Interesting on autism and MMR shot

coasterqueen wrote: I'm doing some research on the MMR shot for those who have Sensory Integration Disorders and I found this interesting:

Article here

I don't know how credible this site is, but I bet my life that a lot of things are going on behind the scenes that the companies know that we don't about the tie between MMR and autism. I just found it an interesting read - nothing new, just interesting.

luvmykids replied:
I absolutely agree....vaccines are still part of the big money that is medicine these days.

coasterqueen replied:
And that is what is so scary!

luvmykids replied: I've been doing some research too and I have a funny feeling there is waaaaay more than we even imagine....just like other drugs and research, what makes it's way out to the public is just the tip of the iceberg for the sake of money.

It's really sad, scary and angers me how little we probably know and how much our medical system is geared towards money rather than the publics best interest

coasterqueen replied:
I have that same feeling.

You know what else struck me odd in that article is the process it talks about as far as gastrointestinal - the leaky gut, etc. It is often said and I truly believe that we predispose our children to allergies if they are fed solids before the gut closes which is not until at least a year of age. So if kids are fed solids before the gut closes and open the door to allergies, etc - can this also open the door to a leaky gut therefore predisposing a child to other factors that might lead to autism??

luvmykids replied: That's a very interesting question....my uneducated guess would be that's a good possibility.

The more I read, the more frustrated I get...I feel like I'm finding out just enough to have all sorts of questions and uneasiness but can't find anything past that to get any real answers

DansMom replied: Yes---the article is interesting and persuasive. This is the first time I've seen the MMR live vaccine issue separated from the thimerosol issue so clearly. Thanks, Karen. It is so scary.

Mommy2Isabella replied: Unfortunately this is how our medical system operates. But luckily we do have a choice of wether we vaccinate our children or not ...

coasterqueen replied:
That is another scary thing for me. I have always said I'm fine with others not vaccinating their children and often thought that is the road I should have taken, BUT do we really know what the risks are to EVERYONE with so many kids not getting vaccinated these days? That is just as scary to me as the increase in autism.

luvmykids replied:
I'm still completely torn, there seem to be so many pros and cons no matter what you do and without knowing absolute truth it just makes it that much harder.

gr33n3y3z replied: I've also read that male sperm closer to age 40 and over have a huge chance passing autism on so its just not the shots any more

My2Beauties replied: I'm so glad that I am a part of this board because to be honest I don't know that I'd hear of this information any other way, I would never ever think to research vaccines, I would just let my child get them. After reading all of this and due to previous discussions we've had I'm choosing to split up the MMR for Aubrey. Thank God Hanna never showed any signs after having her vaccines. I guess I was just one of the lucky ones. Terribly sad!

DansMom replied:
I sometimes wonder about food allergies and old eggs/sperm too. In our case anyway!

coasterqueen replied:
Oh I'm sure there are a lot of factors out there we are completely unaware of.

gr33n3y3z replied:
I know its very scary isnt it
We just dont know enough

A&A'smommy replied: This is very interesting... and after reading everything I have on this board (thank goodness for ya'll!!) I'm also choosing to split up the MMR with this baby!!

punkeemunkee'smom replied: I haven't read the article yet but I am guessing from Dan'smom"s reply that it must discuss the fact the the MMR doesn't and never did contain Mercury because it is a dose of live viruses and therefore has to be preservative free. So few people know that (and I wouldn't if I had not been pushed into a place where I HAD to research) It is really a travisty that many doctors will allow parents that are concerned about autisim link believe that because there is no more mercury being used the MMR and DTaP are now safe shots...they have always been questioned and they never have contained a preservative.

jcc64 replied:


