Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Autism Medicine Science

Children with autism are less likely to be fully vaccinated. Thanks, antivaxers!

One of the central myths of the antivaccine movement is that vaccines cause autism. Consequently, researchers looked at vaccination rates in children with autism spectrum disorder and their younger siblings and found both groups were significantly less likely to be fully vaccinated. Thanks, antivaxers.

In the world of clinical trials (and medicine in general) children are considered a vulnerable class of patients. That’s why the Common Rule and the federal government’s rules for human subjects research classify children as a vulnerable class for whom protections in clinical trials and other human subjects research must be more stringent.

Of course, if children are considered a vulnerable class of patient, then children with disabilities or neurodevelopmental disorders are an even more vulnerable class of patients. For example, autistic children are definitely vulnerable. That’s one reason why “autism biomed” quackery irritates me so much. Thanks to such quackery, vulnerable autistic children are routinely subjected to dangerous quackery like chelation therapy, chemical castration, and even bleach enemas. All of these quack interventions come from the antivaccine movement, who view vaccines as the cause of autism. Their fervent, undying belief that vaccines cause autism is the basis of many of these quack “autism biomed” treatments. It’s also a basis of another harm inflicted on autistic children by their antivaccine parents.

From a CNN story:

Children with autism spectrum disorder are significantly less likely to be fully vaccinated than children unaffected by autism, new research finds. And the same is true of their younger sisters and brothers.

“This study is showing that children with autism and their younger siblings might be at greater risk of vaccine-preventable diseases,” said Ousseny Zerbo, lead author of the study and a postdoctoral fellow with the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research.

The study was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

This study seeks to answer a very simple question that you and I know the most likely answer to: After receiving an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis, do children obtain all of their remaining scheduled vaccines, and are the younger siblings of these children vaccinated according to vaccine recommendations?

Yes, you and I know the anser to both of these questions: No and no. It’s fairly obvious to anyone who pays a lot of attention to the antivaccine movement. Parents of autistic children have a disturbing propensity to become antivaccine, and, as a result, they don’t vaccinate after that diagnosis. That applies to both their autistic children and to any subsequent children they have. But, to you and me, most likely this conclusion is due to just our personal observations, which of course can be influenced by confirmation bias.

The authors of this study note that there is evidence for this impression:

Despite numerous scientific studies reporting no association between childhood vaccination and ASD, there remain concerns about such a connection for some of the public.16 In recent years, rates of undervaccination and vaccine refusal have been on the rise in the United States and have been associated with vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks. Rates of undervaccination among the subpopulation of children with ASD have not been fully investigated. A survey conducted among 98 parents of children with ASD and 65 parents of children without ASD in Canada found that a lower proportion of children with ASD received their measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) or diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis and inactivated poliovirus (DTaP-IPV) vaccines compared with children without ASD.25 Because the first dose of MMR and the first 3 doses of DTaP-IPV are recommended before the age when ASD can be reliably diagnosed (which is at least 2 years), it was not clear from that study if the lower observed vaccination rates among the children with ASD were a consequence of the child’s ASD diagnosis. In a recent letter to the editor, Glickman and colleagues reported no significant difference between rates of vaccination of 71 children with ASD and those of 135 children without ASD. However, they found that families with children with ASD were less likely to vaccinate subsequent children. Other studies also found that parents of children with ASD were more likely to either delay or refuse vaccination for their younger children. In a survey of 197 parents, Bazzano and colleagues found that half of the parents of children with ASD changed vaccination practices for their younger children because of beliefs that vaccines contributed to their child’s ASD. After surveying 486 parents of children with ASD, Rosenberg and colleagues30 found that almost 20% of parents declined or delayed MMR immunization in the younger siblings of children with ASD. Previous studies were limited by small samples, lack of comparable control groups, or restriction to specific vaccines.

Hence this study.

The design of the study was a retrospective matched cohort study using data from six integrated health care delivery systems across the United States within the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). Participants were children born between January 1, 1995, and September 30, 2010, and their younger siblings born between January 1, 1997, and September 30, 2014. The end of follow-up was September 30, 2015. The VSD is a database that I’ve written about before. Basically, it’s an active surveillance system run by the CDC in which prospectively collected data are collected and examined for evidence of complications or adverse reactions due to vaccines. The study itself compared vaccination rates between a matched cohort of 3,729 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 592,907 children without ASD.

Vaccine status was determined thusly:

To assess the vaccination patterns of children after receiving an ASD diagnosis, we only included children who were at least 7 years old as of September 30, 2015, and in whom ASD was diagnosed at 5 years or younger. We limited this assessment to vaccines routinely recommended between ages 4 and 6 years and ages 11 and 12 years. For the comparison of vaccination patterns of younger siblings of children with ASD and younger siblings of children without ASD, we included children (siblings) who were at least 1 year old as of September 30, 2015, and assessed vaccines routinely recommended by the ACIP at ages 1 to 11 months (vaccine doses given at birth were not assessed), 1 to 2 years, 4 to 6 years, and 11 to 12 years. Children who received all of their vaccine doses within the ACIP-recommended age limits were considered fully vaccinated. For example, we considered a child who received at least 1 dose of DTaP, at least 1 dose of MMR, at least 1 dose of IPV, and at least 1 dose of varicella vaccine between ages 4 and 7 years as fully vaccinated for vaccines recommended at ages 4 to 6 years (Table 1) regardless of vaccination history before age 4 years. We required that children be health plan members during the periods the vaccines were recommended (eg, to assess vaccination status at ages 1-2 years, we required that the children be health plan members between ages 1 and 2 years). For the younger siblings, we assessed vaccination status regardless of ASD diagnosis. Vaccine refusal was identified using ICD-9-CM codes V64.05 and V64.06.

The results:

The proportion of children who received all recommended vaccine doses (Table 1) between ages 4 and 6 years was lower in children with ASD compared with children without ASD (81.6% [2331 of 2855] vs 94.1% [455,435 of 483,961], respectively) (Table 2). The proportion receiving each individual vaccine was also lower among children with ASD compared with children without ASD. For MMR vaccine, 84.0% (2397 of 2855) of those aged 4 to 6 years with ASD were vaccinated compared with 95.9% (464,245 of 483,961) of those without ASD. After adjusting for maternal age at the time of the child’s birth and race/ethnicity (which were both associated with ASD in our bivariate analyses) and the matching variables (month and year of birth, sex, and site), children with ASD were significantly less likely to be fully vaccinated (adjusted RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85-0.88) compared with children without ASD. Adjusted RRs were also significant for each individual vaccine.

