Diseases/Conditions

CDC Claim of No Autism-Vaccine Link Based on Junk Science

March 30, 2013 by admin in Vaccines with 34 Comments

The CDC has produced junk science that demonstrates absolutely nothing, but claims it shows no connection between autism and the vaccine schedule. It’s now spinning it as if it proves that there’s no link between the modern day nightmare of autism and the vaccines that they push for Big Pharma. Here’s the evidence.

Junk Science

Junk, by Daniel Y. Go, cropped and with word Science superimposed

by Heidi Stevenson

The CDC has produced a study, claiming that it proves that there’s no link between autism and the number or timing of vaccinations. The mainstream news has been covering it with its usual unquestioning cheerleader approach. Worse, they have—with the assistance of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)—conflated the study with the more basic question of whether vaccinations cause autism. Of course, their implied conclusion is that it doesn’t, and that now parents should simply accept their claims that there’s no connection between vaccines and autism.

However, I have read the study—and frankly, it provides a new standard for the term pseudo science.. Even the little information that’s been produced by the media makes it absolutely clear that the study is nothing but junk science. In no sense does it even come close to demonstrating a lack of association between autism and vaccines. There are several reasons.

The primary flaw is that there is no comparison between vaccinated children and unvaccinated children.  

That’s right. That alone is more than enough to simply toss the study in the trash. The only way to prove whether vaccines cause autism is by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. That has never been done. Until then, there is simply no purpose served in examining how the relative levels of vaccination affect the condition:

Why would you want to investigate whether the degree of exposure affects a condition, unless you’ve already found that it actually causes it?

The fact is that no such legitimate study has been done. The CDC’s reason, the same one that’s parroted around the world, is that it would be unethical. They claim it would be unethical to deprive children of the questionable benefits of vaccination by doing such a study. There are, of course, two solid arguments countering that claim:

  • The first is that such considerations have never stopped them from doing medical studies in any other arena. So why should it stop them now?
  • The second is that there are large unvaccinated pools of children who could be compared with vaccinated ones. These include the Amish people, thousands of Homefirst clinic patients, and a large percentage of the Waldorf Schools children. There is no lack of unvaccinated children for such a study, either prospective or retrospective.

The Study

The study[1] was a case-controlled variety. It used 256 children defined as having autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and compared them with 752 children who hadn’t been given the diagnosis. Reports that give these numbers, though, do not tell the whole story.

Any child who also had a diagnosis for fragile X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, Rett syndrome, congenital rubella syndrome, or Angelman syndrome was not included in the study. The stated reason was that they had “known links to  ASD traits”. However, at least one of these conditions, Rett syndrome, is defined as a type of autism. It is not similar to autism. It is possibly the worst form of it. So, the authors of the study specifically eliminated the worst cases of autism from their trial!

They started with 771 potential ASD cases, not the 256 reported in the media, and 2,760 potential controls, not the 752 reported—and then they started eliminating subjects:

  • 103 ASD cases (leaving 668 cases) and 316 controls (leaving 2,444 controls) were deemed ineligible. Why they were ineligible, we’re not told.
  • Of the remaining subjects, only 321 ASD cases (48.1%) and 774 controls (31.7%) completed the trial. The reasons are not given. This is a significant factor. Notice that a far higher percentage of the ASD cases than controls completed the trial.
  • Of the remaining controls:
    • 12 of the remaining controls were eliminated because they had exclusionary conditions. (as described above)
    • 10 controls were not included because they didn’t match any of the ASD cases.
    • 186 controls were eliminated because they “had indications of speech delay or language delay, learning disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or attention deficit disorder, or tics, or had an individual education plan”. In other words, any indication of a developmental disorder resulted in removal of a child from the controls group.
    • 27% of the original controls were counted in the study.
  • The remaining ASD cases were not eliminated for the same reasons that controls were. Instead, a different set of criteria was used:
    • They defined a set of criteria based on testing to determine which children would remain in the study.
    • They eliminated any child whose diagnosis happened after age 36 months.
    • 33% of the original ASD cases were counted in the study.
Why the Results Are Meaningless

As initially pointed out, this study was done on the assumption that there is no connection between autism and vaccinations. Therefore, there was no reason to do such a study. Why would you do a study on whether there’s an association between autism and vaccinations before you believe that there’s been a study demonstrating such a connection? If this were legitimate science, then there’d be no reason to do it.

