Question: when was it settled science that vaccinations don't cause autism?

[MannyGoldstein]

By what year?

Thanks in advance.

[GP6971]

1. I think 1998

when the paper was debunked. Sorry, no link

[bettyellen]

2. the study was officially retracted 4-5 years ago. should be easy to find since it was

"official" and got decent amount of press.

[fried eggs]

3. Whoever responds, please include a link!

[xmas74]

6. Here's a link to a National Geographic Article

showing that the research was discredited in 1999 and offers additional dates.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130716-autism-vaccines-mccarthy-view-medicine-science/

[proverbialwisdom]

143. National Geographic has changed for the worse. Read all about it here.

http://www.adn.com/article/what-happened-national-geographic-0
http://societymatters.org/2014/02/06/rip-society-matters-2009-2014-national-geographic/

[xmas74]

146. But still gives the basic answers

of when the study was published-1998-and when Wakefield lost his license-2010.

It also says that one year later, in 1999, is when the first study began discrediting Wakefield and that in 2001 a panel found no correlation between vaccines and autism. The sources are all cited and it would be easy to cross-reference. I chose this article for that reason: a very basic overview of the topic, with sources cited that would be easy to find.

[fried eggs]

7. I found the answer regarding MMR

Not sure about the other vaccines:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/MMR/MMR.html

an interesting nugget on the page:

Studies have shown a small increased risk of febrile seizures occurs among children who are younger than 7 years old approximately 8-14 days after vaccination for every 3,000-4,000 children vaccinated with MMR vaccine. This is compared to children not vaccinated during the preceding 30 days.

[bhikkhu]

17. Given the rarity of febrile seizures, the sample size is very small

and the "small increase" could be statistically insignificant. Physically, a febrile seizure most often is a side effect of fever, admittedly frightening but leading to nothing in itself.

[Whiskeytide]

72. There is also apparently a...

... hereditary factor for them as well. I had one when I was an infant, and my children each had one or more. My daughter had three. Frightening doesn't begin to describe it!!

[mercuryblues]

109. Odd thing

is my daughter had a seizure with the onset of Chicken pox. I would be more interested in the rate of seizures of those recently vaccinated to the seizure rate of those who have the disease.

[sabrina 1]

4. Never heard that it was 'settled science'. A lot of people seem to be very concerned about

human beings all of a sudden. I suppose that's a good thing, considering the total lack of concern for the bombs we drop on other people's children. Too bad there isn't a vaccine against bombs.

[NuclearDem]

11. Of course you hadn't.

[KingCharlemagne]

12. Your post reminded me of the black humor around so-called 'neutron bombs.' (These are

nuclear weapons that kill people through release of radiation but that leave the physical infrastructure largely intact.) Wouldn't it be great, I quipped at the time, to have a 'reverse neutron bomb' that destroyed all the buildings but left all the people alive and uninjured? Would create some wonderful Keynesian job opportunities for the construction industry, architects, building materials and so on!

[sabrina 1]

15. I love that idea. And I wouldn't be surprised if it is possible. But killing people for now, seems

be more profitable. Which is why I am so surprised to see the sudden 'concern' for human life. You don't see that often anymore.

[pennylane100]

19. The repugs have an increasingly great concern for human life,

as long as it is in a woman's womb.

[GoneFishin]

30. I know what you mean. It's heartwarming, isn't it?

[Journeyman]

16. When the "N-Bomb" was the big fear, I advocated we needed an "O & P-Bomb". . .

It'd kill only Officers and Politicians and leave the rest of us in peace.

[bettyellen]

36. Well then, read this thread Sabrina-tons of great info debunking this nonsense...

I thought this was common knowledge- but hey, we're here to help the uninformed!

[sabrina 1]

37. That's very admirable, DU has always been there to inform the uninformed.

I think you have missed my point entirely. You don't need to so don't worry about it at all.

[bettyellen]

38. Glad we could be of service regarding this anti- vaxxing bullshit, and I'll just stay on topic-

but thanks for the completely and totally unrelated info about bombs. Or do they both have mercury or something?!?! Wooo ooo ooo. Maybe you should start a thread on it!

[zappaman]

39. Thank you for the info!

Let's hope the uninformed here read it.

Oh, I can see one did already and now knows something about bombs whargle blargle.

[sabrina 1]

41. Thanks, I might do that. Human life, the preservation of it, is something I care about, you'll have

understand, I am one of those 'Liberals' who seem to bother some people so much.

So when I see people rah-rahing for WAR while pretending to care about LIFE, I choose to point out the hypocrisy.

THAT is what BOMBS have to do with the 'discussion' here.

But as I said, you do miss the point, most DUers, whose opinions I have high regard for, get it completely.

I must have missed your informative comments, but I'm sure they are around somewhere, I just don't have the time to go looking.

[bettyellen]

44. I'm so sorry to hear DU has failed to educate you- and here in a thread with a so many great links!

You are indeed missing a great deal of important info that actually does have to do with the OP.
And blathering about something else completely- your personal feelings about DUers who dissapoint you. That's an awesome topic I'm sure you could have fun with on lots of other threads! Or start your own!
Good luck with that!

[sabrina 1]

45. Like I said, you just don't get it. I may start a thread, as I said. I have had plenty of 'luck'

starting threads so don't worry about it. Time is the only problem or I would start a lot more.

The deaths of human beings is not something I would call an 'awesome' topic. I consider it to be a tragic and extremely sad topic.

Lol, No DUer has EVER disappointed me. I am in awe at how predictable DUers are.

To be disappointed, one has to have expectations.

Those I expect a lot from, have never disappointed me, same goes for those who, as I said, are awesomely predictable.

