Essential Vaccines for Kids?

[Romulus]

My Doc wants to give them all... but I am less inclined to do so.

So my question is, what are the essential ones? Chicken Pox? I don't want to put the kids at risk for a common outbreak, but then again, I dont want to dump the whole sea of toxins in their body either.

Any advice on exactly which one's I should give the green light to while I do my research?

[M House]

I don't know someone did a whole thing breaking down each of the different vaccines awhile ago. At-least, asimple girl had a list. Unfortunately, there's some legitimacy to some of them. And getting a doctor to cooperate with any simple request to have this brand vaccine delivered this way is maybe near impossible. I mean they get indignant when you tell them what you want to do. It's like they can't begin to realize, they are actually in a service industry...OMG. Sorry, there's a doctor or two here and that's just kinda stereotyping but it's more than somewhat true.

[M House]

Well she's banned now but here's some of her thoughts. There should be a longer thread with a bunch of the actual vaccines and their contents somewhere.

Give me credit when you post it? Sure Credited: asimplegirl

Hep B..delayed until the year before starting school, or as early as 2 1/2 if starting preschool

Hib...4 mos,6 mos,8 mos, 17 mos

IPV...4 mos, 6 mos, 8 mos, 17 mos, booster at 4 yr

Dtap... (use only deptecel brand with no cox extract and a smaller dose of pertussis compound)5 mos, 7 mos, 9 mos, 15/18 mos boosterat 4 yrs

pneumoccocal...(prevnar) one dose at age 2

varicela... (varivax) 4 yrs if at all

MMR (get separately)
mumps...15 mos
rubella...27 mos
measles...39 mos
booster...age 5 if needed after titers are checked

*some dr's will tell you that you cannot get the mmr separated. Dr Stephanie Care asked for American Medicine to carry these separate immunizations. Owners of AM are Mark and Bridgette Schexnayder. The maker of the three are Merck. AM will need the following from the Dr:

prescription with child's name
copy of the Dr's license

Fax this from the Dr to 225-924-0249

Pay, then they will overnight it to the Dr. Vax's will have 18 mos until exp date.

*Also try Johnson drug.

That's the only piece of it I could immediately find. However, it makes more sense when you look at the actual childhood vaccination list from somewhere else on here.

[M House]

As far as I can tell she talked to a couple doctors even. I'm no MD, but I know some shit. It looks very legit to me. In fact to be honest though that's conservative, even that might be a bit of overkill on the vaccinations. Though, I'm sure some people would argue it the other way as well.

[Baptist]

We shopped around and found a doctor who respects parent's choice. And our choice = 0 vaccinations.
Our doctor doesn't even vaccinate his kids.

[Romulus]

Thanks M House.

Our Dr is great.. very conservative but is a vaccine pusher, handing out CDC sheets and all. Just this last visit, she had said we needed to get the kids up to date for preschool - which is misinfo since there is a waiver, and that it puts her office at risk if dont vaccinate our kids!

So was that an ultimatum from her? She told my wife that.

[Elwar]

I'm for 0 vaccines, my wife is for getting the vaccines.

Our comprimise was to research each one and get the "essentials".

We also disagree on medication...me being for 0 meds, her for whatever works...comprimise was a Tylenol here and there when they need it.

[ItsTime]

I would add tetanus shot to the list.

Also be careful not to tell the school/state that you selective vaccinated. Some states it is all or none. If you tell them she has some, they might make you get them all before they go into school.

[M House]

Thanks M House.

Our Dr is great.. very conservative but is a vaccine pusher, handing out CDC sheets and all. Just this last visit, she had said we needed to get the kids up to date for preschool - which is misinfo since there is a waiver, and that it puts her office at risk if dont vaccinate our kids!

So was that an ultimatum from her? She told my wife that.

She still around somewhere? I don't know she put alot of thought into it. Did she send you the same thing? I mean jeez how much more vaccinated could they possibly be if you got everything on that list. I don't think I even got all those when I was a kid. However, the national health stuff just gets totally absurd with theirs IMO.

