Notices
Results 1 to 60 of 60

Thread: MMR and Autism

  1. #1  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    There's a casual correlation between the introduction of MMR shots and the rise of autism (Nothing like observing actual statistics!). The same thing goes for a certain something used in antibacterial soap. While the proposed reasons are invalid, the correlation exists, and is cause for concern. Apparently everyone else is too busy applauding themselves over disproving conspiracy theorists to notice.

    And this is the difference between me and most everyone else. This right there. You only care about the evident problems. I care about the deeper picture. On the same note I also have a very keen understanding of the human psyche. My hostility is warranted because, in most cases, people don't change.


    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    There's a casual correlation between the introduction of MMR shots and the rise of autism (Nothing like observing actual statistics!).
    So... why were regressive autism rates in Japan totally unchanged when they pulled MMR 15 years ago? Why haven't those rates changed in the UK with declining MMR uptake in there? And how exactly did you determine that the correlation was causal?

    I'm beginning to think the real difference between you and everyone else is little more than a very inflated opinion of your own opinion.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    I had taken that into account, which is why I noted a SEPARATE incidence that also correlates with an increase of autism. IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE. Also, take note how you specifically focused on that to try and prove me wrong. As I said, you're FAKING reason. You apparently want to be right. Fuck getting the truth. You'd much rather accept the official story and be done with it.

    Frankly, so would I, but I get bored (Also, authority has a problem with being WRONG. See: Man made global warming). There do exist correlations between various substances and autism, but nobody is doing anything to eliminate them. A few, such as antibacterial soap, hit the green light in all countries. It's disturbing.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I had taken that into account, which is why I noted a SEPARATE incidence that also correlates with an increase of autism. IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE.
    Not sure what you're getting at here, honestly. What separate incidence? Are you talking about MMR or the hand soap thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Also, take note how you specifically focused on that to try and prove me wrong.
    I focused on the MMR thing because I mentioned it first, because you argued against my point and because I know squat about the handsoap thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    As I said, you're FAKING reason.
    All I see is you putting labels on people who disagree with you. If your automatic assumption is that people who disagree with are irrational or delusional or closed minded then on what basis can you really claim that you're being open minded yourself? I'm quite confident that you're wrong about MMR. I have no idea about the handsoap issue because I've never researched it and I'm not ashamed to admit that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    You apparently want to be right. Fuck getting the truth. You'd much rather accept the official story and be done with it.
    No... my opinion happens to be in line with the official story. Me and the official line might well be wrong, but if so we'll be wrong independently. On what basis can you say that I didn't arrive at that conclusion by examining the evidence? You're just assuming again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Frankly, so would I, but I get bored. There do exist correlations between various substances and autism, but nobody is doing anything to eliminate them. A few, such as antibacterial soap, hit the green light in all countries. It's disturbing.
    Again, no idea about the handsoap thing, but the correlation between MMR and regressive autism is a temporal one. Regressive austism typically emerges sometime in the second year of life. MMR is typically administered for the first time within that period. Does that equal causation? Assuming for a moment no causal connection, how many cases of regressive autism would we expect to occur within say two months of an MMR jab by chance? Tens of thousands a year I'd estimate. Couple that with no change to the rates when you withdraw MMR, the debunking of both of Wakefield's papers, the falsification of all of the so far proposed mechanisms for a connection between vaccination and ASD... really a simple non-causal temporal correlation seems to be by far the likeliest explanation.

    I was on the fence back when the media mess unfolded in the early 2000's, I did my own literature research and made up my mind. Good evidence could still change my mind, but that seems less likely as each new study emerges. I'm not "faking reason".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    If you guys want to pursue the autism discussion you should probably make a separate thread for it. Would you like me to split off the relevant posts into a new thread?

    The original topic was an interesting one, and Darius I'm interested to know your answer to what was really Biologista's last question before you followed the autism tangent: do you not agree that, for people who are not utterly blinded by faith but merely have a lack of knowledge on the issue, it is worth providing them with a good education in science and evolution so that a creationist who twists information doesn't convince them differently simply because they don't know better? Biologista's not trying to suggest that we can force feed acceptance to a die hard IDer, but that we can inform and help those who are able to be helped.
    Yes, thanks para- that point was in danger of being lost in an off topic debate.

    Darius, there's a thread about MMR/ASD on the Medicine forum. I'll happily take our conversation there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Sigh.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    All I see is you putting labels on people who disagree with you. If your automatic assumption is that people who disagree with are irrational or delusional or closed minded then on what basis can you really claim that you're being open minded yourself?
    All I see is someone that's delibately using every method in the book to discredit me based on appearances alone. I'm not labeling, I'm analyzing, and even providing some rationality for why I come to my conclusions. Try taking criticism and actually considering that it may be right.

    In fact, if you pay attention to some of my posts, I specifically and STRONGLY advocate against the use of mere "labels" that allow someone to shove anothers ideas under a rug. Frankly, though, you asked for it.

    I'm quite confident that you're wrong about MMR. I have no idea about the handsoap issue because I've never researched it and I'm not ashamed to admit that.
    So why not research it BEFORE posting? Gee, it's too much work to have educated opinions.

