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.
Have you seen the documentary Vaxxed? It’s about a whistleblower reporting the fraud in cdc research claiming no relation between MMR vaccine and autism? You can find it under the whistleblower and part of the research team Dr. William Thompson. Thanks for checking it out.
Maxine Mercury autism definitively disapproved by the things I mentioned in my long post.
When you slam these people with us then they'll start babbling about aluminum which is equally dumb.
They have never heard of spurious correlations. They don't understand that a negative correlation can disprove but a positive correlation is not proof.
Since autism incidents continue to climb rapidly when Mercury was removed it is more likely that Mercury had a protective effect then a causative effect. Not that I believe It is protective. But it is more likely to be protective than it is to be causative.
Most of them don't even understand what they read. At the same time they ignore the existing research that shows the correlation to parental age and parental age gap. They ignore the genetic markers should have been to identified while each is very small at maybe 1% cumulative leaders and significant. This is also diluted by the effect that as you point out autism is not one thing it's really a collection of things so it would be weird to expect a genetic cause from only one or two genes. If autism is broken down in the specific diseases than the genetic link becomes stronger. I suspect more markers have been found by now.
There's also research on gut biome
They also don't understand one of the most basic caveats about correlations aside from correlation is not causality
If one has a trend more or less straight up anything else that has a trend more or less up will correlate well.
So autism incidents correlates with all kinds of things number of personal computers, numbers of cell phones, numbers of smartphones, percentage of brake pads that are ceramic,
Rap music sales, ll sorts of new chemicals or plastics that are introduced, vaping, reemergence of brown liquor, tyvek
What we found from arguing with these people who generally behave like flat earthers
Is the ones that are not USA enemy Astroturfers...
have austic children and are looking to absolve their guilt for ignoring warnings about parental age and parental age gap. They are also looking for a payday. There is no payday from genetic cause. And there is no better payor than large drug companies.
If one thinks about it and have some knowledge it turns out the scam is very very obvious
I’ll add another element to this issue. As a longevity researcher and heavy on whole food eating, there’s the issue that eating processed food has contributed to brain deterioration and autistic tendencies. I even have 1 doctor who is claiming confidently that eating habits has contributed to autism. Any research or fact based on this issue? Just wondering…
That’s right, researching to find the truth or getting more information on my topic of ask. Being a researcher is constantly questioning the hypothesis. Nothing wrong with adding more evidence or assurance.
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.
AI tools regurgitate the same information. It’s my understanding, based on published IoM considerations, that the studies required have never been undertaken.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually vaccine help to PREVENT autism, by reducing the risk of fever and infection in pregnancy, known causes of autism, deafness, microcephaly and sterility.
"The dangers posed by fluoridated water"? Outside of John Birch Society tracts and a certain pork-tapeworm-damged yet influential scion of wealth, do you have any evidence of this?
Vaccines have been studied extensively in very powerful meta-analyses and no link was found, meaning rate of autism is the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. But it's hard to convince someone who's got their mind made up that their two data points (vaccines and autism dx) are in fact correlated temporally but not causally.
There are well over 1000 genes for autism spectrum, yet people insist on looking elsewhere for causes, which in itself isn't unreasonable. What IS unreasonable is they keep blaming things that have already been thoroughly debunked.
Anything that stimulates immune activity can trigger autoimmune reactions in those who are prone. That means some autoimmune-prone patients can have reactions to vaccines, but at MUCH lower rates than even a simple rhinovirus infection, and more serious viruses like influenza and COVID-19 will cause orders of magnitude greater reactions (both in incidence and in severity). Just look at the rate of myocarditis post-COVID vaccine versus the much higher rates and severity after actual COVID infections (22-31 mild cases/million doses vs 210 mod-severe cases per million COVID infections).
Your own post indicates that given an at risk cohort, environmental factors can trigger neuro inflammation and neuro autoimmune responses.
Given the spectrum of ASD, I believe it is you who’s being unreasonably aggressive about your statement that ASDs are not triggered or promoted by environmental factors, including vaccines.
Sorry if I sound aggressive, but it's truly aggravating to see people continue to run the real risk of death from totally preventable diseases because they're afraid of some nebulous theoretical unproven side effects of vaccines. It's a public health epidemic, meaning as immunization rates fall, death rates will rise as a result of the refusal to believe the science.