[bettyellen]

47. Sorry to hear how disgusted you are by so many DUers for trying to discuss vaccinations-

without being derailed, but not surprised though. And truthfully, okay- I'm not even really sorry. Matters not a whit to me how disgusted you are by members here. But super looking forward to that OP about how awful we are for trying to discuss vaccinations and disseminate info about them in a thread about....vaccinations. The nerve!
LOL.

[zappaman]

48. I like pancakes and

I want to live in traffic cones cuz France is melty.

[bettyellen]

49. Urgle gurlgle why don't people care what I care about- when I care about it?!?!?

Why can't we discuss off topic things instead?!?
DERP DE DERP.

[sabrina 1]

68. I'm sorry people don't care about what you care about. I'm sure that must be very

frustrating ....

[NuclearDem]

81. Trolls gonna troll.

[sabrina 1]

50. If you need any help with that, let me know!

[zappaman]

56. Nope.

Blueberry is my favorite cuz Canada!

[Ramses]

58. Its amazing how they try to derail and misdirect every comment and thread

Its almost as if its on purpose

[bettyellen]

118. Some would rather try picking fights with DUers

For kicks instead of discussing the actual
OP. They're so angry at their imaginary opponents- most of whom could give a rats ass, btw- that they pull shit like siding with discredited anti-vax morons just to spite them. Lol. It's like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. Not a single person cares.

[Ramses]

119. yes, watching a toddler throw a tantrum is the definition of your response

No one cares about your response, you are correct. You add nothing to the discussion as many here as I am finding out.

[zappaman]

127. Welcome to DU...again!

[zappaman]

127. Welcome to DU...again!

[Sheepshank]

75. some people are just low fact, high opinion posters

and given the very, very rare occurance of any factual links, I honestly think they believe that posting opinions as if it were fact, is actually the same thing as fact.

[sabrina 1]

93. That's for sure. The fact is, that right here in this thread, there are advocates of 'eliminating'

people who do not agree with those who appear to view themselves as superior beings.

A shocking thing, or should be, to those claiming to care so much about human life.

[gopiscrap]

55. No kidding!

[Sheepshank]

69. It's also not a settle science to some people that the world is round....

...is more that 6000 years old or the climate is changing due to human causes.

I tend not to listen to the fringe, they seem to be in poor company. I say they should wallow in their own juices.

[sabrina 1]

73. I agree, I don't listen to the fringe either, and there is nothing more 'fringe' imho, than

people advocating the elimination of those who dare to ask questions when their children's well-being is at stake. How dare they!

I assume you are not among those who want to eliminate people simply for disagreeing with them or perhaps, not being informed enough.

That is the very definition of 'fringe' imho.

Generally Liberals have a better way of addressing those who may be ignorant of facts, they are willing to take the time to inform them.

So I'm wondering, since when did Liberals decide that elimination is a better option for, what may simply be, ignorance??

[Sheepshank]

74. yeah you are always good to come back with "They're trying to shut me up" martyr thing.

Not sure why you bother to respond to any of my posts after you add your own spin and rewording. If you were intellecually honest, you would have not done so. If I'd wanted your re-working of my thoughts I guess I would have asked you for that right off the bat.

All I said was that I don't listen to the fringe...I said NOTHING about shutting them up. They do serve a useful purpose in that they show how much idiocy still exists.

[zappaman]

77. It's as if they are consistently having a conversation

With their self, but replying to others as if they actually read what that person had to say.
Bizarre.

[Sheepshank]

84. ^ ^ ^ oh yeah!! ^ ^ ^

[sabrina 1]

92. You mean 'she' don't you? Why not just be honest when you are talking about other people?

Are you afraid that these, not so thinly veiled, personal attacks might be alerted on or something?

Feel free to say what you want to say about ME, I am not at all likely to be bothered too much about it. Got very used to it during the Bush era. But back then of course, people on unmoderated sites were far more direct with their nastiness.

I liked that better actually. It demonstrated a degree of willingness to face those of us, Liberals I mean, directly and then deal with the consequences.

Besides, attempting to launch a personal attack, indirectly, risks horrific grammar offenses, such as the following:

It's as if they are consistently having a conversation With their self,

Wth does THAT mean? This is how you write a sentence about multiple people:

It's as if they are consistently having a conversation with themselves

There isn't anything remarkable about people (plural) having a conversation among themselves (plural).

Had you simply directed your comment to me, you could have avoided the use of extremely bad grammar in an attempt to try to 'cover' an obvious personal attack.

Next time just be direct, I can more than handle it, which I'm sure you know by now.

[Sheepshank]

94. poor poor pitiful me...

Got very used to it during the Bush era. But back then of course, people on unmoderated sites were far more direct with their nastiness.

you just don't know when to quit playing the martyr, do you?

[sabrina 1]

103. And there is that old talking point, for Liberals btw. I think it was Rush who supplied that one.

Did you know that his ditto heads got all their talking points to 'attack' Liberals, every Monday morning from Limbaugh?

'Martyrs', I remember it well. Once they got one of those anti-Liberal talking points, they were sure they were the smartest ditto heads on the planet, and repeated and repeated them, over and over again. And we played with them. DU was great back then, they mocked their old talking points, and with so much humor. Trust me, Liberals made mince meat out of them. And loved every minute of it.

You should be careful, though, using their talking points, most DUers remember them well. Not to mention, they turned out to be WRONG about everything.

Just some friendly advice, take it or leave it.

'Martyr' Lol, that brought back some great memories.

Thanks for the laugh!

[Sheepshank]

112. so now I'm a ditto head for calling you out on your usual MO? That's the real joke here n/t

[sabrina 1]

113. "Your usual MO". And yours is Personal attacks. People who engage in personal attacks do so

generally, because they cannot defend their positions.

Using Ditto Head talking points to do so might not make them a ditto head, but if the MO is to personally attack people constantly and provide nothing of substance to a discussion, while using their talking points, they risk people dismissing them and/or assuming that is what they are.