Or, to put it more simply, children with ASD were 13% less likely to be fully vaccinated. That might not sound like a lot on the surface, but it’s definitely potentially significant. Even worse, parents of children diagnosed with ASD are less likely to vaccinate and more likely to delay vaccines or fail to vaccinate—or refuse vaccines altogether. Here’s a graph telling the tale. It describes “Parental Vaccine Refusal of Any Vaccine Dose for Younger Siblings by Age Category and by Child Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Status of Older Siblings”:

Rates of vaccine refusal
Rates of vaccine refusal

As you can see, younger siblings of children with ASD are roughly three times more likely to have had their parents refuse one or more vaccines in the 4-6 year old category, but, as the authors point out, each age category of vaccination before age ten years. They also noted that the highest rates of undervaccination:

Undervaccination in siblings of children with ASD
Undervaccination in siblings of children with ASD

In a news report of the study, its first author, Ousseny Zerbo, noted:

“I was not expecting to see this big of a difference,” says Zerbo of the results. “From this study, having lower rates of vaccination among children with autism and their siblings suggests that they might have higher risk of vaccine-preventable diseases.”

To be honest, I was rather surprised that the difference wasn’t even bigger, but maybe that’s because I spend a lot more time dealing with the antivaccine movement. In that, I’m with Dr. Andrew Adesman, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Cohen Children’s Medical Center of New York:

“It is concerning that children with autism spectrum disorder and their younger siblings were under-vaccinated compared to the general population, since the key to preventing various childhood infectious diseases is to make sure as many children as possible are fully vaccinated,” Adesman said.

In fact, Adesman said he was “a bit surprised the differences were not even greater, especially given that this study was conducted in California, where under-vaccination had been a significant problem until the state recently changed its laws requiring vaccine exemptions.”

However, “since all of the data for this study was collected in California prior to when the new laws went into effect — July 1, 2016 — it is likely that the under-vaccination rates that these researchers found have dramatically improved, and may even have disappeared,” Adesman added.

It will indeed be interesting to update the study with data after 2016 to see whether this difference in vaccine uptake among children with ASD and their younger siblings. We already know that the law referred to above, SB 277, which eliminates non-medical so-called “personal belief exemptions” to school vaccine mandates, has already started to work to increase vaccine uptake rates.

I also can’t help but conclude with a little snark. Antivaxers frequently argue for a “vaccinated vs. unvaccinated” study, comparing health outcomes between these two groups of children. Some go so far as to demand a highly unethical randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the current vaccine schedule. Others grudgingly accept that such a trial would be unethical because it would leave the control group vulnerable to vaccine-preventable disease and propose an epidemiological study, blithely ignoring just how large and expensive such a study would have to be to be adequately powered to detect differences in ASD prevalence in the two groups. Not that this has stopped antivaxers from trying to do “studies” of their own, ranging from the risibly bad to the just dubious.

In reality, real studies of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children inevitably show either no difference in health outcomes of interest to antivaxers associated with vaccination or even that vaccinated children tend to be healthier. Some studies show that the benefits of vaccines go beyond the disease vaccinated against. MMR, for instance, protects against more than just measles. More amusingly, however, and more specifically addressing the study I’m discussing today, if a “vaxed/unvaxed” study were done looking at whether vaccinated children were more likely to be diagnosed with autism it is conceivable that the lower rate of vaccination in autistic children could produce a result suggesting that vaccination protects against autism! Sure, good controls and careful design should prevent such an outcome, but antivaxers should be careful what they ask for.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

103 replies on “Children with autism are less likely to be fully vaccinated. Thanks, antivaxers!”

I’m also surprised that the difference is morning bigger. Indeed, as bad as this is – and it’s certainly a wrong against these families – one takeaway is that antivaccine efforts to convince autism families they should blame vaccines have limited success, with most parents continuing to vaccinate.

It’s still concerning, harmful and wrong against those that are misled into not vaccinating, but it also further reinforces that the influence of antivaccine activists is limited.

Enough to be a risk, though, given the rates needed for herd immunity for some diseases.

I was rather surprised that the difference wasn’t even bigger,

I was a bit too, but we are looking at a rather select population here. All the children were members of Kaiser Permanente .

I don’t know how this works but my understanding Kaiser Permanente is a deluxe health plan compared to many others in the USA. There just may be much more exposure to medical personnel and more emphasis on vaccinations than in other settings.

Is not the vaccination rate of 94.1% higher than one would expect in the general California population?

They look higher than what we seem to get in Canada where there is no monetary cost to the patient/parents. See Table 1 @ https://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/170628/t001a-eng.htm.
The figures are two or three years out of date.

ACA compliant health plans pay for vaccines. Most insurance companies pay as well, because vaccines are as cost effective as medicine gets. In addition, many drug stores offer vaccines (and a fair amount of other drugs) at a very low price as a loss leader. So the barriers to vaccination are more social (no visits to the doctor; no drugstore nearby) than financial.

Is there not the dreaded co-pay associated with this or am I misunderstanding the way most US insurance coverage works?

I was a bit too, but we are looking at a rather select population here. All the children were members of Kaiser Permanente .

Same here but as you pointed out, the study subjects had to be enrolled in KP. It would be interesting to see how many anti-vaxx families are not enrolled in KP. The authors’ criteria for vaccinated is very low so it’s also possible if not probable that children binned in fully vaccinated groups are over-estimated.

Uh, maybe Kaiser’s different nowadays, but when I was on it it was hardly a “deluxe” plan; they’re big proponents of letting your body heal itself in lieu of actually doing something. It took a loong time for my mom’s RA to be diagnosed, and her care improved significantly when she became eligible for Medicare. When I grew up and got on my work’s health insurance I could scarcely believe how much quicker it was to see doctors and be prescribed treatments.

That said, Kaiser is very good at “preventive medicine,” realizing no doubt that it’s cheaper in the long run; I have little difficulty believing that they encourage vaccination.

The authors refer to a letter from Glickman et al which was from 2017 to NEJM based on SoCal data showing that sibs of children with autism are less vaccinated as well (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1708223#t=article), with a good summary of it on KPBS (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/sep/14/san-diego-study-california-kids-autistic-older-sib/) . I’m glad the Glickman research was followed up with this newer research.

I remember Bob Sears in 2014 doing a live TACA seminar where he explicitly stated that if you have an autistic child, you should not vaccinate that children or any of their sibs. He’s also stated this in his ridiculous “Autism Book”.

