Did anybody here become autistic after vaccinations?
mmaestro
Veteran

Joined: 6 Aug 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 522
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
I think what Sophist said was interesting - I don't think I've read anyone even addressing the idea of severity before, so I'm quite willing to leave that question open for more research 'til I've read it. I think, for me, it really does come down to the public health implications. you need a 94% vaccination rate (IIRC, the number might not be exactly right, but it's in the low 90s) to avoid major outbreaks of communicable diseases, and many western countries have dropped well below that because of the autism/vaccine scares. Given that the information connecting the two is what I'd consider less than shaky, it bothers me to see the connection trotted out again, and again, and again, because it does have very real public health implications. As I said earlier, children have died. More children will die. And I don't believe that's necessary. I'm absolutely convinced that the research looking for a connection is there mostly because a simple "quick fix" to end autism is where the money is right now, whereas I believe autism is a combination of prenatal hormones and genetic predispositions. It does seem like there may be some weird autoimmune stuff going on in those who already have autism, I'd be happy for more study on that. My objection is to those who believe that vaccines cause autism. I think that's an incredibly dangerous myth.
_________________
"You're never more alone than when you're alone in a crowd"
-Captain Sheridan, Babylon 5
Music of the Moment: Radiohead - In Rainbows
Well, I would agree that there is not enough evidence at this point to tell parents not to vaccinate their kids. I haven't said that vaccines are The Cause, and there would be a real cost to not vaccinating.
But it is too soon to say that our current programs are the optimum, or to close the book on the question. For years, doctors gave antibiotics for the slightest thing, and it seemed that they were truly miraculous and good. Then they changed the guidelines as it became clear that antibiotics don't help with everything, and they can cause serious problems when over-prescribed, and some rare but serious problems even when used conservatively. Will we ultimately have vaccines that make the current generation look crude and amateurish? Better protection, fewer side effects? Probably.
Pre-natal hormone levels clearly affect the development of the brain, and also seem to play a role in ASDs - not arguing that. As to whether that is a primary cause (along with genetics), or just one factor, I don't know. I lean towards immune factors of some sort as being the most important factors, but whether or not that is ultimately shown to be true remains to be seen.
If parents took a cooperative stance on vaccinations and just vaccinated later (i.e., beyond the two year period when brain growth is a little more stable and myelination is completed-- and on the same token, when the immune system is a bit more mature), then that would be better then not vaccinating at all. But then again, parents who are scared for what they see as their children's safety rarely think in moderation.
If there is any effect of the vaccinations and ASC, it could even be temporal, during a time when the brain and immune system are more vulnerable.
As long as the parents vaccinate prior to sending their kids off into the world (school, preschool), then there is little communicable risk, provided this technique doesn't become common for everyone.
_________________
My Science blog, Science Over a Cuppa - http://insolemexumbra.wordpress.com/
My partner's autism science blog, Cortical Chauvinism - http://corticalchauvinism.wordpress.com/
I tend to agree with mmaestro. I feel really cynical saying this, but it seems like so many of the folks pushing the vaccination theory are upper-middle class mothers who want to place the blame on an environmental factor rather than a genetic one. I've heard that most autistic kids have at least one parent (usually the father) who displays some autistic traits. I get really upset by the tone of mothers involved in the autism "cure" movements. It seems as though they're outraged that they had a child who was less than perfect (in their eyes, anyway) and so therefore, someone or something outside the family must be at fault. And I really hate hearing the whining of mothers who claim their hopes and dreams have been destroyed by their child's autism. Rarely is empathy shown for their child's feelings, even though there's plenty of literature available that describes what it's like to be autistic. Never have I seen a group of kids so blatantly and publicly disrespected by their mothers as autistic kids. Can you imagine what would have happened if a mother had stated on film that she'd once wanted to drive herself and her paraplegic daughter off a bridge?? But if the kid is autistic, then they show this statement in an "educational" film for other parents!! Whoooppeeee!!
I know for a fact that my son and my friend's 2 sons were autistic before vaccines. Both her sons were speaking within the first few months of their lives. Then at about 18 months, when they already spoke hundreds of words, they lost all their language.
They get vaccines, what, like every 3 months at that age? Of course it will seem to some like they are related. But how do you explain their extremely early development of language?
In my son, he started reading books to himself as soon as his chubby hands could turn pages (like 4 months). He learned all his numbers on his own by the time he was 18 months from a little baby numbers book, which he would've read all day if I'd have let him. I think he pointed to and said his first number at about 8 months. You can't tell me that vaccines made him do that.