[M House]

I wouldn't go with the chicken pox vaccine. It's possible that yer children could already be immune aka already have herpes zoster. Once you get it you have it yer entire life. So all the vaccine would do would be to give them the virus aka pointless. While yer at it why don't you throw in HSV-1 and HSV-2 aka the naughtier herpes?

[M House]

I don't know it supposedly can prevent a more severe outbreak? Is there actually anyone who can attest to this before I completely discount it?

[M House]

I'm gonna say no it's mostly BS marketing. People clearly get sick usually mildly after getting the vaccination. Doesn't sound much different than getting herpes under a healthy immune system. So I'd let yer kids get it the natural way...their friends. If they haven't got it from coming into contact with you, already.

[Baptist]

Do you guys mean smallpox? If you mean chickenpox, that is crazy. I had no idea people are vaccinating against that ROFL. When we were kids and my mom heard somebody had chickenpox, we went and played with them all day. I plan on doing the same thing to my kid. Chickenpox party!

[Romulus]

I had chicken pox as a kid. I probably got it from the vaccine.

[Golding]

I'd consider MMR an essential vaccine. Although it doesn't happen often, Measles does have a risk of Subacute Sclerosing Encephalitis, which isn't a friendly complication. Mumps risks sterilizing your kid, and Rubella is really only a major risk if you plan on having future kids (since Rubella is a classic TORCH infection that negatively affects pregnancy). The supposed link with Autism is questionable at best; Measles infection during pregnancy has more of a link with Autism, which really gives more argument towards vaccinating than not.

I'd consider the injected Polio vaccine essential. No sense in risking paralysis in your kid when it's avoidable.

TDap is probably essential, largely for the Tetanus and Diphtheria (though the rest of the country's herd immunity might make the latter less risky). The Pertussis is sort of weak and would require Azithromycin meds if your kid is exposed, even if vaccinated.

HiB is something I'd consider essential, since it is a pretty serious cause of meningitis that focuses on kids on elderly. HiB meningitis likes to result in deafness and seizures, so again if it's something preventable I'd do it.

I don't think HepA and HepB are essential. I don't think Influenza or Pneumococcus are essential. Rotavirus and Neisseria aren't essential. HPV isn't essential. I probably wouldn't find the Chicken Pox vaccine totally necessary, though your kid might look back when he's older and be thankful when he never breaks out in Shingles. Chicken Pox does rarely sometimes lead to Encephalitis and Pneumonia, and it is a problem if a pregnant woman is exposed to the virus. Those are the only real benefits I can see from the vaccine. Otherwise your kid should do fine with some Tylenol (not Aspirin) if he ever does get Chicken Pox.

Just my personal opinion, for whatever it's worth to you.

[specsaregood]

//

[MelissaWV]

Do you guys mean smallpox? If you mean chickenpox, that is crazy. I had no idea people are vaccinating against that ROFL. When we were kids and my mom heard somebody had chickenpox, we went and played with them all day. I plan on doing the same thing to my kid. Chickenpox party!

Nope, they have a vaccine for it now. Of course, at least half of the people I know who've gotten the vaccine almost immediately came down with the disease (which is to be expected). The rationale is that it's a "milder" case. It seems a superfluous vaccination to me. The only reason to get it is if your child is already suffering from issues that would get complicated by randomly getting the chicken pox. Giving that kind of child the vaccine and then keeping an eye on them might, in such rare cases, make some sense.

Your kid just getting it and suffering through it as a child is generally the best bet, imo.

[Romulus]

I'd consider MMR an essential vaccine. Although it doesn't happen often, Measles does have a risk of Subacute Sclerosing Encephalitis, which isn't a friendly complication. Mumps risks sterilizing your kid, and Rubella is really only a major risk if you plan on having future kids (since Rubella is a classic TORCH infection that negatively affects pregnancy). The supposed link with Autism is questionable at best; Measles infection during pregnancy has more of a link with Autism, which really gives more argument towards vaccinating than not.

