What Do We Really Know About Vaccines?

If you listen to a vaccine conspiracy theorist (aka: an antivaxxer) for long, they will eventually make a comment which resembles one of the following:

• "Vaccines have never even been studied!"
• "There is no science behind vaccines!"
• "The safety of vaccines is unknown!"
• "The efficacy of vaccines has never been proven!"
• "Nobody has ever studied vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children!"  
• "Vaccines don't work at all and aren't even based upon science!"

To that I say... Really?  I can understand someone missing a study or two, but when a five second Google search can provide over 577,000 results it seems antivaxxers are simply going out of their way to ignore what is right in front of them.

Getting more specific, if you want to know about vaccine efficacy the data is available.  If you want to know about vaccine safety the data is available.  Even if you want to know about a specific vaccine such as the Hepatitis B vaccine and you were trying to determine if there was ever a comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, that data is available.

Or perhaps you heard about the Gardasil vaccine and you are curious if the efficacy of that one specific vaccine has ever been examined, the data is available.  Even if you get more specific and are curious if the Gardasil vaccine results in an increased risk of miscarriage (spoiler alert - there is no evidence to support an increased risk) - once again the data is available.  Even if you have some strange desire to know what women in the rural South happen to think about the Gardasil vaccine even if they had never heard of it before being asked... that data is available!

So the next time you hear an antivaxxer claim vaccines have never been studied or that their safety has never been examined it would seem they are either misinformed, they are ignorant to the plethora of scientific available at our fingertips, or they are simply being dishonest.

Perhaps it is true that antivaxxers don't study vaccines, but the scientific community most certainly does.

Child Abuse and Vaccines

You might think a post entitled "Child Abuse and Vaccines" would speak about how many antivaxxers consider vaccines to be abuse and how they feel any child who is subjected to vaccines is somehow harmed.  In truth, I wish this was that type of post, but unfortunately that may have to come at another time.

Instead, this post focuses on Lowell Hubbs and his continual desire to discuss the sexual abuse of children.  This has been a frequent subject of Mr. Hubbs in the past (more than a few times), but I thought he had moved on to less upsetting subject matter.  I never intended to discuss this subject on a blog that surrounds antivaxxers and vaccine conspiracy theorists, but unfortunately Mr. Hubbs continues to somehow bring the subject back time and time again, so forgive me for veering off-topic.

I mentioned in a previous post that I have concerns about people who seem to be obsessed with children and who display a lack of meaningful relationships in their adult lives, but some information that was recently submitted here serves as evidence that Mr. Hubbs may not be exactly what he claims to be.

For instance, based upon a tip I recently visited the Facebook page of Mr. Hubbs, and I was immediately presented with a banner image of young children holding hands, running, and playing.  That in itself isn't all that significant, but then I noticed what Mr. Hubbs has listed in the Work and Education section of his profile:

Yes you are reading that correctly.  Mr. Hubbs lists himself as a "Child Videographer" for an organization which manufactures and distributes "under eighteen adult oriented imagery and video content".  In fact that specific organization was involved with the manufacture and distribution of actual child pornography.

I'm not sure what would bring someone to post that type of information, or if they think it is some sort of joke although I did note that information was found on his Facebook page for several days all the while he had been posting dozens and dozens of articles and commenting on numerous other posts, so call me skeptical at his attempts to use the old excuse of "black hat hackers" taking over his account.

Once Mr. Hubbs realized several people had commented on his work history, and once a link was provided showing the true nature of "LS Magazine" he quickly and silently removed it from his page, without so much as an explanation.

Of course Mr. Hubbs wasn't done yet.  In some vain attempt to divert attention away from himself, he immediately submitted the following images and comment to his Facebook page:

I really am not sure what is going on here, but it seems Mr. Hubbs is claiming the first image above shows a person named "Larry Eisenhour".  The truth is that image is a popular Internet meme which goes by the name of "Fat Emo".  A Google search will find dozens if not hundreds of variations of that very image, and rest assured the rather portly young man featured in the image is not named Larry Eisenhour, but is instead a teenager who is struggling with his new found Internet fame.

The second image is also a popular image online and appears at the top of the search results for "people with double chins".  I'm not sure why Mr. Hubbs would post this image and claim it is Larry Eisenhour's father, but once again claims being made by Mr. Hubbs don't appear to match reality.  At this point I'm fairly certain "Larry Eisenhour" is just another figment of Mr. Hubbs' imagination much like "Harley Manning" was in the past.

The third image posted by Mr. Hubbs is recognizable to most people above the age of 30, and is the actor Butch Patrick portraying the character Eddie Munster from the television show The Munsters.  How Mr. Hubbs thinks this is an abducted child is beyond me considering Mr. Patrick is now 59 years old and that particular image dates back from the mid 1960s.

