My professor e-mailed me this article today. She is teaching one of my autism courses. I think it's pretty cool and a real slap in the face to everyone who blames vaccines. http://www.yorku.ca/mediar/archive/Release.php?Release=1734
I know an autism counselor who believes in the causal relationship between vaccines and autism. Despite reading numerous independent studies to the contrary, she clings to her belief almost like a religious zealot. I just forwarded your link to her but I doubt it will change her POV. Thanks for the link.
It really is too bad. In one of the books I'm reading, there is a person who genuinely believes that all you have to do is hold them enough and they'll snap out of it, and they understand everyone word you say. They just choose not to talk. I've seen the difference between a typical child and an autistic child. There is a huge difference in the behaviour of one who understands but chooses not to pay attention and the behaviour of an autistic child.
They have, but some people cling to it because the deterioration happens around the same time vaccines are given. People also don't bother looking at all the research, or claim that these kinds of numbers can say anything you want them to say. Sure, there is a certain truth to that, but any person who will take the time to think about where the stats come from can decide if they are realistic.
I'm sure there are many factors involved in the development of autism, genetics and DNA being the primary one. However, don't overlook the vaccine theory...I'm not sure how they relate to autism, but they DO have ill-effects on the population that are conveniently kept hush-hush, for various reasons. This new swine flu outbreak has roused my suspicions, for starters.
There has been no causal relation proven between vaccines and autism. It is WAY more risky to not vaccinate a child. Diseases that we thought were dead or under control are making a comeback because people no longer feel the need to be vaccinated.
Henry, yes there are environmental factors as well. The article does state that this genetic mutation was a factor in only 20% of the cases they found. The people who claim it is vaccines have no evidence. Whereas the researchers who know there is no connection have compared the rate of people getting vaccinated and the rate of autism and found no significant difference.
Hear, hear. And, admittedly without having read the article, if there is a genetic link, why would there be such a profuse expression of this particular trait now?
We are still learning about autism, and the autism spectrum, so a child who would be diagnosed with autism now would just be considered mentally retarded or just a social misfit say, twenty years ago.
There have been lots of other clues to suggest a genetic link, maia. So many parents, when their children get diagnosed finally see the reasons for their problems they had growing up. The autistic people I know who have children, the children have it. MRI scans have seen variations in the brain that look like they were there since birth, not caused by damage after they were born, so identifying a genetic mutation is just another step in many to prove it.
I have to admit to being on the fence concerning this issue. When it came time for inoculations, my boy got all of them because I felt the risks of the diseases they were supposed to be protecting him from far outweighed the small one that this could cause autism. That said, I don't feel that this particular study explains away the possible relationship between the two. From the link quoted by the OP: It very well could be that those children with the "autism gene" are put in a higher risk for actually developing it when given particular vaccines. More studies will most certainly have to be done before anyone can dismiss it as a purely genetic factor. Outside elements (vaccines, environment, toxins, etc) are always going to be affecting human genetic profiles and it takes generations to nail down the hows and whys of it. Just my thoughts on the subject btw and not to be taken as solid fact.
Again, it did say that it was a factor in only 20% of cases. And there is no connection between vaccines and autism. No matter how many people in a community were getting vaccinated, there was no significant difference in the rate of autism. And it is a condition that has existed long before vaccines were common place anyway. A lot of people who ended up in asylums were probably autistic. The term autism was coined in the 1910's, and the vaccines people blame didn't exist until 1950's and sixties. www.keepkidshealthy.com has a timeline of when vaccines were created. The earliest recorded case of autism was in 1747. The wild boy of Aveyron is also well documented and showed signs of autism, which is one of the possible reasons he never learned to talk, and why he was abandoned in the first place.
I think those who stand definitely on one side of the fence and declare there is no connection is deliberately ignoring the facts. Of all the ingredients in all vaccines used, only one has actually been studied in connection with autism. It makes no sense to me to say "And there is no connection between vaccines and autism" given the fact that there has only been a hand full of studies done on one ingredient. There was a time when leading scientists in medicine had no idea there were these pesky little things on unwashed hands that were killing people and would have bled you for hysteria if you'd made the outrageous claim that something you couldn't even see was killing patients after they were operated on. I don't think they know for fact whether or not these vaccines contribute to autism. They haven't indisputably proved or disproved it. That said, I still think children should be vaccinated because the repercussions of not doing so would be far worse than a small percentage possibly becoming autistic. And I suspect that's the same train of thought of researchers.
How about the fact that the rate of autism does not differ in any population, no matter how many people in that population are being vaccinated. That doesn't look at the ingredients. It looks at the rate of occurrence versus the rate of vaccination. Or how about the fact that it was around long before people were even getting these vaccinations? The rate has increased because of a broader definition and because more people are getting assessed. Even if mercury is a factor, the amount in vaccines is so small that I can't believe it does anything.
As I pointed out earlier, it's more convenient to overlook certain points in opposing views and call your position fact than entertain the possibility of that being incorrect when you steadfastly believe something. Like saying it was around before vaccinations. That doesn't really prove or disprove that one or more of the un-researched ingredients could be the catalyst in children that are genetically predisposed to autism. I could use a lot of different examples of why this falls short of proving your position. By that same logic, one could say that the reason more people are driving under the influence now than in the past is because there are more officers on the roads catching them, with lower blood alcohol counts defining legal limits, and the issue is higher in the public consciousness. Wow! I didn't know mercury was one of the ingredients. From wikipedia: Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences, preventing nerve sheaths from forming properly. And what was one of the key components of autism? From the link in this thread: So, neurons conduct nerve impulses. And mercury impedes their development...and mercury is one of the ingredients in these vaccines.... Are you starting to see a pattern here? It just makes sense to me that if there is already a neural deficit due to poor genetics, and a toxin is introduced like mercury that affects neural growth, then the point makes itself.
Scientific "research" from Wikipedia isn't going to convince anybody of anything. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you want to be taken seriously, the words "From Wikipedia" are not your friends.
I'm not seeing a pattern. The rate of autism in a population does not change no matter how many people in that population receive vaccinations. Yes, there is mercury in vaccines, but the disorder existed long before the MMR vaccine, which is what people claim caused it. As well, from a Wikipedia article that references the BBC and the Sunday Times: There are environmental causes, for sure, but there are too many other pollutants out there. But if mercury is even a factor, the amount in vaccines is too small. As well: That section of the article references professional journals. I've also seen rates of learning disabilities increase in relation to the distance of factories.
I'm aware of the generally unreliable nature of wikipedia and I wouldn't have quoted anything from there if it wasn't information I'd seen elsewhere. I didn't want to post a link to one of the dozens or even hundreds of other sources that say the same thing and wiki is easily found to verify what I said without having to follow a link. Also, I'm not sure if you actually read what I posted because I referred to a commonly known statement made on there, not scientific research about the subject at hand. And a lot of wikipedia's information is legit. Just because anyone can post a bogus article there does not negate the rest of the information there.
What you said about mercury is true, and there is nothing wrong with using wiki articles as a starting point, but you should follow the references given to confirm it, and the amount of mercury is so tiny. There is more in many other environmental sources than in one vaccine, which was not created until long after autism was identified.
