Confused, angry parents push junk science vaccine/autism link

[bascule]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/06/11/autism.vaccines.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

While the nature of autism is not well understood, most current research points to a combination of genetic causes.

 

While I can't question their devotion to their children, these parents are blinded by a correlation implies causation fallacy (the time of the onset of symptoms and when the vaccine was administered) with absolutely no scientific backing.

[John Cuthber]

What's that still doing in the news?

It should have been dead and buried ages ago.

 

http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/M/mmr/index.html

 

I understand that about a zillion subsequent studies have found

1 there is no statistical link; if there is an effect it is very small.

2 The rise in autism rates predates the use of the MMR vaccine- it would have had to go backwards in time to be responsible.

3 Dr Wakefield has a patent on a rival product.

 

The word "exploitation" springs to mind here.

[swansont]

I got spammed about the vaccine link by a friend of mine who is a nurse, and I think she ought to know better. It's even a fallacy to state that the rates of autism are increasing, unless you have accounted for people being more aware and doing a better job of diagnosing than they used to.

[ecoli]

I got spammed about the vaccine link by a friend of mine who is a nurse, and I think she ought to know better. It's even a fallacy to state that the rates of autism are increasing, unless you have accounted for people being more aware and doing a better job of diagnosing than they used to.

 

As well as an expanding definition of what autism is, in the first place.

[John Cuthber]

Oops!

Sorry. You are quite right. What I should have said was that the reported rate of autism rose first.

[armygas]

I got spammed about the vaccine link by a friend of mine who is a nurse, and I think she ought to know better. It's even a fallacy to state that the rates of autism are increasing, unless you have accounted for people being more aware and doing a better job of diagnosing than they used to.

I would respectfully disagree with you, if the rise was linear than I would say you are correct however it has been exponential over the last 20 years and if the trend continues, 1 in 5 children will be affected by the year 2051. A recent study looked at the environmental genome database and found at least 135 possible genetic links with over 5300 genetic loci and this study was in a very high impact factor journal.

 

Also, why would NIH put so much effort towards this disorder if they did not feel it was truly on the rise?

[armygas]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/06/11/autism.vaccines.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

While the nature of autism is not well understood, most current research points to a combination of genetic causes.

 

While I can't question their devotion to their children, these parents are blinded by a correlation implies causation fallacy (the time of the onset of symptoms and when the vaccine was administered) with absolutely no scientific backing.

 

There are several epigenetic influences that are being discovered as well.

[Pangloss]

I'm under the impression that the "rise" is actually due to an increase in detection capability. The science is better, and it's politically correct to shout "autism!" every time a child stumbles over the word "onomonapoeia". ("Ow! Stop that!")

 

But I'm keeping an open mind about it, mainly because I just haven't had time to read up on it yet.

[Paralith]

Also, why would NIH put so much effort towards this disorder if they did not feel it was truly on the rise?

 

NIH puts a lot of effort into researching a lot of diseases, not just because they are on the rise, but because they can be devastating to the people who have them. And I'd imagine that if you look at many other complex genetic disorders, that they also appear to be "on the rise" due to increased awareness.

[swansont]

I would respectfully disagree with you, if the rise was linear than I would say you are correct however it has been exponential over the last 20 years and if the trend continues, 1 in 5 children will be affected by the year 2051. A recent study looked at the environmental genome database and found at least 135 possible genetic links with over 5300 genetic loci and this study was in a very high impact factor journal.

 

Also, why would NIH put so much effort towards this disorder if they did not feel it was truly on the rise?

 

 

I don't see why my observation requires a linear increase, and to follow that, I would ask: linear in what variable? Number of cases, or rate? You expect the number of cases to increase with population, if all other factors are constant. Do you have a link showing the increases? The only one I saw in a quich search showed that the trend is flattening in California. And note that "reported cases of autism" is not the same as "number of people with autism," the latter of which would include undiagnosed people.

 

NIH might put additinal effort toward a problem that is more widespread than they originally thought. Something along the lines "OMG, this is affecting N times as meany people as we originally thought. We need to do more" Which does not require any increase in the rate of incidence, only in the rate (i.e. efficiency) of diagnosis.