Gee, thanks, Dr. Bob for helping bring back disease outbreaks to California and the rest of the US.

Unfortunately, the activists at AoA/ TMR endorse this :younger siblings are held up as examples of improved medical care as they are unvaccinated and fed various healthier diets ( non- gluten, non-casein, non- soy, organic, non-GMO etc). In fact, Jameson has even produced a mini-me activist in her oldest child who proselytises through her high school class assignments promoting health freedom from vaccines. From what I can discern from their writing and taped Autism One events, TMR’s younger children are not vaccinated and described as being “saved” by their mothers’ “research” and “education”.

They often brag about they influence younger mothers/ pregnant women in parking lots and other places: telling their “truth”.

I’ve seen unvaccinated sibs of an older sib with autism that also has autism. And rarely will the parents vaccinate that younger child with autism even though clearly vaccines had NOTHING to do with the unvaccinated younger child’s autism. The stupid, it runs deep nowadays.

I’ve seen cases where they explained it was the parents’ vaccines that caused it and, as Science Mom said, vaccinating the kids would make it worse.

( non- gluten, non-casein, non- soy, organic, non-GMO etc)
What’s left to eat? Dandelion leaves and freshly killed venison?

I don’t know but both Gary Null and TMR have cookbooks for sale or in the works.

I’m not joking.

Let me see, dandelion is alright but venison is so meat – not for vegans ( but for cats with IBD as a novel protein?)
so: dandelion with lemon rind and apple cider vinegar on a bed of kale chips au jus (jus de kale of course) and
freshly cut carrots with brown rice; dessert is cacao non-flour brownies a la mode-i.e. non-soy, non-ice cream.

Kim Rossi produces non-gluten baked goods ( see @ kimrossi1111) which are umm.. special.

No, you should use the roots of the dandelion to brew tea!

It couldn’t be worse than chicory coffee. Chicory is just domesticated dandelion.

Unfortunately, the activists at AoA/ TMR endorse this :younger siblings are held up as examples of improved medical care as they are unvaccinated and fed various healthier diets

Yah. Worked for Kim, right?

Gee, looka’ those narrow/tight CIs. It’s almost as if there was ample data as opposed to the sloppy, miles wide CIs in the research the anti-vaccine cultists favour and cite.

Indeed, if I’m eyeballing those error bars correctly, the difference between the two populations is about three times the error bar. If I further assume that those error bars represent the 95% CI (as most medical papers seem to do), that makes this a six-sigma effect. You almost never see that in a medical paper. Even particle physicists, who tend to insist on five-sigma differences to call an effect real, would accept this as a genuine effect.

Indeed.
1s = Psychology/Soft sciences
2s = Medical/Biology
3s = Chemistry
5s = Particle physics (and getting 7s isn’t too uncommon)

2-sigma will fly in astronomy, broadly speaking, as well. Perhaps Eric could page Palindrom on this one.

Just saw this review article. It sounds like a good program. Did anyone get to watch it?

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/mar/28/are-you-autistic-review-a-sorely-needed-primer

The programme’s online questionnaire – the largest study of its kind – found 87,000 people out of 750,000 participants reached or passed the diagnostic cutoff for autism. If nothing else, this is well above the accepted statistic that autism affects 1% of the UK population.

KP is not particularly deluxe, but it is an HMO that runs its own hospitals and expects you to get treatment within its own network, which limits its appeal to quacks, and of course if you have coverage with KP you are not uninsured.

This paper adds to the evidence that there are serious, unaddressed problems with the OBSERVATIONAL studies of vaccine safety: healthy user bias.

Almost all vaccine safety studies are observational, and therefore warped and biased by this type of selection bias. its a known problem, but the vaccine promoters like to pretend it does not exist. Sometimes, they even try to spin it as evidence for safety per se: “Look! Poor health is associated with less vaccination! Therefore, children need more vaccines!”. This argument is scientific nonsense because the direction of causation cannot be determined from these horribly flawed observational studies.

Children with pre-existing health problems receive fewer vaccines. This effect can be driven by vaccine injury. Early-schedule vaccines (e.g. at 0, 2, 4 months) cause injury, thereby leading parents to not give the later vaccines (e.g. at 6, 12, 18 months). This produces a counter-intuitive result: vaccine-injured children receive fewer vaccines. Parents stop vaccinating when they notice the brain and immune system damage. Duh. But for some reason its still a giant mystery to the misguided, deluded researchers doing such research.

Observational studies of vaccine safety are deeply flawed. This new paper illustrates the severity of the selection bias affecting these garbage studies.

Almost all vaccine safety studies are observational, and therefore warped and biased by this type of selection bias.

There goes the whole of epidemiology. Thanks, Dan.

Obviously you do not understand epidemiology. Should they retract Ronald Ross’s Nobel Prize because you do not understand a very important tool of medical statistics? So what exactly was your last math class and in what grade? General math in 8th grade?

Point taken, they do mention his observational work with malaria. Mosquitoes, Malaria, and Man: A History of the Hostilities Since 1880 by Gordon A Harrison has a good description of his work (along with others like Camillo Golgi).

Of course, mentioning this type of work, which include the British Doctors Study on tobacco smoking, is an effort to educate Danny on the importance of epidemiology. A point that ruins his narrative.

Another point that ruins his narrative is that one cannot say a certain ingredient in vaccines causes autism when there is no real evidence that vaccines cause autism. Which is why Dan and his friends like David Foster hate epidemiological studies.

“healthy user bias”

This is hilarious coming from someone who judiciously cherry picks his favorite studies while ignoring the stuff that he does not like, nor understands.

I have still not heard what your issues are with this huge study that is recruiting at least 50,000 families:
https://sparkforautism.org/discover/

By the way: it is definitely not a twin study.

Yes, healthy user bias: http://vaccinepapers.org/healthy-user-bias-why-most-vaccine-safety-studies-are-wrong/

HUB explains why so much of the alleged vaccine safety evidence is complete garbage with totally wrong results.

“while ignoring the stuff that he does not like, nor understands.”

Nonsense. Citation needed. What studies do I “not like”. I have carefully analyzed and debunked the BEST citations you guys have. And the response I get is insults, snark and personal attacks. You guys cannot handle a debate.

Its proven now that autism and other types of brain damage are caused by neuroinflammation during early brain development. Vaccines and Al adjuvant specifically cause this neuroinflammation.

Do you have any evidence that Al adjuvant is safe? YOU DO NOT. And neither does Orac, who has refused for years now to defend the safety of Al adjuvant with actual science.

