MMR vaccine and Autisim...more research says NO LINK!

"My personal theory (and I doubt I've looked into as deeply as you have), is that the increase is actually not an increase. It is due to changes in diagnostic criteria (autism went from a diagnosis only used in severe cases to a spectrum disorder which includes something like Asperger's)."

Absolutely and positively this has played a role in the increased number of cases. However, NIH funded a study some years ago that looked at exactly this issue and came up with the conclusion that there was an excess beyond what you would expect from changes in diagnostic criteria. In other words, NIH concluded there is a biological basis to the increased number of cases.

I haven't read this study so I can't comment.

The availability of treatment (ABA, floortime, social skills training etc) for autism spectrum diagnoses is another factor and IMO a big factor pushing in favor of these diagnoses.

The special ed data is really interesting; I wasn't aware of that.

Posted By: dogbert>>Sadly, I don't think having had Chicken Pox protects me or anyone from the adult variation, Shingles.

Actually, I think it guarantees that you'll have shingles, if you live long enough. Shingles isn't just the adult version of chicken pox; it's the latent version of the infection you had as a kid.

This is correct. Generally one is infected with varicella (the chicken pox/shinges virus) as a youngster. The infection is not always obvious. For example if you remember that your sister or brother was covered with rash and that you were ok, it's still highly likely that you had the infection but in a subclinical form.

The antibodies that are formed with the initial infection are very effective for a long time, but, as dogbert says, if you live long enough they kind of wane and allow the latent virus to emerge from their hiding place to travel along a nerve root, causing pain/itching and then the rash.

Once you've had it, it's about 95% likely you'll never have it again.

Here is the this American life episode that Tom was talking about. Everyone should listen to it. It does a great job exploring the issue without fully taking a side.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1275

My father is in his 60's. He got the shingles vaccine about 3 weeks ago. 2 weeks ago he got shingles. I am not anti-vaccine per se. But I still think in any case other than one that would create an emergency, this is a parent's or patient's decision. Not a state decision.

Except at some point it becomes a public health issue. I'm not sure what that point is, but there is a public interest in preventing preventable diseases.

As fo the shingles vaccine, I didn't realize it was a live vaccine. Bizarre (IMUO) that an adult vaccine would be live.

Posted By: terpI am not anti-vaccine per se. But I still think in any case other than one that would create an emergency, this is a parent's or patient's decision. Not a state decision.

Vaccines are not 100%. it's swell for a parent if they decide, say, Rubella is no big deal. Until their infected kid comes in contact with a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage or permanent brain damage in the baby.

The state may not decide (although there is a pretty good argument for it when it comes to schools), but vaccination is not a decision that only effects one person.

(Not talking about the Shingles vaccines for adults here -- which sounds sketchy to me given that it's less than 50% effective).

Posted By: malphigian

Posted By: terpI am not anti-vaccine per se. But I still think in any case other than one that would create an emergency, this is a parent's or patient's decision. Not a state decision.

Vaccines are not 100%. it's swell for a parent if they decide, say, Rubella is no big deal. Until their infected kid comes in contact with a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage or permanent brain damage in the baby.

Just like driving. Driving is perfectly fine. Until the driver doesn't see a pregnant woman crossing the street. You may laugh at the comparison. But I'd bet my scenario is hundreds of times more likely than yours.

The state may not decide (although there is a pretty good argument for it when it comes to schools), but vaccination is not a decision that only effects one person.

I vaccinate my kids for things I think are a good risk. However, I don't inject foreign substances into my children because the state says its ok. Vaccines have been pulled for safety reasons after being administered to many people.

(Not talking about the Shingles vaccines for adults here -- which sounds sketchy to me given that it's less than 50% effective).

That won't stop it from being widely recommended by doctors. I admit to knowing nothing about this particular vaccine. But I can guarantee you that my father didn't get it because he asked for it.

"Until the driver doesn't see a pregnant woman crossing the street. You may laugh at the comparison"

It's more like "a driver doesn't put their lights on at night claiming that it is their choice to decide what is best for them, despite what empirical evidence and common concern for other members of the community might dictate" and then hits a pregnant woman. In my scenario, the driver is subject to criminal and civil charges because of the harm that their actions caused to another.

