Does TV cause autism?

http://www.slate.com/id/2151538/

Who are you compared to Jenny McCarthy? HMMMM?

somebody needs to post this info at all the seattle whole foods--the hippies are going to have a hard time with this one.

God, I know, right! I'm sorry your kid has autism, honestly and really. However, I'd really like for my future kids to not have polio, so for the good of the population....

Autism is caused by body thetans.

I went to a taping of an Oprah Show a year or two ago, the topic of which was autism (you don't know the topics of any of the shows until after you show up to the taping). The whole autism/vaccination thing came up, and there was a doctor who said basically what you're saying in this post (lots of scientific evidence to the contrary, etc.).

But, one of the moms said something to the effect that she knew it to be true that the vaccination caused her son's autism, so they would have to just agree to disagree. I couldn't help but think of Stephen Colbert and his truthiness bit...

Slog causes autism. It is the root of all evil in the world.

Stupid fools. Everybody knows that all the ills of the world are caused by global warming.

Julie: The argument that usually breaks my back is the "you can't prove a negative" scheme.

With this intensity of study, we can definitively state that there is a minuscule chance of a connection between vaccination and autism, and that whatever connection there is, it's a nearly undetectably small causal connection. Hence, my ability to say vaccination does not cause autism.

Urgh.

lizzie: The study that Slate article references--done by a group from Cornell of kids living in West coast states, connecting early television exposure to risk of autism--is pretty damn interesting. Too bad there is so little money to follow up on such studies, eh?

It HAS to be somebody's fault!

The criminal part isn't just the waste of research funds. It's mainly the dead kids. There was an outbreak that infected five children with a common virus for which children are routinely vaccinated. Three of the children had not been vaccinated by the choice of their parents. One of those three died. This ignorance led that mother to kill her own baby.

What are the odds that all of the Anti-Vaccination Moms are all married to 9/11 Truther Dads?

Gitai: You're totally correct. The research funding burns me, because it directly harms parents of kids with Autism who are rational.

Measles, Mumps and Rubella are each pretty horrifying illnesses. I'm with you, completely, in the horror when kids die of them today.

Dr. Savage Mudede:
... and are JP Morgan Chase executives who invested in Madoff....

My dick's erect!

Damn!

This is a victory for Science over lawyers.
Next we can turn Science on to the issue that conception creates a new member of the human race and that embryo research and abortion kill that life.

I think it's a combination of genetic and metabolic (where heavy metals can't be excreted well) issues.

Maybe one of you sciencesticians could explain to me how it is that pregnant women are advised to not eat some kinds of fish because of the exposure to mercury but then it is not harmful to inject the baby with mercury preservatives in the vaccinations?

Just for the record, not all parents of autistic children hold this delusion. It's easier to fall prey to bad science when you want answers for what's wrong with your kid, but the real divide is between those who respect scientific results and those that don't. (I don't have an autistic child, but I have friends who do.)

And @1? No, TV does not cause autism. Signs of autism can be evident long before babies are capable of focusing on TV--even from birth--and families with unchanging TV habits can have some autistic kids and some non-autistic kids. Maybe it's a factor in borderline cases that helps prevent neurotypical socialization after the fact, but it's much more likely to be a correlation to an unknown independent variable. Actually, probably more than one, as autism is probably not a single disorder much less caused by a single thing. Saying that TV causes autism is just as ignorant as saying that vaccines cause autism and correlates to the same poor understanding of science.

Mercury in the form of thimerosol was removed from nearly all vaccines (save influenza) by around 2001. This means we should soon see a major decline in the autism diagnosis rate right about now if the conspiracy theorists are correct, as the diagnoses usually occur by about age 8. We'll have to wait for the update of this report, with "pre-" data collected just before that time. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5601.pd…

Why is thinking that mercury might cause autisim a conspiracy theory? Isn't it simply a theory? Or perhaps the conspiracy part is the fact that the drug companies were granted immunity from lawsuits.

@17

Childhood vaccines no longer contain thimerosal at all, and most adult vaccines have phased it out as well. That, however, was largely a political concern, because the form and level of mercury in thimerosal was, in the first place, far below the level known to create any sort of toxicity.

The amount of mercury conferred through bioaccumulation in certain seafoods, however, is uncontrolled and often nontrivial.

Now, I notice you assumed, rather than actually asked, the question that would make yours anything more than the silly non-sequitur that it is: is exposure to mercury even correlated with autism? The answer, with an overwhelming volume of evidence supporting it, is a resounding NO.

That means that you asking about mercury in the first place is completely and utterly irrelevant, and, I suspect, more than a little disingenuous.

True about the can't prove a negative thing, Jonathan... and, I do really feel for parents of autistic kids. I completely understand the inclination want to have an explanation, and to believe that because the signs of autism began to manifest itself around the time they were vaccinated, there must be a correlation... But, if I had an autistic kid, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

@17 - that's amazingly simple to answer: different kind of mercury compound (sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate (C9H9HgNaO2S) vs. methylmercury (CH3Hg), different concentration of mercury in the solution injected/ingested, different activity in the body due to chemical composition and concentration.