Not every vaccine is potentially life-saving, but most are. Not every vaccine preventable diseases has as high mortality rates as Ebola, but in a population of millions, a 0.01% mortality rate like measles can kill 4-500 a year, like measles did in the US. Even "mild" diseases like chickenpox killed 2-300 children a year, and influenza kills about 200-800 a year. As a pediatrician and a parent, it is infuriating to hear people talk about a few hundred child deaths as "not worth the risk" of vaccinating. Ask the parents of those few hundred a year if they thought their child's life wasn't worth saving. Preventing these deaths depends on herd immunity to prevent epidemics. As population immunity rates fall, we see previously nearly eradicated disease returning, like measles.
Not all do but most do. Maybe not imminent viral death but death nonetheless. Also morbidity such as hospitalization, debilitation, suffering should be taken into account as well. How often does Varicella kill? There are more reasons to vaccinate than JUST to prevent death.
I'm suspicious of environmental factors such as chemicals, plastics, and even supplements. But it would be more productive to research new leads that haven't been debunked instead of "researching" low-quality uncontrolled anecdotes while rejecting the high-powered controlled studies already showing no causal link to vaccines.
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.
You don't believe in mass Hep B vaccination? Only vaccinate at-risk populations? So, all of Africa and Asia? What about moms giving birth in a non-endemic locales with no prenatal care? What about foreign moms giving birth in Asia or Africa? Where do you draw the line? Do you know what will happen if we stop vaccinating for Hep B outside of Asia and Africa? Hep B morbidity and mortality will rise. If it's not bad now, how bad is bad enough?
Use your full name Danny L so that I can address you properly.
And yes, I believe that we should be markedly more targeted in our approach to Hep B vaccinations.
Provide the incidence and prevalence of HepB in the sub populations you’re concerned about and perhaps, I will reconsider. Also look into what fraction of hepatitis B infections are associated with immunity, as opposed to how many progress to liver failure or cirrhosis
Would rather not use my whole name. Debate can be had without doxxing individuals. I notice you putting the burden of proof on everyone but yourself. It is easy to stand back and criticize everything. Why do I have to present to you Hep B epidemiology data when you can easily look it up yourself? Why do I have to provide you studies disapproving a link between vaccines/autism meeting only your specific parameters? Flip it around and maybe you can show me data proving your points? Regarding Hep B, I can humor you. Hep B has a 6-8% prevalence rate in Africa and Asian. 200-500k die a year. Prevalence has been cut in half since the introduction of the vaccine but it is nowhere near eradicated. You can be a carrier and pass it a long. I do not have Hep B, but my wife is a carrier, my mom is a carrier, my dad was treated for full blown Hep B, my wife's mom is a carrier. All of my children needed Hep B vaccine and HBIG. We live in America and I was born here. Our family friend had full blown Hep B and liver failure, nearly died.
My stance would be everyone who’s not at environmental or occupational risk for HepB.
For Varicella, children who are immunocompromised are at highest risk for systemic infections, but it’s an off the cuff answer that would need more at- risk profiling that can be done by existing literature review.
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.
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.
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.
1. Many people who had severe autism in the past were diagnosed with "developmental delay". It's very hard to go back in time and assess which of them had autism, and which had something else.
2. Severity of autism symptoms changes over time, so again it's very hard to compare like with like.
I disagree. Autism, however it has been defined, virtually did not exist 60 years ago. Further, I have yet to see a vaccine apologist produce a single instance of an autistic child who has been 100% vaccine free. Apparently, they don’t exist, even under the dumbed-down standards of what defines autism.
Those who seek to avoid vaccines and the drug dealers pushing them do so for very sound reasons. The manifest tsunami of fraud from the “experts” who brought us “safe and effective” has awakened a multitude.
Yes they do - search for "Amish and autism" using Perplexity or Google Scholar.
It existed but it was called other things, like "developmental delay" or "being odd". Google "historical people with autism". Lewis Carrol was one of them.
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.
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.
It's not the problem that it changes. The problem lies in its scope. The broader it becomes the less useful it becomes. It's already a bucket of many previously distinct categories and the movement that forced this has become an equal bucket of sometimes conflicting interests, it's a broad category with many different severities in it. With many different characteristics, it's less and less contrasting, it's less and less accurate and becomes more and more sensitive to false positives. Changes are good when they are beneficial, and are not a problem when changes have little impact. But changes in this case can do harm to the usefulness of the diagnostic criteria. There have been so many scientific critiques of the DSM, partly because of the severe never ending concept creep. Change should happen when it makes the diagnostic criteria better, more accurate and so on. And more useful. Not more encroaching and less contrasting.