How disconnected from reality does a person have to be to just start posting images and inventing cover stories in order to hide his own actions?  Once again Mr. Hubbs claims to have the name of someone involved in child porn and child abductions, and once again there doesn't appear to be any evidence to support his wild claims.  Once again he makes statements about hackers, but he is never able to offer any evidence that any hacking has occurred.  No police reports, no media coverage, no stories found on Google... just the words of a known conspiracy theorist who is desperately trying to deflect attention away from his own words and actions.

If there was any doubt surrounding the mental health of Mr. Hubbs or the dishonesty that surrounds so many of his claims, his own words should solidify his place as nothing more than a dishonest conspiracy theorist who seems to have an unhealthy obsession with children... and possibly 1960s sitcom stars.

I'm a big fan of "innocent until proven guilty", but I can promise you I would not entrust Mr. Hubbs with any young children.  There are simply too many red flags, too many unanswered questions, and too much evidence suggesting his continual obsession with children and his continual desire to talk about the sexual abuse of children goes far beyond a simple concern for their health and well-being.

With all of this in mind, and with clear evidence showing the blatant fabrications and dishonesty that flow out of Lowell Hubbs' mind, how can anyone trust this man to provide them with factual information pertaining to vaccines?  If a man will lie about child pornography, and if a man invents clever background stories using images he simply pulled from Google and attached names to, how can he ever be taken seriously?  Yet this is the very same man who is Facebook friends with some of the nations most infamous antivaxxers including people like Andrew Moulden and Sherri TenPenny, and the very same man who fellow antivaxxers thank for his contributions to their "cause".

Is there really any question why antivaxxers are never taken seriously and why their movement remains on the lunatic fringe?

The Obsessions of Antivaxxers

I often wonder why some antivaxxers seem to be so obsessed with posting information about vaccines.  It isn't as if it is merely a matter of sharing information or merely a hobby, but rather it appears to be what defines many of them.  I can understand when a parent feels a vaccine harmed their child that they would react to their situation.  I can also understand someone standing behind a cause and supporting it with their words and actions.  I can even understand someone devoting themselves to an action which they feel has merit.

However when someone spends the vast majority of their time each and every day on the Internet scouring anti-vaccine websites and posting comments to countless stories and articles about vaccines, and when someone essentially ignores the world around them due to their obsession it stops being about a cause and starts becoming nothing short of an obsession.

Recently, a local antivaxxer Lowell Hubbs posted the following status update to his Facebook page, and it serves as one example of what happens when someone becomes so obsessed with an issue that they essentially forget about the life around them.

Now I am not about to claim I have any idea what was going on here, but I did check the Sioux Falls Police Department Call Log and was unable to find anything that relates to Mr. Hubbs around the date he posted his update, so for all I know Mr. Hubbs is once again making up details.

I do know that the Police Department doesn't typically serve eviction notices, and they don't typically take the Fire Department along for good measure, so why Mr. Hubbs is stating they joined the Minnehaha County Sheriff (who would typically handle evictions) is beyond me.

Of course I would expect if someone was serving me with an eviction notice I might step away from the computer instead of updating my Facebook status... but to each his own I suppose.  The other question that comes to mind is why these agencies would be involved in serving just a notice.  Per SDCL 21-16-2, typically a landlord would serve the first notice of eviction, and if the resident isn't home they are allowed to post the notice at the residence, so law enforcement is not needed.  It is only when the resident refuses to leave that they bother to seek a judgement at which point the Sheriff becomes involved to force the resident to leave the property.

So the question remains - why would law enforcement visit Mr. Hubbs if it was not to serve an eviction notice?  As with most stories told by Mr. Hubbs, I'm guessing there is a lot more to this one than what he claims, and his words cannot be fully trusted.  Nevertheless, Mr. Hubbs did add a bit of detail in a follow-up Facebook posting.

Let's be clear here - I'm not accusing Mr. Hubbs of having any outstanding warrants, nor am I accusing him of any nefarious activity.  I'm not sure who Mr. Hubbs was speaking with when he posted this, but considering there weren't any other comments on his earlier post other than the one shown I suppose it is possible he was merely speaking to (or arguing with) himself.  I suspect we aren't getting the full story here, but even if it is true that Mr. Hubbs is merely being evicted I can only hope he lands on his feet and finds another residence soon (if he hasn't already).

What troubles me is that I see a pattern of behavior here that seems all too common with antivaxxers.  They seem to have no significant life outside of their time on the Internet or their time on the anti-vaccine seminar circuit.  They can't be troubled by pesky details like finding gainful employment, obtaining degrees from legitimate post-secondary institutions, completing research studies, finishing residencies, or in some cases even minor details like paying the rent.

