From someone who knows both this condition and its pathogenesis and manifestations well, you are both correct and incorrect in your assessment.
Part of the apparent rise in autism is indeed an expansion of diagnostic criteria and their recognition.
But that doesn’t nullify the need to recognize environmental causes when they’re considered, including vaccines.
The autoimmune diseases that are being recognized within the context of SARs-CoV2 vaccines, and the known rare occurrences of Guillan-Barre disease with Influenza vaccines are no fluke. Your dismissal of vaccines as a causative factor in the neurodevelopmental alterations in affected individuals is more a reflection of bias than it is of epidemiological fact.
It is a provably true finding from a range of research, as I show. The myth that autism is in any way related to vaccines is largely based on the collation of low-quality research and fraud.
Individuals who cite the studies refuting the hypothesis that “vaccines cause autism”, in my opinion, neglect the anecdotes.
Large epidemiological population studies don’t looks for gene-environment intersections. They only look for environmental encumbrances.
The events that culminate in neuro inflammation (and its expression as a disease syndrome that can be characterized on the ASD spectrum) are rare precisely because the circumstances that lead to them require thresholds that can only be vetted by basic science modeling, and not epidemiology.
Autism due to vaccines, if real, should not be so rare that population-based data of millions of children cannot statistically detect it. (e.g.—https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2101, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2275444). If 'basic science modeling' is the only way, then cases must be far rarer than the known harms of going unvaccinated. The expansion of the autism definition potentially explains the entire 'epidemic'. It is therefore incumbent upon challengers to find human data to support any me-too claim of causation hidden within the diagnostic expansion. I am interested, have searched, and remain open. But basic science modeling will not, and should not, convince serious and dispassionate truthseekers of an autism-vaccine link.
Repeated studies have shown NO clear link to vaccines causing autism unlike the rare GB syndrome with some flu vaccines in few people. These are not comparable in this instance at all.
Guillan Barre has validated biomarkers, unlike autism. The heterogeneity of “autism” without biophysical measurable biomarkers precludes the assessment of this diverse spectrum disorder in terms of neuro inflammation and neuro immune effects that culminate in the behavioral manifestation (s) of the syndrome.
In effect, the studies conducted have measured the wrong outcome measures, have inappropriately collated disparate individuals on the basis of a syndromic behavioral disorder, and have generalized vaccines in promoting conclusions which are not scientific.
Pick the specific studies that inform you of your conclusion, and let’s have an online debate about whether their results and conclusions are valid.
The failure to ignore evidential reality as opposed to modelling is the real danger. Much more physical research is required. Let us not forget the dangers posed by processed food, fluoridated water, pharmaceutical drugs side effects and of course the majority of those people with vested monetary interests from certain companies to promote the dangers associated and close down any counter argument or scientific theories not fitting the agenda.
As someone who knows both this condition and its pathogenesis and manifestations well, you are incorrect in attributing causation of ASD/Autism to vaccines - this has been scientifically disproven unless you are on the fringes & deal in junk science & conspiracy theories.
I am unwilling to wage a battle with you on this issue until data is allowed to be collected on alternative hypotheses and scientific rationales, as provided above.
You can carry on with the proposed guidelines, and I will continue to question their validity.
In terms of what’s fringe and what’s right, time will tell.
Maybe we are saying the same thing and maybe we’re not.
Basic science modeling allows one to introduce new environmental variables into the experimental mix while the environmental exposures are constantly evolving.
Vaccines are only one aspect of these variables, and if you don’t have a firm grasp on incidence, it’s much harder to attribute changes in prevalence to a specific factor or combination of factors.
But such decisions for vaccines, as well as hormonal modulators in food supplies should be a choice, not a forced mandate.
This is a truly bizarre word salad. I'm not sure what your point is, all I can say is that any decent understanding of objective reality shows no evidence whatsoever linking vaccines to autism and a great deal proving that there is no causal connection.
By the way, I appreciate your link to the MMR debate.
I have heard both sides of the story, including Wakefields personally.
Nevertheless, given a relative weighing of risk:benefits, I don’t feel the same way about mass vaccination for Varicella or HepB. I think those should be limited to at risk populations.