I gave you some advice so you could avoid being mistaken for one.

'Martyr' is a famous ditto head 'insult' especially concocted for Ditto Heads to use against Liberals.

I simply provided you with information on the history of internet talking points.

Take it or leave it.

[Sheepshank]

116. bwahh haa haa...walking it back? you are wasting my time.

why not just alert on my posts? You have your own string of mis-statements, name calling, misrepresenting, to defend, I think

For someone who repeats the mantra how much they care for their fellow man, I'm just not feeling the love.

[treestar]

136. Martyr is not a word limited to right wingers

For crying out loud. This is the most ridiculous argument. Because Rush uses the word does not mean you can't be a martyr.

[treestar]

135. Apparently once Rushbo uses a word

it becomes a right wing smear!

[Sheepshank]

142. ain't that just the truth ;) n/t

[sabrina 1]

85. There is the very definition of irony.

Not sure why you bother to respond to any of my posts after you add your own spin and rewording.

Actually YOU responded to my post, just fyi, with a whole lot of spin.

If you were intellecually honest, you would have not done so.

True, I couldn't have said it better myself. Spinning what other people say is definitely not intellectually honest.

If I'd wanted your re-working of my thoughts I guess I would have asked you for that right off the bat.

Exactly my thoughts when I read your initial response doing exactly that, remember I did not initiate this discussion, to me.

All I said was that I don't listen to the fringe...I said NOTHING about shutting them up.

And I agreed. And then pointed out the very definition of the fringe, which can be found right here in this thread, the self-proclaimed 'pro-vaxxers who stated that those who don't agree with them ought to be ELIMINATED!!

Feel free to point out where, in my response to YOUR comment to me, there was any suggestion that YOU made those outrageous statements.

Speaking of spinning what people say. Which is why I called your post 'ironic'.

I'll wait for your link to my comment that even comes close to the spin you just put on it.

Now that this has been cleared up, I will repeat that the very definition of 'FRINGE' can be found right here in this thread stating emphatically that those who question should be ELIMINATED.

I don't listen to the 'FRINGE', nor do most people, which makes me wonder why, if you are in favor of something, you would allow the FRINGE to speak for you.

I know I would make it clear, and have in this thread, that anyone advocating the elimination of human beings, doesn't speak for me.

You have not commented on the topic in the subthreads that resulted from those outrageous statements, coming from those claiming to be 'pro-vaxxers.

They don't speak for me. I have no idea whether or not they speak for you, since that was the topic here, and you jumped in and launched an attack, not on them, but on me, presumably for being honest enough to make it clear such extremism does not represent my views, on ANY topic.

[NuclearDem]

89. OFFS

No one is advocating for "elimination of other human beings." Knock that shit off.

The most drastic actions suggested by anyone here amount to isolating and quarantining people who refuse to vaccinate, as in some sort of special facility built to house and isolate people from the general public based on health reasons. You know, like a fucking hospital.

Come off your persecution complex high horse already, Jesus.

[Sheepshank]

95. I don't care you respond...but be intellectually honest and respond to the subject at hand

quit trying to paint people into a corner by changing their words, quit changing the subject and demanding some sort of loyalty statement designed to elaborate on something that was never said.

Here..see this as an example:

I assume you are not among those who want to eliminate people simply for disagreeing with them or perhaps, not being informed enough.

*I* not once, not ever talked about elminating anyone because of their stand on vaccinations. Why should you even presume and state the nonsense that my stand on this issue needs to be cleared up?

Your tactic is overwhelmingly predictable and despicable.

[sabrina 1]

97. The question was prompted by your attack on ME rather than on the proponent of disappearing

people for daring to ask questions.

Even then, I asked you rather than put words in your mouth, unlike what you attempted to do to me.

Jumping into aa discussion with pre-conceived ideas about people, is not the best way to understand the conversation.

You jumped because of your own presumptions about DUers.

I am not responsible for your actions. Though I see you ARE attempting to blame me, who did not approach you, you jumped to conclusions about me, pre-conceived I know.

Next time maybe read the thread so you can follow what is being discussed rather than look at a name and decide 'WRONG' just because.

At least I gave you a chance to clarify your position. Put no words in your mouth. If you leap in on the side of those who proposed such outragious violations of our Constitution, be grateful I did not simply assume you shared those views, though I could have.

[Sheepshank]

111. nope..still not being honest. This is your usual go to tactic, and not just on this thread. n/t

[FSogol]

114. Well said. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. there is scientific consensus that vaccines have never been shown to cause autism.

not exactly sure why you dont know that though

[NuclearDem]

82. Anti-vaxxers do tend to selectively ignore that information.

[treestar]

134. Well you just showed your lack of concern for

the gay people who died of AIDS and the black people who were lynched. Why do you care only about children?

[NuclearDem]

5. The CDC published its findings in 2007.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080407015528/http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/mmr_autism_factsheet.htm

The NHS published theirs in 2003.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4002972

The Institutes of Medicine published theirs in 2004.

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Immunization-Safety-Review-Vaccines-and-Autism.aspx

And Brian Deer published a series of articles for The Sunday Times exposing Wakefield's repeated fraud and manipulation of data in his 1998 study.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/news/article148992.ece

[xmas74]

10. Excellent!

I found an article from National Geographic with the dates in one easy-to-find source but this is even better!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130716-autism-vaccines-mccarthy-view-medicine-science/

[NuclearDem]

13. That's a great link too!

[xmas74]

14. My link is the simple go-to link

while yours are for those who refuse to accept it and demand more.

[KingCharlemagne]

8. While I don't have a link, I read recently that scientists now believe that

autism occurs in utero, i.e., long before vaccinations could 'cause' it in any meaningful or plausible sense.

