AS & Vaccines

Post Reply New Topic

I think all the negative publicity around vaccines may make those parents who do chose to vaccinate observe their children very, very closely after vaccination, which makes it more likely that they suddenly become aware of, or concerned about, traits which were always present in their children.

This is just speculation on my part. My son had all his vaccinations, and apart from being protected from a wide range of potentially fatal or extremely debilitating diseases, has been unaffected by them.

My son flapped and danced in the womb, and has flapped and danced ever since. More so, in fact, now he has so much more room to move around in!

It seems people always have something to blame for without any rational reasoning.

I recently talked with my psychologist about this issue, and he made a clever point about the vaccine/autism issue. As he told me, people back then were thankful for the discovery and use of vaccines, as they have saved untold numbers of lives, especially kids, from possible pandemics and other pathogens. Nowadays, its parents and other ignorant people, for no valid reason, that want to blame vaccines for ASD. My psychologist classifies ASD as a different variation in thinking. But no, people starting these protests havn't made any real observation and have no real data weighed in to support their reasoning, and worst, they manipulate others into buying their lies. Now if a virus someday mutates and spreads, their kids who havn't been vaccinated are likely to be ill and/or die. What would they have to say now if this happens to their kids, just for the sake of not having a life saving immunization?

It's just like when a school shooting would happen, the media and others would blame Marilyn Manson and first person shooter games, and have no idea what is really going on.

Sometimes I just hate people.

My two cents explained.

I agree. I don't think either theory is really true. I know mine is Genetic, and for lots of people it is.

As a scientist, I'm personally not a big fan of vaccines, they not being subject to the rigors of science before being marketed, but I don't really think they cause autism.

I don't think anything causes autism. Not even genetics. We have documented cases where there are identical twins-- people with the same DNA-- and one of them is autistic and one of them is not. So it CAN"T be purely genetic.

Well, strictly speaking, nothing is purely genetic. Any trait can be influenced by environmental factors. I've even heard of cases where something with such seemingly simple inheritance as eye color has been affected by environment. However, the evidence we have does suggest that there is a very, very strong genetic component to autism.

Um... what kind of "scientist?" Honestly, I have never met a legitimate scientist who described themselves simply as a scientist. Are you an epidemiologist or an immunologist? If not, then you have no more authority on the subject of vaccines than anyone else. What "rigors of science" do you believe vaccines should be subject to before being marketed?


You don't think anything causes autism?! Sorry, but that's just stupid. People aren't just radically different for no reason whatsoever. And yes, as far as the twins you cited, there is always an exception to every rule. If you had ever studied genetics, or biology at all, you should know that there will always be exceptions and a few cases that don't really fit the established patterns.

Hey orwell.

I am involved in medical science, and I'm one of the top people in my particular field. I am not specifically an expert on vaccines. I am currently involved in some multi-center research that involves epidemiology. The criticism I raise is to the fact that, in the USA where I live, vaccines are not regulated as drugs and not subject, therefore, to the same level of scientific scrutiny that a drug is subject to before claims can be made about what it does. As such, there is a long history of vaccines being promoted as beyond question and later withdrawn as ineffective. Like the Lyme vaccine, which now no longer exists. Also, vaccines are often credited with being the sole reason for the decline of a particular illness, despite data to the contrary. Some of them probably do work, and some of them probably don't, but people tend to make them a sort of sacred cow, which I think is both unscientific and unhelpful to the public health. Whereas, I've heard other people say that they think it's important that the public believes in vaccines, irrespective of their efficacy. A position I disagree with.

As far as my saying that nothing causes autism, that is a sort of silly way to put it. What i mean is that nothing reliably causes autism. I feel that it would be more valuable to find out what causes people not to be autistic, if that is indeed the goal.

I agree with your statement that there appears to be a strong genetic component to autism.

In what capacity? Are you a physician or a research scientist? I'm just curious because it seems strange for someone describe themselves so vaguely as "scientist." Most people wouldn't even call themselves a "biologist" referring instead to their particular specialty, identifying as "immunologist," "bacteriologist," etc.


OK. I'm not going to claim that any current system is perfect and infallible. What specifically would need to be done with vaccines to ensure they do what they are supposed to? I mean, the world needs two new rounds of flu vaccines each year (one for the northern hemisphere and one for the southern) and given the time constraints and the somewhat unpredictable nature of what changes the new influenza strains will have, flu vaccines can't realistically be subject to perfect scrutiny, and sometimes the vaccine developers miss and the flu shots for one year aren't as effective as they "should" be. For other vaccines, I can see where it could be beneficial to have more oversight. However, the problem that arises is that any public investigation into vaccines tends to fuel unfounded concerns and paranoia, which is why some say it's important for the public to believe in vaccines regardless of their efficacy. People in general don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that one individual vaccine might be flawed, but the medical procedure of vaccination is still valid and extremely useful.


Well... not that we know of yet, at least. The university I'm at has the country's largest autism genetics research center, and their research has been showing that autism has a higher heritability than schizophrenia, bipolar, OCD, ADHD, etc. They just haven't been able to pin down the specific genes associated with autism because it's not as neat and clean-cut as Trisomy 21. Also, some research recently has suggested that autism is probably not a discrete condition- there is a spectrum of various traits. Autism is diagnosed when a certain number of traits are expressed in a certain intensity, but there isn't a clear divide between autistic and non-autistic the way there is between Down's Syndrome and normal, or schizophrenic vs. normal, or any other psychiatric condition. If this is indeed the case, then trying to pin down a genetic cause of autism is likely to be fruitless, as we would have to radically adjust our notions of what is and is not autism- do we continue to draw an arbitrary line, or do we acknowledge it as a spectrum?

I think one of the strongest arguments that vaccines don't cause autism is that Mr. Asperger himself was describing the condition in Nazi Germany at the beginning of the century, before most vaccines were mainstream. No one ever talks about AS BEFORE vaccines.