Re: New Study Backs Parent Age-Autism Link

[Guest guest]

I find this study very hard to believe as I know plenty of 20 year olds with children that have autism.

To: EOHarm Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 9:57:11 PMSubject: New Study Backs Parent Age-Autism LinkNew Study Backs Parent Age-Autism Link (Reuters Health) By Anne Harding http://tinyurl.com/sqhh NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Advanced parental age does indeed appearto boost autism risk in children, and the risk is seen with bothmothers and fathers, new research shows. "What we found was that actually it's both parents age, and whenyou control for one parent's age you still see the effect of the otherparent's age, and vice versa," Dr. Maureen Durkin of

the University ofWisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, the leadresearcher of the study reported in the American Journal ofEpidemiology, told Reuters Health. The findings may offer clues to understanding the causes ofautism and why it's on the rise, but they shouldn't be used to guidefamily planning decisions, Durkin said. Even though the oldest childborn to two older parents is three times as likely to be autistic thana middle or youngest child with younger parents, she explained,there's still a 97 percent chance that the higher-risk child will beperfectly fine. "The vast majority of children don't develop autism,"she emphasized. Several studies have suggested links between a father's age orthe age of both parents and a child's likelihood of having autism. Thecurrent study included twice as many autism cases as any otherresearch on

this issue to date, which made it possible to tease outthe effects of both maternal and paternal age. The researchers looked at 253,347 children born in 1994 at 10sites included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention'sAutism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network. There were1,251 children who met standard criteria for an autism spectrumdisorder at age 8 for whom information on both parents' age was available. After the researchers accounted for factors that might influencethe results, they found that children born to mothers aged 35 andolder were 30 percent more likely than those whose mothers were 25 to29 years old to have been diagnosed with autism. Having a father whowas 40 or older boosted risk by 40 percent. The effects of parental age were additive; firstborn kids withtwo older parents were at more than triple the

risk of autism comparedto third or later children born to mothers 20 to 34 years old andfathers under 40. Past studies have suggested that more educated moms are morelikely to have autistic kids, but Durkin and her team found this wasbecause these women were older than less educated women, not becausethey had more years of schooling. There are several possible explanations for why older moms anddads are at greater risk of having autistic children, the researcherssay. Older parents have had a longer time to sustain genetic damage totheir sperm or egg cells, as well as to store up environmentalcontaminants in their bodies. They are also more likely to have used assisted reproductiontechnologies, which have been tied to poor pregnancy outcomes. Andthere could just be something about the behavioral traits orpsychological makeup of people

who wait to have children that boostsautism risk in their offspring. The findings could also help explain why autism appears to be onthe rise in the US, the researchers add, since the percentage ofchildren who are born to mothers 35 and older and fathers 40 and olderhas risen steadily since 1980. SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, December 1, 2008. ------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Could ya use bigger print, sonny? I think there's some small print at

the very end which reads " Except for Somali parents, as they are an

alien gene pool and inconvenient to our prefabricated conclusions " but

these old eyes jest can't seem to read sech teeny-tiny type.

>

> New Study Backs Parent Age-Autism Link

>

>

> (Reuters Health) By Anne Harding http://tinyurl.com/sqhh

>

[Guest guest]

