HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Let's Be Accurate: The MM...

Thu May 15, 2014, 07:33 PM

Let's Be Accurate: The MMR Vaccine is Not Associated With Autism. But Neonatal Hep B in Males...

Here is the link to the study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

Here is the abstract:

There has been enormous debate regarding the possibility of a link between childhood vaccinations and the subsequent development of autism. This has in recent times become a major public health issue with vaccine preventable diseases increasing in the community due to the fear of a 'link' between vaccinations and autism. We performed a meta-analysis to summarise available evidence from case-control and cohort studies on this topic (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar up to April, 2014). Eligible studies assessed the relationship between vaccine administration and the subsequent development of autism or autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Disagreement was resolved by consensus with another author. Five cohort studies involving 1,256,407 children, and five case-control studies involving 9920 children were included in this analysis. The cohort data revealed no relationship between vaccination and autism (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.06) or ASD (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.20), or MMR (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01), or thimerosal (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.31), or mercury (Hg) (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.07). Similarly the case-control data found no evidence for increased risk of developing autism or ASD following MMR, Hg, or thimerosal exposure when grouped by condition (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.98; p=0.02) or grouped by exposure type (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.95; p=0.01). Findings of this meta-analysis suggest that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. Furthermore, the components of the vaccines (thimerosal or mercury) or multiple vaccines (MMR) are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder.


Note that MMR was cleared. MMR was suspected because it is given at around 1 year of life. One year is when children typically walk and talk. If they do not walk and talk, the parents think back to the thing that happened right before they did not walk and talk---and they remember the MMR vaccine. This guilt by association obviously made no sense and it is a good thing that they have finally laid this myth to rest, since folks die of measles.

However, to say that no vaccine has been linked to autism is incorrect. There is one vaccine that is routinely given to newborn infants---infants whose brains and immune systems are so immature that simple viral infections can have devastating consequences. I am referring to the Hepatitis B vaccine. Why is this given to newborn infants? Because decades ago, scientists studied inner city hospitals where a lot of drug addicts gave birth and they discovered that it was cheaper to just immunize all the babies at birth than to test the mothers to see which were infected with Hep B and immunize their babies at birth. Meaning that you---you who are likely not an IV drug addict and who are likely immune to Hep B from the vaccine you received in school---will have a baby who will be given a vaccine shortly after its birth because that was what was best for drug addicts three decades ago.

What could go wrong with giving an extra, unnecessary vaccine to a newborn baby? The only study so far to find any statistical association between a vaccine and autism is one for male infants given the Hep B vaccine at birth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170

Universal hepatitis B vaccination was recommended for U.S. newborns in 1991; however, safety findings are mixed. The association between hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental report of autism diagnosis was determined. This cross-sectional study used weighted probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 data sets. Vaccination status was determined from the vaccination record. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds for autism diagnosis associated with neonatal hepatitis B vaccination among boys age 3-17 years, born before 1999, adjusted for race, maternal education, and two-parent household. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk.


Association does not prove causality. This study does not prove your child's autism was caused by a Hep B vaccine. It suggests that male children who get the vaccine at birth may be more likely to show signs of autism. I just did a Medline search and I can not find any more recent studies to either confirm or refute this study, meaning it is still up in the air. So, you get to decide what you do with the information. But, do not leave DU tonight telling all your friends "Great news. A study has cleared ALL vaccines."



