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

SBM: Dr. Google and Mr. Hyde

Science Based Medicine has a great post about how the Internet has drastically changed the availability of medical information.  We know the Internet has made it much easier for people to research medical issues and it is often an invaluable tool to help people learn about symptoms, treatments, or root causes of disease just as it can be a tool to help research potential side effects or interactions from medications.

However for all the good the Internet has brought us, it has also brought the bad along for the ride.  Cranks and Quacks have been dumping their nonsense on the Internet for years, and even people with zero medical training whatsoever, no post-secondary education, and no experience in any medical facility, research center, or even so much as time as a cashier at a Walgreens have the ability to create their own websites,  pack them full of "medical" information, and then run around citing those websites as sources when they make wild claims.

We've seen this pattern from our very own Lowell Hubbs.  Not only has Mr. Hubbs created multiple blogs and websites which he has pasted information of varying degrees of credibility to, but he will also routinely cite his own websites as he attempts to provide evidence of his wild claims.

The blog post also discusses a study performed by Anna Kata which discusses vaccine misinformation on the Internet. There is a lot of great background there which I won't bother repeating here other than to say that Kata does a great job of identifying the patterns and tropes that the antivaxxers have come to rely upon.

However, what I found most interesting in the post was the discussion surrounding the term "research". As Dr. David Gorski says in the post: "[t]o become a real expert in a field requires paying dues that go beyond doing some searches on Google and finding studies that confirm your preexisting beliefs".

Real research isn't done by someone sitting in a dimly lit room performing random Google searches and gleaning information from websites which may or may not have any legitimacy behind them. All too often when I see antivaxxers start discussing vaccines, they soon refer to their "research" which is presented as a laundry list of links to various antivaxxer websites, blogs, or forums.

This is not real research.  Real research is performed in labs and universities and research centers.  Real research involves people with the requisite skills and knowledge to understand data they are reviewing.  Real research requires someone of an intellectual capacity to discern meaningless nonsense from legitimate science, and real research involves at the very least a knowledge of what separates a legitimate study from an editorial or opinion.  Real research involves performing actual work and drawing conclusions that haven't been drawn before based upon knowledge.  It is not simply a matter of repeating what someone else has already said with no context or analysis of it.  As Dr. Gorski states:

"It’s also a matter of context and quality control. Advanced training in science is not so much about learning a body of information, although that is certainly important. It is far more about learning the scientific method, learning how to do science. It involves learning to learn, how to do research, how to evaluate the quality of research, and, most importantly, how to put the results of new studies into the context of existing knowledge. There’s a reason it takes many years to learn these skills; they’re difficult and require a lot of work to acquire. There is no shortcut, either, not even the University of Google."

Perhaps this is why when I see someone brag about their education being from the "University of Google" I can't help but laugh because these people are putting their own ignorance on display and they don't even have the capacity to recognize it.  It is as if they show up to the Olympic Swimming Trials hoping to be given a chance to compete because a few weeks ago they received a swimming certificate from their local YWCA.  I don't know if I should openly mock such behavior, or whether I should feel a certain sense of empathy towards those who quite obviously don't know any better.

Either way, the post by Dr. Gorski once again serves as evidence as to how those with a science-based view of medicine will always remain several steps ahead of those who choose to ignore science and instead focus upon beliefs or opinions.  I recommend you take a few minutes to review the post in its entirely over at the SBM website:

Science-Based Medicine: Dr. Google and Mr. Hyde

HPV DNA in Gardasil: The Wild and Unsubstantiated Claims of the Intellectually Challenged

Quoth the anti-vaccine group SANE Vax: Beware HPV DNA in Gardasil!

Recently Mr. Hubbs has felt the need to jump on yet another anti-vaccine bandwagon after reading some random article on one of his many favorite anti-vaccination websites. Unfortunately for Mr. Hubbs, he has fallen into the same old trap of not actually understanding what he is reading before jumping to conclusions (or rather before allowing the authors of the articles he is reading to jump to conclusions at which point he merely accepts what they have written at face value because he lacks the scientific understanding to question them).

So it was no surprise that Mr. Hubbs would start adding comments to this blog about how some random antivaxxer website commissioned some research and found HPV DNA in the Gardasil vaccine. In fact, when I read about this "story" several weeks ago, I predicted that Mr. Hubbs would be jumping on this bandwagon... and he has failed to disappoint.

Now I could go into great detail to explain how these claims are unsupported or how the science hasn't even been validated. I could also go into detail about how the methodology used to "find" this DNA hasn't even been made public or how the results have not been replicated by any other reputable (or even non-reputable) agency. I could even go into great detail explaining how Sane Vax relied upon polymerase chain reaction to produce their results which effectively amplifies a single piece of DNA to levels it could actually be measurable... in fact it can be used to manipulate results if a scientist so desires at which points the results themselves are at best suspect, and at worse nothing short of fraudulent.