Posted By: katiemcc"Until the driver doesn't see a pregnant woman crossing the street. You may laugh at the comparison"

It's more like "a driver doesn't put their lights on at night claiming that it is their choice to decide what is best for them, despite what empirical evidence and common concern for other members of the community might dictate" and then hits a pregnant woman. In my scenario, the driver is subject to criminal and civil charges because of the harm that their actions caused to another.

Ha. It's actually not like that at all. To protect yourself or your child from what you may think may cause them harm even considering the minuscule risk of not doing so is not negligent.

Here is an interesting article about research that is being done right here in Newark. I think it stands as the most likely explanation for parents' association of autism and vaccine administration. It also addresses why some dietary and "natural remedies" are observed to help.

"The researchers say that the bodies of children with autism may be unable to turn off the inflammatory process because they cannot metabolize key fatty acids that serve as antioxidants; and that this chronic inflammation damages the brain, as well as other organs and systems."

The take home is that there is a disorder in managing inflammation, and probably the vaccines (by design) cause an inflammatory response that doesn't stop in those with the genetic defect. This would lead to a parent's experience that the child was "fine" until after the vaccine. But it isn't the vaccine that causes autism, rather the vaccine induces inflammation in a vulnerable child. Naturally acquired illness would also precipitate the same result. Which is why studies always show no difference in autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, yet parents can clearly see the link temporally to the vaccine administration.

There's a lot more in the article if you care to read it:



Sorry for those non-science types, but I thought it was the best information about this. And it's cool that it's coming from UMDNJ.:bigsmile:

Vaccines cause an immune response but not necessarily inflammation. The link between vaccines and onset of symptoms has always appeared to me to be anecdotal.

IMHO - It is my business whether or not you decide to vaccinate your child.

Vaccines work two ways:
1 - Individual immunity. They acquire immunity via the vaccine.
2 - Herd immunity. Vaccines are not 100% effective. However, if the herd (us) gets vaccinated - and for math sake - let's say that 100 of us, and the vaccine doesn't work in let's say 20 people - the fact that if polio/measles/smallpox/etc were in the wild and the herd was exposed to it - the fact that 80 percent were immune would stop the outbreak. Drop that 80 number down with people who don't believe in vaccines/or pick & choose the ones they want and now you're endangering the rest of us.

I have a scar on my upper left arm. Do you? Well if you're born after circa 1973-ish - you don't. And that's because I do. Smallpox was eradicated (except for the US/Russian biohazard labs) because of vaccinations. We have a social responsibility to each other. Were there awful adverse side effects to the smallpox vaccine - yes - but the disease was worse. It is our responsibility as a society to think of the our community as a whole. I have a child and I vaccinated her. For her own safety and that of the society we live in.

Go talk to someone in their 60's to 80's and get a different perspective on what life was without vaccines.

Or go and do REAL research - not just the fright sites. I'm talking reading all the research papers - pro & con.

And if those of you that are anti-vaccines still don't want to get their kids vaccinated, fine. Go live off the grid in Idaho.

BTW, what's the problem with children getting a whole bunch of vaccines at the same time? A couple of posters said they "didn't like the idea," and it seemed like everyone acknowledged that it's a parent's right to decide whether to do it.

I've given my children all the shots according to the guidelines and they're fine. What article did I miss? Is there any reason other than "it seems like too much?"

jerseyboy, my main problem with many shots at once was that I had a history of bad reactions to a couple vaccines and, just in case, I wanted to be sure I could identify which one caused a problem the first time they got it--so the first round were given on a delayed schedule. Also, they were born premature, but the vaccination schedule doesn't account for that at all--it's 2 months old, you get x. My 2 month olds were barely the size of newborns at that point. Their systems were not "on par" with the dosing. That was another reason I ended up on a delayed schedule.

I think I said it a few times before, but I want to make very clear that my children will be fully immunized before they attend preschool. I agree that there is a societal obligation to continue herd immunity. I just feel that there are definitely circumstances in which it makes sense to alter the "standard" CDC vaccination schedule for individual children. The MMR and chicken pox vaccines are "live" vaccines, and there is a "range" of time in which you are meant to give it. It was offered to my children at 12 months (range is 12 to 24 months) and I said no, again because of their size/age and the fact that it's a live vaccine. I will give it. It's not the autism fear for me. It's the fact that the vaccines are combined for convenience's sake and are given based on age, not size or gestational age.