So the vaccines-are-safe bullshit story rolls on.

Danny Boy: “I have carefully analyzed and debunked the BEST citations you guys have.”

And your expertise and education are…? Well that seems to be missing.

So explain again why there is an issue with this gigantic genetic study. Do it here. I have already told you I am not going to click on your silly cherry picked website.

“Its proven now that autism and other types of brain damage are caused by neuroinflammation during early brain development.”

Oh, really? Post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researcher not on the Dwoskin payroll.

I pretty much think you are bringing all the bias. Here is an explanation of the real research:

Nonsense. Citation needed. What studies do I “not like”. I have carefully analyzed and debunked the BEST citations you guys have. And the response I get is insults, snark and personal attacks. You guys cannot handle a debate.

Vaccine-Papers, you are clearly a smart person. But consider this. Using your working model of vaccine research, you read the Shaw-Tomljenovic paper on mouse studies and gene expression, you pronounced it to be good, and you presented it to the readers here and elsewhere as the Smoking Gun that proved the toxic nature of AlOH adjuvants. Meanwhile other people, using their working models of vaccine research, skimmed the same paper and spotted straightaway that it was completely fraudulent. And to your credit, you thought about it, and re-read the study, and agreed that it was not a smoking gun after all.

I submit this as an empirical test: your Bayesian priors led you into a grotesque mistake.

Its proven now that autism and other types of brain damage are caused by neuroinflammation during early brain development. Vaccines and Al adjuvant specifically cause this neuroinflammation.

What brain damage? Have you looked into that to prove autism is a result of brain damage?

Alain

Sorry in advance, that my English is not so good.

I recently encountered anti vaccine people on a forum. They said on HUB as an explanation for the equal rates of autism between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, because children with autistic siblings tend to avoid vaccine, and they are high risk. Doesn’t this mean there is some genetic issue on autism? But they also said it is proved that autism is not caused by genetics. I’m confusing. I really appreciate if someone here kindly explain me what is wrong.

They also mentioned a paper by Chinese researchers (iirc Li et al.) on mice dosed HBV and MMR, as a proof that aluminum adjuvant in vaccine causes autism, but I cannot understand the points of the paper. Is here any blog entry talking on the paper? I’ll try to read back entries, but if anyone let me know, it is very helpful.

This is the paper they brought up as a proof that aluminum adjuvant causes autism.

Neonatal vaccination with bacillus Calmette-Guérin and hepatitis B vaccines modulates hippocampal synaptic plasticity in rats.
Q Li, F Qi, J Yang, L Zhang, H Gu, J Zou, Q Yuan and Z Yao
Journal of neuroimmunology, Nov 2015 15

I looked it, but they said nothing on aluminum adjuvant except for the description that HBV contains aluminum adjuvant. How can they conclud aluminum adjuvant caused autistic mice in this paper?

Sorry for posting multi-times.

I have no background of epidemiology, biochemistry, neurobiology, etc, more than high school level. So, plain explanation will be really appreciated.

This is the paper they brought up as a proof that aluminum adjuvant causes autism.

BCG vaccine contains no adjuvants. Seems that your informants were lying to you.

First you have to ask: how do you determine if a rodent is autistic?

Especially since there have been several genetic sequences in humans are known causes of over half of the autism spectrum. That is research that provides much better knowledge, especially on real treatments:
https://sparkforautism.org/discover/

They are even finding common characteristics among the gene variants:
https://sparkforautism.org/discover_article/categorizing-autism-based-on-genes/

BCG vaccine contains no adjuvants.

Based on the paper, it does appear to be dandy for the hippocampus, though.

Hello Guest. I will try to respond to your comments as best I can.

But they also said it is proved that autism is not caused by genetics.

Whoever told you that was at best ill-informed and at worst lying. Twin studies (identical vs. fraternal) reveal that if one identical twin is autistic, the other is 90% likely to be autistic too.

They also mentioned a paper by Chinese researchers (iirc Li et al.) on mice dosed HBV and MMR, as a proof that aluminum adjuvant in vaccine causes autism

All I could access was the abstract. What I can tell you is that it is common for antivaxxers to post links to studies which they claim support them, only for a closer inspection to reveal that said study either doesn’t support the claim being made, or even refutes it. The study in question was done on mice. Already it’s unlikely to prove what antivaxxers say it proves.

I looked it, but they said nothing on aluminum adjuvant except for the description that HBV contains aluminum adjuvant. How can they conclud aluminum adjuvant caused autistic mice in this paper?

They can’t. As I mentioned above, they linked to a study that didn’t support their claims, hoping that you would simply accept that it did without checking. Instead, you checked, and found out they were trying to trick you.

The high heritability estimates for autism (up to 90%) are based on twin studies. But these twin studies all have a fatal flaw: they assume that gene X environment interactions do not occur in autism. But GXE interactions do occur and this erroneously inflates the heritabiloty estimate.

All the autism twin studies assume GXE does not occur, and thats why they are all wrong.

A bunch of studies now prove that GXE interactions do occur in autism.

So this is another gigantic hole in the allegedly rock solid case that autism is not caused by vaccines.

http://vaccinepapers.org/autism-not-fate-twin-studies-overestimate-genetic-contribution/

1) Citation needed that GXE Interactions occur in autism.
2) Your argument deconstructs itself. If gene x environment interactions occur in autism, then autism is ipso facto at least partially caused by genetics.

Danny Boy: “The high heritability estimates for autism (up to 90%) are based on twin studies.”

That was decades ago, and it was just a beginning. Get with the times, over half of the genetic sequences that cause autism syndrome disorders have been discovered. Several have common characteristics and there have discoveries into actual effective treatments:
https://sparkforautism.org/discover_article/categorizing-autism-based-on-genes/

Stop living in the past and keep up with the science. Stay away from anyone on the Dwoskin payroll.

” on mice dosed HBV and MMR, as a proof that aluminum adjuvant in vaccine causes autism,”

First humans are not mice. Plus no version of MMR vaccine contains adjuvants.

The immune activation models of autism are accepted as good models of human disease. This is a consensus view in the field. Immune activation models mimic known risk factors, can predict efficacy of treatments, and reproduce the behavioral and physiological features of autism.

Also, the immune activation experiments have been replicated in monkeys.

The immune activation models of autism are accepted as good models of human disease.

Citation needed.

This is a consensus view in the field.

Citation DEFINITELY needed.

Immune activation models mimic known risk factors, can predict efficacy of treatments, and reproduce the behavioral and physiological features of autism.

Citation needed.

Also, the immune activation experiments have been replicated in monkeys.

Are you talking about Laura Hewitson’s monkey study? Orac’s already deconstructed that.

“This is a consensus view in the field.”

Not really.

I actually live near a large research university that is doing lots of work on autism. Twenty five years ago my younger son was part of a study on diagnosis techniques when he was three years old.

I live within walking distance of the auditorium where that video I posted was filmed. I was actually in the audience. That Autism 200 program has a yearly round-up on news and science updates in the field. I have attended that for the last three years.

They dispute all the nonsense you are spouting… yes, there was a panel discussion that explained what was not autism science. It is up there in their video channel where they explain vaccines do not cause autism, chelation doesn’t work, etc, etc. Plus, they don’t study mice. They study real human children, and adults. They really really want to get my now adult son into one of the many studies they are doing, but unfortunately my son declined. Which is his right.

To summarize the points that seem to fly over your head:

Rodents are not human.

There is no way to tell if a rodent is autistic.

Vaccines do not cause autism.

Science advances, especially with genetic sequencing techniques.

Twin studies are old school (by the way, they are mentioned in the video I linked to… way at the beginning).

And Dan Steinberg does not understand autism nor the advances that have happened in just the last decade.

“Are you talking about Laura Hewitson’s monkey study? Orac’s already deconstructed that.”

So did Laura Hewitson and others with their latest study, where they did work with due diligence:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603476/

SafeMinds even paid for it, but they did not like the results. Funny how paying for a study does not come up with the answers you want when the researchers are honest and competent.

This is a consensus view in the field.

The Deuce you say. After all, you’re not a member of the field.

The Li 2015 study compared the impacts of BCG and HBV vaccines on brain development. BCG is a live attenuated vaccine, without adjuvant. HBV contains aluminum adjuvant.

BCG vaccine induces a Th1 type immune activation and long term Th1 polarization. HBV induces Th2 activation and polarization. Its well known that aluminum adjuvant inducesTh2.

Li found that BCG had beneficial effects on brain development and HBV had adverse effects, and they attributed these effects to the type of immune activation/plolarization.

Interestingly, human autistics have chronic Th2 polarization, which of course is consistent with the aluminum adjuvant hypothesis.

Also, Li 2015 found that HBV vaccine, but not BCG, caused elevated IL-6 levels in the brain. IL-6 in the brain causes autism. The IL-6 increase took over 4 weeks to appear in the brain. Of course, this means that vaccine safety studies with shorter follow-up will be apunable to detect this adverse effect. Full text paper and my explanatory article are on the VP website.

Its not possible to rebut my arguments unless you understand what they are. So, i am amused that you guys say i am wrong, but then are not even aware of what i am saying, or the evidence i cite.

Li found that BCG had beneficial effects on brain development and HBV had adverse effects…

In rats. And since rats can’t be diagnosed with autism, this is very weak tea.

Interestingly, human autistics have chronic Th2 polarization,

Citation needed.

which of course is consistent with the aluminum adjuvant hypothesis.

Citation needed, especially since as Chris points out above, MMR does not use aluminium salts as adjuvants.

BCG vaccine induces a Th1 type immune activation and long term Th1 polarization. HBV induces Th2 activation and polarization.

Where, precisely, is this stated in Li et al. (2015), Vapor Papers? I’m not in range of the campus network.

I see that Dan “Vaccine Papers” Steinberg has a rather leisurely approach to sticking with his hit-and-runs.

Thanks everyone for the replies.

First of all, MMR in my post should be BCG. Sorry for my bad memory.

” Its well known that aluminum adjuvant inducesTh2.”

Is this a proved fact?

“Also, Li 2015 found that HBV vaccine, but not BCG, caused elevated IL-6 levels in the brain. IL-6 in the brain causes autism. ”

My question is why they can say that it is due to the aluminum adjuvant? Is it the only ingredient not contained in BCG?

As for HUB, if genetics is not related to autism, why children with siblings having autism are considered to be high risk?

I asked them those questions, but they just told me to study or search by myself…

” Is it the only ingredient not contained in BCG?”

Or, couldn’t it possible BCG contains something that prevents IL-6 levels elevated?

I know I must be asking really elementary and maybe stupid questions, but I don’t have any background knowledge in this kind of fields.

I forgot to ask one more question.

They said injected aluminum adjuvant and ingested aluminum cannot be compared. Though, they compared inhaled aluminum dust and injected aluminum adjuvant.

The effect of inhaled aluminum dust to human body is closer to injected aluminum adjuvant than ingested aluminum?

When do they tell you that aluminum is a major part of the soil? It is in the feldspars which are the minerals that make up soil. So obviously they are “injected” every time a child falls and skins their knees in the dirt. Plus you eat aluminun when you munch on anything grown in soil, and drink it anytime you drink water that has touch the soil (like river, well, etc). It is everywhere since it is the third most common element on this planet’s crust.

We are mostly in the USA, Canada, Australia and parts of Western Europe. The BCG vaccine for tuberculosis has never been commonly used in the USA. It is not recommended for general use in Canada, Australia, the UK, and many other countries anymore:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3062527/

So really not a big concern. It is an old vaccine, and not used that often.

Autism is a collection of dozens of different syndromes. Some were called different things over the past decades and the criteria for diagnosis have changed lots in the past thirty years. There is no one cause. What there has been is lots of research on actual human people (who are not mice). With the cost of genome sequencing dropping more genetic sequences are now known to these neurological differences:
https://sparkforautism.org/portal/page/faqs/

From that page, because it seems no matter how many times I post it… the aluminati cannot figure out how to click on it to read its words:

Autism is known to have a strong genetic component, but there is no singular cause of autism, and there is still so much we don’t know. In fact, genomic research only recently began to decisively associate specific genes with the disorder.

Autism is not a single gene disorder—it is likely that hundreds of genes play a role in the causes of autism and the genetic roots interact with environmental factors that also contribute to the causes of autism.

It is also possible that future treatments will be tailored to only subsets of individuals with autism, depending on their genetics. Genetic information will advance discovery of such treatment.

By the way, those “environmental factors” are not vaccines. Especially a vaccine that has seldom ever used in the third largest country by population on this planet, the USA.

Al adjuvant is not the only difference between BCG and Hep B vaccines. But it is the only difference with evidence indicating it is responsible for the IL-6 response to the Hep B vaccine. Lots of studies show that aluminum induces IL-6.

Yes its a proven fact that Al adjuvant induces Th2. There is consensus on this.

Genetics are definitely related to autism. But I argue that genetics alone cannot cause it in the vast majority. Thie issue is gene X environment (GXE) interactions. With a GXE interaction, genetic and environmental factors interact synergistically (i.e. in a multiplicative fashion, not merely additive). For example, if a gene causes a 10% risk, and an environmental exposure causes a 15% risk (in isolation), a synergistic interaction will increase risk beyond 25%, say for example 50% or 75%. Mere additive intreraction would produce a 25% risk. There is evidence of multiplicative GXE interactions in autism, and this has enormous implications.

See this article on GXE interactions in autism: http://vaccinepapers.org/autism-not-fate-twin-studies-overestimate-genetic-contribution/

GXE interaction in autism is the reason why all the twin studies of autism are wrong in finding high heritability (up to 90%). All the twin studies must assume that GXE interactions do not exist, because without this assumption it is not possible (due to the mathematics) to calculate a heritability. The assumption is now known to be wrong, which means ALL of the twin studies overestimate heritability! Yes, every single one!

I asked them those questions, but they just told me to study or search by myself…

This is rather common when dealing with True Believeroonies.

I thought this thread might be an appropriate place for this…

If you are wondering where anti-vaxxers go to distribute their BS material these days, look no further!

Jenny McCarthy has an XM Sirius Radio show where she invites people to talk about vaccines. Recently, she had Dr Oz expressing his worries ( see Autism Investigated**), Kim Rossi ( AoA) has been a co-host and now, JB Handley appears.

I think that this is good news:
the venue is probably a lot less popular than television and I doubt that she has ratings comparable to well-known vaccine supporters like late night hosts.

** his recent posts have been quite Trump-laced.

Chris:

Responding to your comments above:

“Plus you eat aluminun when you munch on anything grown in soil, and drink it anytime you drink water that has touch the soil (like river, well, etc). It is everywhere since it is the third most common element on this planet’s crust.”

Yes, aluminum is a common, toxic metal. It cannot be assumed to be benign merely because it is common. One reason is that Al in the environment is strongly bound (e.g. in Al silicates),
and present in low concentrations in surface waters. Also, humans and perhaps all animals and plants have evolved defensive mechanisms like blocking entry of Al and eliminating it from body fluids.

In the environment its almost always present as aluminosilicates or aluminum oxide, which have extremely low absorption and low solubility.

Water-soluble Al salts (like AlCl3) have an oral absorption of about 0.3%. This low absorption must be taken into consideration when comparing exposures.

The Al in vaccines is AlOH3, AlSO4 or AlPO4, or mixtures. These compounds have low water solubility, but higher solubility than Al silicates or Al oxide. There are two components of Al adjuvant toxicity: 1) released Al3+ ions, and 2) Al adjuvant particles (which create inflammation). nanoparticles have toxic effects due to surface chemistry, particle shape and size etc.

In the debate about Al adjuvant, typically only #1 is considered. But #2 might be much more important, due to its different kinetics and ability to induce chronic inflammation. The ability of the particles to induce inflammation is what makes it work as an adjuvant!

“Autism is known to have a strong genetic component,”

Correct. However, the genetic factors may cause a vulnerability to vaccines or Al adjuvant. This would be a gene X environment interaction. The high heritability estimates for autism are based on twin studies. But ALL the twin studies are wrong because they ALL assume that GXE interactions do not occur in autism. But GXE interactions do occur. It is well known that twin studies overestimate heritability when GXE interactions occur.

Here is an article on GXE interactions in autism: http://vaccinepapers.org/autism-not-fate-twin-studies-overestimate-genetic-contribution/

“By the way, those “environmental factors” are not vaccines.”

Citation needed. There is no science supporting this statement with respect to Al-containing vaccines.

Also, humans and perhaps all animals and plants have evolved defensive mechanisms like blocking entry of Al and eliminating it from body fluids.

This should be good, assuming the Vapor Genie doesn’t run away again.

vaccine papers:

” There are two components of Al adjuvant toxicity: 1) …, 2) Al adjuvant particles (which create inflammation). ”

This is the part I want to be taught about. I was told the same thing and asked whether it is proved. They said the paper of Li et al 2015, which I posted before, proved it. Though, I cannot understand which part of the paper proved it.

hello

What exactly was claimed about the Li 2015 study?

The Li 2015 study is not a study of Al adjuvant per se. However, in view of other research findings, it is likely that the different effects pf BCG and Hep B vaccines are due to the presence of Al adjuvant in the Hep B. Al adjuvant is not present in BCG.

In view of other research findings, it is likely that the Al adjuvant in the Hep B vaccine is responsible for inducing IL-6 in the brain. Aluminum is known to induce IL-6 in the brain and many other tissues.

Li 2015 is valuable because it shows:

1) immune activation from vaccines impacts brain development. Vaccine promoters have claimed that vaccines cannot cause immune activation of sufficient intensity to impact the brain.

2) The impact on the brain is a function of the type of vaccine (BCG or Hep B), and apparently the type of immune activation they cause (Th1 or Th2).

3) Hep B vaccine induces IL-6 in the brain. This is significant because IL-6 is known to have adverse effects on brain development. The brain damage from IL-6 is indistinguishable from autism. Its going too far to claim that Li 2015 “proves” that vaccines cause autism. But it is a strong piece of evidence pointing in that direction.

4) The IL-6 took over 4 weeks to appear in the brain. This is significant because almost all vaccine safety studies have short follow-up times of a few days or weeks.

“Citation needed. There is no science supporting this statement with respect to Al-containing vaccines.”

Click on the link, I have only given it to several times. Its “Discover” page includes write ups on several studies.

I said: “By the way, those “environmental factors” are not vaccines.”

Vapor Boy responded with: “Citation needed.”

Environmental factors that are not vaccines, and I would have thought that any reasonable intelligent American adult should know:

thalidomide (ever hear of that?)

alcohol (every hear of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?)

infections during pregnancy, the most notable is rubella (ever hear of Congenital Rubella Syndrome?)

And there are many more. Here is some more reasons (this is a web link, you click on it):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/teratogens

This is also a web link. It has articles on the lots of studies about genetics, autism and even environmental factors. Click on it:
https://sparkforautism.org/discover/

chris

Please cease the name-calling and insults. Its unnecessary, mean-spirited and undermines rational debate (a core value of skeptics and science advocates). I am genuinely interested in understanding what the pro-vaccine have to say and discovering science that I have not seen.

“Click on the link, I have only given it to several times. Its “Discover” page includes write ups on several studies.”

Which link? I looked at all the links you provided and did not see any science relating to aluminum adjuvant safety or other things discussed here.

Yes its well established that infections during pregnancy (e.g. rubella) increase risk of autism and neuro/psychiatric disorders in the offspring (including schizophrenia). It is now known that the developing brain is injured by inflammation and elevated cytokines specifically. Vaccines prevent these diseases, but vaccines can also cause the inflammation.

Dr Paul Patterson was strongly opposed to vaccination during pregnancy. In 2006 he wrote:

“Finally, I want to ask a question that’s come up in the literature in the last few years—should we really be promoting universal maternal vaccination? e flu vaccine has been recommended routinely to pregnant women in the United States since 1957. e official policy of the Centers for Disease Control states that “administration of vaccines to women seeking prenatal care is an opportunity
for preventative intervention that should not be wasted.” Now you might say, “Well, of course,
you don’t want to get the flu if you’re pregnant!” But remember that double-stranded RNA experi- ment—we activated the immune system, and it caused all these downstream effects on the fetus. And what does a vaccination do? It activates the immune system. at’s the point of vaccination.
In practice, not all pregnant women receive flu shots, and I think that universal vaccination of pregnant women could get us into a whole new
set of problems.”

Despite the risk of harm to the fetus, the CDC recommends vaccination during pregnancy without any scientific investigation of the risk.

Hi chris

Responding to your statements above:

Rodents are not human.

Immune activation models are valid models for human autism.

Also, immune activation has been studied in monkeys, with the same results.

“These MIA (maternal immune activation) animal models meet all of the criteria required for validity for a disease model: They mimic a known disease-related risk factor (construct validity), they exhibit a wide range of disease-related symptoms (face validity), and they can be used to predict the efficacy of treatments (predictive validity).”
–Dr Kimberley McAllister, UC Davis MIND Institute, Science, August 2016 (i.e. this paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6301/772 )

There is no way to tell if a rodent is autistic.

Not true. Autism can be measured by behavioral and physiological features. Physiological features include damage to purkinje cells, chronic brain inflammation, and imbalance of excitatory and inhibitory synapses. There are literally hundreds of immune activation experiments

Vaccines do not cause autism.

Evidence for this is limited to MMR, thimerosal and antigen # exposure. You don’t have evidence regarding aluminum adjuvants or Al-containing vaccines.

Twin studies are old school (by the way, they are mentioned in the video I linked to… way at the beginning).

Heritability estimates from twin studies are erroneously inflated if GXE interactions occur. And GXE interactions occur in human autism. Hence, the twin studies overestimate the heritability. We do not know by how much. Magnitude of the error depends on the strength of the GXE interaction.

Tick 2016 is a highly-cited metaanalysis of autism twin studies. It says the following about the assumptions they rely on:

““The assumptions are that: (i) MZ and DZ twin pairs share their environments to the same extent; (ii) Gene-environment correlations (passive/active) and interactions are minimal for the trait in question (if not they get incorporated into the other variance components, e.g. GxE interaction effects will increase the E variance, but GxC interaction will increase the heritability estimate) (iii) Twins are no different from the general population.”
-Tick 2016
NOTE: “G” refers to all genetic factors (A + D in combination)
NOTE: C=environmental factors shard by twin pairs. Tick uses “E” to indicate unique (non-shared) environmental factors.”

The key statement here is “GxC interaction will increase the heritability estimate”

This problem is discussed and universally acknowledged. Here are a couple more quotes from other papers:

“In basic twin models, gene–environment interactions are assumed not to exist, and if present, they are included as part of the additive genetic variance, inflating heritability estimates.”
AND
“In some contexts, gene–environment interactions, i.e., that environments modify the effects of genes on the trait being studied, may account for a substantial part of the apparent heritability.”
-Kaprio 2012
Paper (Kaprio 2012): Twins and the mystery of missing heritability: the contribution of gene-environment interactions

As another example, a large twin study of autism (Colvert 2015) reports high heritability (56-95%) and states that GXE interactions may be responsible:

“…genetic modeling assumes that no gene-environment interactions or correlations exist; if they exist, the estimates of environmental and genetic effects may be inflated.”
(Colvert 2015): Heritability of Autism Spectrum Disorder in a UK Population-Based Twin Sample

“Which link? I looked at all the links you provided and did not see any science relating to aluminum adjuvant safety or other things discussed here.”

Because aluminum is not a cause of autism! You don’t seem to get that, which is why your ramblings are ridiculous.

If you don’t like how you are treated for spouting nonsense on teh internets… then either stop coming here and stop spouting nonsense.

hi Orac

Would you mind enforcing some civility here with regards to the name-calling, doxxing attempts and other harassment? This behavior goers against the spirit of your comment policy. I am trying to keep things civil and interesting. I assume that one function of these comment threads is to facilitate informative discussion and debate.

Then stop trying to claim vaccines cause autism, because they don’t.

You keep spouting nonsense about the third most common element on this planet and vaccines. Again, you cannot connect the the dots to claiming it is one ingredient in some vaccines that autism when there is no evidence showing vaccines cause autism. You are ignoring the several large epidemiological studied done in several countries that show vaccines are not correlated with autism.

I repeat: vaccines do not cause autism.

Correction: third most common element on this planet‘s crust

And obviously I need to repeat: before you try to show how aluminum in vaccines causes autism, you must first establish vaccines cause autism. The latter has not happened. Mostly because: vaccines do not cause autism!

@ Chris:

Although your efforts to educate anti-vaxxers like VP are both valiant and tireless, you can’t teach someone whose identity rests upon alternate fats and theories.

( I know the quote about “someone whose livelihood depends upon..” etc)
Identity is more important than mere money. This is who they are. I’m sure there are complicated, psychological explanations for how they got thus way but that’s not my issue.

HOWEVER, you do educate lurkers and fence sitters well.

Hello Chris:

You stated “Then stop trying to claim vaccines cause autism, because they don’t.” and “I repeat: vaccines do not cause autism.”

These statements are too broad because they apply to ALL vaccines. Only MMR, thimerosal/mercury and antigen number have been investigated for autism association/causation. Evidence that Al-containing vaccines do not cause autism is completely absent.

Note that MMR does not contain aluminum. The Al-containing vaccines are:

Quantities of aluminum in vaccines
Pneumococcal vaccine
0.125 milligram per dose (mg/dose)
Diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine
< 0.33 to < 0.625 mg/dose
Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine
0.225 mg/dose
Hepatitis A vaccine (Hep A)
0.225 to 0.25 mg/dose (pediatrics)
0.45 to 0.5 mg/dose (adults)
Hepatitis B vaccine (Hep B)
0.225 to 0.5 mg/dose (pediatrics)
0.5 mg/dose (adults)
Hep A/Hep B vaccine
0.45 mg/dose
DTaP/inactivated polio/Hep B vaccine
< 0.85 mg/dose
DTaP/inactivated polio/Hib vaccine
0.33 mg/dose
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine
0.5 mg/dose
Japanese Encephalitis (JE) vaccine
0.25 mg/dose
Meningococcal B vaccine
0.25 – 0.52 mg/dose

QUOTE: “You are ignoring the several large epidemiological studied done in several countries that show vaccines are not correlated with autism.”

Which study is this? Is it Taylor 2014, a metaanalysis of 10 vaccine-autism studies? The 10 studies in Taylor 2014 look only at MMR or mercury/thimerosal. Taylor 20145 is therefore not relevant to concerns about Al adjuvant.

QUOTE: “Because aluminum is not a cause of autism!”

Can you provide a citation for this please?

QUOTE: “Because aluminum is not a cause of autism!”

Can you provide a citation for this please?

That’s not how it works. You made the claim that aluminium in vaccines may cause autism, therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence that this is the case, not for us to refute it.

Danny Boy: “These statements are too broad because they apply to ALL vaccines.”

No, it is not. No vaccine has been associated with autism. Aluminum does not do what you claim it does.

Before you can claim aluminum in some vaccines cause autism, you must first show a correlation between vaccines and autism. That has not been done. Several large epidemiological studies done in many different countries show no casual association between autism and vaccination… by any vaccine!

Vaccines do not cause autism.

Plus stop spamming you silly cherry picked website. It is full of nonsense.

“Enforcing some civility”? For goodness sake Vaccine Papers, this is one of the most civilized comment threads I’ve ever read! I haven’t seen any swearing or threats or nasty comments about anyone’s parentage. All I see is impassioned point-counterpoint.

Unless by “civility” you mean “fawning acceptance” or “total lack of frustration or anger”, in which case, no, you won’t get that here.

Would you mind enforcing some civility here with regards to the name-calling, doxxing attempts and other harassment?

Does E-mailing publishers’ legal departments to point out your copyright violations constitute “doxxing attempts and other harassment,” Dan?

@vaccine paper:

“The Li 2015 study is not a study of Al adjuvant per se. However, in view of other research findings, it is likely that the different effects pf BCG and Hep B vaccines are due to the presence of Al adjuvant in the Hep B. Al adjuvant is not present in BCG.”

Thank you for honour reply. I was said from other anti-gay people that it is proven in Li 2015 that Al adjuvant causes autism, so wondered exactly which part of the paper proved it. But from your reply, it seems that is not proved in the paper, as other posters here told me. “It is likely” and “it is proved” are very different for me.

Thank you and every other poster who took time to reply to my questions.

Sorry, there are several typo in my previous post due to auto-correct function of my device.

Honour should be your, and anti-gay should be anti-vax.

You should not rely on Vaccine Papers for actual factual interpretation of scientific studies. He is fixated on one ingredient used in only a few vaccines, and cherry picks the data to work backwards from his preferred conclusion. In short; he works backwards.

In the USA there is a very large study recruiting at least 50,000 families for genetic screenings. They can do this because analyzing DNA is now much less expensive then it once was. So far, early on in this study they have discovered a bit over half of the sequences known to cause autism spectrum disorders. Here is a link to their blog where those studies are discussed, you will see I posted it several times, along with a YouTube link of it being presented in an auditorium (please watch it):
https://sparkforautism.org/discover/

Vaccine Papers dismissed it because there is no mention of aluminum. I assume what he did was click on the link and did a ctrl-f to search for the word “aluminum.” He did not bother reading the content. This is a classic example of how he cherry picks data. If the conclusion is not what he wants to be, he ignores it.

This is why you need to learn how to do the research yourself. Do not rely on strangers on the internet. Go to a library and learn some basic biology, and familiarize yourself with how science it done. This also includes learning how to read a study, and figuring out if a paper is legitimate.

A good short book to help you figure this out is Lies, Damned Lies, and Science: How to Sort Through the Noise Around Global Warming, the Latest Health Claims, and Other Scientific Controversies by Sherry Seethaler. Plus there is this online article:
https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/08/25/how-to-read-and-understand-a-scientific-paper-2/

So far, early on in this study they have discovered a bit over half of the sequences known to cause autism spectrum disorders.

Speaking about that, I have a concern regarding the probability of existence for a prenatal screening kit for autism which would result abortion by a majority of couples or single pregnant mothers following the discovery of their fetus having high chance to develop autism. My concern is out of informed consent for the expecting mother or couple and definitely not about the existence of the kit itself.

The thing is, currently, there is a vast majority of published work on the deficits of autistic peoples and specifically, how to extinguish what is commonly thought as bad, shameful manners (my opinion is that these manners help to cope with life and anxiety and improve the learning skills of autistics or their coping abilities; myself included). IMO, this body of research along with the social reputation of autistics in many social circle fail to ensure proper informed consent for the parents for the reason that a lot of information is missing (cognitive strength, savant syndrome and how these cognitive strength and savant syndrome can help make it through life. There is potentially more research to be done outside of cognitive strength, savant syndrome or deficits research to be done to have a more complete picture of an autistic child too).

One case in point for comparison purpose: down syndrome for which a prenatal kit is currently available. How many abortion? And how’s the body of research regarding the strength, deficits and just about everything there is?

I will look into that when I’ll be able to get access to scholarly journals (paywalled or not).

IMO, prenatal kits are great tool but we all need to be given real informed consent when it’s time to choose between keeping or terminating a pregnancy.

Alain

“Speaking about that, I have a concern regarding the probability of existence for a prenatal screening kit for autism which would result abortion by a majority of couples or single pregnant mothers following the discovery of their fetus having high chance to develop autism.”

That is a valid concern.

“Twin studies overestimate the heritability of autism”.

VP, have you forgotten how to read? How is the genetic study of 50000 families anything like a “twin study”?

I repeat. because you seem to be a very s..l..o…w learner:

Vaccines do not cause autism.

Aluminum is not dangerous in the doses used in vaccines.

Recent genetic research has uncovered the genetic sequences of over half of the autism syndrome disorders.

“you seem to be a very s..l..o…w learner”

That’s like calling a rock a slow rocket. Let’s call a rock a rock.

Comments are closed.