Dan;
I have thought on the statement you made in the article about mitochondria 1 out of 50.

"The only good news is maybe we have reached the natural upward limit of autism."

So this mitocondrial thing is a gentic thing - Hannah's mother had it and Hannah had it.
I think Hannah's mother a nurse had it alright- she got it from the vaccines she took in nursing school.

Remember 1 out of 38 in South Korea.

I know government seems to be clueless and slow but this is just beyond reason!

According to the CDC website, they do not refuse a link btwn vaccines and autism. Under Risks and Causes...

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html

•There is some evidence that the critical period for developing ASDs occurs before birth. However, concerns about vaccines and infections have led researchers to consider risk factors before and after birth.

Susan Cluett

These links might assist you:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/12/poul-thorsen-called-industry-scumbag-scientist-and-mercury-shill.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/03/marie-mccormick-public-healths-protection-racket.html

The fact that this piece of junk got released on the afternoon of Good Friday speaks volumes. And who ever said that ASD kids got more shots than non-ASD kids?

Also, never have I heard anyone say "it's too many antigens" - Heavy metals, adjuvants, endocrine disruptors, MSG, human fetal DNA fragments, yes. but never "antigens"

I am embarrassed for the CDC and their lap dogs in the media.

Greg, no one at Orac's blog has even mentioned it including Orac- I was wondering if he would be waxing on about what a great and proper study it is but nothing so far.

I am also for a petition to fire Dawson!!

I'm going to do a study. I have ten peanuts. I give five peanuts to Child A and five peanuts to Child B. Child A eats her five peanuts and is fine. Child B eats his five peanuts and has a severe allergic reaction. Conclusion: The two children ate the same number of peanuts so there is nothing wrong with the peanuts

Guys and Girls,

I have read and reread the study and they conspicuously left out reporting how many total does of vaccines the two groups received. Why??? They are comparing antigens, not doses! We are the ones saying the two groups received the same doses but nothing in the study explicitly states this. Could this study that is intended to shoot us down, simply support our claim that more vaccines do result in more autism?

Elizabeth,

Yes, they are indeed releasing this study to coincide with World Autism Awareness. Still, it was not done yesterday and they chose to have it sit for a while. Why? I am feeling that this study is extremely suspect on the grounds that I mentioned.

Greg

Ok Guys,

We all agree that this study leaves a lot to be desired. But, I think we can learn from what it does not say. They confirmed they counted antigens in vaccines. The CNN's report of the study also said that they counted the total number of vaccines, yet CBS's report downplayed this saying that number of vaccines are unimportant since individual vaccines contain different antigen amounts. The graphs in the actual study also did not specify how many total vaccines the different groups received. I don't know if I am understanding things incorrectly, or is it possible that the different groups overall received different amounts of total vaccines? Could someone please let me know? If this is the case then this is definitely a red herring. Less vaccines may not equal less antigens but it definitely correlates to less adjuvants.

Greg

Autism Speaks needs to fire Geraldine Dawson. As a child psychologist at the University of Washington, she was a warm and fuzzy type, then she jumped on the Autism band-wagon when she saw that where the money (because of the increased number of kids). She knows the truth!! Two UW microbiologist and/or doctors wrote an interest editorial in the Seattle Times about "lying"....including politicians, Lance Armstrong, etc...and autism. There was not any statement about autism, just included with the lying part. They know it was thimerosal in combination with the virus and damage to the biological systems of people. I knew when they hired Geraldine Dawson that she would be where the money was. She already was known for that in Seattle. She felt sorry for the school districts, not the kids with autism. She could have helped the school district start programs for autism.

FYI On Huff Po today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/do-vaccines-cause-
autism_n_2979244.html

To illustrate the stupidity of even conducting this study, say we change the study's subject matter but nothing else...

Imagine reading this news release...

-- Phillip Morris released a new study today debunking the belief that cigarettes cause lung cancer. The study selected 1000 people who have smoked a pack of Marlboro a day for 40 years. They lived in the same area of the country and had similar low risk employment. Of these 1,000 participants, 250 had developed some form of lung cancer, but 750 had not.

Phillip Morris says that this is "obviously and conclusive proof that cigarette smoking does not - and never has - caused lung cancer."

Anyone want to guess the press reaction to that equally ignorant study?

I think it's also important to highlight the whopper of a lie, told by Geraldine Dawson, about the study conclusion.

STUDY CONCLUSION: "It can be argued that ASD with regression, in which children usually lose developmental skills during the second year of life, could be related to exposures in infancy, including vaccines; however, we found no association between exposure to antigens from vaccines during infancy and the development of ASD with regression."

Geraldine Dawson's conclusion: "This study shows definitively that there is no connection between the number of vaccines that children receive in childhood, or the number of vaccines that children receive in one day, and autism.”

You can go to the actual study (screen shot it, everyone, please, I'm sure that they will change it as soon as they see that we actually read their studies!) here: http://www.jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf

And even beyond that horrible, horrible lie, there are serious flaws.