Also, pregnant women (and the general public) are advised to not eat certain fish containing high levels of methylmercury *often* - ie. don't eat X fish more than Y days apart.

Also, many of the food prohibitions are absolutist when they need not be. A woman has a statistically higher likelihood of being struck by an SUV crashing through a sushi restaurant window than her being poisoned by her sushi. However, some pregnant women feel that any risk is a risk not worth taking, and ethically, most doctors will tell a pregnant woman "no amount of alcohol is deemed safe in pregnancy" and then say a single glass of wine once a week isn't going to cause birth defects. The warning comes from the very fact that it's unethical to *research* how much alcohol is teratogenic, so they don't know the amount that may be safe during pregnancy.

That all makes sense I guess. The other thing I always wondered about was the findings of Tom Verstraeten that were covered up by the government.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/…
They make it sound like he was on to something but all his data was sold off to a private company so no one else would have access to it
to verify the reasearch.

I do not get flu vaccines for myself, I do not believe in circumsizing infants, and when I get sick the first thing I do is change my diet and drink herbal tea; doctors are the last resort, or for things like broken bones. I'm exactly the sort of person who would be disinclined to vaccinate my (hypothetical) children.

However, reason prevails. The statistics for harm are much worse for children who are not vaccinated than children who are. As Gitai @11 said, not vaccinating your children is irresponsible.

@ 20 it was a hypothesis, not a theory. hypotheses become theories after many many tests support the hypothesis. the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism is not supported so it will never be a theory. let's put that money to better use.

I got really annoyed when Kimya Dawson offhandedly spewed that she is practicing attachment parenting, meaning that she breastfeeds, wears her baby, co-sleeps, and, oh, doesn't vaccinate (!).

A leading pediatrician who advocates attachment parenting did also write a book discussing alternative vaccination schedules and the pros and cons of specific vaccinate, but that does not mean that attachment parenting means you don't vaccinate. You do.

Speaking as one, myself.

Personally I think it is worthwile to spend money to both figure out what causes autism and also to insure that the drugs we take and give to children are safe.
Just takeing a quick look at the fda's website they make it sound like the theory , excuse me, hypothosis, that
the thermisol could cause developmental problems was plausible.
http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimfaq.…

Mr. X. Even if some initial reports gave credit to the idea that vaccinations could cause autism, I don't know why one would continue to believe such, given all these scientific studies were done, with no predisposition to a positive or negative result, and they all came to the conclusion that vaccine trends and autism trends are not correlated.

now that this is settled, can we study whether computer programming causes Asperger's?

If Jenny McCarthy would drop it, then maybe everybody else would. Amanda Pete rules though for standing up against her.

What on earth could not vaccinating have to do with attachment parenting? Good lord, that's dumb. It's like saying I'm practicing attachment parenting so I'm going to dress the baby in only blue.

@32

I tried to hint at that: Dr. William Sears. He wrote The Attachment Parenting Book and he also wrote The Vaccine Book (which does not say "don't vaccinate" but who reads the inside of books these days?).

That's the connection. Such as it is.

And there is an attitude among some parents of subscribing to a certain style of parenting and they take it to some peculiar ultra-orthodox place.
I understand delaying vaccines or creating a different schedule (especially if your kid has had a bad reaction) but to avoid all vaccines is socially irreponsible. As a parent I could never forgive myself if I had caused my child harm (by skipping vaccines) or caused anyone else's child harm.

@32: I think it's because many "attachment parents" strongly dislike doing anything that causes little Wolfie or Sophie to shed a tear.

I think this new culture of "agree to disagree" is bullshit. There are so many examples of this, and the autism/vaccine link is just one example.

Golob, here is a one-liner that Flesh Man Toy used at work, that I think everyone should start saying:

"You don't have to agree with me, it's just science".

End of bullshit 'discussion'. :)

This is one of those arguments that I've had to stop having, because it's so damned frustrating and unproductive. I think it's just about the most obvious example of correlation not being causation that I could possibly cough up, and the parents REFUSE to accept that it's a dead-end.

Incapable of critical thinking? Fine. But if I had my way, denying your kids vaccines (aka preventing them from receiving proper medical care) would be a crime.

@35

Oh right. Like all the regular parents I know are so happy to let their baby get stuck. Every one of them I know (and I know a lot) fought tooth and nail to find reasons to avoid any needle stick they could. Anything short of being exposed to disease.

People who invest heavily in a small number of offspring deserve respect; far more than the ones breeding so fast they lose count of how many they have.

The ones to blame for turning scientific skepticism into solipsism are the Republican lackeys of the energy companies. Not educated, urban parents who seem perhaps a little to protective to those who grew up in a more naive era.

I completely agree with the whole "agree to disagree" thing being complete BS. I don't think everyone should uncritically accept what the FDA or doctors (or whomever) says is "true". But when decades of solidly researched science says a conclusion is overwhelming, you offer up utter bullshit in response (arguments filled with logical fallacies, non sequiturs and general tripe) and public health is at stake, you'll have to excuse if if I don't agree to disagree.

