AAP: Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence

Even though there has never been any reputable, science-based evidence to support a link between vaccines and autism, the antivaxxer crowd continues to pretend that isn't the case as they push retracted papers from discredited "doctors" and self-proclaimed experts, nutritionists, or 'alternative medicine gurus'.  One tactic I tend to see employed on a regular basis is the famed "link dump" where an antivaxxer will share a website or a blog page (often his or her very own blog or webpage) which lists dozens upon dozens of various studies or papers all of which they claim show vaccines are harmful, or show that vaccines cause autism, or show that vaccines are deadly etc.

So often the problem is that these studies and papers are rarely ever peer-reviewed nor are they published in reputable medical journals (or reputable non-medical journals for that matter).  Those that are peer-reviewed or published will often have little to nothing to do with vaccines, and they surely don't prove that vaccines cause autism.  Sadly, I have even seen cases where these websites and blogs contain studies that actually say the exact opposite of what antivaxxers are claiming, but they lack the ability of understanding the subject matter and simply misunderstood a line of text in the abstract.

The other aspect of these link dumps that I find so peculiar is that often times there is zero context other than a title which says "Proof that Vaccines cause Autism" or "Evidence that Vaccines are Killing Us" or some other outrageous claim.  If one cannot even offer the slightest context around the studies they are listing, does it not suggest they haven't bothered to even read them?  Or is it that they have tried to read them but found the subject matter far too complex?  Either way, I have noticed the same lists appearing on antivaxxer blogs and websites (in one occasion even the same typo in the URL of a study which tells me those copying the list didn't even bother to visit all of the sites) and thus it seems as if in some cases antivaxxers are merely sourcing other antivaxxers without bothering to vet the information.  In theory this could lead to antivaxxer A being cited by antivaxxer B who in turn is cited by antivaxxer C who is then cited by antivaxxer A who never realizes they are actually indirectly using themselves as the supporting evidence to claims they themselves originally made.

Confused yet?  I can't blame you, but keep in mind antivaxxers have also been known to create their own blogs and then cite those blogs as sources within comments as if writing something and then linking to your own words adds credibility.

So what is my point you might ask?  Well, during a recent discussion with some colleagues I commented that even though there haven't been any studies that have successfully linked vaccines to autism, there have been several peer-reviewed AND published studies that have shown no link between vaccines and autism and that these studies were widely known.  The problem it seems is that those searching for real live published science are often overwhelmed because when they do find a study they may not understand what it means or they may not understand what the conclusions of a study actually were.

So inevitably the question was asked... where is the easiest place to find these studies, and unfortunately that answer is rather complex.  You could go directly to the journals which publish the studies, you could search pubmed, or you could try browsing the websites of the CDC or the FDA, but if we are honest with ourselves we must admit most people simply don't have the time, nor the patience, to follow this path.

Wouldn't it be nice if someone (a reputable someone) would put a list together that could be shared with parents or laypersons who have an interest in the subject?  Of course blogs and websites do that sort of thing all the time, but what about an actual organization known for their healthcare advocacy or one which is composed of over 60,000 pediatricians or pediatric specialists (you know... doctors who actually specialize in children)?

If you haven't guessed, I'm referring to the American Academy of Pediatrics which has published a memo detailing around 40 of these studies.  They make occasional updates to the list as new information is published, but even more impressive is that they do an amazing job of offering context!  This means they don't just provide a list of studies or sources but rather they summarize each study as well as providing a brief overview of what the author conclusions were, thereby giving those interested a succinct way of seeing the results without necessarily needing to read through hundreds upon hundreds of pages of medical and technical material.

Of course the list is geared towards parents, but I've found myself referring to it on many occasions and I can state in no uncertain terms that it is a useful list for anyone interested in vaccine safety up to an including pediatricians, researchers, and educators.  Thus, if you ever find yourself wondering if there is a nice package detailing the science behind vaccines... this might be right up your alley.  Click the link below, read the summaries and conclusions, dive into the studies themselves, and make up your own mind.  That isn't so hard is it?

Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence

Eating Healthy Fats During Pregnancy May Reduce Baby's Autism Risk

A new study indicates that women who consumed high levels of certain types of omega 6 fatty acids during pregnancy may reduce their risk of having a child with autism by 34% when compared to women who consumed low levels of the same fatty acids.

Even more shocking was the same study  found that women who consumed very low levels omega 3s were 53% more likely to have an autistic child than women who consumed average amounts of these same fatty acids.

Of course as the article points out, more research is required and this is not meant to prove or indicate a cause and effect link.  This is not what we would call a smoking gun, nor is it suggesting they have found a root cause for autism.  What this does is offer us another piece of evidence - another piece of the puzzle - to help explain the types of risk factors that may be associated with autism in children.

Whether it be research that helps identify genetic markers associated with autism, research that suggests the age of the father may contribute to genetic mutations which increase the risk of autism, or research that indicates a link between obesity in mothers and an increased risk of autism one thing is clear - and that is we continue to see numerous studies which identify various risk factors that may contribute to autism, and the collective body of evidence suggests autism is not caused by any one factor, but perhaps a variety of difference risk factors which all culminate in a child suffering from autism.

Yet the odd thing about these studies is that even after decades of research and dozens upon dozens of published, independent studies... we still haven't seen a single study which has been able to show vaccines themselves are a risk factor for a child becoming autistic.  Not a single study that has linked vaccines to autism.  Not a single study that has shown even so much as a casual link.

Yet antivaccinationists continue to purposefully distort fact and confuse the public by suggesting that not only do vaccines cause autism, but that there is a veritable mountain of evidence to support this claim.  The only problem is - they aren't being honest, and they will even go so far as to continue to cite Andrew Wakefield as an expert on the subject even though he has been fully discredited, had his original 'study' retracted, was stripped of his medical license due to fraud, and is (for all intents and purposes) the laughing stock of the medical community.

So perhaps the question is... when with antivaxxers start allowing the evidence to lead them to the answers they seek rather than ignoring the endless stream of science which continues to offer insight as to the root causes of autism?