There is no explanation for the high dropout rate of subjects, nor is there an explanation for the significantly different dropout rates between ASD cases (51.9%) and controls (68.3%). More than half of both groups didn’t finish the study, yet we’re left without an explanation. Obviously, this large number could easily have changed the results.

The elimination of the worst type of autism, Rett syndrone, could easily have skewed the results.

Eliminating subjects from ASD cases and controls for different reasons is generally not legitimate in a case controlled study.

They looked at the number of antigens given to each child, both overall for their first two years and the number given on single days. This presumes that the number of antigens, rather than the number of vaccinations is the issue. It completely ignores adjuvants and other vaccine ingredients, including known toxins such as formaldehyde, mercury, and sorbitol 80, among others.

How the Authors Unintentionally Show the Absurdity of Their Study

Most interesting, though, is that the authors provide a very good reason to completely discount their approach to the question of whether vaccines are associated with autism. It’s in these words in the study:

The immunization schedule in effect during the years in which our study children were vaccinated included some, such as diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis, that
were cruder and more antigenic than current vaccines, and also caused more side effects. Removal of whole-cell pertussis vaccine from the childhood vaccination schedule has substantially decreased the antigenic load from vaccines.

The rate of autism has skyrocketed since the years covered by the study. The study looked at children born between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1999—more than 13 years ago. They state that the antigens were “cruder and more antigenic than current vaccines, and also caused more side effects”. So, if antigens are so much gentler today, why would autism be increasing at such a great rate if antigens are the issue?

Clearly, the entire concept of using antigen burden to determine whether there’s an association between vaccines and autism is pointless. We have only to read what the authors themselves stated to know that.

Other Factors that Tend to Discredit This Study

At the end, the authors give thanks to Dr. Paul Offit for “his assistance in determining the antibody stimulating protein and polysaccharide content of specific vaccines”. Anyone familiar with Offit knows that he’s arguably the most significant vaccination promoter in the world. His infamous statement that it’s safe to give a ten thousand vaccinations to a single child clarifies that the authors entered this study with a strong bias in favor of vaccines.

The CDC produced the study. This is the US agency responsible for determining the vaccination schedule for children and adults. They have repeatedly denied any connection between vaccines and autism, in spite of an utter lack of any legitimate study demonstrating their claim. Therefore, they have a strong motivation to produce something that gives the impression that there’s no connection.

This study, even if well done, would be meaningless simply because it jumps the gun. It makes no sense to do a study on the relative degree of a potential toxin’s effect on autism when no study has yet been done to determine that there is one. Since no such study has been done that officially implicates vaccines as the cause of autism, as explained earlier, what’s the point in doing a study focused on the relative degree of harm? This is pure duplicity on the part of the CDC.

Conflating This Study with Whether Vaccines Cause Autism

What has happened in the mainstream media as a result of this study was predictable. Here are some quotes:

A large new government study should reassure parents who are afraid that kids are getting autism because they receive too many vaccines too early in life. (National Public Radio)[3]

Myths about autism and vaccines have persisted, in spite of the scientific evidence, partly because researchers don’t really know what causes autism, Dawson [Chief Science Officer of Autism Speaks] says. “Until we conduct the research to answer the questions about autism’s causes and risk factors, parents will continue to have questions,” she says. (USA Today)[4]

It’s obvious that the non-results of this study are being conflated with the issue of whether vaccines cause autism. That’s not the least surprising, since the Journal of Pediatrics, which published it, starts its own article introducing the study by doing it themselves:

Although scientific evidence suggests that vaccines do not cause autism, approximately one-third of parents continue to express concern that they do; nearly 1 in 10 parents refuse or delay vaccinations because they believe it is safer than following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) schedule (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf). A primary concern is the number of vaccines administered, both on a single day and cumulatively over the first 2 years of life. In a new study scheduled for publication in The Journal of Pediatrics, researchers concluded that there is no association between receiving “too many vaccines too soon” and autism.[5]

This statement clearly confuses the issue of whether autism is caused by vaccines and the results of this study. Can there be any doubt that the study’s purpose was to do precisely that, to confuse the issue?