The thing is, I really don't need to go into great detail about any of these things, because Dr. David Gorski over at Science-Based Medicine already has.  I should warn Mr. Hubbs however that Dr. Gorski goes into great detail to explain the flaws in Sane Vax's methodology and he incorporates detailed explanations using technical terms and references to scientific processes... so it is clear Mr. Hubbs won't understand at least 80% of what he reads.

In any case there are a few key points to take from this.  As the SBM post states:

"First of all, one notes that there is not a single scientific paper–or even scientific report–describing the methodology used and the specific tests used."

If a researcher isn't willing to disclose even the most basic information which would allow others to replicate his or her results they are either trying to hide something (fraud) or they know there are gaping holes in said methodology (still fraud).

Sane Vax tries to blame this on "proprietary" processes, but you don't need proprietary processes to detect DNA contamination!  In fact, using anything other than industry approved methods calls the results into question, which is most likely why Sane Vax doesn't want to reveal their methodology.

SMB Continues:

"Worse, in the SANE Vax letter to the FDA, SANE Vax demands assurances that the FDA will protect Dr. Lee’s proprietary methodology before it will provide the FDA with its results. The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty are staggering. More importantly, without SANE Vax’s alleged results being available to the FDA and independent scientists to examine, all we have to support the claim that there is recombinant DNA in the HPV vaccine is the word of an anti-vaccine group."

That paragraph pretty much sums up the game that Sane Vax is trying to play here.  They can put out a fancy press release and they can filter their idiocy across the land of anti-vaxxer websites, but in the end none of the results have been replicated or validated.  In fact, Sane Vax won't even provide the results to the FDA... which once again proves they have something to hide.  If they honestly felt there was something within the Gardasil vaccine that was harmful, don't you think they would be willing to provide their data to the FDA immediately?

I haven't smelled anything this fishy since I was in the Fulton Fish Market.  Unfortunately, we already know that these gaping holes are simply ignored by antivaxxers like Mr. Hubbs because once again they turn a blind eye to science when they feel it benefits their case.  Yet again antivaxxers push forth statements without complete understanding of what they mean, and once again they invent more and more excuses on why this data is valid even before a single result has been verified.

The ignorance of the antivaxxer community is astounding, but the intellectual dishonesty is downright disgusting.  That is never more evident than it is when Lowell Hubbs decides to comment on a "new development" as we have here.  To think this man feels he is some type of an expert when he doesn't even understand the most basic scientific processes is downright comical. 

Unfortunately, his ignorance and ineptitude are anything but a laughing matter, because unsubstantiated statements such as those Mr. Hubbs has made recently can be downright dangerous.

Nine Questions, Nine Answers.

Science Based Medicine: Nine Questions, Nine Answers.

If you spend more than a few minutes discussing vaccines and the mythical link between vaccines and autism or merely just the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in general, Lowell Hubbs will soon cut and paste the "9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims.” by David Mihalovic diatribe time and time again.

Even though each of those nine questions has been thoroughly addressed and more holes shot through them that can be found in the average screen door, Mr. Hubbs continues to re-paste his nine questions garbage while refusing to acknowledge the responses because like most anti-vaxers, Mr. Hubbs isn't capable of actually interpreting scientific responses or statements based in fact.  Instead, the only thing Mr. Hubbs can do is cut and paste information from anti-vaxer websites, and since they don't publish the responses to these nine questions, Mr. Hubbs is left with nothing else to say about the matter.

Because of this, I felt it was only fitting that I supply a well written scientifically supported response to each of these nine questions - all in one place - which ends the debate once and for all.  This response was written by a REAL medical doctor with over 30 years of experience and research and it was reviewed by several other REAL doctors as well.

The funny thing is, even though Dr. Crislip addressed every one of those nine questions, Mr. Mihalovic was never able to respond even though these answers were shared with him and his fellow anti-vaxer friends.  The only response they could come up with is that they would like to debate the issue on an Internet netcam with two people representing each side, but responding with a request for an open debate is an old trick and serves no legitimate purpose.  Holding such a debate would suggest scientific fact is open to debate in the first place - rest assured it is not.  Scientific fact is scientific fact like it or not, and no amount of clever trickery is going to dodge that very central point.

As Dr. David Gorski so accurately stated in reference to the idea of debating a scientific issue with an anti-vaxer or other person with a non-scientific and unsupportable viewpoint: "[t]here have to be two scientifically supportable positions. The anti-vaccine position is not scientifically supportable."

I urge anyone with an interest in the subject of vaccinations to read Dr. Crislip's original post, the comments in response to it, as well as the follow-up post by Dr. Gorski which displays the typical avoidance tactics used by the anti-vaxers when real science is presented to them.

It is a long read, but without question it puts to bed this entire "nine questions" silliness once and for all.  I guess Mr. Hubbs will need to find something else to cut and paste immediately before he (inaccurately) claims victory.