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

Move the Goalposts... It's Time to Talk Aluminum

Spend more than five minutes on an anti-vaccination website and you will soon realize that most antivaxxers aren't exactly fans of aluminum.  No we aren't talking about aluminum cans or cookware, but rather we are talking about aluminum in a salt form which is commonly used in vaccines to act as an adjuvant.  In simple terms, the aluminum increases the effectiveness of a vaccine due to how it triggers a reaction within the immune system.

Aluminum has been used within vaccines for over 80 years, so you might ask yourself why are antivaxxers suddenly so focused upon aluminum when it isn't exactly a new ingredient?

Well to answer that, you first need to realize where we have been.  Antivaxxers have previously attempted to single out other ingredients such as thimerosal as they blamed it for various conditions up to and including autism in children.  They used scare tactics to associate thimerosal with mercury poisoning due to a misunderstanding of the differences between ethylmercury and methylmercury.

However, even prior to these cries of mercury poisoning from the antivaxxer community, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was already in the process of reviewing the use of thimerosal in vaccines.  Under the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, the FDA carried out a comprehensive review of the use of thimerosal in vaccines.  The review found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal other than local hypersensitivity reactions near the injection site.

In the early 2000's, the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) performed a review of all available research including studies in the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark and they specifically focused upon the hypothesis that thimerosal was a contributing factor to childhood diseases such as autism.  The committee concluded that the available data and studies rejected the casual relationship between thimerosal (or vaccines containing thimerosal) and autism.

This is probably a good time to mention the fact that the IOM is part of the National Academy of Sciences and is a non-governmental institution. That may not seem particularly relevant, but since antivaxxers have a severe distrust for the federal government or any three letter agency (CDC, FDA, EPA et al), it should be clarified that the IOM is an independent organization and therefore would not share the same perceived bias(es) as a government agency.

Even though the IOM rejected the relationship between thimerosal and autism the FDA, as a preventative measure which had begun years earlier, was already in the process of removing thimerosal from vaccines.  As of 2001 thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines recommended for children six years of age or younger (keep in mind autism generally presents itself between ages two and four), and the only exception to this were some versions of the inactivated flu vaccine (although thimerosal-free versions are available).  In addition to this, all new non-influenza vaccines licensed since 1999 contain no thimerosal.

So what was the end result of removing thimerosal from childhood vaccines? Did we see a significant drop in the rates of autism? Nope. In fact, since 2001 the rates have actually gone up, and thus the theory that thimerosal was responsible for the "autism epidemic" was quite obviously no longer popular to rally behind. Children who had never received even trace amounts of thimerosal were still being diagnosed with autism and therefore antivaxxers realized they could no longer place blame upon thimerosal. It soon became obvious it was time to try something new.

Move the goalposts - we have another new theory!

When antivaxxers realized that pinning their hopes upon thimerosal might not exactly pan out, they shifted gears a bit and started focusing on one specific vaccine (the MMR vaccine) which they claimed was directly responsible for autism in children.  It was around this time that they started professing that Andrew Wakefield was a genius and seemed to have the secret to unlocking the root cause of autism due to a study he published in 1998 which attempted to link the MMR vaccine with autism.

Of course after Wakefield was discredited and stripped of his medical license, and after his "study" was retracted, and after he was found guilty of fraud and manipulation of data.... well he didn't exactly seem like the great savior afterall and he soon found himself the laughing stock of the scientific community.  It was around this time that many antivaxxers decided to back-peddle a bit and distance themselves from Wakefield (although in some extreme antivaxxer circles, Wakefield continues to be considered a favorite son).

So at that point the antivaxxers decided that instead of focusing on the MMR vaccine specifically, they should simply talk about vaccines or vaccine ingredients in more general terms because scaring people by talking about mercury poisoning or "toxicity" is generally more effective than trying to convince people that a discredited doctor was right all along.

You guessed it - time to pick up those goal posts and slide them back just a bit further!

A few years ago around the time many antivaxxers decided to stop talking about thimerosal or the MMR vaccine, they decided to start talking about other vaccine ingredients such as formaldehyde.  Why the focus on formaldehyde?  Well it surely had nothing to do with science, but rather it was about perception.  It seems most people associate formaldehyde with high school Biology class where a fetal pig or a frog was stored in it prior to dissection.  They recall the strong odor and the fact there were warning labels which stated severe over-exposure to the liquid could result in death.  They also associate formaldehyde with embalming fluid and dead bodies... so surely this isn't something that should be in a vaccine should it?

Well the truth is there is very, very little formaldehyde in vaccines, and it just so happens that we already have far greater quantities of formaldehyde in our bodies at any given point than we ever receive from any vaccine.  It turns out we have around about 2.5 ug of formaldehyde per ml of blood.

Per the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's (CHOP) Vaccine Education Center: "Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 ml per kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found in an infant's circulation would be about 1.1 mg, a value at least five-fold greater than that to which an infant would be exposed in vaccines".

In fact, we as humans actually NEED formaldehyde to survive since it is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids, thus suggesting the amount in vaccines would somehow be harmful was at best ignorant, and most likely simply dishonest.  Thus after antivaxxers realized the amount of formaldehyde found in vaccines was insignificant, they actually went so far as to suggest there is a difference between "natural" formaldehyde, and "synthetic" formaldehyde... once again showing that antivaxxers seem to ignore even the most basic tenets of chemistry.

The formaldehyde argument didn't seem to gain much traction however - most likely since anyone who has ever taken a basic chemistry course understands what formaldehyde really is - so the antivaxxers soon decided it was time for something new.

Get the shovel out... those goalposts need to be moved yet again!

This brings us to present day - when many antivaxxers have decided the one ingredient within vaccines which is REALLY, REALLY harmful (for reals this time), and the one ingredient that has the potential to cause the most damage is none other than aluminum.  Per the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), "[a]luminum salts, such as aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum potassium sulfate have been used in vaccines for more than 70 years" so you might think the antivaxxers are a bit late to the game... but hey - better late that never right?

I suppose to the layman, telling them you are going to inject them with aluminum sounds about as appealing as telling them you are going to inject them with mercury.  Saying these things scares people... and isn't that the point?  We can't expect people to realize that the aluminum is the most common metal on the entire planet can we?  Can we expect them to know that there is a vast difference between a chemical compound containing aluminum and an actual piece of aluminum that may be used to form a soda can?