Absolutely. Problematic is the fact that one can now get an “autism spectrum” diagnosis with zero objective criteria met. I have a friend who, in her 40’s, decided she thought she had ADHD, and went to a primary care physician. Said physician prescribed ADHD medication with zero referral to a psychiatrist. After a while, said friend started experiencing side effects of the ADHD medication which were uncomfortable, so she went back to the primary care provider, and was told “The ADHD treatments have unmasked your social autism.” “Social” because said friend is outgoing, personable, and has zero problem with communication. Her symptom that brought her to her doctor was, merely, “increasing feelings of discouragement.” (This is listed as a potential side effect of her drug in the literature) So, subjective report to a primary care provider of ADHD-like symptoms, coupled with feelings of discouragement triggered by pharmaceutical treatment, were enough to get a “formal” diagnosis of ASD. (Albeit by a physician who is not technically qualified to provide such diagnosis) She will now qualify for accommodations at her place of employment, which she can request for any subjective feelings she has. I hope I’m not alone in finding this to be problematic. The expansion of diagnostic criteria is not a good thing if there are no objective tests required to receive a diagnosis. Is ASD over-diagnosed? I also have another friend who has a son who, as a small child, experienced many symptoms similar to ASD. After a lot of trial and error, they discovered that he had heavy metal toxicity. They went through treatment to detox the heavy metals from his system, and the ASD-like symptoms went away. They now claim to have “cured” his ASD with alternative treatments. But I would say he never had ASD to begin with. He had something else causing ASD-like symptoms, the underlying condition was treated, and the symptoms went away. Again, over-diagnosis of ASD?
My volunteerism leads me to school-age children every week. The idea that autism has not grown over the last 50 years tells me the investigators were not looking at the same kids I do.
Let's start with this statistical premise: there is no such thing as a study that proves vaccines do not cause autism. Has not been done. At least I'm not aware of the study and the author provides no citation. Rather - some observational studies have failed to show that vaccines cause autism.
But did I miss something in the above article. I saw only a single "Australian" study that found no significant increase in autism. All others cited seemed indicate quite the opposite - potentially significant increases in autism rates.
"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 don’t believe you. Read Aaron Siri’s substack today. And then show me all these magical studies that prove vaccines have nothing to do with autism in susceptible children. Or explain Hannah Poling and the other 80 injured kids who were awarded damaged when their autism was proven to be caused by shots. Mind you it isn’t all children and it’s complicated, but the aluminum and other ingredients can and do cause autism in some people.
Dr. Wm. Thompson at the CDC has admitted to the connection based upon data seen following their studies. Why was he ordered to destroy this research if there wasn’t a connection and why hasn’t the CDC shown or conducted a follow up? Because they already have the proof.
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?
as an autistic person myself and someone who doesnt allow doctors to define me and put me in a box that needs to be fixed, i do not understand the point of rationality when discussing this topic. Why is it important how it is perceived or named? more important would be to accept that this trait is bringing something new to the world and by supporting it other people may gain a different and deeper perspective on life's beauty. Any logical understanding of it seems useless to me.
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.
Have you seen the documentary Vaxxed? It’s about a whistleblower reporting the fraud in cdc research claiming no relation between MMR vaccine and autism? You can find it under the whistleblower and part of the research team Dr. William Thompson. Thanks for checking it out.
Maxine Mercury autism definitively disapproved by the things I mentioned in my long post.
When you slam these people with us then they'll start babbling about aluminum which is equally dumb.
They have never heard of spurious correlations. They don't understand that a negative correlation can disprove but a positive correlation is not proof.
Since autism incidents continue to climb rapidly when Mercury was removed it is more likely that Mercury had a protective effect then a causative effect. Not that I believe It is protective. But it is more likely to be protective than it is to be causative.
Most of them don't even understand what they read. At the same time they ignore the existing research that shows the correlation to parental age and parental age gap. They ignore the genetic markers should have been to identified while each is very small at maybe 1% cumulative leaders and significant. This is also diluted by the effect that as you point out autism is not one thing it's really a collection of things so it would be weird to expect a genetic cause from only one or two genes. If autism is broken down in the specific diseases than the genetic link becomes stronger. I suspect more markers have been found by now.
