Autism Article

thebigshot

Good article on Autism.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2005/04/18/the_age_of_autism_the_amish_anomaly/9566/

Do the Amish have their children vaccinated, I guess not, judging by the low autism rates.

Jimoslimos

Well given the high amount of inbreeding amongst closed communities such as the Amish I can imagine they have more than their fair share of other abnormalities.

Anyway if your suggesting that this in some way 'proves' that vaccinations are responsible for autism i'd say your very much mistaken. The article states that some Amish use doctors but even so I can't imagine that 'behavioural' difficulties would be a valid reason amongst most of those for availing of modern medical services, i.e, if you're (physically) fit enough to work at farming, harvesting etc, then what's the point?

Fremen

Well, firstly the sample size is way too small to draw accurate conclusions. Secondly, the author is just going on hearsay. He hasn't done any work himself and is just writing the article based on what he has heard from the amish themselves.

I'm a little shocked that the article made it into the science section of UPI.

Chunky Monkey

Haven't read the article but I'm assuming this has something to with the supposed link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The Wakefield at al case that set this off had a sample size of 24. Hardly a credible experiment. Plus I think the kids were gentically predisposed to it. Not sure though have to check it out again. I'll be back with links

SomeDose

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

Haven't read the article but I'm assuming this has something to with the supposed link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The Wakefield at al case that set this off had a sample size of 24. Hardly a credible experiment...

Not to mention the fact that the study was financed by a firm of solicitors hired by the families of autistic children (with an axe to grind against the vaccine manufacturers). Conflict of interest, anyone?

Chunky Monkey

Okay according to this article from the student BMJ: http://student.bmj.com/issues/00/09/education/318.php he actually studied only twelve children, not twenty four. Nine had autism and 'The sample also had a strong selection bias. In eight cases the parents themselves had attributed their child's problems to MMR. Any apparent link between MMR and autism arises because the age when MMR is first given (12-15 months) coincides with the age when autism is first recognised.'

Haven't come across anything saying it is herditary, sorry not sure why I thought that.

Few more links:
http://www.healthwatch-uk.org/mmr.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/mmr_autism_factsheet.htm

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/noMMR.html

DrIndy

i agree - we have dissected this topic already - i don't fancy doing the same all over again.

2Scoops

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

Haven't read the article but...

Reading it only takes a minute or two. No actual mention of vaccines anywhere - it's all implied. Sneaky!

Fremen wrote:

Well, firstly the sample size is way too small to draw accurate conclusions.

There is no sample! This is an investigation in the journalistic sense only.

I agree with Jimoslimos - the Amish have plenty of health-related problems due to their unusual lifestyle. Even more relevant is the high infant mortality they have in these settlements. But even if they found a lower prevalence of autism in this population, it would be all but impossible to attribute it to a specific environmental (or genetic) factor. It could have lead to some nice hypothesis-generating data though... if it was conducted in an appropriate manner i.e. not by journalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Olmsted

sam34

cannot believe this has been published in a science section, as fremen said. hearsay, thats all it is

2Scoops

sam34 wrote: »

cannot believe this has been published in a science section, as fremen said. hearsay, thats all it is

Not to discredit the profession, but science journalism is still journalism! I would save my surprise solely for the unlikely scenario that it makes its way into an actual scientific publication.

sam34

2Scoops wrote: »

Not to discredit the profession, but science journalism is still journalism! I would save my surprise solely for the unlikely scenario that it makes its way into an actual scientific publication.

ok, yeah, i get what you mean... if it appears in JAMA i'll be first on here to express my outrage!

tallaght01

The article is obviously a crock of balls.

How do they get diagnosed if they don't use doctors anyway?

thebigshot

Well, when it comes to these types of things, I do as the big boys do, not as they say.

Remember Tony Blair did not let his children have any vaccinations.

Case closed as far as I am concerned.

tallaght01

Well, i don't know when Tony Blair last practised medicine, but every paediatrician I know (inlcuding the ones who specialise in autism-spectrum disorders) get their kids vaccinated.

thebigshot

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well, i don't know when Tony Blair last practised medicine, but every paediatrician I know (inlcuding the ones who specialise in autism-spectrum disorders) get their kids vaccinated.

Tony Blair would mingle in much more select company than the average paediatrician, he would know the real information.

Not a change of my children getting the shots. No way.

tallaght01

Well, if you think that the barristers and landowners of this world that TB hangs out with are conducting secret vaccine trials that counter the data generated by "actual science" than fair play to you lol

thebigshot

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well, if you think that the barristers and landowners of this world that TB hangs out with are conducting secret vaccine trials that counter the data generated by "actual science" than fair play to you lol

And who pays for the data generated by actual science, you've guessed it, the big boys (Tony's homies).

tallaght01

yea, and who interprets it?

