30 Scientific Studies Showing the Link between Vaccines and Autism

a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

This actually suggests nature, not nurture.

I found it all very intriguing in that it could either way -- or both nature and nurture. It was apparently a new phenomenom to Dr. Kanner, however, or he would not have considered it significant to study/document. These would have been Dr. Kanner's colleagues and peers, so he was not unfamiliar with the nature and temperaments of STEM professionals. And he was obviously on to something there...

a reply to: Boadicea

And just for the record, this may not be exactly up this alley, but here is a thread that I started a while back that seems to be related to vaccines and why they're not always good for the human body.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Boadicea

And just for the record, this may not be exactly up this alley, but here is a thread that I started a while back that seems to be related to vaccines and why they're not always good for the human body.

Thank you -- I find it relevant enough. (ETA: that sounds too snarky and I didn't mean to be! Let me rephrase that: I find it quite relevant to the topic!)

A couple things caught my eye:

The mercury contained in vaccines is such a strong immune depressant that a flu shot suppresses immunity for several weeks. “This makes people highly susceptible to catching the flu,” he says. “They may even think the vaccine gave them the flu, but that’s not true — it depressed their immune system and then they caught the flu.”

That may answer a question I had; 1 -- what is the need for an adjuvant to stimulate the immune system? Well, if mercury is depressing it, then it would need something to stimulate it. What could possibly go wrong there, eh?

Doshi asserts that influenza is a case of “disease mongering” in an effort to expand markets. He points to the fact that deaths from flu declined sharply during the middle of the 20th century, long before the huge vaccine campaigns that kicked off the 21st century.

Disease mongering... that sounds about right.

a reply to: Boadicea

I enjoyed this thread thank you for sharing this information. I think the witting is on the wall that there is a problem with some vaccines..

People should be able to make an informed choice..

:-)

a reply to: Boadicea

Other than the flu vaccine, I think most people consider vaccines essential to a healthy society. So the question becomes how do we solve this problem? Is it the mercury in the vaccine causing the issue?

Vaccines have greatly improved the health of the world in general IMO, so we can't just stop using them.

a reply to: purplemer

I think the witting is on the wall that there is a problem with some vaccines.

I think so. It may just be some vaccines at some times or for some people or for some circumstances. But there are problems that need to be researched and addressed.

originally posted by: Anosognosia
a reply to: Boadicea

Other than the flu vaccine, I think most people consider vaccines essential to a healthy society.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. I would say that most people consider some vaccines essential to a healthy population, moreso in some places than others (for example, first world countries vs third world countries). At the same time, there are also benefits to the body in fighting off disease of its own power, which cannot be derived from vaccines. And since there will always be risks inherent in both disease and in vaccines, we have to be sure the "cure" isn't worse than the disease... what I mean is, if we know 1 out of 10 people will have an adverse reaction to a certain vaccine, but only 1 in 100 will have adverse outcomes from the disease, it's better to let nature take its course. So we have to consider all the pros and cons, all the relevant conditions, etc., in deciding which vaccines are appropriate for whom and when. There's no one-size-fits-all solution.

So the question becomes how do we solve this problem? Is it the mercury in the vaccine causing the issue?

I think at this point we are left with more questions than answers, and research is the only way to find those answers. The problem with that -- as I see it -- is that the only ones with the incentive (and financing) to conduct the necessary studies are more interested in their bottom line than the best interests of the public. "Regulatory capture" is also a huge concern, meaning that the industry -- Big Pharma -- has too much influence/control over the govt agency intended to regulate their industry. The proverbial foxes guarding the hen house.

Vaccines have greatly improved the health of the world in general IMO, so we can't just stop using them.

