the study as too badly designed to be reliable.

Unfortunately, it gets worse.

The study started with 4 controls.
Data from two monkeys was excluded from analysis.
It's not clear why this was done for one of them.

These are really bad omens for scientific research.
Low numbers mean rabdom chance has a much greater influence.
Removal of subjects without clear cause can indicate a great many things, none of them good.

The study also runs multiple comparisons in the data, again increasing the liklehood of random chance altering results.

There also, to my reading seem to be some disrcrepency in findings between this and the previous study.

All of these things make this study unreliable.

But if you find that you need more reasons, Henrikson is involved in a legal case regarding autism and vaccines which she failed to disclose and this is one of the smallest journals in the world with a circulation of around 300.

There are still questions about what causes autism.
But this study was not designed or carried out well enough to help find the answers.

I went to a talk on the monkey study. The authors said the numbers were small but stressed they were using the same numbers (or more I vaguely remember) as are routinely used in vaccine safety trials. They also said the study was small because of great expense if the trial (millions of dollars apparently) and the results would be used to secure further funding for a larger repeat.

It was a few years ago so further details are sketchy.

And indigo - that sounds horrific! Glad your son's sight came back.

There have been a few MMR payouts in the states related to autism - hannah poling the best know but there have been others (although sometimes diagnosis is changed although for all intents and purposes it's 'autism' as much as such a thing as autism exists).

What vaccine safety trials do you mean?

Phase 1 are often done with around 20 sunjects.
This ctudy is done with increasing doses of the agent to find the maximum dose safe for human consumption.

Phase 2 are done with around a hundred subjects (depending on the condition) and are done to try and ascertain what might be an effective dose.

Phase 3 are much larger, likely hundred of patients across mansy sites, and these look at benefits and harms.

So I'm not sure their reasoning follows through.

And why have such uneven groups?
All that can do is skew your results.

There is a very good critique of this research paper here

Not all it's cracked up to be - in fact doesn't show anything significant - or if it does then we have a control group (who did not receive the vaccine) having incredibly shrinking amygdalas (part of the brain).

Using monkeys - they said very small groups were normal. It was 2007 - I don't remember the details but maybe check out the IMFAR abstract for their paper if it interests you as they specifically addressed the reason for their small sample. Or email and ask them. Of course may not be in the abstract but their point iirc was that the numbers of monkeys used was modelled on whatever the norm is for that stage of testing. They did also say that it was usual to have uneven control and condition groups in monkey phases (be side of cost). I vaguely remember them pointing out the pitfalls of that - they may even had said their numbers were larger than usual but don't quote me on that it was too long ago. It was presented to a room full of researchers and I don't remember anyone querying those points.

I didn't pay much attention as it isn't that relevant to me and I've met enough people in my life who gave had severe and long lasting reactions to 'vaccinations to know that whilst rare, it occurs.

Oh I do agree there are some problems with the study but to be fair to the authors they did point and discuss problems - esp around sample size in the paper I saw presented. It's a vague recollection but I seem to remember the study was being presented as a starting point for further more robust studies and they were limited by funding.

Searched that year of AMFAR absracts here.

There is onyl one studt which lists macaques and that uses 19 of them, as well as 6 chimps and 39 humans as a control.

Macaque research is something I know a bit about.

11 is used for basic science but not for anything requiring control groups.
And uneveness of the groups (especially fewer in the conrol group) is very unusual

Sorry am on iPod so can't see what you've linked to it might have been 2008 - whenever it was in London. I should know as I had a poster there but cannot remember.

They did spend a lot of time talking about group size - it's about all I remember from the talk (not my field). Email them and ask!

All interesting stuff though, I'm all for more research if they think they have something significant here.

I have difficulty justifying any funding towards such an inplausable hypothesis.

This money could be better spent on studies looking at habilitation strategies or diagnostic aids for austism.

Well I think they were funded by Autism Speaks which is partly parent funded- so have a remit to answer questions that parents are interested in. (This from a talk Autism Speaks gave). They did say that parents want answers about vaccination.

TBH I don't really agree that much more research is needed in diagnosis. Maybe in identifying subgroups so those who can be treated can receive that treatment, but since autism is many different things diagnosis serves more of a political role than anything more useful. If anything the diagnosis (received when ds1 was just 3) has prevented access to further investigation. We had to wait nearly 8 years to see a neurologist and we've only seen one now because I asked, and because a couple of neurologists I spoke to agreed he could potentially have a mitochondrial disorder and were happy to email stating that it should be investigated.

And habilitation strategies is always going to be incredibly independent. The factors preventing successful habilitation are often related to politics and funding rather than lack of knowledge.