Another new study links Autism to vaccines

[cigana]

http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/965249574.html
From the paper:

Thus, rising autistic disorder prevalence is directly related to vaccines manufactured utilizing human fetal cells.

Those cell lines contain retroviral elements by the way.
Can't help thinking this is very relevant to MECFS.

 

[wdb]

Needs saying again, correlation is not causation. Think of all the things that have increased in recent times like say organic food sales, all of these might just as well be linked to autism.

 

[golden]

yes i am constantly reading stories of how my child took a sip of that ! organic ! orange juice and suddenly after hellish screaming etc. was instantly autistic.

 

[A.B.]

@wdb they're saying the slope of the graph showing autism diagnoses increases sharply whenever vaccines manufactured using human fetal cell lines are introduced. This pattern is allegedly seen in US, UK, Western Australia and Denmark data. At that point it's a hard to say that it's a spurious correlation.

 

[adreno]

Direct causation is difficult to prove without control groups in similar environments. However, I do think the results of this study look very worrisome, and at least grounds for further investigation.

 

[alex3619]

We need to see the actual paper. Press releases are notoriously inaccurate and can hype things up or down depending on editorial policy, though hyping things up is usually the way it goes.

 

[A.B.]

@alex3619 it's here: Impact of environmental factors on the prevalence of
autistic disorder after 1979

 

[barbc56]

@wdb

LOL!!

I was just ready to post another blog which has the same chart.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/autism-prevalence-unchanged-in-20-years/

Barb

ETA It turns out I mixed up my blogs as I'very been reading quite a bit about autism and the recent event with the CDC. But it's still relevant to this topic in general.

 

[alex3619]

Lots of associations, some possible mechanisms, its promising but needs more work.

 

[alex3619]

@wdb

LOL!!

I was just ready to post another blog which has the same chart.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/autism-prevalence-unchanged-in-20-years/

Barb

Similar issues occur with discussing whether or not ME is on the increase. Stable diagnostic criteria, and large population sampling would eliminate much of the potential biases. This all costs money however.

 

[barbc56]

@A

Similar issues occur with discussing whether or not ME is on the increase. Stable diagnostic criteria, and large population sampling would eliminate much of the potential biases. This all costs money however.

Yup and therein lies part of the problem.

Barb

 

[DanME]

No. Vaccines don't cause autism. It is just not true. The evidence against this claim is overwhelming.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367

 

[adreno]

It should be noted that the journal is not respectable and of the type were the author pays to publish (poor peer review).

Also, it seems the author has an agenda. She is against abortion and might be fishing for evidence against it.

The use of references in the paper are scarce.

 

[adreno]

Religious fundamentalists try to prove fetal DNA in vaccines causes autism and fail

 

[alex3619]

I noticed earlier one bio includes legal action against the use of fetal cell cultures. Its hard teasing out the issues and their likely impact.

 

[natasa778]

No. Vaccines don't cause autism. It is just not true. The evidence against this claim is overwhelming.

Except that most of the evidence relies on dodgy data collected by shady characters

But we know that Gov agencies would never lie about anything and that epidemiology is all we ever need in order to get to the bottom of extremely complicated matters.

Yeah, right. But then again no price is too high to keep intact the favourite fetish of all.

 

[A.B.]

No. Vaccines don't cause autism. It is just not true. The evidence against this claim is overwhelming.

As far as I know (I'm admittedly not well informed) there has never been a study on the cumulative effects of vaccines in infants. A single vaccine is one thing, but 20+ is another.

Claiming that the evidence of safety is overwhelming is a bit ridiculous. Without such a study, I would say we have no idea what is really happening.

 

[alex3619]

As far as I know (I'm admittedly not well informed) there has never been a study on the cumulative effects of vaccines in infants. A single vaccine is one thing, but 20+ is another.

Claiming that the evidence of safety is overwhelming is a bit ridiculous. Without such a study, I would say we have no idea what is really happening.

Scientists into vaccine research do not claim vaccines are safe. Their claim to safety rests on them being much safer than the disease they confer protection to, not absolutely safe. Its a relative safe.

 

[cigana]

It is funny how I've always thought those scientists with competing interests are the least likely to help us.
Maybe the fact that these researchers (in the above mentioned study) do have reasons for being biased could actually go in our favour for a change (despite it being an unscientific incentive).

Clearly the CDC have very obvious reasons for being biased, but you can't list "National Security" as a competing interest, so they don't need to mention it

 

[adreno]

It is funny how I've always thought those scientists with competing interests are the least likely to help us.
Maybe the fact that these researchers (in the above mentioned study) do have reasons for being biased could actually go in our favour for a change (despite it being an unscientific incentive).

Clearly the CDC have very obvious reasons for being biased, but you can't list "National Security" as a competing interest, so they don't need to mention it

Biased researchers are never in our interest, doesn't matter which way the bias goes. We are not looking for a particular result, but where the facts lead us.