All points taken, seems we’re getting somewhere, thank you for that. My sense is you have a philosophical/ethical concern about vaccines. Different issue than mine. I’m invested in useful inferences from reliable data. Modeling could point us in a direction, but the direction strikes me as fruitless until or unless some large study somewhere has found even a hint of a link in human data. None has. On mandates, tricky business, above my pay grade, but you and I may be quite close. Thanks again.
Would need to see your data. With a clear and enormous expansion in definitions, recognition, and diagnoses (extending far beyond any underlying pathology that could have been covered by the original term) the onus is now on others to show us their data. Please do, I’m genuinely interested. I’ve been unconvinced by RFKs books and the occasionally claims of others. - Thanks
The data is anecdotal precisely because its collection or testing is obstructed by both government and Pharma And the data that is published gets canceled by the same entities.
Anecdotes that are not connected by a unifying theme are not disinformation or even misinformation, they are unstudied and unreconciled phenomena.
Points taken. But to be clear, you are agreeing there are undisputed data showing definitional changes have exponentially increased the 'incidence' of autism. Your concern (shared by many, including me) about possible additional environmental causes remains unsupported—not impossible, unsupported. IMHO, it is also a big stretch to claim the subject is unstudied and unreconciled. There are multiple large, population-based studies finding autism to be equally prevalent among unvaccinated and vaccinated groups. That is borderline dispositive. These are imperfect studies, but I'm unaware of better studies finding a link. That link is what I am seeking, and I'm open to it. But after decades of claims, books, documentaries, theories, and rumors, where are the data? Every large study refutes it, no large study supports it.
Broadening of the syndromic concepts of the diagnostic criteria does not actually lead to better understanding of autism. It leads to broadening the concept creating a pool of previously differing more concrete and specific syndromes which undoubtedly does not lead to more understanding. It leads to more people getting help, but as a scientific concept I doubt that it helps much. Concept creep is the norm in the DSM and no test in the history has become more accurate and more sensitive by broadening the scope over and over, adding more and more. I am on the autistic spectrum and I am satisfied with what help it has brought me. But I also read the literature surrounding the diagnostic usefulness in science and I do not get the sense that the concept creep of the diagnostic criteria has lead to anything resolving around a better understanding. Considering how previously different diagnosis are now one, it means that the diagnosis consists of many possible subcategories, which does not help with identifying correlations, as it leads to many new confounding, mediating and or moderating variables. I don't think it would be cogent to state that the new DSM diagnosis leads to better understanding as it has lead to only less clear contrast between differing problems.
And it also has lead to a movement that kind of consists mostly of people with ASD that speak for people that cannot speak or communicate well themselves. And I don't know if this is good or not. Considering that the problems of the people with the most severe cases will always be different from those who have careers, have PhDs, have a family and have a stable live vs those who cannot work, cannot sustain themselves and will always need the help of others to get through live. I don't know how much a say activism should have on how science is done, to a certain degree it's good that people with direct experience have a say in how the science is done, but on another level, the pressure to conform to the activists will add counterproductive elements that lead to less specificity, less accuracy and less overall contrast of the diagnostic criteria. I would not be surprised the the ASD diagnosis would be split up in differening subdiagnosis in the future.
"Instead of defining deviancy down, psychology has ubiquitized it up." The pathologization of normal. Haslam, N. (2016). Concept creep: Psychology's expanding concepts of harm and pathology. Psychological Inquiry, 27(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1082418
I cannot find a scientific connection between inflammation and autism or schizophrenia or common psychiatric conditions. The claim of causality of vaccines and autism is not supported. There is another problem with making such claims: Childhood vaccination is less frequent than pre-pandemic rates, especially in poor and conflict area countries, but everywhere else to a degree. The influence of anti-vax disinformation is probably a big factor in this. In case you still are afraid of mRNA vaccines, we are talking about refusal (“hesitancy” is the waffle word) of generations-established safe and effective vaccines. Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus, Polio, Measles, Meningitis...all are killers and cripplers. Unvaccinated kids who are infected go to school or church and pass it on to uninfected unvaccinated children and we have a disease outbreak. Can you distinguish bad science from malicious intent or religious fanaticism? I can't. Medical disinformation is destructive to communities and can even be used politically to destabilize populations by making them sicker. Mr. Kennedy may be about to take his position in a bully pulpit where his lack of knowledge will be invisible to literally billions of people who will grant him a cloak of authority where he has none. A supposedly well-intentioned person can still create destruction by influencing other people with bad advice.