    No... my opinion happens to be in line with the official story. Me and the official line might well be wrong, but if so we'll be wrong independently. On what basis can you say that I didn't arrive at that conclusion by examining the evidence? You're just assuming again.
    You haven't made any effort to find correlations or reasons why your opinion would be wrong. This means you HAVEN'T examined much evidence at all (by your own admission). I actually have taken more than a passing glance at when autism began to go on the rise. I'm not assuming. You're telling me more than enough with your own words. All you APPARENTLY examined was MMR and autism, and little (if anything) else.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Sigh.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    All I see is you putting labels on people who disagree with you. If your automatic assumption is that people who disagree with are irrational or delusional or closed minded then on what basis can you really claim that you're being open minded yourself?
    All I see is someone that's delibately using every method in the book to discredit me based on appearances alone. I'm not labeling, I'm analyzing, and even providing some rationality for why I come to my conclusions. Try taking criticism and actually considering that it may be right.
    Sure, but why is it your first assumption that I'm irrational?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    In fact, if you pay attention to some of my posts, I specifically and STRONGLY advocate against the use of mere "labels" that allow someone to shove anothers ideas under a rug. Frankly, though, you asked for it.
    But you're doing it now. You've decided that I am closed minded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I'm quite confident that you're wrong about MMR. I have no idea about the handsoap issue because I've never researched it and I'm not ashamed to admit that.
    So why not research it BEFORE posting? Gee, it's too much work to have educated opinions.
    Firstly because it would take a lot of time to do adequate research before I could have a well reasoned opinion on the matter and secondly because it's just an incidental example you were using that is not really central to the discussion we're having.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    No... my opinion happens to be in line with the official story. Me and the official line might well be wrong, but if so we'll be wrong independently. On what basis can you say that I didn't arrive at that conclusion by examining the evidence? You're just assuming again.
    You haven't made any effort to find correlations or reasons why your opinion would be wrong. This means you HAVEN'T examined much evidence at all (by your own admission). I actually have taken more than a passing glance at when autism began to go on the rise. I'm not assuming. You're telling me more than enough with your own words. All you APPARENTLY examined was MMR and autism, and little (if anything) else.
    I'm sorry but how do you know what evidence I've looked at?

    So, when do we get back to the main point? As I said, we're agreed that the open minded can be swayed from pseudoscientific or irrational belief by education. We know that said beliefs can be harmful. So should we not do our very best to educate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I have an idea. Why don't you two discuss this via pm and stop spoiling this thread, no offence.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Sure, but why is it your first assumption that I'm irrational?
    You are.

    But you're doing it now. You've decided that I am closed minded.
    I didn't say that. Read more carefully.

    Firstly because it would take a lot of time to do adequate research before I could have a well reasoned opinion on the matter and secondly because it's just an incidental example you were using that is not really central to the discussion we're having.
    Yet it proved my point.

    I'm sorry but how do you know what evidence I've looked at?
    Logical deduction.

    So, when do we get back to the main point? As I said, we're agreed that the open minded can be swayed from pseudoscientific or irrational belief by education. We know that said beliefs can be harmful. So should we not do our very best to educate?
    It wouldn't matter anyway. The open minded will actively search for new ideas. They WANT new input. They'll accept it when they find it.

    To Kalster: I expected a thread split or something ages ago. Where's Paralith?
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    This has degenerated into you two just talking about each other's potential flaws as posters. I'm going to have to ask you to stop. Darius, if you think Biologista hasn't done the research and is saying incorrect statements, provide sources that show Biologista is incorrect. Biologista, being part of an internet conversation makes us all open to assumptions by the other posters. If Darius is wrong about your having failed to do the research, provide him sources from your research to show him that he is incorrect.

    We can sit here and say, "Well how do I know you know what you're talking about?" all day long. Get some evidence to back up your various claims or stop making them.

    /moderator mode


    Edit: or, if you two would like to continue discussing each other's potential flaws, then do it in PM as Kalster suggested.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Ok so, fresh start.

    Darius, what is the evidence that there is a causal correlation between the MMR vaccination and autism?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    i don't think there is any, besides individual statistical studies.

    The only proof that really counts though is the elucidation of the actual mechanism.

    unless the statistical evidence is overwhelming. which it isn't.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Indeed, there are multiple statistical correlations. Sadly, nothing is being done to explore these for answers. Scientists seem more than happy to ignore statistics between various substances altogether. The ultimate excuse today is either Global Warming or Genetics. Rarely is it either. As no apparent real search is being done, it's likely the cause for autism increases won't be located for a looooooooong time.

    As someone without the proper equipment, all I can do is point to statistical correlations and say "Start looking".
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Can I just come in here. I dont know if the rest of you have read much on this. I have read the original article which caused this whole controversy.

    The study is on 12 children and the link made is only that the parents and gps of these 12 noticed the onset of autistic symptoms was around the time of the MMR. Which is of course because the MMR is administered at around the time symptoms would be noticed anyway.

    There have been HUGE studies literally involving millions of children in Europe the US and other institutions. These all clearly demonstrated no link between MMR and autism. At this point. To still harp on about some link is basing it on a paper based on 12 children.
    12.

    This is devoid of common sense to continue thinking in this way, the vaccine does not cause autism.

    This is the link to the article
    http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr...998+autism+MMR
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    And? That's fine. That doesn't exclude the other statistical correlations, which is basically what I'm saying. People are acting like it does. We need MORE studies like that to start excluding more of these correlations.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Correlations other than the MMR and autism? Then like what? I dont think there are many similar examples.

    The point of this is that it has been a huge waste of resources. If that small paper had never been published millions could have been spent on researching something that could have had some use rather than just disproving an ill founded link.

