The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by "Too Many Vaccines Too Soon"

About a month ago, a new study was published which showed the risk of autism is not increased by a child receiving "too many vaccines too soon". The researchers examined children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and those without ASD and they examined each child's cumulative exposure to antigens.

In the end, no relationship was found between the number of antigens or the number of vaccines with any increased risk of ASD. This isn't exactly new information and is more of a confirmation of what we already knew, but it is one more nail in the coffin of the antivaxxer belief that vaccines cause autism. For years these antivaxxers have been cheering the rallying cry of "too many, too soon", yet as the summary of the study explains, the true exposure of antigens (which are the substances in vaccines that cause the body’s immune system to produce antibodies to fight disease) has actually decreased in the past several decades:

"Although the current routine childhood vaccine schedule contains more vaccines than the schedule in the late 1990s, the maximum number of antigens that a child could be exposed to by 2 years of age in 2013 is 315, compared with several thousand in the late 1990s. Because different types of vaccines contain varying amounts of antigens, this research acknowledged that merely counting the number of vaccines received does not adequately account for how different vaccines and vaccine combinations stimulate the immune system."

This is an important point, because when antivaxxers complain about "too many vaccines" and the increased number of vaccines on the CDC recommended vaccine schedule, they are essentially focused on the packaging rather than the content.  This is like a woman going to the pizzeria and complaining that they sliced her pizza into eight pieces rather than six because she is on a diet.  In the end - it doesn't matter how many pieces we have, what matters is the CONTENT of each slice.  Same is true with vaccines - the sheer number of vaccines is meaningless, and what really matters is the CONTENT.  This is a very basic point that is often misunderstood by antivaxxers... but more often than not rather than misunderstanding it, they blatantly ignore it since it doesn't help their cause.

The fact is, the antigens are what we should be focused on here, because the antigens are what make up the body of the vaccine, and as the study explains the number of antigens have decreased as vaccines have improved.  Yet we have seen countless instances in which antivaxxers remind us that the rate of ASD is increasing as they attempt to link this to the growing number of vaccines on the CDC recommended vaccine schedule - even though they totally ignore the content of the vaccines, and even though they have no studies and no peer-reviewed science to support the link between vaccines and ASD.

This is partly why I've been holding off posting this study for a while, because I wanted to give antivaxxers an opportunity to review the data and perhaps even acknowledge that the science continues to lead us down a different path.  This particular study involved over 1,000 children which is slightly more than the 12 children that the now-entirely-discredited and no-medical-license-holding "Dr." Wakefield used in his study that attempted to link the MMR vaccine with ASD.  So if one was actually allowing the science to lead them to a conclusion, and if they were sincere in their desire to refrain from personal bias, and if they were actually interested in truth and fact... is there any possible way they could simply toss this study aside as they continue their unsupportable belief that vaccines cause autism?

Of course there is... because if we have learned anything about antivaxxers, it is that they couldn't possibly care less about real science or published studies.  For example if you were to visit the anti-vaccine website ThinkTwice.com, you would find zero references to this study.  One might think a website devoted to sharing information about vaccines might actually wish to mention it, but because the science doesn't fit with their core message... they simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

So much for getting the whole story.

Then you have the ironically named "Vactruth.com".  Again... not a single mention of the study.  What exactly are these groups trying to hide?  Shouldn't a website or organization focused upon vaccines actually bother to mention a major study that discusses vaccines?

Next you have Age of Autism which actually took the time to comment on the study the day it was released... which pretty much tells us they didn't even take the time to read the actual study (although I'm quite certain they wouldn't understand it if they did).  Either way Dan Olmsted wrote a short article complaining about it claiming the study "isn't really worth much comment".  Really Dan?  A study which examines over 1,000 children, studies the total number of antigens given to each of those children, and includes both children with and without ASD all in an effort to understand if there really is something to this "vaccines and autism" theory isn't worth much comment?