I was 24 & my husband was 25 when we had our daughter. Jenn L

New Study Backs Parent Age-Autism LinkNew Study Backs Parent Age-Autism Link (Reuters Health) By Anne Harding http://tinyurl.com/sqhh NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Advanced parental age does indeed appearto boost autism risk in children, and the risk is seen with bothmothers and fathers, new research shows. "What we found was that actually it's both parents age, and whenyou control for one parent's age you still see the effect of the otherparent's age, and vice versa," Dr. Maureen Durkin of the University ofWisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, the leadresearcher of the study reported in the American Journal ofEpidemiology, told Reuters Health. The findings may offer clues to understanding the causes ofautism and why it's on the rise, but they shouldn't be used to guidefamily planning decisions, Durkin said. Even though the oldest childborn to two older parents is three times as likely to be autistic thana middle or youngest child with younger parents, she explained,there's still a 97 percent chance that the higher-risk child will beperfectly fine. "The vast majority of children don't develop autism,"she emphasized. Several studies have suggested links between a father's age orthe age of both parents and a child's likelihood of having autism. Thecurrent study included twice as many autism cases as any otherresearch on this issue to date, which made it possible to tease outthe effects of both maternal and paternal age. The researchers looked at 253,347 children born in 1994 at 10sites included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention'sAutism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network. There were1,251 children who met standard criteria for an autism spectrumdisorder at age 8 for whom information on both parents' age was available. After the researchers accounted for factors that might influencethe results, they found that children born to mothers aged 35 andolder were 30 percent more likely than those whose mothers were 25 to29 years old to have been diagnosed with autism. Having a father whowas 40 or older boosted risk by 40 percent. The effects of parental age were additive; firstborn kids withtwo older parents were at more than triple the risk of autism comparedto third or later children born to mothers 20 to 34 years old andfathers under 40. Past studies have suggested that more educated moms are morelikely to have autistic kids, but Durkin and her team found this wasbecause these women were older than less educated women, not becausethey had more years of schooling. There are several possible explanations for why older moms anddads are at greater risk of having autistic children, the researcherssay. Older parents have had a longer time to sustain genetic damage totheir sperm or egg cells, as well as to store up environmentalcontaminants in their bodies. They are also more likely to have used assisted reproductiontechnologies, which have been tied to poor pregnancy outcomes. Andthere could just be something about the behavioral traits orpsychological makeup of people who wait to have children that boostsautism risk in their offspring. The findings could also help explain why autism appears to be onthe rise in the US, the researchers add, since the percentage ofchildren who are born to mothers 35 and older and fathers 40 and olderhas risen steadily since 1980. SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, December 1, 2008. ------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

“Older parents have had a

longer time to sustain genetic damage to their sperm or egg cells, as well as

to store up environmental

contaminants in their bodies.”

Makes sense to me == Maybe

older parents are more likely to give birth to children with, say, mitochondria

issues

Parental age is not necessarily

“the cause” of autism, but it might be a risk factor for

susceptibility to other triggers, in some cases.

Also, it’s not clear, but

it seems like firstborns are more at risk two, which would also make sense,

from a toxicological point of view.

I think it is fascinating

DK

[Guest guest]

I think you are right. The problem with the hyped reporting of this is that parental age may be only one risk factor among many. Parental age is likely is not the most important operative risk factor, and it is misrepresented both in the [agenda-laden] scientific literature and in the media as a primary risk factor.All this leads to the offensive and mistaken notion that older parenting causes autism - or the intermediary step that age is associated with mitochondrial dysfunction.Not to mention that the science supporting this is not very strong. It is much weaker than the science showing that mercury-thimerosal - one of many examples, pesticide ingredients being other examples (noted by Carson) of causes of mitochondrial damage.Consider the following description of the process whereby infection causes cell death leading to brain dysfunction. Sounds very much like the established description of the effect of many toxins, in particular thimerosal and mercury, and some organochlorine pesticides (see, Pessah, et al.) and other agents.[From a description written by one of the world's most highly regarded experts on mitochondrial disease]:"There is growing evidence that the production of reactive oxygen species is controlled during infectious illness by cytokines and is involved in signaling pathways that sometimes lead to a kind of programmed cell death called apoptosis. This is a highly evolved and sophisticated process designed to sacrifice certain infected cells in the body by killing them, thereby limiting the spread of infection to neghboring cells. In a number of mitochondrial diseases, however, this process backfires and certain critical cells, like neurons in the brain, may suffer excessive losses by apoptosis, leading to the neurological setbacks associated with infections that are so common in mitochondrial diseases."(Naviaux, Primary Care Physician's Guide, "The Spectrum of Mitochondrial Disease")Sounds precisely like the process by which certain toxins will trigger the release of proinflammatory cytokines leaded to apoptosis.See, Baskin, Thimerosal Induces DNA Breaks, Caspase-3 Activation, Membrane Damage, and Cell Death in Cultured Human Neurons and Fibroblasts, TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES 74, 361–368 (2003)See, Habraken, NF-kB activation by double-strand breaks, biochemical pharmacology 72 (2006 ) 1 13 2 – 1141This is basic science and is well described in the literature. Parental age is likely but one factor that might enhance susceptibility. The hype about parental age is overblown. I believe it is being offered up as a distraction from the main problem.“Older parents have had a longer time to sustain genetic damage to their sperm or egg cells, as well as to store up environmentalcontaminants in their bodies.” Makes sense to me == Maybe older parents are more likely to give birth to children with, say, mitochondria issues Parental age is not necessarily “the cause” of autism, but it might be a risk factor for susceptibility to other triggers, in some cases. Also, it’s not clear, but it seems like firstborns are more at risk two, which would also make sense, from a toxicological point of view. I think it is fascinating DK

