I just happened upon some articles about the correlation between vaccines and autism, something many people believe to be true.
One of the most compelling arguments I hear from parents and anti-vaccine people is that autism shows up around the same time as the vaccines - sometimes afterwards. A compelling argument, indeed, but sadly one that is not backed up by empirical evidence. Many children will exhibit signes of autism at that age, with or without vaccines. Some parents choose not to vaccinate and their kids end up autistic anyway. What then?
The big bad vaccine seems to be the MMR one. I was not given the MMR vaccine as a child because it apparently caused autism. However, I'm autistic anyway. (And am now immune to mumps because I actually got the mumps when I was about 8 - not fun, but it didn't kill me) I know of a few others who also did not get that vaccine either and are also on the spectrum. My mother thought it was the whooping cough one that did it for me, but no one else seems to be whining about that one. Also, on my dad's side of the family, there seems to be a few "eccentrics" and now some actual diagnoses of an autism spectrum disorder. In my case, it is likely a genetic thing.
Vaccines have proven to be a life saver in that they have almost eliminated some very nasty diseases such as polio, rubella, measles, etc. Diseases that killed many children in their heyday. Now that many parents are not vaccinating, these diseases are coming back. Jenny McCarthy has launched a huge campaign against vaccinations since her son supposedly became autistic after getting vaccinated. She's even said that it's ok if some diseases come back so that vaccine makers can see that they need to change their ways. I have moral issues with that.(http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1888718,00.html)
Another interesting tidbit that the anti-vaccine movement likes to promote is that it is Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that is causing the problem. However, thimerosal has not been used in vaccines in the USA since 2001. (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal.htm)
That's eight years ago. What of children under the age of 6 right now in the US who have been diagnosed as autistic? What about those kids that age who showed signs between 18 - 24 months of age? They didn't get thimerosal, yet they are still autistic. If thimerosal was the cause, shouldn't the number of small children being diagnosed with autism have dopped since at least 2004??
If anything, more kids are being diagnosed for a varety of reasons, including broader diagnostic criteria, parents knowing what the signs are and looking into it, etc. Obviously Thimerosal is not a very likely villain here. What else is it?
This leads me to ask whether this possibility has been researched:
What if vaccines were given when a child is older than 18 - 24 months? What if vaccines were given when a child is 4 years old for instance?
Would autism still show up between 18 - 24 months as it typically does (even in children who get no vaccines)?
If vaccines were the actual cause, then autism wouldn't be showing up between 18 - 24 months of age, would it? It would show up whenever the vaccines are given.
Could this possibility be empirically researched? Yes, I think it could. I'm sure there are parents out there who did wait. Are their children autistic? Did their child still get diagnosed as autistic between 18 - 24 months, or did it show up later? What about children who were diagnosed despite not getting vaccinated?
It would take some thinking and planning, but I think it would make for a very interesting study.
Is anyone looking into this? I'd like to know. Maybe this is somethign I could do one day, many years from now...
Any thoughts?
