E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman weighs in on a new report that shows influenza during pregnancy increases the risk of autism, but also cautions that it shouldn't prevent women from getting their flu shots
Doctors trying to find some of the causes of autism put another piece into the puzzle on Monday: They found women who had flu while they were pregnant were twice as likely to have a child later diagnosed with autism. Those who had a fever lasting a week or longer -- perhaps caused by flu or maybe by something else -- were three times as likely to have an autistic child.
The study of 96,000 children in Denmark raises as many questions as it answers. But it fits in with a growing body of evidence that suggests that, in at least some cases, something is going on with a mother’s immune system during pregnancy that affects the developing child’s brain. Health officials said the finding reinforces their recommendations that pregnant women should make sure to get flu shots.
Autism seems to be a growing problem in the United States. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, autism spectrum disorder affects one in 88 children, including about one in 54 boys. The autism spectrum refers to a broad range of symptoms, from the relatively mild social awkwardness of Asperger’s syndrome to profound mental retardation, debilitating repetitive behaviors and an inability to communicate.
Scientists agree that it’s not just a matter of better diagnosis; the numbers seem to be growing because more children are indeed developing autism. But no one is sure why. Genetics are a large factor -- if one twin has autism the other twin is very likely to -- but genes don’t explain it all.
Ron Heflin / Getty Images file
Getting a flu shot during pregnancy is one way to avoid influenza, which has been linked to later diagnosis of autism in children in a new study.
Some studies have pointed towards inflammation -- the mother’s immune response somehow affecting the brain of the developing fetus. So a team including Dr. Hjördis Ósk Atladóttir of the University of Aarhus in Denmark, Diana Schendel of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues studied a big database of children born in Denmark.
The 96,000 children were born between 1997 and 2003, to about 30 percent of all the women in Denmark who had children during those years. The women were interviewed twice while they were pregnant and then again when their babies were six months old. They were specifically asked about sicknesses they had, and about drugs they took to treat them.
Overall, 976 of the children were later diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder -- about 1 percent of them.
Moms who said they had influenza while pregnant were more likely to have children later diagnosed with autism, the researchers report in Monday’s issue of the journal Pediatrics.
“We found almost a twofold increased risk of infantile autism in the child after self-reported infection with influenza virus during pregnancy,” the researchers wrote. Children whose mothers said they had a fever lasting more than a week during pregnancy had triple the risk of autism.
Women who reported other infections, such as a cold, a urinary tract infection or herpes, were not more likely to have a child with autism.
That doesn’t mean the infection caused autism and women should not panic if they become ill while pregnant, said Dr. Coleen Boyle, Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“We want to reassure women. In this study, most women who experienced flu or prolonged fever or who were taking antibiotics did not have children with an autism spectrum disorder,” Boyle told NBC News.
"It is important to bear in mind that when you look at the absolute numbers, we see that around 99 percent of women reporting to have had influenza or fever during pregnancy, do not have children with ASD (autism spectrum disorder)," Atladottir said by email "We do not want pregnant women to worry."
The researchers are not sure what may be going on. They also found that women who took certain antibiotics were more likely to have a child with autism, but it’s not clear if it’s the drug itself, or if women who took antibiotics were perhaps sicker than the other women.
“Animal studies suggest that when the mother’s immune system is triggered during pregnancy, such as when she is fighting off an infection… that immune response might affect a child’s developing brain,” Boyle said. Vaccines do not stimulate a similar immune response, doctors note.
It’s also not clear if there is something special about the influenza virus. “Misreporting of influenza is likely to be considerable; any episode of fever may be mistaken for influenza, and not all women infected with influenza virus might have been aware of this,” the researchers wrote. They did not cross-check what the women said against medical records to see who may have been diagnosed with flu.
Another study done in Sweden earlier this year found no association between flu or any other infection and autism. But a study published in May in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders did find a connection. That study, done in the United States, found that women who had fevers while pregnant were twice as likely to have a child with autism or a developmental disorder.
"Growing evidence suggests inflammatory processes may be interfering with brain development at critical stages, leading to changes in behaviors such as those associated with autism, as well as cognitive deficits," Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto of the University of California-Davis MIND Institute, who conducted that study, told NBC News by email.
Each study adds a piece to the puzzle but none of them can answer the questions on their own. “We just need more research,” Boyle said.
So what can women do if they are worried?
Pregnant women are already strongly urged to get flu shots. The immunization protects them -- because a pregnant woman’s immune system is suppressed -- and it protects the baby for the first six months after birth. Pregnant women are much more likely to become severely ill with flu than other women. In Denmark, women are not routinely vaccinated against influenza.
“All women need to get their flu shots regardless of whether they are pregnant,” Boyle said. “And if a woman is pregnant and experiencing flu-like symptoms, she should call her doctor right away. If she has a fever, that fever can be treated with Tylenol. We know from other studies that fever (during pregnancy) can lead to other serious health problems in a child, such as a birth defect.”
Some people have been wary of vaccines since a study published in the 1980s linked autism to the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. But that study has been debunked and the doctor who wrote it stripped of his license. Many researchers have tried hard since to find any possible evidence that vaccines could cause autism and they have been unable to.
The CDC is doing a large study into the possible causes of autism. So far, 2,700 children are enrolled.
“We don’t know what causes autism,” said Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, chief of the Developmental Disabilities Branch at CDC.
“We know that genetic factors are extremely important. If a woman had flu and she has a child with autism, even with the results of this study, it doesn’t mean that the child’s autism is due to the fact that the mother had flu. There are a lot of factors that may be responsible for autism.”
(This story corrects Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto's affiliation. She is at the University of California-Davis MIND Institute)
Related stories:
Leave a Comment:
Flu vaccine is recommended for all pregnant women by American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Please ask your obstetrician if you have not received the vaccine.
The flu vaccine causes an inflammatory process which is what leads to a fever after vaccination.
Since this article is about trying to increase pregnant women's compliance with flu shot recommendation, they should provide statistics that correlate increased flu vaccine uptake with decreased autism.
Not a small study where extrapolations can be manipulated and massaged.
With the increase in autism in the past decade corresponding with increases in flu vaccine sales in the last decades I doubt this to be the case.
This article seems very much like every flu article posted by the media. It's a Public relations piece. But thanks for pointing out the mechanism for the vaccine possibly causing autism.
I had a flu shot while I was pregnant with my son, and he turned out to be severely autistic. I read an article about half a year ago saying the CDC wasn't sure if injecting a pregnant woman with a LIVE influenza virus was a good idea. When you get a vaccination, you are getting injected with the actual virus so isn't that kinda like a HUGE crap shoot?
If I could do it over again, I would skip the shot. I rarely ever get sick anyway.
I had the flu mist and shot after I had my baby, but was still breast feeding. I love how they randomly throw out these things in the news to scare people. I recently heard some article that if your overweight during pregnancy that it causes autism. I wasn't overweight, and I didn't get the flu shot...so now what. Who knows what causes autism? I think there are many theories, but I choose to act instead of dwelling. I hope someday we figure it out because it is sad to see what it does to our children. My daughter is 3 1/2 and was diagnosed at age 2 with Autism. I have been lucky to have her in ABA Therapy, as well as speech and have seen the progress it can make. It is still a struggle, but day by day she is learning.
Not really. They showed that the flu is associated with increased risk of autism. Other studies have shown that the flu vaccine reduces the risk of flu
Transitive property applies
Since when is a 96,000 subject study small???
Again you fall victim to confounders. The diagnositic criteria for autism has been expanded, and doctors are more alert to the diagnosis now than in decades past, leading to increased diagnosis, but likely stable incidence
I agree with Roberts comments......and the rate of flu and high fevers in pregnant women has not gone up, but the rate of autism has. This article makes no sense, they are just trying to sell flu vaccines. I had the flu with a high fever in January when i was pregnant with my child who was born in June [many years ago]. She is fine.
Flu's been around for thousands of years. Autism as it is now? 100 years. ?????? Something is not adding up here.
Robert-1126350 tries to conflate the mild reaction to the flu shot with the full on war the body goes through with a full case of the flue. What anti-vaxers nutters will say never ceases to amaze me.
Jo "rate of flu and high fevers in pregnant women ".... Please - can I see where you get these numbers? Lets see a link to a paper. Love to see where you got those.
Searching5473 said "Autism as it is now? 100 years. ". Correction - its had a name for the last 100 years. What did they do with an autistic child in the 1800's..... think about it before you make a fool of yourself.
Robert-1126350 - The study only shows that the flu/fever could be a factor in what causes autism. It in no way attempts to establish the flu as the cause of autism. The article clearly says that 99% of the women who had the flu/fever had normal children. If anything has been debunked it's the nonsense about vaccines causing autism.
The study does not link the flu VACCINE to autism... it's linking the FLU to autism... loosely linking considering the limitations of the study, but linking none-the-less... So, not the vaccine... the actual flu.
Anything to dodge the real issue....VACCINES!
Anything to PUSH those vaccines...the flu shot BTW which has been linked to miscarriage and NOT given to pregnant women in other countries...
Explain to me then, why autism rates are up over 100%...have women NOT had fevers until the last 15 years, and only NOW, are getting fevers that cause autism? Sorry folks, the rates of autism are up, more children have it than ever before...skip the shot...extremely high rates of autism are up, pregnant woman getting a fever are not.
I still think we need to look at the Hep B shot, given immediately after birth, and the vaccine loading on infants. Seems to me the Hep B and autism rates have risen simultaneously...
Let us also consider the aluminum/brain connection and increases in alzheimer's with increased flu vaccination in seniors.
When big pharma isn't making huge profits, and aren't sitting on the FDA get back to me.
YES that is exactly correct...HIB B....and MMR are huge contributors to autism.
this article is SO misleading...1% in 1 study ? Statistically insignificant...
If you BELIEVE anything in this article...WOW....