Overall, the study and the way it’s promoted tell a story very different from the one intended. How can there be any doubt that the CDC has determined that it will do whatever is necessary to convince the public to subject their children to vaccines, even to the point of producing junk science that demonstrates absolutely nothing and then spinning it as if it proves that there’s no link between the modern day nightmare of autism and the vaccines that they push for Big Pharma?

Sources:

  1. Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of AutismJournal of Pediatrics; Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH, Cristofer S. Price, ScM, and Eric S. Weintraub, MPH1
  2. Autism Risk Is Not Increased by Childhood Vaccines: Study; Pharmalot; Ed Silverman
  3. Number of Early Childhood Vaccines Not Linked to AutismNPR; Jon Hamilton
  4. Full vaccine schedule safe for kids, no link to autismUSA Today
  5. The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by “Too Many Vaccines Too Soon”

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • http://www.facebook.com/carolyn.gammicchia Carolyn Gammicchia

    Thank you from a parent who witnessed her child’s vaccine damage and his slide into a medical condition called autism. As he recovers, this research continues to be not only insulting, but deliberate indifference to something they know they’ve never done. We need a study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. Period. Our son is now twenty one and if they would have done what they should have decades ago he’d not have autism. Our son was not born with autism.

    • / Heidi Stevenson

      Thank you for your testimony. Yours and all the thousands (millions?) of others add up to a hugely significant pile of evidence – evidence that’s routinely ignored and tossed off as “mere coincidence”.

  • DebbyBruck

    These studies will not change the minds or create doubt in care-givers who have actual experience that definitely proves in their minds adverse reactions to vaccinations. I worry about new parents who have not done any investigations into vaccinations and have just started out in a new phase of life.

  • David

    Ms. Stevenson, I’d like to ask what your scientific credentials are. My wife and I have read the CDC study. I have a masters degree in the Sociological Study of Science, Technology, and Industry and my wife has a PhD in Medical Anthropology. We both disagree with your reading of the CDC study. It seems to me that with your reading and using the term “pseudo science” becomes a farcical reminiscence of how David Sokol ended the Science Wars in the 90′s. I say with the total realization that I’m in the academic field that Sokol was critiquing. It’s made me read more slowly and carefully.

    • / Heidi Stevenson

      Interesting. You come here, say you disagree, try to give the impression of your own superiority, try to give the impression that the author isn’t legitimate (an attempt to redirect away from the topic), but you offer not one statement about what you believe is wrong with this article!

      There’s no point to comments like yours..

    • JSB3

      What exactly is wrong with the article? Where do you disagree? How is the CDC article correct in it’s findings? Do explain. If you don’t you are just showing off your degree, without any real input provided.

      • Tedd Koren

        I think they are showing off their degree. Maybe he and his wife are having relationship problems and they need to tell everyone how smart they are. I bet late at night they read each others’ school transcripts.

    • Cynthia Stauffer

      i would love to hear your reply to the points in this post. why is this author wrong and why is the CDC right?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Schachter/1036639105 David Schachter

        Cynthia, I’ve actually spent a great deal of time writing a thorough rebuttal and the moderator deletes it and blocks me. This is the third time I’ve signed in to this blog with different credentials. She doesn’t seem to be interested in thoughtful responses. From my perspective it’s simply “you’re with us or you’re against us and if you’re against us you’ll be bullied or blocked.”

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Schachter/1036639105 David Schachter

          And yes Koren, you’re the bully and Stephenson for allowing that post to stay.

        • / Heidi Stevenson

          To make it clear, the reason this person’s rebuttal has been deleted is that I do not have the time to spend dealing with shills. His first post – the one above from “David” – wasted my time, so he was banned. He came back under another name and e-mail. I didn’t bother reading it, beyond the first line, and deleted it, and banned him again. He gave it to someone else, who posted it. (The duplicate first line was the giveaway.) So I deleted that one too.

          He’s just been banned again. If people come here and their argument is what amounts to an ad hominem attack and claims of superiority, along, they’re not welcome.

