Vax facts

Piling on as a parent of a child on the spectrum. Actually, I have twin girls and one is neurotypical and one is on the spectrum, so a pretty good benchmark on the difference.

Simply put, the definition was expanded. Aspergers are now part of the spectrum for example. Historically, my wag is that a “lot” of those considered mute were on the spectrum and never made it to speech acquisition. And a lot never survived as spectrum kids generally have a very poor sense of danger, tend to do runners, can’t ask for help, etc.

The cause of autism has not been identified. As yet, there is no genetic marker. Rather autism spectrum diagnosis is based on behavioral testing.

The other modern change for autism is linked to silicon valley. Well, not specifically silicon valley per say, but the valley is the epicenter. Wiredhas a really good article that came out about a decade ago covering this called “The Geek Syndrome”. Long story short, where you have very geeky, quantitative, engineer/programmer types that marry and have kids with other geeky, quantitative, programmer types, they have much higher than normal % of kids on the spectrum. While the link isn’t proven, common sense suggests that two borderline autism spectrum folks end up with more kids that reinforce those tendencies.

I worked at MSFT for over a decade, and am part of a group of about 100 Chinese parents with kids on the autism spectrum in my area. A very high concentration of the parents work at Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Facebook, and a very high % of the parents are definitely that borderline geeky functioning engineer with poor social skills (and likely would be diagnosed as autism spectrum today). Just anecdotal but it’s what I see a lot.

I would encourage everyone to look into this with an open mind. I dont have all the answers except I do believe their is something bad about vaccines. We should not be shooting heavy metals, antigens, and a host of other substances directly into the veins of infants.

Here is one article going around on Facebook on antigens.

When you have actual evidence from peer-reviewed studies, I will listen to you. When you have Facebook pages and an “it sounds bad” attitude on one side and peer-reviewed studies and a dramatic drop in the instances of certain diseases on the other, I will go with the peer-reviewed studies, etc…

No heavy metals. Not being shot in veins. You breathe antigens in every day (an antigen is simply something your immune system can potentially respond to).

Since your vague concern is already based on 100% misinformation you listed here, how truly confident should you be your opinion is right?

The heavy metals I suspect you’re talking about are really only in flu vaccines. For adults.

There are a lot of reasons there are more cases of what we call autism, but, and I’m speaking as someone who worked extensively with autistic people, here are two phenomena that, IMO, have contributed greatly to the increase in people being labeled as autistic.

  1. Until 1974, there were few places for children with autism other than institutions. A few states had private clinics, but not all of them were residential, and all of them were private. Parents had to be able to pay for them, or get grants, and either send their children there, sometimes out-of-state, or drive them long distances every day. And the programs had long wait-lists, and were selective of the students they accepted.

It is very likely that many autistic children were deliberately misdiagnosed as mentally retarded, because just about every state had a residential school for the mentally retarded, which was free or required only a minimal fee that could be waived for poor families. Meanwhile, family doctors who may have suspected mild autism in a high functioning child, especially a bright one, probably kept it to themselves. Even if the child was unhappy in public school as “the weird kid,” it was way better than an institution, or being expelled, which the school could do if the child acquired a label like “autistic.”

After 1974, Public law 94-142 went into effect, and public schools had to provide education for all handicapped children, which meant that autistic children of any level of functioning were legally entitled to a free public school education. From this year forward, diagnoses became more honest.

  1. There used to be a lot of other things a child with the same symptoms as autism could be labeled with. One was “Emotionally Disturbed,” and another was “Childhood schizophrenia.” Because people believed that autism was a sort of PTSD, caused by bad mothering, and a retreat into self, a child who exhibited symptoms of it, but either had a very mild case, or else clearly was not the subject of bad mothering, sometimes got labeled “Emotionally Disturbed.”

Childhood schizophrenia was a label that children who talked a lot, but often had speech did not seem to make sense, and resembled the “word salads” of adult schizophrenics, got. People did not know the cause of either schizophrenia or autism, and there were some theories that postulated a similar cause. Schizophrenics were known to sometimes experience hallucinations, and there was a theory that some clearly atypical children did too, and preferred their hallucinations to the real world (stimming was thought to be interacting with their hallucinations). It is easy now to see that these individuals are autistic, but people were flying by the seats of their pants when these theories were making the rounds. It was before brain imaging, and before computers allowed different researchers in different places to easily compare their work, so two people with similar children never realized the children they were working with clearly had a syndrome and there were more children, and more children. All they knew about was the one child before them.

Anyway, in the 1980s, a lot of adults who still carried “schizophrenia” labels from childhood had them revised to autism, so many of the new cases that spiked in the 80s were actually adult cases.
Those are probably the two major factors. There are minor factors. One is two Rubella epidemics, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that did actually cause a small bump in cases of autism; another is the baby boomlet in the 1980s, which caused a rise in total number of cases as a factor of more children in general; yet another is the sad fact that in the days when parenting meant turning kids loose in the morning, and expecting them back for supper, beginning about the time they were three, a lot of autistic kids were probably lost to accidents when they were small, and never had a chance to be diagnosed with anything. Awareness is another: many more children are referred for diagnosis these days. It used to be that in the 1970s, for every child presented for diagnoses, probably two slipped through the cracks. Now, not every child presented for diagnosis even gets one. Maybe two in three, or two in four, and since the 1990s, it’s been pretty difficult for a child to get missed. Some parents refuse the referral, and children who are homeschooled may get missed, especially if they aren’t taken to the doctor regularly, but it’s rare for a child to fall through the cracks anymore. However bear in mind that better identification does not mean there are more cases, just more diagnoses.
TL;DR: No, autism is not suddenly increasing exponentially.