Maybe not today. I do believe there are populations who are still much healthier because of vaccinations than they would be without them, even with their inherent risks for some. But I also know that research regarding our own immune systems is also growing and expanding in amazing ways, and knowing how to strengthen and boost our body's power to heal itself is far more valuable than vaccines... so maybe one day we will no longer need vaccines!

a reply to: Boadicea

But I also know that research regarding our own immune systems is also growing and expanding in amazing ways, and knowing how to strengthen and boost our body's power to heal itself is far more valuable than vaccines... so maybe one day we will no longer need vaccines!

I hope so. Unfortunately with the toxins and chemicals seemingly all around us these days, I feel that our bodies have even less of a chance to naturally heal themselves than in times past.

When I see a post like this I always get an image of a drug commercial on TV that spends a minute going over the 100 side effects one might have. We humans are funny in what does nothing to one person can kill another. If 99%+ of the population has no ill effects there will still be people that have a wide range of negative side effects including death. With the case of vaccinations how many people would die each year or have major side effects if we did away with them? I'm sure without MMR as example there would be a large number of children affected by actually getting the diseases than those affected by the vaccines.

When it comes to Autism I think the jury is still out on that one. Do we have more cases than before, or do we have 5 ways now to identify it with each having multiple levels of Autism that was just not there before in identifying.

originally posted by: Anosognosia
a reply to: Boadicea

But I also know that research regarding our own immune systems is also growing and expanding in amazing ways, and knowing how to strengthen and boost our body's power to heal itself is far more valuable than vaccines... so maybe one day we will no longer need vaccines!

I hope so. Unfortunately with the toxins and chemicals seemingly all around us these days, I feel that our bodies have even less of a chance to naturally heal themselves than in times past.

That's very true; but we may be damned if we do and damned if we don't in that regard with vaccines, if, for example, the child has already been exposed to high levels of mercury or aluminum, or something else in some childrens' environment/diet/body does not respond well to something in the vaccine. There are no perfect answers.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
If 99%+ of the population has no ill effects there will still be people that have a wide range of negative side effects including death.

Very true.

With the case of vaccinations how many people would die each year or have major side effects if we did away with them? I'm sure without MMR as example there would be a large number of children affected by actually getting the diseases than those affected by the vaccines.

At this point, I don't think we really know... and I suspect those who would know best don't want us to know. We now know, for example, that adverse outcomes in measles are closely associated with Vitamin A deficiency, and even the World Health Organization tells us that "Vitamin A supplements have been shown to reduce the number of deaths from measles by 50%." Massive doses of Vitamin A (up to 200,000 IUs) are now standard treatment protocol. The CDC says this:

Background In the decade before the live measles vaccine was licensed in 1963, an average of 549,000 measles cases and 495 measles deaths were reported annually in the United States. However, it is likely that, on average, 3 to 4 million people were infected with measles annually; most cases were not reported. Of the reported cases, approximately 48,000 people were hospitalized from measles and 1,000 people developed chronic disability from acute encephalitis caused by measles annually.

When it comes to Autism I think the jury is still out on that one. Do we have more cases than before, or do we have 5 ways now to identify it with each having multiple levels of Autism that was just not there before in identifying.

One of the studies cited was about that very question! Well, if the high rates of autism were because of new diagnostic guidelines (they concluded "no" if I remember right). The more I read about autism, the more I think we're looking at it wrong, but I'm not sure just how. Several of the studies noted that autism seems to have many causes, but all of which seem to impair the brain in similar ways. Sometimes I wonder if we all couldn't be deemed high-functioning autistic about certain things or at certain times.

Would you like me to show you why those studies aren't very good and/or don't say what you want them to?

Would you like to understand more or are you happy believing what they say?

originally posted by: Pardon?
Would you like me to show you why those studies aren't very good and/or don't say what you want them to?

