Autism and vaccines

[Michaelaw]

It would seem that new and ongoing research has maybe got a link between the two. For those interested in the debate I present this


LINK

[Bambi]

this hypothesis has been disproven by every single scientific research that has been done on it. In one case (don't have the reference because I am in NJ but can get it when I return to work tomorrow), they studied data in which the vaccine was given to all children, then stopped for a number of years and then reintroduced. there was no change in the rate of autism in children being identified.

however, if a baby is exposed to rubella in the first trimester of a pregnancy it increases the risk of developing autism by a factor of 40.

I do wish that these groups would put their boundless energy into something that would actually help families dealing with this condition.

[Michaelaw]

If you could remember to post the source that would be awesome Bambi. I'm getting very interested in this one. This crew it seems weren't seeking to link autism with vaccines at the outset but the path they found themselves on pointed in that direction. If I could determine the ties and connections of the various study groups who claim to have shown no connection between the two were most certainly above board both in methodology and persuasion/influence (if any) then I could better understand perhaps the invalidity of the "Center For Modeling Optimal Outcomes" research and be in a better position to question the idea of cellular absorption and the possible imbalances caused by glutamate - gelatin/glycine absorption. As one can see at the end of this press release there are really no hard conclusions drawn but more a cry for the medical community to evaluate the model presented. Right or wrong is not important in this debate, but that the condition be identified and dealt with is paramount. I'm like a little skinny dog halfway down a Ferret hole with this I understand but ever since I learned to read I have found inconsistency fascinating and worthy of study

[AcadieLibre]

Not a single real scientific paper has ever even shown a link in any way. It is just fear mongering period and it has caused increases in preventable diseases which is almost criminal. It was a manufactured controversy.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-06-03

[Michaelaw]

Outstanding Link AL, much to go through here, should shut me up for at least a month I'm not swayed one way or the other on this debate at present, just cross checking the evidence. The arguments against vaccines being the cause would seem to indicate no connection and the conspiracy runs high on this one as you would expect but some questions still remain unanswered for me and me being me, I'll keep digging till I get those answers

[Michaelaw]

Ok…After spending the last 8 hours digging through the mush, I can find no scientific testing that has been done disputing the “Center for Modeling Optimal outcomes” findings. Correct me if I’m wrong but studies involving mercury, squalene and other elements have failed to produce but nothing to definitively say the centers findings are off base by any stretch. Still I’d like to look at Bambi’s material to see if in fact I’ve missed something. Once again It’s important to note the Center did not set out to challenge other research but went off on a tangent of their own and inadvertently made this discovery. It’s all very well to say test have been done time and time again and in each case there has been no proof but unless testing has involved this new proposal it’s irrelevant. I could also post far too many comments I’ve come across regarding parents who’ve seen their normal healthy child go down the toilet within weeks to months following vaccination…Far too many to list here. Quite frankly to say they’ve all been bamboozled by a cottage industry of fear mongering in one sweeping statement would just be plain bad observation. As recent as the centers findings are and as lacking as this specific research is, I’m going to have to say they’ve by no means had their day in court, so to lump them in with research that failed to produce results using totally different testing criteria would be a vast mistake! Then again, if someone knows of research having been done that specifically wipes the Centers findings out, I’m all ears!

[Fortytwo]

First, let's look at the document from The Center For Modeling Optimal Outcomes. It's not a peer reviewed document. Which, considering the importance of the outcome is strange. Such an important scientific discovery would instantly make you world famous. If published in a peer reviewed magazin. Also, it would have a very deep impact. But nothing has been published so far. No research documented and reviewed.