Sadly, Dan actually seems to believe that.  He didn't really say much about the study itself only quoting what others have said about it, and he doesn't even seem to brush the surface of any facts or data in the actual study.  It seems that Dan most likely didn't even read it - and instead he simply cut and pasted a few paragraphs from other known anti-vaxxers as he tried to minimize the importance of the study without actually taking the time to discuss the key points, any of the data, or the conclusions.  Classic.

Granted Age of Autism wasn't done, therefore the well-known spam-bot Anne Dachel decided to pipe in and actually discuss the study.  Of course when I say "actually discuss the study" what I mean is that she will complain about the timing of the study... because as we all know scientific information should be released on a schedule that appeals to antivaxxers.

Sadly, Anne doesn't actually spend even a single sentence discussing the study.  She doesn't discuss methodology, she doesn't mention the number of test subjects, she doesn't discuss background of the authors, and she doesn't discuss the actual findings of the study.  What does does is complain about the timing of the release, and immediately jumps to conclusions about whether the study will change the debate or if in the scope of things it even matters.  She then goes on to list the news websites that posted articles about the study and she bragged about how she posted her comments to each of them.

Anne then uses the rest of her post to include various links and unrelated statements about vaccines that she and her followers can cut and paste into the comments sections of the various articles even though none of them have anything to do with this actual study.  Once again it seems antivaxxers really don't seem to want to discuss this study... they would rather bury it and change the subject.  Shocker.

Dr. David Gorski over at Science-Based Medicine actually wrote about some of these same reactions from the anti-vaccine community in addition to several others.  He also covers the study in much more detail and explains how this particular study could very well be the final nail in the coffin for the "too many, too soon" nonsense that antivaxxers have been chanting for the past few years.  As with pretty much anything that comes from Dr. Gorski or SBM, that article is most certainly worth a read (although if you happen to be an antivaxxer you may need someone to help explain concepts like retrospective studies or confidence intervals).

This all reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."  

                                                            ~Neil deGrasse Tyson

Is the Age of the Father a Risk Factor For Autism?

A recent article published in The Washington Post, as well as a related article published on the Nature

website (and in the journal Nature) both discuss a recent study which has found the older a father is, the greater chance they will pass on genetic mutations to their children.  This means as the father ages, there is an increased risk for certain types of mutations, and as such an increased risk for conditions such as schizophrenia and autism.

The study itself is interesting, and it seems to confirm what others have said about de novo mutations in the past, but it is hardly conclusive and nobody should be proclaiming anyone has found the cause for autism.  This is but one more piece of the puzzle, but it is nice to see scientists and researchers continuing to search for the root cause(s) - and making progress.  

This new research coupled with previous research pertaining to the weight of the mother during pregnancy, and other studies which show a strong genetic component may not be a smoking gun per se, but they are helping to shine light on the root cause.

The question remains - will antivaxxers start to acknowledge the science that continues to show these many genetic factors contribute to conditions such as autism, or will they once again ignore the studies since they don't align with their views?  Will they again try to claim vaccines are the biggest factor leading to autism even though they have no studies showing such a link?  Will they start trying to back-peddle and claim that vaccines in adults are causing genetic mutations which are then passed on to children?

The reality is, we don't have to guess because organizations like Age of Autism have already gone out of their way to minimize the study as they attempt to place blame upon environmental factors rather than genetics.  In Robert Krakow's article entitled, Paternal Age Study Implicates Environment Not Genes, Krakow immediately switches to defense as he claims "there exists no explanation how de novo mutations relate to autism" within the study.  Krakow might be right, but that is because that subject has been discussed elsewhere - it is not included within this particular study.  It is background data that wasn't central to what the study is about, and Krakow is merely using this as a smokescreen.

So is the absence of background scientific data enough to claim the study suggests environmental factors are the true cause rather than genetics?  According to Krakow... yes - as he writes: "rather than showing that autism or schizophrenia may be primarily genetic, the paper supports the argument that the significant operative variables are environmental".

Putting aside the fact that Krakow seems to have reached conclusions that the authors of the study did not, this is one of the problems that exists when you present science to those with predetermined viewpoints.  People like Krakow aren't about to let the science guide them, but rather they engage in confirmation bias and selective reporting because they are convinced vaccines are the one and only true cause to autism and as such everything else needs to be ignored.