I'd consider the injected Polio vaccine essential. No sense in risking paralysis in your kid when it's avoidable.

TDap is probably essential, largely for the Tetanus and Diphtheria (though the rest of the country's herd immunity might make the latter less risky). The Pertussis is sort of weak and would require Azithromycin meds if your kid is exposed, even if vaccinated.

HiB is something I'd consider essential, since it is a pretty serious cause of meningitis that focuses on kids on elderly. HiB meningitis likes to result in deafness and seizures, so again if it's something preventable I'd do it.

I don't think HepA and HepB are essential. I don't think Influenza or Pneumococcus are essential. Rotavirus and Neisseria aren't essential. HPV isn't essential. I probably wouldn't find the Chicken Pox vaccine totally necessary, though your kid might look back when he's older and be thankful when he never breaks out in Shingles. Chicken Pox does rarely sometimes lead to Encephalitis and Pneumonia, and it is a problem if a pregnant woman is exposed to the virus. Those are the only real benefits I can see from the vaccine. Otherwise your kid should do fine with some Tylenol (not Aspirin) if he ever does get Chicken Pox.

Just my personal opinion, for whatever it's worth to you.

This sounds like good advice, however I have to disagree about the MMR being suspect. You just hear about to many correlations.. just recently one his close to home.

My wife just talked to her best friend who is pregnant. Her husband's cousin kid just was diagnosed with autism. They too said symptoms came about in time after the MMR. He was vehement about telling them NOT to vaccinate her son when he's born and wished he would've never given the MMR to him. Sad story to hear about these cases and it make you wonder really.

Our son got really sick the day after his MMR for 2 weeks. Our daughter has not gotten the MMR and most everything else.

[specsaregood]

//

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Three additional good sources for info:
http://www.nvic.org/ (http://www.nvic.org/)

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/ (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/) vitamin d deficiency is widespread

http://www.mercola.com/ (http://www.mercola.com/) do a search for vaccinations

[Krugerrand]

My thoughts ....

If you are pro-life (or just find this creepy), you may take issue with vaccines that are developed on cell lines from aborted human fetuses. That includes: All MMR, all Chicken Pox, All HepA and some Polio.
see here: http://www.cogforlife.org/vaccineinfo.htm or http://www.cogforlife.org/vaccineList.pdf

From what I can tell Rubella doesn't amount to a hill of beans for the males. It doesn't matter a hill of beans for the females that are not pregnant. It can be significant for the unborn child if a mother gets it. So ... why vaccinate the boys? And, why vaccinate the girls in infancy? Surely we can wait until 5-10 and let their young bodies get established first. PLUS - they may get it naturally and then not need the vaccine.

I think it's mumps that is only potentially dangerious for males. Which, if so would beg the question of why vaccinate the females?

Also - take note that not all vaccines recomended by the CDC are required by the states. They set their own rules and the number of booster shots and what vary from one place to the next. See here:
http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx

[Son of Detroit]

For the chicken pox vaccine, you have to get it more than once. I got mine about 10 years ago or so when I was 7... I just went to my doctor this year and they said I needed my chicken pox vaccine but I told them I already got it when I was younger. They knew that, but the doctor said I needed it again as a "booster".

[rancher89]

I'm not one to advocate vaccines....but

Polio is a nasty thing, I would get that vaccine in a heartbeat, small pox and whooping cough too.

The MMR deal is harder to advocate, I just don't know if I'd do it now, I did years ago when my son was younger....but I didn't know the risks then...

I do know that I did give my dad Mumps and damned near killed him...although it was his fault really, since he got out of bed before he should have.....


These diseases are serious, for the most part. I've heard that there's been an uptick in the cases of whooping cough and other "not heard of in years" diseases lately.

I am all about choice. Y'all just need to weigh the risks and make your own decisions.

[SkyPie]

I give zero vaccines. Chicken pox... might as well get a hang nail.

[Golding]

This sounds like good advice, however I have to disagree about the MMR being suspect. You just hear about to many correlations.. just recently one his close to home.

