Clear Answers & Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots
7 Comments Published by Autism Library September 24th, 2008 in MMR, autism, vaccinesVaccines get a lot of coverage on the autism blogs. One can claim too much
I just saw this document, Clear Answers & Smart Advice About Your Baby’s Shots by Dr. Ari Brown. This is one that is definitely going on the main autismlibrary.org website right away. It takes a huge amount of information about autism and boils it down into a very brief, very readable document.
It goes through what is autism, to why is it on the rise, to issues like mercury and MMR…it covers pretty much everything you think is a question a person might ask about autism.
It is troubling that She even has to address this question:
There’s so much anti-vaccine stuff online—it’s hard to know whom to believe. Can doctors be trusted on this issue?
Most pediatricians are ALSO parents—and docs dedicate their life to protecting kids. If I ever thought vaccines were harming kids, I’d change what I do. I vaccinated my own kids and would do it again in a heartbeat. If you have any doubt about vaccinations, just ask your pediatrician if she vaccinated her kids.
It is a great response. But, again, sad that the question even needs to be addressed.
This document may not get a lot of acceptance in some circles. Take a look at the concluding paragraph:
Vaccines work. And they are safe. Rather than demonize vaccines, we (doctors, parents, researchers, the government) should put our time, effort, and money into researching the CAUSES of autism and the best possible treatments.
Yes, I agree with it, but I could bet money on some groups disagreeing (strongly) with that statement. That is unfortunate. We need to learn the real causes of autism and the real treatments.
So, again, it’s worth taking a look at the document. Keep in in reserve for when people ask questions. A lot of the answers are in there.
“Vaccines work. And they are safe.”
Both of these statements are factually incorrect. Either this doctor is lying or inept.
Unfortunately, Chuck, it is you that are incorrect.
When people assert that vaccines don’t even work, it makes this into an anti-vaccine discussion rather than an autism discussion.
Most of the paper is in fact a pro vaccine discussion rather then an autism discussion, but let’s look at the paper for ASD specific information:
“Did the mercury in vaccines cause autism?
“Mercury preservative (thimerosal) was removed from vaccines commonly
given to infants and young children in the U.S. in 2001, but the
rates of children being diagnosed with autism are still skyrocketing.
A survey of autism rates in California in 2008 confirms that mercury
is out and autism rates are still going up.”
This is a prevalence study.
However, Dr. Brown had stated previously in the paper:
“So even though PREVALANCE studies seem to show autism is increasing, the incidence proof is
lacking”
So there is no empirical proof concerning the incidence of ASD. So the argument sited above, and the following paragraph in the paper is worthless.
Back to the paper:
“Mercury preservatives were removed from vaccines in Denmark in
1992. Canada and the European Union have followed suit. Their autism
diagnosis rates are still going up, too.”
Proof of diagnostic changes, pointless for the argument concerning causation.
Back to the paper:
“Displacing one diagnosis for another. In previous generations,
many children were diagnosed with mental retardation, schizophrenia,
or some other psychiatric disorder. Today, many of these same
kids are diagnosed with severe autism.”
Proving that the diagnosis criteria for the listed disorders is a pseudoscience and not empirically based.
“Over or misdiagnosis? There is so much awareness now of Autism Spectrum Disorders, that perhaps clinicians are overdiagnosing it.”
Futher proof of the pseudoscience status of the diagnosis criteria.
Chuck,
it’s not a peer-reviewed paper. The entire point is to demonstrate the value of vaccines. If you want to argue based on what the paper is not, you are invited to find someplace that thinks it is a peer-reviewed paper.
She did not say that there is no empirical proof of the incidence of ASD. There most certainly is. What is lacking is emipircal data that the incidence is increasing. Given your stance, I find it very unlikely that you don’t know about the incidence studies. That makes me question the rest of your discussion.
If you really don’t know about incidence studies, you can find a good one by Dr. Fombonne’s group. There are others which are not difficult to find–likely cited by Fombonne.
“it’s not a peer-reviewed paper. The entire point is to demonstrate the value of vaccines.”
But if I point out problems with her statements concerning vaccines, I am off target concerning ASD, so move along.
I agree with Dr. Brown when she said “So even though PREVALANCE studies seem to show autism is increasing, the incidence proof is lacking”. The incidence may be decreasing, flat or increasing. That information is theoretical and not empirical. How is presenting theoretical information clear or smart to new or future parents who may not even know what ASD is?
The rest of my critique of this document still stands and points to the inherent problems of incidence studies.
The rest of your statements still stand–as statements made by you.
I see that you aren’t even attempting to defend your first post.
You have pointed out not problems with her positions, you have pointed out your problems with her statements. Very different things. You have not proven, or come close to proving, your statements.
Her statements, on the other hand, are more than theoretical. They are backed by citations. She was sparse in her citations, as there are many (many) more that support what she states.
The rest of her statements concerning autism still stand as theoretical, un-provable, non-empirical statements, peer reviewed or not. You can choose to ignore my statements, but you cannot ignore the fact that the study of ASD is NOT an evidence based science. It is a pseudoscience of beliefs.