To suggest that vaccines cannot cause autism is to ignore and dismiss the thousands of parents who have witnessed their normally developing child regress to a nonverbal state within days of receiving a vaccine, usually preceded by a vaccine-induced fever, clearly demonstrating the autoimmune nature of this process. I am a Child Psychiatrist, practicing for over 15 years, and I have seen this time and time again. Many academics tout fancy statistics claiming that this can't be possible, while any sober statistician should know that proving something can't happen is far more difficult than proving something can happen. Claiming vaccines can't possibly cause autism is a slap in the face to parents who have witnessed this in their own child.
Having lived through the second half of last century and the time that we are discussing about this topic and having practiced clinical general pediatrics from 1983 to 2019, gives me exposure to this issue, Autism. It is way beyond expansion of the definition and quite obvious that the number of people with the condition has skirocketed in an alarming way. I have been skeptic of the cause and always believed that it is multi factorial, genetic, infectious, ambiental, autoimmune? But discarding vaccines just as simple as that, is not correct and makes me suspicious of this article. It would be very hard to prove it one way or the other because you would need two matched populations of children, one group vaccinated and the other unvaccinated within the same population, to my knowledge, there is not such study. Having said that and with the modern days post COVID vaccination and the side effects that have been suspiciously associated with, makes me wonder even more of the strange association of vaccines and side effects. I have lived long enough to see the tremendous benefits of the vaccines and by no means believe that their benefit, in the majority of vaccines, outweighs their risk of administration, but with the large number of our children being diagnosed of the ASD at the present time, red flags are justified. Stopping giving immunizations in the past has promptly brought back the feared illnesses that they prevent, measles and pertussis are recent obvious examples, so stop giving the current vaccines would be an immense mistake and should be avoided. Unbiased studies are certainly in order. But the red flags are justified.
How about a potentially plausible explanation I've heard of a societal change that has occurred in the last 20-30 years: cell phone use? Men walking around all day with their cell phone strapped to their hip, irradiating their gonads. I know it's uncertain whether cell phones emit enough energy to cause genetic damage to sperm, but since some cases of autism are genetic it's a theory that could deserve attention. Certainly may be disproved, but if there were to be a potential associationfound between the explosion in cell phone use and some cases of autism, I wonder how many people crying out that children shouldn't receive vaccines because of a (disproven) autism link would be willing to give up their cell phone?
Thank you for this article. As someone who has an autistic child and ADHD herself, I’ve had medical professionals say this to me during appointments. My first psychiatrist said “everyone has ADHD these days” and then rolled his eyes, followed by my psychologist beginning the assessment process straight away after the first ten minutes of my appointment with him. It’s dangerous language to use and completely invalidating.
Hold on hold on. Why don’t you comment please on the prevalence of SEVERE autism, which definition has not changed during the time period you mentioned? Of course, if the definition has broadened, then we are not looking at apples to apples. But the definition of severe autism has not brought so you could make that comparison. What is the change in prevalence of severe autism? Thank you very much.
"The diagnosis rate (...) is now closer to 300 per 10,000 based on the most recent statistic."
So according to this, 3% of the population is autistic. ie. over 10 million people in the US would have a diagnosis of autism. That is more than then every citizen in NYC, more than the entire population of Michigan. I mean, when does broadening a diagnostic category becomes meaningless and counterproductive?
The rate of 3% doesn't mean 3% of the popn has Autism.
It means 3% are on the 'spectrum' which includes people that would have been classified as Non Verbal Learning Disability, socially awkward etc in the previous diagnostic epoch.
Having said that, my personal opinion is that people use a cookbook & 'Google' approach to diagnosing themselves & other "on the spectrum" ie there is a lack of specificity.
From someone who knows both this condition and its pathogenesis and manifestations well, you are both correct and incorrect in your assessment.
Part of the apparent rise in autism is indeed an expansion of diagnostic criteria and their recognition.
But that doesn’t nullify the need to recognize environmental causes when they’re considered, including vaccines.