My son had real problems when he was little. It looked like he was going to end up on the autism spectrum. He fell off the growth chart. Of course our pediatricians did not take note. We took him to a doctor who had both a holistic and western pediatric practice. He got my son straightened out. It was not easy, but my son is now a bright, friendly, functioning child.

I don't have any proof. But given our history, this doctor thought the MMR could be involved in my son's issues. He was sick with a stomach issue prior to getting the MMR. The doctor thought that could have been a shock to his immune system soon after being sick(as I understand it). This doctor recommends getting vaccinations, but not on the normal schedule for reasons dobler88 has outlined. He doesn't like the MMR & recommends they get split up. He also recommends no vaccinations for 6 months.

Now, I don't have time to read all the studies. Nor do I have the time to read the backgrounds of the individuals behind the studies. However, I'm going to listen to the doctor who was actually able to help my child. I'm not going to listen to the doctors that couldn't be bothered to look at my son's growth chart. I wonder how much analysis they do of these studies. And I'm certainly not going to listen to the state.

My decision of how, when, where, and what I vaccinate my children for is my business. Anyone who is too much of a sheep to understand this can get bent.

Actually, I haven't seen anyone here argue against the duty to herd immunity. And thank goodness for that.

Posted By: Tom ReingoldActually, I haven't seen anyone here argue against the duty to herd immunity. And thank goodness for that.

I would argue against the need for herd immunity for some of our immunizations. For instance, there is a trend towards requiring the flu vaccine. I don't really see the point in requiring this vaccine. Consider the fact that nobody in my immediate family was vaccinated. Nobody in my immediate family got the flu. Most of my coworkers got the flu vaccine. The flu went through my office, and many who were vaccinated got the flu. My mother in law got it bad. She was vaccinated. I'm not sure why there is a legal mandate for this.

I like your new icon btw.

Posted By: malphigianVaccines are not 100%. it's swell for a parent if they decide, say, Rubella is no big deal. Until their infected kid comes in contact with a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage or permanent brain damage in the baby.

The state may not decide (although there is a pretty good argument for it when it comes to schools), but vaccination is not a decision that only effects one person.

You are exactly right. You do not make those decisions in a vacuum. What you choose to do affects everyone around you...every person you come into contact with in your life. Vaccinations frequently protect "the herd"...we all do it and everyone is safe. When too many people do not get the vaccine. there is a weak link. It's irresponsible...it puts everyone in the herd at risk.

This reminds me of the car seat issue...or even with schooling....why are there laws, etc. Some people balk and say it's crazy to have the state dictate to us what we should do with our kids. Do you know why?? Because we may live in an educated, sane community but many other people don't. To keep kids safe, the government or local jurisdiction has to step in and make laws across the board. Is it a pain if you feel differently or choose an alternate schedule?? Yes. Or if you'd like to home school or do something different? But guess what...those laws that are a pain in your butt save people's lives and make sure every kid gets a fair shot. There are no required tests to become a parent. And some people just aren't good at it. Laws and regulations are a safety net.

terp, I agree about the flu vaccine. I don't get vaccinated. I don't see the point, for me or for the herd.

bookworm drew the cartoon of me for me. He was a professional cartoonist. May he rest in peace.

Posted By: jersey_boy

BTW, what's the problem with children getting a whole bunch of vaccines at the same time? A couple of posters said they "didn't like the idea," and it seemed like everyone acknowledged that it's a parent's right to decide whether to do it.

I've given my children all the shots according to the guidelines and they're fine. What article did I miss? Is there any reason other than "it seems like too much?"

JB,

Did your little ones get a fever and soreness after the shots?
I did the regular schedule with my first. And he got the fevers and crankiness. And I was an anxious hovering sleepless parent.

Then my second was born a little early, AND they added a new immunization at 2, 4, and 6 months old. I knew I wasn't giving my petite little one 7 different immunizations at her 2 month appt, so I chose to do the Dr. Sears alternative schedule. (So baby gets about half the shots at a time, but we go in twice as often. So she's mostly on schedule, just a month behind on a few immunizations).

So far, no fevers and no irritibility! Thus, the fewer shots at a time thing has helped my sleep be less deprived... and no need for hovering or anxiety so far. Now after about 6 immunization appointments, I'm convinced that this alternative schedule is working better for both of us.