76 replies, 3228 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 76 replies Author Time Post
Reply Let's Be Accurate: The MMR Vaccine is Not Associated With Autism. But Neonatal Hep B in Males... (Original post)
McCamy Taylor May 2014 OP
Warpy May 2014 #1
HuckleB May 2014 #5
ForgoTheConsequence May 2014 #2
McCamy Taylor May 2014 #49
blueridge3210 May 2014 #3
McCamy Taylor May 2014 #7
blueridge3210 May 2014 #10
McCamy Taylor May 2014 #25
HuckleB May 2014 #28
pnwmom May 2014 #11
blueridge3210 May 2014 #14
HuckleB May 2014 #17
lumberjack_jeff May 2014 #33
mathematic May 2014 #4
lumberjack_jeff May 2014 #34
mathematic May 2014 #39
HuckleB May 2014 #6
HuckleB May 2014 #8
HuckleB May 2014 #9
Warren Stupidity May 2014 #12
HuckleB May 2014 #13
Warren Stupidity May 2014 #15
HuckleB May 2014 #16
Warren Stupidity May 2014 #18
HuckleB May 2014 #19
Warren Stupidity May 2014 #20
HuckleB May 2014 #23
Warren Stupidity May 2014 #64
RobertEarl May 2014 #24
HuckleB May 2014 #26
Warren Stupidity May 2014 #27
RobertEarl May 2014 #31
NuclearDem May 2014 #38
RobertEarl May 2014 #41
blueridge3210 May 2014 #50
McCamy Taylor May 2014 #36
HuckleB May 2014 #42
McCamy Taylor May 2014 #52
HuckleB May 2014 #53
McCamy Taylor May 2014 #71
HuckleB May 2014 #72
NuclearDem May 2014 #29
lumberjack_jeff May 2014 #35
NuclearDem May 2014 #37
HuckleB May 2014 #43
lumberjack_jeff May 2014 #57
HuckleB May 2014 #60
lumberjack_jeff May 2014 #62
HuckleB May 2014 #65
McCamy Taylor May 2014 #48
HuckleB May 2014 #54
GoneFishin May 2014 #76
HuckleB May 2014 #45
Warren Stupidity May 2014 #46
HuckleB May 2014 #47
Go Vols May 2014 #51
HuckleB May 2014 #55
SidDithers May 2014 #58
Warren Stupidity May 2014 #63
McCamy Taylor May 2014 #21
HuckleB May 2014 #22
McCamy Taylor May 2014 #30
HuckleB May 2014 #40
lumberjack_jeff May 2014 #32
HuckleB May 2014 #44
McCamy Taylor May 2014 #56
HuckleB May 2014 #61
Godhumor May 2014 #59
Warren Stupidity May 2014 #66
Barack_America May 2014 #67
McCamy Taylor May 2014 #68
Godhumor May 2014 #69
McCamy Taylor May 2014 #70
Crunchy Frog May 2014 #74
HuckleB May 2014 #75
Major Nikon May 2014 #73

Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu May 15, 2014, 07:37 PM

1. "Association does not prove causality" is the operative phrase

The truth is that markers for autism exist at birth.

Also in the "association does not prove causality" department, I give you cheese vs. strangling in your bedsheets:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #1)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:13 PM

5. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu May 15, 2014, 07:51 PM

2. Even if it does the good outweighs the bad.

Hep B vaccination programs have been very successful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #2)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:48 PM

49. No argument here. Especially in China, India, Africa and places were chronic Hep B

is epidemic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:02 PM

3. Shouldn't it be the job of the people making the argument

 

that vaccinations are linked to the development of Autism to show a link? IIRC it is difficult if not impossible to prove a negative and show that a specific vaccination does not cause Autism. As this argument goes on and on and more claims are shown to be unfounded it seems that the fallback position is "well, no one has proved that THIS vaccine" doesn't cause Autism. From a brief reading of the summary of the study it seems that the MMR vaccine has been cleared; mercury has been cleared and thimerosal has been cleared. One wonders what the next argument will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #3)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:17 PM

7. Actually, it is not hard to show that there is no association. If two things are

not associated, a statistical analysis will make that clear. The hard part is when you find a statistical association and you have to decide is it causal or is it because there is another, unidentified factor.

Here is a silly example. The association between shoe size and hat size. People who wear big shoes wear big hats. That does not mean having big feet causes your head to grow big. Tall men have big feet and big heads. We know that intuitively. But if you are dealing with two variables A and B that you do not understand then you might guess that A leads to B without realizing that both are caused by C.

