30 Scientific Studies Showing the Link between Vaccines and Autism

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.

I know you won't argue as you wouldn't have the ammunition to be able to do so.

The problem is though will you read them?
And if you read them will you actually take any notice of what they say?
I don't think you will as it will destroy your misinformed belief that vaccines cause autism.

As already been pointed out your list is a re-hash of another list which has been circulating for quite some time and has been already refuted numerous times (but you did your research...).

So let's get on to it.
1. Doesn't have anything to do with vaccines. Just details when autism was first described. Autism was present well before it was described by Kanner so in context this paper is meaningless.

2. Evaluation
To summarize; a very unequal sample size was used, 39 in the autism group and 7,455 in the non-autism group!!!
They also included children who were born BEFORE the HepB vaccine was introduced!
Bizarre.

3.Evaluation
To summarize, their samples weren't corrected for known issues with creatinine which would alter the porphyrin levels irrespective of any heavy metals present.
The heavy metal measured wasn't mercury either.
So nothing to do with vaccines.

So that's 10% of your list being invalid up to now.
10% is a massive error margin (but you lot don't care about that do you?).

4. Evaluation
Summary, a hotch-potch of non-sustainable articles which hypothesise lots but prove nothing whatsoever.

5. Does this study "demonstrate that vaccines can cause autism"? No. It demonstrates that very minute doses of thimerosal change mouse dendritic cells in a specific way that has not been connected to autism.

6. This study looks at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of thimerosal in rats.
It has nothing to do with autism and vaccines.

7. Evaluation
Discusses methyl-mercury not ethyl-mercury.
Don't get your ethyls confused with your methyls...

8. Again, discusses methyl mercury. Also subjects the monkeys to massive doses (50mcg Hg/kg) daily for months.
Comparing it with vaccines is like comparing apples with black-holes.

9. This isn't what you think it is
Evaluation
And it's nothing to do with vaccines.

10. A long and winding personal opinion piece, not a study and shows proof of nothing at all (don't forget to BUY HER BOOK!).


I'll stop here for now to let you catch up.
But so far, out of the first 10 of your list, not one of them shows a causal nor even an associative link with vaccines to autism.

What are the chances of the remainder showing that link..?
What are the chances of you changing your mind?
I'd suggest both are the same, absolutely zero.

But you're not anti-vax are you?

And to give you a little more reading have a look at this (as I know you really like to do good "research" don't you?

75 Studies Showing No Link Between Vaccines & Autism

I hope you look into them as in depth as I have to yours and then give me your critique.
I mean, it's only fair that you do isn't it?

a reply to: Boadicea

There is no rise in autism: there is earlier and better detection. Let's take the US for example: in the 1980s it was called 'Infantile autism' and could only be diagnosed in children who showed symptoms before they were three years of age. Now it's not 'infantile' anymore, the age and language impairment limits have been removed. This means the number of people that fit into the autism criteria has expanded. LINK

Regarding the OP, I have just read articles 25,26, 27, 28, 29 and 30: please point where do they show a link between vaccines and autism?

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Boadicea

There is no rise in autism: there is earlier and better detection. Let's take the US for example: in the 1980s it was called 'Infantile autism' and could only be diagnosed in children who showed symptoms before they were three years of age. Now it's not 'infantile' anymore, the age and language impairment limits have been removed. This means the number of people that fit into the autism criteria has expanded. LINK

Thank you for the link to the diagnostic criteria for autism, showing how it has changed over the years. It's a good read for anyone who would like to better understand how autism is now and has been diagnosed.

I do understand that the criteria for diagnosis has expanded, which would allow for increased diagnosis rates. I also understand that efforts to find and diagnose has increased as well (I'm thinking in particular right now of the CDC Foundation's work with predominantly Black churches and their pastors). And it may very well be that the actual occurrence of autism has not increased, only diagnosis rates, but I'm not sure how that could be determined.

Regarding the OP, I have just read articles 25,26, 27, 28, 29 and 30: please point where do they show a link between vaccines and autism?

As I stated, I don't claim to understand all of this... I believe you do... if you have something important to say about those studies, please do.

originally posted by: Astyanax

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 a properly run world, eh? And what exactly should I be recanting? That these studies were conducted, written, and published? What about PubMed and the National Institutes of Health where I found them... should they be taken to court, convicted of libel, made to pay damages and required to make a public recantation?

If there's nothing to see here... then there's nothing for anyone to want to hide. But you do...