[MolotovCocktail]

I've been keeping up on all of this. What scares me about all of this is the fact that the government and the media is willing to listen more to paranoia than to reason, especially since Mercury Poisoning is a myth. Here is a link to the parent site which includes medical or psychological conditions that people exploit. I checked the sources and I'm telling you some of the medical quackery being spread is very creepy. http://www.quackwatch.org/

 

Yeah, pretty much this whole "autism epidemic" (fine choice of words by the media) is all paranoia, and many organizations and groups have jumped on to exploit it, such as CAN, DAN, and all the rest (How I hate these groups so much). Sorry if the post has some emotion attached to it, its just that I have autism and I'm really annoyed and angry at the fact that there are irresponsible people out there who would spread, or buy into, this nonsense. The same goes for people who promote an image of autism that isn't necessarily true, and this includes Temple Grandin (However positively she portrays autism, she also tends to stereotype it, and made some very questionable claims about Albert Einstein).

[Pangloss]

Mercury poisoning is a myth? Or do you mean just its presumed impact on autism?

[MolotovCocktail]

Mercury poisoning is a myth? Or do you mean just its presumed impact on autism?

 

Its presumed impact on autism. Sorry, I should have been more clear . The symptoms of Mercury Poisoning are distinct from those of autism in any case.

[CPL.Luke]

hmm you do realise that that doctor was focusing primarily on "alernative" autism treatments, not mainstream autism treatments and science.

[SkepticLance]

Another contributing problem is that of definition of psychological illness. The list of such illnesses increase every year. While autism is real, and very devastating to many people, it is also rather probable that many so-called psychological illnesses, including some mild forms of autism, are simply one end of the normal distribution curve.

 

The number of people with such ills increase every year by definition change, not by fact.

[MolotovCocktail]

hmm you do realise that that doctor was focusing primarily on "alernative" autism treatments, not mainstream autism treatments and science.

 

He was talking about his experience with it, and the reason I chose that article because his actions were based on the mistaken belief that Mercury Poisoning was the cause. He then goes on to tell you in the end that it is total crap. He calls them "alternative" because these treatments aren't, as you said, mainstream or proven.

 

Another contributing problem is that of definition of psychological illness. The list of such illnesses increase every year. While autism is real' date=' and very devastating to many people, it is also rather probable that many so-called psychological illnesses, including some mild forms of autism, are simply one end of the normal distribution curve.

 

The number of people with such ills increase every year by definition change, not by fact.

[/quote']

 

Yeah, this is somewhat true. This is much more problematic in diagnosing ADD and ADHD though.

 

As far as I know, the type of autism that has actually devastated people is usually the ones at the lowest end of the spectrum, primarily since they tend have little to no language capabilities and may have severe physical handicaps. Other people who weren't treated properly can suffer from depression. Most people with autism can live normal lives provided they have the right treatments and interventions.

[swansont]

I've been keeping up on all of this. What scares me about all of this is the fact that the government and the media is willing to listen more to paranoia than to reason, especially since Mercury Poisoning is a myth.

 

A decent story demonstrating why anecdotes aren't evidence, and how the fallacies of post hoc, ergo propter hoc and correlation vs causality can manifest themselves. The complexity of human health seems to make it quite prone to those errors.

[1veedo]

Another contributing problem is that of definition of psychological illness. The list of such illnesses increase every year. While autism is real, and very devastating to many people, it is also rather probable that many so-called psychological illnesses, including some mild forms of autism, are simply one end of the normal distribution curve.

 

The number of people with such ills increase every year by definition change, not by fact.

Three people have commented here that rising autism rates are because we're just "finding" more people with autism, not because more people are actually born with autism. This seems to be more of a myth then anything else. Although we are better at diagnosing people with autism, according to experts, this cannot explain the increasing rates by any significant extent.

 

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/newsroom/study_final.pdf

 

"There is no evidence that a loosening in the diagnostic criteria has

contributed to increased number of autism clients served by the Regional Centers...

Without evidence for an artificial increase in autism cases, we conclude that some, if not all, of the observed increase represents a true increase in cases of autism in California, and the number of cases presenting to the Regional Center system is not an overestimation of the number of children with autism in California." They also say that rise in the state's population can explain only "a small portion."

 

It's not like there's some sort of "epidemic" though, just rising autism rates, and I don't think it's much to worry about.

[MolotovCocktail]

Here is an article about the suspected causes of autism, and it talks a little about mercury poisoning, which has long since been discredited.

 

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/autism/page2_em.htm#Autism%20Causes

 

Also, this is the list of symptoms of mercury poisoning compared with Autism, which one reason why its regarded as a myth:

 

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002476.htm

 

and

 

http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/autism/autism.html

 

and a list of disorders that mimic it:

 

http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/autism/pddinfo.html#mimic

 

I understand that my previous link may have been a bit ambiguous or confusing. Hope this clears up. In the vast majority of studies, there has been no link established between Thimerosal (Which contains mercury), and autism.