The truth is, aluminum is actually all around us, and even in us.  Aluminum is found in our water, it is found in our the soil, it is found in the air, it is commonly used in antacids, aspirin, and yes it is even found in our food including fresh fruits, vegetables, and meat.

So what is an antivaxxer to do when they soon realize that aluminum is all around us? What can they do when they find out the average human contains between 50 and 150 mg of aluminum at any given time?  What do they do when the find out the average daily intake of aluminum may range from 10-110 mg?   Well... they simply decide to focus on the amount of aluminum in vaccines rather than the amount of aluminum anywhere else in our body or our environment. Seems legit.

The problem is, vaccines really don't contain very much aluminum.  A typical vaccine contains no more 0.85 mg of aluminum per dose.  To put this in perspective, aluminum is also found in soy-based infant formula (0.46–0.93 mg/L) and milk-based infant formula (0.058–0.15 mg/L) which means an infant will consume more aluminum in a few days of drinking formula than it would receive from a typical vaccine.

Per CHOP, "During the first 6 months of life, infants could receive about 4 milligrams of aluminum from vaccines. That’s not very much: a milligram is one-thousandth of a gram and a gram is the weight of one-fifth of a teaspoon of water. During the same period, babies will also receive about 10 milligrams of aluminum in breast milk, about 40 milligrams in infant formula, or about 120 milligrams in soy-based formula.

Even more shocking, a common over the counter antacid has around 300-600 mg of aluminum hydroxide (approximately 104–208 mg of aluminum) per tablet, capsule, or 5 milliliter (mL) liquid dose! That means if you take a single tablet of a commonly available antacid, you are consuming as much as 245 times more aluminum than you would get out of a typical vaccine.

So why aren't antivaxxers out there protesting against antacids?  If you consider how much aluminum a typical adult human might consume in a 24 hour period as a result of some heartburn, it would seem to be the equivalent of hundreds and hundreds of vaccinations, yet antivaxxers fail to even mention it.  Why are these same antivaxxers not signing petitions to have soy-based infant formula removed from store shelves when it exposes infants to 30 times as much aluminum as vaccines within the child's first six months of life?  Could it be the antivaxxers are just slightly biased due to all of their previously failed attempts at pinning the root cause of autism on the vaccine industry?

The truth is, even if someone does ingest 2000 mg of aluminum in a single day, it will quickly leave their body via their feces and urine, which results in over half being flushed out of the body within 24 hours and over 70% of the aluminum being flushed out of the body within five days.  There have been some reports of long term complications surrounding high levels of aluminum exposure which I am certain many antivaxxers have latched on to, but unfortunately for them there have been long term complications from exposure to every element and chemical compound known to man.  As it turns out, the number one cause of drowning in humans is a result of too much exposure to H₂O (commonly called "water"), yet I don't hear many people asking for the government to investigate Evian or Aquafina to see if they are killing people.  Go figure.

Sort of makes you wonder where the goalpost will move next doesn't it?

Genetic Test For Autism Developed By Australian Scientists: HuffPo

An article posted yesterday at the Huffington Post states "Australian scientists have developed a genetic test Molecular Psychiatry and they cover 237 genetic markers.
to predict autism spectrum disorder in children".  The findings were published in the journal

It is probably a good idea to reserve judgement until these findings can be verified and replicated, but if this holds true it could be a breakthrough on the path to find the actual cause(s) of autism itself.  Granted the study can only claim a 70% accuracy when predicting autism, but the fact they were able to identify specific genetic markers is promising, and in time the accuracy will most likely be vastly improved.

This type of research can help identify at-risk children far sooner in life which in turn can allow treatments to begin earlier in the child's life.  Early detection and treatment can make all the difference when it comes to autism, so this type of research can be invaluable.

The question now becomes - how can anti-vaccinationists spin this study to blame vaccines for autism?  It doesn't seem likely that they will suggest that vaccines are responsible for the manipulation of genetic code in a small child, thus I can think of two excuses we can expect to see from the antivaxxer community.

Number one, antivaxxers will claim that vaccines work in conjunction with these genetic markers to "trigger" autism in children.  This is an interesting theory of course, but it will be as equally interesting to see the data and research which supports this hypothesis.  Needless to say I can almost hear the antivaxxer community scurrying to come up with something - anything - they can use to suggest this is plausible.

Number two, antivaxxers will claim that vaccines cause genetic mutations which are then passed on to the offspring of those people who received vaccinations in the past.  Thus if two adults are fully vaccinated and they produce offspring, the child would then reflect these genetic markers that put him or her at risk for autism.  Again it will be interesting to see the science that shows the vaccination status of the parents if antivaxxers wish to push this theory.

Granted there could be several more excuses that I couldn't even begin to guess, but the one thing I am certain about is that the antivaxxers will NOT come out and claim that autism is a genetic disorder with no connection to vaccines... because that would be allowing the science to steer their views rather than backing into an opinion by discrediting the science.  The truth is, if we all let science guide our views rather than making assumptions, there would be no such thing as an antivaxxer in the first place.  However since that isn't the case, it is safe to assume this study will be ignored and overlooked by the antivaxxer community, just as all of the previous research that has shown a strong genetic component to autism has been ignored and/or manipulated.

Full article here:  Genetic Test For Autism Developed By Australian Scientists


Update 9/14/12:  As predicted, antivaxxers such as Lowell Hubbs have complained that I didn't link to the actual study, and therefore Mr. Hubbs has suggested I didn't actually bother to read it.  Obviously that is quite an assumption on the part of Mr. Hubbs, although true to form he is one again incorrect.

I didn't realize I had to spoon feed the anti-vaccinationists by giving them direct links therefore eliminating the confusion caused by using a search bar, but to humor Mr. Hubbs I'll go ahead and provide the link here.  Please note that eventually this study will most likely not be available for free viewing, and as such the link may stop working (which is why I didn't include it originally and instead merely linked to the journal which published the study).  However for the time being you may read the original study at the link below:

Molecular Psychiatry: Predicting the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder using gene pathway analysis

When the study is no longer available (aka: open) on the website, you should still be able to read the abstract by searching for the title of the study above and/or the primary author's name: Professor Christos Pantelis.