There is the issue of their "control group;" you know, the one they picked to have the same number of reported autism SYMPTOMS as their test group, even if they didn't have the same number of official autism DIAGNOSES.

There's the usual garbage we have come to expect from Offit's disciples, about how they were testing whether all ANTIGENS in the vaccines were what caused autism. Oh, and they even made a point of thanking Offit, so he was clearly involved in this study.

But then, there are a couple of surprising admissions.

"How evidence of early neurodevelopmental delays would have affected our results is not clear; it might have resulted in lower vaccination levels if parents were concerned about vaccinating their children, or possibly higher vaccination levels through more frequent contact with the healthcare system." Too bad it didn't occur to them to look at the nonvaxed population; then they could have seen that the rate of early neurodevelopmental delays is lower in unvaxed populations.

But they ADMITTED in the conclusion that regressive autism could be related to vaccines:
"It can be argued that ASD with regression, in which children usually lose developmental skills during the second year of life, could be related to exposures in infancy, including vaccines."

Funny how Dawson translates that to: "definitively no connection."

Got that?

Study conclusion: "ASD with regression...could be related to exposures in infancy, INCLUDING VACCINES." (caps mine)

Dawson conclusion (referring directly to the above study): "this study shows that...there is no connection."

I'll say it again:

if any Autism Speaks parents are reading this, I hope you take your Chief Scientific Officer to task for telling such a horrible, horrible lie. If any parent vaccinates their child on schedule because of that lie, both Geraldine Dawson and Autism Speaks are responsible for any adverse vaccine reaction suffered by that child, AND SO IS ANY AUTISM SPEAKS PARENT, FOR STANDING AROUND AND LETTING THE LIE CONTINUE.

What is Katie Wright doing these days? Is she still part of Autism Speaks? Why isn't she in charge of an organization that EFFECTIVELY advocates for our kids?

Autism Speaks has joined the ranks of "branding for a cause" the way that the Susan G. Komen breast cancer industry does. They give people seemingly easy ways to contribute to the cause. Problem is, as with breast cancer, the money goes back to corporate expenses (like those top-heavy exec. salaries) and very little goes to research and helping people with autism. The corporations that affiliate themselves with these causes also see more benefit to themselves than to the targeted cause.

Here, the industrial scientists misuse the definition of the word “control children.” Normally a “control” group is the group not exposed to the potential cause of an effect under investigation. In this case the “control children” are the children reported with no effects by the industrial scientists after exposure to the potential cause(s). See http://www.jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf

So the study compared exposure groups of children to exposure groups of children. But it did not compare zero exposure groups of children to exposure groups of children.

Thalidomide was defended by industrial scientists with this approach using an absence of real control children. This is what Sjostrom and Nilsson wrote over 40 years ago about the deceit in that approach:

“Every biologist knows that within a group of living organisms there is always an individual variation in the sensitivity towards, for example, a poison or a drug. Because of natural biological variation some individuals are affected more than others and some are perhaps not affected at all. If about 0.5 milligrams of strychnine is given by intraperitoneal injection to a certain strain of rats, approximately 50 per cent of the animals will die. The fact that the other 50 per cent survive cannot, of course, be taken as evidence against a causal relation between the intake of strychnine and death in rats.” Sjostrom and Nilsson, “Thalidomide and the Power of the Drug Companies,” (1972) p.162.

As Sarah quoted below the CDC acknowledges that not biological systems are alike. So where is the study with real control children? Autism Speaks, where are the millions of dollars in research being spent?

First do no harm. Here you are - Dawson's letter to NVAC:

1. “In the past several years, the prevalence of ASD has increased dramatically, underscoring the potential role of environmental factors in its etiology.”

2. “Recent studies point to a key role of the immune system in the biology of ASD, raising questions about the effects of the significant immune challenges associated with vaccinations, particularly when delivered in combination and early in life.”

3. “We believe that the question of whether immunization is associated with an increased risk for ASD is of extremely high priority.”

4. “Still other studies point toward subgroups of children with ASD with genetic vulnerabilities than can amplify the adverse effects of environmental exposures, including vaccinations, on brain development and function”

5. “There is a need to describe the nature and prevalence of vaccine adverse events in children with metabolic disorders and assess risk factors for these events.”

6. “As mentioned in the draft scientific agenda, many key questions have not yet been adequately addressed. Many of the studies to date have relied on data from the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS). While this system has clear strengths such as its broad coverage, it nevertheless has substantial limitations (Ellenberg and Braun, Drug Safety, 2002). Because the system relies on passive self‐report, a major limitation is under‐ reporting such that only a small fraction of adverse events are reported. Furthermore, events that occur weeks following vaccination are less likely to be reported than those that are proximal to the vaccination.”

7. “Many fundamental questions have not been addressed, such as whether the use of combination vaccines confers increased risk for adverse events and whether there are subgroups in the general population that are more vulnerable to serious adverse effects of vaccines, including ASD.”