    I know its wiki, but I think this is actually an excellent review on this topic

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vac...Recent_studies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Not true. If it never would have been published we never would have known for certain that MMR wasn't the cause. In fact it still might be. Who knows, maybe when children are given the shot and exposed to a specific substance they develop autism. Maybe it's a combination of factors? One other correlation I know exists is the use of antibacterial soap, which began around the same time as MMR shots. I've been too lazy to really do any hardcore studying, but correlations do exist.

    Really, maybe MMR shots make you weaker to the effects of another substance? We can't know unless we actually do tests. The fewer tests we do, the less we know for certain. Science must be based on a hard foundation of knowing or it never produces accurate results.

    By the way, recently antibacterial soap has been found to be harmful. Not the least of which because it weakens your immune system. Triclosan is also suspected to cause some other problems as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibac...ap#Ingredients

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Health_concerns

    Even bind with chlorine in water to produce a carcinogen.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Really, maybe MMR shots make you weaker to the effects of another substance? We can't know unless we actually do tests. The fewer tests we do, the less we know for certain. Science must be based on a hard foundation of knowing or it never produces accurate results.
    No this has been disproven too. There have been extensive immunological studies on the effects of MMR on the paediatric immune system. The general consensus is that very little of the immune system reacts and it is in no way overwhelming or immunocompromising to the child.


    Regarding the fact that there is no correlation; we dont have an ohmss to disprove it against every disease. Why is it worthwhile disproving the link of autism and the MMR and not autoimmune hepatitis or minimal change disease or paediatric rheumatoid arthritis or any other disease you can contemplate. Why autism!?

    Usually one works backwards. If there was a huge populational change in autism levels scientists would instantly start looking for a cause.
    This is what happened with the thalidomide episode in the late 50s. You first notice the change in population disease; then you research a cause.
    (This is not out of ignorance; this is all dealt with in clinical trials for any drug/vaccine before it is licenced)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    There's a casual correlation between the introduction of MMR shots and the rise of autism (Nothing like observing actual statistics!). The same thing goes for a certain something used in antibacterial soap. While the proposed reasons are invalid, the correlation exists, and is cause for concern. Apparently everyone else is too busy applauding themselves over disproving conspiracy theorists to notice.

    And this is the difference between me and most everyone else. This right there. You only care about the evident problems. I care about the deeper picture. On the same note I also have a very keen understanding of the human psyche. My hostility is warranted because, in most cases, people don't change.
    Is there a casual correlation between the rise of Japanese cars and autism? Should we be worried?

    The problem with casual correlations is that it takes two disparate sets of variables and compares them to each other. People take that association and assume there is a causal relationship.

    e.g. the casual relationship between being born and dying is 1. Everyone who is born, dies. Hence, being born is the single highest cause of death.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    Regarding the fact that there is no correlation; we dont have an ohmss to disprove it against every disease. Why is it worthwhile disproving the link of autism and the MMR and not autoimmune hepatitis or minimal change disease or paediatric rheumatoid arthritis or any other disease you can contemplate. Why autism!?
    Because there exists a statistical correlation for one and not the other. That's how you focus your research. For example, maybe Triclosan is somehow aiding in the increase of autism? Statistically it was in use around the same time period as autism increases. The way it affects the brain is certainly suspicious. Why it's not being investigated as intensely as MMR is beyond me.

    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Is there a casual correlation between the rise of Japanese cars and autism? Should we be worried?
    Logical fallacy. Comparing apples to oranges. Cars in no way affect the brain or the immune system, so OBVIOUSLY we shouldn't be worried. Meanwhile substances like Triclosan DO affect the brain, and MMR affects the immune system (and could allow something to affect the brain). Although the latter has been disproved. Essentially, you DID make a VERY annoying apples to oranges comparison.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    I can show you a statistical correlation [R=1] for all people who are born dying.

    There is no evidence of a single one [except perhaps Jesus], who has not. This is perfect data, with no confounding outliers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Autism isnt the only disease affecting the brain. It isnt even the only disease affecting the developping brain. Why autism!?

    MMR was studied excessively because the media created a frenzy about it and also the importance of people receiving the vaccine is immense. The disease is virtually eradicated in vaccinated countries and people have long forgotten the severity of those 3 diseases. The MMR has been a colossal breakthrough in human health.

    Triclosin: not really that much, we could come up with an alternative if we had to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Logical fallacy. Comparing apples to oranges. Cars in no way affect the brain or the immune system, so OBVIOUSLY we shouldn't be worried. Meanwhile substances like Triclosan DO affect the brain, and MMR affects the immune system (and could allow something to affect the brain). Although the latter has been disproved. Essentially, you DID make a VERY annoying apples to oranges comparison.
    Maybe Japanese cars have toxic elements that poison the brain, maybe the new toothpaste does, could it even be...laptops! @@

    You could possibly look at the prevalence of anything that has increased in the last 20 years and find a positive correlation with the incidence of autism.

    Instead of getting all excited about random associations, how about we look at the definition of autism?

    People who are termed autistic today, would have been slow, stupid, problem children 20 years ago. They would be considered morons, kept back in class, not understood and probably might see the principal for detention more often than the counsellor to address their learning disabilities.