The autoimmune diseases that are being recognized within the context of SARs-CoV2 vaccines, and the known rare occurrences of Guillan-Barre disease with Influenza vaccines are no fluke. Your dismissal of vaccines as a causative factor in the neurodevelopmental alterations in affected individuals is more a reflection of bias than it is of epidemiological fact.
It is a provably true finding from a range of research, as I show. The myth that autism is in any way related to vaccines is largely based on the collation of low-quality research and fraud.
yea, No.
There's also less smoking. Maybe more smoking would reduce rates of autism?
Individuals who cite the studies refuting the hypothesis that “vaccines cause autism”, in my opinion, neglect the anecdotes.
Large epidemiological population studies don’t looks for gene-environment intersections. They only look for environmental encumbrances.
The events that culminate in neuro inflammation (and its expression as a disease syndrome that can be characterized on the ASD spectrum) are rare precisely because the circumstances that lead to them require thresholds that can only be vetted by basic science modeling, and not epidemiology.
Autism due to vaccines, if real, should not be so rare that population-based data of millions of children cannot statistically detect it. (e.g.—https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2101, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2275444). If 'basic science modeling' is the only way, then cases must be far rarer than the known harms of going unvaccinated. The expansion of the autism definition potentially explains the entire 'epidemic'. It is therefore incumbent upon challengers to find human data to support any me-too claim of causation hidden within the diagnostic expansion. I am interested, have searched, and remain open. But basic science modeling will not, and should not, convince serious and dispassionate truthseekers of an autism-vaccine link.
Repeated studies have shown NO clear link to vaccines causing autism unlike the rare GB syndrome with some flu vaccines in few people. These are not comparable in this instance at all.
Guillan Barre has validated biomarkers, unlike autism. The heterogeneity of “autism” without biophysical measurable biomarkers precludes the assessment of this diverse spectrum disorder in terms of neuro inflammation and neuro immune effects that culminate in the behavioral manifestation (s) of the syndrome.
In effect, the studies conducted have measured the wrong outcome measures, have inappropriately collated disparate individuals on the basis of a syndromic behavioral disorder, and have generalized vaccines in promoting conclusions which are not scientific.
Pick the specific studies that inform you of your conclusion, and let’s have an online debate about whether their results and conclusions are valid.
The failure to ignore evidential reality as opposed to modelling is the real danger. Much more physical research is required. Let us not forget the dangers posed by processed food, fluoridated water, pharmaceutical drugs side effects and of course the majority of those people with vested monetary interests from certain companies to promote the dangers associated and close down any counter argument or scientific theories not fitting the agenda.
I am not disagreeing with you. I am disagreeing with the prevailing “conclusion” that “vaccines don’t cause autism”.
As someone who knows both this condition and its pathogenesis and manifestations well, you are incorrect in attributing causation of ASD/Autism to vaccines - this has been scientifically disproven unless you are on the fringes & deal in junk science & conspiracy theories.
Anecdotes are no evidence of scientific proof
I am unwilling to wage a battle with you on this issue until data is allowed to be collected on alternative hypotheses and scientific rationales, as provided above.
You can carry on with the proposed guidelines, and I will continue to question their validity.
In terms of what’s fringe and what’s right, time will tell.
Maybe we are saying the same thing and maybe we’re not.
Basic science modeling allows one to introduce new environmental variables into the experimental mix while the environmental exposures are constantly evolving.
Vaccines are only one aspect of these variables, and if you don’t have a firm grasp on incidence, it’s much harder to attribute changes in prevalence to a specific factor or combination of factors.
But such decisions for vaccines, as well as hormonal modulators in food supplies should be a choice, not a forced mandate.
This is a truly bizarre word salad. I'm not sure what your point is, all I can say is that any decent understanding of objective reality shows no evidence whatsoever linking vaccines to autism and a great deal proving that there is no causal connection.
Have you examined any papers on the links with aluminium adjuvant? Be interesting to read your thoughts.
I will be succinct
Your analyses on both the quality of the data collected, and the interpretations of that data are flawed.
By the way, I appreciate your link to the MMR debate.
I have heard both sides of the story, including Wakefields personally.
Nevertheless, given a relative weighing of risk:benefits, I don’t feel the same way about mass vaccination for Varicella or HepB. I think those should be limited to at risk populations.
All points taken, seems we’re getting somewhere, thank you for that. My sense is you have a philosophical/ethical concern about vaccines. Different issue than mine. I’m invested in useful inferences from reliable data. Modeling could point us in a direction, but the direction strikes me as fruitless until or unless some large study somewhere has found even a hint of a link in human data. None has. On mandates, tricky business, above my pay grade, but you and I may be quite close. Thanks again.
What does your profile description of “fallen from grace” mean?
Just curious as I was cast out as well- but will create my own paradise.
Would need to see your data. With a clear and enormous expansion in definitions, recognition, and diagnoses (extending far beyond any underlying pathology that could have been covered by the original term) the onus is now on others to show us their data. Please do, I’m genuinely interested. I’ve been unconvinced by RFKs books and the occasionally claims of others. - Thanks
The data is anecdotal precisely because its collection or testing is obstructed by both government and Pharma And the data that is published gets canceled by the same entities.
Anecdotes that are not connected by a unifying theme are not disinformation or even misinformation, they are unstudied and unreconciled phenomena.
Points taken. But to be clear, you are agreeing there are undisputed data showing definitional changes have exponentially increased the 'incidence' of autism. Your concern (shared by many, including me) about possible additional environmental causes remains unsupported—not impossible, unsupported. IMHO, it is also a big stretch to claim the subject is unstudied and unreconciled. There are multiple large, population-based studies finding autism to be equally prevalent among unvaccinated and vaccinated groups. That is borderline dispositive. These are imperfect studies, but I'm unaware of better studies finding a link. That link is what I am seeking, and I'm open to it. But after decades of claims, books, documentaries, theories, and rumors, where are the data? Every large study refutes it, no large study supports it.
Which one?
Broadening of the syndromic concepts of the diagnostic criteria does not actually lead to better understanding of autism. It leads to broadening the concept creating a pool of previously differing more concrete and specific syndromes which undoubtedly does not lead to more understanding. It leads to more people getting help, but as a scientific concept I doubt that it helps much. Concept creep is the norm in the DSM and no test in the history has become more accurate and more sensitive by broadening the scope over and over, adding more and more. I am on the autistic spectrum and I am satisfied with what help it has brought me. But I also read the literature surrounding the diagnostic usefulness in science and I do not get the sense that the concept creep of the diagnostic criteria has lead to anything resolving around a better understanding. Considering how previously different diagnosis are now one, it means that the diagnosis consists of many possible subcategories, which does not help with identifying correlations, as it leads to many new confounding, mediating and or moderating variables. I don't think it would be cogent to state that the new DSM diagnosis leads to better understanding as it has lead to only less clear contrast between differing problems.
And it also has lead to a movement that kind of consists mostly of people with ASD that speak for people that cannot speak or communicate well themselves. And I don't know if this is good or not. Considering that the problems of the people with the most severe cases will always be different from those who have careers, have PhDs, have a family and have a stable live vs those who cannot work, cannot sustain themselves and will always need the help of others to get through live. I don't know how much a say activism should have on how science is done, to a certain degree it's good that people with direct experience have a say in how the science is done, but on another level, the pressure to conform to the activists will add counterproductive elements that lead to less specificity, less accuracy and less overall contrast of the diagnostic criteria. I would not be surprised the the ASD diagnosis would be split up in differening subdiagnosis in the future.
"Instead of defining deviancy down, psychology has ubiquitized it up." The pathologization of normal. Haslam, N. (2016). Concept creep: Psychology's expanding concepts of harm and pathology. Psychological Inquiry, 27(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1082418
I cannot find a scientific connection between inflammation and autism or schizophrenia or common psychiatric conditions. The claim of causality of vaccines and autism is not supported. There is another problem with making such claims: Childhood vaccination is less frequent than pre-pandemic rates, especially in poor and conflict area countries, but everywhere else to a degree. The influence of anti-vax disinformation is probably a big factor in this. In case you still are afraid of mRNA vaccines, we are talking about refusal (“hesitancy” is the waffle word) of generations-established safe and effective vaccines. Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus, Polio, Measles, Meningitis...all are killers and cripplers. Unvaccinated kids who are infected go to school or church and pass it on to uninfected unvaccinated children and we have a disease outbreak. Can you distinguish bad science from malicious intent or religious fanaticism? I can't. Medical disinformation is destructive to communities and can even be used politically to destabilize populations by making them sicker. Mr. Kennedy may be about to take his position in a bully pulpit where his lack of knowledge will be invisible to literally billions of people who will grant him a cloak of authority where he has none. A supposedly well-intentioned person can still create destruction by influencing other people with bad advice.