Something in their baby brains developed way too fast, or I should say, way faster than average. In my friend's case, they developed way too fast and then crashed. And in my son's case, he didn't crash, but other things, like physical things, are developing way too slow.
I was very different before vaccinations I was more active and after vaccinations my eye sight went all wierd. Still is. I wasn't active anymore started being on my own a lot. But the main vaccination is the MMR vaccine which is three different vaccinations all in one which I don't understand anyway I think personally you should things like that separatly I think it is possible that a vaccination can cause something like that or something else also. I think really they should do vaccinations separatly because MMR (Measles Mumps and Rebella are three different diseases how can they connect together?

That seems pretty harsh to me. Lots of generalizations.
It is only natural that parents try to help their kids. I don't think that all cases of autism are 100% genetic. I think that the course of the disease can be affected by environmental factors in some cases. If there is a chance that this idea is right, then parents should be trying all kinds of things to see what helps.
Not everything will pan out. Someone comes up with a theory, and it seems to help some kid, so other people try it. Maybe it does help, maybe not, for most things, we cant really say with certainty for all kids at this point. Maybe some parents are self-delusional about what helps.
It's true that some parents are unable to comprehend what their kids are going through, in spite of all that has been written. If you buy into the genetics theory that you mentioned that one or more parent of an autistic kid has autistic traits, then you should be sympathetic to their lack of empathy because it isn't their fault! They are genetically that way!!
"their hopes and dreams have been destroyed by their child's autism"? Would that be their hopes and dreams that they have a healthy, happy kid that grows up to have a good life? As harsh as I may sound, I think those parents are right to feel some sadness - what parent would choose autism for their kid if given that choice? What parent would say no, just a few autistic traits ... make mine profoundly autistic to the point that they can never function independently?? While autism does not eliminate the chances for a good life, it sure as @#$% does seem to make a lot of things harder!
Ultimately, the good parents push past the sadness or disappointment or whatever unhappy emotions there are and get grounded in the love and nurturing. They are not perfect people - they are parents. The ones that meet with other parents and look for a 'cure' (treatment or coping strategy) are mostly not the really bad ones. What about the parents that you never hear from that lock their kid in a closet because they can't protect or control them, or the parents that shake or beat their kids? They are the ones that keep quiet.
mmaestro
Veteran

Joined: 6 Aug 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 522
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Delusional? Not sure if you'd call it that, but I'd heard that placebo effect in autistic children is huge, somewhere between 20% and 30% with the parents reporting results. Don't know what the statistics are for those studying autism, depending on their emotional investment, I'd guess it's probably fairly high, too. That's why double blind studies are so important (for those who don't know, a double blind study is one where neither those receiving a medication or other form of stimulous know whether they're getting the actual medication or a placebo, and the scientist studying the results also doesn't know whether the subject is receiving a placebo or not - our own prejudices influence results often, so it's the only way to get a really accurate picture of the effect medications have).
My own feeling is that our own perceptions of what does and does not help are so skewed that you can't trust yourself. I'd only be willing to subject myself or someone I knew to an unproven treatment if it was part of a well controlled study, otherwise I have to conclude it's little more than quack medicine, a scam. I don't think trying everything is natural, simply naive.
I don't think that just because you believe that there's a genetic component, or even that that component is the overriding one (as I do) then this automatically means one or more parents has autistic traits. There are plenty of genetic factors which are dormant in parents which may appear in their offspring. It's quite a jump to say that just because autism is genetic, therefore one or more parents must exhibit autistic traits (although clearly that is the case in some cases, how large a proportion I don't know).
I'd also like to add, about the horribly controversial film and the seemingly infamous (on this board) mother saying she thought about driving her car off a cliff... what would you prefer? That she lie about it? That we allow parents to express this sort of thing nowadays is, IMO, a huge positive leap forward. Just look at postpartum depression. A decade ago, even, no one would talk about it. Mothers had to be overjoyed at their new offspring. Now we accept that with fluxuating hormones, huge stresses, and other factors something like 1 in 3 new mothers will become horribly depressed, even suicidal or homicidal towards their newborns. Giving mothers the freedom to express these feelings and seek treatment is a great step forward in averting tragedies which might otherwise occur. So the mother in the film felt like killing herself and her child? I say I'm glad she was able to say so, both because she's more likely to have sought treatment for herself, and because other parents of autistic children on the verge of cracking under the strain will hear her and know it's OK to feel that way, and that they should get help. It's not because they're a terrible parent, it's because the stress they're under can at times be intolerable.