    Perhaps we simply diagnose more people as autistic now, or misdiagnose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    Autism isnt the only disease affecting the brain. It isnt even the only disease affecting the developping brain. Why autism!?
    Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    You could possibly look at the prevalence of anything that has increased in the last 20 years and find a positive correlation with the incidence of autism.
    Only if you kept using logical fallacies as you have.

    People who are termed autistic today, would have been slow, stupid, problem children 20 years ago. They would be considered morons, kept back in class, not understood and probably might see the principal for detention more often than the counsellor to address their learning disabilities.

    Perhaps we simply diagnose more people as autistic now, or misdiagnose.
    A common argument. I wonder if the same is true for cancer? Oh wait.

    EDIT: Let me be more specific. After many many MANY years autism is still on the increase. It's not a diagnosis problem. It's actually increasing. This is especially true for when diagnosis hadn't changed and yet the number of those diagnosed did not level off, as is true with most genetic problems.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    People who are termed autistic today, would have been slow, stupid, problem children 20 years ago. They would be considered morons, kept back in class, not understood and probably might see the principal for detention more often than the counsellor to address their learning disabilities.

    Perhaps we simply diagnose more people as autistic now, or misdiagnose.
    A common argument. I wonder if the same is true for cancer? Oh wait.

    EDIT: Let me be more specific. After many many MANY years autism is still on the increase. It's not a diagnosis problem. It's actually increasing. This is especially true for when diagnosis hadn't changed and yet the number of those diagnosed did not level off, as is true with most genetic problems.
    There is, in fact, some preliminary evidence for genetic factors in ASD. A defect in the genetic sequence for neuroligins, causing less acetylcholinesterase to be produced. As a result, acetylcholine is recycled slower, so synapses cannot fire as quickly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    And? That's fine. That doesn't exclude the other statistical correlations, which is basically what I'm saying. People are acting like it does. We need MORE studies like that to start excluding more of these correlations.
    But there have been easily a dozen studies. Now I admit that not all of these have been of good quality, but some have been very compelling indeed. The study in Japan was a cohort study of 300,000 kids. The rate of regressive autism just did not respond at all to MMR withdrawl. Nor to the reintroduction of single jabs.

    Non-regressive rates did dip after MMR withdrawl, mind you, though I doubt you'd claim there's anything in that, would you? Beyond an ethically dubious RCT, I'm not sure there's a better test of the hypothesis than such large-scale cohort trials.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    The point of this is that it has been a huge waste of resources. If that small paper had never been published millions could have been spent on researching something that could have had some use rather than just disproving an ill founded link.
    I think the 1998 paper itself was fine and deserved to be published. But it does not actually claim a link between MMR and autism. It (very cautiously) hypothesises a link between MMR and a bowel disorder associated with ASD. Wakefield made the suggestion of a causal link directly to the press, who promptly took the ball and ran with it. He presented a reasonable hypothesis (since falsified) as a fact to the public, causing a panic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Ok guys, once again - a lot of saying, "there's a statistical correlation for this" and "there have been many studies to show that" and "this has been going on for years" etc. As someone with no background in any of this I could choose to doubt all of these statements if I wanted to. Please, let's start finding and posting some more sources to back up these assertions. If anybody wants a paper they can't access let me know and I'll see if I can get it.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    OR you could stop handwaving and find statistics yourself. I'm particularly lazy and don't feel like it. I simply know they exist from prior reading forays.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Ok so, one of the Japanese cohort papers:

    Honda et al. 2005 (free)

    Of particular interest is figure 3, which shows that the rate of regressive autism does not react to the withdrawal of MMR. Bizarrely enough, a dip in the rate of non-regressive autism does appear to correlate with the withdrawal of MMR. For there to be a causal relationship in that case would require a very special vaccine indeed, since non-regressive autism is present from birth.

    What I take from this paper is that, if we do assume that MMR does cause some cases of regressive ASD, then it's role was superseded simultaneously by another factor or factors as the vaccine was withdrawn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Ok so, one of the Japanese cohort papers:

    Honda et al. 2005 (free)

    Of particular interest is figure 3, which shows that the rate of regressive autism does not react to the withdrawal of MMR. Bizarrely enough, a dip in the rate of non-regressive autism does appear to correlate with the withdrawal of MMR. For there to be a causal relationship in that case would require a very special vaccine indeed, since non-regressive autism is present from birth.

    What I take from this paper is that, if we do assume that MMR does cause some cases of regressive ASD, then it's role was superseded simultaneously by another factor or factors as the vaccine was withdrawn.
    Could it be that the MMR could have caused damage to a parent's gametes, especially the mother's? Is there a link between autism and mothers that had full blown measles during their youth?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    OR you could stop handwaving and find statistics yourself. I'm particularly lazy and don't feel like it. I simply know they exist from prior reading forays.
    The onus of support is on the person who made the claim, not the person who contests it. That is a typical standard for scientific discussions. If you are too lazy to look it up that's fine, it simply means none of us will have good reason to think all these statistics and trends you mention are true.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    The onus of support is on the person who made the claim, not the person who contests it. That is a typical standard for scientific discussions. If you are too lazy to look it up that's fine, it simply means none of us will have good reason to think all these statistics and trends you mention are true.
    OR you could have read my wiki articles. It lists the year antibacterial soap was released, which matches the time period MMR was released, which matches the time period autism began to increase. I refer to the fact I'm too lazy to make MORE charts for ye.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Could it be that the MMR could have caused damage to a parent's gametes, especially the mother's?
    Only if those parents had been vaccinated, surely? I can't imagine many adults in 1993 had recieved an MMR vaccination. Even in that case, why would the withdrawal in or around 1993 have any influence on that?