Would you like to understand more or are you happy believing what they say?

my thoughts exactly, while reading the linked article. i wonder if the op actually read the studies in full and evaluated them for them self, or just read the article from "healthimpactnews" alone. these studies do not show that vaccines cause autism, and provide no evidence of a causal link between the onset of autism and the administration of immunisations.

there has yet to be a single scientific study that has found a causal link between asd and vaccines.

the article is a propaganda piece misrepresenting scientific studies to try and prove a predetermined position that has zero evidence to back it up.

neither thimerosal, nor any other vaccine ingredient, is capable of causing autism. there is no link between vaccines and asd, aside from an occasional correlation of timing.

here's ONE HUNDRED AND SEVEN STUDIES THAT PROVE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LINK BETWEEN AUTISM AND VACCINE ADMINISTRATION.

even if immunisations were proven to cause autism in a tiny percentage of child recipients, it's better than those children being killed by an easily preventable disease. many autistic people find the anti-vaccine movement offensive, as it implies you're better off dead than autistic.

why don't people actually read and try to understand the studies they reference? why don't people educate themselves on a topic before blindly rejecting solid, legitimate, safe, life giving medications?

I started to understand science. How the peer review process works. The difference between a study and a systematic review. How you can tell a good study from a bad one. How groups like the American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics form consensus statements. How easy it is for people peddling pseudoscience to pass themselves off as experts. How often a parent, struck by grief, will look for a reason to blame an outside force when her child doesn’t turn out the way she expected.

By the time my daughter was three, I could no longer deny three things: she was developmentally different, she needed to be vaccinated, and vaccines had nothing to do with her differences. At her three-year checkup, she became completely “caught up” on all of her vaccines, including the dreaded MMR shot, which I had phobically postponed for as long as I could justify.

She cried a little when she got the vaccines. She had a slight fever after a few of them. But, ultimately, her reactions were mild and unremarkable. She felt fine. She looked fine. And, although she continued developing unusually, she never had any developmental regressions that coincided with immunizations. They had nothing at all to do with her autism symptoms.

how my daughter taught me that vaccines do not cause autism.

edit:

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Pardon?
Would you like me to show you why those studies aren't very good and/or don't say what you want them to?

Of course, Pardon? -- I've been counting on it! An ATS vax thread just wouldn't be complete without your Big Pharma approved wisdom...

So, yes, please do tell us the problems you see with the studies. I won't even try to argue... but I cannot make the same promise for anyone else.

the studies aren't the problem, the article is. the studies do not show what is claimed by the article. simple as that. the article is a farce, written by a facebook warrior who has no understanding of the studies or science involved.

predictably, you are using the "big pharma" card to reject what the science and those who share its findings actually say.

originally posted by: Pardon?
Would you like me to show you why those studies aren't very good and/or don't say what you want them to?

Of course, Pardon? -- I've been counting on it! An ATS vax thread just wouldn't be complete without your Big Pharma approved wisdom...

So, yes, please do tell us the problems you see with the studies. I won't even try to argue... but I cannot make the same promise for anyone else.

a reply to: spygeek

Hey! Here I am!!! (Waving wildly from the corner) You can address me directly and ask questions to me instead of about me... But of course, if you had actually read my OP and my subsequent responses, you would already have some of your answers.

why don't people actually read and try to understand the studies they reference?

And I would ask why don't people actually read the OP and comments and try to understand the OP they reference... perspective is everything, eh?

many autistic people find the anti-vaccine movement offensive, as it implies you're better off dead than autistic.

I'm certainly not saying that. But I do know that many autistic people -- especially children -- are going through absolute hell, as well as their families, and probably wish that was their biggest concern. Some people aren't fortunate enough to have the luxury of being offended by imagined slights.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: spygeek

Hey! Here I am!!! (Waving wildly from the corner) You can address me directly and ask questions to me instead of about me... But of course, if you had actually read my OP and my subsequent responses, you would already have some of your answers.

i read the op, and every reply in the thread. yes, you admit you don't understand all the studies and welcome dissenting opinions, which is why i replied..

you claim in the op for instance that autism and vaccines are and have always been inextricably linked, based on a 1930's study. this study provides no link whatsoever between vaccines and autism; it only notes a superficial correlation of timing.. this is the kind of thing i was referring to when i condemned people who make claims based on an incorrect understanding of studies.

why don't people actually read and try to understand the studies they reference?