Granted Krakow isn't a scientist, nor is he a researcher, nor is he even a journalist.  Krakow is actually a lawyer who just happens to specialize "in the representation of individuals injured by exposure to vaccines".  Thus it stands to reason why Krakow would prefer that science not suggest that genetics are to blame for autism... because that would make it much more difficult for vaccine lawyers like Krakow to win their cases and it would be a direct hit to their incomes.  

Antivaxxers are always quick to pull out the "big pharma profit" gambit when they are presented with something they disagree with, but it sort of makes you wonder why they seem to feel lawyers who profit from "vaccine injury" cases can be considered to be unbiased when it comes to reporting the facts surrounding scientific studies.  There doesn't appear to be any financial incentive for the authors of this study to suggest de novo mutations are the contributing factor, yet there is a clear financial incentive for vaccine lawyers like Krakow to deny it.  Who should we consider to be unbiased here?

Whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions of the study is one thing, but for those who are honestly interested in finding the root cause(s) of autism they owe it to themselves to look at every study from an unbiased perspective.  This doesn't mean they automatically need to agree with the authors nor do they need to accept every conclusion at face value, but they also should not rush out to attach the study unless they have science and facts that show the study's conclusions to be in error.  In this case, it seems antivaxxers are much more interested in circling their wagons to protect their views than they are in learning... and I find that incredibly disappointing.

Full Washinton Post article here:  Children of older fathers may be more at risk of autism, other disorders

Full Nature Article here: Fathers bequeath more mutations as they age

The actual study on Pubmed:  Rate of de novo mutations and the importance of father's age to disease risk.

The Difference Between a Scientific Study and a Survey

Recently, I posted some information surrounding some recent studies which have once again shown a strong genetic component to autism.  This included three peer-reviewed scientific studies which have been published in reputable medical journals, and conclusions were drawn from the studies that were in line with what many previous studies have found... that autism is primarily genetic, and that there can be some environmental factors that contribute to a lesser degree.

When I wrote that post, I fully expected that Lowell Hubbs would appear out of the woodwork and attempt to discredit the studies by claiming they were biased or that they were secretly funded by some arm of "big pharma", but what I did not expect was the nonsense that he posted as a comment (shown here):

"You can not possibly be that dumb as to suggest autism is genetic? That is over the top for even the level of stupidity you have already put forth. How, in one generation did the genetic gene pool change from 1 in 10,000 autistic children to now 1 in 100 or at times even less than 100? The vaccines were steadily increased after 1988 and after the vaccine manufacturers were given complete legal immunity. They are now 49 shots of 14 vaccines before the age of 6. And you think there is no grey area, no questionable area anywhere? Who the hell pays you for this shit? Vax UnVax Study Results http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/08/vax-unvax-study-results.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ageofautism+%28AGE+OF+AUTISM%29 Managing Editor's Note: From the Child Health Safety site: A new survey of 7724 participants shows unvaccinated children are healthier and have vastly fewer chronic conditions than the vaccinated. The survey is published here The Health of Unvaccinated Children, Survey Results."  ~Lowell Hubbs

Ok a few things need to be pointed out here.  First of all this comment was added soon after the original post was added to this site, meaning it is doubtful Mr. Hubbs even bothered to review the original studies as he would not have had time to analyze them or find any deficiencies in their methodology.  It isn't really a new phenomenon to have a vaccine conspiracy theorist simply ignore reputable science, but it does just show yet again how Mr. Hubbs is unable to even comprehend or fully understand the science he attempts to ignore. 

Had Mr. Hubbs responded with direct criticism of the studies or questions about the results it would be one thing, but it is obvious that rather than be bothered to actually review the source data, Mr. Hubbs instead just scans the titles and makes up his mind.  In fact, Mr. Hubbs has already made up his mind in regards to vaccinations and autism, so no amount of new data or scientific study can change it.  This is the basic premise of a vaccine conspiracy theorist like Mr. Hubbs... they don't allow the data to lead them to conclusions, but rather they form a conclusion and then spend all of their time finding data which supports it while ignoring data that challenges it.  This is not how science works - which is why Lowell Hubbs and his ilk will always remain nothing more than a distraction to the real science being performed each and every day.