          And, as Cynthia’s comment above clarifies, apparently David cites the CDC for expertise. The CDC funded this garbage study. Obviously, they are not fair arbiters on this topic. As Cynthia points out in a post below, the CDC admits that they have no idea whether vaccine-created antibodies actually provide immunity.

  • Mister Cool Ice

    You anti-vaccine people remind me of some creepy religious cult. Your powers of reason have been so far overtaken by your paranoia and “big pharma” conspiracy theories that you wouldn’t accept the truth if it was served to you on a silver platter by Socrates himself! Take off your tin foil hats people! “Big Pharma” is not out to kill your kids for profit.

    • / Heidi Stevenson

      You have offered not one word that either adds to the conversation or actually debates the article. You accuse the people of being like members of a religious cult and tin-foil hat wearers. And you misstate the Big Pharma case: No one has suggested that they’re out to kill your kids. However, they are out to make profits – and damn the cost to your kids. That’s been clear for decades, going back to thalidomide and including today’s worldwide cases of Pandemrix-caused narcolepsy, which even the BMJ acknowledges.

    • JSB3

      So questioning the findings of a CDC article is creepy?? Maybe more people should question what they are saying. Stop critiquing those asking questions and provide something more productive. Other wise you just look creepy even commenting here.

    • Tedd Koren

      You are correct. The goal is not to kill children, just to maim them forever so they’ll be permanent patients. There’s more money in it.

  • Pingback: CDC: “Allah sizi inandırsın aşılarla otizm arasında ilişki yok, olsa söylemez miyiz?!” | lilliputian.me

  • Pingback: Science-Based Medicine » The final nail in the coffin for the antivaccine rallying cry “Too many too soon”?

  • http://www.facebook.com/tina.mahoney2 Tina Mahoney

    Mister Cool Ice your accusation and labeling parents as anti-vaccine is baseless, how can we be anti-vaccine with vaccine damaged children? Explain please? What this is is pure discrimination against parents of children with disabilities, whether it be autism, PDD, ADHD, cerebral palsy, cancer…

  • Tedd Koren

    Thank you for this paper. You have performed an unnatural act which none of the reporters from mainstream media seem capable of doing – you actually read the paper (and critically no less) not just the abstract and conclusion. You are to be commended.
    Tedd Koren, DC

  • Aglaeca

    The primary flaw is that there is no comparison between vaccinated children and unvaccinated children.

    This is correct. Instead, they evaluated associations between the total cumulative exposure to antigens and associations between the maximum number of antigens to which a child was exposed in a single day and autism. They examined this for each of 3 age ranges (birth to 3 months, birth to 7months, and birth to 2 years). Their study was designed to respond to concerns that cumulative antigens over the course of the first two years cause autism as well as a concern about several vaccinations in one doctor’s visit causing autism. This is a perfectly valid study design.

    Why would you want to investigate whether the degree of exposure affects a condition, unless you’ve already found that it actually causes it?

    Again, the study is designed to respond to real world concerns that parents have about vaccinations. You ask, “Why would you do a study on whether there’s an association between autism and vaccinations before you believe that there’s been a study demonstrating such a connection?” The answer is simple: because there is relatively widespread concern among parents that autism is caused by vaccinations and the authors want to test that assumption to see if it’s valid. The purpose of scientific research is to test hypotheses using transparent methodologies in a way that can be replicated. A hypothesis is an educated guess about how something works that can be tested or measured. Some parents’ hypothesis is that vaccinations cause autism. The authors’ hypothesis is that it does not. They tested it using scientifically valid methods, their study was vetted by peer reviewers, and their methods can be replicated. These are the standards for scientific research.

    There is no explanation for the high dropout rate of subjects, nor is there an explanation for the significantly different dropout rates between ASD cases (51.9%) and controls (68.3%). More than half of both groups didn’t finish the study, yet we’re left without an explanation. Obviously, this large number could easily have changed the results.

    The authors described exactly why cases were eliminated. As with all scientific studies, strict criteria were established and any case not meeting these criteria must be eliminated to avoid skewing the results. Also, you claim that it’s not valid that they had different criteria for ASD and non-ASD cases. Why not? These groups are defined differently in the first place so it makes sense that their elimination criteria would differ as well.