8. “Research has shown that children with metabolic disorders, including mitochondrial disorders, may experience neurological decline when physiologically challenged. There have been reports of metabolic crisis after receiving vaccinations”

9. “As noted in the draft agenda, preliminary results from a VSD study underway found that children aged 12‐23 months who received MMRV vaccine were about 2 times more likely to have febrile seizures during the 7‐10 days after vaccination than children who received separate MMR and varicella vaccines at the same visit (CDC MMWR, 2008). In a population‐based study, there has been a report of an increased risk for ASD after infantile seizures during the first year of life”

10. “Studies that can address the current questions raised by parents are feasible. Clinical studies of individuals with ASD can address whether certain metabolic conditions associated with ASD are correlated with increased risk for serious adverse effects. Case‐control studies and randomized clinical trials can be conducted to address whether there are differences in adverse effects associated with a combination vaccine versus individually administered components”

11. “Fever after vaccination is common and can induce seizures in vulnerable children”

12. “For example, a recent study identified mutation in a sodium channel gene in children who developed encephalopathy after pertussis vaccines, suggesting that genetic factors may influence the risk for neurological deterioration after vaccination” 13. “Children with metabolic diseases are at higher risk of health complications from diseases that are prevented by immunizations”

14. “Such research could have wide‐ranging effects on clinical practice/vaccination policy. For example, it could allow pediatricians to identify subgroups of children who may benefit from a different vaccine schedule or for whom careful monitoring of adverse effects is warranted.”

15. “Over the past decade, parental concerns, both in the general population and the autism community, over the possible link between immunization and increased risk for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have only increased despite concerted and persistent efforts by the medical community to reassure the public about the safety of vaccines.”

16. “It is Autism Speaks’ position that the best way to ensure that parents are confident in the safety of our vaccine program and, at the same time, protect the minority of children who may be at increased risk for serious adverse effects of vaccinations, is to foster collaborative, trusting relationships among the general public, the medical and scientific communities, and the federal government whose mandate it is to conduct research on the safety of vaccines.”

17. “Establishing and maintaining a trusting relationship and providing answers to parents’ questions cannot be achieved by one set of studies addressing one set of questions, but rather it will require an on‐going process of scientific discovery as medical science continues to uncover individual differences that predict differential responses to vaccines and other medical interventions. We need to embrace our obligation to address new questions with an open mind, adequate resources, and renewed commitment.”

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/parents-vs-the-science-ask-geraldine-dawson-and-autism-speaks.html

The idea that any - let alone all - of these issues have been satisfactorily addressed by US government agencies in the interim is preposterous.

Thanks for pointing out my previous comment John. I'm going to link to it here, so readers can see where Gerri Dawson stood on vaccines and autism before she completely sold out children's health.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/03/geraldines-land-of-opportunity-as-1-in-38-became-autism-speaks-new-normal.html?cid=6a00d8357f3f2969e2017d4263ef69970c#comment-6a00d8357f3f2969e2017d4263ef69970c

"As Dr. Bob Sears said, it's "another waste of money in another attempt to pretend to do research on vaccines and autism .... pretty much all children in any given span of years receive the exact same number of shot ANTIGENS" (CAPS MINE)

I am presently reading "Make an INFORMED vaccine decision .. for the health of your child" written by Dr. Mayer Eisenstein .. wherein the ingredients of EACH vaccine is published. Consider the following information .. on just ONE vaccine .. and how it differs from their competitors:

"The CDC and vaccine manufacturers recommend 5 doses of DTaP for infants and children prior to 7 years of age. Today, DTaP is available in three different brands:

Daptacel -- contains 330mcg of aluminum, formaldehyde, 2-phenoxyethanol and glutaradehyde.

Infarix -- contains 625mcg of aluminum, formaldehyde, bovine casein, polysorbate 80, and gluteraldehyde.

Tripedia -- contains 170mcg of aluminum, formaldehyde, gelatin, bovine extract, polysorbate 80, sodium chloride, sodium phosphate, and "trace amount of thimerosal".

Some brands of DTaP include polio, Hib and hepatitis B as well -- "4-in-one" and "5-in-one" combination shots.

It is probably just me .. but .. wouldn't the number of "antigens" each child was exposed be meaningless .. unless we know "which" vaccine each child was exposed to? Surely the CDC identified WHICH vaccines the control group used?

After all .. I suspect all DTaP vaccines have comparable amounts of "antigent" .. (though we don't even know that for a fact) .. we also KNOW that some DTaP vaccines contain different adjuvents, solvents, stabilizers, etc. etc.

Even the difference in aluminum amounts would be enough to require ALL the control group receive the same vaccines .. no?

It must be ME .. but ........

having the CDC sponsor a safety study on their own vaccination schedule has about as much value as letting a chronic tax cheat do their own IRS audit and then giving themselve an A+ rating.