I think we need to do what Australia does. Don't want to vaccinate your kids? Fine, no one will force you. but you can't go to public school. See how long/many hold out in that scenario.

And I'm blowing up the bridge and ferries off of Vashon if there's ever a major outbreak. Those fuckers can die in hippie bliss, but they're not taking my kids with them.

I absolutely agree that vaccines do not cause autism. Nonetheless, we have to be prepared to answer some questions from concerned parents.

@19, You predict a decline in autism 8 years after thimerosal was removed from vacciness. This graph http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badast… is used as evidence of a lack of correlation between thimerosal and autism, but incidence does decline after 8 years. What's the explanation?

How do we incorporate Dr. Jon Poling's explanation that his daughter Hannah's autistic symptoms are caused by aggravation of a rare mitochondrial dysfunction by vaccination into this discussion? Dr. Bernadine Healy's call for a vaccination schedule that accounts for exceptions seems to address the same point.

These are subtle points that are hard to explain to a parent who just wants to know: vaccinate or not? Now or when the kid's a little older. Any advice on how to advise parents?

@15 FAIL
Sorry there Skippy, no implantation, no life.

ufo's cause autism ... and ronald reagan's ghost... and Dan Savage...

41
because the little critter dies.
it is alive from conception.

So you've found the cure then? When YOU or someone else finds a cure then people will stop talking about vaccines! For crying out loud, you think parents WANT vaccines to be the cause? Of course not. But again, when you FIND THE CURE THEN STOP TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLE CAUSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@44 - scientists need to identify possible causes before they can find possible cures. And scientists need money to conduct that research. And the money for said research will be sadly lacking if all the money is being spent on proving or disproving the autism/vaccine link.

@44

How does insisting that something which has been clearly demonstrated not to be the cause is, in fact, the cause, in the face of all evidence, and to the financial detriment of other research, advance the goal of finding a cure or the real causes in any way?

Hard fact: not everything is curable. In point of fact, yes, I do think that parents want vaccines to be the cause. It would be an easy, straightforward answer that they could take clear action on. When the real causes are so murky and difficult to get a handle on, it leaves parents feeling helpless: so helpless that they'll grasp on to any explanation because it feels better than doing nothing.

There is incontovertible evidence that the doctor who made the original claims linking autism to vaccines faked his data. He did a grave dis-service to medicine, science, and the parents of autistic children.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_an…

Thank you. As an educator to children with Autism, I'm hopeful that all of the funds tossed at proving this tenuous and now irrelevent link will go towards developing better therapies, funding insurance for speech and occupational therapy and giving the public schools more financial stability so that they can give these kids the facilities, supplies, teachers and therapies they need.

Now, I don't wear the vaccination tinfoil hat. There is a very strong public interest in preventing epidemics, and widespread immunization programs are the best way of achieving this.

Still, court rulings are not the best source of medical evidence. This one serves a legal purpose, but from a scientific standpoint, it's no more conclusive than, say, a legislative resolution stating that pi = 3.

It is not necessary for 100% of children to receive immunizations in order to prevent epidemics. Good public policy should seek to establish "herd immunity." Past that threshold, if a few parents wish to risk their individual child's health by depriving him/her of the benefits of immunization, it can be regarded as a private decision--possibly bad parenting, but no cause for public intervention.

And, who knows? If immunization ever does have unforeseen negative consequences, the existence of a small population of unvaccinated individuals might turn out to be a good thing.

I absolutely sympathize with non-vaccinating parents; I think they're wrong, and I vaccinate my kid, but given the info that's commonly available to parents of moderate education, it's a terrifying decision. I do science for a living; I know we've been wrong before. Countless families have had harm done to their children by misguided medical treatment. Countless *more* have been helped, of course... but it doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist to suspect that science doesn't quite have everything figured out yet.

@49: The idea of "herd immunity" is that if almost everybody is immune, then the few who are not immune will be protected as well, because they are much much less likely to be exposed. Herd immunity, then, protects those who aren't immunized-- like, for example, children too young to be vaccinated yet. However, there have been cases where unvaccinated older children happened to be exposed, and got sick... and then exposed younger children, who in turn got sick. In this way, parents who chose not to vaccinate ended up getting other people's children sick (oops!)

Point is, not vaccinating does risk harm to other people's children, not just your own.

I remember "This American Life" ran a story not that long ago about a case like this in San Diego:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep…

You have to really look at the studies. If your football team loses game after game, you probably could prove that one player is not to blame. This is all that these vaccine/autism studies have done. Unfortunately they still are not adequate proof.

Did you know that food allergy has become an "epidemic" among young children? Approximately 8% of young children have food allergies in countries that vaccinate their children. Food allergies are unknown in unvaccinated populations. Vaccines contain an adjuvant that increases the body’s immune response to protein in the vaccine. Patents for adjuvants list ingredients that include a mixture of vegetable and animal oils that have a trace of food protein in them. This is a protected trade secret and does not have to appear on the package insert.

Food has to list the ingredients if there is peanuts or tree nuts in it. Vaccines can contain peanut, walnut, almond, soy, sesame oils and none of it has to appear on the label.