NOT Tony's homies.

Anyway, my ubderstanding of the issue was that TB just never talks about his own family's medicall matters, so he just refused to say whether his kid had the vaccine, as opposed to saying his kid never had it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1803609.stm

Presumably, if Gordon Brown gets his kid vaccinated, then you'll get your done? Must be about time for his baby's first shots?

thebigshot

tallaght01 wrote: »

yea, and who interprets it?

NOT Tony's homies.

Anyway, my ubderstanding of the issue was that TB just never talks about his own family's medicall matters, so he just refused to say whether his kid had the vaccine, as opposed to saying his kid never had it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1803609.stm

Presumably, if Gordon Brown gets his kid vaccinated, then you'll get your done? Must be about time for his baby's first shots?

Interprets it, these Doctors paid to go with the flow.

Its not just the MMR, I was referring to all vaccinations.

I won't be getting my children vaccinated, no matter what everyone else is doing.

Of course the government are forcing parents to get children vaccinated in some countires.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-11-17-vaccines-school_N.htm

Fremen

thebigshot wrote: »

Tony Blair would mingle in much more select company than the average paediatrician, he would know the real information.

Not a change of my children getting the shots. No way.

I'm not sure I understand this point. Are you suggesting there's some sort of conspiracy going on?

thebigshot

Fremen wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand this point. Are you suggesting there's some sort of conspiracy going on?

It's not a conspiracy, it is well publicised.

Fremen

thebigshot wrote: »

It's not a conspiracy, it is well publicised.

What is well publicised? That Tony Blair has access to top-secret information on MMR vaccines?

tallaght01

thebigshot wrote: »

Interprets it, these Doctors paid to go with the flow.

Its not just the MMR, I was referring to all vaccinations.

I won't be getting my children vaccinated, no matter what everyone else is doing.

Of course the government are forcing parents to get children vaccinated in some countires.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-11-17-vaccines-school_N.htm

Paid to go with the flow? What flow? Who's flow? paid by whom?

We're now getting into 2 classic Bio/medicine minefields:

A) government health conspiracies...whereby, depsite a crumbling health service with a shortage of staff and beds they are trying to make people sicker.

Doctors being paid (by god knows whom) to propagate harmful information, regardless of the truth. Our ultimate aim is, of course, to harm the young and vulnerable. Naturally, it's why we went to medical school.

Jimoslimos

thebigshot wrote: »

Tony Blair would mingle in much more select company than the average paediatrician, he would know the real information.

Yeah, George W Bush :rolleyes:

2Scoops

thebigshot wrote: »

Remember Tony Blair did not let his children have any vaccinations. Case closed as far as I am concerned.

For the record, that has never been confirmed. Of course, you are free to make those decisions on behalf of your child, just don't kid yourself that your reasons are supported by data.

Back under your bridge now, please. :pac:

Chunky Monkey

thebigshot wrote: »

Well, when it comes to these types of things, I do as the big boys do, not as they say.

Remember Tony Blair did not let his children have any vaccinations.

Case closed as far as I am concerned.

Whether Blair is a doctor or not, he's not a man to be trusted.

thebigshot wrote: »

Interprets it, these Doctors paid to go with the flow.

Its not just the MMR, I was referring to all vaccinations.

I won't be getting my children vaccinated, no matter what everyone else is doing.

Of course the government are forcing parents to get children vaccinated in some countires.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-11-17-vaccines-school_N.htm

You're not getting them vaccinated at all?? As a parent which would worry you more- not being loved by your children or to have them suffer from pneumonia, hearing loss, encephalitis, joint pain, skin diseases, paralysis etc? (I'm not just talking about MMR)

Of course governments are encouraging people to get their children vaccinated. Apart from the suffering children could go through, these are highly contagious diseases that would put an enormous strain on the health service if allowed to go unchecked. Anyway, looking at the sample sizes between the experiment that allegedly proved a link between MMR and autism and the several experiments that disproved that, makes it a bit of a misnomer.

beeno67

thebigshot wrote: »

Well, when it comes to these types of things, I do as the big boys do, not as they say.

Remember Tony Blair did not let his children have any vaccinations.

Case closed as far as I am concerned.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant but Tony Blair's children were vaccinated. When this rumour started Blair said

"The suggestion that the Government is advising parents to have the MMR jab while we are deliberately refraining from giving our child the treatment because we know it is dangerous is offensive beyond belief," he said.
"For the record, Cherie and I both entirely support the advice, as we have consistently said. It is not true that we believe the MMR vaccine to be dangerous or believe that it is better to have separate injections, as has been maliciously suggested in the press, or believe that it is linked to autism."

thebigshot

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

You're not getting them vaccinated at all?? As a parent which would worry you more- not being loved by your children or to have them suffer from pneumonia, hearing loss, encephalitis, joint pain, skin diseases, paralysis etc? (I'm not just talking about MMR)

.