Vaccines aren’t shot into veins. Neither are antibiotics. Or insulin. Unless you are receiving some emergency rescue drug in an ER, you are not given something through an IV.

Vaccines are usually given into muscle tissue. In fact, for some vaccines, accidentally giving the shot into fat is a cause of vaccine failure.

The fact that you think vaccines are given into veins just shows your general ignorance, and makes me question anything else you say. Also the fact that you think infants get vaccines with heavy metals.

That article is chock full of stupid. Why don’t we just move this derail into your previous vaccine thread, the one that was deservedly moved to the BBQ Pit because it lacked any ignorance fighting substance on your part.

(Bullshit link removed)

I don’t think I’ll take medical advice from someone who doesn’t know the difference between “there” and “their”.

Actually, that’s entirely fair and not at all misleading. It makes for an ugly graph that makes me twitchy, but that was indeed a watershed moment.

I was within the antivaxx movement, but not completely part of it, until that paper came out. When that paper came out, I went from vaccine hesitant (too many too soon? natural disease cycle caused the decline? sanitation caused the decline? who cares if they get chicken pox?) to outright antivaxx overnight (MMR causes autism, they’re using our kids as guinea pigs, Big Pharma profits > public health, Libertarian rantings on mandatory anything that goes in my body). And I was not alone. Our numbers saw a huge swelling, overnight. I think it was a cover story in Time or Newsweek (can’t remember which; possibly both) that people were literally clutching and waving in the air.

Wakefield’s culpability in the antivaxx movement cannot be overstated. It was his study that convinced Jenny McCarthy to speak out. The man deserves to be charged with some sort of homicide for every person who has died from a vaccine preventable illness since then.

(I got better, by the way. No longer antivaxx. In part because of taking a microbiology class, and in part by having a reasonably open mind in discussions on this message board and actually *reading *the links that were provided to me in good faith.)

Understanding science + A willingness to read = The best vaccination of all.

Yep. And it’s why I’m always willing to engage with antivaxxers or vaccine hesitant people for at least a little bit. Because it’s very hard to tell at first if they’re just asking questions or “just asking questions”. I was that person once, so I know that it’s not true that you can’t reason with an antivaxxer. You may not be able to reason with very *many *of them, but they’re not all a lost cause.

I teach my healthcare professional students to always remember that every “anti-vax” parent believes what they do because they are trying to do the best for their child. They are genuinely afraid they may harm their child. They’re generally wrong (barring allergies or other adverse effects), and need help understanding, but to keep compassion for them.

As they should be attacked. Anti-vax is dangerous bullshit, and people like Wakefield and his ilk should be given tetanus and be left completely untreated to die a horrible death.

No, it may or may be accurate but the way the data is presented is the exact same tactic used by people who are either data fishing or purposely lying. Their explanation is not parsimonious, but even if it is true the argument is weakened by the sneaky graph.

Here’s my take on it: Vaccines can certainly have some negative side effects, and we don’t know precisely how common nor how bad those side effects are. For any given disease you care to name, it’s possible that vaccines increase the risk of that disease by some small amount, and for any given study, no matter how extensive, there’s some small amount of correlation that would be missed by it.

But while we don’t know precisely how risky vaccines are, we do have a very good upper bound for how bad they can possibly be. And we also have a very good lower bound for how bad lack of vaccination can be. And those two bounds are very, very far apart. Even if ending all vaccinations entirely would prevent 200 kids from developing autism, that’s not worth 20,000 dying from measles.

We don’t have perfect information, and never will. But we also don’t need perfect information. And the information we have now is plenty good enough to reach the conclusion that vaccinating children is far better than not doing so.

The same can be said for proponents of vigorous corporal punishment and religion-based excesses like female genital mutilation. And if that sounds extreme, consider those who facilitate the spread of infection through “parties” where parents bring their kids to be exposed to those who are already diseased, on the theory that “natural” infection is ever so much better than nasty old vaccination.

Beyond the fact that vehement antivaxers comprise far more than parents faced with a decision about immunization (including needlephobes, conspiracy-mongers and alt med providers with a financial ax to grind), you don’t get a pass on behavior that exposes your child to harm because “it’s for their own good” or “it’s MY child and I should get to do what I want”.

Where did I say I endorse their decision or they should be given a pass?

Hell no. I do a full one hour lecture on the fraud that Wakefield committed and his crimes against humanity.

My point is that as healthcare providers, these individuals would do better to treat their families with respect and approach it from that angle than being adversarial and assuming the parents are heartless or want their kids to be at risk. You lose when you alienate your patients.

I believe Jackmanni’s patients are all dead, or at least not in the room. Unless I’m mixing him up with someone else who’s a pathologist. He doesn’t need much of a bedside manner.

(But I agree with you, of course.)

That’s because they’re wrong. Dangerously, stupidly, recklessly wrong.