    The rate of autism has skyrocketed since the years covered by the study. The study looked at children born between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1999—more than 13 years ago. They state that the antigens were “cruder and more antigenic than current vaccines, and also caused more side effects”. So, if antigens are so much gentler today, why would autism be increasing at such a great rate if antigens are the issue?

    This only strengthens their case that antigens, either in cumulative form or in concentrated doses, do not cause autism. To answer your final question, the reason autism is increasing despite the fact that current vaccinations contain fewer antigens that are gentler is because vaccinations do not actually cause autism. If there was a link, then, if anything, we might see a decrease in autism with the current vaccinations.

    Clearly, the entire concept of using antigen burden to determine whether there’s an association between vaccines and autism is pointless. We have only to read what the authors themselves stated to know that.

    Again, the authors designed their study to address the prevailing concerns about vaccinations, which center on the antigen load.

    It makes no sense to do a study on the relative degree of a potential toxin’s effect on autism when no study has yet been done to determine that there is one. Since no such study has been done that officially implicates vaccines as the cause of autism, as explained earlier, what’s the point in doing a study focused on the relative degree of harm?

    The great thing about this study’s design is that it addresses both of these questions–whether or not vaccines cause autism and the degree of a potential toxin’s effect on autism.

    Oh, and by the way: nice job blocking any real rebuttal but keeping the childish and snarky remarks. Really pro.

  • Nicole

    Hi there, I have responded to a few of your major criticisms about the CDC article. I hope you will leave my post up so that people can decide for themselves. This forum is most useful as a free exchange of ideas. Thanks!

    The primary flaw is that there is no comparison between vaccinated children and unvaccinated children.

    This is correct. Instead, they evaluated associations between the total
    cumulative exposure to antigens and associations between the maximum
    number of antigens to which a child was exposed in a single day and
    autism. They examined this for each of 3 age ranges (birth to 3 months, birth to 7
    months, and birth to 2 years). Their study was designed to respond to
    concerns that cumulative antigens over the course of the first two years
    cause autism as well as a concern about several vaccinations in one
    doctor’s visit causing autism. This is a perfectly valid study design.

    Why would you want to investigate whether the degree of exposure affects a
    condition, unless you’ve already found that it actually causes it?

    Again, the study is designed to respond to real world concerns that parents
    have about vaccinations. You ask, “Why would you do a study on whether
    there’s an association between autism and vaccinations before you
    believe that there’s been a study demonstrating such a connection?” The
    answer is simple: because there is relatively widespread concern among
    parents that autism is caused by vaccinations and the authors want to
    test that assumption to see if it’s valid. The purpose of scientific
    research is to test hypotheses using transparent methodologies in a way
    that can be replicated. A hypothesis is an educated guess about how
    something works that can be tested or measured. Some parents’ hypothesis
    is that vaccinations cause autism. The authors’ hypothesis is that it
    does not. They tested it using scientifically valid methods, their study
    was vetted by peer reviewers, and their methods can be replicated.
    These are the standards for scientific research.

    There is no explanation for the high dropout rate of subjects, nor is there
    an explanation for the significantly different dropout rates between ASD
    cases (51.9%) and controls (68.3%). More than half of both groups
    didn’t finish the study, yet we’re left without an explanation.
    Obviously, this large number could easily have changed the results.

    The authors described exactly why cases were eliminated. As with all
    scientific studies, strict criteria were established and any case not
    meeting these criteria must be eliminated to avoid skewing the results.
    Also, you claim that it’s not valid that they had different criteria for
    ASD and non-ASD cases. Why not? These groups are defined differently in
    the first place so it makes sense that their elimination criteria would
    differ as well.

    The rate of autism has skyrocketed since the years covered by the study.
    The study looked at children born between 1 January 1994 and 31 December
    1999—more than 13 years ago. They state that the antigens were “cruder
    and more antigenic than current vaccines, and also caused more side
    effects”. So, if antigens are so much gentler today, why would autism be
    increasing at such a great rate if antigens are the issue?