For instance, if there is no association between Hep B vaccine given at birth to males and a dx of autism later in life, if you do a big enough study, you should be able to show that there is no association. If you do a big study and there is still a statistically significant association, you have to decide why. It does not mean the Hep B vaccine did it. Maybe being born in a hospital as opposed to at home increases your risk. Maybe Hep B vaccine was mostly being given to inner city women or women with certain health problems during some of that time---meaning that the babies had some other risk factor for autism. Maybe babies born by c-section were more likely to get Hep B vaccine. Maybe babies that had fetal distress were more likely to get Hep B vaccine.

The fact that there are no studies saying "Hey, we did a bigger group and we found no association" leads me to suspect that there is no bigger study that has found a lack of association. Therefore, the next step is to study the data in more depth to see if there are other factors---maternal disease, age, insurance status, type of hospital where the delivery was done---that is associated with both Hep B administration and autism independently and see if that is the cause of an apparent association. Since this is a huge issue and a study with either negative or positive results will get huge press, I am guessing that someone is in the middle of doing a massive statistical analysis of every possible variable.

If someone can find a bigger study that shows a lack of association please post a link. That was why I went to Medline and I found nada. Zip. No studies that cited the Hep B study. Very odd. There should be some follow up somewhere. Even if it is just to debunk it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #7)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:25 PM

10. I must be missing something

 

Has there been any study that shows an association between the Hep B vaccine and Autism? If not, the argument should end there. I could just as easily argue "there has been no study showing no association between my polar bear repellant and the lack of polar bears in the wilderness of the southeastern United States" therefore there must be something to it. As you say, a silly argument but about the same level of association between the Hep B vaccine and Autism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #10)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:00 PM

25. Yes, there is a study that shows an association. It is the one linked above.

Now, it is possible to do a bad study, if you get a bad sample or have a population that is too small or skewed in some way. If you google, you will find this study mentioned about a gazillion times. That means that someone, somewhere is working on a study to either 1) refute or 2) confirm it. That is how research works. Publish or perish. And either finding will be publishable given the topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #10)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:03 PM

28. You're not missing anything. This is just another study misrepresented by anti-vaxers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #3)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:32 PM

11. No, it should be the job of those who would require all neonates to be given a vaccine

for a condition that is not casually spread -- that can be tested for in the mother, and is only spread through bodily fluids -- to prove that it is safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #11)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:39 PM

14. And it appears that this has been done

 

given the lack of data showing a link between widespread use of the vaccine and generally negative reactions to said use. That is not to say that no one has ever had a negative reaction to any vaccine; the manufacturers contribute to an insurance fund to compensate persons in those rare instances when a vaccine causes a serious negative reaction. What is being argued, without supporting evidence, is that the use of the vaccine causes Autism to develop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #14)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:42 PM

17. +1,000,000 ... 000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #3)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:14 PM

33. It's incumbent on those selling a vaccine to prove it's safe.

 

Or at least to do enough testing to learn what the potiential side effects are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:12 PM

4. Hep B study is just a restatement that autism diagnoses were increasing

The older children in the 3-17 range were less likely to have an autism diagnosis but this doesn't say anything about the prevalence of autism.

Take any other factor like the hep B vaccination that changed significantly during the 17 years prior to the study and you would find the same relationship to autism diagnoses. For example, the boys that heard gangsta rap as an infant would have a higher diagnosis rate than the boys that did not hear gangsta rap. It would be insane to conclude that gangsta rap causes autism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #4)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:17 PM

34. But they didn't find that correlation with MMR vaccine, which also changed significantly. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #34)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:24 PM

39. The hep B study didn't study the MMR vaccine

The MMR one is a meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies from 2014. The hep B study is cross-sectional study from 2002. These are entirely different things. Perhaps the OP isn't clear about those differences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:14 PM