Thank you for validating exactly why it's so important to keep this issue on the front burner. If all of these studies are bunk, then I'm just proving your point by posting them, and giving anyone and everyone an opportunity to rebut them. If there's no problem, then you should welcome the opportunity to educate folks.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

originally posted by: Pardon?
And to give you a little more reading have a look at this (as I know you really like to do good "research" don't you?

75 Studies Showing No Link Between Vaccines & Autism

Your link to the studies is the same link SpyGeek posted -- and I reposted. I've been looking at them and noted a few things...

1. The list includes several studies by Dr. Thompson, the CDC Whistleblower who said evidence was destroyed and falsified to reach the conclusions they wanted to reach.

2. Most are not actual studies, but more reviews of other studies and data sets, some are little more than opinion essays.

3. Most listed pertain to the MMR vaccine exclusively.

4. I was surprised and/or confused by some of the conditions or stipulations in some of the studies. For example, more than one study considered only a specific form of autism -- such as regressive development, or autism with bowel issues.

5. There sure are alot of folks out there putting alot of time and effort into denying/discrediting any connection between vaccines and autism.

I hope you look into them as in depth as I have to yours and then give me your critique.
I mean, it's only fair that you do isn't it?

Fair? I can only do my best... and given that I already know your knowledge and experience far surpasses mine, I wouldn't call that fair. In any event, that's all I've got for now.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Pardon?
And to give you a little more reading have a look at this (as I know you really like to do good "research" don't you?

75 Studies Showing No Link Between Vaccines & Autism

Your link to the studies is the same link SpyGeek posted -- and I reposted. I've been looking at them and noted a few things...

1. The list includes several studies by Dr. Thompson, the CDC Whistleblower who said evidence was destroyed and falsified to reach the conclusions they wanted to reach.

2. Most are not actual studies, but more reviews of other studies and data sets, some are little more than opinion essays.

3. Most listed pertain to the MMR vaccine exclusively.

4. I was surprised and/or confused by some of the conditions or stipulations in some of the studies. For example, more than one study considered only a specific form of autism -- such as regressive development, or autism with bowel issues.

5. There sure are alot of folks out there putting alot of time and effort into denying/discrediting any connection between vaccines and autism.

I hope you look into them as in depth as I have to yours and then give me your critique.
I mean, it's only fair that you do isn't it?

Fair? I can only do my best... and given that I already know your knowledge and experience far surpasses mine, I wouldn't call that fair. In any event, that's all I've got for now.

1. Can you tell me exactly what is wrong with the studies that Thompson is named on please rather than trying to discredit them anecdotally?

2. Wrong. They are systematic reviews with conclusions based upon their results, hardly opinions. But since you attempt to use "scientific" articles to promote your belief I would at least expect you to know what they are.

3. Since the MMR was originally blamed by anti-vaxxers then it's hardly surprising that there are a lot of studies using it. At the same time not all of them are about MMR so your point is void.

4. To get a specific answer, studies tend to focus on specific issues. Two of the issues raised initially were enterocolitis and "regressive autism". These particular studies focussed on those issues.
Can you tell me what's wrong with the individual studies please?

5. And vice versa.
If an initial study suggests something, e.g. vaccines cause autism, that needs to be confirmed or denied. Since autism encompasses a wide variety of issues then it follows that to confirm or deny the association there will have to be a lot of studies performed especially since there are lots of people (Wakefield, the Greiers, Miller etc) who keep on churning these primary studies out. A primary study means nothing on its own.
Do you get that?


I notice your sarcasm in the last paragraph but irrespective of what my knowledge or experience is I don't post citations to scientific studies without at least reading them and at the worst partially understanding what I've posted.

I don't just copy and paste links blindly to promote a belief.

Would you like me to go through the remaining 20 of yours?

a reply to: Pardon?

I notice your sarcasm in the last paragraph but irrespective of what my knowledge or experience is I don't post citations to scientific studies without at least reading them and at the worst partially understanding what I've posted.

No sarcasm -- honest! I know I'm getting the better end of the deal here because you do know far more than I do, so I'm benefitting far more from your comments than you are from mine... nothing "fair" about that! You may not believe it, but I am learning from you and I appreciate it and I thank you for that. But it still isn't fair

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you want or expect of me, so I apologize if I disappoint you... but like I said, for now, that's all I've got.

a reply to: Boadicea

In a properly run world, eh? And what exactly should I be recanting?

Your claims regarding what these studies mean, because the claims are false. And dangerous.

If there's nothing to see here... then there's nothing for anyone to want to hide. But you do.