    This only strengthens their case that antigens, either in cumulative form or
    in concentrated doses, do not cause autism. To answer your final
    question, the reason autism is increasing despite the fact that current
    vaccinations contain fewer antigens that are gentler is because
    vaccinations do not actually cause autism. If there was a link, then, if
    anything, we might see a decrease in autism with the current
    vaccinations.

    Clearly, the entire concept of using antigen burden to determine whether there’s
    an association between vaccines and autism is pointless. We have only
    to read what the authors themselves stated to know that.

    Again, the authors designed their study to address the prevailing concerns
    about vaccinations, which center on the antigen load.

    It makes no sense to do a study on the relative degree of a potential
    toxin’s effect on autism when no study has yet been done to determine
    that there is one. Since no such study has been done that officially
    implicates vaccines as the cause of autism, as explained earlier, what’s
    the point in doing a study focused on the relative degree of harm?

    The great thing about this study’s design is that it addresses both of
    these questions–whether or not vaccines cause autism and the degree of a
    potential toxin’s effect on autism.

  • Pingback: Top Articles Debunking the CDC’s New Study About #Vaccines & #Autism

  • Pingback: CDC Autism and Vaccines Study Flu Vaccination Tedd Koren DC

  • Cynthia Stauffer

    so really, all this has done is to convince me that delaying or spreading out vaccinations is of no help!

    i also question why they used 1994 to 1999? i am sure the vaccine schedule has changed since then. i believe rotovirus and varicella were introduced. hep B more aggressively recommended for newborns. hep B meaning more aluminum. heck, in doing some quick googling, it looks like the CDC didn’t even have one single immunization schedule until around 1994?

  • Cynthia Stauffer

    i have found some interesting things just in researching the old CDC schedules. things like this:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038256.htm

    they say that vaccinations give higher antibody levels, but then they say “the effect of high antibody levels on long-term protection against disease is not known.” so they know they can raise antibody levels, but don’t know if that MEANS anything as far as immunity?

    and for the MMR, in 1995 they recommended that it first be given at 15 months instead of 12 months and the main reason is so that 12 to 15 month olds get better protection from measles. giving it at 15 months had a 98% antibody response, while giving it at 12 months had a 93% antibody response. isn’t that 5% significant? does that mean that 5% of those who get it don’t get any immunity? wouldn’t it be better to give it at 15 months and get better immunity than to get it at 12 months?

    i am also now wondering if part of the reason that we are seeing a resurgence in these diseases (pertussis, measles, etc) is because mothers these days have not had the actual disease and therefore have less or no immunity to pass on. vaccination rates are higher than ever, so i am not buying that the resurgence is from parents refusing or delaying vaccines. i am wondering if the resurgence is really even a resurgence or just that we are hearing about the cases more in the media.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Bengarama Benji Primus Sudolcan

      Hey Cynthia, I haven’t done enough of my own research to comment on the actual article, but I thought I’d try to clear up some of your questions about the CDC schedules. There are a few reasons why it would be prudent to have high titers for a short period of time, even if that didn’t translate to long term protection. What the CDC are trying to say (convolutedly) is that there is evidence that having higher titers (concentration) of the antibody leads to lower infection rates for that time. The most important time, really, when children have weaker immune systems and are eating everything and hanging out in hordes of germ factories (schools, lol). But, there isn’t evidence that having a higher titer as an infant means that 25 yrs down the line you are better protected. A) it may wear off (plasma cells/memory b cells, the cells that make antibodies, are hard to find), and B) the virus may have mutated enough to get around the specific antibody you made (antigenic drift) Long term immunity is still a really tricky thing to figure out.

      As for the MMR part, what they’re banking on there is herd immunity. For MMR, if over 94% of those susceptible to infection have immunity, it’s very unlikely that measles, mumps, or rubella will have a chance to “take hold” in a community. By vaccinating a bit earlier, they are trading one individuals chance of having an amazing immune response for the overall likelihood that no one will get it at all, so that individual’s “good enough” immune response still ensures they’re protected.