There's also research on gut biome
They also don't understand one of the most basic caveats about correlations aside from correlation is not causality
If one has a trend more or less straight up anything else that has a trend more or less up will correlate well.
So autism incidents correlates with all kinds of things number of personal computers, numbers of cell phones, numbers of smartphones, percentage of brake pads that are ceramic,
Rap music sales, ll sorts of new chemicals or plastics that are introduced, vaping, reemergence of brown liquor, tyvek
What we found from arguing with these people who generally behave like flat earthers
Is the ones that are not USA enemy Astroturfers...
have austic children and are looking to absolve their guilt for ignoring warnings about parental age and parental age gap. They are also looking for a payday. There is no payday from genetic cause. And there is no better payor than large drug companies.
If one thinks about it and have some knowledge it turns out the scam is very very obvious
Vaccine Mercury Autism
I have been referring to Jasmine Crockett as Maxine Waters 2.0 so the phone was correcting vaxine to Maxine
I’ll add another element to this issue. As a longevity researcher and heavy on whole food eating, there’s the issue that eating processed food has contributed to brain deterioration and autistic tendencies. I even have 1 doctor who is claiming confidently that eating habits has contributed to autism. Any research or fact based on this issue? Just wondering…
Let me understand this, you claim to be a researcher but you're asking if there's any research on it ?
That’s right, researching to find the truth or getting more information on my topic of ask. Being a researcher is constantly questioning the hypothesis. Nothing wrong with adding more evidence or assurance.
yea, No.
Actually yeah. Show us a study that links vaccines to autism.
There's also less smoking. Maybe more smoking would reduce rates of 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.
"Allowed to be collected"? I can point you to local populations with high incidence of vaccine refusal. There's your study group. Go collect date.
hmmmmmmm.
A lot of data was indeed collected on this, and reviewed very thoroughly. Just search using Perplexity or Google Scholar.
AI tools regurgitate the same information. It’s my understanding, based on published IoM considerations, that the studies required have never been undertaken.
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.
Yes and is equal nonsense.
Vax Autism Scammers start with Mercury and fall back to Aluminum.
While simultaneously ignoring latest research and known risk factors
Generally these people are from one or both groups of
Scammers looking for a big Payday from Big Pharma (no payday if acknowledge Genetic and other causal factors).
Parents of autists who wish to absolve their guilt for ignoring known risk factors like parental age and parental age gap
I will be succinct
Your analyses on both the quality of the data collected, and the interpretations of that data are flawed.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Actually vaccine help to PREVENT autism, by reducing the risk of fever and infection in pregnancy, known causes of autism, deafness, microcephaly and sterility.
True. But unrelated to my arguments.
Not all vaccines have that potential.
"The dangers posed by fluoridated water"? Outside of John Birch Society tracts and a certain pork-tapeworm-damged yet influential scion of wealth, do you have any evidence of this?
Vaccines have been studied extensively in very powerful meta-analyses and no link was found, meaning rate of autism is the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. But it's hard to convince someone who's got their mind made up that their two data points (vaccines and autism dx) are in fact correlated temporally but not causally.
There are well over 1000 genes for autism spectrum, yet people insist on looking elsewhere for causes, which in itself isn't unreasonable. What IS unreasonable is they keep blaming things that have already been thoroughly debunked.
Anything that stimulates immune activity can trigger autoimmune reactions in those who are prone. That means some autoimmune-prone patients can have reactions to vaccines, but at MUCH lower rates than even a simple rhinovirus infection, and more serious viruses like influenza and COVID-19 will cause orders of magnitude greater reactions (both in incidence and in severity). Just look at the rate of myocarditis post-COVID vaccine versus the much higher rates and severity after actual COVID infections (22-31 mild cases/million doses vs 210 mod-severe cases per million COVID infections).
Your own post indicates that given an at risk cohort, environmental factors can trigger neuro inflammation and neuro autoimmune responses.
Given the spectrum of ASD, I believe it is you who’s being unreasonably aggressive about your statement that ASDs are not triggered or promoted by environmental factors, including vaccines.
Sorry if I sound aggressive, but it's truly aggravating to see people continue to run the real risk of death from totally preventable diseases because they're afraid of some nebulous theoretical unproven side effects of vaccines. It's a public health epidemic, meaning as immunization rates fall, death rates will rise as a result of the refusal to believe the science.