I should also note that Mr. Hubbs claims this study "actually in fact directly supports the ASD/Vaccine connection".  I of course predicted antivaxxers would take this route, but of course aside from his opinion Mr. Hubbs can offer no evidence to support this statement.  In fact, the study itself makes no reference to vaccines at all, and the term "vaccine" is found nowhere within the text of the study.  This is yet another example of antivaxxers seeing what they wish to see, with no time spent understanding the science, the methods, or the output of many hours of effort.  If anyone didn't bother to read a study, I'm guessing it was Mr. Hubbs as I can see not other explanation behind such a severe misunderstanding of the content.

The reality is the study surrounds genetic variants and the ability to predict autism and other autism spectrum disorders.  It has to do with genetic classification and prediction - nothing more.  The researchers did not in any way broach the subject of what "causes" autism, but rather they are focused upon detection methods.  Much more must be done to expand upon this data to learn the root causes of the genetic markers identified within this study, but we are a long, long way from being able to make any statements pertaining to causation.

Far be it from an antivaxxer to wait until the science leads them down a path before they proudly proclaim they have all the answers.  In the mind of an antivaxxer like Lowell Hubbs, research can be interpreted any number of ways... provided all of those ways result in someone or something blaming vaccines for autism.

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.

Is There Really an Autism Epidemic?

Spend a few minutes researching the subject of autism, and you will most likely come across someone who

will remind you that the rates of autism in the 1930s and 40s was somewhere around one in 10,000 (when the term "autism" was originally coined).  Then in the 1980s and 90s as visibility started to increase and when people started talking about autism, we were told the rates were one in several thousand children.  According to more recent CDC data, today the number is commonly quoted as one out of every 88 children has autism or an autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Some may argue about the numbers saying they are slightly lower or slightly higher, but clearly the rate of autism is increasing and it isn't a gradual increase.  So what are the major reasons for this?  Antivaxxers are quick to point their fingers at vaccines as they claim the rise in the number of vaccines correlates with the rise in autism.  The correlation is true, but you could make the same argument surrounding increased use of cellphones, the spread of satellite television, the rising sales of bottled water, the usage of sonograms during pregnancy, or even the increasing popularity of Will Smith.  Does this mean we are going to blame the rising rate of autism upon the Fresh Prince?  Does this mean we should ban the sale of bottled water or mandate that the FDA perform studies proving it doesn't cause autism?  Of course not - because correlation does not equal causation, and correlation is not proof.

What we do know is that to date there have been no reputable peer-reviewed scientific studies that are able to prove a link between vaccines and autism in children, so even though antivaxxers are quick to point fingers, when pressed for evidence they come up short time and time again.  It isn't that nobody has tried to prove such a link, and many studies have been performed, but the reality is nobody has been able to tie vaccine usage to a rise in autism.  The science just isn't there.

So if we don't have any science proving vaccines cause autism, and if we don't yet have the science to prove autism is caused by any other environmental factor (including Will Smith)... what exactly is responsible for the alarming growth of autism diagnoses?

The simple answer is that we really don't know.  Scientists, doctors, and researchers are spending a great deal of energy trying to better understand autism, but the fact is to date there just hasn't been any definitive evidence to suggest any one particular "thing" is to blame.  Studies have focused upon vaccines and vaccine ingredients, but they have come up empty.  They have examined genetics and although some progress has been made, it is far too early to point fingers on any one root cause, or even several different causes.  Even things such as birth order, geography, age of the mother, and even the amount of rainfall in a region have been examined with some minor trends being noticed, but nothing which shouts "THIS is the cause of autism!".

However most experts in the field seem to continually remind us that the rising rate of autism really isn't as bad as it may seem.  The truth is, most of these experts chalk up the bulk of the increase to nothing more than increased awareness of the disease, and as such a greater understanding and familiarity results in more diagnoses.  We have actually discussed the awareness issue in the past, and if you couple the increased awareness with changing criteria for diagnosis over the years, you can start to see why it isn't so shocking that the number of children diagnosed with autism has grown so quickly.

The reality is, until 1980 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) didn't even have criteria for diagnosing autism, and it wasn't considered a separate diagnosis within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  Then in 1980 with the publication of DSM III, Infantile Autism was first mentioned... but the criteria for diagnosis required the onset to occur prior to 30 months of age.  Ask many parents of autistic children and you will soon find that in many cases the child didn't start exhibiting autistic symptoms until they were three, four, or five years old.  So if it couldn't be called "autism", what diagnosis was attached to these children prior to 1980?

In 1987, DSM III-R was released which was a revision to DSM III.  In the updated text, Autistic Disorder was finally classified alone, and it included criteria for diagnosing the condition after 36 months of age.  Then in 1994, DSM IV was released which changed the criteria yet again and which created even more visibility of the condition.

So if the criteria for diagnosing autism wasn't even fully defined until the 1980s, and if the criteria have evolved several times since... do we really think it is feasible that the veritable 'explosion' of autism diagnosis is entirely legitimate, or could it be nothing more than simply a greater understanding of the disease, increased visibility, and a shifting of diagnoses from other mental disorders?

Regarding the last point, there have been several studies published which are trying to determine if that is the case.  Mark Roth of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a piece a few years ago entitled Studies raise questions about increase in autism cases, and in his article he cites two separate studies which could contribute to the autism epidemic:

A 2006 study in the journal Pediatrics found, for instance, that the national increase in identified autism cases in elementary schoolchildren between 1984 and 2003 had been paralleled by a similar decrease in the number of children labeled as retarded or learning disabled.  

Paul Shattuck of Washington University in St. Louis, the lead author of the study, wrote last year that "in 44 of 50 states, the increase in autism was completely offset by a decrease in the prevalence of children considered 'cognitively disabled' or 'learning disabled.' "

[...] In a 2004 study, Lisa Croen of the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute in California and her team found that the increase in children diagnosed with autism in that state between 1987 and 1994 was almost exactly paralleled by a decrease in those diagnosed with retardation.

In case you actually care to read the complete studies, they can be found here:

Paul T. Shattuck, PhD - The Contribution of Diagnostic Substitution to the Growing Administrative Prevalence of Autism in US Special Education

Lisa A. Croen et al -  The changing prevalence of autism in California


I'm certain we all wish we knew the reason why autism seems so prevalent in today's society, but I'm as equally certain it isn't fair to blame the rise on environmental factors, vaccines, or yes even Will Smith.  I know it is easy to point fingers, but the science simply doesn't support such conclusions and it is dishonest to attempt to create a link when the evidence and legitimate science doesn't support it.  I understand the subject of confirmation bias, but when it comes to placing blame for a disease such actions can be incredibly dangerous.

