November 22, 2011

Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?

J Inorg Biochem. 2011 Nov;105(11):1489-99. Epub 2011 Aug 23.

Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?


Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 1L8.


Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are serious multisystem developmental disorders and an urgent global public health concern. Dysfunctional immunity and impaired brain function are core deficits in ASD. Aluminum (Al), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant, is a demonstrated neurotoxin and a strong immune stimulator. Hence, adjuvant Al has the potential to induce neuroimmune disorders. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, two key points ought to be considered: (i) children should not be viewed as "small adults" as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; and (ii) if exposure to Al from only few vaccines can lead to cognitive impairment and autoimmunity in adults, is it unreasonable to question whether the current pediatric schedules, often containing 18 Al adjuvanted vaccines, are safe for children? By applying Hill's criteria for establishing causality between exposure and outcome we investigated whether exposure to Al from vaccines could be contributing to the rise in ASD prevalence in the Western world. Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r=0.92, p<0.0001); and (iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven Western countries, particularly at 3-4months of age (Pearson r=0.89-0.94, p=0.0018-0.0248). The application of the Hill's criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted.


MySocratesNote said...

I wonder how long it will be before Orac and his slobbering dolts will dismiss this as pseudoscience (by not reading it, of course). $5 says that Dorkski will be spewing about how the author of this study is "anti-vaccine" because the idiot doesn't like the results. Especially since the study doesn't agree with his own confirmation bias.

Pw'eek_The_Clever said...

I firmly believe that aluminum was the issue for my son. He only received one vaccine, the neonate dose of Hep B. The particular one he got contained 500mcg of aluminum rather than the usual 250mcg. He was in NICU within an hour of receiving that shot.

Unknown said...

Ginger, you are amazing - you have a way of finding the big stuff like this one.

The vaccine empire guys like to isolate evidence that satisfies a singular element of the Bradford-Hill criteria and declare it to be invalid because it does not prove causation.

For example, the argument is out there that the temporal relationship between well baby visits and onset of regressive autism is given to chance equal to a coin toss, and therefore is not valid evidence. But a temporal relationship IS one of the elements upon which to base a conclusion of causation. (An effect that becomes evident before treatment with a suspected cause proves absence of causation.)

What would Sir Austin Bradford-Hill have had to say to these empire guys about dismissing evidence by isolating his elements of causation?

I would like to quote his 1965 essay. "Here then are nine different view points from all of which we should study association before we cry causation. What I do not believe - and this has been suggested - that we can usefully lay down some hard and fast rules that must be obeyed before we can accept cause and effect. None of my nine viewpoints can bring indisputable evidence for or against the cause and effect hypothesis and none can be required as sine qua non. What they can do, with greater or less strength, is to help us make up our minds on the fundamental question - is there any other way of explaining the set of facts before us, is there any other answer equally, or more, likely than cause and effect?"

The question that should follow is whether the strength of the evidence and gravity of the effect outweigh the risk of a remedial action taken in error.

What would be the risk to a baby of withholding adjuvented vaccines given for the protection of the community until after such an age that the blood brain barrier is mature?

For example, why give the neonatal hepatitis B vaccine series when the child has almost zero chance of acquiring hepatitis B? (Am I going to hear the argument that the mother may pass hep B to the child? Hope not.)

Long BEFORE a case control study is ever done (as the authors appropriately suggest), the results of this inquiry indicate such changes in the current immunization practices.

Shahrukh said...


shahrukh said...