At first glance the preponderance of credible evidence does point into a particular direction. It is that vaccines do not cause autism, or in the very least, that it is not a significant contributor that possibly could account for the dramatic increased incidence over recent years. Vaccines were also largely administered in the US long before then, thus the dramatic increase since 2000 does not coincide with the wide administration of vaccines in the US over more than 40 years.
I generally did not pay this issue much heed but an interview with Dr Stephanie Seneff, a MIT computational researcher, prompted some investigation. In another article she convincingly argues that glyphosate herbicide could be a contributing factor in causing autism, though not vaccines per se. She however is considered by activists against vaccination as strongly providing an argument against it. Her argument against glyphosate herbicide, used in common household weed killer, makes sense and she appears to have the statistical data to back it up. And surely, she would’ve been fired from MIT if she had made spurious assertions. It also is not helpful to call her a quack since most great pioneering scientists were indeed referred to with such derogatory language. She however does not definitively point to vaccines as a primary causative factor, although she does lead towards it as they too contain similar harmful chemical components.
Notwithstanding her argument, the increase incidence in the US is far more marked than elsewhere though they vaccinate worldwide. Given the steady increase, particularly in the US and other industrialized nations relative to less developed nations, there must be a direct environmental cause not prevalent to the same extent there. This therefore points to a greater environmental causal factor in the US other than vaccinations. The volume of supposed causative chemicals is additionally small relative to other agents generally found in the environment. Another diminishing factor is that vaccines are usually administered for one year olds and older, and the dose of harmful chemicals administered at that stage could most likely not be as detrimental as earlier childhood environmental factors would’ve.
Providing some clarity on the cause, a 2014 University of Chicago study suggests:
The following extract from extract from the Harvard Health Review is also quite revealing:
Perhaps what the above suggests is that the obsession with health and cleanliness in industrial nations, therefore, may ironically well be the indirect cause. This applies to other diseases as well. For instance pig farmers, but children exposed to farm animals in general, have a much lower risk of developing asthma and other respiratory diseases. This, as in Cambodia, is most likely because of their ubiquitous exposure to disease which consequently boosts their immune systems.
In fact that is exactly what vaccines do: providing a controlled exposure to disease to mitigate actually getting it.
I do however think that, other than the basic dread disease vaccinations, flu vaccinations and the like are mostly unnecessary and often may well be driven by profit. The problems experienced by Pakistan because of the Taliban’s killing of vaccination officials on the other hand is an example of the consequences of not vaccinating against polio for example, and highlights the incredible human suffering that could result if we do not do so.
The definitive study that could answer this question would be to determine the ratio of autistic kids who were vaccinated against those who are not. A study from the Philippines indicates that those who are vaccinated do significantly better, even cognitively, than those who were not. Why the Philippines is an important study sample is that it has a relatively high unvaccinated population. This is opposed to the US where the benefits of vaccination are spread to the relatively small unvaccinated population because the general susceptibility of getting the disease is significantly decreased in advanced societies. So in a way, the unvaccinated individuals in industrialized societies are immunized by the significant population that is.
In the final analysis it is clear that the issue is not with the vaccines – i.e. the genetic organic compounds that counter the disease. Rather it is the chemicals used to administer it that appears to be the problematic factor cited by scientists as the concern.
Thus for me the solution to the problem appears to be obvious. Instead of spending vast amounts of money developing new and largely unnecessary vaccines, perhaps big pharmaceutical conglomerates should err on the safe side and take the claims made by Seneff and others seriously. Thus to rather change focus towards manufacturing less harmful, though perhaps more expensive, alternatives to safely deliver the life-saving vaccines that are already out there.
Newton Fortuin, 21 February 2015