6. Why would anyone recommend this anti-vaccine ludicrousness?

Wow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:19 PM

9. Why does DU tolerate this type of conspiracy theory BS?

I don't understand. This is no different than chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, etc...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #9)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:36 PM

12. Did you bother to alert on it as an SOP violation?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #12)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:37 PM

13. Why would I?

I'd just be shot down. I have in the past, and that's what has happened. Thus, it makes more sense to bring it up as a topic of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #13)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:40 PM

15. So that would answer the question why DU allows it in this case.

 

Nobody has alerted on it. Claiming that there is no way that the hosts will lock it is sort of a pathetic excuse and a self fulfilling prophecy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #15)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:42 PM

16. Umm. No. Not really.

It's not a DU rule as with the other cases. That makes alerting on it rather difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #16)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:43 PM

18. actually it would get a pretty good chance of a lock as stupid ass CS bullshit.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #18)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:44 PM

19. That's not my experience, and I'm tired of being told my alerts are crap.

When I bring it up with administration, it only gets worse. I know my behavior has not always been the best, but that seems to have tainted they're responses. Or maybe they just don't care. I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #19)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:46 PM

20. fine I'll alert on it and see what happens.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #20)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:58 PM

23. I'll be curious to find out.

I just tried to report it, but it wouldn't go through. I wrote a long explanation, and included links showing the ridiculousness of this OP, but, hmm.

Yeah, I think I must be paranoid.

No, really. I'm dumbfounded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #23)

Fri May 16, 2014, 07:49 AM

64. Nothing. It was nearly unanimous that more antivac idiocy wouldl be good for DU.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #20)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:00 PM

24. meaning it is still up in the air

 

My gawd, the uncertainty is killing us.

One would think with all you working so diligently on this it would not be still up in the air!

So what is the cause of autism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #24)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:01 PM

26. We know it's not vaccines.

Does that bother you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #24)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:02 PM

27. Antivac idiocy is killing people.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #27)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:11 PM

31. It could be

 

But is it ok to admit that the cause of autism is not known?

I hardly pay attention to this vac stuff. But can tell you that radiation makes your hair fall out, causes nose bleeds and causes cancer and kills a lot of people.

So where is all this autism coming from?

And if you are as inclined as my fan club is, know there is enough kindergarten snark from them to kill a,well, a kindergartner. But not me. So such here would be wasted!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #31)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:24 PM

38. Radiation causes autism!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #38)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:29 PM

41. I need a better class of fan club

 

I feel sorry for the kids. And if anyone comes up with a cause of autism, i'd be among the first to help ameliorate the situation.

Sure wouldn't white wash it away or make excuses for the purveyors or go on stupid tirades against those working on defeating the cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #31)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:51 PM

50. Three things.

 

1 - Improved diagnosis; as awareness of the condition is improved more medical professionals recognize Autism spectrum cases that were previously misdiagnosed as behavior disorders or some other form of learning disability

2 - The Autism spectrum was expanded which, logically, resulted in more diagnoses

3 - Money/"politics": as more resources were made available to treat Autism, pressure was on to have the Autism diagnosis in order to access those resources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #27)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:19 PM

36. That is true. That is why I am not Antivac. I am for informed Vaccination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #36)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:29 PM

42. That's a fiction-based copout.

People who way they're "informed vaccination" and "safe vaccination" are anti-vaxers. Cut the crap, and be honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #42)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:58 PM

52. My patients have to sign consent forms before they get vaccines. Big, long government consent forms.

Does that make the government "anti-vac"? If people are on immune suppressive agents like Humira, I advise them to stay away from live vaccines. Does that make me anti-vac? If they live with someone who is getting chemotherapy and has no immune system to speak of I try to discourage them from getting certain vaccines? Is that "anti-vac"? If they are highly allergic to eggs, I suggest that they carry Tamiflu instead of getting a flu vaccine. Guess that makes me "anti-vac." Boy! My nurses are always complaining that I run them ragged making them give so many vaccines. Imagine their surprise tomorrow when I tell them that I am officially "anti-vac." Oh, and I am in charge of our clinic's Medicaid vaccines, too. Do you think I should tell Medicaid that I can't be in charge anymore, because I am "anti-vac."?