I hate to sound like a broken record, but remember this next time you're in the election booth. Yes, politicians on both sides of the aisle follow the money trail of the pharmaceutical companies, but historically, most Republicans are more blatantly pro-business, anti-consumer. That's not a judgment, guys, it's how they present themselves to us. Cosumer protections and safeguards are seen as "big government", and we all know what a dirty word that's become.
Not sure how many people are aware of this, but way back in the days after 9/11, Congress drafted the Patriot Act- which ostensibly had to do with provisions regarding national security in light of the new threat of terrorism. You know- searching homes and computers w/o warrants, wire-tapping, etc.. To me, alot of what was in this bill was egregious enough, based on unnecessary and over-reaching intrusion upon our civil liberties. But, the reason I am bringing this up in this thread is that when this bill was hastily pushed through Congress when everyone was freaking out about our national security, someone snuck a provision into that bill that prevents families of children injured by any present or future vaccinations from sueing the manufacturers of those drugs for any compensatory damages. To me, implicit in that is acknowledgment that there is responsibility, and the pharmaceutical companies pushed for, and got, legal protection from our representives. What that had to do with national security is beyond me- but apparently, this tendenecy to sneak little perks for this constituency or that into pending legislation is common practice, and lots of time, no one ever really finds out about it.
Just a little fyi........

gr33n3y3z replied:
They do this all the time doesnt surprise one bit
Nothing we can do about it
Yeah dont vote for this one or that one but guess what all in the end it will still happen.
It just makes me sick of how sneaky all goverments are

coasterqueen replied:
I agree.

The thing is ALL governments do this type of thing. It's called "shell bills". They slide all kinds of things into bills that you have no idea about until it is already too late. And it's going to happen no matter which party you have in office. Money makes the world go round, the politician dirty, etc, etc - you can take the most innocent caring politician and I guaranty the wealthy industries will turn them the other way It's politics. It happens in both parties.

jcc64 replied: I know it happens in both parties, I acknowledged as much already. However, it is incontrivertible that Republicans are philosophically opposed to gov't regulation aimed at industry and business. It's an intrinsic part of their party platform. I'm in no way, shape, or form asserting that Democrats are not corrupt- they all are. BUT, if you are concerned about public policy concerning this issue, you need to look at how your representatives or senators feel in general about consumer protection legislation. To throw up your hands and say that it's no use, they're all corrupt, is to advocate your responsibility as a citizen of this country, imo. They are supposed to represent us and our kids, (or at least pretend to) and if they don't, vote their behinds out.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
I didn't know this until I read this either. Wow. I think I am going to have them divide up Aiden's MMR shot now that I have read that, and I think even delay it a bit. Thanks for posting that Karen!

Kentuckychick replied: The theory is that certain children have a genetic predisposition to immune issues -- and that a variety of environmental toxins begin to attack the child's immune system early on. Then, explain researcher's at Wakefield's Texas-based foundation called "Thoughtful House," "The child develops a leaky gut, tissue damage gets worse, the immune system grows weaker, and autoimmune reactions start. Then a lot of children experience a catastrophic event. Either in the form of a significant illness or a live virus vaccine.

This is the part that caught my attention. It seems to me that the article is pretty much saying that it wouldn't make a difference. That a child with autism has a "genetic predisposition" to the condition and that regardless of whether or not the onset was caused by a shot, an illness or a series of illnesses it would show up sooner or later no matter what.

I say this because I think it gives parents a false hope. Since I've begun working with children I've seen and heard of children on each level of the autism spectrum. It's true most of them had been vacinated. In some the condition had shown itself almost immediately without warning and a few of the parents were convinced because of the vaccinations. Others had children in which the process was slow, took months and seemed to have no ties with vaccinations. And I know of at least one child with Sensory integration disorder who had only had a few vaccinations *all without the mercury* and MMR was not one of them (his mother was very up to date on these issues)... however, he'd suffered from a pretty serious respiratory illness around 16 months of age.