[John Cuthber]

The true rate of autism (whatever that means) may be rising or it may be steady- it may even be falling.

The reported rate is definitely rising.

For the NIH and its equivalents round the world to ignore the rise in reported cases would be negligent; it falls to them to try to establish what the rise is due to.

If it better diagnosis then we should rejoice; Autism isn't the easiest disease to treat but the first step is certainly to diagnose it.

If there is a real rise in the rate of the disease then we need to know about it. If nothing else it would, in the long term, have an effect on healthcare spending. More importantly if it becomes more common then there is a greater need for research into the disease. We need to know what causes it and we need to know what we can do about it.

 

The utter bollocks that was talked about measles and mercury does nothing to help those who are affected by the problem. It offers false hope to their families and it fills the pockets of those who, at the most charitable interpretation, have deluded themselves. Worse, it does this at the expense of real research into a real problem.

Don't get me wrong, I know that sometimes you have to consider weird theories in order to find the true cause of things. H pylori and its role in ulcers is the classic example. The point is that the research should be judged in a scientific forum, not in court or (God help us) in the media.

Distraught parents are not usually well placed to make judgements on such things. We really shouldn't let them get involved in that aspect of the work.

[1veedo]

The true rate of autism (whatever that means) may be rising or it may be steady- it may even be falling.

The reported rate is definitely rising.

For the NIH and its equivalents round the world to ignore the rise in reported cases would be negligent; it falls to them to try to establish what the rise is due to.

If it better diagnosis then we should rejoice; Autism isn't the easiest disease to treat but the first step is certainly to diagnose it.

If there is a real rise in the rate of the disease then we need to know about it.

To which I would refer you to post #18 of this thread posted by 1veedo. Apparently autism rates are rising and this is not because of better diagnosis -- so there's no need for you to be rejoicing. Specifically, according to the post,

Three people have commented here that rising autism rates are because we're just "finding" more people with autism, not because more people are actually born with autism. This seems to be more of a myth then anything else. Although we are better at diagnosing people with autism, according to experts, this cannot explain the increasing rates by any significant extent.

 

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/newsroom/study_final.pdf

 

"There is no evidence that a loosening in the diagnostic criteria has

contributed to increased number of autism clients served by the Regional Centers...

Without evidence for an artificial increase in autism cases, we conclude that some, if not all, of the observed increase represents a true increase in cases of autism in California, and the number of cases presenting to the Regional Center system is not an overestimation of the number of children with autism in California." They also say that rise in the state's population can explain only "a small portion."

 

It's not like there's some sort of "epidemic" though, just rising autism rates, and I don't think it's much to worry about.

(bold emphasis added)

[Pangloss]

Distraught parents are not usually well placed to make judgements on such things. We really shouldn't let them get involved in that aspect of the work.

 

Agreed. But involved they very much are. The tragic truth is that we live in a world where what matters is not the improvement of lives of millions of children, but rather the trials and travails of Jane Doe of Springfield, single working mother of three.

[John Cuthber]

The point I was making was that whatever the cause; real or related to diagnostic criteria, there is a pressing neeed to do the research to check which it is. The idea the the NIH were looking into autism therefore there must be a link as expressed here "Also, why would NIH put so much effort towards this disorder if they did not feel it was truly on the rise?" is the idea I was trying to question.

 

The other point being that the reported rise (whether it's different reporting or a higher true incidence) predated the use of the vaccine.

That's a killer point against the "vaccine causes autism" argument. Whatever the cause may be, it could never have been a vaccine that hadn't been used yet.

[1veedo]

The point I was making was that whatever the cause; real or related to diagnostic criteria' date=' there is a pressing neeed to do the research to check which it is

...

(whether it's different reporting or a higher true incidence)[/quote']Well getting more to the point, the rise in autism is real and unrelated to diagnostic criteria.

[swansont]

Agreed. But involved they very much are. The tragic truth is that we live in a world where what matters is not the improvement of lives of millions of children, but rather the trials and travails of Jane Doe of Springfield, single working mother of three.

 

But not involved in the scientific process. Asking Jane Doe why she thinks her child is autistic (which was part of the UCD survey) will not yield scientific results for anything other than judging perceptions held by parents of autistic children.