_________________
"You're never more alone than when you're alone in a crowd"
-Captain Sheridan, Babylon 5
Music of the Moment: Radiohead - In Rainbows
Well, I haven't seen the movie you refer to, so I can't comment on that. It certainly could have been insensitive. But the statement I was referring to had lots of generalizations that I don't think are representative. And my statement about the genetic traits was a direct response to something that person said - one one hand, they were arguing that it is so genetic that you can see the autistic traits in the parents, and on the other hand, the parents are so terrible for not being empathetic enough (which they probably couldn't if they have those traits).
My own feeling is that our own perceptions of what does and does not help are so skewed that you can't trust yourself. I'd only be willing to subject myself or someone I knew to an unproven treatment if it was part of a well controlled study, otherwise I have to conclude it's little more than quack medicine, a scam. I don't think trying everything is natural, simply naive.
...
Unfortunately, naive is the current state for almost everything related to autism. Do we really know what the best way to educate a person with autism is? No. There are so many differences between people with autism that any attempt to educate them (or structure their life or make any demands of them) must be individualized and highly unscientific. To what degree should we meet the demands of a person with autism and be accommodating, and to what degree should we demand more, even if they are not comfortable? To what degree should an autistic child (or any child) be allowed to eat what they want, and to what degree should their diet be controlled? Science cannot give parents the answers they need. This will always require personal judgements, subjective psychological strategies and knowledge that science has not fully validated.
Are special diets to help treat autism proven? Not thoroughly, some not at all. But everyone has to eat, and most are just fed a diet that has not been scientifically proven one way or the other for autism. Just the general ideas of what is good for the normal population, which even parents of NT kids can't enforce that well. It is no more naive to take reasonable action based on limited scientific studies than it is to say that nothing is really known, so nothing specific can be done.
If a few small studies show that an extra milligram of a B vitamin seems to help some condition, and if the costs and potential risks of that supplement are low, it would be morally irresponsible not to act on the limited and imperfect knowledge. It may ultimately prove to be a flash in the pan, but every so often, that type of research proves to be true. It is exactly what happened with neural tube defects - for years and years, doctors kept saying that the research is not conclusive, the animal studies are interesting, the epidemiological work is promising but unverified, blah blah blah. And then eventually, they changed their position, and found that many birth defects were prevented by fortifying foods with folate. Now they are patting themselves on the back for all the good they did, while ignoring their years of resistance to a simple, safe, and innexpensive therapy that didn't meet their standards of proof. Meanwhile, many lives were profoundly affected for the worse.
Do you believe that there is a method of Scientific Parenting that is out there and available to all, or do you just wish to avoid taking any action (or avoid acknowledging that action is constantly being taken)? Science may someday provide something of use for helping people deal with autism. But today, there is really very little that has been well verified in double-blind placebo controlled studies of adequate size that were properly designed. Most theories on raising a child, educating them, feeding them, treating them, etc. are merely theoretical and require that a parent trust themselves. Parents have no choice but to try things, observe the effects, and modify their action. Sometimes, they will make mistakes and convince themselves into thinking a particular course of action helped or made things worse, when in fact it was some other unknown factor (or randomness) that was really responsible. But their role as parents requires that they make such judgements, no matter how limited the accuracy.
There is no such thing as scientific parenting for an autistic kid. While caution is in order for any possible treatment that may have toxicity or permanent side effects, the idea that parents should act only when there is a consensus from conservative scientists is ridiculous and impossible.
Prenat Diagn. 1991 Aug;11(8):641-8.Links
Comment in:
Prenat Diagn. 1992 Oct;12(10):856-9.
Vitamins, folic acid and neural tube defects: comments on investigations in the United States.
Simpson JL, Mills JL, Rhoads GG, Cunningham GC, Hoffman HJ, Conley MR.
University of Tennessee, Memphis.
No clear answer concerning whether multivitamin/folate supplementation prevents neural tube defects (NTDs) is provided by three studies in the United States. All these studies are occurrence in nature, no recurrence studies having been conducted. The Atlanta Birth Defects Study is subject to pronounced memory and recall biases, the length between event and interview being as long as 16 years. In a second study (Boston University), objections can be raised to certain aspects of the experimental design, and the claim that 22 per cent of women started vitamins sufficiently early after pregnancy diagnosis to influence NTD formation is suspicious. Our NICHD case control study of 541 women in California and Illinois revealed no evidence for multivitamins or folic acid preventing NTDs. U.S. public policy-makers face difficulties in applying results of recurrence or occurrence studies in high-risk areas to low-risk areas in the U.S.