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Is there a link between autism and mothers that had full blown measles during their youth?
    I'm not sure if it's been looked at, though if there were that would surely be an argument for vaccination rather than against it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    OR you could stop handwaving and find statistics yourself.
    Burden of evidence is on you when you make an extraordinary claim. That said, I've given the paper that I was previously referring to. Could you show us some of the data that backs your position up?

    I'm going to see if I can dig up the meta-analysis of the MMR/autism question- I think the Cochrane library did it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    The onus of support is on the person who made the claim, not the person who contests it. That is a typical standard for scientific discussions. If you are too lazy to look it up that's fine, it simply means none of us will have good reason to think all these statistics and trends you mention are true.
    OR you could have read my wiki articles. It lists the year antibacterial soap was released, which matches the time period MMR was released, which matches the time period autism began to increase. I refer to the fact I'm too lazy to make MORE charts for ye.
    Wikipedia being what it is their information is not complete. They report one study that found the levels of triclosan to be too small to have any actual affect, and they report several studies that found negative results in animal models but I don't know if those studies used levels of triclosan that are actually comparable to the levels of exposure a human child gets prior to the typical time of autism development. Even the article discussing the most recent study reports the authors being unsure of how these results would relate to human exposure at all, let alone how it could link to autism. I see no solid evidence there of any reason to suspect a link.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Only if those parents had been vaccinated, surely? I can't imagine many adults in 1993 had recieved an MMR vaccination. Even in that case, why would the withdrawal in or around 1993 have any influence on that?
    AFAIK measles and many of the so-called children's diseases are much more dangerous to an adult if he does not have already existing antibodies for it. I myself have not had any, so I might be tempted to take an MMR vaccination.
    I am wondering if non-regressive autism might be as a result of damage to female gametes as a result of either measles during their youth OR an MMR vaccination. That is, those children born of mothers that fit the above criteria might experience increased incidences of non-regressive autism? Withdrawing MMR then would only affect non-regressive autism.

    I'm not sure if it's been looked at, though if there were that would surely be an argument for vaccination rather than against it.
    Are most cases of autism regressive or non-regressive? In any case, if MMR does increase non-regressive autism it would only be minimally and would be very much outweighed by the benefits of taking it. IMO
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    That's because you won't bother to dig deeper. I'm not going to hold your hand the whole way, I shouldn't have to. The triclosan thing is much like wi-fi and cellphones regarding the brain. Some studies claim their perfectly safe, meanwhile literally thousands (if you care to look) suggest the potential for wi-fi to cause neurological problems. Cellphones as well. Now I could track down the website that lists those studies, but even if I did my time would be wasted (anyone that disagrees will disagree anyway).

    You see, you're not interested in knowledge. You're interested in proving someone wrong. The reality is I really don't have an opinion. I've been throwing ideas out there to prove a point. See above. Autism most likely has a cause related to its increase, (many people agree that diagnosis improvement does not account for it, which you'd know if you looked) but you'd never find it on your own. You don't want to look for it. You want to sit comfortably and shoot down the efforts of everyone else. Which is fine, until you shoot down the wrong bird.

    Also, the fact you're unwilling to check the sources yourself astounds me. Do you demand that I spoon feed you information? Do you demand that I carefully and meticulusly sift through the studies to see if they used the proper amount of triclosan, when you can do the same yourself? I refuse to spoon feed you. The data is right there. You're a few clicks and minutes away from it. I'm not going to waste my time RETYPING IT.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Only if those parents had been vaccinated, surely? I can't imagine many adults in 1993 had recieved an MMR vaccination. Even in that case, why would the withdrawal in or around 1993 have any influence on that?
    AFAIK measles and many of the so-called children's diseases are much more dangerous to an adult if he does not have already existing antibodies for it. I myself have not had any, so I might be tempted to take an MMR vaccination.
    I am wondering if non-regressive autism might be as a result of damage to female gametes as a result of either measles during their youth OR an MMR vaccination. That is, those children born of mothers that fit the above criteria might experience increased incidences of non-regressive autism? Withdrawing MMR then would only affect non-regressive autism.
    That's an okay hypothesis, but not supported by what's shown there I think. If parents having kids in 1993 or thereabouts had been vaccinated with MMR, then they'd have been vaccinated back in the 1970s. Quite possible, though the vaccine wasn't as common then. However, we'd have needed the vaccine to be withdrawn during the 1970s to see an effect in these people's kids in the 1990's, wouldn't we? If MMR in parents is causing non-regressive ASD, we'd expect a withdrawal of MMR around 1993 to have no impact on ASD rates until those kids have kids.

    Does that make sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I'm not sure if it's been looked at, though if there were that would surely be an argument for vaccination rather than against it.
    Are most cases of autism regressive or non-regressive? In any case, if MMR does increase non-regressive autism it would only be minimally and would be very much outweighed by the benefits of taking it. IMO
    The majority of cases are non-regressive. Something like 80% on average I think. But as you can see from that cohort, the two rates fluctuate a lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    You see, you're not interested in knowledge. You're interested in proving someone wrong. The reality is I really don't have an opinion. I've been throwing ideas out there to prove a point. See above. Autism most likely has a cause related to its increase, (many people agree that diagnosis improvement does not account for it, which you'd know if you looked) but you'd never find it on your own. You don't want to look for it. You want to sit comfortably and shoot down the efforts of everyone else. Which is fine, until you shoot down the wrong bird.
    I'm not an autism researcher, but I know that the causal effects behind the rise in ASD is an area of active research. It's one I'm quite interested in, but the evidence isn't clear on the matter yet. My interest in "shooting down" the MMR case is entirely down to the harm the scare has done. Where I live, people have died as a result of measles and mumps outbreaks since this story picked up speed in 2001.