And another thing for the immunization control-freak parent like myself to know: You can ask the nurses to depress the plungers slowly for the immunization, so there's not as much shock to the muscle. The part that actually hurts the child is when the immunization fluid enters the muscle. So, when it was done more slowly, my baby didn't even cry.

I'll quote the father of our country about the state.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

I don't think the government should make up for what is described as sub par parenting. In cases where this is an issue, do you really think the fact that the children aren't being vaccinated is the largest threat bad parenting results in?

Posted By: terpI don't think the government should make up for what is described as sub par parenting. In cases where this is an issue, do you really think the fact that the children aren't being vaccinated is the largest threat bad parenting results in?

Then who is supposed to step in when parents fail? What happens to the kids that got dealt a bad hand of cards and are born to the junky mom or irresponsible deadbeat dad? What about the parents that are just too busy with their own issues and too self absorbed to deal with junior's best interests? Who is supposed to make sure kids get proper school, food, safety, and all the things they deserve? Funny..people want money and assistance from the big, bad government but they don't want government looking down on them and making rules....crazy...

Funny..people want money and assistance from the big, bad government but they don't want government looking down on them and making rules....crazy...

When you make generalizations like that, you be sure to keep me out of them.

Posted By: terpI don't think the government should make up for what is described as sub par parenting. In cases where this is an issue, do you really think the fact that the children aren't being vaccinated is the largest threat bad parenting results in?

I think your argument would be stronger if this really was a case where the government was stepping in to fix particular bad parents. But that's not really the case here.

Not to be repetitive, but vaccines are not 100%, they stop disease by having a large portion of the population vaccinated (95%+). In a place like London where MMR vaccinations rates are 50% the 50% who are making their "own decision" about "their kid" are putting other people's kids at risk.

At the very least, if people want to do this and want the force of government off them, maybe they need to accept not using government services like schools.

I don't mean to be petty here, but upthread you said you had no time to read any research relating to this topic -- it might be a good idea to do so before you form such a hardened opinion on it.

As an aside, I kind of agree with you about the influenza vaccine. It is sort of a different case from the childhood vaccines since it's so temporary and such a crap shoot. Influenza does kill a lot of people every year, but I'm not sure these current vaccines are really going to control it.

Posted By: malphigian

Posted By: terpI don't think the government should make up for what is described as sub par parenting. In cases where this is an issue, do you really think the fact that the children aren't being vaccinated is the largest threat bad parenting results in?

I think your argument would be stronger if this really was a case where the government was stepping in to fix particular bad parents. But that's not really the case here.

Not to be repetitive, but vaccines are not 100%, they stop disease by having a large portion of the population vaccinated (95%+). In a place like London where MMR vaccinations rates are 50% the 50% who are making their "own decision" about "their kid" are putting other people's kids at risk.

At the very least, if people want to do this and want the force of government off them, maybe they need to accept not using government services like schools.

I don't mean to be petty here, but upthread you said you had no time to read any research relating to this topic -- it might be a good idea to do so before you form such a hardened opinion on it.

As an aside, I kind of agree with you about the influenza vaccine. It is sort of a different case from the childhood vaccines since it's so temporary and such a crap shoot. Influenza does kill a lot of people every year, but I'm not sure these current vaccines are really going to control it.

I said i didn't have time to read all the studies...I read a lot more when my older son was very young. Furthermore, I have first hand experience dealing w/ this issue. Perhaps you'd like to read about the original rotavirus vaccine.

I couldn't disagree more with you about government services. People pay income taxes, payroll taxes, sales tax, property tax, etc, etc. I don't think they should have to inject things they don't want to into their children in order to receive government services.

Posted By: Tom Reingoldbookworm drew the cartoon of me for me. He was a professional cartoonist. May he rest in peace.

Thread drift, I know.... but, um... what did I miss?

Bookworm was alive and well when I saw him yesterday at a meeting....unless he tried to install the light fixture again...

I gave bookworm bad electrical wiring advice. He said his goodbyes before he was about to try it.

Ah.

Posted By: Tom ReingoldI gave bookworm bad electrical wiring advice. He said his goodbyes before he was about to try it.

hahaha. I tried to install lighting exactly once. Nuff said.