Vaccinations have not led to the decrease of these diseases. These diseases were in freefall long before widespread vaccinations were introduced in the 1950/60s. Do the research.

Redpunto

thebigshot wrote: »

Tony Blair would mingle in much more select company than the average paediatrician, he would know the real information.

Not a change of my children getting the shots. No way.

Measles can kill....

Fremen

thebigshot wrote: »

Vaccinations have not led to the decrease of these diseases. These diseases were in freefall long before widespread vaccinations were introduced in the 1950/60s. Do the research.

So you're saying vaccines are ineffective in preventing the spread of disease? Troll much?

Chunky Monkey

thebigshot wrote: »

Vaccinations have not led to the decrease of these diseases. These diseases were in freefall long before widespread vaccinations were introduced in the 1950/60s. Do the research.

Why were they in freefall before? You could provide links instead of snide remarks...

clarkey2008

Fremen wrote: »

So you're saying vaccines are ineffective in preventing the spread of disease? Troll much?

http://www.whale.to/v/cantwell.html

Vaccinations are made to reduce the population.

tallaght01

clarkey2008 wrote: »

http://www.whale.to/v/cantwell.html

Vaccinations are made to reduce the population.

The author of that article has a strong case, as evidenced by the fact that his reference list is pretty much all newspaper articles or books! He only references one scientific article on simian viruses that really doesn't prove any of the points he makes.

But why don't we just ignore all the data on the effectiveness of vaccines.

Bison

clarkey2008 wrote: »

http://www.whale.to/v/cantwell.html

Vaccinations are made to reduce the population.

Written by someone who also wrote a book on AIDS being a man made disease...


Can we make a Medical Conspiracy sub-forum to give all these troll posts a home?

clarkey2008

Bison wrote: »

Written by someone who also wrote a book on AIDS being a man made disease...


Can we make a Medical Conspiracy sub-forum to give all these troll posts a home?

Can anyone explain why in an age of apparently the best 'medical treatment' the number of people suffering from cancer and autism has gone through the roof?

Bison

clarkey2008 wrote: »

Can anyone explain why in an age of apparently the best 'medical treatment' the number of people suffering from cancer and autism has gone through the roof?

Your question clearly implies that there are other factors, no doubt sinister, behind cancer and autism figures.
Why don't you explain to us what they are and supply appropriate references to back up your theory?

Fremen

clarkey2008 wrote: »

Can anyone explain why in an age of apparently the best 'medical treatment' the number of people suffering from cancer and autism has gone through the roof?

Couldn't comment about Autism, I honestly don't know much about it. Given that we can cure a huge number of previously terminal diseases with antibiotics, or prevent them with vaccination, it makes perfect sense that the number of cancer deaths should rise.

People have to die from something, and we have no cure for cancer. Whereas in the past, someone might have dropped dead from, say, pneumonia, we can now cure that person (or immunise them), so they end up living longer. Then cancer hits and we get one extra cancer death in place of a pneumonia death.

I would predict that if we cured cancer tomorrow, you would see a dramatic rise in deaths from heart disease.

clarkey2008

Fremen wrote: »

Couldn't comment about Autism, I honestly don't know much about it. Given that we can cure a huge number of previously terminal diseases with antibiotics, or prevent them with vaccination, it makes perfect sense that the number of cancer deaths should rise.

People have to die from something, and we have no cure for cancer. Whereas in the past, someone might have dropped dead from, say, pneumonia, we can now cure that person (or immunise them), so they end up living longer. Then cancer hits and we get one extra cancer death in place of a pneumonia death.

I would predict that if we cured cancer tomorrow, you would see a dramatic rise in deaths from heart disease.

Terrible argument you have made. What happened to a happy long life and natural death. 2/3 people now die from cancer. Children being diagnosed with autism is through the roof. Why?

You mention heart disease, why are so many coming down with this aswell?

http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism/vaccine.htm

Anyone getting a vaccination has a death wish.

Juvenile arthritis is also through the roof.

Fremen

clarkey2008 wrote: »

Terrible argument you have made. What happened to a happy long life and natural death. 2/3 people now die from cancer.

If it's a terrible argument, then feel free to refute it rather than just denouncing it. I explained in my previous post why cancer mortality rates have risen.

I'm not sure where you're getting your 2/3 death rate from. The UK statistics office suggests it's one in four
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=915

You mention heart disease, why are so many coming down with this aswell?