    Again, you're making a whole load of assumptions about our motives here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Also, the fact you're unwilling to check the sources yourself astounds me. Do you demand that I spoon feed you information? Do you demand that I carefully and meticulusly sift through the studies to see if they used the proper amount of triclosan, when you can do the same yourself? I refuse to spoon feed you. The data is right there. You're a few clicks and minutes away from it. I'm not going to waste my time RETYPING IT.
    That makes no sense Darius. You have made an assertion. Many people make many assertions. Should we be compelled to go and investigate and and all assertions made or is it the responsibility of the person who wishes to convince us? If it's our responsibility then we have to go researching every half-baked claim we encounter.

    Now, we assume that your assertions are based on evidence. So it stands to reason that you should know what that evidence is and where to find it. If you can take the time to argue this so much, is it beyond you to paste a couple of links to back you up?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Biologista I was not talking to you OR about MMR. I was using "you", as in SINGULAR. Remember, I advocate the use of ye for plural.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    That's because you won't bother to dig deeper. I'm not going to hold your hand the whole way, I shouldn't have to. The triclosan thing is much like wi-fi and cellphones regarding the brain. Some studies claim their perfectly safe, meanwhile literally thousands (if you care to look) suggest the potential for wi-fi to cause neurological problems. Cellphones as well. Now I could track down the website that lists those studies, but even if I did my time would be wasted (anyone that disagrees will disagree anyway).

    You see, you're not interested in knowledge. You're interested in proving someone wrong. The reality is I really don't have an opinion. I've been throwing ideas out there to prove a point. See above. Autism most likely has a cause related to its increase, (many people agree that diagnosis improvement does not account for it, which you'd know if you looked) but you'd never find it on your own. You don't want to look for it. You want to sit comfortably and shoot down the efforts of everyone else. Which is fine, until you shoot down the wrong bird.

    Also, the fact you're unwilling to check the sources yourself astounds me. Do you demand that I spoon feed you information? Do you demand that I carefully and meticulusly sift through the studies to see if they used the proper amount of triclosan, when you can do the same yourself? I refuse to spoon feed you. The data is right there. You're a few clicks and minutes away from it. I'm not going to waste my time RETYPING IT.
    It's a simple rule in scientific discussions, one that I am constantly held to all the time. You make the assertion, you provide the evidence if someone chooses to challenge it. Thus I hold the discussions in this forum to that standard. You shouldn't be surprised by this. Just earlier in this thread I warned that both you and Biologista were just throwing claims back and forth at each other and that BOTH of you needed to provide sources and evidence to back up your claims that the other is wrong. I held both of you to this standard. I warned everyone again that sources were required - not just you, everyone in the thread. So do you think my purpose is to prove everyone in this thread wrong? If you don't want to do the work to back up your statements then I'm going to ask you not to make them anymore.

    /moderator mode
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Biologista I was not talking to you OR about MMR. I was using "you", as in SINGULAR. Remember, I advocate the use of ye for plural.
    Fair enough, take it as an impolite interjection. I do those a lot. So are you going to back up your assertions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Does that make sense?
    Yes.

    Getting measles is dangerous for the unborn children of mothers, no? Does any data exist that shows the frequency of prospective mothers that have taken the MMR vaccination during adulthood? Given the danger of measles to unborn children, doctors might have even prescribed MMR's to prospective mothers, maybe even from early on. When parents decide to have children they are more likely to research the issue and chance upon the danger to unborn children when they attract measles. This kind information can also travel pretty quickly in communities, where friends and family form active support networks. That might predict a tentative correlation. If MMR increases non-regressive autism then it might only be a two tier effect. The number of prospective mothers that decide to take the MMR vaccine might do so only shortly before they actively try for a child then. The decreasing number of cases of non-regressive autism might then be strongly correlated to the relative number of prospective mothers that decide not to take the MMR vaccine because of the hubbub.

    Anyway, a lot of data has to be collected. Numbers of mothers that have either had measles during their youth or MMR vaccines should be weighed up against incidences of autism in their offspring and again against incidences in the rest of the population?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    You can probably find a correlation between tv screen size and autism.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    You can probably find a correlation between tv screen size and autism.
    If you use generalised terms, I guess. But if you collect a lot of data (like what form of autism, when was the TV bought, what does a TV change to the environment) you could probably dispell or favour it with more accuracy.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Does that make sense?
    Yes.

    Getting measles is dangerous for the unborn children of mothers, no? Does any data exist that shows the frequency of prospective mothers that have taken the MMR vaccination during adulthood? Given the danger of measles to unborn children, doctors might have even prescribed MMR's to prospective mothers, maybe even from early on. When parents decide to have children they are more likely to research the issue and chance upon the danger to unborn children when they attract measles. This kind information can also travel pretty quickly in communities, where friends and family form active support networks. That might predict a tentative correlation. If MMR increases non-regressive autism then it might only be a two tier effect. The number of prospective mothers that decide to take the MMR vaccine might do so only shortly before they actively try for a child then. The decreasing number of cases of non-regressive autism might then be strongly correlated to the relative number of prospective mothers that decide not to take the MMR vaccine because of the hubbub.
    That's not the assertion that the anti-MMR crowd are making though. I'm sure you could find some data on it, though I've never heard of a study designed to answer that specific question. Do you reckon that there's evidence that suggests that hypothesis?