My wife just talked to her best friend who is pregnant. Her husband's cousin kid just was diagnosed with autism. They too said symptoms came about in time after the MMR. He was vehement about telling them NOT to vaccinate her son when he's born and wished he would've never given the MMR to him. Sad story to hear about these cases and it make you wonder really.

Our son got really sick the day after his MMR for 2 weeks. Our daughter has not gotten the MMR and most everything else.Very sad situation, indeed. One thing to consider about anecdotal situations is that while they help guide your decisions, you have to bear in mind possible confounders involved. Fever is probably the most common thing I've heard of with MMR, though it's sort of understandable considering you're trying to induce an immune response. Hopefully your son is okay, though.

MMR is given on a fixed schedule, and Autism presents with delayed onset. It's feasible (given that MMR is a live attenuated vaccine, and Measles in utero does have somewhat of a relationship with Autism) that there is a relation, but it's also reasonable to suggest that the timing just matches by coincidence. Research is ongoing regarding the relationship, but it seems to be leaning towards it being coincidental. I'm open to the possibility that it might be the vaccines, but there are other more compelling hypotheses out there.

But avoiding MMR is ultimately a parental choice. I'd probably have my kid vaccinated with it solely for the reason of Mumps. For Rubella too if I were planning to have another kid.

[bossman068410]

My Doc wants to give them all... but I am less inclined to do so.

So my question is, what are the essential ones? Chicken Pox? I don't want to put the kids at risk for a common outbreak, but then again, I dont want to dump the whole sea of toxins in their body either.

Any advice on exactly which one's I should give the green light to while I do my research?

I watched 2 beautiful, brite, fun loving children DESTROYED in front of my eyes.
They are BRAIN DAMAGED by vaccines. They are now unable to function normally for the rest of their lifes. You can hardly see true life in their eyes. Makes me sad, angry, and sick at the same time thinking about it.

ask yourself.

1) Do you trust anything from china? That is were most vaccines are made
2) Do you trust corporations that have produced and released bio weapons?
3) Do you trust the government with your well being... mm lets see.... small pox in blankets, poisoning alcohol during prohibition resulting in 10,000 deaths, ect.
4) Do you trust big phama?
5) Do you trust bill Gates the guy who promotes euginics and vaccines ( to curve populations )

If vaccines were safe then why is it outside the LAW? Thats right there is a special vaccine court because vaccine companies whould not survive in a free market because they DAMAGE to many people... Every vaccine a portion of the sale is put into a pot and peanuts are given out to those who are hurt by vaccines.

just reserch some of it yourself
google

Vaccine Damage
Vaccine Deaths
aids in vaccines



ect ect.

[teacherone]

Up until 1989 kids only got three vaccines:

polio, DPT, MMR

I would go for those three at a minimum.

[Krugerrand]

...
MMR is given on a fixed schedule, and Autism presents with delayed onset. It's feasible (given that MMR is a live attenuated vaccine, and Measles in utero does have somewhat of a relationship with Autism) that there is a relation, but it's also reasonable to suggest that the timing just matches by coincidence. Research is ongoing regarding the relationship, but it seems to be leaning towards it being coincidental. I'm open to the possibility that it might be the vaccines, but there are other more compelling hypotheses out there....

The part I don't particularly get about the MMR is that there's really no pressing need to give it to a kid at 2 as apposed to 4 or 5. A super-simple way to test coincidence is to reschedule the vaccine to 4 or 5 and see if that changes the autism rates at 2 or if they up-tick at 4/5.

[Elwar]

Who the hell has polio anymore?

[specsaregood]

Who the hell has polio anymore?

People in 3rd world countries.

[NiceGoing]

Risk/reward ratio for vaccines = Debatable :(

i.e. Autism rates [MMR vaccines] alone are enough to scare the bejeesus out of some concerned parents......so not worth the risk. :cool::cool:

[Baptist]

My wife is for the vaccines, I'm on the fence but definitely would have them spaced out. We both agree that giving our upcoming newborn a Hep-B vaccine within hours of birth is out of the effing question (although it is standard OP in our state) and the entire family knows to be on guard at the hospital to prevent that from happening.