The exact same reason people are dying from cancer. It's one of the few diseases which we can't cure yet.

Fremen

Double post to illustrate my point:

Suppose we live in a country with 4,000,000 people. Suppose 50% of those people die of old age, 25% from cancer and 25% from smallpox.

Now, suppose we cure smallpox. What happens to the statistics? For every two people who die of old age, one person dies of cancer. We can expect the people who would have died of smallpox to be divided in the same ratio.

That way, once we have cured smallpox, 2,666,667 people will die of old age and 1,333,333 will die of cancer. By curing smallpox, we appear to have raised the cancer death rate by 33%.

SomeDose

clarkey2008 wrote: »

Terrible argument you have made. What happened to a happy long life and natural death. 2/3 people now die from cancer. Children being diagnosed with autism is through the roof. Why?

You mention heart disease, why are so many coming down with this aswell?

http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism/vaccine.htm

Anyone getting a vaccination has a death wish.

Juvenile arthritis is also through the roof.

With all due respect, if you can't figure out the reason behind the increased prevalence of CHD / CVD in Western society (or believe it's somehow related to vaccinations) then it's difficult to take your other arguments seriously.

clarkey2008

Fremen wrote: »

I

I'm not sure where you're getting your 2/3 death rate from. The UK statistics office suggests it's one in four




.

1/4 is still a massive increase compared to 1/1000 50years ago.

Why the increase?

Susannahmia

thebigshot wrote: »

Tony Blair would mingle in much more select company than the average paediatrician, he would know the real information.

Not a change of my children getting the shots. No way.

Tony Blair knows no more than we do:rolleyes:. I have an aunt and uncle that are autistic and they didn't get the MMR. Its genetic. There is a mumps scare in NUI Maynooth at the moment and I tell you anyone that hasn't had their injection is is regretting it and clambering for one now. Mumps are very scary as they can cause infertility. My mother would have had a fair few questions to answer if I had contracted it mid exams.

Fremen

clarkey2008 wrote: »

1/4 is still a massive increase compared to 1/1000 50years ago.

Why the increase?

Where are you getting 1/1,000 from? You've already proven you're using unreliable statistics. Let's see your source.

clarkey2008

Susannahmia wrote: »

Tony Blair knows no more than we do:rolleyes:. I have an aunt and uncle that are autistic and they didn't get the MMR. Its genetic.

What planet are you living on? You think Tony Blair works of the same levels of information we are fed?? Catch yourself on.

As for you aunt and uncle getting autism, without getting MMR, you can be sure they have had other vaccinations.

Fremen

No source, huh?

charlieroot

clarkey2008 wrote: »

What happened to a happy long life and natural death.

What exactly do you consider a "natural death" one without colourings and preservatives? I suppose next you're going to tell me life expectancy has been falling ever since the first few books of the bible?

clarkey2008

Fremen wrote: »

No source, huh?

The 1/1000 was a stat quoted to me by a GP friend.

tallaght01

clarkey2008 wrote: »

The 1/1000 was a stat quoted to me by a GP friend.

Well, ask them for their source.

It may well be true, who knows. But as someone said above, you should be able to work out why cancer and heart disease are a bigger problem nowadays then they used to be.

That fact in itself doesn't mean vaccines cause autism!!

Fremen

clarkey2008 wrote: »

The 1/1000 was a stat quoted to me by a GP friend.

Right, well I actually went and found some figures.

Sources:
-Facts and Figures, 1998. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, 1998.

-Rates for 1950-54 are from NCI Survival Report 5 with the exception of All Sites, Oral cavity & Pharynx, Colon & Rectum, Non-Hodgkin's lymphomas and Childhood cancers which come from historical Connecticut data. Rates for 1992-98 are from the SEER Program with the exception of the sites just listed which come from the Connecticut registry of the SEER Program.






Age change from 1950

0-4 -76.9
5-14 -61.5
15-24 -46.7
25-34 -48.3
35-44 -41.1
45-54 -24.9
55-64 -2.9
65-74 17.8
75-84 14.9
85+ 24.1
All Ages 3.8


These figures suggest cancer death rates are way down from 1950 for people under age 65, and up 3% in total. A bit more conservative than the 100,000% increase which you claimed.

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2002/SEER-Cancer1950-99.htm
figures taken from here.

Chunky Monkey

From what I understand (though don't quote me on this I could be wrong) it isn't that there are simply more people with autism now, there are just more diagnosed cases. Autism ranges in severity and those with milder forms may have been dubbed a 'weirdo' or somesuch in the past rather than being seen as someone who has autism.

When you say people 'suffering' from cancer do you mean people diagnosed or people dying from it? As someone said above, it's another one of those diseases that aren't fully understood.