    About prospective mothers, I doubt GPs would prescribe MMR by habit since pregnancy is a minor contraindication for MMR. If adults are frequently vaccinated, I gather they'd avoid pregnant women. Contraindications below:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac...tions-vacc.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    That's not the assertion that the anti-MMR crowd are making though. I'm sure you could find some data on it, though I've never heard of a study designed to answer that specific question. Do you reckon that there's evidence that suggests that hypothesis?
    Well, respectfully, I don't much care what they say. I am only trying to provide a possible hypothesis that might explain the correlation between the downward trend of non-regressive autism and the withdrawal of MMR.

    About prospective mothers, I doubt GPs would prescribe MMR by habit since pregnancy is a minor contraindication for MMR. If adults are frequently vaccinated, I gather they'd avoid pregnant women.
    I am guessing that the contraindication is related to the small amount of people that get full blown measles (or mumps or rubella) after the MMR and the danger this will hold for unborn children. But anyway, I am saying that the GP's might prescribe an MMR vaccination to a prospective mother before she becomes pregnant.

    I guess also that such a study would have to include the other diseases it is meant to combat as well, which includes mumps and rubella.

    Are mumps or rubella also dangerous to unborn children?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    That's not the assertion that the anti-MMR crowd are making though. I'm sure you could find some data on it, though I've never heard of a study designed to answer that specific question. Do you reckon that there's evidence that suggests that hypothesis?
    Well, respectfully, I don't much care what they say. I am only trying to provide a possible hypothesis that might explain the correlation between the downward trend of non-regressive autism and the withdrawal of MMR.
    But if you look at the rates again, you'll see that they fall in line with the withdrawal of the vaccine only to start rising again after the vaccine has been withdrawn entirely. If that represents something other than a random fluctuation in the rate then the cause cannot be MMR itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    About prospective mothers, I doubt GPs would prescribe MMR by habit since pregnancy is a minor contraindication for MMR. If adults are frequently vaccinated, I gather they'd avoid pregnant women.
    I am guessing that the contraindication is related to the small amount of people that get full blown measles (or mumps or rubella) after the MMR and the danger this will hold for unborn children. But anyway, I am saying that the GP's might prescribe an MMR vaccination to a prospective mother before she becomes pregnant.

    I guess also that such a study would have to include the other diseases it is meant to combat as well, which includes mumps and rubella.

    Are mumps or rubella also dangerous to unborn children?
    Mumps I don't think so, but rubella is very much dangerous to the unborn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    You said:

    Bizarrely enough, a dip in the rate of non-regressive autism does appear to correlate with the withdrawal of MMR
    Figure 3 from Honda et al. 2005:



    I am not sure exactly to where on the graph you are referring to? Discrepancies between probable regression and definite regression might be down to diagnosis variability, but non-regressive ASD more than doubled from 1991 to 1994 and then shot down again by about 25% in 1995.

    I only looked at the study now, because it gave a cookie error of some sort at first. I had to search for it and have supplied a working URL to it above.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You said:

    Bizarrely enough, a dip in the rate of non-regressive autism does appear to correlate with the withdrawal of MMR
    Figure 3 from Honda et al. 2005:



    I am not sure exactly to where on the graph you are referring to? Discrepancies between probable regression and definite regression might be down to diagnosis variability, but non-regressive ASD more than doubled from 1991 to 1994 and then shot down again by about 25% in 1995.

    I only looked at the study now, because it gave a cookie error of some sort at first. I had to search for it and have supplied a working URL to it above.
    I'm referring to the significant dip from 1990 to 1991. This was once given to me by an anti-vaxxer as evidence of causation. It's a massively unconvincing 2 point correlation in completely the wrong ASD group. When I asked why the rate increases again in 1992, he claimed it was because of the introduction of single jabs overlapping with MMR (rising from about 1990) and that single jabs caused Autism too. So that'd be a rise and dip overlapping a rise. But of course, the equally big dip in 1995 was just a fluctuation according to this fella. A clearer case of confirmation bias I've never encountered.

    So, I was sorta playing devil's advocate with that "correlation". :wink: It still requires a much more complex hypothesis. Or time travel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    You fools, it has nothing to do with vaccines. Just take a look at these charts for the rates of autism and sea piracy:





    You'll notice a sharp spike in piracy in 1989-1990 which corresponds to the 89/90 jump in autism, followed by a decline in piracy in 1991 that corresponds to the 1991 autism decline, and then a major spike piracy around 1994 that corresponds to the 1994 autism increase. Don't you get it??? AUTISM IS CAUSED BY PIRACY!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    I disagree. Clearly (clearly?) autism is causing piracy. Nice find Scifor...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I disagree. Clearly (clearly?) autism is causing piracy.
    Damn, you might have a point there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    So, I was sorta playing devil's advocate with that "correlation". It still requires a much more complex hypothesis. Or time travel.
    Right. Oh well, it was fun thinking about it anyway.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    So, I was sorta playing devil's advocate with that "correlation". It still requires a much more complex hypothesis. Or time travel.
    Right. Oh well, it was fun thinking about it anyway.
    Well you sure had a better hypothesis than the anti-vaxxers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57 MMR and autism 
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    One of the important issues here is the definitionof autism. Guess what. It changed and sure enough more kids fell into the larger definition.