So while I'm in no way arguing that the shots may very well have an effect and that more studies should be done... I think the answer here is not to completely get rid of the shots, but rather to determine how to figure out which children have the predisposition in the first place.

msoulz replied:
I wonder about cancer and the old egg/sperm thing. I know two women who are the youngest of litters of kids (6 and 7 kids in the families) and they both developed cancer in their 30's. Now I realize how statistically silly it is to think this way, but it sure made me ponder when I got knocked up at 38. I hope there is no tie at all . . .

jcc64 replied: I am pro- vaccination- though I strongly believe the routine schedule is based more on public health realities and conveniences than on what is best for the individual child. I think that policy makers are well aware that alot of kids disappear from the medical system after the first year b/c of lack of insurance coverage, among other reasons. So they try to cram as many shots in as they can before that happens, and the issue of whether that is a prudent thing to do to such immature immune systems gets lost in the equation. It's up to us to demand a schedule that seems reasonable for each of our kids. I vaxxed one at a time- and NEVER when they had even a hint of a cold or illness. I didn't finish all of the required vax until a few weeks ago (Corey's 5). I have no idea if this is a medically reasonable hypothesis, not being a dr, but I made the best decision I could based on everything i've read thus far.
Fwiw, I've had this conversation several times with my bro, who is a pediatric intensivist. He believes that in children pre-disposed to autism disorders, an assault on the immune syste, such as a vax, could theoretically trigger the disorder to "surface". That's not to say that at some other time, had the child not had the vax, that something else, like a virus, perhaps, wouldn't have done it. But the big difference is, a virus is not voluntary- we have choice in the matter when we get sick. Not so with a vax. I am pro-vax, but if my kid wound up catatonic immediately after receiving a vax, you bet your a$% I'd be looking at the vax as the culprit. How could you not?!

Kentuckychick replied:
I agree with you 100% and I always feel so horrible for those parents who feel like it's their fault their child has autism and if they'd only not had the vaccines (I mean I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes). And I'm sure if I were there I'd be blaming the vaccines right along with them.

However, I think there should definitely be someone somewhere starting up studies on infants to determine what this genetic predisposition is, where it lies and how a parent can determine this BEFORE they vaccinate their child.

That just makes the most sense to me!

redchief replied:
Whew! I thought I'd missed something, and I would have been angry with me if I'd missed something that big. I've just read the Patriot Act again (yes, really), and I don't see anything regarding immunity for pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines. There is wording establishing grants for stockpiling of smallpox vaccine (and some other vaccines for possible weaponized viruses), but nothing about tort limitations for consumers. Don't get me wrong, the Patriot Act has done much to erode our civil rights, and some parts of it should be repealed, but I don't think this is the appropriate thread to advance that ideal.

There is supposedly a Patriot II document that never left committee which does limit the ability of consumers to sue pharmaceutical companies for adverse vaccine events, but depending on who you choose to believe, it either doesn't exist in reality or if it did, was never given serious consideration. I have read a copy of this document as well. The first thing that jumps out is that it doesn't follow traditional federal bill-speak. Being the distrustful soul that I am of all things governmental, but secure in the knowledge that tradition is rarely messed with on the Hill, I tend to believe this document is mostly fabricated BS. Simply implanting the thought into war-weary and wary Americans that such an idea was considered by a Republican majority in 2003 could well ignite just the kind of anti-conservative hysteria the left has been bandying about for the last eight years - ad nauseum.

Edited for bad spelling.

jcc64 replied: I guess we all believe what we want to believe, right?
However, I really think it's delusional not to hold our legislators feet to the fire for allowing this situation to unfold, over many many years. Not just the last 8 yrs- this goes wayyyyyy back. There is not sufficient consumer protection legislation, not for food, not for toys, not for medicine, nothing. When consumer groups wanted to label milk produced from cows treated with BGH, Monsanto successfully lobbied to prevent it, arguing it would hurt their sales. Boo hoo- god forbid we put the health of our children before profits. When I heard that story, many years ago, it was a pivotal moment in my political consciousness. Politicians love to espouse the sanctity of the family, and the future of our children, blah blah blah. Until the lobbiests show up waving the $$$$$$. And I'm sorry Ed, I really don't think it's liberal paranoia to believe that the Republican party has made no secret of its predisposition to favoring business interests over consumers. If you want to deny that exists, that's your prerogative, but me, I think it sucks.