So is the increase in autism really due to greater awareness and a expanded criteria for diagnosis?  Well, as much as I would love to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer, the truth is we simply don't know.  We do know that a large percentage of the increase can be attributed to awareness and a better understanding / better diagnosis of mental disorders, but I'm not about to go so far as to claim it is 100% responsible for the increase, because the data is inconclusive.

The problem lies when people make claims they can't support, and unfortunately there are a lot of self-proclaimed experts running around on the Internet spreading falsehoods and distorting the facts.  Most often those guilty of such distortions are associated with the anti-vaccination movement and they are quick to present their opinions as fact as they attempt to blame vaccines and pharmaceutical companies for 100% of the increase in autism even though the antivaxxers have been unable to produce one single peer reviewed study to support this claim.

This isn't to suggest they need a mountain of evidence, but wouldn't you think if someone was so convinced they have an answer, and if they are so willing to cite various doctors and 'experts' that they claim have come to the same conclusion... wouldn't you think they could at the very least cite one specific study that has been performed anywhere on the globe and published in a reputable medical journal which is able to prove a link between vaccines and autism?  Perhaps "prove" is too strong of a term, but wouldn't you expect them to be able to produce such a study which would even go so far as to make a bold assertion or which results in a strong relationship between the two?

Oddly enough when pressed for this evidence, antivaxxers make claims that such research "wouldn't be allowed" or that big pharma and/or the CDC would prevent it from being published.  They might also claim that such studies have been produced and that Andrew Wakefield was a pioneer when it comes to this subject, yet they conveniently ignore how Wakefield was caught falsifying data, modifying test results, and engaging in unethical behavior which resulted in not only his 'study' being retracted, but in him losing his license to practice medicine.

So when you really boil it down, antivaxxers use nothing more than excuses to explain why they don't have any data.  They make wild claims about how drug companies and the CDC control information yet they don't explain how Wakefield's study lasted for over a decade in a legitimate and respected medical journal before his fraud was finally exposed.  Antivaxxers make claims about how others are prevented from speaking, yet they ignore several prominent antivaxxer doctors and 'experts' who make their living from the anti-vaccination seminar circuit.  They make claims about how they would never be allowed to publish a study that proves autism is caused by vaccines, yet they ignore that none of these supposed anti-vaccination experts have made claims that reputable journals have rejected their studies.  Thus either these antivaxxers aren't willing to perform legitimate studies, or they have attempted to perform them and the results weren't what they had hoped, thus they sweep the results under a rug.

The truth is, antivaxxers have come to depend upon random conspiracy theories mixed with excuses, and they all but ignore logic and common sense.  They would rather spend time convincing the public that vaccines cause autism by the way of conspiracies and accusations as opposed to putting their reputations on the line and submitting a real medical study with their names on it.

I'm not going to fault anyone for having an opinion or even a theory.  I also wouldn't fault someone for being ignorant, because when people acknowledge they are ignorant it drives them to learn.  They seek answers, and if they strive to find the answers they will come out wiser and with a greater understanding of the facts.  However when people choose to remain ignorant, or when they are intellectually dishonest on purpose, or when they attempt to present wild unsubstantiated theories as facts... then they lose any right to have a place at the table, and they only serve to harm society with their desire to confuse via misinformation.

So the next time you hear about an antivaxxer making claims about how the rise in autism is directly related to the rise in the number of vaccines given to our children, go ahead and remind them prior to Will "Fresh Prince" Smith coming into the rap scene in the 1980s nobody had even heard of autism, and by the time Smith started starting in movies, autism was much more common.  Now that Smith is considered one of Hollywood's most successful leading men and one of the largest box office draws of our era, autism rates are at all-time highs!

Coincidence?  Correlation?  In the mind of an antivaxxer, it just mind be enough to claim causation.

Facts, More Facts, and Persistent Facts

On an almost daily basis, I'm reminded of the John Adams quote "facts are stubborn things", and I am reminded of how accurate those words are.  Facts tend to get in the way of opinion, they shatter falsehoods, and they destroy dishonesty.  However, it seems often when facts are presented, those who find their opinions to be threatened merely ignore the facts rather than accept them.  This is often true with anti-vaxxers including Lowell Hubbs, because even after showing him evidence that disputes his statements, he refuses to accept reality.

Let me give an example.  Mr. Hubbs continues to make claims that the Amish are not vaccinated and that they don't get autism.  He has made these statements in the past, even though I showed him evidence which absolutely destroys that baseless claim including several different articles which served as sources.  Do you think Mr. Hubbs would drop the assertion that the Amish don't vaccinate?  Do you think he would back down from the claim that Amish children don't get autism? Do you think he would go back and modify his websites and blogs to remove any statements which make claims that the Amish don't vaccinate or that they don't get autism?  If your answer was no to any of the above questions, give yourself a gold star.

In fact, Mr. Hubbs continues to believe the Amish are autism-free, and he is still making claims about how they aren't vaccinated even though there is no legitimate evidence to support these claims.  Even if either of those two statements were true it still does not in any way suggest vaccines cause autism.  It is a classic misunderstanding of correlation and causation, and Mr. Hubbs is deliberately trying to blur the line between the two in order to support his worldview.

If someone actually has a desire to learn the truth about the Amish, there are more than enough sources that exist to prove that they do in fact vaccinate.  These include the articles mentioned above, news reports, and even studies. In fact, in one study it was found that 84% of Amish households with children reported that all of their children had received vaccinations and another 12% of Amish households with children reported that some of the children had received vaccinations. Only 4% of these households reported that none of the children received vaccinations.

That same study found that when it comes to older members of the Amish community who knew their own vaccination status, 90% reported that they had in fact received vaccinations as children. When broken out by age and looking at only respondents aged 45 years or less, this number swells to 96% which is actually higher than the general population in some cases. Does that sound like the Amish don't vaccinate?