For as long as RPFs has existed, vaccines have been a debated issue. In all honesty, my wife and I never questioned vaccinations until I saw a thread on these forums. Then we decided to heavily research the issue, and now we are against all of them. To those of you that are going to vaccinate, though, at least space them out. Please don't give your kids lots at the same time.

[Seraphim]

For as long as RPFs has existed, vaccines have been a debated issue. In all honesty, my wife and I never questioned vaccinations until I saw a thread on these forums. Then we decided to heavily research the issue, and now we are against all of them. To those of you that are going to vaccinate, though, at least space them out. Please don't give your kids lots at the same time.

At the very least spacing them out. The amount of mercury and thimeresol in a vaccine takes a 250 LB man to metabolize. That's night and day from a freshly born 8 lb child.

[Zippyjuan]

Risk/reward ratio for vaccines = Debatable :(

i.e. Autism rates [MMR vaccines] alone are enough to scare the bejeesus out of some concerned parents......so not worth the risk. :cool::cool:
What is the autism rate associates with the MMR vaccine? What percent of people getting the MMR end up with autism? How does that compare with kids who do not get the MMR vaccine? Studies looking at large populations have shown no corelation between the MMR (or other vaccines) and autism. Age of the parent is a much, much more significant factor for autism. When thimersol was discontinued in vaccines, autism rates continued to rise. Denmark stopped in 1992 and the US nearly a decade ago. Both saw rates continue to climb so there is no corelation.

[Zippyjuan]

At the very least spacing them out. The amount of mercury and thimeresol in a vaccine takes a 250 LB man to metabolize. That's night and day from a freshly born 8 lb child.

That was examined and even in children the half life of the ethylmercury in thimerisol was about seven days. They compared children given vaccines with thimerisol with children given vaccines without it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12480426


Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: a descriptive study.


Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thiomersal is a preservative containing small amounts of ethylmercury that is used in routine vaccines for infants and children. The effect of vaccines containing thiomersal on concentrations of mercury in infants' blood has not been extensively assessed, and the metabolism of ethylmercury in infants is unknown. We aimed to measure concentrations of mercury in blood, urine, and stools of infants who received such vaccines.

METHODS: 40 full-term infants aged 6 months and younger were given vaccines that contained thiomersal (diptheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, and in some children Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine). 21 control infants received thiomersal-free vaccines. We obtained samples of blood, urine, and stools 3-28 days after vaccination. Total mercury (organic and inorganic) in the samples was measured by cold vapour atomic absorption.

FINDINGS: Mean mercury doses in infants exposed to thiomersal were 45.6 microg (range 37.5-62.5) for 2-month-olds and 111.3 microg (range 87.5-175.0) for 6-month-olds. Blood mercury in thiomersal-exposed 2-month-olds ranged from less than 3.75 to 20.55 nmol/L (parts per billion); in 6-month-olds all values were lower than 7.50 nmol/L. Only one of 15 blood samples from controls contained quantifiable mercury. Concentrations of mercury were low in urine after vaccination but were high in stools of thiomersal-exposed 2-month-olds (mean 82 ng/g dry weight) and in 6-month-olds (mean 58 ng/g dry weight). Estimated blood half-life of ethylmercury was 7 days (95% CI 4-10 days).

INTERPRETATION: Administration of vaccines containing thiomersal does not seem to raise blood concentrations of mercury above safe values in infants. Ethylmercury seems to be eliminated from blood rapidly via the stools after parenteral administration of thiomersal in vaccines.

[specsaregood]

//

[Seraphim]

That was examined and even in children the half life of the ethylmercury in thimerisol was about seven days. They compared children given vaccines with thimerisol with children given vaccines without it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12480426

My concern actually has more to do with the brains ability to metabolize it and the effects on physiological brain development- which of course translates to behaviour, temperment, cognitive functioning...