Nobody wants to hide anything. I wish to put down a dangerous lie, not conceal any kind of truth.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

A claim only to be expected from a mind clearly still bogged down in the seventeenth century.

originally posted by: Boadicea
As I stated, I don't claim to understand all of this... I believe you do... if you have something important to say about those studies, please do.

I will explain them very briefly and in lay terms.

Article 25 is about genes, genetic defects in the mitochondria that some children with autism have. I read the whole article and there is no reference to vaccines.

Article 26. Once again they talk about how mitochondrial defects seem to be common in children with autism. These defects may be caused by prenatal immune inflammation of the brain (immune inflammation of the brain also causes dementia). I read the whole article and I didn't find one reference to vaccines.

Article 27. It's about metal toxicity with a focus on mercury. Most common source of Mercury exposure: dental fillings. #2 fish #3supplements. Vaccines are not mentioned at all, probably because they have studied and know the difference between methyl and ethyl mercury.

Article 28. Once again they talk about mitochondrial defects as a link to autism. Possible causes: the infamous Thalidomide, Valproic acid, exposure to certain viruses such as rubella and herpes, Clostridia (bacteria), metal toxicity... but vaccines are never mentioned.

Article 29. This is about environmental mercury from land, water and air (via coal fired plants, municipal/medical incinerators, boilers etc): Methylmercury. No vaccines. Should I tell you why? (we have said it a million times): vaccines contain ethylmercury (thimerosal), the dangerous toxic mercury which is mentioned in the articles you have provided is methylmercury.

Article 30. This study shows that autism seems to be more prevalent in the Portuguese Islands than in the mainland, and it also seems to be higher with those of more affluent class than lower. They still don't know why, they will conduct more studies but vaccines were never mentioned. The vaccination program in Portugal is just like the UK one, it is not compulsory and vaccinations rate are aprox 96% (in both mainland and islands).

See, vaccines had no part whatsoever in the studies mentioned in the article from Health Impact News. They publish lies.... and they get rich in the process... I think I am in the wrong profession! lol

a reply to: Astyanax

Your claims regarding what these studies mean, because the claims are false. And dangerous.

Except of course I did not make any claims about the studies. I copied the title exactly per T&C's, but also qualified my own view -- i.e., that the studies show "a" link but not "the" link. (Which you dispute -- got it!) I provided study information -- as in the title, author(s), publication, and date of publication, along with a brief quote from the study. All of which is publicly available on government websites -- imagine that!

I also invited dissenting views, and you had every opportunity to do so, but you chose to be insulting and threaten the messenger. No facts, no truth, no wisdom. On the other hand, a couple posters have done a great job of providing the conflicting science and studies, with explanations of how and why they contradict with these studies ( my thanks to those posters). I have no problem with the truth, the whole truth, and nuttin but the truth... and as long as you and so many others do, I am and will continue to be suspicious of why....

a reply to: Agartha

I will explain them very briefly and in lay terms.

Thank you -- I appreciate the time and effort you put into explaining.

I did notice that many of the studies did not specifically address vaccines, but I also understand (at least a little), how each study may pertain to vaccines. For example, many deal with different forms of mercury, including Thimerosal, as well as the whole ethyl vs methyl (which I'm still trying to nail down in my head!), which is still an ingredient in some vaccines though removed from others. I was hoping to find a study regarding injection vs ingestion, but if there is one, I haven't found it. I don't know what I expect to find out, but I'd still like to see it!

The mitochondrial studies are way over my head!!! I just keep thinking of Justine Pelletier...

a reply to: Boadicea

You are welcome.

I'm sorry, Boadicea, I have to disagree with you: only Methylmercury is mentioned in the articles which has nothing to do with vaccines. I will post a pic that explains the difference between the two types of mercury.

Of the 6 articles I read, 2 were about genetics, 2 about methylmercury (not ethyl which is found in vaccines), 1 about Portuguese autism rates according to geography and 1 about how mitochondria may be affected by certain medications, viruses etc. There is no link to vaccines, at all.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Agartha

I will explain them very briefly and in lay terms.

Thank you -- I appreciate the time and effort you put into explaining.

I did notice that many of the studies did not specifically address vaccines, but I also understand (at least a little), how each study may pertain to vaccines. For example, many deal with different forms of mercury, including Thimerosal, as well as the whole ethyl vs methyl (which I'm still trying to nail down in my head!), which is still an ingredient in some vaccines though removed from others. I was hoping to find a study regarding injection vs ingestion, but if there is one, I haven't found it. I don't know what I expect to find out, but I'd still like to see it!

The mitochondrial studies are way over my head!!! I just keep thinking of Justine Pelletier...