And I would ask why don't people actually read the OP and comments and try to understand the OP they reference... perspective is everything, eh?

i'm afraid perspective is nothing when you're dealing with objective established facts. as i said, i read the op and the article, i understand the points made, however they are points of personal opinion and not objective analysis of the studies.. the article referenced is not a scientific one, it is one written by a layperson with no understanding of the actual studies and the conclusions and possible inferences of them.

many autistic people find the anti-vaccine movement offensive, as it implies you're better off dead than autistic.

I'm certainly not saying that. But I do know that many autistic people -- especially children -- are going through absolute hell, as well as their families, and probably wish that was their biggest concern. Some people aren't fortunate enough to have the luxury of being offended by imagined slights.

imagined slights? articles like the one discussed in the op only further the misconception that there is an established link, and there always has been, (which is completely untrue). you're providing a basis for the anti-vaccination movement to grow. i never said you are an anti-vaxxer, as you have clearly said you aren't, however, by sharing and endorsing this misinformation you are contributing to a very damaging and hurtful trend.

a reply to: spygeek

i read the op, and every reply in the thread. yes, you admit you don't understand all the studies and welcome dissenting opinions, which is why i replied..

And I said that I had read through the studies, but most were only the abstracts... but no need to address your questions about me to anyone else.

you claim in the op for instance that autism and vaccines are and have always been inextricably linked, based on a 1930's study. this study provides no link whatsoever between vaccines and autism; it only notes a superficial correlation of timing.

Technically, yes, the study was about the set of symptoms we know as autism today in correlation with the small pox vaccine, so vaccines and autism have always been linked... I did not say the vaccines caused the autism. The correlation may or may not be important. It may be indirectly involved, it could be a combination of factors, it could be many things. It warrants further study.

this is the kind of thing i was referring to when i condemned people who make claims based on an incorrect understanding of studies.

Yawn.

i read the op and the article, i understand the points made, however they are points of personal opinion and not objective analysis of the studies.

And were represented as such.

the article referenced is not a scientific one, it is one written by a layperson with no understanding of the actual studies and the conclusions and possible inferences of them.

Obviously. The studies, however, are scientific, and are likewise linked. For those interested in actually reading the studies, and doing further research, those links will provide other studies and discussions.

imagined slights? articles like the one discussed in the op only further the misconception that there is an established link...

Even if a link has been established, that's a far cry from wishing autistic people dead, so yes, imagined slights.

...you're providing a basis for the anti-vaccination movement to grow.

No, it's the lack of transparency and accountability that has destroyed the public trust, not to mention the vaccine injuries suffered by many, and most of all the pressure to force vaxxes on people, which is the basis for the anti-vaccination movement to grow.

i never said you are an anti-vaxxer, as you have clearly said you aren't...

Thank you. I appreciate that.

... however, by sharing and endorsing this misinformation you are contributing to a very damaging and hurtful trend.

Sharing knowledge is not the problem. I'm pretty sure Pardon? will give a good account for any issues or problems with these studies, especially in terms of where they fall short.

But all in all? I think every study has its value in the big picture. I don't have the knowledge or expertise to put it all together, and I'm sure there is much still to be understood, but understanding the shortcomings and even failings of previous studies is important. Here is a good place for all of it -- the good, the bad, the ugly.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: spygeek

you claim in the op for instance that autism and vaccines are and have always been inextricably linked, based on a 1930's study. this study provides no link whatsoever between vaccines and autism; it only notes a superficial correlation of timing.

Technically, yes, the study was about the set of symptoms we know as autism today in correlation with the small pox vaccine, so vaccines and autism have always been linked... I did not say the vaccines caused the autism. The correlation may or may not be important. It may be indirectly involved, it could be a combination of factors, it could be many things. It warrants further study.

correlation does not imply causation. there has never been a medically proven case of the onset of autism being caused by vaccination. numerous studies have proven there is no link. further study will only provide even more evidence of this fact.

this is the kind of thing i was referring to when i condemned people who make claims based on an incorrect understanding of studies.