When I say that I want my patients to make informed decisions, I mean I want them to make informed decisions. I even tell them the names of new prescription medications and what side effects they may want to look for and when they might want to call. I guess that makes me a little odd. But it's their health, not mine. They have a right to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #52)

Thu May 15, 2014, 10:06 PM

53. Your "patients?"

What title do you hold? Oh, and the rest of your post is pure logical fallacy BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #53)

Fri May 16, 2014, 11:38 PM

71. MD, MPH. Most folks here know that. Go on Amazon. Read one of my books.

You have piqued my curiosity. I might write something about.....I dunno. Pharmaceutical industry public relations? Does that sound like an interesting topic? I wonder if a person needs a scientific degree to get a job doing something like that. Probably not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #71)

Sat May 17, 2014, 12:46 AM

72. More claims?

So are you one of the more famous anti-vaccine MDs? If so, why hide. If not, why show everyone that you actually know nothing about the topic at hand?

You seem to think you know more than I do about this topic, yet your posts indicate otherwise. You keep pushing the same old lame anti-vaccine routines. Heck, you know that I know you posted this lame and easily debunked OP because of another OP that showed the reality that vaccines do not cause autism.

Boring.

So, if you're on the level, it really doesn't matter what your credentials might be, because you're not using them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #24)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:04 PM

29. "So what is the cause of autism?"

 

Yeah, I think you're done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #29)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:19 PM

35. It's known that there's an environmental variable.

 

It's not all genetic and the increase in prevalence can't be explained by changes in Dx.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-rise-driven-by-environment/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #35)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:22 PM

37. No argument from me here.

 

I don't have any reason to doubt both environmental and genetic factors play into the development of autism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #35)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:30 PM

43. It's not definitive that it's not mostly genetic and diagnosis changes.

It's possible that there is an environmental factor, but the more studies that are done, the less that piece becomes a part of the equation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #43)

Thu May 15, 2014, 10:37 PM

57. If it's not entirely due to Dx changes then there's an environmental factor.

 

Diagnostic changes are undeniably part of the equation. The question is whether diagnostic changes occured in reaction to changes in actual syndrome prevalence or the reverse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #57)

Fri May 16, 2014, 12:28 AM

60. It's not that simple.

Not even close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #60)

Fri May 16, 2014, 12:48 AM

62. If the rate is going up, and it's not entirely measurement error, then it's environmental.

 

There's no such thing as a genetic epidemic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #62)

Fri May 16, 2014, 09:36 AM

65. Thanks for the anti-vaccine cliche.

Genetics are quite complicated, and couples have far more choice in who the couple up with now than 50 or 100 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #35)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:46 PM

48. Thanks. I tend to agree. However it can be very hard to get anyone interested in

environmental research, because what do you do once you conclude the air or water is dirty and that is the cause? Close up the local industry on which you rely for jobs? Not likely. If you can identify a single pesticide or product, then you replace it. But what if it's the local petrochemical industry where everyone works? What do you do then? Nothing.

I am still trying to get anyone in my home town to care that our water is full of pcbs from an abandoned military dump and that this might be why our infant mortality in the zip codes along our waterways is higher than anyplace else in the state. We have a fishing ban due to the high levels of pollution--and our city council is trying to promote fishing tourism while discouraging talk about the dirty water. Because if you don't have a tax base, you don't have money for anything including efforts to combat infant mortality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #48)

Thu May 15, 2014, 10:08 PM

54. Actually, that's about the easiest thing in the world to do.

Even when it's BS. You know that, but you pretend otherwise. Lame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #24)

Sat May 17, 2014, 11:52 AM

76. Agreed. With so many highly informed "experts" it should be no problem for them to

precisely pinpoint the cause of the current autism rate.