I'm sure one of the people here following this debate can supply the link to that story or article.

[Barack_America]

20. As a geneticist, I think chromosomal microduplications and deletions play a large role.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. There's this (from 1995!)

Two previous epidemiological studies of autistic twins suggested that autism was predominantly genetically determined, although the findings with regard to a broader phenotype of cognitive, and possibly social, abnormalities were contradictory. Obstetric and perinatal hazards were also invoked as environmentally determined aetiological factors. The first British twin sample has been re-examined and a second total population sample of autistic twins recruited. In the combined sample 60% of monozygotic (MZ) pairs were concordant for autism versus no dizygotic (DZ) pairs; 92% of MZ pairs were concordant for a broader spectrum of related cognitive or social abnormalities versus 10% of DZ pairs.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5025556&fileId=S0033291700028099

A strong correlation for ASD presenting in identical but not fraternal twins, and for ASD and associated issues presenting in identical twins at a rate 9X higher than fraternal twins, is pretty persuasive of a genetic component (since twins are controlled for an identical environment, presumably, and identical rates of vaccination or non-vaccination).

[Act_of_Reparation]

9. There is no exact date.

But many would argue the nail in the coffin was 2004, when The Lancet declared a publication by "researcher" Andrew Wakefield (a prominent anti-vaxxer) was fatally flawed and retracted.

[bhikkhu]

18. Mid 2000's, as far as I've read

most current research is toward genetic causes, which are proving very complex (as the mind is), but showing some progress. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/10/29/359818102/scientists-implicate-more-than-100-genes-in-causing-autism

More promising and important is the development of behavioral therapies to mitigate most of adverse symptoms if applied early enough - very encouraging.http://www.asatonline.org/pdf/Sallows-Graupner2005.pdf

[DonCoquixote]

22. when was it settled

that they ever found out WHAt caused autism in the first place?

You can say vaccines did, but you cannot prove they did when people cannot understand what autism even is, or how it happened. If it is not understood how autism actually occurs, the actual cause of autism, you cannot say vaccines are that cause. You might as well say Tea is caused by magic, without even understand why water actually boils, or even what boiling water actually is

[SidDithers]

23. Kick. 'Cause Manny never came back to acknowledge all the good answers he got...nt

Sid

[geek tragedy]

24. I'm sure he'll be back with another OP faulting a certain politician of the Democratic

party for not showing enough leadership on vaccines.

[treestar]

138. You said it!

[geek tragedy]

25. Because we know it's coming, that train is never late

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-no-obama-didnt-pander--20150202-column.html

When Obama says "this person included," he's clearly shown pointing off to his right at the person who asked him about the autism-vaccine link, and not referring to himself. The full transcript of his remarks also suggests that the science he says is "inconclusive" is the science of what causes autism -- not the purported link to any vaccine.

"We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate," he says. "Nobody knows exactly why.... We’ve got to figure out why is it that this is happening so that we are starting to see a more normal, what was a normal, rate of autism."


Blogger Orac of Science Blogs turned up an example of how candidate Obama ticked off the anti-vaccination movement later in 2008 by stating that he was "not for selective vaccination, I believe that it will bring back deadly diseases, like polio."

[msanthrope]

34. Bingo! nt

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Maybe Manny has a job?

Who can tell?



And what, exactly, should Manny acknowledge, having thanked people in advance?

[LanternWaste]

83. More likely, the answers do not validate his narrative...

"Maybe Manny has a job?"

More likely, the answers do not validate his narrative... but I'd go with the job answer too-- it's convenient.

[MannyGoldstein]

86. Personal attack. nt

[zappaman]

87. So was your question answered?

Or maybe this wasn't about a question, but rather about what most of your posts are about.

[MannyGoldstein]

88. Obviously.

I see lots of answers.

Did I ask a question that's diffeent than the one that was answered, repeatedly?

[zappaman]

90. Glad you got your answers!

[CreekDog]

133. Why would ask people to prove a negative?

Seems to not understand a fairly basic concept.

[treestar]

137. you could have used the google

but you gave the assignment to DU. The rest of DU doesn't have jobs, so they got you the answer.

[sabrina 1]

43. Another kick, because this is a great thread. I have heard that people have learned a lot

from Manny's thread.

But people always learn a lot from Manny's threads.

[villager]

52. One thing we learn is who can actually *discuss* things here at a "discussion site," and who snarks

...in lieu of conversation.

Many can't be weaned from their snarky ways, of course. Nor, it seems, do they want to be. Par for their course, I guess.

[sabrina 1]

53. You're exactly right.

People discuss when they are genuinely interested is understanding, or informing themselves and others.

Those who resort to 'snark', have no interest in discussing anything. What puzzles me is, why bother with a discussion forum if that is not what you are interested in?

I can think of only one reason.

[ProfessorGAC]

67. Always? A Lot?

Please speak for yourself.

[gwheezie]

26. Good links

I am a nurse. I have been doing this for 40 years. I've read peer reviewed accepted scientific articles over the years and attend yearly updates on infectious disease and know that vaccines prevent serious illness and death. I know that vaccines do not cause autism. I haven't read one study that says vaccines cause autism that hasn't been at best dubious and effectively shown to be inaccurate and lousy science.
I accept the science.
On another note, bless their heart but people who believe vaccines cause autism to me are people I avoid talking to about science stuff. I'm sure they mean well but I find it impossible to take them seriously.

[randome]

27. The vaccines are made to go bad because of contrails.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[snooper2]

28. where did you go we need you back!

or are you just trolling GD LOL...


You funny Manny Manny you

[edhopper]

29. There was never a link

When was it settled that Unicorns don't cause rainbows?