To suggest that vaccines cannot cause autism is to ignore and dismiss the thousands of parents who have witnessed their normally developing child regress to a nonverbal state within days of receiving a vaccine, usually preceded by a vaccine-induced fever, clearly demonstrating the autoimmune nature of this process. I am a Child Psychiatrist, practicing for over 15 years, and I have seen this time and time again. Many academics tout fancy statistics claiming that this can't be possible, while any sober statistician should know that proving something can't happen is far more difficult than proving something can happen. Claiming vaccines can't possibly cause autism is a slap in the face to parents who have witnessed this in their own child.
Having lived through the second half of last century and the time that we are discussing about this topic and having practiced clinical general pediatrics from 1983 to 2019, gives me exposure to this issue, Autism. It is way beyond expansion of the definition and quite obvious that the number of people with the condition has skirocketed in an alarming way. I have been skeptic of the cause and always believed that it is multi factorial, genetic, infectious, ambiental, autoimmune? But discarding vaccines just as simple as that, is not correct and makes me suspicious of this article. It would be very hard to prove it one way or the other because you would need two matched populations of children, one group vaccinated and the other unvaccinated within the same population, to my knowledge, there is not such study. Having said that and with the modern days post COVID vaccination and the side effects that have been suspiciously associated with, makes me wonder even more of the strange association of vaccines and side effects. I have lived long enough to see the tremendous benefits of the vaccines and by no means believe that their benefit, in the majority of vaccines, outweighs their risk of administration, but with the large number of our children being diagnosed of the ASD at the present time, red flags are justified. Stopping giving immunizations in the past has promptly brought back the feared illnesses that they prevent, measles and pertussis are recent obvious examples, so stop giving the current vaccines would be an immense mistake and should be avoided. Unbiased studies are certainly in order. But the red flags are justified.
How about a potentially plausible explanation I've heard of a societal change that has occurred in the last 20-30 years: cell phone use? Men walking around all day with their cell phone strapped to their hip, irradiating their gonads. I know it's uncertain whether cell phones emit enough energy to cause genetic damage to sperm, but since some cases of autism are genetic it's a theory that could deserve attention. Certainly may be disproved, but if there were to be a potential associationfound between the explosion in cell phone use and some cases of autism, I wonder how many people crying out that children shouldn't receive vaccines because of a (disproven) autism link would be willing to give up their cell phone?
Thank you for this article. As someone who has an autistic child and ADHD herself, I’ve had medical professionals say this to me during appointments. My first psychiatrist said “everyone has ADHD these days” and then rolled his eyes, followed by my psychologist beginning the assessment process straight away after the first ten minutes of my appointment with him. It’s dangerous language to use and completely invalidating.
Hold on hold on. Why don’t you comment please on the prevalence of SEVERE autism, which definition has not changed during the time period you mentioned? Of course, if the definition has broadened, then we are not looking at apples to apples. But the definition of severe autism has not brought so you could make that comparison. What is the change in prevalence of severe autism? Thank you very much.
"The diagnosis rate (...) is now closer to 300 per 10,000 based on the most recent statistic."
So according to this, 3% of the population is autistic. ie. over 10 million people in the US would have a diagnosis of autism. That is more than then every citizen in NYC, more than the entire population of Michigan. I mean, when does broadening a diagnostic category becomes meaningless and counterproductive?
The rate of 3% doesn't mean 3% of the popn has Autism.
It means 3% are on the 'spectrum' which includes people that would have been classified as Non Verbal Learning Disability, socially awkward etc in the previous diagnostic epoch.
Having said that, my personal opinion is that people use a cookbook & 'Google' approach to diagnosing themselves & other "on the spectrum" ie there is a lack of specificity.
What’s the optimal prevalence for a category to be useful?