Until they know what the cause is, their "expertise" is little more than a protestation demanding that everyone SHALL think like them.

Some people are more interested in defending the reputations of the pharmaceutical companies than finding the cause of the autism scourge.

I don't give a damn where the trail leads, I would like to know what the hell is the cause. People who are experts in their field don't problem solve by loudly and vehemently proclaiming that they know what the solution IS NOT, over and over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #20)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:32 PM

45. I alerted.

I included the evidence that this is BS, with links.

My alert lost 6-1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #45)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:34 PM

46. You need to do an SOP alert. The OP is not rude or insulting, just whacko.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #46)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:37 PM

47. I am going to plead ignorance.

What is an SOP alert?

And, just to clarify, did you alert, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #47)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:53 PM

51. The top choice sends it to host.

Report this post as abusive

Reason for your alert:

This discussion thread is off-topic, or violates the Statement of Purpose for this forum

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

This post includes a copyright violation.

This person's avatar image or signature line is inappropriate.

Explain your alert -- please be clear and brief:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Go Vols (Reply #51)

Thu May 15, 2014, 10:09 PM

55. Thanks.

That's good information.

I still don't know why DU doesn't send anti-science BS to the dungeon, no questions asked. It's bizarre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #18)

Thu May 15, 2014, 10:43 PM

58. No it wouldn't...

stupid ass CS bullshit, as a rule, has enough Hosts thinking that it belongs in GD that it never gets locked.

If clear-cut CT threads about aliens and UFOs don't get locked, there will be enough GD Hosts saying about an allegedly scientific thread "whats the harm in leaving it?" to let it stand.

Alerting for CS in GD is basically a waste of time.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #58)

Fri May 16, 2014, 07:45 AM

63. yup you are right about this one Sid. Despite the horrifying effects of MMR antivac

 

CS idiocy, our GD hosts are firmly in favor of leaving this new attempt to scare people away from vaccinations.

Sad. Luckily on the other board there are no hosts at all, so anything goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #9)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:50 PM

21. A study showing a statistical association is not cause for panic. It just means we need a

follow up study.

I am sure that the follow up studies are being done and will be published soon. It has been about three years.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #21)

Thu May 15, 2014, 08:57 PM

22. This "study" is used by anti-vaxers to push bad propaganda.

And you do have a reputation for pushing anti-vaccine propaganda.

That's just a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #22)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:09 PM

30. I have a "rep"? This is the only study that has ever shown an association. Therefore it is the only

study I have ever linked on the topic Has that given me a "rep"? A "rep" with whom? With someone who has an agenda of some sort? What sort of agenda would that be? My own agenda is making sure that each of my patients makes an informed individual decision about their own health care for themselves and their family members. The very second that a study comes out showing no statistical association between Hep B vaccine at birth and increased autism I will be as happy as I can be to endorse a practice which is actually wonderful for the rest of the world where Hep B is a horrible, widespread chronic disease that infects lots of newborns. In fact, I hope that you will email me with the results as soon as they are published in a reputable medical journal as soon as they come out, and when they do, I promise to post a big thread in GD about how Hep B vaccine at birth at been absolved of all association with autism. Cross my heart. But I need to see the data first. That is not too much to ask, is it?

Oh, and here is the cohort that would be perfect for a study (hint hint to any researchers out there who need to publish or perish) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17414397 .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #30)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:28 PM

40. Hmm. Doesn't that ring a bell?

Cherry picking is a fun anti-vaccine routine. Lame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:13 PM

32. Uncontrolled experiments piss me off.

 

the individual vaccinations are administered in such a shotgun manner that it's impossible to tease actionable data from the results.

