Posted on 04/21/2016 11:33:41 AM PDT by SatinDoll
Folks, let's be clear: Autism is almost-certainly not caused by vaccines.
Let's remember the first rule of observational studies, which incidentally I was surprised to find a few years ago in my daughter's High School intro-to-stats class: Observational studies can only show correlation and correlation cannot prove causation.
However, the absence of correlation is damn near bomb-proof evidence that the alleged cause you believe exists is false.
Measles vaccination in the US began in 1963 following approval in 1962. Within five years near-complete compliance was obtained within the US. MMR, the combined vaccine that people like to blame autism on, replaced the single measles vaccination in 1971. MMR is typically given at approximately age 1, with a second dose before starting school.
Autism is typically diagnosed within the first two or three years of life since it impacts early language development, with nearly all cases diagnosed before entry into primary school at age six. In other words the cause couldn't be the second dose, as it occurs after diagnosis.
The rise in autism did not exhibit a "step function", it has been more-or-less linear and began roughly in 1980, continuing to today, with a doubling of incidence between 2000 and 2010.
It is utterly impossible to link what is a rising rate of a disorder with a nearly-level rate of vaccination since 1971 for these diseases. The curve does not fit and therefore there is no correlation. This is nearly-bombproof evidence that vaccines do not cause autism.
However, there is a curve that does fit.
That would be insulin resistance in the mother.
Oh, and by the way, we know that diabetic mothers have a roughly 400% greater risk of producing an autistic child than non-diabetic mothers. That's statistical fact.
When did obesity start to take off in the United States, which I remind you is an excellent indicator of insulin resistance and thus chronic elevated insulin levels irrespective of clinical diabetes?
1980.
Causation? Unproven.
However, the curve fit is an almost-exact match.
I remind you that not every case of autism has to match with the correlation for a strong causative link to be present, just as not every lung cancer is caused by smoking.
So why don't we look at this given the obvious match in rate-of-incidence curves?
There are plenty of reasons but I'll let you start with attempting to enumerate them in the comment section.
“but saying that vaccines don’t cause autism, case closed, is close minded “The science is settled” thinking.”
That’s completely backwards. In science, you don’t assert something until AFTER you have experimental confirmation. Otherwise, you are doing something other than science.
All you’ve got is a hypothesis, and one that is easily ruled out as not feasible, because predictions based on that hypothesis fail to match the observed data. A failed hypothesis, in science, is relegated to the dustbin, not doggedly propped up with flawed arguments. It is the people who refuse to abandon a failed hypothesis who are in fact doing exactly what the “climate change” crowd is doing.
“The U.S. Congress some years back passed legislation making the vaccine producers off limits for lawsuits claiming their responsibility for bad vaccine outcomes.”
No, not quite, they simply routed such cases to a special court, because of the very real danger that the entire pharmaceutical industry could be bankrupted by runaway juries who had a poor grip on science, thus causing manufacturers to simply refuse to produce essential medical treatments. You can still sue for vaccine side effects, but you are going to have do more than convince 12 random untrained joes and janes that the vaccine actually caused the harm.
“One English doctor asserting some linkage between autism and vaccines was publicly shamed, I believe to send a worldwide message.”
One English doctor who was caught FALSIFYING DATA... and who happened to be the only actual scientist to assert any link, while every other study found no link.
[ All you’ve got is a hypothesis, and one that is easily ruled out as not feasible, because predictions based on that hypothesis fail to match the observed data. A failed hypothesis, in science, is relegated to the dustbin, not doggedly propped up with flawed arguments. It is the people who refuse to abandon a failed hypothesis who are in fact doing exactly what the “climate change” crowd is doing. ]
Then what is wrong with a parent playing is safe and spacing out the vaccines and doing them one at a time?
Shouldn’t it be the parent’s choice anyways?
[ All vertebrate neonates are believed to prune half of their brain neurons after birth. Autistic kids likely have a defective pruning system caused by increased insulin resistance and therefore have almost 67% more brain neurons than normal humans.]
There is some linking to increase insulin resistance and vaccines, could be a similar mechanism.
http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Diabetes/juvenilediabetes.aspx
So it could be that vaccines don’t DIRECTLY cause autism, but they MAY induce insulin resistance which affects the natural brain pruning process and thus if that is inhibited it could lead to autism...
There should be more studies done.
Insulin resistance is is caused by the accumulation of excess intracellular iron and begins in the neonate with the introduction of solid food or iron fortified formula milk.
I have a young child, a relative with autism and a wife with a Masters in Public Heath. Just before my child was born, we talked to a few pediatricians to decide who we wanted to use. One thing we asked was about spacing out vaccines.
The doctor we ended up with said, “ok, if you said you were opposed to vaccinations, I’d tell you I’m not the right doctor for you. If you just want to space the vaccinations out, I’ve done that before. Here’s the deal. I need to social order the single vaccine shots, so you pay more. As a doctor, I can tell you that immunity comes from you body recognizing specific proteins on viruses, and vaccines are designed to introduce th proteins that confer immunity without triggering reactions, and its a lot less of a shock to you system to get multiple vaccines than it is to get sick with a live virus. As someone whose done this before, I can tell you what happens every time. Instead of having to come every six months, you are here every month, and after your second visit carrying out a screaming child, you’ll tell me to just give all the shots at once”.
He’s our doctor. Recently, our schools started requiring a chickenpox shot before you turn 6, and the school said our five year old couldn’t start the year without the shot. That same doctor called the school to tell them why he wasn’t giving the shot until whatever point, and that they were misinterpreting the rules. School agreed. So he’s a doctor who at least thinks about these things.
My honest belief is that the shots don’t cause autism. I’ve heard of a seizure disorder being triggered by fevers, including a fever caused by a vaccine, bit those kids would have developed the condition the first time they got sick anyway.
The risk of anything serious from modern vaccines is very small (smallpox used to have a solid risk of nasty side effects, and was literally fatal 1 in a million times). However the risk from measles, mumps, polio, even whooping cough and shingles, is enough to warrant that vanishingly small risk of a serious side effect in nearly every case (except where there’s an underlying medical problem, where you just hope enough other people are vaccinated that the disease doesn’t reach them).
“Then what is wrong with a parent playing is safe and spacing out the vaccines and doing them one at a time?”
A parent can choose to do that, but what you are doing, that I am taking issue with, is publicly advocating junk science. You have a 1st amendment right to do that, I suppose, but don’t be surprised when people continue to point out that you are wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.