[SidDithers]

31. Kick...nt

Sid

[Avalux]

32. When there was no proof EVER that they do.

As others have mentioned here, the only study linking the two was found to be falsified by the authors. The Lancet retracted it.

Scientific theory takes the evidence, or facts that are before us, and presents the best possible explanation.

Until proven otherwise, vaccinations prevent infectious diseases and the benefits outweigh any risks. That's what the evidence tells us.

As a scientist, I'll never say this can't be proven wrong, or that I'll never change my mind.

But it would take solid scientific evidence to do it, as it should.

[Vattel]

35. Strictly speaking, never.

It is not settled science that eating ice cream doesn't cause autism either. But to my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence that vaccines or ice cream do cause autism. So it is highly unlikely that either of them do.

[onecaliberal]

54. How does one explain the Autistic kids

Before vaccines? It's not rocket science.

[Vattel]

59. No one has proven that there is only one cause of autism.

There was lung cancer before cigarette smoking, but that doesn't prove that cigarette smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

[onecaliberal]

62. Autism is genetic.

It's sad that people will grasp at straws. Tobacco has been around almost as long as people. Not a good analogy.

[Vattel]

64. Dude, seriously.

Do you really think tobacco is the only source of lung cancer? My point was the simple one that because autism could have multiple causes, its existence prior to vaccines is no proof that vaccines cannot be a causal factor in some cases of autism.

Furthermore, no one has proven that autism is purely genetic. If you are denying that environmental factors interact with genetics to produce autism, then you are making claims that go well beyond what scientists currently know about autism.

Edited to add: Please don't misinterpret me and suggest that I believe that vaccines cause autism. I believe that it is almost certain that vaccines do not cause autism.

[jberryhill]

79. Umm... "tobacco has been around almost as long as people"

But cigarettes have not.

Regardless of the fact that Europeans and Asians did not encounter tobacco until relatively recently in historic terms, since it is a New World crop, it's use in cigarettes - which encourage deep inhalation - is in fact a much more relatively recent phenomenon.

Cigarettes really caught on after 1880 with the ability to mass produce them, and it wasn't until WWI that they became common.

----
The widespread smoking of cigarettes in the Western world is largely a 20th-century phenomenon – at the start of the 20th century the per capita annual consumption in the USA was 54 cigarettes (with less than 0.5% of the population smoking more than 100 cigarettes per year), and consumption there peaked at 4,259 per capita in 1965. At that time about 50% of men and 33% of women smoked (defined as smoking more than 100 cigarettes per year).
-----

[zappaman]

40. So, did you get the info you were looking for?

[bettyellen]

46. I find myself oddly curious as to how Elizabeth Warren feels about vaccines, LOL.

Not really. :rimshot:

[treestar]

140. hehe

She'd fight for whatever that is though! Really fight hard!!!!!

[cwydro]

42. Every single child of my age

was vaccinated.

Never heard or knew of an autistic one.

[onecaliberal]

51. 1998

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/2/7965885/the-research-linking-autism-to-vaccines-is-even-more-terrible-than

[MattBaggins]

57. When was it settled that brownies don't make my shoes in the middle of the night

?????????

[randome]

65. Same thing, isn't it? BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT! Incredible thread full of absolute...brownies.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

60. 2002

A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism

Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, M.D., Anders Hviid, M.Sc., Mogens Vestergaard, M.D., Diana Schendel, Ph.D., Jan Wohlfahrt, M.Sc., Poul Thorsen, M.D., Jørn Olsen, M.D., and Mads Melbye, M.D.

N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1477-1482 November 7, 2002 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa021134

(h/t tip TrollBuster9090 for providing the link in another OP. Study covers half a million kids, 80% vaccinated, 20% not, so is certainly a large enough sample size to show that there is no statistical link.)

[Kurska]

61. There was never any real evidence

There was one 12 person study that way overstated it's findings and was so deeply flawed that the author lost their right to practice medicine.

The paper was withdrawn and an avalanche of studies found no link.

Settled science.

[Lex]

63. A simple Google search.

But this thread is full of win.

[NCTraveler]

66. Probably one of the best ops started on this subject.

It brought out many excellent links showing the recent history and science. Really should be an eye opener for the skeptics. I really think it would be good if you did a follow up thread to this one. "What peer reviewed paper shows a connection between todays vaccines and autism?"

Simple threads like this seem to bring out the facts.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

70. it was never established that they do.

this is much like my saying which year did we decide that vaccinations do not lead to hunger.

[on point]

76. Always. Since the faked study couldn't reproduce results, it was never valid

[zappaman]

78. Did you get your answer?

Seems like their are a lot of great links and information in this thread.

[mike_c]

80. of course, it has never been settled and can never be "settled..."

...if by settled you mean complete confidence that no vaccine can ever cause autism. I'm sure you know that science doesn't work that way. All it would take is one case of autism caused by a vaccine to falsify the hypothesis that vaccines do not cause autism.

What we can say is that the likelihood is vanishingly small, because that falsifying instance has not occurred despite millions and millions of trials, i.e. the number of inoculations that have been administered. But in science, the only things that are certain are those that unambiguously falsify hypotheses, so the question in the OP simply doesn't fit the investigatory framework of science.

Less ambiguous are some of the other risks of inoculation. Some very small proportion of patients sometimes get the disease they're being vaccinated against, depending on the vaccine itself of course, or another disease, perhaps because of contamination. Some suffer other side effects. No medical procedure is risk free. An informed patient considers those risks realistically however, and weighs them against the risks associated with disease, which are usually much higher. Some folks magnify those very small risks of vaccination all out of proportion and neglect the much greater risks of acquiring preventable diseases.

[MannyGoldstein]

91. By "settled", I mean "pretty unlikely that we'll find a link" nt

[mike_c]

96. now you're talking like a scientist....

[WinkyDink]

132. But you, frankly, are the only poster I've read who acknowledges the truth of science: that there is

no "settled."

[mike_c]

141. At 60-ish, I've spent half my life doing science....

I'm pretty committed to an empiricist perspective. Plus it's been boat loads of fun.

[Cali_Democrat]

98. LOL...Manny and his woo got served.

Classic.

[MannyGoldstein]

99. Clearly, you have zero idea of what's going on here

I asked a question, I got a range of answers - your (apparent) imputation of motive is foolish.

[Cali_Democrat]

100. You're pretty easy to figure out, Manny

One person above said you were trying to troll DU.

I would have to agree with that assessment. Vaccines do not cause autism.

You then got your ass handed to you with facts about vaccines and autism.

Funny ass shit.

[MannyGoldstein]

101. Amd where have I said otherwise?

Fool.

[Cali_Democrat]

102. LOL....this thread might be your best yet....

[geek tragedy]

105. Third Woo Manny. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

115. LOL!

[geek tragedy]

104. Lolz

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4285108

All in all, sadly, we're mostly on our own when it comes to either "real" medicine or woo. Not much evidence for either. At least woo is a lot less effective at mayhem. There is lots of evidence in the literature about stuff that really helps, but it gets ignored because nobody can make a buck off of it.

Did you know that vaccines have saved millions of lives? Because you didn't when you posted that drivel.

Have you absorbed enough facts to admit that it is a FACT that modern medicine has saved MANY more lives than has aromatherapy and other forms of woo?

Because you were insisting that had not been proven?

So, ya, Third Woo Manny is still in the house.

[Cali_Democrat]

121. Care to weigh in on reply #106 in this thread?

[MannyGoldstein]

122. There is a bizarre desire by some people to believe

that this OP is somehow implying that I now believe that vaccines might cause autism. I do not believe that, nor have I ever believed that. But the attention is weirdly flattering.

These people have trouble understanding English, or are nitwits, or both.

[Cali_Democrat]

124. Manny in 2008:

It's pretty clear that vaccines have nothing to do with autism.

[MannyGoldstein]

125. Your point?nt

[SidDithers]

110. No, you see, THIS TIME he was sincere...

Sid

[geek tragedy]

106. You were trolling, unless you got amnesia since 2008.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=28296&mesg_id=28306

3. That's Not At All Clear
It's pretty clear that vaccines have nothing to do with autism.

As to the possibility that there are other environmental triggers, the evidence is quite unclear - we actually don't even know if there's been an increase in autism at all, or whether it's a label that's thrown around more.

That vast bulk of "autism" that is diagnosed today is actually not true autism - which is an awful, awful diseas. Rather, it is "spectrum autism", which is a hypothetical condition where the victim is said to have some degree of autism, but not the full-blown condition. "Spectrum autism" was not a label until the last decade or so, and to this day, there is zero scientific evidence that kids labeled as having "specrum autism" have any link to kids with true autism. In fact, the best scientific evidence tends to indicate that they are NOT linked at all.

There are certainly a lot of kids being labeled as having "spectrum autism". These kids would not have been labeled with this 20 years ago, because it was not recognized. So, the question is: do we actually have more kids with "spectrum autism" then before? Or were kids simply not diagnosed with it before, because the label is recent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3470004&mesg_id=3470194

MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
9. Same As Every Single Study To Date Has Found
The Lancet subsequently retracted the paper mentioned in the OP. Actually, 10 of the 13 original authors retracted it, and it turned out that Wakefield, prior to publication, had been personally paid more that $500k by lawyers looking to sue vaccine manufacturers. It is irresponsible that the WP did not mention that the Lancet study was withdrawn and the main author found to be deeply corrupt.

Every other study has found zero link, including studies in Northern Europe which are typically the best and freest of outside influence in the world.

[SidDithers]

107. Wow. "Spectrum autism" isn't "true autism"...

Holy shit that's an ignorant piece of writing.

Shades of Todd Akin and "legitimate rape" in those comments.

Sid

[geek tragedy]

108. But a very clear and cogent discussion of how vaccines do not cause autism with detailed

knowledge of the Wakefield saga.

7 years later . . . pleading ignorance?

[Douglas Carpenter]

117. there is no such thing as "Spectrum Autism" - Autism is a Spectrum - that why its official name

is Autism Spectrum Disorder - These standards established by the American Psychiatric Association under the DSM V guidelines

There is no serious debate in the psychiatric community either in North America or internationally that questions that Autism does in fact come in matters of severity which the DSM V APA guidelines have established as level 0 to level 3. It is the overwhelming and international scientific consensus that different levels of the severity scale are measurements of the same conditions - but of varying severity - as it the case with almost every other physical, neurological and psychiatric condition known to science.

I suppose most people who were previously diagnosed or would have been diagnosed with Asperger's under the DSM !V would now be diagnosed with ASD Severity Scale 1.

I found this PDF file online that I thought might be useful.

Severity Scale - levels 0-3

level 0: Autistic traits - but subclinical and Requiring no support /

Level 1 Mild - Requiring some Support/

Level 2 Moderate Requiring Substantial Support

Level 3 Severe - 3/Requiring very substantial support

There is a fairly detailed chart here - from psychiatry.org:

CLINICIAN-RATED SEVERITY OF
AUTISM SPECTRUM AND SOCIAL COMMUNICATION DISORDERS

Mild
Requiring support
(i.e., Without supports in place, deficits in social communication cause noticeable impairments. Has difficulty initiating social interactions and demonstrates clear examples of atypical or unsuccessful responses to social overtures of others. May appear to have decreased interest in social interactions.)

Moderate
Requiring SUBSTANTIAL support
(i.e., Marked deficits in verbal and nonverbal social communication skills; social impairments apparent even with supports in place; limited initiation of social interactions and reduced or abnormal response to social overtures from others.)

Severe
Requiring VERY SUBSTANTIAL support
(i.e., Severe deficits in verbal and nonverbal social communication skills cause severe impairments in functioning; very limited initiation of social interactions and minimal response to social overtures from others.)
RESTRICTED INTERESTS and REPETITIVE BEHAVIORS:
Rate the level of interference in functioning and support required as a result of RESTRICTED INTERESTS and REPETITIVE BEHAVIORS for this individual.

None

Mild
Requiring support
(i.e., Rituals and repetitive behaviors cause significant interference with functioning in one or more contexts. Resists attempts by others to interrupt RRBs or to be redirected from fixated interest.)

Moderate
Requiring SUBSTANTIAL support
(i.e., RRBs and/or preoccupations and/or fixated interests appear frequently enough to be obvious to the casual observer and interfere with functioning in a variety of contexts. Distress or frustration is apparent when RRBs are interrupted; difficult to redirect from fixated interest.)

Severe
Requiring VERY SUBSTANTIAL support
(i.e., Preoccupations, fixed rituals and/or repetitive behaviors markedly interfere with functioning in all spheres. Marked distress when rituals or routines are interrupted; very difficult to redirect from fixated interest or returns to it quickly.)

Copyright © 2013 American Psychiatric Association. All Rights Reserved.
This material can be reproduced without permission by researchers and by clinicians for use with their patients.
Instructions to Clinicians


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychiatry.org%2FFile%2520Library%2FPractice%2FDSM%2FDSM-5%2FClinicianRatedSeverityOfAutismSpectrumAndSocialCommunicationDisorders.pdf&ei=YrxxVIzVONS1oQS-p4DIAQ&usg=AFQjCNG8tm7imUhaLlmY5UVt8YNr-N2YNw&sig2=Yuql_5qyhgWl5pWcZFwyGw&bvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU

[MannyGoldstein]

123. The "science" here, as in most of psychology, is terrible.

There are a spectrum of social disabilities, but these differences may be caused by very different things and this has not been seriously studied (at least as of a few years ago). A simple example is that some people with high-functioning autism score off the charts high on understanding social situations, while others score off-the-charts low. In the former case, people know what to do but can't do it in the moment (social anxiety?), in the latter case they just don't know what to do. Very different underlying causes, very different treatments needed, but both labeled the same, which is extremely unhelpful. It's like having a diagnosis of "spectrum coughing disease" that covers both an irritated throat and lung cancer.

A while back, I heard an interview with the psychologist who spearheaded the removal of Asperger's from the DSM because there was no evidence that there was a distinct condition. He said his next goal was to get rid of "spectrum autism disorder" in all of its variations.. There are definitely people with severe social issues that can be helped by treatments, but it's not at all clear that they're linked by a common thread, so a common diagnosis is a really bad idea.

[Douglas Carpenter]

126. there may very well be different types and obviously severity levels of Autism

Last edited Sun Feb 8, 2015, 04:48 AM - Edit history (1)

just as there are different types of seizure disorders and obviously different levels of severity. The move to remove Asperger's as a separate diagnoses occurred because it is the overwhelming and international consensus that Asperger's is a form of high function autism minus language delays and intellectual development delays. This move was an affirmation of the Spectrum by recognizing that people with Asperger's are people with Autism. Multiple testing of all sorts including fMRI scans do point to similar patterns just as they point to a wide diversity of types. For example most people with Autism from across the Spectrum from the mildest Asperger to the most profound Classic level three experience a very intense world were overstimulation occurs all the time. There are however people across the Spectrum of Autism who experience a distant and numbed - sensory-deficit world.

So what is the common link between the mild and high functioning and employed Asperger and the severely withdrawn non verbal level 2 or 3 person with Autism? The common link seems to be an experience of people who find a profound need to escape into their own world, who have difficulty reading nonverbal cues, who have at least a significant history difficulties ad impairments in interacting with others and who frequently engage in repetitious self-soothing behavior. You will find that schools and education programs for children with Autism do not differentiate Asperger level from Classic level. It is assumed that they are the same condition with different levels of severity.

Purely on a personal anecdotal note - when I have communicated with deeply withdrawn nonverbal classic autistics using electronic means - it is obvious to all of us that we share a common experience - but different levels of severity.

[MannyGoldstein]

130. Should an irritated throat and lung cancer both be pulled into a single diagnosis

of "spectrum coughing disorder", possibly graded by severity?

Likewise should people with social disabilities who score 99th percentile and 1st percentile on understanding social conventions, or facial expressions, be diagnosed with the same disease, often even with the same severity?

Is there any scientific evidence that people with "classical" autism (severe social, emotional and intellectual disabilities) share a common cause for their disease with, say, a kid with an IQ of 135 who's socially quirky? Last time I checked, this research had not been done.

I come from a family of very science-oriented psychologists, and they are apalled by how their discipline uses diagnoses for this very reason, and not just with regard to autism. These diagnoses interfere with treatment because clinicians are biased to feel that a certain diagnosis should be treated a certain way, when in fact two people with the same diagnosis should often be treated totally differently, what's helpful to one could be hurtful to the other. Much better to treat specific deficits than to proclaim syndromes whose victims may have wildly-different deficits.

[Douglas Carpenter]

131. no an irritated throat and lung cancer are obviously not two different types of cancer affected

only by the degree of severity and life threatening conditions. However a person with a treatable melanoma and lung cancer do both have a form of cancer. Even if we limited the discussion to lung cancers we would have a wide range of levels of severity.

There are many, many nonverbal and totally withdrawn classic autistics who can write like University professors especially utilizing appropriate electronic technology. People who only two decades ago would have been dismissed as mentally retarded and no doubt and no doubt many still are . Are these little professors _ as Hans Asperger called them -any less classic autistic? Temple Grandin whose work in animal husbandly revolutionized slaughterhouse techniques in North America was diagnosed as full blown Autism at the time when it was frequently called "Childhood Schizophrenia and was totally nonverbal until she was about eight years of age. Her parents were advised to have her permanently institutionalized. Yet her writings on biology, animal husbandry, and autism practically caused a revolution in how autism is views.

There may be many disagreements in the scientific community's understanding of autism - There is almost no disagreement among serious researchers that like every other physical, psychiatric, medical and neurological condition known to science there is a vast range in degrees of severity. Lacking intelligence or human feelings are not and have never been a criteria to define autism.

[JI7]

120. "You were trolling"

that's been clear for a long time now

[joshcryer]

129. 0 recs

[steve2470]

139. I'll be really glad if and when this vaccine BS gets shoved to Creative Speculation or TOS banned

now, trash thread.

ETA: Auto-trash by keywords also.

[proverbialwisdom]

144. In summary, both the official US government stance and the consensus of this thread appears to be...

...that the retraction of the 1998 paper conclusively answers the question in the OP. Have you read the 5-page paper? Here it is.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

Volume 351, No. 9103, p637–641, 28 February 1998

Early Report (1998)
RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children

Dr AJ Wakefield, FRCS, SH Murch, MB, A Anthony, MB, J Linnell, PhD, DM Casson, MRCP, M Malik, MRCP, M Berelowitz, FRCPsych, AP Dhillon, MRCPath, MA Thomson, FRCP, P Harvey, FRCP, A Valentine, FRCR, SE Davies, MRCPath, JA Walker-Smith, FRCP

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0

SUMMARY

Background
We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder.

Methods
12 children (mean age 6 years [range 3–10], 11 boys) were referred to a paediatric gastroenterology unit with a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills, including language, together with diarrhoea and abdominal pain. Children underwent gastroenterological, neurological, and developmental assessment and review of developmental records. Ileocolonoscopy and biopsy sampling, magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and lumbar puncture were done under sedation. Barium follow-through radiography was done where possible. Biochemical, haematological, and immunological profiles were examined.

Findings
Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. All 12 children had intestinal abnormalities, ranging from lymphoid nodular hyperplasia to aphthoid ulceration. Histology showed patchy chronic inflammation in the colon in 11 children and reactive ileal lymphoid hyperplasia in seven, but no granulomas. Behavioural disorders included autism (nine), disintegrative psychosis (one), and possible postviral or vaccinal encephalitis (two). There were no focal neurological abnormalities and MRI and EEG tests were normal. Abnormal laboratory results were significantly raised urinary methylmalonic acid compared with agematched controls (p=0·003), low haemoglobin in four children, and a low serum IgA in four children.

Interpretation
We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.

INTRODUCTION

<>

The entire issue (validity of the retraction) has been massively summarized and updated with new information very recently (including back and forth between Brian Deer and AOA starting March 7). Look around.

[proverbialwisdom]

145. The official government stance relies on multiple analyses of additional research papers, of course.

The cited research studies (couple of dozen) are assessed by panels of government experts; conclusions are then published. Guess what?

1) The specific studies cited (couple of dozen) and 2) the expert panel final reports reviewing these are available for anyone to read. Parents of children with autism (and others) have gathered the specific cited studies and put them online themselves to remove any barrier to reading them.

The parents (and others) have minutely examined them in excruciating detail - study by study, report by report - and critiqued them as scientists would. Guess what?

They REFUTE the individual studies with explanations (eg. design flaws, COI, more). They have found and highlighted the wiggle/weasel words in the expert panel final reports and REFUTE the widely disseminated interpretations with explanations, too.

They invite open debate. Read around.

[proverbialwisdom]

147. OTOH, much of the DATA is protected & unavailable despite years of FOIA requests. Just read this...

December 06, 2012
Interview with Dr. Brian Hooker
By Anne Dachel

Brian Hooker is the father of a son with autism and he holds a PhD in Biochemical Engineering, in addition to being a dedicated member of the autism community. He also played a role in how the (2012) House autism hearing came to be.

AD: What kind of information were you seeking from the CDC with your FOIA requests?

BH: All kinds. I have made over 100 FOIA requests to the CDC over the last 8 years and received thousands of pages of information. This has been a very thorough compilation of work... I have specifically requested information for the 5 CDC studies on thimerosal and autism prior to 2004 that led to the IOM Immunization Safety Review Committee report “Vaccines and Autism” released in May 2004. In this report, primarily due to committee chairperson Dr. Marie McCormick (Harvard University) and study director Dr. Kathleen Stratton (IOM), causation was denied between thimerosal containing vaccines and autism (as well as the MMR vaccine and autism). This report also effectively shut down government funding for any further "independent" research on vaccines and autism. This information is crucial, given the constant reference that the CDC and others make to the 2004 IOM report. Most of the key components of the FOIAed information have been completely redacted by the CDC.

I also requested information on Poul Thorsen and his connection to CDC, obviously because of his co-authorship in studies that bolstered the body of evidence denying vaccine causation in autism and his known culpability and fraud indictments, being on the DHHS OIG Most Wanted Fugitive list. The majority of this information has been withheld by the CDC.

Finally, I have requested information on two of the latest CDC studies again denying causation between neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) and thimerosal exposure including Thompson et al. 2007 (NEJM 357:1281) and Price et al. 2010 (Pediatrics 126:656). These two publications are indiscernible from an epidemiology standpoint. This information has yet to be released from the CDC.

Clearly, any lack of transparency is unsustainable in the long term because it is scientifically indefensible.
RELATED: http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

[proverbialwisdom]

148. Upcoming event.

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2015-04-09/american-whistleblowers-peril-and-promise-science