Wow, what an unbelievable expose of again more baseless and meritless denial!!!
You make these statements here. Marked with [....]
1. [Reported rates vary greatly from a high of one in 47 in Utah to a low of one in 210 in Alabama. Experts said that variation likely reflected differences in awareness of the disorder (meaning how often it is recognized and/or diagnosed) rather than any true "hot spots" of autism. It is also important to understand these rates do not mirror vaccination rates (a bit of a preemptive strike against those who will make unsubstantiated claims pertaining to vaccines causing autism). In fact, in some cases such as the MMR and Rotavirus vaccines, vaccination rates in Alabama are actually higher than they are in Utah. Overall the vaccination rates between the states is not statistically significant and bears no connection to the reported rates of autism. (Refer to Table 2, pg 1174) Sorry antivaxxers.]
Based on this.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5936.pdf
Reply: There is nothing in that information that establishes any such thing, nor to support the claim that autism rates do not mirror vaccination rates. Let’s go ahead and even give that to you. Let’s say that one state had a lower rate of vaccination and still had an equal amount or even higher rate of autism, comparing to another state with slightly higher vaccination rates. The autism rate depends entirely on the susceptibility factors of the children in that state. Possibly there are more or less children susceptible to the adverse effects of vaccines in any one state. It proves nothing, and as most epidemiological studies have areas of data that can obviously not be conclusive as to such a said type of determination.
2. [For the vaccine conspiracy theorists out there (aka Lowell Hubbs and his ilk), it is also important to note that vaccination rates have not changed significantly during this time period, not to mention that there is no significant difference in vaccination rates across races. Sorry again antivaxxers - maybe it is time you developed a new theory?
The proportion of children who received all of the vaccinations in the combined series plus hepatitis B and varicella (the 4:3:1:3:3:1 series) increased markedly in the early years of this decade, from 66 percent in 2002 to 77 percent in 2006; since then, this rate has stagnated. (Table 1)]
Reply: And you use this below said information from your link, to establish and claimed as proof for the above two paragraphs, that there were no changes in vaccination rates, from 2002 to 2008??? Really? There is nothing there in that information, nor the links provided that establishes that! Maybe you should have excerpted it.
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/71
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/sites/default/files/17_tab01.pdf
[Differences by Race and Hispanic Origin
The most recent data show no significant differences in childhood vaccination rates by race/ethnicity. In 2009, the share of children who received the combined series of vaccines (4:3:1:3), included 69 percent of blacks, 75 percent of Hispanics, 73 percent of Asians, and 74 percent of whites. Meanwhile, the proportion of these groups receiving the combined series plus hepatitis B and varicella rates (4:3:1:3:3:1) ranged between 67 and 73percent.* (See Table 1)
*2009 data are affected by a shortage of Hib vaccine that occurred between December 2007 and September 2009.]
More claims:
3. [The moral of the story is, even though the headline makes it appear that the number of autistic children in our nation seems to be growing rapidly, all available data seems to add credence to the opinion that this growth is merely due to increased awareness and more accurate diagnoses. In years past a child may have been simply considered to be "unique", or "reserved".]
Reply: So in other words the only real claim and point to your page at all is essentially a claim that the autism rates going from 1 in 10,000 prior to 1987 and the enactment of the NVCA, resulting in no liability for pharmaceutical company vaccine makers and the quadrupling of vaccines on the CDC schedule, and now the lasted estimate of 1 in 88, is due to better diagnosis. 1 in 10,000 going to 1 in 88 is all due to better diagnosis is your claim. The as well 1000’s of parents watching their healthy child regress into entirely lost autism after the MMR or a load of vaccines, was all coincidence; and thus the rate of autism is no higher than it was prior to 1987? That’s your claim.
Then if there was an increase, did that happen between the years 1987 to 2000? Anything happen then? You are claiming there is no new autism epidemic of any kind, correct? You can not get any further into mislead denial than that. As always. Amazing. Nothing ever would be enough. Someone has to much to lose in facing the truth.
The concept of more harm than good, simply does not exist in their world.
49 doses of 14 vaccines before the age of 6
http://www.nvic.org/Downloads/49-Doses-PosterB.aspx