    The anti group shows US data. What about world wide data? The evidence there is that the link is not there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58 A link to info 
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Check out the following link. Go down past the section where they talk about the doctor who started the whoopla was paid 400,000 pounds for his work. Get down to the Danish study.

    http://skepdic.com/skeptimedia/autismthimerosal.html

    You'll find the writing well balanced showing the pros and cons of the work instead of the usual blah-blah-blah.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59 thoughts on MMR and Autism 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5
    Hello,
    My question is, do either one of you have a form of the disorder?
    I personally think I have Asperger's. My 3 sisters think I'm odd. My mum seems to deny the belief despite me not speaking until middle school. I use to generate under 20 words per day. I was still thinking, nonetheless. Passionate with the computer. I think that's a clear sign of some form of PDD.
    Anyways, I notice I can not eat processed food. Sugar is a death sentence. My skin becomes blotchy, I'll occasionally break out and my cognitive process is a trainwreck. I'm a female and have never had the urge to socialize with females. I don't understand why some individuals become so emotional- not logical- over situations. As a child, I constantly had anxiety galore.
    My mother told me during the pregnancy, she was virtually a vegetarian. I believe the answer to autism/asperger's will one day be found in the immune system.
    Candance Pert, a psychoimmunologist, states although they haven't found a link between the vaccine and autism, it does not mean a link does not exist. One of my friends who is an autistic savant stated after he had shots (as a child) his mother stated he had repeated ear infections and a fever. I too have had many ear infections as a child. Is it possible the MMR vaccine triggers ear infections as a means of fighting the disease, but causes infection in certain genetically predisposed individuals? This occuring at a young age when the brain is still developing.. It would be interesting for scientists to study the diet of children with autism/asperger's....
    Love & Laughter is my alcohol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60 Re: thoughts on MMR and Autism 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by lilyspetal
    Hello,
    My question is, do either one of you have a form of the disorder?
    I personally think I have Asperger's. My 3 sisters think I'm odd. My mum seems to deny the belief despite me not speaking until middle school. I use to generate under 20 words per day. I was still thinking, nonetheless. Passionate with the computer. I think that's a clear sign of some form of PDD.
    Anyways, I notice I can not eat processed food. Sugar is a death sentence. My skin becomes blotchy, I'll occasionally break out and my cognitive process is a trainwreck. I'm a female and have never had the urge to socialize with females. I don't understand why some individuals become so emotional- not logical- over situations. As a child, I constantly had anxiety galore.
    If you're concerned that you have an undiagnosed condition then the last place you should be asking is on the internet. Your health is too important to be considering the random opinions of anonymous people with unknown qualifications. Talk to your GP if you are worried or curious about this sort of thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by lilyspetal
    My mother told me during the pregnancy, she was virtually a vegetarian. I believe the answer to autism/asperger's will one day be found in the immune system.
    Perhaps, but it really seems like more of a developmental rather than immunological problem. It's fine to hold such a belief as a hypothesis, but there's no evidence to support it at this time. Why do you mention the vegetarian thing out of interest?

    Quote Originally Posted by lilyspetal
    Candance Pert, a psychoimmunologist, states although they haven't found a link between the vaccine and autism, it does not mean a link does not exist.
    Then Dr. Pert is stating the very obvious. Of course a link is possible, but it seems to be unlikely given the evidence to date.

    Quote Originally Posted by lilyspetal
    One of my friends who is an autistic savant stated after he had shots (as a child) his mother stated he had repeated ear infections and a fever.
    How long after? Has he ever had ear infections before or since then? Fever? Other infections? Is his autism regressive?

    Quote Originally Posted by lilyspetal
    I too have had many ear infections as a child.
    So did I. So did my brother. Neither of us are ASD.

    Quote Originally Posted by lilyspetal
    Is it possible the MMR vaccine triggers ear infections as a means of fighting the disease, but causes infection in certain genetically predisposed individuals?
    Ok, firstly MMR doesn't try different strategies to achieve it's "goal". It has no goal. We do. We give MMR because it contains antigens from three viruses which prime the adaptive immune response against those viruses. So, if MMR causes ear infections (and it's hard to imagine how a vial full of proteins could do that) it's not the vaccine's attempt to "fight the infection". Second, MMR is given as a preventative. So when one of the viruses shows up (maybe via your ear but probably not) it typically gets wiped out before you develop any symptoms. Just as if you'd already had the virus once before. Only in rare cases will you even know you had even the beginnings of an infection.

    Quote Originally Posted by lilyspetal
    This occuring at a young age when the brain is still developing..
    An ear infection? How would that impact on brain development? I'm not saying it is impossible by any means but if MMR were causing infections that were causing ASD then we'd expect to see higher rates of regressive ASD in people who have had MMR than those who have not. But we don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by lilyspetal
    It would be interesting for scientists to study the diet of children with autism/asperger's....
    I'm not following you. What has this got to do with vaccination? I'm sure if you were to use Google Scholar you'd be able to pull up some studies looking at ASD and diet- its a big issue though prone to scares of its own (I recall PETA pushing a very misleading "Dairy Causes Autism" campaign a few months back.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •