I've looked into this recently, and think it is important to ask this very serious question..

"Assuming all the studies vindicating the use of vaccine are accurate, what is causing the incredible increase in autism?"

This isn't asked to continue stoking the fires of MMR conspiracy, but a genuine plea to the scientific community.

The rates of increase during the last ten years screams for an answer, and "better diagnosis" doesn't even begin to explain it.

If they can't come up with a reasonable answer,

a) what good are they, and
b) how can you blame the mob for thinking MMR cover up?

Does anyone have any good links?

Bruno: Basically, there is no epidemic. See Shattuck, Paul T., The Contribution of Diagnostic Substitution to the Growing Administrative Prevalence of Autism in US Special Education, PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 4 April 2006, pp. 1028-1037 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1516).

Dr. Shattuck concluded that:

RESULTS. The average administrative prevalence of autism among children increased from 0.6 to 3.1 per 1000 from 1994 to 2003. By 2003, only 17 states had a special education prevalence of autism that was within the range of recent epidemiological estimates. During the same period, the prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities declined by 2.8 and 8.3 per 1000, respectively. Higher autism prevalence was significantly associated with corresponding declines in the prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities. The declining prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities from 1994 to 2003 represented a significant downward deflection in their preexisting trajectories of prevalence from 1984 to 1993. California was one of a handful of states that did not clearly follow this pattern.

In other words, while there appears to have been some increase in autism, the "epidemic" appears to have been the result of substituting a diagnosis of autism for a diagnosis of general mental retardation or learning disabilities. As a result, the statistics show an increase in autism at the same time as a decrease in general mental retardation or learning disabilities. Autism, in this understanding, becomes something of a split-the-difference diagnosis between the two.

David,

This sounds like a start, but on what planet has there been a reduction in the diagnosis of "Learning Disabilities."

Virtually every bit of education data I've read (I've read a lot) has seen a dramatic increase in such diagnosis.

I'll read up on it. Thanks.

Bruno, Alas, even in this heartbreaking situation, follow the money. If autism gets funded, more autism is diagnosed.

But see...

Pediatrics Study (same publication) Refutes portions of Shattuck Study

It's written by Craig J. Newschaffer, PhD, director of the Center for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

In a 2005 study, Newschaffer and colleagues concluded that shifting diagnostic categories can't account for the increase in autism cases. Newschaffer's data suggested some increase in autism cases.

__

From a very recent article

Some people have attributed the rising rate of autism to "diagnosis shifting," meaning children who in past years might have been classified as having mental retardation or speech/language difficulties are now being diagnosed as having autism.

This study refutes that theory.

"By looking at trends in other classifications, we see that this increase is not seen across the board in all [special] ed classifications," Newschaffer said. "This is not a rising tide lifting all boats."

___

Bruno's comment:

Just like I don't trust the "scientific community" when they hype "anthropological global warming," I'm not going let some rubberstamp by a few studies be the final say.

Though "correlation isn't causation", MMR/Thimerisol isn't out of the woods by a long shot.

Data Points...

1. Mercury is known nerve destroyer.

2. MMR use correlates strongly to Autism diagnosis in US & UK.

3. CA has been fastest to use mercury free vaccines, and has seen the a drop in Autism diagnosis

4. Science is easily corrupted & corruption happens. CDC says jury still out.
____

My early call...

Injecting mercury into millions of toddlers is a really bad idea, and at the end of the day, all factors will have come into play.

Note: Though I did find that mercury makes up 49% of Thimerisol, In all my research (about 2 hours) I found no data discussing the relative dosage of mercury in an MMR shot. I find that strange.

If mercury/Thimerisol/MMR is GUILT FREE in the possible Autism Spike, then we should all be willing to shoot that same amount of mercury into our kids. Who goes first?

Erp is right on the money angle. If there is an autism diagnosis, more special services are available. So, doctors are happy to oblige.

Moreover, doctors will tell parents what they want to hear about how the kids' problems aren't their fault.

Bruno: No one is claiming that there isn't a secular rise in autism even without the diagnosis shifting. It is not, however, an "epidemic." Thus, my statement in my first post that: while there appears to have been some increase in autism, the "epidemic" appears to have been the result of substituting a diagnosis of autism for a diagnosis of general mental retardation or learning disabilities. [Emphasis added.]

As for the focus on thimerisol, the problem is that there is no evidence, none, nada, zippo, to link it to autism. We know what mercury poisening looks like and it ain't autism. Moreover, the elimination of thimerisol from vaccines has not effected autism rates. The famous Danish study found that there was no difference in autism rates between children who had the MMR shot and those who didn't. What more needs to be said?

David,

If all of your data/studies prove robust, nothing more needs to be said.

Pardon me if I don't take the "nada, zippo" line just yet.

Don't bother me with facts, emotions suffice.

I don't mean to dismiss the pain a family with a child who's so afflicted no matter the name of the affliction and I'm quite sure I would jump on any bandwagon that promised hope that my child could be helped.

It's because the people involved are usually too emotionally charged to make good decisions that the funding angle should be removed so research can concentrate on causes and cures rather garnering more grants.

Now why are we surprised that the GMC made these charges agaisnt Wakefield, attacked him and then dropped the changes?

The General Medical Council is a pretty dishonourable old-boy's network. They forge ahead with complaints or ignore tham based almost soley on race, political expediency and seniority of the accused person within the network. They accuse and convict lowly black and asian doctors of research misconduct with abandon, but the more serious malefactor are usually political big fish (often also working with industry or are doctors within the drug regulatory bodies). It is extraordinary that some senior medics within the MHRA (the regulators) have not yet been brought to book for their sins in the SSRI/GSK scandal.