If they are saying the FLU and the not the flu vaccine is the culprit then we would have to see
a massive increase in the FLU to correspond with the massive increases in autism.
Chris and Skup....
russellblaylockmd.com
has the peer reviewed studies of a direct link with vaccines and autism..
if you think that injection poisons DIRECTLY into the bloodstream is a good idea..
then have at it...I will give you an equivalent dose based on your size to that of an infant...
let me know..
excitotoxins....GOOGLE IT
and lets be real honest..
if you vaccinate, you have a lower education and IQ then someone who does not..
you think that a pill or shot is helpful...
you vax people think your KID is protected or that your lifestyle has no cause of your health but a jab with a needle will protect you from the flu...
health is so easy if you understand physiology , which most of you do not..
blind faith and frankly fear is what allows your child to be injected with POISONS ....
my 11,9,5 year olds have never had a vaccine, never an antibiotic...NEVER....
try that .... you cant...
In my opinon, the growth in autism rates largely has to two factors: one, the ever (until last year) more inclusive criteria for the disorder and two, the fact that a diagnosis will open up insurance coverage for services like speech therapy.
That is not to say there are no children suffering from Autism... that is Autism as it was defined earlier. (one of my best childhood friends was Autistic, and I spent a good deal of time with my mother at Easter Seals where she worked with the children). However, if one keeps expanded the indicators and making them even more vague, the number of kids "diagnosed" will no doubt increase.
This is far more likely the cause behind the rise than mom's getting a fever. The book "Please Don't Label my Child" describes the label and drug path that has become all too common today.
@Eric
Reread. I was not referring to this retrospective study.
Shep- everybody knows that modern medicine is bunk-
So if your kids need dental care or surgery, or bones set, just to it your self. Splinting is pretty easy, Xacto makes nice sharp cutting tools, and Dremel has little round drill bits!
You might have a problem cutting / drilling with the kids awake, so you can use auto starting fluid to knock them out - it's mostly ether.
X-rays could be a problem though....you'll figure it out, you're a smart guy.
Shep... your positions are misinformed, and I am educated in the biosciences including Neuroscience and Immunology. Dr. Blaylock's positions on the subject have been discredited though I would say that advancing subscriptions to his "wellness report" will keep him making the claims.
I am of the opinon that anything and everything must be questioned and that no letters after someone's name render then impervious to corruption or errors. However, the process of the establishment of immunological memory subsequent to priming, or vaccination, is well studied and demonstratable. We are now to the point where two people who had leukemia with 99% of their bone marrow malignant have been driven to complete remission in 30 days in one clinical trial.
How? By transfecting their own extracted T cells with an engineered receptor, inducing them to replicate, and then injecting them back into the patients. (search Chimeric Antigen Receptors, Dr. Carl June, University of Pennsylvania).
So, I would say that our clinicians and researchers have pretty good handle on the immune system and yes, injecting something into your arm can and does effectively combat disease. Smallpox was erradicated in the U.S. in 1977 due to vaccination programs. And as futher high level proof, some diseases that had previously erradicated have reemerged in groups where vaccinations are not being given.
For the most part, increased understanding and reduced 'shame' lead to more children being diagnosed, instead of just labeling the kid as a problem child or mentally deficient. I'll admit I wouldn't be suprised to find out that all the chemicals and overly processed foods, etc., play a part. But I believe vaccinations have very little if any affect. I'm more concerned about the comebacks 'old' diseases are making.
I had the flu shot with my youngest, and he turned out fine. I would have had it with my oldest, but he was a November baby and I was sent in to be induced the same day they were doing flu shots at my workplace.
l read a few weeks ago that said it was the fathers age. So is it the FLU of the fathers age?
Eileen V - rates are up because diagnosis is much better than in the past. I have a 46 year old sister who has ASD. She is the youngest of 9. We knew early on that she was "different", not speaking until nearly age 3. When first diagnosed in the 1960s it was with MBD - minimal brain dysfunction, put down to lack of oxygen at birth. Later in the 1980s she was diagnosed as ADHD which sort of fit. Finally when she was in her early 30s she was diagnosed with Asperger's - and the light bulb went on, every behavior matched. The point is the condition is not new, the label is. In her case it can't be the HiB vaccine because it didn't exist, she never had it. She was born with Asperger's. My son, now 29, HAD the illness, had to have a spinal tap because they feared it was meningitis and he was in hospital for 4-5 days before recovering, completely. Our daughter, now 23, had the new HiB vaccine - and she's fine. I'm 60 and the only childhood disease we had treatment for was polio, the oral (sugar cube) treatment. I had everything else the old-fashioned way: mumps, chicken pox, measles (both varieties) and we all knew kids who were permanently disabled from these diseases. Back in the day, these childhood illnesses could and did sometimes kill.
Cogito "So, I would say that our clinicians and researchers have pretty good handle on the immune system and yes, injecting something into your arm can and does effectively combat disease. Smallpox was erradicated in the U.S. in 1977 due to vaccination programs. And as futher high level proof, some diseases that had previously erradicated have reemerged in groups where vaccinations are not being given."
I would completely disagree...I think they have a pretty good understanding of what they understand, and what they dont understand - it's simply dismissed as not existing, not an option, not possible, not likely, not this or that...until, someone stumbles upon a new reality and suddenly, what we all thought we knew isnt exactly true anymore.
We've seen this reality play out time and time again in science.
So, while I agree that there's a good dirth of knowledge about the GOOD that some advances in science have been able to achieve, I dont think there's equally as much knowledge about the negatives those same advances create...and it's absolutely naive to believe there are no negatives, or that what you currently know of them - are all there is.
If we understood the immune system so well - we'd have a lot more diseases figured out, beyond a "treatment" stage and to the "prevention" stage.
So, im certain you have all the confidence in the world that what you've been taught is true...how on earth could you go about your job if you always assumed everything was incomplete, or not quite the full picture? It'd be hard to walk with the swagger that most doctors walk with.
But there's a reason it's still called PRACTICING MEDICINE
you all havent come CLOSE to figuring it all out yet. not even remotely.
Cogito - I dont think anyone is denying that injecting vaccines does a great job of combating disease...what we dont know is, what are all the bad things is bring us?
and it's naive to believe it doesnt come with any bad news...
as we've learned from proving that smoking causes cancer, not all people who smoke will get lung cancer...but the fact that some dont get it, doesnt mean lung cancer ISNT caused by smoking.
I think the same is true of vaccines.
Considering how few people the FLU kills...it seems to be a silly thing to vaccinate against. It doesnt seem worth the risk...and this study it cited did not prove that the flu/fever itself was what caused the autism.
I believe more than one specific thing causes it, and i think the fact that we have a wide spectrum of autism proves that.
*edited to add - I just did a quick study in my office, about 10 people. about 20% who've gotten flu shots, still get the flu at least once a year.
Ironically, thats the same as the national average.
I cant help but wonder, who's tracking the success of these shots?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0419/narcolepsy.html
Risk of narcolepsy 13 times higher after swine flu vaccine Pandemrix
http://phys.org/news/2011-02-swine-flu-vaccine-child-narcolepsy_1.html
WHO confirms swine flu vaccine child narcolepsy concerns
Twelve countries have reported suspected cases of narcolepsy linked to swine flu jabs, the World Health Organisation said on Tuesday as its scientists said the findings warranted more investigation.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-02-swine-flu-vaccine-child-narcolepsy_1.html#jCp
The negatives have been very carefully studied as far as vaccinations are concerned. In general, every drug/vaccine/medicine that passes the FDA has to prove that it does more "GOOD" than harm.
It's far more naive to believe that polio is better than the vaccine. Or anything in the vaccines that's are given is worse than getting these horrific diseases.
All of you sheeple babbling about autism and vaccines need to stop watching Fox News and reading discredited studies. This link between vaccines and autism IS DISCREDITED. No reputable scientist backs this up. YES if you get a fever due to vaccination that's a small risk but it is NOT the same as a prgnant woman's body full on fighting the flu!
Let's use some common sense. The flu has been around forever. Pregnant women have been getting the flu for ages. Autism has only recently exploded. Yeah sure, having the flu leads to your child having autism. Makes puuuurfect sense.
Which flu vaccine manufacturer "sponsored" THIS study????
The level of intelligence (or lack thereof) always astounds me on these posts. The flu shot is NOT A LIVE VIRUS! It is little bits of chopped up flu protein that cannot hurt you but can illicit a response from your body to protect you from the real virus. FluMist is a live virus, however it is attenuated. For those of you without medical knowledge or experience, this means that the virus is weakened so that it illicits a response from your immune system but with much milder symptoms than the full blown flu.
And for the moron at the top of the post who seems to think that this backs up his theory that vaccines cause autism...I've got nothing for you. You're too stupid to waste time on...
FYI, the virus is not "weakened" to illicit a response from the immune system. The virus is attenuated to prevent it from replicating and causing infection. But this may not be enough for the immune system to work. So an adjuvant, like aluminum, is used as a canvas for the virus. It "accelerates" or wakes up the immune system to say "hey" look over here".
This is what causes the immune reaction. The fever, the chills, aches, pains, flu like symptoms, etc.,
I do not buy what this "study" is trying to sell for two reasons. First, women have been getting the flu and fevers while they are pregnant for a very long time and there has been no general increase in this, so how do they explain the increased rate of autism. Second, this does absolutely nothing to explain why autism is so much more prevalent in boys than girls, do so many more women pregnant with boys get the flu or a fever. This sounds like nothing more than a statistical variance that show absolutely no causal relationship. It is being used by flu vaccine manufacturers to try and push getting a flu shot. There have been other similar studies that found no linkage, so this also calls the conclusions being reached into question. As for those still talking about vaccines causing autism please grow up. This has been completely debunked by the medical community through numerous well run and well documented studies. The person who originally came out with this theory was proven to be a fraud who manipulated his data. The latest appears to be that Wakefield was in cahoots with a lawyer who had filed a lawsuit against the maker of Thimerosal and manipulated his data to try and help the lawyer win the suit. Everything about Wakefield's original work has been debunked and proven to be a fraud, so please stop spouting this nonsense.
jac with comment #1.31. Yes, the flu has been around a lot longer than vaccines. Do you remember reading about the flu pandemic of the early 1900's? Millions of people died. Also, for eons, childbirth was the most dangerous thing a woman would undergo in her life, and the mortality rate was high for both mom and newborn. Thus, if a pregnant woman got the flu 100 years ago, she and the infant stood a lot more chance of not surviving the flu. That in and of itself will affect the autism rate for that era--so you can not compare 100 years ago with the present, because that mortality rate will skew the results if you do.
It's ashame we can't have these anti vaxxer idiots experience smallpox. Oh wait, they're too stupid to realize that smallpox was eliminated by vaccinations across the world in a coordinated effort. And that smallpox had an extremely high kill rate.
1) very few things in science have such a simple one to one relationship
2) as someone mentioned earlier, the diagnostic criteria as well as recognition of autism has gone way up. right now diabetes is defined as a fasting blood sugar greater than 126, If we changed that tomorrow to >110, we'd have a lot more diabetes diagnoses. But did the incidence actually rise?
The problem is we as humans like to categorize diseases into neat little boxes when there, in reality, is a lot of gray.
The only cause of autism is not fever in the mother. Certainly it is a combination of environment plus genetics, like almost every other disease. It may be that the gene is recessive on the x chromosome, making men much more susceptible. Or a multitude of other reasons
Its not. The p value was less than 0.05 making this 95% likely to be a true finding, and not due to chance
True, but you would need a prospective study where you intentionally exposed pregnant women to fevers to prove causation. And you would need to do this to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of women to properly power the study. That is unethical and not feasible. A stong correlative relationship is nothing to sneeze at
Flu vaccines can help prevent autism? Jenny McCarthy will be most displeased. Not to worry, though. The anti-vaxers already know the truth, and no amount of evidence will ever convince them that their completely unsubstantiated beliefs are wrong. They are basically a cult at this point, and it's not like cults generally wake up and start listening to reason.
@Eric
Direct quote from authors of the study!
yeah, a 5% chance. I thought i made that clear
You don't know what you're talking about!
I'd like to know how they confirmed the flu over the phone. Was it a PCR test? Was it the vaccine strain? Meaning could the vaccine even prevented one single case? Vaccine does NOT work for ILI.
But this article is implying that flu vaccines can prevent autism. It's weasly PR marketed as a science study.
Good point. I especially like all your supporting evidence and points in favor of that statement.
Anyone can make ridiculous statements and claims. Its backing them up which is difficult, as you clearly demonstrate
Do you even know what PCR is? i don't make copying and pasting something--do you understand it??
But way to address my point. Just a brilliant job.
Actually, its not necessary by your thinking. See, you've painted yourself into a figurative logical corner. If the only possible explanation for a flat or increase in flu mortality is ineffectiveness of the vaccine, than reason dictates that the only possible explanation for a decrease in mortality would be effectiveness of the vaccine
Since thats the only possible explanation by your logic, then the case is proven by showing a decrease in flu mortality, which I have done
Again, if there are no cofounders, and the only independent variable is the flu vaccine efficacy, then there is no possible way you can argue against flu vaccine protection given the above graph which proves your prior point wrong
I can't wait to see how you try and wriggle out of this one
Who conducted this study? Big Pharma? So injecting yourself with Mercury and Aluminum is going to be beneficial for the a child's developing brain? Give me a break with this big pharma backed pseudo science. You want to not get the flu? Take 5 grams of vitamin C daily and eat green vegetables.
Sounds like your mother had the plague when she was pregnant with you.
Oh, the paranoia. Shouting about conspiracy theories and spouting Grace Granola "wisdom" just seems silly. Let's try to think objectively here. People get more mercury from eating fish and more aluminum from using deodorant than they'll get in a lifetime of getting flu shots. Also, Vitamin C has little, if any, benefit to the average person when it comes to preventing colds and flu.
Having said that, this study, from the University of Aarhus, has many basic flaws. The most glaring flaw is that it relies solely on self-reporting after the fact. That alone makes it nearly useless. They need to do a study that follows women from pregnancy, using data collected by physicians. And then follow the infants through early childhood to see how many develop autism, and how that correlates with previous data.
Also, pregnant women have been getting the flu for centuries. This could not explain the increase in autism unless there is a parallel increase in the number of pregnant women getting the flu, which there isn't.
As a whole, this study is useless to the general public. It might help researchers develop an actual study using the scientific method, which may produce solid scientific results. Or it's just junk science with no practical application.
Jaimie, I am not sold on the Mercury in these vaccines being wholly or even partially responsible for the rise in autism, although I do not completely discount it either. I personally believe that the more likely culprit is the immune response from getting an injection, which can be severe and cause significant inflammation throughout the body, including the brain.
However, there is a vast difference between ingesting something into your digestive tract as opposed to having it shot directly into your body.
There is no Mercury in most Flu Vaccines anymore. There is only a tiny bit in the big multi-dose vials to act as a preservative.
Single dose contains no Mercury at all.
Any problems with Small Pharma, or is Big Pharma the only catch phrase that these people will use?
Small pharma wishes it was Big Pharma. Big Pharma has political connections because Big Pharma has Big money to affect public health policy the way it sees fit.
Aren't there two vaccinese avaialabe? I thought the vaccine for pregnant women did not contain preservatives and was not made with the active flu virus.
Basic science Jamie, basic science. The study, which is not flawed (see the first statement) showed a correlation between women who had the flu during while pregnant. No where did it say what the cause of the autism was, only that is was statistically significant that the rate of autism found mothers who also had the flu.
It is true that there are multiple causes of autism, and this is simply another clue as to the etiology of autism for some percentage of the population. It did not rule of genetics or any other potential cause. It is entirely possible that the flu is simply a trigger for another primary cause. Information is power, and this is a good study.
This author appears not to care about either of what his/her screen names imply. Small quantities of preservatives in injectable serums when put on a microgram per kilogram body weight basis are in the realm of what Homeopathic medicine tries to push as real therapy.................
Read the book Evidence of Harm......big pharma will do anything to blame any other source for the fact that since mandatory shots were required for public school was passed autism rates have gone thru the roof...do to mercury...Thimerisol.
Scubasteve58001
There is no Mercury in most Flu Vaccines anymore. There is only a tiny bit in the big multi-dose vials to act as a preservative.
Single dose contains no Mercury at all.
Seriously? You believe that crap?
I'm with the conspiracy theory. An article about how 'flu' is linked to autism so please ladies of the nation get vaccinated?? To me it felt like I just read an ad about getting the flu shot. I had the flu shot during pregnancy. My daughter has "autistic tendencies" and "sensory disorder". Did I just link the shot and autism together? No? Yeah well that's how I feel about their study too. You'r welcome.
If some of you had longer attention spans and better reading comprehension, the end of the article clearly states:
“We don’t know what causes autism,” said Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, chief of the Developmental Disabilities Branch at CDC.
“We know that genetic factors are extremely important. If a woman had flu and she has a child with autism, even with the results of this study, it doesn’t mean that the child’s autism is due to the fact that the mother had flu. There are a lot of factors that may be responsible for autism.”
I had pneumonia when I was pregnant at 5 months, which is caused by a virus and had a high fever. My son was born without any complications and did not have autism. Of course, that's just one child.
I think that no one can say what causes autism. Regardless of this study, every individual case may be different, as it could still be hereditary. I also think it's irresponsible to still be carrying the "anti-vaccine" torch. Children have gotten seriously ill and have died because of whooping cough, because irresponsible parents have foresworn vaccines altogether. It would also be interesting to know if the baby/child shows any indications of autism prior to vaccinations versus after vaccinations. If the baby/child shows no signs of autism, then vaccinate it and see what happens.
Also, like shingles which lies dormant in your body, as a result of chickenpox, it might be interesting to see what diseases the woman had prior to becoming pregnant.
Maybe every pregnant woman should be isolated from human contact during pregnancy to see if this makes any difference. Then you could tell whether it's genetic or has a viral connection.
Actually, with the increase in speed and availability of travel, viruses get to spread across the globe much more easily. We come in contact with many more different strains of viruses and bacteria now than even a hundred years ago. (Luckily, hygiene and vaccines prevent illnesses, and we have much better treatment when someone does get sick.) Add in the fact that even just a hundred years ago, society looked down upon women working or even being in public when visibly pregant, and yes, it's likely that pregnant women contract the flu more often now than in the past.
A little advice from someone who has followed this subject with interest for 18 years. They are covering up a lot of facts about autism. I in 88 now? It was 1 in 150. Maybe it is a terrorist attack where they can not find the source. Let us do some critical thinking. Mad cow disease, mercury dosage, correlations between vaccinations and autism including flu study. Maybe the mercury is increased to destroy pathogens present in mad cow, and were all getting it in some form. People think they have factual information. If you think you have you are a fool.
There's 2 and a half times as much aluminum in breast milk as in vaccines, 10 times as much in formula. And we're talking one-thousandth of a gram, or about 1/5th a teaspoon. Amount of aluminum: 4mg = vaccine, 10mg = breast milk, 40 mg = infant formula and 120mg = soy-based formula.Aluminum is in the air we breathe and the food we eat. Unless you lack the protein transferrin (as in hemochromatosis), which transports aluminum to the kidneys where it is excreted with 24 hours, it does not linger.
You sound like a Monsanto commercial. "without chemicals life would be impossible"
Why don't you try injecting that aluminum, which is meant to "accelerate" the immune system
Unless it deposits in the brain and discovered on autopsy.
From april 2012:
Research into BSE and vCJD has tailed off with a decline in fresh cases of both diseases, but there is still much that scientists do not understand about the infections. Most, if not all, cases of vCJD have been in the 40% of the population who have what is called the MM form of the human prion protein. When BSE infects a person, it is this protein that becomes misfolded and drives the disease.
The remaining 60% of the population, who have one of two other variants of the human prion (MV or VV) may harbour the disease but take longer for symptoms to show. Future cases might arise in these people up to 50 years after consuming infected beef. P.S. What makes you believe they didn't add something to innoculations? Time line is concurrent with autism.
What do they call that again? Blind-study?
By the way anyone who has read or done clinical studies know dosage varies and have to be in a wide range of population. Another correlation with the broad spectrum of severity.
Go_Obama!
"All of you sheeple babbling about autism and vaccines need to stop watching Fox News and reading discredited studies. This link between vaccines and autism IS DISCREDITED. No reputable scientist backs this up. YES if you get a fever due to vaccination that's a small risk but it is NOT the same as a prgnant woman's body full on fighting the flu!"
Check out NVIC.org if you would like credible studies about vaccination.
jac-931625
'Let's use some common sense. The flu has been around forever. Pregnant women have been getting the flu for ages. Autism has only recently exploded. Yeah sure, having the flu leads to your child having autism. Makes puuuurfect sense.
Which flu vaccine manufacturer "sponsored" THIS study????"
Wise comment jac. Very true that vaccine safety studies are funded by the makers themselves.
There is the multi-dose vial vaccine - which does contain a very small amount of Thimerosal (which is Ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S) mercurate(1-) sodium) and contains inactivated or killed virus. There is single-dose injectable vaccine - which does NOT contain thimerosal (or any other preservatives) and also contain inactivated or killed virus. Then there is nasal spray vaccine which does NOT contain thimerosal but does contain live, attenuated virus (this is a weakened virus).
The injectable vaccines are used in pregnant women; but the nasal vaccine is NOT used in pregnant women. So, there the only flu vaccine recommended for pregnant women contains killed virus. However, depending on where they get the shot, they may get a vaccine with or without thimerosal. That said, anyone can request only the single-dose vaccine - which means they can get the non-thimerosal containing, but killed virus vaccine on request. Most ob/gyns that I know use single-dose flu vaccines for their patients.
Luther: clarify babble>
What a joke....So injecting yourself and the fetus with mercury and aluminum is not going to be harmful? Give me a break with this big pharma backed pseudo study funded with pharma's unlimited supply of $$$$$. You want a natural flu shot? 5 grams of vitamin C and green vegetables.
Mercury content in:
a) single use (dose) influenza vaccine = 0 (ZERO)
b) a dose from a multi-use vial = 25 micrograms/shot
c) 1/4 lb of canned tuna = 42 micrograms
d) 1/4 lb of tuna steak = 72 micrograms
e) 1/4 lb of shark of swordfish = up to 168 micrograms
htt p://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm
ht tp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19441470/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/how-safe-whats-can/
It's not safe to inject tuna or sword fish either. Especially if it has an immune accelerator in it called an adjuvant such as aluminum.
Vitamin D...so get some sun, skip the sunscreen for awhile...not to the point of burn, be reasonable.
BTW the adjevuncts are often other than aluminum and cause your body to have a large immune response, which makes this study even more foolish, it causes an artificial immune response, which if said response causes autism...hello?
Read up on Squalene and autoimmune disorders, autism is only 1 thing in a list of reasons NOT to vaccinate.
and tuna passes through the most important part of your body, the gut, the immune system for filtering. injecting these toxins directly into your body it does not have a way to filter out, and the aluminum helps to prevent it from going anywhere. big difference.
And the recommendation for pregnant women is to stay away from tune...because of the mercury!
Just more propaganda for the Flu vaccine. There isn't a shred of evidence that the flu vaccine works. None.
However, there is a great deal of evidence of severe immune system reactions causing harm to many people who have taken the vaccine. Of course, this is simply denied by Big Pharma and many idiot Physicians. Of course, a very large percentage of these Physicians could administer a drug, watch the patient drop dead almost immediately, and then have the chutzpah to say that it couldn't have been the drug.
I have posted this before on these forums. I personally know a person who has been an M.D. for almost 30 years and has been involved in Medical Research since becoming a Doctor. He quit a job in the drug research industry that was supposed to monitor adverse reactions to medications because the only thing they were interested in doing was discrediting and denying all claims of adverse reactions that were reported. The flu vacine was one of the worst. After looking at the data and reading the reports, he said that he would never take the flu vaccine or allow anyone in his family to take it. He also said the denial of these reactions by his superiors was absolutely shameful.
Not a shred? Here are some peer-reviewed, scientific publications NOT sponsored by pharma. There are more examples, these I found with a glance. Feel free to read it yourself before deciding based on one former expert:
htt p://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22838300
ht tp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23085364
CDC mortality statistics do not support claims that flu shot is effective in saving lives. Increased uptake in flu vaccine do not affect CDC influenza mortality studies. When strains aren't matched on some years, one would expect an increase in influenza deaths. Not so. it doesn't budge.
Citation? How about a source for any of your claims?
Now get's to the cumbersome part...for you. Go to the cdc website. I want you to look up the yearly mortality statistics. Look up pnuemonia and influenza. It's categorized as J-9-11 . Now look up the sub category of influenza. You can look back as long as you can.
Note the mortality number is much much smaller than advertised by flu vaccine sales people (Pharma and their CDC partners along with public health).
Now do this for several years and note the trend. Now compare this trend to increased levels of flu vaccine uptake. You'll see it doesn't correlate to an answer that suggests emotional ploys for influenza vaccine compliance.
Good luck with that work. I look forward to your posts in a few days or maybe by the end of the day if your diligent.
I'll help you out to start with, though. Here's 20011:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
Influenza (J09-J11) 1,532
If you want to claim that the flu vaccine is effective at saving lives you should already have this data. I don't think you do.
Referencing government documents? Are you crazy or what? Who did all those syphilis tests, and tortured people on the sly? The correct thing to do is read journals and papers on various aspects of drugs, then form a base for intelligent dissemination. Or you could just keep believing the commercials.
robert,
I looked and the data does not support your conclusion.
Haha. what specific conclusion are you talking about?
You obviously didnt' look. That's dishonest.
How far back did you look. At what years did the decrease in mortallity correlate with the increase in vaccine uptake?
At least don't lie.
I looked and the data does not support your conclusion. Not any of them
for example, that there was no decline in flu deaths
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374803/
again, im sure you'll ignore the obvious findings of the study and concentrate on some of the self identified limitations, such as the difficulty in precisely counting influenza deaths due to the lack of laboratory confirmation in many cases. However, his methods of research were far more thorough than yours, and his data is pretty convincing
Besides not believing what the CDC tells you, the graph of data still supports what I've said.
Don't kid yourself with silliness. Look up the CDC stats. Correlate the increase uptake of the flu vaccine especially since the 1980's and tell me how good the flu vaccine is in decreasing mortality..
Please. Can you do it? I don't think you can simply because the evidence that you believe in doesn't exist. Don't give me any of that "well, flu vaccines save live but because of AIDS and old people, the statistics can't possibly reflect that" crap. IF you try that again in front of an audience here you will see how foolish you are.
Thanks for the graph though.
exactly, you did precisely as I predicted you would, even picking the sentence I thought you might
The whole point of the article was that flu mortality had decreased. You can pick one sentence and take it out of context, but you and I both know what the data showed
Since when is peer reviewed literature in a major medical journal "silliness"
1) I did. IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM!!!
2) The article I cited cites the CDC as a source, as well as multiple other sources that are cross referenced
3) If you disagree--POST EVIDENCE!!!
Get off your lazy a$$ and do it. Its your point--YOU research it. I looked, and found the exact opposite. I found a study, that remains unrefuted, which directly proves your point dead wrong
1) I don't think you can
2) I just did--can you read? I supplied a source--thats one more source than you, in case you are counting
By my count, most people here have ridiculed you and your "evidence". But again, Ill repost what I said earlier since you clearly didn't comprehend it.
The whole point is this: You may not believe that an increase in sick and elderly patients is responsible for the lack of a decrease in flu mortality. Which is funny as you acknowledge that the elderly are responsible for the vast majority of flu deaths, and its an unquestioned fact that our nation has aged since the vaccine was introduced. Another funny fact is you have yet to provide a source that says flu mortality hasn't dropped since the introduction of the vaccine
At any rate, you cannot use real world data to support the idea that the flu vaccine doesn't work. There are too many variables present. You don't believe the one I mentioned? Fine. You must acknowledge that confounders are real, even if you disagree as to the proposed ones
For example, it is a certain fact that overall mortality has decreased since vaccines were introduced. Therefore, I am going to attribute all mortality benefit since vaccines were introduced to vaccines? Why can't I robert? I mean, its real world data, right? Thats the gold standard according to you...
Its the reason when we test new medicines we are very careful to pick two groups at random and ensure they are sufficiently randomized with regard to age, sex, comorbidities, etc for exactly the reasons stated above. Because one of these categories may be a confounder that is responsible for causing what appears to be a result otherwise atrributable to the drug
This is statistics 101. Before you start quoting trials and copy and pasting data, you need to demonstrate a passing knowledge. You have failed.
thanks for the graph, chief! The flu vaccine uptake does not support your quirky hypothesis that the flu vaccine saves lives in spite of unchanged flu mortality.
Instead of evidence based data I suppose we should use pharmaceutical fantasy world data. Gotcha!
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-matter/307723/
Just in case you missed it, chief:
feel free to explain away with your unsubstantiated, evidence free pet theories
You mean the one that proves you wrong? Anytime!
This paper was independent--it was not funded by a pharm company...where are you getting this from????
Again, I just did
You're missing the independent variable. The flu vaccine uptake rate. Where is it?
Actually, its not necessary by your thinking. See, you've painted yourself into a figurative logical corner. If the only possible explanation for a flat or increase in flu mortality is ineffectiveness of the vaccine, than reason dictates that the only possible explanation for a decrease in mortality would be effectiveness of the vaccine
Since thats the only possible explanation by your logic, then the case is proven by showing a decrease in flu mortality, which I have done
Again, if there are no cofounders, and the only independent variable is the flu vaccine efficacy, then there is no possible way you can argue against flu vaccine protection given the above graph which proves your prior point wrong
I can't wait to see how you try and wriggle out of this one.
No it's because the flu vaccine does not matter. The "decrease" you are dishonestly (or lack of understanding) referring to occurred before the use of mass influenza vaccine which causes the author to state:
...Which is exactly in line with what I've previously stated.
I do not think that article you cited says what you think it says.
The author of the article wrote another article in the BMJ titled
"Are US flu death figures more PR than science?"
BMJ 2005; 331 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7529.1412 (Published 8 December 2005)
Cite this as: BMJ 2005;331:1412
In it he says:
Again thanks for the article. It supports exactly what I've said. If you have any more questions about this article I'll be happy to try and answer them for you to further your understanding on the topic.
Sure it does. It directly refutes your claim that flu mortality increased or was stable over the past century. This is simple robert. I cannot make it easier to understand
Really?
You cannot even stay consistent. How do you propose to explain anything to me when you cannot even make a coherent statement. Laughable.
And again, if external factors, such as improved sanitation, medicines, etc. can cause a decrease in flu mortality, why can't external factors INCREASE flu mortality if they occur simultaneously with other factors, such as the vaccine, which may cause a decrease
The problem is your simple mind cannot comprehend such minimally complex situations. When you can, come back and we'll move on to moderately complex topics
Didn't make that claim. You are either purposefully dishonest or lacking an ability to comprehend. These are the ONLY two options that are considered when you make that statement.
As the author stated, the flu vaccine can not explain the drop because it came in AFTER the drop started and continued.
IF you had the flu vaccine uptake data you'd see that the large increase of vaccine uptake does not correspond with a change in flu vaccine mortality. The author of the article YOU cited knows this. You don't.
The only thing you have admitted is an outlandish theory of why the one can't see the data. You claim that confounders have magically covered it up because flu deaths would have magically gone up.
You are stating a negative. Science can't prove a negative. You making an unscientific claim and calling it science.
Most viral infections are self-limiting. If antibiotics were given during these infections one may mistakenly believe (because of false assumptions) that antibiotics cured these viral infections or had a major hand in allieviating them. One could even unscientifically say that these infections would have killed the patient had it not been for the life saving measures of the good doctor and his antibiotics. This would be false and unscientific of course.
I know what confounders are. I just can't believe you could look at data and say that vaccine, that came in the last few decades mostly since the 80's and claim it saves lives from 1900-until then. You give credit where it's not due. And then after deaths have pretty much flattened out, there has been a drastic uptake of the vaccine with little to no movement on the graph. it's baffling how you can then say' well er, that's because more old people and AIDS suddenly started dying, but at the same time more OLD people and AIDS patients started being saved at the exact same proportion. This is a group that the vaccine hardly works in at all. It's like you believe in magic.
This thread is dead. Until the next flu vaccine thread, bring data instead of explanation of crazy theories with mysteriously moving confounders that aren't verifiable by science.
There is a statement within the body of this article which i wish to bring attention to.
I am curious to known if there are known cases of autism or autism spectrum within non-human animal species? I ask because I wonder how such a conclusion could be reached, as stated in the above quote if there is NOT cases of autism spectrum in animals which are not human.
I am also curious to understand what correlation there is between the Mothers Immune System and the development of the child's brain. Is there a specific portion of the human brain which controls the bodies Immune system? How does this lead to any autism spectrum disorder?
I did find this one web page on the subject.
How The Immune System And Brain Communicate To Control Disease
www sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080721173748.htm
"the brain communicates with the spleen to regulate immune function"
Perhaps an answer might be found which links these two functions at: The Virtual Human Embryo
www ehd.org/virtual-human-embryo/
While I personally have no medical or scientific background, my EX step-daughter Jennifer Delaney Kowalkowski has dedicated her life to understanding and treating autism.
While we no longer communicate, I am very proud of her and her success in this career field.
I did find one website which deals with:
Conceptualizing the Autism Spectrum in Terms of Natural Selection and Behavioral Ecology: The Solitary Forager Hypothesis
www epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP09207238.pdf
Hopefully this progresses on sound scientific principles and not on medieval superstition and anecdotal premises.
Immunizations are scientifically proven to stop disease, though in some cases, such as the flu, it is hard for science to keep up with the mutations. Scientology, Faith Healing, and other quackery have been proven to be detrimental to the groups health.
The 21st century is no time to revert to dark age medicine.
Funny you should say that, Much of 21st century medicine is based on dark age remedies, While the people in the dark ages may not have known why that leaf,tree bark or mold or moss helped cure their pain or ills they did know that in fact it did help. Homeopathic remedies have had a lot of impact on current medicine and to deny that is just well...Living in the dark ages
Actually, true homeopathic remedies do NOT have a lot of impact on current medicine. A true homeopathic medicine follows the believe that giving a substance that causes disease symptoms in a healthy person will cause a cure in a sick person. The remedies are significantly diluted with alcohol or distilled water (often to the point that the actual substance cannot even be found in the final preparation given to the patient).
I believe you are confusing homeopathy with other "natural" medicines, which do rely on leaf, tree bark, mold or moss to help cure the patient. Other "alternative" or "natural" medicines that do not rely on significant dilution (which is fundamental to homeopathy) DO have a huge influence on modern medicine. Many medications ARE natural compounds which have been extracted and synthesized - aspirin, for example, is acetylsalicyclic acid - which comes from salicyclic acid, which is found in many plants, including willow bark spiraea.
A rise in autism points to something new, and the flu has been around for ages. Also, there are pockets of autism, such as in the Bay Area of California. Any explanation for the cause should also explain why the disorder clusters in such areas, and I'd expect flu to be less common in California than the rest of America.
But there are different strains of flu, and some are newer than others.
As for "pockets of autism"... I can't say for sure that this is the ONLY reason... but, working closely with parents of children with Autism as an educational psychologist, I have found that these parents are VERY on top of things when it comes to new therapies, treatments, etc. and they tend to flock to places where treatments are the most widely available and the most advanced.
For instance, you'll see large populations of Autistic children in school districts that provide the most resources to children with Autism... parents will move hundreds of miles away sometimes just for the opportunity to take part in the most advanced programs.
There is no "rise" in autism rates. Autism has always existed. What has happened is that it has been specified, named, and better diagnosed over the years. Some would say it is now being over-diagnosed.
wait, so the mother's immunologic response to flu, especially fever may cause autism...so we recommend pregnant women get flu vaccination, which causes...the body to think it has the flu, and may cause...fever?
It's as if, when trying to increase flu vaccine sales, it is giving credence to a mechanism that can point to vaccines as a possible cause of autism.
This still doesn't explain regressive autism. Child is developing normally. Parent reports physiological reaction to vaccine then drastic developmental regression.
There is actually very little evidence to support the regressive autism hypothesis, and significant anecdotal evidence to refute it. Autism as a diagnosis involves deficits in what usually considered higher-order social behaviors, behaviors that most of your 0-3 year olds do not display, whether or not they are on the autism spectrum. Most parents are experts in the field of child behavior only as it applies just to their own children, not children categorically, so their assertions that their child's development was "normal" up to a identified point is not necessarily a scientifically acceptable data input.
Additionally, consider that in that same time frame, your average child will see a doctor maybe a half dozen times, for visits of less than 30 minutes, where even your most socialable child can get shy or nervous, hardly giving the family GP or pediatrician, who is not an expert in autism, a reasonable basis to assess the development of higher-order social functions. It's not until the child reaches an age where the parents begin to expect higher-order social behaviors to develop--best friends in preschool, eye contact while speaking, the beginning of emotional control, etc., that they then consider their child's development abnormal.
Further, there is a developing body of studies that counter this regressive autism hypothesis. Doctors who specialize in autism have been asking families of their patients to allow them to review early home movie footage the children, shot before an autism diagnosis was considered. Those doctors have frequently noted precursors of autistic behavior in those children, subtle and ignored by parents who simply chalked it up to to something the child would grow out of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsnL9yHApIA
My son is autistic. He wasn't diagnosed untio the age of 4, when it was impossible to miss, but he's been different since a hospital stay for respiratory trouble when he'd caught a bad virus at the age of 26 months. Then, after 5 days in a hospital, under an oxygen tent, poked full of needle holes because the doctor was wrongly treating him for athsma and would not listen to me, he lost all use of personal pronouns and eye contact. He never laughed for the following 2 years and was terrified of people wearing white but continued to read, as he had from the age of 17 months.
My pregnancy was marked by a kidney infection at 3 months and a 2-day hospitalization at 5 months for a horrible reaction to bug spray. Normally 105 pounds, earning a living galloping thorobreds on the race track, non-stop vomiting had taken me down to 87 pounds, and I continued to be nauseated for the next 4 months, finally gaining 30 pounds to deliver a healthy baby who weighed 8lb 3oz. His first 3 months were difficult; he was responsive and had normal development but would have crying spells that were inconsolable. By 7 months, he was a happy, adventurous little man who loved to watch aeroplanes flying far above.
The methods I used to reach and teach him were based on intuition, experimentation, and common sense. Now, I see many of the things I did with him are being implimented in programs for affected youngsters. I'm glad to know I was on the right track and also vindicated in detesting Bruno Bettleheim's beliefs and treatment of autistic children -- and their parents -- many years ago. His methods, his writings, the standard for the time, must have caused untold pain for everyone affected by autism.
My son is now 41-years old. He's overcome much of his childhood obsessiveness, but still is prone to thinking in rigid ways and is very compulsive. He has trouble making decisions without specific perameters for guidance. He has reduced his odd mannerisms so they are fairly covert and not obvious. The echolalia that was his only response to questions for a few years is now a repeated muttering of the last thing he has spoken. He has been self-destructive only when under too much stress during his school years. I wish now that I'd home-schooled him. The photographic memory he displayed all his life has diminished in the last 10 years as he's allowed more of the outside world to affect him.
He still loves information and, yes, Jeopardy; he functions quite well, caring deeply about his grandparents (whom he helped me care for the last 7 years) and animals. He milked our goats, rode and jumped our horses, volunteered in my riding therapy program, and worked jobs from the age of 15, until he signed on for 24/7 caregiving. He is still tactily defensive, but is a Certified Massage Therapist and 2nd degree Reiki practitioner. He also does puppetry, vocal impersonations, plays accordian and piano, and drives the car. He is the most caring and constant person I know. I'm honored to be his mother.
Y. Dauphin--thank you for sharing your son's story. My grandson is also autistic, is now 12 years old and has made tremendous progress in his life--I am so proud of him, and honored to be his Grandma Lisa. When he was less than a year old, he had a really bad allergic reaction to an DPT immunization--his leg swelled up and bruised up horribly, and the MD had to treat him for an allergic reaction. For days afterward, he dragged it around behind him while crawling. He was later diagnosed with autism just before his 2nd birthday, and soon after was involved in early intervention. My daughter did a lot of reading up on the subject of autism, learning as much as she could. She lives in Oregon, and they have some really good programs there for autistic children. It is my hypothesis that autism spectrum disorders can be caused by various different things. In my grandsons case, I think there is a good chance that the immunization itself was not to blame, but rather that whatever made him react so horribly to the shot also may have something to do with his autism. He was also extremely deficient in iron, and had to take liquid iron supplements as a baby which he hated and fought against as a baby. He eventually was involved in an experimental study with secretin--and was one of the only 2 autistic children that actually had tremendous positive results--my daughter and I refer to that as a miracle:) In fact, my daughter reported to me that the experimenters called it a miracle when she talked to them about it. And it was a double blind study--no one knew who was getting placebos and who was getting the real secretin until the study was completed.
Anyway, I am glad that we both have had a chance to share on this thread. It really encourages me when I hear of stories like your son's, and other people who are autistic and lead meaningful, fulfilled and happy lives.
From the article:
How can the article acknlowledge this, and then for the medical establishment to recommend a flu shot for pregnant women? It is a fact that vaccines artificially stimulate (and sometimes severely) a persons immune system.
Also, at 6 months, a childs brain is still developing. Is it simply unimaginable to think that the immune response to vaccines given to infants has a detrimental effect on the developing brain. This idea is very consistent with the many, many reports by parents who had a child that appeared normal in all ways, and after receiving vaccines, almost immediately descended into the autism spectrum of behavior.
Self reporting isn't scientific, all the parents see is a temporal relationship between receiving a vaccine and the child eventually developing a condition, and then suggesting that correlation equals causation, in science such reports are regarded as un-blinded and uncontrolled, such data has no hope of being statistically significant. in other words there's no way to tell beyond a reasonable doubt weather this data is the result of dumb luck rather than being an actual causal connection between the two. all we know is that these events happen around the same time, it's about as meaningful as observing a rain dance and then observing rain.
I did not say it was proof, James. I simply said it was consistent with, which is true.
What is also true are the reports by more than just a few parents reporting the change in behavior either immediately or very soon after the administering of vaccines. The article itself says that animal studies suggest that a mothers immune response may affect a childs developing brain. Below that in the article it says:
Since it is well established, by virtually everyone in the medical establishment, that vaccines cause immune/inflammatory responses, and that infants brains have not fully developed, I simply suggested that it is not unreasonable to believe that vaccines could be a significant cause of autism. Especially considering the correlation between the dramatic rise in autism and the rise in the number of vaccines that are given to infants. No matter what Big Pharma and their Government protectors say, the case for vaccines being implicated as a primary cause for the rise in autism is not settled even the least bit.
I might add, if it does turn out to be true that inflammation plays a role in the autism issue, then imo the known fact that a small, but not insignificant percentage of humans receiving injections of any kind and then experiencing hypersentivity reactions, could be a very important piece of the puzzle.
Like I said I have followed this now into 18years. Some of these people who post read from a script. I have read the same crap year after year. I don't know the answer but I know their just as clueless.
I wonder if all of this might be related to temperature. Fever and inflammation both increase the temperature of the developing fetus. Ultrasound also increases the temperature, in the range of 2-5 degrees. Perhaps excessive ultrasounds might be correlated to autism? I know early studies have shown that the only strange finding that correlates to excessive ultrasounds is increased left-handedness in males, however after 1997 they increased the intensity of ultrasounds by 8 times, and now people are buying home doppler monitors (also use ultrasound), and getting 3D and 4D ultrasounds. Maybe the temperature increases caused by ultrasounds is affecting the brain and might be contributing to autism, the same way that fever or inflammation might.
I have no data to support this hypothesis, but it is clear that autism rates are increasing, as is pre-natal exposure to ultrasounds. Might be worth investigating.
You could run yourself around in circles trying to find the cause of a mystery on your own, many people have and ultimately ended up buying into a promoting conspiracy theories.
think about it this way, developmental effects of ultrasounds is a vary easy thing to test, after all this time, don't you think such an association would have been observed?
James, most tests investigating the safety of ultrasounds are quite old, when ultrasounds exposure was a lot weaker. They are also focusing on acute issues, like miscarriage or birth defects. There is an assumption that ultrasounds are safe, however it is known that ultrasound radiation is energy that is absorbed by the tissue, and this causes heat. Studies on animals have shown quite dramatic temperature increases when exposed to ultrasound. There is already a link between excessive heat and brain development problems.
The dramatic rise in ultrasound exposure is a recent thing, so no, I don't expect that such an association would have been observed yet, especially if the assumption is that ultrasound is harmless. Also, the fact that it is known that ultrasound can increase left-handedness in males is evidence that it might be having SOME effect. I'm not saying excessive ultrasound causes autism, I'm just pointing out some facts. My wife is currently pregnant and we have had the standard ultrasounds, but we both feel that limiting the amount of ultrasound exposure is a prudent move. Why would you expose your developing fetus to more absorbed energy than necessary? I think it might be a bit naive to assume that increasing the temperature of the developing brain over and over again won't have any effect.
The medical journals recommend that the exposure to ultrasound radiation be as low as is medically necessary.
If you've ever had an ultrasound or touched a doppler you would know yourself that neither gets hot or even warm. If it did, we wouldn't need to warm the gel that is required to perform an ultrasound. I'm pregnant now and require frequent ultrasounds for a few weeks to make sure my cervix isn't weakening. If the cervix is found to be incompetent before 24 weeks my baby will not survive, as she would basically fall out of me since the cervix would not be able to hold her in. If a shift in body temperature of just a few degrees for a few seconds twice a month were harmful, every pregnant woman who has ever had a warm shower, worked outside in the sun, or even exercised would be in trouble.
John ultrasound does not use radiation. An ultrasound detects the sonar frequency of an object, but there is no radiation involved. It is agreed that you should not expose an unborn fetus to radiation (found in x-rays and CT's) but I haven't seen enough studies on ultrasound safety to make a definitive conclusion.
@suspended, the ultrasound does not cause heat on the surface, but there is a lot of data measuring the actual amount of energy absorbed by the tissue (where the energy is focused). This absorbed energy manifests as heat. Below is just one reference, but there are many studies on this. My wife is also pregnant (congratulations to you!) and has had complications and so she has also gone through more ultrasounds than normal. I am not saying that ultrasounds are causing autism, I'm saying that there might be a link and maybe we should look at it. With respect to your comment about the shower, that is really not the same thing at all. The body has many ways to regulate the temperature of the fetus so that changes in the mothers temperature have a minimal effect on the fetus. This important homeostatic mechanism is in place because it is so important to maintain a relatively constant temperature during development.
Ultrasound Med Biol. 1993;19(5):415-24.
@anon84, I am aware that ultrasound does not use radiation in the traditional sense, but it is energy that is absorbed by the tissue. The medical paper that I was referring to used the term radiation, I don't like to use that word as it sets off too many alarm bells in peoples heads.
Again, I want to stress that I am not anti-ultrasound, I'm just proposing another hypothesis for the alarming increase in autism. Autism rates appear to be highest in affluent families, and have risen dramatically in recent history. Ultrasound usage has also increased during this same period, and affluent families are the ones that are most likely to have the highest exposure to "recreational' ultrasounds like home doppler monitors and 3D/4D ultrasounds. In all likelihood this is just a coincidence, but if after all of this time there aren't any better explanations, who is to say that excessive ultrasounds are not a contributing factor?
Ultrasound usage hasn't really increased that much. Most doctors will only give you 2 ultrasounds because that is all that insurance will pay for. Unless you are at risk for cervical incompitence or have some other complications, most women aren't gettting more than two. Yes, you can go to a private 3d ultrasound place but I doubt that women are getting dozens of ultrasounds privately. Almost all women (at least in the US) have an anatomy scan at 20 weeks, and those ultrasounds typically last around 30 to 45 minutes. It seems that if ultrasounds were the culprit of autism (or any other problem) the instance would be much more than 1 in 88.
Prior to my cervical checks I was very hesitant to have many ultrasounds close together. The research I did for myself reassured me that ultrasounds do not use ionic radiation and that the studies done on mice involved holding the ultrasound probe in 1 spot for 35 minutes straight. I have yet to have an ultrasound where the probe was stationary for even a few seconds. I'm also curious as to why we aren't seeing damage to the mother's abdominal tissue or damage in an anterior placenta.
@ suspended, good point. There is a lot of evidence that ultrasounds are safe. I don't think the heat would be enough to damage tissue, but it might affect the developing brain. I agree with you that if standard ultrasounds were the cause, the prevalence would be much higher. I guess I am more concerned about women buying home heart monitors and listening to the heartbeat everyday, unknowingly exposing the developing baby to ultrasound (doppler) energy.
Again, I have no evidence to support this, just an idea. I'm not hearing any better ideas that help explain the increase in autism.
Once again corporate media blindly reporting Big Pharma's press releases as news. They are beholding to
their advertisers who just happen to be Big Pharma.
Why does the government (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the Department of Health and Human Services)want every US citizen six months and up to get a flu shot this year and every year?
Could it be Big Pharma’s powerful lobbying efforts (AKA: crony capitalism), or something more nefarious?
Do the math, if 314 million Americans get vaccinated at $25.00 a shot that is 7.85 billion
dollars. Hardly chump change?
When Big Government colludes with Big Pharma, only balance sheets are guaranteed to stay
healthy and the people get stuck.
the capability to gain from malice isn't in and of itself evidence of malice. should every dollar you earn be looked at critically as if it was possibly obtained by a robbery? You'd be far better, more convincing if you left this "big pharma/big government" talk to yourself, it's a huge red flag of emotionality and paranoia the likes of which clouds judgments and leads to the instantaneous rejection of facts simply because they don't support your particular conspiracy theory.
And the CDC wants people to get more vaccines because the unmitigated spread of viruses is an obvious public health issue.
Occam's razor-The simplest explanation is usually the best.
Sam, so you honestly think that suggesting some grand money making conspiracy perpetrated by the US government and the pharmaceutical industry is a simpler explanation, with less grand assumptions than people wanting to reduce the spread of viruses and their resulting developmental effects? i don't think you actually know what Occam's razor means.
If the Pharmaceutical Industry developed a vaccine containing Uranium and Plutonium and said that it would protect you from all forms of Nuclear disasters, you can be sure that James would be on here denying any harmful effects at all. After all, it is perfectly safe to inject anything into our bodies, especially infants, and vaccines are lways safe and the Pharmaceutical Industries only have our best interests at heart. Lol...what a joke.
@Jeff, next time actually attempt to represent my position instead of creating one for me simply so that you can have an easier time arguing against it.
It's easy to point to an ingredient and drum up fear over the fact that it has some element in it, take mercury for example. we all know the effects of elemental mercury, I'm also willing to bet that you know the effects of chlorine and sodium, neither of which i would recommend consuming, chlorine is a toxic gas and sodium reacts violently with water. yet why isn't the ocean boiling? it contains salt, a molecule containing sodium and chlorine. the properties of a raw element are rarely represented in the molecules that contain it. similarly the mercury found in vaccines are easily excreted by the body, something which is not the case in raw mercury.
And the simplest explanation is corporate greed and political corruption.
@sam Not with all evidence being the same, again, all evidence being the same it's a bigger assumption to say that there is a conspiracy between the government and corporations to suppress or modify the data such that vaccines are regarded as safe and effective when they aren't.
Fair enough James. What makes many people upset with your position is that it is not conspiracy, but accepted scientific fact, that injections into the body of all kinds of things, can cause very significant immune and inflammatory responses, including death. Many people experience hardly anything at all from a bee sting, but others can die within minutes from the out of control immune response. The same thing can happen for many medications that are taken.
When you look at the rise in the number of vaccines given to infants with still developing brains, along with the rise in autism and the large numbers of reports from parents who say that their children developed their problems soon after vaccinations, it is not unreasonable or conspiratorial to think that vaccines may be causative. Actually, it is very sound scientifically. If a percentage of people experience hypersensitivity reactions to injections of medications, and the number of infants and the number of vaccinations given them has increased along with reported cases of autism, it is simply not logical to say that vaccines are absolutely not responsible, or that there isn't any scientific evidence for it.
@Jeff reasonable yes but scientific no. how many articles do you read about a child being vaccinated and living happily ever after (hyperbole but you get my point i think) how many articles do you read about the opposite? now compare those numbers with the actual data and you see the exact opposite, severe adverse reactions are a rarity yet if you look at the way vaccinations are reported you'd think it happens a lot. observed correlation is another problem though, that of control, or rather the lack there of.
If your trying to find how likely something is to happen, and establish a cause you need a controlled trial, and even if you see a small majority being effected you have to look at it statistically to figure out what the odds are of that majority simply being a matter of random chance. a parent doesn't see that, all they know is that their child got a vaccination, and some unspecified time later they were diagnosed with autism, they see A happening before B and link the two of them together. a long time ago people believed in spontaneous generation, leave meat out in the sun and maggots will form in the meat. it wasn't until properly controlled experiments were done that we figured out this wasn't a matter of spontaneous generation but some other cause... contamination. What you have with the self reporting of parents are hundreds of trials wit the sample size of 1, you can't control that small a sample, you can't detect or prevent contamination of your results.
parents don't see all this though, what they know is that their child is sick and that they had a vaccination, what they need is an answer, and what they don't really care for is the data to show that the answer is true.
substitute peanuts for vaccine
James, I agree with you that there is no smoking gun or definitive proof that vaccines are the cause of the rise in autism, and that anecdotal evidence is not scientific proof. However, I simply disagree with anyone who says that it has been proven that vaccines are absolutely not responsible and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a conspiracy nut. That idea is simply absurd scientifically with what we know about the rise in vaccines, the rise in autism, the studies showing the affects of inflammation upon still developing brains, and the known hypersensitivity reactions to injections.
I apologize for any flippant remarks I may have made. Seriously. I respect your opinions and my only motive is to argue against the idea that vaccines are proven to be 100% safe. I would add, that after much research and investigation, I also have a somewhat different opinion about the motives and trustworthiness of the pharmaceutical industry. There is a great deal of information showing that they have manipulated the drug trial and covered up the side effects of many of their drugs.
The brain abnormalities linked to autism can be detected before vaccinations. The developmental rewiring of neurons causes autism to show up coincidental to vaccinations. Mother's stress during pregnancy has also been linked to the fetal brain development abnormalities that result in autism.
The fever described in this article is a week or more. The fever (if any) from a flu shot lasts hours. Any thermal effect from ultrasound lasts minutes.
Stop the superstition!
Plus how long if the vaccine good for? even if it does cause a fever the proper administration, at the proper time can still be safe.
Ancient Geek, mothers are buying home doppler monitors to check the heartbeat of their baby every day. I don't think you have any evidence that repeated heating of the fetal brain is harmless. Even standard ultrasounds are often over 30 minutes. I'm curious how you can argue that temperature increases, whether its 30 minutes at a time or a few minutes everyday, have no effect on something as complicated as the developing brain.
This isn't being superstitious, I'm just asking questions. If the autism answer was obvious, it would be figured out by now. Or do you already have it all figured out? I might have missed that.
@John, you're starting to lose it, stop putting words into Greek's mouth. and you spoke earlier of having some skepticism on your own claims, which was encouraging, but your insistence on injecting this issue onto someone else's comment as if he was "denying the evidence" which even you said isn't clear, is starting to validate my worry of how far you would go for a solution to the mystery.
@James, as a scientist (not working in the autism field, but in the biomedical field), I am wondering what in my comment has prompted you to accuse me of starting to lose it. Greek had argued that because ultrasound exposure is brief, it is not relevant in this discussion, and I was asking why he thought that. I never said that he was "denying the evidence" (those are your quotes, not mine), just wondering why he is so sure that ultrasound exposure is safe because its brief. Is there any evidence that brief heating of the developing brain is harmless?
I am skeptical of this issue, but I also don't think that it should be dismissed out of hand. What I am proposing is a possible hypothesis. If you want to debate the merits of why the hypothesis is wrong, go right ahead, many of my hypotheses are wrong, but its by asking questions that we can try to find out the right answer.
James , your refusal to acknowledge the scientific facts that injections of all forms of medications/vaccines cause immune and inflammatory responses, many of which are more than moderate, along with the evidence that these inflammatory responses cause developmental problems in the brains of infants, is starting to make me think that you are nothing but a shill for Big Pharma.
James, here is another 'fact' for you (although I am sure you will deny it). The Pharmaceutical Industry could be presented with irrefutable evidence that vaccines are responsible for the rise in the autism spectrum, and they would still deny it unconditionally.
@John, i think your starting to lose it because, like i said originally, Greek wasn't saying anything about ultrasound or ultrasound exposure. if you have a hypothesis put it though it's paces, and test it don't go around complaining about how other people are either ignoring it or not considering it as being plausible. you say your a scientists, answer me this... what is the null hypothesis? should the null be accepted or rejected if there is no conclusive data to support a hypothesis? what is the null hypothesis when it comes to ultrasound exposure causing autism?
@Jeff, If a vaccine doesn't cause an immune response, it's a vaccine that doesn't work, and has no mechanism of working. I'm not denying the existence of an immune response to vaccines. What i am doing is questioning the idea that vaccinations cause a greater immune response than a full blown infection of the virus that is being vaccinated against. like i originally said vaccines can be planned, viral infections can't.
When it comes to the rejection of evidence for the cause of autism being vaccines, the specifics matter, take Wakefield for example, whose methodology was excessively, and obviously flawed. you should be just as critical of the unconditional acceptance of data as you are the unconditional rejection of data.
@James, Did you even read Greeks post? I quote:
"The fever described in this article is a week or more. The fever (if any) from a flu shot lasts hours. Any thermal effect from ultrasound lasts minutes."
Hmm...your selective reading of posts make me think that you might have some kind of agenda....
To answer your other question, I am not talking about a null hypothesis (which can never be proven, only disproven), I am proposing a hypothesis that heating of the developing brain, either by fever, inflammation, ultrasound, etc, might cause developmental issues, and possibly be related to autism. Think of it as being similar to early studies where they observed increased cases of cancer in patients that were undergoing a lot of X-rays. The eventually discovered that X-rays can increase the risk of cancer by causing mutations. As it is already known that ultrasound does cause significant heat elevations (2-5 degrees), the next step is to see if there is a correlation between daily doppler or 3D, 4D ultrasounds and incidence of autism. The ideal study would be to expose one group of fetuses to daily, high intensity ultrasound and the other group to no ultrasound, but that really wouldn't be ethical. Those studies could be done using animals, however I am not aware of any good animal models of autism.
I am wondering why you are so adamant that this hypothesis is incorrect and isn't even worth considering. Do you have any information that I am not aware of? Why so against people asking questions?
@James, it's not the normal immune response that most people experience from vaccines/injections. The facts are pretty clear that not all, or even the majority of infants, are negatively affected in any substantial way from vaccinations. It is the much more severe hypersensitivity reactions that are often denied or ignored by Physicians, not only from vaccinations but from other injections directly into the body. These are well established in the medical field. Since these more than normal reactions do occur to a small percentage of people, it is perfectly logical to assume scientifically that in a very large group of individuals receiving vaccinations/injections, you would see a significant amount of these adverse reactions, even if the probability for any one individual having these reactions is very low. Several hundred people die from a hypersensitivity reaction to Penicillin each year. If you were to give Penicillin to the general population, or even a subset of the population, you would see a dramatic increase in deaths. I simply believe the same is possible for the rise in autism cases and the rise in the number of cases of vaccines given to infants whose brains have not fully developed and who are susceptible to inflammation as shown by several studies. What I have said is not 'proof', but it is certainly not conspiratorial or unscientific/illogical.
@John, i missed that sentence i guess, your reaction seemed a little overblown for it to be such a cursory mention though. without actual data that can be used to reject the null it must stand in my opinion. inflammatory responses last longer than ultrasounds, and are more systemic so to me it sounds like your worried more about the rain rather than the gaping hole in the hull of your boat (to use a metaphor)
@Jeff, If it's not conspiratorial than I'd avoid talking about Government and Bigphrama as if to illicit some automatic disdain, that's right in the theorists wheelhouse. ultimately it is a risk/benefit decision we are talking about here. does the risk to the general population when it comes to viruses outweigh the risk of a hypersensitivity response? the CDC, and most skeptics would say yes it does.
@ James, I'm just trying to help get to the bottom of this issue. As I mentioned previously, if the cause of autism was obvious, it would be figured out by now. The data is pretty solid that it is not caused by vaccines, so I'm just looking for other things that might correlate.
Just curious, what do you think the cause is? Do you have a hypothesis? Its easy to be critical of other peoples ideas, and criticism is important, but if we are trying to find out the actual cause of autism, we need new ideas. There will always be reasons why we shouldn't investigate something, but if we just sit around being critical of others and never propose our own ideas or hypotheses, we won't get anywhere.
Been reading those magazines again for facts? Typical of Egotistical knowledge frauds. I have an opinion and it is right. NOT! The consequence of revealing drug secrets in business; firing: The consequences related to national security or welfare; imprisonment or death. Why didn't we find out about those nasty experiments the government did until after all those involved were dead? Not conspiracy FACT!
Because we all know injecting pregnant women and poisoning the fetus in the womb is the BEST way to circumvent the issue of SAFETY of vaccination in pregnant women....NO SAFETY STUDIES ARE DONE AT ALL ON PREGNANT WOMEN!!! HOW do they know it's safe, if it's NEVER STUDIED??????
WAY TO GO PHARMA!!! What's the matter? did your precious flu vaccines sales flop this year???
I hardly doubt with an attitude like that, that you would be all that welcoming of medical trials on pregnant women, especially when it comes to your obvious conspiratorial hobby horse of bad vaccines. You've already played your cards, and you're already showing your tell, if such data were to come out whats to stop you from simply denying it as yet another layer of the conspiracy?
so it's okay to use pregnant women as guinea pigs instead, with untold consequences for mother and child? Your ignorance is astounding...please do not respond to this with any more of your ridiculous diatribe.
Yeah, I don't know if I buy this. It's not like flu is a new disease. So if flu isn't a new disease, why are the rates of autism increasing so rapidly (and yes, I know all about expanded diagnoses, there's still been a huge increase in the number of real cases of autism in the last few decades.) And as someone else pointed out, the number of people being vaccinated for the flu has rapidly increased over that same period of time. If anything, it seems like there is a correlation between flu VACCINATION and autism.
The article states that prolonged fevers or the flu might be a piece to the puzzle. In other words, they do not think it is necessarily a direct causation, but that it gives a hint as to what might be happening. Maybe prolonged fever along with pollution or certain food additives are causing the increase in autism? One can not know.
I have a child with aspergers syndrome. I suspect his aspergers is likely related to the severe stress I was under during my pregnancy with him. I have another child who has a behavior disorder. During my pregnancy with him, I was worried about the possible affects of getting the flu shot, so I skipped it. I came to regret that decision, because at 8.5 months, I became severely sick with the flu and had to be hospitalized. I had a prolonged fever, suffered dehydration, had a sinus infection (requiring antibiotics), and was unable to eat for several days, at least. Who knows how all of that might have affected him? I really regret not getting the flu shot that year. Now I make sure I and my children get the flu shot every year.
Lovely, you have two children and both of them have diagnosable mental disorders? That sounds like genetics to me.
...and that sounds incredibly ignorant to me.
Autism spectrum disorders do seem to run in families, so genetics is a likely component.
Another attempt by the media propaganda machine to pimp vaccines for the pharmaceutical companies. Remember the story a few weeks back about the basketball player kid who supposedly died from the flu, because he wasn't vaccinated ? They barely mentioned his MRSA infection.
How many of the mothers who had children born with autism were vaccinated themselves ? They seem to cleverly leave that out. Is there a link between the mother being vaccinated and autism, or maybe both, the vaccine and the flu ?
I know for a fact that the only way for pharmaceutical companies to make a profit off most vaccines is mass inoculation. I know for a fact that most diseases, almost all, that there was a vaccine introduced for were substantially on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.
I'm not anti-vaccine, but I do believe we are severely over vaccinated as a society for profits over health.
It could be a coincidence that since the vaccination schedule was increased from about 13 to the current schedule of 47, our childrens health has declined (I see numerous children with asthma and other afflictions that I hardly ever saw when I was younger). Children, and even adults, are committing mass murders and other crimes we never saw before. I strongly believe that the new vaccination schedule, the poison in our food, and our over medication are contributing factors to this horrendous criminal behavior we never saw before.
There sure are a lot of pseudo scientists commenting on this page.
LOL - correct. All these folks reporting on double-blind randomized controlled studies - not! I can tell my own story (see up chain) but am under no illusion that it means anything to anyone but our family. It is representative of nothing. Humans have a need to categorize; uncertainty and chaos unnerve us or at the least make us uncomfortable and out of control. Well, that's life. Control is an illusion. Might as well get used to going with the flow because you're going to be swept along whether or not you like it.
Good way of trying to divert the cause away from shots!! I'm not convinced...
I have a son with Autism and this pisses me off!! anything could have caused it!! They have no idea what causes it and I get so mad when they grasp at straws. I think it is the chicken pox vaccine!! I have given all vaccines to my children and when I took my son with autism for his four year old shots I refused the MMR shot but gave him the polio and chicken pox vaccine. He had a severe allergic reaction and was rushed from the doctors office to the hospital. Also I am diabetic, my son had open heart surgury at a week old and yes I did have the flu while I was preagnant!!! I think instead of sharing news stories like this you should be helping make it known that most autistic kids don't get the early intervention they need because of the insurance companies and goverment!!! My son is very lucky that our insurance covered his care we do pay $400.00 a week for his thereapy but he is functioning as almost regular child.
I had the flu shot with only one of my three pregnancies. That baby is the one who was later DX'd with autism. Go figure.
First of all, any 'study' where the data is 'self-reported' should be largely discounted. A lot of people get sick and say 'Oh, I had the flu' - when that might not be what they had. If these flu cases had been confirmed by doctors, the study might hold a little more weight.
Second, a flu shot [full of chemicals] can cause a fever. And people who have had the shot can still get the flu, so how many of the fevers were caused by reactions to flu vaccine, or to flu contracted despite a shot? That information is conveniently missing.
Third, Big Pharma is desperate to convince people that their money-making flu vaccine will save lives. Always follow the money and ask yourself who profits from these articles. If it's Big Pharma, the data should be treated with suspicion.
I had a horrible virus that I could barely recover from during my pregnancy. I took antiobiotic twice, sudafed and even cough syrup with codeine all while pregnant. My son is 8 years old and does not have autism and nor on any spectrum he is completely on grade level as a young 8 in his class. I did not have the flu shot as it was during my first tri-mester they wer giving them out and at time it was suggested to not take it in the 1st tri mester. I did not want to take these drugs I was very consertative since I was pregnant but it boiled down to help me be healthy in order to have a healthy baby. He was 8 pounds 14 ounces and delivered full term. I would hate to think a mother who is very ill be scared to take medication to help her be healthy. I think it could jeopardize the health of the baby even more if they didn't walk the fine line of getting help for themselves. I had a perfectly healthy baby as a result of my very bad virus!
I was very, very sick during my last pregnancy. No vaccines (autoimmune disorders run in my family, so I avoid the shots, mom died from a rare one, perhaps triggered by vaccines and their adjevuncts? who knows...normal little guy, so far, so good. Also had a very, very stressful previous pregnancy...normal child.
BUT my kids have been minimally vaccinated, and at a later than recommended schedule...
Maybe you should write a story about rejecting the null hypothesis, and stop freaking mothers out about the flu or fevers. gjlYfZ
Flush the Sporns! PqcWaZ
Man this really brings out the anit-vaxer nutters in full force! LOL