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

agh- incredibly individual I mean. There isn't one solution - it will vary from person to person.

What I mean is the skills and knowledge is out there to enable people with all levels of autism to successfully engage in a meaningful life. The money and services to support that often aren't. But that's not through lack of knowledge.

I do have some issues with Autism Speaks but one thing I think they do that is excellent is that they fund what they call high risk high impact research. This is research that no other funding body would touch because it's a bit of a leap into the dark, but it's also research that could potentially give a lot back. They're about the only people funding research into non-verbal/more severe forms of autism - and it tends to get funded through this scheme (difficult to get funding because it's so hard to work with this group, and there is limited literature already so it's a bit of a risk- also things like typing by those who are non-verbal remains very controversial).

Autism Speaks fund a fair bit of vaccination related research now - which is a good thing I think. And long may they continue to remember who they answer to (parents I'm afraid!).

I don't think I agree with your thinking on the issues of rehabilitation, it's the individualisation that poses problems.

Everyone is convinced they know what works for their child and anecdotes rule.

And high quality comparitive studies in this regard are lacking.

Reviews such as this and this emphasise that point.

But 95% of research currently published on autism is irrelevant to my son (and others like him) because it's on high functioning autism.

When you are dealing with the severe autism group- those who remain severely autistic into adulthood which is the group I'm interested in (and incidentally the group many of those who appear to have been vaccine damaged find themselves in)- the effect of ABA on young children who are more able than them is completely irrelevant.

For this group you need a highly individual approach - in my son's school there are some children for example who need intensive interaction rather than ABA. At his respite centre an understanding of each individual's trigger points are required and different responses to challenging behaviours are needed. You can't develop a 'this strategy will work with a child with severe autism' because that's not the nature of the condition. This may reflect why most of the research on severe autism takes the form of case studies.

My research looks partly at children taking part different therapies within different settings. It's interesting to see the same child taking part in different therapies and to see the different responses. IMO much of research focuses too much on the person with autism rather than the setting they are in and the people around them - this can make a huge difference when you have a severe communication disorder.

People with autism at the end of the day are just people - and lots of very different people - they're not one homogenous group. Ultimately families will choose therapies that work for them and their situation rather than ones that have been shown statistically to work for groups of children who are nothing like their child. I don't care how many studies tell me ABA is the best thing since sliced bread and how many IQ points they give to children much higher functioning that my son- my son will no longer tolerate directives and so for us, for the moment, table work at least is out (we can use other aspects of ABA, but no directives).

I don't have anything against research into ABA (for example), but I do have problems with research that seeks to find what works for 'autism' because there is no such thing as autism. What type of autism are we talking about? And I have found practitioners who are welded to a particular therapy to be not as helpful as those who are open to incorporating different types. This may be something that is particularly noticeable/relevant for the severe end of the spectrum - I don't know, but needing a range of approaches doesn't seem to be unusual in the children I'm familiar with.

The Poling case was conceded without proof of causition though, and although the parents said that vaccines may have contributed to the underlying condition which caused the brain condition which was said to have autistic like symptoms , this remains a very unclear ruling particularly as it seems many other factors were equally likely to have been involved in being a 'trigger' if such a trigger existed.

I think any evidence which points to a possible connection is worthy of further investigation, no matter how many holes can be picked in the study. If there is even the slightest concern, it should lead to further study.

I simply do not understand the mindset which states that nothing further should be considered, -end of story. That sort of sudden closure of any argument makes me instantly suspicious.

Agree Socratic.

And agree about the lack of proof of causation in the poling case willow. However, what that case has led to is further research into the role mitochondrial cytopathies play in the development of autism. This is useful. Some research groups think a large number of children with regressive autism have undiagnosed mild mitochondrial cytopathies. The consensus amongst those researchers seems to be that if you have a mitochondrial cytopathy then there are several ways you could be affected and end up with autism - vaccination is one of those, but perhaps not the most likely.

Again it just highlights the need to recognise autism for the highly heterogenous condition it is.

For us the most useful appointments in 11 years have been this year because finally we have been referred to specialists interested in finding out whether we can ascertain what ds1's underlying condition is. There's been a change IMO and clinicians are now beginning to recognise that in some cases 'autism' doesn't tell you anything.