Here's some info regarding injection vs ingestion,
vaxplanations.wordpress.com...

And to reinforce whar Agartha wrote, not even one of the studies in the OP shows a link (or "the" link) between vaccines and autism and the fact that they are touted as doing so should tell you something about anti-vax sites.
Dishonest to their very core.

a reply to: Agartha

I'm sorry, Boadicea, I have to disagree with you: only Methylmercury is mentioned in the articles which has nothing to do with vaccines.

You're probably right. I've been reading so much that I'm probably confusing myself... not probably, definitely, because I think I had the ethyl- and methyl-mercury backwards. I'm going to study this pic you gave, and go back to the studies again... I don't trust any mercury really... but I do understand that the body reacts differently to different forms of all kinds of stuff. Even vitamins.

Pardon? posted a link on injection vs. ingestion that I need to check out too.

Another question for you and Pardon?: Has any research been done that would indicate if folks who would have adverse reactions to the virus in vaccines would likewise have an adverse outcome if they caught the disease naturally? I guess my question is if there could be same/similar issues because of the virus itself -- not any additives in the vaccine? (I have no idea where I'm going with this... just something that occurred to me.)

a reply to: Pardon?

Here's some info regarding injection vs ingestion,
vaxplanations.wordpress.com...

Thank you!

And to reinforce whar Agartha wrote, not even one of the studies in the OP shows a link (or "the" link) between vaccines and autism and the fact that they are touted as doing so should tell you something about anti-vax sites.
Dishonest to their very core.

Yes, yes... I know. But whoever posted these studies thought they pertained to vaccines in some way, and it's been a great exercise for me trying to figure it all out... I'm slow but determined!!! From where I'm sitting, both sides -- and I mean the extremes of "all-vax" or "never-vax" -- are both rather dishonest in terms of telling the whole truth. My working theory at this point is that the truth is somewhere in the middle, where it usually is. You know the old saying, "There's three sides to every story: Your side, my side, and the truth."

FYI -- My mom-in-law had emergency surgery a couple days ago, so we're a little busy helping them out this weekend, so if I don't get back, that's why.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?

Here's some info regarding injection vs ingestion,
vaxplanations.wordpress.com...

Thank you!

And to reinforce whar Agartha wrote, not even one of the studies in the OP shows a link (or "the" link) between vaccines and autism and the fact that they are touted as doing so should tell you something about anti-vax sites.
Dishonest to their very core.

Yes, yes... I know. But whoever posted these studies thought they pertained to vaccines in some way, and it's been a great exercise for me trying to figure it all out... I'm slow but determined!!! From where I'm sitting, both sides -- and I mean the extremes of "all-vax" or "never-vax" -- are both rather dishonest in terms of telling the whole truth. My working theory at this point is that the truth is somewhere in the middle, where it usually is. You know the old saying, "There's three sides to every story: Your side, my side, and the truth."

FYI -- My mom-in-law had emergency surgery a couple days ago, so we're a little busy helping them out this weekend, so if I don't get back, that's why.

That list, in one form or another, has been posted on numerous different ant-vax sites over the last few years.
If there was any honesty, it wouldn't have been regurgitated so many times.

As for there being several sides to vaccination, that's the thing, there aren't.
One of the reasons people think there are is because of dishonest, regurgitated misinformation like your list.

And good luck for your mum.
Let's hope medical science does her well.

a reply to: Boadicea

I don't know how much you know about the viruses in vaccines, this is what I know: there are three types of vaccines, subunit, toxoid and live attenuated.

- Subunit are also called split as they contain a fragment of the germ (e.g. influenza, Hib etc).
- Toxoids don't have the pathogen itself but a toxoid, an inactivated toxin (tetanus, diphteria, etc).
- Live attenuated have the whole germ but this has been weakened, which means it cannot cause the disease
(MMR).

As you can see it is impossible to cause harm or disease with the subunits or toxoids as they don't contain a whole pathogen. Some believe the live attenuated one can, but if it did billions would have ended up ill with measles, for example. There are many studies that have proven the safety of vaccines.

Hope your mother in law gets better soon.

a reply to: Pardon?

Thanks for the well wishes!!! She's got a wonderful doctor and she's an RN herself, so she knows how to take care of herself, so we're optimistic. We just celebrated her 86th birthday, and we're hoping for a few more at least...

a reply to: Agartha

No, darn it... I don't know. I've seen all those terms, but I don't know just what they mean. Thank you... more for me to study and understand and think about!!!

Thanks for the kind thoughts and wishes for my mom-in-law