      When discussing maternal passing on of antibodies, it’s important to realize that only antibodies are passed through the placenta and breast milk, not the cells that make the antibodies. Also, of the many different types of antibodies, each specialized for a different “class” of pathogen (virus, bacteria, parasite…), only one types passes through the placenta (IgG, the superman of antibodies) and another passes through milk (IgA, good for your nose and eyes and such, basically all of the places your body sees the outside world on purpose)

      Wow, I didn’t mean this to get so long winded, I just get excited about immune stuff :)

      In any case, antibodies are really just globs of proteins, so they don’t last long (our bodies are very good at chopping up proteins). By three months the infant doesn’t have detectable levels of maternal IgG, and the IgA only lasts for about a month after breastfeeding stops (and is really the greatest right after birth from the colostrum). So, while you’re definitely correct that there is a window of time where having a mother who has actually fought off an infection gives you better protection (vaccines are rarely as good as the actual pathogen at eliciting just the right immune response to clear them), that protection doesn’t last long, even during breastfeeding, since those superman antibodies don’t last forever.

      Unfortunately, the maternal passage of antibodies doesn’t prep the infant for long term recognition of disease. The maternal antibodies protect for a bit, but the infant’s own cell have to see antigens and prepare their own antibodies to ensure their long-term survival. It’d be great if they could just copy the antibodies from their mom, but they can’t.

      So, this wasn’t meant to get into the vaccination argument per se, I just wanted to talk about some of the immune system stuff. I don’t even know how I got to this website, lol, but y’all seem respectful and intelligent, and I like having conversations that include those things.

      In the spirit of full disclosure, I *am* a medical student, so you might just assume that I’ve “drank the koolaid.” I’m a poor farm boy from the south though, and I promise I look critically and question everything :)

      • / Heidi Stevenson

        “As for the MMR part, what they’re banking on there is herd immunity. For
        MMR, if over 94% of those susceptible to infection have immunity, it’s
        very unlikely that measles, mumps, or rubella will have a chance to
        “take hold” in a community. ” And that’s based on what?

        Of course the mother’s antibodies don’t prep the baby’s system. Nature doesn’t work that way. The newborn’s immune system operates differently.

        What you’re completely ignoring is that inoculations don’t provide long-term prevention in anyone past infancy, either.

        You’re also ignoring that the immune system of a newborn is qualitatively different – and using vaccines is NOT a natural approach to immunity.

        As long as you believe that you question everything critically, have you considered that the claims that vaccines are the reason for the lack of many diseases are fraudulent? Have you considered that there are NO studies comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children and autism rates – and a complete refusal to do them?

        • http://www.facebook.com/Bengarama Benji Primus Sudolcan

          Heidi, in all of these statements you seem to be taking what I say out of context.

          First, I was responding to Cynthia’s question about the CDC changing the vaccination schedules in a way that appeared to decrease immunity. I was explaining that they had a rationale (herd immunity) and what that rationale was. I wasn’t saying they were right. Hence using the term, “banking on.” She was asking why the CDC would give a vaccine earlier for a seemingly negative trade-off in antibody titer, which is confusing, so I was trying to explain what their thought process was.

          As for the “of course the mother’s antibodies” statement you made, that seems inflammatory. The only reason I mentioned maternal antibodies and the like was to address Cynthia’s hypothesis that mothers not having a disease may have an affect on a baby’s long term ability to fight off disease. While it’s definitely true that a mom can’t pass on antibodies she doesn’t have, even the ones she does have don’t work forever. *that* was the only statement I was making, it was in no way a “so vaccinate everyone as soon as they’re out of the womb.”

          “So, this wasn’t meant to get into the vaccination argument per se, I just wanted to talk about some of the immune system stuff” I think that was very clear way to say that I wasn’t “ignoring that the immune system of a newborn is qualitatively different – and using vaccines is NOT a natural approach to immunity.” I actually wasn’t discussing that topic at all, just some of the biology of the immune system.

          I think the “As long as you believe that you question everything critically” statement is a little back-handed, but I’ll bite. I do consider whether claims are fraudulent, all of the time. The science I believe in is based on trying to nullify a hypothesis, not prove it. Every time I look at something, I think, “Do I have to believe this?” Not, “Do I want to believe this?” I do think about the fact that their aren’t matched, non-vaccinated controls. In fact, I spent a great portion of last night reading the study you cite here, as well as other studies, and articles by Dr. Brian Hooker.