It becomes impossible to know which (if any) of shopping cart full of vaccines caused a side affect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #32)

Thu May 15, 2014, 09:31 PM

44. Of course, studies about the safety of the full vaccination schedule show no issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu May 15, 2014, 10:18 PM

56. Let's chanege the subject. Roundup, Genetically Modified Foods...

...what do these things have in common? Monsanto? OMG! I just found out about something called Roundup Ready Crops. Crops designed so that you can saturate them in herbicide and they won't die. Scary! Here's a link.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roundup_Ready_Crops

This is much scarier than any single study showing a possible association between one vaccine and autism. You are right, HUcklB. I am wasting my time and DU forum worrying about vaccine safety. Off to learn more about Monsanto and the super scary products that it makes. I wonder if these herbicides could contribute to autism? Or make my patients sick in some other awful ways. As a doctor, I need to stay informed.

Ciao.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #56)

Fri May 16, 2014, 12:29 AM

61. Anti-science conspiracies are a dime a dozen.

Thanks for showing that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Fri May 16, 2014, 12:06 AM

59. Let's be accurate - Hep B is not associated with Autism

Dave Kirby, anti-vac nut, loves this study and the abstract. That should be enough warning signs right there.

That said, the study itself is deeply flawed in methodology--everything from looking at survey data for children born before HepB recommendations were in place to the hilariously disparate sample groups (7,455 in the non-autistic group and...31 in the autistic group). Of those 31, 9 were given the HepB vaccine.

The samples are ridiculously silly.

Here is a site talking about the abstract
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/09/17/another-weak-study-proves-vaccines-cause-autism/

I think at this point I will post from Spurious Correlations:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Godhumor (Reply #59)

Fri May 16, 2014, 11:00 AM

66. And people here buy into it despite the disaster with the MMR antivac idiocy.

 

The title of the OP itself should be a dead giveaway.

"Sure that MMR stuff was bullshit and resulted in the return of harmful preventable diseases, but here is a new shiny object".

FFS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Godhumor (Reply #59)

Fri May 16, 2014, 11:17 AM

67. Thanks for looking into what I was too lazy to do.

This is pretty much what I expected to find.

The ridiculously small sample size would explain the odd increased risk in minorities.

As a scientist, it irks the hell out of me when crap studies like this get published. C'mon reviewers, do your frickin' jobs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Godhumor (Reply #59)

Fri May 16, 2014, 10:31 PM

68. Yes there is an association. Here is a WHO summary of all the lit

from a time period that included two of Ms. Gallagher/ Goodman's studies about Autism and Hep B. Note that the criticism is not that there is no association. It is that when you use National Health Interview Survey data you can not make statements about causality.

Detailed descriptions of potential biases and pitfalls that could arise from attempting to use VAERS, VSD,
NHANES, National Health Interview Surveys or other similar
databases to make causal inferences have been described by the
Institute of Medicine (U.S.) and by a report by Parker et al (2004).
Therefore the identified associations between multiple variables
including male gender and EIS cannot provide evidence of causality.


http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2012/april/Pichichero_Update_on_safety.pdf


There is an association. We do not know if there is a causality. If you people are going to hold yourselves up as scientists, please use the scientific lingo correctly.

Both articles appeared in peer reviewed journals. That means the biostatistics were double checked. Here are the credentials of the two researchers. One is an expert in biostatics. And I will bet that she knows the difference between association and causality.

http://publichealth.wustl.edu/people/scholardatabase/Documents/GOODMAN%20M.CV%20Feb%202012%20IPH.pdf

The other is the Chief Executive Director of Ethic at MD Anderson.

http://faculty.mdanderson.org/Colleen_Gallagher/Default.asp

I know you do not like the two studies. But, numbers do not go away just because you do not like them. If they offend you so much maybe you should suggest that Merck spend some money and pay some researchers to study a huge cross section of children who received Hep B vaccine and determine who got it at birth and who didn't and who has been diagnosed with autism and who didn't. Indeed, given the stir that these two studies made, I find it hard to believe that Merck has not already commissioned these studies and I wonder what is taking them so long is getting us the (we hope and pray) negative association results that will set our minds at rest.