N Engl J Med. 1989 Aug 17;321(7):430-5.
Comment in:
N Engl J Med. 1989 Aug 17;321(7):464-6.
N Engl J Med. 1990 Apr 12;322(15):1082-4.
The absence of a relation between the periconceptional use of vitamins and neural-tube defects. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neural Tube Defects Study Group.
Mills JL, Rhoads GG, Simpson JL, Cunningham GC, Conley MR, Lassman MR, Walden ME, Depp OR, Hoffman HJ.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Whether taking multivitamins or folate around the time of conception can reduce a woman's risk of having a child with a neural-tube defect is controversial. To investigate this question, we examined the periconceptional use of vitamin supplements by women who had a conceptus with a neural-tube defect (n = 571), women who had had a stillbirth or a conceptus with another malformation (n = 546), and women who had had a normal conceptus (n = 573). Women with conceptuses with neural-tube defects were identified either prenatally or postnatally and were matched to control mothers for gestational age. To minimize recall bias, we interviewed nearly all the women within five months of the diagnosis of a birth defect or the birth of the infant (mean, 84 days); information on vitamin use was obtained by an interviewer who was unaware of the outcome of pregnancy. The rate of periconceptional multivitamin use among the mothers of infants with neural-tube defects (15.8 percent) was not significantly different from the rate among mothers in either the abnormal or the normal control group (14.1 percent and 15.9 percent, respectively). After adjustment for potential confounding factors, the odds ratio for having an infant with a neural-tube defect among women classified as having had full supplementation with multivitamins was 0.95 as compared with the mothers of the abnormal infants (95 percent confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.14) and 1.00 as compared with the mothers of normal infants (95 percent confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.20). There were no differences among the groups in the use of folate supplements. The adjusted odds ratio for having an infant with a neural-tube defect among those receiving the recommended daily allowance of folate was 0.97 as compared with the mothers of abnormal infants (95 percent confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.18) and 0.98 as compared with the mothers of normal infants (95 percent confidence interval, 0.80 to 1.20). We conclude that the periconceptional use of multivitamins or folate-containing supplements by American women does not decrease the risk of having an infant with a neural-tube defect.
"No clear answer ... controversial ... significant problems with the design of the studies ... Science cannot recommend a safe and inexpensive vitamin supplement without overwhelming proof .... anyone who suggests otherwise is hereby branded unscientific.... they must be involved in quackery or placebo-mongering."
This is the problem with the arrogant scientists ... they can be wrong - catastrophically wrong. They get so wrapped up in numbers that they lose sight of the big picture, and reality becomes irrelevant. Fast forward a decade, and all of the sudden, every woman is told to take folate for her pregnancy.
I don't know if vaccinations caused my AS. From what my parents told me, I was aspie-like (they didn't use that exact word, just the descriptions of my actions) since 6 months old, and I had my first vaccination sometime in preschool. However, when I heard about the Thimerosal scandals, I was paranoid about getting a flu shot. In fact, I think I annoyed the pharmacist giving me the shot by asking too many questions. However, he told me something like this: "It's like lead paint; the effect on adults is minimal."
As far as I know I was normal when I was really little. I walked really early, but apparently didn't talk much until I was 3 (my mom thinks it was because I was a perfectionist, and didn't want to do it unless I was perfect-she said when I did start talking regularly I started immediately with full paragraphs, etc., and I, she, and my pediatrician knew that I understood everything).
Anyway, my understanding is that currently it's thought to be a combination of genetics and environment, as identical twins can end up on different places on the spectrum.
Regarding vaccines-isn't what's really at issue that thymarasol (misspelling it I'm sure)-the mercury that used to be in it until recently? I can't see how that could be good regardless of whether it has any influence on the spectrum, and should pretty obviously be removed regardless-it was just in there so they could put more doses in a single bottle (!)
Apparently flu vaccines have that in them too! My mom had me quit taking them because I was having bad/weird reactions to them for like a week afterwards. She assumed it was an allergy to something in them, but when I recently found out they had mercury I've wondered about that. I've even wondered if I got weirder/worse after having those. Didn't fit in as well afterwards, but that could be a coincidence based on my age at the time.
CockneyRebel
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 118,420
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Autistic families and autistic individuals in NT families |
15 Jun 2025, 10:02 pm |
The Autistic Self |
19 Jun 2025, 8:03 pm |
Sometimes I Hate Being Autistic. |
25 May 2025, 9:08 pm |
Is there any new autistic movies or tv shows? |
21 Jun 2025, 11:59 am |