[Guest guest]

Let's not forget a big factor here............. this is part of a report by the every-loved Dr. Harvey Karp via Environmental Working Group......pesticides cause mitochondrial damage“Older parents have had a longer time to sustain genetic damage to their sperm or egg cells, as well as to store up environmentalcontaminants in their bodies.” Makes sense to me == Maybe older parents are more likely to give birth to children with, say, mitochondria issues

Parental age is not necessarily “the cause” of autism, but it might be a risk factor for susceptibility to other triggers, in some cases. Also, it’s not clear, but it seems like firstborns are more at risk two, which would also make sense, from a toxicological point of view. I think it is fascinating DK

[Guest guest]

These reports linking age of parents to birth defects are grossly

misleading and falsely reassuring to younger women, though some girls-

- who don't want to settle down early and prefer to continue their

education-- are already paying for the misinformation. Because of all

the " old mom " studies, our baby sitter, at the ripe old age of 19, is

already hearing lectures from guys in her college that she'd

better " hurry up and get married and have kids " (i.e., forget about

advanced degrees) because if she waits too long, she'll end up

having " freaks " . The message being, " you should be desperate and

placating to males out of terror of not breeding young " . Funny how

these kinds of studies end up being used as sticks to beat girls into

submission.

Fortunately, our sitter isn't fooled, reminds her young school mates

that college aged males have half the sperm counts their dads once

did, and stopped getting vaccinated when she learned what happened to

our kids (and saw their recovery from remedies aimed at treating

vaccine damage). She intends to figure out a way to treat herself for

all her exposures before having children-- and to get her advanced

degrees anyway.

I'm glad she's taking the risk seriously even as she refuses to be

terrorized by the spin. These " old parents " researchers are going to

end up with egg on their face when the generation which has had the

most intense exposure to vaccine toxins, thimerosal and everything

else begins having children in large numbers in a few years. Then the

statistics will say that being between 20 and 25 at the time of

conception is a " risk factor " .

Looking at the cases of Somali mothers who were double-vaccinated

(before and after emigrating to the U.S.) before becoming pregnant,

I've become more convinced that the more recent the body burden was

acquired-- no matter what the age of the parents-- the higher the

risk of having a child with autism, particularly if the child is

subsequently vaccinated.

>

> " Older parents have had a longer time to sustain genetic damage to

their sperm or egg cells, as well as to store up environmental

> contaminants in their bodies. "  Makes sense to me == Maybe older

parents are more likely to give birth to children with, say,

mitochondria issues  Parental age is not necessarily " the cause " of

autism, but it might be a risk factor for susceptibility to other

triggers, in some cases.  Also, it's not clear, but it seems like

firstborns are more at risk two, which would also make sense, from a

toxicological point of view.  I think it is fascinating  DK

>

[Guest guest]

When I think of how much more toxic kids born post-1980 are with thousands of chemicals ("to make life easier"), the vaccines they took, the near-obsession of some kids with tatooes up and down their spines (so very toxic) -- I think I would stake my own pregnancy at the age of, say -48, having grown up in the 50's and 60s anyday over these young women.Subject: Re: New Study Backs Parent Age-Autism LinkTo: EOHarm Date: Saturday, December 13, 2008, 7:05 PM

These reports linking age of parents to birth defects are grossly

misleading and falsely reassuring to younger women, though some girls-

- who don't want to settle down early and prefer to continue their

education-- are already paying for the misinformation. Because of all

the "old mom" studies, our baby sitter, at the ripe old age of 19, is

already hearing lectures from guys in her college that she'd

better "hurry up and get married and have kids" (i.e., forget about

advanced degrees) because if she waits too long, she'll end up

having "freaks". The message being, "you should be desperate and

placating to males out of terror of not breeding young". Funny how

these kinds of studies end up being used as sticks to beat girls into

submission.

Fortunately, our sitter isn't fooled, reminds her young school mates

that college aged males have half the sperm counts their dads once

did, and stopped getting vaccinated when she learned what happened to

our kids (and saw their recovery from remedies aimed at treating

vaccine damage). She intends to figure out a way to treat herself for

all her exposures before having children-- and to get her advanced

degrees anyway.

I'm glad she's taking the risk seriously even as she refuses to be

terrorized by the spin. These "old parents" researchers are going to

end up with egg on their face when the generation which has had the

most intense exposure to vaccine toxins, thimerosal and everything

else begins having children in large numbers in a few years. Then the

statistics will say that being between 20 and 25 at the time of

conception is a "risk factor".

Looking at the cases of Somali mothers who were double-vaccinated

(before and after emigrating to the U.S.) before becoming pregnant,

I've become more convinced that the more recent the body burden was

acquired-- no matter what the age of the parents-- the higher the

risk of having a child with autism, particularly if the child is

subsequently vaccinated.

>

> "Older parents have had a longer time to sustain genetic damage to

their sperm or egg cells, as well as to store up environmental

> contaminants in their bodies." Makes sense to me == Maybe older

parents are more likely to give birth to children with, say,

mitochondria issues Parental age is not necessarily "the cause" of

autism, but it might be a risk factor for susceptibility to other

triggers, in some cases. Also, it's not clear, but it seems like

firstborns are more at risk two, which would also make sense, from a

toxicological point of view. I think it is fascinating DK

>

[Guest guest]

Some of the risk factors can occur at any age. None of our vaccines have been evaluated for the potential to cause genotoxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and most have not been evaluated for the potential to cause infertility.

Aasa

Subject: Re: New Study Backs Parent Age-Autism LinkTo: EOHarm Received: Saturday, December 13, 2008, 7:05 PM

These reports linking age of parents to birth defects are grossly misleading and falsely reassuring to younger women, though some girls-- who don't want to settle down early and prefer to continue their education-- are already paying for the misinformation. Because of all the "old mom" studies, our baby sitter, at the ripe old age of 19, is already hearing lectures from guys in her college that she'd better "hurry up and get married and have kids" (i.e., forget about advanced degrees) because if she waits too long, she'll end up having "freaks". The message being, "you should be desperate and placating to males out of terror of not breeding young". Funny how these kinds of studies end up being used as sticks to beat girls into submission. Fortunately, our sitter isn't fooled, reminds her young school mates that college aged males have half the sperm counts their dads once did, and stopped

getting vaccinated when she learned what happened to our kids (and saw their recovery from remedies aimed at treating vaccine damage). She intends to figure out a way to treat herself for all her exposures before having children-- and to get her advanced degrees anyway. I'm glad she's taking the risk seriously even as she refuses to be terrorized by the spin. These "old parents" researchers are going to end up with egg on their face when the generation which has had the most intense exposure to vaccine toxins, thimerosal and everything else begins having children in large numbers in a few years. Then the statistics will say that being between 20 and 25 at the time of conception is a "risk factor".Looking at the cases of Somali mothers who were double-vaccinated (before and after emigrating to the U.S.) before becoming pregnant, I've become more convinced that the more recent the body burden

was acquired-- no matter what the age of the parents-- the higher the risk of having a child with autism, particularly if the child is subsequently vaccinated. > > "Older parents have had a longer time to sustain genetic damage to their sperm or egg cells, as well as to store up environmental> contaminants in their bodies." Makes sense to me == Maybe older parents are more likely to give birth to children with, say, mitochondria issues Parental age is not necessarily "the cause" of autism, but it might be a risk factor for susceptibility to other triggers, in some cases. Also, it's not clear, but it seems like firstborns are more at risk two, which would also make sense, from a toxicological point of view. I think it is fascinating DK>

[Guest guest]

My experience does not agree with the parent age theory, but does

conform to the vaccine overload theory.

We have 4 kids. Assume the first, girl now 24, was baseline re mercury

from vaccines, 2nd child, a boy now 19, had twice the mercury as 1st.

3rd child, a boy now 13 had twice the mercury as 2nd i.e. 4 times the

mercury as 1st and had vaccine reaction resulting in autism.

4th child, boy (4 yrs later) has no vaccines and is in fine health.

If parent age was accurate assumption, I would expect last to be

autistic which he is not.

If mercury/vaccine overload were an accurate theory, I would expect

our 3rd child have the greatest chance of autism - which is reality.

Best,

Rick

> " Older parents have had a longer time to sustain genetic damage to

their sperm or egg cells, as well as to store up environmental

> contaminants in their bodies. "

> Makes sense to me == Maybe older parents are more likely to give

birth to children with, say, mitochondria issues

> Parental age is not necessarily " the cause " of autism, but it

might be a risk factor for susceptibility to other triggers, in some

cases.> > Also, it's not clear, but it seems like firstborns are more

at risk two, which would also make sense, from a toxicological point

of view.> I think it is fascinating

> DK

[Guest guest]

I want to apologize in advance if someone has already pointed

this out. When I think about older parents I think about parents, like myself,

who tried to have a child for years and went to extraordinary efforts

(invitro). A child is always an amazing gift, but I believe that older parents

are, on average, more financially stable and can be more obsessed about their newborn.

So what is the vaccination rate on young vs. older parents? Isn’t it

very possible that older parents may be more compliant with the vaccine

schedule that the CDC has laid out.

I don’t think this is a minor point because I have

heard that the rate of autism in Hispanic children is much less then that of Caucasian

children, and that the rate among military families is much higher than that of

non military families. Is the reason that Hispanics (on average) are in a

lower economic category and thus more likely to wait to vaccinate until school

requires it? Are military families more likely to vaccinate because they have excellent

health coverage?

Just my thoughts,

Maureen

[Guest guest]

I still don't get that my child was typical until after 18 months. My son would smile and play with complete strangers. Make faces until they would give him attention. I think it is vaccines and no one can convince me other wise. After a vaccine he would sleep for days and be winey and fussy. His whole leg would swell and the ped. said that it was perfectly normal. I had my ASD child at 39 and my second typical child at 41. My husband was 34 for the first. I am not convinced about the age theory. I had a perfectly healthy, text book pregnancy.I am devastated whenever I hear of families having to get more and more vaccines. And then my friends with their teenage daughters and the Gardisil vaccine. They have been without it for this long. Are they having sex at 11? Where are the parents and why should an 11 year old girl even think about such things? Soon all of us will have Autism or Alzheimer's. Give us a break! I cannot convince my family that vaccines are toxic, no matter how I try. We are of the same genetic pool and it happened to us. It is so hard to hear. It's like the bad guys are only a heartbeat away. Our children's health and well being is not as important as their fat wallet. I am furious. When will this nightmare end? Vaccines it is! Our government needs to wake up and protect us, protect our children.

Re: New Study Backs Parent Age-Autism Link

My experience does not agree with the parent age theory, but doesconform to the vaccine overload theory.We have 4 kids. Assume the first, girl now 24, was baseline re mercuryfrom vaccines, 2nd child, a boy now 19, had twice the mercury as 1st.3rd child, a boy now 13 had twice the mercury as 2nd i.e. 4 times themercury as 1st and had vaccine reaction resulting in autism. 4th child, boy (4 yrs later) has no vaccines and is in fine health. If parent age was accurate assumption, I would expect last to beautistic which he is not. If mercury/vaccine overload were an accurate theory, I would expectour 3rd child have the greatest chance of autism - which is reality.Best,Rick> "Older parents have had a longer time to sustain genetic damage totheir sperm or egg cells, as well as to store up environmental> contaminants in their bodies."> Makes sense to me == Maybe older parents are more likely to givebirth to children with, say, mitochondria issues> Parental age is not necessarily "the cause" of autism, but itmight be a risk factor for susceptibility to other triggers, in somecases.> > Also, it's not clear, but it seems like firstborns are moreat risk two, which would also make sense, from a toxicological pointof view.> I think it is fascinating> DK

[Guest guest]

Re: New Study Backs Parent Age-Autism Link

Posted by: " tammie k " dudemomma12000@... dudemomma12000

Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:15 pm (PST)

I find this study very hard to believe as I know plenty of 20 year olds with

children that have autism.

While I appreciate what you are saying, as the majority of the Autists I know in

my locality are likewise the product of 20-somethings, what you have to do is

round up a bunch of autistic children from a given birth cohort in a given area

and then chart the age of their parents. This is then compared to the

distribution of parents on the whole from statistics generated by the US through

other channels (Statistical Abstract of the US). The rate of Autists born to

parent over 40 can indeed be significantly higher that that of parents in their

teens, in their 20's and in their 30's, and still the majority of Autists are

born to younger parents. We have to keep in mind that the majority of ALL

babies are born to younger parents, so there will almost always be a much higher

absolute number of kids to them than older folks.

What I believe hasn't been answered by this or any other study is whether this

is the tail wagging the dog or not. For instance, it doesn't seem to answer WHY

the parents were older when they had their Autists. Was this their first stab

at trying to conceive because they were too busy before? Or did they try

repeatedly and due to some unrelated medical condition fail to have success

until now? Some women who do not have their first child until they are older

have had miscarrages previously when they were a more typical age to beget and

it just didn't work out till the time it happened.

So it is possible that it is not the mother's (or father's age) which is truly

the factor, but some unidentified, unrelated medical condition which caused

disruption in typical fetal development.

Just thinking out loud here, but getting pretty fed up with half-baked research

which often seems designed to support someone's pet theory.

[Guest guest]

Maybe they should qualify that the autism comes from old parents who

watch too much tv in the rain who got lucky in Silicon Valley.

Lenny

>

> Re: New Study Backs Parent Age-Autism Link

> Posted by: " tammie k " dudemomma12000@... dudemomma12000

> Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:15 pm (PST)

>

> I find this study very hard to believe as I know plenty of 20 year

olds with children that have autism.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I am a teacher in a mostly Hispanic neighborhood, am married to a man who originates from Mexico, and I have lived in Mexico.

These are just my observations, not scientific fact.

Where I work, there are many undiagnosed children on the spectrum. Most of them are mildly affected, and are in school, but clearly are somewhere on the spectrum. I speak to the parents, but many are here illegally and don't want to take their child to get a diagnosis. Others are diagnosed at the school as having a speech delay or learning disability. There are some that are more severe that have been diagnosed with autism.

Next, since they are here illegally, many of the children are not vaccinated until they are older and the parents are told they have to vaccinate them in order for them to attend school.

Many of my students who came here illegally and older, in my observation over the years, tend to have fewer issues such as ADD, ADHD, speech delays, etc.

While in Mexico, I have never seen an autistic child, though I know there are some. None of my husband's many family members have any disability. I did meet a boy last year who had vaccine damage from the polio vaccine.

The upper-class families I met get more vaccinations and on schedule.

My husband and I were in our early-mid thirties when our children were born. Our first, a girl, is mild on the spectrum. After she was born, my husband made permanent move here from Mexico and had vaccinations. I had a "tetanus" shot, which I later found out was a DTP shot. I also had Rhogam shots. Then my son was born. He regressed severely with his 18 month shots. Was it the shots my husband and I received? The fact that he is a boy? I don't know.

My wish is that someone will compare vaccinated groups with unvaccinated groups, and then groups that were vaccinated at an older age and with fewer vaccines, to groups bombarded with vaccines. The opportunities are here. There are many Christian Scientists, or other groups, that I assume have not vaccinated their children, but otherwise live the same in our communities. I would LOVE to see a scientific study.

Carol

To: EOHarm From: lleighcpe@...Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:34:51 -0800Subject: Re: Re: New Study Backs Parent Age-Autism Link

Good point here Maureen!

Also almost every country in South America don't vaccinate their children right after they are born at 2 or 3 days old. They wait until the child is at least three months old for the first vaccine, when the parents brings the child to the first medical visit at the doctor's office or local community medical center. Most can not afford medical care and vaccines are not given as scheduled. My assumption is that a child's liver is much stronger at three months old in comparison to at 2 days old. Leigh

Maureen Fischer <mfischersan (DOT) rr.com> wrote:

I want to apologize in advance if someone has already pointed this out. When I think about older parents I think about parents, like myself, who tried to have a child for years and went to extraordinary efforts (invitro). A child is always an amazing gift, but I believe that older parents are, on average, more financially stable and can be more obsessed about their newborn. So what is the vaccination rate on young vs. older parents? Isn’t it very possible that older parents may be more compliant with the vaccine schedule that the CDC has laid out.

I don’t think this is a minor point because I have heard that the rate of autism in Hispanic children is much less then that of Caucasian children, and that the rate among military families is much higher than that of non military families. Is the reason that Hispanics (on average) are in a lower economic category and thus more likely to wait to vaccinate until school requires it? Are military families more likely to vaccinate because they have excellent health coverage?

Just my thoughts,

Maureen

Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. Get your Hotmail® account.

[Guest guest]

You're not wrong. My family is from Mexico and I have a huge

extended family. I am close to my " cousins " in OH, MI, TX, CA, and

Mexico.

Mine is the only child with autism. And, he was fully vax'd for the

first few years of life, including inappropriate jabs during a high

fever.

CGF

>

>

>

>

> I want to apologize in advance if someone has already pointed this

out. When I think about older parents I think about parents, like

myself, who tried to have a child for years and went to extraordinary

efforts (invitro). A child is always an amazing gift, but I believe

that older parents are, on average, more financially stable and can

be more obsessed about their newborn. So what is the vaccination

rate on young vs. older parents? Isn't it very possible that older

parents may be more compliant with the vaccine schedule that the CDC

has laid out.

>

> I don't think this is a minor point because I have heard that the

rate of autism in Hispanic children is much less then that of

Caucasian children, and that the rate among military families is much

higher than that of non military families. Is the reason that

Hispanics (on average) are in a lower economic category and thus more

likely to wait to vaccinate until school requires it? Are military

families more likely to vaccinate because they have excellent health

coverage?

> Just my thoughts,

> Maureen

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills.

> http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?

ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008

>

[Guest guest]

That's a song in the making.

>

>

> Maybe they should qualify that the autism comes from old parents who

> watch too much tv in the rain who got lucky in Silicon Valley.

>

> Lenny