Do anyone here know anyone at Merck? If so, please suggest that they hurry up their research teams so that we can bury this topic.

Hey, you know what? Maybe I will start a Merck watch on my Facebook page. Just to remind Merck every so often that we are still waiting for that definitive study that will prove that we have nothing to worry about. So they won't forget.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #68)

Fri May 16, 2014, 11:01 PM

69. Nope. no credible link at all

Last edited Sat May 17, 2014, 12:34 AM - Edit history (1)

The abstract and study are crap and that is a reason nothing had been done to further it's conclusions since issuance in 2009.

So how about a more recent one from 2013 looking at antigens and vaccines, including HepB. Guess what? No link found.

CDC summary here with a link to the full study.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/antigens.html

HepB is a Mercola and Age of Autism bogeyman. There is literally nothing they can pin their hats on except that 2009 study, which is ridiculously flawed. But feel free to ignore every other vaccine-autism study that directly contradicts its findings as anything other than flawed methodology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Godhumor (Reply #69)

Fri May 16, 2014, 11:33 PM

70. One more thing to clarify,small premature babies should NOT get Hep B vaccine until one month of age

unless their mothers are either confirmed Hep B positive or suspected. This is different from all other vaccines which are given at the birth age (as opposed to corrected gestational age). The reason they give all terms infants even those born to Hep B negative mothers the vaccine at birth is because of the small chance that a mother might have contracted the disease between the time of her negative prenatal Hep B screen and her deliver---and the test done at delivery might be a false negative.

I have been trying to find a source to explain why the premature infant does not need that "just in case" Hep B protection at birth the way that the term infant does. A mother who delivers prematurely is no less likely to be Hep B infected than one who delivers at term, and a premature infant will do just as badly with congenital Hep B as a term infant. But the current standard of care is hold that first Hep B vaccine in a small preemie until one month unless you know mom has Hep B---almost as if they are worried that the "just in case" Hep B vaccine might not be quite the thing for a small preemie. Prematurity has also been associated with autism.

Here's a link:

Preterm infants of mothers infected with hepatitis B should receive the hepatitis B vaccine at or shortly after birth. If the baby weighs less than 2,000 grams, the dose should not be counted as part of the hepatitis B series, and the baby should start the three-dose series one month after birth.

Preterm infants of mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B should get the vaccine one month after birth.

Preterm babies discharged before 1 month of age may get the vaccine at discharge as long as they are considered medically stable and have been consistently gaining weight.

In both cases, later doses should be given at least 4 weeks after the dose at 1 month. The third dose should be given at least 16 weeks after the first dose and at least 8 weeks after the last dose, but not before 6 months of age.


http://www.chop.edu/service/parents-possessing-accessing-communicating-knowledge-about-vaccines/age-groups-and-vaccines/special-considerations-for-preterm-infants.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #70)

Sat May 17, 2014, 02:04 AM

74. I refused the hep B for my preemie twin boys (33 weekers).

I just didn't see any reason to do it at, or shortly after, birth. They ended up getting them at age 2, when they started daycare.

Of course, one of them ended up developing autism anyway.

I've no doubt that this confession will make me a pariah on this site. (That's if I'm not one already. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #70)

Sat May 17, 2014, 10:09 AM

75. So, you can't answer the actual science of the matter, yet again.

Instead you go off in another direction.

Your BS is acknowledged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #68)

Sat May 17, 2014, 01:11 AM

73. The control group includes children born in 1980, 11 years before the vaccine was introduced

Autism rates have gone up significantly in the last 30 years, so comparing a control group that was born before this happened with kids today is little better than junk science regardless of which journal it was published.

I can make a better case for rock-n-roll causes devil worship.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread