Vaccines/Mercury/ Autism

[kola]

Those are the results that are always found when an unbiased study is done (such as the Swedish one), and not by an ideologically driven organization (such as most of the former listed on this thread).

Tell me specifically what piece of research/journal that I posted, IYO is biased and explain why.

Explain to me how the journal you posted (by Epidemiology) is non biased. (btw I will read the study in its entirety this evening and make comments, if need be)

I think the dicussion goes best if you (or anyone else) attempts to answer my present questions before introducing something else. To often, the discussion gets smeared with only opinions and when asked for explanations and specifics, some posters jump to another topic and shift gears. It really becomes just a disorganized mess of peoples opinions. I am hoping we can get more "in depth" and produce opinions based on sutides and reserach and evn question the said studies. I am more than willing to learn and am always open to debating, but if it turns out to be a circus act of opinions and gear-changes it becomes non productive for anyone interested in the vaccine controversy.

Kola 

[ReverendRyan]

A better homework assignment for you:

Look up the term "tu quoque" and do a little reflecting.

[kola]

A better homework assignment for you:

Look up the term "tu quoque" and do a little reflecting.

You are free to present questions as well.

So now that you did not answer my questions but rather chose to attack me personally, is this your first indication that you will not be particpating in an adult edcuated discussion about mercury and vaccines, Reverend?



Kola

[Lactivist]

I still think you're being one sided here.  If autism was directly caused by vaccinations, we wouldn't have seen the rise of kids diagnosed within the time frame we did.  I believe that the mercury may trigger those predisposed, but I think you are ignoring the other things that seem to be associated with the onset of autism.  

I'd also like to interject the opinion that "autism" is a very wide varying disease and seems to be a catch-all these days.  I feel it is the new "ADHD" senario that we saw a few years previously.  Any thoughts on that? (Sorry if this is off-topic as you are hoping not to be distracted, just ignore it).

I am very interested in this subject, as I wrestle with the vaccination question for my kids.  I agree that your studies show that gov't is trying to help out big pharm companies, but that is not a direct relationship.  The article that you quote also just says "links".  I believe there are more "links" in the chain...

[ReverendRyan]

I still think you're being one sided here.  If autism was directly caused by vaccinations, we wouldn't have seen the rise of kids diagnosed within the time frame we did.  I believe that the mercury may trigger those predisposed, but I think you are ignoring the other things that seem to be associated with the onset of autism. 

I'd also like to interject the opinion that "autism" is a very wide varying disease and seems to be a catch-all these days.  I feel it is the new "ADHD" senario that we saw a few years previously.  Any thoughts on that?

I'm afraid you kind of contradicted yourself.

we wouldn't have seen the rise of kids diagnosed within the time frame we did.

"autism" is a very wide varying disease and seems to be a catch-all these days.

The rise in diagnoses is directly due to the widening definition.

[Lactivist]

I wasn't trying to contradict...as I was simply stating my opinion that the diagnosis has been widened.  Do you agree with that?  I don't have any articles to back that up.

I can see the trends of older parenting and hospital c-sections as contributing (there are many data to back this up).

[ReverendRyan]

I wasn't trying to contradict...as I was simply stating my opinion that the diagnosis has been widened.  Do you agree with that.  I don't have any articles to back that up.

I can see the trends of older parenting and hospital c-sections as contributing (there are many data to back this up).

Right. Here's a source on the rise in prevalence, a good starting point:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/98515870/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

As far as c-sections, the study you cited shows correlation, not causation. The reason a c-section was performed affected autism rates. If the operation were the actual cause, then autism rates would be fairly consistent across all children born that way, regardless of the reason the procedure was performed.

What that means is that certain factors that may cause difficult pregnancies also raise the risk of autism. The correlation between the 2 is not causal, it shows a common cause.

[kola]

Hultman C, Sparen P, Cnattingius S. Perinatal risk factors for infantile autism. Epidemiology 2002; 13: 417-23

"The researchers had at their disposal the recorded data from the Swedish nationwide Birth Register regarding all Swedish children born during a period of 20 years (from 1974 until1993). They also had at their disposal data regarding 408 children (321 boys and 87 girls) diagnosed as autistic after being discharged from a hospital from 1987 through 1994 (diagnosis according to strict criteria). For each case five matched controls were selected, resulting in a control sample of 2040 infants. The risk of autism was significantly associated with caesarean delivery, a 5-minute Apgar score below 7 (in other words: baby not in good shape at birth), maternal birth outside Europe and North America, bleeding in pregnancy, daily smoking in early pregnancy, being small for gestational age, and congenital malformations. Unfortunately the authors could not dissociate scheduled caesareans and caesareans during labour. Also, the variable 'labour induction' could not be taken into account, because it did not appear in the National Birth Register until 1991, as I learnt from personal correspondence with one of the authors." - from http://www.wombecology.com/caesareans.html

That sounds like further proof that the correlation between cesareans and autism is not a causal relationship, but that certain types of birthing difficulties and autism share a common cause.

The correlation also implies that autism is linked to either genetic or prenatal causes, not childhood vaccines.

Those are the results that are always found when an unbiased study is done (such as the Swedish one), and not by an ideologically driven organization (such as most of the former listed on this thread).

Before we all get too far can we(for a moment) elaborate on this further? I think it needs addressing becuase both of you seem to accept this as being factual.

I have not read the entire study (so correct me if my assumptions are wrong) but it appears they never looked at how many of the c-sectioned children were vaccinated. Isn't this severely important? They could have done a similar study on vaginal deliveries and got the same results because almost all children are vaccinated. It really would not matter what they looked at because the study group was not taken into account. If the study did not seperate non vaxed babies vs vaxed this study is severely flawed. This is so very typical of pseudoscience, yet the average joe accepts this as fact and the pro vax medical professionals attempt to use this as "ammo". When scutinized with common sense, it clearly backfires in their faces.

Before going any further, I am interested in hearing your responses, Ryan and Lacto.
Is this an accurate study to prove that c-sectioned babies are at a higher risk to acquire autism or is it severely flawed? An explanation would be appreciated. Thanks.  

Kola    

[kola]

What that means is that certain factors that may cause difficult pregnancies also raise the risk of autism. The correlation between the 2 is not causal, it shows a common cause.

Ryan, you posted this while I posted the above, sorry.

Explain how these factors you mention cause Autism. I haven't read the entire study yet and I hope to look at it tonight) but tell me, how many babies in the study were vaccinated?

thanks, I am training horses the rest of the day and will be back tonight.

Kola

[Lactivist]

That link doesn't work for me  

On that same website: "It is probably because I met Niko Tinbergen that I read with special attention, in June 1991, a report by Ryoko Hattori, a psychiatrist from Kumamoto, Japan.(13) She evaluated the risks of becoming autistic according to the place of birth. She found that children born in a certain hospital were significantly more at risk of becoming autistic. In that particular hospital the routine was to induce labour a week before the expected date of birth and to use a complex mixture of sedatives, anaesthesia agents and analgesics during labour. This study could not dissociate the effects of labour induction and the effects of drugs used during labour." Hattori R, et al. Autistic and developmental disorders after general anaesthetic delivery. Lancet 1991; 337: 1357-8.

Either way, there seems to be an association with the drugs used to intervene with natural birth and autism, no?

He goes on: A new phase was reached in our understanding of the risk factors for autism after the publication of an important Australian study that dissociated non-labour caesarean and in-labour caesarean, and that looked at labour induction.(15) This study included the 481 subjects born in Western Australia between 1980 and 1995 and considered autistic (in the framework of 'autism spectrum disorder'). These subjects were compared with 1313 controls, and also with their 481 non-autistic siblings. By comparing with the controls, it appeared that among those born by non-labour caesarean the risks were multiplied by 2.05 (this was statistically significant) and among those born by emergency caesarean they were multiplied by 1.57 (statistically significant). Epidural anaesthesia, a delayed first breath, and an Apgar score below 7 were other risk factors. By comparing with the siblings, labour induction, delayed first breath, and Apgar score below 7 also were significant factors. There was also a tendency to more caesareans, but the difference was not statistically significant. It is noticeable that the duration of fetal life (and the rate of premature baby), birth weight in relation to the time spent in the womb, the rates of pre-eclampsia, head circumference and length at birth were the same in both groups. That there was no difference regarding the effects of pre-birth environment factors leads to give a greater importance to the in-labour intrauterine environment." Glemma EJ, Bower C, Petterson B, et al. Perinatal factors and the development of autism. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004; 61: 618-27.

[ReverendRyan]

I have not read the entire study (so correct me if my assumptions are wrong) but it appears they never looked at how many of the c-sectioned children were vaccinated. Isn't this severely important? They could have done a similar study on vaginal deliveries and got the same results because almost all children are vaccinated. It really would not matter what they looked at because the study group was not taken into account. If the study did not seperate non vaxed babies vs vaxed this study is severely flawed. This is so very typical of pseudoscience, yet the average joe accepts this as fact and the pro vax medical professionals attempt to use this as "ammo". When scutinized with common sense, it clearly bacfired in their faces.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

If vaccines were the cause, then other factors would not cause drastic differences in results.

Try the scientific method some time.


Pseudoscience - (1) an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. (2) the process of beginning with a conclusion and searching for evidence to support it, opposed to science drawing conclusions from available evidence.

For example, "vaccines are bad, therefore they cause autism."

[ReverendRyan]

Either way, there seems to be an association with the drugs used to intervene with natural birth and autism, no?

That could absolutely be a factor. That's one of the prenatal factors I was referring to. But it's not at all the largest.

But further on, the quote you gave me says that the mere occurrence of c-sections themselves is a larger factor than the drugs. Now most procedures are done for a particular reason, by that I mean the majority of them are non-elective.

As the risk of autism varies with the various causes to have a c-section in the 1st place, we know that the operation itself is not the only factor. Once again, it's a common cause.

[kola]

Right. Here's a source on the rise in prevalence, a good starting point:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/98515870/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Nothing shows from that link, Ryan. But go ahead and address the questions I asked you. I am doing my best to address your requests and answer your questions. Returning the favor would be advantageous to a hearty, educational discussion.

I am trying to hunt down the first study (Epidemology) that was posted by lactivist...with very litttle luck. I do not subscribe to PubMed or Medline. If I have to, I will stroll down the out local library tommorrow.

Kola

[kola]

Pseudoscience - (1) an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. (2) the process of beginning with a conclusion and searching for evidence to support it, opposed to science drawing conclusions from available evidence.

For example, "vaccines are bad, therefore they cause autism."

I agree.

for example:
"vaccines are safe, they do not cause autism."

[Lactivist]

Now most procedures are done for a particular reason, by that I mean the majority of them are non-elective.

I think you're wrong in assuming that most are "non-elective":

"The latest statistics indicate that 967,000 cesareans were performed in the US in 1989. The Public Health Citizen's Research Group estimates that over one-half the cesareans performed in 1987 were unnecessary and resulted in 25,00 serious infections, 1.1 million extra hospital days and a cost of over $1 billion."

"Cesarean rates are influenced by non-medical factors. Rates are higher for women who have private medical insurance, are private rather than public clinic patients, are older, are married, have higher levels of education and are in a higher socio-economic bracket. "
(Both of above from: http://www.childbirth.org/section/CSFact.html

U.S. has an extremely high rate of cesarean sections (much higher than any other country, I've seen it anywhere between 30%-46%), and unfortunately it is not because of a particular medical reason.  "There is reason to believe then, that nearly 2/3 of all cesareans may in fact be unnecessary." (http://pregnancychildbirth.suite101.com/blog.cfm/cdc_releases_us_cesarean_rate)  So I stand behind the fact that the whole process of c-section may be contributing to the rise in autism.

Kola-sorry you are having so much trouble finding the article.  I just want to open your mind up to the possibility that there are more "links" to autism than just Mercury.  I think everyone has to look at the benefits and risks of vaccinations and then decide for themselves (or more accurately their children) if the benefits outweigh the risks.  I think many vaccines are not necessary.  Some I think are.  I looked at the mercury content link you provided and see that there are alternatives that do not contain mercry.  Although, I have heard of concern over too much aluminum being injected when children are given more than one shot at a time (although I'm not sure if aluminum would be linked to autism or something else).  I think that the current suggested schedule for vaccines is kind of ridiculous (why should we give multiple shots to such small children?).  Anyways, I'm still learning all the facts myself.