As to the original author that made the claims about the Amish (Dan Olmsted), even he has had to backtrack and admit his reporting was "anecdotal" rather than scientific, and he seems to have backed down from his suggestions that a perceived lack of autism within the Amish community had a relation to vaccines. Of course he is still beating the drum trying to claim the Amish have a lower rate of autism (which very well could be true due to environmental and genetic factors) and he is still trying to confuse correlation and causation as all good anti-vaxxers do, but it does appear to some degree he is avoiding the "vaccines cause autism" nonsense primarily because he cannot support that hypothesis with any available data or research.

This is one of the primary issues I have with anti-vaccinationists. Even when presented with data that clearly shows their statements and opinions to be wrong, they simply ignore the data and continue to make the same false statements in the hopes they might be able to get away with it. It is one thing to form a hypothesis when you don't know the facts, but when the facts are in and when they seem to contradict your original opinion, it is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty to continue down the same path as if the facts don't matter.

Let's be clear - the Amish community isn't limited to one small group nor is it isolated to one area of the country. There are at least 25 states in the US with Amish populations, there are various subgroups and sects, so it stands to reason that what may be the case in one Amish community may not transcend across all. It would not be fair to make a blanket statement that all Amish communities vaccinate nor would it be fair to claim that none of the Amish are autistic, because the truth is there are both vaccinated and un-vaccinated Amish just as their are Amish children who have autism.

If anti-vaxxers really wish to be honest and if they are sincere in their desires to learn about the root causes of autism, they would be well advised to stop repeating fallacies and instead focus on what we really know instead of merely what we want to believe.

CNN: Don't Fall at the Finish Line in the Race to Eradicate Polio

I came across an interesting opinion piece published on the CNN website the other day discussing polio vaccination programs.  Much of the data aligns with what we have seen from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and elsewhere, but it is never a bad idea to get a reminder of what we are up against.

"In less than a quarter century, the number of children paralyzed by polio has dropped spectacularly — from 350,000 cases annually to just 650 last year. In 1988, there were 125 countries where polio was endemic. Today, there are just three - Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Lowell Hubbs would have us believe this is all a coincidence and that the containment of polio in over 120 nations had nothing to do with vaccines.  Not only is that opinion absurd, but it makes you wonder what other explanation he can offer which would make sense.  In a period of just over 20 years, we have been able to control, reduce, and in some cases totally eliminate polio from over 120 nations.  We haven't made significant changes in anything else, but when scientists and doctors enter an area and start vaccination the population.... the rate of polio drops like a stone to the point where it is eventually and entirely eliminated in the younger (vaccinated) population.

I actually wonder if Mr. Hubbs and his anti-vaccination friends have any understanding of disease whatsoever.  Do they honestly feel diseases like polio just disappear without any outside factors?  Do they understand what it means for a disease to be endemic in the first place?  Do they have any explanation for why vaccinated populations no longer have to fear contracting polio and why with widespread vaccination programs in a matter of years the spread of diseases such as polio can all but be eliminated?

You will often hear anti-vaxxers like Mr. Hubbs claims vaccinations don't work or that they cause more harm that good.  Well in this one example alone there are over 349,000 people a year who won't need to suffer from the effects of polio... all due to the polio vaccine.  Does that seem like something causing more harm than good?

The next argument anti-vaxxers like to make is that vaccinations exist only to increase profits of the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the vaccines.  Apparently the scientists and doctors and researchers who work on these vaccines as well as the healthcare workers who are responsible for distributing and administering the vaccines are all involved in some massive conspiracy to make money... and these thousands upon thousands upon thousands of individuals are all just looking to make a quick buck so they remain quiet.

Really?  There comes a point where I have to assume even a conspiracy theorist such as Mr. Hubbs looks at his own theories and says they are simply too hard to believe, but I won't claim to be an expert on those who appear to be suffering from psychological disorders.

"Last week, health ministers representing nearly 200 countries underscored their strong belief in the effectiveness of vaccines and their importance of protecting all the world’s children by passing two resolutions. One declared polio eradication a worldwide health emergency. The other endorsed a global plan to ensure that all children — not just those in wealthy countries — have access to vaccines that prevent diseases."

I know of no conspiracy theory on the planet which has successfully argued the involvement of hundreds of people from hundreds of different nations.  Are we really to believe people like Mr. Hubbs who claim the polio vaccine simply doesn't work, or should we believe the experts and the data which proves otherwise?

The choice is clear - and it seems nearly 200 health ministers have come to the same conclusion.

Read the full CNN article here:  Opinion: Don't fall at the finish line in the race to eradicate polio

Is Obesity During Pregnancy a Risk Factor for Autism?

It is important to preface this information by stating that although this study is very interesting, this in no way proves autism is caused by obesity, or more specifically obesity during pregnancy.  There are a number of factors that most likely contribute to autism, and this is merely one such factor.

What this study did find was that women who were obese during pregnancy were about 67 percent more likely to have autistic children than women who were considered normal-weight during pregnancy.  That is a significant development, but one which needs confirmation via additional research.  If this holds true, then this is yet another piece of the puzzle which coupled with other research can lead us towards finding the true root cause(s) of autism and hopefully (eventually) to treatment programs and even a cure.

USA Today (AP): Autism may be linked to obesity during pregnancy

Full study can be found in the Journal Pediatrics:  Maternal Metabolic Conditions and Risk for Autism and Other Neurodevelopmental Disorders

The question remains - how can antivaxxers like Lowell Hubbs spin all of this new research to shift the blame back onto the vaccines they claim cause autism?  Can they just conveniently ignore these studies?  Can they claim obesity is caused by vaccines themselves?  Will they try to pretend the increased risk from obesity is merely a trigger and that the root cause is still vaccines?

It is anyones guess, but considering how often antivaxxers confuse correlation and causation, you might think they would be quick to recognize that as the obesity epidemic in our nation has ballooned (pardon the pun) so has the autism epidemic.  Of course I am not one to draw conclusions based upon random coincidences... but then again I'm not an antivaxxer.

Perhaps this is a good time to mention that Jenny McCarthy weighed in at 211lbs during her pregnancy with her son Evan (who she claims was autistic until she magically 'cured' him).  Considering McCarthy is 5'7" and around 125lbs, a health weight range during pregnancy would have resulted in her gaining between 28 and 40lbs.  Thus, in no uncertain terms, McCarthy was clinically obese during her pregnancy as she was carrying at least 46 extra pounds on her frame.