Not all vaccines prevent imminent viral death. It’s feeding into medical hysteria
Not every vaccine is potentially life-saving, but most are. Not every vaccine preventable diseases has as high mortality rates as Ebola, but in a population of millions, a 0.01% mortality rate like measles can kill 4-500 a year, like measles did in the US. Even "mild" diseases like chickenpox killed 2-300 children a year, and influenza kills about 200-800 a year. As a pediatrician and a parent, it is infuriating to hear people talk about a few hundred child deaths as "not worth the risk" of vaccinating. Ask the parents of those few hundred a year if they thought their child's life wasn't worth saving. Preventing these deaths depends on herd immunity to prevent epidemics. As population immunity rates fall, we see previously nearly eradicated disease returning, like measles.
Not all do but most do. Maybe not imminent viral death but death nonetheless. Also morbidity such as hospitalization, debilitation, suffering should be taken into account as well. How often does Varicella kill? There are more reasons to vaccinate than JUST to prevent death.
Mr L
Read and get back to me that that we are to debate, I would like to learn something new from your perspective.
No, some prevent slow viral death, like hepatocellular carcinoma.
I'm suspicious of environmental factors such as chemicals, plastics, and even supplements. But it would be more productive to research new leads that haven't been debunked instead of "researching" low-quality uncontrolled anecdotes while rejecting the high-powered controlled studies already showing no causal link to vaccines.
Vaccines for at risk populations are valid. If whole Populations are at risk, then broad public vaccination strategies are appropriate.
I am not in favor of wholesale mass vaccination strategies that are deployed for Varicella or HepB.
And again, you discount the long term morbidity induced in sub populations of children by mass vaccinations.
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.
You don't believe in mass Hep B vaccination? Only vaccinate at-risk populations? So, all of Africa and Asia? What about moms giving birth in a non-endemic locales with no prenatal care? What about foreign moms giving birth in Asia or Africa? Where do you draw the line? Do you know what will happen if we stop vaccinating for Hep B outside of Asia and Africa? Hep B morbidity and mortality will rise. If it's not bad now, how bad is bad enough?
Use your full name Danny L so that I can address you properly.
And yes, I believe that we should be markedly more targeted in our approach to Hep B vaccinations.
Provide the incidence and prevalence of HepB in the sub populations you’re concerned about and perhaps, I will reconsider. Also look into what fraction of hepatitis B infections are associated with immunity, as opposed to how many progress to liver failure or cirrhosis
Would rather not use my whole name. Debate can be had without doxxing individuals. I notice you putting the burden of proof on everyone but yourself. It is easy to stand back and criticize everything. Why do I have to present to you Hep B epidemiology data when you can easily look it up yourself? Why do I have to provide you studies disapproving a link between vaccines/autism meeting only your specific parameters? Flip it around and maybe you can show me data proving your points? Regarding Hep B, I can humor you. Hep B has a 6-8% prevalence rate in Africa and Asian. 200-500k die a year. Prevalence has been cut in half since the introduction of the vaccine but it is nowhere near eradicated. You can be a carrier and pass it a long. I do not have Hep B, but my wife is a carrier, my mom is a carrier, my dad was treated for full blown Hep B, my wife's mom is a carrier. All of my children needed Hep B vaccine and HBIG. We live in America and I was born here. Our family friend had full blown Hep B and liver failure, nearly died.
Who would you deny Hep B and varicella to?
My stance would be everyone who’s not at environmental or occupational risk for HepB.
For Varicella, children who are immunocompromised are at highest risk for systemic infections, but it’s an off the cuff answer that would need more at- risk profiling that can be done by existing literature review.
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.
The study that was done on vaccines and autism was proven to be completely made up.
? Which study
Which one?
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.
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.
1. Many people who had severe autism in the past were diagnosed with "developmental delay". It's very hard to go back in time and assess which of them had autism, and which had something else.
2. Severity of autism symptoms changes over time, so again it's very hard to compare like with like.
I disagree. Autism, however it has been defined, virtually did not exist 60 years ago. Further, I have yet to see a vaccine apologist produce a single instance of an autistic child who has been 100% vaccine free. Apparently, they don’t exist, even under the dumbed-down standards of what defines autism.
Those who seek to avoid vaccines and the drug dealers pushing them do so for very sound reasons. The manifest tsunami of fraud from the “experts” who brought us “safe and effective” has awakened a multitude.
Yes they do - search for "Amish and autism" using Perplexity or Google Scholar.