          I try not to make any judgment lightly, so I’m thinking, and reforming my ideas, and rethinking about them. I *am* paying attention.

          Although I am also procrastinating, since I have a huge test on the GI system tomorrow morning ;)

          • / Heidi Stevenson

            But the fact is that antibodies from vaccines not only don’t last forever, they’re very short-lived compared to natural antibodies. So not considering that fact is not presenting the most salient point regarding the issue. Vaccines are quite literally why mothers don’t pass to their infants the immunity they once provided because they had the real thing.

            Your focus most assuredly did appear to be pro-vaccine. When you said,”In any case, antibodies are really just globs of proteins, so they don’t last long (our bodies are very good at chopping up proteins).” the impression is that it’s always true – and the fact is that naturally-gained immunity does last a long time, unlike the more limited protection gained byvaccines. That is a very important distinction – and it’s the actually point that Cynthia was making – which you never addressed!

            You’ll have to forgive me, but the fact is that many shills use such comments that begin, “I’m not against vaccines, but …” or similar such wording. You sound exactly like them. If that’s not your intention, then it might be a good idea to review how you present your arguments or information.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Bengarama Benji Primus Sudolcan

            The reason I stated that antibodies don’t last long is because they don’t. It has nothing to do with whether or not you’re vaccinated or you’ve encountered the pathogen on your own. An antibody is a protein secreted by a plasma cell in response to stimuli. Some last longer than others, but they rarely last more than a year, regardless of what started them off in the first place. What *lasts* is the memory B cell, which, upon seeing an antigen again will start spitting out more antibodies. You’re right, the response provided by them is often greater if a pathogen is seen by your immune system than if you’re vaccinated. *but* those cells are not transferred from mother to child, only the antibodies are, which again, are short-lived regardless of what stimulated the b cell to being with. Naturally gained immunity *does* last a long time, but the specific antibodies don’t. It’s an important distinction to make.

            The most frustrating thing here is that you seem to be making the point that if someone is pro-vaccine they aren’t allowed to comment, discuss, agree, or disagree here! Is that the case? Anyone who gives a thought-out comment that you don’t agree with is a shill?

            If you actually want to make a difference in this, you have to persuade people who originally don’t agree with you. To be honest, most people who come to this blog already agree with you, which makes it even more important not to alienate the few that come here who don’t.

            I can understand why you may be wary when you get a lot of inflammatory comments, but nothing I’ve said has been attacking, dismissive, or flippant.

          • / Heidi Stevenson

            How can you possibly suggest that you can’t comment here? You’ve been doing it – and I’ve allowed it because I’ve assumed that you’re legitimate. But that doesn’t mean you get to escape from debate and supporting your point.

            Yes, it’s true that the individual antibodies themselves don’t last – but that doesn’t change anything. The fact is that antibodies are what’s used to test for immunity to diseases – and they are found many years later when the immunity was created by the disease. We know that it doesn’t last in vaccines, but lasts for many many years, often life, when the disease is the source of protection.

            You can say that your comments haven’t been flippant or dismissive – but some have sounded that way, and I’ve given you an example of it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Hemmings/100000812366813 Chris Hemmings

    Excellent assessment of this latest attempt at blinding the gullible – Science Journalists, Politicians, Doctors and Nurses, some parents – with an approximation of science. Well, it was published in a “scientific ” journal, wasn’t it?!

    Their use of stats seems to be “let’s put all the cases on the table and pick out the ones which will demonstrate the points we want to make” and your point about exclusion of Retts syndrome is well made. “Caused by post natal mutation” I just found in Wiki. Sigh!

    I like your point about the number of antigens versus the present – 15 to 20 years after these cases were jabbed – state of play. I wrote on it, too, looking to draw some useful conclusions from their toils (well, it’s a shame to see all that investment totally wasted, isn’t it?):
    http://bmeandothersciences.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/a-very-high-potentiation/

    I’d be interested in any feedback on this.

    • / Heidi Stevenson

      Thank you so much for the kind words! I just read your article,
      A Very High Potentiation?
      , and would call it a must-read. A very interesting approach to this topic – and thank you for writing it!

  • Pingback: Autism's False ScientistsGaia Health

Search Gaia Health
newsletter software