For the record I'm not suggesting that McCarthy's weight resulted in her son being autistic, primarily because I can't be certain her son actually is (or was) autistic in the first place.  However if her son is autistic, it seems her massive weight gain during her pregnancy was likely a significant risk factor, and as such will most likely go unmentioned by McCarthy or anyone else in the anti-vaccination camp.  Why you ask?  Because antivaxxers would never be willing to accept that their actions might contribute to their children being diagnosed with autism, and instead it is much easier to just blame vaccines or drug companies or pediatricians or hospitals.  It seems it isn't really about finding a root cause... it is about finding someone else to blame. 

Sadly, this seems to be the American way as everyone claims to be a victim and they are never to blame for something that might go wrong.  If something happens to a child, the parents look around for someone to blame.  If someone gets caught driving drunk, they blame the police or the judge.  If they are arrested for theft, they blame a substance abuse issue.  If they suffer from a medical condition or have issues controlling their rage, they look to a doctor or drug company to blame, but rarely do people actually look in a mirror and accept responsibility for their own lives.

Any way you spin it, this is not a good time to be an anti-vaccinationist, and 2012 is shaping up to be one of the worst years on record for Lowell Hubbs, Jenny McCarthy, and their antivaxxer brethren.

Autism Linked to Inherited Gene Mutations

Per a recent ABC News article, "[...] many scientists agree that the growing autism numbers may in part be attributed to certain genetic mutations that are most likely inherited from the father, according to the combined findings of three studies published Wednesday in the journal Nature.

The studies are the largest to date to use whole-exome sequencing, which decodes the protein in both children and their parents, an arguably more precise method of detecting genetic mutations in multiple genes that may be associated with autism.

The findings from one of the studies supports mounting evidence suggesting that the older the father, the higher the chance the child may develop some form of autism.

In another study, researchers who compared siblings with and without autism found that the sibling with autism had two different mutations of the gene SCN2A.

Genetic mutations found in the child with autism that were not found in either parent are likely not associated with autism, one of the studies concluded."

The full ABC News article can be found here:  Autism Linked to Inherited Gene Mutations, Particularly From Dad

A similar New York Times article referencing the same studies can be found here:  Scientists Link Gene Mutation to Autism Risk

And the studies can be found here (note registration is required to read some of the full studies):

De novo mutations revealed by whole-exome sequencing are strongly associated with autism

Exome sequencing in sporadic autism spectrum disorders identifies severe de novo mutations

Patterns and rates of exonic de novo mutations in autism spectrum disorders


Please don't misunderstand these studies, the articles, or my comments.  This data does not prove a root cause of autism and there is much, much more work to be done.  However these studies do show us a link, and finding more and more of these links coupled with determining other risk factors can lead us to the true cause somewhere down the road. 

Studies like this are crucial if we wish to find the true root cause of autism, however you aren't about to hear many antivaxxers talking about them because any discussion which surrounds genetic risk factors reduces the chances that their vaccination fears are justified.  The reality is we see more and more autism research coming out almost on a weekly basis, and to date none of it has ever shown a link between vaccines and autism.

Perhaps it is time some of these antivaxxers such as Lowell Hubbs started to pay attention to this research and modify their hypothesis.  Rest assured I don't suspect that will happen, but the more data and research that we have on the subject, the more foolish these antivaxxers look.  I can only assume it gets tiring for them to keep developing new and clever excuses to explain away the mountains of evidence which fly in the face of their "vaccines cause autism" unsupportable theories, but true to form you can expect them to slide the goalposts yet again as they try to spin this in their favor.

Antivaxxers are nothing if not consistently misleading and flat-out dishonest.

Autism Prevalence: One in 88?

There are times when it makes sense to draft a blog post to discuss a particular subject matter or news report so that I can offer my own take on the information, add some context, and of course a dose of commentary.  In respect to the latest CDC report that shows one in 88 American children are autistic, my previous blog post accomplished this.

Then there are other times when it makes more sense to simply link to another site which has already done their own legwork. This is one of those times, and this article written by Dr. Gorski over at Science Based Medicine does an amazing job of spelling out some of the major logical errors that originate from the anti-vaccination camp.  It is worth a read.

Via Science Based Medicine: Autism prevalence: Now estimated to be one in 88, and the antivaccine movement goes wild

Of course I do have a few points of my own to add as well. First, if the prevalence of autism is actually growing (as opposed to the rate of diagnoses growing), then it tends to fly in the face of the theory that vaccines cause autism, because antivaxxers keep telling us that more and more people are skipping vaccines in favor of more "natural methods".  Granted some of these people are dying as a result, and of course we know the claims of more and more people skipping vaccines simply arent' true, but the point is antivaxxers can't have it both ways. If they honestly believe that vaccines cause autism, and if they also believe that more and more parents are seeking vaccine exemptions for their children, then by all accounts the rate of autism diagnoses should actually be decreasing.  It is not.

So what is it? Are we to honestly believe the rate of autism is actually going up not due to better diagnoses but simply because the disease is that much more prevalent? If that is the case, then clearly antivaxxers must admit that their anti-vaccination campaign isn't working... because how else can you explain the rate of autism going up unless you believe a larger percentage of children are receiving vaccinations?

The truth is, the wild claims about the number of parents seeking vaccine exemptions simply aren't true, and although the rates of vaccination are not decreasing, they aren't actually increasing at a huge rate either. For the most part, vaccination rates haven't shifted more than 5% in recent years, thus any attempt to blame a increase in the prevalence of autism upon vaccines and/or vaccination rates seems to stumble out of the gate.

It is interesting when you examine the actual usage of vaccines during 2008 and align this with the reported rate of autism from the CDC report. The same can be done for the cohort groups from 2002 and 2006 as well. If vaccine use had actually decreased, one might think antivaxxers would have taken the time to align this usage to an decrease in autism diagnoses. However, since vaccine use has remained relatively stable (in some cases actually increasing slightly) during this time period, yet the rate of autism diagnoses has grown at a much faster rate, how do they explain the discrepancy?

Perhaps a better question is, why haven't these anti-vaccination groups performed this analysis prior to jumping on the "vaccines must cause autism" bandwagon? The data simply does not support the hypothesis... and they know it.

As you can see this becomes rather difficult to explain if you are an antivaxxer. Things become even more difficult to explain when you realize the time period this report covers occurs during the time period that thimerosal was being removed from all childhood vaccinations. This should indicate that the removal of thimerosal had no impact upon the rate of autism, and if one were to confuse correlation and causation (as so many antivaxxers commonly do), one could even go so far as to make the argument that the removal of thimerosal actually increases the rate of autism.  After all, we know the amount of thimerosal being injected into children has dropped significantly since the year 2000 almost to the point of being eliminated entirely (aside from some flu vaccines), and we also know the rate of autism is growing rapidly.  So if we were to simply base our opinion upon correlation, it stands to reason that the removal of thimerosal is directly responsible for the increase in autism.

By all means let me know when one of these antivaxxer groups comes out with that little hypothesis.

Another interesting tidbit at play here is the fact that this data comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). If you have spent more than five minutes researching the subjects of autism and/or vaccines you will know that antivaxxers are very skeptical of the CDC. They have accused the CDC of manipulating data, they have accused them of falsifying studies, they have accused them of being in the back pocket of "big pharma" and they have a severe distrust of anything that is published or released by the CDC.... until now apparently.

This is yet another example of how antivaxxers attempt to cherry pick data that flies in the face of their own wild and unsubstantiated theories. If you don't trust an organization, why is it ok to cite their data and treat it as fact when they have stated previously that CDC funded studies are worthless? Is that not the definition of hypocrisy?

It seems we are to the point that any new information about autism diagnosis is immediately pounced upon by the antivaxxer community, and unfortunately they appear to do so even before they understand the very data they are using as ammunition. Perhaps instead of jumping to conclusions using faulty assumptions and opinion the anti-vaccination crowd would be well served to take a step back, fully understand the data they are discussing, and perhaps begin to realize this is a much bigger issue, and a must more important issue, than they are trying to make it out to be.

It sort of makes you wonder... what might it take before an antivaxxer admits they might be wrong? What might it take before Andy Moulden, Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Mercola, Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy, Lowell Hubbs, or any of the other antivaxxers I have profiled on this website actually take a step back and admit that their fears about vaccinations may very well have been unsubstantiated all along?

Sadly - I doubt we will ever know, because if there is one thing we have shown time and time again it is that antivaxxers never admit when they are wrong... they simply practice goalpost relocation as they move on to the next unsupportable and unscientific theory.  Unfortunately for them, the curtain is slowly being pulled back to expose them for what they really are, and once you look beyond the celebrity pitchmen and magical treatments, you soon realize there is no evidence or science to support their viewpoints.  This is why, for all intents and purposes, the antivaxxer viewpoint is essentially unsustainable, because at the end of the day the evidence and science speaks for itself.

CDC: Autism Rate is Now 1 in 88

This story hit the wire late last week and of course the Autism community has been all over it - for good reason.  There is a lot of commentary coming out and unfortunately just as much speculation and fear-mongering to match.  Because of this, it is important to discuss the facts.

• According to the data, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the CDC), indicates that roughly one out of every 88 American children are considered autistic. This includes children which have a condition such as Aspergers Syndrome which is considered an autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

• This most recent report is based upon data from 2008 that was collected from 14 communities and involved a total of 337,093 eight-year-old children.  Because of this sample size and the fact the data sample is several years old, it is possible the actual national rate could be higher or lower than the rate reported.

• Reported rates vary greatly from a high of one in 47 in Utah to a low of one in 210 in Alabama.  Experts said that variation likely reflected differences in awareness of the disorder (meaning how often it is recognized and/or diagnosed) rather than any true "hot spots" of autism.  It is also important to understand these rates do not mirror vaccination rates (a bit of a preemptive strike against those who will make unsubstantiated claims pertaining to vaccines causing autism).  In fact, in some cases such as the MMR and Rotavirus vaccines, vaccination rates in Alabama are actually higher than they are in Utah.  Overall the vaccination rates between the states is not statistically significant and bears no connection to the reported rates of autism.  (Refer to Table 2, pg 1174)  Sorry antivaxxers.

• From 2002 to 2008, the largest rate increases were among Hispanic (110%) and African-American (91%) children.  Yet white children are still at greater risk for being diagnosed with autism.  For the vaccine conspiracy theorists out there (aka Lowell Hubbs and his ilk), it is also important to note that vaccination rates have not changed significantly during this time period, not to mention that there is no significant difference in vaccination rates across races.  Sorry again antivaxxers - maybe it is time you developed a new theory?

• There is no definitive test to prove whether a child has autism.  Instead, physicians make their diagnosis based upon criteria laid out in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, or DSM.  These criteria have changed with time, again prompting many to suggest the perceived increase is not a "real" increase, but rather an increased based upon better diagnosis and recognition.

• CDC Director Thomas Frieden stated that "doctors have gotten better at diagnosing the condition and communities have gotten better at providing services, so I think we can say it is possible that the increase is the result of better detection."

Regardless of your take on the matter, it does seem clear we are getting better at diagnosing autism, and overall awareness is at an all time high.  Researchers continue to focus on autism, and data like this helps to keep autism at the forefront where hopefully it can attract additional funding for research, treatments, and perhaps one day an actual cure.

As I said previously there is a lot of commentary regarding this data at the time being, and I'll be adding additional data as further analysis is performed.  There are a lot of statistics available for analysis here, so I hope those with a vested interest take their time to review everything thoroughly and within the proper context before leaping to conclusions.

The moral of the story is, even though the headline makes it appear that the number of autistic children in our nation seems to be growing rapidly, all available data seems to add credence to the opinion that this growth is merely due to increased awareness and more accurate diagnoses.  In years past a child may have been simply considered to be "unique", or "reserved".  Often they were considered "strange" or a "loner".  In some cases these children were difficult to handle or even considered to be troublemakers, and in rare cases the child was simply written off as having a mental disorder or even simply referred to as "slow".  As physicians, teachers, therapists, and parents become better at recognizing the symptoms of autism hopefully we can become better at identifying it, and with identification can come treatment.

The original article that referenced the CDC data can be found here: Yahoo Shine - CDC: Autism Rate is Now 1 in 88.