So what else can we learn from Mr. Hubbs' comments?  Well... as sad as it is, Mr. Hubbs has displayed an ignorance to basic scientific concepts which honestly calls into question whether he is even fit to comment on these issues when it is so clear he has no clue what he is talking about.  I'm referring to the fact that Mr. Hubbs provides a link to a survey, and yet he confuses this with a study.  Mr. Hubbs believes the nonsense he has linked to somehow proves the unvaccinated children are healthier, and he honestly believes this is a smoking gun.

Let me explain the major flaws in Mr. Hubbs thinking.  First of all, the survey he linked to is just that... a survey.  This means it is nothing more than anecdotal evidence and is in no way considered scientific.  No research was performed to identify the people who responded to the survey, there is no indication that bias was addressed, and no mandate for those responding to the survey to even bother to answer honestly.  There was no direct contact between any doctor, scientist, or researcher and the survey respondents, and there was no analysis performed on medical records or test results.  The fact that Mr. Hubbs feels a survey is worthy of being considered a "study" only shows how poorly he understands the scientific process.

So for the sake of discussion, lets go ahead and examine this little survey to see what we find.  Let's look at the science behind how they gathered their data, and let's examine the methodology behind the survey itself.  The first glaring red flag here is who actually designed the survey.  It was distributed by the website www.vaccineinjury.info which is nothing more than an anti-vaccination website which seeks to label all vaccines as harmful as they try to sell various antivaxxer books (as any good antivaxxer will tell you, fear is very profitable).

Second, and perhaps more important that who distributed the survey, is HOW they distributed the survey.  According to their website, the responses they received were "[d]ue to social network pages and the help of many people who supported the survey".  So essentially they relied upon social media like facebook pages to distribute the survey, and then they even openly admit it was distributed by people who supported the survey!  Do these people even understand the concept of bias?  This is like asking a five year old to distribute a survey to other five year olds and then reporting that the survey says peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are the most healthy meal on the planet while playing kickball is the world's most popular sport.

These people just don't get it... and I doubt they ever will.

It gets better though.  Out of the 7,799 responses to the survey (none of which were validated in any way which means a single person could respond to the survey 300 times if they wished), only 582 of the survey respondents indicated that conventional medicine is their preferred medical treatment.  Considering that conventional medicine is actually the preferred treatment of well over 95% of the public, this figure shows how skewed this survey is, but there is no mention of this discrepancy by the authors.  Apparently they are more concerned with distributing their bias and they have no interest in pointing out the fact that there are numerous glaring flaws in their methodology. 

So what was the preferred medical treatment?  Well not surprising, 2,826 of the respondents relied upon homeopathy, 2,370 relied upon naturopathic medicine and 1,729 relied upon other medicine which according to the survey's authors is mainly chiropractic and supplemental.  This basically tells us of the 7,799 people who took this silly survey on their facebook pages or from anti-vaxxer websites that 6,925 of them (or 89%) rely upon unproven forms of 'alternative' medicine while only 7% use conventional medicine.  Don't ask me what happened to the other 292 survey respondents (4%) which apparently were not counted... I guess statistical accuracy or explaining major discrepancies in the data just isn't important to antivaxxers.

It is painfully obvious this survey is a joke, and not even a good one at that.  Even the most ardent anti-vaccination quackjob on the planet understands that most people use conventional medicine as their primary source of treatment, thus if you have a survey with drastically different results it doesn't take a brain surgeon (or even a research scientist or statistical analyst) to figure out the survey is heavily, heavily skewed and full of bias.

As entertaining as this is - it actually gets better!  The next piece of data we are shown indicates that over 99% of the survey respondents were happy that they didn't vaccinate their children.  It was actually 99.69% which is a statistical super-mega-amazing-majority! 