It existed but it was called other things, like "developmental delay" or "being odd". Google "historical people with autism". Lewis Carrol was one of them.
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.
Yes there are studies like that - search "Amish and autism" or "unvaccinated and autism" using Perplexity.
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.
It would be surprising if definitions or criteria didn't change over time.
It's not the problem that it changes. The problem lies in its scope. The broader it becomes the less useful it becomes. It's already a bucket of many previously distinct categories and the movement that forced this has become an equal bucket of sometimes conflicting interests, it's a broad category with many different severities in it. With many different characteristics, it's less and less contrasting, it's less and less accurate and becomes more and more sensitive to false positives. Changes are good when they are beneficial, and are not a problem when changes have little impact. But changes in this case can do harm to the usefulness of the diagnostic criteria. There have been so many scientific critiques of the DSM, partly because of the severe never ending concept creep. Change should happen when it makes the diagnostic criteria better, more accurate and so on. And more useful. Not more encroaching and less contrasting.
Absolutely. Problematic is the fact that one can now get an “autism spectrum” diagnosis with zero objective criteria met. I have a friend who, in her 40’s, decided she thought she had ADHD, and went to a primary care physician. Said physician prescribed ADHD medication with zero referral to a psychiatrist. After a while, said friend started experiencing side effects of the ADHD medication which were uncomfortable, so she went back to the primary care provider, and was told “The ADHD treatments have unmasked your social autism.” “Social” because said friend is outgoing, personable, and has zero problem with communication. Her symptom that brought her to her doctor was, merely, “increasing feelings of discouragement.” (This is listed as a potential side effect of her drug in the literature) So, subjective report to a primary care provider of ADHD-like symptoms, coupled with feelings of discouragement triggered by pharmaceutical treatment, were enough to get a “formal” diagnosis of ASD. (Albeit by a physician who is not technically qualified to provide such diagnosis) She will now qualify for accommodations at her place of employment, which she can request for any subjective feelings she has. I hope I’m not alone in finding this to be problematic. The expansion of diagnostic criteria is not a good thing if there are no objective tests required to receive a diagnosis. Is ASD over-diagnosed? I also have another friend who has a son who, as a small child, experienced many symptoms similar to ASD. After a lot of trial and error, they discovered that he had heavy metal toxicity. They went through treatment to detox the heavy metals from his system, and the ASD-like symptoms went away. They now claim to have “cured” his ASD with alternative treatments. But I would say he never had ASD to begin with. He had something else causing ASD-like symptoms, the underlying condition was treated, and the symptoms went away. Again, over-diagnosis of ASD?
Do you think brain biopsies should be done? Obviously not - sometimes signs and symptoms and medical history have to be used.
My volunteerism leads me to school-age children every week. The idea that autism has not grown over the last 50 years tells me the investigators were not looking at the same kids I do.
Let's start with this statistical premise: there is no such thing as a study that proves vaccines do not cause autism. Has not been done. At least I'm not aware of the study and the author provides no citation. Rather - some observational studies have failed to show that vaccines cause autism.
But did I miss something in the above article. I saw only a single "Australian" study that found no significant increase in autism. All others cited seemed indicate quite the opposite - potentially significant increases in autism rates.
"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 don’t believe you. Read Aaron Siri’s substack today. And then show me all these magical studies that prove vaccines have nothing to do with autism in susceptible children. Or explain Hannah Poling and the other 80 injured kids who were awarded damaged when their autism was proven to be caused by shots. Mind you it isn’t all children and it’s complicated, but the aluminum and other ingredients can and do cause autism in some people.
Dr. Wm. Thompson at the CDC has admitted to the connection based upon data seen following their studies. Why was he ordered to destroy this research if there wasn’t a connection and why hasn’t the CDC shown or conducted a follow up? Because they already have the proof.
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?
as an autistic person myself and someone who doesnt allow doctors to define me and put me in a box that needs to be fixed, i do not understand the point of rationality when discussing this topic. Why is it important how it is perceived or named? more important would be to accept that this trait is bringing something new to the world and by supporting it other people may gain a different and deeper perspective on life's beauty. Any logical understanding of it seems useless to me.
Has anyone been looking at the iodine deficiency ? I have been researching iodine deficiency and see a lot of connections to autism.
I think ADHD is neurodevelopmental also - though stress/anxiety resulting from non diagnosis could turn it into a mental health issue.