[NiceGoing]

For all the technical details, and
a comprehensive medical overview of the
Vaccination issue, with emphasis on the
[dangerous] MMR vaccine,

See:
http://www.vacinfo.org/Buttram.pdf

[teacherone]

Who the hell has polio anymore?

not very many...thanks to the vaccine

[Zippyjuan]

My concern actually has more to do with the brains ability to metabolize it and the effects on physiological brain development- which of course translates to behaviour, temperment, cognitive functioning...


If it is being passed out of the body then it is not accumulating in the brain. There are two common versions of mercury- one is methyl mercury which is toxic and can accumulate in the body and the other is ethyl mercury which the body does not absorb and it is this version which was used in some vaccines. But since it is no longer used in vaccines intended for children, getting immunized is not exposing your child to mercury anyways.

There is a list of the vaccines and their thimerisol contents here: Note the huge number which say zero. Some versions of the H1N1 vaccine did use thimerisol but there were also mercury free versions for those who wanted them. The versions of that which did include thimerisol were not intended for children. http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228.htm

[bossman068410]

More than a million doses of a common vaccine given to babies as young as 2 months were being recalled Wednesday because of contamination risks, but the top U.S. health official said it was not a health threat.

Story continues http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316648,00.html

[Golding]

The part I don't particularly get about the MMR is that there's really no pressing need to give it to a kid at 2 as apposed to 4 or 5. A super-simple way to test coincidence is to reschedule the vaccine to 4 or 5 and see if that changes the autism rates at 2 or if they up-tick at 4/5.It's sort of been tested that way in Japan, since they withdrew MMR in 1993 and started using vaccines for each (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) individually. The rates of Autism weren't really impacted by it.

I think it would be an interesting study to perform, though. I'm not aware of any cohort studies going on right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some in progress doing exactly what you suggest.

[Romulus]

What is the autism rate associates with the MMR vaccine? What percent of people getting the MMR end up with autism? How does that compare with kids who do not get the MMR vaccine? Studies looking at large populations have shown no corelation between the MMR (or other vaccines) and autism. Age of the parent is a much, much more significant factor for autism. When thimersol was discontinued in vaccines, autism rates continued to rise. Denmark stopped in 1992 and the US nearly a decade ago. Both saw rates continue to climb so there is no corelation.

But they still used in some of last years H1N1 shot, and the restrictions were lifted so they could produce it faster... they still use it. Secondly, its hard to trust them not to use it, under a different name or preservative?

[Zippyjuan]

But they still used in some of last years H1N1 shot, and the restrictions were lifted so they could produce it faster... they still use it. Secondly, its hard to trust them not to use it, under a different name or preservative?

I did say that it was indeed used in some versions of the H1N1 vaccine. There were also versions available without it if you wanted- you are absolutely correct on that. It was discontinued in vaccines intended for children so kids are not getting exposed to it anymore which is some people's concern. And even in those who do get thimerisol in a vaccine, the quantity is very small and half of it is gone from the body in just a week.

[Romulus]

Zippy, what or where do you think autism comes from? Just curious.

[Zippyjuan]

The strongest linked probable cause of autism is the age of the parent. There is also simply increased diagnosis going on- people who were classified as maybe developmentally slow are now getting called autistic.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6174UC20100208

Age of mother affects child's autism risk: study

By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO | Mon Feb 8, 2010 5:35pm EST

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Being an older mother significantly increases the risk of having a child with autism, but being an older father only increases the risk when the mother is under the age of 30, U.S. researchers said on Monday.

They found that a 40-year-old woman's risk of having a child later diagnosed with autism was 50 percent greater than that of a woman between 25 and 29.

But being an older father -- 40 or older -- only contributes significantly to autism risk when the mother is under 30.

"The older the mother, the more the risk that the child will develop autism, regardless of whether the father is young or old," said Irva Hertz-Picciotto of the University of California Davis MIND Institute, who worked on the study published in the journal Autism Research.

The findings contradict a 2006 study of children born in Israel that suggested paternal age played a much larger role.