But wait... I thought this survey was supposed to show how much healthier unvaccinated kids were when compared to vaccinated kids.  If 99.69% of the kids in the survey are unvaccinated, that would equate to 7,775 of the 7,799 children which would only leave a maximum of 24 kids who are potentially vaccinated.  How do they expect to perform a valid comparison between group A of 7,775 people (99.69%) and group B of 24 people (0.31%)?  The fact that I even have to point this out to someone like Mr. Hubbs who has taken the survey at face value only serves as more evidence on how disconnected the antivaxxers are from reality.  Critical thinking skills, common sense, and any level of scientific understanding apparently don't exist within the antivaxxer community - and this little survey acts as a prime exhibit of those facts.

In fact, if you actually read on into the survey results, you will soon discover that they did no such comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated children who were counted in the survey.  None whatsoever.  Instead, they are comparing their survey of unvaccinated children to other scientific studies which determine the rate of various medical conditions such as allergies or asthma.  Once again there is a severe failure to understand the scientific process and the fact that the distributors of this survey fail to understand the glaring flaws in their methodology is comical at best.

Where things really get interesting is when you drill down into the survey results a bit further and you come across their graphic which shows their survey results displaying autism cases in unvaccinated children.  The graphic they use is shown below:

Click to View in Full Size

Unfortunately there is a lot left up to the imagination surrounding this image, and no explanation is given for the numbers shown.  It is understandable that there would be very few if any cases of autism reported in children under the age of three since autism is often undiagnosed until the child is a toddler, but beyond that the numbers shown in this table seem rather high.

We are continually told that the rates of autism are roughly 1 in 110 American children and that this number has bloomed in the past decade, yet this graphic (if you average all children from 0-12 years of age) shows the rate to be 1.46%.  If you factor in all children through age 18 the rate averages to 1.25%.  So if the rate of autism in the general population is 1 in 110, that equates to 0.9%.  However this survey is suggesting that the rate of autism in unvaccinated children is anywhere from 1.25% to 1.46%... which is an increase over the general population of 38% to 62%!

Now let me be clear that I give no credibility to this survey nor do I feel it is in any way scientific.  However if the antivaxxers wish to consider this a valid survey, then by all means they need to be willing to accept the data, and that means an unvaccinated child is 38% to 62% more likely to be autistic than a vaccinated child.  Hey - I can only go off of the chart provided, and math doesn't lie, so I guess that is what they want us to believe.

Then again, the website does include a disclaimer which readily admits that they "cannot guarantee that the information provided is complete, accurate and current", so I guess that allows them to wipe their hands from all of the fear-inducing headlines that don't seem to mirror the actual results of their survey.  Funny how these antivaxxers always seem to have some type of a disclaimer, so that made me wonder... do legitimate peer-reviewed medical studies have disclaimers on the bottom that state the study's authors can't guarantee that the results are complete or accurate?  The answer is no - because real science needs no such disclaimer, and a legitimate study would never be published until the study's authors were confident the data was not only complete, but that it was accurate and current as well.

This it is more than obvious even to a casual observer that this survey is worthless.  I really was looking forward to a legitimate scientific study that includes a large enough control group to make it meaningful, but once again the antivaxxers have let me down.  Obviously I could go on and on about the flaws in this survey, the overwhelming unscientific bias that has blended into everything from the survey creation, to survey distribution, collection, analysis, and even production... but I think what I have shown in this one post alone is enough to prove that not only is the survey entirely non-scientific, but even using their own skewed and heavily biased data still shows a result which contradicts their own predetermined viewpoints.

This also goes to show that how the Age of Autism website authors have no understanding of what true science is.  The fact that their article states "[t]his is excellent work from an independent source" just goes to show they not only misunderstand the term "excellent" but they have no clue what it means to be an independent source.  Unfortunately most of the comments added to their article thus far appear to have bought into the bait hook, line, and sinker and most likely those individuals haven't bothered to objectively analyze the data.

Is there really any wonder why anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists like Lowell Hubbs are never taken seriously when they can't even be bothered to identify the fatal flaws in the very data they use as evidence?  The only thing this survey has proven is that the ignorant will remain ignorant, and the scientifically inept antivaxxers will remain scientifically inept.

Real science wins.  Again.