I have also noticed a pattern where many of the most prolific and predominant non-medical antivaxxers are either stay-at-home parents, unemployed or underemployed, and/or they are on disability.  Is it simply a matter of these people having too much time on their hands, or is there a deeper connection here?  I simply cannot understand why the anti-vaccine movement seems to attract so many people who, at least on the surface, appear to suffer from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD).

Beyond the obvious symptoms of OCD, I am left wondering about the other mental health aspects of this type of behavior.  Is the obsession really about vaccines themselves or is there something else at play here?  As mentioned previously, I could understand a parent reacting to vaccines if they felt their child was harmed by them.  Even if a parent is confusing correlation and causation, I can still understand the desire to find answers and it isn't a stretch to see how they would latch on to some of the views that are central to the anti-vaccination platform.  

However, when someone who has no family and has no direct experience with vaccines suddenly and inexplicably expresses an interest in children, and when they appear to lack significant, meaningful relationships with adults in their life, and when they seem to often discuss subject matter involving physical, emotional, or sexual abuse of children I'll admit it concerns me.  In fact, if you look at common psychological profile for a child predator you find many of these exact traits.  Although this doesn't directly have any connection to vaccines, this is a subject we have discussed in the past, and based upon some information recently provided to me it appears we will be discussing it again in the near future.

Stay tuned.

Does the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Protect Vaccine Manufacturers?

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was developed in the 1980s to ensure a steady supply of vaccines were available and to prevent vaccine manufacturers from exiting the market due to rising litigation costs.  Some antivaxxers claim this was nothing more than a handout to the vaccine manufacturers because once the VICP was in place there was a higher burden of proof in order to "win" a vaccine injury lawsuit.  They also claim the VICP has allowed the vaccine manufacturers to make billions in profits with no risk since they are legally protected from vaccine injury lawsuits.

Is there any truth to these claims?  Not really.  

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), "In the early 1980s, news reports of serious side effects from the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) vaccine caused some to question the safety of the vaccine.  Parents began filing many lawsuits against vaccine companies, doctors, and nurses.  Some vaccine companies decided to stop making vaccines, which created vaccine shortages and threatened the Nation’s health.

All of these problems led a group of doctors, public health organizations, vaccine companies and private citizens to encourage Congress to enact a new law to compensate those found to be injured by childhood vaccines. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the VICP, which began on October 1, 1988."

The truth is, in many ways the VICP made it easier for people to file claims, because it isn't a requirement to be a US citizen, and in some cases a citizen who receives a vaccine outside of the US can still file a claim with the VICP.  A claim can also be filed even if a vaccine was used in an off-label manner and even if the vaccine was administered against administration recommendations.  A claim can even be filed for a vaccine which isn't even licensed in the United States.  In a traditional lawsuit prior to the VICP, many of these things would have made compensation of an injury much more difficult if not entirely impossible.

Also, assuming some very minimal requirements are met, the VICP will pay legal fees and lawyer's fees related to the claim even if the claim is ultimately denied.  Previously in civil court proceedings, if a claim was rejected, the person who filed the claim would most often be responsible for their legal fees, thus this was a huge benefit to those who have filed claims.  In some cases, the risk of having to pay excessive legal fees could serve as a barrier preventing many people from filing lawsuits surrounding their injuries.

In addition to this, the VICP does not require a person specifically prove that the vaccine caused an injury.  Although the VICP does include injury as one of the criteria, an injured person can alternatively claim that the vaccine merely made an existing injury worse.  The VICP also includes an option for an injured person to merely prove they had a symptom of an injury within a specific time period - but they do not actually need to prove that symptom was caused by the vaccine alone.  The "vaccine injury table" simplifies the process in many cases because it includes a list of conditions which are presumed to be caused by vaccines.  This isn't to say these are the only conditions that may be caused, but in many ways this is a "fast track" to simplify the process for a person who feels he or she has been injured by a vaccine.

In summary, the VICP doesn't require a higher burden of proof than would exist in a civil lawsuit, and it is actually quite the opposite.  Within the VICP, a person can claim they were injured and provided their injury is legitimate and provided they filed their claim within the required time period, they have a much easier chance of winning the case than they would have under the rules of a traditional civil lawsuit.

Also, it is very important to clear up one major misconception with the VICP.  The VICP itself does not prevent a vaccine-injured person from suing the vaccine manufacturer or even the person who administered the vaccine.  In some cases it may be necessary to file with the VICP first, but regardless of the outcome of that case a person who feels he or she was injured by a vaccine can still file a civil lawsuit against the vaccine manufacturer, healthcare system, doctor, nurse, or anyone else involved in the process.