"There has been a debate over whether it is maternal or paternal risk. A lot of people were thinking it's not really mom's age," Hertz-Picciotto said in a telephone interview.

Researchers and policymakers are increasingly looking for causes to explain the growing numbers of children diagnosed with autism, which affects 1 percent of U.S. children.

There is no cure for autism, a spectrum of diseases ranging from severe and profound inability to communicate and mental retardation to relatively mild symptoms such as with Asperger's syndrome.

The current study, which incorporates data on 4.9 million births and 12,159 autism cases in California, helps to clarify the contribution of age from both parents.

"We have such a very large database we were really able to disentangle the mother's age very well," Hertz-Picciotto said. This can be a challenge because older mothers and fathers tend to have children together.

"We found it does vary for the father, but not for the mother," she said.

For example, among babies born to mothers under 25, children whose father was over 40 were twice as likely to develop autism as those whose father was between 25 and 29.

This could be because when both parents are older, the risk conferred by the father is outweighed by the risk from the mother, Hertz-Picciotto said.

OLDER PARENTS

She said the point of the study is not to blame parents, but to gain clues about what is going on in older parents that could increase a child's risk of developing autism.

Older parents, for example, are more likely to have infertility problems and have used fertility treatments; the mothers are more likely to have autoimmune conditions, including gestational diabetes; and both have accumulated more toxins over their lifetimes, so the sperm and egg are more likely to have some changes that could increase risk.

"We see these age findings as clues for where to look next," Hertz-Picciotto said.

Autism researchers are looking at a broad range of potential environmental factors, including household products, medical treatments, diet, food supplements and infections.

And the National Institute of Mental Health, one of the National Institutes of Health, is looking at potential genetic causes of autism and has plans to sequence the entire genomes of hundreds of children and their parents to gain a better understanding of the role genes play.


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=95


The Increase in Autism Diagnoses: Two Hypotheses


A new study sheds more light on the question of what is causing the recent increase in the rate of diagnosis of autism. Professor Dorothy Bishop from the University of Oxford studied adults who were diagnosed in 1980 with a developmental language disorder. She asked the question – if these people were subjected to current diagnostic criteria for autism, how many of them would be diagnosed today as having autism? She found that 25% of them would. (Bishop 2008)

This epidemiological question has been at the center of a controversy over whether or not there is a link between vaccines (or the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, that was previously in routine childhood vaccines) and autism. The primary evidence for this claim put forward by proponents of a link is that the number of diagnoses of autism increased dramatically at the same time that the number of vaccines routinely given to children was increasing in the 1990’s. They are calling this rise in autism an “epidemic” and argue that such an increase requires an environmental factor, which they believe is linked to vaccines.

That the number of new autism diagnoses is dramatically increasing is generally accepted and not a point of debate. The historical rate of autism is about 4 per 10,000 and the more recent estimates are in the range of 15-20 per 10,000 (30-60 per 10,000 for all pervasive developmental disorders of which autism is one type). (Rutter 2005) The controversy is about what is causing this rise in diagnoses. There are two basic hypotheses: 1) That the true incidence of autism is rising due to an environmental cause, 2) That the rise in incidence is mostly or completely an artifact of increased surveillance and broadening of the definition of autism. These two hypotheses make specific predictions, and there is much evidence to bring to bear on their predictions – this recent study only being the latest.

The confusion about the epidemiology of autism is one common to scientific medicine. Whenever historical comparisons are made it is possible that changing definitions and practices over time will distort those comparisons. This is why medical scientists are often reluctant to change nomenclature (disease names) and definitions – doing so immediately renders the literature obsolete. All subsequent literature must now have a footnote. But the progress of our understanding of biology and disease makes such changes unavoidable.

In the 1990’s the diagnosis of autism was changed to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) – the new name reflecting the changing concept of autism to include a broader spectrum of symptoms, including much more subtle manifestations. In particular a diagnostic entity known as Aspergers syndrome, which is essentially a subtle manifestation of autism features, was classified as part of ASD. Any time you broaden a category the number of individuals that fit into that category is likely to increase.

Autism researcher Eric Fombonne found that:

Recent epidemiological surveys of autistic disorder and other PDDs have heightened awareness of and concern about the prevalence of these disorders; however, differences in survey methodology, particularly changes in case definition and case identification over time, have made comparisons between surveys difficult to perform and interpret. (Fombonne 2005)

In addition to the broadening of the diagnosis, the social and medical network supporting ASD dramatically increased. There has been increased efforts at surveillance – scouring the community for hidden cases of autism. Further, parents have become much more accepting of the diagnosis, which may partly be due to the fact that is some states the label with facilitate access to special services. And clinicians have become more knowledgeable of ASD so are better able to make the diagnosis, even in subtle cases.

Rutter, in order to test this latter hypothesis that increased diagnostic rates were due largely to changes in diagnosis and surveillance, reviewed literature that contained sufficient information to assess true historical rates of autism. He found that applying modern criteria to these historical records yields similar rates of diagnoses: 30-60 per 10,000. Taylor did a similar review and found the following:

The recorded prevalence of autism has increased considerably in recent years. This reflects greater recognition, with changes in diagnostic practice associated with more trained diagnosticians; broadening of diagnostic criteria to include a spectrum of disorder; a greater willingness by parents and educationalists to accept the label (in part because of entitlement to services); and better recording systems, among other factors. (Taylor 2006)

Another prediction that flows from the second hypothesis is that if we compare apples to apples – meaning if we look at the same community and apply the same diagnostic methods that were used in the past as documented in a published study, then the incidence should be the same. In other words – if we control for any changes in the diagnostic criteria and surveillance methods the incidence of autism should be stable over time. Chakrabarti and Fombonne did exactly that, comparing the incidence of autism in 2002 (looking at a cohort of children born between 1996-1998) to the same population using the same methods as a previous study looking at the cohort of children born between 1992-1995. They found:

The rate in this study is comparable to that in previous birth cohorts from the same area and surveyed with the same methods, suggesting a stable incidence. (Chakrabarti 2005)

If the broadened diagnosis hypothesis is true than it must also be true that as other diagnoses shifted over to autism they would decrease as autism numbers increased. This is exactly what Jick et al found when they reviewed a cohort of boys with and without autism. What was previously diagnosed as language disorder is now being diagnosed as autism, with a corresponding decrease in non-specific language disorders. Shattuck found the exact same effect, so called “diagnostic substitution,” when he studied the prevalence of disabilities among children in US special education from 1984 to 2003. He found that in locations where the prevalence of autism had increased there was a corresponding decrease in the prevalence of other disabilities. (Shattuck 2006)

This brings us to the current study by Bishop et al. They looked at adults who were diagnosed as children with a developmental language disorder. Applying current diagnostic criteria they found that a quarter of them (12) would have been diagnosed today with ASD. This also fits the hypothesis that diagnoses have been shifting over to autism from other developmental disorders over the past two decades. The authors, however, caution that the number of subjects in their study was small and therefore it is difficult to extrapolate from this to the general population.

It should also be noted that all of this research, while supporting the hypothesis that the rise in autism diagnoses is not due to a true increase in the incidence but rather is due to a broadening of the definition and increased surveillance, does not rule out a small genuine increase in the true incidence. A small real increase can be hiding in the data. There is no evidence upon which we can conclude, however, that true autism rates are increasing.

Of course the implications of this are profound. If there is no autism epidemic, if there is a “stable incidence” of autism over recent decades, then this alone is powerful evidence against the vaccine hypothesis – and in fact removes the primary piece of evidence for a vaccine-autism connection. Just as a true increase in incidence would have called out for an environmental factor causing autism, the lack of any increase argues strongly against any environment factor – especially when this is combined with the copious evidence for multiple genetic factors as the ultimate cause(s) of ASD.

[steve005]

Essential Vaccines for Kids?

No.

[Romulus]

steve, there is risk, even though minor, its still there.

Has anyone watch that special on PBS Frontline about vaccines? It seems fair, both sides are represented.