Yawn.

my feelings exctly.

i read the op and the article, i understand the points made, however they are points of personal opinion and not objective analysis of the studies.

And were represented as such.

not really, they were represented as being drawn from the results of the studies. the points made by the article and the op are not based on the results of the studies at all. why include the studies in the first place if not to try and back up the points? they don't provide any link whatsoever. (getting tired of repeating this).

the article referenced is not a scientific one, it is one written by a layperson with no understanding of the actual studies and the conclusions and possible inferences of them.

Obviously. The studies, however, are scientific, and are likewise linked. For those interested in actually reading the studies, and doing further research, those links will provide other studies and discussions.

not one of the studies shows a link. none of them. a link can not be made based on the results of any of the studies. therefore the article's and the op's claims they they do demonstrate a link are misleading and not factual.

imagined slights? articles like the one discussed in the op only further the misconception that there is an established link...

Even if a link has been established, that's a far cry from wishing autistic people dead, so yes, imagined slights.

no link has ever been established. it's not wishing autistic people dead, it's wishing healthy children dead rather than becoming autistic, which is the anti-vaxxers' horrendous position.

...you're providing a basis for the anti-vaccination movement to grow.

No, it's the lack of transparency and accountability that has destroyed the public trust, not to mention the vaccine injuries suffered by many, and most of all the pressure to force vaxxes on people, which is the basis for the anti-vaccination movement to grow.

there is plenty of transparency and accountability, despite what fear-mongering websites like the one that provided the article like to claim. vaccine injuries are exceptionally rare and all children are evaluated and parents are warned about the risk prior to vaccination. the mistrust of the public is due to ignorance, fear-mongering, wrongful interpretations of scientific studies and bad science.

i never said you are an anti-vaxxer, as you have clearly said you aren't...

Thank you. I appreciate that.

you're welcome.

... however, by sharing and endorsing this misinformation you are contributing to a very damaging and hurtful trend.

Sharing knowledge is not the problem. I'm pretty sure Pardon? will give a good account for any issues or problems with these studies, especially in terms of where they fall short.

the problem is you're not sharing knowledge, you are sharing biased opinion using misrepresented facts to justify it. every one of the studies falls short of showing a link. the article and the op are misleading in claiming these studies do demonstrate a link. (again repeating myself).

But all in all? I think every study has its value in the big picture. I don't have the knowledge or expertise to put it all together, and I'm sure there is much still to be understood, but understanding the shortcomings and even failings of previous studies is important. Here is a good place for all of it -- the good, the bad, the ugly.

every study does indeed have value, including the 107 studies i linked earlier that clearly prove there is no causal link. taking these and weighing them up with the studies referred to in the article and op, (which show or infer no link either), it is easily understood that there is incontrovertibly no link whatsoever between autism and vaccination.

young children recieve vaccinations, autism onset often takes place around the same time. that does not constitute a link.

correlation does not imply causation or a link of any kind.

a reply to: spygeek

...every study does indeed have value, including the 107 studies i linked earlier that clearly prove there is no causal link.

Yes, and I meant to thank you for that link. I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, but I will. And it's not been posted three times, so hopefully others will check it out as well.

I never expected these studies to go unchallenged, and totally expected Pardon? to weigh in... thanks for doing the same.

The OP linked article is a piece of antivax propaganda written by a scientifically misinformed person who has already convinced themselves that vaccines cause autism.

The OP is identical.

This is a dangerous and irresponsible thread. In a properly run world, the author of the article and the author of the OP would both be taken to court, convicted of libel, made to pay damages and required to make a public recantation.

In the meantime, let it be known that there is no scientifically established link between vaccines and autism.