What the VICP does is offer a streamlined process to handle vaccine injury cases.  It reduces costs for both parties and helps to reduce the costs of frivolous lawsuits from unscrupulous lawyers who would seek millions in compensation for symptoms they couldn't even link to vaccines in the hopes the vaccine manufacturer would offer to settle out of court just to make them go away.  It also earmarks funds from each vaccine ($0.75 per dose) which are held in the vaccine injury compensation trust fund and are used to compensate victims or those who file claims against the VICP.

Of course the VICP isn't perfect, but clearly it is better than forcing vaccine manufacturers out of business due to legal threats, and it helps ensure a supply of life-saving vaccines are available to anyone who wants them.  One major issue with the VICP might just be how easily some lawyers have taken advantage of the "pay no matter the outcome" design of the VICP.  

For example, many lawyers specialize in "vaccine injury" cases because they understand whether the client wins or loses in court, the lawyer's fees will still be paid by the VICP.  In these cases, there is zero risk to the lawyer because he or she knows their fees will be covered.  This isn't like a civil lawsuit where if the claimant loses the case there will be no money to pay for legal fees... so in essence this is a guarantee for the lawyers.

In fact, since the original claims were filed in the late 80s, $2.3 Billion has been paid to the claimants themselves, but over $91.5 Billion has been paid to cover attorney's fees and other legal costs.  Thus for every dollar coming out of the VICP, only 2.5 cents goes to the actual "injured" party, while 97.5 cents goes to lawyers and to fees.  Perhaps even more interesting is for the VICP claims that were denied, over $49.6 Billion has been paid to cover attorney's fees and other legal costs.  This is $49.6 Billion that most likely would have never been paid under the rules of a traditional civil case.

As you can see even when the lawyers lose... they actually win.  It seems that if the VICP is a handout to anyone... it isn't the vaccine manufacturers - it is trial lawyers.

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)

What You Need to Know About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)

Health Resources and Services Administration Vaccine Injury Table

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.

The Vaccine Song

A recent comment added to the blog by "Dakota James" provided a link to the Vaccine Song.  Not only is the song rather entertaining (and the graphics are great as well), but the website also includes several useful links to other websites of interest, many of which have been mentioned here before.

Check it out - http://thevaccinesong.org/

Is Lowell Hubbs' "Vacfacts.info" Anti-Vaccination Website Gone?

You may recall back in June 2011 that Lowell Hubbs' personal website "lowellsfacts.com" was taken down.  At the time it appeared it was a takedown notice from ICE - Homeland Security, but Mr. Hubbs later claimed it was merely a prank instigated by hackers.

Soon thereafter, Mr. Hubbs started a new website and the old "lowellsfacts.com" website was never active again.  The new website is ironically called vacfacts.info and was essentially a dumping ground for anything and everything that Hubbs collected from his hours on various anti-vaccination websites.  Think of it as a place where someone would paste paragraphs of random vaccine conspiracy theories, links to antivaxxer websites, images, YouTube videos, and piles of other antivaxxer nonsense in no particular order which made it entirely useless to anyone other than Hubbs himself - and you pretty much have an idea of what the website is (or perhaps was).

So fast forward to present day and once again Mr. Hubbs appears to be having difficulties with his website.  If you try to visit the website today, this is what you see:

Click to see full size image

I would guess this is simply a matter of Mr. Hubbs failing to pay his annual fee for hosting his website, but who really knows.  Even though it appears entirely harmless, something tells me we will be hearing a myriad of excuses and conspiracy theories from Hubbs as he claims "black hat hackers" were responsible for his website disappearing.

Oh well - at least he still has Facebook!

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.

Star Tribune: Vaccination Fears Are Only Upping Danger

This is a great article written by Annette Meeks who is the CEO of the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota.  It was published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune and surrounds the subject of how misinformation has resulted in increased risk of vaccination-preventable diseases.

Minnesota has experienced several outbreaks of vaccine preventable disease in the past few years.  As the article mentions, in 2011 Minnesota had the largest outbreak of measles in the entire nation which resulted in 14 children being hospitalized, but thankfully there were no deaths as a result.  Minnesota has also recently experienced a surge in the number of cases of Pertussis, due in no small part to the number of children who have not received their complete dosage of vaccinations.

The article is a good read, and it serves as a reminder how previously generations had to deal with diseases such as smallpox and polio and how vaccines were seen as life-saving miracles.  Although we are grateful that children today don't need to fear these diseases, many parents who grew up without the fear associated with a disease such as polio may not completely understand the many benefits of vaccines, and due to the ignorance surrounding vaccines, and the misinformation spread by anti-vaccinationists, Internet-educated "experts", and celebrities who have spent more time posing for topless photos than they have time in a laboratory or classroom, we are now seeing first hand some of the effects.

Full Article Here: Vaccination Fears Are Only Upping Danger