But let's not discard them so easily. I started researching the company itself. They're a thinktank. They do not posses any research facilities themself, they are not connected to a university or research institute of any kind. So, besides this document, what have they done so far...
"The Center For Modeling Optimal Outcomes" -autism - Google Search=
As you can see, the only thing of importance they've published so far is on healthcare budgets. Which makes me sceptical of their research abilities.
Now, reading carefully into the document, it seems all they've done is literature studies. There's no problem in that, with all the seperate studies being done, creating an overview is a very good thing. Basically, they took all the studies they could find and made a conclusion about all the work that has been done.
The problem is, there's no way to find which studies have been used. Which data they used and how the conclusion has been drawn up.

And they are not the first to do this. Because of all the public attention this subject has been getting, loads of scientific research went into this subject. And there has been literature studies on those as well, to give us a nice overview of the subject...
Autism and vaccination-the current evidence. [J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2009] - PubMed result
Now, here we DO have a peer reviewed document. All their data can be traced back and reviewed. And it's been done by people with experience with scientific research.

Here we have two documents contradicting each other. Now, everybody should make up their own mind, but given the background of each document, I know which one I'm putting my money on...

[Michaelaw]

Good job 42. To read the article is to know that the center don't do research in the traditional scientific sense and I hope I didn't confuse that issue with any allusions to the contrary. They are indeed a think tank with a big box of data Correct me if I'm wrong but the peer reviewed study you are placing your bet on concerns only the matter of Thimerosal as an agent in vaccines and not the geatin/glycine absorption proposed in the Centers model which I see as a possible key difference. If they are correct in their conclusion that glycine and glutamate are a homeostatic pair and the scientific community can all get on the same train by determining exactly how cellular absorption works then perhaps it may be determined that there is a link between vaccines and autism. It's a risky proposition obviously to fly this article in front of the many studies having been performed on the idea of a link of any sort and yes it may fall flat on its face in the long run, but any possibility no matter how remote deserves examination before being tossed into the bad ideas pile. On the peer review front, at the end of the article William McFaul states “We are not opposed to vaccines. Science has irrefutably proven their value. We are merely asking the medical research community to
evaluate our model for homeostasis in order to ensure the ingredients in vaccines are not disrupting
the body’s processes. We are also seeking cancer research centers willing to spend the time to allow us to explain how the model for assessing homeostasis between substances will enable their scientists to identify causal paths for numerous forms of cancer.” This would seem to be asking for review of the data big time

[Fortytwo]

The article I quoted looked at both thiomerosal containing vaccins (which are a lot) and the MMR in particular. Besides, all they did is look to find a link between the vaccine and the occurances of autism without looking at a possible cause. What it boiles down to is this: injecting with the MMR vaccin does not increase the chances of autism. These are real world observations. Even if the center has found some mechanisms explaning a link, in reality there is no link.

I don't think their claim is very hard. I'm guessing all they doing right now is generating attention to their model so people will buy it. Guess it got a little bigger then they expected. Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to bring down the center, I'm sure they have a very interesting model on cellular absorption. Their marketing just got a life of its own...

Although I encourage people to be sceptical of any subject involving your health. Mistakes have been made in the past, and plenty of them. And it will happen again. We just have to be carefull not to bark up the wrong tree...

[Michaelaw]

The possible cause was the cellular absorption of glycine! "Even if the center has found some mechanisms explaining a link, in reality there is no link". I can not get my head around that statement without going into a feedback loop The total tonnage of parents who've witnessed firsthand their child shift to autism shortly after receiving an Mumps, Measles, Rubella jab just can't be thrown out as total gibberish without a plausible explanation re coincidental circumstances or even a working hypothesis ie Child consumed a "Big Mac" after jab causing the condition, or something IMHO. I don't know what I would tell these parents quite frankly. "It just looks like there is a connection to you because your child became Autistic following a vaccine, in reality the test show it couldn't happen!" There you have it...First hand accounts vs. Scientific study. Parents are most definitely WRONG! It's the amount of parents facing this reality and their observations which I find troubling. I'll keep slanted testing for big Pharma out of the equation until I have more sources. I am well aware of the data stacked against me on this one but I remain skeptical

PS...With total respect to the debate and your opinion