Part of my job would be much harder without google, but would I get more done because I’d be researching autism less? That is a question like whether we can truly know if there is an epidemic or not; we may never know the answer.

Anyways, check this study out:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15976761&ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

From the abstract:

“Despite wide use of the influenza vaccine, relatively little is known about its effect on the measurement of inflammatory markers. ” (no kidding!)

“There was a significant increase in mean IL-6 (P

“pD makes the all-too-common mistake of misplacing the responsibility to support a claim.”

This site is (supposedly) about making good information available to reporters. My contention all along was simply that the information provided here was an incomplete picture of the total of research done in regards to a possible link between vaccination and autism. I am not making any request that the author ‘prove’ anything; merely acknowledge that large areas are still unstudies.

As far as my (?) hypothesis, I was simply showing that there is a possible mechanism of action, something which Ms. Clark thought did not exist. At the very least, we should be able to agree that there is a possible mechanism of action. I’ll be the first to admit that this mechanism of action has very little evidence, but would contend this is a reflection of the fact that it hasn’t been studied, which is distinctly different than it having been studied, and found to be inadequate.

Take care!

- pD

Which the CDDS data that I’ve seen mentioned on Joseph’s blog (as well as the dearly departed LB/RB) ably disproves with three people currently listed – and born before 1931. And that’s just currently listed.

Just as a note – there are two more hearings in the vaccine court in the chute. One is being heard as we speak if it hasn’t already finished. The other starts next month. Both of them are concentrating on thiomersal (the Cedillo Case went after the combination of MMR and thiomersal).

Unfortunately the case would be seen as a precedent for the lawyers who are representing the mercury militia effectively. All it needs is a decision in the Cedillo’s favour – and that will open one huge can of worms.

I’ve got a feeling the above post of mine should have gone on the other thread! I should go to bed I think!

I’ve always said the reason for the increase in DX was the DSM-IV, and the DSM-IV-TR – not any other factors.

I also take offence to the word “epidemic”. That should be reserved for diseases. Autism is not a disease. It is a genetic difference – no different to skin colour, gender or whatever else.

The claim that needs to be supported is:

“Vaccines cause autism.”

This claim has not yet been supported by data. In fact, available data (including a very sloppy telephone survey by Generation Rescue) indicates that vaccines don’t have anything to do with autism.

So, pD, rather than making an unsupported assertion (“vaccines cause autism”) and expecting someone else to do the legwork, how about providing the data that supports your assertion.

If, on the other hand, you are just “playing Devil’s Advocate”, you still have the same obligation.

It’s an interesting hypothesis, pD – where’s the data to support it?

Prometheus

“HOW COULD VACCINES EVER CAUSE AUTISM? What’s the mechanism?”

The mechanism, could be, viral infection of the CNS.

It seems very likely you are aware that infection by ruebella prenatally has been associated with autism. Likewise, there are reports of late onset autistic behavior associated with herpes infections. We have several animal studies showing infections can lead to autistic like behaviors, as well as physiological differences frequently found in autism. Most of these studies are in conjunction with prenatal exposure to infection; which, of course, has been shown to be associated with higher rates of neurological disorders in humans already.

Let us be clear, I’m not advocating that I believe this to be the cause of autism; merely pointing out that there is a possible mechanism that is more than just tin foil hats and shouting conspiracy theories. [I happen to believe that there are likely many things that eventually lead to the set of behaviors defined as autism.]

As for a good deal of the rest of the responses, tearing down strawmen is simple, and apparently to some, quite the pasttime. Fine. But this does nothing to mitigate the fact that there have been no real studies evaluating the impact of the changes in the vaccine schedule on neurological disorders. Nor does it change the fact that there is a wealth of information providing evidence that infection by a variety of agents can lead to neurological disorders.

If the recent recommendation that children now should not be given cold relievers tells us anything, it is that our most commonly held beliefs of what is safe, what has undergone rigorous testing for efficacy and safety, how well we should trust the judgement of regulatory agencies need to be questioned. No doubt, had two months ago I questioned the safely or efficacy of cold medicine for children, I would have received the same catcalls of misinformed alarmism, paranoia, and analogies to absurd claims (which I did not make). Go figure.

Take care!

- pD

So far no one has been able to prove any of the above theories to be wrong.